Americans prepare to vote - Canadians prepare for the worst
59 replies, posted
This is basically an aggregate of what the NP has had to say about the American election over the last couple days. It's not our election, but it's certainly our problem.
[Quote=The National Post]Canadians don’t get a say in who’s elected to the White House Tuesday, but we’ve got skin in the game since the result will have wide-ranging impacts for us.
Here’s a look at how a Mitt Romney presidency or a Barack Obama second term could affect Canadians:
[B]The Military[/B]
Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and the American military for its defence and security is unparallelled. It’s one of the main reasons this country gets away with spending just over one per cent of GDP on the military when the NATO target is two per cent.
The U.S., for the record, spends about four per cent of its GDP on defence.
That is expected to change as cuts to American military spending are inevitable given the state of the U.S. economy and its multi-trillion-dollar deficit. The degree of reduction, however, depends on who comes to the White House.
Romney’s plan will have least impact on Canadian defence and security, as he wants a minimum of four per cent of U.S. GDP spent on the American military.
Obama’s plan is potentially more worrying for Canadian military planners. While he has not provided any specifics, Obama has said he plans to use half the money saved from the U.S. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt, and re-invest the other half in infrastructure.
If that represents a return to pre-2001 funding levels — it’s not clear if it does or not — then that would put U.S. defence spending way below four per cent, perhaps even closer to three per cent.
That still represents major dollars, but Canada and other U.S. allies will undoubtedly face pressure to start doing more and increase their defence funding.
[B]Health Care[/B]
The fate of Obama’s public health care plan has been another central theme during the campaign, with Romney promising to scrap it if elected president. If that happens, Canadians, even though many like public health care as a concept, may want to breathe a sigh of relief.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is expected to result in 32 million more Americans having access to health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges has predicted that will result in a shortfall of 63,000 doctors by 2015.
The U.S. already has a history of recruiting Canadian-trained doctors and nurses to help address its existing shortfall. While the southward flow has slowed in recent years, there are concerns within the Canadian medical sector that Obamacare would reverse that trend.
[B]The Economy[/B]
The economic fates of Canada and the United States are intertwined. How the U.S. goes, so goes Canada.
The massive American national debt continues to spiral out of control, unemployment remains around eight per cent, and there is no agreement over how to get out of the mess.
Obama’s approach is to cut military spending and putting a greater tax burden on the country’s biggest businesses and wealthiest citizens to ease the pain borne by the middle-class.
Romney’s plan will be familiar to Canadians, as it emphasizes tax cuts for big business in the hope of encouraging job creation and investment, slashing non-military government spending, and downloading services to states.
[B]Each plan has ramifications for Canada.[/B]
Romney made a point during the second presidential debate of highlighting Canada’s low corporate tax rate. He has promised to cut the U.S. rate, which could affect Canada’s ability to attract foreign investment. His proposed cuts to government funding could result in less work for Canadian companies that have taken advantage of U.S. government contracts.
Obama’s plan to maintain most government spending, and his promise to re-invest half of the billions saved from the pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan into infrastructure, may mean opportunities for Canadian companies.
Another issue is whether either candidate can get his plan through Congress, which has been gridlocked due to fighting between Republicans, Democrats and Tea Partyers.
Some say Romney will have an easier time as the Republicans are predicted to hold onto their majority in the House of Representatives, and may even retake the Senate. But even if the Democrats lose the Senate, the Tea Party movement could be a thorn in Romney’s side.
Others are hoping Obama will be the target of fewer political games in Congress during his second term, but that may be wishful thinking.
[B]Energy and the Environment[/B]
The Conservative government and Canada’s oil and gas industry are waiting for the election results so the Keystone XL pipeline can get the go-ahead.
Romney has described the pipeline, which would carry Alberta crude more than 2,500 kilometres south to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, as essential for weaning the U.S. off oil from pariah countries such as Iran and Venezuela. He has promised to approve it shortly after being elected.
But most expect Obama to also approve the pipeline if re-elected, particularly since Calgary-based TransCanada submitted a revised proposal several weeks ago, which is expected to address the initial environmental concerns.
Still, the two men have laid out very different approaches to securing U.S. energy and energy security, which will have other implications for Canada.
Obama has promised to continue investing in alternative energy sources, including wind and solar, in the hopes he can make the U.S. a world leader in such technologies. This could result in less reliance on Canadian natural resources, which would affect this country’s energy industry and encourage the drive towards China and other parts of Asia.
Romney has come out strongly in favour of securing U.S. energy from oil, gas and coal, and he has rolled Canada and Mexico into his plan by repeatedly citing the importance of “North American energy independence.”
But Romney also plans to significantly increase the number of drilling permits for energy companies in the U.S., and approve offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and other parts of the Arctic. He would also move forward on shale gas extraction and support continued use of coal.
Aside from reducing Canada’s energy importance, the strategy raises concerns over the threat of oil spills off the West Coast and continued pollution from coal-fired power plants in the Mid-West.
Romney has put a premium on protecting jobs and industry when it comes to environmental issues.
He has also promised to impose a rule that any new regulations must be offset with a matching reduction in red tape so business doesn’t have to pay more — which is expected to minimize tougher new environmental rules.
Meanwhile, Obama was much more modest in his approach to environmental issues during his first term than many had expected.
Environmentalists are encouraging him to be much more active on the issue in his second term, when he won’t have to think about re-election.
The Harper government has gone out of its way to change its emission-reduction targets and rules for vehicle emissions so they are aligned with U.S. policies.
If Romney relaxes American environmental policies, the Harper government will likely do the same. Similarly, the need to keep industry on both sides of the border harmonized may result in grudging Canadian acceptance if Obama brings in tougher standards and policies.
[B]The Personal Touch[/B]
Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to build a good working relationship with Obama since the early days of Obama’s presidency. The two are often seen talking together at high-level conferences and summits, and they have had several one-on-one meetings over the past four years.
Canada and the U.S. have historically worked closely on the world stage, and this tradition has continued under Obama.
But Harper and Romney could develop a closer personal relationship as the two are conservatives, and Romney appears to share a similar view of the world with Harper. Romney has sounded like Harper as he’s talked about strongly supporting Israel and the dangers posed by Iran, the importance of free trade in spreading democracy, and the threat of a resurgent Russia.
There is a great deal of skepticism over whether Romney’s hard words towards China and Russia will actual amount to a change in U.S. foreign policy, or whether — like Harper — he will soften his tone once in power.
A Romney presidency might not lead to changes in Canadian foreign policy, but it could mean Romney will be more amenable to a personal phone call or request for assistance from Harper than Obama.
[B]Competition and the Border[/B]
One of the driving forces behind the Conservative government’s free-trade agenda is obtaining a competitive advantage in markets like the European Union or India where the U.S. doesn’t have a deal.
Another is to maintain a level playing field in places where the Americans have a free-trade agreement, such as South Korea and Colombia.
Obama, whose party is wary of free trade, has been slow to negotiate or sign off on deals. He has indicated he would be more aggressive on this front in the future, though that may simply be rhetoric
Romney has forcefully committed to fast-tracking talks and concluding agreements, which could lead to more competition for Canada.
Meanwhile, U.S. and Canadian officials have been quietly working behind the scenes to ease security at the border and facilitate the flow of two-way trade following an agreement announced by Obama and Harper in December 2011.
This work has slowed with the election, but most expect it to continue whether Obama or Romney are in the White House.[/Quote]
[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/04/u-s-election-wide-ranging-impacts-for-canadians/]National Post[/url]
Overwhelmingly, Canadians would prefer to have Obama as the man in the White House, [I]and[/I] as their neighbour.
[img]http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/na1105_canadauselectionweb1100.jpg[/img]
And this is their rundown of the Electoral College.
[img]http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fo1103_electiontossupsweb11.jpg[/img]
I think the only thing Canadians have patently wrong about their opinions on the candidates is that, as far as I've been able to tell, Romney would be far better for Canadian business. Obama has done an excellent job of pushing Canada to find new trade agreements with far flung countries, all in order to lift Canada's trade dependence on the USA. The Keystone XL is one example, but there are others. Obama: good for Canadian independence, bad for Canadian business.
Holy charts
This article is such biased bullshit. Canada does rely on the US military quite a bit, but we don't make a habit of pissing people off. We don't have nearly as many enemies. Furthermore, the 'shortfall of doctors' cited will be primarily in the States. Romney's a swindler and a cocksucker for the highest bidder. Obama's not a saint but he's got more integrity and will be good for Canada - And its economy. Because if Romney's elected, his fiscal policies are going to cause a fecking depression.
I could thumb them if that'd be better.
graphs graphs graphs
Here's the issue with Conservative fiscal policies as I see them - They're not sustainable at all. They're good for a little short-term boom and then the economy crashes like a sack of shit. They're a cheap excuse to put money in the pockets of the rich, with the assumption that out of the dubious goodness of their hearts they'll create more jobs - In an economy that isn't truly capitalist because of all the price-fixing happening.
Giving the poor more opportunities, on the other hand, improves the buying power of consumers in general and will ensure better prosperity.
[quote]But Harper and Romney could develop a closer personal relationship as the two are conservatives,[/quote]
Yeah, this really shows that the person writing the article has no idea what he is talking about. On the political compass the conservative governments place almost exactly the same as Obama. I'll see if I can't find it.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
[img]http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/new-left-right-spectrum-canada-us-08.png?w=500[/img]
All in all, VERY biased article.
Is Alberta like the hick part of Canada or something?
I dislike this graph because half of it is designed to make the race as close as possible, and then they add a tiny disclaimer at the bottom that "it won't all come down to New Hampshire, we're just showing how close it could be."
Well that's a waste of time, I could have randomly assigned states to candidates and made it close too.
[QUOTE=download;38327423]Is Alberta like the hick part of Canada or something?[/QUOTE]
Supposedly rural Alberta is, but I saw more stereotypes in trailer parks with pickups in B.C.
[QUOTE=download;38327423]Is Alberta like the hick part of Canada or something?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/na0425-albertathenandnow9401.jpg?w=940&h=1129[/img]
In their defense, conservative policies favor the oil sands.
i love how that last picture tried to make the election as exciting and close as possible when it really isn't
at this point those swing states are decided. also even though NH is historically a red state in the past number of elections it has been blue
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
red once out of the past 5
wait I'm confused, it says canada prefers obama by 75+% across the board, but the written portions at the beginning seems to be nothing short of "obama's policies are terrible and romney would be better". Why would canada be in favor of Romney's ideal of privatizing healthcare? Also I'm not sure he'd be so happy sharing that massive amount of military spending to aid canada, even though it's entirely bloated and unnecessary as it stands. As a business man, along with Paul Ryan and his famed stance in Ayn Rand adjusted for business and politics, I think the idea would be more "oh you don't have good enough military power? Have fun being invaded, it's your lot in life"
granted I don't think canada can do anything nor is located somewhere beneficial to merit being invaded or whatever, but being our neighbor is a threat in and of itself.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;38327476]i love how that last picture tried to make the election as exciting and close as possible when it really isn't
at this point those swing states are decided. also even though NH is historically a red state in the past number of elections it has been blue[/QUOTE]
it's up to about 86% for obama right now. News is all making it out to be a 47%/47%
horse race just to keep ratings and interest at this point
Romney would be better for the Canadian Economy, Obama not so much. Mainly because of oil and trade restrictions to help companies compete.
And yes, Canada is alot more democratic then the US.
This article is really poorly written and biased as hell. Regardless, I'm fairly sure that none of my friends, family or anyone I really know has said they'd vote for Romney. He's a nut.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;38327710]wait I'm confused, it says canada prefers obama by 75+% across the board, but the written portions at the beginning seems to be nothing short of "obama's policies are terrible and romney would be better". Why would canada be in favor of Romney's ideal of privatizing healthcare? Also I'm not sure he'd be so happy sharing that massive amount of military spending to aid canada, even though it's entirely bloated and unnecessary as it stands. As a business man, along with Paul Ryan and his famed stance in Ayn Rand adjusted for business and politics, I think the idea would be more "oh you don't have good enough military power? Have fun being invaded, it's your lot in life"
granted I don't think canada can do anything nor is located somewhere beneficial to merit being invaded or whatever, but being our neighbor is a threat in and of itself.[/QUOTE]
"Obamacare is bad because our doctors will have jobs in Murrica :("
Really...?
[QUOTE=daijitsu;38327710]it's up to about 86% for obama right now. News is all making it out to be a 47%/47% horse race just to keep ratings and interest at this point[/QUOTE]
Seems to be because the popular vote will never really change that much, so almost no matter what you could say "it's between only a few percent!" and be telling the truth, but that would have little bearing on who actually wins the election.
I know NP is conservative but
[quote]
Obama’s plan is potentially more worrying for Canadian military planners. While he has not provided any specifics, Obama has said he plans to use half the money saved from the U.S. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt, and re-invest the other half in infrastructure.
[/quote]
[quote]
The fate of Obama’s public health care plan has been another central theme during the campaign, with Romney promising to scrap it if elected president. If that happens, Canadians, even though many like public health care as a concept, may want to breathe a sigh of relief.
[/quote]
[quote]
Romney’s plan will be familiar to Canadians, as it emphasizes tax cuts for big business in the hope of encouraging job creation and investment, slashing non-military government spending, and downloading services to states.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Jund;38328174]I know NP is conservative but[/QUOTE]
So Canadians wouldn't like the PPACA because it might mean some Canadian doctors come to the US to aid in care? That's rubbish.
the only thing Canada needs to worry about is the massive influx of American immigrants if Mittens wins.
What a load of crock
"More Americans have health care now? Using money saved from cutting the military budget to fix the economy? Alternative clean energy sources? HAHAHAHAHA"
fuck off NP
The 5th question adds up to 101%.
Canada can rest assured that the US will not tolerate anyone attacking them, regardless of our defense spending or which party has the Presidency. I believe the only reasons for Canada to spend any money on a military is national pride and because it would be insulting to be so obviously confident that the US will defend it. But the reality is that the US will defend it, not that there's any country in the world looking to attack Canada in the first place.
[QUOTE=Scot;38328380]The 5th question adds up to 101%.[/QUOTE]
Either a spelling error or rounding.
[QUOTE=Scot;38328380]The 5th question adds up to 101%.[/QUOTE]
[quote=The fucking picture itself]NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.[/quote]
[QUOTE=download;38327423]Is Alberta like the hick part of Canada or something?[/QUOTE]
Calgary specifically
Can we import Canada's parliamentary system of government?
That graph showing that Canadians think they're more democratic than the US is funny, since we're not a democracy and never have been.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;38328992]That graph showing that Canadians think they're more democratic than the US is funny, since we're not a democracy and never have been.[/QUOTE]
So its true
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;38328912]Can we import Canada's parliamentary system of government?[/QUOTE]
Its ours and you can't have it.
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38328250]the only thing Canada needs to worry about is the massive influx of American immigrants if Mittens wins.[/QUOTE]
Aslong as you leave behind your American political values and be friendly you're allowed in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.