If Canadians Can See It, Why Can’t Our Government?

by lewwaters

Canadian M.P. Pierre Poilievre lays out precisely what led to and keeps America rushing over the cliff.

Why isn’t any of our elected officials screaming this from the roof tops?

Scariest is seeing that the interest paid on our debt will soon be funding 100% of China’s Military and other countries as well.

16 Comments to “If Canadians Can See It, Why Can’t Our Government?”

  1. Nice work finding this Lew. As to your question, many of our elected officials know this quite well, they are almost uniformly too scared of the blow-back to speak up. As one of my co-workers from years ago used to say about Hollywood’s music-industry executives, “These guys wouldn’t say s#!7 if they had a mouthful.”

    I am increasing concerned that the problem of a completely out-of-control federal government can’t be fixed without radical changes taking place, for example an (I hope peaceful) secession by a number of the states, accompanied by a very dramatic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. Perhaps we could even go back to observing the constitutional limits envisioned by the founders.

    Like

  2. Those constitutional limits served us very well for some 200 years.

    It’s when we abandoned them, or should I say the government abandoned them that things began going awry.

    Like

  3. Guys, are we back to a total misunderstanding of accounting and economics again? If Government votes for spending then taxes MUST be raised to support the spending otherwise there’s a deficit and eventually hyperinflation. The problem is NOT SPENDING – THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL, it’s that taxes are not raised to cover the spending. RAISE TAXES, HYPERINFLATION, or DON’T VOTE FOR SPENDING – those are the ONLY 3 OPTIONS! Once the spending is voted for then TAXES MUST BE RAISED!

    Bitch, bitch, bitch but never face the truth.

    Like

  4. Poppycock, Martin. In theory, yes government voting to spend requires a raise in taxes, but endless spending raises taxes to the point the people have nothing left to tax. Why do you think we label it “unsustainable?”

    How much tax is enough, Martin? And what will government do with those taxes?

    Spend it, some to give back to those they took from which always kills productivity and stifles incentive, workers seeing that they receive no more than the lazy who contribute nothing.

    That is why Marxism, Socialism or what have you always fails, they destroy the very thing they depend on to fund their generous giveaways.

    Maybe your fancy education prevents you from seeing the forest because of the trees.

    Like

  5. Here is some truth Martin. Some spending is necessary period. Those things are covered by the founding fathers when they say the federal government shall protect the people. Other spending has been on someone’s wish list. That spending needs to be seriously pared or shutoff. Taxes do need to cover the amount spent in order to achieve a nondeficit spending level however people do need to be able to cover their own household needs. When Rick lost his job due to the company moving the plant to South Carolina spending stopped in our family. Not all spending, just the wish list spending. No more highlights for the hair, no more manicures, no more weekly dinner out dates, no more annual vacations to someplace far away. That is how we made it without food stamps and government help. We had saved for a rainy day and the storm came and the arc had been built and stocked so we could be okay.
    He started work again today after three years. Last night we cried together tears of joy that we had been tough and made it through another round of tight times in our married lives together. We’ll do what we did before and still stay frugal while we restock savings accounts that were drained but in a couple of years maybe we will take that trip to the south coast of italy and celebrate the success of breathing and living under a more relaxed and less financially stressed era again.
    Our country needs to do that Martin. Cut the extra spending. Pay down the debt. Leave the people with enough money to build their own arc and stock it so that “we the people” or in otherwords the government doesn’t have to be a nanny to us all.

    Like

  6. The bottom line on spending is that IT WAS VOTED ON! Done deal. No excuses accepted. Let me reitterate – if TAXES do not equal spending then HYPERINFLATION is the result. All the talking in the world cannot change math.

    Like

  7. Did I ever say don’t meet the obligations you already made? No I did not. However there are many obligations we made by vote yesterday that can easily be stopped today. Scale down the EPA for instance. Quit making future committments to foreign nations. Drop out of the United nations which we are the largest funder of. Stop funding planned parenthood. Stop spending money on grants programs that have not already be committed to. End the federal department of education. I am sure each and every one of us can name at least two ways to save money… oh, I know, how about we stop the earned income tax credit which pays thousand of dollars out in tax refunds to people who paid almost nothing in and audits have proven it to be 93% fraudulent payment claims! These things will not cure our ails over night but in a much more rapid pace and reverse the track we are on where the tax payer has hit a cap and has no more to give to the government so that they can spend it and give it away to some one else. To suggest “we promised to go over the cliff and so therefore you are just going to keep on this path” is flat out insane.

    Like

  8. Carolyn, I appreciate your specificity. Frankly, it is VERY DIFFICULT to have a debate because no one on this forum understands economics. Keynesianism does not care what money is spent on as long as there is more production than consumption, and balanced trade. I could discuss the political aspects of your ideas, but economically they make no difference.

    Like

  9. Keynesian economics is a failure from it founding idea. Ask an accountant who studied all the options for econoimcs like my son and have your debate with him. I warn you in all fairness he will eat you for lunch which was the pride and joy of his dean at school who had actually argued that to no avail with him in full debate during a term. Meeting the professor he told me that my son might very well be the brightest star in economics accounting he had ever had the pleasure to teach since he forced an educated exampled debate. The bottom line is the debt we pay cannot be higher than the gdp we produce period. Since it is then the only option is to raise the options for the gdp to grow which will be most easily done if we remove ourselves from the stranglehold of the U,N. and the EPA. As we correct the direction we can for absolute, on a clearly defined path, stop the obligations of future spending until we are securely placing one foot in front of the other.

    Like

  10. Martin, how you claim we don’t understand economics when it is you who falls back on “it was voted on, it’s legal” as your support, even though the reality is there is not enough wealth to confiscate to cover that voted in spending is beyond me.

    I have to assume you are looking at it through the glasses of an attorney instead the eyes of a taxpayer who is tapped out and has little left to give.

    Voted on or not, the reality is they are spending much more than it is possible to collect from the people, hence they borrow and have the nation owing $16.4 Trillion.

    If you cannot see the dangers of our interest payments will soon be funding the Military’s of countries like China 100%, your grasp on reality become questionable.

    What matters is not so much what it is spent on, but that we cannot produce enough revenue to cover the spending.

    Like

  11. Carolyn, I’m also a CPA & economist. My email is martin@hash.com & my forum is martinhash.com/forums – have your son contact me. I would enjoy talking with him – it’s rare that I find a Republican CPA that will debate.

    Lew: talk, talk, talk, excuse, excuse, whine, whine… Math wins in the end. Hyperinflation is coming…

    Like

  12. I will do that maybe you two can find a real solution in the form of where to cut and whereto raise that will improve our gdp and reduce our deficit spending problem lowering in the long run our debt and interest payments in the future. Ah! Saving the country! My hero… all I ever wanted.

    Like

  13. Yes Martin, math does win.

    And the math is, you cannot continue to spend more than you make and stay solvent.

    Simple math.

    Like

  14. Yes, the math is easy, Lew. I want a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    Like

  15. I would love to see you get the Senate to pass a budget let alone a balanced one!

    Like

  16. A balanced budget amendment to the US and Washington state constitutions… hmm… I see a possibility…

    Like

%d bloggers like this: