What is this thing about "Blame it on Canada"?

[MrMarbles]

The people who attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the first and second, not to mention successful attacks on the world trade centers, as well as various embassies were not black Hispanic, Italian, Jewish or Dutch or Christian or Buddihist, they were whether you like to admit it or not Muslim, they are the ones grinding their axe at the west right now. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it any less real a fact.

I know they are muslim. And they have attacked the US. So why do we need to change the fabric of our being?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll cut to the chase here. We are really debating liberalism here. Liberal and social ideals are used all around the world, and they are working pretty damn good. America has embraced such ideals, when your ultra-capitalist ways failed in the 30's, liberalism was embraced and saved your country. Where would it be without it?

I agree with monopoly busting, and some other basic social services. very basic. and any aid given should carry a negative social stigma. Yes. welfare recipients should be shamed.

You libs are taking it too far. You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies. You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place: Rights such as a right to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.

Our economy has not failed, netheir has other liberal states. They all sway back and forth like Americas.

Yes. but because of our tilt towards capitalism, we have more growth and have had for years and can afford the military it takes to secure the world markets, which the rest of you benefit from.

Your are the only super power left, in an age that dosen't need them.

You just think there's no need for them, because you've conveniently learned to ignore the gratitude you should feel for the u.s. for fighting back various forms of totatalitarianism over the past 100 years.

Your greatest strength was your dollar. Everyone use to have to do trade with it, but no anymore, the EU is and will see a change in that. As for your jingoist ways, we do not need your military to protect us. It does not dictate any type of stability. So where would Canada be? Thats the fun of the 'what if' game. But a very good possiblity would be a much more diverse, and less dependable system. One that would be able to take hits better, and wouldn't dive everytime the US did.

our greatest strength was and always will be our moral clarity. More diverse LESS dependable system? What does that mean. What is a more diverse system?

 

[Said1]

I agree with monopoly busting, and some other basic social services. very basic. and any aid given should carry a negative social stigma. Yes. welfare recipients should be shamed.

I think most welfare recipients are not proud of being on welfare, shaming them more will not work. I think strict time limits would be a better approach to take.

You libs are taking it too far. You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies. You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place: Rights such as a right to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.

Government job creation would not exsist without a good economy coming from the private sector. Government job creation can get things rolling, but it only lasts as long as the economy, once the boom is over, so is job creation. Attention should focus more on private industry, not government created jobs. - IMHO

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think most welfare recipients are not proud of being on welfare, shaming them more will not work. I think strict time limits would be a better approach to take.

A little institutionalized shame is ok. YOU may feel bad about taking handouts, but that's due to your family values. Since values and family are being redefined and eliminated by the apparatchiks, a little government provided shame is ok. Just a little.

 

[greeneyez1029]

What we have to change is our lax attitude at the boarders about who enters our country, yes, we would all like to believe that everyone who enters our country is doing so with noble intentions. But the last few years have taught us that is simply not true. Why should we as neighbors to the U.S. make it easier for terrorists to operate within our country on the premise of attacking the U.S. ? Terrorism affects everyone, not just the U.S. I don't particularly like the idea of terrorists being comfortable while hiding out in our country.

I know they are muslim. And they have attacked the US. So why do we need to change the fabric of our being?

 

[Said1]

A little institutionalized shame is ok. YOU may feel bad about taking handouts, but that's due to your family values. Since values and family are being redefined and eliminated by the apparatchiks, a little government provided shame is ok. Just a little.

Perhaps, but I think time limits would be more effective. Shame them all you want, it probably won't stop many from cashing that check each month. Taking the check away after 10yrs might have show better results. I don't see how a single person can survive on $520.00 per month in the first place, but I guess a person can get used to anything.

 

[MrMarbles]

What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?

You libs are taking it too far. You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies. You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place: Rights such as a right to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.

Any examples? You constantly state this, but have never produced evidence of liberals being evil, just because you say it is, dosen't make true.

our greatest strength was and always will be our moral clarity. More diverse LESS dependable system? What does that mean. What is a more diverse system?

What moral clarity? Have you ever watched US TV, movies, music, or even the news?

It means, our assets would probably spread out more in the world, instead of putting most of our eggs in one basket, America.

You just think there's no need for them, because you've conveniently learned to ignore the gratitude you should feel for the u.s. for fighting back various forms of totatalitarianism over the past 100 years.

Do i need to quote myself from the other thread? For the first half of the 20th century, sure, but it was always late. And the second half of the century, is very, very debatable.

Government job creation would not exsist without a good economy coming from the private sector. Government job creation can get things rolling, but it only lasts as long as the economy, once the boom is over, so is job creation. Attention should focus more on private industry, not government created jobs.

Or as a means to start the ball rolling again. But your right.

 

[Said1]

What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?

There are countless programs available to people on social assistance that can help them improve their job skills and education. It's up to the individual to take advantage of this. The average family on welfare receives $900 per month in social assistance benefits (not to mention drug and dental benefits). They are entitled to a chid tax credit of approx $240.00 per month, per child on top of the montly amount from social assitance. I know a family of 10 (7 kids) who are on welfare. They receive $900 a per month, plus an additional $1400 per month in child tax. They are also entitled to earn and extra $300 per month working (which they don't btw). Not a bad income for doing nothing is it? Being on social assistance also entitles them to $4000 to go back to school, (as is everyone on welfare in Ontario) in order to get the skills they need to work, and they don't. People make their own choices, the opportunities are there, provided by the government, although it doesn't seem like many take advantage of them.

I work for 2 "social programs", so I can't knock all government funded programs aimed at people on welfare, but it can be very frustrating to say the least!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?

They need to toughen up and quit whining. There is no guarantee in life.

Any examples? You constantly state this, but have never produced evidence of liberals being evil, just because you say it is, dosen't make true.

History shows collectivist schemes you libs desire always are a thin cover for obscene tyranny and corruption.

What moral clarity? Have you ever watched US TV, movies, music, or even the news?

We do the right thing in promoting freedom around the globe, refusing to accept the moral relativism of the extreme leftist world community.

It means, our assets would probably spread out more in the world, instead of putting most of our eggs in one basket, America.

What the heck are you blabbering about here?

Do i need to quote myself from the other thread? For the first half of the 20th century, sure, but it was always late. And the second half of the century, is very, very debatable.

The new left in the world has a completly distorted view of america, divorced from history, sense, reality, and safety.









Or as a means to start the ball rolling again. But your right.[/QUOTE]

 

[MrMarbles]

There are countless programs available to people on social assistance that can help them improve their job skills and education. It's up to the individual to take advantage of this. The average family on welfare receives $900 per month in social assistance benefits (not to mention drug and dental benefits). They are entitled to a chid tax credit of approx $240.00 per month, per child on top of the montly amount from social assitance. I know a family of 10 (7 kids) who are on welfare. They receive $900 a per month, plus an additional $1400 per month in child tax. They are also entitled to earn and extra $300 per month working (which they don't btw). Not a bad income for doing nothing is it? Being on social assistance also entitles them to $4000 to go back to school, (as is everyone on welfare in Ontario) in order to get the skills they need to work, and they don't. People make their own choices, the opportunities are there, provided by the government, although it doesn't seem like many take advantage of them.

I work for 2 "social programs", so I can't knock all government funded programs aimed at people on welfare, but it can be very frustrating to say the least!

Wow, seven kids, i thought those days had passed.

Anyway, what would happen if those assistances weren't there? I know people take advantage of it, and there need to be ways to prevent it, but these systems still need to be there.

They need to toughen up and quit whining. There is no guarantee in life.

Ok, if you ever get laid off, we will see how you feel about getting a little help from the gov't.

History shows collectivist schemes you libs desire always are a thin cover for obscene tyranny and corruption.

When? Where? How? Dude, you keep saying this, but have never produced any evidence. Contrary, i have shown how your own conservative, capitalist gov't has used it's values in attempts to gain power and influence over other nations.

We do the right thing in promoting freedom around the globe, refusing to accept the moral relativism of the extreme leftist world community.

See, wyas you use YOUR values to try and control others. Promoting freedom = engaging in illegal wars, and puttin gpeopl under American military rule.

What the heck are you blabbering about here?

If it's beyond you, nevermind.

The new left in the world has a completly distorted view of america, divorced from history, sense, reality, and safety.

It's one that is free from US bias. Just the facts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

When? Where? How? Dude, you keep saying this, but have never produced any evidence. Contrary, i have shown how your own conservative, capitalist go v't has used it's values in attempts to gain power and influence over other nations.

The SOviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba... see communism or socialism. Check any stats. The more socialist an economy, the less it grows. stagnation. oppression. evil. Control of black markets by government connected individuals only.

 

[Said1]

Wow, seven kids, i thought those days had passed.

Yeah, 7 kids ages 4 months - 12. Their parents are around 30 or a little younger. There is another family in a similar situation, they have had 4 kids in 6 years!

Anyway, what would happen if those assistances weren't there? I know people take advantage of it, and there need to be ways to prevent it, but these systems still need to be there.

I'm not saying take welfare away, I'm saying strict time limits is an easier way to motivate people into taking advantage of some of the programs that could actually help them.

Ok, if you ever get laid off, we will see how you feel about getting a little help from the gov't.

Again, time limits. You are only entitled to UI for a certain length of time, and there are programs you can take advantage of while on UI too. I think you know the sort of system abuse I'm talking about, not people who need short term help in order to get back on their feet. I've been there, I was off sick for 6 months last year. The medication alone was almost as much as my rent. THere was no way I could borrow that much money.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's recap the virtues of a more diverse less dependable system. Please help us all out here, Mr. Marbles. What sort of less dependable system would you prefer? Are you an anarchist?

 

[MrMarbles]

The SOviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba... see communism or socialism. Check any stats. The more socialist an economy, the less it grows. stagnation. oppression. evil. Control of black markets by government connected individuals only.

OK. Then whats the problem with liberals? They are not Socialist or Communist. Communism works only in theory, no one is arguing about that. But liberals are not communist.

Anyway here is two 'stagnate' economies.

Vietnam

The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2653647

China

During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668015

As for Soviet Union, it's Stalinist ways and enevitable break-up was it's greatest flaws. And Cuba is under the boot of America, if the US layed off, i'm sure they would be doing a lot better to.

You confuse liberals with communists, which is the same if I were to call a conservative a fascist. Pretty dumb, eh?

Let's recap the virtues of a more diverse less dependable system. Please help us all out here, Mr. Marbles. What sort of less dependable system would you prefer? Are you an anarchist?

Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.

 

[MrMarbles]

Yeah, 7 kids ages 4 months - 12. Their parents are around 30 or a little younger. There is another family in a similar situation, they have had 4 kids in 6 years!

I'm not saying take welfare away, I'm saying strict time limits is an easier way to motivate people into taking advantage of some of the programs that could actually help them.

Again, time limits. You are only entitled to UI for a certain length of time, and there are programs you can take advantage of while on UI too. I think you know the sort of system abuse I'm talking about, not people who need short term help in order to get back on their feet. I've been there, I was off sick for 6 months last year. The medication alone was almost as much as my rent. THere was no way I could borrow that much money.

Personnaly, i'm not to sure where exactly i stand on welfare. We need the system, how it is to be governed? The jury is still out on that one. But a case by case of assesment might be best. Standard time limits may hurt alot of people. It takes a lot of time to raise 7 kids, or get help for health reasons, or mental problems, schooling, everyone is different.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OK. Then whats the problem with liberals? They are not Socialist or Communist. Communism works only in theory, no one is arguing about that. But liberals are not communist.

Anyway here is two 'stagnate' economies.

Vietnam

The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2653647

China

During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668015

As for Soviet Union, it's Stalinist ways and enevitable break-up was it's greatest flaws. And Cuba is under the boot of America, if the US layed off, i'm sure they would be doing a lot better to.

You confuse liberals with communists, which is the same if I were to call a conservative a fascist. Pretty dumb, eh?








Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.

Vietnam and china introducing capitalism in a piecemeal fashion causes the grow the growth you speak of. However, what remnants do remain of their socialist system is precisely what's still holding them back:

But as Martin Rama of the World Bank points out, Vietnam has almost no middling private firms between these mom-and-pop ventures and big exporters backed by foreign investors.

Such businesses find it hard to grow because they cannot readily get access to land or capital. About half of bank lending goes to state-owned enterprises, although that share is falling. What is more, even if banks (mostly state-owned themselves) wanted to lend to entrepreneurs, the latter have little collateral to pledge for their loans. In Vietnam, the state owns all the land and grants land-use rights to farmers, businesses and home-owners. Although these are theoretically transferable, banks are fearful that Vietnam's antiquated courts would not enforce their rights. Such fears have precluded a free market for land, further adding to private firms' difficulties. Corruption also weighs heaviest on small businesses: in some provinces, they can be subjected to as many as 15 different bureaucratic inspections each year.

The government, although trying to solve some of these problems, appears addicted to public enterprise. It continues to provide state-owned firms with loans and land—which many of them then rent on at a mark-up to the private sector. It invests with Stakhanovite zeal in impressive but uneconomical facilities, such as oil refineries, steel mills and fertiliser plants.

The net result is a massive misallocation of resources. Vietnam's ratio of investment to economic growth has fallen by roughly a quarter in recent years. To reverse that slide, argues Robert Glofcheski, an economist at the UN Development Programme, the government must revert to the same tactics that made its agricultural reforms so successful: more spending on health and education, further transfers of assets from the public to the private sector and faster deregulation.

You really need to read closer.

China is the same. state run labor camp with many misallocation and human rights problems. economic growth based on slave labor doesn't count.

 

[Said1]

Vietnam

The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%.


China

During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.

Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.

Vietnam (China and Cuba) lost their biggest customers with the end of the Soviet Union, this is obvious by the dates when the country was the most depressed, and when the country started growing again. Liberalising their trade markets was mandatory for them to survive within growing international markets, compete or die. Vietman also saves parts of their export quotas especially for DFI, but the MFA agreement(Multi-fibre Agreement) will be phased out very soon, causing serious competion from from other Asian markets (ie: China) hindering such rapid growth. Depending on the amount of spill over directly linked to DFI will depend on their continued success. With the phasing out of the Manufactued Fiber Agreement, China, Vietnam and others will have to open their markets even moreso, since there will no longer be quotes on exports to USA and EU.

Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.

I think I get your point with this. Canada should be more diverse. Being dependant on on country for trade can be dangerous, as seen with above mentioned countries right? IF that's your point, I agree.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think I get your point with this. Canada should be more diverse. Being dependant on on country for trade can be dangerous, as seen with above mentioned countries right? IF that's your point, I agree.

Yes. Many diverse trading partners, competition, market forces. Individuals should be trading entities as well, to utilize the benefits and efficiencies of competition inside nations as well as between them.

 

[MrMarbles]

China is the same. state run labor camp with many misallocation and human rights problems. economic growth based on slave labor doesn't count.

Whats minimum wage in the US?

 

[Hobbit]

Whats minimum wage in the US?

Don't know, don't care. It hasn't bee raised in 7 years and everybody pays above it, anyway. I think it's around $5.25/hr, but every teenager and deadbeat I've known who applied to a dead end job with no resume got at least $6.25/hr, and anybody who's been working full time for more than a year or two is up in the $8 range, which isn't bad for someone with no experience and, at best, a high school education.