Obama's America is Canada

[ProfJohn]

link

What kind of "change" does Barack Obama want? He seeks to transform America into Canada. Mr. Obama is not proposing "new politics," but is a champion of the well-known, already enacted policies in the Great White North. His proposals are more reflective of Canadian values than American national ideals.

For example, Mr. Obama's economic plan consists of attempting to redress the disparities of wealth in the United States. He also wants to help the middle class, whom he states has been "squeezed" in the last decade. He rails against overpaid CEOs and an economy that is "out of balance." He will therefore impose higher taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year, he will increase the capital-gains tax, he will cut taxes for the middle class and ensure that low-income seniors pay no tax. In other words, he will make America a more temperate nation ? one in which the lows for those who do not succeed on their merits are not so low, and the highs for those who soar, are not so high. Mr. Obama's policies will result in stifling initiative and rendering America less meritocratic. This economic plan will have detrimental long-term effects, as has occurred in Canada. Canada suffers from a large "brain drain": Every year, many of the most talented, dynamic and enterprising individuals flock to America in order to escape the stagnation and limitations imposed on them by their government.

Mr. Obama is also proposing a host of government programs. He is suggesting increased spending for health insurance, homeowners who might default on their mortgage, the nation's infrastructure, and college tuition in exchange for public service, among others. As a result, he will render America less the land of the brave and the home of the free ? and more the land of those who depend on the state. In Canada, government intervention and regulation is rife. This has led to large and unaccountable bureaucracies ? and crippling taxation. The Fraser Institute conducted a study in 2001 that demonstrated that the total tax bill of the average Canadian family increased by 1,351 percent since 1961. The report revealed that in 2000, for example, the average Canadian family paid 47.5 percent of their income in federal, provincial and municipal direct and hidden taxes: "The tax bill accounted for more of the average Canadian's budget than shelter, food and clothing combined."

Mr. Obama wants the U.S. government to make health care affordable for every American. He says he opposes mandates, but he nonetheless favors universal health care. Canadians have universal health care; their system is inefficient. The wealthiest Canadians travel to the United States for medical care to avoid long waiting periods for tests and operations. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that patients must be allowed the possibility of receiving alternative health care if they are forced to wait so long that they are in fact denied treatment: Hence, a private parallel health care system is now emerging.

Despite Mr. Obama's Christian discourse, his social policies also resemble Canada's liberal policies. He is ardently pro-choice: He even voted against banning partial-birth abortion. Mr. Obama also supports same-sex unions (but not gay marriage, which he says must be decided by each religious denomination). In Canada, both abortion and same-sex marriage are legal. In Quebec, Canada's most liberal province, traditional marriage has been eroded to the point that 65 percent of couples do not marry but simply live together - that is, until it is no longer convenient. Is this the direction America should be heading toward?

Mr. Obama is calling for a multilateral foreign policy and greater respect for international law. He wants to "talk" with America's enemies and he seeks to curtail much of the anti-American sentiment around the world. His suggestions resemble Canadian foreign policy. Canada is a staunch U.S. ally. Canadians are mostly proud of their role as "peacekeepers" in troubled areas. However, Canada is not a superpower. Also, Canadian "peacekeeping" is possible mostly within a larger context in which America bears the brunt of keeping North America safe and free. Canadians can be "doves" because they are protected by American "hawks."

In summary, when pondering Mr. Obama's proposals, voters should examine the Canadian record. Canada is on the whole a gentler, softer and more liberal nation ? but there is also less freedom, opportunity, prosperity, competition and dynamism. Canada is well-loved by other nations ? but the country has little diplomatic or military clout.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, was dubbed a "Massachusetts liberal" and was compared to a foreign leader: "He will be an ideal president ? of France," mocked his critics. Mr. Kerry lost the election. In a similar manner, Mr. Obama, too, is a great leader ? of Canada. But Americans have repeatedly demonstrated that they prefer individualism and freedom rather than the failing Canadian model of collectivism and comfort.

Seems like a good evaluation on where Obama stands on these issue.

I would be interested in hearing the Canadian members as to whether the stuff about Canada is true.

 

[BeauJangles]

A lot of this article is just fear-mongering, which is too bad because it makes several good points, but the US doesn't keep North America "safe and free." Who exactly are we keeping it safe and free from? The omnipotent and omnipresent terrorists? Last I checked, there were few threats against Canada - most terrorist activity in North America is either directed at the US or at the Mexican government (from drug cartels) both of which are problems created by US policy. If anything, we have spent the last seven years making North America less safe.

Everyone jumps down Obama's throat about "talking" to enemies. I don't take that to mean the same thing that many here do. I think that any rational foreign policy sees military involvement as the last possible option, not the first. In the past fifty years, we have successfully convinced several countries to abandon advanced nuclear weapons programs or give up nuclear weapons through diplomacy. Invasions are costly in terms of manpower, money, and political clout. We cannot afford to act unilaterally and, in order for our country to get what we want, we're going to have to compromise on some other issues. That DOESN'T mean that we should let terrorists walk into our country or that we should become a Muslim nation, it means that we need to come up with solutions that don't always end in violence to protect ourselves.

I lived in Canada and, though taxes are high there and there are problems with the health care system, the portrait painted here is far too dark. Any health care system has its issues and problems and I don't agree with some of the steps taken by the Canadian government lately. I think public health care can work and has worked pretty effectively there.

 

[wwswimming]

sounds like a compliment.

the Canadian government is running a fiscal surplus, and their health care
works much better than American health care.

 

[Moonbeam]

PureJunk is called a troll, but I see him more as a dredge who bottom trolls sewage treatment plants for the big ones that fall to the bottom.

Personally I think Obama hopes to turn us into North Korea. He's clearly a communist dictator type, and all of which is going to make this a tough election. I can pick a NK communist or the one that was turned by the North Vietnamese by torture in prison.

 

[Red Dawn]

I heard Obama wants to turn the US into Zimbabwe and confiscate all the white owned farms.

 

[Harvey]

Thanks for yet more bullshit from the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's ultra right wing bullshit mouthpiece.

Credibility for PJ and his unsigned, nameless source = -100. :thumbsdown:

 

[Rainsford]

I don't really want to argue against everything the Washington Times says, but there is the oft-repeated but never explained tax "fact" that I just have to ask about. Lowering taxes on the middle class and raising taxes on the rich is ALWAYS presented by conservatives as "stifling innovation", but it seems like a pretty silly argument if you really think about it for 5 seconds. Whatever the tax rates, they aren't 100% on income in the next tax bracket, so it seems to me that the incentive to "succeed" is still there. I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay 35% taxes on $1,000,000 per year than 20% taxes on $50,000 per year.

But beyond stupid math, the whole arguments seems pretty silly. Canada isn't "bad", presenting ideas as "Canadian" isn't itself an argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

An article from the Rev Moon's rag... color me surprised, even shocked that the whole lone ranger mentality still sells, at all. The fearmongering and emotional appeal to an idealized past are its basic selling points, I suppose.

Quoting the Fraser Institute is a similar endeavor- it's the Canadian version of the AEI or the Hoover institute, funded by the same uber right sources-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...title=Fraser_Institute

It's the slickest propaganda on the planet.

Funky healthcare? sure- that's because their spending, both in terms of per capita and % of GDP is much lower than our own. Duh.

High taxes? yeh, so what? What do Canadians get for their money? Warmongering and corporate welfare, or something else?

Brain drain? Yeh, that's part of why their taxes are high- they subsidize higher education so that the greediest among them can then move south... exploitation being the universal constant of conservatives everywhere... and the new patriotism of the Rightwing...

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But beyond stupid math, the whole arguments seems pretty silly. Canada isn't "bad", presenting ideas as "Canadian" isn't itself an argument.

Yes, in reality Canada is a nice place, however in the reality convervatives reside in - the place where Saddam was behind 9/11, WMDs were found and the US doesn't torture, Bush is doing a great job and evolution is bunk - Canada is a horrible place to be avoided at all costs.

The whole pathetic argument rests on lies (about freedom, meritocracy, healthcare, etc) which have been repeated so often they're mistaken for truth, even though they can be demonstrated to be false with 5 mins of googling. But like I said, reality isn't a comfortable place for PoJo & Pals.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Seems like a good evaluation on where Obama stands on these issue.

Oh really PJ? how so?

Myself, and apparently others here, think your linked editorial is full of fear mongering, sweeping generalizations, emotional appeals, and I think in some instances flat out contradictions and lies (Doesn't Obama support banning partial birth abortion?)

And why do you hate Canada so much PJ?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Thanks for yet more bullshit from the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's ultra right wing bullshit mouthpiece.

Credibility for PJ and his unsigned, nameless source = -100. :thumbsdown:

Heh. I was gonna comment on the source.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[StageLeft]

didn't read it, but a lot of dems want Canada. they like its high taxes, high entitlement, healthcare for everyone. I didn't move to the US so that it could become Canada II.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
sounds like a compliment.

the Canadian government is running a fiscal surplus, and their health care
works much better than American health care.

If their healthcare works so good how come so many of them come to US for healthcare?
And how come people went to court to gain the right to private medical services?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: wwswimming
sounds like a compliment.

the Canadian government is running a fiscal surplus, and their health care
works much better than American health care.

If their healthcare works so good how come so many of them come to US for healthcare?
And how come people went to court to gain the right to private medical services?

Canada spends way less money per capita on health care then we do and they do better then we do by most metrics. This means their system is better.

This does not mean that there are not areas in the US that you can get better care then you can in Canada if you have the money, it just means that their system overall works better then ours does. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Kuragami]

The major difference is that our courts aren't completely filled with right wing pretend Christians and therefore some nasty laws get struck down every once in a while. However Canada is only behind the US by a couple of years in terms of stifling freedom and in some cases we are actually ahead. Our multi-party system doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things either. In many of the more nasty things enacted by the US in the past 10 or so years we are catching up.

As I said the only thing keep us from falling head first down the rabbit hole forever is some Judicial independence but it too is largely at the mercy of whichever government holds power. Often that government, regardless of its multi-party platforms, acts as one and plays politics with everything from Human Rights to Economics to benefit the top .1% of the population and themselves.

Bottom line is we are more alike than either one of us would care to admit and the differences you see are more like window dressing.

 

[Fern]

Too much needless OP bashing, not enough content addressing the substance of the article.

Canada is more liberal than the USA, no?

Obama has a liberal philosophy and wants to implement liberal policies, no?

So where is the fallacy in predicting America will look more like Canada under Obama?

How can America moving more to the left result in anything else?

What legitimate complaint is there with this assertion? Why do so many take offense?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Too much needless OP bashing, not enough content addressing the substance of the article.

Canada is more liberal than the USA, no?

Obama has a liberal philosophy and wants to implement liberal policies, no?

So where is the fallacy in predicting America will look more like Canada under Obama?

How can America moving more to the left result in anything else?

What legitimate complaint is there with this assertion? Why do so many take offense?

Fern

Probably because the editorial is filled with distortions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Too much needless OP bashing, not enough content addressing the substance of the article.

Canada is more liberal than the USA, no?

Obama has a liberal philosophy and wants to implement liberal policies, no?

So where is the fallacy in predicting America will look more like Canada under Obama?

How can America moving more to the left result in anything else?

What legitimate complaint is there with this assertion? Why do so many take offense?

Fern

Can you name a country more conservative than the US, who right-wing presidents turn the US to be more like them?

 

[imported_Imp]

I have a LOT of issues with the article, but I know better than to argue about it cause my Canadian/liberal ideologies are so different than American/conservative views. The article just sounds like classic conservative fear-mongering. Like others already said, Canada is ahead in some places, and behind others.


Edit: Link to an article that should cover this entire discussion about Canada>US and vice versa.

US vs Canada

Small disclaimer: obviously the article is biased a bit with generalizations. So obviously there are exceptions, polling errors, averaging, etc.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Too much needless OP bashing, not enough content addressing the substance of the article.

Canada is more liberal than the USA, no?

Obama has a liberal philosophy and wants to implement liberal policies, no?

So where is the fallacy in predicting America will look more like Canada under Obama?

How can America moving more to the left result in anything else?

What legitimate complaint is there with this assertion? Why do so many take offense?

Fern

To more directly respond to your post, you would have a point, but I think there's a reason for the criticism in this case.

There's a sort of unwritten rule in a discussion forum, IMO, about 'good faith' discussion, because there's more content you could post on one side of an issue than can practically be discussed. Someone could post 1,000 articles on one side of an issue, and it's just not practical to respond to each. There are a lot because there is money creating a lot of 'propagandistic' articles. When the Washington Times runs a piece like this, it's pretty much always not 'one person's opinion', but part of an industry of propaganda.

This one falls in the 'find things to say against Obama' category. Others fall in categories such as the 'find reasons to tell people not to worry about the concentration of wealth'.

Of course the piece has something sounding reaosnable; if it was just outrageous and not somewhat credible on its face, it wouldn't be good propaganda.

I think the backlash against the OP is the perception that PJ so often posts cut and paste 'FUD' (fear, uncertanty and doubt), the 'bought and paid for' sort of propaganda.

It's almost like when you get advertising instead of content, there's a sort of resentment.

It's tiring and annoying to get so much propaganda paid for by interests, who are not exactly forthcoming about their agenda, demanding a response.

Now, we have to be careful to distinguish between sources with a point of view, and the propagandistic. I have to ask, moveon.org, which I like and don't think is the same thing at all, is not going to have much good to say about Bush, so why are they different from The Washington Times? Moveon.org has some values; the Times would claim to as well, probably. So what's the difference? Even financial backing isn't the answer; while the Times has Moon and other right-wingers, I wouldn't say a liberal donating to Moveone.org would make them like the Times. It comes down, I guess, to a view that Moveon.org is a liberal site that has some standards for honesty, while the Washington Times is pushing a right-wing agenda for ulterior and poor motives and is more willing to use fallacy to make its points. And that's not easy to 'prove'.

But like obscenity, people may feel they 'know propaganda when they see it' (I'd suggest, only second-rate propaganda, unless you are pretty informed).

I've been considering starting a threat to track the Obama smears, to make it clearer how calculated this sort of thing is. We could have the earlier attempts such as the topic that saturated the media for a while, the less respectable asking "Is Obama black enough" and the more respectable reporting that the other media was asking the question. We could add the "Obama will turn the US into Canada" piece to the list. It's throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks, looking for the "Dukakis in a tank' photo to hurt Obama.

Eventually, they try to find some item - 'for the $87 billion before he was against it', 'invented the internet' - that resonates in public opinion (however false), and run with it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Can you name a country more conservative than the US, who right-wing presidents turn the US to be more like them?

Seems to me many countries in Europe undergo changes in their direction, from left to right and vise versa.

France and Germany seem to be two Euro countries moving to the right.

In some ways I see the UK as much farther right than us. Orwellian really, not that I consider that "conservative". I suppose given FISA etc some would say GWB has turned us closer in their direction.

But the USA is unique in many ways. We started out without an aristocracy, and a country of small/limited federal government. I'm unaware of a similar country (Australia?). So, IMO, we can only basically turn in one of 2 directions: (1) to that of democratic countries that are more liberal than us, or (2) back to our roots/founding beliefs. So, I supose in the grand scheme of things it can't really be said that a move in the conservation direction moves us closer to some other democratic country.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Can you name a country more conservative than the US, who right-wing presidents turn the US to be more like them?

Seems to me many countries in Europe undergo changes in their direction, from left to right and vise versa.

France and Germany seem to be two Euro countries moving to the right.

In some ways I see the UK as much farther right than us. Orwellian really, not that I consider that "conservative". I suppose given FISA etc some would say GWB has turned us closer in their direction.

But the USA is unique in many ways. We started out without an aristocracy, and a country of small/limited federal government. I'm unaware of a similar country (Australia?). So, IMO, we can only basically turn in one of 2 directions: (1) to that of democratic countries that are more liberal than us, or (2) back to our roots/founding beliefs. So, I supose in the grand scheme of things it can't really be said that a move in the conservation direction moves us closer to some other democratic country.

Fern

Yes, I don't think you can say France or Germany are more right-wing than the US, and not even England generally, whatever their fetish for Orwellian surveillance.

Yes, it sounds odd to say the US is 'the most right-wing country' (or democracy, to use your qualifier), doesn't it. Americans, like most, want to be somewhere 'in the middle'.

That's why the political propaganda seems to not be about why left or right wing are good, but shifting the definitions to keep the desired policies in 'the middle', meaning to make the other side's positions seem 'fringe', 'out of the mainstream', 'extreme' and your own moderate and mainstream.

That would seem to be the point for the OP, too, to say Obama will move the US out of the 'middle' and to the 'Canadian left', while there's no corresponding worry for McCain.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Fern
So, IMO, we can only basically turn in one of 2 directions: (1) to that of democratic countries that are more liberal than us, or (2) back to our roots/founding beliefs.

I think this sort of thinking is overly simplistic, creates false dichotomies, and belies some far greater truths. To state that America is going to become more like other countries is to imply that America is going to lose a part of its identity -- that it will become less like itself.

And to glorify the ancient past as some sort of ideal country is a sham and a shame in view of the ability of the current living citizens to determine their own direction, future, and to live their current sense of values and reflection on the world as a whole, at present, with America very much a participant with its own identity.

America might, at best, re-focus its quest for meaning and progress in the world, awakening from its slumber with a new sense of identity. Obama can be and is very much a part of that process. To suggest that Obama wants America to be more like Canada is a lie and a great insult to him and his country; your country. To say that Obama wants America to be more liberal is not a lie. It's a lie to bring the name Canada into it, to suggest that America will lose its own identity somehow. America will continue being America; the question of what sort of America you want to be in and have in the world is yours to answer.

 

[Zebo]

I don't agree with the 'brain drain' theory. Where are they going to go? Hong Kong can only hold so many and all other first world nations (where you can make money and live peacefully) are higher taxed than Canada already is. The USA is the last refuge for robber barrens which accounts for the other guys brain drain and door would be shut upon adoption of more sensible distribution of wealth. I agree 100% with Obama on the moderate tax issues he proposes and only have a problem with his heavy handed re-distribution as taxing too high as the same effect as giving away too much - removes incentives to work and excel. How about paying down debt first then lets talk about UHC/bigger welfare/job training and free tuition...