Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
that's a mighty fine two step...i can label myself without it being a strawman fallacy because i know myself...you don't know me, so you cannot correctly label me a socialist or a somnabulist

obama isn't a socialist either (more strawmannery)...george bush just took control of the means of production on wall street so you could correctly label that policy socialist, but i think even george bush still has more capitalist than socialist in him...by itself, government intervention is not socialist...the US government and other governments around the world intervene in the free market all the time, but private property still exists in america, and american capitalists retain control of the means of production (until last month anyway)
First off, the bailout was authorized by congress.

I have not misrepresented your position. You stated that you believe in capitalism, yet you revealed a great deal in:
ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living
That above is socialist innuendo...

Maybe it would be wise to understand what a straw man fallacy is.

- are you saying universal health care is not superior unless it is accepted universally? most of the developed countries in the world have publicly funded healthcare systems, and the US health care system lags behind a few dozen universal health care systems of other countries...better has been defined, and universally accepted outside of the usa

US health care system ranked 37th in the world:
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

US health care system scores low marks compared to other countries:
Health Scorecard Ranks U.S. on Lower Rungs -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians
The WHO is subjective, and therefore cannot (IMHO) be taken seriously...

Something to ruffle your feathers:

As they tack left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support â?? along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger â?? is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies. They are authors of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2005).
More by Michael D. TannerMore by Michael F. Cannon

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."
Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms â?? such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets â?? that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable.
Source: Universal Health Cares Dirty Little Secret