# Norquist: "Keep Canadians on their side of the border"



## ballz (29 Oct 2011)

I hate to give this plug any publicity because everything he said on the show was absolutely stupid and this is just a spit in the bucket, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdlbRSbWdZ0

"We ought to have a national defense strong enough to keep the Canadians on their side of the border and otherwise the government ought to leave us alone."

I think I'm more surprised that Bill Maher didn't say anything than anything else. You can hear the crowd laugh at him when he says it.


----------



## cupper (29 Oct 2011)

I almost spit my drink out when I heard him say that last night. I had to watch the rebroadcast to make sure I was hearing it right.

I suppose the alternative comment would have stirred up too much crap.

"Gotta keep the Mexicans on their side of the border" :facepalm:

I love how Maher calls him out when he starts to give a waffle on the question, just before the clip starts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2011)

But see here. Given the horrendous and growing pit of US budget deficits, in a very few years the only damned countries against which the USA _may_ be able to defend itself are Canada and Mexico.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2011)

Either this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 or something like this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is America's near term future. In either event the sentiment is the same:






America is the Greece of the Western Hemisphere: broke, lying to its creditors, lying to itself and living beyond its means ... on borrowed Chinese (and Canadian) money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2011)

If the latest trends in migration are correct, the problem the US will increasingly face is to keep its talented people on its side of the border.


----------



## Jungle (30 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... on borrowed Chinese (and Canadian) money.



I'm not an economist by any means, but I like the no-nonsense approach of this guy: http://www.optimist123.com/

Who published this updated pie-chart earlier this year:






According to this, the US still own 68% of their own debt; I think this is still better then a good number of countries; raw numbers sometimes do not give a good picture, as depicted here:

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

And especially here:

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

The US has the largest debt in raw numbers, but this has to be compared to the GDP, which illustrates the country's capacity to pay. In reality, the USA is in a better financial position than a number of countries.

I'm not trying to say that all is well in the USA, but it may not be as bad as some believe.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Oct 2011)

I've decided to call the imminent US immigrants/refugees to Canada "Mexicans".  The other one in the running was "green backs". Unless anyone has a better one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

The US deficit and debt problems - and they are real problems - are of the same _nature_ as the Greek problems but not of the same _order_.

The US _can_, *should* and, eventually, most likely *will* reign in its deficit and reduce it's national debt to sensible levels (opinions differ on what that is, I like 20 to 30% of GDP). But, for the moment - until, say 2016 or even 2020 - I have more faith in Americans' ability to delude themselves than I have in their ability to see and solve their problems.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2011)

Having googled Grover Norquist, I think he is a small government advocate nut, and he was making the point that the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, should be chopped and chopped and chopped, until literally it only has enough forces to protect the homeland against a minor threat. His metaphor left something to be desired, as did his thought process, but I do not sense any hostile intent towards us in his statement.


----------



## ballz (30 Oct 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Having googled Grover Norquist, I think he is a small government advocate nut, and he was making the point that the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, should be chopped and chopped and chopped, until literally it only has enough forces to protect the homeland against a minor threat. His metaphor left something to be desired, as did his thought process, but I do not sense any hostile intent towards us in his statement.



I agree that it wasn't literal, but it's an unnecessary and inconsiderate analogy.

He is without a doubt a small government nut, and his arguments for supply-side economics are elementary at best, but the fact that he believes in them so much is rather scary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

Nordquist is, also, reasonably influential - especially in small government/low tax/_Tea Party_ circles. I think the low tax/no tax increase position is the one he holds most firmly; he appears, from what (little) I have read/heard to be supporting Rick Perry's _optional_ flat tax.


----------



## ballz (30 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nordquist is, also, reasonably influential - especially in small government/low tax/_Tea Party_ circles. I think the low tax/no tax increase position is the one he holds most firmly; he appears, from what (little) I have read/heard to be supporting Rick Perry's _optional_ flat tax.



He is, the optional flat tax is exactly what Bill Maher was discussing with him, and Norquist was trying to explain how great of a thing it was.... fail. This is truly supply-side economics at it's very ugliest.

Having done quite a few economics classes and a public finance class (probably the most useful class I've done in all of university... not saying much though) I'm confident I know the theory behind it, but in practice it's a total bust. In all seriousness a flat tax is regressive in nature when you look at it in terms of disposable income.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2011)

The point that dude was trying to make wasn't that Canada is a threat, but he's making a call for isolationism.  In other words, the US ought not to have the world's largest (most expensive?) military, with fleets here and fleets there, but only large enough, as he says, to "...keep Canadians on their side of the border".  In other words, stop spending money on jump jets and hover tanks and lasers and and and.


No tin foil needed.


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2011)

Make no mistake, he used "Canadians" knowing full well that any other phrasing would have instantly labelled him as anti-immigration at best, and racist at worst.

And to make such a statement in front of a Bill Maher audience would have been pouring gasoline on a propane fire.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2011)

Not just that, cupper, but because the point is very deliberate: Canada is the US' closest ally and largest trading partner and offers no threat to the US.  This just emphasises his point that the US military ought to be tiny.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> He is, the optional flat tax is exactly what Bill Maher was discussing with him, and Norquist was trying to explain how great of a thing it was.... fail. This is truly supply-side economics at it's very ugliest.
> 
> Having done quite a few economics classes and a public finance class (probably the most useful class I've done in all of university... not saying much though) I'm confident I know the theory behind it, but in practice it's a total bust. In all seriousness a flat tax is regressive in nature when you look at it in terms of disposable income.



Sadly the evidence is against you, I posted on this topic a short while ago (feel free to search. Check for Estonia in the World Economy thread and for the Forbes survey in the Flat Tax thread) and the numbers come up quite nicely for the nations that have incorporated a flat tax. Indeed, I have seen figures indicating that Canadians may be paying as much as $3.6 billion in after tax income to get their taxes done, a flat tax for Canada would make a huge difference (assuming that we would save some $3 billion, since there will always be "special cases" needing accounting help, this would be the resources sufficient to create up to 60,000 full time jobs).

Americans are moving north in ever increasing numbers, and in many ways this is a good thing since we are facing a labour shortage in skilled trades, and a long term demographic bust (which will simply be filled by more and more Americans seeking the higher and igher wages we will have to offer to get employees of any sort), Canada's long term future may well be as a limited Republic rather than a Westminister style parliament.


----------



## ballz (30 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly the evidence is against you, I posted on this topic a short while ago (feel free to search. Check for Estonia in the World Economy thread and for the Forbes survey in the Flat Tax thread) and the numbers come up quite nicely for the nations that have incorporated a flat tax. Indeed, I have seen figures indicating that Canadians may be paying as much as $3.6 billion in after tax income to get their taxes done, a flat tax for Canada would make a huge difference (assuming that we would save some $3 billion, since there will always be "special cases" needing accounting help, this would be the resources sufficient to create up to 60,000 full time jobs).



Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that there would be more money left in the hands of consumers, and therefore more  spending/more demand/more jobs created. In theory that's true, but this is not related to my point. I've whipped out the ol' textbook here tonight and have concluded I'm going to have to visit my old professor before I can articulate my point properly.

That said, comparing what it did to Estonia vs what it will do to the US is apples and oranges, given the difference in income inequality. Estonia has a income quintile share ratio of 5.0, where as the US has one of about 14.5. Not even close to those of most European countries (http://www.stat.ee/29998)

If the US switches to a flat rate, or an optional flat rate (basically saying "we'll give a huge cut to the wealthy, and we won't raise the taxes for those paying less than 20%) all it is doing is putting more money into the hands of those that are already wealthy. They are not going to stir up more demand. Supply-side economics relies on people/entrepreneurs/corporations needing that extra dough to compete in the market. This is why corporate tax cuts and the like have failed. Giving more money to the wealthy in the US won't create more competition, and so it won't create more demand (well except for a few extra luxury cars being purchased, but not more demand for a Ford Taurus. Instead of having 5 Ford Taurus's demanded at 20k each, you're getting one Corvette demanded at 100k... same amount of money, but guess which one creates more demand for jobs?).

If you want to use supply-side theories, it would have to be targeted at putting more money in the small business owner's hands, who will actually want to use that extra cash to invest and expand his business.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2011)

For the moment, the best thing consumers and governments can do is deleverage. They will do so anyway, either through voluntary efforts (scaling back, paying down debt, cutting spending) or involuntarily (massive inflation as currencies get debased and 60% "haircuts" on bonds like Greek creditors are facing right now).

For hard pressed Canadians, a tax cut would be wonderful; Canadians pay an average of *41%* of their income to various levels of government in taxes, so extra money to do anything like pay down debt, purchase goods and services or invest is at a premium. Most business is in waiting mode, as economic uncertainty makes it very risky to invest in anything at all (the sudden slowdown in job creation in the US after the passage of Obamacare is a good example of regulatory uncertainty; what sort of new and unexpected liabilities would Obamacare generate for the employer? Ontario business has to factor in new taxes and their electricity bills to rise by _65_ per cent by 2015 and _141_ per cent by 2030, which puts a huge crimp in any potential hiring).

For tax cuts to happen, all levels of government would also have to cut and cut hard. At the Federal level, this could include $30 billion/year in subsidies to business, $19 billion/year wage differential between civil service jobs and the same private sector jobs, $8 billion/year in Crown Corporations, however much is spent on Government departments which overlap Provincial responsibilities as outlined in the BNA (several billion to be sure), $43 billion/year in equalization payments to the Provinces...My goodness, that is at least $100 billion/year; the resources to create 2,000,000 full time jobs (which by odd coincidence would be relatively close to the number of unemployed in Canada).

So the first order of business is to *get out of debt*. Supply side economics and tax cuts work and work well as demonstrated in JFK Era America, Thatcher era England, Reagan Era America, Mike Harris Era Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan since the rise of the Saskatchewan party, the economic turnaround being seen by the "Newly Red" American States since the 2010 Midterms...(a simple look at GDP, per capita income, and employment rates during these time periods compared to before, or even trend lines between before and after tell the story. I can pull examples even farther from history; want to see the difference between Elizabethan England and Imperial Spain? How about the Ottoman Empire vs the _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_? Yes not everyone managed to get on the boat _then_, but there are lots of people who aren't getting on the boat _now_ either...)


----------



## ballz (31 Oct 2011)

Really? The Reaganomics is a GOOD argument for supply-side arguments??? It's precisely the argument I'd use it against. Sure, he created jobs (so did Clinton), but that was because he wasn't balancing the budget at all. Anybody could create jobs if they're not worried about how far they're sinking into debt.

The US Public Debt from the time Reagan took office (1981) to the time he left (1989) more than doubled, and is largely the reason for the 90s recession.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

Bush Sr. didn't believe in supply-side economics (he referred to it as Voodoo economics) and the growth of debt began to slow down, and then the only time that any debt was reduced was the Clinton era.


But you said it best, you've made my argument for me, "for hard pressed Canadians" a tax cut would be wonderful. Like I already said, supply-side theory relies on the competition (aka the person/entity needing the money), so a tax cut for "hard pressed" Canadians (or Americans) *will* have a positive impact. A flat tax rate is not a cut for "hard pressed" people.

Who does this flat tax rate benefit? Or optional flat tax? Nobody that's hard pressed. In the US it benefits people making above $83,600, $174,400, and $379,150 the most. Guess what? Those people aren't hard-pressed, they aren't having trouble paying off their debt, and if they are they can just decide to cut down on consumption. It's the people making less than $34,500 who aren't getting any tax cut in this, and it's precisely those people who would actually use the tax cuts for paying off debt or for putting food on the table or perhaps purchasing a car so they can get to work and back, etc.


----------



## cupper (31 Oct 2011)

It's a moot point anyway, as a flat tax has not chance of ever getting through Congress, regardless of the party in power, or who is in the White House.

It's been tried many times over the years, and ended up dying a slow and agonizing death because no member of Congress can afford to jeopardize their campaign contributions because there are no more loopholes for corporations to lobby for.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67132.html


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Bush Sr. didn't believe in supply-side economics (he referred to it as Voodoo economics) and the growth of debt began to slow down, and then *the only time that any debt was reduced was the Clinton era*.


Did Clinton pay down debt?  Or just reduce the deficit?


----------



## ballz (1 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Did Clinton pay down debt?  Or just reduce the deficit?



From what I'm reading he reduced the deficit every year from 93-97, and in 98-00 ran a surplus. In 1999 and 2000 he paid down debt.

The debt was also reduced in 2001, but I'm not sure whether George W. Bush gets the credit for that technically speaking, although in reality that would be Clinton's doing as well. You can see what happened to the debt in 2002 and onward because of Bush in the graph I posted.

I know I'm probably coming across as a left-winger in all this but that couldn't be further from the truth. I just think that giving huge tax cuts to the rich is not only stupid but it's proven not to work. Give the tax cuts to small businesses that actually employ the majority of Canadians anyway, and want/need that money to grow their business, and then you'll see supply-side theory work the way it's supposed to. 

Give it GM and watch them sponsor another pro-athlete and/or give the CEO a bonus. They don't need the money to compete, so why would they use it to compete?


----------



## Redeye (1 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Did Clinton pay down debt?  Or just reduce the deficit?



He ran surpluses which were used to reduce the debt as a proportion of GDP, though as I understand it the absolute size in $ grew


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2011)

Well, I think the kitty has just about empty.....someone's going to have to pony up and live within their means.....

Ballz....agree with you comment about small business...


----------



## ballz (1 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> He ran surpluses which were used to reduce the debt as a proportion of GDP, though as I understand it the absolute size in $ grew



That graph I posted is the National Debt (Real dollars), it's not as a percentage of GDP. As a percentage of GDP (which is probably more important) it went down pretty damn significantly.

That said, I can't confirm those numbers right now and I am headed off to class. Would be interested in seeing a second, more official source.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2011)

Thanks all!  I don't remember anything about the US having a surplus during his tenure.

So, I dug around the interwebz, came to this site, which claims that Clinton didn't have a surplus.

Meh.


He certainly did cut spending, however.

Anyway, back to keeping Canadians on their side of the border.


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, back to keeping Canadians on their side of the border.



Too late, I've already snuck in. Don't tell Norquist though. He may try and send me back. ;D


----------



## FlyingDutchman (1 Nov 2011)

How observed is the border?  I know there are many places you can just walk/swim/lose engine power and forget your oars and have to be towed while fishing across. 
Edit: nevermind, google answered my question.


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

I was working on a job up in Vermont several years ago, and one of the old foreman was also a member of the Minute Men movement. When he found out I was Canadian, he stared in on the defend the borders line they all spout off. Too many undocumented people coming into the US, taking away their jobs, and wasting taxpayers money, and on and on.

I had no problem cheerfully pointing out that you don't see a whole hell of a lot of Canadians trying to sneak into the country. Didn't hear another peep out of him for the rest of the time I was there.

But I do have another engineer in my office who often introduces me to other people as the token frost-back. (Can you tell he's a conservative tea party supporter?)


----------



## Bass ackwards (1 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> But I do have another engineer in my office who often introduces me to other people as the token frost-back. (Can you tell he's a conservative tea party supporter?)



Cupper, I don't know your situation there, but is it possible this guy is just trying to be humorous?
I do know that Canadians tend to be horribly, unreasonably (IMO) sensitive to any perceived insult -especially from Americans. 

I have plenty of Americans that I would consider friends -including Tea Party supporters- that don't see me as any sort of threat or inferior being. 

The ones I meet that are initially hostile are, I find, generally a lot of fun to tease (they especially like it when you point out that the M-1 Garand was designed by a Canadian... >).
Frankly, they're a hell of a lot more fun to tease than uber-sensitive Canadians who seem to have a near pathological need to be _liked_ by everybody.

I like and admire the Yanks. I've no burning desire to be one. I'm quite proud and happy -thank you very much- about our own history and accomplishments. 
And I've yet to encounter a TEA member who didn't respect that.

Just sayin'...


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Cupper, I don't know your situation there, but is it possible this guy is just trying to be humorous?



Actually he is being humorous. I don't have a big problem with it. It does get a little old though.

I'm just not sure that he realizes that it can be insulting to the wrong person, especially when our office is made up of 15 people, 6 of whom are immigrants.


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> The ones I meet that are initially hostile are, I find, generally a lot of fun to tease (they especially like it when you point out that the M-1 Garand was designed by a Canadian... >).



I'll have to remember that one. He is a bit of a gun nut. ;D



			
				Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Frankly, they're a hell of a lot more fun to tease than uber-sensitive Canadians who seem to have a near pathological need to be _liked_ by everybody.



That's because they make it so easy to tease them.

I wouldn't consider myself sensitive when it comes to being a Canadian, and can take a joke when it's meant to be a joke.

But I subscribe to the view that Canadians tend not to be patriotic, flag waving, wear my allegiance on my sleeve types until you get them outside the country. Then we tend to be the opposite. Don't be slagging our country eh! or we'll be pulling your jersey over your head and havin' us a bench clearing donny brook of a hockey fight. >

  :cdnsalute: :rofl:


----------



## Bass ackwards (1 Nov 2011)

Yep. You got it. Put the Garand to him :nod:.

I remember watching -with great amusement- American artillerymen from Fort Sill Oklahoma, in Shilo on an exchange program in early spring.
We Canucks were lying on the decks of our M-109's -shirtless- enjoying the weather, while they were huddled around in parkas looking -rather bemusedly- at us strange northern buggers.

Good guys though...


----------

