Cronkite / Clinton Video Calling For World Government

[mrfootball]

Nice of these people to want to run the world for us all...

Walter Cronkite. In his own words...

Cameo appearance by fellow World Federalist Association member, Hillary Clinton

Edited March 2, 2008 by mrfootball

[jfre81]

Not that I'm characteristically a fan of the idea of world government, but it would likely be better than what we have now after nearly eight years of Bush.

With NAFTA and our trade deficit and all the money the federal government (i.e. "we the people") owe, US sovereignty is in a rather tenuous state anyway.

[crunchtastic]

I'd say the value of our currency puts us at a bit of a disadvantage, hmmm.

A record disadvantage. This is the point at which inflation becomes sort of fun---and deal-breaking for some.

[JLWM8609]

I think this belongs in the "Way Off Topic/Politics" forum.

[sevfiv]

Agreed and done

[TheNiche]

Not that I'm characteristically a fan of the idea of world government, but it would likely be better than what we have now after nearly eight years of Bush.

With NAFTA and our trade deficit and all the money the federal government (i.e. "we the people") owe, US sovereignty is in a rather tenuous state anyway.

People give the American presidency waaaay too much credit for having changed the way the world works.

If it weren't for NAFTA you'd only be complaining all that much more about how illegal immigrants are taking our jobs (there not being as many in Mexico). Cheap debt at the federal level backed up by the aggregate productive capacity of the U.S. economy is a hell of a better deal than immediate taxation with foreign debt being taken up indirectly by the consumer because consumers can't get cheap money. And to the extent that we've been able to afford to consume more by importing because we've been using cheap foreign debt, that's a good thing. To the extent that we've gone overboard on that process, currency valuation is self-correcting (and in the process generates a lot of jobs as we ramp up exports).

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and I'm sorry to spoil the fun, but Santa Claus doesn't exist.

And by the way, a nation in debt does not put up its sovereignty as collateral. It either has to raise taxes (or print money) further on down the road to cover the debt, or it will default on the debt, at which point foreign debt becomes more expensive, severely curtailing the ability of governments to finance necessary projects...but under no circumstances does a nation declare bankruptcy the way a U.S. corporation does, with foreign stakeholders taking ownership of that country. It just doesn't work that way.

I realize that the news is screwy right now on account of the election cycle, but we need to step back and look at the big picture with sober, detached vision. Nobody is saying that the world is just going along hunky-dory, but at the same time, it isn't the unmitigated disaster that some people seem to believe it is.

Ignore the rhetoric. Let the numbers and reason be your guide.

[houstonmacbro]

Not that I'm characteristically a fan of the idea of world government, but it would likely be better than what we have now

I'm kinda with you on that. I hear all this talk about one world government (supposedly to usher in some anti-Christ --if you believe in that) ... but honestly, what would be so bad about it?

[TheNiche]

... but honestly, what would be so bad about it?

Don't take our political system as it is at present for granted. It ain't perfect, but there is a reason that we are foreigners' investment of first resort. Subjecting our prosperity to the whims of poorer voters that would outnumber us 20:1 is a bad idea. A very very bad idea.