Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
I don't know whether any of you are South Park fans. There was a great episode I caught the other day where all the Mexican immigrants decide they want to go home.
Cartman, South Park's anti-hero summed up the situation thus:
"When we asked Obama to stop illegal immigrants, we didn't mean to make the U.S. so [expletive] they wouldn't want to come anymore."
Anyway, as ever South Park's point was well-made. Which of us who lived through the Reagan era could ever possibly have imagined that the US would become the economic ruin it is today? And which of us who lived through the Pierre Trudeau era could ever have imagined that Canada would one day supplant the US as the shining example of free market capitalism?
Yet this is what seems to be happening right now. Compare and contrast the two government's attitudes to Keystone XL Pipeline. And gee, don't you wish Stephen Harper were on the GOP candidates list right now?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
"Which of us who lived through the Reagan era could ever possibly have imagined that the US would become the economic ruin it is today? And which of us who lived through the Pierre Trudeau era could ever have imagined that Canada would one day supplant the US as the shining example of free market capitalism?"
Too true, too painfully true--especially for one who composed a speech in defense of Reagan's economic policies for then Vice President George H. W. Bush to deliver in Ottawa (this would have been back, as I recall, in 1982). The audience listened in a kind of stony silence. Then Prime Minister Trudeau stood to offer a toast, twice (once in English and once in French, natch) that amounted to a not particularly polite dressing down of the Vice President for his naive belief in free markets.
Woe and wailaway. The world has turned upside down.
Edited on Jan 10 at 11:51amSep '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
While I'd love to bask in the warm glow and adulation of my minions due to my arrogance and hypertrophied ego, I should caution you that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a pathological aversion to even the mere mention of the word "abortion". Canada, as you no doubt know, has no abortion law whatsoever on the books, and is the only western country to have such a peculiar reticence on the subject. As a governing strategy in the demented Dominion, perhaps that has something to recommend it. but as a growth strategy, the embryonic imperative leaves something to be desired.
Sep '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
I stand second to no man or woman in my disdain for Canada's former enfant incroyable.
Edited on Jan 10 at 11:51amJun '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Canada didn't fall for that "every family deserves their own mansion" nonsense. You only make that happen by severely distorting your nation's lending and investment incentives.
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
He would never survive the American populist-style nomination process. His personality is far too muted (dull).
The Canuckistani method for choosing a leader tends to weed out candidates with big personalities but no backroom political experience. Canuckistani leadership selection is a lot like making sausage. See this article entitled Why Justin Beiber Will Never Be Prime Minister.
Or, as former Ontario Premier Bill Davis once said, "dull works."
That being said, Stephen Harper is VERY good at taking ridiculous, over-the-top attacks from the opposition and either ignoring them completely or calmly explaining why they're complete poppycock. He rarely makes gaffes.
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
You'd prefer a Liberal government, maybe?
Stephen Harper is living evidence that a "truce on social issues" can work for a conservative party. The alternative is a Liberal government.
A better criticism of the current Conservative government is that we had balanced budgets, declining government spending (as a percentage of GDP), and a shrinking federal government under the (Liberal) Chretien government, but we have deficits, increased spending, and a swelling federal government now. Much of this can be attributed to the realities of successive minority governments in the middle of a global recession, but not all of it.
One must always keep in mind that Canuckistan's current success is always measured IN COMPARISON TO the other G8 nations. In that way, one has to admit that the bar is being set very low.
When one compares Canuckistan's current economic situation compared to its own economic situation a decade ago, the numbers are not nearly as rosy. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that we're an exporting nation, and if the rest of the world is in a recession and stops buying our stuff, the economy suffers. We depend on a robust US economy.
Edited on Jan 10 at 12:07pmMar '11
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Ok, it's 750 miles to Thunder Bay. I've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, a Tim Card with 100 Loonies on it, a sleeping bag in the car trunk, and a false passport in the name of Angus MacPherson.
I've been considering changing the name on the passport to Abdul Yunaymit Izzareddit, but I need to work on my accent before that will fly.
Dec '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
My first choice of foreign leader to put on the GOP roster would be Bibi Netanyahu. But, then, why not? Add Harper to balance out the excitement.
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Well, we DO still have government support for homebuyers, but the benefits a homebuyer receives are lower and the requirements to qualify are stricter.
Basically, mortgages are guaranteed by Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC), HOWEVER unless you make a down-payment of 25% or so you have to pay for mortgage insurance to cover the guarantee. Even then, no-down-payment mortgages are pretty much unheard of.
CMHC also has other strategies for increasing housing stock like grants to municipalities for "affordable housing".
During the recession, the government loosened the rules by lengthening maximum amortization periods and allowing better terms for struggling mortgage-holders to refinance.
The common thread here is that Canuckistan really does regulate the mortgage industry rather extensively. I'd wager that the Canuckistani mortgage regulation model would probably be anathema to many Republicans, since it restricts the liberty of lenders and borrowers.
May '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Perhaps we should replace the "American" in "American exceptionalism".
Edited on Jan 10 at 12:46pmDec '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Michael Labeit: Perhaps we should replace the "American" in "American exceptionalism". · Jan 10 at 12:42pm
Edited on Jan 10 at 12:46 pm
As the Canadian national manager of A.C.Nielsen once admonished me, "Canadians are Americans too, eh?"
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Canuckistan isn't "exceptional" in the same way that the US is exceptional. The US is exceptional thanks to the US constitution. Canada's constitution is hardly exceptional since it's a mashup of English common law and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.
Canuckistani governance has been good from about 1993 until now, but there's nothing in our system per se that prohibits a return to Trudeau-era thinking.
My pet theory is that for over 200 years the US constitution has made it difficult for the federal government to make big mistakes, which is a huge part of American exceptionalism. However, big mistakes occasionally were made (new deal, great society, etc), and once the mistakes are made the constitution also makes it hard for the federal government to fix 'em. By contrast, the Canuckistani constitution makes it easier for a strong majority government to fix mistakes from the past, but also makes it easier for a strong majority government to make its own new mistakes. Either system is a double-edged sword.
Edited on Jan 10 at 1:05pmMar '11
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
I'll take America and the points.
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Was able to find a photo that didn't violate Cof C.
Canada's wildlife has always been bountiful. The moose, loon, beaver, and elk gambol with the always threatened polar bear. Usually in the shadow of an oil rig peopled by swashbuckling Texan pirates.
Mar '11
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
flownover
Canada's wildlife has always been bountiful. The moose, loon, beaver, and elk gambol with the always threatened polar bear. Usually in the shadow of an oil rig peopled by swashbuckling Texan pirates. · Jan 10 at 2:51pm
The scenery is gorgeous...and the landscapes aren't bad either.
Dec '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
It gets worse.
"Honey, they're cheating by using centimeters!"
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Thanks a lot CJ, there are billions of very p-oed Chinese and Indians headed our way . I thought it was going to be a trade fair and instead we get this !
Nov '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
PET advocated some outrageous stuff and was every bit the EuroSocialist that BHO is. But he also occasionally uttered some word that captures the conservative imagination. Let's not put him into too small a box. He, after all, coined the phrase "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." For a non-conservative cause, to be sure, but it's a thought that resonates on our side on many important contemporary issues. Trudeau may have been a flippin' pinko (not a violation of the C of C I hope) but he was also a libertarian (and, yes, also a libertine; I'm not sure he ever learned to distinguish the two).
Aug '10
Re: Since When Did Canada Get to Be the One to Beat?
Peter E. Waterhole was a church-hating libertine, not a freedom-loving libertarian.
Edited on Jan 11 at 6:38am