While U.S. looks ahead, we drift backwards

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
February 02, 2010
James Travers

Some coincidences are too delicious. On the very morning this week that Canadians woke to find they have new, even lower greenhouse gas emission targets, Americans learned that China is surging ahead in the renewable energy race.
Before any remaining climate-change deniers fire email bullets from their grassy knolls, what follows is not primarily about climate change or even how successive federal governments failed to act. No, it's about the difference between talk and a conversation.
Even with Parliament suspended, there's more sound than substance here. When not disputing proroguing, politicians yammer about issues as critical to national success as a crime wave that isn't a ripple and, yes, reforming the irredeemable Senate.
Boom times are the only time for such fatuous gassing. These are not those times.
Historically among the most blessed of nations, Canada now faces an uncertain future the Prime Minister apparently doesn't trust Canadians to seriously consider. Just as voters were misled in the last election about the coming recession and rocketing deficits, their attention is now being dragged away from the tough decisions ahead.
It's bad enough to hide that taxes must rise, first to pay for the record $46 billion stimulus package and then to crack what economists agree is a structural deficit. Worse is the refusal to face the looming policy choices that will ultimately determine how much of the 21st century belongs to Canada.
There's nothing distant or abstract about those choices. Yesterday's $3.8 trillion U.S. budget and last week's Barack Obama State of the Union address bring the American predicament, along with its implications for Canada, closer and into focus. Along with driving trade protectionism, the symbiotic relationship between job creation and political survival is steering Washington toward solutions – education, research and productivity – that should be Ottawa priorities.
Instead the chit-chat here is purely political. Law and order, reforming the Senate and sticking to the big tax lie are all about votes and power. They have nothing whatever to do with building a national consensus on the best way forward.
In the absence of that debate, Canada is drifting backwards in sometimes small yet always faltering steps. Next month, the Canadian Council on Learning loses its federal funding. A demoralized civil service is discouraged from providing fresh alternatives to a ruling party set in its preconceived notions. Any discussion of what Canadians must do to live as well or better in the years ahead is lost in partisan bickering.
Go-ahead countries grasp that there's more to sustainable prosperity than low taxes and a do-it-yourself social strategy. Go-ahead countries recognize opportunity even when it's disguised as threat.
China learned that when the best it could do was to cheaply manufacture hardware for the expensive software that pushed America to the knowledge economy's leading edge. Now Beijing is taking the decisions necessary to surf the next big wave by making the world dependent on its green technology.
Washington is hurrying to meet that foreign challenge as well as its own at home. Ottawa, locked into Canada's hewer of wood, drawer of water traditions and trapped between eastern manufacturing and western resource economies, is not.
This country should have invested past budget surpluses in brains, innovation and infrastructure. It should now be setting objectives that will add value tomorrow.
Instead it has its head buried in the tar sands as it mumbles about things that stir emotions even as it stays silent about those that test the imagination.

Toronto Star
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
James Travers personifies what the Toronto Star has always been, i.e. left wing, pro tax and spend big government that is far too involved in the private lives of citizens. If Canada is moving backwards it must be better than the moving forward of the past. The U.S.'s moving forward will give them a aproximate budget deficit of over a trillion dollars, I heard it would be in the range of $1,300,000,000,000. Blaming the Harper government for our deficit woes is quite disingenuous since the stimulus spending was at the insistance of the opposition parites, they even complained that Harper wasn't spending enough. But that is peanuts compared to what he would have us spend chasing a fix for something that hasn't been proven to be broken. But it is Mr. Travers's championing of that beacon of personal freedom, China, that is quite telling of his ideology.

Ahh yes, progress, we pay upwards of 52% of our wages in various forms of taxation, the taxation rate that led to the American revolt throwing British tea into Boston Harbour was between 5 and 7%. Maybe going backwards a bit might not be so bad.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Thanks for not reading the entire article and making assumptions on it.

You can ignore the facts all you want but before we know it China is gonna, if it hasn't alreeady, steam roll right over us and never look back.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,368
11,433
113
Low Earth Orbit
I read it. It's all stuff I've been warning about for past two years and now all these these 'deals' have been signed in regards to these forewarned issues all without debate.

Canada's (esp Alberta's) economy is TOAST thanks to Manjoon. What's a Manjoon? It's not a gay wedding so go back to sleep Chrissie. How about the new taxes that go to a fund to pay for new technologies in developing countries (when did we finish building Canada?) while get to keep our old polluting low tech ****.

Who elected the "globalist green panel" of the Copenhagen Accord? Are they Red or Blue and why do they dictate our economic future?


Ha ha ha ha!!!

Better hope God fires up his Hoover before our Fascist global leaders do.

Yup. Mr travers is spot on but still doesn't have the full picture.

Do you?
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
No they won't.

Yes,they will.

PetroChina's $1.9B buy in oilsands approved

PetroChina will be required to spend more than $250 million in each of the next three years, maintain an Alberta head office for its operating subsidiaries for at least five years, and ensure that Canadians occupy a majority of the senior management positions associated with the projects.
Legal experts said the Petro-China deal was a test of newly implemented provisions for state-owned entities. Although PetroChina is traded on public stock exchanges in New York and Hong Kong, its majority shareholder is the China National Petroleum Corp., which is wholly owned by the Chinese government.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,368
11,433
113
Low Earth Orbit
Properties are bought and sold daily and held as asset.

PetroChina will be required to spend more than $250 million in each of the next three years.
Spend it on what? Where? In Alberta or China?

maintain an Alberta head office for its operating subsidiaries for at least five years, and ensure that Canadians occupy a majority of the senior management positions associated with the projects.
Keep the lights on and pay off a bunch of losers until Chinese Canadians move in. No biggie. Where does it guarantee anything in operations and developement especially output?
 
Last edited:

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Your crystal ball should read a paper once n awhile,maybe read the article before commenting further.Your about as knowledgeable on Alberta as you are on explosives.:roll:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,368
11,433
113
Low Earth Orbit
What was the real number in debt interest relief or was it an or else?

Or is that off limits to us 'chattering classes" as Tony likes to call us.

What class is Tony in?
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
There investing money in a couple of the projects others bailed on,now sorry if you cant comprehend that it means jobs in development that we would have lost,read the article.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,368
11,433
113
Low Earth Orbit
Your crystal ball should read a paper once n awhile,maybe read the article before commenting further.Your about as knowledgeable on Alberta as you are on explosives.:roll:
I read the article. It promises nothing but foreign ownership and a handful of slave jobs. Before you open your gob answer me this. Are any of these "oilsands projects" curreently being funded or subsidized by public funds?

Will you're digging dig up the explosives post again so I can shellac you again.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
You ran away on the explosives topic so you dig it up yourself,maybe get gerry to help you,he ran away too.

I know,the truth hurts eh?

At least Ger admitted he was wrong when he said "I'm done":lol:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,368
11,433
113
Low Earth Orbit
So that's your response to Canadian tax dollars going to fund and develope a Chineses owed project for low end operator jobs?

You know a good deal when you see one don't you?
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
So that's your response to Canadian tax dollars going to fund and develope a Chineses owed project for low end operator jobs?

You know a good deal when you see one don't you?

Where does it say we are paying for it?
Did you read the whole article?

And for the record I have no problem spending tax dollars if it nets returns and creates jobs when no one else will.
It's called an investment and if you own mutual funds your probably giving them dollars to.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
If it wasnt for China BC wouldnt have a met coal industry,they found that out when the USA and Australia started subsidizing money losing mines in their own country,I was there,I saw it first hand,the lost contracts,the lost jobs.