Stop, Obama time.

[Sasquatch]

all i got to say on this is. if you guys in the United States don't want him we could take him off your hands up here in Canada.

Nah, we wouldn't do that to you. For the last nearly quarter of a millennium, America has been sending the worst of its people to Canada. Loyalists to England, draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, and now it's losers that think that the rest of humanity owes them something.

and if you wanted too, take Alaska and Sarah palin too. were not too picky.

We'll keep the oilfields and the Arctic Fox, thanks.

... but i do enjoy my free health care. mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....

I don't know how many times I have to explain this before socialists understand it. "Paid for by somebody else" does NOT mean "free".

Australia also has free healthcare.

Translation: In Australia, the healthcare for the entire country is paid for by the people who make the most money.

I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling.

Just like in America, where nobody can be turned down for emergency medical treatment on any basis, and where there are literally thousands of programs (local, state, and federal) and charities designed specifically for healthcare costs? The difference is that if I don't want to pay somebody else's bills, I don't have to.

And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.

First -- that's human development index, not quality of living. Second -- helthcare is only a small part of that. Third -- the healthcare that does affect the HDI is also affected by availability, ease of use, and ease of payment -- something that most people think is terrible in the United States because we don't have socialised medicine.

due to canada's and a few other countries lack of military techs, training wise are better then US Troops.

I've worked with Canadian troops before. That's complete bullshit.

and you know nothing of our taxes. everything in this country is taxed. we have GST,HST,PST,BST,TST, AST, and im sure they could come up with something to add on to us. what do you guys got. a sales tax at the most.

And who knows nothing about another country's taxes? Yes, y'all have more taxes than the United States -- because your government dictates more than the United States government does, and because all too many people would rather live in dependency on their federal government than actually have the rsponsibility of making decisions for themselves. If I had to babysit somebody, I'd rather it was an 18-year-old who cooks and cleans for themself than a baby who has to rely on mommy and daddy to clean its diaper.

Yeah, the rich pay a whopping 1% more of their stupidly high income.

In what country? In the United States, there's a much larger difference between tax rates placed on the higher earners and tax rates for the lower earners. It sure as hell isn't one percent.

I fit that bracket myself and still live very, VERY comfortably.

First, you don't live in America, do you? Second, it doesn't matter if you're "comfortable" -- what matters is that you have the right to keep the money you make. If I choose to go to school and succeed, I should be able to keep the extra money that I earn. If I choose to drop out of school and flip burgers for the rest of my life, nobody else should have their money stolen (that's taken by force or threat of force) from them to support my lazy ass.

As it stands, this system has been tried in several countries and has worked.

And you must be forgetting that it has also been tried in several countries and has failed miserably.

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's just that there exists the ethical problem that so many in society have so little, while so few have so much.

That ethical problem does not exist in a Capitalist society. There are reasons that some people "have so much" and some "have so little" -- and it's not "circumstance" or "chance" or "fortune", it all depends on the person.

It's one thing to claim equality of opportunity and say that they simply need to work hard. I consider that thoroughly idealistic. It's never going to work like that.

Umm ... It DOES work like that. And it works well.

Poor people have always existed, and always will. But there's more to it than that: capitalism requires it. As capitalism is clearly the most efficient system, we cannot/should not replace it. But we must balance efficiency with moral concerns.

So wait -- we shouldn't replace Capitalism, but we should have Capitalism with income redistribution ... which isn't Capitalism at all.

If a family is struggling to pay for food, it would take a right bastard to tell them to shut up and work harder, especially when there are families who are absolutely secure in their expenditures, and could absorb an increase in taxes with no issue.

Sometimes it takes a "right bastard" to tell people the truth. I have no problem letting people know that the problems they're facing are their own fault.

And even if I didn't have the courage to let people know that they are responsible for their own lives, I sure as hell wouldn't tell other people -- people that are responsible for their own lives and have made themselves successful -- that it's their responsibility to care for those who won't care for themselves.

Then there's other concerns, such as stability of economy and society. Poor people - if they've been poor for quite some time - would probably be pretty pissed off. If for no other reason, income redistribution is important.

... So the people who have succeeded in life and earn more money should have it stolen from them and handed out to those who haven't succeeded, simply because poor people might get pissed? So angry people would demand something they don't deserve, and you would support giving it to them?

We've seen it before. The "poor" rise up against the "rich", and soon enough, there's nobody earning money for the group anymore. Ever heard of a "brain drain"?

I can't speak for Alpha, but I'd rather have overearners keeping less and poorer people having a higher quality of life than overearners controlling more and more and poorer people being left to rot.

I'd rather have everybody keep the money they earn, instead of it being forcibly taken and redistributed to others who haven't achieved as much financially.