# Nice Budget Surplus - $13.8 Billion



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Conservatives have just posted the largest or one of the largest surplus budgets in history. They are going to put all of the money against debt reduction and will continue to improve upon our Debt to GDP ratio. :clap: 

The savings on debt payments will be used to reduce taxes. :clap: 

This seems like a smart and prudent way of moving forward and managing our finances.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I'm hoping this will happen for sure. I could do well saving $30+ a pay check in taxes. (If I'm reading that correctly.)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives have just posted the largest or one of the largest surplus budgets in history. They are going to put all of the money against debt reduction and will continue to improve upon our Debt to GDP ratio. :clap:
> 
> The savings on debt payments will be used to reduce taxes. :clap:
> 
> This seems like a smart and prudent way of moving forward and managing our finances.


I say raise taxes and issue bonds to "buy" our debt back when our dollar is in such strong position. The strong dollar is probably the bases of our surplus presently.

If we own our debt when the dollar tanks we'll be better fiscal shape.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Big DL: by issuing bonds, who do you think you'd be buying your debt from--and at what terms? Why would anyone let youy buy out their bonds at terms more favourable to you than to them?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BigDL said:


> I say raise taxes and issue bonds to "buy" our debt back when our dollar is in such strong position. The strong dollar is probably the bases of our surplus presently.
> 
> If we own our debt when the dollar tanks we'll be better fiscal shape.


Our budget surplus has very little to do with the strong dollar. We have been running a surplus for quite a number of years now. If anything it would be the other way around (i.e. low debt to GDP increases confidence in our economy which influences a higher dollar).

Debt repayments are made in Canadian dollars, not foreign dollars. Thus, this has nothing to do with putting us in better fiscal shape should the dollar drop.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> They are going to put all of the money against debt reduction and will continue to improve upon our Debt to GDP ratio


Yes, that's what they will do - because that is the law.

I am disappointed that they did not follow through on their election promise of handling budget surpluses more effectively. They offered bitter criticism of the Libs when the surplus would come in beyond posted expectations. The promise was to make more effective predictions and keep Canadians posted.

Today's news was simply a rerun of past events. So much for Canada's New Government.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny how soon VD and co forget Harper and Co ranting about Martin's surpluses and vowing to never have that happen on THEIR watch.

Now about the infrastructure in Toronto.... 

I'd love to the see the leeches in Ottawa suffer turnabout and have to go the regions for funding.

Not enough for national early child education, not enough to settle the First Nation agreement that every single province ratified . not enough to reverse the downloading to muncipalities.....

What a bunch of asses, Con party and their supporters.....meanwhile they let Alberta **** upriver to the planet.

Disgusting mindset.....time for a change.










...bout right.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> Debt repayments are made in Canadian dollars, not foreign dollars. Thus, this has nothing to do with putting us in better fiscal shape should the dollar drop.


 Repayment is paid with Canadian Dollars however if the debt is held in a foreign currency and if the value of the Canadian dollar is low then it takes more Canadian Dollars to meet our obligations. If we buy our foreign currency debt and own it in Canadian dollars then value of the dollar becomes meaningless to value of the debt.

Here's one Canadian's view Remarks - 15 May 2007- 2007- Speeches- Publications and Research- Bank of Canada



Remarks by David Dodge
Governor of the Bank of Canada
to the Government Borrowers Forum
Montréal said:


> ...Ladies and gentlemen, I have spoken about how local-currency bond and money markets can help an economy, by giving the authorities incentives to follow good macroeconomic policies, and by supporting financial and economic efficiency. And, I've talked about how such markets can help in the development of a sound domestic financial system. This, in turn, can promote financial stability, both within a country and more broadly, in the global financial system. At the start of a conference like this, I thought it important to use my time to remind ourselves of why it is we need strong, local-currency bond and money markets. Speaking generally, the steps that Canada took in the past to develop its local-currency bond and money markets may be applicable to today's world, and to the various emerging market economies that are now trying to find their own path. But what is certain is that the original principles that guided us in creating those markets – liquidity, transparency, regularity, and integrity – are as valid today as they were 50 years ago.





> Big DL: by issuing bonds, who do you think you'd be buying your debt from--and at what terms? Why would anyone let youy buy out their bonds at terms more favourable to you than to them?


 When our dollar is strong the terms may not that unfavourable to either party.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Provinces do not have to beg for money from Ottawa, they have almost equal, and in many ways better, taxation rights. They choose to beg because it's politically easier than raising taxes and parochial voters lap it up. If they're lucky, their politicians will pat them on the head for it.

When you strip away the fake, "hat in hand" argument that the provinces try to convince their voters of, you are left with equalisation and pseudo-equalisation schemes (EI is an example). Would you prefer that it be higher, lower, same but distributed differently or about the same as now?

You also have the general rural-to-urban transfer that goes on with progressive income tax systems and the expense of providing rural services. Of course, some rural regions have great resources that urbanites suck back at discount prices...they may be angry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DL: In most cases, one has to pay a large premium to retire long-term debt prematurely.

MacDoc: I like to see Toronto begging instead. The balance is just fine. They just don't know how to spend money wisely.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If a high dollar is an inherent good in and of itself then we could just rebase our dollar to equal 10 euros and call it the Super-Loonie.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Funny how soon VD and co forget Harper and Co ranting about Martin's surpluses and vowing to never have that happen on THEIR watch.
> 
> Now about the infrastructure in Toronto....
> 
> ...



I actually heard on the radio that the #1 GHG polluting problem comes from Manufacturing.....whats the #1 manufacturing province in Canada? HMM Ontario...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. Nor do they know how to tax wisely. But perhaps most ominous of all, our province lacks leaders with vision. That is Toronto's problems in a nutshell - chickens!!!t pols who can't see beyond the next election and can't think big. Our planning has so long been in the toilet we practically consider the stink normal.

Mind you, the same traps can befall the rapidly expanding cities of the West. Alas, since their infrastructures tend to be much younger and therefore more robust, they have a longer grace period before things begin to fall apart in earnest. We in the GTA have no such margin.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I'm happy to hear this money is going to pay down our massive debt. North America's economy is on the brink with our culture of borrowing and debt. I personally know too many people that are a layoff or a sick spouse away from loosing everything because they live beyond their means. The money they do make barely pays the interest on the debt load. 
I think a country is no different. How many more doctors could we have rather than pay these massive interest payments on an ever increasing debt load? I applaud the Conservatives for this as I applauded the Liberals before them that also contributed to debt reduction in our times of plenty. I also applaud some tax relief. :clap: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never voted Liberal but was always glad to see Martin pay down the debt as Finance Minister. There's nothing worth bragging about when a government consistently brings in far too much money--unless this occurs while taxes are being cut as well.

On the municipal level, MacDoc always touts cities like Paris as having a superior system because of its ability to rake over citizens' pockets with greater efficiency than Toronto might. The result, however, is that Paris is practically bankrupt--as is the country that granted it those powers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives have just posted the largest or one of the largest surplus budgets in history. They are going to put all of the money against debt reduction and will continue to improve upon our Debt to GDP ratio. :clap:
> 
> The savings on debt payments will be used to reduce taxes. :clap:
> 
> This seems like a smart and prudent way of moving forward and managing our finances.


Like MacDoc said, little Stevie used to have big fits at the Martin surpluses... Now we are huge ones are you are applauding? 

This is always neat:


> Tories backtrack on child-care promise
> 
> A much-touted promise by the federal Conservatives to create 125,000 new child-care spaces may not be doable, suggests Social Development Minister Monte Solberg.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/260911

Now, even the Connie plan states that they would establish some kind of neutral authority to forecast surpluses and deal with them
http://www.conservative.ca/media/20060113-Platform.pdf
Guess promises are something that mean nothing to some...

Oddly the right leaning Financial Post's Diane Francis has savaged Flaherty...


> The guy's a chippy lawyer and a political election defeat waiting to happen for whatever government puts him in its cabinet. He is way over his head in Finance and doesn't understand business, stock markets or capital markets. He was picked because he had been Treasurer of Ontario but that's not a policy job, it's the manager of accounts payable and receivable.
> 
> He's a disaster for the Stephen Harper government and should be replaced by David Emerson, the only business-savvy member of the Tory cabinet.
> 
> ...


http://communities.canada.com/finan...07/09/27/energy-income-trusts-to-the-u-s.aspx


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm grateful for the lack of a child care program.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm grateful for the lack of a child care program.


While that is fine, those "free market" forces that Harper loves have not created the spaces that he promised would be forthcoming...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> While that is fine, those "free market" forces that Harper loves have not created the spaces that he promised would be forthcoming...


Why should a libertarian l;ke yourself want the free market to do anything?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> While that is fine, those "free market" forces that Harper loves have not created the spaces that he promised would be forthcoming...


I'm spending my share on beer and popcorn.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why should a libertarian l;ke yourself want the free market to do anything?


Close -- just pointing out that Harper's view of economics did not work... (yet again).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, I think you are referring more to stated spin not working out than anything else. Not that the available data is conclusive at this point for either side.

There is a difference. If you want to get into a, "Fair and Balanced" evaluation of how various politician's spin does not work out then we have a long research project ahead of us. Second, the analysis is not complete on the, "Harper" plan and, thanks to statistical uncertainty, will likely favour both sides. 

Rejoice, lefties and righties! This topic is not about proof with data but about personal preference. Attempts to prove this topic by data will result in both sides being right and wrong -- the typical result when the metric is not agreed upon and/or myopic. Lovely.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

No one has commented on the fact that for the first three months of the current fiscal year, the government has run a surplus of $6 billion, almost half of the jus announced surplus for last year.

If that rate continues, Harper and Flaherty will have sucked $24 billion unnecessarily out of the economy by the end of the fiscal year, hardly the prudent management they promised.

Now with an election seemingly just around the corner, Harper has plenty of room to make tax cuts, including that feeble one per cent cut to the GST Flaherty once said he didn't have financial room to make.

But I'm more interested in what spending initiatives will occur. With an enormous surplus and an election, just watch them act like Liberals.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Now with an election seemingly just around the corner, Harper has plenty of room to make tax cuts, including that feeble one per cent cut to the GST Flaherty once said he didn't have financial room to make.


that 1% GST cut (to be announced during the election campaign) will make people forget about income trusts and lack of child care and dead soldiers coming back from Afghanistan


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that 1% GST cut (to be announced during the election campaign) will make people forget about income trusts and lack of child care and dead soldiers coming back from Afghanistan


Keep repeating that old saw and people will forget about you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: As someone who thinks Dion is underestimated, I do worry that well known corrupt liberal-friendly consultants will drag down the Natural Governing Party. It happened once before.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that 1% GST cut (to be announced during the election campaign) will make people forget about income trusts and lack of child care and dead soldiers coming back from Afghanistan


Well, it seem you forgot about those hospital "wait-time" promises...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You gotta just love the inept level of political whining in this thread.

A bunch of back-seat politicians crying about tax cuts, lack of tax cuts, no child care, too much child care, war, Afghanistan, and more...

Paying down the debt = good (if you say otherwise, you just don't know what you are talking about)

Reducing taxes = meh. Good for the pocket book. Not good for delivering government services


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paying down the debt does reduce taxes, but as has been stated many times here, most debt can not be retired early without a penalty.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> You gotta just love the inept level of political whining in this thread.


Speak for yourself....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> You gotta just love the inept level of political whining in this thread.
> 
> A bunch of back-seat politicians crying about tax cuts, lack of tax cuts, no child care, too much child care, war, Afghanistan, and more...
> 
> ...


the role of gov't is not just to balance the books, but to provide services for the people

daycare, healthcare, social services, jobs are all very important
money spent on social programs defers crime
and crime is very expensive on society


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's very simplistic Spec. Looks like you see the government as Big Daddy, so your opinion isn't surprising.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> That's very simplistic Spec. Looks like you see the government as Big Daddy, so your opinion isn't surprising.


you got a better way to pay for health care?
HMOs are working out just great aren't they? as long as you are a shareholder

how's that war in Afghanistan coming along, eh?
Harpo can find money for war but not for day care
explains his priorities


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Oh, Macfury, I think thou doth protest to much.



MacSpectrum said:


> the role of gov't is not just to balance the books, but to provide services for the people


Ummm...care to explain how the government is supposed to deliver services when they have no money?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the role of government is to trick people by stealing their own money, then giving them a small portion back, so that they think they're getting something for nothing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Oh, Macfury, I think thou doth protest to much.
> 
> 
> Ummm...care to explain how the government is supposed to deliver services when they have no money?


the gov't does have money
i wonder how much the war in afghanistan is costing the taxpayers?
surprising that money can be found for war, but not for the promised child care seats


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> That's very simplistic Spec. Looks like you see the government as Big Daddy, so your opinion isn't surprising.


And that's offensive MF.

While I don't want bigger gov, I wonder why you always seem to come off as a corporatist. So is the gov there to enrich companies?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the gov't does have money
> i wonder how much the war in afghanistan is costing the taxpayers?
> surprising that money can be found for war, but not for the promised child care seats


It's to help the corporations don't you know....


Of course the little help that does get to Afghanistan people is now being used a bribe - nice going puppet masters...
globeandmail.com: Canada defends policy on Afghan clans


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Getting this thread back on topic...

In a perfect work, I'd like to see income tax eliminated altogether. It's regressive and prone to all kinds of re-interpretation in determining what you really owe on an annual basis. Consumption tax is a much more progressive and fairer way of ensuring that everyone contributes their fair share, but is nearly impossible to sell politically.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Government posts second large surplus in two days*

Government posts second large surplus in two days
Calls for tax cuts intensify as government posts second large surplus in two days
49 minutes ago

OTTAWA - Pressure is building on the Conservative government to announce substantive tax cuts as early as the October economic update after the finance department reported it was amassing another large surplus.

Fresh from closing the books on last year's massive $13.8 billion surplus - about four billion more than it had recently predicted - the department said Friday that already in the first four months of this year it was operating on a $7.8 billion surplus, about one billion more than last year's monster haul for the same period.

Despite announced spending increases in the March federal budget, fiscal analysts have been watching with mild surprise as the surplus built up in government coffers month by month since April.

The new surplus was accumulating even though program spending rose by $3.7 billion during the first third of the year on higher transfer payments and increased expenses for such things as the war in Afghanistan.

But budgetary revenues also rose significantly by $4.9 billion, spurred on by higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

And July saw another $1.4 billion added as money continued to flow into Ottawa faster than the government can spend it.

"Wow," reacted John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "This is feeling little like the atmosphere we had prior to the Liberals rolling out their five-year tax cut plan that began in 2000.

"The tax rage took on a life of its own and I sense across the country there are too many people sympathetic to the Conservative Party that are calling out for tax cuts for the government to ignore this much longer."

The Conservatives, who used to blast Liberals for lowball budgets they said amounted to over-taxation, now have the shoe on the other foot. After 18 months in power, Harper's government has presided over or partially presided over surpluses of $13.2 billion, $13.8 billion and what looks like a third consecutive double-digit billion dollar number in the making.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty could not be reached for comment Friday, but his spokesman said the minister has heard the message loud and clear.

"If the question is we have a big surplus and we should be cutting taxes, Mr. Flaherty totally agrees," said Dan Miles, the communications director. "The minister has said Canadians still pay too much tax and we're going to continue to reduce taxes in a responsible and meaningful way. As the minister said, 'Stay tuned.' "

The earliest opportunity to signal tax relief or new spending initiatives comes as early as the Oct. 16 Speech from the Throne, a general blueprint of future government intentions.

But Williamson said there is a history of introducing tax cuts at the midpoint of the fiscal year during the fall update, expected in late October. The federal government's 2007-2008 fiscal year ends next March 31.

"The pressure will grow if it looks like we're going to the polls this fall," he said. "The Conservatives are in position to actually pick up the Liberal playbook and cut taxes prior to an election campaign."

The government has no end of advice and demands on how to unburden itself of their now routine annual embarrassment of riches.

Business groups such as the Canadian manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce and chief executives have asked Flaherty to speed up corporate tax cuts, and the manufacturers are asking for specific help to modernize their factories.

NDP Leader Jack Layton this week questioned the wisdom of using the surplus to pay down the national debt, suggesting that the government's failure to adequately fund social programs and infrastructure while swimming in dough makes it less likely his party would prop up the minority government.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said the party's position on surpluses would be made clear when it releases its election platform, but noted that in the past Liberals have favoured a splitting the "surprise" windfalls between tax cuts, new spending and debt repayment.

"The lessons I draw from this is that there was certainly no need to raise the income tax rate and no need to cut the most vulnerable people, like women's groups, literacy programs and museums," he added. In the first Flaherty budget, the Conservatives reversed former Prime Minister Paul Martin's half-point reduction in the lowest income tax bracket in order to pay for a cut to the GST tax.

One fly in the ointment is that the Canadian economy has yet to feel the full brunt of a credit crisis, which first surfaced in August and could result in fewer revenues for the government. But few expect that a mild economic downturn will do more than slow down the flow of cash from taxpayers.

http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...WGhkTHirnyZiGQ


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> explains his priorities


Is that directed to me?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Is that directed to me?


I haven't decided yet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

(( p g )) said:


> Getting this thread back on topic...
> 
> In a perfect work, I'd like to see income tax eliminated altogether. It's regressive and prone to all kinds of re-interpretation in determining what you really owe on an annual basis. Consumption tax is a much more progressive and fairer way of ensuring that everyone contributes their fair share, but is nearly impossible to sell politically.


Income tax systems are generally more progressive than consumption taxes. Consumption taxes are more economically efficient and adjustments can be made to include progressivity but one of the fundamental criticisms leveled at consumption taxes is their lack of progressiveness.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like lack of progressiveness.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I haven't decided yet.


Given your experience, do you think that corrupt Liberal-friendly consultants that over-bill their clients play any role in ongoing Federal surpluses?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I like lack of progressiveness.


There is an interesting philosophical debate in there. If you are a Libertarian then, arguably, a head tax is the fairest (it also happens to be the most economically efficient). Each person, having the same individual rights, pays the same amount of taxes. A flat income or consumption tax is actually a compromise on this point.

The other extreme is 100% taxation with government distributing (and deciding) what you "need". 

Not surprisingly, current systems demonstrate an in-between mixture of options.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also oppose municipal taxes based on property size--except as it relates to the amount of road in front of the house. All other services that can be direct-billed should be direct-billed. Anything else can be flat.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I also oppose municipal taxes based on property size--except as it relates to the amount of road in front of the house. All other services that can be direct-billed should be direct-billed. Anything else can be flat.


I do not think that you should say things like that. Some here may argue that such comments are roughly the equivalent to the regular trolling and non sequiturs that may be submitted by corrupt Liberal-friendly consultants, or others.


On your item, in many cities detached housing is implicitly subsidized. I agree on the 'fee' approach (matching taxes to an estimate of costs) for base funding of municipal government if property taxes are to be used but the existing 'errors' quite often, on balance, favour houses over high-density dwellings. 

I would like a comprehensive review, including utility fees, and implementation of a cost-based balance in every major city to just even up things, much less actually tilt things to recognise climate change costs. However it seems that non-urban core voters are powerful. A possible example of majority power overriding a philosophically sound minority interest. In this case, the distinction is geographic. The majority right to access and pollute (air, noise, other?) a city's downtown free of charge. Heck, the downtown even subsidizes suburb infrastructure.

Stranger yet are satellite cities that get subsidized by the core city. I think TO has one or two of these growths; Edmonton did; others probably do as well. Time for toll gates?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I haven't decided yet.


HOW DARE YOU!


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

Can anyone tell me what proportion of our "National Debt" is internal (i.e. Canada Savings Bonds) vs external (i.e. "borrowed money").

Why does the government still issue bonds when the surplus is so high? Isn't that like using a one credit card to pay off another one?

I'm not an economics guy by any means so please no flaming, I'm just trying to understand what purpose CSB's serve.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MigS: One reason to issue bonds is to maintain a liquid (lots of churn) market. The government bond interest rate is a useful indicator for many things but I am far from sold that it is necessary.

However, regardless of that, the Federal government still has well over $400B in debt and revenues do not always match up nicely with spending needs so more borrowing may be needed. For example if, this year, $20B in bonds mature and, therefore, the bondholders get paid back, then some new bonds need to be issued to cover that. The net change may be a $13B surplus, but that does not always mean that some "new" borrowing was not needed. 

It may seem like more gibberish but in this link: The Fiscal Monitor - July 2007 look at Table 5.

On the other point, what do you mean by national and borrowed? One distinction is debt held by non-Canadians and non-Canadian companies. Another is debt that is not in Canadian dollars (government can issue bonds in other currencies, I believe).

I do not know the numbers offhand but am fairly certain that a large majority of Federal debt is held by Canadians and Canadian companies and that a very large majority of Federal debt is in Canadian currency.

Edit:

Identifies some foreign currency debt:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/invest_x/comp_e.asp

I did some more digging and it looks like, if I am interpreting the data correctly, "non-residents" hold about $100B of Federal debt, a little more than that in provincial debt and somewhat under $200B in Canadian corporate debt leaving the total at under $400B. That may sound large but keep in mind that our national net worth (net of Canadians' investments abroad) is over 4 trillion.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

As far as I understand (which isn't much apparently) national debt is essentially CSB's and other instruments (T-bills?) that have been purchased by Canadians and Canadian corporations, also foreign corps/citizens?

But I keep hearing about money "borrowed" from foreign lenders (other countries' central banks?) and the amount of interest that we owe on that money. 

So if the majority of the debt is owed to Canadians, aren't Candians who own CSB's and T-bills getting their money back? In other words, we could have a tax cut, or our CSB's could mature and we get the same result. Or am I simplifying it too much?

Thanks for the nice explanation, Beej!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would not blur bond holdings in such a way. Look at them simply as securities, just like shares in the Royal Bank (but less risky). People invest in them.

If you invest $100 in something, you expect a certain return regardless of any tax cuts. In addition, you get tax cuts whether or not you invested in that thing. The two are unrelated -- $1B in bond interest does not go to the same people in the same amounts as $1B in tax cuts. 

For example, people who have just retired tend to own more bonds but have lower income (and income taxes) than, say, the mid-40s set.

As for CSB's and other government bonds, Canada's governments have excellent credit ratings and are expected to pay the bonds back (as a result they also get primo cheap rates on borrowing), so it is not either or. As the bonds come due, they are repaid.

The government could choose to default on its debt (screw over bondholders). If each adult Canadian owned the same $ amount of bonds then defaulting on the bonds and/or tax cuts may have a certain symmetry to them, but that is not the case. Insert the complexity of the tax system and how it treats interest versus income versus investment losses and things get more clouded.

As for money borrowed from foreign lenders, the importance of that versus borrowing in general is overstated in my opinion (as far as stable wealthy democracies go). Besides, Canada has a low portion of foreign-held debt anyways, so it is not a big deal. Borrow money, pay interest, try to borrow less in the future.

It gets more complicated if you want to discuss debt-to-GDP ratios and infrastructure funding but, when you start from where we started in the 1990s, "Borrow money, pay interest, try to borrow less in the future" will do.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

OK so I way over-simplified.  

So at the rate we're going, doesn't it seem like National Debt is here to stay? How long until the entire ~$400B can be paid down? Are any countries in the world debt-free, aside from the OPEC types?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There are net debt free countries. They still have debt but their assets are larger than their debt (Alberta is a province in this situation). I believe that Australia's federal government has no net debt. Imagine our federal government having $20B to $30B extra to spend every year or give back in tax cuts...now imagine how ripped off young people may feel if they thought about this too much. 

But now you may be getting into the messy stuff. Zero debt is not necessarily a good goal for government. In the same way that a family can, in their own opinion, better their lives by taking on some debt (e.g. mortgage), a country can do the same. 

For a government the argument is best made regarding long-lived infrastructure. If a government were to choose to pay for something, such as a museum, that it would use for 30 years then it could borrow the money to build the place. 

However, each year 1/30th of that building cost should be counted as an operating expense that annual taxes should cover. Government should then balance its operating budget. On the books government would have borrowed the money (issued bonds) to build the museum and, each year, it would use taxes to pay interest on its museum debt as well as retiring 1/30th of its debt. That's sensible planning but, practically speaking, voters may just prefer to not trust government to be responsible.

More generally, I have seen no good theoretical (as opposed to practical) evidence to suggest that zero debt is optimal for a wealthy democracy's government, but plenty to suggest that the path we set for ourselves starting in the 1970s and extending, to some extent, into the 1990s was dangerously stupid. One intuitive piece of evidence is that our governments were borrowing money to cover their standard operating costs (salaries, stationery, etc.). That's like borrowing money to pay for groceries. You are in trouble if you must do that.

Edit: I read your post again and I think it may be useful to point out that, aside from Australia and Norway, I do not think that any of the world's wealthiest developed (excluding oil dictatorships) countries have zero net debt. If somebody knows otherwise please speak up; I would like to know too.

Japan, for example, has a crippling debt. Canada has one of the lowest levels of debt, relative to the size of our economy, in the G7. It is a Canadian success story and one reason why I remain optimistic regarding things like Canada's climate change policy: when the country finally (and somewhat slowly) decides that something must be done, we can do it with the best!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej is right. The government needs to borrow to provide infrastructure financing over the longer term--though I favour public/private partnerships in which private lenders take on the debt and the risks associated with the project, while the government provides payback on a stable and long-term basis.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> though I favour public/private partnerships in which private lenders take on the debt and the risks associated with the project, while the government provides payback on a stable and long-term basis.


A fair point. 

There is much dogmatic anger over "P3s" (public-private-parternships) but it is quite overdone and hysterical. As with some other things, such as health care, the debate is deeply ignorant of international experiences. 

It comes down to the competence and sensibility of government. If you do not think that your government has enough of it, then P3 or not, you are eff'd. If it does, then P3s can be quite helpful. No magic solution to life, the universe and everything, but one more thing that can be done a little better. If your government finds 1000 such "things", then you probably have a highly competent government.

Personally, I think that CDN governments could learn from foreign governments regarding the use of P3s and we could be a whole lot less dogmatic about the whole thing. But I still see a role for some government infrastructure (not all of it involving concrete) and, therefore, theoretically efficient government debt.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Given your experience, do you think that corrupt Liberal-friendly consultants that over-bill their clients play any role in ongoing Federal surpluses?


I do think that self anointed economists that suck on the teat of the oil patch do play a large role in the surplus of green house gasses.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I do think that self anointed economists that suck on the teat of the oil patch do play a large role in the surplus of green house gasses.


I don't know of any of those contributing to ehmac, but I'll keep that in mind. I do, however, see a possibility that corrupt Liberal-friendly consultants -- that over-bill their clients -- may very well be regular contributors. Given your experience, do you think that they* play any role in the ongoing Federal surplus? 

You seem to have completely avoided that question and such avoidance could be taken as protecting oneself due to being a part of the group in question. Could be. Threatening ehmacers with lawyers or bragging about being in contact with lawyers would pretty much cement that.

*If you consider yourself to be a part of, "they" or if, despite not considering yourself to be a part of, "they" you are nonetheless a part of "they", please do not take this personally.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I'm still waiting for you to declare which university you obtained a undergraduate degree from.

Been waiting for several months on that one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I'm still waiting for you to declare which university you obtained a undergraduate degree from.
> 
> Been waiting for several months on that one.


I'm still waiting for a definition of why I keep getting called a NeoCon. Been waiting years for that one.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I'm still waiting for a definition of why I keep getting called a NeoCon. Been waiting years for that one.


Great. Now that you said that 'spec may bawl, judging by "his" (unverified) past behaviour, to try and have these posts deleted. Thanks a lot VD.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Now now, boys - play nice. Let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

[_sigh_]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Folks, I am getting really, really tired of this. (Some previous posts have been removed)

Stop thread crapping, and stop the petty, personal arguments. 1 week holidays from ehMac.ca are going to be dished out soon to anyone stirring the pot with personal attacks, insults, or innuendo's. 

Don't want to play the heavy, but myself are many others are tired of it.

-----

(Please) now return on topic to this thread.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

he's not heavy... he's my moderator...



I am just amazed how the Cons crapped all over the Liberals for large surpluses and now that they are in gov't, the Cons don't believe that supporting social programs are as important as supporting war

I hope the Cons drop that poison pill into the throne speech and an election gets called

hopefully the canadian electorate rallies to the cause


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I'm still waiting for a definition of why I keep getting called a NeoCon. Been waiting years for that one.


NeoCon comes from a bunch of American nationalist, who drunk and stupid with ambition, have shaped American Foreign Policy. After believing that they were somehow responsible for the fall of communism in Europe via their proclaimed " military strength and moral clarity " have decided to take it upon themselves to rid the world of "bad regimes". The group is encapsulated by PNAC and it's proposals. Their ultimate aim is American hegemony. 

The core group of neo-cons have strong ties with the hardline Likud Party and this has shaped their foreign policy in the Middle East. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams are all examples of neo-cons. 

One can look at the invasion of Iran as an example of neo-con planning and thinking. It did not matter if Saddam was good or bad, the invasion was there to solidify the U.S. as a "global police". 

The term neo-con, in your case, applies to the blind following and acceptance of the goals and reasoning of neo-con thinking. There has been a "trickle-down" effect due to neo-con influence that has poisoned much of the political landscape. Neo-cons, and in your case. is the following of their doctrine. 

It can be exemplified by those that think that we can bring democracy to Iran or Afghanistan at the point of a gun, the belief that "they" will embrace American and Canadian values (whatever they may be), the belief in "free-market" and "free-market" democracy.... Neo-con are adapt at the big lie and it's followers ready to believe. The appeal of Neo-con thinking lies in it's simplicity and conditioning of the masses.

In Canadian politics, the "rapprochement" of Harper to American Foreign policy and beliefs is our version of neo-con. I'm not saying that all Connies are neo-cons, just some of them.

Shall we get back to the budget?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> NeoCon comes from a bunch of American nationalist, who drunk and stupid with ambition, have shaped American Foreign Policy. After believing that they were somehow responsible for the fall of communism in Europe via their proclaimed " military strength and moral clarity " have decided to take it upon themselves to rid the world of "bad regimes". The group is encapsulated by PNAC and it's proposals. Their ultimate aim is American hegemony.
> 
> The core group of neo-cons have strong ties with the hardline Likud Party and this has shaped their foreign policy in the Middle East. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams are all examples of neo-cons.
> 
> ...


No, because you missed the mark big-time. 

You have provided zero examples. None. Not one. All you have provided is a vague generality. Even further, you have failed to link it with your definition of American Neo-Cons.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I am just amazed how the Cons crapped all over the Liberals for large surpluses and now that they are in gov't, the Cons don't believe that supporting social programs are as important as supporting war


To help understand things, is the above sort of thread pooping still within the accepted bounds of ehmac, ehmax? I have reported it to bring it to your attention.

On topic portion:

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,3398,en_2825_495684_1_1_1_1_1,00.html#35651817

A good place to get international data for comparing Canada's financial situation to other countries.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Using the term NeoCon to describe a certain group, is also linked with a strong anti-semitic streak in some circles. That's why I avoid using this term altogether.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Using the term NeoCon to describe a certain group, is also linked with a strong anti-semitic streak in some circles. That's why I avoid using this term altogether.


I have to admit to using the term on occasion and not having a clear and credible idea about its meaning. I have heard such words called, "vacunyms" before. "Sustainability" often is used as a vacunym. If you scratch the surface you sometimes (not always) find all sorts of logical inconsistencies. 

Maybe it's more like porn: you know it when you see it? But, of course, that's a little subjective if a term may be used frequently as a pejorative.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Using the term NeoCon to describe a certain group, is also linked with a strong anti-semitic streak in some circles. That's why I avoid using this term altogether.


oh? do tell
any examples or just your "feeling" ?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> No, because you missed the mark big-time.
> 
> You have provided zero examples. None. Not one. All you have provided is a vague generality. Even further, you have failed to link it with your definition of American Neo-Cons.


VD, no matter what I would have written, I knew it would not satisfy you. 
I did write that Connie get much of their foreign policies from the Neo-Cons, that's the tie-in for you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Using the term NeoCon to describe a certain group, is also linked with a strong anti-semitic streak in some circles. That's why I avoid using this term altogether.


So is this like rewriting history?

Or do you take offence to:
The core group of neo-cons have strong ties with the hardline Likud Party and this has shaped their foreign policy in the Middle East. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams are all examples of neo-cons. 

Neo-Cons derive from PNAC. U.S. foreign policy has been dictated by their plans. After 9/11 Bush and all took advance of that tragedy to plan their attack on Iraq. Intelligence was cooked to link Al-Quada and Saddam, the pretext was there. Whatever delusions at the top, lazy electorate and journalist have followed. Plausibility seems enough to placate most...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> VD, no matter what I would have written, I knew it would not satisfy you.
> I did write that Connie get much of their foreign policies from the Neo-Cons, that's the tie-in for you.


There is a reason you knew you could not satisfy me. It's your logic sub-conscience mind speaking. Deep down you mind knows that I am not a Neo-Con and knows that you can't provide a coherent rationale. I suggest you listen to that voice because your conscious voice is drowning it out. 

Are you know modifying your definition to include anybody who votes Conservative? It would seem contrary to your earlier post.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> There is a reason you knew you could not satisfy me. It's your logic sub-conscience mind speaking. Deep down you mind knows that I am not a Neo-Con and knows that you can't provide a coherent rationale. I suggest you listen to that voice because your conscious voice is drowning it out.


Now you are in my head? 
I think that you protest too much. 
I consider you a neo-con follower because it of statements in the past. I could name your belief in "moral clarity" as an example.
Your thinking that "democracy" is an answer to all. 
Your knee-jerk nationalism.
Your preference of "military strength" over international institutions. 
Your being an echo chamber of Connie talking points.

My "voice" is telling me that one can predict what you will say by reading the latest neo-con talking points and knowing you will echo those.






Vandave said:


> Are you know modifying your definition to include anybody who votes Conservative? It would seem contrary to your earlier post.


Re-read what I wrote. Not every Connie is a neo-con. There is a lot of confluence between them. 

P.S. Please stay to engineering, whatever psychology you are reading seems to be affecting your cognitive skills.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> P.S. Please stay to engineering, whatever psychology you are reading seems to be affecting your cognitive skills.


I believe the attached statement re: drug use might explain things.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I believe the attached statement re: drug use might explain things.


Stalker


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> My "voice" is telling me that one can predict what you will say by reading the latest neo-con talking points and knowing you will echo those.


Correlation is not causation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Correlation is not causation.


just like Iraq had WMDs....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

....something about a duck walking and talking comes to mind....

we'll dub him Neo-mallard....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ....something about a duck walking and talking comes to mind....
> 
> we'll dub him Neo-mallard....


All images at The Wilderness Classroom Organization are Copyright(c) 2000-2007


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> All images at The Wilderness Classroom Organization are Copyright(c) 2000-2007


He will be receiving a tersely written cease and desist letter from my lawyer Dr. Gonzo, regarding the various instances of libel in this thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
> 
> We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
> 
> *In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish")* travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.


Op-Ed Columnist: The Era of Distortion


Note: I just chose a Newy York Times source making the connection but there are hundreds of similar citations. I choose not to use the term to avoid playing in to the hands of racists.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

NY Times mean than one or two ehmacers must take it to be inarguably true. Stop stifling the debate, MF!

Thanks for the link though. It seems like I will have to think more about the term. Of course, consider that it is somewhat meaningless I did not use it too much to begin with.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> NY Times mean than one or two ehmacers must take it to be inarguably true. Stop stifling the debate, MF!
> 
> Thanks for the link though. It seems like I will have to think more about the term. Of course, consider that it is somewhat meaningless I did not use it too much to begin with.


this is the same "newspaper of record" that proudly keeps, and refuses to return, a Pulitzer given to one of their "journalists" that denied the Holodomor in which 7-11 million Ukrainians died

imagine quoting a newspaper that once printed material that denied the Holocaust and proudly retains an award given for such reporting?

the NY Times has much to apologize for and not very much to be proud of


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Imagine someone quoting the NY Times. Yes, let's imagine the audacity.

Now let's imagine that the arguments themselves are addressed and that you did not just thread poop.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the NY Times did enough pooping on their own


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Particularly regarding Chomsky or, at least, when carefully extracting just one part and giving no thought to context.

However, 'spec, please stop your pooping, regardless of what the NY Times does.

Were there particular arguments or, somewhat more vaguely, innuendo in the linked article that you think have been refuted?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Conspiracy Theories
> 
> The election of George W. Bush as US president and the events that followed the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, have led to the emergence of an important theory in radical circles, and hence among the extreme left too, according to which the ongoing international crises are being manipulated by a Zionist lobby, embodied in a neo-conservative cabal running the American administration. This opinion has begun to gain credence in non-extremist circles, too. Even a US correspondent of the ‘liberal’ daily La Repubblica has endorsed it. According to a Liberazione journalist, 9/11 marks the date on which the neo-conservative shadow men effectively gained power. They have “used the 9/11 attacks exactly as Hitler did the Reichstag fire.”
> 
> ...


Stephen Roth Institute: Antisemitism And Racism


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF:

As for 9/11 I remember how blatantly racist the initial crop of conspiracy theories were. Somewhat related, there is also more than one commentator out there discussing a 'left-wing' anti-semitism. I'm not sure about the academic rigour behind such examinations (ie. commentators reporting on something interesting that academics are doing or their own opining about something quite serious). I can certainly see the point being made but, as VD cautioned, causality and all.

So is this truly different than standard politics whereby any remotely identifiable ideology is turned into a four letter word for the purposes of chipping away at votes and credibility? "liberal" (small "L") gets treated as such in the U.S. -- I remember an old SNL skit with the song, "Run liberal, run" -- despite the fundamental importance of the concept of liberalism to the U.S. and other free countries. 

Also, from another point of view, many left-leaning people seem to latch onto any underdog and are willing to say any hateful thing about the perceived, "Big Dog" and seem eager to toss previously championed principles out the window to bring down the Big Dog. With this narrative permanently stamped on one's world view (epic struggle, david and goliath, blah blah blah), it probably is not surprising that much of the left end of politics turned against Israel once Israel was no longer seen as the underdogs. 

So I'm not convinced that anit-semitism is such a strong underlying theme versus just being behind some people's thinking. Nor do I wish to ignore the possibility that this ancient and insidious notion is once again doing what it does best: surviving by adapting to ever-changing popular ignorance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My take: why fuel the fires of anti-semitism by adopting the racist's lingo, even if that term is not exclusively used as a slur?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That's a fair point and I do agree with your approach. 

Given that, how certain are you about the prevalence of the underlying racism versus just the spark for the term's usage being racism? That does not change the good advice of not using the racists' terminology but I think that the topic is worth examining.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> My take: why fuel the fires of anti-semitism by adopting the racist's lingo, even if that term is not exclusively used as a slur?


remember what you typed next time you watch the Washington Redskins play football


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> That's a fair point and I do agree with your approach.
> 
> Given that, how certain are you about the prevalence of the underlying racism versus just the spark for the term's usage being racism? That does not change the good advice of not using the racists' terminology but I think that the topic is worth examining.


I agree with MF that there is an underlying aspect of anti-semitism in many modern conspiracy theories (e.g. 911, banking, bla blah blah). Does it extend to terms like NeoCon? I am not sure.

Nobody comes out and uses overt racism nowadays. Rather, such communication has been restricted to terms that allow plausible deniability. Wink wink nudge nudge.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Op-Ed Columnist: The Era of Distortion
> 
> 
> Note: I just chose a Newy York Times source making the connection but there are hundreds of similar citations. I choose not to use the term to avoid playing in to the hands of racists.


You choose not to face reality....

As for David Brooks


> Before the Iraq War, Brooks had argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. However, some of his opinion pieces in the spring of 2004 suggested that he had tempered somewhat his earlier optimism about the war. In 2007, he argued that withdrawing from Iraq would result in 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month, but later admitted on Meet the Press that he had "just picked that 10,000 out of the air."[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)

That's quite the fine fact based hero of yours. 

So MF, how's that little adventure in Iraq going? Still think "we" will win that war? You are as incoherent as the Bush logic on this war...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Nobody comes out and uses overt racism nowadays. Rather, such communication has been restricted to terms that allow plausible deniability. Wink wink nudge nudge.


Sure they do - but it's accepted to call the Taliban savages...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I agree with MF that there is an underlying aspect of anti-semitism in many modern conspiracy theories (e.g. 911, banking, bla blah blah). Does it extend to terms like NeoCon? I am not sure.
> 
> Nobody comes out and uses overt racism nowadays. Rather, such communication has been restricted to terms that allow plausible deniability. Wink wink nudge nudge.



oh?
how about PC Mike Harris when he was premier of Ontario?
Ipperwash inquiry spreads blame for George's death


> Linden said in his final report, released in Forest, Ont., that he didn't believe Harris when he claimed he never made a racist statement about the occupiers during an informal government meeting with provincial police just hours before George's death.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


emphasis mine
racism Harris's


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Also, VD, 'spec himself used overt racism to the extent that Russians can be referred to as a race. It depends upon the specific definition of racism used as the underlying word, "race" has multiple applications.

So maybe you meant that overt racism is relatively rare.

But back to the articles, does anyone have something to offer on them aside from going after a newspaper, an author or a former premier? Say, perhaps, discussing the ideas in the articles? 

For now I see a lot of the usual thread pooping going on. The kind that is, seemingly, allowed and that helps makes things so unpleasant considering how little can be done about it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> But back to the articles, does anyone have something to offer on them aside from going after a newspaper, an author or a former premier? Say, perhaps, discussing the ideas in the articles?


How about discussing the merit of Mein Kempf? Since you like the equivalencies so much....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> For now I see a lot of the usual thread pooping going on. The kind that is, seemingly, allowed and that helps makes things so unpleasant considering how little can be done about it.


Let me understand you - you'd like to get back to MFs diversion because it's more in line with what you'd like to discuss.... How very Rovian of you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> How about discussing the merit of Mein Kempf? Since you like the equivalencies so much....


If you want to, but I have not read it so you would have to help me out a fair bit. Would you have a problem with people discussing it and any possible merits that exist in it? 

Anyway, you posted some background on the author of MF's first link. Fine for context on the person but it provides little else and nothing on the next piece (I think). Okay. So then you went on the usual pooping trip after the link. This is the sort of double-standard that is quite common. I can see the segue that you think was relevant but can also see how this is just more of the same thread-pooping. Can you see that?

............
That's quite the fine fact based hero of yours. 

So MF, how's that little adventure in Iraq going? Still think "we" will win that war? You are as incoherent as the Bush logic on this war...
............


Why not just post info as context on the author just like I mentioned context on 'spec's racism post. This sort of pooping is where we disagree but, to the extent that it is allowed, I expect people to be able to push back if they choose to. That uncomfortable equilibrium that existed before (pooping everywhere, but you could rub a troll's nose in their poop) has vanished. I would like the new approach to just get rid of such things altogether but it seems to have given the most frequent pooper-troll a free reign for their usual antics.

That is a choice that I do not like. It is not, however, my choice to make. The choice to speak up about it is mine.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Let me understand you - you'd like to get back to MFs diversion because it's more in line with what you'd like to discuss.... How very Rovian of you.


No, you do not understand me but seem to be using such wording to make it seem like your pooping is actually part of a thought process. This is just the positioning approach, AS. You position your wording to sound like something it isn't to include a personal attack. I do it as well, so it's quite easy to spot when you do it. There's no shame in being that transparent.

I would prefer to go back to the topic of the surplus and federal finances, but the history and meaning of "neo***" is a fine topic -- threads are not restricted to the original topic and tend to develop along unique and interesting paths.

Also, you should check the background on how the neo*** topic was raised. It was not MF and VD was responding to something else.

Some of the bits that you and 'spec are contributing include standard troll-poop. To the extent that me pointing that out and discussing it is pooping, I am guilty of the same. However I did send a complaint in early on, as per your helpful advice a while back in the other thread: make the mods aware of the problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: As you point out, I was referring to the term being used in anti-semitic circles. Those two trolling fellows may not like the New York Times or the second source, but that doesn't change the association of the term. An emphasias on Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz in some circles is considered a large part of the discussion on NeocCon conspiracy theories.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

uh oh I think BeeJ has a crush on me
sorta like little boys with little girls
beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> No, you do not understand me but seem to be using such wording to make it seem like your pooping is actually part of a thought process.


No I don't understand you. Seems like you have a little vendetta going on coupled with a Beejian God complex.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: As you point out, I was referring to the term being used in anti-semitic circles. Those two trolling fellows may not like the New York Times or the second source, but that doesn't change the association of the term. An emphasias on Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz in some circles is considered a large part of the discussion on NeocCon conspiracy theories.


Yep, and I recall that you were asked to demonstrate that the notion was not just a feeling of yours. You responded. This was after the term was raised and after AS posted a description of his take on its meaning as per VD's point.

AS, sorry but it is troll-poop and referring to it as "MFs diversion" is quite odd. That sounds a lot more like your vendetta than mine.

You can try the Equivalency argument but, since ehmax's specific warning in this thread not too long ago, 'spec and yourself have troll-pooped, as well as myself to the extent that I point this out and discuss it in detail.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Beej: As you point out, I was referring to the term being used in anti-semitic circles.


In your opinion, has the term been used that way here? And by whom?





Macfury said:


> Those two trolling fellows may not like the New York Times or the second source, but that doesn't change the association of the term. An emphasias on Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz in some circles is considered a large part of the discussion on NeocCon conspiracy theories.


Given your behaviour MF, I'm surprise you use the term "trolling"....

I think that it's near impossible to discuss the direction of American foreign policy without mentioning certain key figures and their association with the Likud Party. 

Continue your little smears MF....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I think that it's near impossible to discuss the direction of American foreign policy without mentioning certain key figures and their association with the Likud Party.


That is interesting. I do not follow U.S. politics too closely so can you expand on this? I understand the basics of what was in your post to VD but could use some more explanation. By more I mean to take the argument beyond a, "Desmarais controls Canada" type argument.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> That is interesting. I do not follow U.S. politics too closely so can you expand on this? I understand the basics of what was in your post to VD but could use some more explanation. By more I mean to take the argument beyond a, "Desmarais controls Canada" type argument.


and you wonder why I keep asking which university you graduated from?

your 'SPECulation is just that; speculation

should I send you some crying towels?
you must have used all of yours up by now


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec, please stop pooping in this thread. I have once again reported you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: It's _entirely_ possible to discuss the direction of American foreign policy without mentioning key figures and their association with the Likud Party. Explaining American foreign policy as a bizarre tool of Likud is, coincidentally, one of the planks of Neo*** conspiracy theories. While the U.S. does look at Israel as an ally, it's hardly the helpless pawn of Israeli foreign policy--or the Likud Party. The U.S, looks favourably on many of countries who have its ear, including Israel, South Korea, Great Britain and Taiwan. Some of these are based on strategic interests, while others are based on long-term alliances and allegiances. No one country explains the entire foreign policy of the U.S.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> 'Spec, please stop pooping in this thread. I have once again reported you.


beejacon 
beejacon 
beejacon 

please stop trying to poke at to me gain my attention
i don't and never will love you, regardless of your efforts


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec your current behaviour is quite familiar; sleep it off.

As for poking, "at to me" I am not. I am trying to get the attention of the mods. MF and AS are almost having an interesting discussion and I would like to read more from them on this. Once again, please stop pooping in ehmac.

For now, MF and AS have made interesting points but I think more detail is needed because we are still in the he said/she said area.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> AS: It's _entirely_ possible to discuss the direction of American foreign policy without mentioning key figures and their association with the Likud Party. Explaining American foreign policy as a bizarre tool of Likud is, coincidentally, one of the planks of Neo*** conspiracy theories. While the U.S. does look at Israel as an ally, it's hardly the helpless pawn of Israeli foreign policy--or the Likud Party. The U.S, looks favourably on many of countries who have its ear, including Israel, South Korea, Great Britain and Taiwan. Some of these are based on strategic interests, while others are based on long-term alliances and allegiances. No one country explains the entire foreign policy of the U.S.


appears we have a new 3 letter word

AIPAC does a very good job linking American interests with Israeli interests and the billions of dollars of aid going to Israel from the U.S.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> 'Spec your current behaviour is quite familiar; sleep it off.
> 
> As for poking, "at to me" I am not. I am trying to get the attention of the mods. MF and AS are almost having an interesting discussion and I would like to read more from them on this. Once again, please stop pooping in ehmac.


pooper, heed thy own advice
beejacon beejacon beejacon beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> appears we have a new 3 letter word
> 
> AIPAC does a very good job linking American interests with Israeli interests and the billions of dollars of aid going to Israel from the U.S.


I think that almost all major decisions in democratic countries have a degree of lobbying behind them. At some point in history a person would claim they "held the ear of princes and statesmen. " Today, these people are lobbyists. To suggest, however, that one country controls U.S. foreign policy interests borders on the ludicrous. Israel hardly has enough clout to push around the world's only superpower.

For a glimpse into the tortured conspiracy theories linking anti-Smeitism, Jewish Americans, the Likud Party, Israel, Zionism, 9/11 and the like, try this piece of flaccid reasoning:

Connecting The Dots - Zionists & 911

As the site's own disclaimer suggests:



> Among the thousands of articles posted here for your consideration, there will doubtless be some that you find useless, and possibly offensive, but we believe you will be perceptive enough to realize that even the stories you disagree with have some value in terms of promoting your own further self-definition and insight.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> That is interesting. I do not follow U.S. politics too closely so can you expand on this? I understand the basics of what was in your post to VD but could use some more explanation. By more I mean to take the argument beyond a, "Desmarais controls Canada" type argument.





> "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat - Al Qaeda."


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/10/news/general.php



> "Why did you support the Iraq war?" Gerson asked him.
> 
> "Because Afghanistan wasn't enough," Kissinger answered. In the conflict with radical Islam, he said, they want to humiliate us. "And we need to humiliate them."


http://blog.case.edu/singham/2006/11/02/the_warmongers_insatiable_desire_for_violence

After the Cold War there was very little need the commitments the American had made. The strategies of the Cold war matter little. As G. Dyer points out "The strategic logic said that the zero-sum game was over and that the United States would cut back sharply on its military and diplomatic investment in the Middle East, leaving the Arab countries to run their domestic affairs as they chose and withdrawing the unconditional U.S. military guarantee of Israel's security. Had Washington acted on this logic, some Arab regimes would probably have been overthrown sooner or later by their long suffering people, the United States would have saved a great deal of money, and Israel would have been forced to make some hard choices between its desire for more territory and its need for a secure peace with its Arab neighbours, including Palestinians. But the strategic logic was ignored, and the U.S. military presence in the region did not diminish. On the contrary, it grew. 
......
Israel fought a persistent and largely successful public relations battle to persuade the U.S. Congress and the American public that the American-Israel alliance continued to serve the strategic interest of the United States as well as those of Israel. Above all, the U.S. military-industrial complex did precisely what you would expect an interest group of that nature to do: it worked to preserve and if possible expand American military commitments abroad and the list of "threats" to U.S. interest, in order to create more work for its members. 
So for almost tow decades now, the military and political power of the United states in the Middle East has been dedicated to the task of preserving the status quo, even though the post-Cold War strategic logic said that its commitments there should be shrinking.
..........
Israel has been licensed to use grossly disproportionate force against both Lebanon and Palestinians and to demand substantial chunks of the remaining Palestinian territories as its price for letting the Palestinians have a state, Iran has been demonized, isolated, and subjected to an American trade embargo enforced with the same manic enthusiasm as the one against Cuba, None of this served American interests, and the result was entirely predictable, although, apparently not predicted by U.S. policy-makers: radicalization right across the region. 
...........
The first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the current BUsh administration all contributed to this policy disaster.
.............
.............

When Bush jr. took the Whitehouse, the plans to invade Iraq were already there. 

In 1991, the Wolfowitz and Libby (directed by Cheney) produced a document called "Defense Planning Guidance". It was leaked in 1992 but outlines their thinking.


> Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.


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

Again, as Dyer points out, that document resembles one that could have been written in previous word regimes time (from 1520 onward). 

It seems that those who wrote the document have a primitive world view. At the time of the document, James Baker was "the designated grown-up who intervened to deal with the embarrassing document"

In the interim, PNAC puts forth a few of their documents. 
When 9/11 happened the Bu****es had their excuse put into place their plans.


> I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. . . . Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq."


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-05.htm

Why Iraq?
Again to quote directly from Dyer:
" Iraq was dboubly the ideal target for the neo-conservatives because it was seen as the greatest danger to Israel, which Saddam had showered with missiles during the first Gulf War in 1991 - and many of the core neo-conservatives were Zionists who had strong link with the hardline Likud Party in Israel. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Abrams, President Bush's chief adviser ont he Middle East, had all served on the staff of Democratic Senator Henry Jackson in the 1970s, when the latter' main goal in life had been to force the Soviet Union to allow free Jewish emigration to Israel by manipulating U.S. trade laws. Jackson won in the end, and a million Soviet Jews moved to Israel to swell the state's population, but by the end of the 1970s his young aides, frustrated by the politics of compromise, had moved on to a more congenial home in the Republican Party. (Hence "neo" - conservative). They maintained their close ties with the Likud Party in Israel, and if the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would serve Likud's purposes, that was good enough for them.

Settling on Iraq as PNAC's first target was less obvioius for the non-Zionists in the new organization...
---------


MF, please note, as you so easily distort what I write, I did not say that U.S. foreign policy was a tool of Linkud and I don't think 9/11 was an inside job


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Note to MF and AS, if I do not respond to future posts I am likely absorbing what you two post. It is not meant as a snub but as a sign that I want to learn more.

AS, and this is not meant in any way to attack, keep in mind how frustrating it can be to post commentary that you consider useful only to have someone just dismiss your author of choice with a smear-link. Your post got me thinking (thanks!) but it also occurred to me how someone could just dismiss Dyer and walk away from your argument, as you have done yourself. 

You may have been justified, and one may not be even remotely justified in this case. I do not know enough to say and I am not proposing an Equivalency argument -- I am proposing an empathy argument. Do you see how a certain approach can create future problems if your interest is in swapping ideas with others and not just swapping smack downs? 

Anyway, sorry about the aside. Food for thought, but please continue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, please note that while I have used Dyer, I have also used documents and statements by the main players. Had while it may be convenient to dismiss Dyer, he has a track record and a neutrality beyond reproach.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I do not know enough of Dyer's writing to say if I think your evaluation is reasonable. Keep in mind that I meet people that think CCPA is a reasonable policy institute, and others that think Fraser is. 

Given my known favouring of clinical, cold and inherently atheist (no objective morality) analysis, do you maintain your stance on Dyer? I would like to know of such columnists as well as honestly and openly biased writers, such as Salutin, that are good at what they do.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Given my known favouring of clinical, cold and inherently atheist (no objective morality) analysis, do you maintain your stance on Dyer?


I do - in part because he's critical of policies. While he does explain the context of the players in Washington, he takes time to elaborate on their motivations. 
On Bush Sr., he has praise for the way he handled the Gulf War, he's less impressed with Clinton and of course talks of the mess of Bush Jr.. 

Now Iraq is only a small player in the global American foreign policy but they have messed it up so badly, it frightens me to think was mess we'd have if they had succeeded there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: The Hearald-Tribune article merely states that the General disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Not that it was spearheaded by an Israeli lobby group. 

Though Macspectrum would decry your use of the New York Times as an untrustworthy source, this article says largely the same thing--that the attack on Iraq was wrong-headed. This can be true without suggesting that it was instigated by Israel.

I can imagine a wrongheaded policy in Iraq without imagining the Likud party masterminding it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the unadulterated opinion. I will add his site to my list so that I can regularly read his column like I do for (a small number of) other columnists.

Your, "Now Iraq is only a small player in the global American foreign policy" was particularly apt. The eff up is well known but the "small player" part is not often realised given the media attention. It is a complex world and some of the simply stupid stuff is only the tip of the iceberg. Sorry again for the sidetrack. Please continue exploring the neo*** thing with MF.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Pro-Israel lobby primer

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby - Dutch documentary


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I can imagine a wrongheaded policy in Iraq without imagining *the Likud party masterminding it.*


And I have never stated that, so what's your point?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: The Hearald-Tribune article merely states that the General disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Not that it was spearheaded by an Israeli lobby group.
> 
> Though Macspectrum would decry your use of the New York Times as an untrustworthy source, this article says largely the same thing--that the attack on Iraq was wrong-headed. This can be true without suggesting that it was instigated by Israel.
> 
> I can imagine a wrongheaded policy in Iraq without imagining the Likud party masterminding it.


The original quote is from an Essay he wrote in Time magazine - the article only quotes part of it. 
Again MF, I have not said that Israel instigated an attack on Iraq via proxies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> The original quote is from an Essay he wrote in Time magazine - the article only quotes part of it.
> Again MF, I have not said that Israel instigated an attack on Iraq via proxies.


I'm just trying to get at what it is you're saying here. The articles mostly suggest that the attacks on Iraq were wrong-headed. Is this a new topic about why the U.S. should not have attacked Iraq?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm just trying to get at what it is you're saying here. The articles mostly suggest that the attacks on Iraq were wrong-headed. Is this a new topic about why the U.S. should not have attacked Iraq?


Nice try. 
Where did I say (as you a not so subtly insinuating) that U.S. foreign policy is a mere tool of Likud party? 
You have steered your postings there twice -


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nice try.
> Where did I say (as you a not so subtly insinuating) that U.S. foreign policy is a mere tool of Likud party?


I originally asked if your posts were addressing that topic. Now I no longer understand what they're addressing, so I asked you politely to fill me in.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: You started by saying that U.S. foreign policy could not be discussed without mentioning connections to the Likud Party. You quote Gwynne Dyer who pushes toward that supposition, but then quote a sort of general list of criticisms of Iraq policy.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's a long way to go from noting connections to the Likud party to the outrageous suppostition that "U.S. foreign policy is a mere tool of Likud party."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Funny I always thought the prefix "neo" comes from the Greek for "new".



Wikipedia said:


> Neo-
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> • Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •
> Jump to: navigation, search
> ...


Should I surmise that neo-nazi means Jew-Nazi?

Neocon:


wikipedia said:


> Neoconservatism
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> • Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •
> Jump to: navigation, search
> ...



I've seen better arguments connecting Neocons with Trotskyism but none to show that Neo means Jew. Please elaborate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: The word Neo obviously does not mean "jJwish" on its own, but the distinction---as opposed to merely Conservative--denotes the addition of Jewish former-liberals to Conservatism's ranks. 

"Colored" does not specifically mean "Black" either.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: The word Neo obviously does not mean "jJwish" on its own, but the distinction---as opposed to merely Conservative--denotes the addition of Jewish former-liberals to Conservatism's ranks.
> 
> "Colored" does not specifically mean "Black" either.


I know this is a leap but the idea I am receiving from you is that if I criticize the membership of the PNAC and while doing so refer to them as "Neocons" I am acting in an anti-semitic fashion. If you read the history I posted above you'd see a neo-conservative movement born in the 50's and 60's with heroes like Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Yes as it is now there is a very strong pro Israeli gov't cabal in the Neocon movement. Does this mean that if I criticize Wolfowitz I'm a bigot? 

The list of people who are considered Neocons has nothing to do with an anti Jewish bias. These people banded together to push this ideal to the fore and got the government behind it. The membership was created by those who signed the statement of principals not by (other) bigots.




> June 3, 1997
> 
> American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
> 
> ...


Statement of Principles


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Martman: The word Neo obviously does not mean "jJwish" on its own, but the distinction---as opposed to merely Conservative--denotes the addition of Jewish former-liberals to Conservatism's ranks.
> 
> "Colored" does not specifically mean "Black" either.


Still trying to smear I see....
Sorry buddy, but there is a difference betwen Conservative and Neo-Conservative...
:yawn:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: I'm not suggesting thet you're smearing anyone. I merely stated my own preference not to use the term because some groups use it as a euphemism for Jewish Conservatives. 

I suppose AS will explain what the difference is between the two labels--when he's finished examining U.S. foreign polic in Iraq.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, how about moving on, yes?
It's rather obvious that you have nothing of value to add and that you are trying to save face at this moment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> MF, how about moving on, yes?
> It's rather obvious that you have nothing of value to add and that you are trying to save face at this moment.


No, what I'm asking you is why you posted all of the Iraq policy material. What idea was it supposed to support?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: The whole Trotskyite mess is tied into Zionism, the Likud, etc. by some. It's not just a rarity but quite a pattern. This pretty much sums it up:



> I revealed the whole sordid mess about the neocon plotters who run the Bush Administration. Almost all these men were once Marxists and Trotskyites, the hardest of hard-core Communists and Red sympathizers. They're predominantly anti-Christian, pro-abortion, ultra-liberal, pro-gay, die-hard fanatical supporters of Israel. In fact, many are dual citizens. That is, they are formally citizens of two countries—Israel and the U.S.A.—at the same time. But their chief allegiance, really their only allegiance, is to Israel and to global Jewish objectives.


Neocons and Dual Loyalist Jews in Washington, D.C. Now Hold... The Reins of Power in U.S.A.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Martman: The word Neo obviously does not mean "jJwish" on its own, but the distinction---as opposed to merely Conservative--denotes the addition of Jewish former-liberals to Conservatism's ranks.
> 
> "Colored" does not specifically mean "Black" either.


I have to contest this MF... I'm with Martman on this one. "Neo" means "new," nothing more. Look it up, man. Your attempt to paint it as being inherently linked to Jewishness is simply wrong-headed. Neo-conservatism is a term meant to distinguish this strain of thought from mainstream conservative thought, theory and history... I don't know why you feel compelled to add a particular religion/creed to the term, but in effect you are loading it with more than it deserves.

Tossing in the coloured/black comment is a red herring... and a flimsy one at that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once again, Max, I'm not suggesting anyone else not use the term--just pointing out that it's used that way in racist circles. Neo is indeed a prefix meaning "new" but in this context can mean something else.

I've wondered, initially, how "new" conservatism differs from "old" conservatism, other than the influx of a certain group of hawkish ex-liberals? And why it should still be considered "new" more than 40 years later.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't care whether it's ex-liberals or ex Mickey Mouse Club members (some would argue there's precious little difference, I'm sure)... the key word is "hawks." Regarding whatever racist circles happen to be thinking at any given moment, we ought to be careful not to confuse their platform with a critical, sobre-minded examination of what constitutes neo-conservative thought and the deeds and strategies stemming from it. Leave the accusations of racism to the racists.

As for your idle wonderings why it's even considered new, I presume you are old enough to know that everything old is new again - given enough time, of course. And I might add that, in the instance of neo-conservatism, I believe that some of its key tenets are far enough from the mainstream as to warrant the distinction - hence the term "neo" to describe an offshoot branch. I never thought of classical conservative thought consisting of global hegemony and super-empire aspirations. If anything, where the "neo" departs from the good old strain is in disturbing penchant for big government with opaque, cloistered departments operating not unlike secret societies - ones given to runaway spending culminating in crippling debt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> As for your idle wonderings why it's even considered new, I presume you are old enough to know that everything old is new again.


So what was new in 1965 (?) is still new. I would argue that Bush and company aren't conservative in any sense of the word. They're just statists wanting to use the tools of government as badly as the next group. 



> I never thought of classical conservative thought consisting of global hegemony and super-empire aspirations. If anything, where the "neo" departs from the good old strain is in disturbing penchant for big government with opaque, cloistered departments operating not unlike secret societies.


Probably not so different from:

* James Madison (War of 1812)
* Jackson democrats of the 1840s (Manifest Destiny)
* Republican McKinley (Remember the Maine!)
* Democrat FDR (accused of letting the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter WWII, supporter of "big" government, initiator of CIA)
* Democrat Harry Truman (atom bomb)



> - ones given to runaway spending culminating in crippling debt.


Jimmy Carter, anyone?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm still not clear on the references to Iraq or where AS and MF ended up. AS, were the Iraq tidbits presented as evidence of Likud-type influence on U.S. policy (as different from dominance)? Were they an example of "neo***" faith, regardless of fact and analysis, in the unstoppable appeal of democracy? Was it unrelated?


As for whipping out the definition of, "neo" that does not have much to do with terminology being used by some in a racist manner. Words with perfectly mild roots can be adopted by racists and end up representing racist sentiments. Language evolves for better and for worse. 

In this case the argument is that its usage as a modifier to conservative is, to some, referring to Jewish influence on conservatism in the U.S. but, obviously, the influence cannot be called that. If that is the case then of course it would have to be said more "politely" than the more conventional rantings about media and banking control that made spotting racists so easy in the past.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

An interesting Canadian take:



> *Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?*
> 
> ...Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish.


Adbusters: Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So what about Carter, MF? Are you dragging his name into this so as to prove that Democrats can overspend? I'm shocked and appalled... no really. 

LOL

Okay, on to stranger things. Impressive display of history there MF... delicious little tidbits, like an array of jellies prepared for some tasty toasted wafers. But moving beyond these deft distractions, I see you are attempting to make a case for the neo-cons being anything _but_ conservative. So it's a foul misnomer, then? No conservative strains of thought at all in their ideology? Wow, that's a mighty stretch. Just "statists," are they? Neither left wing nor right, hmmmm? Please, do go on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The only conservative streak running through the current Bush administration is a slight--very slight--social one, but it seems to be relegated to the backburner. Whereas you could see a distinct Conservative agenda in Ronald Reagan's presidency, it was clear that Bush Sr. had a distaste for this type of government. 

Since then, I'd argue that there haven't been any conservative politicans at the forefront of American policy at the federal level. Even more unsettling to me is that there is no philosophy attached to the governance. It's just a shopping list that either Republicans or Democrats try to get filled while in office.

I think for many the idea of attacking and occupying other countries is supposed to be a conservative plank--but history shows it just isn't so. LBJ anyone?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Max said:


> So what about Carter, MF? Are you dragging his name into this so as to prove that Democrats can overspend?


Yeah, that one seemed a little odd... It's not like the last republican controlled congress and senate were models of fiscal restraint.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yet we don't see Bushco aligning themselves with anything liberal, do we? So the default position for the Bush administration and its ideological proponents would naturally be toward the right.... though I agree that classic conservatism would not include a program of aggressive global expansionism - which again feeds into why we call it neo-conservatism; I mean, no one would seriously suggest that we call it neoliberalism.

Nope, they're conservatives, alright - just nasty and irresponsible ones.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah, that one seemed a little odd... It's not like the last republican controlled congress and senate were models of fiscal restraint.


No they weren't at all. Their spending was appalling. But if anyone remembers Carter's massive spending at the same time as the biggest tax increase to that date--and a fiscal policy that amounted to mortgage rates of 22%--they'll see that fiscal irresponsibility isn't limited to one party



Max said:


> Yet we don't see Bushco aligning themselves with anything liberal, do we?


Do we see Bush aligning himself with anything liberal?

Yes:
* Amnesty for illegal immigrants
* An unwanted seniors' drug entitlement program
* The largest education spending bill in the history of the United States, featuring the largest single increase in the budget in any given year
* Rainbow coalition cabinet.



Max said:


> So the default position for the Bush administration and its ideological proponents would naturally be toward the right.... though I agree that classic conservatism would not include a program of aggressive global expansionism - which again feeds into why we call it neo-conservatism; I mean, no one would seriously suggest that we call it neoliberalism.


Actually, there are some people who would argue just that, That the Bush admin is just pursuing a lazy liberal agenda, which maintains the status quo while spending heavily. Look up the term "Power liberal" which aptly describes the Bush presidency.

This is a good argument for the case:

George W. Bush is a Liberal - Associated Content


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Let's cut through, shall we? It doesn't matter what liberal causes Bushco allegedly supports. Again, we don't see them _calling_ themselves liberal - it would be political suicide. Surely you're not contesting this.

And if George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz et all are all closet liberals, then I must have materialized into a parralel universe where up is down and left is right. If so, I can see I'll be having a bad week.

________________________________

In the end, you are making a mockery of these definitions, trying to render them so flimsy and flexible that they are entirely stripped of meaning... which leaves, what, I wonder? Oh, yeah - that remarkably neutral statist phenomenon you've mentioned. 

Sorry, I don't buy it... but I have to remind myself that I'm talking with a rigid ideologue here who is only too willing to twist things into tortured pretzels so that they fit into his tightly-circumscribed world view. Thank goodness not everyone subscribes to the same dismal views, eh? For that matter, good thing neither of us are running for office. People would be too - depressed? repressed? - to vote. Tough enough moving the masses as it is without blasting them with twee thoughts on the nature of the state's relationship to the individual.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> It doesn't matter what liberal causes Bushco allegedly supports.


Well, it does because you asked for some examples.



Max said:


> Again, we don't see them _calling_ themselves liberal - it would be political suicide. Surely you're not contesting this.


Of course it would be suicide. But part of the reason the Republicans took such a drubbing in the mid-terms is a recognition by a certain percentage of conservative voters that the administrations has no intention of following a conservative agenda in its remaining two years.



Max said:


> And if George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz et all are all closet liberals, then I must have materialized into a parralel universe where up is down and left is right. If so, I can see I'll be having a bad week.


I would suggest that they're not Conservatives. This isn't such a big secret. Even the likes of Rush Limbaugh have gone on record saying that George Bush is not a Conservative--that he isn't a champion of Conservative ideals at all. That the two U.S. political forces have become almost mirror images of each other isn't a rare opinion.



Max said:


> In the end, you are making a mockery of these definitions, trying to render them so flimsy and flexible that they are entirely stripped of meaning... which leaves, what, I wonder? Oh, yeah - that remarkably neutral statist phenomenon you've mentioned.


No, these things have definitions that can successfully be argued and defined, within reason. But the current federal U.S. crop of senators and representatives--with a few rare exceptions--are liberal variants. There are no strong conservative voices in federal U.S. politics at the moment.



Max said:


> ... but I have to remind myself that I'm talking with a rigid ideologue here who is only too willing to twist things into tortured pretzels so that they fit into his tightly-circumscribed world view.


I've stated that I'm a Libertarian. I don't have any particular love of the Bush Administration. Their foreign policy is a mess and I have nothing good to say about their fiscal spending policy. How rigid is that?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> As for whipping out the definition of, "neo" that does not have much to do with terminology being used by some in a racist manner. Words with perfectly mild roots can be adopted by racists and end up representing racist sentiments. Language evolves for better and for worse.


I find it odd that you give credence to MF little diversion. It’s obvious he’s trying to distract from the debate with a little smear and going into “anti-Semitic” territory. “Neo” means new, and I’ve stated that. It described that the some key figures in U.S. foreign policy were once democrats who found it easier to push their view within the Republican Party – hence Neo-Cons. The neocon philosophy does predate the term.
I have not used the term as meaning “Jewish” (as MF is trying to insinuate). The link between certain Neo-Cons and the Likud party is one of fact and helped explain why Iraq was chosen as a target by them. It’s far from the Jewish conspiracy that MF is once again pushing. 

You can re-read what I've written and MF can continue to twist...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You are indeed pretzeling and I marvel at your dedication in doing so. I'd doff my hat but in the end I don't think it's something to admire - and I don't tend to wear hats all that much so it would be a wasted gesture.

These guys, you're saying, are not conservatives... they're liberals. Oh yeah, _surrrrrre_ they are. If you believe that that the current crop of senators and representatives are liberal variants, I'd hate to see what you consider a true conservative pol - good grief, what does that even _look_ like - do they wave tentacles about in the air, breathe ammonia, maybe? Geez Louise, that's like saying Fox News represents America's communist viewpoint.

Look, I certainly don't contest that you are unhappy with the Bush administration (in fact, feel there's precious little about politics which actually makes you happy). But this cuts no ice with me as I still get the impression that a true conservative admin which meets your litmus test would never get in, as it exists only in the iy clinical world of political theory. That's what I find rigid, MF.

But I think I can agree with you that once a party gets into power the rights and obligations of political office tend to trump what should be done in the name of the party. Power preserving itself and all that... which explains why the left and right wings alike tend to descend into mushy lines of pseudo-demarcation and tend to get a good deal greyer from there.

But Rush Limbaugh? What credibility remains with this man? I always thought he was something of a charlatan and only it remained to wait for the man to become his own undoing. If you are trying to hold up Limbaugh as some kind of paragon of conservatism, I'll have to take a pass, thanks.

Anyway, while it's been fun, I just re-read the name of this thread and it seems we have strayed pretty far from the original topic. I am going to step off this wagon, MF - see you in the trenches.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I get it now. No, I do't think you are expressing anti-Semitic views here.

Max: Conservatives are elected on the state and municipal level on a regular basis. It isn't a freakish extreme. I would say that FOX News largely represents the viewpoint of the current establishment. I don't think it has an opinion as much as a desire to please.

But I don't think you quite get that I don't necessarily favour a Conservative government--if it believes in restrained spending it's less likely to do harm and more likely to meet some of my criteria for good government.

I mention Rush Limbaugh only to show you that Limbaugh--who holds considerable sway with a Conservative audience--has explained to his constituency that they can''t look to Bush to promote a conservative line because Bush isn't a conservative. It's one of the reasons that the party did so poorly in the mid-terms. The point is that the message is being broadly transmitted--it isn't just being heard in dusty academic circles--not that Limbaugh is a paragon of virtue or conservatism. He's an entertainer with influence.

To cap off this topic drift:

I would argue that the major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in my mind is this: that Conservatives see in individuals the power to make themselves, and by virtue of this their country, great. Liberals believe in the power of government to make their country, and by virtue of this, individuals great.

I believe more in one than the other.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It described that the some key figures in U.S. foreign policy were once democrats who found it easier to push their view within the Republican Party – hence Neo-Cons. The neocon philosophy does predate the term.


Thanks, that version actually helped. I don't know if it was the order, length or it just being a new day but it helped. A point of clarification: is it primarily the foreign policy of the key figures that identifies others as being of that group, or can the domestic policies of the key figures, in and of themselves, define others as being of that group?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I would argue that the major difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in my mind is this: that Conservatives see in individuals the power to make themselves, and by virtue of this their country, great. Liberals believe in the power of government to make their country, and by virtue of this, individuals great.


That explains a lot of the confusion. There are a whole lot more ways to look at conservatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

In the Canadian context (possibly U.S. too) the favouring tradition part is a large part of the understanding of conservatism. 

Liberalism can be even trickier given Canada's politics. Wiki does a decent job at the start but the entry, overall, is an example of what does not work at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Your definition appears to draw much more strongly from U.S. partisan politics than from Canadian practice or academic theory.


----------

