blueblood

No, an artificially low interest rate is the devil. Paying off that debt is better business sense, because why pay interest if you don't have to. Not only that if you have cash in the kitty, the bank pays you interest. No a higher dollar is in fact better, because our purchasing power will rise. Alberta and Saskatchewan are more export driven economies than Ontario. The thing with western Canada is that we have a production based economy instead of a consumer based economy. If you have ever bought things in the USA, you will see what the benefits are of a high dollar. If a person can produce something and get paid more for it, that's a good thing. The Swiss have one of the most valuable currencies and they have very very low unemployment. The only reason Canadians don't see the benefits of a higher dollar is that we are still willing to pay sticker price for goods instead of taking our business elsewhere.

Or there is the option of using all their oil and taking away their future revenues. By those people there keeping those dictators in place, those dictators will squander their money on trinkets and will have nothing left when the oil runs out. This is a near 100 year long term strategy here that the Americans, Chinese, and Russians are doing quite well. When the oil runs out, the middle easts influence goes to zero and they have to come hat in hand to us for our grain. They're painted into a corner. If all the oil is used up in the middle east, they won't get to enjoy hi energy prices and will be a big victim to them.

No it doesn't because the kids will have to pay interest on the debt which makes it larger and if you keep kicking the can down the road you turn Into Italy. Imagine if the country was out of debt and we can invest in other countries and have them pay us Interest? The difference is the amount being paid. I'd rather pay a little now, than have the kids pay a lot later. When you inherit a business, it's a legacy, and you want that legacy to continue and sometimes that involves making sacrifices in order for the business to survive long term. It's why we have the "old money" phenomenon in some places in new England.

That's just a paper value of the house, that value can go down based on demand and if we Canadians keep being more indebted than Americans, that 150000 dollar house might be 100k or less. At least Harper is trying to pay the stupid thing off as efficiently as possible.

I am. Debt is the devil. Were you worried in the early 90s when the bond vigilantes brought the currency liberals to heel? Do you know what quebec's debt looks like? Do you know what happens to interest rates when debt gets too high? What's wrong with getting out of debt? Debt is like a night of drinking. It's better to have one or two, have a casual night and have a good nights sleep and be productive the next day than to go on a bender, have an epic night, get to bed at sunrise, and be hungover and throw your internal clock out of whack.

But if the government doesn't get it's spending in line and get more revenues by growing the economy, the kids are going to be making the call about the water in the pool and that call will involve more water having to be taken out. Might as well have a teaspoon of buckleys vs a couple of tablespoons.

Your not looking at this in the long term. It is about energy security, the USA has ample reserves and r and d capabilities, but why not use up all that cheap easy to get at middle east oil , use it all and in the long term they're milking a dry cow. After that, the middle east will have zero influence and the west won't have any business there. Whether they diversify their economy with our investments and make their lives better will be up to them. If I have obscene reserves of nat. Gas, easy access to oil, and am the worlds largest grain exporter, I'm going to milk the middle east dry, soak them on grain and then switch to nat gas when the middle east is without a pot to piss in. Problem solved!

My view is that gov't has an obligation to provide a safe environment for the market to work in. It's when gov't gets too large is when there is problems. The thing with gov't regulation is that there is a reaction to what they do and a price to pay. The fail safe is for people to stuff their money in a treasure chest for saving it. They won't go broke but they won't get the benefit of an interest paying savings account. By guaranteeing the loans, it encourages the banks to create more bad loans because people become more complacent with their money. Don't want the risk of a bank going under, better get that treasure map drawn up. As for the last statement, buckley's tastes bad but it works.

That would be called smart money management.

Vietnam is one of the growing economies in Asia and south Korea enjoys a far better fate than it's commie neighbors to the north. Do you suggest that we shouldn't have intervened in south Korea? Do you think that south Korea shouldn't be as advanced as it is today?

How much of iraq's oil is going straight to the USA? Iran did it to themselves.

I am more of the supporter of change from within, as per the risk of the people of Iran supporting their gov't rather than wanting it gone. Only attack if it's deemed necessary.

Point holds. Nazi Germany was bullied as well, they built up an army that was comparable to anyone else and decided to "bully" everyone else. Perhaps if Iran smartened up they wouldn't be bullied anymore. You reasoning is akin to that a street gang should be allowed to have guns because they are being "bullied". We want a world with less nukes, not more.

That fear of The commies bankrupted the USSR and gave eastern Europeans the opportunity to have more freedom than ever.

Godwin award win coming up in 3....2....1..... Here we go... In pre ww2 the western world followed your line of thinking and it enabled nazi Germany to build an army and conquer countries. Afterwards, the USA, the USSR, and china said never again and any perceived threat won't be tolerated even if it was those countriy's fear of each other. Heck that's what the cold war was about, the fear of the other side from being too powerful and threatening the other. Fast forward to today, anybody becoming a threat is closely watched and in some cases dealt with.

Isn't yelling fire/ confronting perp and calling the police being a hero and saving the day? If so welcome to the club. It shouldn't have been too hard to prosecute of the grad student wasn't a bonehead.

The grad student had his superior with his hand caught in the cookie jar. If the kid was worried about losing his job, he wouldn't have reported it in the first place, which is awful in itself. No, the grad student should have went to the authorities and set his layer to stun. Jo pa should have been notified after. Remember the cancer will be removed as quick as possible. When you have the chance to put someone away for rape when they were caught with their hand caught in the cookie jar, you take it.

I think bc2004 was referring to the grad student when replying to me. I'm in your camp regarding Jo pa.

So if you got a front row seat to that, you wouldn't confront said individual and notified the police? I know you don't like using cdn. Examples when talking about the USA, but here I go. In the g8/g20 protests and the Vancouver hockey riots, there are numerous examples of ordinary people stepping up when something wrong is going on. Like I always say excuses excuses.

That's true, however, someone should have good communication skills to sell what their vision for the country is. They have to project themselves as a leader. I don't agree with Obama, however he was very good at doing that, and very good at getting his vision across to the people and getting people to buy into his plan. I don't like his plan, but he had one and successfully sold it. A good plan is as important as the ability to convince people you have a good plan.

Correct a typo.

You do realize the moral hazard of making complaints that way would cause? Why didn't the grad student confront Sandusky and go straight to the police himself? Patterno has nothing to do with the case at that point. You wouldn't be suspicious if someone told you " a friend told me that somebody else did x thing wrong?" there's not enough police resources available to handle cases like that. It makes it so easy to discredit the witness who saw it in the first place.

Nice to see we're back to income. Do you have wheels for those goal posts? You do know that when you save your money it's easier to grow when you have a base instead of starting from zero. It's not a conspiracy, it's just math. How is a middle class person supposed to provide a better living for their child when they don't pass on any wealth they accumulated to their children? Their kids basically start out from zero and they can only get up to what their parents make because of the labor market. If their parents wouldn't consume so much and passed down some of their savings, the middle income average would rise.

Paterno going to the cops would have given them a file based on the friend of a friend told me situation. If all cases were delivered to the police that way, that would be such a hard case to prove and the investigation would be so much more complex it would be hard to even take the case. Imagine going to the police station and saying, "somebody told me that somebody else was robbing a convenience store" it looks suspicious in that the question is raised that "well why didn't the person who told you come and tell us as it was happening?". I think Jo pa didn't want to look like an idiot in the police station. The controversy here is that there is both legal proceedings and university proceedings. The grad student should have confronted the perp, reported it to police for legal proceedings, then report it to Jo pa for university proceedings. What Jo pa did was similar to if a police officer would have chucked the file in the garbage after a complainant would have made a complaint. That's why Jo pa got punted post haste. Because the grad student made a mistake, we have this kerfuffle.

Boo hoo the free pass excuse. Keep making them. As for me, I don't slag any culture. I slag individuals for bad decisions. I think every culture is as good as the other one and blaming culture is ignorant. I slag others who make bad decisions because I live in a poor area of the country, and see some people lift themselves out of poverty by making good decisions and I see others wallow in property because they make bad decisions. Making excuses, having a pity party, and blaming others doesn't solve anything. Wow you've identified a problem and the cause, now people have the choice to either do something about it or wallow in misery.