Since the Bush regimes invasion of Iraq, the world’s perceptions of America has changed for the worst.

Evidence: http://www.iht.com/articles/90251.html

Do the American posters care about the negative world image of an arrogant, gung-ho, bullying hyperpower intoxicated by its military might?

While world opinion matters it shouldn't dictate foreign policy. The biggest and the best are always going to be the target of those who envy that position.

We had a president recently who allowed polling data to dictate virtually all of his policies, foreign and domestic. His 8 years were a total failure and brought disgrace to both this nation and the office he held. Fortunately, he's gone now.

I'm sure his replacement might seem arrogant, gung-ho and bullying in contrast. But that will pass with time. The world will come to see that he leads us in a direction that is right and just. Sometimes that means taking unpopular stances, but that's the price of leadership.

We went through a period in America where the silent majority sat back and watched the left try and mold our future. That time has now passed and they have decided to speak out and change direction, and not a moment too soon. Surely this change has unsettled many people in the world, change always does.

But when the dust settles they will see a nation that resumed its rightful place as the leader of the free world. They will see a nation that does all it can to protect itself and its allies. They will see a nation that does all it can to promote freedom in the rest of the world. The world itself has a 'silent majority' that too will find its voice and join America in promoting that freedom.

The only people who will hold onto their current jaded view will be those who want to see America fail because they want to see freedom fail.

It was a lovely sermon to be sure, but we are merely the self-proclaimed leader of the free world. The question was in regards to world image, which appears to have thrived under the president you feel "brought disgrace to this nation." Claiming that America has "resumed its rightful place as leader of the free world" appears to me no less arrogant than the administration words and actions already viewed with international disdain.

I believe some citizens are just as intoxicated as our leaders sometimes reveal themselves to be, Thomas. I personally do care about our world image since we are not the only people on this rock and we certainly won't be the final super power to muscle other countries around.

Regardless of our military power in relation to other countries, the United States should do the right thing.

We are the foremost democratic society in the world. We are the "beacon on the hill". Other countries (those under dictatorships especially) look to us as an example of what is possible.

What George W Bush has done, maybe more so than any other President in recent history, is forcefully defend the United States. His methods are suspect to some. His motives are questioned by others. The final results of these actions are not known.

I can honestly say that I respect this President for sticking to his principles. He feels he is defending the US from terrorists, and is doing everything in his power to achieve that objective.

It is clear from the Israeli-palestinian issue that the United States is still the premier world power, and the its mere presence at the negotiating table allows two divergent sides to at least sit down and talk.

It is clear from the Liberia situation that just the hint of American intervention can bring a measure of calm to a chaotic situation.

From the linked article:
"Every nation surveyed wanted to recast the partnership between the US and Western Europe to grant Europeans more independence in determining their security and foreign policy"
So the people surveyed believed that their country's security and foreign policy are somehow dictated by the US? It seems to me that the leaders of the polled countries have successfully deflected culpability onto the US. These countries personally blame Bush for the "problems caused by America". Don't they know that Bush has been in office a mere 3 years?

I find the "survey" a little lacking in details. It doesn't say who, exactly, was surveyed (simply "adults") or how they were selected. More importantly, it doesn't give the questions. For example, while it states the numbers about "positive views" dropping, it doesn't state what the alternatives are (I assume neutral and negative and no opinion are the alternatives, but who is to say). In the British example, it says positive views dropped from 75% to 48%, "while negative views more than doubled". But more than doubled could mean going from 5% to 12%, while the lion's share of change may be from positive to neutral.

It seems odd to me that the Europeans "firmly" feel that the people of Iraq are better post-Saddam and that "by wide margins" the ME region would be a more stable place after a US-led ouster of Saddam.

What they seem to be mad at is the methods, not the results. They are also mad at Bush, not America. It almost seems to me that the European press (largely anti-US and overwhelmingly anti-Bush) may have something to do with the results here.

Oh good, then we can stop talking about Bush's high poll numbers, right?

Yes, many of us do care about the image abroad of an arrogant, oblivious, and philosophically backward nation. We do what we can to make sure people know that not all of us are like that. More than the image, though, we care about the substance behind the image. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" for those who like the Bible (Proverbs 16:18). "Bring It On" Bush is the living embodiment of hauteur; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the rest are cut from the same cloth. Memento mori. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and too many have abandoned vigilance in favor of unquestioning loyalty to the current regime or philosophy. I, and many other so-called liberals, love America too much to watch it tumble lemming-like off the precipice. We're the ones who actually care about doing the right thing and not just the things that momentarily satisfy our wallets or egos, whatever spin the anti-liberals might offer on that subject.

No. The USA gov't is doing whatever it has to to win a war against terror, and evil regemes. It amazes me that that is so ridiculous and horrible to other countries. But they can say what they want, frankly, if they don't vote in this country, they should have no impact on our policies.

CP

Should people in other countries be able to say the same about us? If not, why not? The fact that we do have an impact on their policies, often in blatantly abusive ways, without their citizens having a say about that impact, is a large part of why we are so poorly regarded. In fact, it closely mirrors how certain colonists felt about England a couple of hundred years ago. They pay "America tax"; why don't they get any representation?

I'm not saying they don't have a right to say anything, I'm simply stating that they, unless there is a very strong point, should not change how America conducts itself. Americans should change how America conducts itself.

CP

"America tax"? Is that what you call the extra money Europeans pay because of trade barriers placed against US products?

In all seriousness, each country must be beholden to its own self-interest. Not necessarily short-term self interest, but overall self-interest.

If the US electorate gets fed up with Bush, out he goes in 2004. As long as he is popular, the opinions of other nations are largely irrelevant.

Fancy that, a Brit accusing Americans of being arrogant.
America, as has been stated by others, is the 'beacon on the hill, or the lighthouse' that citizens of oppressive governments look to for an example of the best in freedom, liberty, and opportunity. And as long as we are a beacon and not just a monument to a pretender to greatness that some of the EU nations have been, I can live with it. The great 'hyperpowers' of Europe that were the previous military and economic leaders of the world had their turn and blew it by hanging on to their elitist ways. To this day the common folk in England don't have half the opportunities that we have here in the good old USA.
We are not perfect, but we are still at the head of the pack.
Articles from the NY Times are not even good evidence, much less proof of anything. That rag does not speak for the majority of Americans.
Your last line is more a feeble attempt at insulting us than asking a question, but to answer it, I will care about the opinions of other governments just as soon as they care about my opinion of them.

I don't see where Thomas called any American arrogant. He was merely pointing out that some in Europe hold that opinion.

However, based on the article provided, I feel the initial question is a bit misleading. If the survey accurately measured the spectrum of European opinions of the war in Iraq, then most Europeans are upset with President Bush, not us Americans in general.



I would also note the date of this article. It's a bit old. I would be curious to see something a little more current.

I think we'll mention them now and again since they are a measure of how the public feels about the decisions being made by their elected officials.

What I referred to was how the previous administration polled first, then made decisions based on the results of those polls and focus groups.

Really? What kind of opportunities? On what do you base that assertion?

And I don't think that America is seen as "the beacon on the hill" by very many people in Western Europe, or the rest of the free world.

There may be differences in the "liberties" we have as defined in the US constitution, but then we can in England do things you can't - for example we can gamble almost anywhere on almost anything, legally. You may say "well, I think there are reasons why gambling is wrong, and besides I don't want to gamble anyway", but I could say the same about the right to bear arms. It's a cultural difference. Neither is "better", although individuals might find one or the other preferable.

Ultimately, the rest of the "free world" doesn't really feel that they are any less "free" than you are. Objectively they might be in certain areas, and they might even be more free than Americans in others. But it's the subjective experience of freedom, or the lack of it, that makes America a beacon, and that's why most people in Europe (and Australia and other parts of the First World) feel free enough to:
1. think America is at best a qualified success nationally and internationally
2. say so if they think so

When Europeans are are no longer free to be critical of America, or even to be outright anti-American, that will be when we have a serious freedom defecit compared to Americans. (And vice versa, naturally )

Exactly. A lot of people think that the US is the land of opportunity, but actual scientific studies of socio-economic mobility (which I've cited here before) seem to show that the image is no more true of America than of Sweden. One could hardly find two first-world countries more diametrically opposed in their economic approaches, and yet "rags to riches" is just as much a reality there as here (except that even the rag might not be there in the US). The attractiveness of US to immigrants, vis-a-vis other first-world nation's attractiveness, has more to do with history and PR than with current fact.

The USA is the land of opportunity, as are almost all capitalist countries, the whole concept is that you can make as much money as you'd like, so I think that that is the attractive part of America that draws immigrants to it.

CP

That's a statement of faith. Can you prove it?

Yep, the large amount of immigrants coming to the country for work speak for itself.

CP

Wrong. I just provided an alternative explanation, which has not been refuted. Please, when asked for proof, at least try to provide proof and not just restatement of a previous fallacy.

Will Hutton, in his book The World We're In contends, with some justification, that the USA is rapidly becoming less socially and economically mobile than many supposedly elitist "Old" European countries, if it isn't already.

His main contention in the book is that not only is the US economic model not universally transportable, rooted as it is in the specific culture of the USA, but that it doesn't "do what it says on the tin" in the USA. His suggestion that US society is sclerotising to negate the American Dream is just one example. Even if you hate the concept, it's a very well written and well argued book, which I'd recommend to anyone. (We don't only have to read books we agree with, after all.)

Edited for spelling

Hold on, there is no doubt that PR and history are a part or the attractiveness of the USA. However it's capitalist economy [which I mentioned extends to other countries], does open up opportunities as well, and also adding onto America's attractiveness. So, I think we're both right and both wrong.

CP

Concerning the beacon on the hill, I said "by citizens of oppressive governments". The majority of our newest citizens are typically not from the other free or westernized nations.
You and all the anti-Americans are free to say what you want, but I have to wonder why you do so? Are you jealous? Insecure in your own country's status in the world? What? We Americans don't spend much of our time being anti-europe or anti-some-other-country as we would rather spend our time enjoying the benefits of being an American. The supposed anti-French thing recently was blown out of proportion by the press, and like all other protests by Americans, it is temporary. We move on. We don't gather in masses in the streets protesting what other countries do or don't do. I wonder why? Could it be in all our brash ignorance that we are not as susceptible to the PR (propaganda) that is being thrown at us by our own government leaders, Madison Avenue PR types, the media, etc.? Maybe we are too busy enjoying our culture, lifestyles, freedoms, opportunities, that we don't care what the "little" free countries do?
The USA has benefited greatly from the European philosophers, the Ancients and the Moderns, especially those of the Enlightenment, and for that we are not always obviously grateful, or for many of us, even aware. Maybe we appear to be ungrateful children to many in Europe, but if so, that is just how kids are. If you have children, you know what I mean.
BTW, a young British man, very musically inclined, visited my home several times over a 12 month period some years back, and he made it plain that he would do anything to stay in the USA for a longer period of time as education and job opportunities were not so good back home. 3 young ladies came to visit us (one was a possible future wife for my son but that didn't work out) and I loaned them a car so they could travel some in the southwest. They also expressed an admiration for the opportunities young Americans had that they felt were not as available to them back home. In my personal experience and/or knowledge, the only other free country that many Americans have considered moving to, not just visiting, is Australia. We have a lot in common, I guess.
I am no rabid "my country right or wrong" American, just one that has been exposed to quite a few foreigners and have been to a few other countries and have gained a great appreciation for the good old USA and all that being an American has to offer.

Oh, THAT kind of opportunity! A job opportunity. One predicated on being a larger market than the domestic UK one that happens to share the same language. Yup. I'd take that kind of opportunity like a shot, too.



For the record, I am not anti-American. I LIKE America and Americans , which is why your country is my preferred holiday destination and why I spend so much time debating here. Does that mean I have to never see anything America does as questionable or voice those questions when I have them? No, of course not.

But nor am I pro-American. I'm just not an American. If you think that reasoned criticism of America is solely to be the preserve of Americans, and in any case is in itself anti-American, then it seems we have different ideas on what "the free world" actually means.

Nope. I like it fine here, thank you. Which is why I still live here, and not somewhere I am "jealous" of.

Nope. Indeed, I take it as a sign of security to be able to give and take criticism without question the critics motives. What does that make you?

Essentially, I think you are mistaken to think that general world criticism of some of the things America, or more particularly the American government, does is the same thing as being anti-American. I also think it is (at best) simplistic to think that anti-Americanism itself is motivated jealousy or hatred at root. It may well be in some cases, but even then, it might be useful to ask what motivates the hatred or jealousy.

Read my statement carefully, I was not calling you an anti-American. If I had said, "you and all the OTHER anti-Americans", then you would be correct, but I purposely left that word out.
Yes, good point. What are the motivations for citizens of other countries hating America? Maybe it is the same as in the Arab countries, where the leaders purposely use orchestrated distraction to encourage their citizens to hate us instead of thinking about their own government and what it is doing.
That used to be called propaganda, now it is PR. Our own government does it to us here in the good old USA. They manage much of the news before the information even gets to the media, where it gets managed again.
Just like anywhere else, the ignorant masses have very little power in the activities of their own government, but that power can be brought to bear if the leaders go too far. For their sake, we must be controlled, and we are, and it sucks.

NO.

I wonder if the main reason that people flock to our shores in America rather than Sweden or the UK or Canada could be simply because we are the only ones that encouraged immigrants to move here. At least we did in the twentieth century...I think people believe they are still as welcome now as they were then which is why they still try to come here more than any where else in the free world.

As for the US having the right to act in it's own interest I agree...as long as we are not trampling on the rights of others in the process. Besides, having good international relationships is something that is in our best interest. The current administration has managed to damage our reputation and needlessly destroy our good relations with long time allies. The next administration will likely have to spend their entire time in office repairing what they can...our reputation will probably never be what it was however. Many American's are just as impatient as the rest of the world to see an end to this era of failed foreign policy brought to us all by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and last but not least, Bush.

johnlocke - please qualify your answer. We want to debate here. We really can't debate your ideas if we don't know what they are.

I care.

George W. Bush has interpreted the feelings of the American people on 9/11 as his personal mandate to throw America's considerable weight around in the world and to tweak some of our personal freedoms here in the name of heightened security. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of power.

I am not pro-Communist. But I do appreciate balance of power. Now that the CCCP no longer exists, there is no balance.

We need new leadership in Washington, D.C.

It's hard to imagine that true Americans would be hoping for us to somehow grow weaker. The checks on our power in the world are provided by our own system of gov't. Calling for a rise in power from some nation other than our own seems un-American to me.

Lowering our military strengh is what could hurt us if North Korea decides to start something

goamerica,

Your observance brings up something that some writers have put forth: The US might have the strongest military in the world, but it might not always be that way.

How? How could that possibly happen? We spend more on the military than the next top 10 or 12 spenders combined!

Well, what if the rest of the world ganged up on us? You know, because we reject the idea of consensus and do more unilateral, um, whatever words you want to substitute for "invasion and conquest." I think this is good reason to pay attention to world opinion.

If N. Korea decides to start something, it will because the present administration has goaded it into trying something. That in turn makes it necessary to strengthen the military. It is a circular, self-fullfilling thing. Notice that the tone has gone toward what it ought to have been in the first place: diplomacy.

I'm with Paladin. We need a different approach to world issues. I am not persuaded by Bush's sudden conversion to diplomacy in Africa. My cynical side thinks that it's a ruse to get reelected, and then he'll have no reason to modify his real agenda. Anyway, I'll be voting for a genuine diplomat.

N. Korea needs no goading from us. Even the "educated" North Koreans are sadly ignorant of the rest of the world.
Their culture hasn't shifted one bit for the last 200 years, and it is because the government there doesn't want it to change. The elite there enjoy what little wealth the nation has, no sense sharing it with the peasants!

I don't see Iraq and similar places as rogue governments that need to be overthrown as much as pests that need to be eliminated. Perhaps that sounds elitest, arrogant, or like I want us to be a warrior nation, but it isn't so. History has shown what success appeasement has accomplished, basically none. And once these pests decide to spread beyond their own borders, it is time for action.

We may control these pests badly, but at least we try. I don't see the larger countries in the EU doing anything beyond trading with these rogue governments. Their involvement is profit based, at the expense of the common citizens. And they are the ones closest to the problem, why can't they try a bit harder? Why can't they use their famous diplomacy to improve the situation, rather than just to get more money from people like Saddam?

As long as the nearby neighbors are doing nothing, and leave it up to us, the least they can do is not complain when we go in and do it for them.

All I did was answer the question. But here is qualification. America, despite what people say is the most open minded country the world has today and probably ever. Where else in the world can an immigrant go and recieve aid to start his own business from the government? Where else in the world do you have such a multitude of people from other cultures and races all existing peacefully together? Where else in the world can anyone go and hope to recieve from the government and people of the country such a warm atmosphere of acceptance? Some people come here like several of my Persian friends to escape the persecution they get in their native country Iran. Heck, that means we're taking people under our wing that have been persecuted by their own countries. When somebody points an ugly finger at America in all her greatness they had better be from a country that has no stones around it to be cast. What a shame. I defy anyone to name a country that does more for people than the US. THe 15 Billion we're about to give in aid to Afrika is probably more than any other country will give over the next decade to anyone and that's only one of America's societal contributions in the last month let alone our history. You tell me Thomas, What country is better than the US.

Who said anything about wanting to see America grow weaker, Passion51???? I don't want to see America weaker, just an improvement in America's behavior, and since the demise of the Soviet Union, we seem to have lost the desire to conduct ourselves in a seemly manner on the world stage.

How about behaving smarter, trying to be fairer, becoming a better listener, not seeing everything as affecting us alone, not viewing other nations as stupid, respecting the borders of other sovereign nations and not making pre-emptive wars? (You know, sort of like Canada! ) Since when was obtaining wisdom a sign of weakness?

No, none of that could be countenanced by a true American, could it?

(edited for emphasis)

I have been away for a few weeks in hospital but coming back to the usual 'Yank Gum Rubbing', rhetoric is a real tonic.

Big and powerfull you may be now, but please remember the friends and enemies on the way up.... because as sure as hell they will remember you.

Regards....Al

Any country you are born in, and love its soil, its history, your history and your families history, patrimony, beliefs and customs, its smells, sites, little, unknown great places; despite its faults, or shall we put it more closely, its governments greed and arrogance.

What many Americans lack is an objective view of 'other peoples' pride and adherance to their own cultural/religious/land/historical perspective.

Such a great country is the US, but we cant model the world on our beliefs, we can only model ourselves to our beliefs and we are having a hard time doing THAT. Our beliefs are not even solidified, without exporting them. We are 3 of the youngest nations on the planet, together with Australia and South Africa. How? To be so arrogant as to tell the rest of the world how to live?

We can be a 2 year old tyrant for only so long. We cant afford perpetual war. We better start getting along and get on a diplomacy bandwagon.
All great powers in history went down through arrogance and decadence.

Johnlocke



Denmark is.

And I'll tell you why I believe so. Because I was once very ill. And during the years of that illness, the state (the political manifestation of the will of the Danish people) fed me, clothed me and kept me alive. And I did not have to worry about paying for any of it. My fellow Danes were paying for me, jus as I pay for them.

Here, in this nation. No matter how far or hard I fall, the state/ the Danes will always be provide me with the means to climb back on my feet.

Here, no one need sleep in a card board box or rob a liquor store. Even drug addicts are offered the means by which to live in comfort.

This nation might not be very big, and thus it must rely on commerce and foreign allies, but in my opinion, it is far away a better place to live than either the UK or the USA. And this is so for the simple reason, that people care for each other here. So much so that we accept a high tax burden to help each other.

People keep saying that, but actually if you do a lot of traveling you'll see that America has probably the most accepting open minded people in the world. Even take an anthropologia class at any community college and you'll see...... Americans are great people.....others are great as well but having pride and patriotism are no reason for others to call you close minded.

I think that part of the world sees America as a fat, arrogant culture who is a bully while the other part sees us as a protector of the world who does good

World opinion doesn't dictate what our foriegn policy should be, unless you are an image-worrying President.

GA

and some people think both...

Well as a proud patriotic Brit I would say Great Britain!!!

Americans aren't open minded, they are remarkably ignorant about the rest of the world. In your defence, Americans are the most generous, compassionate, dynamic and free-spirited people I have ever met, so don’t make the mistake of thinking I’m an anti-American.

If you don’t care about the rest of the world, how does that equate with the clear determination of your country to lead a global ‘war on terror’. If everybody hates you, how are you going to work with foreign intelligence agencies to keep track of Islamist militants? It seems to me that post 9/11, its wrong to criticise Americas foreign policy and with that attitude you will end up like ancient Athens, destroyed by your own national hubris.

That's great. I hope your happy, but in America we have private organizations that pay for such things. I think it's much better when people give out of the kindness of our own hearts and not because the government forces us to. How do you think America was built? It was built on charity from rich all the way to poor. Do you just assume that because we don't want the government to steal our tax money and give it away we wouldn't be charitable ourselves. America has a long illustrious history of charity and it's terrible that people in other countries won't give so the government usurps your money and rights to do it for you. There are plenty of us here in America that are willing to keep our money and do the work ourselves to help others....see Booker T. Washington's book "Up From Slavery" or Ben Franklin's biographies.....or just look at the way this country helped people before our government started usurping all the money from tax payers. That's right more donations.

Johnlocke

I feel I must remind you, that Denmark is a democracy. The people choose the government, and I can assure you, we have had many many politicians who would cut away the heavy taxes we have here.

However, we choose to pay the heavy tax, because we know what we are buying with that money.

The state, does not steal from us!




Is this a trick question? and if not, then what does America's past have to do with this? Do you know how Denmark was built?

Like all western nations,it was built by hard hard labour and exploitation. America is no different. I've read the history books and seen the conditions under which your nations infrastructure was built by cheap immigrant workers and American black people.


The problem I see, with your American way of health care is simple.

If you become ill, you have to fall back on your own savings to save yourself. If your illness is severe, this can put you in extremely dire straits, and if American films, documentries and journalism is to believed, America is full of people who cannot afford even basic health care!

Only last week I saw a television programme which showed a couple about to have their first child, but unable to afford the cost of having the child in hospital... If this is true, and I have no reason to suppose the claim was a lie, then what kind of a nation is it that denies a woman a bed in a maternity ward, whilst boasting of the worlds most advanced medical care???

Really? Is that why 1.3 million US children are estimated to be homeless on any given night? That's a per-capita rate far higher than any other supposedly modern nation, and that's even with social policies that are too far leftward for some people. Imagine what it would be like if they had their way. Is there any rational reason to believe a magical fountain of charity will succeed where government and charity combined are failing today?

Note that I'm not accusing anyone of wanting children to be cold and starving, as is often done here. That tactic is beneath all of us. I know people mean well, and think their beliefs do no harm, but is simply isn't so. The road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions.

I've never in my life met anyone who donates to charity on a regular basis. Has anyone else? I don't even contribute very often. When we had food drives at work or the kids have them at school I always bring something. I'll donate winter coats or clothes to the GoodWill or Veteran thrift shops if I have anything good that no one else wants. That happens maybe once or twice a year. I can't imagine this kind of contribution makes even a dent in helping the needy in my own neighborhood much less the country.

I think Johnlocke is simply overly optimistic about American generosity. Maybe he has some kind of numbers to back up his reasoning behind his belief that charity is capable of handling the need in this country.

I suppose you would be happy if the government cut out all social and welfare programs and just taxed you for highways, administration, and military type programs. Maybe they just need to remind people to donate as much and as often as they can to the charity of their choice. Do you honestly think charities would see any significant increase of voluntary contributions from what they see now? I doubt people would take it upon themselves to worry about the homeless and needy in their communities if they would just be trusted enough to do it themselves.

Moif brings up a good perception of the US in the rest of the world.

Right now we are in bad shape for job creation and unemployment keeps going up. When good news about this comes out, it is in the form of how job loss isn't as bad as before. But jobs keep getting lost.

We have no national health insurance. This means that as people's assets go down, eventually the laid off folks go without health insurance.

Our system has not been able to create affordable health insurance, nor has it provided employment for those of us looking for employment.

Moif sees this and thinks he has a better deal. I have to agree. Of course, Americans who have jobs, own small businesses, or are somehow independently wealthy might not think so. That is, until the jobs go away, the businesses fail, and the wealth dries up.

Then you are basically on your own. A society that has this concept of being on your own really isn't a society at all. It is just a bunch of people sharing a space, fighting tooth and nail for more.

Did I get that right, Moif?

Actually, there was a time when there were no government agencies to do this kind of thing, and the churches and other social organizations carried the load. It wasn't that long ago that there were no retirement programs, social security, welfare as we now know it, etc. etc. etc.
I know lots of people who donate regularly. We get to do it thru United Way at work, thru our churches, and the Goodwill and Salvation Army. Once a year my wife goes through her closet, and believe me when I say that I could have taken her clothing and shoes to a swap meet and made some good money. I know a bunch of men who provide firewood for the poor, elderly, single moms, etc. in the Idaho community that I moved from 15 years ago. They make an annual party of it, hauling, cutting, splitting, and delivering, then there is a cookout and watermelon feast. They still do it, as I keep in touch with some of those old friends.
If you don't know anyone who donates regularly, perhaps you should seek out a more generous circle of friends.

That's dangerously close to a personal attack, Bill. The fact of the matter is that neither Danya's anecdotes nor yours really constitute evidence that can support a point. The statistical reality is that there are a lot of needy people who aren't getting a whole hell of a lot of help either from the government or private charity. If you add up all of the government programs plus all of the private charities that are targeted toward ameliorating poverty in the US, and compared it to the same figure for other economically developed countries, would you like to bet on whether the US number looks high or low? I don't have the numbers right in front of me (feel free to provide some yourself), but everything I've seen indicates we'd trail the pack by that measure.

Philanthropy in the US



Faith fuels charity


I can't seem to find a handy comparison of US giving with European giving, but the above links and quotes point out how generous Americans are to charities.

AuthorMusician



Yes yes

I agree with you, the best health care sytems are found in the countries were the system is under the control of the state and paid by taxes, look at france, all the scandinavian countries, they have the better systems in the world (as ranked by the world health organization) and it is somewhat managed by the state.
Imagine that even cuba has a health care system that worth the american one !!!