Now Obama and the Canadian government denied it, but its interesting that person named in the report refused to answer the question. I hope this is true, maybe Obama isn't going to be a complete disaster on economy. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...0228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=QPeriod
Maybe he is. This doesn't really seem like an indicator that he would be, but it is true that we don't know. This time in 2000, we could have thought maybe Bush would have been a great president.
I don't understand how Canada could be a problem for u.s. workers. isn't it more expensive to operate in canada if you're a manufacturing. aren't their taxes higher and their benefits greater to employees?
I figure it may be cheaper due to no health insurance for employees. I do not know the business tax situation in Canada so that would also need to be taken into consideration.
Corporate taxes are lower in Canada, and government benefits like pension and healthcare are bigger, but paid for mostly with income taxes. Besides, Canadian manufacturing has better access to many natural resources.
Great president? Right now I'd settle for McCain/Obama not completely screw up the economy. And I am hoping he is more pragmatic than the rhetoric. You know, try not to stick your finger into the eye of your best ally.
With the Cdn Loonie increasing from $0.60 US to par over the last couple of years, the Great White North is simply not luring jobs from the US for cost reasons. In fact, it's a great challenge to keep and attract manufacturing plants up North when the Greenback is so much cheaper. But if Hillary and Obama would focus on Mexico -- where there's the presumption that all that cheap labour is stealing jobs -- well...it just wouldn't look good for the demo's they're trying to woo. Can't appeal to the disgrunted Ohio manufacturing workers without risking alienating the hispanic voter unless you wrap it up in an anti-NAFTA package. So you get to appeal to those Texan's who think them Mexican's are getting too good a ride, and to the Ohioites (Ohioans?) who think their manu jobs would be safe with protectionist policy. All without actually saying you're protecting Real 'Mericans from them Mexicans. Or addressing the economy in any meaningful or comprehensive manner. Seriously -- is job loss to Mexico as big an issue as job losses overseas? And what's the unemployment rate again? Overall, this is the area I'm most disappointed with the Dems. Free trade's been pretty successful. It's all the rage elsewhere, so it would be more then a shame to take a step back in North America. Obama's statements on Free Trade read like GARM Dreamcasting -- only more optimistic. So I don't really know where he truly stands. I was pretty comfortable with Hillary's take -- but she's waffled a lot lately. Hopefully it will be all over in a few days...Hillary can conceed, and Obama and Hillary can stop trying to out sound-bite eachother while making commitments that appeal on a base level, but would be foolish to keep.
I'm going to write it off to campaigning in Ohio (which is still disappointing). Notice in the actual debate they had to back off and really seperate the texas and ohio concerns.
