bloodyminded Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 Well then, he's America's gift to Canada. You can have him. I don't think we need (or want) him either, regardless of what a couple of Canadians say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) Each year, 25,000 Canadians emigrate to the USA, while only 2,500 Americans go to Canada. But the US has 10x the population....think about the reasons for such a glaring disparity. That's not a disparity. It's precisely, 10% aligned-perfect. Perhaps you got the numbers wrong here. EDIT Holy cow, I bungled the math so badly, I got it exactly backwards from what I thought I was seeing! God love me, I'm just not that bright. Carry on. Edited September 6, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 I don't think we need (or want) him either, regardless of what a couple of Canadians say. It's more than "a couple." Canada Votes Ron Paul! Canadians for Ron Paul - Facebook Why doesn’t Canada have a Ron Paul? Those are the first three links that come up in a "canadians for ron paul" Google search... About 1,120,000 results (0.17 seconds) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 6, 2011 Report Share Posted September 6, 2011 It's more than "a couple." Canada Votes Ron Paul! Canadians for Ron Paul - Facebook Why doesn’t Canada have a Ron Paul? Those are the first three links that come up in a "canadians for ron paul" Google search... About 1,120,000 results (0.17 seconds) I meant a couple here on MLW, but I take your point. However, I imagine a lot more Canadians get/got excited about Obama...maybe even Palin! All pretty moot, as you have pointed out elsewhere, but that's another topic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 That's not a disparity. It's precisely, 10% aligned-perfect. Perhaps you got the numbers wrong here... No problema...you have left the door open for further analysis. Perhaps the United States has a net emigration of Americans to a more populated country as well? Let's see...no...it appears that even countries with larger populations than the US also have people voting with their feet to the tune of MILLIONS. So there must be something special about these "United States"...besides the weather! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 No problema...you have left the door open for further analysis. Perhaps the United States has a net emigration of Americans to a more populated country as well? Let's see...no...it appears that even countries with larger populations than the US also have people voting with their feet to the tune of MILLIONS. So there must be something special about these "United States"...besides the weather! Dont you ever get bored of saying the same fockin things over and over again? Of COURSE theres more than the whether that makes the US attractive for immigrants. High standard of life, good climate, highest average income, 5% unemployment up until a few years ago. The US is a great place to live. Jesus Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Dont you ever get bored of saying the same fockin things over and over again? No....and it's "weather"...not "whether"....heh heh. Edited September 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 No....and it's "weather"...not "whether"....heh heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Dont you ever get bored of saying the same fockin things over and over again? Don't you ever bet bored of responding every time - making the same fockin comments in response over and over again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Don't you ever bet bored of responding every time - making the same fockin comments in response over and over again? Said the person who resurrected the 911 mosque thread because she wasn't quite done yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 Not what you want? Now that's an interesting perspective. Who died and left you king? I just want you guys to realize how much having fiat currencies is hurting us. I want you guys to realize that the monetary system we have inherited steals our wealth and gives it to the banks, corporations and governments. I don't know why you guys don't think this is important...this world boggles my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 I just want you guys to realize how much having fiat currencies is hurting us. I want you guys to realize that the monetary system we have inherited steals our wealth and gives it to the banks, corporations and governments. I don't know why you guys don't think this is important...this world boggles my mind. The thing to keep in mind is that the solution from the Paulist camp includes cutting social security and benefits for the poor. Yes, they advocate other budget reductions but let's be honest - who is going to be hurt the most by cuts ? Who always is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 The thing to keep in mind is that the solution from the Paulist camp includes cutting social security and benefits for the poor. Yes, they advocate other budget reductions but let's be honest - who is going to be hurt the most by cuts ? Who always is ? No worries, they can all join the military just in time for the next big war, or martial law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 The thing to keep in mind is that the solution from the Paulist camp includes cutting social security and benefits for the poor. Yes, they advocate other budget reductions but let's be honest - who is going to be hurt the most by cuts ? Who always is ? Social security can't work in the long run, its a ponzi scheme. Ron Paul is asking to let people opt out of social security if they wish, what is wrong with that? But you dismissed or ignored what I was saying about fiat currencies. Do you have some of your savings in dollars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 Social security can't work in the long run, its a ponzi scheme. Ron Paul is asking to let people opt out of social security if they wish, what is wrong with that? There are a lot of people who would make a poor choice if they could, and they would end up destitute. But you dismissed or ignored what I was saying about fiat currencies. Do you have some of your savings in dollars? Fiat currencies have served us well for a long time now. Governments need to be able to borrow money. The arguments that I have read on this topic remind me of the old debates about the 'silver standard' in the 19th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 There are a lot of people who would make a poor choice if they could, and they would end up destitute. The poor choice to opt out of SS? Fiat currencies have served us well for a long time now. Governments need to be able to borrow money. The arguments that I have read on this topic remind me of the old debates about the 'silver standard' in the 19th century. Why must governments borrow money? Maybe in time of war but that is it...and when I say war I mean when there is an actual threat to the nation, not these wars where they go into foreign countries to over throw governments so they can take their oil. Also, fiat currencies haven't been serving us well, look at the States, they went from being one of the most egalitarian countries to having one of the largest wealth gaps between the rich and the poor in the world. That is because fiat currencies redistribute the wealth from the middle class and lower classes to the rich. You may not see it over here yet but wait till you see the inflation from all the cheap money flooding the system. Look at the inflation rates of places like Tunisia when the "pro democracy" movements started occurring, their inflation on food was some of the highest in the world, that is why the people were angry. This will all come here to Canada and America too, more so in the States I believe, these trillions of dollars that are being pumped into the economy will just make the cost of living sky rocket. Ron Paul has been warning about this for a long time and I don't think people are taking his warnings seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 The poor choice to opt out of SS? Yes. Why must governments borrow money? Maybe in time of war but that is it...and when I say war I mean when there is an actual threat to the nation, not these wars where they go into foreign countries to over throw governments so they can take their oil. During depressions, for example. Also, fiat currencies haven't been serving us well, look at the States, they went from being one of the most egalitarian countries to having one of the largest wealth gaps between the rich and the poor in the world. That is because fiat currencies redistribute the wealth from the middle class and lower classes to the rich. Not proven. There are more factors at play here than just public debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiraly Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 New Ron Paul ad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 Yes. I disagree with you but why do you say so? SS has trillions in unfunded liabilities, where is the money going to come from to pay for SS? During depressions, for example. I disagree with you again, why should the government spend in a depression? Not proven. There are more factors at play here than just public debt. It is the inflation associated with the debts that steals the wealth from the middle class and transfers it to the rich. Look at all the money that was given to the big banks and corporations, where did those dollars get there value from, those dollars took the purchasing power away from the other dollars in existence. The purchasing power of the dollars the people had, their wealth, it was stolen and given to the corporations. The people then suffer more when they have to pay higher prices at the store as a result of the currency being devalued. The people who benefit are the people who own the corporations...the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 I disagree with you but why do you say so? SS has trillions in unfunded liabilities, where is the money going to come from to pay for SS? Do you think that they will default on their obligations ? Would they do so for bonds or other commitments ? I disagree with you again, why should the government spend in a depression? Because there should be a surplus during boom times, that can pay down the debt. You know, save for a rainy day etc. Also, it makes more sense for them to buy things when the market is down, rather than in boom times. It is the inflation associated with the debts that steals the wealth from the middle class and transfers it to the rich. Look at all the money that was given to the big banks and corporations, where did those dollars get there value from, those dollars took the purchasing power away from the other dollars in existence. The purchasing power of the dollars the people had, their wealth, it was stolen and given to the corporations. The people then suffer more when they have to pay higher prices at the store as a result of the currency being devalued. The people who benefit are the people who own the corporations...the rich. How much of the wealth that is held by the top 1% of earners comes from their gains due to interest collected on government debt ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 I disagree with you but why do you say so? SS has trillions in unfunded liabilities, where is the money going to come from to pay for SS? From payroll taxes, just as it always has. Benefits and ful retirement age will be changed, just as before. I disagree with you again, why should the government spend in a depression? Because that's a great time to do it...see "Hoover Dam". ...The people then suffer more when they have to pay higher prices at the store as a result of the currency being devalued. The people who benefit are the people who own the corporations...the rich. Except that you don't understand that those very same people also "own the corporations", either through employee stock purchases or mutual funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Do you think that they will default on their obligations ? Would they do so for bonds or other commitments ? They will just print money devaluing their currency. Because there should be a surplus during boom times, that can pay down the debt. You know, save for a rainy day etc. Also, it makes more sense for them to buy things when the market is down, rather than in boom times. I guess it comes down to Keynesian verses Austrian economics. I don't believe that Keynesian method works, I can guarantee that it won't work in this recession. I think it is more important to look at what lead to the creation of the booms and resulting busts. Too bad many people on this forum only blame the private sector but don't look at the nearly free money being a major factor causing many financial corporations becoming over leveraged. How much of the wealth that is held by the top 1% of earners comes from their gains due to interest collected on government debt ? Probably not very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 From payroll taxes, just as it always has. Benefits and ful retirement age will be changed, just as before. They will need to raise the ago soon, SS is already paying out more then it takes in. There is a reason ponzi schemes are illegal, they don't work. I don't know why you guys think the government is capable of running one. Because that's a great time to do it...see "Hoover Dam". More debt isn't a solution, too much debt was what created the problem. Except that you don't understand that those very same people also "own the corporations", either through employee stock purchases or mutual funds. What about the people who don't own the corporation which I will assume is the greater majority, screw them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 They will need to raise the ago soon, SS is already paying out more then it takes in. There is a reason ponzi schemes are illegal, they don't work. I don't know why you guys think the government is capable of running one. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme....it fails to meet the definition of such a scheme at several levels. More debt isn't a solution, too much debt was what created the problem. There will always be more debt. What about the people who don't own the corporation which I will assume is the greater majority, screw them? Bad assumption...you would be wrong. Even those who don't own a piece of the action are dependent on the economy at some level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 There will always be more debt. I know...Obama just announced that he will pump hundreds of billions of dollars more into the economy. This won't solve the problem, this will only lead to more debt and inflation which will hurt the economy more. Buy gold and silver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.