However where you see it as a problem, I see rampant consumerism as the key to elevating certain countries out of poverty though. Consider that China and India compared to where they were 50 years ago, because of Westerners need to produce goods at a lower price.

They now have an aspirational middle class, not just the rich and poor, and this class is the vital element to promoting democracy and egalitarian values in the long term.

Sure they have a long way to go, and they are far from perfect, but so are Western countries. The important thing is, through their use of our consumption, they have tied their success to ours and are better off for it. Trade relations are the key to avoiding war. When you make it too cost ineffective to fight, people will choose trade and negotiation.

Look up "free to choose" on youtube or something and see what I mean about consumerism causing the demise of entrenched poverty. It's an eye opener to be sure!

Also your comment on the lack of centralized power.. well we know what happens when there are 2 top-dogs rather than one. It ends in tears, and even the winner comes away with wounds. I'd rather have a benevolent top dog like the USA than a cruel dictatorship like China or Russia any day.

I'm not saying people should not criticize the USA. By all means, point out its flaws so they can correct it. But this rampant anti americanism in the mainstream media and blogs is utterly absurd. People have not considered the alternatives, or they live on fantasy island where money is free and everyone hugs each other all day.

Although the USA might contribute a bundle to philanthropic efforts, have you considered the huge costs to other countries brought on by US foreign policies, including various invasions, trade embargoes, protectionist philosophies etcetera?

I do not wish to see the demise of any nation and take no joy for the suffering of said nation's people during the demise.

However I do not see the nation of the USA as having some great record of concern for other nations and their people, unless that concern translates into the USA's own benefit.

Bearing that in mind, maybe a little less 'power' and leadership in the hands of the USA may be of greater benefit over-all for the entire globe.

From my perspective, I am quite happy to reduce my protein intake and rampant consumerism grown by following the 'leadership' of the USA if it means a better standard of living for the majority of the rest of the world.

Are you?

Regardless of the difference, they're still the top of the contributions list by a long way. The net result would be similar should the US collapse, whether its 25% or 80%. You can't run an organization like this without a lot of money, and the world will be a poorer place literally for it without the philanthropic efforts of the USA.

You might be right about donating more money to developing nations. Dunno.

They also fund around 80% of the United Nations too, so don't look to them for leadership when it happens. When the US falls, the world as we know it falls with it.

I expect Obama to be the next president but I sure as hell wouldn't want the job and to be seen as responsible for the next few yrs.

As far as the US public debt goes Bill Clinton has the best track record for halting the slide.

The US now owes $5,207,495,999,107.06
from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

steve b