posted on February 16, 2004 03:24:31 PM new
::Canada supplies 60% of our oil. I am quite sure that if they wanted to they could really affect our economy.::
Since when? Latestest stats I found in a quick search put the number closer to 17%.
::And you know you pay much less than you would have been paying if your country had to pay for a large military of it's own, for it's own protection. ::
Does Canada actually have enemies? They are kind of like the Swizerland of the Americas.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 16, 2004 04:26:28 PM new
The 60% figure that rawbunzel quoted is most likely the percentage of its oil that Canada exports to the US and the US imports about 20% of its supply from Canada.
posted on February 16, 2004 08:05:32 PM new
Uh..yeah..that's it Kiara!!![thanks for the bailout!] LOL
Actually twice lately I have read the 60% figure and it didn't even occur to me that it was 60% of the oil Canada produces ...that does make more sense. I knew we got more oil from Canada than we do from Saudi Arabia so even at 20% they could make quite a dent in our economy if they felt like it.
Canada is a very good neighbor to the US. We really could not ask for a better one.They also have some good television....I like to watch it late at night.Interesting film makers in Canada. All religions are equally right
posted on February 17, 2004 04:57:11 AM new
There is no way I'm better off than four years ago. I'm lucky if I can afford to put gas in my car. Groceries have increased at an alarming rate and the quality of produce has steadily declined at least around here. My heating fuel prices are sky high as are essentials. Who can afford to buy a home with the low interest rates if jobs keep disappearing?
posted on February 17, 2004 05:19:56 AM new
Canada could be even better neighbor if they would actually do something for the US... cowering over in Afghanistan while we kicked ass in Iraq... yeah that was some help there boy...
have they helped us find Osama? Nope... I think they are cowards...Good at playing war not so good at doing it...
Of course we can thank them and their socialist ways for allowing the 9/11 terrorists to come into the US...
We need to annex them and Mexico... solve so many problems.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:21:44 AM new
twelvepole, everytime you say something you show more and more of your total ignorance. You are the most uninformed person on this forum.
Canada's contributions in Afghanistan have put their troops in one of the most dangerous situations worldwide.
The Canadian contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is known as Operation ATHENA . With about 1,900 personnel deploying in each rotation, the Canadian contingent is the largest in ISAF. Canadian soldiers conduct regular patrol missions in the Canadian area of responsibility. In addition, they are involved in a number of projects, such as digging wells and repairing buildings, to help improve the quality of life of the people in their area. Of the 1,900 troops deployed on Operation ATHENA , about 1,700 are deployed in Kabul; the remainder are deployed elsewhere in southwest Asia in support of the mission.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:30:55 AM new
More info for ignoramuspole.
As far as the terrorists, show me proof that they came via Canada. They didn't.
Besides, it is the responsibility of US Customs to check each and every person that crosses the border to enter into the US. I go back and forth regularly, it isn't Canada that approves my entry into the US, it is at US Customs each time I enter.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
WASHINGTON: The US government missed several opportunities, including fraudulent passports, to stop many of the men responsible for the September 11, 2001 terror attacks from entering the country, according to a preliminary report of the commission investigating the strikes, the media report said.
The report released on Monday disclosed that as many as eight of the hijackers carried passports that “showed evidence of fraudulent manipulation”, while as many as five of the passports had suspicious indicators, the report said.
posted on February 18, 2004 10:44:24 AM newWhite House Retreats on Predictions of New Jobs This Year
By Terence Hunt The Associated Press
Published: Feb 18, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.
Bush, himself, stopped short of echoing the prediction.
"I think the economy's growing, and I think it's going to get stronger," said Bush, the nation's first MBA president. He said he was pleased that 366,000 new jobs have been added since August. "But I'm mindful there are still people looking for work, and we've got to continue building on the progress we've made so far."
The administration's refusal to back its own jobs estimate brought criticism from John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"Now George Bush is saying he's going to create 2.6 million jobs this year alone - and his advisers are saying, 'What, you didn't actually believe that, did you?' Apparently George Bush is the only person left in the country who actually believes the far-fetched promises he's peddling," Kerry said in a statement.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked repeatedly about the forecast, declined to embrace the prediction which was contained in the annual economic report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Unemployment and the slow pace of job creation are political liabilities for Bush as he heads into a battle for re-election. Despite strong economic growth, the nation has lost about 2.2 million jobs since he became president.
The jobs forecast was the second economic flap in recent days for the White House. Last week, Bush was forced to distance himself from White House economist N. Gregory Mankiw's assertion that the loss of U.S. jobs overseas has long-term benefits for the U.S. economy.
Asked about the 2.6 million jobs forecast, McClellan said, "The president is interested in actual jobs being created rather than economic modeling."
He quoted Bush as saying, "I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor."
"We are interested in reality," McClellan said
He said the annual economic report was based on data from about three months ago. Since then, Bush has said that things are improving.
The issue arose at the White House after Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans declined to endorse the jobs prediction and said it was based on economic assumptions that have an inherent margin of error. They spoke during a tour through Oregon and Washington to promote the president's economic agenda.
"The number-crunchers will do their job. The president's job is to make sure we're creating as robust an environment as possible for job-creation," McClellan said. "That's where his focus is."
"This is economic modeling. ... some have said it would be lower," he said.
"The president has said he is not a statistician. He is most concerned about whether people are hurting and able to find jobs," McClellan said.
"The economy is moving in the right direction ... but there is more to do," he said.
posted on February 18, 2004 11:37:31 AM new
If Canada wished they could use the US dollar for their currency and not have to worry about an exchange rate. Several countries do that.
I wonder who Canada has to worry about invading that the US is keeping them independant? Iraq?
If Canada followed a course that brought much harm to the US I have no doubt Bush would subjugate them even invading if need be. That is how foreign policy works now.
posted on February 18, 2004 12:50:45 PM new
Gravid, some do wish for a common currency in North America and also a unified postal system.
If the US invaded Canada some citizens wouldn't mind and others would be outraged. On occasion, some from B.C. and Alberta have expressed wishes for their Provinces to join the US.
I agree with Kraft that the US is a good neighbor.
And there are Canucks that have moved to Mexico or are seriously thinking about it because of the lower cost of living there and also for the climate.
The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.
"President Bush was not a statistician."???
LOL!
Doesn't the White House have a statistician?
The credibility of this administration has hit rock bottom.
posted on February 19, 2004 12:02:14 PM new
The talk of the dems is all about how many jobs have gone overseas. Here's an article I found interesting, because it doesn't look like the way the dem candidates suggest will do much to bring jobs back either.
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A01
Democratic presidential candidates have made the loss of U.S. jobs to international competition the centerpiece of their campaigns, but even some of the candidates' economic advisers acknowledge that remedies offered -- such as closing tax loopholes on overseas income and offering tax breaks for domestic hiring -- would probably do little to stop the bleeding.
The issue of job losses in old-line manufacturing and moving service jobs overseas catapulted to the political forefront last week, after the Democratic presidential campaigns traversed hard-hit industrial states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri. The rhetoric was further amplified when President Bush's top economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, said last week that outsourcing was "probably a plus for the economy in the long run."
Yesterday, President Bush appeared to back off projections in his own Economic Report of the President, which predicted that 2.6 million jobs would be created this year.
The movement of jobs to low-wage countries such as China, India and Mexico has been driven by powerful forces of economic globalization that may be beyond a politician's control, economists say. The two leading Democratic candidates have fallen back largely on one economic factor that Washington does control: the tax code.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and his closest challenger, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), both have said that tax law rewards corporate expansion overseas. And both would cut taxes for domestic manufacturing and offer temporary tax credits for hiring manufacturing workers in the United States.
"We will repeal the tax loopholes and benefits that reward Benedict Arnold CEOs and companies for shipping American jobs overseas," Kerry said Tuesday night in his victory speech after the Wisconsin primary. "Instead, we will provide new incentives for good companies that create and keep good jobs here in America."
Many economists and some business officials agree that companies are reaping tax benefits from overseas expansion. Citigroup executives told industry analysts last month that the banking firm lowered its effective tax rate from 31.3 percent to 30.6 percent last quarter, boosting income by $52 million, by putting more money into overseas operations.
The decline from a 33.7 percent tax rate in 2002 "primarily represented benefits for not providing U.S. income taxes on the earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries that are indefinitely invested," a company document says.
But virtually no one would say that taxes are a primary -- or even a significant -- factor in the movement of as many as 300,000 white-collar jobs and many more manufacturing jobs abroad in the past several years. No matter how sweet the tax incentive is to expand in India, for instance, it could not be more enticing than lowering a software developer's pay from $60 to $6 an hour, a figure cited recently by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 19, 2004 12:05 PM ]
posted on February 19, 2004 12:37:05 PM new
"But virtually no one would say that taxes are a primary -- or even a significant -- factor in the movement of as many as 300,000 white-collar jobs and many more manufacturing jobs abroad in the past several years."
What a load of bunk that is. Go do some serious reading about 'offshore' American companies and the outrageous profits they're raking in from not paying taxes and not paying decent wages to their impoverished workforces and not having to comply with EPA pollution standards and not having to provide any type of medical/dental insurance.
posted on February 20, 2004 09:53:08 AM new
Evangelicals frustrated by Bush
President Bush left several million evangelical voters "on the table" four years ago and again is having trouble energizing Christian conservatives, prominent leaders on the religious right say.
"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.
"If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate," added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA).
Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."
"I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' — he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call [California Republican Gov.] Arnold [Schwarzenegger] and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."
"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios.
She echoed other conservative leaders in blaming White House political advisers and not the president himself for the failure to move forcefully against San Francisco's civil disobedience. But the veteran activist and radio host said Mr. Bush could pay a steep price in November for following his strategists' bad advice.
"The strength of this president is in his convictions, but our people do not admire his indecision and lack of leadership on an issue so basic as the sanctity of marriage," Mrs. Rios said.
Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP.
"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."
Religious right leaders say their constituents aren't likely to defect to the Democrats.
"What is at issue here is, will our folks be AWOL when it comes time for the election because they are just not energized and motivated?" said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Social conservatives coalesce around strong leadership. That's what motivates and energizes them. And on their core issues, the leadership from the White House is not there right now."
Conservative Christian concerns with White House leadership extend beyond homosexuality, pornography and abortion to issues of art, education and law.
Sadie Fields, a Bush supporter and Christian Coalition activist, says she's heard grumbles that Mr. Bush stood aside while the man he nominated for a federal appeals court appointment, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, prosecuted that state's popular chief justice, Roy Moore. Mr. Moore was forced from office after defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial Building.
Mr. Knight points to Mr. Bush's having "promoted the Ted Kennedy Leave No Child Behind education bill, which expanded an Education Department that social conservatives see as a fully owned subsidiary of the National Education Association, which has grown more stridently left wing in recent years. The NEA has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren."
Also, Mr. Knight said, Mr. Bush "upped the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, which has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren. The White House message to social conservatives was: 'We don't share your values, folks. We would rather impress the art elite at cocktail parties.' "
Mr. Bauer, a former Reagan White House adviser who was briefly a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination four years ago, said pro-life voters were dismayed by Mr. Bush's repeated statements during the 2000 campaign that he would not make abortion a "litmus test" issue for judicial appointees. Since Mr. Bush took office, Mr. Bauer said, many of the same voters were disappointed by Mr. Bush's ineffectiveness in pushing conservative bench nominees past liberal Democrats in the Senate.
Mr. Knight said runaway federal spending under Mr. Bush worries some social conservatives who "fear their children will become slaves to the government someday. It's not just an economic issue. It's about freedom."
With more than eight months remaining until Election Day, American Family Association founder Don Wildmon said the president "has already upset the economic conservatives, and I know the problem he is having with evangelicals. ... There is a major problem there."
posted on February 20, 2004 02:42:07 PM newAre You Better Off?
Am I better off? You bet I am. In the summer of 2000, all of my stocks crashed. My life savings was wiped out and I was about broke. This happened on Clinton's watch by the way.
Since Bush has been in office, the value of my home has more than doubled I also refinanced my loan to a lower interest rate and changed it from a 30 year loan to a 15 year loan. My monthly payments are actually lower than they were before.
Business could be a little better, but it's been steadily improving since 2002.
Bush's tax cuts and low interest rates worked for me. What more can you ask for?
posted on February 20, 2004 04:01:35 PM new
Neroter, I'm not a gambler, so I'm not likely to gain a fortune through some jackpot.
Suppose I found an unidentifiable bag of cash in the street, though. Hey, finders keepers, right?
In my book, no. It's not my money, even if I (and the person who lost/dumped it) are the only two people on earth who know it.
There's a moral vacuum in our corporate world, one that has not only sent zillions of jobs out of the country with no qualms whatsoever, but then sarcastically lobbies left and right to avoid paying any taxes at all.
There's no conscience in business anymore, just as there are no principles in politics. Where are the Carnegies, the Mellons, The Nobels?
Where are the Thomas Jeffersons, the Abraham Lincolns, the Roosevelts?
posted on February 20, 2004 05:08:36 PM newEvangelicals frustrated by Bush....LOL they're not alone. Appears many are. But I'll place my bet that no matter how upset any Republican is they won't be voting for the democrat on the ticket. Nor will many Independents....like myself, I still believe the MOST important issue is National Security and that's going to decide this election.
No way would the Evangelicals want to see this country move further left. LOL So...imo, they'll complain and let everyone know WHAT issue is making them unhappy, as they should. Might just get him to return to more spending restraint and veto the transportation bill and it's add ons. Lately he's been spending like a true Democrat. But I'd place a very large bet on that one.
posted on February 20, 2004 05:24:19 PM new
That was a splendid article, Reamond. Looks to me like Bush is about to experience a vast quantity of "no" votes by (disillusioned) millions not voting at all. Praise the Lord and pass the ketchup!
posted on February 20, 2004 11:09:28 PM new
I agree Pat. I just always have to question if one would think differently about loop holes or legal tax evasions existance if they happened to benefit them as well.
But yeah, there is way too much greed going on for my liking too.
posted on February 21, 2004 06:28:32 AM new Where are the Carnegies, the Mellons, The Nobels? Where are the Thomas Jeffersons, the Abraham Lincolns, the Roosevelts?
They're DEAD! Talk about a hypocrite... wants progression in allowing queers to be married and then seems to think that the eithcs of long dead people are relevant.
I am better off than when Clinton was in office and things are improving...As I predicted last year in a thread that things would improve by 4Q and in fact they did.
I find usually the ones that claim people are uninformed are actually the one that is out of touch.
posted on February 21, 2004 07:12:48 AM new
you know in a deflationary environment ,who gets the real benefits??
the retirees who get a pension check every month,they are buying more .
this is what happens in japan in the last 10-15 years,those who retire in the go go years of japan when real estate prices rocket and wages soar,now they can buy more with the same yen .
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on February 21, 2004 08:08:08 AM new
neroter12 - Linda, you consider yourself an independent? I must have read that wrong.
lol....you didn't read that wrong. Been a registered Independent most of my voting life. American Independent while living in CA.
I didn't vote for President Bush....but I will be voting for him this time around....this country is going WAY too far left for my liking.
I've voted for dems, reps and Independents.
I'm one of those that is referred to as a 'swing' voter. Vote the man and the current issue's, NOT the party line.
Even clinton was a moderate when compared to the far left liberals running now. Lieberman was the only moderate the dems had this time around.
While not having voted for this President, the way he has handled the worst crisis since Pearl Harbor [9-11 and the war on terror], the way he's not 'wishy-washy' on his stands, etc. has impressed me greatly. I'm tired of politicians who's views change with the way the wind blows, like clinton's did. Tired of the 'Kerry's' who say they support this or that...but their voting records show differently.
This President has values and morals I respect too, unlike so many others.
Nader will be announcing, maybe tomorrow, that he might run again this year. And while he may, once again, take some of the swing votes away from both parties....THIS election is too important to waste a vote, that won't make a difference, when SO much is at stake during these post 9-11 times.
Lately he's been spending like a true Democrat. But I'd place a very large bet on that one.