Lionbackers.com

The Democrats have traditionally been a protectionist party. Should be interesting what they are going to do with free trade.

In general, when someone is elected, there is less change than anticipated. It is hard to just shift gears. People are saying he will eliminate tax deductions for sporting events, etc. It is not easily done. Lots of small changes are possible, dramatic sweeping changes are difficult to pull off.

Remember, Chretien was going to Axe the Tax (GST) and redo the original free trade agreement. Once you get behind the steering wheel, you have to follow the road already laid out.

Obama spoke against NAFTA some months ago, demonstrating a Democratic position, but, according to one source, he knows that the US wants access to Canadian oil and water, so his position will be moderate: no great change from the status quo.

That's just one issue out of the many that will be affected by his election, with consequences for Canada.

IMO he is somewhat centrist himself, not radical, and certainly not a far left liberal.

As a Canadian, I have tended to vote the candidate, rather than the party, having voted Conservative at times, and Liberal other times. I tend to be conservative on financial issues, and liberal on social issues.

Jason Jiménez wrote:

prairielion wrote:Really too bad to see how things have played out. I hope that the Americans are happy with who they have elected. Really makes Mr. Harper look very good now.

Yes, I'm quite happy with our selection in POTUS, thank you very much. Obama makes Harper look good now? Explain please.

That's what I was wondering. The only way Harper will look good is when he and his band of pretenders are standing in the unemployment line.

TheLionKing wrote:The Democrats have traditionally been a protectionist party. Should be interesting what they are going to do with free trade.

Hopefully they rip those piece of sh!te "free" trade agreements to pieces. Both NAFTA and the 1988 USFTA are very very bad for Canada IMO.

Lions4ever wrote:Hopefully they rip those piece of sh!te "free" trade agreements to pieces. Both NAFTA and the 1988 USFTA are very very bad for Canada IMO.

Looking at the statistics, that is a losing argument. If you consider a rising standard of living as very very bad for Canada then I guess you are right.

My major at university was economics. My understanding, at its most basic, is that free trade between the US and Canada, comes down to jobs vs prices. The bigger US markets are obviously great for Canadian businesses that get access to them. And Canadians like to be able to buy American products at cheaper prices. But free trade tends to encourage Canadian companies to re-locate to the US, which has cheaper labour (we lose jobs).

In my experience, NAFTA has not changed much for us. IMO we never got anywhere near to real free trade. There are still lots of tariffs and restrictions. Neither the American nor the Canadian government much likes NAFTA as it stands. It's also been my reading on the situation that negotiation is not really meaningful. If the US doesn't like the results of its negotiations (as in the softwood conflict), they will ignore the agreements and even defy international law. It's hard to win an argument with the Big Dog (and until China and India overtake the US economy, the US is still the Big Dog economically).

IMO, with complete free trade (which is not on the horizon) the big beneficiary would be Mexico, next would be the US, and last would be Canada. Despite that, philosophically, I like the idea of free trade.

So, it is life and business as usual ... We still have borders, and all that goes with them.

WestCoastJoe wrote:Obama spoke against NAFTA some months ago, demonstrating a Democratic position, but, according to one source, he knows that the US wants access to Canadian oil and water, so his position will be moderate: no great change from the status quo.

That's just one issue out of the many that will be affected by his election, with consequences for Canada.

IMO he is somewhat centrist himself, not radical, and certainly not a far left liberal.

As a Canadian, I have tended to vote the candidate, rather than the party, having voted Conservative at times, and Liberal other times. I tend to be conservative on financial issues, and liberal on social issues.

I agree that moderate views most often win once the reality of power sinks in. Bush for example, a poor leader, didn't actually do so most of the far-right things people feared he would do; banning abortions, burning books etc.

So I think Obama will be forced to be more moderate as President than in his prior career, but he is a liberal Democrat. Only three or four Democrat senators out of 50 are more left leaning than Obama, and his early work in Illinois was even more liberal. That's fine, people change, especially when moving all the way up to President. The 40 plus more centrist democrats don't think Ted Kennedy is a moderate, and they don't think Obama is either. Clinton was a moderate Democrat, Obama isn't.

Not trying to re-fight the battle just lost or anything! I do wish Obama the best, as that's good for the country I live in, and in a time like this he deserves support and every chance at success.

Lions4ever wrote:

TheLionKing wrote:The Democrats have traditionally been a protectionist party. Should be interesting what they are going to do with free trade.

Hopefully they rip those piece of sh!te "free" trade agreements to pieces. Both NAFTA and the 1988 USFTA are very very bad for Canada IMO.

Like it or not, it's a world market. We depend on selling our goods outside of our borders, the people that buy those goods, also expect to sell their goods to us. If we become protectionist, our customers will too.

For argument sake, let's just say free trade is a bad thing. But how would we benefit from opting out of it and going alone without customers or other nations to buy from?

Most people that don't like free trade, actually just want to protect our jobs while having unlimited access to foreign customers. Can't have it both ways.

[quote="WestCoastJoe
In my experience, NAFTA has not changed much for us. IMO we never got anywhere near to real free trade. There are still lots of tariffs and restrictions. Neither the American nor the Canadian government much likes NAFTA as it stands. It's also been my reading on the situation that negotiation is not really meaningful. If the US doesn't like the results of its negotiations (as in the softwood conflict), they will ignore the agreements and even defy international law.[/quote]

Bingo ! The Americans are in favour of free trade if it benefits them. It's often not a two way street.

bclions16 wrote:

Tighthead wrote:McCain would have been a good choice in 2000. I tend to be right of centre, but I'm pleased to see Obama elected, particularly in view of McCain's age/health and choice of VP.

I'm a right of centre guy too, and yes I wish McCain was elected 8 years ago. I think even Democrats can agree he would have been a much better choice than W. Bush.

Sorry, just got back from the party. We turned Ohio blue!

McCain would have been a better choice than W. Then again, I have deck chairs that would have been a better choice than W.

It's hard to win an argument with the Big Dog (and until China and India overtake the US economy, the US is still the Big Dog economically).

I'd encourage you to take a look at who's been buying up our treasury bills and financing our debt over the years. Then tell us how big of a dog we really still are. American influence economically and politically has been on the wain over the past few years outside of North America and the Middle East (note that I'm not necessarily using influence in the positive context).

Here's how Obama is good for Canada:

Obama is anti Iraq war. If he follows through on his promise to get out of that unjustified war in Iraq and instead put more US troops back into Afghanistan then hopefully we will see fewer Canadian soldiers coming home in pine boxes. Bush totally hoodwinked Canada by convincing our government to "assist" in Afghanistan only to bail out on NATO and leave Canadians to deal with the mess they created.

bclions16 wrote:

Lions4ever wrote:

TheLionKing wrote:The Democrats have traditionally been a protectionist party. Should be interesting what they are going to do with free trade.

Hopefully they rip those piece of sh!te "free" trade agreements to pieces. Both NAFTA and the 1988 USFTA are very very bad for Canada IMO.

Like it or not, it's a world market. We depend on selling our goods outside of our borders, the people that buy those goods, also expect to sell their goods to us. If we become protectionist, our customers will too.

For argument sake, let's just say free trade is a bad thing. But how would we benefit from opting out of it and going alone without customers or other nations to buy from?

Most people that don't like free trade, actually just want to protect our jobs while having unlimited access to foreign customers. Can't have it both ways.

Here's the sort of thing I don't like about NAFTA....

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscr ... 1159c.html

MacNews wrote:

Lions4ever wrote:Hopefully they rip those piece of sh!te "free" trade agreements to pieces. Both NAFTA and the 1988 USFTA are very very bad for Canada IMO.

Looking at the statistics, that is a losing argument. If you consider a rising standard of living as very very bad for Canada then I guess you are right.

Sovereignty is more important to me than my standard of living, but I don't think it would fall much anyway. My issue is with insidious clauses like the slimy (IMO) investor state clause.

Anybody intending to buy Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue: An American Life? The war between Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston is heating up as she hits the airwaves to promoting her new book.