Obama's America looks a lot like Canada

reply to post by West Coast


Well let see our government keeps trying to be like our southern neigbors by not just being a corrupt government but by being a corrupt government that rubs it in your face and says smile and say you like it. And never really hear it about Canada and Canada seems to be doing pretty good concidering there dollar used to be worth less than half our dollar. Last I seen it was about the same as ours now might be better. Ours is looking more like the pesos from our southern border now.

And I think we fought for this country to create something great.Our leaders and governent is turning our great nation into something our forfathers would be rebeling against at this very moment. You speak of "very principles that made this country great" our forfathers had them and they revolted and if they were here they would probly be doing it again.
You also mention have nots and it seems to me Hillary is the one who keeps wanting to give to the have nots. Look at the differnce in there health insurance hillary wants to make a mandate so every one has to pay or she'll garnish your wages to make you pay. And she wants to give it to alot of people for free. Obama says he wants to just do it for some alot like it already is big differnce is he just wants to fight to make the cost cheaper.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by JBA2848]

That is a weak argument.

I disagree.
"It's the only kind of economy that works" is a pretty damn strong argument IMHO.

I should not be responsible for the "have nots".

Well, if you'd rather have them rise up and kill you, there's always that option

Seriously, lassieze-faire capitalism has been tried, and it's almost invariably led to chaos, or to communist revolutions & guerrilla movements...

The welfare state is "basic infrastructure", and as essential for social stability in a modern industrial economy as a police force.

reply to post by xmotex


If every society requires a basic level of infrastructure and infrastructure is socialism, then is there such a thing as Laissez-faire capitalism? It would seem not, because if infrastructure isn't built and does not exist in that system, society does not exist. Even traditional Laissez-faire must have some degree of socialism. This is an interpretation I would fully agree with, however...

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your argument (and it is very late), but its really stretching it to call infrastructure socialist. Basic infrastructure is an absolute necessity for a society to even exist and for that reason, it is extremely difficult to consider it to be socialism in the modern sense in most cases.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by JBA2848
Well let see our government keeps trying to be like our southern neigbors by not just being a corrupt government but by being a corrupt government that rubs it in your face and says smile and say you like it.

The competitive nature is what has made this nation the richest. By making a welfare, socialist loving state, you not only eventually will bankrupt the system, but will also create more poor people, who in turn, will help bankrupt the system.

And never really hear it about Canada

So....move to Canada.

and Canada seems to be doing pretty good concidering there dollar used to be worth less than half our dollar. Last I seen it was about the same as ours now might be better. Ours is looking more like the pesos from our southern border now.

Canada is paying a heavy economic price thanks in large to the weak dollar.

And I think we fought for this country to create something great.Our leaders and governent is turning our great nation into something our forfathers would be rebeling against at this very moment.

Do you have any idea what a socialist nanny state is? It is exactly like it sounds. You create a bigger government, one that tells you want you can and cannot spend, you will have higher taxes, a larger government, and less individual freedoms.

It should be no surprise that the most expensive nations to live in just happen to be socialist European states.

You speak of "very principles that made this country great" our forfathers had them and they revolted and if they were here they would probly be doing it again.

A hegemonic empire was the thing the for fathers feared most. They gave us our second amendment right to bear arms, something Obama would like to take away. Is that "ok" with you?

You also mention have nots and it seems to me Hillary is the one who keeps wanting to give to the have nots. Look at the differnce in there health insurance hillary wants to make a mandate so every one has to pay or she'll garnish your wages to make you pay. And she wants to give it to alot of people for free. Obama says he wants to just do it for some alot like it already is big differnce is he just wants to fight to make the cost cheaper.

Hillary is much worse. However, there isn't a single person running worth my vote.

The competitive nature is what has made this nation the richest. By making a welfare, socialist loving state, you not only eventually will bankrupt the system, but will also create more poor people, who in turn, will help bankrupt the system.

A welfare state doesn't eliminate competition
There is a huge difference between a capitalist economy with a welfare state, and a Soviet style command economy.

Moreover, if your theory were true, why are capitalist countries with welfare states, far from being bankrupt, the wealthiest countries in the world?

I used to be a true believer in libertarian economics too, then reality smacked me in the face

It's based on theories that ignore the messy facts about human nature - ironically much like it's ideological nemesis Marxism.

Another reason I tend to eschew ideology in favor of principle

Originally posted by xmotex
I disagree.
"It's the only kind of economy that works" is a pretty damn strong argument IMHO.

Then why is it failing so miserably? While it promises prosperity, along with equality, and security, it has delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny.

You do not have an understanding of socialism, or the implications it could have.

Well, if you'd rather have them rise up and kill you, there's always that option

Of course, and under Senator Osama's plan, It would be illegal for me to properly defend me and my family via guns, whilst the "have nots" have open access to such weaponry.

Seriously, lassieze-faire capitalism has been tried, and it's almost invariably led to chaos, or to communist revolutions & guerrilla movements...

Socialism is often a precursor to communism...

The welfare state is "basic infrastructure", and as essential for social stability in a modern industrial economy as a police force.

So, "mending the fence," so to speak, is a precursor to communism?

Then why is it failing so miserably? While it promises prosperity, along with equality, and security, it has delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny.

Yeah, it's terrible to see the poverty and tyranny in Canada, Western Europe, Japan, etc....

You do not have an understanding of socialism, or the implications it could have.

I would suggest you do not have an understanding of modern market capitalism, which has survived by adopting elements of socialism.

Take a trip to Canada, or to Western Europe.

Then go to North Korea.

If you can't tell the difference, I'll give you a cookie

As far as Obama's gun control record, it's not what I would like.

On the other hand, he is on the record stating that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that applies to all citizens, and not just the "militia", which is more than I can say for most Democrats.

He also worked together with Senate Republicans to ban the kind of firearms seizures we saw in New Orleans after Katrina .

Originally posted by xmotex
A welfare state doesn't eliminate competition

There is a huge difference between a capitalist economy with a welfare state, and a Soviet style command economy.

But you are picking the lesser of the two evils.

Socialism kills democracy as we know it.

Moreover, if your theory were true, why are capitalist countries with welfare states, far from being bankrupt, the wealthiest countries in the world?

Which does nothing to explain why America is richer then them all put together.

Furthermore, the CIA has already published a report that suggest "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalization could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU."

I used to be a true believer in libertarian economics too, then reality smacked me in the face
It's based on theories that ignore the messy facts about human nature - ironically much like it's ideological nemesis Marxism.

Another reason I tend to eschew ideology in favor of principle

Then by all means, move to socialist Canada.

Socialism kills democracy as we know it.

I suppose that's why Canada, Western Europe, and Japan are no longer democracies?

Err, wait...

Which does nothing to explain why America is richer then them all put together.

What are you smoking?
The EU economy alone is larger than the US's by GDP, let alone Canada and Japan.

Then by all means, move to socialist Canada.

Nope, sorry buddy
I'm an American, proud of it, and I like it here.

Why don't you move someplace where there's no welfare state?
If you can find such a place that is... and if you have lots of ammo

[edit on 2/27/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by West Coast


The competitive nature is what has made this nation the richest. By making a welfare, socialist loving state, you not only eventually will bankrupt the system, but will also create more poor people, who in turn, will help bankrupt the system.

It has also made everyone greedy, and the governments corrupt. We have that problem in Canada as well but not as much as the US. Canada is a great country to live in I live there and I have no problems. My health care is free, yes the line is a little long but I would rather not pay 200-300
for a check-up.

Canada is paying a heavy economic price thanks in large to the weak dollar.

Agreed.

A hegemonic empire was the thing the for fathers feared most. They gave us our second amendment right to bear arms, something Obama would like to take away. Is that "ok" with you?

I must strongly agree here. Your second amendment was made because your fore fathers knew that eventrually the government would most likely try to take hold of the nation, so arm the citizens for a revolution.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by Equinox99]

(fixed code)

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by xmotex
I suppose that's why Canada, Western Europe, and Japan are no longer democracies?

All would arguably be under communism if not for America.

What are you smoking?
The EU economy alone is larger than the US's by GDP, let alone Canada and Japan.

Ugh, its late... And I am tired.

The EU economy isn't much larger, yet they have twice the population the US has. Furthermore, the EU is 22 years behind the Americas.

I am a Canadian and you couldnt pay me a million dollars to live in the USA and I personally think socialism and communism have been so greatly distorted by American propoganda most people dont even know what an actual social utopian communist society is. They always refer to places that were labled communist like old solviet union and communist China but imo they are anything but communist and should have been labled totalitorian regimes.

I do well for myself but there is always going to be people who are born unable to achieve what some of us can so should they live in poor conditions with little hope because of how they were born? People who earn millions and billions of dollars in a lot of cases dont work near as hard as people who work labour intense jobs but the labour jobs usually pay many thousands times less. I am not 100% familiar with Obama's future plans on the economy if he wins but I think he will do a lot better than GW and Canada is regarded as one of the best places to live by independant study so being like us isnt bad at all.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Except that the cost of things are higher cause they don't pay taxes.

That'd be great. But, it's false. A typical Canadian will pay between 26% to 54% of his/her income in Income Taxes. Then, every single item is subject to a Provincial Sales Tax (6-8%) and the infamous GST. (7%)

Canadians from one coast to another pay a lot of taxes.

BTW, I'm French Canadian. I hope it's not showing too much.

Originally posted by West Coast
Why should I be responsible for paying for someone, who doesn't want to get off they're lazy ass to work.
...
Furthermore, The rich shouldn't be held responsible for having to pay higher taxes while the poor get off scotch free.

Hmm... i suggest you look up the term "corporate welfare". The money given to the poor pales in comparison to the money given to the rich corporate bastards who are actually sitting on their asses.

Canada is paying a heavy economic price thanks in large to the weak dollar.

This weak dollar?
1 Canadian dollar = 0.99453 U.S. dollars

Canada is probably paying the price because of its currently strong dollar. Since most of its income comes from exports to the US.


[edit on 27/2/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by JBA2848


I noticed this article and I got to admit that it made me think we might be better for america to try and become more like our northern neigbors than constantly trying to be more like our southern neigbors.

www.nationalpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sure , you want to lose all your rights and have state run insurance companies who set what ever price they feel for insurance. NO THANKS

reply to post by Nailer


What insurance company are you referring to? I know in BC they have a car insurance company scam very much in line with what you describe. (ICBC) I'm not sure I know of any others.

What's this about having no rights?

(this conversation is quickly turning into a PTS discussion)


[edit on 27/2/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by West Coast
I should not be responsible for the "have nots".

What if the reason you have so much is because it was taken from others?

For you to be rich, someone must be poor. You cannot have rich feudal lords without a starving population of serfs. You cannot have high class plantation owners without the slaves working the fields. And you certainly cannot have rich US citizens without the exploitation of foreign labour.

Capitalism has the same capacity to harbour dictatorship and tyranny that you suggest socialism does. In fact, Id go as far as to say, tyranny and dictatorship prefer capitalism over socialism or communism. As capitalism ensures maximum profits and cares nothing for social issues (healthcare, safe working conditions, fair wages, etc)

And as someone else noted, you should be more concerned about Corporate welfare and handouts, as they toll in the hundreds of billions every year (and keep growing.)

Originally posted by xmotex

Err... he's a liberal Democrat, not a Maoist

The welfare state, a feature of every modern capitalist economy, ensures that you don't starve - it doesn't guarantee wealth by any means.

Wealth only comes along by some combination of hard work, skill, and good luck.



[edit on 2/27/08 by xmotex]

dunno, the definition of "wealth" may be hard to pin down, people can get subsidised to sit on their fat lazy arses in the UK and watch all the daytime telly they want, with rent paid for, and benefits to fund fast food and alcohol

I've been listening to Obama's message closely since he was elected to the Senate. It sounds to me like the same old empty Democratic promises. Don't get me wrong, I like what he appears to stand for, but we've heard this all before. He's a great orator, which would be a good change from Bush inc. But is he a true agent of change? I don't think so.

I'm an independant, because I feel the two party system doesn't work anymore. We continue to be polarized further and further apart. Conservatives don't want their tax dollars going to help people, and Liberals want everyone to have health care and want a level playing field for everyone. Isn't there a middle ground?

What would be so bad about paying a little extra in taxes for health care for everyone? I own a small business, and would be happy to pay a little more in tax if it meant I wouldn't have to see my parents pay $1800 a month for their health insurance premiums. I'm all for a free market system, but there are just some things in a civilized society that should be run as non-profit. Health care, education, and police and fire should not be for-profit. It creates a double-standard.

As a small business owner, I can no longer get affordable health insurance. If I get sick, or have an accident I will either die or have a $100,000 medical bill. My mom was just in the hospital a few months ago, and their health insurance (which, as I said earlier they pay $1800 a month for) would not pay for her operation, because they said the hospital overcharged them. Now, the hospital will put a $50,000 LEIN on their house. Is this what we want for America? Killing our citizens to have our taxes lower?

As I said, I am not a LIBERAL, but some things MUST be available to all people, and health care is one of these things.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
What if the reason you have so much is because it was taken from others?

what if the reason someone is poor is because they are stupid or lazy or unlucky

For you to be rich, someone must be poor.

all relative, "poor" in the west now has a diet, lifestyle and entertainment which would have put a king to shame 100 years ago

You cannot have rich feudal lords without a starving population of serfs.

welcome to the 21st century, sorry the 20th century, sorry the 19th century......

You cannot have high class plantation owners without the slaves working the fields. And you certainly cannot have rich US citizens without the exploitation of foreign labour.

You mean foreign labour exploited by their own labour, the US citizens are not doing the exploiting, their black leaders in their own nations are.

The US has no guilt on this issue, go check the massive aid it has pumped into 3rd world hell holes

Capitalism has the same capacity to harbour dictatorship and tyranny that you suggest socialism does. In fact, Id go as far as to say, tyranny and dictatorship prefer capitalism over socialism or communism. As capitalism ensures maximum profits and cares nothing for social issues (healthcare, safe working conditions, fair wages, etc)

the most idiotic statement Ive read, a quick reference of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Castro, Caucescu, Mugabe shows where tyrants floursih

reply to post by JBA2848


I'm Canadian and i gatta tell you, we have less freedom up here than you do down there. Gun Controll and Tax's are a joke cauise of how severe they treat them. Like 10 years in prison for doing a hit of '___'.

I dont see any of the Obama Rheteric in anyway shape or form a form of Canada or pro Canada in any way. Obama's words are Hollow like his clone soul