• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canadians Now Richer Than Americans

Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

This is indeed Obama's fault.

Thanks to Barack Obama and four years of his failed economic policies, government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

This is "income re-distribution" on the part of Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress at its very worse. Why should anyone work today when you can make as much money by not working as you do by working?

At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

You know just posting the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

We should look to canada for some best practices to emulate their success imho.

Such as a parliamentary system, uhc, and other things.

More than 2 parties would be a good start.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

You know just posting the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Which part do you disagree with?

Do you disagree with this statement?

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

How about this statement.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

These are well-established facts, by the way!
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

More than 2 parties would be a good start.

And a people not so easily enthralled by the Jersey Shore instead of reading Locke or Kant...or the ****ing newspaper.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

And a people not so easily enthralled by the Jersey Shore instead of reading Locke or Kant...or the ****ing newspaper.

You miss the NW, don't you? ;)
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

You miss the NW, don't you? ;)

Snookari doesn't just watch Jersey Shore, he lives it.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

Which part do you disagree with?

Do you disagree with this statement?

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

How about this statement.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

These are well-established facts, by the way!

I'd like to see a non- biased link for those numbers, and the very last bit is nothing but conjecture you agree with.

But assuming that the numbers are true that would have nothing to do with the depression we've been in which wasn't Obama's fault would it? Because the banks fell all because Sen. Obama was a doo doo head right?
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

More than 2 parties would be a good start.

I would agree but so far there hasn't been a third party in this country that has garnered significant numbers of people for its platform. I like the Green party but last I heard Roseanne Barr might be their candidate so I don't think they are going very far. Most of the other parties have similar issues that just don't appeal to a lot of Americans.

It seems a legitimate question would be, is our problem our representatives, or those that vote for our representatives? Perhaps "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

I'd like to see a non- biased link for those numbers, and the very last bit is nothing but conjecture you agree with.

But assuming that the numbers are true that would have nothing to do with the depression we've been in which wasn't Obama's fault would it? Because the banks fell all because Sen. Obama was a doo doo head right?

No, you are mistaken.

Here is why the banks failed.


Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis in 2003 and 2005 and did NOTHING

 
Last edited:
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

I would agree but so far there hasn't been a third party in this country that has garnered significant numbers of people for its platform. I like the Green party but last I heard Roseanne Barr might be their candidate so I don't think they are going very far. Most of the other parties have similar issues that just don't appeal to a lot of Americans.

It seems a legitimate question would be, is our problem our representatives, or those that vote for our representatives? Perhaps "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

3? I'm thinking more along the lines of 4 or 5.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

No, you are mistaken.

Here is why the banks failed.


Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis in 2003 and 2005 and did NOTHING



And the Republicans are blameless innocent children!!

Your arguments are ridiculous.
 
They also have a pretty stable housing market and you don't break the bank when you buy real estate. We have a big disconnect here when the average US salary is $45K and the average house is around $175K. If someone went into a bank making that and tried to buy the average house without a huge downpayment the bank would escort them to the door. It isn't even possible to buy a starter home anymore and acquire equity because they aren't selling either.

The average salary in Canada is $46K. The average house in Canada ranges from 150K in Fredericton, NB to $700K in Vancouver. I've been to NB. Fredericton is in butt**** nowhere and there are few things out there outside of drinking and going to university.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

You miss the NW, don't you? ;)

In all reality, I do. The West Coast is the best coast.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

No, you are mistaken.

Here is why the banks failed.


Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis in 2003 and 2005 and did NOTHING



the video isnt off but its missing many holes.

first off republicans tried to regulate fannie and freddie(mandated to issue subprime loans under the 95 revision of the cra)in 01,before bush even called for it.the problem stems backs to clinton,under 95 the democrats had pushed for and made happen the revision of the comunity reinvestment act,which made it law for fannie and freddie to issue and buy subprime loans since they were a gse.in 99 sen gramm tried to repeal the glass steagall regs,the repeal was set for filibuster by the democrats,however the democrats caved in under the condition that the repeal would also include loosening regs even further on the housing market and subprime loans to guarantee their support.

in 2000 sen gramm also slips some more deregulation for the financial sector into bill clintons last signed budget,or the first budget used under bush.the problem was expanded by bush trying to expand coverage of the cra even further,even though accounting problems that caused the housing market to crash were evident in 97.bush tried to expand it and also increase regulation.

the problem arose when republicans tried to regulate it,even before bush called for it.each time the bill never made it to a vote because there wasnt a single democrat to support it,meaning it would be filibustered and blocked from vote(kinda the same thing dsemocrats accuse repubs of doing now)so it never made it.the bill failed in 01 and 03,and was re introduced in 05,where it stood stale due to the fact it wouldnt pass a democrat filibuster.john mcain didnt co sponsor the bill until 06,after he had already planned to run for president.

the bill was re introduced in 07,but didnt pass until 08,when it was far too late to stop the bleeding.afterwards in 08 the democrats still defended the cra,most specifically harry reid and barny frank and nacy peloci,who all claimed forcing the big two to buy subprime loans didnt cause them to fail,only a republican mismanagement of the program,yet it was showing signs of failure in 97,a whole decade before.


now the housing problem combined with the repeal of glass steagall,led to a horrible collapse.and yes barrack obama was the lead lawyer pushing for and enforcing the cra's expansion to destructive levels.but then again when bush said it should have strict regulations,he should have stopped pushing it.

when clinton heard of the accounting fraud and the problems in 07,he should have regulated or reversed the 95 expansion,rather than looking the other way at impending recession.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

3? I'm thinking more along the lines of 4 or 5.

Sure, or 9 or 10, there still has to be more than a few people that buy into their platform.
 
The average salary in Canada is $46K. The average house in Canada ranges from 150K in Fredericton, NB to $700K in Vancouver. I've been to NB. Fredericton is in butt**** nowhere and there are few things out there outside of drinking and going to university.

It may be that we share the same feelings about Mexico, the culture there, the people, the climate. New Brunswick, Canada I haven't been to. I like much of Canada, but in a lot of Canada there ain't nobody there. Can you get good Mexican food in Fredericton?
 
Last edited:
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

Liberals forget how much of a fiscal conservative GWB was.

gwb was keynesian not fiscal conservative,look up military keynesian politics and compare it to gwb and obamas politics.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

Liberals forget how much of a fiscal conservative GWB was.

We must have been confused by his doubling of military spending to equal almost as much as the rest of the world combined and his never vetoing a spending bill, two simultaneous optional wars while giving the rich even bigger tax cuts.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

We must have been confused by his doubling of military spending to equal almost as much as the rest of the world combined and his never vetoing a spending bill, two simultaneous optional wars while giving the rich even bigger tax cuts.

giving the rich tax cuts isnt opposed by fiscal conservatism or keynesian economics,even though keynesians frown upon it its not against any policies.


plus lets not forget the bush tax cut was 85% towards middle class and poor

ABUSHTAXCUTS_g1_full_600.jpg

even cbo's horrible failure to account for variables shows bush tax cuts went mostly towards middle class and poor,not rich.
 
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

giving the rich tax cuts isnt opposed by fiscal conservatism or keynesian economics,even though keynesians frown upon it its not against any policies.

"The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[15] In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[16]
Proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down," arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are directed across the entire economy, not toward one specific group."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


plus lets not forget the bush tax cut was 85% towards middle class and poor

To believe that tax rates were not cut more for the rich, you would have to ignore:

"the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Re: For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans. Thanks, Obama!

"The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[15] In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[16]
Proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down," arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are directed across the entire economy, not toward one specific group."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



by your own claim saying any tax cut forthe rich means trickle down economics not keynesian economics,which leads me to believe you dont know the difference between the two or whats interchangeable between the two.

To believe that tax rates were not cut more for the rich, you would have to ignore:

"the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea."
Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


wow no dispute of my claim at all.

read keynes theary,not butchered versions by wannabe economists theories.keynes called taxe cuts for the rich politically motivated.but in no way made keynesian economics invalid.

and the part where it says keynesians believe targeting those with less income favors more for tax cuts,explain 85% of the bush tax cuts going to poor and middle class,you cant.

your democrat masters have already told you the snarl words to use and you have failed to verify if they are even true,you just blindly believe their words and skewed statistics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom