The Cost of "Empire"

magick

be warned tis a long one lads


The Cost of Empire


President Bush’s war policy marks the beginning of the end of America’s era of global dominance.




The administration’s U-turn decision to ask for United Nations help in Iraq, and President George W. Bush’s request that Congress appropriate $87 billion to fund the occupation and reconstruction of that country send a very clear message: the administration’s Iraq policy is a fiasco. And a foreseeable one at that.U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that American troops occupying Iraq would not be welcomed as liberators but would be resisted. A pre-invasion State Department report warned that the administration had the proverbial snowball’s chance of transforming Iraq into a Western-style democracy (a conclusion reinforced by a recent Similarly, it was obvious that the administration’s go-it-alone hubris, combined with its sledgehammer diplomacy, would chill Washington’s relations with the other major powers and trigger a worldwide backlash of hostility toward the United States.Those—here and abroad—who opposed Washington’s reckless march to war can say we told you so. But that is not the point. More than that, it is necessary to step back from day-to-day events and place the Iraq war in the context of its longer-term significance for the United States. A good place to start is by asking why the administration embarked on war while ignoring widespread—and accurate—predictions that even a successful military campaign could lead to postwar disaster. In other words, what were the administration’s war aims?We know what they were not. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the Middle East and Persian Gulf. (Did anyone say “weapons of mass destruction”?) And—the administration’s manipulation of public opinion notwithstanding—Saddam Hussein was not involved in Sept. 11 and was not in bed with al-Qaeda. But, as both U.S. and British intelligence warned, by going to war with Iraq, the administration has created a terrorist threat where none existed previously, making the U.S. less, not more, secure than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq.The real reason the administration went to war had nothing to do with terrorism. . The administration went to war in Iraq to consolidate America’s global hegemony and to extend U.S. dominance to the Middle East by establishing a permanent military stronghold in Iraq for the purposes of controlling the Middle Eastern oil spigot (thereby giving Washington enormous leverage in its relations with Western Europe and China); allowing Washington to distance itself from an increasingly unreliable and unstable Saudi Arabia; and using the shadow of U.S. military power to bring about additional regime changes in Iran and Syria.It is fashionable to say that 9/11—and the subsequent war with Iraq— “changed everything.” But this is not true. Before Sept. 11 the biggest debate among students of international politics and analysts of U.S. foreign policy was about American hegemony. Re-christened as a debate about the wisdom of American empire, it still is. The big fault line in this debate is over which of two theories—yes, academic theories about international relations really do reflect and influence real-world policy—about how states can best attain security for themselves in the competitive arena of world politics is correct.“Offensive realism” holds that the best way for a state to gain security is to amass overwhelming power—that is, by becoming a hegemon. Since World War II, offensive realism has undergirded American grand strategy, although the current administration’s policy is offensive realism on steroids. If the Duchess of Windsor had been an administration strategist she would have said that the U.S. can never be too rich, too powerful—or too well-armed or too willing to employ force against its adversaries. After all, if power counts in international politics—and every realist knows it counts big time—then it seemingly makes sense for the U.S. to grab as much power as possible. Traditional realists like Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, and Walter Lippman reject the logic of offensive realism because they believe that when one state becomes too powerful all the others fear for their security. They respond by building up their own military capabilities or by forming alliances with others to act as a counterweight against a hegemon’s power (or both). This is what students of international politics refer to as “balancing.” And, indeed, the historical record pretty conclusively shows that hegemony is a self-defeating grand strategy, not a winning one. Every hegemonic aspirant in modern international history—the Hapsburg Empire under Charles V, Spain under Philip II, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, and Germany under Hitler—has been defeated by counter-hegemonic balancing.American policymakers have come up with a number of (far too) clever rationales to convince themselves that the U.S. will escape the fate that invariably befalls hegemons. For example, they claim that the United States is a different kind of hegemon—a “benign” or “benevolent” one that is non-threatening because it acts altruistically in international politics and because others are attracted to America’s “soft power” (its political institutions and values, and its culture). There is no reason, they say, for others to balance against the United States. Other proponents of American hegemony take a different tack: they claim that the United States can throw its hegemonic weight around as it pleases because its power—economic, military, and technological—is so overwhelming that it will be a very long time before other states can even think about balancing against the U.S.These are not compelling arguments. In international politics, benevolent hegemons are like unicorns—there are no such animals. Hegemons love themselves, but others mistrust and fear them. As for the argument that the U.S. is too mighty to be counter-balanced, history reminds us that things change fast in international politics. The British found out toward the end of the 19th century that a seemingly unassailable international power position can melt away with unexpected rapidity.Perhaps the proponents of America’s imperial ambitions are right and the U.S. will not suffer the same fate as previous hegemonic powers. Don’t bet on it. The very fact of America’s overwhelming power is bound to produce a geopolitical backlash—which is why it’s only a short step from the celebration of imperial glory to the recessional of imperial power. Indeed, on its present course, the United States seems fated to succumb to the “hegemon’s temptation.” Hegemons have lots of power and because there is no countervailing force to stop them, they are tempted to use it repeatedly, and thereby overreach themselves.
For example in a war with China over Taiwan.At the end of the day, hegemonic decline results from a combination of external and internal factors: over-extension abroad (imperial overstretch) and domestic economic weakness (endless budget and balance-of- payments deficits). It comes as no surprise that the imperial overstretch debate of the late 1980s—about the costs of empire and America’s ability to afford them—which was aborted by the Soviet Union’s sudden collapse, has re-emerged with a vengeance. And there is ample reason to worry about whether the U.S. can sustain the burdens of hegemony. . Over time, America’s fiscal troubles will erode its economic power—which is the foundation of its military might—and, as the relative power gap between the U.S. and potential new great powers begins to shrink, the costs and risks of challenging the United States will decrease and the pay-off for doing so will increase.American policymakers should want to avoid the fate of hegemons. In the late 1890s, Great Britain—widely regarded as at the zenith of its hegemonic power—had its own counterpart to American unilateralism: splendid isolation. But as speculation grew that the other European great powers would form a coalition to balance against Britain, London realized its isolation was far from splendid. As the British military analyst Spencer Wilkenson said the time, “We have no friends, and no nation loves us.”The administration, however, is not worried because it believes that American hegemony is an unchallengeable fact of international life. But this does not hold up because the rest of the world draws the opposite conclusion: that the United States is too powerful, and its hegemony must be resisted. The administration has dug the U.S. into a deep hole in Iraq and, more worryingly, in terms of its relations with the rest of the world. So, what is to be done?Realists have tried to do something. Nearly every major realist scholar of international politics in the U.S. opposed going to war with Iraq. No surprise here. Realists also know that it is foolish to antagonize other states needlessly or to destroy institutional frameworks of co-operation through which the U.S. can work with others to advance its own interests.Perhaps as the 2004 presidential campaign unfolds, someone like a Howard Dean or a Wesley Clark will recognize the virtue of reaching across party lines to staff a foreign-policy team dedicated to reconstructing American foreign policy on a sounder, non-imperial basis.One thing is certain: unless the call for the United States to exercise self-imposed grand-strategic restraint is heeded, the rest of the world will act to impose that constraint on Washington. If that happens, the Bush administration will not be remembered for conquering Baghdad but rather for a policy that shattered the pillars of the international security framework that the United States established after World War II, galvanized both hard and soft balancing against U.S. hegemony, and marked the beginning of the end of America’s era of global preponderance.

Vader

Well magick I can see why you only make .3 posts per day. If anybody doesn’t have the time to read this mammoth post here is a brief summary

Originally posted by magick

The administration’s U-turn decision to ask for United Nations help in Iraq, and President George W. Bush’s request that Congress appropriate $87 billion to fund the occupation and reconstruction of that country send a very clear message: the administration’s Iraq policy is a fiasco [just like all its international policies are turning out to be]

[They stood a]proverbial snowball’s chance [in hell] of transforming Iraq into a Western-style democracy [so why do it?]

What were the administration’s war aims?

1) The administration went to war in Iraq to consolidate America’s global hegemony and to extend U.S. dominance to the Middle East
2) controlling the Middle Eastern oil spigot
3) giving Washington enormous leverage in its relations with Western Europe and China
4) allowing Washington to distance itself from an increasingly unreliable and unstable Saudi Arabia

The current administration’s policy is offensive realism on steroids

And, indeed, the historical record pretty conclusively shows that hegemony is a self-defeating grand strategy, not a winning one. Every hegemonic aspirant in modern international history has been defeated by counter-hegemonic balancing.

The U.S. will escape the fate that invariably befalls hegemons. They claim that the United States is a different kind of hegemon—a “benevolent” one that is non-threatening and because others are attracted to America’s “soft power” (its political institutions and values, and its culture).

Other proponents of American hegemony take a different tack: they claim that the United States can throw its hegemonic weight around as it pleases because its power—economic, military, and technological—is so overwhelming that it will be a very long time before other states can even think about balancing against the U.S.

Over time, America’s fiscal troubles will erode its economic power—which is the foundation of its military might—and, as the relative power gap between the U.S. and potential new great powers begins to shrink, the costs and risks of challenging the United States will decrease and the pay-off for doing so will increase

Perhaps as the 2004 presidential campaign unfolds, someone like a Howard Dean or a Wesley Clark will recognize the virtue of reaching across party lines to staff a foreign-policy team dedicated to reconstructing American foreign policy on a sounder, non-imperial basis.

I agree with a lot of that only I seem to get the impression that you want to save the American hegemony. America is not a benign overlord but it is definitely an overlord. American culture which is so popular is built on slavery, exploitation, capitalism and inequality.
One thing I would like explained to me(honestly) is how America is the dominant economic power in the world when it is the most indebted country?
And as for politicians in America overcoming party divides, I believe that has all ready happened. At the moment there is the far far right (Republicans) and far right ( Democrats). Clinton was involved in more wars that Bush, he just covered them up; often by lying to congress.
Clinton always maintained Suharto was “our kind of guy”. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush doesn’t see the need to lie to people. He didn’t deny stealing the election. The Supreme court ruling was that it would be damaging to America’s international image is they impeached their president for fraud.
What this shows is that the second theory of yours is prevalent in America at the moment

swiss

One thing I would like explained to me(honestly) is how America is the dominant economic power in the world when it is the most indebted country?

I'm not an expert in economic analysis, but I'll try. As you have correctly pointed out, America is heavily in debt - currently in the region of $6.8 trillion (source). However, that vast amount of capital has allowed large scale enterprise and manufacturing industries to thrive. Per capita GDP amounts to $37,600, with a population of 290,342,554 (source). That equates to $10,916,880,030,400, or about $10.8 trillion, a difference of $4 trillion per year. As of yet I don't know any other country that can match that sort of capital. Many economists would also argue that having a budget deficit can be very beneficial if an economy demonstrates signs of depression, as that extra income can lead to more buoyant expenditure, hence boosting industrial and service sectors.

In any case, I think that magick just did a nice cut and paste job (no offence if you wrote all that yourself ). I don't think the article stated anywhere that saving the US hegemony was an honorable goal, in fact I believe the whole thrust of the article was to demonstrate that hegemonies are frequently short lived, and often lead to bitterness and anger towards the dominant nations, especially since they often tend to overreach themselves.

The US may have made a proverbial dogs dinner of the Iraq situation (surprise, surprise), but it takes a little leap of the imagination to assume that it will seek to extend it's doctrine and hegemony upon the rest of the world, especially upon certain European powers.

Vader

Does the money america borrrows every year get repaid every year. Its my understanding that it isnt. That every year the debt grows?

swiss

Does the money america borrrows every year get repaid every year. Its my understanding that it isnt. That every year the debt grows?

No idea. Most countries must carry out some form of debt servicing, that is paying off the interest on the national debt. A quick google trawl shows this source places it at roughly $318bn for the year (and people thought the $87bn was a lot of money for the US ;P).

The debt has of course been rising steadily, mostly due to extra borrowing, but also due to inflation, and perhaps because of a deferral of debt servicing.

Vader

I know what servcing a debt is and all about the worl bank and IMF, but I heard that the US occupies the unique position of not having to pay back its loans. Due mostly to the fact I suppose that it runs the IMF and that other countries are afraid to rrfuse loans or to call them in

DadaKopf

Was that a post or a news article? If it was an article, what's the source?

Victor

The thing about American government debt is they owe it to Americans. They have relatively low external debt. So when they make repayments and pay interest, they can tax that interest.

And whatever about there government debt they have a social security deficit of something like US$17trn.

Vader

I just think there must be a lot of creative accounting somewhere and that a huge recession (not a little depression like what we have at the moment) will be the result from it. Like the way enron went under or AIB's John Jusnak problem.

Capt'n Midnight

Plan B - anyone remember that English King (was it King John ?) that just declared the country Bankrupt, cancelled the debts and just carried on ...

magick

you know i tried that the other day but visa threathened legal action

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Plan B - anyone remember that English King (was it King John ?) that just declared the country Bankrupt, cancelled the debts and just carried on ...

The President does not have authority, through executive orders, to declare the debt worthless and move on. Only congress can make such legislation, with 2/3 majority of both houses, and only then it needs to be signed by the President. When it comes to fiscal debt, it is more important if you can pay the interest, not how much you borrow. THe current fiscal debt is only 4.2% of the GDP. When you have a recession, the one thing you do not do, as a government, is to cut service, production, or investment.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
The President does not have authority, through executive orders, to declare the debt worthless and move on. Only congress can make such legislation, with 2/3 majority of both houses, and only then it needs to be signed by the President.

It kinda shoots your credit rating though.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Does the money america borrrows every year get repaid every year. Its my understanding that it isnt. That every year the debt grows?

13% of the US budget goes to servicing the debt.

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
It kinda shoots your credit rating though.

Hardl! Purchasing US government securities is considered the safest investment one can make, worldwide.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
13% of the US budget goes to servicing the debt.

That doesnt answer my question, does the ammount owed grow every year? And why dont you make one medium sized reply rather than 3 small ones in a row

Victor

Originally posted by Vader
That doesnt answer my question, does the ammount owed grow every year? And why dont you make one medium sized reply rather than 3 small ones in a row

It fell in the last 2-3 years of Clinton but is now rising steadily, mostly due to the downturn in tax receipts and increased "defense" expenditure.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Hardl! Purchasing US government securities is considered the safest investment one can make, worldwide.

Which has nothing to do with the point you were answering......not that it was a point in the first place, but rather a witticism.

Even if you take Victor's point seriously, he was referring to what would happen, if the US defaulted on its loans. The situation today is not based on such a default, and at best, you could be arguing that the notion is unlikely - which no-one has suggested anyway.

I dunno....do you go looking to defend America at every opportunity or something? If such eagerness to find offence is typical of the US mindset, its no wonder that the US is increasingly beginning to believe the rest of the world and its dog hates it as a nation.

jc

DadaKopf

And, indeed, the historical record pretty conclusively shows that hegemony is a self-defeating grand strategy, not a winning one. Every hegemonic aspirant in modern international history has been defeated by counter-hegemonic balancing.

Both the Roman Empire and European imperialism was unsustainable because it relied on Balance of Power politics. But can balance of power politics apply in a unipolar world?

The current US administration is characterised by a conflict between neorealists and neoconservatives. The neorealists realise this contradiction and want the US to pull back to a sort of Cold War position. The neoconservatives aren't exactly realists, they're insane ideologues but they view realist principles as an excuse to rule the world. They refuse to learn the lessons of history. Whether the US caves in will depend on who wins in Washington - the neorealists who plead caution and a return to familiar bipolar territory versus the neoconservatives who ignore history and see this as the opportunity of a lifetime. So far, Washington has succeeded in keeping down any hegemon-aspirants - Russia, China, Europe. Presumably, if the realists win, they'll let China flex its muscles in its own hemisphere and America can retract its tendrils to a safe secure distance. If the neoconservatives win, the US could very well work to keep all three down which will spell disaster indeed.

All this might change, of course, when, not if, the Democrats get back into power in the next presedential election. The Democrats (during Clinton's years at least) always preferred to consider the big three 'strategic partners' rather than 'strategic competitors'. Consequentially, such a multipolar conception (though this, perhaps, shouldn't be overstated) would be a much more sustainable course of action.

The U.S. will escape the fate that invariably befalls hegemons. They claim that the United States is a different kind of hegemon—a “benevolent” one that is non-threatening and because others are attracted to America’s “soft power” (its political institutions and values, and its culture).

The US turned from being a "benevolent" hegemon during the Nixon Administration. Vietnam weakened the US beyond belief. Hegemons need to be secure and outward looking if they're to be beneficent but following a series of serious setbacks, the US turned in on itself, becoming a "predatory" hegemon, acting opportunistically and selfishly.

Hegemons can have (like it or not) a certain stabilising influence (achieved by coercion and blood and iron in tandem with incentives and most favoured nation policies). One has to wonder, though, that with the US acting like a predator, whether anyone will continue to accept its hegemony (as many states clearly do).

This is exactly why the realists want a bipolar world again, which the neoconservatives are denying them.

US strategists need to be fighting an enemy in order to legitimise their behaviour and consolidation of power but given the transnational nature of the 'threat' and this 'war', and a certain amount of capitalist triumphalism, it looks as if the US looks like it might be out of options. It may have condemned itself to pursue a stragegy of global hegemony - in which case, it's screwed anyway, neorealists or not.

Maybe. I dunno.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
Hardl! Purchasing US government securities is considered the safest investment one can make, worldwide.

As Bonkeys says, but Enron was a "sure thing" a few years ago, wasn't it?

And all things are variable, why do you think people go for gold and Swiss Francs in time of crisis?

And had I bought €100 worth of US government securities (to expire 2003-2004*) this time two years ago they would now be worth maybe €80. How secure is that?

* Longer term US government securities have risen stongly in dolllar values in the last year, as they are seen as a better investment in the short term than equities.

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
As Bonkeys says, but Enron was a "sure thing" a few years ago, wasn't it?

And all things are variable, why do you think people go for gold and Swiss Francs in time of crisis?

And had I bought €100 worth of US government securities (to expire 2003-2004*) this time two years ago they would now be worth maybe €80. How secure is that?

* Longer term US government securities have risen stongly in dolllar values in the last year, as they are seen as a better investment in the short term than equities.

When investing, you look at long term results and expectations, not short term. The secret, for simplicity's sake, is to "buy low" and "sell high." Of course, the trick is to know when to buy low and when to sell high. That is why you see all those investment books telling you how to tap into the secret of investing. Or another way to look at it, it is your return on investment in long term. Corporations are a different story. As with Enron, the company violated SEC rules by overstating its revenues and understating its expenses. Let me give you another example. Amazon.com had net losses from its operations from 1996 through 2000, yet it stock went up. It did the exact opposite of what most traditional investors would expect. That is the funny thing about investments. Sometimes the market will react a different way than what most experts would predict. By 2000, the stock market was already overvalued by 20% to 25%. The result in waiting, the stock market had to come down. This occured when venture capitalists (capital investors) started demanding profit over obtaining market share. This is what caused the stock market decline. What added fuel to the fire were the companies like Tyco, Enron, and other companies that overstated their revenues and understated their expenses. Thus, you then had a bear market from 2000 through 2003 1Q instead of the bull market from 1992 through 2000.

Now, with gold and swiss francs, the reason why some investors invest in those commodities during economic uncertainty is because those commodities simply stay flat over the long run. They are used as holding investments until the tide of uncertainty elapses. US government securities will still make some money even in economic uncertainity. With your purchase of government securities, you will be earning about 5% four years ago and about 2% now. You are still making money and with no expectation of the security going worthless. With swiss Francs, you will not be making money and you will not be losing money.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
And as for politicians in America overcoming party divides, I believe that has all ready happened. At the moment there is the far far right (Republicans) and far right ( Democrats). Clinton was involved in more wars that Bush, he just covered them up; often by lying to congress.
Clinton always maintained Suharto was “our kind of guy”. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush doesn’t see the need to lie to people. He didn’t deny stealing the election. The Supreme court ruling was that it would be damaging to America’s international image is they impeached their president for fraud.
What this shows is that the second theory of yours is prevalent in America at the moment

Ok, then please explain where the Libertarian Party comes in, the American Constitutional Party, the Natural Law Party, the Green Party, The Southern Party, the Light Party, The Reform Party, the American First Party, or the Independence Party. Gephardt, Dean, or even Lieberman would not agree with your assertion that the Democratic party is a far right political phenom.

As for the election of 2000, it had to do with the Constitutionality fo the recount. From the Supreme Court's decision, "The question before the Court is not whether local enti- ties, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

"Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000)."

The court also concluded, "that there are consti- tutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, JUSTICE BREYER’s proposed remedy— remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000). " This was voted 7-2 by the Supreme Court Justices. It was 5-4 on the remedy for the situation.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
With swiss Francs, you will not be making money and you will not be losing money.

Thats wrong.

As with any foreign currency, it is the dynamic between said currency and your own nation's that determines the "flatness", not the currency itself.

Compare the exchange rate of Swiss Franc/ British Sterling now to a year ago, or Swiss Franc / US Dollar. It has shifted by at least 10%, which would indeed make or lose you money. Gold also has risen against the dollar, from $320/oz a year ago to almost $400 today. That too would indeed make or lose you money.

Furthermore, this notion that the Swiss Franc is a "flat" currency is also incorrect. It is more stable than most, which is an entirely different thing.

What is more important is that the value of neither is likely to change sharply, and the general inclination is that they fall more slowly then other currencies, so that in bad economic terms, they are the most likely to make you money....not that they will just keep flat.

And none of this addresses the point which was originally made - that the US credit rating would be screwed if it defaulted.

Are you trying to tell us that if the US defaulted on its loans, the world would just shrug its shoulders and say "well, these thieves are still a safe investment bet, lets just give them more money we might never get back".

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it???

jc

Vader

Geromino--- I would only recognise the green party as a viable oppossition because its the only one of those you mentioned that got a significant enough outcome in the last election to get federal funds for the next campaign.

would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise

I thought what should be a legal vote is clear. Republicans muddyed the issue with their analogies of soldiers on the front line risking their lives being too busy to vote on time or their commanding officer who should of stamped their ballots being killed. Neither of those two things were actually happening at the time. Bush removed people from the registrar and added illegal votes. He cheated.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats wrong.

As with any foreign currency, it is the dynamic between said currency and your own nation's that determines the "flatness", not the currency itself.

Compare the exchange rate of Swiss Franc/ British Sterling now to a year ago, or Swiss Franc / US Dollar. It has shifted by at least 10%, which would indeed make or lose you money. Gold also has risen against the dollar, from $320/oz a year ago to almost $400 today. That too would indeed make or lose you money.

Furthermore, this notion that the Swiss Franc is a "flat" currency is also incorrect. It is more stable than most, which is an entirely different thing.

What is more important is that the value of neither is likely to change sharply, and the general inclination is that they fall more slowly then other currencies, so that in bad economic terms, they are the most likely to make you money....not that they will just keep flat.

And none of this addresses the point which was originally made - that the US credit rating would be screwed if it defaulted.

Are you trying to tell us that if the US defaulted on its loans, the world would just shrug its shoulders and say "well, these thieves are still a safe investment bet, lets just give them more money we might never get back".

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it???

jc

You are talking about money speculation, which by the way is only short term. I was talking about long term currency evaluation.

And no, what I am saying is that the US government cannot default on its loans. To do so would require a set of very specific circumstances that neither you nor I could even imagine in our wildest dreams. And if it happens, the economy as you and I know it will cease to exist.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Geromino--- I would only recognise the green party as a viable oppossition because its the only one of those you mentioned that got a significant enough outcome in the last election to get federal funds for the next campaign.

Actually, the Reform Party received 22$ of the vote in 1992 and then emploded in the 1996 election. The same thing is happening with the Green Party. They are not even a blip on the electoral map. Most voters who support the Democratic position will vote Democratic not Green or other party. The oldest third party is the Libertarian Party. Lyndon LaRouche has been running for President since 1972 and has consistently received about 1% of the total vote, on average. The other parties that I listed have in the past listed candidates to run for President, Congress, and Governor, but as usual, only received a fraction of the vote. The American political system has traditionally been a two party system. Each party tries to reach to the political center in order to get elected. Their party platform only serves as a guide nationally and locally. However, the candidates do have a degree of freedom to not go along with the party platform lock, stock, and barrel.

I thought what should be a legal vote is clear. Republicans muddyed the issue with their analogies of soldiers on the front line risking their lives being too busy to vote on time or their commanding officer who should of stamped their ballots being killed. Neither of those two things were actually happening at the time. Bush removed people from the registrar and added illegal votes. He cheated.

First of all, counting votes is done locally by the country voter registrar and through the oversight of the elections board chaired by the State's secretary of state. The board is a five member board with only one Republican, the State secretary of State as perscribed in her duties in the Florida Constitution. The voting irregularities as you mentioned were challenged through the state court system and ultimately decided by teh US Supreme Court. There was no removing from the registrar and adding illegal votes. What was being challenged is how the votes were being counted, and especially in the four counties mentioned. The hanging chad, the clinging chad, the partial chad, and so forth was at great debate through the protection of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the process was in voliation of the Constitution and was so ordered to stop. The Jusdge agreed by a margin of 7-2 on the Constitutionality issue, but disagreed vigorously on the remedy. The assertion that President Bush removed votes shows your lack of knowledge in our electorate system.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino

The voting irregularities as you mentioned were challenged through the state court system and ultimately decided by teh US Supreme Court. There was no removing from the registrar and adding illegal votes. .

I know you probably dont like Michael Moore but he talks about no removing from the registrar and adding illegal votes in his book"Stupid White Men" which is the same as what the BBC said happened and you can call MM anything you like but the BBC is very objective. Dont buy the book, just rent it from you local library and read the first chapter ot two. Then you'll know even more which is kind of an impossibility seeing as how you already know everything. Wait actually dont read the book because the world might implode.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
I know you probably dont like Michael Moore but he talks about no removing from the registrar and adding illegal votes in his book"Stupid White Men" which is the same as what the BBC said happened and you can call MM anything you like but the BBC is very objective. Dont buy the book, just rent it from you local library and read the first chapter ot two. Then you'll know even more which is kind of an impossibility seeing as how you already know everything. Wait actually dont read the book because the world might implode.

I would not call Michael Moore an authority on Constitutional issues. However, I do read Allen Dershowitz and he would not make such a conclusion.

Vader

trust me when I say you'll be suprised. You believe the BBC right? Well basically 10's of thousands of people were struck off the electorate because their names were similar to people who had served jail time in Texas and thus disqualifying them from voting. The ppl were nearly all poor or black, ppl who generally vote Democtatic. Goveror Bush helping his brother maybe?Too many coincidences.

sceptre

Originally posted by Vader
I thought what should be a legal vote is clear. Republicans muddyed the issue with their analogies of soldiers on the front line risking their lives being too busy to vote on time or their commanding officer who should of stamped their ballots being killed.

I think the quote you're looking for is:

"If they catch a bullet or fragment from a terrorist bomb that fragment does not have any postmark or registration of any kind"

Said by Fred Tarrant (Naples council member, republican) to the Collier County election board.

How To Rig An Election

Or just read this

(I'm sure the beeb has a pile of articles on this, including the background, but I've only linked to the one)

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
trust me when I say you'll be suprised. You believe the BBC right? Well basically 10's of thousands of people were struck off the electorate because their names were similar to people who had served jail time in Texas and thus disqualifying them from voting. The ppl were nearly all poor or black, ppl who generally vote Democtatic. Goveror Bush helping his brother maybe?Too many coincidences.

First of all, you do not put your name on the ballot. Second, you must have a voter registration card when you vote. When you vote, you must show proof of identity and the voter regristration card. The voter registration card allows you to vote.

The process is as follows: You send a "application" to the secretary of state's office no later than 31 days before an election. It does not have to be a presidential election, Vader, but an election nevertheless. It is good for only two fisal years. The "application" must include your name, driver license number, address, and signature. You must also be at least 18 years old. You must also not be convicted of a felony, federal or state. I believe there may also be one or two additional restrictions having to do with menal capacity, but I would have to look that up.

As with Florida, the state was notorious of having dead people, dogs and cats, and felons voting for a particular candidate. All of whom cannot vote by law. In 1997, the state legislature passed a law to purge the state registrar for all names not eligible to vote by the National Voting Rights Act. Therefore, your assertion is unfounded.

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
I think the quote you're looking for is:

"If they catch a bullet or fragment from a terrorist bomb that fragment does not have any postmark or registration of any kind"

Said by Fred Tarrant (Naples council member, republican) to the Collier County election board.

How To Rig An Election

Or just read this

(I'm sure the beeb has a pile of articles on this, including the background, but I've only linked to the one)

Again by law, if you are a felon you cannot vote. If you are dead, you cannot vote. If you are a dog, a cat, or other animal, you cannot vote. If you are not a US citizen, you cannot vote. If you are convicted of a felony, it automatically becomes public record unless you are under 18 and tried as a juvenille.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
Again by law, if you are a felon you cannot vote. If you are dead, you cannot vote. If you are a dog, a cat, or other animal, you cannot vote. If you are not a US citizen, you cannot vote.

If your postal vote doesn't have the required postmark and date on it your vote shouldn't be counted. They were counted.

The article's talking about live people who were US citizens and not convicted felons and who were not cats or dogs or any other animal whose names were struck from the ballot. That's why the words "wrongly disenfranchised" are mentioned in the first paragraph. That people were wrongly disenfranchised is generally accepted as fact. Where the conspiracy theory kicks in is that many of the "wrongly disenfranchised" happened to be black people who would be more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican (because historically they always have by a ratio of about 4:1). Thus the question of the motive behind the removal of similar names to convicted felons (and the motives behind Katheryn Harris' decision to extend the search beyone known felons and the requirement of the innocent to prove they were so by submitting to fingerprint tests) becomes an issue. Only if you believe the conspiracy theory though.

This doesn't change the fact that this was not raised in the appeal to the Supreme Court. There's a federal statute dating from after the 1876 election (or 1888, can't remember which) that prohibits contesting the electorate after the election. Hence it couldn't have been (the absentee ballots are a different matter). Which may make it a moot point but it's still a valid criticism, assuming that the shenanigans did take place (which I recognise is something that you dispute). I'm too lazy to go poking for sources as I don't know what you'll accept as valid (and no, that's neither a cop-out nor trying to blame you rather than me, I just get the impression from Vader's post above that you're slightly more picky about valid sources than the average bear)

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
If your postal vote doesn't have the required postmark and date on it your vote shouldn't be counted. They were counted,,,.

I'm too lazy to go poking for sources as I don't know what you'll accept as valid (and no, that's neither a cop-out nor trying to blame you rather than me, I just get the impression from Vader's post above that you're slightly more picky about valid sources than the average bear)

Florida's statutory deadline for the canvassing board of each county to certify the county election and send the election results to the Florida Department of State for inclusion in the certified state election results is specified in two statutes. These are Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 111 (102.111) and Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 112 (102.112).

Section 102.111 uses the word "shall" and states, "If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified."

Section 102.112 uses the word "may" and states, "If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."

Section 102.111 states that the Secretary of State has no discretion and that late county election returns shall be ignored. Section 102.112 states that the Secretary of State has discretion as authorized by the state legislature when the statute was enacted, and may ignore late county election returns.

Thus, any plausible and rational interpretation of Sections 102.111 and 102.112 would be that the Secretary of State has no discretion and late county returns are ignored, that the Secretary of State has discretion and may ignore late returns, or somewhere in the continuum between these two endpoints. For example, they may be interpreted such that the Secretary has limited discretionary authority to accept late returns under specific circumstances, such as a hurricane or other natural disaster, but has no such discretion under other conditions. In interpreting two such differing statutes, one may use the statute enacted more recently, or the statute that is more specific. But one cannot legitimately ignore both statutes and come up with an interpretation that is entirely different and outside the continuum of the differing statutes.

Note that one practical purpose of this statutory deadline is that it limits the time window during which ballot tampering and election fraud can be committed.

The Florida Supreme Court intervened in the Democrat Party lawsuit involving the Florida Presidential Election, which is unusual because the courts usually avoid becoming involved in election matters which are normally left up to the legislative and executive branches of government unless fraud is involved. This is especially true after an election is over. The Courts are normally extremely reluctant to change the outcome of an election. In this case, no fraud was alleged or involved. In addition, the Florida Supreme Court took an even more extraordinary action by bringing this case to itself. Normally, a case would be brought to a higher level court, including the State or U.S. Supreme Court, by the plaintiff or defendant appealing the case to the higher court. It is extremely rare for any court to bring a case to itself. In fact, it is so rare that it typically does not occur in any given year. It is even more rare, and probably the first occurrence in U.S. history, for a State or U.S. Supreme Court to bring to itself a court case involving an election. A search of all court case records for the entire history of each state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court will probably verify this as fact. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court committed two extremely rare acts simultaneously.

In this case, the Florida Supreme Court ignored the Florida Statutes and Constitution, and violated the separation of powers by usurping the power and authority of the legislative and executive branches of state government, including the discretionary power of the Secretary of State. The Florida State Supreme Court came up with an implausible, irrational interpretation of Sections 102.111 and 102.112 that the Secretary of State shall not ignore late county election returns and that the deadline shall be extended to an arbitrary date picked by the court. There is no language in the Florida Statutes that states that Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, have the discretion or authority to extend the statutory deadline or to accept late county election returns for inclusion in the certified state election results.

Thus, it is absolutely certain that the Democrat appointees on the Florida Supreme Court acted in a highly partisan manner in an attempt to steal the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election from Republican George Bush and give it to Democrat Al Gore.

This is a glaring example of why it is so important to elect Governors and Presidents that will appoint strict constructionists rather than liberal judicial activists as supreme court justices. Strict constructionists interpret the law as enacted by the legislature, and they use the written federal and state Constitutions, previous court precedents, the writings and philosophy of the founders including the Federalist Papers and the record of the Constitutional Debates, and intellectually honest logic and reasoning to arrive at sound decisions.

In contrast, liberal judicial activists ignore all of these and use twisted irrational reasoning to legislate from the bench, changing existing laws and enacting new ones, in complete violation of the Constitution and the traditional separation of powers. Under rule by liberal judicial activists, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and country), is nothing more than a worthless scrap of paper. Under judicial activism, we have no rights because the laws and the Constitution is whatever the current crop of justices say it is, without regard to the original social contract and the history and traditions of our country.

The primary solution to the danger of judicial activism is to elect conservative presidents and governors who will do their best to appoint only strict constructionists as Supreme Court justices. Because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, it may become necessary at some point in the future to curtail or eliminate the authority of the courts to engage in judicial review. This power was never given to the courts by the Constitution, but was assumed by the courts in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison. (WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 5 U.S. 137, FEBRUARY, 1803 Term. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.)

Although there are advantages to judicial review, the extreme abuses by liberal judicial activists may have spoiled this system for everyone. Other alternative solutions should also be researched to find the best and most workable solution. One solution would be for the Congress and state legislatures to write into specific laws that the law is not subject to judicial review, and to re-enact laws improperly misinterpreted, modified, or repealed by judicial activists with such a clause forbidding future judicial review of the law. Another solution that may be used in conjunction with other solutions would be to require that Supreme Court justices that are appointed for life serve shorter finite terms and/or that they require periodic confirmation by the voters.

In 1986, California voters removed three California Supreme Court justices - Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, and Justices Renosa and Grodin - due to their liberal judicial activism. Bird was appointed Chief Justice by liberal Democrat Governor Jerry Brown in 1977. There was a successful campaign to educate the voters and remove these judicial activists. This cleared the way for the Governor to appoint new justices to replace them, with a clear message from the voters that judicial activists were unacceptable.

Unfortunately, several Florida Supreme Court justices came up for voter confirmation in the same election that they later ruled on, and it will be some time before they are again up for reconfirmation. Voters who were unaware of their extreme liberal judicial activism provided a 72 percent majority vote in favor of confirmation. Interestingly, only 78 percent of the 5,963,110 Florida voters that voted for President (final vote count) voted for or against confirmation of the three Florida Supreme Court justices on the ballot. Thus, at most 56 percent of the voters who participated in the election voted for confirmation. The more than 22 percent non-participation rate indicates voters were uninformed about these justices.

http://www.fraudfactor.com/fffldeadline.html

Vader

I love the way Geromino tries to win an argument by overloading you with useless or irrelevant facts, gets you bogged down in semantics and technicalities that the point isn’t worth pursuing anymore. Geromino is the worst person in the world to have a debate with, he’s not stupid, he’s willfully ignorant. He has the special ability to only see and hear what he wants and to only understand what agrees with his political doctrine. Don’t muddle the argument or tell me what I thought was the problem with the election. Im going to spell it out for you. People were wrongly disenfranchised. Michael Moore said it and the BBC said it. The Supreme court didn’t deal with it and nobody has sued Michael Moore. The records are there. Follow the links.

Just for curiosity, why did you pick that nick name?

bonkey

Vader - attack the post, not the poster. If you are only interested in trying to insult Geromino, rather than discussing the points, then please refrain from doing so here - you know the rules.

jc

sceptre

It's a fair cop though. Nothing of the (quite long) post by Geronimo above has anything to do with either what was quoted from my post or the rest of the unquoted post.

I will say that the absentee ballots have nothing to do with county returns though, in case anyone else is unaware of that.

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
It's a fair cop though. Nothing of the (quite long) post by Geronimo above has anything to do with either what was quoted from my post or the rest of the unquoted post.

That may be, but a post consisting of "he is..., he is..., he is...." about another poster is equally nothing to do with what was being discussed, and unlike Geromino's post is clearly in violation of the rules.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
It's a fair cop though. Nothing of the (quite long) post by Geronimo above has anything to do with either what was quoted from my post or the rest of the unquoted post.

I will say that the absentee ballots have nothing to do with county returns though, in case anyone else is unaware of that.

Actually, the article has everything to do with what we are talking about. Let me explain. Vader states that tens of thousands of voters were left off the roles because their names were similar to those who are fellons. So, let us take a look at this staement from a legal perspective, shall we?

One way to take people off the list is to purge the state registrar with anyone who violates state statutues. This would include convicted felons, deceased individuals and those with questionable identities. This was done in 1997 and 1998 when the Florida legislature passed the law and required the state's Secretary of State to do so. Convicted felonies are a matter of public record. The purge is also a matter of public record via the Florida web site. Furthermore, there is no public record anywhere of Secretary of State Harris making additional purges. However, when the purge is done, the individual will be sent a latter based on the last known address. It would then be up to the individual to show documentation that he/she was impropersly taken off. This is also set in the National Voting Rights Act. However, you cannot purge votes once they are cast for the simple reason that no nomes are put on the ballot. This brings me to my next point.

Second way has to do with precints reporting/certifying late votes. The second article I gave details precisely state statues and how one interprets or should interpret them correctly. This is a legal issue of how "wrongly disenfranchised" is defined. Given the legal statues and the limited statuatory authority given to Sec of State, then the wrongly disenfranchised becomes null and void. There are very precise reasons why the statues are written in a way so that no one organization can take advantage. You can also look at the Supreme Court decision in which seven justices agreed with the Constitutional issue. What was deeply devided was how to solve the problem. The proposed solution brought by Justice Brennan would have violated State statuatory laws. Since the Supreme Court cannot by definition through the Constitution create law, then the only recourse is to stop the votes and certify the results as present.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Just for curiosity, why did you pick that nick name?

Simply, it is part of my heritage. If you studied American History, you would know that Geromino was a famous Apache warrior and medicine man.

shotamoose

Could the people who mentioned how much of the US budget is spent on servicing it's debt link to a source? Sorry if I missed it.

Not all the US's debt is owed to its own people. Foreign governments have been amassing trillions in dollar reserves (for various reasons), ie Treasury securities which pay off at a very low rate. There's been considerable speculation that they may not continue to hang on to these reserves, especially if they lose confidence in the ability of the US to service its debt or in the strength of the dollar. Neither of these scenarios is implausible. We might then see a serious slide in the value of the dollar, with pretty big consequences for the US and the rest of the world.

While the debt and the budget deficits are very closely linked, the second is arguably more important. When Bush II came to power, there was projected to be a $5trn budget surplus up to 2016 - now that's changed to a $5trn DEFICIT. And that leaves out the cost of medical and social support for the impending retirements of the baby boom generation. Bush has no plan whatsoever for dealing with this - he and his team simply continue to deny there is a problem. But at some point in the future a US government will have to choose between (i) a big tax rise, (ii) removing the entitlements of the Baby Boomers, aka political suicide, (iii) an Argentina-style financial crisis, (iv) some mystery option they're keeping a surprise, or (v) all of the above.

So yeah, America is a hollow hegemon. Hegemony requires both hard and soft power, and it's losing the latter like it's going out of fashion. Lots of quite sensible people in quite sensible countries enthusiastically hate the US now, and this has serious consequences, as the botched occupation of Iraq shows. It's cultural power is declining, and is it's economic power. So that just leaves us with an angry, friendless and rather paranoid bully, backed into a corner and armed to the teeth. Not pretty.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
Simply, it is part of my heritage. If you studied American History, you would know that Geromino was a famous Apache warrior and medicine man.

Would Geromino be any relation of Geronimo? I've read a bit about him.
I dont understand why a pro-american would take the name of an Apache warrior.
The americans went to war with the Apache and other native americans. The US slaughtered them and stole their land. Many regard this as an act of genocide. One very good example of this was the massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado where the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes were wiped out while they were living peacefully under both a white flag and an american flag.

I suppose Geronimo would be a suitable role model for George W Bush (despite the fact that one of his ancestors was probably responsible for wiping out the Apache). He was one of the most aggressive of the Apache leaders, who were regarded as very hostile and war like.

If you are a native american, you must be very forgiving to devolope a love for a country that hasn't changed a whole lot since the days of the wild west.

If you, Geromino/Geronimo or anyone else feel Im being too personal here I'll stop. Its just that I enjoy debating and like to know a bit about who Im debating with. If theres anything you want to know about me feel free to ask although I went to the bother of filling in my profile when I registered. I wasnt being abusive to Geromino in my last post; I did say I love the way he wins and that hes not stupid but I tend to get the impression from him when he addresses me directly, in this thread and others, that he feels Im poorly informed or unable to comprehend whats in front of me. Geromino is personal too, hes just far more subtle.

As for the on topic part of my reply. I didnt say that ppl were struck off registrars after they voted. They were struck off the registrar before the vote and never received a letter telling them. The Florida State Department admits this and they have some excuse about there being a large volume of letters and invalid addresses. This is very hard to believe. There were some protests on voting day when ppl arrived at their local voting station to find they were struck off the registrar. But of course they werent organised or effective protests because nobody expected to be disenfranchised. Why would they?; they did nothing wrong. They of course can fix this problem but the damage has already been done. They didnt get to vote. Because this took time to come out, it wasnt included in Gores appeal. If it was he might of been successful but that is where you begin speculating.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Would Geromino be any relation of Geronimo? I've read a bit about him.
I dont understand why a pro-american would take the name of an Apache warrior.
The americans went to war with the Apache and other native americans. The US slaughtered them and stole their land. Many regard this as an act of genocide. One very good example of this was the massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado where the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes were wiped out while they were living peacefully under both a white flag and an american flag.

Yes there was a massacre at Sand Creek. However, my people did not believe in flags, white or otherwise. Black Kettle and others believed they were under the protection of the US govenrment. Records indicate that was simply not the case. The decision was on Covingtions and Evans, not Washington. Covington was the detatchment commander and Evans was the governor of Colorado. Washington was engaged in the Civil War wtih the South and at that time was beginning to realize the South was going to be defeated. However, no troops could be spared for the west. AS for massacres, both sides had their opportunities. Scalping was started by the white men in upper New York before America was a country.

I suppose Geronimo would be a suitable role model for George W Bush (despite the fact that one of his ancestors was probably responsible for wiping out the Apache). He was one of the most aggressive of the Apache leaders, who were regarded as very hostile and war like.

Geronimo has less reguard for Mexicans than he did for white men.

As for the on topic part of my reply. I didnt say that ppl were struck off registrars after they voted. They were struck off the registrar before the vote and never received a letter telling them. The Florida State Department admits this and they have some excuse about there being a large volume of letters and invalid addresses. This is very hard to believe. There were some protests on voting day when ppl arrived at their local voting station to find they were struck off the registrar. But of course they werent organised or effective protests because nobody expected to be disenfranchised. Why would they?; they did nothing wrong. They of course can fix this problem but the damage has already been done. They didnt get to vote. Because this took time to come out, it wasnt included in Gores appeal. If it was he might of been successful but that is where you begin speculating.

The letters you speak of goes to the last know address. If the person has moved, then the address has changed with no notification, but the county or state registrar do not have the resources to look up every returned letter. However, when the letter leaves the office for mail, it becomes the responsibility of the post office and not the registrar's office. The responsibility of the registrar is to send the letter to the address on the latest voter registration card. If the state follows the regs, then there is no disenfranchisement. In order for disenfranchisement, the premise must be the state knowingly and willingly ignored state statues. This was not the case in this situation.

Geromino

Originally posted by shotamoose
Could the people who mentioned how much of the US budget is spent on servicing it's debt link to a source? Sorry if I missed it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/maindown.html

Not all the US's debt is owed to its own people. Foreign governments have been amassing trillions in dollar reserves (for various reasons), ie Treasury securities which pay off at a very low rate. There's been considerable speculation that they may not continue to hang on to these reserves, especially if they lose confidence in the ability of the US to service its debt or in the strength of the dollar. Neither of these scenarios is implausible. We might then see a serious slide in the value of the dollar, with pretty big consequences for the US and the rest of the world.

The only way for foreign governments to lose confidence is for the US government to miss its interest payments. That will not happen under the presents circumstances unless the budget is not approved by Congress and signed by the President until Feb.

While the debt and the budget deficits are very closely linked, the second is arguably more important. When Bush II came to power, there was projected to be a $5trn budget surplus up to 2016 - now that's changed to a $5trn DEFICIT. And that leaves out the cost of medical and social support for the impending retirements of the baby boom generation. Bush has no plan whatsoever for dealing with this - he and his team simply continue to deny there is a problem. But at some point in the future a US government will have to choose between (i) a big tax rise, (ii) removing the entitlements of the Baby Boomers, aka political suicide, (iii) an Argentina-style financial crisis, (iv) some mystery option they're keeping a surprise, or (v) all of the above.

Keep in mind that those projections were based on 1999 data and forecasted via econometric modeling. Since the economy went into a decline and a recession in 2001, those projections went out the window. However, you are right there is a problem with social security, but it has little revelance with deficits and debts. The problem is not with the budget deficits, but it is with how the program is designed. In order for it to work, you must have three workers for every retiree. You do not have this. You now have less than two workers per retiree. In order to maintain the same level of benefits, either you have to raise the FICA taxes or you will have to cut benefits. AARP fails to recognize this. One possible solution by the Presidents commission on social Security was to "privatize" the social security program. This privatization would help the future workers and those currently working. What has not been resolved is how to pay for the current retirees and the near future retirees. 37% of the revenue collected comes from employment taxes, i.e. social security, medicare, and FUTA taxes. 37% of the budget is social programs with a majority coming from Medicare/Medicaid and social security benefits not related to retiree benefits (SSDI and SSI payments).

So yeah, America is a hollow hegemon. Hegemony requires both hard and soft power, and it's losing the latter like it's going out of fashion. Lots of quite sensible people in quite sensible countries enthusiastically hate the US now, and this has serious consequences, as the botched occupation of Iraq shows. It's cultural power is declining, and is it's economic power. So that just leaves us with an angry, friendless and rather paranoid bully, backed into a corner and armed to the teeth. Not pretty.

It is not as hollow as you think it is. When Europe has a central Franco/German political agenda, you will then see most of the European countries, especially the former Eastern Bloc countries, turn tail and run. These countries have already allied themselves with the US for political reasons against Russia.

As for the economy, it think 7.4% growth is far better than the .4% growth rate of GDP currently projecteb by OECD for the EU. And in case you have not heard, the economy has made a considerable turnaround since early this year. It is hard to say that tax cuts were the main reason, but the economy has turned around for the better. Also keep in mind that five states, California, New York, Texas, Ohio, and Florida, have more GDP output than more than three fourths of the other countries GDP's combined.

China will become the next economic boom given its current political and economic reforms. Also keep in mind that China and the US have a lot of agreements, especially free trade issues, that keep the relationship vibrant. Of course there will be disagreements, but China and the US have worked out those disagreements, especially the NK issue. Both countries agreed that a multilateral agreement is the only way for NK to decide not to pursue its nuclear program. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are also on board with this.

You also seem to confuse hate with disagreements. Chriac and Shroeder are risking their careers with their current policy decisions. France wants to become another major power again but has decided not to share its blood to obtain such a price. This is a major flaw in their policy analysis. Also keep in mind that France, Germany, and Russia have contributed more to Hussein than the US in terms of economic and military aide. Something that is far more obstentious than the political reason US supported Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war. That decision was based on the belief that it was better to support a secular Muslim govenrment than a fundamentalist Islamic government of Iran. Many of the problems in the ME are a direct resurlt of fundamentalist Islam than any political or cultural disagreement you or others have read.