Canada's embarassment in Bonn
While Harper seems more than Happy to improve our image with the US administration, he has done a great job of burning bridges with other nations. Specifically at the Bonn conference, there are reports out that Canada who is chairing it not only plans to pull out of Kyoto, but actually plans to sabotage the whole process.
Now I will admit I am not the biggest fan of the Kyoto Protocol as I think the emissions trading credits scheme does little to reduce global warming as opposed to spending the money to reduce pollution domestically. I also feel they should have used 1998 levels rather than 1990 levels since due to changes in the economy such as the collapse of the industrial sector in East Germany and movement from coal to natural gas in Britain, it was easier for most European countries to go below 1990 levels than 1998 levels. However, despite my concerns with the deal, the fact the current government wants to throw up their hands and do nothing is unacceptable. Its clear once again the Conservatives are interested in following their Republican pals to the south. We may not be able to meet our Kyoto targets, but we should at least go part of the way rather than do nothing. Also if we oppose Kyoto protocol, then our environment minister Rona Ambrose should step down as chair and let someone who does support it take over. The fact the German environment minister is criticizing Canada is not something to be proud of and lets remember Germany has a centre-right government, not a left wing government.
I should also note that I found it interesting when John Howard visited Canada, it seemed more like in love-in between two people with similiar ideologies than about promoting closer relations between Canada and Australia. Certainly Howard's comments on the United States and how great they are for the world was totally inappropriate as a visitor to Canada.
As a side note, the most recent Ipsos poll came out showing the Tories at 43% and Liberals at 25%. While this may be distressing for some Liberal supporters, I say don't give up, I've seen parties come from further behind a win elections. Also to the Tory supporters who frequent here, I wouldn't get so cocky. I've been to a number of Liberal events, and I can tell you there is a lot of enthusiasm and energy. We are down, but not out and we are united in our determination to win the next election.
Now I will admit I am not the biggest fan of the Kyoto Protocol as I think the emissions trading credits scheme does little to reduce global warming as opposed to spending the money to reduce pollution domestically. I also feel they should have used 1998 levels rather than 1990 levels since due to changes in the economy such as the collapse of the industrial sector in East Germany and movement from coal to natural gas in Britain, it was easier for most European countries to go below 1990 levels than 1998 levels. However, despite my concerns with the deal, the fact the current government wants to throw up their hands and do nothing is unacceptable. Its clear once again the Conservatives are interested in following their Republican pals to the south. We may not be able to meet our Kyoto targets, but we should at least go part of the way rather than do nothing. Also if we oppose Kyoto protocol, then our environment minister Rona Ambrose should step down as chair and let someone who does support it take over. The fact the German environment minister is criticizing Canada is not something to be proud of and lets remember Germany has a centre-right government, not a left wing government.
I should also note that I found it interesting when John Howard visited Canada, it seemed more like in love-in between two people with similiar ideologies than about promoting closer relations between Canada and Australia. Certainly Howard's comments on the United States and how great they are for the world was totally inappropriate as a visitor to Canada.
As a side note, the most recent Ipsos poll came out showing the Tories at 43% and Liberals at 25%. While this may be distressing for some Liberal supporters, I say don't give up, I've seen parties come from further behind a win elections. Also to the Tory supporters who frequent here, I wouldn't get so cocky. I've been to a number of Liberal events, and I can tell you there is a lot of enthusiasm and energy. We are down, but not out and we are united in our determination to win the next election.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 8:41 PM
56 Comments:
Let me say this again:
This coming from a guy who opposed Kyoto and wants us to disregard our international obligations under NATO.
I opposed Kyoto because I didn't think the targets were realistic and because it was rushed and implemented recklessly. I have no problem with a made-in-Canada plan, but Harper's plan is no plan. Secondly we shouldn't be chairing a climate change conference if we are not committed to Kyoto Protocol. You don't chair something you oppose. I also opposed Kyoto Protocol since I felt we would meet our targets if we set realistic ones rather than unrealistic ones.
As for NATO, it is a Cold War relic, so it doesn't serve Canada's interest anymore and neither does NORAD. As a peaceful nation, military alliances go against what we stand for.
Good post Miles, you hit Canada's problems with the Kyoto protocol on the button.
I do wish we could get a leader before we are going to..we need one. The people need to see what we are about, before it is too late, for us, and the country.
The people need to see what we are about, before it is too late, for us, and the country
But that's the question Liz. What are you about?
Everyone with a brain knows the Liberal party doesn't stand for anything.
As for NATO, it is a Cold War relic, so it doesn't serve Canada's interest anymore and neither does NORAD. As a peaceful nation, military alliances go against what we stand for.
Okay Miles.
You're essentially saying that we are obligated to honour our international agreements only when you happen to agree with them.
You want to call NATO outdated? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
But you're intelligent enough to know that Kyoto is useless, and if you believe that we are free to flout our commitments under NATO, what is stopping us from flouting Kyoto?
You're applying a double standard here.
And on NATO, it looks like you are becoming more of a Trudeau Liberal by the day.
Or a Dipper, for that matter.
I too hope we get the right leader so we won't have to deal with Harper for more than a year
And yes the Liberals do stand for something. They stand for a strong economy, balanced budgets, charter of rights and freedoms, bilingualism, multiculturalism, strong social programs, national unity and an independent foreign policy.
The Kyoto Protocol is definitely flawed, but I believe global warming does exist and we must do something about it, whereas Stephen Harper denies the science behind climate change and wants to do nothing about it. Even if you oppose Kyoto, it is still morally the right thing to do to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike some Liberals I am driven by results not process therefore if we can come up with a made in Canada plan I am fine, but Harper's made in Canada plan is do nothing. Thabkfully some provinces such as Quebec plan to attempt to meet their Kyoto targets regardless what the feds do. Also pulling out of Kyoto is one thing but deliberately trying sabotage it is another.
On foreign policy I am left wing as I am on social policy but I am still right leaning on economic policy as I showed in my views elsewhere. The Libertarian Party is generally left wing on foreign policy and right wing on economic. Besides I don't blindly follow any ideology, but decide each issue individually. Since when does one who supports a parallel private health system have to automatically support membership in NATO. Besides each member of NATO has a veto so we could have vetoed action in Afghanistan.
Miles where were the Liberals independent in their foreign policy with Chretien and Martin? They took the path of least resistance each time, never were doing anything independent.
Plus im hardly embarassed by this. This deal is not good for us, our economy, or our enviroment. I actually think its better for the enviroment to do absolutly nothing is better then giving a billion dollars to Russia.
No, standing up to the Americans is not taking the path of least resistance. People such as Tony Blair and John Howard took the path of least resistance, Martin and Chretien showed courage in their decisions on Iraq and BMD
The Kyoto Protocol may not work and I don't agree with emissions trading, but doing nothing about our current levels of emissions is unacceptable. Our emissions need to come down and Harper so far doesn't give a damn about the environment. And I believe a strong economy and clean environment aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they two often go together. Britain has managed to do both. Even in Alberta, there is a large wind power sector emerging. So I believe it is quite possible to maintain the free market system, have a strong economy, and a clean environment. Since when is it necessary to drive an SUV for a strong economy. A small hybrid car being produced is just as good for our economy as producing a gas guzzling SUV.
No, standing up to the Americans is not taking the path of least resistance. People such as Tony Blair and John Howard took the path of least resistance, Martin and Chretien showed courage in their decisions on Iraq and BMD
That's utter and complete BS. Howard and Blair made a politically difficult decision, whereas Chretien did not.
Argue against the war if you will, but to argue that people like Blair and Howard are spineless jellyfish is flat out wrong.
I'd go as far as saying that there are very few politicians that have the courage of a guy like Tony Blair.
I happen to admire the man a great deal. If I had been in the UK last year, I may have even voted for him, party label notwithstanding.
No Brandon standing up to the Americans, especially when you are the next door neighbour is a lot more difficult than going along with them. I agree Tony Blair has done a lot of good things on the domestic front, but on the foreign policy he has been a screw up since 2003.
You're quick to dismiss treaties as "relics"? NATO, at least, has been expanded and redefined and has become even more effective in its old age.
What about dismissing Kyoto as a relic of the great pro-environmental love-in of the early 1990s. It had, in fact, fizzed as of 1994.
"No Brandon standing up to the Americans, especially when you are the next door neighbour is a lot more difficult than going along with them."
Americans also don't vote against Canada's Government Party en masse. Get real.
They don't vote, but they can punish us economically. With 87% of our trade being with them, they could retaliate for not supporting them on Iraq. In fact Chretien was warned of this possibility, but still said no since he knew it was the right thing morally even if it put our economy at risk in the short-term.
Miles, how many times have you said that attacking the United States is "smart politics?"
So many I've lost count.
Whether right or wrong, there was nothing courageous about Chretien's decision to stay out of the Iraq War.
Make no mistake, Liberals will sacrifice Canada's national interest at any and every turn if it can win them votes in the process.
Attacking the United States is smart politics in the short-term when it comes to winning elections. However I can assure you there was a lot of arm twisting to get Canada to sign on. Saying No to the Americans for a small country like Canada who is so dependent on them takes courage. In fact most Canadians including myself were surprised by Chretien's decision.
Miles, you are the perfect liberal (or Liberal if you prefer), you admit that Kyoto is severely flawed yet think Canada should sign on to it. The U.S. has reduced emmissions by far more than any country that has signed on to Kyoto (think Europe), and what is even more impressive is that they have done this at the same time that their economy is booming (as opposed to Europe, which has had a stagnant economy).
The comparisons between the Conservatives and the Bush administration are laughable, give yourself a shake, its delusional thinking. The only thing more laughable is your self described "blog from the center-right", there is nothing center-right about this blog! It is all pro-big-government, what is center-right about that??
Actually anonymous emissions have gone up in the United States, although not by as much in Canada. But certainly more so than in Europe and the US economy is not doing well thinks to Bush's big spending, runaway deficits.
I am not saying Canada must sign Kyoto Protocol, I am saying we shouldn't be chairing the conference if we don't support it. We also need to have an environmental plan versus no plan. Finally I am centre-right on many issues such as a parallel private health system. I am not pro big government on the environment. I believe there are many ways through tax credits and incentives that emissions can be reduced without increasing the size of government.
Are you crazy?
Quote: "and the US economy is not doing well thinks to Bush's big spending, runaway deficits."
The U.S. economy is doing EXTREMELY well. Considering that short-term interest rates have gone up by 4%, and oil is at $70 bucks, the economy is nothing short of amazing. The U.S. economy is running at a GDP rate that is significantly higher than trend, despite everyone's predictions that it would not.
You say you work in the financial field (as do I), so I am surprised by the complete ignorance in your statement regarding the U.S. economy - quite frankly it is kicking the ass of the Canadian economy, and any other economy in the developed world.
Is it fair the Kyoto Protocol punishes Canada for allowing immigrants/refugees into the country?
Canada's population has increased 17% since 1990 and thus our total CO2 emissions have increased in part due to Kyoto.
Oops, the last paragraph should read:
Canada's population has increased 17% since 1990 and thus our total CO2 emissions have increased in part due to our immigration policies.
Anonymous, the US economy has recovered, but it is not growing as fast as the Canadian economy. Our dollar is strengthening and their's is weakening. They have runaway deficits and it was under Bush that the United States suffered the first net loss in jobs since Hoover
Ac YYC - I am not saying we can meet our Kyoto targets, but we can at least get part way there. And your comments on immigrants is not only downright stupid, it is offensive and I as a Liberal who believes in tolerance do not appreciate such comments.
Miles,
Wow, so many erroneous claims in one short message, so little time:
Let's start with this:
"Anonymous, the US economy has recovered, but it is not growing as fast as the Canadian economy."
Couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. grew at 3.6% y/y, vs 3.2% in Canada (in real terms). That's a wide gap. If you take a 3-year average the gap is even wider. I am staring at the numbers right now. See, I am also in the "financial industry", in fact my name is quite well known on the street, which is why I post anonymously.
This is especially sad in light of the fact that Canada generally tends to do better than the U.S. in a cyclical upturn because more of the Canadian economy is cyclically based (oil and metals).
You and the rest of the anti-Bush crowd continually trumpets the "poor economy" when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
As someone in the "financial community" you would think that you would also know not to blame a president for cyclical swings in the economy. Short of raising taxes and stifling competition and trade, there isn't much a President can do to harm the economy on a short-term basis.
I am not saying we can meet our Kyoto targets, but we can at least get part way there. And your comments on immigrants is not only downright stupid, it is offensive and I as a Liberal who believes in tolerance do not appreciate such comments.
You totally missed the point of my post Miles. I was pointing out the unfairness of Kyoto in punishing Canada for allowing its population to grow (mainly due to immigration). In case you weren't aware more people equals more emissions.
Any treaty that doesn't account for our progressive immigration policy isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. grew at 3.6% y/y, vs 3.2% in Canada (in real terms). That's a wide gap. If you take a 3-year average the gap is even wider. I am staring at the numbers right now. See, I am also in the "financial industry", in fact my name is quite well known on the street, which is why I post anonymously
According to the BMO, the US performed worse than Canada in Bush's first four years and only better last year. Also the US still has a trade deficit while Canada has a trade surplus. The US has a massive deficit while Canada has a healthy surplus. In fact when Bush took office the Canadian dollar was around 63 cents US, today it is up to 90 cents US, while the Euro was under a $1.00, now it is up to $1.28. Also unemployment is at a record low in Canada, while it is higher now than when Bush took office.
As someone in the "financial community" you would think that you would also know not to blame a president for cyclical swings in the economy. Short of raising taxes and stifling competition and trade, there isn't much a President can do to harm the economy on a short-term basis
I know the president can only have so much of an effect. But I can tell you Bush's policies have done more harm than good. Ironically the United States has on average done better under Democrat presidents than Republican ones. The deficits have also been larger under Republican ones as well, so, so much for fiscal prudence.
Finally another question, are you an American or Canadian? If you are an American, perhaps you should learn more about Canada and the values that define us. Even most in the financial sector want a strong social safety net, a clean environment, and a tolerant society. We aren't just driven by the mighty dollar up here. Never mind the fact a number of Liberal MPs worked in the financial sector prior to becoming MPs and considering the financial sector is largest in Toronto, which went mostly Liberal, I suspect many others in that sector go Liberal.
You totally missed the point of my post Miles. I was pointing out the unfairness of Kyoto in punishing Canada for allowing its population to grow (mainly due to immigration). In case you weren't aware more people equals more emissions.
You have your facts wrong. Half of Canada's greenhouse gases come from oil production. So it has nothing to do with population since most of it is exported to other countries so even if our population didn't increase, our emissions would still be not much different. We are a commodity driven export country so as long as people in other countries demand Canadian produced commodities, our emissions will remain high. The way to lower them is to use cleaner technology.
You have your facts wrong. Half of Canada's greenhouse gases come from oil production.
First differentiate between oil production and oil consumption. Oil production is relatively independent of population growth, oil consumption is directly related to population growth. As the population increases so does oil consumption.
In 2003 the upstream petroleum industry contributed 96Mt of Canada's total GHG emissions. Total GHG emissions in 2003 were 740Mt. I don't think that equals 50% as you suggest.
Yes oil consumption grows with population, however more of the green house gases have come from oil production than oil consumption. In addition Germany and Britain who have met their Kyoto targets have large immigrant populations too. Also what you neglect to note is while we receive many immigrants, there are more Canadians who die every year than are born so without immigration our population would be falling.
Harper's plan is no plan.
Sigh. Miles, if Harper rules that cows must fart 10% less, it will be 1000% more of a plan than the Fiberals ever put forward.
What are you going to say when GHG emissions haven't risen 10% this year - as they averaged under Fiberal rule.
Ah, but facts - they ruin all the good Fiberal lies.
Here's a truth, George W Bush was vastly more of an enviromentalist in acheivement than Paul Martin. Fact. Truth.
If you just have Fibereals stop speaking when they are lying - we could really do something to limit hot air.
Embarrasment describes Fiberal achievement when it comes to actually accomplishing anything - other than duping the sadly, willfully ignorant.
Yes oil consumption grows with population, however more of the green house gases have come from oil production than oil consumption.
Again that's not the case. The link I cited shows transportation (i.e. consumption of oil and gas) leads to 180Mt per yer of GHG emissions. That's nearly twice the amount of GHG's from petroleum production.
In addition Germany and Britain who have met their Kyoto targets have large immigrant populations too. Also what you neglect to note is while we receive many immigrants, there are more Canadians who die every year than are born so without immigration our population would be falling.
Compare the population growth of Germany (3.6%) and the UK (5.6%) since 1990 and you'll notice neither comes close to Canada's population growth of 17%. The point is the Kyoto Protocol punishes Canada for allowing a higher population growth rate than other countries (again mostly due to immigration).
Anonymous - emissions went up on average by 2% a year under the Liberals (29% since 1990 and we had to cut emissions by 6%, so 35% off target). At least the Liberals supported the environment. They may not done a lot, but at least supporting it is better than showing contempt for it. Also they faced a massive deficit in 1993 so they couldn't really focus on other issues until 1998 once they got us out of deficit.
Compare the population growth of Germany (3.6%) and the UK (5.6%) since 1990 and you'll notice neither comes close to Canada's population growth of 17%. The point is the Kyoto Protocol punishes Canada for allowing a higher population growth rate than other countries (again mostly due to immigration)
Actually Britain and Germany have lower emissions than 1990 while ours have gone up by 29%, so even using your logic we still should be at least close to our Kyoto targets. And secondly we agreed to cut them by 6%. We could have agreed to less. The main reason we choose 6% is we wanted to beat the US who choose 5%, but then Bush pulled out of Kyoto. Besides the population increase only makes a minor dent, maybe 1 or 2%, the vast majority is due to growth of the oil industry and the strong resource sector. Also other things such as people leaving the cities for the suburbs have done just as much to raise pollution, since most of the growth in the GTA is in the 905, not the 416 and likewise here in Vancouver, Surrey is doubling pratically every 10 years while Vancouver's population in the city proper has barely changed over the past 20 years. Since people living in the suburbs have to commute, this is a major reason for this.
Even most in the financial sector want a strong social safety net, a clean environment, and a tolerant society. We aren't just driven by the mighty dollar up here.
This coming from an ardent supporter of that great captain of greed himself, Paul "flags of convenience" Martin.
I don;t know of Harper or any other Tory Prime Minister personally profitting from the routine dumping of toxic waste into the Great Lakes.
Do you?
I don;t know of Harper or any other Tory Prime Minister personally profitting from the routine dumping of toxic waste into the Great Lakes.
Brandon, Brandon. Paul Martin supported the environment. That's all that's important, apparently. What's a little toxic waste other than Fiberal polict by another name?
This coming from an ardent supporter of that great captain of greed himself, Paul "flags of convenience" Martin.
I don;t know of Harper or any other Tory Prime Minister personally profitting from the routine dumping of toxic waste into the Great Lakes.
Do you?
As I've explained before, Paul Martin's shipping company would have gone out of business if it didn't use flags of convenience. Canada Steampship lines flew more Canadian flags than the majority of its competitors. As for dumping toxic waste in the Great Lakes, Martin promised to clean up the Great Lakes. The 2005 budget was given an A by the Sierra Club for its commitment to the environment, while the most recent Tory one got an F.
AFTER HIS OWN COMPANY DUMPED THE WASTE IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
Meaning that the proposed that the Canadian taxpayer pay for cleaning up the mess HE PERSONALLY PROFITTED FROM!
I have NO TIME for Liberal sanctimony on the environment, or anything else for that matter.
Mils said: "I know the president can only have so much of an effect. But I can tell you Bush's policies have done more harm than good. Ironically the United States has on average done better under Democrat presidents than Republican ones. The deficits have also been larger under Republican ones as well, so, so much for fiscal prudence."
No, Bush's policies have not done more harm than good. His tax policies, along with the Federal Reserve (of which the President has zero control or influence over) helped lift the economy out of recession (a recession that was borne under the Clinton admin., although as I have stated it is very hard for a President to cause a recession, and Clinton certainly did not cause that one), and are largely responsible for this continued economic success a success you continue to ignore due to your political positioning.
The fiscal deficits (not the current account deficits) are one of Bush's great failures. Of course that is very easy for Canadians to say given that the US is responsible for the military initiatives of most of the world - whether you agree with them or not that is the truth.
Miles said: "Finally another question, are you an American or Canadian?"
I am both and have worked (and do work) on both Bay and Wall street (and in the UK).
Believe me, I know that the great majority of Bay Street has been Liberal or even NDP supporters. I work with these people (I dont just read about it in the Globe as I suspect you do). As far as Liberal support, it has largely to do with them being in power for so long - they were the only way to get anything done. The NDP support is a mindset of the Rosedale Socialists, which I won't get into here. The tide is turning and has indeed turned - Tory support on Bay Street (a fickle crowd) is now dominant.
Miles said: "If you are an American, perhaps you should learn more about Canada and the values that define us."
Ah yes, the great Canadian groupthink. An ignorant comment if I have ever heard one. I would expect nothing less from a 25 year old blogger.
Miles said:
"We aren't just driven by the mighty dollar up here."
Yes, which is why Canada's economy is a cronic underperformer with an unemployment rate that is 2 percentage points higher than the U.S.!
TT
I have NO TIME for Liberal sanctimony on the environment, or anything else for that matter.
Well get use to us pointing out the Conservative flaws. We will not stand by idly and let them wreck the country. Yes we as Liberals made mistakes and our record on the environment isn't great, but we were beginning to make progress in the last couple of years.
No, Bush's policies have not done more harm than good. His tax policies, along with the Federal Reserve (of which the President has zero control or influence over) helped lift the economy out of recession (a recession that was borne under the Clinton admin., although as I have stated it is very hard for a President to cause a recession, and Clinton certainly did not cause that one), and are largely responsible for this continued economic success a success you continue to ignore due to your political positioning.
Actually the strongest economic growth in 30 years and lowest unemployment occurred under Clinton not Bush. Clinton also balanced the budget. Secondly deficit financed tax cuts don't work since all it is doing is deferring tax payments to a later date with interest I might add. Tax cuts make sense once there is a surplus or if the government is willing to make the spending cuts to reach a surplus in a short period of time.
The fiscal deficits (not the current account deficits) are one of Bush's great failures. Of course that is very easy for Canadians to say given that the US is responsible for the military initiatives of most of the world - whether you agree with them or not that is the truth.
Maybe the US should cut their military spending. A military is to defend one's country, not to go around invading other countries you don't like.
Yes, which is why Canada's economy is a cronic underperformer with an unemployment rate that is 2 percentage points higher than the U.S.!
The United States counts their unemployment differently. Also under Clinton, US unemployment was 4% higher, so the gap has narrowed under Bush, some achievement. US unemployment has gone up under Bush, while unemployment in Canada went down under Martin. Canada's economy is quite strong and often outperforms the US. In the 90s Canada often under-performed the US, but then they had a Democrat in the White House.
In the 90s Canada often under-performed the US, but then they had a Democrat in the White House.
And a Republican Congress that forced Clinton to the Right.
Bill Clinton claims that what turned the US economy aroud were his tax increases (which he passed whle the Dems still had House and Senate majorities).
Tell me if you agree with that, Miles.
Oh, and wasn't Jimmy Carter a Democrat and Reagan a Republican?
Just thought I'd ask.
"Actually the strongest economic growth in 30 years and lowest unemployment occurred under Clinton not Bush."
Actually the most growth occurred under Reagan.
Balancing the budget actually acts as a drag on the economy in the short-term, it has more implications for the dollar.
"The United States counts their unemployment differently."
The difference is not meaningful for comparison purposes, in fact there is barely a difference (all countries are ever so slightly different). Canada has chronically higher unemployment due to its wealth-redistribution policies. It is in the middle between socialist Europe and the U.S. (Europe has unemployment in the double digits). This again is a result of structural differences in the economy, mainly related to free-markets.
"In the 90s Canada often under-performed the US, but then they had a Democrat in the White House. "
There you go again giving President's too much credit for the economy. Unless they make meaningful structural changes (such as Reagan with Free-Trade) their economic stewardship in the U.S. is more not to screw things up with taxes or protectionist policies.
"Secondly deficit financed tax cuts don't work "
Incorrect, there is a wealth of academic studies that would prove your comment to be foolish.
Look Miles, you clearly have little in the way of knowledge in the space of global economics - which is fine - my problem is that you keep using vague generalities (most of them picked up directly from left-wing blogs) and your assumptions are so off base as to be comical.
You should either admit that you are out of your league with respect to these assumptions, else we can conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, or worse, for claiming that President's and PM's, through the course of basic, non structural policy decisions, have a great effect on economic outcmes during their tenure.
Your line of thinking is simple and sophmoric to strike your political points.
TT
Due to the nature of the US system Clinton could pass his budget by only peeling off a few moderate Republicans since the US system doesn't have the same party discipline as Canada.
It is true Clinton raised taxes, but so did Bush sr. If he wanted to combat the massive deficit both tax increases and major spending cuts were needed. Nevermind the Democrats would be centre-right here in Canada since our political centre is a lot further to the left. I've seen a chart over the past 50 years on deficits and economic growth and historically the US has performed better under the Democrats than Republicans. The only reason the right are the best fiscal managers in Canada is our left is a lot further to the left and our right is centrist in the US.
I liked Reagan's small government views and determination to win the Cold War. But he was a terrible fiscal manager as the debt went from 1 to 4 trillion under his administration.
Actually I know quite about about economics. The idea of a deficit financed tax cut is supported by Keynesian economics but not by Friedman economics.
It is true countries with free markets perform better, which is why France and Germany who have large governments have high unemployment and likewise it is partly why Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. However, according to the Heritage Foundation US ranks behind Britain in economic freedom and only 0.01 points out of a possible five ahead of Canada. More importantly the US is slipping while Canada is improving.
Bush is a neo-conservative, not a free market libertarian. Like socialistsn, neo-conservatives believe in big government just in different areas such as the military and corporate subsidies. Government spending per capita is also higher and growing much faster than it did under Clinton.
Miles, Gordon Campbell cut taxes while in deficit. And although I'll admit that I'm no economist, it appears to have worked.
What you fail to mention in the cases of both Reagan and GWB is that it was not tax cuts that caused the deficits. In both cases, revenue has gone up enough to cover the difference.
It is increased spending that accounts for the deficits.
In Reagan's case, much of the blame for that has to go to Congress, as he tried to introduce a Balanced Budget amendment and the Democrats refused to go along with it.
He also massively increased the size of the military to match Soviet power, something that drove deficits up in the short term but helped our side win the Cold War in the long run.
In Clinton's case, no, passing a budget was no easy exercise. Do you remember the federal government shut down?
The Gingrich-era Congress fought to restrict spending, and likely contributed a great deal to balancing the budget.
In Bush's case, he has few excuses. His own party controls Congress, and he has yet to work up the courage to actually veto anything. He'll have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the ballooning deficits.
You have to realize that there are a lot of Republicans pissed off with Bush's fiscal record, not unlike the people (like Stephen Harper) who ditched the Tories over Mulroney's inability and/or unwillingess to get our deficit under control.
What is going to cost Bush the House and maybe even the Senate is not a surge in support for the Dems. It's going to be the result of pissed off Republicans staying home on Election Day.
"The fact the German environment minister is criticizing Canada is not something to be proud of and lets remember Germany has a centre-right government, not a left wing government."
Time to fact check your ass. Were you aware of other countries' governments, you'd realize that not everyone uses the Canadian system. And that's why the German Environment Minister who is criticizing the government is, uh, a socialist!
Brandon - Gordon Campbell also made the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget. Secondly our taxes were vastly out of whack with other jurisdictions so had he not cut them we would lose more jobs to other places. And yes there are many Republicans who do support fiscal responsibility. Certainly Bush's fiscal recklessness isn't helping him one bit.
Jarrett - It is true the German environment minister is a socialist, but the prime-minister is centre-right. Germany has a coalition government at the moment since no party achieved a majority. Since the coalition includes a centre-right and centre-left it is I guess a centrist government assuming they compromise.
Man, conservative-socialist coalition. Just nuts.
And I thought BC politics was bad.
Why haven't the Germans simply adopted the concept of minority government?
Brandon - Gordon Campbell also made the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget.
That's actually not entirely true. Campbell cut spending in most departments, but overall government spending never actually went down.
Man, conservative-socialist coalition. Just nuts.
And I thought BC politics was bad.
Why haven't the Germans simply adopted the concept of minority government?
Ideally they would like to form a coalition with the pro-free market FDP, but since they only got 10% of the popular vote and the CDU/CSU got 35% (they use PR in Germany) they had no choice but to form a grand coalition with the SPD. In most European countries because minorities are the norm rather than the exception, the form coalitions. If they didn't, they would be having elections after two years. In Canada, I suspect you would see the same if minority governments ever become the norm, mind you a Liberal-Conservative coalition or Liberal-NDP coalition would make a lot more sense than a Conservative-NDP coalition. Though I should note in Nova Scotia, the Progressive Conservatives relied on the NDP to prop them up in their last minority which lasted 3 years and probably could have lasted 4 years although their premier decided to go the polls this June.
That's actually not entirely true. Campbell cut spending in most departments, but overall government spending never actually went down.
Overall spending did go down in the first couple years, but you are right by the end of the term, it hadn't fallen. This was largely due to the increases in health care spending since the cost of health care is rising at astronomical rates due to the aging population. If you took health care out of the picture, government spending did go down and if you take education out, it went down by quite a bit. Lets remember those two departments account for close to 2/3 of government spending, while the cuts were quite deep in the remaining 1/3.
That's actually not entirely true. Campbell cut spending in most departments, but overall government spending never actually went down.
When Campbell took office, the budget for the office of the premier increased seven fold. What a hypocrite.
When Campbell took office, the budget for the office of the premier increased seven fold. What a hypocrite.
I've never heard that, when considering how hostile some groups were to them, I am surprised that wasn't brought up often. If true, I certainly disagree. I don't blindly agree with the BC Liberals on everything and even agree with the federal Liberals less often, but in both cases I still support each of them more often then I oppose them. And often my disagreements are specifics rather than general direction.
When Campbell took office, the budget for the office of the premier increased seven fold. What a hypocrite.
Like I've been telling Miles over and over again, the guy's a micro-manager. That's why him attacking Harper for being a control freak is so disingenuous.
Like I've been telling Miles over and over again, the guy's a micro-manager. That's why him attacking Harper for being a control freak is so disingenuous.
Not to the degree Harper is. To the degree Chretien was, Yes, but Harper No. More so than Martin Yes. I don't think I've ever seen a leader who is as much as a micro-manager as Stephen Harper. Even Jean Chretien he was accused of running his caucus with an iron fist was less of a micro-manager.
Ever heard of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, by chance?
Ever heard of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, by chance?
Oh yes I have and I am not a big fan of him by any stretch of the imagination. I was too young to remember anything since I was only 3 years old when he resigned as PM, but you might be right here. I know he was quite successful electorally. However while he did some good things such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he did some very bad things such as the National Energy Program and never mind he ran up massive deficits, which Mulroney brought down, while Chretien/Martin eliminated it.
MILES LUNN . . . what are you smokin . . . US Growth last quarter 5.3%, and many consecutive quarters over 4%, Unemployment 4%, Dow Jones setting records!
Compare that to Canada . . . only the West is booming, Maritimes double digit unemployment, Ontario and Quebec somewhere in between.
Productivity in Canada since 1999 almost 0 under the Libs.
Actually since Bush took office the US economy hasn't performed well until recently and with the high deficits and a trade deficit they face greater problems down the road. Canada's economy has done great under the Liberals. We have the lowest unemployment in 30 years and record surpluses. It is true the West is doing the best now largely due to high commodity prices. The Maritimes aren't doing great overall, however Newfoundland & Labrador did a few years back top the country for economic growth. Off course since it is much poorer than other provinces, even with high growth it still is a poor province.
Kyoto . . . Canada was one of only 3 countries to negotiate a reduction in 1990 emission levels. What a crack team of Liberal Negotiators we must have had.
Tony Blair said Kyoto is Economic Suicide. Only Norway has made any progress, and they haven't been taking in 300,000 immigrants a year since 1990 as Canada has.
The US is doing far better than Canada at controlling emissions growth, bet you just hate that!
Kyoto is bad science, the hockey stick graph is poorly conceived, not supported by the evidence. In the last 100 years the temperature has increased 1 decree C. It was warmer at the beginning of the 20th century until the 1940's when things started to cool, until 1975 when we were told an ICE AGE was coming, and in 10 years we would freeze and starve in the dark.
I agree Canada's targets were a little over ambitious. While it is true Tony Blair was concerned about having overly aggressive targets, Britain not only supports the Kyoto Protocol, it has actually met its targets. More importantly the British Environment Minister in 2004 condemned Harper's decision to pull out. I agree the science isn't perfect, but the rate of change is unheard of. Sure there are normal weather cycles, but most scientist have strong evidence to show that humans are at least causing some of the global warming. Besides we should be promoting a cleaner environment even if it isn't causing global warming. Harper opposes Kyoto, which is not my problem alone, but he has no made-in-Canada plan. Instead he wants to do nothing about the environment. Even some conservative commentators such as Andrew Coyne have criticized his environmental policies. The Liberals weren't perfect here, but at least they recognize the problem exists, whereas Harper pretends it doesn't. And lets assume that the scientist are wrong, wouldn't it be better to at least take action in case they are right. We can still have a strong economy and a clean environment so even if they are wrong, I would rather we take action in case they are right.
as ex-NDIP mentioned, you have to admit that Canada has a huge productivity gap with the US.
We essentially coasted along in 90's because of the low dollar, and we can hardly credit the Liberals with the monetary policy of the day.
Considering that productivity is the key to economic growth, that can't be anything other than a stain on the Liberal record.
Productivity is indeed a big issue we must deal with and some Liberal candidates such as Maurizio Bevilacqua and Scott Brison clearly want to deal with those issues. The Tories haven't really done anything either or proposed anything that would help increase productivity.
Post a Comment
<< Home