Are these policies good for the USA?

I agree with the editorial. I think it was well written. I do not want an America like Canada. I want to keep what i earn and decide who I help.

The Washington Times, the lovechild of a Korean cult leader (wiki Sun Myung Moon), and an unabashedly conservative paper, is not exactly the place to find an unbiased editorial on Obama's policies. Claims that Obama is all hype come exclusively from people who have never bothered to read his detailed delineations of them on his website, which have been there for months and months (he hasn't "begun" to do this, it's been there the whole time). Then there's also the fact that there are more details in Obama's policies than in McCain's: "McCain trails Obama in spelling out the nitty-gritty. "The Obama people are much more detailed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group dedicated to balancing the budget." --http://tinyurl.com/6fpcn9

A very thoughtful editorial, but it is from the Washington Times, not the New York Times.

Interesting comparison at first read. I guess I should comment on the comparison to Canada in the article. I don't claim to know canadian politics intricitly, but have spent a deal of time in 2 provinces and knew people from several others, so I will speak instead to the mind frame this kind of system creates, rather than the issues adressed in the article directly. I will try to mention things related to what I do know in general terms of the "feel" of the system up there and the level of differences in government. In the comments written below the article on the website, someone mentioned that there is a small government conservative party running the nation of canada. Please rememebr this, the canadian conservative party is not anything resembling the traditional american "conservative" and this includes the "conservative" view that many people of both the democratic and republican parties as well as the general american population. I will also add that it seems to me that the Harper administration is not a very liked one and that it is a minority government, elected largely due to political wrangling and hand washing with the Bloc quebecois, a party that can only be voted on with in the province of quebec as I understand it, (if I am wrong on this particular thing, correct me.)I also want to add that the political structure and political party function is vastly different as well as the election process. You vote for a party, not a particular person. It is almost in a sense, a package deal. Many of the people I knew well and spent a lot of time with over the last several years were suprised at the thought that one would not want the government taking care of so much for them. Almost a complacency. There were as well a number of people who were suprised I could elect for example a democrat for my senator and a republican for president. Suprised to learn that the political parties in the U.S. were in fact private entities and not government. The other difference is that the U.S. has a constitution that is suposed to be be binding and unchangable by anything short of gargantuine national effort and several votes and referendums. My understanding is that the canadian charter is not so binding and much less intricate and extensive than the constitutution and is really no guaranty of anything. The candian government is a lot more powerfull by it's structure and the authority it is given despite it's seemingly smaller size. The size difference is only in general and not when put in to perspective when one looks at the popluation difference. In addition, how much the government is in charge of, may not nessesarily be dependant on it's physical size as much as the size of it's "law book". What I fear from Obama is the size of his "law book". While there is only so much he can do by limit of the constitution, it's scary what an Obama administration could do to the mind set of the american society and it's willingness to bear the responsability of it's freedom and not fall in to the psychology that could result in the atmosphere condusive to genuine constitutional change, thus changing the face of the america. the same america that still exists despite the calls for a "fundamental change. Such actions would not bring that america in any form we knew before because it's over all ideology would have changed to a form never previously known. People are crying to an america that was, what ever form they envision that was. Obama would actualy mean none of that but an country that never existed before.

Hi circumfelt as I live in the UK I dont know what is really happening with the election etc...all I know here in England is all candidates are the same they only let you see what they want you to see...littleowl

Yeah it wasn't a bad article but it left some holes for the readers that need to be mended. See there are reasons their taxes are so much higher. See Canada has 7 times the amount of representatives that the U.S. has. And they have way less population to pay for them. so there taxes are going to be high. But that article soes not tell you that. The reason Canada's miltary is not as larger as ours is because they have less to protect. They have less population to pay for it. Plus it is no secret Canda and United States are very strong allies. Canada knows we are a super power. And the super power is obligated to try to keep peace and order. However Canada plays a major part in keeping peace as well through their political support, it greatly out ways there military support. Anyway knowing that we keep peace they know that we will protect them from any danger by som land hungry nations such as Iran and Libya. but the article does not say anything about that. And also Canada must not be that bad. Just until recently the U.N. rated #1 by the U.N. Thought it would be nice to hear a little bit of both sides of the storey. good discussion though.