Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What do you define as "rich"?

What do you define as "rich"? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 06:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What about the French? And, how did the British fare in regards to assuming that the DOI was not "binding?"
Even now the French tend to support anything that pisses off the British.

How we fared has nothing to do with anything, certainlly not a piece of paper. Its the thought that counts.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't make the argument with regards to the "prefer over the American system" that Canadians are oblivious to what the American system is about.
You mean; "please don't take issue with the least substantiated of my claims"?

You cited polling results that show a higher proportion of American satisfaction and a lower proportion of American dissatisfaction with their health care. As if this weren't enough, you then show a higher American enjoyment of excellent care than in Canada. Then you cited an overall higher percentage of Americans rating their quality of care as higher.

Sure there is some misinformation, but I'd say that far more Canadians personally know Americans (and have heard anecdotal stories from Americans) than Americans know Canadians, and far more Canadians follow American news than Americans follow Canadian news, so overall I'd say that Canadians are overall better informed as to what America's system entails as opposed to what your average American thinks Canada has.
Why would I not assume they're just being as nationalist as you apparently are about it? Look, you're proud of Canada and that's okay, but let's cut through the nonsense here. What Canadians are saying is that they love how cheap it is, but overall they're less satisfied with the quality of care. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along. Americans might say the same thing with regard to a single-payer option, but the more they learn of how the scheme is managed, support begins to decline. In short, had you said "people want free healthcare", I couldn't have argued with you.

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked ignorant questions about what health care is like in Canada, FWIW.
I don't ask questions about Canadian health care. I go and read on it and then educate Canadians on why it doesn't directly compare in such a way with the American system. There are a lot of factors that go into why Canadians aren't as happy with their health care as Americans. Now that you've availed yourself of the information, maybe you'll begin to better understand the differences.

Moreover, the information that a lot of Americans get come from either polarizing right wing sources interested in preserving America's system, or polarizing left wing sources like Michael Moore's Sicko, so there seems to be very little sober analysis coming at this without a predefined conclusion or desired outcome
I don't know about these left-wing/right-wing sources, but it seems the respondents in the polls you've cited are telling you pretty much the same things I've been telling you.

Also, 59% of Americans want US government provided healthcare:

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
59% of us are already living tax-free and 1 in 7 are using EBT cards, why not extend this to free health care? (which is already free to anyone concerned enough to apply. After all, nearly half our health care in this country is already US government provided)

I did find this poll though which shows that 57% of Americans are satisfied with the costs of their care (no ****ing clue why anybody would think this, but):

Majority of Americans Satisfied With Their Healthcare Plans
That's because someone else is footing the majority bill for it, just as in Canada.

So, the results of these two polls seem to carry a different narrative, but in any case, there isn't the same overwhelming support of what we have as there is in Canada, I think that is pretty safe to say. We can't get 80%+ of Americans to agree on anything.
No, IMO they're all carrying pretty much the same narrative. The ones with cheaper care aren't as happy with the quality of it. People want cheaper care, but will respond in the expected manner with regard to the quality and cost of their care. Just as I've been telling you all along.

Gallup Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance
According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good. BTW, that's more than 80% agreeing on something. Eureka indeed.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 09:44 AM
 
Get a room!
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not the question. Post DOI, did other nations recognize the US as a sovereign state? If so, it most certainly had some sort of "binding" power above and beyond the vague "inspirational" status that some have erroneously given it here.
Let's see... France in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"France formally recognized the United States on February 6, 1778, with the signing of the Treaty of Alliance."

And why? American Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The capture of a British army at Saratoga encouraged the French to formally enter the war in support of Congress, as Benjamin Franklin negotiated a permanent military alliance in early 1778, significantly becoming the first country to officially recognize the Declaration of Independence."

It sure sounds to me like the Declaration is subservient to victory in combat, not vice versa

There is also language in the first link supporting my impression of the Declaration's role as campaign literature:

"Following the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution was well received in France, both by the general population and the educated classes. The Revolution was perceived as the incarnation of the Enlightenment Spirit against the "English tyranny." Benjamin Franklin, dispatched to France in December of 1776 to rally his support, was welcomed with great enthusiasm, as numerous Frenchmen embarked for the Americas to volunteer for the war effort. Motivated by the prospect of glory in battle or animated by the sincere ideals of liberty and republicanism, volunteers included the likes of Pierre Charles L'Enfant, and La Fayette, who enlisted in 1776."

If your interpretation was correct, I would expect to see mention somewhere of people fighting against violations of the document itself, rather than violations of the ideas described in the document. In other words, appeals to authority, not appeals to reason. But I see none of those.

You know what though? None of this is relevant to the context you started from, which is whether OUR government is bound by the Declaration. Whether or not other countries recognize us for documentation or for military victories is irrelevant. Has the US government ever been held to obey any restriction just because it was written in the Declaration, in any legal context (rather than conversational or in campaign literature)?
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Mar 15, 2012 at 09:53 AM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Get a room!
You know how much a room cost in a hospital? Lots of money.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 04:45 PM
 
ebuddy,

I agree, it's pretty hard to compare the satisfaction of the systems given that the problems with both are different (quality vs. cost), but I will maintain that the cost issue in America is *far* more problematic than the quality issue in Canada, particularly among those in America that don't have or can't afford insurance without ridiculously high monthly rates and/or copays.
     
PB2K
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2012, 03:50 PM
 
I think RICH just means to be able to live out materialism as much as you like to do. Maybe RICH people don't check their bankaccounts anymore to check what is left after a shopping spree.

There are many other ways in which one can be rich, Personally I think it is to have a warm household that inspires other people to aspire happiness too, is what I would call truly 'rich in life'.
{Animated sigs are not allowed.}
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2012, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by PB2K View Post
I think RICH just means to be able to live out materialism as much as you like to do. Maybe RICH people don't check their bankaccounts anymore to check what is left after a shopping spree.

There are many other ways in which one can be rich, Personally I think it is to have a warm household that inspires other people to aspire happiness too, is what I would call truly 'rich in life'.
That's about right. I also see it as having "f*** you" money. You aren't reliant on anyone else and couldn't care less what they think.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I find it extremely interesting that:
2) Resident "conservative" Americans on here continue to derisively use the "socialist Canuck" label (or derivations thereof) while simultaneously bitching and moaning because your country is in the shitter. Meanwhile, the "socialist" country of Canada actually has horrendous things like "free healthcare" and "welfare safety net" and yet also has one of the most stable banking systems in the developed world, currently has an elected government called the "Conservative Party" that is aggressively cutting government services and "bloat" across the board with a goal of getting back into the black after stimulus bailout spending during the recession (which you all say can't/won't be done, and yet we're doing), and we're also the country that ran significant yearly budget surpluses from the late 90s to 2008 mostly under a government called the "Liberal Party" (gasp!), paying down the country's deficit during that entire time.

Basically, we're the country you guys all wish you could be, with almost exactly the same standard of living, except that we pay slightly more taxes, and thus...we are not the country you guys all wish you could be.
Interesting little article on Canada's shrinking federal government (as percentage of GDP). As I've previously noted in this thread, both the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada have contributed to our aggressive spending reductions over the past couple decades.

So, you know...you can always come up here if you actually want some conservatism with your free healthcare.

Originally Posted by article
It’s a fact. Canada has a smaller federal government than it did in the Roaring Twenties. And it will get smaller still – perhaps eventually taking the country back, in relative terms, to the liberal state of the 19th century. Can laissez-faire be far behind? The retreat is now well under way in many of the affluent industrialized countries – but Canada, beyond doubt, is a global leader.
...

So far, Liberals and Conservatives alike have successfully managed the transition to limited government – thanks to an important change in public opinion. The percentage of people who want bigger government is relatively small, and getting smaller. Governments have found that they can occasionally say no, and still survive.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
So, you know...you can always come up here if you actually want some conservatism with your free healthcare.
But ... Death Panels!!!
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Hahaha. I knew I'd instantly get a smug, self-righteous, political ignoramus Canadian rushing in to defend their Socialist health care. Never mind the fact that I complimented his home government more than I knocked it.

You're oh so predictable besson. Hilarious. As Hank said, "Damn Canadians." I'm a huge fan of Prime Minister Harper though! Maybe he'll bring so much reform to your country that Canada will be the exact mirror opposite of the Obamanation.
Harper is a f*ing disaster for this country and is taking pages out of the books of Bush Senior in how he is running things. The sooner he is gone the better for us. Bush would be a improvement over Harper.

Harper =
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Big Mac knows little, and brags about it.

Canada doesn't have "socialist health care." We have government health insurance. Every practicing doctor in Canada is a private businessman.

But I kinda like Stepher Harper too, he's a real conservative, unlike the theocratic reactionaries running the Republican party. I keep telling you guys to look north for a sensible strategy, but instead you endorse Santorum the self-sainted and the angry philandering troll.
Its to bad his government had to rig the elections to win, thats a black eye that will down him in the end. Will the robocalls be our watergate?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wages for the most productive workers would go up, while those who really weren't interested in working or couldn't offer any skills would probably go down.

In other words, competition for higher paying jobs would increase.
No what would happen is those willing to work for less, like Illegal Mexicans for the US or East Indian families with 10+ workers in the same house hold would drive overall wages down for every one. Happened here in our trucking industry. East Indians drove it down to the point that any increase in fuel costs would put truckers out of business which is what happened. Now they cry they can't make it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean; "please don't take issue with the least substantiated of my claims"?

You cited polling results that show a higher proportion of American satisfaction and a lower proportion of American dissatisfaction with their health care. As if this weren't enough, you then show a higher American enjoyment of excellent care than in Canada. Then you cited an overall higher percentage of Americans rating their quality of care as higher.


and blah blah blah blah and more blah.
-> Watch first A Canadian talking to Americans about Canadian Health Care - YouTube
-> Watch second Real Canadians talk about their Healthcare - YouTube

Of the 2 hundred Canadians I know, almost all of them are happy with our health care. If the 25 or so Americans I deal with on a daily basis every one of them bitch about American health care. So screw all the stats every one is posting. I am going to go with what I experience first hand and thats a lot of people hating the US medical system and not that many Canadians hating the Canadian system.

So blah blah blah.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:41 AM
 
Wow this says it all, from 2 Americans who can't go home because of Medical.

OPS forgot the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWuO...eature=related
( Last edited by Athens; Mar 26, 2012 at 11:21 AM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:43 AM
 
Look at that, Athens is having a conversation with himself.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Look at that, Athens is having a conversation with himself.
He may be the "2 hundred Canadians" he knows.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Its to bad his government had to rig the elections to win, thats a black eye that will down him in the end. Will the robocalls be our watergate?
As much as it could be a real black eye for the election, so far we're talking about less than a thousand people who may have been contacted. The number who may have been affected is likely far less than that. There's zero evidence right now that the outcome of any of the ridings, and thus the election, was affected in any way by robocalls. And there's also zero evidence that any of this was more than a localized incident by some person, persons or group.

Perhaps you should go and look up what "Watergate" actually was? From what we know right now, these two events aren't even remotely in the same category.
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Harper is a f*ing disaster for this country and is taking pages out of the books of Bush Senior in how he is running things. The sooner he is gone the better for us. Bush would be a improvement over Harper.

Harper =
As usual, you're hyperbolic when it comes to Harper. Even though he and some of his policies are unlikable, he's had a very solid leadership record so far as Prime Minister. It annoys me that Canada has literally sailed through a world economic crisis without so much as a significant bump, yet, and still people like you are crying to high heaven how Harper is somehow ruining our country. Okay?

Your comparisons to Bush Sr. just seem weird. Bush Sr's presidency is probably defined by foreign policy choices made because of crazy world happenings at that time - USSR disbanding, Panama, Iraq/Persian Gulf - and his eventual decision to relent on his promise of tax cuts/reduced spending and actually go in the opposite direction. How is this similar to Harper? I have no idea.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
Um lets see

change the 1000 contacted to 40 000

As for the lack of a significant bump in the economy during the crisis, that was thanx to liberal policies, liberal programs and Harper had a minority government during the worst of it limiting his ability to screw up the country.

As for the comparison with Bush, Harper is taking on Bush Sr more prisons, tougher penalty on crimes, the full out war on drugs right out of his book. As for foreign policy choices, perhaps you missed the amount of Support Harper gave Israel during the last visit, Canada has become a larger friend to Israel then the US. And there are other foreign policies that irk me to that I don't want to get into. But he is making changes all over the spectrum that is going to change everything that is Canada. And a lot of it, at any cost is based purely on ideology not science or fact. His war against Insite is a perfect example.

Anyways my previous post I forgot to post the link Can't Go Home: Americans In Canada Share Health Care Stories - YouTube
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Um lets see

change the 1000 contacted to 40 000
Sigh. You're wrong. Elections Canada received 700 actual complaints, but they received almost 40,000 calls from people just complaining in general. Why do you insist on not doing your homework or checking your facts on every single ****ing issue you argue? Just go Google for ****'s sakes. It's a pain in the ass to correct all your factual errors.

As for the lack of a significant bump in the economy during the crisis, that was thanx to liberal policies, liberal programs and Harper had a minority government during the worst of it limiting his ability to screw up the country.
Yeah, Harper's Conversatives have been running the country since Jan/Feb of 2006, but if anything good happens it's the Liberal's fault, and if anything bad happens it's Harper's fault. Your arguments are simply tired.

As for the comparison with Bush, Harper is taking on Bush Sr more prisons, tougher penalty on crimes, the full out war on drugs right out of his book. As for foreign policy choices, perhaps you missed the amount of Support Harper gave Israel during the last visit, Canada has become a larger friend to Israel then the US. And there are other foreign policies that irk me to that I don't want to get into. But he is making changes all over the spectrum that is going to change everything that is Canada. And a lot of it, at any cost is based purely on ideology not science or fact. His war against Insite is a perfect example.
1. We need more prisons. You keep overlooking this fact. You should try Googling it.
2. Our crime legislation needed updating. I don't agree with Harper on the tough-on-crime additions, but some of the other changes were badly needed.
3. "Full out war on drugs?" Where? There's no war on drugs in Canada anything like the "War on Drugs" that happened in the States.
4. Support for Israel? So? Israel has received considerable support from Canada since its very existence.
5. "Change everything that is Canada" = laughable. Canada is what it is. Like I said, you're absolutely hyperbolic if you think he's "changing everything that is Canada" - but, of course, we already know that you are. If you consider a couple legislative provisions that add higher sentences for criminals, more obvious support for Israel, and non-support of a drug funding project to consitute "changing everything that is Canada," then I not only think that you're childishly foolish, but you also have a very, very low opinion of what Canada is.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Mar 26, 2012 at 12:13 PM. )
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:13 PM
 
The agency initially has said it had received 31,000 complaints from Canadians since the robocalls scandal broke, the majority of those believed to be from online form letters.

“Immediately following the 2011 general election, the Commissioner of Canada Elections deployed resources to investigate complaints of fraudulent or improper calls,” said Chief Electoral Office Marc Mayrand, in a statement.

“Since then, over 700 Canadians from across the country have informed us of specific circumstances where they believe similar wrongdoing took place.”
AS for the crime bill and prision population even the Americans are saying to Harper he is a idiot and it won't work.


The statistics bear him out. According to the Texas Department of Corrections, the rate of incarceration fell 9 per cent between 2005 and 2010. In the same period, according to the FBI, the crime rate in Texas fell by 12.8 per cent.

By contrast, Levin says, the Canadian government has increased the prison budget sharply, even though crime in Canada is down to its lowest level since 1973.

In fact, federal spending on corrections in Canada has gone up from $1.6 billion in 2005-06, when Stephen Harper's Conservatives took power, to $2.98 billion in 2010-11. That's an increase of 86 per cent. Soon, it will double.

Federal corrections budget: Canada
2005–06 $1.6 billion
2010–11 $2.98 billion
2012–13 $3.13 billion

The Harper government has already increased prison sentences by scrapping the two-for-one credit for time served waiting for trial. Bill C-10 would add new and longer sentences for drug offences, increase mandatory minimums and cut the use of conditional sentences such as house arrest.

In each case, Texas is doing the opposite.
Its a good read and for once a American perspective I can agree on
Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan - Politics - CBC News

At the rate Harper is wreaking the country it wont be long before I try and get a Green Card and relocate to Seattle which is for the most part my second home since its so very similar to Vancouver.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 07:18 PM
 
Anyways back on topic perhaps Rich is being able to afford American Health Care and all out of pocket expenses with out any burden

Can't Go Home: Americans In Canada Share Health Care Stories - YouTube
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
AS for the crime bill and prision population even the Americans are saying to Harper he is a idiot and it won't work.
You're cherry-picking one small specific thing - some increased prison sentences, mandatory sentences, etc, along with some badly needed provisions which are actually good - congrats. So what if Harper made the wrong decision on this crime bill? You think so, I think so, many people think so; but others don't....time will tell, and if he did, then it's a problem that's relatively easy to fix.

You keep acting like you're supposed to agree with every decision these guys make. It's so weird. Their job is the run the country as they see best - by definition that means making decisions lots of people won't agree with. Things like crime bills are fixable - on a "wrecking the country" scale, it's pretty damn low.

Finally, your numbers on Corrections Canada don't reflect how underfunded it was in 2006. If spending went up because it was woefully underfunded before that time, then how is that a bad thing? It's the exact same issue as building more prisons - how do you complain about more prisons when ombudsmen have said Canada desperate needs new prison facilities? It's just stupid.
At the rate Harper is wreaking the country it wont be long before I try and get a Green Card and relocate to Seattle which is for the most part my second home since its so very similar to Vancouver.
So emo. You're no different than those Americans who were all going to "move to Canada" when Bush got elected again. Basically, you're in a nutshell the reason why most of the rest of Canada regards BC as a slacker paradise. Pathetic.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:05 PM
 
Would you like me to cherry pick other items, there are so many choose from I didn't want to make a massive post. Lets look at his stance against In-site and how only for ideological reasons hes against it and has wasted tax payers money in both BC and the Federal government trying to close it down through court case after court case after court case. BC might be full of pot head slackers who live longer then other Canadians and are generally happier, but at least we don't have the title of smug arrogant center of the universe everything revolves around us jerks which make up the majority of the population of Toronto which most of the rest of the country hates. Even more Pathetic.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2012, 09:22 AM
 
You live slightly longer, but BC is one of the least happiest provinces in Canada according to Statistics Canada. Right behind...your favourite, Ontario.

Considering the amount of griping about every problem under the sun that you do on this board, this probably doesn't come as a surprise to many around here.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:02 AM
 
Canadian Nationalists unite!
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:51 AM
 
Is your useless/dumb comment in any way related to how randomly picking two proud Americans will result in two people who have the same political and economic views?

No? Okay then. Carry on continuing to ignore how "socialist Canada" seems to have developed something of a national conscience for economic restraint, fiscal responsibility, and even limited government...all while your country pisses its good fortune and future down the toilet because your bickering leaders and voters paralyze real decision-making.

You never have anything to say on that matter, of course.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Is your useless/dumb comment in any way related to how randomly picking two proud Americans will result in two people who have the same political and economic views?

No? Okay then. Carry on continuing to ignore how "socialist Canada" seems to have developed something of a national conscience for economic restraint, fiscal responsibility, and even limited government...all while your country pisses its good fortune and future down the toilet because your bickering leaders and voters paralyze real decision-making.

You never have anything to say on that matter, of course.
Can't argue with anything you said there. Just the details of who's responsible but lets not get back into that debate

Ignorant Americans unite Canadians.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Is your useless/dumb comment in any way related to how randomly picking two proud Americans will result in two people who have the same political and economic views?
No, tough guy. If you must know, I was enjoying the circle-jerk of Canadian pride and xenophobia run amok until you came in to piss all over it. Besides, why would I have to pick two proud Canadians in search of contrasting views when one is apparently bipolar (or argumentative) enough to contrast himself?

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
the Liberal Party of Canada was in power from about '94 to 2006, during the time that Canada went from being in the worst financial shape of G7/whatever countries to amongst the best?
This Liberal Party slashed and burned the size of government (to mid-1900s levels) and reduced or froze spending at many levels under the auspices of a wealthy, conservative-minded businessman who simulaneously increased the revenues and payments of our Canada Pension Plan?
The Liberal Party's reign was bookended by Conservative parties who ran very large deficits, in part because of their commitment to low taxes?
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Yeah, Harper's Conversatives have been running the country since Jan/Feb of 2006, but if anything good happens it's the Liberal's fault, and if anything bad happens it's Harper's fault. Your arguments are simply tired.
No? Okay then. Carry on continuing to ignore how "socialist Canada" seems to have developed something of a national conscience for economic restraint, fiscal responsibility, and even limited government...all while your country pisses its good fortune and future down the toilet because your bickering leaders and voters paralyze real decision-making.

You never have anything to say on that matter, of course.
You're so busy being an argumentative prick in this thread that you're apparently confusing me with someone who has claimed Canada is socialist when I've done nothing of the sort. In fact, as one of the few in this forum who actually knows what socialism is, you wouldn't hear from me on singular policies, but complaints regarding a more pervasive move from one economic model toward another. I've held Canada's increased privatization of health care for example (assuming the provincial whining over stagnated funds doesn't prevail) and decreased centralization up as a model for US policy in the past. It should be noted however that Canada is not somehow impervious to the economic woes of the globe and with the US comprising approximately 30% of your economy, I wouldn't be celebrating its folly. What would I have to say on the matter? Enjoy your, slightly-less-unsustainable-than-US economy while it still exists.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Based on that, if you don't have to worry about your income to survive comfortably, then paying higher tax shouldn't have much of an impact, so suck it up.
Why would they? They already donate millions to charity every year. Why would they send those precious resources through a dirty sock that will eventually provide smelly mud for the thirsty as we all watch the collective get thirstier every decade? It's called being a good steward of resource; how many of those being expected to give more, got it to give.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can define themselves as rich and still complain about paying into the public purse to help support the rest of society should be ashamed of themselves.
Ashamed of themselves? What of those responsible for the most egregious abuses of the public trust imaginable? Let's not kid ourselves on who holds the purse for us. How many people get to carry your wallet for you?

No matter how hard they've worked for their fortune, I will never be convinced that there aren't millions, if not billions, of others who have worked just as hard for the tiniest proportion of their wealth. But hey, I'm a fairly pure socialist, myself.
Yet both parties take calculated risks, place themselves in uncomfortable positions in varying manner and degree, and make a series of decisions that most often define their success or failure. There's no reason to render risk/reward meaningless. It is the way of things.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, tough guy. If you must know, I was enjoying the circle-jerk of Canadian pride and xenophobia run amok until you came in to piss all over it.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Looking back on this thread I posted only in response to various Americans' derisive comments on "socialist Canada." And then I cleared up some misinformation on just what has happened in Canadian politics - essentially, that free healthcare and economic restraint have been political realities of our country for a couple decades.

You weren't one of those people - my apologies.

Besides, why would I have to pick two proud Canadians in search of contrasting views when one is apparently bipolar (or argumentative) enough to contrast himself?
I didn't contrast myself, and your quote doesn't show that in the slightest. Now it's your turn to re-read.

I've held Canada's increased privatization of health care for example (assuming the provincial whining over stagnated funds doesn't prevail) and decreased centralization up as a model for US policy in the past. It should be noted however that Canada is not somehow impervious to the economic woes of the globe and with the US comprising approximately 30% of your economy, I wouldn't be celebrating its folly. What would I have to say on the matter? Enjoy your, slightly-less-unsustainable-than-US economy while it still exists.
That wasn't my point, and I wasn't celebrating its folly. Again, I was attacking the pervasive issue of Americans claiming Canada is "socialist" when it clearly not - after all, things like this happened yesterday.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
What do you define as "rich"?
"One dollar over my total worth after I win the 500 million dollar lottery."

j/k
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about. Looking back on this thread I posted only in response to various Americans' derisive comments on "socialist Canada." And then I cleared up some misinformation on just what has happened in Canadian politics - essentially, that free healthcare and economic restraint have been political realities of our country for a couple decades.
Um you mean by adding misinformation to correct information. You tried to paint that Ottawa Herpe as a good thing for the country. Harper sailed on what the Liberals created during the years he had a minority government because as a minority government he couldn't really screw up much with out collapsing the government. Look at the damage the bastard has done in the short time he has had a majority government, one suspect now because of the robocall scandal.

I didn't contrast myself, and your quote doesn't show that in the slightest. Now it's your turn to re-read.
I dunno about that ebuddy posted some pretty good evidence to the contrary


http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-deficit/

Just look at the differences between spending between governments. Mostly the data from 83 and up because the stats from before 83 are not comparable with after 83 due to accounting changes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2012, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I didn't contrast myself, and your quote doesn't show that in the slightest. Now it's your turn to re-read.
I read it fine. What happened here was you changed your tune 180° contingent upon whomever it was you were arguing against. When it was a conservative, you touted liberal achievement in office; when it was a liberal, you touted conservative accomplishment and then claimed your method of argumentation was tired when the liberal used it.

That wasn't my point, and I wasn't celebrating its folly. Again, I was attacking the pervasive issue of Americans claiming Canada is "socialist" when it clearly not - after all, things like this happened yesterday.
I also apologize for suggesting you were celebrating US folly.

Harper can clearly see the handwriting on the wall here. With his neighbors to the south struggling to exploit their own massive sources of energy for example and pushing legislation hostile toward private sector growth and decentralization; Canada is poised for explosive economic growth over the next decade. I would also hold this most recent example you provide up as a model for US policy. While others (like Canada) are acknowledging the inherent limitations of government and are actively moving away from it, the US seems to be missing their important lessons sending us ever-faster toward the failed principles of others' yesteryear.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2012, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I read it fine. What happened here was you changed your tune 180° contingent upon whomever it was you were arguing against. When it was a conservative, you touted liberal achievement in office; when it was a liberal, you touted conservative accomplishment and then claimed your method of argumentation was tired when the liberal used it.
Ummm...you forget to check for context when you selectively quoted me. Your summary could not be more wrong.

I was responding directly to Big Mac's entirely incorrect assertions that the conservative Harper was responsible for balancing Canada's budgets. In fact, he claimed that Harper had been in power for much longer than he actually has been. I pointed out that the Liberal party - under conservative businessmen - made significant debt reductions during their time in power from 1993-2005. As I've stated in my previous post, my entire point throughout this thread has been to point out that both ruling parties in Canada's recent history - Liberal and Conservative - have been focused on debt/deficit reduction and smaller government. If someone said "Obama's been running American government deficits since 2001" people would justifiably point out that's entirely incorrect....no?

However, just because the Liberals helped balance the books up until 2005, doesn't mean they were somehow entirely responsible for Canada's economic wellbeing from 2006 until the present, as Athens claims. That makes zero sense, and I'm surprised that you would even suggest that's what I was saying earlier. It's a complete logic fail on your part - one that wouldn't be surprising if it came from Athens, but you should be beyond that by now. Every government builds on the past government, but if they make their own choices then they have to be measured on those choices. Harper took a unique approach to the economic crisis that was a function of his political position and economic vision for Canada - and it was most certainly not the same approach that either of the other parties would have taken.

To again use my previous American example, you've basically just claimed that if someone said that Bush ran large deficits until 2008, then they also meant that the deficits by Obama since that time are also caused by Bush. I mean...I don't even...

You'll also notice that I pointed out that the conservative parties bookending Liberal reign have run deficits. That's been a combination of two major factors - economic recessions and a commitment to lower taxes when it was simply inadvisable. After all, if it's something you Americans seem not to have learned, it's that when the going gets tough, cutting programs and raising taxes digs you out of a hole - Harper could be eliminating our deficits even quicker than he is if he'd held off on a 1% tax cut just as the economy tanked, instead of delivering on one aspect of an election promise that was fairly meaningless. However, Athens is, as usual, completely wrong regarding most of his (unfounded and/or incorrect, of course) assertions about Harper, and at the end of the day he's doing the right things to deliver fiscally-sound budgets and dig us out of the current hole caused by stimulus spending, in my view - Keynesian economics at work, and as you've mentioned a good model for other countries like the US to follow.

Look, I'm not sure why you're debating this in the first place - I'm sure we can both agree that Canadian politics will probably never be an American's strong suit, and it's most certainly not yours. You're out of your league here. Lay off trying to claim I've said something I didn't - you just don't understand what we were talking about.

And that was to point out that both the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada have cut spending and shrunk our federal government since the early 1990s. And that goes entirely against what people have been saying is a) possible or b) Canadian.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2012, 10:48 PM
 
ebuddy you can't win, GTA is the center of the freaking universe. In there eyes they are above god. Cant reason with that.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Ummm...you forget to check for context when you selectively quoted me. Your summary could not be more wrong.

You'll also notice that I pointed out that the conservative parties bookending Liberal reign have run deficits. That's been a combination of two major factors - economic recessions and a commitment to lower taxes when it was simply inadvisable. After all, if it's something you Americans seem not to have learned, it's that when the going gets tough, cutting programs and raising taxes digs you out of a hole - Harper could be eliminating our deficits even quicker than he is if he'd held off on a 1% tax cut just as the economy tanked, instead of delivering on one aspect of an election promise that was fairly meaningless. However, Athens is, as usual, completely wrong regarding most of his (unfounded and/or incorrect, of course) assertions about Harper, and at the end of the day he's doing the right things to deliver fiscally-sound budgets and dig us out of the current hole caused by stimulus spending, in my view - Keynesian economics at work, and as you've mentioned a good model for other countries like the US to follow.

Look, I'm not sure why you're debating this in the first place - I'm sure we can both agree that Canadian politics will probably never be an American's strong suit, and it's most certainly not yours. You're out of your league here. Lay off trying to claim I've said something I didn't - you just don't understand what we were talking about.

And that was to point out that both the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada have cut spending and shrunk our federal government since the early 1990s. And that goes entirely against what people have been saying is a) possible or b) Canadian.
I can see the heavy hand is more effective for cyber-bullies. I knew my charm and grace was going to be taken for granted.

Let's try this another way. In your long-winded attempt to walk back the stupidity, you've only compounded it with more. I'm not arguing the prevailing point against Big Mac or Athens because; A. You're all over the place and; B. I generally don't argue Canadian politics because more often than not, I couldn't give a rat's ass quite frankly. Although when I do choose a Canadian issue to address, you can trust that I'm well-read on the topic, will engage any information provided me by others, and extremely well versed before opining here. Why? Because I know Canadians participate in this forum.

What I'm doing is challenging your hypocrisy. I can see why it's annoying. After all, few, least of which you apparently; can embrace a little introspect. Above you explain that the book-ended conservative leadership ran deficits due to economic recession and raising taxes. When arguing Big Mac, It was the Liberal Party that slashed and burned the size of government, reduced and/or froze spending, and the bookended Conservative Parties that ran deficits. Period. That's what you friggin' said. It's really quite simple.

Look, if this whole; "Liberals get credit for all the good things and Conservatives get credit for the bad" is a tired angle, don't use it.

To others; The Final Shortcut mentioned; "... dig us out of the current hole caused by stimulus spending, in my view - Keynesian economics at work, and as you've mentioned a good model for other countries like the US to follow." The statement and break with hyphen was bizarre. To be clear, Keynesian economics is an abject failure and not a good model for anyone to follow, particularly the US.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
ebuddy you can't win, GTA is the center of the freaking universe. In there eyes they are above god. Cant reason with that.
Le sigh. Unfortunately for you, I don't live within a couple thousand kilometres of Toronto.

At this point I guess it's too much to hope that you'll ever get tired of being wrong and start thinking before you type?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Let's try this another way. In your long-winded attempt to walk back the stupidity, you've only compounded it with more. I'm not arguing the prevailing point against Big Mac or Athens because; A. You're all over the place and;
I'm all over the place? You're making absolutely zero sense because you're all over the place. You don't understand what you're talking about.

B. I generally don't argue Canadian politics because more often than not, I couldn't give a rat's ass quite frankly. Although when I do choose a Canadian issue to address, you can trust that I'm well-read on the topic, will engage any information provided me by others, and extremely well versed before opining here.
But you clearly do not. Because, you do not seem to understand or comprehend that I made two entirely separate arguments that are completely consistent with each other. You simply don't understand why, because you don't understand why I made those arguments - after all, you're apparently only learning about Canadian politics from Wikipedia since we started this conversation in the last couple days.


What I'm doing is challenging your hypocrisy. I can see why it's annoying. After all, few, least of which you apparently; can embrace a little introspect.
Absolutely zero hypocrisy. Saying something doesn't make it so.

Above you explain that the book-ended conservative leadership ran deficits due to economic recession and raising taxes.
No. Jesus ****ing Christ, no, that's completely incorrect - again, because of your ignorance about Canadian politics. The problem has roughly been economic recession combined with excessive spending (sometimes stimulus-based) and taxes that were too low to balance the budget. My implicit comment was that those conservative parties probably should have raised taxes in order to avoid such large deficits. In fact, if you knew anything about Canadian politics you would know that the Conservatives in the early 90s realized this problem, implemented a goods and services tax, and were promptly voted out of office in favour of the Liberal party which subsequently used those GST revenues from 1993-onward to create budget surpluses by simultaneously slashing expenditures.

(I already explained what our current conservative government has done to lower taxes, but apparently you somehow got the opposite message. Lol?)

When arguing Big Mac, It was the Liberal Party that slashed and burned the size of government, reduced and/or froze spending,
They did.

I wasn't "arguing" Big Mac - I was correcting Big Mac. Holy ****, why is this so difficult for you to understand? He incorrectly claimed that the Conservatives were in power since the late 1990s and this is why Canada has been fiscally responsible. This is a downright lie - it was the Liberals being fiscally responsible from 1993-2005. Perhaps the two of you should read up on Canadian politics before opining? Because you're both doing a bang-up job of completely misunderstanding what's been going on in our country.

and the bookended Conservative Parties that ran deficits.
They did.

But, the current conservative party has also continued to slash and burn the size of government, and reduced and/or froze spending except when it was thought necessary for stimulus purposes. For the love of all that is holy, have you not been following Canadian politics? Have you not read any of the articles I linked which talk about how the conservative party is currently doing all these things?

Did you just read that last bit? Read it again - you haven't understood it until now. It disproves everything you've been claiming I said during this discussion. You took my simple statements and twisted them to mean something else, because you did not understand the context in which they were made.

Period. That's what you friggin' said. It's really quite simple.
I REPEAT: YOU KEEP TAKING MY STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS INDEED REALLY QUITE SIMPLE: YOU HAVE WADED INTO AN ARGUMENT ABOUT CANADIAN POLITICS WHEN, CONTRARY TO YOUR OWN CLAIMS, YOU ARE IGNORANT ABOUT CANADIAN POLITICS AND UNABLE TO PROVIDE YOUR OWN CONTEXT TO THE DISCUSSION.

To others; The Final Shortcut mentioned; "... dig us out of the current hole caused by stimulus spending, in my view - Keynesian economics at work, and as you've mentioned a good model for other countries like the US to follow." The statement and break with hyphen was bizarre. To be clear, Keynesian economics is an abject failure and not a good model for anyone to follow, particularly the US.
1. Why is the hyphen break bizarre?

2. I'm not about to argue the details of Keynesian economics, but it's truly interesting that you advocate the US to follow Canada's lead while simultaneously saying that Keynesian economics is a failure that is not a good model to follow. Doesn't the Canadian model have a very strong resemblence to Keynesian economics on the macro scale? A strong central bank that heavily influences monetary policy with the broad strokes of encouraging spending during economic recessions and encouraging saving during economic peaks, and a central government that is strongly involved in fiscal policy and runs "stimulus deficits" during economic recessions and runs budget surpluses during economic peaks?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Le sigh. Unfortunately for you, I don't live within a couple thousand kilometres of Toronto.

At this point I guess it's too much to hope that you'll ever get tired of being wrong and start thinking before you type?
Oh no... its worse. Its a Quebec Anglophone... RUN TO THE HILLS AND HIDE

Oh btw ebuddy is commenting on your flip flopping on where you stand on things which you did. You seem to be here to just argue with any one with no clear position. Harper is an ass, but oh no Harper is the second coming of Jesus oh the liberals suck, oh no Liberals setup everything for the second coming of Jesus. Your position is so unclear the best I can hope for is to make fun of you because I just can't figure out what you are trying to say. Though what you have said is mostly fantasy because you seem to think Harper is a good thing for this country and associate him as the reason for many of the good things that really had nothing to do with him. And you selectively ignore all the bad things he has done and is doing to suite your fantasy he is nothing but good. Even the Texas state governor is calling Harper a idiot.
( Last edited by Athens; Apr 2, 2012 at 02:04 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Oh no... its worse. Its a Quebec Anglophone... RUN TO THE HILLS AND HIDE
I have never lived in Quebec and don't speak French.

Oh btw ebuddy is commenting on your flip flopping on where you stand on things which you did. You seem to be here to just argue with any one with no clear position. Harper is an ass, but oh no Harper is the second coming of Jesus oh the liberals suck, oh no Liberals setup everything for the second coming of Jesus. Your position is so unclear the best I can hope for is to make fun of you because I just can't figure out what you are trying to say.
My position is perfectly clear: both the Conservatives from 2006-present and the Liberals from 1993-2005 have been focused on economic restraint, debt reduction, and reducing the size of Canada's federal government.*

The fact that you can't seem to understand that perfectly clear and simply concept makes me think you're even more illiterate than I had feared.


*As an overall goal, not necessarily what has happened on a year-to-year basis.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2012, 07:56 PM
 
How can you call the conservatives budgets for the last few years as focused on economic restraint. Harper is doing exactly what Bush did which was cut taxes and spend a lot more....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I'm all over the place? You're making absolutely zero sense because you're all over the place. You don't understand what you're talking about.
You're too dug in man. I didn't want to give you a conniption, I just wanted you to know that you were being a hypocrite to Athens. And you were. To the conservative, you said it was the Liberal Party who accomplished this, this, and this (good things) and were bookended by Conservative leadership that were responsible for this. (bad thing) You told Athens that was a tired line of reasoning. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. The fact that you want to walk back the rhetoric is not surprising, but the exhaustive lengths to which you're willing to go certainly is.

but it's truly interesting that you advocate the US to follow Canada's lead while simultaneously saying that Keynesian economics is a failure that is not a good model to follow. Doesn't the Canadian model have a very strong resemblence to Keynesian economics on the macro scale? A strong central bank that heavily influences monetary policy with the broad strokes of encouraging spending during economic recessions and encouraging saving during economic peaks, and a central government that is strongly involved in fiscal policy and runs "stimulus deficits" during economic recessions and runs budget surpluses during economic peaks?
I would like to see the US emulate several aspects of Canadian policy yes, but not the aspects you appear to be advocating and then tagging my approval to. Prudent lending including avoiding sub-prime lending, ARMs, interest-only payment plans, avoiding no-doc lending, requiring a certain amount down up front, a much simpler regulatory environment, in fact not bailing out failed institutions, etc are all reasons why Canadian banking is more solid and trustworthy. The policies Canada embraces that I would advocate are prudent lending practices and reducing government interference. What's misunderstood about adverse market conditions is that they are not unexpected as Keynesian advocates may claim, but a direct result of government interference. Canada has successfully avoided many of the easy-credit pitfalls embraced by the past couple of US Administrations in order to tout greater home ownership etc. In short, Canada allowed banks to be banks and not vehicles of political fodder. The US has not, and while it has spent $900 billion in "pump-priming" we're still counting "jobs saved" as a metric of recovery. That's a failure any way you slice it.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're too dug in man. I didn't want to give you a conniption, I just wanted you to know that you were being a hypocrite to Athens. And you were.
Nothing I've said was hypocritical in the slightest. The fact you continue to state this means you're a complete troll.

To the conservative, you said it was the Liberal Party who accomplished this, this, and this (good things) and were bookended by Conservative leadership that were responsible for this. (bad thing)
You're now repeating the exact same argument you did last time, troll. It's completely wrong. The Conservative leadership has been responsible for what you call a "bad thing" (namely, running a budget deficit, although that's not necessarily bad), but it has also been responsible for much of the same good [this, this and this] that was attributed to the Liberals. It's a simple logic statement, and one that you apparently cannot understand, sadly enough.

You've also - again - conveniently ignored the fact that I was correcting Big Mac's blatantly false statements.
You told Athens that was a tired line of reasoning.
Again, utterly and completely wrong, troll. I told Athens that attributing the previous Liberal regime for all successes of the Conservative government is a "tired line of reasoning." You repeatedly and continue to ignore this point.

Do you ever get tired of lying, troll? Do you ever get tired of mis-stating, mis-attributing, or otherwise mis-quoting out of context what I actually said? It's clear that you don't - just as it's clear that contrary to your statements, you don't know much about Canadian politics at all.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Yes...only if my two statements are taken completely out of context and then mis-quoted.

The fact that you want to walk back the rhetoric is not surprising, but the exhaustive lengths to which you're willing to go certainly is.
Absolutely and 100% incorrect.

Look, I'm just going to put this out here: half the time on this board, you're nothing but a gussed-up troll.

You're a troll because you simply refuse to respond to every. single. point. I've. made.

You're a troll because you simply continue to ignore every. single. rebuttal. I've. made.

You're a troll because you simply continue to repeat your same points over and over again despite. my. clear. refutation. of. your. argument.

You're a troll because you continue to mis-quote or otherwise take my words out of their clear. context.

You're a troll because you sprinkle your absolutely false points with dumb comments insinuating I've "walked back" despite the fact I've never changed. my. original. position. in. the. slightest.

It's the same old thing with you, ebuddy: you "quote" someone's points, and then you don't actually address what the quote actually says. You've continued to ignore everything I say, and continue to repeat your own original statement in different words. In my line of work, I meet people like you all the time: continually evasive, seizing on selective mis-quotes, ignoring rebuttals in favour of re-stating the same points over and over; it is, literally, like beating one's head against a wall trying to hold a semi-coherent conversation with you.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Apr 4, 2012 at 08:40 AM. )
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I would like to see the US emulate several aspects of Canadian policy yes, but not the aspects you appear to be advocating and then tagging my approval to. Prudent lending including avoiding sub-prime lending, ARMs, interest-only payment plans, avoiding no-doc lending, requiring a certain amount down up front, a much simpler regulatory environment, in fact not bailing out failed institutions, etc are all reasons why Canadian banking is more solid and trustworthy. The policies Canada embraces that I would advocate are prudent lending practices and reducing government interference.
I don't think you could say the Canadian banking system is about "reducing government interference." Our regulations are geared more towards making sure the lenders are sound, rather than encouraging the borrowers. Sure, our regulations are not quite as intrusive as those in the US, but I understand that our regulators are also more assertive when overseeing the actions of our large financial institutions. That's the fundamental difference of the regulatory regime in my view - and I think a more important one than simply using the "amount of regulation" as a metric for success or failure.

What's misunderstood about adverse market conditions is that they are not unexpected as Keynesian advocates may claim, but a direct result of government interference.
In general? Do you believe that all adverse market conditions are the result of government interference? Would you also make the argument that there would be no adverse market conditions without government interference? I find it difficult to imagine a free market without correction.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 02:42 PM
 
Trololololo.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Nothing I've said was hypocritical in the slightest. The fact you continue to state this means you're a complete troll.
ebuddy is hardly a troll. An @ss at times but not a troll. Considering most of the time my views and his do not jive that says something that I am defending him. You on the other hand are coming off pretty trollish n00b.

Again, utterly and completely wrong, troll. I told Athens that attributing the previous Liberal regime for all successes of the Conservative government is a "tired line of reasoning." You repeatedly and continue to ignore this point.
I think that's the point, you attributed all the stuff to the Liberals then you attributed it all to Herpe Harper.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 04:05 PM
 
I think I'm going to invent something equivalent to Godwin's Law, only for conversational disconnects and disagreement being justification for calling somebody a troll.

Shortcut: I probably agree with you, but if any ebuddy is doing the debate-for-sport thing, not purposely trying to provoke you.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 05:10 PM
 
I enjoy debate. I've directly addresed the points he has made. He isn't debating; I don't believe he's answered or acknowledged a single one of my points thus far. That's called trolling, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think that's the point, you attributed all the stuff to the Liberals then you attributed it all to Herpe Harper.
Okay, let's try a different method to get you to understand how incredibly stupid you're being right now. Please respond to the following questions:

1. What "stuff" did I attribute to the Liberals?
2. What "stuff" did I attribute to the Conservatives?

kthnxbye
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 05:24 PM
 
"kthnxbye" lol what are you 16 LOL
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,