Bush's Economic Woes

The media are vermin scum who couldn't be trusted with the truth if civilization itself depended on it.

IBM is up 5% today because it’s high end mainframe sales are booming. IBM is a good bellwether stock for innovation and productivity in the economy and this indicates that while Bush’s tax cuts have temporarily hurt the deficit the cuts have paid off in enormous wealth generation after the dot com bust. The Dow has moved from about 7500 4 years ago to 12000. Liberals only know how to redistribute wealth not create it.

Polls are like the MSM, not reliable. As Americans think about putting Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House then the swing voters will vote GOP. The trick will be for the GOP to get the vote out.

In short, the US voter is much less utopian than Canadians are. A good proxy for utopianism is the unionization membership levels. As we think about our own polls today in Canada and the big slippage of Conservatives in Quebec, these stats help explain:

Quebec's unionization rate is 40%,
the Canadian average is 31.8%, and
the average among U.S. states is 13.8%

(presumably the ROC is about 2% lower than 31.8%, adjusted for Quebec)

They didn't hurt the deficit. They're way ahead of schedule in cutting it, because of record revenues coming in.

According to Statistics Canada
Union Membership in Canada in 2005 was 30.7%
of The Labour Force.

According to The Fraser Ins.
Union Membership in Canadian provinces in 2004 was
Newfoundland 39.6
Prince Edward Island 29.9
Nova Scotia 29.2
New Brunswick 28.4
Quebec 40.3
Ontario 28.2
Manitoba 36.7
Saskatchewan 35.6
Alberta 24.5
British Columbia 35.0

That's a bit rich of an argument by that pollster. He is using exit polls as his baseline for Party ID. Polling isn't magic, but it does have some observable properties which can let us know if one poll is better than others. And it's clear that exit polls suffer from much greater sampling problems that conventional telephone polls, which are far from perfect. I really don't know how good conventional polls in the states have been over the last few months, but I would never trust someone who uses exit polls to criticize telephone polls.

Jackasses in both the White House and Sussex Drive have virtually nothing to do with the current economic boom.

Any liberal/democrat and conservative/republican government could of been the benefactor of current economic prosperity.

Nothing short of a full embrace of communism could stall the economy...It's ciitzens (not politicians) that work hard, earn hard and spend plenty causing the wheels of the economy to rotate!

BTW...According to the Globe and Mail the CPC and Liberals are now neck and neck, each with 32%.

Yes, the deficit elimination is 3 years ahead of schedule and now only 2% of GDP; corporate tax revenues are way up because of the tax cut generated recovery. In the socialist EU deficits are about 3% of GDP, have been for years, likely to get worse.

Clinton got an illusion of surpluses because of the dot com capital gains taxes based on stock multiples that were historically way out of whack. Now the stock index is based on real earnings on real products made by real companies.

My view is that 4 things caused the existing deficit, which will get eliminated:

-The reduction of the 90’s big distorted capital gains revenues
-The Bush tax cuts, which are like a J curve or hockey stick, revenues go down very briefly and then quickly recover
-The WOT
-The pharmaceutical plan. . the jury is still out.. it could be ingenious and create private solutions to inevitable Health Care problem or it could be another expensive entitlement. I think it’ll work but like the War in Iraq it’ll take a lot of patience.

Right, nomdenet, the union rates are a good indicator of economic capability. If the unionization is high, this goes against economic production.

That's because unions are not focused on producing top quality, competitive products and services, but on obtaining high worker benefits for the least production and services. Unions are parastic on workers; their salaries are paid by the workers, and as the union management increases, the cost to the workers increases and the result is, the cost of the goods and services increases. BUT, the product and services actually decrease in quality, as they increase in cost. Result? The economy falls apart.

Unions are part of the structure of a utopian society, which is focused, not on the real requirements to obtain and process resources, produce goods and services, via employment, but only on employment. It ignores the other two areas - and that's why a unionized or collectivist society either falls apart, as did the Soviet Union, or requires massive financial aid from other sources, as does Quebec, N.Korea.

Quebec's socialism is enabled and kept alive because it is a cocooned society, completely protected from the real results of its inefficient and dysfunctional economic and social policies, by the rest of Canada. As Bouchard stated, reported in yesterday's Toronto Star, Quebecers lack a work ethic and this is harming their economy. Naturally, the Quebec reaction is to scream at him, rather than review why he is making such a statement.

david brown, what a load of hogwash. Kindly take, or read, a basic first year economics and business course.

David Brown, I agree that in a global economy there isn’t much a government can do … except get to heck out of the way .. which is what Bush courageously did and we all avoided a global recession.

Governments can get out of the way by letting companies and individuals keep more of their own money and invest as they see fit .. or governments can take the money and waste it on bureaucracy registering squirrel guns and redistributing global wealth to the third world despots with Kyoto.

Governments can also create a capitalist or socialist environment in the workplace. For example if Quebec was to enter the 21st century and insist on a "secret" ballot for any union votes, things might change there as Bouchard keeps trying to tell them ... they must change or they’ll go bust with that $120 billion in debt around thier necks.

ET, Right on! and brown has obviuosly never even heard about the economies of France and Germany (too name only a few). Guess that means they are communist countries.

current unionization rates can't be compared with past nmbers . . the industrial unions' numbers, the old heart & core, are way down.

The bulk of unionization is now public service . . . that also includes teachers.

This concentration of unionization in the public sector mirrors the massive growth in the size of the public service, the amount of government intrusion in our lives and the lowered levels of productivity.

david brown
your liberanoism is showing.

I think we should have a referendum on allowing public servant to be union members.

If you use just membership numbers you will find at most a 40% support rate.

If this was a true democracy all decisions would go to the people.

If union rates are a good indicator of economic capability, ET, the according to free's stats PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia should be performing at a substantially higher level than Newfoundland, BC, SK and Manitoba. Is that your own theory or did you learn that hogwash in economics 101?

If union rates are a good indicator of economic capability, ET, then according to free's stats PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia should be performing at a substantially higher level than Newfoundland, BC, SK and Manitoba. Is that your own theory or did you learn that hogwash in economics 101?

maryjane,
Read ETs submission again. A tinge of sarcasm and he does not back that theory in any way.
enough

ET,

Kindly for a moment forget what you learned in school and spend some time in the real world.

The problem with Quebec is not necessarily unioinism but a European attitude where 'self' is more important than worth and work leading to personal prosperity.

If you're that big on academia and theories then vote for Iggy and the Liberals in the next election.

I run a real thriving business, what do you do?

"Nothing short of a full embrace of communism could stall the economy" -David Brown (not the guy from Aston Martin, most likely)

--Indeed, communism would nearly destroy the economy, not just stall it.

There's something else that'd stall or depress the economy: tax hikes! And there's indications that the Democrats would hike taxes if they won, thus reversing the boom caused by the Bush tax relief.

The debate is over; settled: tax cuts, when taxes are high, holding other factors more or less equal, will stimulate economic activity. That's the logical theory, backed up by empirical evidence in the real world, all over the world. With more money to spend, virtually everyone will spend more, billions more overall, plus the multiplier effect is significantly greater than that which comes with state spending (and certainly far greater than putting the billions into secretive foundations, where the money does absolutely bloody nothing!).

Any savings invested in financial institutions will be lent to others who in turn will spend the money, creating economic activity, so virtually all of the tax relief will go towards consumer spending, etc. Leftists, of course, don't want to accept this truth!

CS,

Definitely not the guy from Aston Martin. I'm more comfortable going to town on a farm tractor rather than an overpriced British sports car.

nomdenet, the problem with your claim that Quebec will 'go bust' with its provincial debt (and its share of the national debt which it refuses) is that it won't 'go bust'. Quebec relies on the ROC to prevent that. If Quebec were 'sovereign' or even self-reliant, it would indeed go bust, but it dances merrily on, in its socialist utopianism, all paid for by the ROC.

maryjane - for heaven's sake, read my post. I said that union rates were a good indicator of economic production. They are. By that I meant that you could look at the rate of unionization in an economy and could come up with a reliable conclusion about the economic strength of that economy.

The correlation is not positive, where union rates and economic production together increase, but negative As the union rate increases, the economic robustness decreases. So, a high union rate can mean a low economic productivity.

david brown - why should I forget my knowledge? As for Quebec, its unionization is a serious problem - one of the key factors in Bouchard's Manifesto critique of Quebec. Everything is unionized and it's not simply the enormous bloated public bureaucracy, which includes the educational and public service (police, fire etc), but also all trades. The province is economically in a strait-jacket of unionization, with the union activities based around constant badgering for 'more benefits, pensions, holidays, shorter work, less accountability, no firing, no merit based work. Who is paying for all of this? It's not simply the Quebecer, who have the highest taxes in N.America, but the rest of Canada, for Quebec can't pay for all these benefits.

I repeat, a little knowledge, david brown, could be very useful.

Someone impersonating Kate said: "They didn't hurt the deficit. They're way ahead of schedule in cutting it, because of record revenues coming in."

WTF? Did someone k-k-kidnap KKKate? If so, where is she being held? At the Caa...the Caa...

sing it!

...the Cathcart Towers?

The statement is simply false. George Bush inherited a surplus and proceeded to add 2 trillion+ to the national debt. He is, by the numbers, the worst fiscal manager America has ever had; anyone who still supports him is an enemy of freedom, democracy, and America.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

but no matter what the time is the US still kicks the hell out of our economy because we have a drag of 8% unemployed that cant get off their collective duffs encouraged by the collective duff promoters in government. and Danny Williams is one of the lead promoters of Duffism. Grandstanding pseudopatriot. made his money with the result of newfoundland unemployment-- a huge cable watching duff sitting audience.

Has everyone missed the point here?

Predictions by me:

November 2006 - Major stock market crash after the advertising industry goes nuts because of YouTube and this:

Landslide victory by the Democrats with insuing war against Republicans and Conservatives.

January 2007 - back to the Stone-age, end of the Internet for another 2000 years!

conclusion: Too many humans can't handle the truth.

Well I took the time to read about the DJIA - it's based on 30 stocks. To me, that seems like a pretty small market sample.

"could of been the benefactor"

Hey, brown stuff, it's "could have been" and no, it couldn't.

"The statement is simply false."

Nothing you wrote demonstrates that my statement is false. US tax revenues are indeed, far ahead of expectations, contrary to the "tax more to get more" economic theories of the left.

There are multiple blog entries (with source links) here on the subject, should you care to do a search.

ET,

I only suggested you forget your schooling for a few moments because academics need to be grounded in what happens in the real world.

You also have to remember why unions are so prevelant in Quebec.

There was a time not so long ago when chaos and organized crime dominated the province. If you wanted work you had to pay off the bosses and suffer subsequent abuse.

The solution was to unionize the entire province and turn unions into democratic bargaining units. Organized crime controlled the upper echelon and labour calm was established...everybody was happy (more or less).

Problem is now (today) the old time unions are no longer in step with current economics but how do you get rid of them. Well Bouchard's comments are a step in the right direction, however, the rank and file have to see greater benefit in freeing themselves of these leeches.

Now that the crybaby have-not province rhetoric has worn out the day of reckoning is upon Quebec. The rest of Canada has given them enough rope...they are now free to hang themselves.

onthejob,
Remember the tech crash of 2000? Remember 9/11? War on terror, increased military spending? Remember "irrational exhuberance" by Alan Greenspan?

Bush took over a well overheated economy built on a tech boom that was about to crash.

Contrary to the advice of the lefties he cut taxes and the economy grew and made up for the initial revenue lost. Mike Harris in Ontario did this. It worked. Gordon Campbell did this in BC. It worked. Ronald Reagan did this. It worked.

Bob Rae raised taxes and sunk the economy. Glen Clark in BC raised taxes and sunk the economy. Compare the high tax regimes in Canada and compare them to the low(ish) tax regimes. Who has the better economy? Better yet take a look at direction of taxes and compare. Those lowering taxes have the improving economies while the ones who have static or high rates are mired.

Would it take any proof at all for the naysayers to change their tune? No. They are wedded to their misguided philosophy.
enough

Within the United States, we can easily see the effects of various tax and regulatory policies towards business. Michigan has been losing jobs for the past several years as Jennifer Granholm has reversed previous governor Engler's business-friendly policies. Intel hasn't left Silicon Valley, but it hasn't added any jobs here for about fifteen years; it is now the largest private employer, and possibly the largest employer of any type, in Oregon. Similarly, southern states (which I'll define as the eleven states that made up the Confederacy) which typically have "right to work" laws prohibiting requiring workers at a plant to join a union or pay union dues, have attracted more than their share of foreign investment, e.g., automobile plants.

On the national level, I think that the President did the right thing with his tax reductions. I don't think that about his increased spending, particularly on things like the prescription drug benefit for those past their sixty-fifth birthdays.

"On The Job", you have confused "deficit" with "debt".

Yes, the debt went way up following the terrible impact of 9/11 and the necessarily ensuing war against Islamofascists, which ain't cheap.

But Bush slashed taxes, the economy boomed and governmental revenues soared to record highs.

To claim that Bush is the "worst fiscal manager America ever had" is debatable. One must consider that 9/11 really hurt the economy in many ways, depressing gov't revenues, adding to the debt, plus the cost of national security in the short AND long run is great and cannot be skimped on, like liberals want.

You can't deny the truth: gov't revenues have skyrocketed and the deficit is being tackled ahead of schedule.

That's the way it is. Further opinion is just opinion.

What would the Democrats have done in response to 9/11? How would America be doing today? Would there have been more attacks, higher taxes and a depression? Who knows? The Dems are nutty enough to do the wrong things. I hope we never have to find out!

Psst! Tax cuts make regular working folks richer just like that and actually raise gov't revenues!

But leftists don't understand how. They obviously don't want to understand... probably don't care at all... they just want a check for doing nothing!

A better comparison of economic efficiency and union membership is to examine it on an industry basis.

Look no further than the ailing airlines and US automakers, the two of the most heavily unionized industries. Delta will get a second chance after Chapter 11 primarily because it will have the union off of its back. One of USAir's pre-Chapter 11 major problems was their uncompromising union.

I'm not pretending that management doesn't have some blame to share. But, they sure do not get any assistance from unions when its downsizing or pay cuts versus survival.

Public school teachers are 100% unionized. What's the quality of that "product" in the last 20 years? I'd rate public education as abysmal at best.

Here's a classic, when I lived in Pennsylvania, all of the liquor/wine stores were state owned. The clerks, all unionized state employees, made 2-3x times, probably more with benefits included, than the same scanners at Walmarts. Their job entailed nothing more than a Walmart employee does. Same with the unionized turnpike toll booth employees. The PA turnpike is one of the most expensive in the nation. Corruption within the Turnpike Commission is a factor too.

Might I also remind Canadians thinking of forgiving the Liebrano$$$ for their stealing our money and other stupid nonsense that the Conservatives are planning serious tax relief for the next budget?

The only way to get this badly-needed relief, with the ensuing economic stimulation, etc., is to re-elect the Conservatives to a majority gov't. The Liebrano$$$ will just play another bloody shell game, you know, cutting one thing but hiking another and so on, plus underestimating surpluses and spending more and more and more on scams and boondoggles and crap all the time so they can continue to keep soaking us forever, lining their own pockets with cash from ours... I didn't make this up.

We know the Conservatives deserve a majority. We deserve a Conservative majority. Choose your Canada.

BTW, anyone who believes that Canada (and not just Alberta) is booming need only visit New Brunswick. Then you'll see what the Liberal legacy for the East really is. Alberta takes care of itself whereas the Atlantic is still suffering from dependence and a culture of defeatism. Even we out here admit it now.

CS: Why do you keep saying the economy boomed because of Bush's tax cuts? Not even Keyenes would make that claim. Yes tax cuts may stimulate the economy to a degree, but you are exaggerating the impact greatly.

First: what boom are you talking about? The economy (GDP) has grown an average of 2.4% per year since his tax cuts. By contrast the economy grew 3.7% during the Clinton years.

Second: what about monetary policy? The Fed drove down interest rates, and I think most economists would agree that this is what is primarily responsible for economic robustness.

To be clear: I am not saying tax cuts are bad. I am just saying that you have to realize the limitations of fiscal poilcy and you have to be responsible when using it. The deficits that Bush has generated with his cuts and spending could result a good deal of pain in the future. Something a different president will have to deal with.

I have belonged to two unions, entirely because I was forced to join each of them by the terms of employment. They have done nothing for me beyond petty victories, and add insult to injury with their grandiose promises. The true beneficiaries in any union are the fat cat union leaders that have the only key to the larder of member dues.

I was once a Democrat, when Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson were my senators. With their passing so did my allegiance to a political entity that has traded relevance for insanity. The Democrats today, and all other leftist satraps, will bring nothing to this world but economic stagnation and a continued moral diminishment, with a resultant bloodbath as their cheap contructs finally collapse. Every day come signs that the lesson of Cassandra is again ignored.

I wouldn't drive under a union-built bridge in Quebec ...

penny, your 'classic' still exists in Ontario. It's called the LCBO.

Cherenkov (sounds like a Communist name to me), of course John Maynard Keynes wouldn't claim that the economy boomed 'cause of tax cuts. Why not? Keynes was a proponent of state spending (G) to boost economies. Which require high taxation (T), which, btw, in turn, entails less spending by consumers (C).

Now, even Keynes would accept that C times its multiplier effect is greater than the same amount of G times its own. Therefore, cutting T results in higher C, which results in a greater multiplier effect and a greater economic stimulus.

Of course, that's based on the "ceteris paribus" (all things held equal) assumption, but come on, never mind liberal econo dogma... take the equation and look at the int'l empirical evidence... you'll get statistically significant findings concluding that I'm right.

No need to complicate it with the low interest rates... they help, but only to a degree... those with no income cannot borrow money anyway, and those paying too much tax can't afford to borrow much, therefore cannot spend much. Think about that...

Yes, it's complex, but the debate is over: tax cuts are the best stimulant!

Disagree if you wish... the left has had its kick at the can already and hasn't impressed us. Tax-cutting righties have! Therefore conservative is the way to go.

Alberta's economy grew by 4.3% '05. A boom, right?

The US economy grew over the same period by 3.4%. That growth is apparently equivalent to the size if the entire Chinese economy.

The deficit issue is largely a non-issue (see several of the well-argued posts above) however, the unfunded pension liability in the US does merit concern but hardly does it merit the doomsday prophecies some are making.

As for unions, Canada is now the only western country that still allows closed shops, mandatory enrolment, mandatory union dues payments, and no say over whether the dues are donated to a political and if so, which party that would be.

We are in the stone age re: human resources compared to our competitors.

The unfunded pension issue in the states is the next major cause of recession in the States, and if they don't start doing something about it, the crap will hit the fan. Social spending is almost completely funded by borrowing, and the only way to turn it around is to slash social spending to ribbons. It will be the US's Waterloo if they don't get off their ass' and start doing something to midigate the debt.

Bush did great this year, he reduced deficit spending by 22%. Course, no one ever bothers to mention than Clinton wasn't running a deficit when he left office. Say what you will, thats a laudable acheivement for an American President.

The US is the biggest credit card in the world, and the piper will come home, never doubt it.

"The deficits that Bush has generated with his cuts and spending" -Cherenkov

--- The deficits are a result of necessary spending on national security, the war against jihadism and other necissities. Not a result of the tax cuts.

Interest rates were already quite low and didn't go much lower (how could they?). Then the economy tanked after 9/11. Then Bush cut taxes. Then gov't revenues skyrocketed to record levels, despite leftist predictions that they'd sink like a stone. See, the left predicted that tax cuts would negatively impact revenues, boosting the deficit, but they didn't... in fact, the opposite happened. If taxes were maintained at pre-9/11 levels, the deficit would have been higher than it is today.

Besides, tax cuts have been the only significant stimulatory policy implementation. If not the tax cuts, can one demonstrate that something else led to the current economic boom? (It's a boom, obviously, seeing as revenues are at record highs despite tax rates being lower... figure it out).

Nice try cherenkov. You say average growth of 2.4. That takes into account the flatlining of the economy after 9/11.
The real sign of leadership is how they do when times are tough. Bush has managed tremendous growth through some very tough times and despite it all the US economy is positively rosey. Bob Rae nearly destroyed Ontario.
Here in BC in the midst of the greatest economic boom in world history, the NDP managed to tank the economy by practicing the same things that sll lefties preach. Here we refer to it as the 10 lost years.
enough

We are still riding the windfall of Reagan's tax cuts. Clinton knew better, had a Republican congress to keep him in check, than to reinstate higher taxes. Supply-side economics works.

No government repects my hard earned money as much as I do.

Private charities deliver better services than governments too. Bush initiated a dialogue on that, but, never pushed the concept. Too bad.

As Thomas Jefferson observed...."the government that governs the least governs the best." And, as JFK observed of Jefferson when hosting a dinner for 49 Nobel Prize winners...."I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Too bad our founding fathers, vilified Dead White Men, have been gutted from our public schools here by the lefty pc and multi-culti minions.

Holy smokes, CS ... I don't know where to start! Just about everything you said is completely wrong!
Lets' start here: the deficit DID increase after Bush's cuts taxes. Big time. 2001 had a surplus of $106B. 2004: $422B deficit. The WOT accounts for perhaps a third of that. The rest is due to tax cuts and increased spending in other areas.
Secondly, "Interest rates were already quite low and didn't go much lower " ... in fact rates continued to decrease throughout the end of '03. Therefore tax cuts were not "the only significant stimulatory policy implementation".
Thirdly, Keynesian theory predicts that both tax cuts and increases in spending create positive demand shocks that stimulate the economy.
Fourthly: I'm not Russian :-). (It's a long story..)

enough .. I am just saying that I wouldn't call it a "boom" as CS did. And I completely agree with you about Bob Rae and the general ineptness of NDP leadership, as with the Doer gov't here in MB.

the big issue I have with taxes is regardless of when 'tax free' day finds itself on the calendar, the s.o.b.s waste a great deal of money propping up their pet projects and riding-centric initiatives.

its the logic that says make work projects are 'good' for the economy; no they aren't, the benefit concentrates on a miniscule minority, a subsidized factory, the cost is much bigger on reduced and then reduced again and then reduced more disposable income for a much bigger sector the taxpayer.

in balance, on average, over time, govt 'make work' projects are akin to the old medical practice of drawing blood from the patient.

take note of how often the left resorts to this flawed tactic.

penny:

if you buy a GM product, on avg some $2000 of the purchase money goes into propping up the GM pension and other post employment benefits to the *unionized* workforce.

and their warranty despite recent improvements still lags other car makers. they are relying on the emotional attachment and patriotic fervor factor which is gradually diminishing with time, much like the fortunes of the company.

I am a unionised worker and find ETs postings interesting becasue he she?)is in the field of economics.

My question is this; if unions are so bad for an economy then why is it that during the 50s and 60s, a period characterised by high rates of unionisation, America's economy was so bullish?

We've had years and years of prosperity....reaganomics if you like.....yet apart from the top 10% of the population no one's real income has changed much. No one saves anymore and people are up to their ears in debt.

Are we simply borrowing our prosperity?

I'm a food inspector who supervises both union and non-union meat-packing plants. I know the business inside-out.

Yet when I'm at the supermarket I see little or no difference in price between identical products, but of different brands, some of which are produced in union shops and some of which are not.

In some cases the difference in plant wages can be as much as 7 or 8 dollars an hour, yet the difference in retail price is minimal at best....on the rare occasions when there actually IS a difference.

One other thing; some posters here have claimed that unionised workers tend to make shoddy products. I can't speak for other areas of economic activity, but in the food sector, and as a general rule of thumb, non-union shops are harder to supervise because they tend to play hard and fast with food-safety rules and hygiene regulations. They tend to have higher rates of infractions and those manufacturing ready-to-eat products are often under more intensive inspections.

So union shops aren't "soviet", they just tend to be a little cleaner.

mr palubiski:

the answer which I will condense, is this:

the prosperity of the 50s was because of the post war baby boom, everybody contributed to it including unions which grew because business owners wanted to catch the wave and ok, gotta unionize in the process to get a workforce so be it.

unions saved the day when they were being formed at the beginning of the previous century, coal miners for instance, now, to quote an old Steppenwolf song 'there's a monster on the loose'. jimmy hoffa syndrome without the mob connections.

it is no longer an urban myth that the real benefactors of unionization is the union brass which for a long, long time opposed secret ballot for instance.

unions nowadays are more interested in limiting membership in order to maintain artificially created shortages of labour thus higher wages, and ganging up on business owners in a 'brotherhood' mentalilty in which mediocrity is rewarded.

its a natural and expected and typical evolutionary process, much like the fortunes of a political party or a village or nation or company. they get fat and lazy and rely on status quo over innovation and cutting edge to maintain their position of advantage.

that is the problem with unions in 2006.

Bush created an illusion of prosperity by borrowing $2.2 trillion dollars. Anyone who suggests that this is wise economic policy should remove themselves from the gene pool. I'm sorry, but there are limits to tolerable stupidity.

If Harper or his successor Bob Rae were to increase spending on social programs by 20% while simultaneously cutting taxes by 20%, resulting in a $50 billion annual deficit, would you point to the TSE Index and say it's all good? Because that is a fair approximation of what Bush has done and your defense of his fiscal policy. Actually now that I think of it, judging by the numbers Bob Rae was a slightly better fiscal manager than Bush has been.

Oh, and illegal immigration is part of the mirage. Gimme a labour pool of twenty million illegal immigrants willing to work for two bucks an hour and I'll create an illusion of prosperity too.