Where would you rather live - in Canada or United States? (houses, live in)

[VirtualAmerican]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Funny how some right-wingers always like to preach about "the truth", "the truth" and the "truth"... Vaguely reminds me of something.

Anyway, not all of them are like that. VirtualAmerican doesn't appear to be...

I do try to defend what I believe is right as soundly and logically as I can. But I'm certainly not about to prevent others from doing the same, as long as they can back their views and opinions with constructive arguments. I'm certainly not going to insult anyone or tell them that their ideas are stupid, but I'm sure as hell not going to shy away from telling them that I disagree with them, and explaining why.

"De la discussion jaillit la lumière" is a French proverb that does apply very well here. It means that intelligent debate and discussion most often results in the best ideas rising up to the surface. I wish I knew its exact equivalent in English.

[maclock]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Funny how some right-wingers always like to preach about "the truth", "the truth" and the "truth"... Vaguely reminds me of something.

Anyway, not all of them are like that. VirtualAmerican doesn't appear to be...

Well, why don't you share your version of the truth? For instance, how will you spin the syphoning of billions of dollars by Quebec from the Newfoundland treasury, a treasury responsible for running what was for almost 60 years Canada's poorest province by a long shot? How will you explain away Ottawa's connivence in facilitating this dreadful arrangement?

Similarly, I'd like to hear you tell us how Quebec could pay its own way and keep its fat welfare state with its Cadillac benefits if it didn't receive the tens of billions of dollars that Ottawa sends to Quebec every year from the provinces that actually generate wealth as opposed to one that takes more than it contributes? Would you plant a vast forest of magic money trees? Your Chevrolet fiscal capacity cannot keep pace with your Cadillac tastes.

[VirtualAmerican]

Originally Posted by maclock

Similarly, I'd like to hear you tell us how Quebec could pay its own way and keep its fat welfare state with its Cadillac benefits if it didn't receive the tens of billions of dollars that Ottawa sends to Quebec every year from the provinces that actually generate wealth as opposed to one that takes more than it contributes? Would you plant a vast forest of magic money trees? Your Chevrolet fiscal capacity cannot keep pace with your Cadillac tastes.

Sadly, I find that all of the above is true, except for the "magic money tree" part of course. Québec does live WAY above, over, and beyond its means.

[maclock]

Originally Posted by VirtualAmerican

Sadly, I find that all of the above is true, except for the "magic money tree" part of course. Québec does live WAY above, over, and beyond its means.

Don't get me wrong, I like Quebec. Its political environment is seriously messed-up, however, and it has been that way for at least 50 years. Regrettably, it doesn't look like the political environment there is set to improve anytime soon as far as I can see.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by maclock

Well, why don't you share your version of the truth? For instance, how will you spin the syphoning of billions of dollars by Quebec from the Newfoundland treasury, a treasury responsible for running what was for almost 60 years Canada's poorest province by a long shot? How will you explain away Ottawa's connivence in facilitating this dreadful arrangement?

.

It is a business agreement between two provinces and has nothing to do with Ottawa. Yes, the Newfoundlanders signed a bad deal and grossly miscalculated the future value of hydroelectricity. That said, Churchill Falls would never have been built at all if Quebec had not financially underwritten the risks associated with the entire scheme.

As for my version of the "truth", well I prefer to give opinions rather than truths. I don't profess to speak the truth about anything beyond platitudes like "the sky is blue". Though I do have lots of opinions.

Finally, English may be my second language, but one thing I do know for sure is that "truth" and "opinion" are definitely not synonyms.

[mikeyyc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is a business agreement between two provinces and has nothing to do with Ottawa. Yes, the Newfoundlanders signed a bad deal and grossly miscalculated the future value of hydroelectricity. That said, Churchill Falls would never have been built at all if Quebec had not financially underwritten the risks associated with the entire scheme.

As they say; You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

It's not the fault of Quebec that there was no clause to re-visit the agreement in the future, or that they gave away the farm to get the deal done. I'd say the islanders may have learned a thing or two based on the recent negotiations for their offshore leases.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mikeyyc

As they say; You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

It's not the fault of Quebec that there was no clause to re-visit the agreement in the future, or that they gave away the farm to get the deal done. I'd say the islanders may have learned a thing or two based on the recent negotiations for their offshore leases.

I mean, Quebec's attitude on the issue is of the "tough noogies / it sucks to be you" variety, but does anyone really think that if the shoe was on the other foot, Newfoundlanders (or any other province) would magnanimously open up a lucrative air-tight deal like this in order to be more generous to Quebec?

Note also that the Churchill Falls deal does not cost anything TO Newfoundland. They still do make money off of it. Just not as much as Quebec, nor as much as Newfoundland COULD make off of it.

Let's say you sign a five-year fixed-price agreement with an oil company today to buy for 95 dollars a barrel, and the price all of a sudden goes up to 200 dollars a barrel, and will likely stay there for the foreseeable future. Would you allow the oil company to open up your deal and raise the price you will pay, out of the goodness of your heart?

Or let's say the price plummets to 25 dollars a barrel, do you think the oil company would allow you to renogotiate the deal so that you can pay less? Out of the goodness of their heart?

[docwatson]

Those Canadians seeking to go to the U.S. for political reasons - I am curious where you are headed? Is it to one of the places relatively similar to Canada in educational attainment, religious values, etc. (I.e. west coast; parts of the northern midwest and northeast and some other cities here and there)? Is it to formerly fast-growing cities in the new south or southwest? Or whereabouts?

Reason I ask, you may not be ready for one of those areas where a majority believe the bible is literally true, where creationism is authorized to be taught in schools, where educational attainment is at the bottom of the first world and crime rates at the top, where war is always supported as long as the President is Republican, where anyone can buy a gun regardless of mental state, where lifestyle related health problems are commonplace, and conspiracy theories about the President's birth and religion pass for political thought. The U.S. has many great places and many acheivements, and I feel no need to go to Canada, but keep in mind there's a uniquely American brand of conservatism (vs. the Canadian/European moderate free-market conservativism) that prevails in quite a few locales.

Just curious what the driving concerns are and what it means to come to the U.S. seeking a more conservative environment.

Also interesting, for market purists, to keep in mind America has its own socialistic sacred cows - from farm subsidies that keep processed foods, grains and meats cheap to billions in mortgage interest tax deductions to the child tax credit.

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by maclock

Much of this is likely paid for by other people having to give over far more than they should in the form of higher prices or by heavy tax burdens. Of course I would expect you to be content, especially as you likely only contributed a fraction of the money required to fund these things.



Must be nice. Some of us, even those of us deemed impossibly rich by Canadian taxation authorities, get by with decade-old rust buckets. I'd prefer if you actually paid a greater share of your own healthcare expenses and your daughters' post-secondary tuition out of your own pocket instead of frittering away that money on frivolities like new sports cars.



Yeah, well, until your lot stop picking my pocket, I won't relent.

Instead of whining about coughing up your dime for taxes just get on the gravy train that you think i'm on and get free Houses,free education,free sportscars and motorcycles,free health care,so easy all you have to be apparently is a Liberal.Hey if i can do it so can you Matlock..
Yesiree life is good..

[maclock]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is a business agreement between two provinces and has nothing to do with Ottawa. Yes, the Newfoundlanders signed a bad deal and grossly miscalculated the future value of hydroelectricity. That said, Churchill Falls would never have been built at all if Quebec had not financially underwritten the risks associated with the entire scheme.

Is that so? Well, perhaps you would like to explain to me why Lester B. Pearson was not keen to declare a power corridor for the construction of transmission lines, an option that was open to him under the British North America Act? In the event that you don't or won't reply, Pearson failed to do so out of fear that the then-Liberal fortress of Quebec would turn on his party in Federal elections.

This meant that the power had nowhere to go and thus Smallwood had no option but to sign the most lopsided deal in Canadian history. Smallwood was no genius, and I admit that he may have felt it was reasonable to deliver a big fat pile of continuing revenues to Quebec as the price of the Liberals in Ottawa bankrolling him in the pre-Confederation days and thus helping to ensure his coronation as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's near-dictator in its early days as a member of the Canadian confederation, but with the project teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and Smallwood painted into a corner by a reluctant Pearson and an intransigent Lesage, he signed the only workable deal on the table -- the one dictated to him by the Province of Quebec.

Had Newfoundland not been blocked by Quebec, then Newfoundland would have been selling that power directly to the north-eastern American states, and not exclusively to Quebec. You do know that is how it works, right? Newfoundland was (and is) forced to sell the power at the border exclusively to Quebec, and then Quebec then resells that power to the United States. It is not much different than if Quebec required trucks loaded down with Newfoundland fish to offload at the Quebec-Labrador border and sell their fish to Quebec for a firesale price, only then to watch Quebec turn around and resell that Newfoundland fish for massive gain. It is an unconscionable arrangement in our supposed federation. In effect, Quebec used its political position and leverage to steal Newfoundland's electricity.

And yet even with the windfall profits that Quebec has accrued from this arrangement for the last 40 years or so, even with Ottawa's generosity toward Quebec with huge transfer payments during that same period, and even with the Quebec labour force receiving huge UI/EI support, your province is still a fiscal basket case. Quebec should try living within its means and it should pursue more development like that announced in Plan Nord to support whatever excessive welfare state stuff some of you seem to think that you need.

Confederation’s greatest failure

The Lower Churchill battle of 1980

Churchill Falls : The political history of a fleecing