Canada tops, Harper shines?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Mergers can be a good thing and can even provide stability if well regulated.
personally, I don't necessarily fear monopoly per se, but rather the power that comes with it. With proper regulation, we could make even a natural monopoly harmless while exploiting its increased efficiency.
For many years I, like you was enthralled with Martin's financial wizardry, UNTIL I found out that wizardry mainly included off loading debt to the provinces. That's the problem with these bastards, they can put anything on paper they want. It just takes a little imagination to get it into the right column. Home budgets have two columns - income and expenses, but I'm pretty sure these guys have several columns. :lol::lol::lol:
Oh, OK I must have missed that. From what I've heard on the news all our Canadian banks have been showing a profit every year.................or so I thought.
Yes, Harper did bail out the banks along with the car bail out. Corporate welfare at its best. Shockingly enough though, it seems even the NDP supported bailing out the car companies at least. So much for socialism.
Like I said before, it had more to do with our banks, companies, and people than our government (of either brand).
Deregulation and government spending money it didn't have was well on its way under Reagan, but Bush simply continued further in that direction. It was under Reagan that taxes dropped like a led balloon without any comparable reduction in government spending. The Bushes just took it further, with ever further tax reductions and more government spending. A recipe for disaster.
That's great, but then if you deny the poor the ability to house themselves with low int. loans, and whatnot, you better be prepared to deal with the lack of housing for these people and the Gliberals obviously failed at that. It's great to balance the budget, but who are you helping if the balancing costs as much as it did? :roll:
But ultimately, responsibility falls on the people. Here's a simple question. Two candidates present their plans for the economy:
The first will raise taxes and/or reduce government spending to balance the budget.
The other will increase spending and/or reduce taxes.
A responsible voter would vote for the first. An irresponsible voter for the second. After all, the people chose their leaders.
The first will raise taxes and/or reduce government spending to balance the budget.
The other will increase spending and/or reduce taxes.
A responsible voter would vote for the first. An irresponsible voter for the second. After all, the people chose their leaders.
Giving the aardvark the credit because the ants are so good at surviving? roflmao
"Watta maroon" B Bunny
And you don't help the poor by piling debt onto them. You help them by giving them work. In fact, if we made it more difficult for people to borrow, what would likely happen is that construction companies would respond to the new demand for townhouses and condominiums and other forms of cheaper accommodation since no one would have the money for the big houses they can't afford anymore. When we make it easier for people to borrow, construction companies respond by moving out of the townhouse and condominium industry into the mansion industry. How does that help the poor?
In light of how Gov't.s squander money I doubt if reducing taxes is ever a bad thing. People are generally wiser at spending/investing their own money than what the Gov't is. Naturally I care about what financial shape our Gov't. is in but of much more importance is my own financial condition.
That depends. Reagan dropped taxes to the floor and then embarked on an arms race. If you're going to embark on an arms race, then at least have the fiscal responsibility to raise taxes through the roof to pay for it.
But I do agree overall that I'd rather the government reduce spending rather than raise taxes. But if it refuses to reduce spending, then raising taxes really is the only way to go.