X..Ok young lady heres one for ya from your favorite paper

[PatPatriot]

Why The Liberals Are Canada's Natural Governing Party (Funny But True Satire)
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/06/26/514678.html | 06/26/04 | Michael Coren



Sat, June 26, 2004

[Ten Good Reasons To Vote Liberal June 28th]

By Michael Coren -- For the Toronto Sun

THE BIG day approaches. I don't usually tell people how to vote, but on this occasion I feel I have to do so. It's so important. There are simply too many reasons why we all have to vote Liberal and why Paul Martin has to remain prime minister of this great nation.

First, legions of bureaucrats will not lose their jobs. Men and women all over Canada, but particularly in Ottawa, will continue to move paper around -- in both official languages -- and, as a consequence, the country will remain proud and free.

Second, friends of the Liberal party in Quebec will not suddenly feel lonely and depressed, and their extraordinarily important advertising agencies will not lose money or even go bankrupt. Their children will not starve and they will be able to enjoy that basic human right of buying a new car every year.

Third, speaking of basic human rights, a Liberal victory will make sure that the right for anybody to marry anybody, or everybody, will never be threatened or even debated. Consider the alternative. Tens, if not hundreds of millions, of gay and lesbian Canadians living in agony.

The basic human right to abort your child will also be protected, and will be paid for by the tax dollars of hard-working Canadians. As all good citizens know, only a fascist or a lunatic would oppose such a policy.

Fourth, the long gun registry will continue. Without this project we know Canadians would be murdered in their beds by crazed Albertan hunters or taken at gunpoint to watch the burning in effigy of Margaret Atwood. Oh, the horror!

Fifth, the CBC will be able to continue to provide balanced, objective and broad-minded coverage of Canadian affairs. Shows such as Help, I Pay Far Too Little Tax and The Transsexual History of Manitoba will remain on our screens. Without this, we might as well just give the country to George Bush.

Sixth, enlightened MPs will be able to scream thuggish abuse at Americans and then threaten journalists who try to write about it. Members of Parliament need this sort of freedom if democracy is to flourish. They must also be able to confuse Vimy Ridge with Vichy France and Normandy with Norway.

We're simple people

Seventh, a Liberal win will allow our judges and courts to continue telling Canadians what is right and what is wrong. It's not that Canadians are bad or stupid. It's just that they need help in understanding these things. They're a simple people. Rather like those men who gave their lives on the beaches of, to quote our glorious leader, Paul Martin, Norway in World War II.

Eighth, the military can be kept in working order. Easily done. With only one soldier, one Jeep and half a ship we can reduce spending even further and make sure Capt. Canuck is the best-equipped one-man army in the world. He may be unable to fire a gun, but he's fluent in both languages. Priorities matter.

Ninth, Western Canada will receive the kick in the pants it so richly deserves. They're getting a bit noisy out there, and the constant electing of Conservatives shows a nasty lack of patriotism. They should act more like real Canadians, like our brothers and sisters in Quebec. I wonder how many westerners stormed the fjords of Scandinavia to help smash Hitler's empire? (See point Seven).

Tax system protected

Tenth, the great taxation system of this nation will be protected. A survey by the CBC -- see above -- has proved beyond doubt that most Canadians love paying income tax and would willingly pay more if it helped struggling Canadian Marxist poets, paid for canoe museums in rural Quebec or helped Adrienne Clarkson buy nicer clothes.

If the Liberals fail to win, all this could be challenged or even obliterated. It is a proposition too ugly to even contemplate. Forgive me, I'm becoming emotional just considering it. My tears cascade onto the page and moisten my prose with my pain. Golly, time for a government arts grant for that one, I think.

Ten good reasons. But most of all, if we don't vote Liberal, Paul Martin will have to take the shipping company away from his kids and learn to recognize the flags of Liberia and Panama all over again. Not fair.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[xpanda]

I'm not voting Liberal, but thanks for the update on my current PM.

To be fair, the Globe and Mail is my favourite paper, which, by the way, is centre-right.

Here's a story they ran today that you might enjoy:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040626.wmath0626/BNStory/Business/?query=bush

Ingram: Growing U.S. deficit could sideswipe Canada

By MATHEW INGRAM
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

The massive U.S. budget deficit — expected to be $500-billion (U.S.) this year — gets a lot of attention, in part because it's a useful stick with which to bash U.S. President George W. Bush.

But the deficit that has many economists increasingly worried is the even bigger — and rapidly growing — U.S. current account deficit. It hit a record $145-billion in the first quarter and is expected to reach a record $600-billion or more this year. That's equivalent to more than 5 per cent of U.S. gross domestic product.

It's a growing problem that could not only sideswipe the U.S. economy, but the global economy — and Canada could be a prime victim.

A country's current account measures the inflow and outflow of both goods and services — that is, the balance of trade — as well as capital investment. Canada, for example, has a positive balance of trade and investment with the United States and the rest of the world and, therefore, has a current account surplus of about $38-billion on annualized basis. In other words, the value of all the goods, services and investment flowing out of Canada is larger than that flowing in.

The United States, by contrast, has had a current account deficit for more than a decade. This net imbalance of imports, exports and investment has also been growing at a rapid pace: As recently as 1997, it was only 1 per cent of GDP.

That has some economists and senior policy officials — including those at the International Monetary Fund and the Group of Seven — concerned.

A current account deficit is like a line of credit; it means a country is financing its growth by relying on others instead of using its own savings or income.

And U.S. citizens are saving less and less: Household savings were less than 1 per cent of GDP in 2000, down from 6.5 per cent in 1992.

In order to finance its consumption, the United States has relied on China, Japan and other countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. debt — an estimated $1.5-billion every day.

One way to reduce the deficit would be to allow the U.S. dollar to slide, as it has been for the past year. That reduces the relative cost of U.S. exports and makes them look more attractive next to goods from other countries, which stimulates exports. It also poses a number of problems for the rest of the world, however. For example, if the U.S. dollar were to drop by between 25 and 50 per cent — as some economists believe it must — other countries would pay the price.

Canada would be one of those countries, since a sharp decline in the U.S. dollar could push the loonie even higher, and put even more pressure on our export-driven economy. It could also create a spiral effect in the U.S. economy, if the United States was forced to boost interest rates in order to prevent a dramatic selloff in the dollar. Those hikes could put the brakes on growth, as a similar move did in the mid-1980s, and that would also hurt U.S.-dependent countries.

U.S. Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan has said he isn't too concerned about the current account deficit. He says the high level of foreign investment in the United States is a tribute to the strength of the U.S. economy, and how much other countries want to invest in it. This is the "oasis of prosperity" theory — the idea that a large current account deficit is a sign of how strong the U.S. economy is compared with others, rather than a sign that the United States is living beyond its means.

Even if Japan and China scale back their purchase of U.S. assets, Mr. Greenspan says global financial markets are efficient enough to handle any disruption and the strength of the U.S. economy would attract other investors.

Fed governor William Poole says the United States may even be unique in its ability to carry a large deficit when other countries — such as Mexico and Argentina — became insolvent as a result of theirs.

But what if the United States isn't unique? What if the "oasis of prosperity" is a mirage? Then the market might impose the solution itself, forcing the dollar to tumble and interest rates to rise. That's one of the things keeping economists awake at night.