Can America Keep Up? US News & World Report

[Zlex]

I'm surprised that some folk believe that governments having a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens is a bad thing. Here's an article to debunk some of the myths being bandied about in regard to the effects of operating welfare states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Without the concept of the welfare state people would still be living in a feudalist society born with the sole purpose in life of serving their masters, with no education and thus no opportunity to better themselves and without health services to allow them quality in their lives.

Simplistic slogans like 'I don't ask for anything so don't you ask me for anything' show a total lack of depth in understanding what society is. A better slogan is 'the sum of the parts is greater than the whole'

Ultimately it is in one's own selfish interest to look after ALL of the parts to maximise the whole.

A yes, the great Society; something that is bigger than us all. Aka, the modern version of God. 'It is for the Good Of Society/God That I get to Drive your Skin..."

America is already at the point where the poorest of our poor live nothing like the average person in places like Bangladesh. And now, we want to propose schemes that by design, snare our entire Middle Class into depending on 'the safety net.' It's not a 'safety net' if the Middle Class is being shepherded into it; it's just a 'net.'

The question is 'why the net?', and the answer is because sick little men like Durkheim et. al. and their modern day worshippers had/have an almost maniacal, irrational fear of strangers unseen and were/are convinced that the world and its dangerous individuals living in their freedom need to be controlled at the point of a gun at all costs. They never got over their childhood realization that they were individuals awash in a sea of other individuals, and were moved to do something constrictivistly violent/forceful about that to handle all the uncertainty, the noise, and the freedom, which was, essentially, to convince individuals that there was something greater that they should surrender to, through the Durkheims as divine spokepersons, to render the mob into a self-policing mob, literally, on the guard against the 'self.' Still a mob, but a mob that was leadable around by the nose. The fearful Durkheims and the other mystic speakers for the Great Unseen Magic Spirit in the Sky (aka Society) just want to make sure it is their grubby little hands holding the gun, plain and simple, and in control of the mob.

Tell you what, let's get all the people in the world. Everyone who is not an individual, raise your hand.

Take away everyone who is an individual, and what are you left with?

Whatever that is, that is what Durkheim and his even unaware worshippers claim has wants and needs and desires that must be met, that some yet mere individuals claim to speak for, while leg lifting themselves over other mere individuals.

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

IOW, the same leglifting scam that the other mystics try to pull on the unsuspecting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.htm

Consider: To pass this test, no knowledge of the arts is necessary (not even a nodding familiarity with a few of the greatest works of English literature), no demonstration of mathematical learning other than plain arithmetic is required (forget algebra, geometry, or trigonometry), nothing beyond a familiarity with the highlights of American history is needed (never mind the fundamentals of world history, as this exam scarcely acknowledges that any country other than the USA even exists), no questions about the history, structure, or function of the United States government are asked (not even the standard "Name the three branches of our federal government"), science is given a pass except for a few questions about geography and the rudiments of human anatomy, and no competence in any foreign language (living or dead) is necessary. An exam for today's high school graduates that omitted even one of these subjects would be loudly condemned by parents and educators alike, subjects about which the Salina, Kansas, students of 1895 needed know nothing at all. Would it be fair to say that the average Salina student was woefully undereducated because he failed to learn many of the things that we consider important today, but which were of little importance in his time and place? If not, then why do people keep asserting that the reverse is true? Why do journalists continue to base their gleeful articles about how much more was expected of the students of yesteryear on flawed assumptions? Perhaps some people are too intent upon making a point to bother considering the proper questions.

Other things not mentioned there are things like the number of children that actually completed and graduated school...

As a result, high school enrollment grew slowly in those years, with only 6 percent of young people graduating from high school in 1900.
http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/magazine/fall2001a/fastforward.html

 

[Anttech]

Tell you what, let's get all the people in the world. Everyone who is not an individual, raise your hand.

Take away everyone who is an individual, and what are you left with?

Whatever that is, that is what Durkheim and his even unaware worshippers claim has wants and needs and desires that must be met, that some yet mere individuals claim to speak for, while leg lifting themselves over other mere individuals.

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

IOW, the same leglifting scam that the other mystics try to pull on the unsuspecting.

So if we are all indivuals, and with purely selfish ideals, why have school? Why bother learning about mankinds history from the people who observed it? Why bother learning science from other people discoveries? Why did Mankind evolve into "political animals?" Why do we have babies that have to be cared for, for such a long time (I think the longest in the animal kingdom). Why is the "Family" unit so strong in humanity?

EVERYWHERE you look you will see that we are based on social interaction, its the reason why we evolved to the top of the food chain, and now far far beyond! Just because we are all "Different" does not debunk Art's arguement. If we didnt work together there is absolutley no way on Earth we would have been so successful! Mankind.

the sum of the parts is greater than the whole

Is the absolute reason that we have progressed so far!

 

[X-43D]

Society exists because we are not completely selfish and competitive. Pure competition would be a Hobbesian war of all against all (totalitarianism). The fact is that there are also good altruistic traits in humans.

 

[russ_watters]

Too bad you guys can't watch this documentary: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/24877874/ it plays out the scenario where a trader in Singapore receives the order to sell a large quantity of dollars, this sets a dramatic fall of the dollar in progress that sweeps around the globe until it hits the US. At the end of the day the dollar has lost all its value, because of how other traders over-reacted to the initial drop in value (due to lack of trust).

I believe that's the scenario for Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" (been a while since I read it). I agree that that is a concern, but I tend to think it will (is already) happen gradually enough that it won't suddenly chop us off at the knee.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm surprised that some folk believe that governments having a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens is a bad thing.

You shouldn't be - the political philosophy on which the concept of democracy is based is utterly devoid of the concept, and for good reason. It is only since Marx's failed experiment that people have latched on to the concept - despite the fact that the Marxist utopia proved a failure. Now, that isn't to say that certain aspects of it can be successfully integrated into a modern society, but great care needs to be taken that these aspects don't undermine the very improvements they are attempting to make.

[from the article] Ironically, the idea of a welfare state receives the most criticism in the country with the least amount of welfare services in the developed world - namely the United States.

Indeed it is ironic. It must be a cultural thing, probably a result of us being on top so long, people have started to expect that entitlement is a right. Certainly it is an easy sell by liberal politicians to a greedy populous.

Most of this American criticism revolves around the idea that a welfare state would make citizens lazy and less inclined to work. That is unsupported by the economic evidence; there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries.

I'd like to see the particulars of those studies. For some things, the association is obvious: ie, unemployment. And one has to be careful trying to draw conclusions from a homogenous sample - you can't see the difference by comparing European countries to each other.

It is also important to remember that most countries today have hybrid economies. While the welfare state makes unemployment in France high, a total welfare state like the USSR "enjoyed" an unemployment rate of zero. This was, of course, artificial, but the worst effect of the welfare state - mediocrity - comes through crystal clear. That some of the more socialist countries in Europe are able to avoid a culture of mediocrity is a credit to their cultural maturity. That the US is falling into the trap that killed the USSR is an ironic and sad testament to the general immaturity of the American populous.

Without the concept of the welfare state people would still be living in a feudalist society born with the sole purpose in life of serving their masters, with no education and thus no opportunity to better themselves and without health services to allow them quality in their lives.

That's a tough one to support, seeing as how the welfare state is relatively new - Feudalism was gone before the welfare state started to grow. But feel fry to try to support it...

Ultimately it is in one's own selfish interest to look after ALL of the parts to maximise the whole.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that people's selfish-interest-vision extends beyond their own nose. Few people actually act on the concept of delayed gratification today. Heck, Art, if people really embraced that idea, why would we need Social Security!??!? That we do is clear and obvious evidence that people do not think even in their own long-term selfish-interest.

 

[russ_watters]

I see your point, so I'll try to clarify a little more.

There is the macro level and micro level. Within our country we want business to compete to keep quality high and costs low. But you don't compete against your own company, at least one would think not. On the global level we want our governments to represent us, the people of their country. To negotiate good trade agreements, to help grow the economy and jobs in our country, to help us prepare future generations to compete and prosper in our country. As a country, you would think we would behave as if we were on the same team.

Don't you see the irony in that, SOS? It's the greedy American capitalists who supposedly have the F-the-rest-of-the-world attitude. Yet there it is from you!

Further proof, to me, that liberals are looking at the world upside-down and backwards.

Heck, maybe its the contradictions themselves that are damaging the cultural strength of the US.

 

[Zlex]

So if we are all indivuals, and with purely selfish ideals, why have school? Why bother learning about mankinds history from the people who observed it? Why bother learning science from other people discoveries? Why did Mankind evolve into "political animals?" Why do we have babies that have to be cared for, for such a long time (I think the longest in the animal kingdom). Why is the "Family" unit so strong in humanity?

EVERYWHERE you look you will see that we are based on social interaction, its the reason why we evolved to the top of the food chain, and now far far beyond! Just because we are all "Different" does not debunk Art's arguement. If we didnt work together there is absolutley no way on Earth we would have been so successful! Mankind. Is the absolute reason that we have progressed so far!

You're exactly right we work best when we work together. However, IMV a welfare state is not about working together, not all it. It is about the guns of government pointing at everybody and telling them, 'You must care about every living human being on the planet, sans judgement or choice or (your) personal worldview of morality, but instead, per the judgement and choice and worldview of a select/elite few cronies who were supposed to be fairly painting double yellow lines down the middle of the road but who instead got it into their fat heads that they were elected Christ proxies...

I don't expect human beings on average, to be any better than average. So, if we set up a scheme that requires human beings to be better than average, we're in for not just dissapointment, but failure.

On average, human beings will seek to exchange lessor value for greater value, as opposed to the moral alternative, equal value for equal value. So, if we set up a demand system based on the claim "here is my need" as all that is required to demand value from somebody else, and "there is your ability" as all that is required to exact payment, then on average, we will create a clawing mess where "needs" propagate unbounded, like weeds, and ability to meet them is suppressed, hidden, and denied.

A civilization based on such a pudding headed idea will soon enough find itself unable to support even the most basic 'safety net,' much less some grand, pudding headed scheme where every need is met without effort, 'somehow' because we wished it were so.

In fact, the inevitable end result of such a scheme is easy to predict: two guys in a hovel fighting to the death, arguing over who has the greatest sores, and thus, rightfully the owner of the not so maggoty piece of rotted meat. How many times we need to see this in action before we get it?

In a perfect world, peopled by perfect humans, this would not happen. Folks would offer value for value, would not lie, would not cheat, would not steal. Folks would not seek subsidy (offering lessor value for greator value) except as a last resort, in times of temporary dire circumstance, and would work/struggle/behave in such a fashion to remove themselves from those temporary dire circumstances just as fast as they were able to...as opposed to, in an imperfect world, court those circumstances, embrace those circumstances, parade those circumstances as a Magic Shield/Get Out Of Reality Free Card, be told endlessly as part of a cheap political stunt that those circumstances are all the result of some other 3rd party, far away, and unseen; "Vote for us, we'll get that guy for you," the implicit promise, never paid off. Vote selling on the cheap, to the max, practiced by charlatans.

In a perfect world, this nation would not be teetering on considering the entire Middle Class as candidates for "in times of dire straights requiring welfare/subsidy." In an imperfect world, if they have been actively courted to think of themselves in those terms in order to rule them, it would be.

If it a welfare state was about working together then there would be no need for guns and chains. Are you claiming that this welfare state plan does not require _enforcement_?

Or, is that just wishing that the plan does not require _enforcement_?

Getting the mob together and 'passing a law' does not obviate the need for the guns and chains; it just provides cover to allow the mob to sleep at night, thinking that what it just pulled off was a great and virtuous thing.

As long as your argument is based on appealing to our better angels, then preach away, and in fact, you will have great success, because working together, is as you pointed out part of human nature. As soon as you lurch into a political argument that says, "In my opinion, the nation does not have enough better angels and needs just a little coercion to make this fly," you will find the available pool of 'better angels' shrinks considerably, and that is part of human nature, too. No amount of increasing coercion will ever restore the output of the former, given the conditions of the latter.

Better angels are not better angels when there are guns aimed at their heads.

Any 90% can have all the one man, one vote meetings it wants, but if what it wants is to coerce the 10% against it's will to live of and serve the endless/boundless wants, needs, and desries of the 90%, with the moral justification being "because the 10% can and the 90% can't," then there is nothing Holy, sacred, or moral about the proceedings; it is what has gone on in front of barbarian tribal alters for centuries, because it can.

"Let's implement my pet grad school Soc thesis at the point of the tribe's gun because I'm afraid that not enough folks of ability will implement my worldview for me" is the very definition of compulsion, not working together. "There are not enough better angels in the world; I and a mob of like minded friends who are unable to realize the same results will compel the same results at the point of a gun" is not a moral stance, it is the stance of a moral looter.

Of course we live in a mix of these; freedom/compulsion. That is a given, not by an intelligent design, but simply by the brute fact of numbers, the ultimate Law of the Jungle, the biggest beast (The Mob)can and will ultimately always get its little way...even if it is for the 15 minutes that a surgeon might actually toil away, chained to an operating table, before a] pulling the plug or b]oooops, sorry, I tried, but my best wasn't good enough today.

I, and certainly none of the folks I admire, like F. A. Hayek, are advocates of either anarchy nor a 'safety-net' less nation, but rather, "fettered" government. That is no more "anarchy" than a gov't that exacts income taxes is "totalitarian."

The government is an armed beast. It is the one beast loose in the tribe that demands the strictist fettering, because it is not only defacto 'armed' as the biggest beast in the Jungle, but is in in fact "armed." It can and often will steamroller over anyone or more of us, and is held back by nothing less flimsy then a set of wishes written down on paper coupled with our joint dedication to the very American idea of protecting each of us from the overwhelming and irresistable weight of each other

So, government/statute is a reasonable place to consider maintenance of the much needed state plumbing, such as , fairly painting the double yellow lines down the middle of the road, inhibiting the first use of violence, funding cops, courts, and jails.

But, it is not a reasonable place to launch flights of irrational fancy, especially those based on the flawed modern ideal that reality is actually shaped by desires. "Desire" may be the prologue to focused thought and action, but ultimately, it is focused thought and action that has the ability to shape reality, not mere desire. To an emperor sitting on a throne, backed by an army aiming its spears at a sea of slaves, it might seem like 'desire' shapes reality, but that is the only kind of world where that is possible, and only for the 'desires' of those holding the whip. With or without freedom/the lack of coercion, results are realized by the focused thoughts and actions of actual individuals, living human beings. Only in freedom are whatever results they are able to achieve, jointly or individually, realizable in a moral fashion.

This is true no matter how blinded we are by the 'morality' of what 'their' outcomes directed by the whip in 'our' hands can achieve.

We should take great care when unfettering the biggest beast in the jungle; any scheme based solely on "I have less/have greater need" "You have more/greater ability to fulfill that need" without regards(judgmentalism is the only public sin)to the underlying values which brought about that condition is not a place to tread lightly, no matter how blinded we are by the utopia we imagine beyond.

 

[Art]

You shouldn't be - the political philosophy on which the concept of democracy is based is utterly devoid of the concept, and for good reason. It is only since Marx's failed experiment that people have latched on to the concept - despite the fact that the Marxist utopia proved a failure. Now, that isn't to say that certain aspects of it can be successfully integrated into a modern society, but great care needs to be taken that these aspects don't undermine the very improvements they are attempting to make.

I think you will find the Elizabethen Poor Law of 1601 preceded Marx by a few hundred years so to suggest the concept of the state having a responsibility for the welfare of it's people only arrived with Marx is nonsense. Britain's middleages welfare state worked quite well until it was dismantled by people of your mind in the 19th century who embraced the new laissez-faire ideology where the poor were stigmatized as 'morally flawed' (sound familiar?) With I might add catastrophic consequences for the poor, the old and the sick. In my own country it led directly to the deaths of 20% of the population in just a few years.

Indeed it is ironic. It must be a cultural thing, probably a result of us being on top so long, people have started to expect that entitlement is a right. Certainly it is an easy sell by liberal politicians to a greedy populous.

Unfortunately this epitomises the attitude of those who resent contributing to the weaker members of society. Where others see needy people you see greedy people. More accurately portrayed as 'You can ring the bell Jack, I'm on the bus'

I'd like to see the particulars of those studies. For some things, the association is obvious: ie, unemployment. And one has to be careful trying to draw conclusions from a homogenous sample - you can't see the difference by comparing European countries to each other.

So why don't you research the subject before trying to dismiss well researched studies in favour of your own handwaving arguments?

It is also important to remember that most countries today have hybrid economies. While the welfare state makes unemployment in France high, a total welfare state like the USSR "enjoyed" an unemployment rate of zero. This was, of course, artificial, but the worst effect of the welfare state - mediocrity - comes through crystal clear. That some of the more socialist countries in Europe are able to avoid a culture of mediocrity is a credit to their cultural maturity. That the US is falling into the trap that killed the USSR is an ironic and sad testament to the general immaturity of the American populous.

You are confusing the concept of a welfare state with a command economy. Britain and Ireland both have welfare states. Neither country is Marxist or any other form of communist.

Both are wealthy, both have low unemployment, both have very high levels of productivity (In 2003 Ireland generated over $116,000 in manufacturing value added (MVA)- representing one of the highest labour productivity rates in the world.)

All this despite having free education, free health care, subsidised public transport, maternity allowances, family allowances, state pensions, unemployment benefit and a wealth of other welfare services. Sort of blows away your contention that people would be happy to sit on their butts and do nothing if not starved out to work!

That's a tough one to support, seeing as how the welfare state is relatively new - Feudalism was gone before the welfare state started to grow. But feel fry to try to support it...

As already explained above the concept of the welfare state was around for hundreds of years before William Temple coined the phrase.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that people's selfish-interest-vision extends beyond their own nose. Few people actually act on the concept of delayed gratification today. Heck, Art, if people really embraced that idea, why would we need Social Security!??!? That we do is clear and obvious evidence that people do not think even in their own long-term selfish-interest.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow members of society. It's quite sad really to go through life jealously guarding what you have because you think your compatriots are trying to steal it from you. I wouldn't imagine it makes for a very enjoyable or fulfilling life. See A Christmas Carol http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/carol.html

 

[X-43D]

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

If all individuals are of equal worth, there is a need for directly democratic organizations to maximize the freedom of every individual, not just of the rich minority.

 

[Astronuc]

May I respectfully request that people please refrain from personalizing the discussion with "you . . ." statements.

As an individual in a community/society - I must respect the individuality of each and everyone, even those with whom I might disagree. I prefer a cooperative society - and in that vein - I am a communitarian.

 

[Astronuc]

Something to add to one's reading list.

I heard an interview today with Derek Bok regarding his perspective on university education. He basically believes that the educational system both pre-college and college/university is failing today's students in the US, and that US students are becoming less competitive in the world!

Anyway his book is:

Our Underachieving Colleges:
A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8125.html

Other reviews:

http://www.eddigest.com/html/DBok.html

http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2006/03/03/our_underachieving_colleges.php

http://www.popecenter.org/recommended_reading/article.html?id=1672

 

[SOS2008]

Don't you see the irony in that, SOS? It's the greedy American capitalists who supposedly have the F-the-rest-of-the-world attitude. Yet there it is from you!

Further proof, to me, that liberals are looking at the world upside-down and backwards.

Heck, maybe its the contradictions themselves that are damaging the cultural strength of the US.

I have stated elsewhere my belief in a hybrid system. One in which basic needs are provided at cost. Everything else should be a fair market scenario to maintain the highest quality goods/services at the lowest price. I say "fair market" because if unregulated, the world would be run by one monopoly.

To the specific point, do you undercut your own company for personal profit? If everyone did that, the company would go under. Likewise, do you feel countries should have no borders or laws, and allow people to move freely, for example the current problem with massive numbers of people entering illegally from Mexico? What we need to do is fight for the rights of labor throughout the world, not lower our own standards to meet theirs.

Back to the topic of how poorly future generations will compete, we have a "path of least resistance" culture including enjoying the good life at home with parents later and later in life. The problem is a lot of parents are not involved in the education of their children, but more importantly the "responsibility/expectation bar" goes lower and lower with each generation. Oh the day when kids had chores on the farm. Today's youth mature faster in some ways, such as sex education, but are very immature in all the ways needed to succeed in the work force.

 

[Astronuc]

MARK HERTSGAARD: Denial can get expensive. Just think back to the oil shock of 1973. Despite soaring gas prices, auto executives insisted that American consumers would never drive smaller cars. So, the Japanese got busy and eventually grabbed half of the US market.

Today, it's denial of global warming that's threatening US jobs and profits. Toyota and Honda are far ahead in hybrid car sales. And US firms are losing out in other sectors too. Our solar and wind power manufacturers once led the world. Now, we trail the Germans, Danes and even the Spanish.

In February, the EU, not the US, signed a memorandum of understanding with China that could lead to billions of dollars in trade deals for a new generation of carbon-neutral power plants.

Most American business leaders still don't get what's hit them. But it's not entirely their fault.

For 15 years, Exxon Mobil and other companies spent millions to promote scientific uncertainty about global warming. They did it by funding contrarian scientists, lobbyists and PR outfits. Media outlets like the Wall Street Journal did the rest.

The deniers borrowed their tactics, and even their scientists, from the tobacco industry. In the 1980s former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz directed a $45 million research program for R.J. Reynolds that deliberately ignored the health effects of smoking. Then in the '90s, Seitz became a leading global warming denier, a stance he says reflected his scientific judgment.

from www.marketplace.org -
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/05/04/PM200605047.html

According to http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=10852279&CFTOKEN=83103066

Seitz is Chairman Emeritus, The George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research" in 2002-2003.

Research Fellow, The Independent Institute

In 2003, the Independent Institute received $10,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation.

Not exactly independent.

 

[franznietzsche]

Back to the topic of how poorly future generations will compete, we have a "path of least resistance" culture including enjoying the good life at home with parents later and later in life.

I believe you are mistaken here. Its my understanding the American families push children out the door faster than most European nations (with 22 being a very late time to still be living with parents in the US as opposed to 25/26 in some European countries). However, I may have been misinformed.

 

[Astronuc]

Danger of Drift by David Gergen, US News & World Report, May 29, 2006

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060529/29gergen.htm

As Hurricane Katrina built up in the Atlantic last year, swept across Florida, then gathered force in the Gulf, many realized that this was the big one they had expected for years--yet when the storm struck, the country wasn't ready. Our political leadership had failed us. Even now, with a new storm season approaching, the Gulf region is still not ready.

. . .

The decline and fall of the Bush administration is the topic du jour. Around the president, aides are diving into history books to see what lessons they can learn and scrambling to come up with stopgap measures to revive his fortunes.

. . .

Public education. Twenty-three years have passed since a national commission warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity" in our K-12 schools. After many efforts to improve, test scores are modestly better, especially in early grades. But progress has been excruciatingly slow and uneven. High school dropout rates haven't improved. Only a third finish high school ready for college, and even fewer, 18 percent, actually finish college within six years of high school graduation. "So much reform, so little change," one observer said ruefully.

Healthcare. The quality of specialized care at U.S. hospitals remains the envy of the world [for those who have insurance or can otherwise afford it], but the overall system is in deep trouble, perhaps meltdown. . . .

Financial imbalances. It is well understood that the federal government has squandered the budget surpluses of just five years ago. . . .

Energy and the environment. From Richard Nixon on, presidents have called for energy independence. Congress has passed one bill after another, but the nation's dependence on foreign oil has actually grown since 30 years ago--from around 30 percent to over 60 percent! . . .

Staying ahead. . . .

US is in deep trouble, and Bush has only made it worse, IMO. :grumpy: