High School use to have classes where students worked with tools, cars and computers.


Now such courses do not exist at all in school.

I think those courses plus a course on learning how to use computer programs, a course on basic personal finance should be required for all.

In Education systems in Japan and England, the bulk of the education comes during the high school years while college is the laidback time. In America it seems to be the opposite, except college students here are still laidback.

Protests are quite small and quiet in Canada compared to the US.

Also it appears most of the protesters are protesting in a sign of unity with the American protestors rather then really hating on the Canadian govt or business.

Canada has quite the corporate culture itself though. Plus their media is owned by an almost Berlusconi-like monopoly.

Canada is oligopoly in many sectors (way more then in the US).


5 banks control over 80% of the market and have all the big accounts.

Almost all the main Tv Channels and news channels are owned by 3 companies.

A govt that gets a majority govt is pretty much has the powers of a 5- year dictatorship.


Yet, Tyler we are not messed up like you guys at all.





It does, but ask any Canadian to list an example of of corporate extravagance and they most likley give an example from the US.


We have a lot of flaws there is no doubt about that.

It's not as bad as the US or UK, but it's getting there. The mayor of Toronto...

I like the UK better than than the US, I am trying to move over there, but that's going to end up being impossible.

The class entrenchment and corporate culture is barely better than it is here. I really don't understand US-to-UK immigration. Shittier weather, shittier food, uglier people that are almost as fat as ours, even worse/more sensationalist media, the music and movies aren't even better anymore (that ended about ten years ago), the pervasive surveillance culture...

The Mayor of Toronto is seen as a fool by the left, but the city was spending like the US govt lol...


You cannot continue to increase spending and fix the shortfall by increasing taxes.

The guy is a bigoted, authoritarian demagogue, is what I meant.

And the previous Mayor was a Tax and Spend liberal who was driving the city towards massive deficits and did nothing.

Plus he ignored the suburban areas of the city.

He pretty much created the situation to allow a man like Ford to enter office.

Heh...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ee/246687/

yeah it makes sense, govt is to blame.

Starting with Clinton and Bush and then Obama.

I think Govt failed dramatically in causing the problem and the dealing with it.

Lets remind everyone Obama came in with a 75% approval rating, massive majorities in the two houses.
He could have pushed in real reforms but he didn't?

Why?

Because he had no experience, he was a one term senator (who served two years). He was a spineless leader.

He then wasted 1.5 years on Medicare and ignored the economy. Now things are just like they were.

How anyone on this board can say that the govt did not fail (under Bush and Obama) is beyond me.

WAHHHHHH

WAHHHHHH

WAHHHHHH

WAHHHHHH

No its more like average incomes adjusted for inflation have not increased much since the late 1970's. (well that is still bad)

The 60's and 70's saw a big increase in wages even adjusted for inflation.


Anyways the legacy of Ronald Regan still remains, I think many in Washington still believe in supply side economics.



So you see that wages adjusted for inflation have stayed flat for like 30+ years, however our consumption has increased greatly. We have bigger houses, more cars, more appliances yet we all make the same amount of money.

How was this able to happen?

Everyone started using credit for everything.

Clinton? More like Nixon. Or even LBJ with Vietnomnomnom. I don't think Obama lacks a spine as much as he is essentially a centrist figure and he treats dealing with the establishment like dealing with the Chicago machine. Which is still a mistake/bad idea, but I can see where it comes from.

There's also agflation and the disproportionate rise in oil prices since the early 2000s, though, which aren't really factored in often enough. Great Society-era government programs did help to a large degree since the 60s, but crime, culture, tax base erosion, deindustrialization and poor education cancelled out the positive effects of it, sociologically speaking, so people paint the programs as failures. And yes, credit being handed out like candy has also done a lot to crumble the net worth of the poor. Especially blacks.

I agree on all points.


Its that Obama came in with so much political capital and spend 1.5 years on medicare.

Obama made a huge mistake on not focusing on the economy after he the stimulus bill.

I think he assumed the 700 billion stimulus would fix everything and in the end all it did was save jobs forget about creating new jobs.


Obama is in a tough spot, but I am quite certain if a Republican was in charge right now we would calling for his head right now.

I agree 100%. Actually a Republican would have blocked the advances in gay rights, wouldn't have touched health care at all or advance a strong jobs bill because public works is communism or something retarded like that. Oh, and the new Supreme Court appointments would be even more corporate shills or religious fanatics or "constructionists". The Citizens United case would be 7-2. So yeah, thank god for small favors.

6-3*, I mean.

I think all the job bills are a joke.

Oh lets spend a 500,000- million dollars to make a job (or save a job) and go further into debt...



Anyways, what ever Obama may be if things remain the same he will have a dog fight for 2012 especially against Romney.

Of course, you all think the Republican party are idiots but they still have huge support from people WHO ACTUALLY vote.

Infrastructure isn't a joke. Our bridges, electrical grids, road system, trains are old as hell and because they won't all go out in one big catastrophe (maybe an electrical grid failure that knocks out the system for days on end on the eastern seaboard could set it off) it isn't seen as an immediate problem. An infrastructure program giving jobs as well is only half of it, it is a SERIOUS problem, moreso than debt. We've also done nothing to prepare for the coming change of urban areas and transport in such. Suburbia being the main spot of newfound poverty won't be ending now. It'll only get worse.

Romney is Obama's only serious challenger, and he'll likely get in for the GOP nomination. I think he's too corporate and plastic in appearance and public image to win the election in this time, but I wouldn't discount him. Don't discount a Tea Party insurgency if the political climate goes crazy, though. It could well turn into a 1968-ish fiasco.

And that's the thing, Republicans have relied on low voter turnout since the 60s. The only two strengths they have now is disillusionment with Obama and a disaffected, disengaged civic environment. The idea that Americans are center-right is a load of crap. More Americans don't vote and are depressed with and don't believe in the system than conservative. Hey, part of why OWS is so important is that it's the first real rise of left-wing civic engagement in decades.

Well Infrastructure spending is fine and good in the long term but it does not create immediate economic growth as Obama is trying to make us believe. Economists say its a good idea and it is.
It will be interesting to see how the US will fund infrastructure with the debt levels going up like crazy in the future.

Obama needs to create a feeling of calm and stability to get economic growth to really come back. Rich people and Corporations know that taxes are going to go up a lot, but no one knows what will happen in the next 1-5 years, so no one wants to invest.
The political system is so dysfunctional, that really idiotic things can happen. Meaning more of a focus on pointless issues then anything meaningful. I doubt anything meaningful will get done till after the election.

The tea party will not revolt against Romney, as they hate Obama far more then Romney. I think it will be a close race, more like 2004 at least. Will settle on one or two States. I give Obama odds of 55-45 however my assumption is the economy will get better by 2012 (lol yeah right).

Also, It doesn't matter what Americans think about Obama or if they are centre right.

What matters is what the people who vote think like and they skew older and white and they are centre right and not liking Obama.


About America being Centre right, well they are not all liberals in any sense either.
Well Americans are Centre right compared to the rest of the world especially socially. However if your logic of Centre Right is the Republican party well that is like Extreme right or hard right here in Canada and Europe.
Here in Canada, Centre right is the current Conservative party.

So I think Americans overall may be centrist, but in terms of the people who always vote its centre right. A lot of democrats act in a Centre right way lol.

Fiscally, America is seen as Conservative but in reality Canada is more fiscally Conservative and have been since the mid 90's.

Fiscal Conservatism gets a bad name from Republicans but its mostly about restrain (avoiding deficit spending) and creating regulation to prevent stupid behaviour and overall create stability.

It does not mean no spending on social issues and deregulation, and lowering taxes on the rich, that's Reaganomics.

Strict "Construnction[ism]" was a movement in the 70's championed by the likes of Richard Nixon and others. It is not really much of a movement anymore, if it ever was.

The "conservative" movement, if legal schools can be defined as such, at least in modern times, are mainly law and economics (Judges Posner and Easterbrook), originalism (Justices Scalia and Thomas are the main proponents of this that I know), and judicial restraint (Alexander Bickel, Justice Frankfurter (a liberal), maybe Justice Alito and Judge Bork).

If anything, the greatest strict constructionist is probably Justice Black, who is a liberal hero (also one of my judicial heroes) and considered a judicial activist.

I suppose my point is really that liberal/conservative does not necessarily apply to legal schools of thought. For example, I would bet that you would be a huge supporter of the confrontation clause of the constitution. Well guess which portions of the Supreme Court have given the strongest support of this and guess which haven't?

For a few cases where there are strange cross currents, go look at the lineups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melendez-Diaz_v._Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich (However, this one has a Commerce Clause issue which will be huge when Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court, still, it is about drugs as well)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith Guess which Justice wrote this opinion which curtailed religious freedom?