Canadian Borders

[dogtowner]

The Rest of us pay higher taxes than Mitt. The GOP is making a big mistake if they nominate him. The Tea Party will not back him and OWS people will not vote for Mitt nether cause all these people have to pay more taxes then Mitt did. All these people have to work 8 hour shifts a day for 40 hours and pay more out of their paychecks than Mitt did. Mitt didnt even work hard the way ordinary people have to work. Mitt support bankers OWS people dont. Mitt raised taxes and spend when he was governor. Tea Party people dont support this. If the RNC deligates nominate Mitt,,Unless Sarah Palin nominates herself as Tea Party candidate then theres only one choice,,Thats to re-elect Obama another 4 more years

few people pay as many dollars in tax as Romney (I don't pay millions) and with deductions I don't pay more than about 10% despite my marginal tax rate being considerably higher. marginal tax rates are a poor measure since nobody pays that rate.

the TP isn't going to vote BO neither are OWS (all 40 of them). nobody has ever been 100% happy with a candidate and that won't change.

 

[steveox]

Why not get rid of the Conventions? Its another damn circus. Thats all it is,Its a circus. Its pure entertainment. Why you think DNC conventions gets huge high TV ratings? Its just like watching Wrestling on TV. I think they should abolish the conventions. And have candidates go all over the country and just campaign. And just have 3 debates. 1 in january, 1 march and finaly one in June. And the primary elections should go this way. 13 Southeastern States in April, 13 Southwestern States in may, And then the rest goes all in July 2nd. Then you start the General election pricess with debates and campaign. Remember the 60s? you didnt have primary debates the candidates all they did was campaign. Theyre just too many debates nowadays and get rid of these conventions its a circus!

 

[dogtowner]

Why not get rid of the Conventions? Its another damn circus. Thats all it is,Its a circus. Its pure entertainment. Why you think DNC conventions gets huge high TV ratings? Its just like watching Wrestling on TV. I think they should abolish the conventions. And have candidates go all over the country and just campaign. And just have 3 debates. 1 in january, 1 march and finaly one in June. And the primary elections should go this way. 13 Southeastern States in April, 13 Southwestern States in may, And then the rest goes all in July 2nd. Then you start the General election pricess with debates and campaign. Remember the 60s? you didnt have primary debates the candidates all they did was campaign. Theyre just too many debates nowadays and get rid of these conventions its a circus!

network news guys live for conventions. they used to not even show commercials (not sure anymore, too damn boring to watch being nothing more than a kegger for the party workers).

 

[Openmind]

network news guys live for conventions. they used to not even show commercials (not sure anymore, too damn boring to watch being nothing more than a kegger for the party workers).

Yep, for once I agree. Convention are made for "speaking to the choir," and everyone else finds it boring!
Yet, they bring TONS of cash to the city that holds those conventions. I'm not sure where the Republican convention will be held (I assume some place like Texas or Florida? I need to check), but I know that Charlotte, NC is already drooling about the idea of hosting the Democratic Convention!
Since it's only about 2 1/2 hours from here, I may try to get a ticket and go myself. . . especially since it's NOT going to be boring with Jon Stewart and Obama attending! Can't wait!

 

[cashmcall]

Steve is probably afraid that too many Americans will cross the Canadian border illegally to get free health care and a taste of a healthy economy!
Actually. . .maybe Canadians should be afraid of "illegal Americans invaders!"

www.csls.ca/ipm/7/nicholson-e.pdfSimilarand thats just what we conservatives want to do here....

 

[cashmcall]

Let me try again...Canada in the 1990's did what we should be doing now...http://www.csls.ca/ipm/7/nicholson-e.pdf

 

[cashmcall]

Canada’s economy turned a corner in the

1990s. What happened?
Most Canadians would give a lot of credit to
the dramatic about face on the deficit in middecade.
We finally began to live within our
means; made room for taxes to be cut; and came
to rely less on bureaucrats and more on entrepreneurs.
Those who follow these issues more closely
would also point to the Bank of Canada’s successful
war on inflation, culminating with the
“cleansing” recession that ushered in the 1990s.
Credit would also be due to the substantial liberalization
of trade following implementation of
the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
in 1989, and subsequently the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Those less disposed to accord much credit to
policy would simply point out that a rising tide
lifts all boats. That rising tide included exceptionally
favourable global macroeconomic circumstances;
the investment boom triggered
(irrationally or not) by the promise of information
and communications technologies; and the
extraordinary dynamism of the United States,
from which Canada benefits more than any other
country. All combined to make strong Canadian
growth inevitable.

 

[cashmcall]

The United Kingdom Draws the Wrong Lessons from Canada

Wednesday, 06/9/2010 - 10:47 am by Marshall Auerback | 20 Comments
Before David Cameron makes huge budget cuts, he should go back to the history books.
For once, Canada is making the news for the wrong reasons. The United Kingdom has braced the country for cuts in government spending up to 20 percent as the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition lays the groundwork for an austerity program to last the whole parliament. Their inspiration? According to The Telegraph, Prime Minister David Cameron’s administration hopes to draw lessons from the experiences of the Canadian Government of the 1990s. Before too much damage is done, we suggest they’d better re-read the history books a bit more closely.
The standard narrative of the Canadian experience in the 1990s is this: in 1993, Canada’s budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratios were the second highest amongst the G7 countries, after Italy’s, and the US financial press was unfavorably comparing Canada to Mexico. That year, with the IMF supposedly lurking at the door, the Liberal Government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and his Finance Minister, Paul Martin, laid out a goal to halve the budget deficit to three percent by 1998, with an unannounced goal of a zero deficit by 2000. Martin began cutting costs significantly in 1994, chopping 10 percent from department budgets and converting a deficit equal to nearly 7 percent of gross domestic product into a surplus by 1997. By 1998, the deficit was eliminated and overall debt was dropping quickly, amidst a rapidly growing economy.
Success, correct? Certainly, this narrative has largely gone unchallenged (even in Canada). It has metamorphosed into received wisdom and has been used by many to justify a renewed assault on the welfare state. It is argued that the impact of Chretien government’s cuts in public spending allowed Canada to get through the Asian crisis with little damage and to go on to become one of the strongest Western economies.

And again thats just what we need to do..but most of the canadians here diaagree...why?

 

[dogtowner]

well said cash