Quote:Per your sports examples... In other countries, they just don't yell and shout the occasional obscenity.  People are hurt and killed.  When Columbia lost to USA in the World Cup in 1994, they killed one of the players for allowing the last American goal.  European soccer riots of yesteryear make college campus riots look tame by comparison. 

A couple years ago a hockey Dad killed another hockey Dad after a junior hockey match. How exactly is this better than Columbia?

As for European soccer riots, they've been no worse than "celebratory" riots in East Lansing, Los Angeles, Morgantown WV or name the city that has won, or not won, a title and had their own riots. The difference is that most European soccer leagues attempted to address these problems, especially England where the most notorious occurred, and they have largely been eliminated.

Quote:Did you know a drunken crowd in attendance at the Mexico-USA soccer game in Monterrey chanted/mocked "Osama!" as the losing USA team left the field after the game?  Now, who is cruel and mean again?

A small group of the crowd in Monterrey mocked the US team. I watched a 45+ year old guy at Bowling Green this past year SCREAM taunts at every Huskie player on their way to the lockerroom after losing their first game of the season. Was it in poorer taste than some in Monterrey - no, I don't think so. Does that mean that it wasn't cruel, mean and still in very poor taste? Uh, no - it was still pretty damn $hitty.

All of this doesn't make America a horrible place, but it has certainly become an insensitive place.

HuskieDan Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Not only is it the greatest nation on earth it is the greatest in history

Didn't Caesar say the same thing?

Yeah but last time I checked the US was not around at the time of Caesar...I may be wrong though :D

I'm not at all surprised to see these negative comments about America coming from certain individuals, based on the things they post. Most likely they are young and cynical and would be delighted to be in Cannes with Michael Moore right about now, if only for a brief respite from the Great Satan. No, America isn't perfect because people aren't perfect, but its home and its the greatest to me. And no, I don't need 10,000 words to make my point like some of you do. But I'll say this, it'll be interesting to see what you are doing and saying 5,10,15,25 years from now.
But then its perfectly alright to say what you want to say, no matter how clever and intelligent you think you are, because of the great freedom that we have, and because GT Swagger allows you to on this board. Tell you what. All of your words and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee down at Starbucks.
Well, better make that four or five bucks!
:D Have a nice day!

These long posts are more potent than booze to snooze.... :snore: :snore: :snore: :D

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Not only is it the greatest nation on earth it is the greatest in history

Didn't Caesar say the same thing?

Yeah but last time I checked the US was not around at the time of Caesar...I may be wrong though :D

It's not even remotely surprising that this was completely lost on you.

Strat 93 Wrote:These long posts are more potent than booze to snooze.... :snore: :snore: :snore: :D

Dubya, is that you? :wave:

The key things:
USA is the greatest ever, but no one has offered any reasons why we are or should be considered citizens in the greatest country in the history of all nations.

Comments directed at me personally do not prove that Americans (the people) are great. I know this is an internet forum and swapping insults is the norm, it makes it entertaining because American love to insult others, especially for their opinions.

I understand if you post something really controversial then those kinds of comments will ensue, but that is not why I posted a similar question I heard on C-SPAN. I was actually looking for debate, I want someone to convince me that Americans (the people and culture) is the greatest on earth. There haven't been any efforts to do so, that is efforts at debate. There really haven't been any reasons cited for the greatness of Americans (the people and culture).

An important point: many have claimed that I am pyschotic for even posting the question. That could be true, but whether or not that is true, it has no bearing on the question at hand. I could be completely nuts, and Americans (the people and culture) could be cruel, mean, violent, and non-great.

I could be having butt-sex with Michael Moore while reading a logic book, but at the same time, Americans (the people and culture) could still be less-than-great.

Another thing that is key in the responses offered is the idea that negative aspects to our country or culture should not be commented upon. What's this?

Why can't we comment on negative things, aspects, etc? Should we ignore negative things? Let's say an asteroid was on a collision course with earth, and all over the country astronomers clearly see it through telescopes. An asteroid colliding with the earth would be phenomenally NEGATIVE. Should we ignore an event like that?

Another key point here is that the American colonists were citizens of England, and were the king's subjects. Many disagreed with the king's policies vis-a-vis the colonies. Colonists spoke out, distributed pamphlets and organized. Loyalists called these colonists "malcontents" and said they were "negative, always trying to spoil everyone's good time" and that England "was the greatest nation on earth."

Tiger85 said:
"No, America isn't perfect because people aren't perfect, but its home and its the greatest to me. "

First of all, I never said America is perfect or should be. The question dealt with greatness, not perfection. I never said that people are perfect.

You say that America is the greatest because it is your home. So by that kind of reasoning, had you been born if France, or if Indonesia was your home, then those respective nations would be the greatest, right?

To reiterate, attempts to criticize me personally, though many failed to read my statements, I agree that America (the nation) is great. Americans (the people and culture) are not because so many Americans will not, actually refuse, to participate in things like voting, community service, paying taxes, etc. Americans treat other Americans so cruelly. Americans, on the individual level, only care about themselves. Many Americans have poor health, despite adequate knowledge on how to take care of oneself, i.e. obesity, drug abuse (legal and illegal drugs), etc.

I remember the time before 9/11. I remember the Southerners down here embroiled and outraged over the controversy surrounding John Rocker. He made comments about New York City being a moral cess-pool. The press printed it and hyped it into outer space.

Southerners, loyal as they are, came to the defense of Rocker. Many claimed he was dead-on correct, that NYC is a dreadful place with dreadful people--it's an abyss of immorality.

One fire-eater down here even made a comment on TV shortly after the Rocker affair ensued. He said something like he'd rejoice and praise God if a tidal wave swallowed all of NYC and killed everyone of those immoral s.o.b.'s up there.

Fast forward to 9/12, 2001 or 9/13 and there was a complete reversal. Southerners loved New Yorkers, wore FDNY t-shirts, flew flags on their door steps and porches. Southerners vowed to defend their New York brethren from other immoral fockers--the jihadists.

This would be another example of why Americans (the people and culture) are not great--many are so phony.

Another example of the ungreatness of our culture--watch Fear Factor and then look at the homes the producers of those shows live in, or better yet, listen to Britney Spears' music (without looking at, or imagining her body).

Why is America the greatest country on Earth and why are it's citizens the greatest on Earth?


Gordon Sinclair said it best and I have nothing to add to it:

Quote:

"LET'S BE PERSONAL" 

Broadcast June 5, 1973    
CFRB, Toronto, Ontario

Topic: "The Americans"

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtze. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.

ORIGINAL SCRIPT AND AUDIO
COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD.

1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR
PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN)
A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC.
578 HYMUS BOULEVARD
POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC,
CANADA, H9R 4T2

<a href='http://www3.cfrb.com/audio/americans.ra' target='_blank'>"The Americans" Audio Cut</a>

I decided to wait a while to respond to this one. Using a term "greatest" is somewhat meaningless IMHO. Greatest in terms of what? Certainly, we excel in some areas while we're near the bottom of the developed world in others. To me, a better question is, "is there another country in which I would rather live?" The answer is no.

The simple truth is that we experience a level of freedom in this country that does not exist anywhere else in the world. Period. In Germany, it's illegal to display a Nazi flag. Here, the American Nazi Party is free to exist and you can even go to their web site. You'll find a lot of KKK sites too. You can also find sites for the American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. In Canada, it may soon be considered "hate speech" to advocate against gay marriage.

You are free in this country to have any religion or no religion at all. Again, there are certain fringe religions that have actually been prosecuted in Western Europe. That couldn't happen here.

Private property is the foundation of a capitalist system and the government can't take your property without giving you the fair market value for that property.

If you're accused of a crime, you have a right to an attorney. You have a right to a jury trial. The jury must find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The jury must be unanimous. The burden is always on the state to prove every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. You have the right to have an attorney represent you. You have the right to cross-examine anyone who testifies against you and a recent Supreme Court decision said that even if it fell into a well-recognized hearsay exception, rules of evidence cannot overcome constitutional mandates. You can't be compelled to take the witness stand in your own trial. While the basics of due process are certainly afforded to any defendant in any western democracy, I am unaware of any country that provides so many protections for the accused.

Our constitution and our heritage recognize that democracy is not always a genteel discussion amongst "hail fellow well met" members of the upper class. It is frequently loud, sometimes offensive, occasionally obscene, and never, ever orderly. But, the ability to advocate all viewpoints without fear of government prosecution is, IMHO, one of the reasons we've never had a revolution in this country. (The Civil War wasn't a revolution. Even in the Confederate States, free speech was ardently protected and no one advocated the abolition of private property).

Are there areas in which we could do better? Of course. Do I think the current administration is doing the things that are good for America in the long term? No. And that brings up another point.

There are plenty of dolts who argue that, if you disagree with the administration, you are somehow "unpatriotic." Well, pardon me for disagreeing but, if I see an administration doing what I think is long term damage to the safety and security of the United States, I think it is unpatriotic to remain silent. What is unpatriotic is to whine, ***** and moan and then stay home on election day.

klutz,

First, I'm glad to hear your procedure went well. Seriously.

I'm usually bad in discussing collective/national identities because I don't like collective/national identities. When people start insinuating that a certain society is 'most' or 'all' of some attribute, bad things potentially happen. At minimum, stereotypes start. At worst, wars start. Thus, I can't really comment on who's "great" or not on a broad national scale, because the point is moot.

I'm one of those individualists because every person has their own traits, talents, ideas, desires, character and moral standings. I tend to be suspicious of one-size-fits-all programs with little room for competition or variation.

I'm one of those individualists because I believe the person who knows how to spend their own money best is the person who actually earned it. Don't get me wrong. I support modest taxation and certain publicly-funded services. But when citizens are treated as walking, breathing ATM machines by the government, that's when abuse may start.

All in all, if you want to pursue a life of wealth and materialism, go ahead. If you want to engage in a different sexual lifestyle with consenting adults, go ahead. If you want to live a life of religion and prayer, go ahead. If you want to smoke doobies, go ahead. If you want to buy shoes made in Madagascar, go ahead. Allowing people to pursue their own paths does benefit society as a whole. If someone's choice endangers or defrauds someone else, then we have laws and courts to sort things out and punish the culprits. Therein lies why I favor individualism trumping collectivism.

In your restaurant example, the restaurant will try its hardest to please the customer. Otherwise, the customer can opt-out of going to that restaurant, and find somewhere that does have what he's looking for. That's basically the foundation of the free-market, you are able to opt-out and never do business with a certain establishment again if you don't want to. As much as anti-capitalists make McDonalds and Starbucks appear to be oppressive devils, the one thing we all have the option of doing is never entering either of those establishments again, if we so choose. But if an ill-conceived government program goes into effect, how does one opt-out? You can't.

Motown.

Then wouldn't saying Americans are the greatest, or American culture is the greatest--wouldn't that be a "collective/national identities."

Thanks RebelKev for actually coming back with something intelligent (albeit flawed) rather than the usual non-sequitor/ad hominem/strawman combination. Too bad you couldn't have provided your own thoughts, and therefore from the current century.

For your quote provided, consider that Americans, for the most part, really don't like the idea of helping out others, especially financially. Consider the reasons why we do the international things we do--gov. mandate usually without a referendum, egoism, trade purposes, etc. Consider other nations may not help because they don't have the means, consider that other nations do help other nations as we do for our own selfish reasons.

Consider your example in the realm of current American distrust of other nations.

Consider that our elected leaders, some of whom are detested and despised, villified and burned in effigy, decide for themselves whom to help and when.
Consider that our goverment's elected leaders jump first to help other nations, other cultures before helping other Americans. Consider Americans' (at large) aversion to helping other Americans.

Consider the entangling alliances forged.

Consider your quoted example and the definition of bribery.

Mako, you have something there. What is great, or the greatest? That's a problem, the term is undefined or unqualified.

Why do we have to be the greatest? Would the experience of being an American be less robust if we were not considered even by ourselves the "greatest." It's seems like a Muhommad Ali type mentality, well we do float like a B2 and sting like a Hornet (f-18).

For me, to say American culture is the greatest is an example of arbitrary ethnocentrism.

Likewise, I'd rather live here than anywhere else. I just wish Americans were kinder, gentler....

At least I didn't have to deal with a new onslaught of "you're pyschotic...negative...librul....the devil...." type responses, so things are looking up.

Dio, it STILL rings true as it still happens to this day. We are STILL the most generous country on the face of the Earth and are ridiculed when things go badly for us. That can be seen daily with the cheers in the street of despotic countries worldwide, as well as countries who are "allies".....and I use that term loosely. I didn't think I HAD to add anything to Mr. Sinclair's editorial as I thought about it a split second after I read the first post.

RebelKev Wrote:Dio, it STILL rings true as it still happens to this day. We are STILL the most generous country on the face of the Earth

This is debatable.

On a per capita basis, our foreign aid falls far short of the efforts made by many nations.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Dio, it STILL rings true as it still happens to this day. We are STILL the most generous country on the face of the Earth

This is debatable.

On a per capita basis, our foreign aid falls far short of the efforts made by many nations.

Name 'em. I don't mean to a particular country, I mean a total summation of all charitable goods, services, and dollars pumped out of this country by it's citizens and by the government. Also, it would be feasible to add in the amount we pay to the United Nations as opposed to other countries.

Schadenfreude Wrote:On a per capita basis, our foreign aid falls far short of the efforts made by many nations.

..and "per capita" basis, look Schad, I think it's time for you guys to stop being "ashamed" of our success. It wasn't by accident, it was by design. There is nothing wrong with being the richest country on Earth.

RebelKev Wrote:Dio, it STILL rings true as it still happens to this day. We are STILL the most generous country on the face of the Earth and are ridiculed when things go badly for us. That can be seen daily with the cheers in the street of despotic countries worldwide, as well as countries who are "allies".....and I use that term loosely. I didn't think I HAD to add anything to Mr. Sinclair's editorial as I thought about it a split second after I read the first post.

Respectfully RebelKev, and I know I've been antagonizing you but I really respect you attempt to answer the question on this particular thread.

But really man, you need to examine why we have given aid to other nations, why we are generous. It is advantageous for the US gov. to give aid, to bolster another nation's economy and to sell military hardware to other nations.

When giving aid, first it gives the impression that our intentions are noble. Second, foreign aid in some of the despotic portions of the world does nothing more than trump up the autocratic regimes that oppress their own people. It rarely, if at all, gets to the rank and file citizen of those despotic lands.
Aid is a tricky thing that should come to an end. Why does the gov. want to help other nations, or claim to help peoples of other nations when we are so tight when it comes to extending aid to our own, i.e. financial aid, particularly the student loan, which is not aid at all, it is paid back over time with interest. A grant is aid, and grants have been cut, and cut and cut to only about $500 per year for the average need-based student. Not much when tuition costs at, say Ole Miss, are roughly $2,200 per semester (per half-year).

I mentioned egoism in an earlier post. The reason we do the things we do in regard to foreign aid is to stabilize regions that may not be so stable--we want to keep the traditional power centers in many nations IN POWER--the Saudi and Kuwaiti ruling princes is a fine example here.
It serves our interests to do so because we need to sell those people stuff. For example, we sell them Rambo movies, Levi's, Marlboros and Camels (funny we sell them camel smokes). The new trend is to sell them services, i.e. cell phone service, global positioning networks and satellites to those nations' middle classes. To their rulers we sell them Apache gunships that they likely pay us with the foreign aid we've already extended to them.

Those regions must be stable so the market will cooperate. For those despotic lands as you call them, they are not really "people" in the eyes of our gov. they are more a "market." We don't have any benevolent feelings for other nations, peoples and cultures. To our gov. they are customers. An analogy would be the house at a casino. They let you win a little to keep you playing. Likewise, we extend a carrot so they'll give us any wealth they may have in exchange for material goods.

We are ridiculed by those mobs of folks because they are oppressed by their rulers whom we support financially and militarily. Consequently, their closed societies don't permit them to seek out objective information that may change their minds. They, furthermore, see the products that our businesses try to sell them--this brings up serious cultural differences. Their culture, I may remind you, is something many Americans scoff at because we focus on the worst aspects of it. We focus on "jihad" and characterize the whole middle east as fanatics.

Maybe you are paying too much attention to those that ridicule us--the American press is instrumental here because something so controversial--the ridiculing--will help the press sell ads.
There are many pro-American factions, large percentages of the populations, in many Arab and Asian nations. Maybe less so in South American nations.

Now, explain what you mean by success.

Is it success for the U.S. to police the world, or to subsidize the world?

I hope you aren't suggesting that we are the greatest nation on earth because Americans have a high standard of living, i.e. the "richest" nation.

The only thing wrong with being the "richest" nation on earth, the wealthiest, is using that as a justification for claiming our greatness. This is an example of might makes right.

I do take issue with "richest" if that means "wealthiest" because I would say being the world's most indebted people is somewhat more accurate.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Those regions must be stable so the market will cooperate. For those despotic lands as you call them, they are not really "people" in the eyes of our gov. they are more a "market." We don't have any benevolent feelings for other nations, peoples and cultures. To our gov. they are customers. An analogy would be the house at a casino. They let you win a little to keep you playing. Likewise, we extend a carrot so they'll give us any wealth they may have in exchange for material goods.

You see, I take issue with this paragragh. How do you know what's in the heart of a man? There are many countries that cannot afford our military hardware, yet we still lend aid to them. What's the excuse there? We helped Russia, yet, with their arrogance as you call it when it's us, nationalism the way I see it, they can't bring themselves to use our hardware, yet we still lend aid to them. It's not all about hardware and yes, I do realize that our economy relies on the world, but I do not think that our economy is as reliant upon theirs as theirs is to ours. There's an old saying, "When the US economy sneezes, the rest of the economies of the world catch a cold". I also grow tired of Socialist nations criticizing our economy. France has a 35 hour work week, yet a 10-12% unemployment rate, while ours is stable between 5-6. We are the most benevolent on Earth; there really is no point looking any further into the ulterior motives. I give to charity every year......and write it off on taxes. Qui Pro Quo? Maybe, but does either benefactor care? I know I don't, and I am pretty sure the receiver of the food products my money buys does either.

RebelKev Wrote:You see, I take issue with this paragragh. How do you know what's in the heart of a man? There are many countries that cannot afford our military hardware, yet we still lend aid to them. What's the excuse there? We helped Russia, yet, with their arrogance as you call it when it's us, nationalism the way I see it, they can't bring themselves to use our hardware, yet we still lend aid to them. It's not all about hardware and yes, I do realize that our economy relies on the world, but I do not think that our economy is as reliant upon theirs as theirs is to ours. There's an old saying, "When the US economy sneezes, the rest of the economies of the world catch a cold". I also grow tired of Socialist nations criticizing our economy. France has a 35 hour work week, yet a 10-12% unemployment rate, while ours is stable between 5-6. We are the most benevolent on Earth; there really is no point looking any further into the ulterior motives. I give to charity every year......and write it off on taxes. Qui Pro Quo? Maybe, but does either benefactor care? I know I don't, and I am pretty sure the receiver of the food products my money buys does either.

We lend military aid to other nations because the ruling parties in those nations need to be strong, usually, in order to maintain order. Russia is no different here and the former Soviet republics. The last thing we want is some fringe Ukrainian elements getting control of a nuclear weapon.

Whatever authority exists in those former republics must have a strong, centralized government. If civil unrest occurs it could destabilize the region. Hardware in hand of the ruling authorities helps in that endeavor.

Our economy is reliant upon the rest of the world. When you drive down the road in your town that has all the auto dealers on it, where do you think those cars come from? How can Joe Smith's auto dealership survive if auto manufacturers didn't have rubber for the tire, machine parts from Mexico, plastic dashboards from Indonesia, stereo and computer products from India, Japan and Germany as well as glass products from various European nations?

U.S.-made cars may be assembled in Detroit, Dearborn, Canton, etc. but the individual parts were manufactured, and maybe even assembled elsewhere.

My pontiac was, for the most part, assembled in Detroit, but all of its parts came pre-fabbed from other nations.

Consider your DVD, stereo, maybe a CD or two, computer, cell phone and a whole host of other electronics. Where do you think that stuff is mass produced? DVD and stereo stuff is mostly made in Japan, even China. CD's are manufactured in Europe and on a smaller scale, Illinois. Cell phone technology is manufactured in Sweden, Denmark and other Euro nations.

Go down to the Best Buy or the other locally owned appliance store and look at all their electronic crap. What would they sell if other nations didn't have a big role in manufacturing that crap?

We are reliant on the world's economy, and by extension, social and political stability, in order to achieve some level of near equitable import/export distribution. Just speculating, this distribution has been unequitable for the past 30 years or so, unequitable favoring other nations. We generally import on a 4-1 ratio to our exports. Our businesses are buying stuff made in other lands by other people.

Now let's look at clothing, and I sh*t you not on this. Nike, a big-time collegiate and professional sporting goods company who's SWOOSH can be seen on NCAA football jerseys, tennis players' caps, and various other team-affiliated gear, contracts out to third party companies in Asia and the Pacific for the manufacture of their shoes and apparel. When that stuff comes off of a container ship in Seattle or Portland, OR, it's all bland and generic looking. After it comes out of the local Nike factory, it contains the SWOOSH logo--this is one example from one apparel company. Look at where Patagonia is manufactured, PING, POLO etc, etc. All American workers do is put the logo on it and warehouse it.

Companies contract out to third party manufacturing centers to escape liability. In Indonesia, a manufacturing company making apparel for big-time American companies may produce Nike and Reebok stuff, only it doesn't belong to those companies until it's bought, shipped over here and logos are attached. Nike and Reebok are big competitors, yet their apparel may be made at the same manufacturing plant.

The only things mass-produced and exported from the USA are bombs, guns, military jets and helo's, cigarettes and foodstuffs. We export cars that have been assembled here, but not manufactured--that is all an auto's essential parts.

I am not an economist, but I welcome you to check out all of this info.

I do know that the products we import cost way, way more and more money is spent on these products than is made on the products the U.S. exports. Cereal and Twinkies exported to China costs much less than the computers they are sending us. The cigarettes we sell to the middle east cost way less than the oil that OPEC sends to us.

We are dependent on the world economy because we need markets to exploit for our meager amount of exports. The world economy in exchange is dependent on American businesses that sell to the most credit-strapped market on earth.

That's another factor there--consider the amount of goods bought in the U.S. on credit. This reverberates into the world economy.

You write off your charitable donations? You shouldn't do that, don't you know our taxes support our troops overseas? Our reservists don't have flack jackets because folks like you are grumbling about taxes!

Also, what charities do you donate to? Many charities, the largest charities, have an unequitable distribution between what they pay their employees, and what actually goes to charitable organizations. United Way has a CEO who makes 7 figures. The fed. gov. has regulations on this that a charity needs to give out x% as compared to what they spend on payroll and overhead. Check on your charities to make sure they are doing the right thing. Also, see which charities they give to. Many charities support local high school booster clubs and other organizations like that when they give the impression that your contribution goes to some refugees in Rwanda. It's good to support local h.s. sports organizations, but it's just wrong to lie or deceive contributors about where the money or goods are really going.

Lastly, Americans are human beings. Human beings are prone to error and basically have many faults because we are imperfect creatures. Given these attributes to humanity, Americans are no more or no less moral or benevolent than any other humans in the world.