Socialist Canadian's Post Buget Surplus (unemployment, Congress, independent, downturn)

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Do you even read CAREFULLY what you post about?

"Canada has benefited from a global commodities boom that allowed governments to reduce the national debt by almost C$100 billion since 1997 even as spending rose."

Without that boom, they would have huge deficits... reality is coming and it ain't pretty...

Evilnewbie, i pointed out the how/why is up for you all to debate, but fact of the matter is this country has public health care for all and has run a budget surplus for 10 years (ITS A FACT)....How it was done is irrelevant to me, but the point is it was done.

Now, if you prefer to answer my question with ("Will someone please explain this socialist anomaly?")

* Canada has experienced a global commodities boom (sure I'll accept it), but again my OP asked why/how (I'm just adding other debate)

I'll accept a point for you because that actually answers my original question

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Again i got a promotion of Friday and i shaved my beard the same morning, therefore if i shave my beard i will get another promotion?

COME ON SERIOUSLY!

That would make much more sense then trying to pretend that Canadian surplus has anything to do with health care..

Of course you want to ignore the fact that Canada has no where near the amount of government, military, welfare programs etc that we have, and they also have higher taxes.

You also want to ignore that Canada ran deficits for nearly 30 years, Canada Presents Balanced Budget, the First in Almost 30 Years - The New York Times

And ignore the fact that Canada actually runs deficits now Canada sees higher deficits, balanced budget delay

You also want to ignore that the WHOLE Canadian budget is 1/4th what we want to spend on health care ALONE.. The current plan, $1T on health care, while Canadian budget is $241.9B...

I'll make you a deal, put american government on the Canadian budget, and I'll see you Health Care.. When we manage to cut our government to 1/10th its current size, i.e. the same size as the Canada government, I'll be willing to budge on "socialism"..

[plannine]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

There fiscal policies are conservative especially when compared to the Democratic party and this thread is about? Don't let your bias against Conservatives show. This thread is about Conservative fiscal policies in government and not Social programs. Think deficit spending!

The are fiscally conservative compared to republicans too, and they don't constantly give tax breaks to the rich, but they also don't micro manage from ottawa, they pass off just about everything to the provinces, and let them handle things (for better or worst).

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by pghquest

That would make much more sense then trying to pretend that Canadian surplus has anything to do with health care..

Of course you want to ignore the fact that Canada has no where near the amount of government, military, welfare programs etc that we have, and they also have higher taxes.

You also want to ignore that Canada ran deficits for nearly 30 years, Canada Presents Balanced Budget, the First in Almost 30 Years - The New York Times

And ignore the fact that Canada actually runs deficits now Canada sees higher deficits, balanced budget delay

Again you're pointing out things I've added to the debate that are irrelevant to my original question. A Canadian Company Makes the black-berry, therefore Canada runs a budget surplus....This is as relevant to my original question as me pointing out they also have public health-care.

Public Health-Care has nothing to do with why they run a budget surplus, but it is a fact they have public health-care, just like it is a fact, a Canadian company called research in motion makes the black-berry. Big freaking deal right? Neither of these two facts leads to a budget surplus

So answer the original question, Will someone please explain this socialist anomaly?

(Having a conservative government is irrelevant)

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Again you're pointing out things I've added to the debate that are irrelevant to my original question. A Canadian Company Makes the black-berry, therefore Canada runs a budget surplus....This is as relevenat to my original question as me pointing out they also have public health-care.

Public Health-Care has nothing to do with why they run a budget surplus, but it is a fact, that they have public health-care, just like it is a fact, a Canadian company called research in motion makes the black-berry. Big deal right?

So answer the original question, Will someone please explain this socialist anomaly?

Dorock99,

I understand what you are saying. The point is that having a universal health care program is not incompatible with fiscal responsibility.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Again you're pointing out things I've added to the debate that are irrelevant to my original question. A Canadian Company Makes the black-berry, therefore Canada runs a budget surplus....This is as relevenat to my original question as me pointing out they also have public health-care.

Public Health-Care has nothing to do with why they run a budget surplus, but it is a fact, that they have public health-care, just like it is a fact, a Canadian company called research in motion makes the black-berry. Big deal right?

So answer the original question, Will someone please explain this socialist anomaly?

Wrong, I'm pointing out how pathetic the argument is, and your response, is to take it to obserd land..

If their public run health care has nothing to do with their surplus, (which actually isnt a surplus, its a deficit), then why are you trying to link one with the other?

Explain what anomaly? That again Canada has a surplus and still maintains health care? Wait, no, we cant link the two, you said.. what again do you want people to explain?

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

dorock99,

i understand what you are saying. The point is that having a universal health care program is not incompatible with fiscal responsibility.

thank you! Nor does it ultimately lead to socialism, but i'm still waiting on hearing other responses has to how they are able to do it...etc

[meson]

I wish Harper would use some of his surplus to fix the damn roads in the area I live, potholes big enough to drive a Mini into!

[Gary Siete]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

The point of your post was that Canada has a Socialist Government and my point with links is that is dead wrong.

Don't go by labels. They are called Conservatives but are more left wing than Obama. From a US perspective there is actually little difference between Liberal and Conservative policies in Canada. The Conservatives won a minority government in 2006 after 13 years of Liberal rule. It was the Liberals who brought down the deficit.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by dorock99

But Canada has Universal Health-Care and according to many CD posters, that ultimately leads to Socialism, you disagree?

Egads my friend, don't let posters in this forum be the basis for your intellectual understanding of issus. There is a difference between social and fiscal political beliefs. I am a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. My position on health care reform is driven not just by the social benefits of universal health care ( very dubious at best) but also my concerns about a deficit that is out of control. That is the problem Obama has. He had many supporters who were socially middle of the road or to the left but our fiscal beliefes were center right. Enter Nancy Pelosi and the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party and you witnessed his vulnerability. He has perhaps proven John McCain right when he said he has never stood up against his party and won't even at this critical time in the health care debate. Now is not the time for National Health care and I say that not for social reasons but for fiscal and supply demand reasons.