Talk-Polywell.org

Why does it seem to be so popular to say that the U.S. is behind the rest of the developed world, specifically Europe.

There seems to be a general belief that the U.S. is not up to snuff. Specifically, Socialistic government seems to be admired while the traditional US ideas of Liberty from Government are treated as evil.

We apparently aren't educated. We apparently don't have good health care. We apparently don't provide adequate housing. We are apparently not properly taxing and distributing tax revenues. We are not controlling our guns. We are killing each other too much. We don't take care of disasters. We don't protect our environment. We don't live long enough. We are fat. Our high standard of living is just so much greed. The list is endless. And for all of these contentions, it seems like some European country or another is doing it much better than we are.

Am I wrong or does there seem to be a shift in sentiment to say that the US system is wrong?

seedload wrote:Why does it seem to be so popular to say that the U.S. is behind the rest of the developed world, specifically Europe.

There seems to be a general belief that the U.S. is not up to snuff. Specifically, Socialistic government seems to be admired while the traditional US ideas of Liberty from Government are treated as evil.

We apparently aren't educated. We apparently don't have good health care. We apparently don't provide adequate housing. We are apparently not properly taxing and distributing tax revenues. We are not controlling our guns. We are killing each other too much. We don't take care of disasters. We don't protect our environment. We don't live long enough. We are fat. Our high standard of living is just so much greed. The list is endless. And for all of these contentions, it seems like some European country or another is doing it much better than we are.

Am I wrong or does there seem to be a shift in sentiment to say that the US system is wrong?

Well of course the U.S. is wrong. At least from the perspective of left leaning Academicians, Politicians, Media, and Entertainers. (which is virtually all of them in Europe.)

Everyone that can make their opinion heard by large populations feel this way. That doesn't make them correct, it just makes their meme more prevelant.


David

It makes good (read frightening) news to find out that we're behind other places. Profitable, at least.

But we could just look at the facts. I mean, if we are, in fact, behind others in some way, is it really somehow biased to say so? I mean, isn't ignoring such facts putting your head in the sand?

Or are you saying that people don't point out our good sides at the same time. Personally, while I admit our country has its warts, I still would rather live here than anywhere else.

As far as why worldwide sentiment might turn against us... uh unilateral action by the world's largest power? That's not threatening? At the very least it's disenfranchizing. To those we meddle with, it's actively dangerous.

And that's all assuming that everyone is objective. I mean most/many places are just angry with anyone who is not them. Chauvanism is hardly new.

I'm surprised that you're surprised...

If there's a "shift" in sentiment, it's because of Bush's handling of foreign policy. I'm not going to say that makes him wrong (that's a whole different argument), but it's easy to see why folks don't like us. I wasn't aware that it was a popularity contest.

Mike

seedload wrote:
We apparently aren't educated.
We apparently don't have good health care.
We apparently don't provide adequate housing.
We are apparently not properly taxing and distributing tax revenues.
We are not controlling our guns.
We are killing each other too much.
We don't take care of disasters.
We don't protect our environment.
We don't live long enough.
We are fat.
Our high standard of living is just so much greed.
The list is endless.

And for all of these contentions, it seems like some European country or another is doing it much better than we are.

Check the basis of these points. They each can be confirmed as true by example, but I doubt there is a single country where each and every point is true. Japan, for example has the longest average lifespan and a top notch health care system. Last I heard there was some concern about financing it long term, but it is a good one. Instant care at your own doctor at an affordable price. But the Doctors don't get paid much.

First we need to agree on which of the things in the list is truly society's responsibility under our system. Killing each other? Well yea... Housing? Shelter maybe, housing not so much.

Anyway, that's my take on it. And we are making efforts to change ... We'll see after January 20-th.

I live in a country in Europe and I am married to a woman from the US. I personally love the US and having lived there for a while myself, I really appreciated the lifestyle there. That might be because it suits me very well. E.g. I really like being able to go out at night and shop, or go to a Denny's at midnight for a snack. Its good food and for a nice price. Free refills are a wonderful invention too.
Generally everything almost without exception is cheaper in the US than it is where I live. Of course some things depend on where in the US you live. California (LA, SF) and NY city are two places that are definitely not cheap and probably offer the lowest quality of life as well. Unfortunately they are what is usually associated with the US when you ask people here about it, thanks to Holyweird and cheap city sightseeing tours that for some stupid reason seem to favour NY and LA.
Anyway, in a place like the Dallas Ft Worth area (almost 5 mio inhabitants) you can get a very nice, big house with a nice yard for 200k USD or less. Here (250k inhabitants) you will find a 1000 sf apartment for the same money, nothing more, no yard anywhere.
Gas here costs roughly 7 USD/gallon, righ now (and it went down a bit), much more than it cost at its peak in the US.
Computers are much cheaper in the US and you have more options too.
Healthcare, well it is a matter of how you look at it. Here you get healthcare, whether you want it or not and you have to pay for it, whether you can afford it or not... If an entrepreneur can not pay his own healthcare (not for his employess, but just his own), the government can close up his business.
The amount you pay is determined by how much you make and you have no choice here. The percentage also increases with your income.
The healthcare here is OK, but troubled and the system might collapse in a few years due to abuse and missmanagement by the government and the unions that handle all this. People that work at the government healthcare agencies make to much money, some for doing basically nothing. Then immigrants that have never worked here automatically get health- benefits. In addition certain expensive treatments and pensions are granted to people without good reason. Some treatments that should not be covered by the government at all are given away to lightly.
Examples: In vitro fertilization for an immigrant mother of 8 (I would not complain if she was childless, but after 8 its simply nature making the call), sex changes for people that claim depression about their birth sex (hey I am depressed about my money going into that), early retirement for otherwise healthy people that claim psychological problems, people getting 4+ weeks of payed health vacation in a spa every year, treatments for drug addicts, psychological treatments for prison inmates. There are more examples like these and each by themselves does not really have much of an effect, but all together and the missmanagement do.
Anyway for people that make more than 35000 USD a year, a blue cross- blue shields health package might actually turn out to be cheaper in the US than a government health package is here (bc-bs is 600 USD a month now, right?) and from what I understand you get your own room in hospital with that and not a room together with 5 or more other people like you get here. In comparison a self employed person here that makes 1500 USD a month pays roughly 500 USD a month for healthcare (since there is a minimum amount that you have to pay).

Anyway, the image of the US in the rest of the western world has suffered severely in the last 8 years. I wont get into details why and I am sure most of you can guess why anyway.
Lets just say it did and it got harder and harder for me to explain my love for the US to my fellow countrymen. Some people would even attack me or my wife verbally. Not very nice, but thats the way it is.
I hope that with Barack Obama being elected president the picture the rest of the world has of the US will change for the better again. It already has a bit.

unilateral action by the world's largest power? That's not threatening?

Of course it is threatening. That is why the Euros are clamoring to get American troops out. Haven't you heard the cry? Sixty years is enough?

The Canadians are rearming in order to resist an American invasion.

And them Iraqis just hate Us. Haven't you heard their ultimatum? American troops out now? Kuwait is denying Americans basing rights.

The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans too. They are all trying to get us out.

We did screw up one though. When the Philippines asked us to leave we failed to bomb them into submission.

What? You haven't heard any of that? I must be living in an alternate universe. I'll let you know as soon as I get back to the real one.

Nobody said it was rational, or that they were consistent. I frequently point out, when people ask when we're going to be out of Iraq, that we're still in Germany. Just to get their mind expanded a bit on the possibilities.

That doesn't mean that people don't like us, or won't talk badly about us.

Your suppositions, once again, that somebody is badly educated, are insulting as usual.

Mike

Let me just say that the USA has zero interest in being any of the places we are now. And if the rest of you mopes could handle yourselves without being at each other's throats and causing us a lot of trouble we would be gone before you asked us.

We just want to live in our big houses, eat our cheap food, enjoy our cheap medical care, and invent stuff for fun and profit.

Killing each other too much? It has two causes. Big cities have unilaterally disarmed law abiding citizens and we have prohibition wars.

We are along the way to solving the second and the first is the responsibility of local government.

Another State (Michigan or Mississippi - I forget) just decrimed marijuana.

Of course it's threatening. That's why Russia is rearming itself, and planning to bomb the shit out of any missile defense systems places oh-so convieniently near their borders.
That's why Iraq hates the US, and their government is refusing the US the right to stick around long term.
That's why us Canadians are getting more and more wary of sitting next to someone that nobody likes much. ( And they persist in saying we don't get lots of arctic that we claimed years ago. )

What? You haven't heard any of that? You must be living in an alternate universe.

Ah, that felt good.
Sorry Simon, I had to reply to that rant with one of my own.

The US (and canada) is behind the developed world in a lot of ways. We've got worse cell/internet infrastructure, we've got worse roads, we've got worse health care (than some places). The education is definitely lacking in North America.

And yeah, the US is really powerful. Nobody likes to know that there's somebody bigger and stronger watching them. Especially when they know that the big guy is just waiting to jump in unasked.

John,

The Brits were hated when they kept the peace in the world. It is the price of being the big stick. Plus they had a rather mixed record re: exploitation. Much better than the Belgian's though.

BTW Russia is rearming to get back lost pieces of the Czarist Empire. The USA is standing in the way. The former bits of the Czar's empire like us. The Russians not so much.

And the Iraqis just concluded a basing agreement for US troops. (was that sarcasm John? I can't tell.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 166035.ece

While it's not worded as strongly in that article as the one I orignally found, the Iraq government is pretty clearly saying 'we don't want troops here.'

And sure Russia wants its bits back. Russia isn't 'nice,' and I'm disappointed at recent news on the lengthening of the president's term. Still, I can't imagine that the US would sit by if Russia put lots of military bases in, say, Cuba and Canada. You might feel a little paranoid, too.

And yes, Britain was no better than the US. Power corrupts and all that. Actually, Britain is turning into one of the most terrifying places for privacy and liberty that I can think of at the moment. For the western world, anyway.

John,

A lot can change in three years in the ME. And you will note that immediate withdrawal was not called for.

And why can the US troops withdraw to Kuwait? Well we have trained the most professional Army and police force in the ME.

And to tell you the truth from what I hear from American troops they are glad to be out of the place.

In any case America is not a colonial power. We don't like staying where we are not wanted.

As to withdrawing to bases? That is what American troops do when peace is secured. We have been doing it for 60+ years so we have some experience in that sort of thing.

Well in all honesty, the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary to begin with. It did not change anything for the better there and it definitely did not help in the war against terror. In contrary a weak Iraq has made Iran feel stronger than ever and allowed them to persue their nuclear plans. That would have been impossible before without causing a serious response from Iraq.
It also did not help with the impression the rest of the world has of the US.

Skipjack wrote:Well in all honesty, the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary to begin with. It did not change anything for the better there and it definitely did not help in the war against terror. In contrary a weak Iraq has made Iran feel stronger than ever and allowed them to persue their nuclear plans. That would have been impossible before without causing a serious response from Iraq.

I suppose the Saddam regime killing 100 or 200 Iraqis a day would have been preferable to what they have now.

And after 12 years of no fly zones etc. Saddam was no doubt strong enough to take on Iran.

BTW Bill Clinton signed off on Regime Change Iraq. Bush carried out the law.

==

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
--W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
--Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
--Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
--Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country….
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
--Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

All Democrats.

And if you go back to the relevant time all the Euro intel agencies were saying the same thing.

You are a victim of revisionist history. There is a lot of that going around.

BTW read "Iraq the Model" blog for the latest on how some Iraqis feel about Americans.