What are the important issues facing the US over the next 4-6 years?

[Jonathan Randall]

I thought this was only for topic listings? I dare say you are a bit remiss my good man. The reputation of your nation amongst the civilized nations of this world has been taking a good many hits the last few years, though I doubt you will hear much of it. You need an independent and free press for that. The buffoon you have as President is seen as a bit of an embarrassment to you all over here. You might want to check some reliable sources.

To whomever sent me the nice message about following you into Iraq, a good portion of us didn't agree with that move, and still don't since your intelligence was wrong. Our sections however are quite stable, compared to yours. We do have more experience with Iraq however, which I'm certain helped us avoid the cock-ups you had. Perhaps we could hold our thoughts until the debate section is available? I do enjoy a good debate.

And a good many Americans, myself included, didn't agree with the invasion either. However, your country is in Iraq as well as the U.S., so don't give me this nonsense about "our reputation" being ruined. You're in the same boat as us and your leader in the UK is cut from the same cloth as ours in the U.S.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, please just list topics, and save the debate for the seperate threads. I'd like to do this idea this year, not drop it prematurely.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Folks, please just list topics, and save the debate for the seperate threads. I'd like to do this idea this year, not drop it prematurely.

Point taken and I'll add the threat of a Pandemic (bird flu or otherwise) to my earlier list of important issues facing the U.S. and re-emphasize the threat posed by Climate Change (regardless of its causes).

 

[sgtmac_46]

Point taken and I'll add the threat of a Pandemic (bird flu or otherwise) to my earlier list of important issues facing the U.S. and re-emphasize the threat posed by Climate Change (regardless of its causes).

I concur on Pandemic flu. We must put every effort in to dealing with not only Pandemic Flu strains, but other emerging diseases globally.

As for Climate Change, I agree it will cause problems.

However, keep in mind if it is in actually an unavoidable phenomenon, there is the possibility that all change is not ultimately entirely negative. There may be some benefits to it, if we are intelligent and nimble of mind and policy enough to adapt to the changes. Altered growing seasons, diverse crops not normall available in the past. Again, i'm not suggesting that I believe we should not do everything in our power to prevent it, but I don't buy in to the 'catastrophic' argument.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

However, keep in mind if it is in actually an unavoidable phenomenon, there is the possibility that all change is not ultimately entirely negative. There may be some benefits to it, if we are intelligent and nimble of mind and policy enough to adapt to the changes. Altered growing seasons, diverse crops not normall available in the past. Again, i'm not suggesting that I believe we should not do everything in our power to prevent it, but I don't buy in to the 'catastrophic' argument.

I concur, and perhaps challenge would be a better word than threat. In general, it may very well bring good with the bad. However, a lot of lives are going to be disrupted (and, unfortunately, ended) in the short term. In the long term the two (good and bad) may even out, with a small possibility even of good prevailing.

The Avian Flu, along with other possible pandemics, is a THREAT as we both agree.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I concur, and perhaps challenge would be a better word than threat. In general, it may very well bring good with the bad. However, a lot of lives are going to be disrupted (and, unfortunately, ended) in the short term. In the long term the two (good and bad) may even out, with a small possibility even of good prevailing.

The Avian Flu, along with other possible pandemics, is a THREAT as we both agree.

Yes, very true. New Orleans is a sign that we may have to abandon some lifestyles and locations that we've grown used to for many years. But, if we can adapt, if we're creative and (more than a little) lucky, we can come out ahead.

As for Avian Flu, yes, it is probably the biggest short term threat facing us in the next few years. It has the most potential to take lives and disrupt our society.

 

[Don Roley]

I think a big thing to deal with over the next few years is the new order in the world. People got used to the old way of doing things. The laws we were used to were written when armies had to mass on a border before an attack and they could only do damage as fast as a horse could gallop.

The Taliban told us that Osama Bin Laden was under control and we could not really do anything about it until 9-11. Soon after that, we got hit with a biological attack that nearly paralized the country. Thankfully, anthrax is not very contagious.

There are many countries that still harbor terrorists while denying it. Some of these countries also have biological weapon programs. The terrorists serve as a cut out and the original country can't be blamed under the old rules.

Well, those old rules have been largely tossed out and we probably will not wait while a threat rises. Some countries that do not feel they are not targeted do not like the idea of the old rules being tossed out. Without rules, anything can happen and only the strongest can be reasonably sure of coming out ok.

So we need rules and standards that apply to everyone but will not allow the same sort of thing we have seen happen. Setting them up will be a huge challenge over the next few decades.

 

[Marginal]

Soverign nations, going the way of the nation state??

 

[heretic888]

Soverign nations, going the way of the nation state??

In a word, yes.

In many ways, "sovereign nations" --- at least in their present forms --- correspond precisely with the corporate-industrial institutions that characterized the Age of Reason. We are now increasingly moving forward into pluralistic-informational commonwealths, of which both the League of Nations and the United Nations could arguably be considered prototypes.

In essence, the world is increasingly becoming more and more global. As delightfully ironic as that statement sounds, it's the truth. For the most part, much of the perspective of the world's citizenry has been on the national, not global, level.

As such, new sociopolitical institutions must be erected to correspond with the new adaptations in both material technology and cultural perspective.

For better or worse, it's gonna happen.

Laterz.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I think a big thing to deal with over the next few years is the new order in the world. People got used to the old way of doing things. The laws we were used to were written when armies had to mass on a border before an attack and they could only do damage as fast as a horse could gallop.

The Taliban told us that Osama Bin Laden was under control and we could not really do anything about it until 9-11. Soon after that, we got hit with a biological attack that nearly paralized the country. Thankfully, anthrax is not very contagious.

Good point - the nature of warfare has changed to become much less predictable (and thus, manageable by the strong).

Secondly, yes, several countries have been fighting an undeclared war by proxy (funding, equipping and training terrorists) against the U.S. for decades.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In a word, yes.

In many ways, "sovereign nations" --- at least in their present forms --- correspond precisely with the corporate-industrial institutions that characterized the Age of Reason. We are now increasingly moving forward into pluralistic-informational commonwealths, of which both the League of Nations and the United Nations could arguably be considered prototypes.

In essence, the world is increasingly becoming more and more global. As delightfully ironic as that statement sounds, it's the truth. For the most part, much of the perspective of the world's citizenry has been on the national, not global, level.

As such, new sociopolitical institutions must be erected to correspond with the new adaptations in both material technology and cultural perspective.

For better or worse, it's gonna happen.

Laterz.

The struggle at this point seems to be over who is going to dominate. It should not go without stating that Europe is fighting to ensure that all the pertinent institutions be housed within it's borders. The reasons for this are one of power and control.

 

[Cryozombie]

America Needs to focus on ONE thing in the next sevreal years: Puting a LEADER in office and not a Politition.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Ain't gonna happen. The sad truth is that today what it takes to get elected pretty much disqualifies you from having the time of character needed to be a true leader

 

[jdinca]

I agree with you general premise, but one thing needs to be pointed out about the Saddam Hussein regime. It wasn't representative of radical Islam. It WAS representative of the kind of fascist nationalist regime that we've been trying to rid ourselves of since World War II. The Ba'athist party of Iraq and Syria are anachronisms in the 21st century. We can no longer condone them and tolerate their existence. Saddam and Iraq were never about radical Islam, they were about driving one more nail in the coffin of the national socialist phenomenon. Good riddance.

True. Saddam was actually good at controlling radical Islam in Iraq. Ansar 'al Islam was very polite. He didn't care about what they did outside of his country.

Saddam needed to go. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, while we're squashing national socialism in other parts of the world, it's cropping up in our own backyard. We've got a mess brewing in South America.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Ain't gonna happen. The sad truth is that today what it takes to get elected pretty much disqualifies you from having the time of character needed to be a true leader

That's a sad truth; by the time a politician reaches national level, regardless of party affiliation, they are in hock to a multitude of special interests. However; that does not mean that even an opportunistic politician can't have a good non-partisan idea. The problem is that the opposite party will automatically jump on it as a bad idea simply because they weren't the ones who suggested it.

I know I mentioned that upthread, but I'd like to reiterate it as a challenge facing the country over the next 4-6 years: Partly line people fighting an idea or initiative, regardless of its merits, simply because the other party suggested it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

America Needs to focus on ONE thing in the next sevreal years: Puting a LEADER in office and not a Politition.

The real problem is 'leader of who?'. This country is divided fundamentally politically, that I don't see a unifying leader rising up any time soon. One sides leader is the other sides anti-christ. The problem isn't the leaders we're electing, the problem is with ourselves. We're involved in a culture war over the future of this country, and neither side has any desire to yield. Of course, by it's very definition, Democracy leads to dispute and infighting.

We should not look at these things as a particular problem, but as evidence that our democracy is still strong. It's the right of half the country to call the leader an idiot and a buffoon, whether they're right or not. It's the right of the other half to yell back if it wants as well. It's easy for us to believe that somehow politics in America has 'gotten worse'. It hasn't. In fact, we've become MORE civil, believe it or not.

Lincoln, in his time, was called a Tyrant...by other northerners. He couldn't have visited the streets of New York city without a large armed contingent, or risk assassination.

Remember Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr's famous duel? It was the result of a political feud.

The fight that Jim Bowie fought on the sandbar was largely reputed to have resulted from a political dispute between Samuel Lewis Levi III and Dr. Thomas Maddox.

At least we're all debating on line, and not dueling in the streets, when someone calls the president nasty names. In a past age, such disagreements would have a strong possibility of resulting in bloodshed.

 

[Marginal]

We've got a mess brewing in South America.

Brewing?

 

[Xequat]

I think there's a bunch of them that are important, so I'll list mine in order with a short opinion of why.

-Terrorism...because a few good hits against strong nations could disrupt the entire world for decades. Couple that with terror-sponsoring nations acquiring nuclear weapons, because the transfer could be made and pretty much destroy our economy and our way of life.

-Entitlements...the idea that someone else will take care of us promotes laziness and apathy, although it seems on the surface to be humane and good.

-Immigration...has an effect on health care, because nobody can be refused treatment for lack of payment (Hippocratic oath, I believe). Also affects ability of terrorists to enter the country. I don't care about the work thing so much, because a lot of the jobs they come over and take are low-paying jobs that nobody here wants anyway, but that doesn't stop us from complaining.

-Health care...what a mess. I don't think socialism works in this field because of my liberal friend in the UK who hates it (OK, only one first-hand source) along with philosophical differences, but I think that capitalism is a problem as well. I also don't want to pay for someone else's who will never pay it back (not selfishness, just efficiency and fairness...see above entitlements), so good luck with this one. I do have a few ideas, but not for here yet.

-Taxes...I'd love to see a consumption tax like the one out there called the Fair Tax, but I think it won't fly because it seems too good to be true and Americans love our tax refunds at the end of the year and writeoffs. Lump Social Security in here too, because it's a tax and needs fixing.

-Energy...I don't mind using up other countries' resources and paying them for it, but when we have alternatives like the ANWR reserve available and waste them, well, we've had this debate. Alternatives are already being researched, so I've put this one kind of low on the priority list.

-Tort reform, drugs, epidemics...all kind of low on the grand scheme of things, becuase they tie in with other issues above and aren't as important to me as, say terrorism.


Things I don't think we should spend time on soon : Mother Nature because I don't think we can do anything worse to her than she's already done to herself at some point, and it's a conspiracy anyway; our reputation because it's futile to try to change it since jealosy is a major cause of it...what happens in the US actually affects other nations, but what happens in many other nations doesn't affect us as much, so we simply don't care. Sad, but true. Also, reparations, because it will never happen, and shouldn't. Race-baiters know it'll never happen, but they continue to use it as a campaigning point anyway, so let's just ignore the issue so they focus on something real and usefull to their supporters, like crime and parentless children, which affect everyone in every race.

Hopefully I said why I think they're important without starting too much debate about the actual issue, but I ramble sometimes.

 

[jdinca]

America Needs to focus on ONE thing in the next sevreal years: Puting a LEADER in office and not a Politition.

Interesting statement. One persons leader is another persons politician. Depends on whether or not you support that individuals position and how they're doing their job. I would argue that Bush is much less a politician and much more a leader (they're all politicians to an extent). Were he not, he would have changed his policies right along with the poll numbers, as opposed to staying the course that he thinks is in the right direction. I forward the argument that the fact his leading is one of the big reasons he's so vilified in many parts of the world. Were he a politician, he would be more concerned about placating the world than he is. The question is whether or not you agree with his leadership and his methods.

Did you and the world consider Bill Clinton a leader? He was a consummate politician and the world loved him. Reagan? A true leader who was also vilified in many parts of the world. And don't get me started on Carter.

 

[jdinca]

Brewing?

Venezuala and Bolivia to start. Both are in the process of becoming socialist states and in the case of Venezuala, a dictatorship to boot. Leaders of both countries are best buddies with Castro. Chavez backed the winner in Bolivia and is spreading money around to radical elements in South America. He's not our friend and we get 5% of our oil from Venezuala.

It's not brewing, it's already here.