GFPB: Obama Not So Bad for Canada, eh?

[eh1eh]

Until we will work for $4 per day we will never be the 51st state so not eligible for that shit.

Ha, so we will have to keep on bargaining hard. :whistle:

[grainfedprairieboy]

Until we will work for $4 per day we will never be the 51st state so not eligible for that shit.

Ha, so we will have to keep on bargaining hard. :whistle:

More likely outcome is Canada roping them in and another 50 additional provinces with their hands out demanding equalisation. :ohmy:

[ITN]

There are plenty of American companies bidding on Canadian contracts. That was a pretty big one. So for you to say it doesn't happen is a large exageration.

I'm not too sure you're familiar with your interprovincial trade barriers and how far they have gone. otherwise you wouldn't be saying something like this.

CBC is state-owned television/radio! There's BBC, ABC, etc, etc all over the world.... why would we want Americans to run a Canadian national TV/radio broadcaster? That example is simply absurd!

I was referring to your Canadian Content laws.

There are plenty of examples of subsidies and protectionist policies on both sides of the border...

Sure there are and that's my point. When the US attempts some sort of protectionism Canadians cry foul, why is that? Please explain it to me.

[Stoney Toni]

I'll reserve judgment until I have had a chance to review this further. My major concerns center around the unfair practices and trade rules placed by the US in respect to agriculture but I appreciate the heads up.

Close to 20% of all US farm income is subsidized, and it goes to mostly five crops; wheat, corn, soybean, rice, and cotton.

But that has been ocurring over for many years. Obama's budget proposed last year to cut the amount of subsidies, and to impose conditions on subsidies, like a condition that would require the land to be actually in use to get the subsidy. In the House and Senate, members bowed to pressure from groups like the National Farmers Union, who represent about 250,000 farm families. Obama's proposals were too ambitious for the status quo.

[grainfedprairieboy]

In the House and Senate, members bowed to pressure from groups like the National Farmers Union, who represent about 250,000 farm families. Obama's proposals were too ambitious for the status quo.

The American farmer overall is not exactly as educated and business savy as his Canadian counterpart who also clamours and begs for every possible handout and receives way too much.

Food in western countries has been artificially subsidised since the 1970s to the point that your groceries are costing you about a third of what they should. These subsidies lead to higher taxes and make it almost impossible for farmers in developing regions to compete.

A classic example is sorghum. Ever hear of it? Don't worry if you haven't since we don't eat it here but in Africa it is the number one food staple and grain consumed.

Guess who the largest producer is............the USA. That's right, the American government pays farmers to produce a crop their people don't eat and they flood the African market making it impossible for local farmers there to produce the same product and compete.

But my problem specifically is with the protectionist polices that prevent the cross border movement of hogs and cattle and other farm products. These are all new restricitions placed by Obama to increase domestic production.

[Stoney Toni]

Do you mean the country of origin labeling (COOL) requirements? If not you'll have to bring me up to speed on which policies specifically you're referring to.

The COOL requirements were created by an act of Congress in 2002, and through another act of Congress in 2008. The USDA made their final ruling on the mandatory labeling of country origin requirements as required by those farm bills in 2002 and 2008.

You can read all about that here (.pdf):
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-600.pdf

They aren't Obama's policies.