rickyp wrote:steve

It doesn't matter what the goals were because no matter how laudable they were, they are not affordable.

And yet most other western nations meet those goals and more..... Do you see the juxtaposition? That the wealthiest nation in the world can't manage to meet a half assed goal?

Even the world's wealthiest nation, cannot afford to be the world's policeman and arms supplier (see NATO running out of bombs), while promising seniors entitlements they fractionally paid for.

You continuously ignore the TENS of TRILLIONS in unfunded Medicare liabilities with a shrug.

That shrug will bankrupt the nation. What part of that are you incapable of understanding? Even a relatively liberal (domestically) Senator, Joe Lieberman, gets it:

"We can't save Medicare as we know it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who authored the plan with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. "We can only save Medicare if we change it," he added in an apparent jab at President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

Something has to change.

Medicare is financially unsustainable in its current form. What part of that are you incapable of grasping, Richard?

Firmly. Which is why it should be run like the nations that actually achieve the goal (plus evryone from 0 to 55 as well) who run similar systems. I have no faith that tinkering with it, or improving it by increments will work. Thats why I think Obama has failed here. Even though his increments are better than caving in the way Ryan wants to..

Fine, you sort of understand. But, what you cannot get your arms around is this: the problem is structural and it will bankrupt the US if it is not dealt with now. Dreaming about what could be and imagining no possessions won't solve the current budget crisis, nor will it prepare us to deal with the shortfalls to come. And, in no small measure those shortfalls are due to entitlements.

But I understand this reason. Its the kind of thing Fareed Zakkaria refered to in the quotation at the begining.

America has never been a place where the government provided cradle to grave entitlements. It's just not in our DNA.

Yeah,. That makes sense.

Fareed is a great, anti-American thinker.

Here's an anecdote on health care expenses and the elasticity of demand. I receive a lab bill earlier this week for services that were rendered in Aug 2010. My wife took my son to visit the ophthalmologist because he squints here and there. Even though there is nothing serious, since we live near a world renowned children's hospital, she took him there. There's a strong maternal instinct at work here.

My insurance paid the entire amount of the visit, except for our $25 copay, so I had forgotten about it. OPM.

Today I got the bill for the lab cost. It was $118, and my insurance doesn't cover it so I have to pay. Fine.

I also learned that the list price for this simple eye exam was $709; insurance paid $580, and they contractually wrote off the rest. We had consumed this medical service without even knowing about it because essentially someone else was paying for it.

So, in summary, this visit cost $827. There are local optometrists who would charge less than $100 for the same value of service. Yes, if he had some unusual eye issues, the visit would make sense. But under the circumstances, it was a poor use of resources. Without costs being known in advance, the system cannot squeeze out inefficiencies. I bet there are a million examples of this.

Doctor Fate wrote:Fareed is a great, anti-American thinker.

Great, anti-American thinker? A Time magazine columnist? Come on, do you think he loves his country any less than you do? This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like another right-wing nutcase, when you're not.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Fareed is a great, anti-American thinker.

Great, anti-American thinker? A Time magazine columnist? Come on, do you think he loves his country any less than you do? This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like another right-wing nutcase, when you're not.

Let's let Mr. Zakaria speak for himself:

Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades.

That's from his piece Richard quoted to start this forum. His prescription for vaulting the American economy into the stratosphere? Government spending.

In the current climate, I think that makes you anti-American. Why? Because the basis for such thinking is that we can continuously borrow at historically low interest rates. When those rates go up, we will be bankrupt.

I've read enough of Mr. Zakaria to know that he is reflexively liberal and doesn't like America.

Mr. Zakaria is being interviewed on Fresh Air today ... he is liberal, but seems quite fond of his country.

Ray Jay wrote:Mr. Zakaria is being interviewed on Fresh Air today ... he is liberal, but seems quite fond of his country.

Just not what the country does.

There are any number of quotes I could post. I don't know of many authors who so eagerly anticipate the post-American world.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Mr. Zakaria is being interviewed on Fresh Air today ... he is liberal, but seems quite fond of his country.

Just not what the country does.

There are any number of quotes I could post. I don't know of many authors who so eagerly anticipate the post-American world.

The thesis of his book is that America won't dominate the world anymore, and that is something we have to accept. He's also saying that America will continue to grow, however, not at the pace of India, China, or most of Asia.

He's saying that from an economic perspective, the world pie will grow bigger which is good for everyone, and that America's absolute slice will be bigger, but its relative share will be smaller. Overall, this is positive, for the world, and for Americans.

I think he's right on that. I don't agree with everything he says, as you probably know. But on that topic he is being both patriotic and astute.

Quote away ... perhaps we should make it a thread of its own.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Apparently if you're not a socialist, you're a right wing, nut job......

And apparently, the converse...

He's 'anti-American' for noticing the rise of China? Blimey. True patriotism is not ignoring the outside world.

Ray Jay wrote:He's saying that from an economic perspective, the world pie will grow bigger which is good for everyone, and that America's absolute slice will be bigger, but its relative share will be smaller. Overall, this is positive, for the world, and for Americans.

This will not be a positive, should it occur. There has never been, in the modern world, a multi-polar world that avoided war.

His enthusiasm for China speaks volumes.

Nor have there been unipolar or bipolar worlds that have avoided war.

Ray Jay wrote:Nor have there been unipolar or bipolar worlds that have avoided war.

To perhaps provide clarity, I mean major conflagration.

Since WW2, there has not been a war on anything approaching epic scale. Now, one could argue that is due to nuclear weapons. Maybe that is true. However, if we want to find out if that is the restraining force, all we need do is recede and let another, less democratic force, say China, become the most powerful nation on the Earth.

I don't suspect they'll be as kind and gentle as some do, including Mr. Zakaria. China suffers many of the maladies that led Germany and Japan into beginning the last global conflict--nationalism, racial homogeneity, a centralized control structure, a history littered with grievances against her neighbors, and an appetite for expansion.

If Obama gets four more years, we will find out in our lifetimes. If not, perhaps we will push it back or eliminate the confrontation altogether.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Nor have there been unipolar or bipolar worlds that have avoided war.

To perhaps provide clarity, I mean major conflagration.

Since WW2, there has not been a war on anything approaching epic scale. Now, one could argue that is due to nuclear weapons. Maybe that is true. However, if we want to find out if that is the restraining force, all we need do is recede and let another, less democratic force, say China, become the most powerful nation on the Earth.

I don't suspect they'll be as kind and gentle as some do, including Mr. Zakaria. China suffers many of the maladies that led Germany and Japan into beginning the last global conflict--nationalism, racial homogeneity, a centralized control structure, a history littered with grievances against her neighbors, and an appetite for expansion.

If Obama gets four more years, we will find out in our lifetimes. If not, perhaps we will push it back or eliminate the confrontation altogether.

I totally agree with you that the US should not recede and enable China to be the most powerful nation on Earth. I don't have any illusions about the nature of their government.

In his book, Zakaria differentiates between the economic impact of a growing China with the political impact. Economics is win/win. China's prospering helps the US in many ways. They provided needed capital to us during the financial crisis. We are able to purchase more goods cheaper, and they are a market for our products. It could be a lot better if they respected intellectual property and allowed their currency to find a market value, but overall, their economic rise (and that of the rest of Asia) is a real positive.

Whereas economics can be win/win, Zakaria also points out that political power is a zero sum game. China is gaining on us in that regard, in Africa, in the rest of Asia, in South America and also in the Arab world. Ultimately the rest of the world would rather deal with the US and Europe when given the choice, but the Chinese don't make any moral demands on even the worst dictators in the world. They are easier to deal with then the contentious West, a counterweight to our approach, and they can mobilize a lot of capital and labor very quickly.

But I don't see why you blame Zakaria for this development. He's calling it like it is, and we are all the better for it. I think we need to be educated about what is going on in the rest of the world. I'm certainly not willing to condemn Zakaria if the US is stagnating while China is rising. We need to recognize it and deal with it. I think you are shooting the messenger.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _opinion_0

Here's a very interesting view ... unfortunately the WSJ protects its on-line content. The author sees the US as the natural world leader in the 21st century. As in the 2 prior centuries, this one will be about entrepreneurship and mastering change, but more so. His view is that the US has the home team advantage against all the other competitors (Europe, China, Islamists, etc.)

Ray Jay wrote:I think you are shooting the messenger.

No, I'm calling out the cheerleader. I don't see China having leverage over us as "good."

I know, I know. If they own our debt, they don't want to see us fail.

I don't buy that. Maybe I'm too cynical, but as I said, totalitarian countries that are basically homogeneous and nationalistic tend to build that nationalism into a furor. At some point, that spills over to territorial expansion, because it is their "right" as a "superior race."

Will China not follow that path? I think it's too soon to tell.

Anyone who sees China as any kind of military or economic threat could not possibly be an Obama fan. There is a pretty broad swath of intellectual elites who marvel at the efficiencies of China. I think it's just the next iteration of them worshiping totalitarianism. They loved the Bolsheviks. They loved the fascists. Now, they are enthralled with the neo-communists.

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't buy that. Maybe I'm too cynical, but as I said, totalitarian countries that are basically homogeneous and nationalistic tend to build that nationalism into a furor. At some point, that spills over to territorial expansion, because it is their "right" as a "superior race."

Chinas population is really not that homogenous. There are i believe more than 50 recognized (by the Chinese themselves) minorities making up 100 million people. Better yet they are actually the majority in about 50% of the Chinese territories. It's not as bad as Iran, but there's plenty of potential for inner strife on that front.

Doctor Fate wrote:Anyone who sees China as any kind of military or economic threat could not possibly be an Obama fan. There is a pretty broad swath of intellectual elites who marvel at the efficiencies of China. I think it's just the next iteration of them worshiping totalitarianism. They loved the Bolsheviks. They loved the fascists. Now, they are enthralled with the neo-communists.

It keeps being funny how you lump everyone who disagrees with your right wing positions together but constantly cry when the "left" basically thinks that every conservative is some bible thumping illiterate moron. Maybe it's your two party system or something, but you really should recognize the fact that some forum members live in countries with more than 2 political parties. Just because someone thinks Obama isn't the Antichrist come to destroy America, doesn't mean he's a totalitarian communist sympathiser or an anti American. There are actually people who hold more nuanced positions than represented on Fox News or talk radio.

Which still leaves the fact that Russia and China have the US by the balls because they hold so much of your debt and that's a fault of a long line of politicans of both parites. The US will have to live with that threat for a time which does limit your options of pressuring China. So what would you like to do right now to stop the rise of China when they bring the knife to the fist fight ?