Saguni....

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

Now I understand your motive. I agree, we seem to be on opposite ends. Just FYI, I used to be a flaming liberal in my younger days. But nowadays I am an independent (thinker).

But I respect your thoughts.

Regarding health care, I was trying give a view that is different from what the majority of our readers probably read in the papers. Just some food for their thought.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sir, sorry for using the word fight, I did not mean it in any negative way.

I have no problem continuing this discussion. But there are two reaons why I hesitate.

1. From some of your comments in the last couple of days, such as the one about Nobel laureate Paul Krugman and the one about selfishness, a la Ayn Rand, I see that we are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. It seems to me that it is very unlikely that anything fruitful will come out of a debate between us on this topic. At least in the Varna discussion there were some points on which there was agreement. Here, I see nothing in common.
2. There cannot be anything more irrelevant and less interesting to TB community than the US healthcare debate.

Yet, if you wish to continue this debate I will throw in my 2 cents.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Dear Sri Venkataramani Ji,

As shown above in the first reference post above in my response to Sri Nara Ji, this statement is absolutely incorrect. Sri Nara admitted his mistake above.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS ji,

I just copied this from some of the postings. I have not said 95% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the people in USA.

All the best

 

[kunjuppu]

the u.s. has been moving steadily towards state funded medical care since 1960s.

slowly but steadily, and once any plan became law, it has not been rolled back. that is the reality.

president johnson in 1965 introduced medicaid and medicare, to fully fund the health expenses of the poor and the elderly.

every president since, of both political parties, including george w. bush, have only increased these entitlements, to include other parts of the community.

what clinton tried and failed, is to make a leap towards universalization.

which is the same as what obama is doing.

i think, no matter what, the u.s. will move along the direction of state funded healthcare - whether obama is successful or not.

my 1 1/2 cents worth

 

[Nara]

Just FYI, I used to be a flaming liberal in my younger days. But nowadays I am an independent (thinker).

Dear KSR, once again you are doing it... I request you not to pigeonhole anybody, not even yourself, for, if you do it to yourself, you are likely to do it to others as well. I am not flaming anything. The only thing I would be pigeonholed into is I am a human-being.

Thanks!

p.s. 1: From your reaction it seems to me that I probably was the first one to misstate a statistic in this forum . The correct statistic, i.e. wealth of top 1% = wealth of bottom 95%, is on the mark, refer to this article from WSJ (not exactly a flaming liberal rag) of Jan 8, 2007 (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/) that states, "The nation’s top 1% of households own more than half the nation’s stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. They also control more than $16 trillion in wealth — more than the bottom 90%."

Further, even the UCSC study only bolsters my overall point. Here is a quote from this report.

"Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, [between 1983 and 2004] fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."​

Further, this same report you cited indicates that US stands at the top of the heap, just barely below Switzerland, in wealth owned by top 10%, among the wealthy industrialized nations. The wealthy of US control all levers of power, there is only an illusion of democracy in the U.S.

p.s. 2: The link criticizing WHO statistics looks at only one statistic, and makes a lousy analysis of even that. If certain deaths must be excluded from the U.S. deaths, then the same must be done everywhere else as well before a proper comparison can be made. Also this report does not get into any other measures in which the US ranks around the bottom of all industrial wealthy nations. One last thing about this report, unlike the UCSC link you gave this one has a political ax, a big ax, to grind.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

By making the 'flaming liberal' statement I neither think that I 'pigeon hole' myself nor do I especially indicate by that any comparison to yourself. You have already stated that you are branded as a 'human being'.

In my own case, when I was younger I would not read articles by conservatives, thinking that somehow they are racists and are intellectually backward. Over time I have recognized my own proclivities that made my mind not open to examine certain ideas. That's what I was saying to give you an indication what my contextual reference point is.

You, for example, said that you admire communism and socialism. Now for a frame of reference that puts you as a 'human being' with leftist leanings. What is wrong with such a charecterization?

Regarding American wealth and the WHO report, I have already said what I wanted to say.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Hello KSR Sir,

As they say, a young conservative is heartless, and an old liberal is brainless -- so I must have lost my brain on the way somewhere

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

I am not knighted, so please do not address me a 'Sir', if you do not mind.

It is funny - I almost included your words in my last post as a joke. Did not know how you would take it, so left it off.

Looks like we have the same taste in humour!

Regards,
KRS

Hello KSR Sir,

As they say, a young conservative is heartless, and an old liberal is brainless -- so I must have lost my brain on the way somewhere

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Kunjuppu Ji,

I think you are right. Medicare has proven to be very popular and it will be hard for anyone to scuttle it in the next few decades, given the projected bulging of the ranks of seniors from the baby boom era.

I however think that a 'Universal' government run medical program will be very difficult to get. I would put Obama's chance of passing a bill with Govt. insurance option at less than even. There is a good chance that nothing can be passed in this congress and if they do, they probably will have to use the 'nuclear option' (51 vote majority, instead of 60) in the Senate. If they do that, I believe Obama will be a one term President, and the congress will be Republican and then the medical program will be vilified to no end so that the next President will scrap it.

The fact is, only the Progressives favour a one payer (govt.) option. More and more folks are exposed to the 'horrors' of the Canadian system.

A Canadian lady who got her brain tumour removed in the USA (total cost $97,000) was on TV saying how they put her on a queue for 6 months even to get a diagnostic brain scan - she said there are only about 70 Neurologists for the entire Ontario region - and she came to the US for the scan. The doctors here told her that she needed an immediate removal of the tumor and even they could not 'persuade' the Canadian doctors to schedule her sugery immediately. She got that done here. She is fully convinced that if she had gone through the Canadian system, she would not be alive today. She added that if she had died as such, the medical system would not have counted her death as a result of their non-care. She was quite convincing.

More and more people are shown on TV with such cases occurring both in Canada and UK. These are all horror stories.

Regards,
KRS

the u.s. has been moving steadily towards state funded medical care since 1960s.

slowly but steadily, and once any plan became law, it has not been rolled back. that is the reality.

president johnson in 1965 introduced medicaid and medicare, to fully fund the health expenses of the poor and the elderly.

every president since, of both political parties, including george w. bush, have only increased these entitlements, to include other parts of the community.

what clinton tried and failed, is to make a leap towards universalization.

which is the same as what obama is doing.

i think, no matter what, the u.s. will move along the direction of state funded healthcare - whether obama is successful or not.

my 1 1/2 cents worth

 

[narayanee]

Dear narayanee Ji,

I have been living in the U,S, for the past forty years and let me categorically say that your assessment of this country is completely off the mark.

First, this country is not 'notorious' about 'telephone taping' of it's own citizens. Can you give examples to back up this bold statement? The only way they can tap their citizens' phones is that they have solid evidence to do so and get a federal judge to sign the order. And after 9/11, any emergency tapping of the phones before getting the Judge's orders is allowed if the call originates in a foreign soil and the NSA suspects that there are enemies of the U.S. on that end of the phone. Even though this tapping can be done on an emergency basis, it still needs a federal Judge's approval to use the info.............

....On Capitol Hill, Democrats expressed outrage over the secret project, and some leading Republicans — House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania among them — expressed concern.

"Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?" Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, railed at a morning hearing. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything."

Specter said he would call executives from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth — the companies that supplied to the NSA their records on cellphone and land-line calls made from millions of homes, businesses and government offices — "to find out exactly what is going on."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-12-aclu-spying_x.htm

கே.ஆர்.எஸ்ஜி, இத்துடன் அமெரிக்கர்களின் வேவு பார்த்தலுக்கான இணைப்பை பதிந்திருக்கிறேன்...

அமெரிக்க அனுதாபிகள் இங்கே இருக்கலாம்.நான் அதற்கெல்லாம் பின்வாங்குவது கிடையாது.என்னைப் பொறுத்தவரை, அமெரிக்கா நம்பத்தகாத நாடு.

உங்கள் வாதப்படி அன்னிய குடிமகன், அன்னிய தேசத்தில்.இருந்து பேசுவது மட்டும் ஒட்டு கேட்கப்படுவதில்லை.உங்களைப் போன்ற 40 வருடங்கள், 43 வருடங்கள் வாழ்ந்து வருபவர்கள் எண்கள் கூட அந்த அதிகாரிகள் வசம் இருக்கலாம்.உங்கள் தொலைபேசிக் குழுமங்கள் உங்களைக் கேட்டுக் கொண்டு கொடுக்கவில்லை;அந்த அதிகாரிகளும், உங்களின் அனுமதி பெற்று உங்கள் எண்களை வாங்கிக் கொள்ளவும் இல்லை.உங்கள் தொலைபேசியை ஒட்டுக் கேட்டிருக்க மாட்டார்கள் என்று இன்னமும் நீங்கள் நம்பினாலும், உங்கள் எண்ணை உங்கள் அனுமதி பெறாமல் வாங்கியதே ஒரு வகை அத்து மீறல் தான்.அதாவது தனி மனித உரிமை மீறல் தான்!

KRSji, I have given my links to the above quote that vouchsafes the spying by American Government.I am not concerned to the presence of american sympathizers or admirers here.My point is, US is not trustworthy;( it lacks credibility in the strictest civic sense that is expected of their standard!)

May be the residents of 40 years, 43 years( like you )phone would also have been tapped!You can claim that, NSA would not have tapped your phone; but mere exchange of your information without your knowledge and prior permission ,between your telphone companies and the NSA itself is tanatamount to encroachment into the sanctity of your privacy!!

Ridiculous!!

 

[Nara]

அமெரிக்க அனுதாபிகள் இங்கே இருக்கலாம்.நான் அதற்கெல்லாம் பின்வாங்குவது கிடையாது.என்னைப் பொறுத்தவரை, அமெரிக்கா நம்பத்தகாத நாடு.

Hello,

I would love to write this in தமிழ், but I am too lazy to take on the burden of translating it into English. So here I go,

Your criticisms against US are indeed on the mark. Separation of powers not withstanding, the Bush administration was able to do whatever they wanted. Congress be damend, courts be damned, public opinion be damned. In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people. Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign. The convoluted system in USA, on the one hand, allows unpopular politicians to continue to wield power, and on the other hand hamstrings even a majority from achieving anything. A lot can be said about the crazy political system of US, but that is for another time.

However, you must take some responsibility as well. You can't just blame the U.S. At the peak of the Bush-led so called war on terror, India was at the top of the list with respect to public support for US policies, when even a majority of British public was against Bush. Both BJP and Congress fall over each other to support USA. The only reason BJP was against the US nuclear deal with India was they did not get to do it.

So, I do appreciate where you are coming from, but my humble suggestion to you is to first try to argue for a change in the stance of the Indian government and the opinion of Indian people.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

I think Indian Government is not totally surrendering to USA. India has excellent relations with Iran which USA doesn't like. India has criticised Iraq invastion by USA & others. However relationship with USA is more matured now.

Earlier we were always supporting Soviet Union but now we have friendly relations with most of the countries across globe. India should follow the foreign policies only on `issue based' and not country centric.

 

[KRS]

Dear Natayanee Ji,

Let me explain what happened in this exact incident that you cite below and show you why your conclusion is wrong.

Congress passed overwhelmingly anti terror laws after 9/11 and it gave certain powers to the Security agencies like CIA, FBI and NSA to interdict on emergency basis as well as cooperation / sharing of information between them.

What the phone companies shared with NSA were not phone records with names and addresses (which would have been clearly illegal under privacy laws, rather the conversation content. This data was loaded in to a 'data mining' tool and was analysed for patterns. As a result of this about 10 persons around the country were subsequently identified as having had suspicious conversations regarding terror, AFTER the FEDERAL COURTS approved the warrants even to identify them through billing records.

Several law suits were filed, notably by ACLU and a democrat controlled state (New Jersey) in the courts and each time their suits were thrown out, because the Bush administration did nothing illegal.

This issue was also had a few days of hoopla in Congress, not because they did not know it was happening (all major programs of this kind are shared with the Congressional Intelligence Committees as well as the Judiciary Committees). It seems like the esteemed Congressmen and the Senators 'forgot' about such briefing. Why then even the Republican members of Congress/Senate would express concern? Mainly because, when the story broke out it came out as though names and addresses of millions of Americans were given to NSA by the phone companies, which subsequently was shown to be not true, and the noise in Congress went away.

Again, all the programs against terror undertaken by the Bush administration so far has been held to be legal.

Do you think, given the left's animosity towards President Bush (as exemplified by the illogical posting by Sri Nara Ji above), he would have been allowed to carry on illegal programs? He would have been impeached and thrown out much to the delight of people like Sri Nara Ji.

Hope this explains

Regards,
KRS

....On Capitol Hill, Democrats expressed outrage over the secret project, and some leading Republicans — House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania among them — expressed concern.

"Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?" Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, railed at a morning hearing. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything."

Specter said he would call executives from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth — the companies that supplied to the NSA their records on cellphone and land-line calls made from millions of homes, businesses and government offices — "to find out exactly what is going on."


USATODAY.com - NSA secret database report triggers fierce debate in Washington

USATODAY.com - Government defends domestic spying in court

கே.ஆர்.எஸ்ஜி, இத்துடன் அமெரிக்கர்களின் வேவு பார்த்தலுக்கான இணைப்பை பதிந்திருக்கிறேன்...

அமெரிக்க அனுதாபிகள் இங்கே இருக்கலாம்.நான் அதற்கெல்லாம் பின்வாங்குவது கிடையாது.என்னைப் பொறுத்தவரை, அமெரிக்கா நம்பத்தகாத நாடு.

உங்கள் வாதப்படி அன்னிய குடிமகன், அன்னிய தேசத்தில்.இருந்து பேசுவது மட்டும் ஒட்டு கேட்கப்படுவதில்லை.உங்களைப் போன்ற 40 வருடங்கள், 43 வருடங்கள் வாழ்ந்து வருபவர்கள் எண்கள் கூட அந்த அதிகாரிகள் வசம் இருக்கலாம்.உங்கள் தொலைபேசிக் குழுமங்கள் உங்களைக் கேட்டுக் கொண்டு கொடுக்கவில்லை;அந்த அதிகாரிகளும், உங்களின் அனுமதி பெற்று உங்கள் எண்களை வாங்கிக் கொள்ளவும் இல்லை.உங்கள் தொலைபேசியை ஒட்டுக் கேட்டிருக்க மாட்டார்கள் என்று இன்னமும் நீங்கள் நம்பினாலும், உங்கள் எண்ணை உங்கள் அனுமதி பெறாமல் வாங்கியதே ஒரு வகை அத்து மீறல் தான்.அதாவது தனி மனித உரிமை மீறல் தான்!

KRSji, I have given my links to the above quote that vouchsafes the spying by American Government.I am not concerned to the presence of american sympathizers or admirers here.My point is, US is not trustworthy;( it lacks credibility in the strictest civic sense that is expected of their standard!)

May be the residents of 40 years, 43 years( like you )phone would also have been tapped!You can claim that, NSA would not have tapped your phone; but mere exchange of your information without your knowledge and prior permission ,between your telphone companies and the NSA itself is tanatamount to encroachment into the sanctity of your privacy!!

Ridiculous!!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

Here you go again! Spewing out statements that have no foundation either in logic or reality. My response in 'blue':

Hello,

I would love to write this in தமிழ், but I am too lazy to take on the burden of translating it into English. So here I go,

Your criticisms against US are indeed on the mark. Separation of powers not withstanding, the Bush administration was able to do whatever they wanted. Congress be damend, courts be damned, public opinion be damned. In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people. Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign.
I am not a fan of Bush - but this is total nonsense. Sir, as I said before, people like you say that Bush did illegal things, despite the Congress, Courts and 'public opinion'. Can you cite some specific instances where he acted outside of the law? This type of throwing out opinions without any logical backing seems somewhat irresponsible, coming out of a Professor nonetheless.

McCane did not use Bush for campaigning, because his popularity was low and for a good reaso. Nothing to do with Bush's anti terror policies. In fact that is the one thing he still gets high marks by the 'public opinion'.
The convoluted system in USA, on the one hand, allows unpopular politicians to continue to wield power, and on the other hand hamstrings even a majority from achieving anything. A lot can be said about the crazy political system of US, but that is for another time.
How this is so? I thought the system is representative democracy. Anyways, I would love to hear your vision of a suitable system for the USA. Wait, I forgot - it is probably be a communist/socialist set up. Am I wrong?

However, you must take some responsibility as well. You can't just blame the U.S. At the peak of the Bush-led so called war on terror, India was at the top of the list with respect to public support for US policies, when even a majority of British public was against Bush. Both BJP and Congress fall over each other to support USA. The only reason BJP was against the US nuclear deal with India was they did not get to do it.
Bush's policies were good for India. Most of the European countries were against Bush - so what is new? They were only hearing daily drumbeat of baseless assertions about him as you have done at the start of your posting. Most of the Europe's so called 'news' institutions, have become opinion outlets slanted towards a leftist philosophy, like what once a 'Newspaper of the record', New York Times has become.

India correctly, in my opinion, pursued her self interest and worked well with Bush.

So, I do appreciate where you are coming from, but my humble suggestion to you is to first try to argue for a change in the stance of the Indian government and the opinion of Indian people.
Foreign policy should always be based on self interest. It has nothing to do with some amorphic international morality. Again, this is the same confusion that led to 9/11 in the US and is the cause of continued Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[silverfox]

Dear KRS:
I don't want to jump into this debate with Prof. Nara. However, I must say that if not Bush, at least Vice President Dick Cheney had a lot to do with several illegal things which are coming to light. I was reading about it recently in Washington Post. I am sure our system will handle it and take care of it.

Referring to your statement
"Foreign policy should always be based on self interest. It has nothing to do with some amorphic international morality. Again, this is the same confusion that led to 9/11 in the US and is the cause of continued Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India."

I completely agree with you that foreign policy should be based on the country's self interest. I have always wondered about the Indian government's support of Arab states and being stabbed in the back by them when it comes to Pakistan/Kashmir.
India should pursue their self-interest and partner strategic alliance with Israel.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Silverfox Ji,

The left in America has been shouting coarse with the same claims about Bush and/or Cheney implementing illegal policies. As you point out, there are several law suits pending. Let all the relevant the records be opened (not the selective ones to suit the current administration's purpose as Obama has done) for public scrutiny.

I think they probably have done certain things that are unsavoury to some in the name of fighting terrorism, but I suspect those are perfectly within the legal limits.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS:
I don't want to jump into this debate with Prof. Nara. However, I must say that if not Bush, at least Vice President Dick Cheney had a lot to do with several illegal things which are coming to light. I was reading about it recently in Washington Post. I am sure our system will handle it and take care of it.

Referring to your statement
"Foreign policy should always be based on self interest. It has nothing to do with some amorphic international morality. Again, this is the same confusion that led to 9/11 in the US and is the cause of continued Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India."

I completely agree with you that foreign policy should be based on the country's self interest. I have always wondered about the Indian government's support of Arab states and being stabbed in the back by them when it comes to Pakistan/Kashmir.
India should pursue their self-interest and partner strategic alliance with Israel.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings!

• Here you go again! Spewing out statements that have no foundation either in logic or reality.
• but this is total nonsens
• without any logical backing seems somewhat irresponsible, coming out of a Professor nonetheless
• Wait, I forgot - it is probably be a communist/socialist set up.

I am really sorry, if you want to personalize the discussion with unnecessarily harsh words like the above then only heat will be generated, not a whole lot of light. I will engage you only if you calm down and refrain from ad hominems.

Can you cite some specific instances where he acted outside of the law?

I did not say here that he acted outside the law. I did not get into that issue at all. Please read what I have written carefully. In another thread also you constructed such strawmen arguments. I request you not to do this.

McCane did not use Bush for campaigning, because his popularity was low and for a good reaso.

I once again request you to read what I wrote. This is exactly what I also said, Bush lost public support to the extent that even McCain did not want to be seen in his presence.

If you must, please criticize what I have written.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings!

I am really sorry, if you want to personalize the discussion with unnecessarily harsh words like the above then only heat will be generated, not a whole lot of light. I will engage you only if you calm down and refrain from ad hominems.
Sir, I am sorry if I sounded as if I was perturbed. Not at all. What all I am saying is that your statements about Bush are not based on any logic. That's all. No personal 'attack' what so ever. If you feel so, I apologize. I am arguing a point.

Sir, I am a moderator in this Forum. I hope my writings are carefully crafted. I do not believe in personal attacks. Please tell me which part of my words you consider as offensive. I'll not repeat those in the future.

I did not say here that he acted outside the law. I did not get into that issue at all. Please read what I have written carefully. In another thread also you constructed such strawmen arguments. I request you not to do this.
You said 'courts be damned'. Now what does this mean? I can only draw one conclusion - that the Bush administration did not care about what the courts would/do say. That means they are acting outside the law. Is this not so?

I once again request you to read what I wrote. This is exactly what I also said, Bush lost public support to the extent that even McCain did not want to be seen in his presence.
So, we agree on this point. The way you wrote it, it came out like even McCain did not agree with Bush. Am I wrong to have viewed your words this way?

If you must, please criticize what I have written.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings:

No personal 'attack' what so ever. If you feel so, I apologize. I am arguing a point.

A quintessential non-apology if ever there was one -- not that I want an apology, not at all. Shri KRS, I am sorry to say your carefully crafted words do not merit a moderator, that too a super one. I am ready for a reasoned and civil discussion, but it seems that is not possible with you on this topic.

The way you wrote it, it came out like even McCain did not agree with Bush. Am I wrong to have viewed your words this way?

"The way I wrote it" is this:

"In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people. Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign."​

From this you thought I meant, "even McCain did not agree with Bush" how?

About 'courts be damned':

Do a Google search on "NSA's warrantless surveillance program" and read some of the articles you find.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Please take the discussions on an objective basis to intellectual levels. Offering apologies or accepting apologies is not going to serve any purpose.

Sitting here in India, we all respect USA for its free enterprise, freedom of expression and its time tested democracy and rule of law. Over the past few decades, USA has become world leader both economically and politically.

However it is losing its leadership position in the last few years. USA only created the present mess in Iraq & Afghanistan and also the global financial meltdown. Questions are asked globally whether there is any regulation of banks and financial markets.

China is emerging as a global economic power and is challenging USA. European Union is performing much better in many fronts (education, social security, medicare etc) and `euro' is emerging as an alternate currency to the `dollar'.

Instead of looking to USA for guidance, an element of suspicion has emerged in the minds of several countries including India. Already there is a heavy drop in fresh migration to USA from India and even reverse migration has started.

I request our members residing in USA to make an objective analysis of the present problems instead of taking matters to personal level.

All the best

 

[anandb]

I think Venkatramaniji hit the nail on its head. Of late the American political establishment has started resembling the Indian one. I have a lot of regard for the American people but not much for the cabal which includes the American politicians, industry bigwigs and the banks. Profit making at any cost is the main motive behind this cabal wielding such enormous influence in anything they do. Sure, the American constitution guarantees freedom of expression to its citizens but to what extent this is exercised by people in the present scenario is a big question. The American people are now more or less like their Indian counterparts, dumb and mute to lot of things which are going on in their politics. It is one thing to vote on Gallup polls about supporting one issue or another but we don't see any real change being supported by the American public especially when it comes to influencing American foreign policy. America has made a mess of its foreign policy which has indirectly and partly contributed to its present recession but there is not even a whimper of protest about this.

There is now a lot of hue and cry about what and who really instigated 9/11 and all this is only coming from the academia and not from the mainstream media or the public. Read this Vijayvaani.com. This article in t r u t h o u t | The Mugging of the Common Good states that "He's (Obama) taken on the most powerful private interests in America - Big Oil, Wall Street, the insurance and drug lobbies - and they are winning. If vested interest groups fund political campaigns, why on earth would politicians enact laws that would harm those groups. It is as simple as that.

No one can rest on its laurels. A nation's supremacy in history is always cyclical. Perhaps it is time for the U.S to pass the mantle to someone else unless it returns to basics and not allow Wall Street and other lobbies to dictate its economic policies. Unbridled capitalism and greed should not be allowed to rule over reason.

To end with a popular joke - the difference between Socialism and Capitalism. Socialism nationalizes its banks first and then bankrupts them while Capitalism bankrupts its banks first and then nationalizes them.

 

[KRS]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings:

A quintessential non-apology if ever there was one -- not that I want an apology, not at all. Shri KRS, I am sorry to say your carefully crafted words do not merit a moderator, that too a super one. I am ready for a reasoned and civil discussion, but it seems that is not possible with you on this topic.
Okay. If this is not a personal attack on me about my capacity as a moderator, I do not know what a personal attack is! My response was not to offer an unconditional apology. I do not still understand why you would think I am enagaged in any discussions with you that is not 'civil', I have asked you to pin point such a discussion, and where I have 'attacked you personally'.

Just because we allow all different opinions here, does not mean that if you post opinions not supported by logic, they will not be called out. Seems to me, you are mistaking the questioning of your opinions as some personal affront/insult.

You are using this as a ruse to not substantiate your own words.

"The way I wrote it" is this:

"In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people. Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign."
​

From this you thought I meant, "even McCain did not agree with Bush" how?

Because, of your first sentence that says that Bush would have been thrown out. And you follow it with McCain's non support of Bush for his presidential drive. Does this not become clear as to how I perceived your words?

About 'courts be damned':

Do a Google search on "NSA's warrantless surveillance program" and read some of the articles you find.
Yes, I know. But then tell me why my inference of what you have posted is wrong.

Sir, it seems to me that you are using something about 'non civil discourse' to slip away from statements you have made that obviously you can not substantiate.

If you do not want to discuss the merits of the logic that is underpinning your assertions, that is okay. Please say so.

Please do not confuse others about what a civil discussion is and what is not. I take offence to your assertion that I am uncivil when I said that I am not and told you why I am not.

Inspite of this, if you want to feel 'offended', sorry, I can not go any further to assuage your hurt feelings.

But, please do not then make blanket statements without any logic behind them, thinking that they will go unchallenged, just because you make them.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Venkataramani Ji and Sri anandb Ji,

USA I know is not like India. Only people with no knowledge about the culture, history and the political set ups of both countries would make such uninformed statements.

I have been in the USA for the past 40 years and I have spent considerable time in China within the last few years. Believe me, China is no competition to USA. In fact if USA wants it tomorrow, they can very easily pull the rugs out from under the Chinese feet.

A countrie's strength is after all the sum total of it's business culture, systems, creativity, it's peoples drive, and it's institutions.

There is no other country in the world that comes close to the U.S. in this respect. It will take a very long time for any other country to take USA's pre eminence place.

Don't believe in the hype in some quarters to promote China versus the U.S. China is a poor country still and has put up a Potemkin's village facade.

Regards,
KRS

 

[silverfox]

Anandb:
Thank you for referring to the article "The mugging of the common good"; excellent article. I sincerely hope the Congress, putting aside their special interests, come together for the country's common good.

 

[silverfox]

Dear KRS:
Do you really think we could do that? Pulling the rug out from Chinese feet? The Chinese are holding 1.2 trillion of our IOUs (Govt. Treasuries). What if they wanted to cash in?
Personally, I am sick of this Chinese pervasive influence; you go to a store and pick up anything - everything is made in China.
I even wrote to The Washington Post supporting a tariff on Chinese tires.

[Quote: KRS: Believe me, China is no competition to USA. In fact if USA wants it tomorrow, they can very easily pull the rugs out from under the Chinese feet]

 

[RVR]

China has already climbed to the top three post behind USA and Japan. It has huge trade surplus, huge forex reserves and with the growth story continuing, will climb to No.1 position in the future. It is the global supplier of goods and will continue to be so for few more decades. Without proper democratic setup, the rulers are not answerable to anybody. It is a very dangerous military power having nuclear arsenal and delivery system - it is a great threat to the world.

USA wants India to develop as an alternative power to China and would like to put India against China. However, Indian rulers so far have been smart enough to withstand the overtures and I am sure India will not play into the hands of USA when it comes to China. No body can stop China now.

As sri Silverfox ji pointed out, China has large US treasury reserves exceeding trillion dollar plus and if they just stop accumulating US dollar reserve further, then the fall of dollar will start. Entire world is watching the situation very closely about China's moves.

China cannot be brushed aside like Iraq or Afghanistan. It has already started challenging unipolar supremacy of USA. The present global recovery is lead by BRIC (Bracil, Russia, India and China) and USA is a silent spectator.