Who are these people and why do they hate Canada?

[Cancooni]

Republicans are supposed to strip down social policies. That's what makes them Republicans. The loaded meaning behind this statement is social policies are inherently good and the absence of them is inherently bad: which is of course, pure nonsense.

We are entering the realm of opinion when it comes to social policies. When you are down on your luck and you need medical attention, guess what... that's not nonsense. Or you lose your job and their is a full range of social assistance at your fingertips... that's not nonsense. A socialist state will never be the richest country but your citizens will ALL be taken care of.

And why do some people insist on clinging to the notion that the US government can control a free market economy? Certainly no one who's ever bothered to study economics.

I've got a newsflash for you. The notion that politicans are responsible for the economy is similar to a notion that the weatherman is responsible for the weather. Government cannot create wealth. It can only move it from one place to another.

Just so I understand you, the current administration has nothing to do with the demise of the US economy? Hmmm...

And my point earlier had to do with allocation of funds... i.e. war vs. social programs.

Nothing? Which Microsoft are you talking about? Certainly not the one that paid out $1,182,791,000 dollars USD in charitable grants in 2003 and over 7 billion since it's inception through the Gates Foundation. Incidently, that's roughly half the entire total foreign aid offer by the government of Canada for the same year.

Naaaa.. Couldn't be.

Not that I am complaining what Canada does with it's own money of course. That's up to them.

Comparing apples to apples... do the per capita math. Just take 10%. I hear you though. Canada actually ranks quite low (embarrassingly) in the foreign aid department. I would argue that we don't have the same crippling foreign policy to offset though. It's all world politics right?

 

[Duke]

Comparing apples to apples... do the per capita math. Just take 10%.

So, you're saying approximately 28 million people work for Microsoft? That's news to Bill, I'm sure.

 

[Cancooni]

So, you're saying approximately 28 million people work for Microsoft? That's news to Bill, I'm sure.

Ya, that's what I'm saying...

I'm sure you know I meant Canada vs. US population but point taken, smart guy.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Just so I understand you, the current administration has nothing to do with the demise of the US economy? Hmmm...

What demise?
US real GDP is rising at a steady 4%. This is a healthy rise, too steep and you can expect to see a subsequent collapse like the 8% peak in the third quarter of 2003 which was followed by a 4% drop. Real disposable income has risen by 0.2%

You might be referring to the increase in US spending which means that the US account is being eaten into rather than being fattened up like it usually is.

Government spending is a good sign that they are predicting continued growth, when they start to borrow, it means they are not so sure about the future. Check out the UK's chancellors spending plans in an attempt to balance the books...he plans to borrow, probably from the US, and that will add to their (the US's) spending.

Just to keep this slightly on topic Compare that to Canada's economy, the real GDP growth is flat-lining at 0%...not good. For the record its peak in the last 10 years was 1.1%

No matter how much you dislike Bush, don't start inventing collapsing economies to justify your dislike

Figures courtesy of the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 

[Max Powers]

What is one supposed to do then? Base their opinion on EVERY student in EVERY classroom in the entire country? What's YOUR opinion of American schooling based on? I'm sure most Americans generalize about school in their country based solely upon their own personal classroom experiences.

Uhhh, duh? Basing your opinion on a broad audience is much more logical than making a blind generalization. I'm not going to go into my opinion on American schools, but I will tell you for a fact that American schools do NOT teach their students that the Americans were the first in space.

Myself and every other person I know who went through American schools, public or private, knows that the Russians were the first in space. It's common knowledge, and just because some 15 year old kid who's not even from America thinks that our schools are incompetent based on something that he heard doesn't mean that it's actually true.


I went to public school in America.
I learned in school that the Russians were the first in space.
Everybody else who went to school in America in this thread also knows that the Russians were the first in space.

 

[///M-Spec]

We are entering the realm of opinion when it comes to social policies. When you are down on your luck and you need medical attention, guess what... that's not nonsense. Or you lose your job and their is a full range of social assistance at your fingertips... that's not nonsense. A socialist state will never be the richest country but your citizens will ALL be taken care of.

Yes, we are entering the realm of opinion. And Canadians who criticize America for not adopting the same social policies as they have sound just as annoying to Americans as Americans who criticize Canadians for being leftist wackos sound to you.

And if I'm ever down on my luck I would regard the problem as mine own, not the state's. Not my neighbor, not employer, not the guy next to me, not my dog. I would welcome help, but I would never EXPECT it. That's the difference between people who believe in the American way and everyone else.

Just so I understand you, the current administration has nothing to do with the demise of the US economy? Hmmm...

I think Tacet_Blue has already done an excellent job of addressing this statement. (thank you, Tacet) I understand english may not be your first language, but 'demise' is a very inappropriate word here. Try 'recession' instead; which, by the way, occurs in every free market and this one showed signs of begining long before Bush even took office (think tech burst). In fact, the Asian economy is in even worse shape and there isn't even a war there.

As for the role of government, the US fedreal government can do things to effect the economy, such as raise/lower interest rates, raise/low taxes and increase/decrease federal spending.

But it does not control it. Economies don't work that way. It's just not that simple. You can adopt policies that may help the economy move forward or slow it's growth, but there's no direct mechanism by which to prod 290 million people to spend, invest and produce in a sustainable, efficient way.

There isn't a great big wheel with flashing bulbs and neon lights in the Oval Office labelled "Magic Economy Revver-Upper Machine" and the reason the ecomony is in a downturn isn't because Bush just forgot to give it a spin.

And my point earlier had to do with allocation of funds... i.e. war vs. social programs.

And what makes you think there is a 1 to 1 cost/benefit relationship between dollars spent in Iraq/Afganistan and dollars spent in social programs?

Comparing apples to apples... do the per capita math. Just take 10%. I hear you though. Canada actually ranks quite low (embarrassingly) in the foreign aid department. I would argue that we don't have the same crippling foreign policy to offset though. It's all world politics right?

Compare apples to apples? Don't dodge the issue. You said there was "nothing benevolent about Microsoft... quite the opposite... the quintessential icon of corporate greed". I show there was about 7 billion reasons why such a statement was not justified. Sure I hate their browser technology (which is why I use FireFox), but at least I bother to read about something before I make up an opinion about it. Maybe you should too.


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Republicans are supposed to strip down social policies. That's what makes them Republicans. The loaded meaning behind this statement is social policies are inherently good and the absence of them is inherently bad: which is of course, pure nonsense.

And why do some people insist on clinging to the notion that the US government can control a free market economy? Certainly no one who's ever bothered to study economics.

I've got a newsflash for you. The notion that politicans are responsible for the economy is similar to a notion that the weatherman is responsible for the weather. Government cannot create wealth. It can only move it from one place to another.



Nothing? Which Microsoft are you talking about? Certainly not the one that paid out $1,182,791,000 dollars USD in charitable grants in 2003 and over 7 billion since it's inception through the Gates Foundation. Incidently, that's roughly half the entire total foreign aid offer by the government of Canada for the same year.

Naaaa.. Couldn't be.

Not that I am complaining what Canada does with it's own money of course. That's up to them.


M

Thanks for the backup, M, concerning Microsoft. There is a reason why I chose that particular company.

Based on the other stuff you said:

Good point!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Uhhh, duh? Basing your opinion on a broad audience is much more logical than making a blind generalization. I'm not going to go into my opinion on American schools, but I will tell you for a fact that American schools do NOT teach their students that the Americans were the first in space.

Myself and every other person I know who went through American schools, public or private, knows that the Russians were the first in space. It's common knowledge, and just because some 15 year old kid who's not even from America thinks that our schools are incompetent based on something that he heard doesn't mean that it's actually true.


I went to public school in America.
I learned in school that the Russians were the first in space.
Everybody else who went to school in America in this thread also knows that the Russians were the first in space.

Exactly my point. I mentioned this in an earlier thread.
(for a second there, I though I was by myself...)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What's YOUR opinion of American schooling based on?

My opinion of American schooling is not based upon my own personal classroom experiences for a very good reason. The US (and subsequently its schools) are too diverse to make any generalizations -- even within the same state, let alone throughout the entire country. For example, my school experiences in Yonkers, are entirely different than that of those who were schooled in White Plains or New York City. And yes, I have friends who go to school in the latter two cities and talk to them about "what school is like there." And these cities are all within a 20 mile radius.

I'm sure most Americans generalize about school in their country based solely upon their own personal classroom experiences.

For some strange reason, this sounds -- "foreign". j/k

 

[Cancooni]

Leftist wacko here... thank you for putting this poor, helpless Canadian in his place. In none of my posts did I critize Americans so just relax yourselves (well maybe that Bush guy and who doesn't... hmmm, except for Fox). We have different views and that's a good thing. This is a discussion right?

And to put all those lovely numbers you have assembled into perspective some editorial...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4209527.stm

 

[Ten]

Now it's just getting humorous.

 

[ledhed]

My personal experiance in both public and private school was excellent . my experiance of my daughters education was not so good..I did not like the way the public schools changed their teaching practices. So I took my son out and changed to a charter school for him and my daughter went to a high school that specialized in business. My dissatisfaction made me delve into the choices they had for education at both elementry and high school level. I could still find no reason to " generalise " on the state of education in the US . Its still up to the individual to get what he can out of whats available . . like maybe paying attention when history is being taught so that they know that Canada never burnt down the White House for instance....or should I base my opinion on the Canadian education system on what I see posted in the drifters forum , for instance ?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

And to put all those lovely numbers you have assembled into perspective some editorial...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4209527.stm

That article is about Government spending, I did try to point out the difference between spending and economy

But the appetite for spending had been fed by dirt-cheap credit - in the shape of interest rates of just 1% for much of the past three years.

I'm sure the US citizens aren't complaining about that

Yes the spending is increasing at a higher rate than the economy is growing, and it is no surprise that economists are pointing this out. If the US economy starts to shrink and spending continues to rise at the current rate, then yes, there will be a problem, and interest rates may be raised.

I'm sure the US is aware of this

Although I don't have the figures, I think their debt is nothing compared to the rest of the world. I think the UK still owes money from WWII

 

[MrktMkr1986]

As of yesterday, 1/26/2005, the United States national debt is quoted as:

$7,622,132,208,684.54

that's 7.62 trillion dollars. Considering our GDP is about $11 trillion, that would mean that about 70% of our "economy" ( , no pun intended?) is financed.

EDIT: Realize though that some debt is indeed necessary in order to stimulate the economy. However, I believe the level of debt the US in incurring is too high.

 

[Duke]

The level of debt is growing... but remember that the $11 trillion GDP is per annum, whereas the outstanding national debt is rolling over every year, not generating $7 trillion in new debt every year.

It would be great if that were a smaller number. Really great - less debt is better, without doubt. But it's not the end of the world.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

....*sigh*

The original home was burned down by the British in 1814, during the War of 1812. The house was extensively rebuilt and painted white to cover its fire-blackened walls. This is how it got the name the Whitehouse.

From a social studies website.

 

[Duke]

....*sigh*

The original home was burned down by the British in 1814, during the War of 1812. The house was extensively rebuilt and painted white to cover its fire-blackened walls. This is how it got the name the Whitehouse.

From a social studies website.

How exactly is this news to us? We all learned it in our American public schools.

Besides, 1) it was burned by British troops (not Canadians), and 2) we went on to win the war (not lose, like you claim), with the capitol temporarily re-relocated to Philadelphia.

 

[Cancooni]

Actually the war was a stalemate. No one won, especially Canada... because the nation of Canada didn't exist prior to the signing of the Articles of Confederation which created Canada as a nation in 1867. Prior to that it was the colony of British North America often referred to as Canada or Kanada.

The Americans discovered they could invade Canada but could not hold on to it just as the British found they could invade American territory but could not hold on to it. Supply problems, climate, transportation problems, distances and lack of money made it impossible for the Americans or the British to really defeat the other.

In the end we simply made peace because war between us was futile and served no purpose.

***credit for info to the History Channel.

Can we let go of the 1812 thing now? It was a tie between the Brits and the Yanks.

 

[ledhed]

The war was fought because the British showed no respect for US ships on the open seas , actually stopping them and kidnaping sailors to serve on their own ships. They even stopped and fired upon US warships. the US declared war and after fighting the British to a standstill and actually defeating them badly in New Orleans ( technicaly fought after the treaty of Ghent that ended the war) and in some Naval battles between frigates. The British sued for peace satisfying the US demands that accompnied the declaration of war.
It was by no means a stalemate except tacticaly. strategicaly it was an overwhelming defeat for the British and a major victory for the US who would have lost their country back to the British if they lost the war. Screw the history channel ! That came from what I remember from school and what I have read in the years since then , along with some common sense , if you just look at the difference in the status and relative stregnth between the two countrys. It would be like France declaring war on the US to get out of iraq and actually winning.

 

[Carl.]

Erm... so you think the US could have been successful at invading Britain at the time?


this thread is really wandering in the realms of off-topicness...

 

[Anderton Prime]

I don't think the War of 1812 is really the reason that America developed into the global superpower it is today...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't think the War of 1812 is really the reason that America developed into the global superpower it is today...

Neither do I. I would think World War I, and more so World War II.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

How exactly is this news to us? We all learned it in our American public schools.

Besides, 1) it was burned by British troops (not Canadians), and 2) we went on to win the war (not lose, like you claim), with the capitol temporarily re-relocated to Philadelphia.

When did I ever directly say you lost? I simply said that protecting the place where your president resides is probably on the high priority list. And um, what do you think most Canadian's were at that time? At one point you were all scottish, irish, french, british, spanish, or something too. We just weren't official yet.

 

[ledhed]

I never even implied that the US could have invaded britain. The war was not fought over land or invasion . It was fought over the rights of a sovergn nation to conduct itself over the high seas without interferance from another power . Britain had no right except the right of force..I.E...stop or we will blow you to kingdom come .. to stop ships on the high seas and remove sailors or press gang them. and the war of 1812 DID put the US on a course to join the other great powers at the time. the US decided not to but thats another discussion. the war of 1812 solidafied the place of the US as a nation and not a sattelite of the British and it was the last time the US was ever in danger of losing its sovergn status.
WW I convinced the isolationist that the US should stay out of Europes troubles and let them kill each other. WW II proved the folly of that stance and made the US into a great power that the Soviets by their decisions after WW II turned into a super power. we have communism/ stalinism to thank for our status today.
And to get back on topic... There were some in the US who thought that they could take Canada from the British while they were occupied with Napolean , but as you can see by the results , they were fools. i like Canada just where it is thank you.