President Obama

[alanschu]

Really? I thought Stephen Harper had made Canada the 51st US state?

 

Then you were mistaken.

[Humodour]

Really? I thought Stephen Harper had made Canada the 51st US state?

 

Then you were mistaken.

 

Go on?

[Serrano]

Canada isn't a state, it's a mythical land full of snow, beautiful women, mounties and quality television shows.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Serrano

[Gorth]

Lumberjacks. Don't forget the lumberjacks

[BruceVC]

Really? I thought Stephen Harper had made Canada the 51st US state?

 

Then you were mistaken.

 

I haven't been to Canada but aren't you guys part of the USA? I mean do you have your own cultural identity, from what I have seen you follow the USA in most things. There is nothing wrong with that. A fitting fantasy analogy would be a pixie and a giant, of course the pixie wants to be part of the giants world. Its a question of survival?

 

Or am I missing something

[alanschu]

Go on?

 

 

Not much to go on. Harper works with the Americans, but so did the previous Liberal parties. Which is kind of a "duh" moment as they are our neighbours, greatest trading partner, greatest ally, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

I'm a bit miffed at some of the controversy regarding science funding, but it's not like we had things like Health Care stripped out or anything, nor has he dissolved equalization payments (wealth redistribution between the provinces) and stuff like that.

 

 

But then, I don't really know what it means when people postulate that Canada is the "51st state" aside from the idea that it's likely a pejorative. On the political spectrum I'd consider Harper's Conservatives to be somewhere between the Dems and the Reps, but closer to the Democrats.

[alanschu]

Really? I thought Stephen Harper had made Canada the 51st US state?

 

Then you were mistaken.

 

I haven't been to Canada but aren't you guys part of the USA? I mean do you have your own cultural identity, from what I have seen you follow the USA in most things. There is nothing wrong with that. A fitting fantasy analogy would be a pixie and a giant, of course the pixie wants to be part of the giants world. Its a question of survival?

 

Or am I missing something

 

You have a smiley face, so I'm not sure if you're just trying to bust my chaps for fun or not, but yeah Canada and the US do share a lot of culture. Which isn't that surprising given our histories and the fact that our borders are pretty open and migration between the two is pretty straight forward.

 

Though personally I am finding I identify myself less and less by my "culture."

[Blarghagh]

A bit late to responding to these, but:

 

, "Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created."

 

This is why I cna't take European and Kanada opinion seriouslyn on this matter. Do tyhey really ebleive that Romney would make slavery legal? L0L Then again, these are the same peons who claimed that Bush was setting himself up to be 'dictator for life' and all that extremist bull.

 

Then again, out of all the white dominated European countries.. how many have had a black leader? L0LZ

Yeah, you would have to be very misinformed, or even un-intelligent to honestly believe that Romney would legalize slavery. Aside from the fact that the president does not have that power, there is nothing in Romney's history to suggest that he would be in favor of such a thing. It is really a very ridiculous thing to believe.

 

Obvious exaggeration is obvious. It's meant as a demonstration of how backwards he's considered, not an actual legislation. Extremely obviously. I can't stress enough how obviously obvious this is. Super obvious. Anyone would have seen it. And just to make sure you don't think this is a veiled insult, I'm going to confirm this as a straightforward insult right here.

 

I enjoy the part of Trump's Twitter Rant where he says "the world is laughing at us now" or somesuch, I don't remember the exact quote. Internationally, or at least in Europe, Mitt Romney is regarded as a laughing stock, a backwards cult brainwasher who is inches from legalizing slavery, and it took America electing a black man to finally lessen the image of "all americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" that Bush created. Obama is the reason the world isn't laughing at the U.S. anymore.

 

I don't agree with that assessment of the USA under Bush, I don't think that is what most Europeans think either. I assume you think the same of the UK under Tony Blair? Bush and some of his policies were disliked but he also had the arduous task of being president during the beginning of the War on Terror. There were many things that were done legitimately that some now say were not justified. Like the invasion of Afghanistan which was perfectly understandable and necessary. I generally object to blanket generalizations about a country or nation, so statements " "all Americans are the dumbest rednecks on the planet" doesn't represent the reality of the Bush era

 

Because an image always represents the reality of a situation. I'm not generalizing anything, I'm saying how they were generalized. This is not my opinion or the personal image I have, this is my observation of the image that was prevalent in Europe at the time. The election of Obama was the first time the U.S. was given some respect again.

Edited November 8, 2012 by TrueNeutral

[NOK222]

Don't know I feel about my homeland voting for 51st state, guess we'll see what happens.

[Nepenthe]

[Malcador]

Canadian identity is hockey and beer, I think.

[GuybrushWilco]

Canada has its own unique culture, but it still has its roots in Europe, much like the USA. Canada has has very same unwritten constitution of the UK, and also has its own system of governance modeled directly after the UK. Canada also gives is allegiance to the queen.

[Nepenthe]

Canada has its own unique culture, but it still has its roots in Europe, much like the USA. Canada has has very same unwritten constitution of the UK, and also has its own system of governance modeled directly after the UK. Canada also gives is allegiance to the queen.

[alanschu]

 

 

This does describe Edmonton the past two days :S

[Malcador]

Unlucky for you guys, heh, 20 cm here would probably cripple this city (cue Army jokes here).

[Farbautisonn]

Nice. This turned into a nationality pissing contest. Complete with ad hitlerums, logical fallacies galore, glaring lack of political insight, historical knowledge, and finally splattered with generous sprinkles of prejudice.

 

The jews did it.

[GuybrushWilco]

I grew up in Michigan, where snow and cold weather are the norm, and people are used to it. I recently moved to Tennessee, and these Southerners do not know how to handle snow and ice If even a little bit of snow is on the ground, then the entire state practically shuts down, and people do not know how to drive on icy roads .

[Amentep]

I grew up in Michigan, where snow and cold weather are the norm, and people are used to it. I recently moved to Tennessee, and these Southerners do not know how to handle snow and ice If even a little bit of snow is on the ground, then the entire state practically shuts down, and people do not know how to drive on icy roads .

 

Most of the southern states don't put much money into snow/ice removal since most years its not a major issue (that said, the mountains in Tennessee get snow a good bit).

 

It is true though that most people in the south can't drive in snow. Or on Icy roads. And most of the time when it rains. Or when the sun is shining in their eyes...

[Enoch]

I grew up in Michigan, where snow and cold weather are the norm, and people are used to it. I recently moved to Tennessee, and these Southerners do not know how to handle snow and ice If even a little bit of snow is on the ground, then the entire state practically shuts down, and people do not know how to drive on icy roads .

 

It's less "knowing how to handle it" and more "having the infrastructure to handle it." All the knowhow in the world won't help you if you don't own any snowplows. And snow in the Southeast is infrequent enough that a heavy investment in snowplows, etc., probably isn't a particularly wise use of public funds. Cheaper to just let things shut down in the rare event of a meaningful snowstorm.

[Nepenthe]

Nice. This turned into a nationality pissing contest. Complete with ad hitlerums, logical fallacies galore, glaring lack of political insight, historical knowledge, and finally splattered with generous sprinkles of prejudice.

 

The jews did it.

And that was the point where it got better than what it was originally...

[alanschu]

It's less "knowing how to handle it" and more "having the infrastructure to handle it." All the knowhow in the world won't help you if you don't own any snowplows. And snow in the Southeast is infrequent enough that a heavy investment in snowplows, etc., probably isn't a particularly wise use of public funds. Cheaper to just let things shut down in the rare event of a meaningful snowstorm.

 

This is true to an extent. But a couple centimeters of snow doesn't really need plowing and I've seen some southern places still hole up and wait for it to pass. Now admittedly, I use "all season" tires, so maybe there's something about the tires in those southern places, but I do chuckle when light snow chokes out some towns.

[ravenshrike]

Eh, pretty much everybody's ****ed. Even if Romney had been elected it would have at best slowed the collapse.

http://www.zerohedge...t-doesnt-matter

1) When the US federal government spends money, expenses are officially categorized in three different ways.

 

Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government– the US military, Air Force One, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents who sexually assault passengers, etc.

 

Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid.

 

The final category is interest on the debt. It is non-negotiable.

 

Mandatory spending and debt interest go out the door automatically. It’s like having your mortgage payment autodrafted from your bank account– Congress doesn’t even see the money, it’s automatically deducted.

 

2) With the rise of baby boomer entitlements and steady increase in overall debt levels, mandatory spending and interest payments have exploded in recent years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicted in 2010 that the US government’s TOTAL revenue would be exceeded by mandatory spending and interest expense within 15-years.

 

That’s a scary thought. Except it happened the very next year.

 

3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

 

For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.

 

In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

 

4) Raising taxes won’t help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.

 

During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.

 

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

 

5) GDP growth prospects are tepid at best. Facing so many headwinds like quickening inflation, an enormous debt load, and debilitating regulatory burdens, the US economy is barely keeping pace with population growth.

 

6) The only thing registering any meaningful growth in the US is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (from $15 trillion to $16 trillion).

 

Last month alone, the first full month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debt– 20% of the way to a fresh trillion in just 31 days.

 

7) Not to mention, the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue rising.

 

Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.

 

9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

Most of the Eurozone is in a boat that just as leaky if not worse. China has so many internal problems that their collapse is coming within the decade unless they go back to the bad old days of the Great Leap Forward, in which case instead of splintering into a bunch of smaller polities they slaughter a bunch of their citizens and head back into full totalitarianism. Edited November 8, 2012 by ravenshrike

[Calax]

The Economist disagrees with you Raven... and right now I'd trust mag's over a blog.

[Hurlshort]

[Enoch]

I'd take issue with a few of those points.

 

4) Raising taxes won’t help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.

 

During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.

 

It doesn’t matter how much they increase tax rates– they won’t collect any more money.

 

This is just bizarre. Alteration in the means by which the government gets all its money is somehow insignificant in considering the problem of the government not taking in enough money to cover its obligations? Really?

 

First, the author's focus on variation in nominal tax rates is a meaningless distraction-- those numbers mean very little without the context of the attendant definitions, deductions, credits, and other provisions.

 

Second, describing a range spanning 6% of GDP as "very tight" is a flat-out lie. U.S. GDP is over $15 trillion annually. The difference between the historical high-tax state at around 20% and the low-tax state around 14% would be somewhere around $900 billion annually. Which would account for the majority of the current annual budget deficit all by itself. Current federal tax receipts are around 15.4% of GDP, which is pretty close to historic lows. Just returning to the federal tax levels in place back in 2002 would more than half the annual federal budget deficit.

 

9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won’t make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.

 

The funny thing about all this "legally bound" language is that these "binding" laws are simple acts of Congress, signed by the President. All that would be necessary to change them is another simple act of Congress, signed into law by the President.

 

Yes, existing laws have over-promised things, and the exponential rise in healthcare costs has made promises that looked reasonable in the past far too costly. Nearly everybody acknowledges this, and both sides have ideas about how to address these issues. It's an easy issue to put on the "maybe next year" pile, but some manner of either solution (either via compromise or via full-on elective victory) will happen at some point.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Enoch