Canadian dollar likely to trump US greenback

[Shady]

The numbers show that we do best when we find the proper balance between capitalism and communism

That's pretty scary. You actually think Canada does best with some level of communism? It's actually more than scary, it's disturbing. But I'm glad you're honest. You're not the only closet communist in this forum. If so many leftists are closet communists, why do they get upset when they're referred to as such? I don't get it.

And if so many leftists/socialists have strong communist tendencies, why do they get so upset when people refer to President Obama as one? Is it so out of the realm of possiblity, that a fellow leftist/socialist like Obama would have some similar communist tendencies, like our comrade Smallc? Answer. Absolutely not.

[Smallc]

US government is smaller, taxes are lower, and it will work out.

right.

What argument? Krikey....you have lived your entire life with Canadian currency valuations expressed in US dollars. Now that must be annoying!

Another attempt at deflection. Well played.

[blueblood]

Well maybe that is to you, but under the system that we have (that's the one I'm advocating) there is a social safety net along with a regulated market economy. This economy is not planned or government directed for the most part. There are elements of both ends of the spectrum within our system. Which end we're closer to is a matter of debate....that said, it is helpful to learn the meaning of the terms communism and socialism:

Welcome to the debate!

More absolutism. There are many numbers between 1 and 100. We aren't at either end...neither is the US....neither was the USSR for that matter.

The debate is what number between 1 and 100 is ideal. I am advocating a different number than you are.

[Shady]

He brought up the US as an example of a society in which government is small, taxes are low, and it all works out...that's false, and that was my point.

It's not false. One has more freedom in America than in any other country in the world. More freedom equates with less of the government doing things for you. Although, it's unfortunately being pulled in the opposite direction.

[Smallc]

That's pretty scary. You actually think Canada does best with some level of communism?

Yes, it might be better to say socialism, but we have that today. You're living in some kind of dream world if you think that we don't. We have a publicly funded and directed social safety net under our regulated market system.

It's actually more than scary, it's disturbing. But I'm glad you're honest. You're not the only closet communist in this forum. If so many leftists are closet communists, why do they get upset when they're referred to as such? I don't get it.

Maybe because we aren't communists. It's also disturbing that all right wingers are either fascists or uncaring libertarians....oh, but that's not true either, is it?

And if so many leftists/socialists have strong communist tendencies, why do they get so upset when people refer to President Obama as one?

Because he isn't one.

Is it so out of the realm of possiblity, that a fellow leftist/socialist like Obama would have some similar communist tendencies, like our comrade Smallc? Answer. Absolutely not.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. I am a social liberal. That is what I have been for a long time. In the last federal election, I voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next federal election, I will likely vote for the Conservative Party of Canada. Trust me, there aren't really communists hiding around every corner.

[Smallc]

It's not false. One has more freedom in America than in any other country in the world.

Really?

http://www.heritage.org/index/ Here's from an organization that's Sean Hannity approved.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf

The US is a very free place, but it isn't the most free.

More freedom equates with less of the government doing things for you. Although, it's unfortunately being pulled in the opposite direction.

It does? It is?

[Smallc]

The debate is what number between 1 and 100 is ideal. I am advocating a different number than you are.

Yes, you want 1...and I want, say....40...or 50.

[Shady]

Really?

http://www.heritage.org/index/ Here's from an organization that's Sean Hannity approved.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf

The US is a very free place, but it isn't the most free.

Yes it is. Overall freedoms.

It does? It is?

Yes it does, and yes it is, by people of your ilk.

[Smallc]

Yes it is. Overall freedoms.

And you have some kind of proof of this somewhere I assume?

Yes it does, and yes it is, by people of your ilk.

Yes it does? According to whom? You? Yes it is? When did it start? Is it only since the "closet communists" took over that the US started to be pulled that way?

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

And you have some kind of proof of this somewhere I assume?

...24,000 Canadian emigres per year?

Edited March 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Excellent, so 1 in 1400 canadians agrees.

[bush_cheney2004]

Excellent, so 1 in 1400 canadians agrees.

+ Ignatieff

[bloodyminded]

See, if it was really about supporting the vulnerable, I don't think nearly as many people would have a problem. I understand the need to provide care for orphans, for the elderly, and for the disabled.

But the reality is that a big chunk of our social spending is used not on those groups, but on the lazy, the drug addicted, the reckless or negligent, the failed businessmen, the smokers (healthcare), and even the criminals. This is what I find objectionable, not supporting the vulnerable (which is fine).

Just to focus on one point (though in some ways it extrapolates out to the others as well) why do you say "even the criminals"? We are 100% obligated to take care of criminals.

What some people fail to understand is that there is not some entity called "criminals" who are objectively bad according to God's law; we're not talking about any clear, objective assessment, in which "criminals" have broken some ineffable "natural order." (Indeed, most criminals are acting in understandably natural" ways.) We're talking about society, which on a large, law and order scale becomes something of a concoction, a battle against some of what is "natural."

Society has contracted with itself to remove and/or punish and/or rehabilitate those who break society's laws.

Our obligation to society as a whole is to pay for this.

Edited March 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

The only society that hasn't worked is the communist society that takes your do-gooder attitude and makes it central policy. The numbers don't lie, gouging people that succeed hurts far more than leaving some people impoverished.

Leaving the "Communist" rhetoric aside--because we're not Communist--you are mistaken.

sicne the implementation of broad and (relatively) extensive social programs, standards of living have improved in virtually every way.

Including for the rich.

In fact, the numbers of wealthy individuals has grown exponentially, as a direct result of instituting a more socially-conscious system.

There are more wealthy people.

Those wealthy people are wealthier than ever before. Never in their dreams were the wealthy of several decades ago as well-off as they are now.

And because the mildly-socialist mechanisms have been put into place (precisely to ameliorate the harsher effects of capitalism), the wealthy have made out like gangbusters. These changes have helped the wealthy immeasureably.

THAT'S why they owe more to society.

[bloodyminded]

Being a superpower, a responsibility Canada will never have.

That was a choice. Despite the notions cribbed from fairy tales, superpoweer status was not thrust upon the poor, reluctant United States. They took it, often by force and coercion.

You do not achieve supreme power any other way.

[blueblood]

Leaving the "Communist" rhetoric aside--because we're not Communist--you are mistaken.

sicne the implementation of broad and (relatively) extensive social programs, standards of living have improved in virtually every way.

Including for the rich.

In fact, the numbers of wealthy individuals has grown exponentially, as a direct result of instituting a more socially-conscious system.

There are more wealthy people.

Those wealthy people are wealthier than ever before. Never in their dreams were the wealthy of several decades ago as well-off as they are now.

And because the mildly-socialist mechanisms have been put into place (precisely to ameliorate the harsher effects of capitalism), the wealthy have made out like gangbusters. These changes have helped the wealthy immeasureably.

THAT'S why they owe more to society.

Ha! Are you not aware of the concept of modern banking. It's a novel idea introduced in the late middle ages. That is the number one reason why we have a higher living standard, not by governments soaking those that have money to essentially burn said money. I'd argue there is a far stronger correlation between improved standards of living and the banking system than by having a do-gooder attitude. There are more wealthy people in spite of government (capitalizing on advances of technology and a growing population), not because of it.

My link

The harsh effects of captilism didn't affect this guy, he cashed in on the April-January rally and made out better than Bill Gates.

Ed Stelmach had the same attitude you did, the oil companies told him to pound sand, and eventually ol' Eddie folded like a cheap tent.

[bloodyminded]

Ha! Are you not aware of the concept of modern banking. It's a novel idea introduced in the late middle ages. That is the number one reason why we have a higher living standard, not by governments soaking those that have money to essentially burn said money. I'd argue there is a far stronger correlation between improved standards of living and the banking system than by having a do-gooder attitude. There are more wealthy people in spite of government (capitalizing on advances of technology and a growing population), not because of it.

Nope. Increased social programs have been a boon to business and to the increase of wealth.

And I find it more than a little amusing how you play the rich-are-victims card.

No one takes that seriously.

[Jack Weber]

Ha! Are you not aware of the concept of modern banking. It's a novel idea introduced in the late middle ages. That is the number one reason why we have a higher living standard, not by governments soaking those that have money to essentially burn said money. I'd argue there is a far stronger correlation between improved standards of living and the banking system than by having a do-gooder attitude. There are more wealthy people in spite of government (capitalizing on advances of technology and a growing population), not because of it.

My link

The harsh effects of captilism didn't affect this guy, he cashed in on the April-January rally and made out better than Bill Gates.

Ed Stelmach had the same attitude you did, the oil companies told him to pound sand, and eventually ol' Eddie folded like a cheap tent.

So giving into corporate fascism,which is what Stelmach did in the case of oil company royalties,is a good thing to you?

[blueblood]

So giving into corporate fascism,which is what Stelmach did in the case of oil company royalties,is a good thing to you?

A great multitude of corporations operating in the oil patch are publically traded companies, there is nothing stopping the average joe from buying shares in the company and having his say at the annual shareholder's meeting. If you think corporations are fascist, its time to take some commerce classes.

Stelmach did the good thing because that oil is worthless to him if there is nobody to pump it out of the ground. With oil being stuck in the ground there is no royalties period being gathered from the oil companies.

[blueblood]

Nope. Increased social programs have been a boon to business and to the increase of wealth.

Banking has done far more for ordinary people than social programs. That's a fact. The lefties get their knickers in a knot because it's not "free" like from the government.

And I find it more than a little amusing how you play the rich-are-victims card.

No one takes that seriously.

Only those that don't matter.

Ed Stelmach took it seriously and slashed the royalties. His province will now be richer because of it.

[bloodyminded]

Banking has done far more for ordinary people than social programs. That's a fact. The lefties get their knickers in a knot because it's not "free" like from the government.

No, quite the opposite.

Only those that don't matter.

Ed Stelmach took it seriously and slashed the royalties. His province will now be richer because of it.

Ah. I said "no one takes that seriously," and you said "only those that don't matter."

That is, virtually everybody.

Some elitist snobs actually think elitist snobbery is ok.

No one takes them seriously either.

[ToadBrother]

Banking has done far more for ordinary people than social programs. That's a fact. The lefties get their knickers in a knot because it's not "free" like from the government.

Banking as we know it has existed since the Renaissance. If what you say is true, then why does the historical record not seem to indicate the kinds of benefits you ascribe to it?

[blueblood]

Banking as we know it has existed since the Renaissance. If what you say is true, then why does the historical record not seem to indicate the kinds of benefits you ascribe to it?

That's a good question, but we do know this.

Before the renaissance, no middle class. We have nobility and peasants. Everything was stagnant, and every time Europeans tried their little war adventures out east, they got their poor, broke butts handed to them.

Then the church in all of its wisdom decides to allow banking, which if my history serves me correctly the Templars used, and helped to create a vast amount of wealth/power. (Interesting to note, Friday the 13th is when all the templars got rounded up and killed by the church/kings of the day). Now with banking, we have the emergence of the middle class, more wealth being created and spent, which has led to a rapid advancement in European and eventually western civilization.

That's how I connected the dots.

Had we done the things some leftists want to do by taking from the nobility and "giving" the money away, I would argue we would still have nobility and peasants.

[blueblood]

No, quite the opposite.

You look in throughout European history with banks and without banks. One was poor and one has had steady growth. Guess which part had banks and which one didn't.

Ah. I said "no one takes that seriously," and you said "only those that don't matter."

That is, virtually everybody.

Some elitist snobs actually think elitist snobbery is ok.

No one takes them seriously either.

Ed Stelmach has slashed oil revenues. By doing so he essentially flipped the bird to those expecting handouts from the revenue generated by the oilsands. Those urban people who elected NDP MLA's in Alberta, they were told to go pound sand. Ed Stelmach learned the hard way what the consequences are of messing with the "elite". The province suffered, and the elite took their money and the jobs they provided next door.

[Smallc]

Yeah, those damn urban people exercising their democratic rights.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc