The nominal U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion. Five percent of that doesn’t make up the deficit.
So when is Canada going to start building a wall, like America has built on the border with Mexico, to stop all the Americans from illegally fleeing to Canada for “the good life”?
Well, we do have some Americans sneaking in to mooch off of our health coverage, but since we lack the panic-reaction Americans have to illegals mooching off their health coverage, I expect no wall is imminent.
How soon they forget.
Don’t you remember the 60’s?
All those peaceniks and conscience objectors were warmly welcomed.
‘What’s that? You don’t want to go and kill people, don’t like war? Sure you can stay with us!’
That’s just simply not true; in fact, a great many Canadians didn’t like draft dodgers. The welcome was quite varied indeed - however, it being hard to tell who was and wasn’t a draft dodger (since dodgers were treated as ordinary immigrant applications) you could get by without anyone really knowing anyway.
Not currently, but before the recession, government revenues were somewhere around 18% of GDP and spending was around 21% of GDP, from what I’ve seen.
Cite?
What you’re saying here is totally at odds with my experience, which is why I ask.
Are you really asking for a cite for that? How do you define “a great many” unless say over 90% of Canadians were thrilled with American draft dodgers coming to Canada you could still have a great many individual Canadians that did not like draft dodgers.
Looking at your location I would remind you that your reality is not everyone’s reality. I’m no Canadian but even I know there is quite a conservative cowboy culture in large parts of the more sparsely settled Canadian plains, people of that stock probably wouldn’t be too happy with American draft dodgers. Even if they didn’t care for the Vietnam war they would be people who look questionably on those who flee their responsibilities.
I don’t recall the medical system ‘going for shit’ and my wife was a nurse then. What I recall is that she took a small decrease in pay, and then went through three years of frozen pay. Waiting times went up a little bit in some provinces, but there was no measurable effect in aggregate health outcome measures.
The nurse’s unions squawked and screamed and threatened, but frankly my wife knew she was making a better wage than she’d earn outside the government and we thought the tiny cuts were eminently fair.
You blame austerity for all that? The fact is, we trimmed the size of our government from 53% of GDP to a low of 35% of GDP, which is a massive reduction, and yet I don’t think most people in Canada regret us taking that step.
And while our taxes were higher than the U.S.'s, they were, and are, significantly less progressive. That’s the case because we fully fund our entitlements with significantly higher payroll deductions, and we raise more revenue through sales and excise taxes than does America. Canada has lower corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes than the U.S., and our top marginal rate is lower (29% federally). Now, depending on what province you live in you may or emay not not have a significantly more progressive structure. Here in Alberta, we hav lower overall taxes than any other jurisdiction in North America.
What I see on that graph is a country that had a massive debt and deficit that was dragging the economy down, and a government that was too large. We redirected our social surplus towards correcting those problems, and as a result once we had achieved a surplus situation with a smaller government, our per-capita GDP took off and outpaced the U.S. throughout the 2000’s.
Or look at it this way: We cut government by 20% of GDP, and yet by the start of the recession our GDP per-capita had caught back up to the U.S., except we weren’t borrowing money to do it.
And right now, Canada is creating more jobs in absolute numbers than the U.S. is, with 10 times our population. Our unemployment rate is 2 points below the U.S’s, our dollar is stronger than the U.S. dollar, and we’re forecast to be turning in surpluses again by 2014.
As for Canada collecting more in tax than the U.S. - we’re really not. You have to consider the deficit and the under-funding of U.S. entitlements as implicit taxation, and between the two that currently amounts to something like 12% of GDP, which would put overall U.S. taxation higher than Canada’s - and dramatically higher if Obama gets the tax increases he’s looking for.
The bottom line to look at is how big the government is as a percentage of GDP. One way or another, than govenrment has to be paid for, either through taxes or borrowing. The U.S. passed Canada in overall size of government in 2009, and the trend is for that gap to continue increasing.
That’s correct, and it’s why we weathered the recession better than any other country in the world, despite being tidally locked to the country that has weathered it the worst. Canada now has the strongest economy in the G8. Does anyone think we’d be this strong if we had listened to the NDP and continued borrowing money and running up deficits and growing the size of government in the 90’s? I can tell you where we’d be - we’d be where Greece and Italy and Spain are today - broke.
As for the consequences to Canada of a U.S. fiscal default - I’m not so sure it would be disastrous in the long run. I suspect what we’d see is a flood of investment money from the U.S. into Canada, seeking a more stable business environment. And don’t forget - while the U.S. is our largest export market, it’s also our biggest import market, and so a devalued American dollar cuts both ways.
The fact is, our recession didn’t go as deep as the U.S.'s, and our recovery happened faster, (in spite of / because of) us having a much smaller ‘stimulus’. I’m sure we’d feel significant short or medium term damage from a U.S. meltdown, but in the long run it could possibly work to Canada’s benefit.
Oh, one more thing - the ‘grand deal’ that’s supposedly being offered right now in the debt ceiling talks is $3 in future spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases next year. In Canada, we did $7 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and we reversed the timing - the spending cuts started immediately, but the tax increases phased in over several years. So don’t think the Democrats are offering anything particularly groundbreaking here. They need to go much farther.
N.B.: There is a looming government-fiscal crisis in the U.S., there is no looming financial meltdown, we had the financial meltdown four years ago and it will be some time before the industry gets overheated enough for another.
In the interest of politeness, we could start spending ridiculous amounts of money on something, maybe our own nuclear weapons program.
Start small: A national program to rebuild all your football fields so they’re the right fucking size.
First, sonny, learn to play a man’s game. Only wimps need 4 downs. and our fields were built correctly. They didn’t shrink when they were washed 
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t I been hearing reports of Canada pursuing more Asian markets in the last couple of years? I recall seeing this story on China banning Canadian canola from a couple of years ago.
Not to doubt your numbers, Sam, but the Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Economic Freedom Index shows the Canadian tax burden at 32.2% of GDP and government expenditures at 39.7%. For the USA it has those numbers at 26.9% (taxation) and 38.9% (expenditures). So it seems like we are taxed less and spend less, at least according to Heritage.
If those numbers are right (which, it’s Heritage so I’m not going to hazard much of a guess) then we clearly need to attack the problem from both sides. I think the 3- or 4-to-1 numbers that the Democrats are at is a perfectly reasonable starting point, but when the GOP wants the revenue number to be zero I don’t see how you get there from here.
True. Getting revenues back up to historical norms is only part of the problem, and entitlement reforms will absolutely have to be included.
If the U.S. government just halts deficit spending overnight, I think you’ll be very surprised how quickly a fiscal meltdown will follow.
Now add in the U.S.'s 10% of GDP deficit, and the underfunding of all its entitlement programs, as I said in my post. Those are a form of implicit taxation.
What year is the data from Heritage. They show Canada’s government to be .8% of GDP larger than the U.S’s, but I’ve read that growth in the U.S. government relative to Canada caused it to move past us in total size in 2009, when it was 41.76%. But data this new is subject to revision and interpretation, and I’m not sure all sources agree.
I believe the ultimate problem here is that Republicans simply have no faith that Democrats will cut spending, promises or not. In the past, every time Democrats have offered a ‘cuts for tax increases’ deal, the cuts are either promises to cut in the future or they are vague cuts to be defined ‘later’, but the tax increases are always specific and to implemented first.
Would Democrats agree to the opposite? I personally think one way to break this logjam would be to invert the timing. What if the Republicans agreed to 1:1 spending cuts/tax increases, but structured so that no tax increases can come until AFTER verified spending cuts? So for example, if the government cuts $100 billion from this year’s budget, then next year it can raise taxes by $100 billion. If the cuts don’t materialize, then neither do the tax increases. And the cuts would have to be real, baseline cuts - none of this bookkeeping trickery where baseline spending is set at 5% growth, and a ‘cut’ is lowering the growth to 3%.
Do you think Democrats would go for that? If not, then I have to assume this cuts for tax increases deal is another game like the one they played in 1986 and 1991. If they would, then that offer should be put on the table. Because I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who are currently saying “No new taxes, period”, simply because they don’t want to be played like they have been in the past.