Yer right 'Luc, should be “… one don’t gotta have an education to be right.”
Oh, and here are some better bon Voyager mots to spice things up in wayward word slams: excursion, jaunt, junket, and trek.
Yikes.
Freedumb Now!
Oh I am too by finding a new Reagan in Palin and throwing all the marxist crooks out turning DC into a ghost town! And Canada will continue to be blessed by being neighbor to the greatest bastion of freedom and capitalistic power house on the planet.
You have freely admitted that the Canadian economy is directly coupled to the US economy. A positive trade balance looks like a US subsidy of Canada. Coexistence on this planet is only possible when imports and exports between countries are in parity.
Typical marxian view of economics.
- Banks are only as stable as the population and the government has the ability to repay loans. Trade deficits are an exportation of wealth and reduces Canada’s ability to pay debts.
2.As you said the US Canada exchange rates are on par so Canadian currency is equally as weak as the US currency.
-
Exporting oil is only a dream as you have no infrastructure costing billions including sea ports and pipelines to on load tankers. And development of the aforementioned tar sands will cost additional billions.
-
Even if the marxist cap and trade and marxist big government will leave enough money for such expenditures. The marxist green movement still intends to make your vast natural resources worthless
So you just close your eyes and do not want to hear these attacks on Canada and the desire by the US marxist regime to control Canada’s future:
The Canadian government has done nothing to stifle the exportation of jobs and has done nothing to prepare itself for the insolvency of the US whose economies are linked. As goes the US so goes Canada.
So you consider your parents and grand parents a problem. I am sure they would like to hear that their son and grandson is uncaring as all the other marxist ideologues. I shall remind you that one must abide by the commandment to Honor thy father and mother.
Typical optimism of the deaf, dumb, blind, and ignorant marxist. Optimism buoyed up by the lies perpetrated by Canadian government. An uptick does not a recovery make and as proven by Canada’s own history growth only follows cuts in government spending.
And fewer and fewer of the US are buying into the marxist Obama lies. 167,000 new jobs to conduct the census in the US this month is insignificant to the 17,000,000 who who have been out of work for over a year.
Wake up Bryan Ekers and smell the Dandelion tea.
After the popular uprising overthrew the Palin regime, we would see headlines like this:
Only the names would change.
Chinese investigation reveals overthrown Obama regime left over $10 trillion debt.
Marxists Frank and Dodd plundered Freddy Mac and Fannie May toppling world economy.
Palin closes 50% of Washington DC buildings and fires 10 million government workers to assuage Chinese creditors on threat that China will not provide clothing and shoes for American citizens. She said, “It is either that or the US will be the largest nudist colony on the planet”
I’d go to jail for a very, very long time.
focusonz, you make good points here and there, but they’re buried under mountains of horseshit. Constantly referring to what is to any objective analysis a fairly moderate Administration as “marxist” is akin to physically flushing your credibility down the toilet.
The old Reagan didn’t do that. In fact, Palin looks perfectly happy to abandon Reagan’s ideas when it gives her a chance for some short-term political gain, an excellent example being the recent nuclear treaty kerfuffle.
Indeed, which is why it disturbs me when I’m reminded that the Americans have an ugly proto-fundamentalist/fascist streak in them that not only defends ignorance, but indeed wallows in it.
Well, if that’s how you define subsidy, then you’re subsidizing WalMart every time you shop there, and WalMart is subsidizing its wholesalers, who are subsidizing their manufacturers, who are subsidizing raw-material providers.
Anyway, your country wants lots of stuff, and we have lots of stuff, so we sell you lots of stuff. If you stopped buying our stuff, it would hurt significantly, but we’re not helpless - we’d sell our stuff somewhere else. Since this would significantly hurt you as well*, I don’t anticipate an anti-Canada boycott anytime soon. I can picture people like you and Palin saying that you could boycott Canadian goods anytime you wanted, in an effort to sound tough, but I know it’s empty puffery so I won’t take it seriously.
- Canada remains the single largest supplier of crude oil to the U.S. (closely competing with Mexico and Saudi Arabia), and by far the largest supplier of refined petroleum to the U.S., which is significant because it demonstrates that we have large reserves and a significant refinery infrastructure, meaning we can sell oil anywhere - crude to industrialized nations, petroleum everywhere else.
Well, our trade deficits (which started in 2009, the first since 1976) are due to your weak economy, much like any store will see a drop-off in sales when local unemployment rises. We’re strong enough to handle it for a few lean years while you get your act together, though if it persists, we can develop markets elsewhere. And a major part of banking stability is that bankers not be criminal, or stupid, or criminally stupid. A slow short-term erosion from a drop-off in trade is certainly preferable over a total collapse (or an expensive bailout) because of ill-considered subprime lending.
Sure, we have our problems, and some depressing long-term issues with debt and an aging population, but I have confidence that solid reasoning will prevail, and Sarah Palin gives no evidence of being solid or reasonable.
Our dollar is actually holding steady or climbing against international currencies like the Euro and Yen. People trust us, because we’re reliable.
We have quite a few pipelines, actually,, including ones to the seaports at Vancouver, and Prince Rupert. Sure, expanding them would be pricey if we want to step-up non-U.S. exports. Fortunately, we have stable and well-capitalized banks to handle the financing.
I don’t have a lot of confidence that your use of “marxist” means anything more than “I don’t like it” or “people I see on TV who I like are telling me not to like it.”
I’ve responded pretty casually to your statements, I think, citing facts as needed. They’re not really attacks as much as misconceptions.
Disproving this would involve wading through a number of boring economic indicators, but suffice it to say that if we were living, as you describe, a tenuous existence on your table scraps, then your considerable economic problems should have utterly destroyed us by now. We’re still here. Heck, you can see plenty of examples worldwide of one-industry cities being devastated when markets dry up. If Canada is, in your estimation, a one-industry country (that industry being selling stuff to the Americans), then we’d look like Detroit, 3000 miles wide.
I accept the possibility that you’re being satirical, but assuming you’re not (and many Americans are certainly sincere about stuff like this), the “aging population problem” describes increasing health-care costs and a decreasing worker-to-retiree ratio, not any personal desire of mine to toss my parents out into the wild.
I’m an atheist, anyway. Make of that what you will.
You’re using short-term numbers (i.e. downticks) to make dire long-term predictions. If I’m a “marxist” and my country is full of marxists, how have we survived this long, since “marxism” is an inevitable road to failure, apparently? Solely through U.S. largesse? Well, care to make a prediction (or a wager) on where Canada will be on January 1, 2012? By your claims, there should be (indeed must be) signs of an immense collapse. A 20% fall in Canadian GDP? A huge drop in per-capita earnings? Massive increases in inflation and/or unemployment? Put some numbers in your guesswork, suggesting some kind of test we can run that’ll show you were right all along.
Thanks, I’ll get right on that. Meantime, I love safety-net capitalism where people can get rich, but nobody has to starve. The Canadian formula isn’t perfect, of course, but I like it quite a bit.
Such as?
Actually, on further reading, I may have made a not-insignificant error above, which I’d rather not just fix with editing, lest it seem dishonest. Canada is indeed the biggest petroleum importer to the U.S., but I’d assumed “petroleum” was distinguished from “crude oil” (Canada is the biggest exporter to the U.S. in that as well) by petroleum being the refined product.
Looking deeper into my source’s glossary page, “petroleum” actually means crude plus natural gas. I’m not sure how much refined oil Canada exports, but we do indeed have a sizable refinery infrastructure and a well-educated population and stable banks, so we could expand if it proves necessary or profitable.
I’m prepared to address other factual errors brought to my attention and adjust my stance accordingly.
Srah Palin as president? I don’t know all the ramifications of course, but I’m pretty sure it would end with Nazis riding dinosaurs.
That is only short term. After she opened her food hole, she even scared much of the base away. The McCain jump was temporary.
Having a successful export industry to a larger country is not necessarily “being subsidized.” Certainly not in a socialistic sense. It’s not like we’re paying the Canucks foreign aid. They are succeeding in a traditional international trade market fashion.
I don’t think you have any conception of what a country on the verge of collapse of the civic order looks like. Granted, it’s not always obvious; but both (French) Old Canada & English Canada are accepting immigrants in large numbers, which is a sign of social optimism, not pre-collapse anxiety. Canada may be squabbly, but it’s not about to explode.
So you just close your eyes and do not want to hear these attacks on Canada and the desire by the US marxist regime to control Canada’s future:
Obama can point out whatever he wants about the tar sands; it won’t stop the bulldozers. And I’m glad a U.S. president is unhappy with NAFTA. It means we didn’t get screwed. I’d be vaguely concerned if he loved NAFTA and wouldn’t dream of changing it.
Care to share your definition of “marxist”? You throw the word around a lot, I’m curious what it means to you.
Agreed. Repulsive may be too strong for my assessment of her looks but average at best works for me. Her voice makes me limp also.
I agree with those that think she would be a puppet for smarter people content to stay in the background. They would throw out some “family values” BS for the Republican masses but the true goal would be more Neo-Con military intervention in the Middle East, more military spending.
There is no way in hell I would ever vote for someone as plainly stupid as Palin. And as a note, yes, I voted for Regan in 1984 and still think he was a damn good president. So I am not anti-Republican. I am anti-Stupid. I don’t think a Palin presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, but I think she would be propped up by her Vice President and Cabinet who would have to do her thinking for her.
The problem I am seeing in this “debate” with focusonz is that he is so busy accusing Obama of being a Marxist (if he even knows what it means), that actually no rational debating of the issues could possibly take place. So instead of attacking Bryan Ekers, Obama, Canada, etc., why don’t you tell us, focusonz, what is this utopian vision you have of a Sarah Palin Presidency? I’m actually curious to know.
Well, I’m not sure focus’s remarks were coherent or weighty enough to constitute an attack on me or Canada, actually.
I understand, but us Americans want to find out about this Palin utopia which the marxists are keeping from us. Apparently focus knows something that we don’t. :dubious:
I gather the most utopic element of a Palin administration is that it isn’t an Obama administration.