blueblood

Agreed, my point is that the US isn't as irrelevant as some would think. The US was in a much worse economic crisis in the 1930's yet was able to muster a massive army. The US army's weakness lies in the fact of political will more than anything. Vietnam was an example of that, the US won the battles but lost the war. I don't think China would go to war with the US, it would destroy their economy. Which is why saying China "owns" the US is nonsense. The US could tell the chinese to fly a kite and the chinese would be milking a dry cow. At 1990 it wouldn't be. Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world with the best soviet arms their oil money could buy. A fat lot of good that did them.

Yet the Chinese can't pull off an invasion of Taiwan. Nor could they stop the US from invading Iraq. What would China do if the Americans told the chinese to go fly a kite if they tried to cash in on that 950 billion dollars? Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

The stock market's long term average rate of return is 10%, that is taking in account its massive swings up and down. If people are foolish enough to unload their retirement savings at the bottom of a recession, that's just madness. People who bought stocks in March, have made a fortune right now. Here's a thought, you live on 11000 dollars per year and tell me how that works out for you.

I don't know why everyone brings up that China holds x amt. of debt of the US. So they hold it, so what? You and I know they don't have the guts to call that debt in, it would be foolish to do so. To think the chinese can force the americans to give them 950 billion dollars on a whim is laughable. To those who think that sheer manpower always trumps technology, refer to the conquests of Alexander the Great. Also of note was the sheer kill ratio of the Americans vs. the Iraqis in Desert Storm.

I goofed, the CPP/OAS/Guaranteed income support pay 11k instead of 10k, still however peanuts. My link The problem is that there is this program that forcibly takes 2K from people every year, and only pays out 11K/year, and people are supposed to retire on that? Keep in mind that every Canadian contributes to that. Or we have the RRSP's/TFSA's that you can put far more money into, that will pay out far more money in retirement. Why would I want to invest 2K into something where I know I can get steady better returns elsewhere? Do I want to retire on 50K/yr. or 11K/yr.? People still want to retire and still live enjoyable lives when they are young. The CPP throws a monkey wrench in that with its shotty returns.

How is that selfish. Anyone who thinks they can retire on a government pension is living in fantasy land. I don't think everybody would be getting back all the money they contributed. Plus then there is the baby boom thing. Do you think the CPP can support all of that? It's an expensive, second rate program. The money doesn't grow, and a person is lucky to get back what they contributed. A far better one would be to eliminate the CPP and remove the income tax on RRSP's and placing a lower cap on the max. contributions. If people are stupid enough to be living beyond their means that's their problem not mine.

A person cannot afford to live off of CPP. It is essentially a tax. My bet is that new "pension plan" is going to be focused on having more and more people handle their own retirement. A retirement plan can go a longer way if the CPP deduction was removed and that money was to be put into an RRSP/TFSA. To retire with an income of 50K lasting 30 yrs. A person needs about 770K in (all in today's dollars). Historically on average the stock market gets solid returns of about 10%. What that works out to is a span of over 30 working years, a person should be saving 2000 dollars per year (today's dollars) for a higher risk, and about 6400 for a low risk 5% return. The CPP takes a max contribution of 2000 per year, and it JUST SITS THERE!!! It doesn't collect interest, doesn't improve itself with investments. At least the ontario teachers have some smarts and own MLSE which is a solid revenue machine. What is the average Canadian better off doing with their 2000 per year, throwing it into an RRSP/TFSA which most likely will collect interest and grow over time, or throw it into some big government nonsense and not get near the retirement they are entitled to.

Well if you are saying that gov't is getting more in the business of retirement, then they'd have to jack up the CPP deductions in order to pay for higher retirement pay. How are the feds going to pay for this pension plan? In order to pay for one, either they would have to up taxes, up CPP deductions, or cut taxes and let the retired people handle their own retirement. Which one is it? If you think living off the CPP is a great way to live, enjoy the poorhouse. The CPP is a waste of money.

Pilots can get fired, judges can't...

If you think our society can afford to throw tax dollars to a majority of a population that is retired in about 20 years your living in fantasy land. Unless you think 10K a year is enough to retire on. Society simply cannot afford to look after a population that size not contributing. Hence the TFSA's and RRSP's. The only thing I can see the gov't "doing" is lightening the load on taxes on funds being put toward retirement. IMO if the government is physically going to do something, why hasn't it jacked up the CPP rates, after all gov't knows best right?

How does the saying go? The only thing worse than a stupid person is a stupid person with an education...

The gov't taking less money = getting out of retirement planning. The writing is on the wall. What's the average person's yearly retirement cheque 10K? You tell me someone who can afford to live on 10K and tell me they're living the lifestyle they want. If a person wants a secure retirement (around 50K/yr) they have to plan it themselves.

I think with the advent of the RRSP and now the TFSA's the writing is on the wall, both Liberals and Conservatives are planning on getting out of the "retirement business" There will simply be way too many retired people and not enough taxpayers. Either taxes would have to go up to pay for all these retired people, or something is going to have to go... Looks like people are going to have to take care of their own retirement as it should be.

Are you aware of what happened to the bison industry in the 1800's? This is what happens when people only harvest and don't replace. Simply harvesting less isn't going to do diddly squat. The sooner that fish farms and aquaculture come in and put a stop to this ridiculous industry the better it is for everybody.

The CBC trying their damndest to blow up any little controversy in Harper's gov't and it not gaining any traction is a starter.

Except for those pesky things called elections. You see they are when people decide which party is good enough to represent their interests in parliament. If Harper does something people don't like, they vote for somebody else, being a "dictator" would get someone else elected. That toaster of yours should get into televangelism, that way you could make some extra money.

That's a typical leftist thing to say, when somebody has a certain amount of money it has no value anymore. And any other schmuck on the street can afford to lose half of their assets as well. Tiger Woods' lifestyle is far different than ours. What if Tiger Woods decides to become an investment guru and needs as much money as he can to work for him? That would be like all the dragons on the den because the fact that they are multimillionaires giving away money to every stupid idea they come across, hey they're multi-millionaires, fifty thousand is just pocket change. Dollars to donuts says Tiger Woods would rather buy an island than fork out alimony. This is why I think divorce laws are in need of being scrapped. I'm not sure that this woman wasn't flat ass broke and needed Tiger to pay for her living needs. This isn't the 1800's anymore, women have jobs and are quite capable of making money. It works both ways, marriage has turned into a right to pillage a man's/woman's assets. It is redundant in this day and age.

Apparently your president is a crafty individual. He just pulled a Chretien. We have a non-binding agreement in Copenhagen. Obama gets a photo-op, and congress/senate will more than likely vote down sending money to tin-pot dictators. Oh well at least in 4 yrs. Pelosi won't have a leg to stand on when criticizing Canada's oil sales to the US.

I have one question about that. I have been on the CNN website today, and Copenhagen is nowhere to be found on the main page. On the CTV website, it's front and centre. I wonder why that is???

My link Are Hollywood movies more and more becoming leftist?

You might want to read this... My link Of course you could consume those goods in the US and enjoy the savings.

Yet Harper's way of dealing with things won him consecutive elections. Seems like Canadians are fine with the way he does things. Why would Harper be at that meeting, Canada's "contributions" to CO2 are negligible. Obama is doing Harper a favor by not having him attend that and have Harper be lectured about the oil sands and our petroleum industry by people who pollute far more than Canada ever will. It's funny how Canadians have such vitreol for Bush, when in fact our country was in a far better off economic position with him and republicans at the helm. If you and Mr. Canada got into a debate over political issues, the only loser would be everyone else who has to read it.

What are you talking about? There was a huge debate all over the MSM over the GST cuts and HST harmonization. They got to present their case, however people didn't want to buy it. The problem is that where is the global warming skepticism case in the MSM, and when has it been given its proper stage to present it's arguments? The debate about the massive socialism you advocate has been settled long ago, ordinary people don't want to be poor.

It's not comptetion, it's the fact that autopac has a monopoly. Which is ridiculous by the way. Having more companies would result in cheaper insurance for me, no matter who its from.

Since when was less services a bad thing?