Titanic's Captain George Dubya

[Jackmoney]

Titanic's Captain George Dubya and his followers will sink America to the deep dark ocean of no return, with his way of thinking.A giant iceberg ahead ! Dubya will say full power and stay the course!

[Stoker]

And what Iceberg is that?

[Big Blue Machine]

Probably backlash from Iraq war and the lack of economy.

[Stoker]

Probably backlash from Iraq war and the lack of economy.

Backlash from Iraq war?

major offensive in Samarra

Here we have one of the major offences of the war, with the Iraqis doing the Lion's share of the work, with the Americans in a supporting role........with this being only a stepping stone towards a planned offensive in Fallujah and other town in the Sunni triangle. What blacklash can come from the Iraqis starting to fight for their own freedom?

As for their economy........well let me put it to you this way, do think our economy is in good health?

Canada's GDP growth rate: 1.7%

America's GDP growth rate : 3.1%

So what Iceberg?

[Guest eureka]

Was that a Freudian slip: major "offences" of the war. The Iraqis are not carrying the major share of the offensive either. There are more American troops than Iraqis in these "offensives." The backlash from these as well as all previous actions is bound to be considerable. Many more civilians have been killed and injured.

Your discomprehension skills are showing in reading GDP figures. You select the one bad year to represent Canada - questionable too, if you look at Canadian sources. You compare it to the recovery year from the Bush recession in the US. Canada's rate for the full decade previously was 3% growth. Its current rate is likely to be well ahead of the US as the rumblings about interest rates will verify.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think the main question of this election is "Are you better off than you were four years ago". Just like 1980, when Reagen won.

[Stoker]

Was that a Freudian slip: major "offences" of the war.

Please explain further.

The Iraqis are not carrying the major share of the offensive either. There are more American troops than Iraqis in these "offensives."

Where did I say "offensives", plural?

With that said, as I said in the post above, this was a major offensive, led by the new Iraqi army, with the United States in support.

The backlash from these as well as all previous actions is bound to be considerable. Many more civilians have been killed and injured.

Backlash? From who? The terrorists? Thats expected What do think the alternative is? America pull out, and the Iraqi army/government fold it's collective tent?

Do you think less civilians will be killed and injured if Iraq is run as a theocracy? Another dictator? Bring back Saddam?

Or do you think less civilians will be killed and injured if Iraq falls into a bunch of small tribal states controlled by local warlords?

Your discomprehension skills are showing in reading GDP figures.

No, I think yours are.

Here's the numbers again:

Canada's GDP - real growth rate: 1.7%

America's GDP - real growth rate: 3.1%

Now I only took math until grade 11, but unless the very principles of math have changed, 3.1 is larger than 1.7

3.1 > 1.7

You select the one bad year to represent Canada - questionable too, if you look at Canadian sources. You compare it to the recovery year from the Bush recession in the US. Canada's rate for the full decade previously was 3% growth.

I used last years numbers If you wish, I'll post 2004s complete numbers in the new year

Its current rate is likely to be well ahead of the US as the rumblings about interest rates will verify.

Well since you say that is so likely, you should have no problem posting some figures to back up your "claim". I showed you mine, you show me yours.

  I think the main question of this election is "Are you better off than you were four years ago". Just like 1980, when Reagen won.

Define better. If you mean better as in safer, then yes.

[Big Blue Machine]

That's your opinion.

[Stoker]

Whats yours then?

[August1991]

US GDP in inflation-corrected US $:

2000 .. $9876 billion

2003 .. $10697 billion

or an increase of 8.3% over 3 years (2.7% annually)

US population:

2000 .. 284 million

2003 .. 292 million

or an increase of 3.0% over 3 years (1.0% annually)

Federal Reserve

Cdn GDP in inflation-corrected Cdn $:

2000 .. $1020 billion

2003 .. $1096 billion

or an increase of 7.4% over 3 years (2.4% annually)

Canadian population:

2000 .. 30.7 million

2003 .. 31.6 million

or an increase of 3.1% over 3 years (1% annually)

Stat Canada

On average, Americans saw income per person rise under Bush.

On average, income per person rose faster in the US than in Canada over the past three years.

More pointedly, average US per person income is roughly 25% higher than in Canada.

[Guest eureka]

Is Canadian income really 20% lower than in the US. If social programs are factored in, then I think the difference might be substantially less.

Stoker, look to your own link. As I said, you choose one year of lower growth for Canada.

Interestingly, on the index of prices, the US is at 109 and Canada, 83.

There are all kinds of measures that can be used to compare countries. You use what you want to make your case.

The overall performance of Canada and the USA over the past 25 years has not been very good. The era of "Globalization" has brought slower growth. Between 1980 and 2000, the US GDP grew by 56% and Canada by 35%. But, GDP is not the only measure of prosperity.

[Stoker]

Is Canadian income really 20% lower than in the US. If social programs are factored in, then I think the difference might be substantially less.

Canada GDP - per capita: $ 29,800

America's GDP - per capita: $ 37,800

Stoker, look to your own link. As I said, you choose one year of lower growth for Canada.

No, I chose (as with the United States) the latest full years figures, which are last years. I would have listed this years numbers, but we still have three months to go

With that said, you allued to the fact that Canada had an "off year" (SARS, Mad Cow, etc), thus shouldn't be counted when comparing Canada/US economies. Now you don't seem to mind speaking of the "off year" the Americans had, and you were quick to lay blame on President Bush, instead of the 19 hijackers.

Have you ever heard the saying, "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"?

There are all kinds of measures that can be used to compare countries. You use what you want to make your case.

The overall performance of Canada and the USA over the past 25 years has not been very good. The era of "Globalization" has brought slower growth. Between 1980 and 2000, the US GDP grew by 56% and Canada by 35%. But, GDP is not the only measure of prosperity.

It's not? Oh, ok......well then:

Canada's Unemployment rate: 7.8% (2003)

America's Unemployment rate: 6% (2003)

Now the latest figures I've heard about the American unemployment rate, is that it's at or below 5.6%, which is lower then the average unemployment rate from the 90s, 80s and the 70s...........I'm not sure what Canada's current unemployment rate is at.

[Slavik44]

US GDP in inflation-corrected US $:

2000 .. $9876 billion

2003 .. $10697 billion

or an increase of 8.3% over 3 years (2.7% annually)

US population:

2000 .. 284 million

2003 .. 292 million

or an increase of 3.0% over 3 years (1.0% annually)

Federal Reserve

Cdn GDP in inflation-corrected Cdn $:

2000 .. $1020 billion

2003 .. $1096 billion

or an increase of 7.4% over 3 years (2.4% annually)

Canadian population:

2000 .. 30.7 million

2003 .. 31.6 million

or an increase of 3.1% over 3 years (1% annually)

Stat Canada

On average, Americans saw income per person rise under Bush.

On average, income per person rose faster in the US than in Canada over the past three years.

More pointedly, average US per person income is roughly 25% higher than in Canada.

amazing the average american is richer then the Average Canadian. No, just wait sorry thats what you want us to belive, but really it si nto the Average american, but the average Incoem they are two different things. I went and did a search, to check out how much the Top 10% of Income earners controlled as far as total income. Unfortunantely it doesn't paint a picture of a better average American but rather just rich enough people in the U.S to off set the poor. I am not trying to say capitalism is evil, I am not even saying America Is evil, I am not saying Canada is a role model, I am not saying Canada is perfect. But I am asking you to just consider that perhaps the AVERAGE PERSON is not better off or even richer in the U.S in comparison to Canada.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada:

In 2000, the top 10% of families had incomes above $117,850. The combined income of these families accounted for 28% of the total income of all Canadian families.

America:

In 1917, the top 10% of "tax units" had about 40% of national income. The percent of the income earned by this group rose until about 1929, ranged from about 44% to about 46% until 1940, then plummeted to the area of 32% during the war, and sat there until about 1972. From 1972 to 1998, the share of income received by this group rose almost continuously, ending the period in the area of 42%.

[maplesyrup]

Now folks, what really matters is:

NEWSWEEK: BUSH LEAD GONE, KERRY TAKES THE LEAD

Dubya screwed up big time in the first and apparently the only debate of significance.

[Stoker]

Slavik44, did you factor in the different tax laws with in each country? Or that perhaps many Canadian billionaires up and leave Canada because of the said tax laws? Or that American billionaires had the opportunities to reinvest in their native country, and succeed? Perhaps even the two nations immigration laws, in that one of the nations accepts more "poor immigrents"/refugages than the other nation, thus deluding the average income?

But to get back on topic..........

As has been proven, in most "economic areas" that been brought up, the United States leads Canada. Now my point has been, that if you were to ask the average Canadian how they thought their economy was doing, the majority would not paint as bleak of a picture, as those that claim the American economy is in dire straights, when infact, the American economy is in better shape (in the areas we talked about) then ours.

So again, what iceberg?

[maplesyrup]

ICEBERG = DEFICIT (this isn't rocket science)

[Stoker]

ICEBERG = DEFICIT (this isn't rocket science)

War on terror = Money spent

How many Icebergs has the NDP hit?

[Slavik44]

ICEBERG = DEFICIT (this isn't rocket science)

War on terror = Money spent

How many Icebergs has the NDP hit?

well lets see 1, but it sunk the ship, now they get tossed around the bottom of the ocean, bumping up and down.

[Big Blue Machine]

The NDP's ship has been sunk for a while and they are trying to raise it up by filling it up with table tennis balls.

[Black Dog]

Here we have one of the major offences of the war, with the Iraqis doing the Lion's share of the work, with the Americans in a supporting role........with this being only a stepping stone towards a planned offensive in Fallujah and other town in the Sunni triangle. What blacklash can come from the Iraqis starting to fight for their own freedom?

Iraqis fighting alongside the occupation forces are considered collaborators. That's why Iraqi police and armed forces have been targets of the insurgency.

As for these big offensives, we'll have to see if anything cmes from them. The strategic advantage of an indiginous guerilla force is its ability to disappear into the general populace. Major offenses in urban areas usually result in plenty of dead noncombatants, another factor that works in the insurgents favour. Given these factors, I doubt any military operatins, whether by U.S. forces or Iraqi proxies, will be successful. So long as the insurgency maintains a decent level of popular local support, it will be unbeatable. In the last major offensive in Fallujah, the Marines were beat back and order was only restored when security was turned over to a force made up largey of ex-Saddam military and insurgents.

As forthe doemstic economic situation, using Canada to make a comparison favourable to the U.S. is silly. The U.S. economy is, and always has been, many, many times larger than Canada's.

A better way would be to look at the U.S.'s own economic outlook. Let's start with the defecit. This year's deficit was a record $477 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP. Now, if Bush wins and then decides to keep cutting taxes, or at least makes the tax cuts now set to expire permenant, the result would be deficits of around $300 billon a year for the foreseeable future, absent spending cuts.

(By the way, before anyone starts harping on about the recession being to blame for the declining economic performance, note that, since the Congressional Budget Office issued budget projections in August, 2003, its 10-year accumulated deficit estimate has increased by $1 trillion - about 70 percent of which result of new spending.)

Another, less publicized problem is the ever-shrinking revenues the government is taking in: the CBO has 2004 US government revenues at 15.8 percent of the economy in 2004, the lowest since 1950, while income tax revenues will be 8 percent of the economy, the lowest since 1942.

It's hard to imagine a government that could manage to fight a costly war on terror and provide decent social programs like basic education while struggling with a mammoth defecit and a shrinking pool of revenue.

Then there's the matter of rising household and foreign debt, declining wages, lost jobs, etc. etc.

War on terror = Money spent

Spent? Yes. Well spent? Not really.

How many Icebergs has the NDP hit?

Well, since they've never formed the government, the answer is zero.

[Big Blue Machine]

They have formed a government in Ontario, and they hit many icebergs. But that;s my opinion. Everyone can ht icebergs if the people's opinion is opposite from you.

[daniel]

One of those icebergs was pay-equity, swiftly cancelled by the Common Sense Revolution.

[Black Dog]

They have formed a government in Ontario, and they hit many icebergs. But that;s my opinion. Everyone can ht icebergs if the people's opinion is opposite from you.

What was Ontario's situation pre-NDP?

[daniel]

They have formed a government in Ontario, and they hit many icebergs. But that;s my opinion. Everyone can ht icebergs if the people's opinion is opposite from you.

What was Ontario's situation pre-NDP?

It was in a recession.