What's Wrong With the U.S.?
Everyone wants to know "How did we get in this mess?" It seems we have dug a hole that we cannot get out of and some people are even starting to realize it. We have plenty of problems with things like health care, education, etc., but the bottom line is that we are spending beyond our means and government debt is out of control. The probability of national bankruptcy and hyperinflation is the highest in living memory and more people are questioning whether our "union" will survive.
Well, Austrian economists like Mises and Rothbard tell us that it is ideas that matter in determining how events will unfold. This is a cause for concern because according to a AARP poll of Americans (45 and older) 83% want the government to help unemployed people get health insurance, 78% want government to provide unemployment benefits as long as people continue to look for work, 71% want the government to make home mortgages more affordable, and 68% want the government to help people facing foreclosure to stay in there homes.
That pretty much explains everything. Americans who are 45 and older are not going to get smarter and likely will not improve their education. They are the "backbone" of America and ¾ of them have beliefs that helped make the current mess politically possible and will make it very difficult to achieve a real economic recovery. Let's hope that those 44 and younger are better informed.
Everyone seems to think health insurance is a cure all for the rising cost of medical care, but comprehensive health insurance is the cause of rising medical care costs. If you don't pay for the cost of medical services as you chose them, then there is a huge tendency to overuse medical services and to choose the most expensive means. Imagine if you could buy comprehensive dairy insurance so that you pay a set fee, like $120/month, for the insurance, but that as a result you can get as many dairy products as you would like for a 25¢ co pay. Is it not too difficult to imagine that people with this insurance would consume more dairy products and that as a result the price of dairy products would increase and would eventually be too high for some people to afford? Comprehensive health insurance is a creature of government. Catastrophic health insurance is rational because no one really wants to use it.
Perpetual unemployment insurance--are you kidding me? That is what 4/5 of older adult Americans think would be a good idea. They obviously have never studied the issue. Unemployment insurance increases unemployment. Studies have shown that if you extend the time period for benefits, people will remain unemployed until the benefits run out. Plus, it delays the competitive process which lowers wages rates across the economy creating the conditions necessary for the nation to restore full employment and economic growth.
Make mortgages more affordable? It is hard to imagine mortgages getting more affordable. Interest rates are at all time lows. Home prices are thankfully falling from bubble levels. Tax advantages are very generous and are the most generous ever in 2009. I cannot imagine what these people are thinking. The only thing potential home buyers could want is for home prices to fall further.
However, our elders (actually I'm in this demographic group) also want the government to keep people in their homes who have failed to pay or renegotiate their mortgages. The foreclosure process is what drives the marketplace from bubble prices back to price levels that are consistent with reality. Any move to prevent or stall this process guarantees more economic hardship and a longer and more painful recovery process in the economy.
The answer to the question--what is wrong with us?--is actually simple and straightforward. We are collectively stupid and brainwashed. We have been taught and conditioned that government can solve our everyday problems at no cost so the more the merrier.
What made America great was the principle of self reliance. We have lost that principle and we will not find our way out of the mess we are in until we rediscover it.
Comments (48)
Franklin
"Let's hope that those 44 and younger are better informed."
You may as well hope that Al-Quaeda is going to embrace Objectivism.
While I don't disagree with your contention that many citizens are brainwashed, just look at the demographics in the last election.
Published: May 6, 2009 1:06 PM
Hillshum
This is just what happened to Rome. (ever heard History repeates?)
Published: May 6, 2009 1:13 PM
Stranger
You have to support at least some form of unemployment insurance, as it is the government's fault people are unemployed.
Published: May 6, 2009 1:15 PM
fundamentalist
I tell the younger generation, those under 30, that the future looks bright for them. When we baby-boomers retire we will leave far more job open than there are younger people to fill them, so they will have their pick of the best jobs. The bad news is that they will need to work two jobs to pay for my social security and medicare. When that happens, they may wake up to what's wrong with socialism. Or maybe not.
Published: May 6, 2009 1:21 PM
Briggs Armstrong
Health care economics is a subject which, sadly, I know virtually nothing. Could you please provide a brief explanation of "Comprehensive health insurance is a creature of government?"
Are you aware of any reputable work that has been done comparing the economics of human health care to that of pets? While pet insurance is available, only a very tiny fraction of owners actually pay for it.
Published: May 6, 2009 1:25 PM
Fred
These Americans do not understand money or government. Both go hand in hand. Until Americans understand that "market money" is one's claim to one's production exchanged for "market money" and that one must produce first to obtain "market money" nothing will change for the better.
It often takes generations to change ideas. Consider how long the usuary debate went on.
Published: May 6, 2009 1:37 PM
Russ
What's wrong with the US? Short answer? Democracy. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Longer answer. The bell curve is against us. The average IQ in the US is now 98. Double digits. The majority of US voters are, not to put too fine a point on it, not very bright. Such people have absolutely no interest in history, economics or political philosophy. Nor could they understand these subjects if they were interested. And yet, they get to vote.
Traditional values used to fend this trend off, since people who didn't understand on an intellectual level the reasons why socialism won't work still understood on a visceral level that it was based on theft and thus morally wrong. But since people have been convinced that access to other people's money is a right, and since traditional religious values are no longer mainstream, this protective mechanism is no longer working.
Published: May 6, 2009 2:09 PM
prettyskin
What's right with the U.S.? To ask what's wrong with the U.S. is beating the same drum beat over and over. The United States has always been about greed, exploitation, political rhetoric, dishonesty, Ponzi schemes, wars, discrimination, and deification. What makes this nation livable and tolerable is what sets it apart from any other nation past or present. Focus on the good so that good behaviors can burgeon.
Published: May 6, 2009 3:11 PM
Taylor
I think survey results like this can typically be explained by one of two things:
1.) confusion with the question being asked, leading to an unintended response
2.) purposeful effort to mislead with the question being asked or the alternatives offered to choose between
For example, imagine a poll on government provision of free gumdrops to everyone. Here are three possible ways of framing a question related to the government provision of free gumdrops to everyone:
1.) "Should government provide free gumdrops to everyone?"
2.) "Is it possible for government to provide free gumdrops to everyone?"
3.) "Do you believe it is economically feasible for government to provide free gumdrops to everyone?"
In the first case, without thinking deeply or long about the potential implications of their answer, many reasonable people might respond "Yes" for why SHOULDN'T the government provide people with delightful things free of charge? Who, when faced with "Do you want something for free that would make your life better?" would respond No, no sir, not at all, thank you, I'm happy being the bitter, deprived person I am? Nobody.
In the second case, we might expect a few people to think more reasonably about the economics involved. However, the trick of this question is that what it's possible for the government to do is not the same thing as what it should do or what it can sustainably do indefinitely into the future at low or no cost. Again, some people might read this more charitably than they maybe should and think of it as "Well, the government COULD provide free gumdrops, maybe not for long and maybe it'd be expensive, but they could" and they respond Yes.
Finally, the third question is really the only one which measures people's competency with economic concepts. However, it's the most technical and complicated sounding of all three, and once again, in their ignorance people might end up responding yes rather than thinking through the issue too deeply.
I would imagine the first question would get the most Yeses, the 2nd the 2nd most and the last one the fewest, for the reasons provided.
Lesson to be learned: be wary of statistics, the way they are gathered and the journalists who wield them. I've got to believe that if you took a sample size of the US population above 45 and interviewed them 1 on 1 on these topics, a lot less of them would turn out to support the concepts they purportedly did according to a confusing, 5-minute survey.
Published: May 6, 2009 3:19 PM
Barry Loberfeld
From "What About the Poor?":
Unless political ideals are to be Platonic Ideals, theory must be translated into practice. And how exactly is that to be done? Libertarians, for example, play a thought game in which they must decide whether they would push the Big Red Button that would immediately end all government programs. Too obviously, there's nothing even approaching that button, so such speculation is nothing more than What if reality were other than what it is? irrelevancy. The fact is, as Ayn Rand once observed, "we are living in a disastrously mixed economy, which cannot be freed overnight." That means we need a strategy. So, what is the first step?
What it is not is the abolition of programs for the poor -- a blunder for a multitude of reasons. As noted, the fate of the needy in a free market is, understandably, the biggest concern people have. Why take the path of greatest resistance? Who would we have an easier time convincing people should be taken off the dole tomorrow: Archer Daniels Midland or an elderly widow who's the guardian of her two grandchildren? The answer is obvious because the people are sound in their judgment -- contrary to liberals' hysterical fear of them. Indeed, how can we leave that family to private charity when people's charity dollars are still taxed away to that corporation and thousands of other such drains? How can we kick people off the welfare rolls only for them to face the joblessness and homelessness still being caused by government? And why should we expect investment capital to flow into areas that the War on Drugs – “Programs to drive drugs out of black neighborhoods need to be supplemented by strong and sustained police work” (Roger Wilkins, The Village Voice, 2/4/86) -- has left looking like actual combat zones? A free market in charity presupposes a free market in everything else -- exactly what we don't have. Nothing would lose us more ground than the popular identification of the "free market" with a welfare state in which the poor are the only ones who don't get welfare.
In short, it must be understood that ending programs for the poor (via phase-out) is logically the last step in the process of desocialization, and there is a hideous glut of statism before we ever reach that point ... at which this will all be academic. The economic freedom we'll have then either will or will not convince us to move towards complete privatization. (One thing we can do right now about programs for the worse-off is terminate their use by the well-off. Our first target: "Medicaid was supposed to help the poor, but one of its most expensive roles is to serve as 'inheritance insurance' for the wealthy. One of the fastest-growing areas of legal practice involves helping the affluent qualify for Medicaid long-term care" -- Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.)
It must be understood and openly declared. For decades now, the defenders of the statist quo have painted any electoral challenger to Big Government as intent on immediately abolishing poverty programs. Fear sets in, the challenger loses, and the entrenched defenders continue to make Big Government bigger. It is an obscene spectacle whereby the truly greedy hide behind the truly needy. It is both the perpetuation and the exploitation of poverty.
By declaring welfare for the poor off-limits and thereby disarming that fear tactic, we put an end to this travesty. Now let's see the liberals (and "Big Government conservatives") defend handouts for people who don't need a hand up. Let us see them defend treating the middle class and the rich as if they were the poor. Let us see them defend their proliferating pork from the blade of budget cutting. And let us see them defend the regulatory policies that prevent everyone, including the poor themselves, from reducing poverty. (Also, by moving the fight against corporate privilege to the forefront, we effectively take it away from those Marxist die-hards -- who point to such privilege as a validation of Marx -- and their corrupt "solutions." Social-democratic liberals, let there be no doubt, have always been the benefactors of Big Business. The latest example? Self-styled "progressive" E.J. Dionne Jr., who praises Fed chair Ben Bernanke for his $30-billion bailout of Wall Street: "He doesn't want the economy to collapse on his watch, so he is willing to violate all the [free-market] shibboleths about the dangers of government intervention." Evidently what's good for JPMorgan Chase....)
By removing poverty from the debate, we also expose the egalitarians' sham indignation over "inequality" -- their demand for tax dollars, not because they have little, but because they have less. (This creed of more-for-more's-sake is another perversely perfect example of a "politics based on greed.") Finally, we prevent the exploitation of the poor as an excuse to put everyone on the dole, e.g., the invocation of the number of Americans without affordable health care -- yes, a very real problem -- to justify a move to "universal health care," the popular Orwellianism for what really gets delivered: total government control of medicine. With that, we can begin to explain how government interventions (cartelization of the insurance industry and the Newspeak redefinition of "malpractice" to include besides negligence other things [e.g., fallibility], to pick but two) have only contracted the supply of quality medical care. From medicine we'll move to other areas; now the forces of freedom will be gaining ground....
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.
Published: May 6, 2009 3:31 PM
David Spellman
We can summarize what is wrong with America: most people have come to believe they deserve to take what they want from their neighbors by force.
We live in a civilization that believes that theft is not only justified, but virtuous and lovely. A civilization built on the principle of stealing from each other is doomed. We can decry the government as the agent of coercion, but the government is simply the apparatus. The rotting core of civilization is the widespread belief in theft as a way of life.
We can expect that the government and civilization will collapse when there is nothing left to steal. And we can expect that the results will be barbaric--not because of wayward government policies destroying the nation per se, but because the common man will simply convert from institutionalized theft to individualized theft. The thin veneer of civilization will dissolve, and it will be every man for himself in the absence of State control.
Austrian economics is basically a philosophical position that people should be honest and respect each other. If that does not play well in the forum of public opinion, it sends a clear message about the public.
Published: May 6, 2009 4:03 PM
David Spellman
Taylor,
You forgot the fourth and most correct question for your survey:
"Is it morally correct for the government to provide gumdrops for everyone by taking them by force from the gumdrop owners?"
Despite how start that question appears, I think we have a society that frankly believes the answer is yes.
Published: May 6, 2009 4:08 PM
Bruce Koerber
Since what we need is an ideological change these demographics probably doesn't surprise anyone.
If we were asked in a survey if the age group 45 or older was likely to be a part of an ideological change the percentage saying no would probably be greater than 90%.
Ron Paul has confirmed that the younger-than-45 age group is more likely to be receptive to an ideological change.
Combine this receptivity potential with the skewed resource allocation in socialism and this 'generation gap' becomes even more prominent.
Finally, those over 45 are more dependent on main stream media for their misinformation! That also minimizes the possibility of ideological change!
Published: May 6, 2009 4:31 PM
Franklin
Election exit polls:
18–29 years old:
Obama 66%
McCain 32%
30–44 years old:
Obama 52%
McCain 46%
45–64 years old:
Obama 50%
McCain 49%
65 years +:
45% Obama
53% McCain
The Other category (which includes Ron Paul) was 1-2% across the board.
Under 45 "receptive to idealogical change," my eye.
Published: May 6, 2009 5:38 PM
Bruce Koerber
Ideological change is not the same as politics. Political polls won't and don't want to report it.
To get a feel for ideological change requires different criteria. The best example is the story told by Ron Paul about the burning of Federal Reserve Notes at the University of Michigan and an excited crowd of 5000 'young' people.
Published: May 6, 2009 5:48 PM
Lowell Sherris
This is the crux of the problem, and the reason I find myself being pessimistic. The brainwashing is accomplished by our government sponsored education system. The real third rail of American politics is education, not Social Security. Until we can break the stranglehold of the education establishment, there is little hope of seeing widespread government discontent.
Published: May 6, 2009 6:25 PM
tlpalmer
Trust the AARP to produce a very state slanted poll.
We can only hope that real people have more sense.
Published: May 6, 2009 6:25 PM
Junker
Wrong with US = wrong with western culture = wrong with world culture = wrong with human culture.
Humans protect their "rice bowls" and hope for a free lunch.
One needs to constantly push against such human basics. However, another human basic (laziness) generally defeats that. So one needs to push against all three. Early upbringing is an effective tool in that, but many/most have lazed out of doing the job. Then, late "upbringing" isn't very effective.
Published: May 6, 2009 7:31 PM
HM Lee
Russ is absolutely right. The more democratic we became, the more the mob became the driving force in America. At least a king claimed that he was led to his role by god. Politicians get their lofty positions by stealing from some, borrowing from all, and "investing" it in something that the market didn't naturally create.
People vote their self-interest, nothing else. What was right about America was a Constitution that was written precisely to limit the reach of government (regardless of the intent of the reach). Democracy killed that.
If you are in America, prepare yourself to handle a consistent attack on logic. Prepare to be shouted down by morons walking to their own goose step. The only hope is secession. Maybe that will start things over.
Published: May 6, 2009 7:56 PM
BioTube
What's really wrong is the loss of the secession card - the one threat that keeps governments in check.
Published: May 6, 2009 8:47 PM
Mita
Okay, so the AARP polled people from where to get these results? Public school teachers/members of the NEA? Big city democrats?
Not one person that I know believes in any of those things. Of course, I don't know anyone who is a member of the AARP... but bright as the AARP people may be, they still keep sending membership forms to my 14 year old son.
Figures.
Published: May 6, 2009 10:07 PM
Chase
Just to throw it out there. I teach US history and government at the high school level. And through reviewing opinionated questions given to the students I definitely believe the idea of them being open to an ideological change is out there.
Many of them already seem to embrace the ideas of freedom and liberty and understand the hypocritical nature our government runs itself under.
I don't think we should be discouraged about the voting patterns of 2008. It's hip to be liberal in college, and the whole "Change" thing was huge. If we can get the message out there of what real change looks like I honestly believe the younger generation is open to ideas. In general they are more accepting than their parents, and this trend will continue.
We just need to keep working and getting the message of liberty out there.
Published: May 6, 2009 10:10 PM
B. Ranson
I disagree with the assertion that, "comprehensive health insurance is the cause of rising medical care costs. If you don't pay for the cost of medical services as you chose them, then there is a huge tendency to overuse medical services and to choose the most expensive means."
Health care costs have risen in recent years mainly as a result of government intervention. Regulation, licensing, taxes and compulsory health "insurance" drive up costs while restricting consumer access to services. Insurance, in and of itself, is not a cause of rising prices.
Many health conditions cannot be predicted. For example, no one knows who will get Parkinson's disease, or why. All that is known is that a certain percentage of the population will eventually fall victim to this disorder. Parkinson's disease can be insured against without fear of moral hazard.
Accidents resulting from alcoholic intoxication are clearly the responsibility the person to whom the accident occurs. However, a drunkard can insure against this type of accident in the same way that the patrons of all-you-can-eat restaurants insure that they get plenty to eat: by paying for it in advance.
Insurance is a legitimate line of business, and comprehensive insurance is in no way incompatible with free markets.
Published: May 6, 2009 10:28 PM
randy
I'm not sure if embracing a philosophy which puts all of its eggs in the basket of individual freedom is the right way to go either. Whether in a libertarian society or socialist, people need each other... just as man "can't live on bread alone "man can't live on individual freedom alone...
Published: May 6, 2009 11:40 PM
Gil
What a coinkydink! I was listen to a radio program the other night when a fellow was blaming the emergence of the middle class for the decrease in individual freedoms and values. In essence he said, "middle class people are fat, cosy, coservative and don't like change, they want the government's help to maintain their ongoing cosiness." He contrasted this to the time when people were general unfree and poor as if to say that the poor had everything to gain and nothing to lose.
A further coinkydink is the way this sounds similar to Prof. Steve Dutch on what he calls the The World's Most Toxic Value System. Not only does he point the way poor societies have a sense of 'honour' which allows for them to have petty tribalism and longterm grudges but also the way the rich societies get a sense of 'privilege' and 'entitlement' where they use the force of law to secure their wealth in a way that creates an aristocracy and tries to prevent entrepreneurism from taking their spotlight.
Published: May 7, 2009 12:59 AM
riki
The answer to the question--what is wrong with us?--is actually simple and straightforward. We are collectively stupid and brainwashed. We have been taught and conditioned that government can solve our everyday problems at no cost so the more the merrier.
What made America great was the principle of self reliance. We have lost that principle and we will not find our way out of the mess we are in until we rediscover it.
AMEN TO THIS.
Published: May 7, 2009 2:26 AM
Reference
"What made America great was the principle of self reliance."
There is clear truth in the self reliance. When making "out sourcing" decisions regarding how your health care, education, unemployment insurance, etc is handled to government or like institution, you will give decision rights away at the same time. However, I would like to provide a bit different view to the topic by giving a reference.
Finland is a small country which has basically government maintained or controlled unemployment benefits, health care and education. These services are financed by taxes or tax-like payments. Current overall tax ratio is about 42% which naturally covers also other financing needs. I would think everybody agrees that this is not a "free lunch". Positive impact of high tax level is very stable society which provides equal opportunities for education and other services. By no means, Finland does not have a perfect system with solution requiring constant balancing or compromising in many areas. However, over the years, this has worked reasonably well providing sustainable growth in economy. Would you support "quality of living" or "quality of life"? The beauty is in the watchers eye…
So, how much is enough? Evidently, past years growth rate in US economics is something which one cannot justify based on domestic industry/finance. Looking elsewhere, I kind of like China's way of reasoning: 9% economy growth is needed to provide employment for available work force. This leads to question - what is the desirable sustainable growth rate to keep society in balance in US?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics and other info:
Economy: http://www.finnfacts.com/english/economy/index.html
Tax ratio: http://www.stat.fi/til/vermak/2007/vermak_2007_2008-07-10_tie_001_en.html
Social insurance institution Pocket statistics: http://www.kela.fi/in/internet/english.nsf/NET/280901094811TL?OpenDocument
Health care financing: http://www.stakes.fi/EN/Tilastot/statisticsbytopic/healthservices/expenditure/healthexpenditure.htm
Education statistics: http://www.stat.fi/til/vkour/2007/vkour_2007_2008-12-05_tie_001_en.html
Unemployment: http://www.stat.fi/til/tyti/2008/10/tyti_2008_10_2008-11-25_tie_001_en.html
Published: May 7, 2009 6:37 AM
2nd Amendment
We need to revert back to catastrophic health insurance and scrap comprehensive health insurance.
Also, your dairy analogy is poor, considering the fact that it is also government regulations and health associations and unions that increase the cost of health care.
The American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration, and a host of other bodies make it difficult to introduce new drugs, new practices or to launch new health care businesses.
There is so much costly red tape that this keeps the offer low and helps increase the prices.
Health care is not a free market in the USA.
Published: May 7, 2009 7:51 AM
Dr. Mark Thornton
Thanks for all the comments.
The insurance issue is messy and government intervention does add to the problem. However, comprehensive insurance (as well as government provision of medical services to the poor and its employees) is the core problem.
Published: May 7, 2009 9:15 AM
George
would push the Big Red Button that would immediately end all government programs. Too obviously, there's nothing even approaching that button, so such speculation is nothing more than What if reality were other than what it is?
There is such a button and Ben is pushing it as hard as he can. Any moment now...
Published: May 7, 2009 12:18 PM
Michael A. Clem
"Whether in a libertarian society or socialist, people need each other... just as man "can't live on bread alone "man can't live on individual freedom alone..."
Randy, a libertarian society isn't atomistic. The protection of individual freedom and individual rights makes it easier for people to work together in common cause, and allow people the freedom to seek the most beneficial relationships with other people.
Published: May 7, 2009 1:47 PM
jgo
When I was 14, I started wondering how my parents and grand-parents could have been duped into allowing the imposition of income extortion, the federal reserve, direct election of senators, the socialist insecurity abomination, prohibition, heavy-handed regulation and barriers to entry into fields like medicine and electricity generation and distribution (and other utilities), the seizure of gold during the FDR admin, the unconstitutional firearms acts of the 1930s, the earlier court declarations that (a) they were the final arbiters of what the constitution and legislation means (which, I learned recently, was hatched by a distant cousin half a dozen generations back) and (b) that intra-farm commerce is inter-state commerce...
Surely, these were fleeting aberrations and perversions which were so blatantly evil that they would soon be corrected!
Well, much time has passed since then, and I realize that under my watch, we've seen more abuse piled atop those, spring-boarding off of them, and my efforts to help others "see the light" haven't resulted in any noticeable improvement. What reforms we put forward in an attempt at correction have also been perverted to make things worse.
I'm certain that any philosophy that involves reducing individual liberty, that aims to increase initiation of force and fraud, is going to make things worse.
Another thing I have trouble understanding is all of the media who smeared and quashed discussion of Ron Paul and the foundations of his policy positions. (Oh, sure, he's not perfect, but he was several orders of magnitude better than the others.)
Published: May 7, 2009 2:20 PM
B. Ranson
Dr. Thorton-
In the free market, no "just price" is identifiable other than the market price. Similarly, no "just" amount of goods and services consumed can be identified, other than the amount freely chosen by consumers.
I believe this to be true for goods or services sold on credit, on a pay-as-you-go basis, or on an insurance basis. In the free market, it is possible that, in return for comprehensive medical care, some consumers would be willing to pay the very large anual premiums that companies offering such a service would require to make money selling it.
If comprehensive insurance is not profitable to market, and not desired by consumers, it will not have any effect on the market for medical care. If it is profitable, and desired by consumers, in what way do you believe that it would cause people to "overuse medical services"?
Published: May 7, 2009 2:40 PM
Kyle
In response to Ranson. By all means, if people want comprehensive insurance, then so be it. However that is not the case. The tax law allows businesses to deduct health insurance to employees as a business cost (which it is), but does not require employees to claim it as income. Therefore, it is in the best interest of businesses and employees to offer more insurance instead of more salary, because they can get more bang for their buck.
Published: May 7, 2009 10:47 PM
Luke A.
We're talking about a volunary response sample, an online poll on AARP's website so the results will obviously be biased in favor of the "government solution" considering AARP's political leanings. I'm sure big government supporters are the majority of people that flock to that site.
There would be more legitimacy of they had conducted a simple random sample or a stratified random sample to get their results.
I agree that the American population in general has had statism pounded into their head, so even with more legitimate sampling methods the support for government intervention would still be too high for our likeing.
Published: May 8, 2009 12:23 AM
Axe Head
How about we roll back universal suffrage? Letting all the morons and grifters and looters vote is a huge problem.
Published: May 8, 2009 7:50 PM
MichaelIn
A person who constantly lose his job may steal,rob, cheat, damage public properties, hate the society, kill others, etc.
A person who can go broke simply because he was sent to a hospital for months, will not trust its government, or love his neighbors.
A nation of the above is not nice, trusting, respecting, relaxing, happy, but aggressive, dishonest, greed, immoral, self-centered, etc.
Does that explain why the world sees Americans that way?
And we are still believing "if we think we are fine, then we would be fine”?
Oh, God bless us!
If we want to remain to be the leader, we have to do better in most things than other countries. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves. Competency is little, satisfactory is high.
It is time for us to realize, that the world HAD caught up, in many aspects! What's worse, the world had realized that! The worst, we are not ready to catch up, because we don't know what's wrong. And even we know what's wrong, we cannot pick up ourselves and run, because we have been slack and feel happy about ourselves for decades. It was the migrants who have been supporting this country!
It is our BELIEF that went wrong:
We are the best! The world can't go without us! If they don't like us, it's not because we are arrogant, self-centered, aggressive, have no consideration of other people's feelings, try to cover up for our own people. It was because the world jealous! They are the stupid one!
And the America is superior. It was, it is, and it will be, forever! No matter what!
What? We can’t get things right, even we try? Most of time, we don’t even make any efforts? Well, that’s because we don’t bother solving particular problems – the thousands of small tasks that need our attention all day, all our lives, which make all the differences in our lives and our nation.
Because our way is the best way! We don't need to learn from other countries!
It is our VALUE our youngsters have got that went wrong:
Freedom, freedom, endless freedom! No authority! No restrictions!
Me, me, me, me. I do what I want! I have right! Whoever restrains me is wrong and bad, and I will show him my teeth! Anyone criticize me of my behavior is insulting my parents, and I will sue him!
No parenting! No school rules! No telling me what not to do! No dignity. No honor. No shame! Sex! Drugs! Alcohol! Parties! Lies! Other people’s money! Needs! Wants! No responsibilities!
Anyone has a problem with America is just an anti-American fool!
With an attitude like this, the world looks at us with a meaningful smile, and says: Good luck. Good bye.
Published: May 9, 2009 5:07 PM
Surfer Dave
As an Australian, I can tell you plainly and simply that yoy have got it completely wrong on the issue of comprehensive universal health insurance. People don't abuse it, you only get cover for real illness, and we even get to choose our own doctors who are free to prescribe the treatments they think are best. No, the American model of heath "insurance" is nothing like what we have, and we are resisting the invasion of the corporate beasts from America who are trying to impose the failed "for profit" system on us.
Published: May 9, 2009 8:49 PM
newson
to surfer dave:
you're wearing rose-coloured glasses. in australia you get to choose your own general practictioner (if you can get one to take you under his care, not always easy), not your doctor in public hospitals. then it's a lucky dip, and let's hope you don't get sick over a public holiday or a weekend.
to the extent that there is still some private character of medicine in australia, the system hasn't completely seized up. but look at the health budget, it's a monster that will dwarf every other spending item in futures days.
the american system is not something to emulate for the reasons others have stated, the food and drug administration, the doctors' protective guild (ama), tax subsidies etc. australia has a different form of regulatory strangulation and guild-protection, but the results are unsatisfactory nonetheless; the papers are always full of stories of waste and delay, and negligent care.
Published: May 9, 2009 9:45 PM
Joe Gall
Why shouldn't they want the government to do things for them? It's better than the government doing things for the connected class of crony capitalists with their rigged deals and insider trading and bailouts for incompetence and laws and regulations arranged for their benefit while victimizing ordinary people. The corporate welfare bums have their hands out; they should have their hands and heads cut off. Right wing nut scumbags!
Published: May 9, 2009 10:05 PM
SHADOW GOVERNMENT RULERS
nothing is wrong with the United Snakes that a few .223 rounds well placed won't fix.
we've been ruled by a bunch of C.I.A. rogues since November, 1963, and that was the last time the U.S. had a legitimate, elected, fully in control without the SHADOW GOVERNMENT RULERS.
and it's been looted, and pillaged. now 'hollow' it is ending pretty much like a house of cards with soggy wet playing cards as it's foundation level.
Published: May 10, 2009 12:34 AM
Gil
"nothing . . . that a few .223 rounds well placed won't fix."
Pffff! Are you going to fire the first shot SHADOW?
Published: May 10, 2009 12:43 AM
dogismyth
Well, if I need medical care for myself or my family, and I cannot afford it, then I will force myself on the institution to deal with my problem. If I can afford it, I will pay for it. Survival is survival regardless of this thing called money which everyone adores.
I believe that a baseline should exist. Once again, the better off can receive top notch medical care which may be overpriced for the poor. Millions of civil servants (i.e., gov workers) receive great medical plans. Why should I foot the bill for these people? Because they are doing me a service? Ah, excuse me, I am paying your salary and I am receiving (usually) terrible, unreliable service. Millions of prisoners are receiving medical care (albeit, not great), but they are "looked after" and the taxpayer is paying the cost. Who pays for the military care? veterans care? who pays for the indigent/poor care? who pays for corporate health plans?? (yes, that cost is passed onto the consumer as well). The answer is...the taxpayer.
Ya know, some basic life needs should be regulated to the point that they are affordable to all. If all these lying thieves in the insurance busness want to make big profits, then find an alternative field. Ya know...like alternative energy? electronics? biotech? agriculture?
Its just sad that everyone thinks that ensuring basic needs at an affordable price is liberalism. Its not. Its maintaining a healthy, psychological sound working public. Face it....capitalism is merely corporatism which is merely fascism. That's what I don't hear anyone talking about. Its all about profit regardless of the impact. Next time you get sick or a family member dies from a bad pill, bad food or a bad consumer item...then think twice about the evils of corporatism and its stranglehold on society to such an extent that homocide is acceptable.
No different than refusing someone heat, food, shelter or medical care because they can't afford it. When I see CEOs of those companies getting by on a six figure salary, then I'll say we are really trying. Until then, we got a lot of fixing to do. Or we could just shoot those that don't have the cash.
Published: May 10, 2009 12:44 AM
Kyle2
Wow - I have been waiting a long time to see someone actually voice the obvious - that US-style health insurance is a primary cause of rising medical costs. It interrupts any viable pricing mechanism. The consumer does not care how much it costs because "someone else is paying for it". In the same way, there is no competition for health care value nor any rational analysis of benefits received. Even worse, this systems results in poorer health, where everyone thinks there are unlimited resources - paid by someone else - to cure their poor lifestyles, they will have less incentive to take care of themselves (that "responsibility" thing, again).
Personally, I haven't had to see a doctor in 30 years, even tho, until recently, I had company health insurance, because I know how to be maximally healthy. At the same time, I have watched the yuppies around me burn thru tens of thousands of dollars of health insurance treating their inevitable major health problems. Doesn't seem quite fair that we should all be lumped under the same premium, does it?
Published: May 10, 2009 12:55 AM
Richie
It is not the function of the federal gov't to provide people with a job, with health care, with bailouts, with mortgage safety, nor with education. When you get the gov't to look after you, you get less than you could get on your own. With nationalized health care, the number of health care professionals will not increase to meet the increased demand for their services. You don't get something for nothing.
Published: May 10, 2009 4:46 AM
Robert S. Finnegan
Do you realize, Thornton, that you are doing with this propaganda piece exactly what the government wants you to do?
"They are the "backbone" of America and ¾ of them have beliefs that helped make the current mess politically possible and will make it very difficult to achieve a real economic recovery. Let's hope that those 44 and younger are better informed."
This sweeping generalization voids any semblance of credibility and by demonizing the victims plays directly into the hands of the enemy.
Content: (out of a possible 10) 4
Original Thought: 0
Compassion: in the negative range.
America is doomed as long as individuals blindly do the governments bidding by making war on each other when we should be united. This "article" reeks of cowardice, and Thornton's self-serving posturing - along with other cowardly, do-nothing Amerikans - in a losing attempt to save face is as transparent as glass.
Robert S. Finnegan
Managing Editor
Southeast Asia Independent News
seanews1@yahoo.com
Jakarta, Indonesia
62-21-829-5656
Published: May 10, 2009 7:26 AM
your infra-guard roots are showing, Gil
Gil's INFRA-GUARD roots are showing. What an obvious COINTELPRO lackey. When it all comes down on your head, will you still buy the bullshit and propaganda that's been shoved up your arse?
Published: May 10, 2009 3:50 PM
Microcinema International`
Hi,
Since you have concerns about the government and the United States, we thought you would have an interest in Dylan Avery's upcoming documentary, "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup."
MICROCINEMA INTERNATIONAL ACQUIRES "LOOSE CHANGE 9/11: AN AMERICAN COUP"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
SAN FRANCISCO, CA., APRIL 30, 2009 - Microcinema International DVD (www.microcinema.com) today announced the acquisition of Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (www.loosechange911.com); the latest installment in the series from director Dylan Avery and producers Matthew Brown and Korey Rowe. Loose Change (2005) and the sequels have been viewed online over 100 million times worldwide and sold nearly two million cumulative units. Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup will be available exclusively on DVD September 22, 2009.
Dramatically narrated by Daniel Sunjata, currently starring on FX's critically acclaimed Rescue Me as Franco Rivera, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup explores historical events that reshaped the world - from the Reichstag Fire in 1933 that catapulted Hitler to dictatorship - to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 that led to the Vietnam War. The film leads the audience through a roller-coaster of pivotal history before delving into the largest event of all - 9/11. The film analyzes the steps America took in the aftermath of the disaster, and the suspicious events that followed.
Filmmaker Dylan Avery's vision and hope is for those affected by 9/11 to receive the answers they seek. He asks for a fundamental call to action, as displayed in the previous Loose Change films, and supports the 9/11 truth movement by seeking honesty and clarity from those who have covered up actual events. A topic that inspires passion among many, the producers are actively seeking celebrities to be a voice for those whose questions have remained unanswered to date.
"The American people are still living in the aftermath of 9/11 and dealing with the repercussions," said Dylan Avery, writer and director. "With a new administration in office, information is being revealed almost on a daily basis. With this film it is our hope that answers will be revealed and questions will continue to be asked."
Microcinema International holds the exclusive worldwide distribution rights for Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup.
About Microcinema International
Microcinema International DVD is a San Francisco-based distribution company specializing in the licensing and distribution of DVD works from around the world. Available to specialty, traditional wholesale and retail outlets as well as to digitally-delivered channels, television, mobile telephony, broadcast, and exhibition. Microcinema International's catalog features short and long form media including art film and video; music-driven visuals; ambient media; works about art and artists; animation; and documentaries representative of current global issues and artistic trends. For more information visit www.microcinema.com.
Press Inquiries:
Carrie Peters, 206-579-3804, carrie@peterscommunications.com
Nancy Kramer, 206-499-9988, nancy@kramermarketing.com
Published: May 26, 2009 11:53 AM