Calgary Centre Federal By-election - Nov 26 (UPDATE - Crockatt wins for CPC)

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It seems to me that the biggest reason Canada weathered the financial crisis is that there was a well established regulatory framework that was already in place for the banking sector.

We also had the opportunity to pivot a bit on the regulatory side after the asset backed commercial paper freeze in '07 that got some people paying attention pretty quickly.

[MarchHare]

Also, those figures are not adjusted for inflation and population growth. When you include those factors, Reagan and Bush look even worse (Reagan especially).

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You may want to check your sources on that.

The US debt grew by 188.6% under Reagan and 89% under Bush, a per-term average of 94.3% and 44.5%, respectively. In Obama's first term, the debt grew by 41.4%, slightly lower than GWB's per-term average and less than half of Reagan's per-term average. Most of the debt growth attributed to Obama occurred in the first two years of his term. In 2012, the debt growth has slowed to a rate of 4.8% per year. It's an almost certainty that American debt growth will continue to slow over the course of Obama's second term as the US emerges from the recession into a recovery period.

Source: http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

[Edit]
Also, the rate of debt growth has slowed during all four years Obama has been in office.

2008 (last Bush year): 15.9%
2009: 15.1%
2010: 13.9%
2011: 7.8%
2012: 4.8%

I'm really not interested in rates of growth or growth percentages, because when Obama is dealing in such huge numbers it doesn't make sense.

Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009 and the debt was 10.6 trillion. Today it stands at 16.3 trillion. That's borrowing almost 6 trillion dollars in one term, or an increase of over 50%.

That's the REAL numbers from US treasury website, you can verify for yourself there.

http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

(GW Bushs tenure the entire debt rose 4.9 trillion...over 8 years, reagan 1.7)

[MarchHare]

I'm really not interested in rates of growth or growth percentages

Then you lack the necessary knowledge to participate in an intelligent conversation about economics.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm really not interested in rates of growth or growth percentages, because they don't support my position.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Then you lack the necessary knowledge to participate in an intelligent conversation about economics.

Wow, that's an intelligent way to respond. Keep it classy hare.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

They do, just not interested in discussing rates that take the context away from the massive borrowing Obama does.

[crazy_eoj]

Here's an important rate, if you want to discuss them. Debt as a % of GDP. Not comparing year to past year or % change in growth... just real numbers.




As you can clearly see, Obama's borrowing against the GDP has taken the US to a level not seen since WW2.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009 and the debt was 10.6 trillion. Today it stands at 16.3 trillion. That's borrowing almost 6 trillion dollars in one term, or an increase of over 50%.

This is nonsense. Bush created a structural deficit in his first term by passing tax cuts that have carried through until now and as a result of two new wars. This is what is responsible for essentially all deficit spending under Bush and Obama. These are not new Obama programs, Obama did not stop all Bush spending and convert it to Obama spending the moment he took office. Immediate repeal of the tax cuts and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in February, 2008 would have led to significantly smaller deficits, but would have had other effects and the complaining about those would be louder. Gradually shrinking the deficit back towards balance is the only reasonable alternative, you can't do 1.4 billion in spending cuts in one fell swoop, particularly in the economic climate of 2008.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Wow, that's an intelligent way to respond. Keep it classy hare.

Not all opinions are equal. Uninformed/stupid ones deserve the treatment they get.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I thought we had a thread for US Political Discussion...

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Not all opinions are equal. Uninformed/stupid ones deserve the treatment they get.

The only thing uninformed/stupid is your treatment of other posters. If only everyone could be as amazing as the mighty Tinordi eh?

Well sorry to break it to you bud, but you're just not that special.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The only thing uninformed/stupid is your treatment of other posters.

So if I understand you correctly, your statement that you are uninterested in facts and consequent arguments which contradict your pet arguments is neither uninformed nor stupid? Maybe we can all just agree to call it "hilarious".

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Here's an important rate, if you want to discuss them. Debt as a % of GDP. Not comparing year to past year or % change in growth... just real numbers.




As you can clearly see, Obama's borrowing against the GDP has taken the US to a level not seen since WW2.

I don't think that graph helps your argument. It illustrates that Reagan and Bush II are the worst offenders.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by jammies

So if I understand you correctly, your statement that you are uninterested in facts and consequent arguments which contradict your pet arguments is neither uninformed nor stupid? Maybe we can all just agree to call it "hilarious".

I never said that at all. I said talking about certain rates (in this case percentage increases year over year or percentage changes to increases) doesn't make sense considering the huge numbers Obama has borrowed.

For example, if I increase 1 dollar 100% it's two dollars. If I increase that 100% again, its four dollars.

A 2% increase of a million is 20,000.

Arguing that the 2% growth is twice that of the first one on a percentage basis makes little sense.

Do you understand now?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It seems to me that the biggest reason Canada weathered the financial crisis is that there was a well established regulatory framework that was already in place for the banking sector.

I will give the Conservatives credit for leading us through this period in decent shape but I fail to see any master strokes they played - more like they didn't screw it up (which is a creditable accomplishment compared to other countries)

Actually you should not give them much credit. Infact if left to their own devices the Conservatives probably would have done things that would have hurt much more than help:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/29/s...7oXXHY.twitter

As for fiscal policy, perhaps the biggest “what if?” of the crisis was: “what if the Conservatives had not cut the per-vote political party subsidy in the November 28 2008 fiscal update?” This cut was not part of the Conservative platform, and it led to the prorogation crisis. But what if the CPC had left the vote subsidy alone? The Conservatives’ initial reaction to the crisis was to impose austerity in order to avoid running a deficit—see Table 2.2 here. Not running a deficit under any circumstances was the position that the Conservatives had run on in the 2008 election, and the other parties had made similar promises. If it weren’t for the vote-subsidy measure, it seems to me that the opposition would have most likely let these measures pass.

If the government had imposed austerity, it may still be the case that the Bank of Canada could have and would have implemented measures that offset a contractionary fiscal policy during a recession and when interest rates are at zero — the debate over whether that would have worked is ongoing and lively. And it would have been risky to entrust policy to what is still an untested conjecture.

Happily, that conjecture was never put to the test. The March 2009 budget went the other way, applying the textbook treatment: an explicitly temporary increase in spending, one that was phased out when output and employment had recovered their pre-recession levels. The jury is still out as to the effectiveness of the stimulus program (the recession ended before the spending actually got underway), but it was definitely a good idea at the time. It’s extremely unlikely that the stimulus program actually made the recession worse.

So how much credit do the Conservatives deserve for steering us through the financial crisis? Stephen Gordon, economist at Laval has this to offer:

The Canadian recovery was due to three main factors:

A sharp depreciation of the Canadian dollar, which helped boost exports.
A quick recovery in commodity prices, driven by continuing demand from Asia.
A housing sector that still had room to grow and consumers whose personal finances allowed them to take on debt.
These were things that countries like the U.S. and the U.K. didn’t have.

Looking back on all this, you see a lot of things that had nothing to do with who was actually in charge. Neither Harper nor Carney can take credit for Canada’s strengths going into the crisis, and they can’t be blamed for the financial meltdown that caused the crisis. So upon what basis can we allot credit for their performances?

Gordon is about as conservative as they get for real Canadian economists BTW.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Actually you should not give them much credit. Infact if left to their own devices the Conservatives probably would have done things that would have hurt much more than help:

Interesting that Brown contradicts himself in saying that "they jury is out" regarding effectiveness of the stimulus spending but still argues "it was the right thing to do."

Further, he also states that "If the government had imposed austerity, it may still be the case that the Bank of Canada could have and would have implemented measures that offset a contractionary fiscal policy" realizing that his point is based on assumptions and even further acknowledges that he isn't certain that would even have a negative outcome, saying "the debate over whether that would have worked is ongoing and lively."

So, to summarize, there isn't any clear evidence the stimulus worked. And there is plenty of debate as to whether the original budget could have yielded positive results as well.

Would have been nice to see the actual result.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So, to summarize, there isn't any clear evidence the stimulus worked. And there is plenty of debate as to whether the original budget could have yielded positive results as well.

Well, if the Conservative messaging is to be believed, Canada is doing awesome thanks to the Economic Action Plan. Problem is, their economic plan was inaction.

Maybe we didn't need stimulus, but if that's true, then their messaging isn't. Either way, they're taking credit for something that they were forced into doing against their own desires.

All of this kind of ruins the narrative that only the Conservatives can be trusted at the reigns of the economy (a narrative frequently recited by Crockatt).

[jammies]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I never said that at all. I said talking about certain rates (in this case percentage increases year over year or percentage changes to increases) doesn't make sense considering the huge numbers Obama has borrowed.

For example, if I increase 1 dollar 100% it's two dollars. If I increase that 100% again, its four dollars.

A 2% increase of a million is 20,000.

Arguing that the 2% growth is twice that of the first one on a percentage basis makes little sense.

Do you understand now?

I understand perfectly well, and your choice of example shows that you don't understand at all. A more pertinent example would be to compare Union Ed, who makes $40 000 a year, and Corporate Ted, who makes $200 000. Union Ed buys a house for $400 000, or 1000% of his income, and Corporate Ted buys a house for $500 000, which is 250% of his income, yet in crazy_eoj's world, Corporate Ted owes more in real dollars so he is in worse debt than Union Ed. In other words, technically correct but completely irrelevant, because percentages are important as well as real dollars when you are comparing amounts of money owed, no matter how large.

Obama's deficit includes large amounts of debt servicing on the debt left him by Bush, Clinton and the rest. Further, the recession severely limited revenue, so the squeeze was on from both ends. And even further, he represents the Executive and not the Legislative, so he has limited control over the budget. In that context, the percentage of increased debt due to structural deficits is far more important than the dollar amount, because it shows a trend towards more fiscal responsibility, albeit not a sufficiency of it. In conclusion, you are wrong and fixated on simple math which shows you haven't even a superficial knowledge of what you are talking about.

[Makarov]

Some more news to make the residents of Calgary Centre proud to be represented by a CPC Member of Parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5811986/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5832220/