Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
- i am inclined to believe that you don't know, and i'm not going to look it up for you
I really have no idea what the Canadian tax rates encompass. Being as you are the expert of Canada, maybe you can fill us all in:thumbsup: You can start with net budget outlays.

- according to the federal reserve, canadians have had a higher personal saving rate than americans for decades...that adds up:
FRBSF: Economic Letter - What's Behind the Low Personal Saving Rate? (03/29/2002)
Old data, on top of that you are attempting to skew statistics. Maybe it is because you do not know any better. Tell me, does your "source" account the massive annuities/401k/mma that Americans are heavily invested into? Of course not because the US BEA excludes investment accounts. Investment accounts make up the majority of US savings.

- free ride? HA! canada was fighting in WWII for two years before uncle sam developed a spine...canada fought in the korean war...despite it's tiny military, canada has provided a lot more peacekeeping man-hours for united nations missions than the usa but you don't hear anyone accusing the usa of getting a free ride on canada's peacekeeping coat tails...on a per capita basis, more than twice as many canadian troops have died in afghanistan than US troops have died in iraq...we're not getting a "free ride", especially when you take into consideration that we're not constantly making enemies by smashing defenseless countries against the wall to show the rest of the world we mean business (that is not a worthwhile military expenditure)...canada did not request nor need the usa to protect it from vietnam, cambodia, laos, nicaragua, panama, grenada, haiti, cuba, guatemala, libya, and iraq
You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense. My original statement was based on a production possibility frontier, and nothing else.

it also helps that we don't spend $621 billion on the military, and $451 billion on interest on the national debt, and $400 million on a presidential election campaign...we pay higher taxes, but we don't pay anything for health care....i am inclined to believe that if you added in the per capita cost of US heath insurance to US per capita taxes, canadians would come out ahead
No, instead you "free ride" on the coat tails of the American armed forces. Besides, your reply is a logical fallacy, more specifically a red herring. You bring up a trying subject in regards to US health care. That is because you are in essence, trying to compare an apple to a t-bone steak. Yes they are both health care systems, but given the immense complications in regards to governmental intervention in our health care system, and the priorities of certain individuals, your comparison must encompass much more than per capita analysis.

ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living
Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before.

That is not the point. You obviously need to touch up on infrastructure funding methods in the US. The highway system was created in the US as logistics terminal for potential invasion. Our highway system is quite genius really, and it is completely funded through fuel taxes.

In a neo-liberal/socialist sense, what you are saying would be true. But the fact of the matter is governmental failure is far more prevalent than market failure. An example would be your health care system, where waiting lists and casualties resulting form them increase as the years pass.

Question for you. Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary? I believe it has not, as we were able to pump the entire GDP of Canada into our economy as a "primer" in the span of 1 year. That really says something of the power and magnitude of the United States.


fair enough...go back to dec 31 2007 when the national debt was $9.2 trillion and the GDP was $13.8 trillion to get a 67% debt to GDP ratio....the national debt has increased by $1 trillion since then, but the GDP certainly has not, so the debt to GDP ratio is going to shoot up in 2008
Most likely it will. You have failed to prove or show that a high US deficit will lower our standard of living. At best, you might be able to correlate a currency debasement, yet such instances are cyclical as capital flows in and out based on supply and demand.

The bottom line: If the US suffers, everyone else will suffer even more.