Significant reduction in immigrants to Canada if Trump win?

[screech339]

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was created by Congress, not President Obama. Outside of asking Congress to come up with a bill for him to sign and his signing it, he had nothing to do with the creation of the Affordable Care Act. Congress did that all by themselves. The Affordable Care Act was written by the lead lobbyist of the medical insurance lobby and was taken entirely from the Republican blue print of what health insurance should look like (authored by the Heritage Foundation). In short, "Obamacare" was a Republican plan, written by the medical insurance lobby and passed by Congress.

Saying that a majority of Americans didn't like Obamacare is rather misleading. In poll after poll, half of those who don't like the Affordable Care Act, don't like it because there was no public option -- they didn't disapprove of the rest of the act, they just felt it didn't go far enough.

The Keystone pipeline was opposed because it would cross one of America's largest aquifers. This aquifer provides drinking water to nearly half the continental U.S. and a large part of the country's breadbasket. The oil companies still show up with 1970s technology to clean oil spills, e.g., paper towels. The Keystone pipeline would not have provided cheaper oil for the U.S., nor created more than 100 permanent full time jobs. The oil would have moved from Canada to a port on the Gulf of Mexico to be shipped elsewhere. The Keystone pipeline is dangerous to America's water supply, dangerous to the health of Americans, dangerous to American farms, and just plain bad policy.

President Obama is not a socialist -- far from it. On most issues (not including the "divide and conquer" issues like same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, etc.), he is quite right of centre, even of the American centre.

This is hardly the forum for you to tell us what you prefer in an American president. If eligible to do so, you may make your preferences clear by voting in American elections; if ineligible to do so, then no one cares what you prefer in an American president, and rightly so!

Obama did push for obamacare, no matter how you slice your argument.

As for keystone, he could have easily give an answer. Yes or no. But noooo, refused to give an answer. Talk about being a coward. Say yes, environmentalists hate him, labourers love him. Say No, the reverse will happen. He doesn't want to face the music of his decision. Signs of a coward.

He could have said No to keystone and explain that the pipeline was near the aquifer and tell transcanada to re-route the pipeline and apply again. These would piss off both sides of supporters. Environmentalists pissed that the pipeline will eventually come through. And labourers pissed that the jobs will be delayed.

Environmentalists still can't get around the fact that it is more carbon intensive and dangerous to environment to move oil by rail than by pipeline. Guess they rather turn a blind eye to the deaths of Lac-megantic rail disaster and the continuous new pipelines being built within US.

I rather obama give a definitive answer than no answer at all.

 

[Natan]

Obama did push for obamacare, no matter how you slice your argument.

President Obama pushed Congress to send him a healthcare reform bill he could sign. He did not write the Affordable Care Act. He had no input in its content. He merely signed it.

Environmentalists still can't get around the fact that it is more carbon intensive and dangerous to environment to move oil by rail than by pipeline. Guess they rather turn a blind eye to the deaths of Lac-megantic rail disaster and the continuous new pipelines being built within US.

Suggesting that risking the destruction of one of the largest aquifers in North America, making the drinking and farming water of the American heartland unsafe for use, as if it's the only alternative to the carbon emissions and dangers of transporting oil by rail, borders on sociopathic.

Failing to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline does not add additional rail cars of oil in the U.S.A. That oil was never destined for the U.S. market and would now have to be transported to a port in Canada to reach its overseas markets.

America is already criss-crossed with thousands of oil pipelines. The increase of a Keystone XL Pipeline would not have been statistically significant when compared to America's overall pipeline infrastructure. It would, however, have put a major aquifir at risk, which is why the Republican governors of all the states through which it would have run also opposed the pipeline -- it was these Republican Governors who created the most significant political opposition to this project, not the environmental lobby.

Pulled out of Iraq too soon and ISIS filled the vacuum.

ISIS was created by the former Iraqi army members under President Saddam Hussein, when U.S. armed forces (under President Bush) failed to disarm them. They were left idle and unemployed, all their former prestige gone. This is what helped create ISIS. The power vacuum was created when President Saddam Hussein was removed from power and President Bush's "nation building" failed to build a central government powerful enough to fill the vacuum.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was immoral and only given a very thin, and dubious, veneer of legal sanction by the United Nations. President Obama did not create the power vacuum, he did not create ISIS and he did not set up the parameters that gave rise to it. These were all done by the previous president, by a botched invasion, and an incompetent occupation.

...Talk about being a coward...Signs of a coward...

...Spineless president is what he is...spineless pacifist president...

You are speaking of The President of The United States of America -- show some respect!

 

[keesio]

You are speaking of The President of The United States of America -- show some respect!

lol - you going to give the same respect for President Trump?

 

[Natan]

lol - you going to give the same respect for President Trump?

Absolutely!

Objecting to the policies and pronouncements of the President of the United States is perfectly acceptable. Afterall, the President's words and deeds impact Canada, and most of the planet -- that gives us all a right to have our say.

From an American perspective, this forum is in a foreign country, directed to a foreign audience. It is unseemly for Canadians to make such outrageous ad hominem attacks on the American president. It's bad form. It's out of order! And Americans, regardless of whom they support, are likely to be offended by it.

 

[keesio]

Absolutely!

Then I applaud you. I do also think the office of POTUS deserves respect. I hated it when some would insult Obama and give him no respect, despite him being their president. The irony is the many of the same people who criticized those people for not giving Obama the proper respect due to his position are the ones who are insulting Trump. It goes both ways but people tend to ignore this. That is the problem.

 

[Natan]

Then I applaud you.

Natan takes a bow before the august members of the Canada Immigration Forum. LOL

I do also think the office of POTUS deserves respect. I hated it when some would insult Obama and give him no respect, despite him being their president. The irony is the many of the same people who criticized those people for not giving Obama the proper respect due to his position are the ones who are insulting Trump. It goes both ways but people tend to ignore this. That is the problem.

Although I tend to agree with you, especially regarding Democrats going on about how President-elect Trump is not their president, I have no real objection to Americans making ad hominem attacks against their President to other Americans -- it's a long standing part of their political tradition. It's an entirely different matter for Canadians, in Canada, speaking to other Canadians in a public forum, to make gratuitous, ad hominem attacks against the U.S. President -- that displays a tremendous amount of disrespect to the Americans who participate in this forum.

It's especially disheartening to hear Canadians repeat the same racially motivated attacks against President Obama that were made by Americans. (The fact that the attacks are very intentionally not specifically racial in character in no way diminishes the racial motivations behind them.)

 

[keesio]

I have no real objection to Americans making ad hominem attacks against their President to other Americans -- it's a long standing part of their political tradition.

Yes, agreed. However I do not like it when Americans disrespect the office of the Presidency when politics should be put aside for some occasions. For example, I lost respect for Tim Thomas when he refused to visit the White House in 2009 to celebrate the Bruins championship. Just like I did not like it when some of the Cavaliers were saying that they would be the last NBA champions to visit the White House for at least the next 4 years. Irony is that (some) conservatives saw Thomas as a patriot while (some) liberals were furious at the disrespect while you can bet that the sentiments will be flipped during a Trump presidency.

It's an entirely different matter for Canadians, in Canada, speaking to other Canadians in a public forum, to make gratuitous, ad hominem attacks against the U.S. President -- that displays a tremendous amount of disrespect to the Americans who participate in this forum.

Living in downtown Toronto for the past 16 years, I'm used to the US bashing up here. Someone told me that insulting Americans is a traditional Canadian pastime

Anyway, I'm actually ok if others complain about the US. Heck, Americans do that to other nations all the time. I actually get more irritated at Americans disrespecting their own county for spite

 

[screech339]

There are a few Canadian bashing going on in US as well. So it's a two way street.

 

[keesio]

There are a few Canadian bashing going on in US as well. So it's a two way street.

Much less though. Less face it, Americans spend much much less time thinking about Canada than Canadians think about the USA. And many that do think of Canada have a bit of a romantic view of it (usually young progressives)

 

[dpenabill]

Love it or leave it.

Got the message. Gone. Been gone for a decade and a half, an expat since the year Bush '43 took office after losing the election (the so-called "popular vote," which as far as I could tell was how the people actually voted, for what that is worth in a democracy).

After a few years of being an expat without status anywhere, a free agent without prospects one might say, I was and I remain happy Canada finally took me in, even if there was a woman to blame (to thank).

Sure, for a long while I was naïve and idealistic. Love it or change it I thought. Ha.

Good luck with that.

Now, just hoping the neighbours keep the noise down and don't make too much a mess.

Good luck with that too, I fear.

What I really fear is that it could be far worse than our worst fears. It is not going to be good, no doubt about that. How bad is the question. Humans have a remarkable capacity to adapt and normalize, and ultimately will build memorials and museums to the victims buried along the way and embrace whatever happened as history. So it may take awhile to account for how badly this turns out.

Still, hoping for just a little bad, even though without much hope of that.

 

[Natan]

Much less though. Less face it, Americans spend much much less time thinking about Canada than Canadians think about the USA. And many that do think of Canada have a bit of a romantic view of it (usually young progressives)

I am sometimes taken aback when Americans think Vancouver and Montreal are in the U.S. The worst is when Americans I speak to think British Columbia is in South America and then start going on about "illegal immigration from your country". I, of course, respond with, "you mean like Justin Bieber and Dudley Do-Right?" They suddenly realize, "Oh, that British Columbia." They recognize Canada as that land of nice, polite, white people somewhere north of the U.S. -- their most tangible connection being the odd Canadian coin they come across every once and again. (You'd be surprised how often Canadian coins come up in conversation and how often I'm given Canadian nickels and dimes from Americans who found it in some change and saved it to give me the next time we met.)

Border states tend to think of Canada, because we're part of their economy. But once you get a few states south of the border, Canada is about as far away from the American consciousness as Norway or Austria. They've heard of it; they kinda know where it is; and they really, really like us.

Now, just hoping the neighbours keep the noise down and don't make too much a mess.

Isn't that a bit like telling the river not to run?

Campaign rhetoric isn't implementable policy, especially when the rhetoric was devoid of specifics. What policies will be pursued? Will the pursued policies be bound by enough ideological consistency to gain traction in Congress, or will the president-elect by stymied by the same intransigent obstructionism faced by the current president? Will Congress get the upper hand on the presidency, forcing through the kind of draconian legislation feared by Democrats? Will the Democrats continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and utterly fail, again and again, at being a counterweight to the Republicans?

If politics is the art of the possible, it seems to me that the possibilities open to the president-elect are quite constrained.

 

[keesio]

I am sometimes taken aback when Americans think Vancouver and Montreal are in the U.S. The worst is when Americans I speak to think British Columbia is in South America and then start going on about "illegal immigration from your country". I, of course, respond with, "you mean like Justin Bieber and Dudley Do-Right?" They suddenly realize, "Oh, that British Columbia." They recognize Canada as that land of nice, polite, white people somewhere north of the U.S. -- their most tangible connection being the odd Canadian coin they come across every once and again. (You'd be surprised how often Canadian coins come up in conversation and how often I'm given Canadian nickels and dimes from Americans who found it in some change and saved it to give me the next time we met.)

Border states tend to think of Canada, because we're part of their economy. But once you get a few states south of the border, Canada is about as far away from the American consciousness as Norway or Austria. They've heard of it; they kinda know where it is; and they really, really like us.

Besides border areas, any hockey fan is aware of Canada for obvious reasons. When I was growing up, I knew some kids who were big NY Rangers fans. One kid used to show off how into hockey he was by knowing all the lyrics for "O Canada". I still remember that lol.

 

[screech339]

Yes, you think Reagan was great, because you're a Conservative/Republican. I don't think he was great, I don't think Bush was great (he started the whole Middle East disaster), and Trump is just plain unfit.

So Reagan during his term managed to reduce / slash inflation, unemployment, interest rates and increase stock value and growth. On top of all that, managed to help end communism, 5 months after his 8 year term.

I sure like to know what other US president who could pull off this feat as Reagan has. This is why Reagan was considered one of the best US presidents across US regardless of party loyalties

Now Trump won't have the same circumstances as Reagan did. Inflation and interest rates are already low. Stock value are already high. Trump has limited means to trigger growth. It would be interesting to see how Trump can spur economic growth.

 

[Natan]

So Reagan during his term managed to reduce / slash inflation, unemployment, interest rates and increase stock value and growth. On top of all that, managed to help end communism, 5 months after his 8 year term.

I sure like to know what other US president who could pull off this feat as Reagan has. This is why Reagan was considered one of the best US presidents across US regardless of party loyalties

Now Trump won't have the same circumstances as Reagan did. Inflation and interest rates are already low. Stock value are already high. Trump has limited means to trigger growth. It would be interesting to see how Trump can spur economic growth.

Central banks have a trade off to make: they can (i) keep inflation low, which allows for higher unemployment; or (ii) they can keep unemployment low, which allows for higher inflation. In other words, they can choose to keep inflation low or unemployment low, but not both.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has kept inflation low and allowed unemployment to be higher since the Reagan Administration, which has resulted in lower and stagnated wages. Without the pressure of moderate inflation to drive worker demand for higher wages, wages do not keep pace with consumer price rises. Also, when more workers chase after fewer jobs, "an employer's market", they have less leverage to demand better wages and working conditions. Low U.S. inflation is among the primary reasons why wages have stagnated. Wages that fail to keep up with even low inflation, compound over time to create significant deficits in purchasing power.

70% of the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending. That means that consumers are the "job creators". By lowering and stagnating the wages of the poor and working class, their capacity to spend as consumers is reduced. This reduction in spending ripples through the economy, compounding year by year, costing jobs.

Let's not forget that Reagan is also the President under whom the Federal debt went from just over $1 trillion to just under $13 trillion. President Reagan spent his way to economic prosperity -- the very same thing that the Republicans have largely prevented President Obama from doing.

While President Reagan made some small contributions to the downfall of the Soviet Union, no reputable historian gives him "credit" for ending "communism" -- that's revisionism. He did no such thing. What he did do, however, is nearly bankrupt the United States with his military spending frenzy. The money that went to the military was paid for by closed mental institutions, closed hospitals, larger classrooms, closed anti-poverty programs, closed youth jobs programs, closed government markets in food deserts, and a host of other programs that had been a staple of American life for decades.

Reagan is not "considered one of the best US presidents across US regardless of party loyalties" -- few things could be further from the truth. Democrats and progressives (they're not the same thing) who lived through that period as adults, rarely consider Reagan's policies as having been good for the country. On the contrary, most progressives see the Reagan Presidency as rolling back the advances of the 1960s and 70s and trying to return the country to the "gilded age" when the wealthy few and large corporations controlled America's wealth and government. It's when the nominal tax rate on the 1% dropped from over 90% to under 40%. It's when the tax code was changed to punish corporate savings, investment in worker wages, and research and development; and instead reward the paying of dividends to shareholders, and astronomical super-manager salaries. It's when spending on hospitals, schools, freeways, bridges, and all the infrastructure slowed and halted. It's when Wall Street investment regulations were eased and corporate takeovers by corporate raiders (pirates) ran rampant, stealing the pensions of millions of workers, and creating a world where corporations are more concerned with this quarter's profits, than with the long term health of their companies, their customers and the economy.

As president, Reagan was a great entertainer. He used his rôle to make Americans feel good about themselves, to feel that they're "exceptional" -- hardly the sort of praise worthy of a President of the United States of America.

 

[screech339]

Central banks have a trade off to make: they can (i) keep inflation low, which allows for higher unemployment; or (ii) they can keep unemployment low, which allows for higher inflation. In other words, they can choose to keep inflation low or unemployment low, but not both.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has kept inflation low and allowed unemployment to be higher since the Reagan Administration, which has resulted in lower and stagnated wages. Without the pressure of moderate inflation to drive worker demand for higher wages, wages do not keep pace with consumer price rises. Also, when more workers chase after fewer jobs, "an employer's market", they have less leverage to demand better wages and working conditions. Low U.S. inflation is among the primary reasons why wages have stagnated. Wages that fail to keep up with even low inflation, compound over time to create significant deficits in purchasing power.

70% of the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending. That means that consumers are the "job creators". By lowering and stagnating the wages of the poor and working class, their capacity to spend as consumers is reduced. This reduction in spending ripples through the economy, compounding year by year, costing jobs.

Let's not forget that Reagan is also the President under whom the Federal debt went from just over $1 trillion to just under $13 trillion. President Reagan spent his way to economic prosperity -- the very same thing that the Republicans have largely prevented President Obama from doing.

While President Reagan made some small contributions to the downfall of the Soviet Union, no reputable historian gives him "credit" for ending "communism" -- that's revisionism. He did no such thing. What he did do, however, is nearly bankrupt the United States with his military spending frenzy. The money that went to the military was paid for by closed mental institutions, closed hospitals, larger classrooms, closed anti-poverty programs, closed youth jobs programs, closed government markets in food deserts, and a host of other programs that had been a staple of American life for decades.

Reagan is not "considered one of the best US presidents across US regardless of party loyalties" -- few things could be further from the truth. Democrats and progressives (they're not the same thing) who lived through that period as adults, rarely consider Reagan's policies as having been good for the country. On the contrary, most progressives see the Reagan Presidency as rolling back the advances of the 1960s and 70s and trying to return the country to the "gilded age" when the wealthy few and large corporations controlled America's wealth and government. It's when the nominal tax rate on the 1% dropped from over 90% to under 40%. It's when the tax code was changed to punish corporate savings, investment in worker wages, and research and development; and instead reward the paying of dividends to shareholders, and astronomical super-manager salaries. It's when spending on hospitals, schools, freeways, bridges, and all the infrastructure slowed and halted. It's when Wall Street investment regulations were eased and corporate takeovers by corporate raiders (pirates) ran rampant, stealing the pensions of millions of workers, and creating a world where corporations are more concerned with this quarter's profits, than with the long term health of their companies, their customers and the economy.

As president, Reagan was a great entertainer. He used his rôle to make Americans feel good about themselves, to feel that they're "exceptional" -- hardly the sort of praise worthy of a President of the United States of America.

So according to you, it was all just a coincidence that all that stuff happened while Reagan was US president.

With Reagan winning 2nd term presidency with 49 / 50 states and the post presidential approval rating of 68% matching Roosevelt and Bill Clinton seems to suggests otherwise. Your thought of Reagan not being one of the best US president seems to fall in a minority.

BTW. I have more respect to Dem US President Bill Clinton than I have towards President Obama. Clinton, at least, walked the talk. He wasn't afraid of doing what he thought was the right thing to do, right or wrong. At least he made decisions. Obama, on the other hand, couldn't walk the talk. Always afraid of offending everyone, especially his own supporters.