Possible LEAK of Copenhagen Treaty

Who knows if this supposed LEAK is really what the proposed treaty looks like... but if it is, it underscores my BIGGEST issue with the whole "climate change" scheme... it's not about "Global Warming", IT'S ABOUT WEALTH TRANSFER.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including REDD-plus, adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for
enhanced implementation of the Convention. Parties take note of the individual pledges by developed country

Parties to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010-2012 as listed and with funding for adaptation prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods.

In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, the Parties support a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

$100 BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?! Where on EARTH are we going to come up with that kind of dough ANNUALLY?!?! What is Canada's share of that contribution going to look like? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT POTENTIAL $1-5 BILLION A YEAR!?!?!?

Of course, the transfer of some of our Western wealth in and of itself is not an entirely bad thing... but let's call it for what it really is, and then do something about the REAL problems in the Third World. I, for one, would be more than willing to take all the money we're CURRENTLY spending on "climate change" and redirect it into real hard solutions to major problems around the world... just think of all the problems we could solve! But increasing our funding of an issue who's scientific support is suspect? You've got to be kidding me!

I also have serious issues with men like Mugabee, Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and other world despots being given a single dime of that money... which the current proposed Copenhagen Treaty does not in any way, shape, or form address.

There's a bit of a silver lining, I suppose, in all this. If this is played right politically, and if the fallout from the leak at East Anglia continues, this could play right into our hands... can you imaging Iggy on the campaign trail trying to justify the HUGE tax increases we'd need to be able to afford this? All the PM would have to do is say that we're pulling out of the treaty, and BINGO... there's our majority.

I'm CONVINCED that Canadians are all willing to do our share to help the needy in this world. But when it comes to "climate change", and when it starts to hits them HARD in the pocket books, which this treaty is going to, I firmly believe that Canadians simply won't stand for it.

Of course, this could all just be a red herring... they may have leaked this strategically so that they can bring forward a treaty that calls for only $50 BILLION a year. Because it will have a "more reasonable" number, our leaders may be hoodwinked into signing on... like they were with Kyoto.

The Wall Street Journal turns on Obama?

Say whaaat??? Whoda thunk that poster-child of left-wing journalism in the United States would take on the Obama Administration and Pelosi Congress to task over runaway deficits?

UPDATE: Yea, my bad... was thinking the New York Times. [wiping egg off face]

"The Pelosi-Obama Deficits" they're calling it. Somebody pinch me, I've got to be dreaming...

AUGUST 26, 2009, 5:12 A.M. ET
The Pelosi-Obama Deficits
Even $9 trillion might be too optimistic on current spending trends

Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of "borrow and spend" budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck.

Mr. Obama's White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is "borrow and spend" on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be "only" $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent.

We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is "unsustainable," but even this forecast may be optimistic.

Here's why. Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation.

Another doozy is that Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to allow a one-third or more reduction in liberal priorities like Head Start, food stamps and child nutrition after 2011 when the stimulus expires. CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth.

Federal revenues, which will hit a 40-year low of 14.9% of GDP this year, are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2014 and then 20.2% by 2019—which the CBO concedes is "high by historical standards." This implies some enormous tax increases.

CBO assumes that some 28 million middle-class tax filers will get hit by the alternative minimum tax, something Democrats say they won't let happen. CBO also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts disappear—not merely those for the rich, but those for lower and middle income families as well. So either the deficit is going to be about $1.3 trillion higher than Washington thinks, or out goes Mr. Obama's campaign promise of not taxing those who make less than $250,000.

A burst of sustained economic growth, which we'd love to see, would substantially boost tax revenues and reduce future debt. But there's nothing in the Obama budget that nurtures or rewards growth or small business. Most of the major policy initiatives, such as the $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax, are a drag on growth. Mr. Obama wants to raise capital gains, dividend and income tax rates, which will reduce risk taking, innovation and investment. The House health-care bill would impose an 8% payroll tax on millions of small business owners, which will destroy jobs.

The White House issued a statement yesterday that the President is "very concerned about these out-year deficits." But apparently not so concerned as to stop pushing for a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement that is conveniently not included in these latest budget forecasts.

The real fiscal crisis in Washington is that neither Congress nor the White House are offering any escape from these trillion-dollar deficits. Mr. Obama has not called for automatic and immediate spending cuts. He has not proposed eliminating hundreds of wasteful programs. To the contrary, the White House still hasn't ruled out another fiscal stimulus, as if a $1.6 trillion deficit isn't Keynesian stimulus enough. The Administration's celebrated scrub through the budget this summer identified $17 billion in agency savings. That's what Uncle Sam is borrowing every three days.

Obamanomics has turned into an unprecedented experiment in runaway government with no plan to pay for it, save, perhaps, for a big future toll on the middle class such as a value-added tax. White House budget director Peter Orszag promises that next year's budget will have a "plan to put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path." Hide the children.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

h/t goes to S.R. "Mr. Constitution" via Facebook (Carleton Model Parliament 2007, good times... "Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Bill be ruled unconstitutional as it obligates the Government to spend monies...")

Gazette: "It's time to end the $1.95 political subsidy"

What, they can't possibly mean to say that Harper was right, could they? Discuss.

End taxpayer subsidies for political parties
The Gazette - August 16, 2009

Last winter Stephen Harper barely survived a too-clever-by-half attempt to take away the money that political parties get from the government of Canada. Nothing unites our fractious opposition quite so quickly, it seems, as the thought that they might have to take their hands out of the taxpayers' pockets.

And Canadians, perceiving on the basis of no evidence that the change might give Harper's Conservatives an unfair advantage, also rejected the idea, to judge by opinion polls. True, chopping the subsidy would have given the Conservatives an advantage, in that they then raised far more money from individual contributions than any other party. What we don't see is how that's unfair. What's really unfair, it seems to us, is that every taxpayer is tapped to support the range of major official parties, even if she disagrees with them all.

In any case the subsidies - now up to about $1.95 a year for each vote the party received in the last election - survived unscathed.

Now it is time, we believe, to re-think this idea. The latest figures on party fund-raising, just released by Elections Canada, show that all the national parties are doing just fine, thank you: The Liberals actually raised more in the April-May-June quarter than the Conservatives did, although Harper's party had almost twice as many individual donors.

What do parties do with all that money, anyway? With the big parties raking in $4 million or so per quarter, why do they need more from taxpayers? With a federal deficit of over $50 billion, surely the government could save a few million by reining in subsidies for attack ads.

There's another interesting point here, too: The weakest donor base, by far, belongs to the Bloc Québécois. Because that party campaigns in just one province, it spends much less money than the other parties; its taxpayer subsidies leave it rolling in cash. Sensibly enough, the Bloc barely bothers to ask its supporters for donations; it asks them to give their money to the Parti Québécois instead. In a sense, then, federal taxpayers across Canada are subsidizing the PQ.

In response to this bizarre reality, some in Western Canada are proposing that the $1.95-per-vote subsidy should be available only to parties that present candidates across Canada; Green Party yes, Bloc no. This would be a mistake. The Bloc, however wrong-headed, is a legitimate democratic expression of some public opinion in Quebec, and to manipulate the rules against it would be unjust - and would be a whole new opportunity for sovereignists to manufacture outrage. Although Steven Fletcher, minister in charge of "democratic reform" has discussed this idea, he quite rightly doesn't support it. The Bloc has the right to be treated like every other party, and should not be penalized by any cunning contortions of the rules.

Which is all the more reason to shut down these subsidies altogether. Even today, in an an age when government subsidizes almost everything, helping already popular political parties remain popular and powerful at the expense of ordinary Canadians is bad politics, bad economics, and bad for democracy.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

This one oughta throw you all for a loop

Many people seem to think they know where I stand on all the issues, based on my blog name... www.ChristianConservative.ca.

Took one of those online "Political Spectrum" quizes. Check the results and discuss... (and maybe take the quiz yourself to see where you fall, see if the quiz is just whacked out)

My Political Views
I am a centrist social authoritarian
Right: 0.24, Authoritarian: 6.64

Political Spectrum Quiz

What? You mean the political realm still exists?

I don't know about you, but things have been REALLY quiet for me lately. Of course, there's been stuff going on in the news, but haven't been following much. There was Warren's Great Waffer Caper, in which the Liberal Party of Canada ended up with a "host" of egg on their faces, but other than that, nothing that's really grabbed my attention. (NOTE: Just to be clear, I am in no way implying that Warren actually had anything to do with the whole "Wafer-gate" affair... in fact, I don't believe for a moment that he did. I just came up with that catchy little title because on Warren's blog recently, it's been all Wafer-gate, all the time)

Of course, that's a good thing... there's been nothing that major grabbing the headlines, just steady, quiet, good Government. That, and the fact that the economy seems to be beginning it's slow rebound. All in all, this must be driving the Liberals batty... which is never a bad thing, because they normally end up doing really stupid, err, good things when we're driving them nuts.

Anyway, work's just been crazy anyway, so I've been grateful for the downtime. Rollout of our Exchange 2007 system (with external OWA) has gone almost flawlessly, as has the integration of our new Blackberry Professional Server, running 11 Blackberries. Add to that a new firewall system, along with a remote access VPN, I have to admit that it's been fun running multiple MAJOR projects simultaneously... though just a little nuts. Just about ready to burn out... time to begin a well earned vacation.

Anything other things that I've missed?

CFRB's Bill Carroll points out Liberal hypocrisy

Had to smile when Bill Carroll from Toronto's CFRB 1010 pointed out how hypocritical the Ontario Liberals are this morning. It all comes down to the Ontario Budget, and the "economic projections" upon which they base their numbers.

For weeks now, the Federal Liberals, which is made up predominantly of Ontario Liberals here in Ontario*, have been taking the Harper Government to task for the "economic projections" upon which the most recent Budget was based. And the Liberals have been saying the projections are "too rosy", as Finance Critic John MacCallum indicated on Bill Carroll's show just yesterday.

Now look at the Ontario Budget. What were their numbers based on? Yup, you guessed it... the exact same projections as the Harper Government's Budget.

Once again, on three, say it with me... HYPOGRITS!!! Looks like numbers that are good enough for a Liberal to use AREN'T good enough for a Conservative, in their eyes. On the one hand, the Federal Liberals, and all their hacks over at the Liblogs, critize the Harper Government's projections. Meanwhile, they approve of and defend using the very same figures here in Ontario.

Let's see if any of them have the decency to stand up and level the same critism at the McGuinty government as they have been at the Harper Government... but I'm not holding my breath, of course.

Let me put it to you another way... and Libloggers who are honest about this issue gets a link from this post, and will get props from me for their ethical stance.


* NOTE: Actually I think the Ontario Liberal Party makes up what, like 50% of their entire Federal membership? We don't call it the Liberal Party of Toronto for nothing...

Romney on The Big Three

Today's New York Times has an opt ed piece on the American Auto industry from former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney... who's dad ran the American Motor Company for a while.

In it, he has some harsh doses of medicine for the industry... all things that I've been saying for a while.

Paying attention, Buzz & Co.? If you were to go to the Canadian government with an attitude of being willing to work within this sort of framework, there may be hope for the auto industry here in Canada.

h/t to The Invisible Hand and my boss.

Harris to McGuinty: "Try looking in the mirror"

Former Premier Mike Harris (boy do I ever miss the guy...) has an opinion piece in today's National Post entitled, "How Ontario became a have-not"... where he appropriately lays much of the blame for Ontario's current economic instability and our recently aquired "have-not" status squarely on the shoulders of Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Over the next few days, expect to see them lash out and attack the messenger, rather than actually address the issues he raised.

"The main reason for Ontario's unprecedented "have-not" status is that economic growth in this province is weak, and is falling further and further behind the rest of the country. This decline did not have to happen. Going from first to worst in economic growth was preventable.

A major reason for our faltering economic growth is that Ontario's manufacturing sector is being hammered by high taxes. For far too long, Ontario has relied on a weak Canadian dollar to provide manufacturers with a "competitive" advantage. Now, energy and resource prices are driving up the value of our dollar and the U. S. economy is slowing. The so-called "dollar advantage" has been revealed as an illusion, and high taxes are now exposed as the millstone around the neck of our manufacturing sector.

The Ontario government's own Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress provides powerful evidence of Ontario's high taxes. Its 2007 report shows that Ontario has the highest taxation on new business investment in Canada. Even more compelling, it also reports that Ontario has the second-highest taxes on new business investment in the developed world.

To make matters worse, Ontario also has one of the highest personal income tax rates in the country, creating a major disincentive for talented people to settle, stay or remain here. This further weakens our economic and competitive position.

During a time of escalating international competition, a massive credit crunch and a probable recession, the Ontario government should be moving aggressively to reduce taxes and other barriers to growth. Failure to act will strangle the life out of Ontario's manufacturers, and drive them from this province, killing, maybe forever, the jobs they provide. The government must take action before it is too late.

To compound the high tax problem, since its election in 2003, the current Liberal government has gone on a spectacular spending spree that now threatens the future financial health of this province.

Following the failed paths of the David Peterson and Bob Rae regimes, over the last five years the provincial government has increased spending by an

average of 8% each year. During this same period, the Ontario economy grew in nominal terms by 4% annually. This means that the Ontario government is actually spending twice as much as it can afford. It has created a spending machine, and this machine can only be fuelled by red-hot economic times. This is simply not sustainable.

Had the government been living within its means for the past five years, Ontario would be in a much stronger position to respond to the wider global emergency than it is today. Instead, faced with a global liquidity crisis, a recession and plummeting revenues, the government is now looking at the very real prospect of returning to the massive, long-term structural deficits that we worked so hard to eliminate, and/or returning to massive cuts in government spending on public services. What a wasted opportunity."

G&M; - "A new vision for the country?"

The Globe & Mail's Lawrence Martin as an interesting piece in yesterday's paper, entitled, "A new vision for the country?", where he offers his two cents on the apparent Conservative plan to correct some of the "political imbalance" (my own new word) that has existed for far too long... where Ottawa has been controlled by Toronto's wishes and interests, rather than the interests of the country as a whole.

An interesting section:

"But do these long-held harmonies [the usual Liberal attacks on decentralizaion] still hold? Or are they outmoded, in need of overhaul? Has the country not moved beyond its vulnerable adolescent era to the point where now, like a normal family, it can entrust its members with more responsibilities? After 141 years, is there not a new sense of trust and maturity in the land?

Identity? History is identity. If you don't know who you are at 141, if you still think some provinces have stars and stripes in their eyes, the shrink is in the waiting room.

Now even Liberals don't think the new Canada is as dependent on the centre as the old. The old parts were fragile, in need of nurturing, in need of national and protectionist policies. But now there is more wealth and more equality, a levelling of the braying fields. Little guys like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, with their newfound riches, are no longer little guys. They are not as beholden and their new level of maturity requires new thinking in Ottawa. Treat them like teenagers and they'll be more inclined to rebel. Give them space and they'll be more inclined to be part of the whole.

[...]

All part of growing up. But now? Noteworthy is that while in more recent times we have seen a trend away from centralized powers, unity is now well intact. Many would argue the country is more unified today than at any time since 1967.

The big centre is still needed. It's still needed for infrastructure, uniform social programs, defence and multifarious other initiatives. But, with the old family having a better sense of its bearings, it isn't needed the way it was before.

For more on the proposed Conservative initive, read this article in Wednesday's G&M;.

KW Record - "It's the economy, Dion"

You KNOW this editorial has made the rounds at the Liberal caucus meeting being held in Kitchener this week. Now that's the kinda "Red Carpet" treatment the Liberals deserve!

Some of the money quotes... "But in Kitchener, at a meeting of the federal Liberal caucus, the best response Dion could offer was a tattered prescription bearing a list of worn-out ideas and the Liberal party logo. He'll have to do better.

There he was, trashing the federal Conservatives for the tough times many Ontario manufacturers and workers are experiencing, as if Canada's current economic woes can all be neatly laid on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's doorstep. They can't.

Let's cut to the chase: The biggest problem facing the Canadian economy is the American economy, which may already be in recession. Nothing done by any Canadian prime minister, Harper, Dion or anyone else, can change that fundamental fact."

The clincher though has got to be the title... you gotta love the allusion to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid".

h/t to Joanne

It's the economy, Dion
January 22, 2008 - THE RECORD

Stephane Dion sure knows how to put the 'con' in economics. In the world's financial capitals, the collapsing American economy has left markets bleeding hundreds of billions of dollars in stock losses. But in Kitchener, at a meeting of the federal Liberal caucus, the best response Dion could offer was a tattered prescription bearing a list of worn-out ideas and the Liberal party logo. He'll have to do better.

There he was, trashing the federal Conservatives for the tough times many Ontario manufacturers and workers are experiencing, as if Canada's current economic woes can all be neatly laid on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's doorstep. They can't.

And there was the Liberal leader, bragging that if it weren't for former federal Liberal governments, Toyota and Waterloo's Research In Motion would have never amounted to anything in this province. Not so. Meanwhile, Dion cheerleaders like Kitchener-Centre MP Karen Redman asked a gullible public to believe his proposed $1 billion rescue package for struggling manufacturers is the tasty little sugar pill that will set everything right. It's not.

This is all presumptuous, self-serving, partisan blather. Whatever good previous Liberal governments did, it's wrong to credit them for the phenomenal success of Toyota and RIM. Yes, the federal Liberals handed Toyota $55 million to build a second Ontario plant in Woodstock. But whether or not that corporate welfare was needed, Toyota opened its first Ontario plant in Cambridge back in the 1980s -- when federal Conservatives were in power.

Likewise, while RIM received a $34-million loan from Technology Partnerships Canada, that loan came after the company had developed its famous BlackBerry pager and was on the rise. At that point, RIM could have likely secured a private loan. Besides, the real reason for RIM's success was the vision and work of local dynamos like Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie. And what Dion failed to mention was that the Liberals had to cancel Technology Partnerships Canada when the program was engulfed in scandal.

Let's cut to the chase: The biggest problem facing the Canadian economy is the American economy, which may already be in recession. Nothing done by any Canadian prime minister, Harper, Dion or anyone else, can change that fundamental fact. This doesn't mean that Canada's federal politicians should sit on their collective hands. They do have a role to play.

But what Canadian manufacturers and workers are waiting for is a comprehensive, well-considered economic strategy -- not predictable, pre-election sloganeering. Let's hope Dion can deliver.

"Don't Pay Royalties to HDI" - Premier McGuinty

Mr. McGuinty, that's one statement I can support you on. Of course, I wanted you to make that clear statement during the election... but I knew you were too afraid of the protesters to do that.

Now, here's hoping you'll stick to those strong words, and finally do something about this ongoing rebellion in our midst.

A helpful graphic, taken from elements in today's National Post story (the print edition), to remind everyone of what we're really talking about here... and attempt to retake what is now the economic heartland of Southwestern Ontario.

I'm not saying they don't have some validity to their claim... I'm just saying that there's no way we can give up Canada's claim to the whole thing... that's all.

China is freaked out at Bali conference

Environmentalists are apparently "pleased" by China's sudden show of support for the Kyoto Protocol, after the Chineese delegation "blasted" Canada for our position that everyone has to be involved in any post-Kyoto agreements.

The quote from the Globe & Mail says, "China, in unusually harsh language, warned that Japan's proposal could “sabotage” the entire Kyoto process." Amm, DUH! Hello?!?! Of course they're going to be seen throwing their weight behind Kyoto at a time like this... that's because they're completely freaked out by the notion of any new regieme that would also require them to reduce their emissions. Why can't the environmental lobby see this? Why are they so supportive of China's right to continue to increase their GHG output?

Could it be because they also know full well that Kyoto is not really about reducing GHG, but about wealth re-distrubtion and moving industry from the West to the Third World? (not that that's entirely a bad thing, mind you...)

Why does the environmental lobby continually seek to protect two of the worst GHG offenders in the world, China and India? I've NEVER been given a good answer to that question.

This new position being staked out by Canada and Japan is a severe threat to China... so naturally, they're putting on a real good show of support for Kyoto now... ONLY because it's in their best interests, allowing them to continue with their ways.

"It's the economy, stupid"

A well titled post from "Trusty Tory", reminding every sensible person who will listen (die-hard Kyoto fanatics need not apply) that an attempt to implement Kyoto in accordance with the original timelines will ONLY serve scuttle our economy... and put tens of thousands of Canadians out of work. (are you listening Buzz?)

I'm not saying we shouldn't be reducing our emissions... but let's do so in a reasonable timeframe folks!

Mr. Baird said it well... “If you believe the science, we can’t do it alone in Canada. We need all the big economies, all the big emitters, all the big polluters — China, industry, the United States — all on board. We don’t want to see companies shut down operations in Canada because of our tough regulations and move to China where there’s no requirements.”

Killing our economy by reducing our 0.2% share of global emissions doesn't make much sense when the big boys like China are only increasing their output. Buzz & Co. keep saying we need to stem the flow of jobs to places like China... Kyoto is a sure-fire way to INCREASE the flow, not stem it.

Besides... with the growing number of coal-fired plants that are coming online every month in China, any reductions we make are immediately increased ten-fold by China.

To be clear, I'm NOT saying we shouldn't bother... as a Christian who answers to the Most Holy and Almighty God who created this world, I firmly believe we need to be careful stewards of this planet we've been given. Therefore, we need to be reducing ALL FORMS of pollution, and start making the moves to better sources of energy. And the technological improvements are starting to be realized... my friend and his dad own an alternative energy company, and newer things are coming online all the time which make alternative sources a reasonable option. However, the best way to decrease our carbon output is still reduction of energy use, and all of us still have a long way to go on that front.

And there's still the problem of emissions trading schemes... on-paper reductions of emissions are not reductions in emissions folks. It's just an excuse for a new "green economy", that does nothing but exchange "green" between various parties, while making millions for a new breed of capitalist... the eco-credit trader. (think of your typical high-powered, high-priced stock broker, but trading only paper-based "carbon reductions"... I'm surprised the left hasn't clued into this one yet...)

$1.09US?!?!?

Okay, the bubble's gotta burst sometime... we hit $1.09US in after-hours trading.

I was saying a couple days ago that I thought it would hit $1.10US by then end of the year... at this rate, it's gonna hit that mark by the end of the week!

And for the record, before people make the kind of comments they made last time I talked about the high dollar, I DO recognize the complications that a high dollar creates... but it also has the potential to create opportunites, such as in my sector.

(But, maybe could the dollar stay high untill I'm done my Christmas shopping, eh?)

The Dollar Up Again... this is NUTS!

$1.07US?!?!?! This time, it was on strong job growth numbers... ironic, with Chrysler's announcement yesterday.

Canada's industries, especially the manufacturing sector, better figure out how to change with the paradigm shift QUICK... eh Buzz?

This fight is for the birds

This round...



Current standings...

$0.9978USD vs. $1.00CAD

(as of 12:45pm EDT)
We'll see who's on top when the markets close, but our dollar has remained above the greenback a lot more today than it did with it's brief flirtation over the line yesterday.