</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) You said it , a disagreement about our opinion. As for the freedom of speech, it is enforced as everything on the chart of rights and liberty. There is freedom of religion , and Bible or other text are in free circulation thank you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Actually certain verses in the Bible are banned from TV- namely, any of those having to do with homosexuality.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to.
You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If you look at the quote above, I never said there was "more poverty" in either country. Therefore, your assertion that something I said was "False" is unfounded.
That people in America give more out of their own free will is a well-known fact.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I dont quite understand your question, but I'll take a stab anyway. People in America have more liberty to give their own money probably because the government takes less of it in comparison to Canada and western Europe.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Actually, the religious organizations themselves do alot for the poor in this country. If you can find an example of people being "forced" to listen to a sermon or something else in order to get help, then bring it out.
This may happen, but it'd be the exception rather than the rule. There are also many non-religious organizations to which Americans donate their money. What do you say about those?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest.
The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Do you have any statistics/references on social mobility in Canada? I have a
reference for US statistics.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The issue isn't how much more someone has than someone else; the issue is whether the people's living standard is rising- a phenomenon which helps the rich get richer and the poor get richer. This is what has been happening in the United States. Real incomes have been rising for all income earners in this country. I guess your government is telling you that the "poor" are "getting poorer"?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by Well there is 48 millions of uninsured american. If they can't pay for their service, it is pretty much starvation in my book.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
By the way, I'm one of those "poor people" with no health insurance, and most of these people fit my profile- young folks in their 20s. For many of them, health insurance would be a waste at this point.
Also, if you're suggesting that we go to Canada's style of health program, no thanks. What do you have maybe 3 MRI machines in your whole country? Your technology is about 20 yrs behind ours, and the gap is growing.
There are other ways to make health care more affordable for everyone. We need not simply use the government to hide the true costs of what we are using.