• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

america today

Status
Not open for further replies.

kunjuppu

Active member
below, is an article from today's new york times by thomas friedman.

i am always impressed by the candor of some of the american journalists, and thomas is one of them. it is a level of introspection that few countries can accommodate.

also please note the extent of replies from ordinary readers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

i have been to china and by each day, i am impressed by the long term vision that country has. their problems are as big as that of india, but in china, you don't find any breast beating or breast thumping. just only noses to the grind, and with a unity of purpose to attain long laid out targets.

a very good reading, this article.
 
below, is an article from today's new york times by thomas friedman.

i am always impressed by the candor of some of the american journalists, and thomas is one of them. it is a level of introspection that few countries can accommodate.

also please note the extent of replies from ordinary readers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

i have been to china and by each day, i am impressed by the long term vision that country has. their problems are as big as that of india, but in china, you don't find any breast beating or breast thumping. just only noses to the grind, and with a unity of purpose to attain long laid out targets.

a very good reading, this article.
Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I used to think that the Indian politicians did not have national priorities but only very parochial views and in-fighting, but the US politicians are worse, I see now. Is it because there is a concerted effort from all sides to prove that an Afro-american cannot rule US? What do you think?
 
.....I used to think that the Indian politicians did not have national priorities but only very parochial views and in-fighting, but the US politicians are worse, I see now. Is it because there is a concerted effort from all sides to prove that an Afro-american cannot rule US? What do you think?
Dear Shri Sangom, with due respect to my dear friend K, I think Thomas Friedman is the epitome of establishment sycophants, pontificating inanities. In the most part NYT is Washington's Pravda, with a few notable exceptions for which they get severely criticized as left-wing.

I am sure there are a few fringe elements who want to see Obama fail just because he is not white, but, I think, a vast majority of Americans would like to see him succeed, they voted for him after all.

Obama ran on hope and change. After getting elected he embraced the old order with enthusiasm. The very first appointment he made was his chief of staff, Rahm Immanueal, the quintessential insider and deal maker, who makes a virtue of giving the middle-finger to the very people who put Obama in the WH. His entire economic team was made up of Wall Street bankers who funded his campaign. With this team in place there was no way he could deliver on the promise of change. Whatever change he was able to push through were, in the most part, giveaways to corporate interests.

On foreign policy, what started out promising soon petered out, he doubled down on the worst of Bush policies, adamantly refused to investigate gross violations of the law. What a mockery it is for him to bribe Israel and beg them to stop what is clearly illegal, all for 3 to 4 moths extension of settlement freeze. On the social agenda, he can't even deliver on a simple thing as DADT (repealing the ban on gays to serve in the military).

Issue after issue he capitulated even before the fight began or never made an effort to fight for what he said he believed in. He lost the independents by his subservience to Wall Street and demoralized his base. No change is in sight, no hope, all a pipe dream.

The latest fight is about extending the tax cuts that were enacted 10 years ago. Obama says he wants to extend it permanently for 98% of Americans and let it expire for the top 2%. Republicans want to extend it to all and are rearing for a fight. They are ready to let the tax cuts expire for all if the top 2% don't get it also.

Another related issue is the extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed. The Republicans are refusing to get the measure to vote unless an equivalent cut in budget is made elsewhere to pay for the extension.

Extending tax cuts to top 2% will cost 700 billion over 10 years. Extension of unemployment benefits will cost $15 billion, not even close. The Republicans are deficit hawks when it comes to a $15 billion extension of benefits to unemployed poor, but don't care about deficits when it comes to $700 billion tax cuts to the rich. The irony is, these Republicans never loose an opportunity to blame the Democrats for running up deficits. A party that cannot exploit this rank hypocrisy might as well not exist.

The latest news is Obama is moving towards a compromise that will extend the tax cut to everyone for 2 or 3 years, it seems he did not get extension of unemployment benefits in return. If Obama is unwilling or unable to fight for the people who voted him into office, why bother, and therein lies the reason for all his troubles.

If Obama shows some backbone and would stand up to the bullies and fight for the common people and not corporatists, then his supporters will come roaring back to him.

Cheers!
 
Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I used to think that the Indian politicians did not have national priorities but only very parochial views and in-fighting, but the US politicians are worse, I see now. Is it because there is a concerted effort from all sides to prove that an Afro-american cannot rule US? What do you think?

sangom,

after reading nara's take on obama, i do not have much to say.

often i wondered, what he would have been, if he had stuck to his original promise. probably he would have lost all the bills, but he would have taken the high road, and atleast come out smelling like roses.

instead he picks on poor countries like india, whom he sees as a threat. he ignores the fact, that the chinese work harder and have sacrificed two generations so far, to take care of their future generations, while the usa has only accumulated more debt as the legacy of this generation to the next.

but don't write usa off. this country has a remarkable resiliency and innovative skills to come back, and that too, come back roaring. just when all was given up at the tail end of the 70s, there came the dot.com revolution. this boom was entirely funnelled with skills and hunger from foreigners.

thanks to bush, atleast the usa could attract foreigners to excel, but with obama, he has put so many restrictions on skilled people from abroad, all that the usa gets now is the poor of latin america, to wait on the tables and clean the washrooms of america.

i used to support obama, for many many reasons, but now, i cannot wait for him to be rid. the people who succeed him will probably involve usa into bigger wars, but atleast they will honestly state their goals. obama has proved to be a big hypocrite - he just wanted to be the first black president and go down in history for that sole purpose. he simply did not care for change. very sad.
 
Dear Professor Sri Nara Ji,

You have said:
The latest fight is about extending the tax cuts that were enacted 10 years ago. Obama says he wants to extend it permanently for 98% of Americans and let it expire for the top 2%. Republicans want to extend it to all and are rearing for a fight. They are ready to let the tax cuts expire for all if the top 2% don't get it also.

Another related issue is the extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed. The Republicans are refusing to get the measure to vote unless an equivalent cut in budget is made elsewhere to pay for the extension.

Extending tax cuts to top 2% will cost 700 billion over 10 years. Extension of unemployment benefits will cost $15 billion, not even close. The Republicans are deficit hawks when it comes to a $15 billion extension of benefits to unemployed poor, but don't care about deficits when it comes to $700 billion tax cuts to the rich. The irony is, these Republicans never loose an opportunity to blame the Democrats for running up deficits. A party that cannot exploit this rank hypocrisy might as well not exist.

The latest news is Obama is moving towards a compromise that will extend the tax cut to everyone for 2 or 3 years, it seems he did not get extension of unemployment benefits in return. If Obama is unwilling or unable to fight for the people who voted him into office, why bother, and therein lies the reason for all his troubles.

I support the Republican stand on both counts.

1. Extension of Bush tax cuts: It has been shown again and again that taxing the rich does not bring in more money to the Treasury. In fact it is the opposite. Rich has the advantage of moving their money/income around the world. In fact it has been shown that when the top tax rate goes down, more money flows in. Besides if the Bush cuts go away, the economy, which is still weak will not see anymore job creation.
2. Unemployment insurance is usually extended for 26 weeks. Congress has extended it now up to 99 weeks and because they are about to expire in the middle of holidays, the usual bleeding hearts in the democratic party want to score good points by extending them. America's culture is not based on hand outs from the government. There is a concern that this type of extension essentially make people not to look for a job and the fire in the belly is gone. In face there are many anecdotal examples to show that people who are on this insurance are doing just that.Yes, the economy is not creating jobs, but these democrats knew that when they spent $800 Billion on the so called 'stimulus', which by the way stimulated little of anything. The argument they have made that without the stimulus the economy would have been worse, while may be a bit true for various reasons, but it is a hard argument to make when the joblessness is still very high.

The President has just one problem and that is a huge one. He is first rate in terms of running for an election, but unfortunately because of his lack of experience in running anything (with getting along somewhat with the opposition) then the result is very predictable.

I agree with you that most Americans desperately wanted him to succeed. America is generally a conservative country with conservative values (usually slightly right of the middle - at times it swings the other way), anyone who tries to run it from a ideological perspective (Clinton and Carter in the recent past - I am sure there are Conservative idealogues as well) gets always in to trouble.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I support the Republican stand on both counts.
Of course, it would have been a surprise otherwise, :), a pleasant one I am sure.

You have repeated several usual taking points of Republicans. These are repeated so often that if someone were to give me a dollar every time, I would be a very rich man long ago.

The talking points are these, I have a paraphrased some of them for brevity.

  • taxing the rich does not bring in more money in, it brings in less
  • when the top tax rate goes down, more money flows in
  • if the Bush cuts go away we will not see anymore job creation
  • unemployment insurance is a government handout
  • Americans don't want government handouts
  • the usual bleeding hearts in the democratic party is playing politics
  • unemployment benefits make people not to look for a job
  • America is a right of the center country
If your tax rate argument is correct, then whenever the top tax rate was cut the deficits must have gone down, and whenever the top tax rate was raised, the deficits must have gone up. But, if you look at the history of budget deficits and national debt, when the top tax rate was cut, as by Reagan and Bush W, the deficit ballooned and debt soared. When taxes were raised, as by Bush Sr. and Clinton, the deficits came down. By the end of the Clinton's second term the Treasury was brimming with surplus, and the trend of annual budget surplus was expected to continue as far as the eyes could see.

Instead of using the surplus to pay down the debt, Bush W passed huge tax cut for the rich (most Americans received a few hundred dollars, but the super rich, the top 5% racked in up to $200,000 in tax cut per year). The surpluses were gone in an instant. Looming deficits all around.

The claim that cut in top tax rate generates jobs is another obvious myth. Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and what followed was an unprecedented economic boom the country had hardy ever seen. Bush comes into office in 2000, and gives a massive tax cut to the rich that they have never seen, ten years of it and the global economy is in tatters, millions of jobs lost, many never to come back. After Bush, Obama comes to office and the job situation is now kind of stable. Here is a dramatic graph of job loses during the last year of Bush and the first year of Obama.

The top tax rate dramatically declined after Reagan came to office. Since then, the inflation adjusted income of 90% of Americans has stayed flat. During the same period, income of the super rich, the top .01% of Americans, have gone up five fold. Over this period, the wealth gap between the super rich and the rest has widened, especially during the Bush W years. For some interesting charts, visit this site. During the last 30 years, since Reagan became President, the income and accumulated wealth gap between ordinary Americans and the super rich has skyrocketed beyond comprehension. This did not happen in any other western country.

You say we need to extend tax cuts for the top 2% and must not extend unemployment compensation because that is what is good for the economy, that is what sane rational people, not given to emotional responses of a bleeding-heart liberal, will do.

Alright, let us look at what economists say about what the stimulative effect would be of these two alternatives. I know you prefer any right-wing economists to even Nobel laureate economist if he happens to lean left, so I will cite Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign. On April 14, 2010 he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. In his testimony (pdf of the testimony), he stated that spending $1 on unemployment insurance benefits increases the GDP by $1.61 a year. He also stated that, according to his calculations, $1 spent on extending Bush income tax cuts has a multiplier of 0.32, i.e. the GDP will grow by $0.32. These are numbers from a Republican economist.

Of all the charges, suggesting that the long term unemployed will not look for jobs seriously enough if the benefits are extended is the most foul one. These benefits are the one standing between these Americans and total ruin. These dollars go to pay mortgage and put food on the table. That is why these dollars have such a dramatic multiplier effect. To say a few hundred dollars from the government is what is keeping them from seeking a regular job is insulting.

On the one hand, Bush gave away billions in taxpayer money to banks that took down the entire world economy (Obama and many democrats also supported this) which the bankers promptly used it to pay huge bonuses totaling billions of dollars for themselves for the all the hard work they put in enriching themselves. On the other hand we have people who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, struggling to make ends meet, teetering on losing their home, and they are supposed to be greedy ones for government handouts and lazy for not looking for a job seriously enough. If my sympathies with the unemployed make me a bleeding-heart liberal, then I will wear that bleeding heart on my sleeves.

One more thing about the contrast between unemployment insurance and tax cuts to the rich, as you say, the rich are adept at moving their money/income around the world. They take their huge tax cuts to places from where they can extract maximum profits and not pay any taxes to anyone -- the do no evil Google avoiding taxes is a case in point -- resulting in a wimpy $0.32 multiplier effect.

I know this post is already way too long. But there is one more thing I have to say and it is about another myth that America is basically a center-right country. All Republicans and the corporatist Democrats, and corporatist journalists and opinion makers like Thomas Friedman repeat this lie whenever they get half a chance. But the facts are opposite. Poll after poll, when asked about issues like, social security, medicare, medicaid, other social programs, Americans by an absolute majority favor clearly left of center policy positions. Even among Republicans there is significant support for these socialist programs. Another example, polls taken during last year's health-care debate showed there was majority support for the much reviled Public Option. It found significant minority support, about 30%, even among the Republicans. Of course, you won't hear of it in the main-stream corporatist media.

It is a complete myth to claim America is a right of center nation.The Republicans and Democrats, bought and paid for by the coportaions, would like to keep people thinking that way. They have only two goals, (i) to transfer wealth from everyone else to the already rich, and (ii) keep the common people engaged in silly social and cultural issues so that they don't notice goal #1 is taking place.

I know Shri KRS would read the whole thing, but, all others who had the patience to read to the end, my hats off to you :)

Cheers!
 
More than whether US likes to lean to left or right of centre, what I feel more concerned about is that, as Kunjuppu says, if one generation has lived so lavishly in Charvaka style, will the people have any "remarkable resiliency and innovative skills to come back, and that too, come back roaring". From what little I read and hear, gone are the days of people who had the zest and perseverence to weather out adversity by real hard work, intelligence, originality etc., and a sort of all round decadence has started setting in, something reminiscent of India.

I would welcome the views on this.
 
Dear Professor, my comments in 'blue':
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!


Of course, it would have been a surprise otherwise, :), a pleasant one I am sure.

You have repeated several usual taking points of Republicans. These are repeated so often that if someone were to give me a dollar every time, I would be a very rich man long ago.

The talking points are these, I have a paraphrased some of them for brevity.
Yes, I know that these are the 'talking' points of the Republicans. I have added my own views of them
  • taxing the rich does not bring in more money in, it brings in less (After the initial jump)
  • when the top tax rate goes down, more money flows in After the money released in to the economy produces the multiplier effect
  • if the Bush cuts go away we will not see anymore job creationI would not put it this way - it will definitely have a negative impact on job creation
  • unemployment insurance is a government handoutUnemployment insurance should be a 'bridge' aid - and should be structured in a way that any long term unemployment should look at possibly retraining the individual in areas that are creating jobs, according to the individual's ability - and a more close monitoring of the individual in terms of jobs declined should be there
  • Americans don't want government handoutsDon't agree with this - as any humans anywhere, I think most Americans would accept a handout
  • the usual bleeding hearts in the democratic party is playing politics I think most Democrats are not bleeding hearts - they simply have a constituency that allows them to play such a politics
  • unemployment benefits make people not to look for a jobStudies (especially one by Larry Summers, show that people would wait to take a job with the same or more salary/benefits immediately after being laid off and as the time goes on, based on their situation, have a a salary expectation that is equal to their JI money plus an amount that is different from person to person.
  • America is a right of the center countryBorne out by various polls

If your tax rate argument is correct, then whenever the top tax rate was cut the deficits must have gone down, and whenever the top tax rate was raised, the deficits must have gone up. But, if you look at the history of budget deficits and national debt, when the top tax rate was cut, as by Reagan and Bush W, the deficit ballooned and debt soared. When taxes were raised, as by Bush Sr. and Clinton, the deficits came down. By the end of the Clinton's second term the Treasury was brimming with surplus, and the trend of annual budget surplus was expected to continue as far as the eyes could see.
The mistake you make here is connecting the tax decrease with the increase in deficit. Studies have shown (you can look at them at Google)that tax cuts always preceded by spending increases. By the way, Clinton's years had tax increases in 1993 when the economy was rebounding from recession and tax cuts in 1997 (with the persistence of the republican congress that he had to accept) which by the end of the term produced the surplus, because spending was limited. I specifically did not support Bush when he started increasing the budget, while giving out tax cuts. The only reason I supported him was for his foreign policy.

By the way, I think that the fiscal policy in general should be fashioned towards encouraging more wealth creation and not make the government consume more % of the economy, where most of the $ spent do not create wealth. Government needs to prioritize the welfare items - we can not afford everything to take care of all social ills.


Instead of using the surplus to pay down the debt, Bush W passed huge tax cut for the rich (most Americans received a few hundred dollars, but the super rich, the top 5% racked in up to $200,000 in tax cut per year). The surpluses were gone in an instant. Looming deficits all around.
Don't disagree with you on this. However, one strage thing happened after the cuts. The top 50% share of the burden of paying increased. I think this is also an issue when almost 40% of the Americans in the bottom do not pay any or minimal share of the taxes. I think we need to simplify the code, keeping it progressive at current rates, but making sure to create a situation where everyone bear their share of the burden according to their incomes. Take away all the loopholes.

The claim that cut in top tax rate generates jobs is another obvious myth. Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and what followed was an unprecedented economic boom the country had hardy ever seen. Bush comes into office in 2000, and gives a massive tax cut to the rich that they have never seen, ten years of it and the global economy is in tatters, millions of jobs lost, many never to come back. After Bush, Obama comes to office and the job situation is now kind of stable. Here is a dramatic graph of job loses during the last year of Bush and the first year of Obama.
Okay, if you look at the graph till today, it would be different. However, please go and read articles on what created more jobs under Clinton - after he raised the taxes or after he cut taxes. I do not buy the argument that a tax hike creates more jobs - it just does not make sense. How does it create jobs when one diminishes the capital available for wealth creation which creates jobs ultimately? Government's role in creating jobs are limited, either in defense or infrastructure (both have limited time impact and are not wealth creators in general or have an indirect impact on that). Please read articles comparing Clinton's two terms on job creation.

The top tax rate dramatically declined after Reagan came to office. Since then, the inflation adjusted income of 90% of Americans has stayed flat. During the same period, income of the super rich, the top .01% of Americans, have gone up five fold. Over this period, the wealth gap between the super rich and the rest has widened, especially during the Bush W years. For some interesting charts, visit this site. During the last 30 years, since Reagan became President, the income and accumulated wealth gap between ordinary Americans and the super rich has skyrocketed beyond comprehension. This did not happen in any other western country.
Scholors in majority agree that this has been happening because of productivity increases during this time with the help of technology. Couple this with WTO and opening up of global markets, things multiplied under Bush. Most of the western nations have protective policies on trade, if I am not mistaken. By the way, more jobs were created during Reagan's time than any other's in office.
You say we need to extend tax cuts for the top 2% and must not extend unemployment compensation because that is what is good for the economy, that is what sane rational people, not given to emotional responses of a bleeding-heart liberal, will do.
I don't couple these two. My stand on unemployment insurance is said above. KEEPING the tax rate the same for the top will stabilize the markets for money to flow in to economy and investments, thereby creating more jobs that are sitting on the sidelines right now. Obviously any tax increase for anyone in this economy with a high jobless rate will have an adverse impact on the job creation.

Alright, let us look at what economists say about what the stimulative effect would be of these two alternatives. I know you prefer any right-wing economists to even Nobel laureate economist if he happens to lean left, so I will cite Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign. On April 14, 2010 he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. In his testimony (pdf of the testimony), he stated that spending $1 on unemployment insurance benefits increases the GDP by $1.61 a year. He also stated that, according to his calculations, $1 spent on extending Bush income tax cuts has a multiplier of 0.32, i.e. the GDP will grow by $0.32. These are numbers from a Republican economist.
Yes, I have seen this. By the way, while Zandi was McCane's advisor, he calls himself a democrat nowadays. How does one spend $ on already existing cuts and analyze their impact? By the way, there is a seminal study by Professors Romer and Romer (yes, the same Romer was President's economic advisor, who was behind the stimulus and her husband, which says that a $1 tax cut will have a 3 to 1 impact on economy. This makes more sense to me.

Of all the charges, suggesting that the long term unemployed will not look for jobs seriously enough if the benefits are extended is the most foul one. These benefits are the one standing between these Americans and total ruin. These dollars go to pay mortgage and put food on the table. That is why these dollars have such a dramatic multiplier effect. To say a few hundred dollars from the government is what is keeping them from seeking a regular job is insulting.
I oppose only the unfettered, unmonitored long term assistance. Please read the behavior adjustments these folks make in general.

On the one hand, Bush gave away billions in taxpayer money to banks that took down the entire world economy (Obama and many democrats also supported this) which the bankers promptly used it to pay huge bonuses totaling billions of dollars for themselves for the all the hard work they put in enriching themselves. On the other hand we have people who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, struggling to make ends meet, teetering on losing their home, and they are supposed to be greedy ones for government handouts and lazy for not looking for a job seriously enough. If my sympathies with the unemployed make me a bleeding-heart liberal, then I will wear that bleeding heart on my sleeves.
Well, the bank versus the unemployment comparisons would be valid, if the stimulus was not there.

One more thing about the contrast between unemployment insurance and tax cuts to the rich, as you say, the rich are adept at moving their money/income around the world. They take their huge tax cuts to places from where they can extract maximum profits and not pay any taxes to anyone -- the do no evil Google avoiding taxes is a case in point -- resulting in a wimpy $0.32 multiplier effect.
This is why what Andy Grove said makes sense to me. The corporate governance boards should start in partnership withy the government to find ways in which the American work force can move up the knowledge ladder. I think that currently where jobs are created there are not enough skilled labor to fill them. This is something I have been thinking a bit about, ever since the outsourcing in IT started.

I know this post is already way too long. But there is one more thing I have to say and it is about another myth that America is basically a center-right country. All Republicans and the corporatist Democrats, and corporatist journalists and opinion makers like Thomas Friedman repeat this lie whenever they get half a chance. But the facts are opposite. Poll after poll, when asked about issues like, social security, medicare, medicaid, other social programs, Americans by an absolute majority favor clearly left of center policy positions. Even among Republicans there is significant support for these socialist programs. Another example, polls taken during last year's health-care debate showed there was majority support for the much reviled Public Option. It found significant minority support, about 30%, even among the Republicans. Of course, you won't hear of it in the main-stream corporatist media.
Can you cite the source, especially on majority support of the Public Option? This is news to me

It is a complete myth to claim America is a right of center nation.The Republicans and Democrats, bought and paid for by the coportaions, would like to keep people thinking that way. They have only two goals, (i) to transfer wealth from everyone else to the already rich, and (ii) keep the common people engaged in silly social and cultural issues so that they don't notice goal #1 is taking place.
Huh? You have any evidence of this?

I know Shri KRS would read the whole thing, but, all others who had the patience to read to the end, my hats off to you :)

Cheers!
 
Dear Sri Ramanujan Ji,
I assume then that you have lived in America for a while to witness these things you enumerate. May I ask you for how long you have lived where in the US and in what capacity? Especially about the 'nude beech' and ' throwing chicken pieces/bullying at hard working Indian students. No culture whatsoever. ' Please give us instances where you have witnessed these.

Regards,
KRS


America is wasteful country, A country of single moms and dads. All they know is to lie nude in beech, beer guzzle ur way through troubles or throwing chicken pieces/bullying at hard working Indian students. No culture whatsoever.
Above all Uncle Sam indulges in Preaching the world about human rights and upholding democratic values hyphocratically.
 
Dear Sri Ramanujan Ji,

With all due respect, no, I do not know the background of each and everyone in this Forum. I did not know that you have never visited USA.

To make statements like you made, one need to have at least a rudimentary idea of the culture one is talking about. You can not just post something and run away from it.

If you are going to be a responsible member of this Forum in terms of discussions, please let me know through a PM. Otherwise, I am assuming you do not want to be here.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Mr.Ramanujan

Whether Its America or UK or Australia, when people from other countries throng into these countries in huge numbers for making their life, these country's Sons of the soil would be swiped of their Lion's share of survival, gradually over a time.

As long as these Country's economy is keep growing and all the locals are happy with their livelihood in all the aspects, they would not develop the sense of hatred towards expatriates and would not indulge in racism considerably.

They are happy with what ever culture they are living in as we do in India. All the culture and social set ups got its positive and negative side and we all are just happy with our prime social and cultural values. All the problems arises when we take shelter in other countries to improve our standard of living and or to escape the social stigma of our own country. When the locals of these countries undergo several constraints, they would be psychologically driven towards hatred and racism as basic human tendencies. In India we are united as a nation with unity in diversity and all are honored and valued as Sons of the soil. If at all, we happen to accommodate foreigners in huge from around the word and if at all happen to undergo social complications and economy downfall, we would for sure end up in discrimination, racism and developing the sense of despise towards foreign immigrants unmindful of their individuality and self dignity.

There was time when immigrants from all over the world into America, UK and Australia were living with due respect to their values, hard work, dignity and all were enjoying their life and could improve their own financial status and of their people back home. We should make a point that any actions and reactions are TIME bound and things can take a complete turn around when certain limit is reached and unpredictable set backs jolts the countries that are offering livelihood to its people and that of immigrants. And the people who enter during such transition period would bear the brunt at the most.

In such a scenario, neither we can blame the locals nor our own people in these countries who all had to make and made their life for themselves and their families. As long as we are in a home other than ours, we had to face its consequences some or the other way, especially when the other home has internal issues.
 
Dear Ramanuja,

As I clicked "Reply" to your post, my wife, eating her dinner, told me about our neighbor Karen, a middle-aged person like us, which means she was brought up during the segregation era in the neck of the woods we live in, near Georgia and Alabama USA, that every time they see each other she gives her a hug and tells her she is fortunate to have my wife as a friend. I know Karen and her husband, and they both are wonderful and helpful people. What does this tell you Ramanuja?

You are a young person, of SV extraction, and you have lived in Sri Rangam for more than a year, the burial place of Bhagavat Ramanuja, beautiful temple, beautiful culture, beautiful music, beautiful sculptures, beautiful in so many ways, and you spent more than a year there, and that makes me fond of you. So, tell me, why do you say such hateful things about American people? Many Indians complain that the view Americans have of India is that it is a land of elephants roaming the streets and snake charmers. Such Americans, there are some not a lot, are ignorant people. The things you say about Americans put you in the same category -- ignorant.

Ramanuja, I like you very much, you are very open and plain spoken. You have described the difficulties you faced in your life so openly. When I read about the challenges you have overcome, that makes me like you even more. You could be a role model for a lot of people. Those who succeed because they are naturally gifted in the upper chamber are not very many and they have nothing to be proud of, everything came naturally to them. Whatever success the rest of us -- believe me, I am a member of this other group and this is no false humility and in some ways it may even be false pride -- could manage is much more praiseworthy. In this respect, I think the success you have achieved is commendable. The attachment you show for your parents is to be envied.

But, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions about common folks in America, they are decent people, hard working, somewhat deficient in rational thinking not very unlike you or I, with a keen sense of fair-play.

Dear Ramanuja, take it easy boss!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hi Ramanujan,
i live in USA more than decade.....but im not telling everything is good /finest here ....but we have to take ONLY GOOD from the availabilty...

we go to market....we select good tomotoes only...which is good for us....even india many things are bad/not familiar to westerners....

but we are more familiar to our own bad things in india.....we accepted it......cool down......


regards
tbs
 
More than whether US likes to lean to left or right of centre, what I feel more concerned about is that, as Kunjuppu says, if one generation has lived so lavishly in Charvaka style, will the people have any "remarkable resiliency and innovative skills to come back, and that too, come back roaring". From what little I read and hear, gone are the days of people who had the zest and perseverence to weather out adversity by real hard work, intelligence, originality etc., and a sort of all round decadence has started setting in, something reminiscent of India..
Dear Shri Sangom, Americans have gone through this kind of boom and bust before, please google Gilded Age and you will see what I mean.

Decadence is too strong an assessment I think. What troubles the U.S. is the ongoing wars, flight of jobs with which a high school graduate can have a middle-class life as in the past, the appallingly widening income and wealth gap, etc.

By "Charvaka" style I suppose you mean borrow and spend with no care for tomorrow, but you know that is a caricature of Charvaka painted by the Brahminists. But leaving that aside, yes Americans go deep into debt, but it is not an unmanageable burden. Let me do some digging and get statistics on overall assets and debt.

But, one thing that is going for the Americans is they are able to attract the best and the brightest from all over the world. The US may loose their preeminence in world affairs, which is a good thing for both the U.S. and everyone else, but they will not collapse like USSR did. Hopefully, a more enlightened multilateral setup will take the place of U.S. in world affairs, and the U.S. will continue to be a strong nation albeit not in a position to throw its weight around.

Cheers!
 
...By "Charvaka" style I suppose you mean borrow and spend with no care for tomorrow, but you know that is a caricature of Charvaka painted by the Brahminists. But leaving that aside, yes Americans go deep into debt, but it is not an unmanageable burden. Let me do some digging and get statistics on overall assets and debt.
Dear Shri Nara,

mine was one of anguish at the thought that a great and large country is being ruined by its politicians and political system; that was the comparison with India. May be my words did not reflect it. Personally I did not exult when USSR collapsed because that country had also made signal contributions to the development of science. I wish "lOkAH samastAH sukhinO bhavantu" because only then I and my family will also be happy.

Coming to debts and assets, in the demographic profile - by which I mean details of household debts and assets - it may look relevant but when we consider the nations indebtedness, these household assets may not have any relevance except for item like gold. US' debts will have to be repaid by its current account surpluses which, as I had noted in some other thread (I forget which), look like taking more than a century to repay. Kindly check and let us have your views.

But, one thing that is going for the Americans is they are able to attract the best and the brightest from all over the world. The US may loose their preeminence in world affairs, which is a good thing for both the U.S. and everyone else, but they will not collapse like USSR did. Hopefully, a more enlightened multilateral setup will take the place of U.S. in world affairs, and the U.S. will continue to be a strong nation albeit not in a position to throw its weight around.

Cheers!

As I said above I wish this happens and US rises again like the sphinx but with universal welfare - and not american exceptionalism - as its moto.
 
Last edited:
....Coming to debts and assets, in the demographic profile - by which I mean details of household debts and assets - it may look relevant but when we consider the nations indebtedness, these household assets may not have any relevance except for item like gold. US' debts will have to be repaid by its current account surpluses which, as I had noted in some other thread (I forget which), look like taking more than a century to repay. Kindly check and let us have your views.

Dear Shri Sangom, Here is a good article by WSJ -- WSJ reporting is one the best, even though their editorial page is complete trash. The gist is:
the total household debt is $13.5 trillion, has gone down 1.7% in 2009. The debt amounts to $43,874 per U.S. resident. As of the end of 2009, the average U.S. resident's net worth—the market value of property and investments minus mortgage, credit-card and other debts—stood at $175,600. As of the end of 2009, total household debt stood at 122.5% of annual disposable income -- many economists tend to see 100% as a sustainable level.
In the overall, things need to be better, but the sky is not falling, not yet. However, due to the weak economy right now, lot of people are suffering.

The US national debt stands over 13.8 trillion. This is a major concern. The major contributors to the national debt are Ronald Reagan and Bush W, both cut taxes deeply and increased spending like there is no tomorrow. The theory was the enrich the rich and some pocket change will trickle down to the rest of us. It didn't work. Debt soared.

The ship can be turned, but needs enlightened leadership. There are sensible people in congress, but they get no traction at all. As long as the common folks allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the con-artists and believe all the scare mongering - grandma will be rationed out of her health care, etc., they deserve every shaft that they get. Like is PIGS nations, the rich take all the gravy and leave all the austerity measures to be borne by the common people.


As I said above I wish this happens and US rises again like the sphinx but with universal welfare - and not american exceptionalism - as its moto.
For simply saying he believes in American exceptionalism just as mush as a British may feel in British exceptionalism, Obama got a lot of flak from the right-wing in the U.S. Americans in general are way too jingoistic. Americans will have to eat a lot of humble pie before they will realize this -- that viewing themselves in these terms is one of the reasons for many of the problems the world faces today, and faced in the past.

Cheers!
 
Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

I used to think that the Indian politicians did not have national priorities but only very parochial views and in-fighting, but the US politicians are worse, I see now. Is it because there is a concerted effort from all sides to prove that an Afro-american cannot rule US? What do you think?

sangom,

sorry for the late reply. i have been spending less time on this forum and it probably reflect in my fewer postings here than the norm.

obama, once said, that the novelty of being the first black president wore off after the first day. problems do not discriminate based on the colour of the president's skin. especially the foreign ones. also domestic economic ones.

re foreign, obama needed to make a few rights: ensure something for palestinians, resolve iraq, resolve afghanistan. in all these three, he lacked any support from home, to carry out his probable agenda. the u.s.president, in many instances, though described, as the 'most powerful man on earth', probably is powerful only to push the nuclear button. in all other stuff, he is at the mercy of the checks and balances provided by the u.s. constitution ie the judiciary and the legislative assemblies.

add to it, is the american psyche of 'the land of the free and the brave'. the original intention of every american to carry guns, was to protect the country against the british or against the native people. today, it is to kill fellow americans.

contrary to popular belief, the usa espoused free trade only since world war 2. all along, it prospered with a heavily subsidized and protected manufacturing sector. with free trade, the u.s. lost its manufacturing base, and along with it the abilty to manufacture even a safety pin. so the country now is polarized with the highly skilled high income earners, and the lowly service people. the broad unionized middle class which was the backbone of the basic american decency has been eroded and converted to a society of debtors.

at this point, the usa looks hopeless. even in commercial aviation, china is coming out with a passenger jet in 2016. judging from its track record in the past 30 years, if china promises to deliver such and such on a certain date, it has done it. the boeing 777 dreamliner, that most magnificient of passenger planes is 2 years overdue, and still no date for delivery. this, with a good proportion of its intelligence and light weight hardware manufactured outside of the usa, mostly in japan and china.

i am hopeful, the usa will rebound. if at all because, no other country in history, has been so generous and has a heart to help others as the usa did. i am talking this from experience. between 1966-68, there was famine in india due to drought. the u.s instituted what is called the public law 480 (pl480) which basically allowed distressed countries to pay for goods in their local currencies. what indira gandhi did is to prime the presses at nasik to print worthless ruppee notes which were stored in the u.s. embassy in new delhi in exchange for wheat and rice from america. some years later, the indians complained, and the americans meekly burned all these notes. we were not one for gratitude, but that appears to be the norm in international relations. just look at bangla desh - even within a couple of years after we help create them, these were firing at our border guards and sending hordes of illegal immigrants here, now right upto coimbatore, i am told.
 
Dear Shri KRS greetings!

Yes, I know that these are the 'talking' points of the Republicans. I have added my own views of them

The treasury intake will be zero if the tax rate is 0% or is 100%. So, tax rate must be set somewhere in between. But, it is not the tax rate by itself that determines the total revenue. A balance must be found between the tax rate and the size of the economic output. The larger the economic output, the larger will be the intake whatever that tax rate may be.

Now, despite what the Republicans, right-wingers and corporatist Democrats may say, the size of economic output is not tied only to the tax rate, lot of factors influence it. Mindlessly repeating that cutting the top marginal rate for the already rich is what will make the economy grow, is no more than a pet theory, dismissed as Voodoo economics by none other than Bush Sr., when he was running against Reagan and was still speaking the truth.

In as much as economics is not a hard science like physics and chemistry, if you look hard enough, you can always find an economist who will agree with anybody's pet theory. I did not want to do that. I wanted to cite someone who is from your camp. There are many economists not paid for by the mega-corporations who reject this notion of trickle-down economics. Among them are such luminaries as Nobel Laureates Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz. I did not cite them because you would dismiss them as left-wing. The economist I cited was an adviser to John McCain.

The question in front of us now is the wisdom of extending Bush era tax cuts for the already rich as opposed to extending unemployment compensation for those who are long term unemployed due to no fault of their own. In this debate, the republicans could care less what happens to the economy, all they care about is giving huge tax breaks to their millionaire and billionaire funders. A 1$ in tax cut will have $0.32 economic impact and $1 in unemployment benefit will have $1.61 in economic impact. Further, unemployment benefits will add next to nothing to the ballooning national debt, but the tax cut will add more than $700 billion. These are numbers accepted even by some Republicans and all neutral participants in this debate. Yet, the Republicans want to satisfy their constituents, the already rich. They get away with it because they are so adept at playing the social issues -- guns, gay marriage, gays in the military, pulling the plug on grandma, ground zero Mosque, birth certificate, -- there is plenty to keep the gullible/stupid Americans from noticing that they are being robbed blind.

Public option:
Here is a report by ABC news.
Americans by 51-37 percent in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they'd rather see a plan pass Congress without Republican support, if it includes a public option based on affordability, than with Republican backing but no such element.
Obama, like even the most self-respecting of Republicans, a rare breed going extinct fast, had already sold his soul to the Wall Street bankers and Pharma companies. So, he could not go against his financiers and take on the corporatist Republicans (are there any other kind?) and Democrats (some of them), and deliver on the promise he made to the electorate, based on which he was elected, and being supported by double digit margin.

The fact that large scale wealth transfer is taking place from common folks to the already rich can be readily deciphered if only one cares to google and examines the results with an open mind. The income and wealth gap has dramatically widened after Reagan came to power. Even Nixon, by the standards set by Reagan and Bush W, would be a bleeding heart liberal.

The fact that the Republicans focus on social issues mentioned above is well known. Starting from the Wille Horton ad, it is the Republicans who unabashedly exploited the base fears of the common people to keep them from catching on to the primary function of Republican elected officials, to serve their corporate overlords -- case in point Joe Barton's apology to BP.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hi ramanuja,
just i like to add to ur concern...about nude beach 2 piece bikni girls.....i dont really feel anything sexy in them.....infact i feel more

sexy feelings in our madisaar dress....but we never thought in such sexy thought..being traditional and more aacharam....but i think

in other way.......i dont want talk much sexy explanation about madisaar..........my both grand maas used to wear madisaar

thorughout their life.....just for ur info...

regards
tbs
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

You have said:

You often say you are not ideologically motivated, but only by common sense, I am paraphrasing here. But, the comments you generally express, and in particular, what you express here, betray an extreme case of ideological bias. You have bought into the Republican talking points wholesale.

Okay, if you want to charge me as such, go ahead - don't know how it is pertinent to our discussion. Why would I say that I am independent, when I am not? Only reason I can think of is somehow what I say are not well thought out positions and folks will discard them as coming from a position of a particular ideology, devoid of reason - that somehow my positions have an ideology based objectives.

This is why I went through your talking points and explained which I agree and which I do not, and gave you my position on George Bush. Of course you have dismissed them without consideration.

If you want an additional weapon to attack me and my ideas without proper reflection on your part, please go ahead. Folks here know that whenever I take my position, I always try to explain the logic behind it.

By the way, I am sick and it will take me a few days to get back on.

Regards,
KRS
 
... Only reason I can think of is somehow what I say are not well thought out positions and folks will discard them as coming from a position of a particular ideology, devoid of reason - that somehow my positions have an ideology based objectives.

Dear Shri KRS, You are right, I got carried away in the heat of the moment. I should not have made these comments, I am sorry. I have edited out all the comments directed at you. I will try my best to avoid such comments in the future.

Having said that, with due respect, I do believe the points I made are solid.


By the way, I am sick and it will take me a few days to get back on.
Hope you feel better soon. It is probably due to the sudden change in weather, here the low has plunged down to upper 20s F.

Best regards ....
 
hi ramanuja,
just i like to add to ur concern...about nude beach 2 piece bikni girls.....i dont really feel anything sexy in them.....infact i feel more

sexy feelings in our madisaar dress....but we never thought in such sexy thought..being traditional and more aacharam....but i think

in other way.......i dont want talk much sexy explanation about madisaar..........my both grand maas used to wear madisaar

thorughout their life.....just for ur info...

regards
tbs

How come none of the honourable members of this forum raised their 'objection' to such a post!

Does anyone in other communities degrade their own traditional dress in this manner?

Regards.
 
Last edited:
it is really strange that with the modern girls who dare to bare almost everything

roaming around, a person should find the longest possible dress (measuring a

whole 9 yards and now a days even 10 yards) sexy - that too in spite of the fact

that it is being worn by the respectable grandmothers!
:faint:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

  • For rent 2BHK APT WANTED.
    2BHK APT wanted.
    • rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
    • Updated:
  • Wanted Chanting class.
    Sloka chanting teacher wanted.
    • rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
    • Updated:
  • Announcement Hobby Classes.
    Hobby art classes are conducted by an experienced senior lady for high school children and adult...
    • rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
    • Updated:
  • Wanted Shan
    Required female Brahmin cook to prepare lunch and dinner for 2 people
    • Bsmugan (+0 /0 /-0)
    • Updated:
    • Expires
  • For rent Shanmuganathan
    3BHK INDEPENDENT HOUSE IN NEELANKARI
    • Bsmugan (+0 /0 /-0)
    • Updated:
    • Expires
Back
Top