Wow, More Democrats Breaking Promises: This Time, It's Their Voters

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Americans didn't flock to Canada after Bush win

By David Ljunggren 17 minutes ago

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadians can put away those extra welcome mats -- it seems Americans unhappy about the result of last November's presidential election have decided to stay at home after all.

In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north.

But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election.

On the face of it this is not good news -- Canada is one of the few major nations seeking to attract immigrants -- but Immigration Minister Joe Volpe was philosophical.

"We'll take talent from wherever it is resident in the world. I was absolutely elated to see the number of hits and then my staff said 'You know what? A hit on the Internet is after all just a hit'," he told Reuters on Thursday.

"I guess I'm happy Republicans and Democrats have found a way to live together in peace and in harmony," he said.

Canada generally tilts more to the social and political left than the United States.

Data from the main Canadian processing center in Buffalo, NY shows that in the six months up to the U.S. election there were 16,266 applications from people seeking to live in Canada, a figure that fell to 14,666 for the half year after the vote.

A spokeswoman for Canada's federal immigration ministry declined to speculate on the reasons for the drop.

Toby Condliffe, who heads the Canadian chapter of Democrats Abroad, did have an explanation of sorts.

"I can only assume the Americans who checked out the Web site subsequently checked out our winter temperatures and further took note that the National Hockey League was being locked out and had second thoughts," he told Reuters.

Last year, Canada, which has a population of about 32 million, accepted 235,808 immigrants from all over the world.
Link

Wow, I'm shocked. The losers, yes losers, that claimed they'd move if Kerry lost lied.

Mark this as the second election in a row where tons of vocal loudmouthed extremeists fail to live up to their own promises. All these idiots that thought that if they stated they'd move they thought of it as a threat, I thought of it as a promise. I really don't like being lied to by liberals but what can you expect, they're liberals. They always have the opposite effect of their stated goals. They promise something so grand as their own removal from American society and then don't live up to their own lofty words.

If only these people would make good....
 
I must admit, I'm rather tempted to move to Canada. Not really for political reasons, but for the weather. Its just too damn hot this summer...
 
Unlike you, PAD, I consider myself a real American.

FYI, America won it's freedom through dissent against the government.
There is nothing more American than wanting to change the government and make it better.

Those who favor corrupt politicians hate America. So, you must hate America.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I must admit, I'm rather tempted to move to Canada. Not really for political reasons, but for the weather. Its just too damn hot this summer...[/QUOTE]

Amen brother. A fucking men.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I must admit, I'm rather tempted to move to Canada. Not really for political reasons, but for the weather. Its just too damn hot this summer...[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Seriously, WTF? It don't remember it ever being this hot....
 
Weak even for you...


first off some did. Gross numbers don't tell the whole story. My wife provide physicals for those moving abroad and a few folks did actually move as a result of the elections. Plus how many people actually made a real "promise". Maybe it was the same kind of promise Bush made to use diplomacy or find WMDs, etc.

Also you guys have to keep your "promises" too..http://christianexodus.org/

when are you moving?
 
The article doesn't indicate if immigration did spike after the election; it only noted that it fell six months after the election. In other news, more Christmas gifts are given in December than in April.

Me? I'd go there for the jobs, man:

Paul Krugman: Why jobs head north
The New York Times

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
PRINCETON, New Jersey Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.

Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-SUVs, in Ontario, Canada. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.

To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.

So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.


PRINCETON, New Jersey Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.

Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-SUVs, in Ontario, Canada. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.

To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.

So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.
Click to expand...

Good ol' Paul Krugman, from the NY Times op-ed page (cited in the International Herald-Tribune: http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/07/25/opinion/edkrugman.php)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Mark this as the second election in a row where tons of vocal loudmouthed extremeists fail to live up to their own promises.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Wait - we're talking about the Bush Administration, right?
 
If people are even threatening moving to canada solely because they don't like the current political climate in a democracy (and not because it's a physically threatening one or one where something they truly desire is forbidden, like marriage), then they truly are losers.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The article doesn't indicate if immigration did spike after the election; it only noted that it fell six months after the election. In other news, more Christmas gifts are given in December than in April.

Me? I'd go there for the jobs, man:



Good ol' Paul Krugman, from the NY Times op-ed page (cited in the International Herald-Tribune: http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/07/25/opinion/edkrugman.php)[/QUOTE]

That is an interesting article, since I had heard rumors of the GM plant eventually closing in oshawa, ontario. Then again, I just saw that that plant was the most productive in north america (http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/workplace/100_news/120_news/oshawa_051905.html), so maybe the rumor was wrong?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If people are even threatening moving to canada solely because they don't like the current political climate in a democracy (and not because it's a physically threatening one or one where something they truly desire is forbidden, like marriage), then they truly are losers.[/QUOTE]

I think the threatening to move part is pretty weak.

However if someone truly believes that the socailist democracy of Canada is more closely aligned with their ideals, then I think it is the right move and I would begrudge them nothing.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think the threatening to move part is pretty weak.

However if someone truly believes that the socailist democracy of Canada is more closely aligned with their ideals, then I think it is the right move and I would begrudge them nothing.[/QUOTE]

My thing is if you are that upset you should stay and fight, and not leaving making it easier for your opponents to maintain control of your home country. Again, my opinion is different if you're gay, trying to avoid a draft etc., or just happen to like a particular place in canada a lot, but moving simply because you don't like election results and don't want to try to change them in the future, that's just sad.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hey Quack, what's the name of the nearly naked Cub Scout on your lap this afternoon?[/QUOTE]

The joke was amusing the first time, now (like every other one of your jokes about Quack that's funny once) your just gonna drive it into the ground by overusing it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is if you are that upset you should stay and fight, and not leaving making it easier for your opponents to maintain control of your home country. Again, my opinion is different if you're gay, trying to avoid a draft etc., or just happen to like a particular place in canada a lot, but moving simply because you don't like election results and don't want to try to change them in the future, that's just sad.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Besides, as we all see it's not that big a deal, Republicans seem to be moving more towards the center and away from Bush's alamingly radical right stances.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The joke was amusing the first time, now (like every other one of your jokes about Quack that's funny once) your just gonna drive it into the ground by overusing it.[/QUOTE]

JimmieMac should start a vBookie poll on the approximate date on which PAD will make a joke account: Quack's Nekkid Boy Scout.

August 8th, bebe!
 
[quote name='Mike23']Any questions for the Canadian?[/QUOTE]

Do they really roll the cases of beer down conveyor belts at the store, like in Strange Brew?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']JimmieMac should start a vBookie poll on the approximate date on which PAD will make a joke account: Quack's Nekkid Boy Scout.

August 8th, bebe![/QUOTE]


Hmm, see it really depends on how much Quack pisses him off in the hear future. I mean if Quack brings out the big guns and starts laying into him tonight, the new account could be seen as early as tomorrow.
 
[quote name='Mike23']Any questions for the Canadian?[/QUOTE]


Why is it that it seems as if your ratio of hot:ugly girls is so much higher than in the US?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do they really roll the cases of beer down conveyor belts at the store, like in Strange Brew?[/QUOTE]

I know it's not directed at me, but at "the beer store" you have to look at the wall with a listing of the beers and then tell the person at the counter what beer you want, then walk to the other side of the store with the conveyor belt and your beer comes out on the belt in through the hole in the wall. The stange thing is I went there and ordered 1 japanese beer (was about 3 bucks), and it still came out on the belt.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Awesome! Beer on conveyor belts, socialized medicine, jobs, and the fuckin' mounties! Can I bring my accent?

IKIK.[/QUOTE]


Your forgetting the abundance of good looking women too.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Weak even for you...


first off some did. Gross numbers don't tell the whole story. My wife provide physicals for those moving abroad and a few folks did actually move as a result of the elections. Plus how many people actually made a real "promise". Maybe it was the same kind of promise Bush made to use diplomacy or find WMDs, etc.

Also you guys have to keep your "promises" too..http://christianexodus.org/

when are you moving?[/QUOTE]
Interesting... this is the first I've heard of the Christian Exodus. I'm all for the fundies moving away from me. I just wish it was farther than South Carolina. How about Idaho or Wyoming? Plus I don't want them to have a seaport - once we get them cornered, I don't want them parting the waters and skittering away. :lol:
 
Regarding the Christian Exodus, if a few Christians want to live like assholes, and do it *far* away from me, then power to the people. However, I'm confused about the biblical nature of these three points:

[quote name='Jebus Lovers']# Fathers are denied equal rights under law in cases of child custody
# Our right to keep and bear arms continues to be INFRINGED
# Private homes are now subject to arbitrary government seizure[/quote]

#1 in particular is interesting, because its existence as a point of contention implies that these christians are perfectly fine with divorce occurring in their new state of South Jebuslina. If divorce were prohibited, then father's rights wouldn't be an issue, would it? Now myke, you bastard, you might say. What about divorce due to infidelity, which was permitted in the past? Well, infidelity-based divorce is contingent upon the person doin' the screwin'. No divorce if it's the man, and divorce is permitted if it's the woman. So we would assume that divorce rates should plummet to pre-19th century levels in South Jebuslina if this were the case, rendering father's rights a moot point. Furthermore, women's rights (or mother's rights) and christianity are inherently incompatible (see divorce example above); we would assume, then, that by virtue of a unitary culture, mother's rights would go down the shitter (unless women had the right to obey their spouse like a good woman).

Guns and property rights aren't within the domain of christianity as far as I am concerned. I hope that the residents of South Jebuslina will go far with their christianity, and pass laws mandating mandatory service to the poor every Saturday, high taxation in order to provide the needy with services, and other forms of benevolent deeds.

Would Jesus serve the poor before he fought for property rights?
 
Okay, let's be serious here. If the Dems were leaving, PAD would be posting saying how they're not real Americans, or unpatriotic, or Canada-loving pussies, or something equally vitriolic--never mind that he'd shed no tears for their departure.

Instead, we get an e-mail criticizing them for NOT leaving the country? Come on. Why not some praise for realizing that, damn it, we're all Americans and we're all in this together? Why not surmise that maybe the dems figured out that it was better to hope for and work toward our President's success, regardless of whether they voted for him?

For the last time, can we PLEASE just cut all this partisan crap????
 
The abundance of goodlooking woman is inexplainable. I'm not complaining though, I enjoy the benefits.

Myke- Not all of the Mounties are like "The Mountie" of WWF fame. Sorry to burst that bubble. :cool:
 
[quote name='Mike23']The abundance of goodlooking woman is inexplainable. I'm not complaining though, I enjoy the benefits.[/QUOTE]

I think all the asian and african immigrants have something to do with it, at least if you have my tastes ;) .

Though I remember in high school, people kept joking about all the ugly, unshaven hippy women I was going to meet. Glad I didn't listen to them (oddly saw lots of them in buffalo though).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top