Slashdot Mirror

And again, this is without considering heirs at all. The two richest women in America, for instance, are Wal Mart heirs who had nothing to do with the business.

Health spending as percent of GDP, 2004:
United States: 15.2%
Switzerland: 11.5%
Cambodia: 10.9%
Canada: 9.9%
Japan: 7.9%
Mexico: 6.2%
Africa: 6.1%
China: 5.6%
Russia: 5.6%
India: 4.8%
Pakistan: 2.4%
Congo: 2.0% ...despite high spending, U.S. "outcomes" in some basic public-health indicators often remain mediocre. For example, a WHO list places the United States 30th of 192 countries in infant mortality. (The 6.0 per thousand rate is at the bottom of the rich-country range, and roughly comparable to rates in middle-income countries like Chile and Croatia.)

Note on the last link, it's from a DLC affiliate site and obviously written by somebody who doesn't know who underwrites his paychecks.

As for "one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is"... let's see. Based on polls for the American people and public statements of DLCers:

• The DLC may indeed be in the center, but of the Republican party.
• Iraq War? DLC in favor, the American people opposed.
• National Health Care? DLC opposed, American people in favor.
• Offshoring? DLC in favor, American people opposed.

You're right. Never say never. Let's just say the odds are against it because nobody is willing to try.

The indisputable fact that it is a 'Parliment of Tyrants' where the unfree votes outnumber the Free by a goodly margin is only mitigated slightly by the fact that the instituition is incapable of action on major issues.

WTF are you talking about? About 120 (depending on who you ask) of the 191 member states of the UN are democracies. What you're saying was true 50 years ago when it the UN was founded, but far from true today. While the 'tyrants' may have too much power in the UN, they by no means form a majority. Occasionally you'll see a nasty majority come up on a committee, but by and large its the larger powers (many of which are democracies--think the US, France) that tend to block action.

Very few people in this country are giving a TON of money to "help others". We all pay taxes for various shared services, services which we couldn't do on our own. As someone else said, unless you want to pay a per-use fee every time you drive, pay a monthly security fee to your own private police officer, pay a private militia to protect you from the bad guys and so on, you need a government, and they need your money to run. Compared to similar nations, we have a much lower tax burden: http://www.ppionline.org/documents/ACFAVUvce4Tc.pd f "It is also worth noting that most other industrialized nations face far higher tax burdens than the United States. According to OECD data, the 2000 tax share of GDP in the United States, Belgium, and Norway were 29.6, 45.6, and 40.3% respectively. These higher tax burdens have not prevented the economies of these nations from continuing to grow and prosper. Belgium, France and Norway enjoyed higher productivity levels than the United States throughout the 1990s, despite their higher tax rates.[4] Many countries with far higher tax burdens than the United States, such as Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, enjoy lower unemployment rates." - http://www.cepr.net/publications/deficit_scare.htm #_ftn4 The simple fact is that we are just about the *least* taxed modern nation on the planet. And yet people who live extremely comfortable lives, with amenities that 99.9% of humanity could only dream of, all because they won the socioeconomic lottery to be born middle class in America, spend much of their time complaining that what they *do* give back is too much. All while suggesting that the poor should be satisfied that they are not even poorer. I know you probably won't, but you should look at the work of Jeffrey Sachs, a brilliant man with decades of on-the-ground experience around the world. When will the giving stop, you ask? His latest book describes how developed nations giving 0.7% of GDP to targeted programs could solve a whole raft of problems the world over, from unclean water to famine to disease to a lack of basic education. So. Less than 1%. Sounds reasonable to me.

Here are a few links for those who are unaware of the price supports the U.S. Govt. gives out:

"There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression."

See late 1970s stag-flation in the United States.

Wikipedia will help you understand:

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

Oil, like food and land, is a critical component of today's economy.

It's less critical than it was (as measured by carbon intensity), but it's still important.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/trends.html

That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:

http://michiganimc.org/usermedia/image/2/large/Cli mateGraphAnnArborSourceStateOfFearByMichealChricht on.jpg

But, given that many in the international community want more action from the United States on this issue, and in general there is distaste everywhere for dumping tons of waste into the atmosphere, there is some room for hope, including the North Eastern United States pact on emissions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/nyregion/25air.h tml

As well as a similar plan for the Pacific costal states of California, Oregon, and Washington also in the works.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116 &subsecID=900039&contentID=252175

In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1098635,00.html

Those nations that are meeting the targets are in deep recessions (including Russia):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3702640.stm

Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]

The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.

Can we move faster? Yes. And we will, if by hook and crook, including regional emissions limitations, higher international oil prices, and a general shift in our economy away from manufacturing and oil consumption.

But arrogant attitudes about 'excuses and misinformation' miss the real point.

Kerry supports a draft? Trustworthy link, please?

Of course, Kerry doesn't say the word "draft." He calls it "national service," and it can be either civilian or military variety. It's not a new idea. The Democratic Leadership Council (of which Kerry is a member) proposed it back in 1988. A re-worked version [pdf] of the proposal was published last year by the Progressive Policy Institute (the think tank lapdog of the DLC). Kerry's published plan incorporates steps 1 and 2 of the DLC/PPI proposal by tying government-funded privileges, such as student loans, to service in the military, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. The third step, which undoubtedly will be passed once the first 2 are completed (and which won't be announced until Kerry is in office), will make national service mandatory using the current Selective Service system.