by Snowrunner » Thu 27 Nov 2008, 14:53:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', 'Y')eah, but you're not eligible for either one unless you're a citizen, a landed immigrant, or you've been accepted as a legitimate refugee -- and Canada's not in the habit of recognizing people from the US as refugees;
Actually not quite. Yes, EI, etc. requires that you have a SIN number, but foodbanks etc. do not discriminate, neither do Doctors, depending on the province you pay a fee (~$50 - $100) and there are ample clinics that provide literally free healthcare, and they are tax funded as well.
Unless our Government is completely incompetent you will see a lot of spending on these services, Canada is still in better shape than the US and just look what they are spending (on the wrong things).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for employment, we don't need all that many tobacco pickers, and we've got that covered legally already. I just don't see it. They didn't flood Canada during the Depression, and as I've said, if things collapse for them, there won't be a lot of difference up here. It's going to get tough for us too.
Oh it will be bad here too. I am not arguing that point. But the darker the night, the brighter the match.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ll grant you that, given the nature of the border west of Lake of the Woods, it would be practically impossible to prevent people from the States crossing the border. But what I'm saying is that the nature of the welcome and the facilities and opportunities they'd find when they got here would not be worth the trouble. Why eat out of garbage cans in Lethbridge if you're eligible for welfare in Boise?
Because so far the US hasn't really spent anything on people. All the money so far went towards banks and businesses and the numbers coming out of the US aren't looking very promising.
In contrast, Canada so far only was stupid enough to spent 75 billion on the banks, we'll know this afternoon if Flaherty bought a clue over the last week or if he is still as retarded as he was when he sold off Ontario.
I am hoping that he bought a clue, but we'll see. If not then the whole debate is mute and we can look south for a little bit of warning.
by Starvid » Thu 27 Nov 2008, 17:54:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hermit', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('strider3700', 'a')ssuming we aren't just taken over
The takeover of Canada has already been completed... But Canadians are just to stubborn to acknowledge it.
This is what happens when you're not careful with the shithawks.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Nickel » Thu 27 Nov 2008, 20:15:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'f')oodbanks etc. do not discriminate, neither do Doctors, depending on the province you pay a fee (~$50 - $100) and there are ample clinics that provide literally free healthcare, and they are tax funded as well.
Everything you've just said is also true in the United States. They don't need to cross the border for that. And if you don't have medicare in Canada, you still get the bill; I know that because I had a friend from L.A. visit who would up in the hospital uninsured. They treated him, but they also billed him. Again, I don't see the advantage in coming to Canada to to go to foodbanks and NOT qualify for social assistance or jobs when you can go to foodbanks in the US and collect assistance and maybe score a job. It's a losing proposition.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'U')nless our Government is completely incompetent you will see a lot of spending on these services, Canada is still in better shape than the US and just look what they are spending (on the wrong things).
Well, no argument here, but we are a nation of 33 million able to accommodate about a quarter million -- maybe upwards of half a million -- newcomers annually. We simply can't take that many if things get bad, especially if they're bad here too. Unless CNN shows us eating gold for breakfast, people from the States are not going to start showing up here in big numbers. And if they do, there's simply going to be no place for them to work, no way to feed them, and not even enough places for them to live. Again, it's self-evident to me that this positive feedback loop would dry up the pool of emigrants pretty quickly. It's a self-correcting mechanism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'B')ecause so far the US hasn't really spent anything on people.
How much do you suppose WE can spend on people? Our resources are finite. To illustrate the point: Canada has to Ireland roughly the same proportion of population as the US has to Canada. How long do you suppose Ireland, a country of between 3 and 4 million, could accommodate the outflow of a country of 33 million if we decided to start showing up there? And why would we suppose it was their obligation to look after us in the first place?
I do believe in the long run, people from the States are likely to wind up moving here, mostly as climate change takes effect, but even then I think it will be controlled and gradual. But like I said, they didn't flood the country during the Depression, because things were bad all over. What would be the point? Then, or now.
by Snowrunner » Thu 27 Nov 2008, 21:29:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', 'E')verything you've just said is also true in the United States. They don't need to cross the border for that. And if you don't have medicare in Canada, you still get the bill; I know that because I had a friend from L.A. visit who would up in the hospital uninsured. They treated him, but they also billed him. Again, I don't see the advantage in coming to Canada to to go to foodbanks and NOT qualify for social assistance or jobs when you can go to foodbanks in the US and collect assistance and maybe score a job. It's a losing proposition.
You're missing my point. It's what people percieve as being real is what matters, not reality. If people believe "Free Healthcare" etc. Land of Milk and Honey they WILL come, many most likely burning their last cent on it and then they are "stuck".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, no argument here, but we are a nation of 33 million able to accommodate about a quarter million -- maybe upwards of half a million -- newcomers annually. We simply can't take that many if things get bad, especially if they're bad here too. Unless CNN shows us eating gold for breakfast, people from the States are not going to start showing up here in big numbers. And if they do, there's simply going to be no place for them to work, no way to feed them, and not even enough places for them to live. Again, it's self-evident to me that this positive feedback loop would dry up the pool of emigrants pretty quickly. It's a self-correcting mechanism.
Optimist... Besides, our Government has shown today that they either have no clue, are shameless optimists or both.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much do you suppose WE can spend on people? Our resources are finite. To illustrate the point: Canada has to Ireland roughly the same proportion of population as the US has to Canada. How long do you suppose Ireland, a country of between 3 and 4 million, could accommodate the outflow of a country of 33 million if we decided to start showing up there? And why would we suppose it was their obligation to look after us in the first place?
Would get a bit crowded there quickly. But the question is: How would we get RID of them? Set up check points? Knock at doors?
There's a reason why currently 30K KNOWN undocumented people are "hiding" in this country and no real attempt is being made to get rid of them.
Even IF the money would be spent to find out "illegals", what do you think will happen once you dump them on the other side of the border? They'll try to get back in because whatever "support network" as flimsy as it may be they have will be "up north".
Oh well, mute point. I guess in five years we know who was right and wrong.
BTW, I was never debating if "Canada could support", I thought I had made it quite clear that this wasn't sustainable.
I do believe in the long run, people from the States are likely to wind up moving here, mostly as climate change takes effect, but even then I think it will be controlled and gradual. But like I said, they didn't flood the country during the Depression, because things were bad all over. What would be the point? Then, or now.[/quote]
by Nickel » Fri 28 Nov 2008, 12:31:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'Y')ou're missing my point. It's what people percieve as being real is what matters, not reality. If people believe "Free Healthcare" etc. Land of Milk and Honey they WILL come, many most likely burning their last cent on it and then they are "stuck".
I'm
not missing your point; it's just it's not a very sound one. If there were anything to it, there'd be 50 million of them here already. They obviously DON'T by and large imagine us as living like our head of state over there in London, and they're not bound to if they're hearing about layoffs here, too -- or, as I said, if the first few who show up report back "there ain't no water in the well, Clem".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'O')ptimist... Besides, our Government has shown today that they either have no clue, are shameless optimists or both.
It's not optimism, it's just practicality. There ARE mechanisms to these things. People in the United States, by and large, live considerably better than most people in Mexico, and yet there are still 110 million people there. Even with the relatively large disparity there, the vast majority of Mexicans can't be bothered. And I frankly can't imagine the US deteriorating so profoundly that an even greater disparity would manifest itself along the 49th parallel, I'm sorry -- particularly not when so much of our economy is focused on servicing theirs in the first place. Loss of that industry would necessarily wipe out a lot of the prosperity they'd supposedly be coming here to enjoy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'W')ould get a bit crowded there quickly. But the question is: How would we get RID of them? Set up check points? Knock at doors?
Like I've said, after the first few, it wouldn't be an issue. The reality of it would be made plain at home. We are not going to be a supreme land of milk and honey if a big chunk of the $100 billion or so a year the US overspends northward dries up. There won't be all that much around to impress the expats.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'B')TW, I was never debating if "Canada could support", I thought I had made it quite clear that this wasn't sustainable.
by Nickel » Fri 28 Nov 2008, 12:34:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat should Canadians do?
Give me head
Why, you getting too fat to do it yourself?
by jasonraymondson » Fri 28 Nov 2008, 16:00:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat should Canadians do?
Give me head
Why, you getting too fat to do it yourself?
Nah, it is to short for me to reach
![[smilie=adora.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/adora.gif "adora")
