Scotty

The majority of Americans want public health care. It certainly does. There's a tiny number of hockey players, and people can choose not to attend their games. They can't choose not to ever see a doctor. Some people get their brains scrambled at the idea of taxes, but don't see the immense cost being levied on them by the health care industry as another tax, though it is in everything but name.

Funny how the United States had a budgetary surplus under Clinton. Then Bush came in and cut taxes. Suddenly there was a big budget deficit! And you've had one ever since, as every Republican politician cries "Vote for me and I'll cut taxes!" Anyone want to laugh? This is from 2000 President Clinton today projected that the United States will have a $1.9 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. He said the increase in the expected surplus means the government will be debt-free by 2010. ABC

What fantasies have you been reading? In that kind of environment companies will be able to offer just about anything to workers desperately scrambling for enough to feed their families. No benefits, forced overtime, and dangerous working conditions will all become standard part of the work environment. Scrooge would be delighted. "Are there no prisons!? Are there no work houses!?"

And yet, no matter how poor Americans become, laboring under huge debt loads, and taxes (which are increasingly going to corporations as welfare) the same people who want to do away with unions will applaud insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and health care corporations charging ever increasing amounts for basic heath care.

How about doctors and lawyers inflating their value right out of sight, to the detriment of all of society. Middle class people can't even afford doctors and lawyers any more, and even paying health insurance is eating up an ever increasing share of people's pay checks. But strangely, the same people who want to crush unions will fight to the death for the rights of doctors and lawyers to earn millions, no matter how that hurts society.

I didn't call you a prick. Insulting people and calling them names is against the rules. I don't do that - but I do report those who do. I have already explained that this has nothing to do with you cliche'd understanding of economic fairness, nor has it the slightest to do with anti-Americanism. You seem to be hurling a lot of allegations around. Is it because you are not capable of actually addressing any of the points?

First, I'm not phobic of anything or anyone and I'll thank you to keep your personal sneers and innuendo to yourself. My wanting to cut back on immigration has absolutely nothing to do and no comparison with my belief that rich people in a society ought not to be preying on poorer people. This web site is for discussing a variety of political and social issues, be they immigration in Canada, revolutions in Egypt, earthquakes in New Zealand, or corruption and greed in the United States. I don't feel the need to answer to you because you don't like commentary on one or the other.

What truths? i didn't read any above. Parhaps you'd be willing to point out any I missed? you can start with any evidence "that states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises.". Unless, of course, you'd like to admit that ALL states have run into fiscal crises, and those crises rarely have much to do with them having unions for their public servants. Certainly Wisconsin's doesn't. Then you can show me where its the fault of unions for asking for benefits or raises above the norm - and getting them, and not the fault of incompetent, spineless governments - you know, the ones those taxpayers elect to look after their interests. Remember that every one of those states has always had the ability to say NO if the demands are unreasonable, and then to legislate strikers back to work. If you have a weak, spineless government (See Dalton Mcguinty) then yes, the unions are going to get just about whatever they want, so the answer is for people to stop electing incompetents to office.

It's not class warfare. I have nothing against the rich - or the poor. But I do have a sensitivity to fairness and bullying, and don't like the idea of greed to the extent already wealthy people will do anything they can, screw over as many people as they can in hopes of squeezing a few extra pennies into their already bulging coin purse. That your value system does not embrace fairness to the same extent mine does is not an issue which needs discussing. I've noticed this patented response before. You spend more time on this site than anyone else, offering up your opinions, often unflattering, about Canadian political and social issues, then get indignant and defensive whenever people comment on American issues.

There might not be an absolute demarcation point but one can certainly use statistically based quartiles to make this differentiation. Not yet. But that appears to be the ultimate aim of people like Koch - minus the food stamps. You offer your opinion on Canadian issues on an hourly basis. If you mean my personal value system doesn't extend to being walked over by people, you're quite correct. Nor do I really understand people who not only don't mind being stepped on, but are proud of being stepped on, and are indignant anyone else would find an issue with that.

Who would be looking for such evidence? The right wing loves immigrants because they work cheap and don't join unions. The left wing love immigrants because they're visible minorities. The politicians all try to cater to immigrants to get their votes. And such things do not happen overnight. I'm not saying that Canada is going to start putting in morals laws against short skirts and gay sex tomorrow. What I am saying is that the great majority of our immigrants WOULD put in such laws today if they could, and that their numbers increase each year. Now as long as they integrate into our culture and take on our values that's no big deal. Their children and children's children will tend to feel more as we do than their parents. But we're in new territory now. We don't KNOW how well today's immigrants will integrate compared to previous generations. These are far different, culturally, from our culture than previous generations, and many have a religion to back up their cultural beliefs. Also, unlike previous generations, they have internet, phone, satellite TV from home, as well as fairly easy visits back and forth. They're not cut off and separated from their old world culture as was the case with earlier generations of immigrants. So we really don't know, and if we find out they're not integrating - in twenty years or so - it'll be too late to do a lot about it.

I'm sorry, but can I ask you more information about yourself? Are you an attractive woman, for example? Your opinion is pretty valueless if not. Did you ride the buses in India? Did you go into crowded marketplaces and pay attention to how women were treated? Do you understand the local language so that you can tell when men are being rude to the women nearby? The study he posted was pretty convincing and your own first hand experience of a few weeks playing tourist would not seem to me to be of much worth in comparison to that.

It is not an opinion, it is a description used to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy elites who own your country. This is a collection of cliches which don't seem to lend themselves to a coherent opinion. It's not like anyone is saying "eat the rich" or planning on robbing them of all their money. I am simply offended by the notion of billionaires actively engaged in efforts at screwing over masses of little people in hopes of increasing their already vast fortunes by a tiny percentage. You guys have such an attachment to your guns and keep claiming how it's going to defend you against the depredations of government, only your government is now controlled by the wealthy - who have convinced you that screwing you over is good for America! No welfare! No health care! No pensions! No benefits! No vacations! Work harder! No, no raises for you! That's bad for America! All so your government can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into corporations and stick you with the bill. You know, in other countries, the big shots who ran banks and brokerage houses into the ground in order to increase their yearly bonuses would have been arrested, in others they'd have been shot. In America, they don't even lose their ill-gotten gains. Instead, your government makes a public example of a handful of them, then refunds all the money they cost their corporations, and sticks you with the bill. And those wealthy elites decided at the outset that only "men of property" should be able to vote. It appears the elites of today have the same belief in their right to decide all issues on behalf of everyone else.

Jehova's Witnesses might irritate you by knocking on your door at dinner but at least they don't blow it up when you turn them away.

Ahm, not to say I know anything at all about your friends but do you honestly think that they WOULD be calling out for your death and destruction in Canada where you could HEAR them? Those guys in the Toronto 17 ,or whatever number it was, weren't out shouting about death and bombing and beheading at schools, work and mosques, you know. They didn't greet all the Christians they know with "Hello, filthy infidel I want to behead!"

Much less stable and much less western in outlook. Immigrants tend to have extremely religious and conservative social views with little cultural tolerance for variations. As their numbers rise we will begin to see a push-back against the permissiveness and tolerance we have taken for granted.

Irrelevant. Society can't survive without children. The only difference in cost to society now is the children we educate have to go through ESL classes. Canada is NOT an underpopulated country. And your claim is ludicrous in any event. How are the costs of children or dependents borne by the "sponsor" any more than in the case of children or dependents of Canadian born people? Instant productivity from immigrants who, for the most part, speak no English and have no job skills? Where is this instant productivity coming from given the high and growing number of immigrants in poverty? Or is it your contention that Canadians should seek to bring over immigrants to do the dirty jobs with minimal pay and live in poverty so that we can enjoy the easy life with lots of consumer products and no effort at raising children?

That's because you have no choice. We do have a choice about bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year.

What descriptive term would you prefer for a group which makes up 80-90% of the population of your country? You own chump change. Recall the numbers, 90% of all Americans together only own 12%. All power and decision making is vested in the wealthy. 1% own 62% of all stocks, bonds, business equity and real estate. And that 1% exercises its power by, among other things, outright bribing politicians, and engaging in advertising and PR campaigns to encourage chumps like "Joe the plumber" that their best interests are somehow served in cutting taxes to the wealthy and cutting salary, pensions and benefits to the middle class. Most of those tea party morons who think they're part of some sort of populist movement on behalf of the little guy don't have a clue that the wealthy elites are actually in charge of their group and leading them around by the noses.

Not really. I know that's the cliche the Right in the US likes to use, but it's not terribly honest. In reality 80% of all Americans own a grand total of 7% of all financial wealth. The rest is owned by the top 20%, ie, the wealthy. This is for stocks, bonds, mutual funds, trusts, financial securities, business equity and non-home real estate. Even if you include 90% of all Americans, the figure only rises to 12%. All the reset is owned by the rich. The top 1% of Americans own 62% of business equity and 61% of financial securities.

Have you delved into the money donated by wealthy corporate interests to Republicans like Walker? Do you think that's being done out of the goodness of their heart? You do realize that what the corporations want is almost invariably inimical to what ordinary citizens want, right?

And if the government contracted out their work so that a private corporation employed them would you feel better about their salaries and benefits? It'd still be coming, ultimately, from the taxpayer, right?

The administrative cost of government is generally pretty low on the scale of government spending. By far the vast majority of spending is for entitlements to the citizenry. My understanding is that the amount Walker wants to make out of state employees is chump change compared to the overall size of his deficit. In other words, it will hardly make a dent. So this is being done more for ideological than economic reasons.

Generally speaking our interest, as in society's interest, is in society's well-being, not the well-being of any individual business entity. There is X amount of work to be done or sales to be made. If there are 10 business entities in that area they will split the business and profits. If one goes under, the other nine will have more business and thus will wind up, collectively, hiring more people, so society is served regardless.

Ahmmm, would anyone care to nominate Oleg as facilitator? :-)