• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2000-2008 - the Bush 43 years

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    40
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

A one-year spike in a nation's crime rate does not a trend make. Until it's been happening for three years, it's a statistical outlier.
 
America has never been greater than it is now. So why was this not an option?

There might have been some aspects that were greater at one time or another, but in every past time frame there is some group that did obviously worse in the past than they did today.

Maybe America was better in the past for your life, your family, your race, or your sexual orientation. But if you are caring about your neighbor as you would yourself, then today is better than yesterday.

Now if Trump were to win, this could actually change... that's a scary thought.
 
I think when growth in domestic prosperity and impact on world affairs are considered, one would have to pick the '80's.

Never mind that the homicide and violent crime rates were higher every year under Reagan than they were ANY year under Obama. Not only that, but under Obama we're STILL in what is BY FAR the longest stretch of private-sector job growth in ALL American history.

And let's not forget that Reagan saddled us with trickle-down economics...which is STILL what we've got today, what Bush 41 rightly called "voodoo economics". Every penny of budget deficit we've had since 1980 is due in significant part to Reaganomics - because THAT was when we started down the road of out-of-control deficits.

Impact on world affairs? How many regimes did Reagan overthrow or attempt to overthrow? I didn't know it at the time, but my ship was a part of one of those efforts. And then there's Iran-Contra.

And let's not forget his opening speech at Philadelphia, MS - which most people realized was an effort to reach out to the racists. And before you try to claim otherwise, remember his "welfare queen" fairy tale.
 
As an outsider, I would say that it would be the early 50s to the middle 60s. That was the US glory days.. dragging it self and the world out of a ditch, but then it went slowly the wrong way. Before WW2 the US was nothing, and since Nixon it has been in steady decline politically and economically. The real decline started with Reagan and excelerated with Bush 2. It fits the pattern of all empires, just in a much smaller time frame.

I disagree. You're referring to the last years of Jim Crow, of segregation; the Korean War; the Red Scare; McCarthyism; a much lower percentage of population covered by health insurance than today; a lower national rate of literacy than today...

...no, the 1950's are a great example of how many look back to the good old days, never realizing that those days weren't so good after all.
 
If he only referencing before we were $19.4 trillion in debt, that would be enough.
Between 1950 and 1975 comes to mind.

Extreme debt is a major drag.

Yeah, if only we could go back to those days when the top marginal tax rate was 90%...until Reagan slashed them to 25% and we've been in thrall to Reaganomics ever since.
 
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!

Our present economy is "garbage;" nothing more, and nothing less. If you think otherwise, you're "drinkin' the koolaid," man. I - quite frankly - don't know what else to tell you.

Regardless of how the clowns in charge might try to spin things for propaganda purposes (and even assuming that their unemployment figures were correct - which is dubious, to say the least), the simple fact of the matter is that our supposed "recovery" has been anemic at best, with the vast majority of new jobs created being of the lower paying, or outright minimum wage, variety. We're basically looking at having an entire generation of people on our hands who are going to be poorer, on average, than their parents, with almost ten times the personal debt load, and less than half the opportunities to elevate themselves.

Make no mistake. In terms of both economics and social instability, our present era is basically on par with the chaos of the "Stagflation" days of the 1970s, and only a few steps removed from the freaking Great Depression.

There's a reason why so many Americans are flocking to radical cranks like Trump and Sanders. There's a reason why the Far Right and Far Left are making such a strong come-back in Europe. People across the Western World are fed up with being told that everything's "fine" by the powers that be, when it rather clearly is not. They want genuine action, not just empty promises.
 
Last edited:
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.

Guess what - it wasn't the Americans who invented the tank. It wasn't the Americans who invented the doctrine of combined-arms assault. Those were both British inventions. When we arrived, we began using 1914 tactics and were sending our troops into concentrated machine-gun fire - we hadn't had the chance to learn what the European nations had learned the hard way.

You mentioned Gallipoli - it seems that you agree that it wasn't a fault of the quality of the ANZACs, that it was the fault, more than anyone else, of the British admirals who were unwilling to risk their capital ships where two had been sunk by mines...and so they did not give the ANZACs the fire support they so desperately needed.

If you really study the war, what we DID do was provide a great deal of industrial capacity (and nearly bankrupted France and England in the process). That, and what we DID do was by the very fact that the Germans knew we were beginning to send troops to France at the rate of 10,000 per day (Napoleon once said that "Quantity has a quality all its own."), the Germans knew that if they didn't do something NOW ('now' being in the first quarter of 1918), that the overwhelming numbers of allied troops (not only Americans, but also hundreds of thousands from French and British colonies) would end any chance that Germany had of winning the war. Thus, they designed what they called "Das Kaiserschlact" - the Kaiser's Battle. It was the end of trench warfare, and was devastating for both sides. The Americans made significant contributions, but it was the heroic defense by the British and the French - and the counterattack by Foch's twenty divisions that he'd held back despite the howls for "more troops!" by the British - that finally stopped the Germans.

No, we didn't win the war. We were an important part of winning the war - but then, so were the Italians, for keeping hundreds of thousands of Germans and Austrio-Hungarians tied up in the south, and so was the sacrifice of so many Russians, for this kept the Germans from being able to apply their full strength in the western front.

We Americans are taught that we saved the world because 'Merica; unfortunately, at the same time we are never taught the equally-crucial (or, in the cases of Britain and France in WWI and the Soviet Union in WWII, infinitely MORE crucial) parts that our allied nations played in doing the same thing.
 
Guess what - it wasn't the Americans who invented the tank. It wasn't the Americans who invented the doctrine of combined-arms assault. Those were both British inventions. When we arrived, we began using 1914 tactics and were sending our troops into concentrated machine-gun fire - we hadn't had the chance to learn what the European nations had learned the hard way.

You mentioned Gallipoli - it seems that you agree that it wasn't a fault of the quality of the ANZACs, that it was the fault, more than anyone else, of the British admirals who were unwilling to risk their capital ships where two had been sunk by mines...and so they did not give the ANZACs the fire support they so desperately needed.

If you really study the war, what we DID do was provide a great deal of industrial capacity (and nearly bankrupted France and England in the process). That, and what we DID do was by the very fact that the Germans knew we were beginning to send troops to France at the rate of 10,000 per day (Napoleon once said that "Quantity has a quality all its own."), the Germans knew that if they didn't do something NOW ('now' being in the first quarter of 1918), that the overwhelming numbers of allied troops (not only Americans, but also hundreds of thousands from French and British colonies) would end any chance that Germany had of winning the war. Thus, they designed what they called "Das Kaiserschlact" - the Kaiser's Battle. It was the end of trench warfare, and was devastating for both sides. The Americans made significant contributions, but it was the heroic defense by the British and the French - and the counterattack by Foch's twenty divisions that he'd held back despite the howls for "more troops!" by the British - that finally stopped the Germans.

No, we didn't win the war. We were an important part of winning the war - but then, so were the Italians, for keeping hundreds of thousands of Germans and Austrio-Hungarians tied up in the south, and so was the sacrifice of so many Russians, for this kept the Germans from being able to apply their full strength in the western front.

We Americans are taught that we saved the world because 'Merica; unfortunately, at the same time we are never taught the equally-crucial (or, in the cases of Britain and France in WWI and the Soviet Union in WWII, infinitely MORE crucial) parts that our allied nations played in doing the same thing.

Those first tank models were...... "Problematic" would be putting it generously. One French model had a huge frontal portion causing it to get stuck when it tried to cross trenches. British tanks ran the risk of wiping out their entire crews from the gases every time they were sent out. German tanks were essentially barns that had armored strapped on.

I do agree it wasn't the fault of the ANZACs.

The Austro-Hungarians were basically useless. My great grandfather was a calvary officer in their army--- I still don't know how the hell he survived. The fact remains, however, that they spent more time trying to stave off total collapse then doing much useful.

The Russians......the less that can be said there, the better.

By the time of the last German hurrah they were out of the war.
 
Those first tank models were...... "Problematic" would be putting it generously. One French model had a huge frontal portion causing it to get stuck when it tried to cross trenches. British tanks ran the risk of wiping out their entire crews from the gases every time they were sent out. German tanks were essentially barns that had armored strapped on.

I do agree it wasn't the fault of the ANZACs.

The Austro-Hungarians were basically useless. My great grandfather was a calvary officer in their army--- I still don't know how the hell he survived. The fact remains, however, that they spent more time trying to stave off total collapse then doing much useful.

The Russians......the less that can be said there, the better.

By the time of the last German hurrah they were out of the war.

But what the Russians did do was to keep hundreds of thousands of Germans on the eastern front for three years...that's three years that those armies and their logistical support could have been sent to the west, instead. In fact, IIRC, at one of the crucial points in the battle of Verdun, the French were pleading with the Russians to counterattack - the Russians did so, and the Germans sent (again, IIRC) an entire army corps from the Verdun salient to Russia...and this took some of the pressure off the French, just as was intended.

And when it comes to the tanks, you're describing the early models. The later models were much more effective, and German General von Ludendorf himself said the use of light tanks (less well armored, but faster) and "tanks that carried infantry" (the first APC's) were major factors in his losses in 1918.
 
Ah, you were doing so well. I think the first half of your post is exactly right--the 40's, the 50's and the early 60's would strike me as the most nostalgic period of modern American history. The decline, of course, started with Johnson (whom you liberals always conveniently forget to mention). Vietnam was his war, and the turmoil that war caused is what started the decline.

LOL Yet more Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon. The Civil Rights act was passed under Johnson. Perhaps that is what you meant by the start of the decline.
 
The US was greater when it was solvent. Being the biggest debtor in the world is not an indication of greatness. Mrs Obama's rant about the US being the "greatest country in the world" is nothing but bluster which only the ignorant will take seriously.
 
I disagree. You're referring to the last years of Jim Crow, of segregation; the Korean War; the Red Scare; McCarthyism; a much lower percentage of population covered by health insurance than today; a lower national rate of literacy than today...

...no, the 1950's are a great example of how many look back to the good old days, never realizing that those days weren't so good after all.

As you said.. the last days of all those horrible things. As for healthcare.. that ship has sailed long ago.
 
It all depends on your point of view.

I believe that America's greatest days will be in the future.

Those who think that they lie in the past should get to work on a time machine.

:lol:

This time wasting thread asks a question that can't be answered from the options provided.
 
Last edited:
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.

In that time, you had the great prosperity. emersion and expansion of the middle class, victory in WW2, economic equality, one of the fastest expansions of the US economy in history, the emergence of the United States as the foremost world power, the advent and implementation of nuclear energy, victory in the space race, and perhaps more importantly an integral democracy as opposed to the modern plutocracy that reigns today ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ), etc...

The present is a great time to be rich, and not so much anything else.
 
Last edited:
As if to demonstrate the liberal propensity to engage in nothing but lies and smears, along comes iguanaman to prove the point. First the lie:
LOL Yet more Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon.
More died under Johnson by a fairly significant margin. Nixons first year in office, 1969, was by far his worst for US casualties, but any honest appraisal (not that I expect one from you) would recognize the fact that the 1969 casualty figures were already baked into a quagmire Nixon inherited from Johnson.

Now the smear:
The Civil Rights act was passed under Johnson. Perhaps that is what you meant by the start of the decline.
The limited liberal mind quickly runs out of intellectual ammo so it jumps from outright lies to accusations of racism. Perhaps as you mature and your brain develops you will acquire an ability to engage in honest discussion of issues. But I don't hold out much hope. Best of luck.
 
Never mind that the homicide and violent crime rates were higher every year under Reagan than they were ANY year under Obama. Not only that, but under Obama we're STILL in what is BY FAR the longest stretch of private-sector job growth in ALL American history.

And let's not forget that Reagan saddled us with trickle-down economics...which is STILL what we've got today, what Bush 41 rightly called "voodoo economics". Every penny of budget deficit we've had since 1980 is due in significant part to Reaganomics - because THAT was when we started down the road of out-of-control deficits.

Impact on world affairs? How many regimes did Reagan overthrow or attempt to overthrow? I didn't know it at the time, but my ship was a part of one of those efforts. And then there's Iran-Contra.

And let's not forget his opening speech at Philadelphia, MS - which most people realized was an effort to reach out to the racists. And before you try to claim otherwise, remember his "welfare queen" fairy tale.

LOL

Well done, your hyper partisan re-write of history was not unexpected.

Overlooking the massive increase in prosperity across all demographics, a drop in unemployment from almost 10% caused by the disaster known as Carter down to 5.5% at the end of Reagan's 2nd term, and the catalyst that freed 100's of millions from the stench of socialism, is no small feat.

How about interest rates that reverted to levels that allowed people to actually achieve a part of the American dream. The list goes on and on.

I realize there must be some element of the swearing of allegiance to Progressivism that requires the Reagan Administration to be seen as the beginning of the end. I've been reading this comedy for years.

But when one considers the selective view and erasing of facts applied to Progressive disasters like California, it's a bit easier to understand the derangement triggered at the mention of Reagans name. The training certainly comes out.
 
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.
Pick ANY era... and one can find negatives. On balance, the 50s were a pretty good time for the country.
 
But what the Russians did do was to keep hundreds of thousands of Germans on the eastern front for three years...that's three years that those armies and their logistical support could have been sent to the west, instead. In fact, IIRC, at one of the crucial points in the battle of Verdun, the French were pleading with the Russians to counterattack - the Russians did so, and the Germans sent (again, IIRC) an entire army corps from the Verdun salient to Russia...and this took some of the pressure off the French, just as was intended.

And when it comes to the tanks, you're describing the early models. The later models were much more effective, and German General von Ludendorf himself said the use of light tanks (less well armored, but faster) and "tanks that carried infantry" (the first APC's) were major factors in his losses in 1918.

Yeah, that's true; but, the huge losses the Russians took during the First World War played a fairly major contributing role to their eventual decline into Civil War.

I hadn't heard anything about APCs being used in the First World War before.
 
It all depends on your point of view.

I believe that America's greatest days will be in the future.

Those who think that they lie in the past should get to work on a time machine.

:lol:

This time wasting thread asks a question that can't be answered from the options provided.

i disagree, empires rise and fall, they all do, and america has had its rise.

without sound money, and with the intrusion of government in people's personal lives, greatest cannot be achieved
 
The present day United States could kick the ass of any previous United States.
 
I see quite a bit of voting for the 50s and 60s. I'm not down with that.

On one hand, the US was certainly at a military and economic peak during that time. However, there were a wide variety of major political black eyes and issues during that time, such as:

• Segregation and racism were very serious and devastating problems.

• Women were treated like second-class citizens, routinely prevented from working or having careers. There was little recognition of sexual harassment, rape and so forth.

• Gays were very heavily stigmatized during that period.

• The USSR was a very serious threat to the US, was considered an existential threat to the US and a major challenge to its hegemony.

• The Communist threat scared the crap out of everyone in the 50s, resulting in massive political and constitutional abuses by the likes of Senator McCarthy and the HUAC.

• We had numerous military and political misadventures and misfires during that time, such as:
- the Korean War
- Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis)
- aiding the coup in Iran, which came back to bite us, hard, in subsequent years
- Vietnam (and no, that wasn't just "Johnson's War," the US was involved as early as 1959)

• Much of our economic superiority was a result of WWII destroying the manufacturing infrastructure of our competitors, and other competitors were not yet developed. UK, France, Germany, Japan -- shattered. China, Mexico -- barely industrialized. Meanwhile, many US products were well-made, but others were not; auto quality, for example, suffered badly during that period. The Big Three had a monopoly, no incentive to improve quality, little incentive to improve designs, and an antagonistic relationship with labor.

• Speaking of labor, unions at that time were very strong, one of the factors resulting in good wages for US manufacturing employees.

• Medicare did not exist. In fact, medical care was still in many respects somewhat primitive compared to today. We thought cigarettes were healthy.

• Technology was somewhat primitive compared to today. TV was B&W, limited to broadcast; computers barely existed; the most advanced communication technology was a telephone. No Call of Duty!!!

• We barely understood, let alone did anything about, pollution and environmental impacts.

• Some people were terrified of Elvis, rock n' roll, pre-marital sex, Jews, cars made in Japan.... Seems like there was quite a bit of fear-mongering at the time.

One positive thing is that income inequality was relatively mild, at a low point for the 20th century. This was in part due to decent manufacturing work, as well as very high tax rates on the upper incomes of the wealthy, a smaller financial sector, a functioning pension system, higher Social Security benefits, and executives taking less compensation than today.

Another positive thing (by some standards) is that there wasn't as much consumer crap as there is today. AFAIK, nothing comparable to Bed Bath and Beyond existed in 1952. While these creature comforts are nice, we are also drowning in things we really don't need.

So, I'm not sure it was all that great of a time. It definitely wasn't if you were gay, a minority, or a woman. And economically, it certainly wasn't sustainable.
 
Pick ANY era... and one can find negatives. On balance, the 50s were a pretty good time for the country.
Unless you were black, Hispanic, Asian, a woman, gay, poor, Jewish, elderly.... Did I leave anyone out? ;)
 
The present day United States could kick the ass of any previous United States.

I don't think so. So many seem to lack the initiative and will to defend their freedoms. So many don't even vote, and the ennui is strong.
 
Back
Top Bottom