Record budget surplus for Canada

[TexasLawyer]

Source: Financial Times

Record budget surplus for Canada
By Bernard Simon in Toronto

Published: September 28 2007 03:14

Canada posted a record budget surplus of C$13.8bn last year, allowing Ottawa to reduce its debt ratio to the lowest level in 25 years and paving the way for a fresh round of personal tax cuts.

The announcement on Thursday by Stephen Harper, prime minister, is likely to fuel speculation that his minority Conservative government is preparing for a general election either this year or early in 2008.

The federal government has run a budget surplus every year since 1998, allowing the Conservatives and their Liberal predecessors to bring the federal debt down to 32.3 per cent of gross domestic product. The debt-to-GDP ratio reached a peak of 74.8 per cent in 1996.

The Conservatives pledged this year to use all interest savings on the debt to lower personal income taxes. Mr Harper said that savings for the fiscal year to March 31 would result in tax cuts totalling C$750m (US$746m, €528m, £370m).



Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e24d696a-6d33-11dc-ab19-0000779fd2ac.html

---

Must be nice!

[antigop]

1. Surplus? Surplus? Don't you know -- deficits don't matter! n/t

[fasttense]

2. This can't be. They have nationalized health coverage.

They are have quasi-socialism, making sure all their sick people are able to see a doctor. And the US can't even look after their children's health without a threatened veto from the bushes because the bushes know that nationalized health will run up huge deficits. This just can't be.

[Demeter]

3. They Have Oil--We Do Not

and oil has gone up more than double.

[hunter]

4. No, it's not really about oil.

They don't have huge parasitic healthcare and military industries sucking the life out of them.

If we cut our military by 90%, increased our national energy efficiency, and adopted a single payer health care system with strong controls on the pharmaceutical industry, we'd have a budget surplus shooting through the roof.

[arikara]

5. It might sound good but its a big sham

Harper has put nothing into infrastructure, health care or education. He's a cheap little warmongering Bush boy.

The "tax cuts" would only benefit his corporate buddies. He's trotting out a budget like this because he expects the government to fall over it, he wants an election because he's hoping to get a minority. I don't know why he cares because our opposition is as totally useless and ineffective as your democrats and have been giving him everything he wants.

[Kagemusha]

7. They could reverse the slashing of health care cost sharing.

I know that's not their ideology, and tax cuts well, they're not nothing, but there was a lot of damage caused by those (health care) cuts, and I don't think anything's been really done since but stop the bleeding.

[gula]

10. Sad, but only too true.

[IronLionZion]

6. It's amazing what you can do when you're not at war

and you're not beholden to defense contractors... I envy those guys. maybe I should look for a new job up in Canada

[Kagemusha]

8. Canada's at war, too. Just considerably less of it.

For all the good it does. Do most Americans even know that Canada has troops on the ground in Afghanistan? I know American ambassadors bleat a lot about Canada pulling its fair share but, even when Canada does, does anyone really notice?

[fedupfisherman]

9. Also with North Korea

Canada was part of the UN Force that battled North Korea.

Technically Canada is at war with NK just like the US is.

Currently at ceasefire.

[IronLionZion]

12. Compare Canada's annual defense budget to the USA as a percentage of GDP

Canada: 1.1%
USA: 4.06%

And as absolute figures:
Canada: $16.9 billion (US dollars)
USA: $548.9 billion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures


Consider the cost of the Iraq war to the US taxpayer. It's $10 billion a month. We've already dumped $500 billion down the rabbit hole so far and we're heading for $1 trillion hella fast. And that's just a conservative estimate. The moderate estimate is $2 trillion total. Who knows what the long-term costs are? We have a lot of wounded soldiers and lost/damaged equipment. There have been dramatic cutbacks across the board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_2003_Iraq_Conflict

[Toots]

21. I thought we killed all their troops with a "friendly fire" mission?

:shrug:

[arikara]

11. We do have lots of troops getting killed in Afghanistan

The game is that we pick up some of the slack there so more American troops are available to go to Iraq. That was Canada's appeasement to Bush for not joining with his "coalition of the willing".

Harper has been copying the same rah rah "support our troop" tactics as the US right down to the yellow ribbons on vehicles. Our military used to be used only for peacekeeping. So even with the majority of Canadians against our military being used in a war of aggression, and even with a minority government who has increasingly put them in that position... our spineless, useless opposition still wouldn't bring the government down over the military. But they will bring them down over this budget, perhaps allowing the Harper bunch to win a majority in the next election. Not that it really matters because the opposition has collaborated and allowed the neo-con harpers to get away with things they should never have. Just like your dems.

[Dave From Canada]

14. That's complete nonsense.

We're not there so that more American troops can be available in Iraq. We're there because it's a NATO mission. And unfortunately, the other NATO countries that could be doing more, like France, Germany, and Britain aren't. Where I live, London, Ontario, we have yellow ribbons on public vehicles, but they weren't put there by Harper or anyone else in the federal government. It was purely a municipal issue. You're not being honest with our American friends when you say stuff like that. Also, Afhanistan is not a war of aggression. Unlike Iraq, there were significant reasons to have to topple the Taliban, and help establish and protect the new current government there.

[Posteritatis]

16. I've been noticing those

Just moved here at the start of the month. You see them in Halifax quite a bit too, but not nearly to the extent that London's got. (Then again, Halifax is primarily a navy town.)

[Spazito]

18. Hmmmm, I guess I know what party you will support in the

next election. Don't you find those ribbons soooooooo valuable in providing REAL support to the soldiers, once you put one of those on your vehicle you don't have to do a damn thing more, or does one?

Please explain to me what "support the troops" means to you? How does putting a magnetic ribbon on one's vehicle supports the troops?

Our mission was changed from one of peacekeeping and security to one of combat as a sop to the bush cabal for NOT going into Iraq. Our original mission with NATO was NOT a combat mission, it was only AFTER we chose not to go into Iraq that the mission was changed.

[Dave From Canada]

25. I didn't say I agreed with the ribbon campaign. To me, they're not very significant. I'm just

stating the fact, that it wasn't a federal action. Also, our mission wasn't changed at all. The only reason it went from peacekeeping to combat, was because the Taliban have stepped up the violence. THEY are the reason there's violence. NOT Canadian soldiers. Canadian soldiers ARE keeping the peace, by killing Taliban who are determined to PREVENT any peace and stability. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT IRAQ! The invasion of Iraq was unjustified, the toppling of the Taliban was.

[Spazito]

27. You are wrong, the mission was changed....

Canada participated in the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force, which was created in late 2001 to help bring stability to the country.

Canada ended its role in late 2005 and committed a battle group of about 2,000 personnel to Kandahar in early 2006. Canadian Brigadier General David Fraser was to take the command of the multinational brigade consisting of Canadian, British and Dutch troops in March 2006.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/

Canada's original mission was peacekeeping and security around Kabul. The Liberals changed the mission in 2005.

Canadian soldiers are no longer seen as being helpful and are looked at as no different than the US troops, soldiers killing innocent civilians.

The mission should revert back to one of peacekeeping and security.

[arikara]

19. I beg to differ with you...

I'm being painfully honest. The Harper government ultimately is behind the slick and growing yellow ribbon and red shirt Friday campaign. We have always been in Afghanistan to appease Bush for not joining the invasion of Iraq, and we are NOT peacekeeping over there.

Afghanistan: “A mark of shame”
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20070926191511583&query=afghanistan

Afghanistan and Iraq: the same war
http://canadianobserver.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/afghanistan-and-iraq-the-same-war/

<snip>
Most Canadians are proud that Canada refused to invade Iraq. But when it comes to Afghanistan, we hear the same jingoistic bluster we heard about Iraq four years ago. As if Iraq and Afghanistan were two separate wars, and Afghanistan is the good war, the legal and just war. In reality, Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war.

That’s how the Bush administration has seen Afghanistan from the start; not as a defensive response to 9-11, but the opening for regime change in Iraq (as documented in Richard A. Clarke’s Against all Enemies). That’s why the Security Council resolutions of September 2001 never mention Afghanistan, much less authorize an attack on it. That’s why the attack on Afghanistan was also a supreme international crime, which killed at least 20,000 innocent civilians in its first six months. The Bush administration used 9-11 as a pretext to launch an open-ended so-called “war on terror” ­ in reality, a war of terror because it kills hundreds of times more civilians than the other terrorists do.

That the Karzai regime was subsequently set up under UN auspices doesn’t absolve the participants in America’s war, and that includes Canada. Nor should the fact that Canada now operates under the UN authorized International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mislead anyone. From the start, ISAF put itself at the service of the American operation, declaring “the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force” (UNSC Document S/2001/1217). When NATO took charge of ISAF, that didn’t change anything. NATO forces are always ultimately under U.S. command. The “Supreme Commander” is always an American general, who answers to the U.S. president.

Canadian troops in Afghanistan not only take orders from the Americans, they help free up more U.S. forces to continue their bloody occupation of Iraq.

Marching Orders - How Canada abandoned peacekeeping – and why the UN needs us now more than ever
http://www.canadians.org/peace/issues/Marching_Orders/index.html

The Truth about Canada in Afghanistan
http://www.wooleylegs.com/canada_in_afghanistan.htm

Why I won't wear red
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/citizensweekly/story.html?id=6e4b9e61-271f-4183-8023-250a066cd852

What used to be an uncomplicated show of pure human support has become political, and the politics is distinctly ugly. Under Canada's New Government, we're witnessing the rise of Canada's New Militarism.

<snip> And, perhaps most dramatic of all, it's in the politicization of the "support our troops" campaign.

<snip> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made that very clear. "You can not say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do," he said.

<snip> Smoothly abetted by a government that seems to love rattling sabres and waving big sticks (even if the sabres and sticks are a bit the worse for wear), we're being pushed and shoved into cheering simplistically for war.

You don't approve of U.S.-style political decals on police cars? Shame on you. You must hate our soldiers.

You think the mission in Afghanistan is a big, tragic mistake? Shame on you. You must hate Canada.

You believe we should get out -- now? Shame. You obviously hate freedom.

It's become nasty out there, and stifling. Try to debate issues that used to be open for discussion in this country -- issues that go the heart of our collective sense of morality -- and suddenly you're charged with lacking patriotism, or backbone, or some other fragment of cheap and borrowed jingoism.

<snip>

[arikara]

20. Oh, and one more little item of interest

If the US figured the Taliban needed to be "toppled" then what's really going on here?

Secret U.S. - Taliban Discussions Seem To Be Afoot
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/256053

[Dave From Canada]

26. Hamid Karzai said not long ago, that there were portions of the Taliban that could be negotiated

with. I'm glad they are talking. Why don't you think there should be discussions taking place? I don't care what the Bush Administration has said or has done. I don't support the Bush Administration. Why is it that if I support the mission in Afghanistan that means somehow I'm a Bush supporter? I support talks with Iran, I support talks with Syria, I support talks with North Korea, and I definitely support talks with the less extreme Taliban. What's wrong with that?

Iraq is not Afghanistan!

[arikara]

28. I never thought you were a bush supporter

I know some Canadians think its right to be over there. Afghanistan is all but ignored in the American media, and there is no more truth telling in our media than there is in in the US. But if you dig for information, you will see that invasion of Afghanistan was no more justified than the invasion of Iraq. They had no more to do with 9-11 than Iraq. Our soldiers should not be over there killing people and being killed for the sake of a disgusting PNAC vision. Please check the links that I posted earlier, do a bit of research and you may just see it differently. I hope you do.

But you're right, the puppet government and the taliban may as well be talking because what's happening over there now sure isn't any better for the people than what they had before the invasion.

Peace to you. And may the people of Afghanistan and Iraq find peace as well.

[Canuckistanian]

34. Those yellow ribbons on public vehicles are still controversial

To many it looks like an endorsement of Harper's policies. I think we had some controversy about it here in Ottawa.

[flaminbats]

13. hopefully they'll learn from our mistakes!

its great Canada hasn't squandered away its budget surpluses, but surpluses disappear just as quickly as they appear. Canada's national debt may be at its lowest level in 25 years, but it's still there!

Canada can do something our country no longer has the money to do. it can zero out the public dollars wasted every year on paying interest, while keeping their Social Security system solvent for generations to come. why throw this opportunity away, like Bush did, with a taxcut?

[ryanmuegge]

17. Well, we never had a true budget surplus to begin with.

That was only the Social Security surplus during the Clinton years.

That's not to say that Clinton didn't reduce debt. Unfortunately, he did it on the backs of poor black mothers, rather slashing the military to the bone. At least he and Bush I both had the sense to raise taxes. This Bush doesn't care at all about the country's fiscal well-being.

[Posteritatis]

15. Surpluses? Those are what Harper was condemning the Liberals for having, no? (nt)

[JBoy]

22. Yes, you're right.

The Conservatives have been aware of what a great pre-election slush fund a surplus gives the governing party, and were jealous the Liberals had it. Now the Conservatives get to control the surplus - crickets chirping.

Watch for the big handout announcements to the regions they're targeting, and you'll know there's an election coming.

[Posteritatis]

23. Great time for me to have moved to Ontario, I guess

I'm still pissed over how Harper's talked about/handled the Maritimes the last several years, and not looking forward to them getting shat on once again whenever he gets around to calling another one. Ugh.

[sarcasmo]

24. A Budget Surplus and Health Care for All.

A Country the United States can look up to.

[JNelson6563]

29. This cannot be!

They have socialized medicine! Surely they are wallowing in debt!

Julie

[Maq]

30. Surplus $$$$ and no Housing BUBBLE

Use the money to build that Northern Armed Forces Base off Frobisher Bay. To guard the Arctic from the Russians and Denmark.

[arikara]

33. I dunno, there's a lot of the same happening here

It just hasn't smacked us in the head quite yet. Construction of new shoddily built yet highly overpriced houses and condos is what is keeping our economy booming right now. In our area, there are lots of jobs - in the service sector and in construction. The minimum wage service sector workers aren't the ones buying the new homes... they can't even afford to rent a bachelor suite in our area anymore. A small chipboard condo in a terrible neighborhood now costs at least $100,000 more than what we paid for our house and property 6 years ago. Our house has tripled in value in only 6 years.

The BC government gave away thousands of acres of prime crown land to logging companies who were having financial problems, they turned around and put it on the market as real estate. These ones are set to make a king's ransome. None of this will trickle down to the communities as the hidden mansions will be summer homes for the rich and famous, who helicopter in for a week or 2 at a time and even bring in their own food etc. Meanwhile we get stuck to pay for infrastructure needed to build these monstrosities. This makes the "fast ferries" boondoggle look like child's play. But very little of this comes out in the complicit media.

And then there's this:
Canadian Credit Crisis Is Worse Than US

Smith calculated that Canada's big six banks are on the hook for total liquidity facilities worth $135-billion.
The Quebec Pension fund Caisse holds between $13-billion and $20-billion of the $35-billion of these loans

The Montreal Accord proposal to contain this problem was launched on Aug. 16 - at this stage appears to be a pipe dream.

Canada's bank regulator -- the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions -- did not return calls

lots more: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070928092757465

Global Credit Crisis Canadian Style
http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=4801

[TrogL]

35. There's plenty of housing bubble here

My house doubled in value in a year and a half.

No way in hell is it worth that much, but that's the value they'll use for the tax rates for next year.

[lonestarnot]

31. I remember when we were there. sigh.

[Javaman]

32. Those were the days....

Just finished reading a very interesting article on the history of supply side economics. george h.w. bush was right about one thing, supply side economics is certain voodoo. ray-gun so totally screwed this nation, but more so, believe it or not or just believe it, it was (drum roll please) chaney who was an early convert and pushed it. It's based on such a screwy bizarre small set of criteria it's no wonder that it's a failure and took us all down with it. Except the rich of course.