segnosaur

A few things to keep in mind... - As has been pointed out, "China" is not the sole holder of U.S. debt. They don't even hold the majority. The central bank holds 8%. That's not exactly enough to "manipulate" currency values. - Hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. debt are held by countries like Russia and Switzerland... these companies have a much more limited trading relationship with the U.S., so they have little benefit in seeing a reduced dollar. Yet they feel it is in their interest in holding U.S. debt. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt I believe you have the whole cause-and-effect thing incorrect. They are not buying U.S. debt and currency to keep the dollar low... they are buying U.S. debt because a trade imbalance (caused by cheap labor) has given them the extra cash and a need to invest it. (Any effects on currency values is secondary.) The U.S. credit rating from the major ratings firms is currently AA+. Although it was downgraded from AAA a couple of years ago, it is still amongst the top ratings for countries globally. It indicates that there is very little if any risk in holding U.S. T-bills or bonds (and many investors do consider safety to be a primary concern.) http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/10/news/economy/sp-u-s-credit-rating/index.html

It doesn't need to. But there is no guarantee that there will be an automatic crash. Its possible that at some point, the economy will pick up enough, and the government will ease back on the printing of currency. (And in the past, the size of the debt has been overshadowed by a strong growing economy.) Keep in mind that those countries are not "propping up the U.S." just to be generous. China buys U.S. debt because they think its a wise investment.... safe enough, with enough of a return to justify whatever risk is involved. Investment in U.S. treasury bills is not necessarily a sign of weakness in the economy (i.e. "OMG we have to prop them up") but more a sign of strength (i.e. "we think they're running things good enough to trust them with our cash").

Ok, a couple of points: First of all, your referenced article is "money news"... a few seconds on that site and I found that its related to NewsMax, a site that has a specifically right-wing orientation (and has articles from such intellectual midgets as Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Granted, that doesn't guarantee that its shoddy reporting, but it doesn't give a lot of hope. Secondly, keep in mind that predictions of "doom and gloom" are very common. Yes, eventually I'm sure that we'll have another recession. That doesn't mean that each and every prediction is accurate or useful. And heck, the article uses Donald Trump as an expert, someone who's declared bankruptcy in the past (so he's certainly not fallible, at least when it comes to his own finances.) ETA: and take a look at the article... the economist says there will be problems "down the line"... how far down? who knows. People will loose "Up to" 50% of their wealth.... that's a rather big range: 0-50%. All rather vague predictions. Something else to consider... yes, China holds some U.S. debt. But in reality, its probably a smaller amount than most people realize. More importantly, its irrelevant. It is of absolutely no benefit for China to try to bankrupt the U.S., since it would harm them almost as much as it would harm the U.S. The economy is not perfect. I do think that the U.S. government hasn't does as much to tighten up financial regulations as it could, and there are demographics issues to deal with.. But, believe it or not, American manufacturing is hitting record levels, they actually hold almost as much debt of other countries than china owns of theirs (and they earn money off it too), and the deficit is slowly coming under control. I'd suggest reading the following article. Yeah, its from a comedy web site, but sometimes they make more sense than the mainstream news sites: http://www.cracked.com/article_20454_5-scary-myths-you-probably-believe-about-economy.html

In a way they do.... - We already have a graduated tax rate for income tax, so that for those earning more end up in a higher tax bracket (in fact, the basic personal exemption means that many people on minimum wage pay no income tax.) - There are a variety of deductions (e.g. Ontario's Sales tax rebate) which is available only to low wage earners.

I suspect whether the police would be able to act would depend on whether a reasonable person would believe that the accused has the ability and inclination to carry through on any statements that were made. For example, if someone said "I'm going to use my mental powers to make your brain explode", a reasonable person would probably look at that and say "I assume this threat is not credible", whereas if someone said they were going to meet you after work with a baseball bat (and they actually knew where you lived) that would be a different case. Given the fact that the man's threats involved things like using Napalm (something not commonly available) or dropping people from the air (again, suggesting resources that people don't commonly have) then I think a reasonable person shouldn't feel that their life was really in danger. Here's what I find particularly disgusting about the situation... An individual named Dennis Markuze (a.k.a. David Mabus) has been spamming the internet for years. He's made threats that were much more direct, aimed both at specific individuals and against atheists in general. And unlike this single letter (one that wasn't even meant to be seen by the panhandler), he's been spamming and threatening through email, on line forums, and twitter repeatedly and directly. So the result? The individual complaining about the panhandler gets a judgement against them, whereas Markuze (after getting picked up by police) is able to go free and continue pretty much unhindered, and nobody in authority seems to have an interest in dealing with it.

There are a couple of things that should be noted: - I would be hesitant in basing anything on a single observation (i.e. how BC is doing). After all, the economy (as well as energy consumption) is quite complex and depends on a wide range of variables. Remember, Ontario's manufacturing sector was particularly hard hit by the recent downturn; this might have served to drag the Canadian average down. BC's economy is less dependent on manufacturing, so it might not have been as hard hit - The article pointed out that while they did bring in a carbon tax, they also reduced other taxes. I myself am not opposed to the concept carbon tax. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense. However, in order for it to work, it has to have a few features: - Be revenue neutral, with corresponding reductions in income, sales or corporate taxes. Otherwise, its just a tax increase (which of course is not good for the economy). One of the problems is I don't really trust any party not to use a carbon tax as a way to institute a tax grab - Avoid such loopholes as 'carbon credits/carbon trading' - Recognize the fungible nature of energy sources and certain resources Back in 2008 the Liberals brought out their 'green shift' environmental platform. Even though I think a carbon tax might be beneficial, the Liberal's plan sucked in its implementation.

Dictionary definition: Behavior: The way in which one acts or conducts oneself. Please tell me, when exactly did the individual actually act violently in relationship to the panhandler?

Errr.. not really. In order to accept the 'slippery slope' argument you'd have to provide some sort of justification where its reasonable to assume one action (i.e. talking about killing) automatically leads to another (such as actual murder). Given the fact that there are a large number of individuals who have engaged in similar acts (everything from children playing 'cops and robbers', to comedians invoking dark humor) and who have never engaged in any violent behavior suggests that the 'slippery slope' does not apply.

Irrelevant comparison. As has been pointed out before... a small population (which in turn leads to a smaller tax base, which might have applied to Alberta in the 1930s), along with minimal revenue from resources would at least partly justify larger per-capita payments to a western province. Quebec does not have those issues.... it has a large population (i.e. large potential tax base) along with resources which are actually in demand (e.g. electricity, minerals). So there's no justification for them receiving such transfers. Although I am curious... where exactly are your figures backing up the claim that payments to Alberta were comparable (on a per capita bases) to those received by Quebec? Nobody here has denied that Alberta received equalization payments in the past, but its citizens have also been net contributors at other points in time, something that Quebec has never done, to the best of my knowledge. Where is your proof that if you add up all the net benefits and subtract the years it contributed, that Alberta's reception of equalization payments is near that of Quebec's?

Wow.... just totally wow. I'm amazed. You asked for statistics.... I pointed out that: - The corporate tax rate is higher for Quebec/Montreal than for competing cities that would serve for corporate headquarters. So in this case, Quebec is worse (at least worse than its competition) - I pointed to statistics that show Quebec's regulatory barriers are 8th and 10th out of all provinces in Canada. Yes, mismanagement occurs in other provinces. But if you really think that "other provinces are just as bad", then please... point out some statistics that shows Quebec is more business-friendly than other provinces.

Your statement was nothing of the sort. Actually, yes it was. Lets run down the conversation, shall we? The post that started this all was by dre: dre: Scared people are really really stupid, and terrorism has been an opportunity to take trillions of dollars from Americans, and turn it over to large corporations. Shady: No, trillions of dollars isn't being "taken" from Americans and "given" to large corporations. Now, Shady didn't outright state that trillions wasn't taken for terrorism, but the context of his post (he was doing a direct response to dre) certainly implied that that he was talking about money spent to combat terrorism. Bringing up things like the wall street bailouts are irrelevant because such spending was not done due to terrorism.

I agree... Hudak and the PCs had a lot going for them prior to the election, and failed to capitalize. Probably be best for everyone if he left. Here's where I disagree... While you might be right in that the Hudak would never win central Toronto, I don't think any conservative would. On the other hand, I don't think Ottawa would be such a write-off (remember, there are a lot of successful businesses, and the Ottawa economy is less dependent on provincial jobs). And as Mike Harris showed, it is possible to win a majority based largely on the '905' area and rural regions of the province. Ummm... why? The province already has 'progressives' in the form of the Liberals and NDP. It makes a bit more sense to try to differentiate themselves than to provide the same thing that everyone else is offering. Actually they did. During Harris' time in power: - Real GDP increased from around $30,000 per capita (measured in 1997 dollars) to around $35,000 (adjusted for inflation) - It should also be noted that he was able to bring in balanced budgets, and increased health care expenditures, at the same time that the federal liberals were decreasing transfers to the provincial governments.

Not sure exactly what you're looking for in the way of statistics, but here are a few: - Immediately before and after Quebec's referendums, net immigration into the province reached low points. Given the fact that immigration is necessary to maintain the tax base in the face of declining birth rates, having more people move out of the province than move in is not a 'good thing'. (It should also be noted that Quebec's language policies tend to favor those speaking french, which attracts individuals from poorer demographics. Meanwhile, many of the wealthier immigrants, such as those from China and India, favor destinations in English Canada.) - In roughly 2 decades (between 1990 and 2011) the number of corporate head offices located in Montreal declined by 22%. Yet the corporate tax rate in Quebec is 11.9%. This is higher than the corporate tax rates in Toronto (11.5%) Calgary and Vancouver (10%), competitors for Montreal in attracting corporate offices. - The Fraser institute did surveys of businesses and found that Quebec ranked last among provinces in labor market regulation, and 8th out of 10 in 'red tape'. (Note: I do recognize that the Fraser Institute is regarded as a 'right wing' organization. However, some of their figures were obtained through the Canadian Federation of independent business. I am including them as a 'source' because I have a certain trust for their sources.) http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/talk-sovereignty-promoting-french-culture-bad-quebec-economy-165025318.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/quebec-committing-slow-motion-suicide/article4488827/?cmpid=rss1 http://www.mining.com/web/anti-business-policies-hurting-corporate-montreal/ http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=17060

It's about as good as quoting CNN or Foxnews ... Errr... not really. While I certainly wouldn't bother listening to any Foxnews political commentators, CNN does hold a much better reputation. And while it could be argued that all news sources have some sort of bias (and that mistakes do happen), there is a world of difference between a source like CNN (which may contain errors) and ones like Global Research or Prison Planet (which tend to make up stories). Mainstream media sources tend to put at least some value in accuracy. Make too many mistakes and you loose credibility (and viewers/readers). Sites like Global Research can continue putting out any sort of nonsense they want because they cater to a niche market that is much more forgiving of errors.

My thoughts... never waste time reading any article appearing on idiotic web sites like 'global research', 'prison planet', or any site posting such conspiracy nonsense such as claims that "bin Laden died of kidney disease''. Even if there is some validity in arguments that the U.S. is over reacting, you basically taint your entire argument by referring to such claptrap.

This issue was already discussed in the Canadian politics forum in the 'ROC' thread. For many of us, the issue is not that Quebec is a 'have not' province. the issue is why they're a have-not province. Quebec is not like Newfoundland of the 1990s, coping with the collapse of the fisheries, or 1930s-era Western Canada dealing with a drought. They've got a relatively large population (potentially leading to a strong industrial base), and significant resources (hydro, mineral, etc.) They should be one of the success stories. Instead, they seem to be more content with driving their economy into the ground. The story from the opening post is a prime example. Rather than telling the kid "Good luck with your company. Make sure you pay your taxes and everyone will be happy", they're wasting time (and taxpayer money I might add) putting up barriers to his business. The kid's business would not harm Quebec's tax base. In fact, it could potentially add to it (giving the province the money it needs to pay for its own infrastructure.)

According to Wikipedia, (yeah I know... not a perfect source. but legal documents can be rather tricky to read...) there are differences. there appear to be some big differences. For example: - Iraq's constitution allows stronger religious freedoms. Egypt's only protects Abrahamic religions - Egypt's constitution has sections which deal with preventing insults to religion and affects on family life... however this contradicts things like free speech rights. As far as I can tell, there is no such problem with the Iraqi constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iraq The fact that he would make such a decree in the FIRST place is the issue. By the way, do you have a reference to his decree being rescinded? As has been said before... western democracies are more complex than just "majority rules". Minorities (even if you label them as "sore losers" must have their rights protected. As far as I remember, large scale protests started long before people in the Morsi government were arrested. Why do I get the feeling that , regardless of how the army handled the situation, you'd still be criticizing them? - Allow both pro and anti-morsi groups to protest? They're dividing the nation! - Crack down on protests? They're exerting their authority and stifling speech! Look. I don't think anyone is completely happy with the situation... military coups can be messy. But Egypt is rather new at this whole idea of democracy and human rights.

That's right. The Egyption parliment had tried to pass a law to allow a president to be impeached, but I think the president rejected it.. http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403055_text

Actually, the tipping point probably happened back in November, when Morsi removed the ability for the courts to over-rule his decisions. (In typical "western" democracies, there are typically various checks and balances to make sure that no particular group has "too much power". You want democracy, but you don't want the rights of the minorities to be quashed.) It should also be noted that in September he made a speech to the UN where he stated he would cut down on free speech. Those sorts of things are rather big red flags. So far, the military has gone to great lengths to distance this from being a "power grab"... they've appointed a moderate as a temporary president, and appear to be appealing to a wide base of Egyptians. While not a guarantee, things do look hopeful.

Um this is China. Easy to come under budget when you don't pay people a lot of money. Yes, China has a lower average wage than the U.S. or Canada. (I'm also assuming that applies to skilled workers in the nuclear industry.) But those people making the budgets would have factored that in in the first place. (Or do you think the builders didn't realize "Oh I'm paying these guys less" until after the plant was constructed?. (And, as I stated before, the plant was also completed early, which has little to do with the wages of workers.)

Wow... just totally wow. The mind boggles . First of all, while I did put a link to Wikipedia, I've also referenced the U.S. Department of Energy, the CBC, a news wire source, a newspaper web site, and several other sources. Heck, I even admitted when I put the wikipedia link in that I wasn't guaranteeing the validity of the information in it, since I couldn't validate the sources. There was more than enough evidence to justify my arguments without referring to Wikipedia. As for your little book.. why exactly should I waste hours/days of my life to track down and read some biased book in the library? I certainly don't expect anyone to watch hours of Fox News on TV, or read giant technical manuals. Hey, why don't you go to the library and read the Encyclopedia Brittianica! I'm completely sure it will be completely convincing! What, you actually have a real life and don't want to spend all that time reading stuff that may not be convinincing? Seriously, you're like some little boy who's found his daddy's playboy magazines and is eager to show them off to all his friends, without understanding that what you see in them is heavily airbrushed/photoshoped and filled with silicon, and bears no similarity to the real world at all. (Only in your case, substitute your little "tar sands" book for "play boy magazines", and "biased" for "airbrushed")

That's just a fabricated perceived slight. Err, not really. Last time I checked, there was no significant Ontario sovereignty movement. Unlike Quebec, which receives equalization payments, and says "Hey, thanks for nothing." If you don't care about such a slap in the face, that's fine. Some people also like getting kicked in the groin. Doesn't mean that those who don't like getting kicked in the groin are "bigots". Not really Last time I checked, Manitoba and BC were not holding referendums, and electing separatists to government. The moment the "Manitoba separatist party" gets into power and holds their first referendum, I will start being more critical of them. As I've pointed out before, while its the federal government who runs the program, consultations do happen between the feds and the provinces.

Two completely unrelated issues. Errr... not really. If Quebec is holding referendums and voting for parties that want to push a separatist agenda, then a significant portion of their population obviously thinks being a separate country is to their benefit. That includes both social/cultural aspects and economic aspects. An extra $17 billion would certainly be a boon to the economies of most provinces. (It would wipe out Ontario's deficit for example). It would pay for a lot of social programs, infrastructure, or create a lot of jobs if used for economic stimulus. Yet most separatists seem to shrug that off.

First of all, while equalization is a federal program, there are sometimes negotiations between the federal government and provinces over what exactly the formula should be. Secondly, as has been pointed out long ago in this thread, the issue is sometimes not what Quebec gets, but their failure to acknowledge the benefits that they do receive. Quebec has been receiving equalization payments for decades, yet they've held referendums about separating, and most separatists think that separation won't affect their economy. (http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=4431323c-27bc-4342-88e3-cd62c04512dd). When the federal government collects hundreds of millions and dumps it into Quebec's economy, and Separatists think "that's no big deal", then people can't be blamed for questioning why we continue to be so generous with the equalization program. Simply slapping an "anti-Quebec bigot" label is just empty rhetoric.

whether it's a legitimate criticism/concern, or not... it's a point leveled equally towards both Quebec... and Manitoba: Hydro revenue review off the table: You're right... it does affect both Quebec and Manitoba. In case you didn't notice, I already referred to Manitoba in a previous posting. (go back and look at point 233).. .It supposedly even affects BC. I singled out Quebec for a couple of reasons... first of all, Quebec and their relationship with the rest of Canada was the topic of this post, and secondly, Quebec is usually the most vocal with its complaints. (There have not been any recent referendums on separation held in Manitoba or BC). If its true that the conservative government has decided to leave the equalization formula as it is, then shame on them. I want the government to treat all provinces fairly, and they're not doing that. (Unfortunately, its not an issue that will affect my vote, since as far as I can tell, no party is pushing to have the equalization formula changed.