@CK: your "solutions" to healthcare/welfare/education are nice but as we saw when obama tried to fix healthcare they will be fluffed up by congress. until that can be fixed, "LESS MONEY" is not going to work. you need a good solution... that will actually be implemented

@trumper: you've done nothing to address the fact that the poster could have been a citizen of the many countries that have been fluff on by the US and not been saved. (hence arrogance)
as for your point about saving the US - when did the US NEED to be saved?
from a non-military point of view, british/german investment and free trade policies in the mid 1800s (before protectionism kicked up again) were pretty important in helping the US get set up economically.

The poster could have been from one of those countries and could be speaking German today too if we sat on the sidelines. The irony in calling Americans arrogant is it pushes our mentality toward more and more isolationism. That's fine except that was the same mentality we had until December 7th, 1941.

As for helping the US, war of 1812, Spanish-American war, Civil War? In the latter several world powers enjoyed the war because it gave them a good excuse to sell to the US and to get cheap products such as cotton from us. If I understand you right then by your estimation we learned and mimicked these world powers. Although those folks have little room to call us arrogant given the way they handled situations and really taught us how to handle situations. I mean, shoot, I'm not going to claim we invented the modern mercantlist policies--I credit our cousins across the pond.

Quite frankly I am sick of the rest of you people in the world. You know what you are? A bunch of good for nothing, know nothing, know it alls who sit there and incessantly wag you fingers at us but don't ever step of the plate to get anything done yourselves and cry like little fluffes whenever we threaten to stop paying a vast majority of the tab for things like the UN because then you might actually have to pay your fair share.

Spanish-American War, I thought we started that so we could take some land from the Spanish. Oh yes because that was when we start Colonizing just to be like our Euro brothers but were behind so Spain was a weakened and Vulnerable target to give us the PI so we had our spot in Asia too.

If our goal was to colonize then we failed miserably because I can't buy Cuban cigars and I'm pretty sure the Phillipines are not under US control.

It was actually a war against colonizing interests because if you remember we issues a little item called the Monroe Doctrine after we got sick of certain countries claiming ownership to the Americas. The land we colonized was mostly acquired through purchase or by stealing it from the Native Americans or both.

From the Spanish-American war we still have Guam and Puerto Rico, neither of which seems to be pining for independence. Can't say I blame them either.

lmao. "America's intentions are always noble" is basically what you're saying here.

Get a fluffing clue, the Philippines was a US colony for 40 years and didn't like it. (trust me, I'm here right now) Cuba was basically a colony for 60 (the government would get overthrown once the US stopped backing it) until they had their revolution and freed themselves. And you can't smoke Cubans because your government doesn't like the idea of Cuba not being owned by United Fruit or whatever.

In response to your "these countries would be speaking German," it once again demonstrates my point about American arrogance perfectly. If the world had got to the point where the Canadians or Cubans were speaking German, then the fluffing Americans would be speaking German.

And finally, as for your "maybe we should be isolationist" - maybe 3 million dead Vietnamese people would've agreed with that sentiment? The US isn't "universally good" - whether or not US involvement has been beneficial depends on where you're from. For most of Western Europe, it was probably for the best. Eastern Europe owes you nothing, communism was as bad for them as Nazism... besides, they were liberated by the Russians, not the Americans. For Northern Europe, there was no US involvement. We fought Stalin on our own. For many in Latin America, the US has been a disaster and colonial oppressor for 200 years now, working for the interests of its own companies instead of the people there.

So basically, stop being arrogant. Out of curiousity, how many of these countries have you been to? From my experience, the Vietnamese like the Americans (well as much as they like most other tourists) but dislike what they did during the war ("but the people in power are different now"). Ditto the Philipinos. Cubans dislike the people on the whole but generally like the individuals who visit.

Really? REALLY? I'm kinda so sick of the bullfluff from you guys. You realize America is far more popular in Eastern Europe then Western Europe right? Mainly because Eastern Europe realizes how worse off things can be when you don't have America protecting you.

Believe me I'm just about in the camp of telling you all to fluff off and enjoy whatever world is left after we go isolationist again and you guys start having to deal with CHINA as a hegemon instead of us. If you think WE are bad I guaran-damn-tee you you are going to hate China 100x worse.

And for the record, America will be fine regardless of what happens to the rest of you. We have oceans to protect us and 11 carrier groups while everyone else has no more then 1. We could leave you guys to fend for yourselves anytime we wanted and be fine ourselves.

Smikke, if you think eastern Europe has no ties/reliance on/love for the U.S., you really need to brush up on your politics/world news....I have no idea where you're getting your claims of liberation by Russia - at BEST, you might be able to make a claim that they were financially liberated by Russia, and even that is quite a stretch.

Out of curiosity, how many eastern European countries have YOU been to?

How about this tradeoff, I'll 'stop being arrogant' when you stop presuming to understand my beliefs? I'm enjoying your ill-conceived notion that I think the US always acts in the global interest. Quite the contrary I think most US foreign policy is vested in our own interests as I think most nations are almost always acting in their own interests.

With that said, I think our interests are far more benign than you realize and more often than not benefit the whole rather than just us. That's not to say they're always that way because we're far from utopia. The problem is if you come to a discussion holding a predisposition (as both of us clearly do) then you will form your opinions based on that predisposition. In other words, you will see the negative instances of US foreign policy while I will see the positive (at least positive from my perspective). On that point, I will argue until the day I die that the amount of American blood shed on behalf of foreign allies exceeds that of the hurt you presume we have caused.

Now, onto your question. I have traveled through most of Western Europe. I almost visited Cuba (flying from Costa Rica they will offer to stamp an empty page an insert it into your passport thus helping Americans avoid being caught breaking the law). I have never made it to the Phillipines. I have traveled to non-touristy portions of Nicaragua and Panama. No Sandinista greetings. instead, they were more interested in complaining about the lack of help in fighting drug routes and one in telling me about his great experience at Walmart, which he revered.

I thought about making this point too, but sometimes debating the obvious is reason to question whether it's even worth debating.

TOM, I generally think we would do alright by ourselves, but not forever. Empires/governments rise and fall. I don't expect the US to be the same standard US forever. I think a few generations down the road there will be a move toward more global government (and against my personal beliefs, but I'll be long gone by then).

I didn't say Eastern Europeans don't like the US, I said they don't really owe the US anything. Of course that's maybe different in the Balkans (frmr Yugoslavia) where you'll probably find the strongest anti and pro American sentiment in all of Europe and where some countries owe their existence to the US.

PS: Railed through the region early this summer. Mostly hit up capital cities so it's not that representative. Some of your "Eastern European" countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland etc.) are basically western now. And that's apparent in the views of the younger people.

Oh, I think you'd be surprised what goes on in that corner of the world these days.

If you told 2/3 of eastern Europe that the US was packing up and rolling out, dignitaries would be coming out of the woodwork begging them to stay. The amount of money that's being sent that way is pretty astounding.

Whether or not that translates into "owing us something", or whether that in turn translates into them liking us or not, or whether that in turn translates into the general public in those regions liking/disliking us, I have no clue other than my own experience - in truth though, it doesn't really seem relevant in a conversation on foreign affairs/expansionism whether or not one country owes another unless the debt is a straining part of the relations, which it is not in this case.

I'm guessing you are volunteering for the cotton picking!

trumper the phillipines was our possesion that we won in that war so to say we failed miserably tells me you failed miserably at US history, we expanded or influence here in the americas supporting the monroe doctrine at the time this was just post us giving the shaft to the Brits in their squabble with Venezuela, albeit we played dictator of the settelment and left the Brits good in Guyana with the gold mines but they knew we had them by the balls since they were tied up in their boars wars.

but yes we took PR along with some Virgin Islands, took and then kept a perm Naval base on Cuba, and the PI in Asia(which we gave them Independence post ww2, which keeping post ww1 really shows Wilson's demand on Europe to give up their colonies was hypocritical BS)

But the PI demand in the peace with spain was our answer to the fact we were behind the Britsh, French and Germans with their big China/ and SE asia colonies. And was why we went out of our way trying to open trade with Japan.

as for the US healthcare yes, we have the or near the best in the world and yes that is if you are rich and can afford it. That will not change even with Socializing medicine as the Rich will continue to pay for the best.

The thought of I'll just obtain it and stiff the bill arguement is Bullfluff, while that might happen for the single visit fix problems when it comes to real problems that will cost. Reality is the doctor says yes this is what you need for the best chance to live and we need to start it by next week it will cost $250,000 show-up by Monday with 25% of the money and I'll make the arrangements to get things started.
BEFORE YOU SAY/THINK BS TO THAT, I would say then you are lucky as you never drove away from a doctor office on Friday wondering how many banks or 7-11's you would need to rob that weekend to save the life of your child or wife. And thats for those with GREAT HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES THAT ALMOST COVER EVERYTHING.
So Make sure when you are rich you keep yourself fairly liquid as real estate that is leveraged realy dont sell well over a WEEKEND

We actually fought a non-declared war with the Phillipines if you recall, which is neither here nor there. The point was we didn't end up killing the Phillipines or Cuba. The former largely because of sugar.

Circling all the way back around you may recall the discussion was about European allies aiding rather than fighting the US. The answer we came to was that they fought with the US in our Revolutionary War and that's about it. It's interesting how we sidetracked to debate the relative morality of the Spanish-American war.

Socializing medical are is likely to stratify the system even more and diminish quality of care. You're unlikely to see a huge influx in new doctors because you cut their pay rates in half or shifted their work to less experienced nurses. The issue of increasing health care costs is a complex issue. Quick solutions are permitting bigger pools of risk (multi-state insurance networks), capping malpractice awards, decreasing access in limited areas (mainly in emergency care--people soaking up time for a sore throat are killing the system), and recognizing that advances in technology cost money and prolong life, which increase cost.

I'm Glad I live in the Philippines!!!
( me smiles )

yep

How much of the healthcare problem is Insurance, the insurance industry is payed from every aspect of a doctor visit. The doctor is paying them, the patient is paying them, they sit on the boards of the drug companies, medical equipment and private hospitals. So it is well in their interest to have costs running away.

The problem with your hypothesis is that the insurance industry is regulated. The assumption you're operating under is that hospitals, physicians, insurance and medical equipment providers are working in tandem to gouge consumers. The reality is they're often pitted against each other and yet need each other to co-exist. It's an interesting paradigm within the healthcare world.

The primary cost-drivers are new technologies and aging populations. When you have proton-beam cancer treatments where 50 years ago you were told 'tough sh-t', you have a new cost. Prolonging that patient's life means the other sicknesses and recovery costs are now incorporated into the model. Don't get me wrong, that's a great thing, but it's not cheap. If medicine were easy and cheap then everyone would be a doctor. It's a very precise field where there are no room for mistakes.