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

[Master PO]

This was a confirmation of my point, right?

 

[Henrin]

Unless you were black, Hispanic, Asian, a woman, gay, poor, Jewish, elderly.... Did I leave anyone out?

I'm guessing you're including the poor and the eldery due to a lack of social welfare programs for them. In other words, it's just political nonsense.

 

[shrubnose]

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

Come back 100 years from now and tell us all about it.

:lol:

No one on this planet knows for sure what will happen tomorrow.

 

[Master PO]

Come back 100 years from now and tell us all about it.

:lol:

No one on this planet knows for sure what will happen tomorrow.

i do know history, [and it repeats itself, because people do not learn from it] when government intrudes into people personal lifes, when it makes them more dependent on the state, when it taxes them greater and greater, when it deuces the value of its money, they fall.

 

[Logicman]

The U.S. was greater when it wasn't $19 trillion in debt; when it wasn't open season on the innocent unborn; and when America wasn't a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Jredbaron96]

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.

'Willpower' and other intangible reasoning have before been used to justify victory or to excuse defeat, and more often then not it falls flat.

 

[Ontologuy]

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.

Your poll has the 1950s winning handily.

McCarthy and his imps weren't America. Neither was one general, MacArthur. Sputnik was merely a satellite, and, it was Russian, not American. The Red Scare was a legitimate concern of a major nuclear power militarily taking over other countries, and that, again, was not America.

America also began making strides to end segregation in the 1950s.

What's important in what makes America great is individual economy -- American citizens were doing better economically in the 1950s than ever before or since with respect to what matters to working people: buying power for their dollar.

Today, we have more American children homeless than ever before and more adults homeless than ever before. Today, we have more American children going hungry than ever before. Today, we have more Americans in poverty than ever before. Today, we have more non-retired Americans un- and under- employed than ever before. Today, we have more traffic jams and over-crowded classrooms than ever before. Today, our dollar buys far less than it use to. Today, we are more economically dependent on foreign entities than ever before. And the list of terrible criteria goes on.

Today, America is not great, and it is not great because its citizens, scores of millions of them, are suffering economically.

 

[Nilly]

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.

 

[Eric7216]

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.

I agree. The last recession was a 18 month blip, statistical outlier, yet indicated some underlying issues.

 

[Eric7216]

View attachment 67204785

Clever, showing the generally increasing percentage of population voting to "prove" a point.

Do you think that maybe 1)women voting since 1920, 2)less African Americans denied voting (normally in Democrat controlled states) since c. 1965, and 3), perhaps most important, the aging of population and the decline of children as percent of the population has something to do with that?

Please at least try to be fair. Follow the truths and you won't be led astray.

Hillary may follow in Bill Clinton's footsteps. He is the only President to be elected not just once, but twice, with less than 25% of registered voters. In 1992 he got 43% of the 55.1% voting (23.7%) and in 1996 he got 49.2% of the 49.1% voting (24.2%).
Not good when small minorities control the government.

 

[clownboy]

The entire point of globalization is to lessen America. Does nobody remember "leveling the playing field"? The high spots are lowered and the low spots raised.

 

[Nilly]

Clever, showing the generally increasing percentage of population voting to "prove" a point.

Do you think that maybe 1)women voting since 1920, 2)less African Americans denied voting (normally in Democrat controlled states) since c. 1965, and 3), perhaps most important, the aging of population and the decline of children as percent of the population has something to do with that?

Please at least try to be fair. Follow the truths and you won't be led astray.

Ermmmm, did you look at the graph directly below that one?

EDIT: My bad, I didn't title it. The graph below shows the percentage of eligible voters who turned out. Not trying to peddle mistruths.

 

[Fletch]

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.

I think you are confusing greatness with perfection. No, the US was not perfect in the 50's. Or any other decade for that matter. The question is when was the US at its peak of greatness. I think the post WWII period fits the bill better than any other.

 

[Eric7216]

Ermmmm, did you look at the graph directly below that one?

EDIT: My bad, I didn't title it. The graph below shows the percentage of eligible voters who turned out. Not trying to peddle mistruths.

Well, that makes it a little better perhaps. You left out the 57.5% of voters who voted in 2012 (a 5% drop from 2004 and 3% from 2008) and you, rightly so perhaps, are ignoring the numerous accounts of both candidates being subpar and disliked in 2016 and a likelihood of lower voting.

 

[Nilly]

Well, that makes it a little better perhaps. You left out the 57.5% of voters who voted in 2012 (a 5% drop from 2004 and 3% from 2008) and you, rightly so perhaps, are ignoring the numerous accounts of both candidates being subpar and disliked in 2016 and a likelihood of lower voting.

Census data only went up to 2008.

Point is, significantly more people didn't vote in the past than they do today. Painting the past in a rose tinted light is very easy to do.

 

[Bodi]

Yes and no. The decline came because of the loss in Vietnam and the mental blockage that happened after this. Reagan got the US out of the mental blockage, but created an economic policy that has lead to massive debt and economic decline for the majority of the American population.

The US did not lose Vietnam...

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I think you are confusing greatness with perfection. No, the US was not perfect in the 50's. Or any other decade for that matter. The question is when was the US at its peak of greatness. I think the post WWII period fits the bill better than any other.

It looks as if you're referring to 'greatness' as synonymous with 'power in relation to the rest of the world'. But a nation that keeps entire segments of its society segregated simply because of their biological heritage cannot be called 'great'. If you'll recall, back in the 1930's, the militarily most powerful nation on the planet also kept an entire segment of its society segregated simply because of their biological heritage. Was that nation 'great'? I don't think so.

In other words, military power alone does not make a nation great.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I agree. The last recession was a 18 month blip, statistical outlier, yet indicated some underlying issues.

Fortunately, the overwhelming number of economists strongly disagree with you. But I get it - just like with the climatologists concerning global warming, since the economists are highly educated, since they're part of academia, they're automatically wrong.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Your poll has the 1950s winning handily.

McCarthy and his imps weren't America. Neither was one general, MacArthur. Sputnik was merely a satellite, and, it was Russian, not American. The Red Scare was a legitimate concern of a major nuclear power militarily taking over other countries, and that, again, was not America.

America also began making strides to end segregation in the 1950s.

What's important in what makes America great is individual economy -- American citizens were doing better economically in the 1950s than ever before or since with respect to what matters to working people: buying power for their dollar.

Today, we have more American children homeless than ever before and more adults homeless than ever before. Today, we have more American children going hungry than ever before. Today, we have more Americans in poverty than ever before. Today, we have more non-retired Americans un- and under- employed than ever before. Today, we have more traffic jams and over-crowded classrooms than ever before. Today, our dollar buys far less than it use to. Today, we are more economically dependent on foreign entities than ever before. And the list of terrible criteria goes on.

Today, America is not great, and it is not great because its citizens, scores of millions of them, are suffering economically.

Compare the poverty rates of the 1950's to today.

Compare the literacy rates of the 1950's to today.

Compare the educational attainment rates of the 1950's to today.

Compare the percentages of the population covered by health insurance in the 1950's to today.

Heck, check the labor force participation rate in the 1950's to today.

Looking at what you posted above, you seem to be looking at overall totals, but NOT at the overall rates, at the percentages of the population...and while more people in total might be in poverty than in the 1950's, they comprise a significantly SMALLER percentage of the overall population than they did back then.

In other words, you're another example of those who yearn for the "good old days", never realizing that those days weren't so great after all.

 

[DA60]

Who gives a ****?

The past is the past. You cannot accurately compare one period with another.

Debating it is for the weak.


I will say one thing...anyone who says that America was better when slavery was allowed or before women could vote is DEFINITELY a staggering ignoramus on this subject.

 

[Anagram]

Never. Technology's awesome.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

The funny thing is, Ludendorff personally sent Lenin - yes, Lenin - in a sealed boxcar from Austria to Russia in order to weaken the Russians. Talk about the law of unintended consequences....

From the Battle of Amiens (1918):

The attackers captured the first German position, advancing about 3.7 km (4,000 yd; 2.3 mi) by about 7:30 am.[21] In the centre, supporting units following the leading divisions attacked the second objective a further 3.2 km (2.0 mi) distant. Australian units reached their first objectives by 7:10 am, and by 8:20 am, the Australian 4th and 5th Divisions and the Canadian 4th Division passed through the initial breach in the German lines.[21] The third phase of the attack was assigned to infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks. However, the infantry was able to carry out this final step unaided.[21] The Allies penetrated well to the rear of the German defences and cavalry now continued the advance, one brigade in the Australian sector and two cavalry divisions in the Canadian sector. RAF and armoured car fire kept the retreating Germans from rallying.[21]

From the Western Front Association:

The British continued to put enormous effort into their tank production and many special purpose tanks were produced, e.g. Bridge Crossing; Self-Propelled Artillery; Personnel Carriers; Radio Communications and Engineering. They were designed to perform tasks such as bridge laying and served as radio linked command centres; although some applications never saw operations or proved to be less efficacious than was hoped. However, as was the mentioned earlier, the 48 Gun Carrier variations were highly effective and, once again, with each said to replace 300 men's labour when used to carry supplies.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Whose fault is that?

Ah. Which party is it that always wants to slash taxes in accordance with Reaganomics? And which party gets castigated for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe the rich can afford even a slightly higher tax rate? Hm?

 

[radcen]

It looks as if you're referring to 'greatness' as synonymous with 'power in relation to the rest of the world'. But a nation that keeps entire segments of its society segregated simply because of their biological heritage cannot be called 'great'. If you'll recall, back in the 1930's, the militarily most powerful nation on the planet also kept an entire segment of its society segregated simply because of their biological heritage. Was that nation 'great'? I don't think so.

In other words, military power alone does not make a nation great.

Ok, I've been reading your recent posts here, so I have a question: What society/era would you consider to be Utopian?

From the way you're talking, there must be one. Or, are you merely living up to your screen name?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Pick ANY era... and one can find negatives. On balance, the 50s were a pretty good time for the country.

Try Googling the following:

What was the poverty rate in the 1950's compared to now?

What was the nation's literacy rate in the 1950's compared to now?

What was the nation's educational attainment rate in the 1950's compared to now?

What was the nation's percentage of population covered by health insurance in the 1950's compared to now?

What was the nation's workforce participation rate in the 1950's compared to now? This one was a real surprise to me.

Now, if we add all the above to the segregation, the still strongly-extant Jim Crow during the 1950's...

...and it becomes apparent that anyone who thinks America was greater in the 1950's than today is a shining example of those who don't realize that the "good old days" weren't so good after all....