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

[PeteEU]

Nope. We left because we were not allowed to fight the war. We had our hands tied behind our backs... so we left.

Yes you left because you lost. By your definition the Russians did not lose in Afghanistan either... they just left cause they had better things to do.

 

[Bodi]

Yes you left because you lost. By your definition the Russians did not lose in Afghanistan either... they just left cause they had better things to do.

Wrong. They went full out. We had all these rules of engagement and places we were not allowed to attack. You need to seriously learn some things...

 

[RetiredUSN]

America is great for a lot of reasons, and she has been ugly for a lot of reasons.

The great "Forrest Gump" would say:

America is like a box of chocolates

 

[notquiteright]

Wrong. They went full out. We had all these rules of engagement and places we were not allowed to attack. You need to seriously learn some things...

Wrong. Doesn't matter rules or 'all out', doesn't matter how many lives are sacrificed if the local government doesn't have the backing of the people. The 'invaders' are seen as just that unless the local regime has the population on their side.

Problem with many armchair generals is they think it was a lack of killing and destruction that was the failure. If we had turned the entire region into a war zone we would have lost.

Do you really think England could have won the Rebellion of some of it's colonies by bankrupting itself pouring massive amounts of men and material into the New World?

Invaders only win rebellions if the local government is popular with the masses- and the invader respects the locals.

Oh having some skill separating the rebels from the locals is helpful as well.

You seriously need to learn some things... eace

 

[notquiteright]

We were 'the greatest' vs the rest of the world after WWII and the rest of the world was in shambles.

I think we are at the peak of our 'greatness' right now as our culture, finance, military spans the globe. The cost has been a crippling debt and the rise of second world nations that use cheap labor to make cheap disposable goods we seem to have no limit on consuming... eace

 

[Bodi]

Wrong. Doesn't matter rules or 'all out', doesn't matter how many lives are sacrificed if the local government doesn't have the backing of the people. The 'invaders' are seen as just that unless the local regime has the population on their side.

Problem with many armchair generals is they think it was a lack of killing and destruction that was the failure. If we had turned the entire region into a war zone we would have lost.

Do you really think England could have won the Rebellion of some of it's colonies by bankrupting itself pouring massive amounts of men and material into the New World?

Invaders only win rebellions if the local government is popular with the masses- and the invader respects the locals.

Oh having some skill separating the rebels from the locals is helpful as well.

You seriously need to learn some things... eace

This post is so historically stupid that it borders on defying belief...

 

[PeteEU]

Wrong. They went full out. We had all these rules of engagement and places we were not allowed to attack. You need to seriously learn some things...

More excuses. What was the goal of going into Vietnam? To stop the spread of communism by keeping South Vietnam in play. This failed.. South Vietnam is gone, and the communists took over the whole country.. and spread to Laos, Cambodia and elsewhere.

Hence you lost, and failed. Get over it.

 

[Bodi]

More excuses. What was the goal of going into Vietnam? To stop the spread of communism by keeping South Vietnam in play. This failed.. South Vietnam is gone, and the communists took over the whole country.. and spread to Laos, Cambodia and elsewhere.

Hence you lost, and failed. Get over it.

Learn your history and try again..m

 

[WCH]

Who said anything about going back up to 90? Obama suggested what was it, 36 or 39 percent, and the Right had a cow.

YOU said it was the Glory Days when it was at 90. I urge you to look at how the FedGov wastes money...no matter how much it is.

 

[radcen]

As I figured, everyone voted for the 50s.

Europe and Asia were mostly devastated by the two world wars. Their infrastructure, their men, their women, their children. The Soviets and Chinese consumed themselves with civil war and communism. We alone lost men and resources and even then, fewer on a percentage basis in general. Our manufacturing capabilities were at peak capacity - they'd been tasked with staving off doomday.

We hit the ground sprinting. Everyone else hit it at a wounded sloth's crawl.

OF COURSE we were at our best relative to the rest of the world in the 50s.

* No doubt, some women were killed in some part of the war effort. But you get my point.

All of that may be true... so? :shrug:

The premise of the thread is not, "When was America at its greatest, not counting guilt trip factors?"

The original question didn't even qualify "...relative to the rest of the world...".

 

[Tigerace117]

And you won venereal disease and drug wise.. so what? The political goals were not reached which is the goal of any war.

Just because Congress was dumb, yet again, doesn't mean we didn't win militarily.


And despite all your snarky cracks, Denmark wasn't doing much back then except praying the Russians wouldn't come steamrolling out of the sea, so.....

 

[PeteEU]

Just because Congress was dumb, yet again, doesn't mean we didn't win militarily.

Sure you won the battles.. but you lost the war.

And despite all your snarky cracks, Denmark wasn't doing much back then except praying the Russians wouldn't come steamrolling out of the sea, so.....

Eh? What on earth does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[Tigerace117]

Sure you won the battles.. but you lost the war.



Eh? What on earth does that have to do with the discussion?

The crack about winning in drugs and general disease? Obviously you seem to find this amusing.

 

[PeteEU]

The crack about winning in drugs and general disease? Obviously you seem to find this amusing.

Amusing? No.. factual, just as saying the US won the battles. Drugs and general disease is part of any war and is a problem of course.. just as being in denial over the fact that the overall goals were never achieved and hence the war was lost.

 

[Nilly]

Well, people vote based on their rose tinted beliefs. And therefore that makes a reality. Perhaps Gallup captures the mood of the country.
View attachment 67204829

I don't see mood as a reliable indicator though. Mood can be down to million different things. Given the 24 hour news cycle and digital cable (which really boomed when, late 90's?) we're simply more informed of the bad things going on in the world. I'd say that that has pretty large effect on the mood of the country.

 

[Fiddytree]

Politically, the W. Bush administration years were a lot more productive than today.

But, you know, this question truly is about demographics. Let's consider just the last decade.

Gay and Bisexual Americans have it far better today than a decade ago.

The economic lower middle class and working class does not due to a sluggish recovery.

The chronically ill and disabled have better health insurance rights than a decade ago. The underemployed working class has better security in health insurance than a decade ago (Medicaid expansion). Other portions of the working and lower middle class do not have better financial security with health insurance, because the cost may have substantially risen.

Economically, the past will be a mixed bag. Some decades were better for them than others. However, for minorities as a whole, you're not exactly going to convince them that the past was a magical time.

I'm not going to fantasize about 1960s America, and I largely won't until the 1990s when my demographic was given public accommodation rights. If my brothers and sisters with disabilities couldn't even get to mainstream society, I am not going to say "that's the time to be alive!" Gay Americans aren't going to be so fond of the 1990s when they were still reeling from the social isolation that came in the wake of the AIDS epidemic and the build up to Don't Ask Don't Tell. If they couldn't be trusted to be a family in the eyes of the law until less than a decade ago, why should these Americans get all teary-eyed for Truman-Eisenhower America, when they were deep in the closet out of fear? African Americans and other racial minorities certainly aren't going to get happy about pre-public accommodations and voting rights America.

 

[Painter]

I find it infuriating that people would say the 50's were better than today, and I'm a white male.
I can only imagine how a woman, a minority, or a homosexual must feel when they read that. Actually, no, I can't even imagine.

It was a really terrible time for over half the population.
Women could only aspire to be secretaries. And often had to give sexual favors to get that far.
It was a time before segregation when blacks were kept in communities that now days we'd compare to third world refugee shelters.
According to historical media, homosexuals were all but non-existent. I wonder where they really were?
Problems were ignored instead of discussed.
It was the ending of a era when woman would be lobotomized and kept in institutions if their rich husbands grew tired of them.

You have to be a person without any empathy at all, selfish, self centered, oblivious to the fact that the suffering of others is just as valid as your own feelings... if you think that horrible time frame was better than the freedom we all enjoy today.

There is no doubt that America has never been better and more free than it is today. Yes, we have a long road to travel yet. But our best days are still ahead of us.

 

[earthworm]

no vote
Thus whole ''greater business'' is cheap campaign rhetoric , only appeals to the ''not so bright'' (like me) .
In my opinion, our best time was 1945-1946, having beaten the worlds two ''super powers'' .
No sane man would ever want to go thru this again ..for the sake of ''greatness'' .
2020 may be another ''great time'', IF we can rid the world of Islamic extremism (ISIS)..
But, these ''greatnesses'' are NOTHING to be proud of !
An overcoming of hatred, and fear .. if ever .. that would be THE accomplishment ..and, I think that today, we are making strides - however slow ..

 

[earthworm]

no vote
another rigged poll
Todays era is missing , 2009 - 2017 ..
Despite the conservative efforts, today could well be the ''best times'' .. Strangely , we are better off with the conservatives around ! Progressivism does need a brake !

 

[Ontologuy]

Clearly the poll winner by a landslide is the 1950s.

And that's because the buying power of the dollar and its associated American citizen middle class was at its largest then.

Today, scores of millions of Americans are un- or under- employed, suffering economically, our dollar has far less purchasing power, our middle class has shrunk significantly .. and this is true for all types of Americans, no matter their position on the comparatively irrelevant social issues of abortion, drugs, gender, guns, race, religion, sexual orientation and the like.

It's the economy, the individual American's personal economy .. and that's precisely why you have so many Donald and Bernie supporters, people on all sides of the social issues but who agree on one foundational thing: they're really hurting economically and we need solutions to the fundamental systemic causative problems.

Again, it's all here in the History section of the Problem, from the Powerful American Political Alliance, the only assemblage of American citizens that will truly hold either Trump or Clinton et al to the task of indeed making America great again: The Problem.

No matter who gets elected President, Governor, Senator, Representative, etc., unless we the people are constantly on them after they're elected, their money-power machine will compel them to do the same destructive things that have made our situation so bad.

We must be vocal in getting these problems solved, threatening impeachment and voting out of office, or things will just continue to get worse.

 

[Eric7216]

I don't see mood as a reliable indicator though. Mood can be down to million different things. Given the 24 hour news cycle and digital cable (which really boomed when, late 90's?) we're simply more informed of the bad things going on in the world. I'd say that that has pretty large effect on the mood of the country.

Attitude or mood affects people and causes them to respond differently, producing different results. One of the prevailing things about a country like Denmark which ranks high in income, health, education is that they rank high in trust. They trust their neighbors. There are anecdotes about Danish mothers leaving their babies in strollers outside of stores while they shop and when they try that in the US, they get arrested for child endangerment. Danes also rank high in happiness. Happiness and trust of others lead to those social services and those high rankings. Mood is relevant.
Generally in the US we don't trust each other or like each other (referring to people we don't know or people who don't think or look like us). This leads to lower moods and leads to an inability for government to function democratically. Do you really believe that the US currently has a properly functioning government?

 

[Nilly]

Attitude or mood affects people and causes them to respond differently, producing different results. One of the prevailing things about a country like Denmark which ranks high in income, health, education is that they rank high in trust. They trust their neighbors. There are anecdotes about Danish mothers leaving their babies in strollers outside of stores while they shop and when they try that in the US, they get arrested for child endangerment. Danes also rank high in happiness. Happiness and trust of others lead to those social services and those high rankings. Mood is relevant.
Generally in the US we don't trust each other or like each other (referring to people we don't know or people who don't think or look like us). This leads to lower moods and leads to an inability for government to function democratically. Do you really believe that the US currently has a properly functioning government?

To the question, honestly, yes. I think it's awfully naive to think that the US govt ran any better in the past than it does now, we just have much more spotlight on what everyone does.

You seem to be suggesting that a lower mood of the population leads to a non-functioning govt. But the premise of your earlier posts suggest that it's a non-functioning govt that leads to a lower mood. Are you suggesting it's a circular thing?

I would say that a lower 'mood' causes us to believe that govt is non-functioning. But there's nothing to suggest that lower mood actively causes govt to be non-functioning.

 

[clownboy]

I find it infuriating that people would say the 50's were better than today, and I'm a white male.
I can only imagine how a woman, a minority, or a homosexual must feel when they read that. Actually, no, I can't even imagine.

It was a really terrible time for over half the population.
Women could only aspire to be secretaries. And often had to give sexual favors to get that far.
It was a time before segregation when blacks were kept in communities that now days we'd compare to third world refugee shelters.
According to historical media, homosexuals were all but non-existent. I wonder where they really were?
Problems were ignored instead of discussed.
It was the ending of a era when woman would be lobotomized and kept in institutions if their rich husbands grew tired of them.

You have to be a person without any empathy at all, selfish, self centered, oblivious to the fact that the suffering of others is just as valid as your own feelings... if you think that horrible time frame was better than the freedom we all enjoy today.

There is no doubt that America has never been better and more free than it is today. Yes, we have a long road to travel yet. But our best days are still ahead of us.

Interesting and so obviously you weren't alive for the 50s in America. It was the dawning of the age of hyper mobility. If you didn't like the conditions where you were at, a day, maybe two of driving and you were in an entirely different place. It's why my grandparents (my great grandmother was a passer that didn't get sent to Oklahoma) settled in Nevada City (where I was born). We were taught in schools and at home that the color of one's skin didn't matter, that we were all Americans together. My aunts were the county supervisors - so much for just being secretaries. My grandmother owned and ran the town store.

There were all kinds of human colors working logging, mining and every other job. Folks got paid for the work they did, not the sex or color they were. It's true that most of the moms were the stay at home and raise kids variety, but they didn't have to be.

 

[radcen]

To me you cannot directly and literally compare one era to another. You cannot say "Era 1 had X that Era 2 did not have, thus Era 2 sucked". That'd be like making a direct comparison of Babe Ruth vs today's top home run hitters. There are similarities, but most people would recognize you couldn't magically plop Ruth into a game today and expect Ruth-like numbers.

IMO, you have to try and equalize the relativity of eras and compare them in that sense, especially to the eras right before and right after, and how one era progressed or regressed accordingly.

 

[Eric7216]

Gay and Bisexual Americans have it far better today than a decade ago.
The economic lower middle class and working class does not due to a sluggish recovery.
The chronically ill and disabled have better health insurance rights than a decade ago. The underemployed working class has better security in health insurance than a decade ago (Medicaid expansion). Other portions of the working and lower middle class do not have better financial security with health insurance, because the cost may have substantially risen.

I'm not going to fantasize about 1960s America, and I largely won't until the 1990s when my demographic was given public accommodation rights. If my brothers and sisters with disabilities couldn't even get to mainstream society, I am not going to say "that's the time to be alive!" Gay Americans aren't going to be so fond of the 1990s when they were still reeling from the social isolation that came in the wake of the AIDS epidemic and the build up to Don't Ask Don't Tell. If they couldn't be trusted to be a family in the eyes of the law until less than a decade ago, why should these Americans get all teary-eyed for Truman-Eisenhower America, when they were deep in the closet out of fear? African Americans and other racial minorities certainly aren't going to get happy about pre-public accommodations and voting rights America.

I suspect that those milestones do not have the impact that you are giving them. Maslow made his hierarchy of needs list, Physiological, safety, social, self-esteem, and self actualization. Getting the right to marry may impact one's self esteem but is meaningless if one has a reduction in those more basic needs. Hard to compare something like marriage equality to being a heterosexual young male in the 1960s and having your butt sent to Vietnam for a fun filled year. Voting rights don't seem terribly important when often less than 50% of even registered voters vote, let alone unregistered qualified voters. People tend to see the glass half empty and forget about the good things in their life and focus on their problems but if those good things disappear they suddenly become more interested in more fundamental needs.