Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
that sounds like socialist innuendo...will you correctly label yourself a SOCIALIST? of course not! fire and police are essential services...so is health care...you wouldn't expect people to buy private fire/police service insurance to protect them in the event of an emergency, so what supports your opposition to universal health care besides dogmatic capitalist ideology?
Fire, police, roads, national defense etc... are essential services. Health care on the other hand is not. You must have me confused with an anarchist.

Why is it perfectly acceptable to buy a new car valued at $30,000, but it is completely invalid to expect a person to pay $30,000 for a surgery that will save their life?:wtf: Health care is a matter of personal responsibility, as nobody can force you to live in a healthy manner.

if it is the greatest piece of legislation, why was it amended 27 times? surely the greatest piece of legislation would not have allowed slavery...BTW: i think the constitution is not technically a piece of legislation...it's more of an outline for government's legislative body to write legislation, and executive body to implement legislation, and judicial body to judge disputes/crimes based on legislation, in accordance with the principles outlined in the constitution
It allows for amendment, though a democratic process. Yet the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) cannot be voided, although democracy seems to be roaring its ugly head. Slavery is a touchy issue because in reality, slaves were not considered to be citizens of the US, not that i am condoning it.

The US constitution was the original legislation enacted.

the government (read: you) owns a majority of shares in AIG, fannie, and freddie...the monetary policy is control of those formerly private corporations
Had AIG, Fan and Fred been allowed to fail, the entire global economy would have went under rather fast... Due to the fact that government basically allowed monopoly power for these giants, they are responsible, and in fact should/will clean up their mess.

i neither missed your point, nor failed to address your question...you asked if *canada* was getting a "free ride" on the coat tails of US national defense spending, and i provided a specific examples of US defence spending that has nothing to do with canada...apparently my rant was too brief because you turned that question into an IF-THEN compound statement, so i am happy to add some more details...*ahem*...in addition to the $6 trillion (2008 dollars) in defense spending i listed earlier, canada does not benefit from the:
- $100 billion star wars orbital missile defense program
- many of the CIA covert operations
- US nuclear weapons arsenal capable of destroying the earth many times
- $500 hammers and $500 toilet seats
Modus tollens is required to gain understanding of the situation. Canada is an ally, as well as the neighbor to the worlds most powerful military in the history of the world. Take Japan for example... If Japan did not have US protection, then they would in fact have to allocate resources currently used for their consumption, towards national defense. Japan does have the protection of the US. Therefore they will not allocate more resources towards national defense. The same can be said about all US allies. Which brings us back to the production possibilities frontier. You might wanna google again:thumbsup:

it isn't just about wasteful US spending - that appalls everyone except military contractors...US foreign policy (which is mostly military) is the reason why the usa has to spend more money on defense and homeland security...your government drags you into war with american jingoism - you (as in we-the-people) brought this upon yourselves, and then you (goldenboy) point fingers at neutral countries and accuse them of getting a free ride...guess what? for the past few decades, we usually haven't going in the same direction, so thanks for the offer of a free lift, but we're not headed that way
Again, see production possibilities frontier...

YES! of the $10.2 trillion national debt, $4.2 trillion is intragovernmental holdings, primarily in the form of money borrowed from social security trust fund, which has to be paid back somehow if people are going to collect social security...a few years ago, president bush stood on the steps of the social security department, and declared that the social security program (which is still generating a profit) was basically bankrupt because the SS trust fund was made up of worthless IOU's from the treasury department...that's just one example
This still does not prove that a $10 trillion deficit will curtail government ability to provide those social programs you enjoy... I will explain why in a second.

as ron paul explained, foreign banks might stop lending money to the world's greatest debtor, which leaves the US gov't and it's social programs dependent on the whims of foreign, and often unfriendly countries...they are less likely to extend more credit after uncle sam's recent binge that crashed the global economy...credit is getting tight ya know
It would be a good idea to understand what exactly is government debt. A US savings bond is in fact the most common form, known more a US Treasury Certificates. The current swing in the economy has pushed a rather large amount of money into government guaranteed securities. Reason be, its guaranteed. I have all of my investments out of the markets, and in T-Bills (almost one year ago). A good friend of mine has lost a little over 30% on his entire portfolio because he was going to "ride it out". He did not believe the economy could tank the way it did, and now is paying the price. In fact i am making money while others are losing. Although it is very little gain, it is much better than a loss:jointsmile:

This is why foreign governments and banks buy T-Bills. It is guaranteed!!!!! They will never stop, and if they do, it will be because the world is coming to an end.

Bush: Social Security trust fund â??just IOUsâ??
President says, â??There is no trust fundâ??:
Bush: Social Security trust fund ââ?¬Ë?just IOUsââ?¬â?˘ - Politics - MSNBC.com
Read the statement above...