Toro

I have no problem using tax dollars to support those that need it, but a GAI is a bad idea. It further decreases the incentive to work, especially for menial jobs people often take when they enter the workforce. Social benefits are fine, but people must understand they have a cost. The cost to such a program would be higher taxes, higher unemployment and lower growth. The person writing the article about the free market is an economic illiterate BTW.

Why isn't welfare considered a gauranteed annual income? How can you get cut off welfare in Canada?

That's funny BHS. The problem with the post office over in Japan is that much of the funds are used to fund infrastructure projects that are not needed in Japan. The politicians direct funds to projects in their prefects, which pay off the construction companies who have given the politicians money. The construction industry is far, far more powerful than it is in North America and Europe. Its a particular problem because in Japan, there is too much investment, especially investment that does not give a return. This investment is funded with debt, and now Japan is one of the most indebted nations in the world, the highest in the OECD with debt around 150% of GDP, more than double Canada or the US. Because of all this, Japan has been in deflation for 15 years and recession for most of that. And Japan is getting older and needs growth if it is going to fund the future retirees' pension obligations. By privatizing, the government believes the post office will no longer fund such projects. Japan is a mess.

I like Koizumi. I really think he wants to reform Japan. And Japan needs a lot of it.

Not sure who is behind all the evil in the world? No problem. You can now create your own conspiracy. http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php Explain everything bad with a simple click of the mouse. Then, post all over the Internet. Fun for friends and family alike. Generate today.

Iran will have nuclear weapons one day. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleS...+RTRS&srch=iran

If a company wants to invest, say $100 million, in Canada, the option is to take the $100 million - and all the jobs and benefits associated with that investment - or $0. Even if all the jobs are grunt jobs arising from that $100 million, there is no loss associated with the investment and it is not damaging to an advanced economy. Economics is not a zero-sum game. As for your argument about Europe and Japan, I'd suggest you take a look at the economic performance over the past 15 years compared to the US. Private capital flows into new technologies is overwhelming in favour of the US over Europe and Japan combined. That doesn't mean that Europe or Japan (or Canada) will not develop a competitive advantage in some areas, but it is America which is leading the world in cutting edge technology.

Most foreign investment occurs because of comparative advantage. The reason why investors invest in a place because it offers some advantage. Otherwise, it wouldn't occur. Foreign investment almost always a good because it creates jobs and spurs economic activity when there almost certainly would be none. Canada has been an beneficiary of foreign direct investment during its history. The fact that Canada has been tagged (by itself) as a hewer or wood and drawer of water is not relevant to the amount of foreign investment in the country. Criticis of foreign investment assume that if the foreign investment did not occur, domestic investment would suffice. That is almost always never the case. The reason why companies invite foreign investment in the first place is because of either a lack of domestic savings and/or expertise. Simply by restricting FDI in Canada does not mean Canada would increase its value added production. In fact, it would almost certainly detract it. Also, the reasons why value-added activity occurs are complex, but are generally more conducive in the US than in Canada. And I don't mean to drop names, but I once quizzed a Canadian minister of industry several years ago about why R&D spending lagged in Canada relative to the US. He responded that it was because the car companies spend much less in Canada than they do in the US. Otherwise, the levels are the same. Now, I don't know if he is correct in that as it sounded like spin to me, and I've never chased down the amount of R&D auto companies do in Canada, but I don't believe that your assertion is correct.

Hmm, welfare is a right but property is not. I'm not sure 2 years is appropriate but there should be some limit, at least for continuous receipt of payment, with exceptions.

Are the US car company's investments in Canada "bad investments"? No. Investment create jobs and wealth. Its silly to say that foreign investment is bad because the foreign company doesn't spend as much on R&D. Foreign investment in and of itself is good most of the time.

Proving yet again that institutional memory is weak. The first thing I thought was "you've got to be kidding."

Says who? Margaret Thatcher was a great leader and she through her weight around. There are many great leaders who did the same. Won't happen, unless the Dems win back the Senate in 2006, an unlikely event. There is zero change Republican Senators will embarrass Bush.

The fact that US companies do not spend as much on R&D in other countries is not indicative of "bad" US investment. R&D occurs for a number of reasons, and corporations are under no obligation to spend research dollars anywhere, especially if the infrastructure is not in place conducive to research. Nor should they be. One may prefer European life to American life, but Europe is certainly not surpassing the US in every way.

This is nonsense. Its mixing cause and effect. Afghanistan was not about a pipeline. To a certain segment of the political spectrum, its always about America and oil. They will stretch to fit the facts around the thesis, as all ideologues do. But on topic, America will not invade Iran but there may be a military strike against any perceived nuclear capabilities.

I'd agree with your post, Renegade.

Nope. The reason I would remove public welfare is because it is just another word for charity, and as a charity it should be funded by voluntary donations. Each taxpayer earns his income and that taxpayer should be the one to decide where it is spent. Call me all the names you want. It doesn't bother me in the least. It seems to be a pattern when you lack a cohesive argument You can make an argument about the level of welfare, but scrapping the welfare system would be a bad mistake. Certainly, there are problems in welfare that should be fixed - you will always have a certain level of fraud, and some people will be disincentivized. But in a country as wealthy as Canada, we can afford to help those less fortunate than the rest of us.

No, not insane. There is no agreement that says Canada cannot drop the % of production apart from the provisions in NAFTA.

Sorry to take so long getting back on this. I'm vacationing in Key West and a thunderstorm drove me to this computer. In the Free Trade Agreement, Canada cannot unilaterly cut off exports to the US. Canada must maintain the same rate of exports, I believe, as a percentage production to the US as the previous 3 years if Canada chooses to restrict exports to the rest of the world. However, that doesn't mean exports to the US cannot decrease. For example, natural gas exports have been falling for the past several years since production has been falling. I'll track it down for you when I get back next week but you can find NAFTA online and it will say what the exact terms are.

Not going to happen. Iraq and Iran are totally different scenarios. First, Iran is not as strategic as Iraq in America's attempt to crush al-Qaeda. Second, geographically, the two countries are totally different. Iraq, or at least non-Kurd Iraq, is flat as a pancake. Much of Iran is mountainous. Third, Iran has 70 million people. Iraq has 25 million. Fourth, the government of Iran is not despised in the region as Saddam was. Fifth, if you think the resistence is bad in Iraq, its nothing compared to Iran. Most of Iraq is quiet because most of Iraq will benefit from the new government. All the terrorism is occurring in the Sunni triangle by a fairly small minority. In Iran, the Persian resistence would be widespread and massive. Finally, Iran and the US are working together in Iraq. The US is trying to establish a legitamite government in Iraq, which will be Shi'a dominated. Iran will have influence in Iraq because Iran is a shi'a country. The United States has plans to invade Iraq because the United States must have contingency plans for the region. That's not surprising.

His brother was a policy advisor for Chretien. Rae wasn't as bad as many thought. Sure, he let the socialist hordes have their way for the first few years of his mandate, but he spent the last half of his mandate trying to unwind the damage. You have to respect him for that. But he'll never be the head of the Liberals.

I don't think it will pass. The White House is resisting.

Martin has to win a majority or the knives will be out. The Liberals should pick Frank McKenna to replace him. He'd be up against Bernard Lord. Two Maritimers from the same province. That would be interesting.

And your point is???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's Phyllis Schlafly!! C'mon...

Guys, its Phyllis Schlafly!