Canadian dollar likely to trump US greenback

[Smallc]

Yes I am well aware that my position is not held by the majority of Canadians. That does not make it less valid, only less popular, despite you constantly bringing this point up.

I think a position based completely on one's own self interest is less valid than one that takes into account the reality that we live on this earth and in this country with other human beings and living organisms.

As for your points about starvation... people are not going to starve in Canada except under very exotic circumstances. There is a wide range of ways for people to get food for extremely cheap or even for free, through voluntary charities and programs like food bank, etc.

You're right, people won't starve in Canada, because as it is now, we don't let that happen...under your proposed system...I'm not sure.

In regards to people with addictions, they made a choice and have to realize that there are consequences, among them, poverty, if in their drug-soaked state they are unable to hold a job. Why should others have to pay for someone to buy drugs?

Things are not that simple. We can't simply wash our hands of what will become, no matter what, societies problem. It's better for society to step in and try to do something about the problem...rather than wait for it to do something about us.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You do realize that almost none of those places are in the west, right? Lets forget that for a second though...it still stands, we live in a relatively peaceful world when we look back at history...and most of these were quite small wars.

Easy for you to say youngster...post WW2 still involves plenty of wars, contrary to your overly optimistic post. Aw shucks...they were just small wars...mere millions killed. LOL!

[blueblood]

No, you don't realize what the numbers show. The numbers show that we do best when we find the proper balance between capitalism and communism...between conservatism and socialism.

The US is one of the most capitalist countries on the planet, with low taxes that pay for its gov't functions and military. They also have a large amount of poor people that are basically for all intents and purposes told to go fly a kite. Now we have the USSR, which was the opposite and gouged people for succeeding. Which side won?

And in this society, you support both the private sector and the government...because that is what is proven to work.

And its also been proven to work that less gov't involvement is better for societies well being than more gov't involvement.

social liberalism hasn't failed to any degree. It is widely practiced in Europe...and Canada.

What about the US? Can't argue with success.

Do you think that we would be successful if the under class was constantly rising up to fight for what they wanted and needed? No, we wouldn't be. If we didn't support societies most vulnerable, that's where we would be.

Do you think that we would be successful if the upper class was constantly rising up to fight for what they wanted and needed? Nope. If we put too much pressure on the wealthy, that's where we willl be.

As for the poor "rising up", a fat lot of good that does them, they're still poor. The sooner the poor realize that you can't cook the golden goose, the sooner our society becomes that more advanced.

[Bonam]

Things are not that simple. We can't simply wash our hands of what will become, no matter what, societies problem. It's better for society to step in and try to do something about the problem...rather than wait for it to do something about us.

There are solutions besides paying these people hundreds of dollars every month that will go directly into the pockets of criminals. As for your second sentence, you sound like you are advocating acting basically out of fear or intimidation, rather than a rational approach to addressing the issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... As for your second sentence, you sound like you are advocating acting basically out of fear or intimidation, rather than a rational approach to addressing the issue.

Agreed...rather than pay thugs...I'd rather pay prison guards.

[Smallc]

The US is one of the most capitalist countries on the planet, with low taxes that pay for its gov't functions and military.

The US taxes only about 5% less of its economy than we do...and I don't what planet you're living on, but the US government revenue has not been enough to pay for it's services and military since.......when? I'm not sure.

They also have a large amount of poor people that are basically for all intents and purposes told to go fly a kite. Now we have the USSR, which was the opposite and gouged people for succeeding. Which side won?

That's completely irrelevant, as we are neither as capitalist and the US or as socialist as the USSR...and look how we're doing. Our finances are in order, and we were not very negatively affected by the recession. Our economy have more than doubled in size (almost tripled) in a decade and a half. I think we're doing fine.

And its also been proven to work that less gov't involvement is better for societies well being than more gov't involvement.

No, that hasn't been proven. Too little government is just as if not more dangerous than too much.

What about the US? Can't argue with success.

The US is also very socially liberal in a historical and world context...simply not as much as us or Europe. As far as I know, we're succeeding, and so is most of Europe.

Do you think that we would be successful if the upper class was constantly rising up to fight for what they wanted and needed? Nope. If we put too much pressure on the wealthy, that's where we willl be.

Oh yeah right. The poor upper class that is so victimized....I'm sure they'll have a great deal of public sympathy.

As for the poor "rising up", a fat lot of good that does them, they're still poor. The sooner the poor realize that you can't cook the golden goose, the sooner our society becomes that more advanced.

The sooner you realize that your theories don't work in reality and more than communist theory does, the sooner you'll become much more at peace with the current situation. The poor have overthrown governments before.

[Smallc]

There are solutions besides paying these people hundreds of dollars every month that will go directly into the pockets of criminals. As for your second sentence, you sound like you are advocating acting basically out of fear or intimidation, rather than a rational approach to addressing the issue.

It is in societies best interest to a ) ensure that all people have what they need to survive so that they don't have to take it, and b ) to step in and help societies people in need to become contributing members. As for your comment on acting out of fear rather than 'rationality'

[Smallc]

Agreed...rather than pay thugs...I'd rather pay prison guards.

I'd rather pay as few of each as possible.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd rather pay as few of each as possible.

No, you have indicated time and again that "society" must pay to keep the unwashed masses from rising up.

[Smallc]

No, you have indicated time and again that "society" must pay to keep the unwashed masses from rising up.

And part of that spending involves programs to lessen addictions. Programs to help people to get better. it also includes programs to feed and house people.

[blueblood]

The US taxes only about 5% less of its economy than we do...and I don't what planet you're living on, but the US government revenue has not been enough to pay for it's services and military since.......when? I'm not sure.

Price they paid to speed up in getting the world rid of the USSR. I'd say it was a good investment.

That's completely irrelevant, as we are neither as capitalist and the US or as socialist as the USSR...and look how we're doing. Our finances are in order, and we were not very negatively affected by the recession. Our economy have more than doubled in size (almost tripled) in a decade and a half. I think we're doing fine.

That is the problem with the attitude of most Canadians, we're doing just fine. Thanks to Western Canada, the country is not very negatively affected by the recession. There's always room for improvement, just not in your eyes.

No, that hasn't been proven. Too little government is just as if not more dangerous than too much.

USSR=huge government --->fail.

The US is also very socially liberal in a historical and world context...simply not as much as us or Europe. As far as I know, we're succeeding, and so is most of Europe.

Yet the US is the most successful of all

Oh yeah right. The poor upper class that is so victimized....I'm sure they'll have a great deal of public sympathy.

They had it during the American Revolution.

The sooner you realize that your theories don't work in reality and more than communist theory does, the sooner you'll become much more at peace with the current situation. The poor have overthrown governments before.

Small gov't, typically US = still a superpower

Huge gov't, the USSR - R.I.P

So has the rich overthrown gov'ts. I.E. American Revolution.

Edited March 12, 2010 by blueblood

[bush_cheney2004]

And part of that spending involves programs to lessen addictions. Programs to help people to get better. it also includes programs to feed and house people.

Ergo...why don't we all avail ourselves of such largess? Just kick back and let somebody else be productive and pay taxes?

[Smallc]

Price they paid to speed up in getting the world rid of the USSR. I'd say it was a good investment.

What's their excuse been for the last decade?

That is the problem with the attitude of most Canadians, we're doing just fine. Thanks to Western Canada, the country is not very negatively affected by the recession. There's always room for improvement, just not in your eyes.

I've posted info here earlier in the thread showing that Ontario will over the next two years grow faster than Alberta. There is always room for improvement, but I don't consider what you offer to be improvement.

USSR=huge government --->fail.

Yet the US is the most successful of all

In terms of what? Health? Wealth? Economics? Education? Yes, they have the largest overall economy, but their per capita economy (just like ours) isn't even close to the largest....they are very near us...almost identical to us in every category. We are above them and some, and they are above us in others.

Small gov't, typically US = still a superpower

Huge gov't, the USSR - R.I.P

So has the rich overthrown gov'ts. I.E. American Revolution.

We're not talking about the USSR....or the US.

[Smallc]

Ergo...why don't we all avail ourselves of such largess? Just kick back and let somebody else be productive and pay taxes?

Ah yes, moral absolutism. What fun that is.

[blueblood]

Looks like Steady Eddie has finally realized what happens when you try and cook the golden goose.

CTV

[blueblood]

What's their excuse been for the last decade?

Being a superpower, a responsibility Canada will never have.

I've posted info here earlier in the thread showing that Ontario will over the next two years grow faster than Alberta. There is always room for improvement, but I don't consider what you offer to be improvement.

Ed Stelmach does, slash to the oil royalties! It sucks for a province when people who are gouged take their ball and go home. Stelmach has learned that lesson the hard way.

We're not talking about the USSR....or the US.

We are talking about policy, you want one closer to the USSR, and I want one closer to the US. One side is a success, one side is a failure.

Edited March 12, 2010 by blueblood

[msj]

Small gov't, typically US = still a superpower

I think you don't realize that the US government isn't as small as you think it is:

Just How Much Bigger Is Government in Canada?

Go here and download the Excel spreadsheets under:

S. Ferris and S. Winer Data on Government Size

[Smallc]

Being a superpower, a responsibility Canada will never have.

And that's an excuse to run massive deficits?

We are talking about policy, you want one closer to the USSR, and I want one closer to the US. One side is a success, one side is a failure.

That is so false it isn't even funny. I haven't asked for anything remotely mirroring socialism or communism. If you can't have an honest debate (on a subject we've debated over and over and over) then we're done.

Oh, and this is Canada, not the US. We don't need to emulate them to be successful. We certainly haven't needed to up until now.

[bush_cheney2004]

And that's an excuse to run massive deficits?

Yes...you just said we have to feed and house all the poor people. "Free" health care too. This is expensive!

Oh, and this is Canada, not the US. We don't need to emulate them to be successful. We certainly haven't needed to up until now.

No, you just need them to define identity...that's all.

[Smallc]

Yes...you just said we have to feed and house all the poor people. "Free" health care too. This is expensive!

Yeah....too bad Americans don't seem willing to pay for it.

No, you just need them to define identity...that's all.

Nice attempt at deflection.

[blueblood]

That is so false it isn't even funny. I haven't asked for anything remotely mirroring socialism or communism. If you can't have an honest debate (on a subject we've debated over and over and over) then we're done.

You have said time and again that it is societies obligation and duty to look after the vulnerable. You have also said time and again that the wealthier owe society more than the less wealthy. That to me is being closer to socialism than capitalism.

Oh, and this is Canada, not the US. We don't need to emulate them to be successful. We certainly haven't needed to up until now.

Oh but we have emulated them, we aren't commies after all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah....too bad Americans don't seem willing to pay for it.

So you want Canada to pursue an independent social policy, but also opine what the Americans should do?

Nice attempt at deflection.

Am I wrong? Nope....

Edited March 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

You have said time and again that it is societies obligation and duty to look after the vulnerable. You have also said time and again that the wealthier owe society more than the less wealthy. That to me is being closer to socialism than capitalism.

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:

Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

I haven't advocated that,

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

or that.

Oh but we have emulated them, we aren't commies after all.

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.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

So you want Canada to pursue an independent social policy, but also opine what the Americans should do?

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.

Am I wrong? Nope....

Yes, you are wrong, and it still doesn't hold any relevance to the argument. It's nice to see you display your insecurities about America's financial situation though.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

US government is smaller (per capita...your favorite), taxes are lower, and it will work out.

Yes, you are wrong, and it still doesn't hold any relevance to the argument. It's nice to see you display your insecurities about America's financial situation though.

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

Edited March 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004