XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general   
   From: noone@nobody.com   
      
   John Fleming wrote   
      
   > I think the problems started emerging long before 2004-06.   
      
   You are spot on.   
      
      
      
   And troubled economic times should not be when spending cuts come in.   
   Spending cuts should occur when the economy is growing and tax revenues are   
   high.  That pays down debt because higher tax revenues combined with lowered   
   spending add up to surpluses, which reduce said debt.   
      
   Bush cut taxes during a time of fiscal good times when he didn't need to.   
   He ignored the debt.   
      
   In the late 1990's, both Canada and the USA had a great problem.  What to do   
   with the surplus.   Paul Martin put it against our debt.   
      
   When Bush moved into 1600 Penn ave.  He said "the government is taxing the   
   people too much" and reduced taxes, forgetting about the debt obligation.   
   One that never goes away.   
      
   When times are of low economic activity, that's when government steps in and   
   asserts well earned stimulus, through tax cuts and Federal spending.   
      
   But if they don't save for a "rainy day", it's all mute.   Economic activity   
   is not day-to-day, it's a long term strategy.   
      
   Sure.  Harper has increased our debt since the surplus days of the Liberals,   
   but there was a requirement to do so because it meant heading off the impact   
   of the screw ups in the USA.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)