So...when, exactly, was America greater than she is now?

[radcen]

Q: So...when, exactly, was America greater than she is now?

A: Every moment up to this moment.

:2razz:

 

[radcen]

Interesting take.

The US played a rather significant role to bring an end to WW1. By 1915, the US produced almost 1/3rd of the worlds industrial output.

The Second Industrial Revolution, 1870-1914 - US History Scene

Yet you claim the US was nothing prior to WWII.

I think your view might best be described as jaundiced.

I think he made some good points. We did have some presence on the world stage, but it wasn't consistent and/or as far-reaching as post-WW2.

 

[radcen]

the creator of the OP lists dates that he chose.

i would have said 1870 to 1910 in keeping it in 40 year increments.

Eras aren't evenly spaced, though.

 

[PeteEU]

Totally wrong. The decline was because of the war itself. The loss didn't come until 1975, social turmoil and upheaval had been going on for nearly a decade prior.

Yes and that was not a bad thing.. it was a revolution against the conservative dogma, and that was a good thing. It got rid of segregation, sexism (some what) and so on. It inspired a whole generation of people to create things that we have today.

As for debt, we have been told by you liberals for the last 8 years that debt is good--unless Reagan ran it up apparently. Reagan has been out of office for nearly 30 years and you liberals still blame everything bad on him. That's a joke particularly when you consider democrats have controlled the White house for the majority of the time since. But sure, like a typical liberal you ignore the economic and social distress brought about by leftists like Johnson and Carter and blame everything on Reagan. That's just pure nonsense and political hackery.

You are miss-understanding me I think. The reason I point out Reagan is that he started in earnest the idea of debt fueled economics and trickle down bull**** that has lead us down the path we are on today.

Clinton nor Obama are really not that much different, as they have continued to one degree or another the very same failed policies, but there is no doubt that the worst times for the economic hole that the US is in now, came under Reagan and Bush 2. Numbers dont lie. Reagan tripled the debt load and Bush doubled it and there was no external or internal excuse for it. At least with the increase in the debt under Obama, there was a clear reason. There was no reason what so ever for Bush 2 to run deficits year after year during an economic boom... and yet he did.

You hate Obama, I have no doubt about that, but blaming him for the actions of others is pathetic. He could not have stopped the debt clock even if he wanted too.. as it would have tanked the US and world economy. That is why the whole debate in the US has been laughable. Tax cutting, cutting your social programs.. would not have solved the problem and both political parties need "issues" of what ever kind to justify their whole existence.

 

[Master PO]

Eras aren't evenly spaced, though.

i myself was going on a biblical span which are 40 and 80 years

but there are not 8 years spans either.

 

[Fletch]

Yes and that was not a bad thing.. it was a revolution against the conservative dogma, and that was a good thing. It got rid of segregation, sexism (some what) and so on. It inspired a whole generation of people to create things that we have today.



You are miss-understanding me I think. The reason I point out Reagan is that he started in earnest the idea of debt fueled economics and trickle down bull**** that has lead us down the path we are on today.

Clinton nor Obama are really not that much different, as they have continued to one degree or another the very same failed policies, but there is no doubt that the worst times for the economic hole that the US is in now, came under Reagan and Bush 2. Numbers dont lie. Reagan tripled the debt load and Bush doubled it and there was no external or internal excuse for it. At least with the increase in the debt under Obama, there was a clear reason. There was no reason what so ever for Bush 2 to run deficits year after year during an economic boom... and yet he did.

You hate Obama, I have no doubt about that, but blaming him for the actions of others is pathetic. He could not have stopped the debt clock even if he wanted too.. as it would have tanked the US and world economy. That is why the whole debate in the US has been laughable. Tax cutting, cutting your social programs.. would not have solved the problem and both political parties need "issues" of what ever kind to justify their whole existence.

Your whole post is nothing but partisan garbage. And I really have no desire to go through and correct all that crap, and you clearly aren't interested in anything that goes against your republican bad, democrat good narrative, so believe whatever you want

 

[Ontologuy]

Trump's slogan is "Make America Great Again", so the obvious inference is that America is not great now, but once was greater than she is now. So when was America greater than she is now, and why?

The 1950's.

And the "History" section in this link explains why: The Problem .

 

[Van Basten]

The nineties and right up until we invaded Iraq.

There was never a greater time for optimism than the pre-Vietnam 60's though. We were gonna end poverty, racism, and so much more. When the 70's came around, the dreaming stopped and America began its march to the right.

 

[Surrealistik]

What ranges were when America was greater than today?

Pretty much the span of time between FDR's economic recovery and successful war effort to Buckley v Valeo in 1976 when money in politics started to become an overwhelming and corrupting influence on the federal government and laid a firm foundation for the ****show to come.

 

[PeteEU]

Your whole post is nothing but partisan garbage. And I really have no desire to go through and correct all that crap, and you clearly aren't interested in anything that goes against your republican bad, democrat good narrative, so believe whatever you want

Partisan garbage? You do understand that I said Clinton and Obama did nothing to help the situation right? That is negative against the Democrats..

 

[Gathomas88]

Trump's slogan is "Make America Great Again", so the obvious inference is that America is not great now, but once was greater than she is now. So when was America greater than she is now, and why?

The poll should allow for more than one selection. There are so many different periods one can make the argument for that it's frankly easier to ask when the United States wasn't "greater" than it is now.

You can put as much "lipstick on the pig" as you want, the simple fact of the matter is that our current economy is garbage in comparison to past eras, and all signs seems to be pointing to opportunities for personal advancement only continuing to diminish into the foreseeable future. Our international power and influence are in decline as well, as resurgent old foes and new rivals alike either close the gap of American supremacy, or inch towards overtaking us entirely (China is, arguably, already there, in point of fact).

Left-leaning SJW types might try and give a good word towards the supposed "egalitarianism" of the present age. Frankly, however, that's pretty far down my list of priorities in comparison to the flatrate essentials listed above. It also seems to be something of a "mixed bag" to begin with, given the authoritarian tendencies, and sheer amount of violently incendiary socio-cultural, racial, and class strife the movement seems to be bringing with it.

As far as I'm concerned, we're right smack-dab in the middle of what could very well turn into a full-on societal crisis, and potentially even a burgeoning American (and Western in general, really) "dark age." Things are only going to get worse before they get better, unfortunately.

 

[Eric7216]

1. We have always been the only developed country on earth without universal health care because we can't get have the country to realize that every other country has figured out that health care does not conform the laws of supply and demand and thus must be either extremely heavily regulated or socialized.

2. Inequality is not just growing here, its growing in every other developed nation on earth.

3. Crime rates have had a very, very modest increase and are still lower than they have been in just about any other time in our nation's history.

4. Our quality of life is still better than any other large developed country. Unless you are talking about Norway, Switzerland, or Denmark, we got everybody else beat by a decent margin. Just look at our per-capita GDP PPP and compare it to other large developed nations.

That is not to say we don't have problems, but our problems are not as bad as much of the rest of the developed world's problems.

1. Not true. No one had universal health care before Germany in the late 1800s. Canada just got theirs 30 years ago. Wrong to say that others have always had it. US basically got it in 1965 but gradually lost it and with the PPACA we took a tiny step forward but at a cost of ending the debate for many years now. No politician talks about it nowadays.
2. Not sure where you got this rather bold statement. It is hard to find good historical data by country. NY Times reported that globally income inequality has been going down but, yes, in many developed countries it is going up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/u...is-not-rising-globally-its-falling-.html?_r=0

3. Your data on crime goes to 2014. I was referring to the more recent, post Ferguson, spike in crime.

4. We are going down compared to other countries in several categories, such as percent of population with college degrees and economic freedoms.
The polling that I have seen indicates that historically high percentages of Americans believe that the US is losing ground.

https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Index-of-economic-freedom

 

[Manc Skipper]

The short answer is, there never/always was a time. Let's ask some RNC delegates, get it from the horses' ...mouths? :mrgreen:

 

[Tigerace117]

Significant yes, but so what? It was not a world power and had to be dragged into the war. It was on the way up.. that is another matter, but it was not "big" like France, UK, Germany, and others. It was relatively insignificant. A young nation with imperial aspirations, that was held back by nationalistic and internal conflicts.



Not that hard when its direct competitors are in a draining war...and the size of the country/population. The British Empire probably stood for over 1/3 alone..



On the world stage it was not. The British and French never saw it as something other than an irritation. That of course changed once the US started getting its own imperialistic ideas. Then suddenly the US became a threat .. for Asia to Europe. Once the war was over, the US had taken the British Empires spot as the major power on the planet....

The Brits and French also thought charging headlong against dug in machine guns was a good idea. Their "assessment skills" were, in lieu of a better word, lacking.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The Brits and French also thought charging headlong against dug in machine guns was a good idea. Their "assessment skills" were, in lieu of a better word, lacking.

If you'd study WWI, you'd find that when we finally came over there in 1917, we also "charged headlong against dug-in machine guns". Our military had not learned the lessons that the Europeans had already learned - we didn't know how to conduct "creeping barrages", and we had very little artillery - much of what we used, we got from from French.

What our army did do, however, was (with a few notable exceptions like Chateau Thierry and Belleau Wood) to free up the more battle-hardened and experienced troops to go where the fight was hottest. In fact, the Germans openly said that the way they knew where the next offensive was coming was to watch where the Canadians and the ANZAC forces were being shifted to.

Our troops were the healthiest (even allowing for the catastrophic 1918 H1N1 pandemic) and best-equipped on an individual level. Our troops built the reputation of having high morale and great determination. But our troops were quite inexperienced in the lessons the Europeans had been learning for the three previous years...and it cost us dearly in the first several months we were there.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

the creator of the OP lists dates that he chose.

i would have said 1870 to 1910 in keeping it in 40 year increments.

Most of us despise Lenin, but he had a quote that's pretty accurate: "There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen." That's why I attempted to look not at set periods of time, but instead tried to adjust for certain eras within American history.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you'd study WWI, you'd find that when we finally came over there in 1917, we also "charged headlong against dug-in machine guns". Our military had not learned the lessons that the Europeans had already learned - we didn't know how to conduct "creeping barrages", and we had very little artillery - much of what we used, we got from from French.

What our army did do, however, was (with a few notable exceptions like Chateau Thierry and Belleau Wood) to free up the more battle-hardened and experienced troops to go where the fight was hottest. In fact, the Germans openly said that the way they knew where the next offensive was coming was to watch where the Canadians and the ANZAC forces were being shifted to.

Our troops were the healthiest (even allowing for the catastrophic 1918 H1N1 pandemic) and best-equipped on an individual level. Our troops built the reputation of having high morale and great determination. But our troops were quite inexperienced in the lessons the Europeans had been learning for the three previous years...and it cost us dearly in the first several months we were there.

And how many hundred thousands died before the Brits and French learned? One would think after the sixth or seventh failed offensive they'd try something new.

The ANZACS essentially got pushed off a cliff into a meat grinder at Gallipoli. The British High Command didn't exactly think that one all the way through every either. Lots of wishful thinking there.

 

[Patrickt]

I put the 1950s. President Truman was the only Democrat president in my lifetime that was worth anything and he rose to the challenge and was a very good president. Two major steps he took were desegregating the military even though his party, the Democrats, hated him for it. That did more, when you consider we still had a draft, to resolve some of the racial issues than almost anything done since then. I had an uncle that went to war in 1942 a horrible racist and returned a racist. Then he got called up for Korea. When he got home my grandmother was complaining about her little boy having to eat and sleep with black soldiers and my uncle, who was terrified of his mother, said, "Mom, I learned they bleed just like white guys. I don't want to listen to any more of that nonsense."

President Truman also was responsible for the Marshall Plan that not only helped rebuild our allies but also our enemies. That was possibly a first in the history of man and something to be proud of.

President Eisenhower understood that we need to rest. He did send troops to Lebanon but he absolutely forbid Americans fighting in Vietnam. But, he was also the president who nationalized the guard in the South and started integrating the schools. It had to be done and he did it. Of course, he was a Republican and was hated by the Democrats.

There was hope for the future. Sure, we had horribly corrupt and violent unions but we were dealing with that, too. We had political corruption, duh, and we were dealing with that. People worked and if they didn't want to work the government didn't do anything for them except let them in the military.

You could afford to go to college without going into debt. I knew a lot of people who worked their way through college and law school. I knew even more who went through college on the G.I. Bill.

And the best part. Every evening in the summer the truck would go through our neighborhood fogging for mosquitoes. All the guys would get their bicycles and fly their fighter planes in and out of the clouds of fuel oil and DDT. According to the nanny state, we all died back in the 1950s. Well, that was just the few of us who survived the second-hand smoke.

And when we got out of school we had to decide what kind of work we wanted to do but we never, ever, had to decide whether or not we wanted to work.

 

[Kushinator]

1776 until 1861, the beginning of the Civil War

**** that! Slavery, people barely lived to be 50, children died at high rates, no indoor plumbing, heat, transportation, etc.... America was horrible then, and so was pretty much every place else.

1865 until 1900, Reconstruction

Life still sucked! Women were treated like slaves, people barely lived to 55, children died at high rates, little if any indoor plumbing, heat, transportation, deplorable working conditions in American factories, scandelous industries taking advantage of no regulation, etc.... In fact, the global economy was cast into depression because of a horse flu, in which industry basically ground to a halt most goods were moved in and out of ships/train yards by horse.

1900 until 1932, WWI, Roaring 20's, and Crash

Getting better, but not by much. Modern medicine was still in its infantry, wars were plaguing the world, communication was very limited, etc....

1933 until 1950, FDR, WWII, early Truman years

Again, getting better, but still days away. WWII was brutal, men often worked until they were too sick to continue or died, foreign goods were few and far between because war ground commerce to a halt. Civil rights were virtually non-existent in certain segments of the country.

1950's - Truman and Eisenhower

Getting even better. WWII allowed U.S. producers to retool their productive capacity to a high degree, there was more avenues for leisure, health care was embraced, and most of the country had indoor plumbing, modern heating, and access to new technology that made life much easier than it was before. The G.I. Bill helped pave the way for a more educated populace.

1960's - Kennedy, LBJ, Civil Rights and Vietnam

The era of leisure began. Life as an American who didn't get drafted into Vietnam wasn't that bad. There was greater access to international goods, and global travel and communication improved greatly. Most homes had telephones and televisions. Life expectancy continued to increase.

1970's - Nixon, Ford, Carter

Really just building on what i said above. There was a general fear regarding the nations struggle with crime.

1980-1992 - Reagan, Bush 41

The technology age begins, and leisure opportunities are more plentiful than ever. The fall of the U.S.S.R. was a relief of anxiety. Crime is still a major concern.

1993-2000 - The Clinton years

The digital/information age. The genome is unlocked, more than half of all households have a computer, automobiles are more safe, and crime rates fall across the board. Access to travel, goods and services, communication has never been greater.

2000-2008 - the Bush 43 years

Terrorism becomes a chief security concern. More than half of the country has mobile communication by 2008. The global economy goes into a steep recession, which causes quite a bit of anxiety for working class Americans. Medical advancements continue to push the envelope.


I really cannot think of any way that America was "better" or "greater" than it is now. I'm sure i missed a bunch of stuff, so feel free to correct me.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The Reagan years when we stopped the greatest threat to world peace that this planet has ever seen. When we pulled ourselves out of a financial hole dug by a decade and a half of governmental stupidity. When we were the standard that the rest of the world sought to emulate. Of course, you'll cherry-pick bits and pieces to try to prove that it wasn't so great, you'll claim that we didn't do anything to bring down the USSR, that the recovery and following 12 years of prosperity were all due to liberal policies.

You've seen me state what Reagan did right - he did win the Cold War, and that his accomplishment simply cannot be understated. That said, Reagan also stuck us with Reaganomics...which is what we've still got today. Every penny of every deficit we've had since then are because Reagan convinced the Republicans that poor people would somehow make lots more money if we taxed rich people less - what Bush 41 rightly called "Voodoo economics".

On top of that was his determination to reach out to the racists - yes, he did, from his opening speech in Philadelphia, MS to his fairy tale about welfare queens. What's more, if you'll check, the nation's homicide rates and violence crime rates were higher every year of his presidency than they ever were under Obama.

So...no, the Reagan years were not greater than the Obama years.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Eras aren't evenly spaced, though.

Even the worst people say something right sometimes, and Lenin had a point when he said, "There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen." There were longer periods when things did not greatly change, and there were shorter periods when the nation changed a great deal. That's why they can't be "evenly spaced".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The 1950's.

And the "History" section in this link explains why: The Problem .

Back during the days of segregation? Of McCarthyism? Of the Red Scare and Sputnik? Of General MacArthur publicly condemning Truman for stopping him from dropping atomic bombs in the Korean War (and becoming a Republican hero for saying so)? I don't think so.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The nineties and right up until we invaded Iraq.

There was never a greater time for optimism than the pre-Vietnam 60's though. We were gonna end poverty, racism, and so much more. When the 70's came around, the dreaming stopped and America began its march to the right.

The "pre-Vietnam 60's" ended with the advent of LBJ - because it wasn't long after he took the oath of office after Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 that Vietnam was ramped up. But the Kennedy years were still the years of segregation, the years before the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Pretty much the span of time between FDR's economic recovery and successful war effort to Buckley v Valeo in 1976 when money in politics started to become an overwhelming and corrupting influence on the federal government and laid a firm foundation for the ****show to come.

In that time frame was the Japanese internment, segregation, Jim Crow (until 1964), the Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Selma march (which came after the Selma bombing), abortion was illegal until 1972...

...no, that stretch of time was not a greater time for the American people. Maybe it was for white men...but that's about it.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The poll should allow for more than one selection. There are so many different periods one can make the argument for that it's frankly easier to ask when the United States wasn't "greater" than it is now.

You can put as much "lipstick on the pig" as you want, the simple fact of the matter is that our current economy is garbage in comparison to past eras, and all signs seems to be pointing to opportunities for personal advancement only continuing to diminish into the foreseeable future. Our international power and influence are in decline as well, as resurgent old foes and new rivals alike either close the gap of American supremacy, or inch towards overtaking us entirely (China is, arguably, already there, in point of fact).

Left-leaning SJW types might try and give a good word towards the supposed "egalitarianism" of the present age. Frankly, however, that's pretty far down my list of priorities in comparison to the flatrate essentials listed above. It also seems to be something of a "mixed bag" to begin with, given the authoritarian tendencies, and sheer amount of violently incendiary socio-cultural, racial, and class strife the movement seems to be bringing with it.

As far as I'm concerned, we're right smack-dab in the middle of what could very well turn into a full-on societal crisis, and potentially even a burgeoning American (and Western in general, really) "dark age." Things are only going to get worse before they get better, unfortunately.

Our current economy is "garbage"???? We're STILL in what is BY FAR the longest stretch of private-sector job growth in ALL American history...but that's garbage to you. Our unemployment rate (using the same metric as the past twenty years or so) is below 5%...but that's garbage to you. The percentage of Americans without health insurance is lower than at ANY time in ALL American history...but that's garbage to you.

Is our economy perfect? Of course not - there's no such thing as a "perfect economy" (not as long as there are human beings involved). There's still problems - but the only time our economy has been "better off" was during the last time we had a Democrat in the White House - the economic boom of the mid- to late-1990's. And before you try to argue that other periods were better economically, look at the frequency of recessions, look at the unemployment rates, look at the poverty rates, and look at the health insurance coverage percentages.

You talk about our international influence and prestige - the finger points directly at Obama's predecessor, the guy who lied the nation into invading Iraq when that nation presented NO threat against America, the guy who approved torture - TORTURE! - and the guy who led our nation into the worst economic crisis in eighty years...and who handed Obama the worst s**t sandwich any incoming president has EVER had (not just an economy in full meltdown, but our two longest wars, both of which were highly unpopular and costing us $10B in taxpayer dollars per MONTH). Bush 43 screwed the pooch big time...and Obama's spent much of the past eight years cleaning up the mess Bush left.

Oh, wait, I forgot! In Right Wing Fantasy World, Obama shoulda been able wave a magic wand and make everything all better again overnight, and because Obama didn't fix the world and make everything perfect, he's automatically the worst president ever!