Is America the greatest country in the world?

[MikeK]

Gong back to a discussion Unkotare and I were having yesterday, this morning I was watching the news before getting out of bed. Included was an interview with a VFW commander in Minnesota. For the last eight years, the VFW have placed and taken care of American flags installed on major Minnesota bridges. The purpose was to symbolize love of country and support for the military in harm's way.

This week, after eight years, they were told they would have to take the flags down or they would be removed. Why? Because the flags themselves were not a problem but for safety reasons the authorities could not have people isntalling a lot of stuff on bridges, and if they allowed the American flag, they would have to allow an Iraqi flag if somebody wanted to fly one. The Commander said that was the specific analogy used for the explanation.

That, Unkotare, does tie into your 'liberal extremism' concept, but it also is born of the multiculturalism aspect of that which I encourage Americans to fight against.

"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross." [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]

Flag-wavers annoy me. Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose. Anyone can get a flag and wave it. They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.

 

[Friends]

Whether or not one thinks the United States is the greatest country in the world depends on what one values in a country. Ronald Reagan said, "America should be the kind of country where it is always possible to become rich."

If that is what you value, you should prefer the United States. Those born with rare and valuable talents probably have more opportunities here than anywhere else in the world to advance economically. Nevertheless, people do not deserve their talents, or the absence of talent.

I value a country where ordinary people with ordinary abilities who play the game by the rules can be assured of a reasonably decent standard of living. The United States was that way during the 1950s and 1960s. It is not that way now.

Although democratic socialism has been a popular ideal for perhaps a century and a half, it exists nowhere. That suggests to me that it cannot exist. What does exist, and what works reasonably well is Social Democracy. Social Democracy includes strong labor unions, a high minimum wage, a mixed economy, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

I am not sure that Social Democracy would work as well in the Untied States as it does in Scandinavia, that is the direction I want the United States to be moving in.

 

[Friends]

"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross." [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]

Flag-wavers annoy me. Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose. Anyone can get a flag and wave it. They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.

Patriotism should entail the willingness to sacrifice for the good of one's country. In the United States those who are most public in expressing their patriotism are also most public in expressing their hatred of taxes, and their willingness to do anything possible to reduce their tax load.

When I was a child and a teenager I was patriotic. I thrilled to "amber waves of grain," although I seldom saw any, and "rocks and rills," although I did not know what rills were.

The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust.

There are things that I appreciate about the United States. Those things are also true of other affluent democracies.

What I do not like is unique to the United States among affluent democracies. Our political campaigns are too long and too expensive. Elected officials spend too much time campaigning and raising campaign funds when they should be governing. The rich have too much money and too much power. The country is too polarized because too many lower income whites oppose domestic spending programs that would help them if they also help non whites.

 

[there4eyeM]

The last two posters are courageous, presenting as they do a viewpoint bound to be disapproved by many here.
We need to be eclectic in the new age. Ideology will only serve as a very general guide. 'Does this work for people,' should be the question. All of our sciences have informed us that past concepts are obsolete, or at least limited. America has the capacity to lead in these times, if 'lead' remains an appropriate word. It could certainly be a source of positive energy. The object should be to make the world great for everyone.

 

[Indofred]

"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross." [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]

Flag-wavers annoy me. Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose. Anyone can get a flag and wave it. They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your country and trying to do the best you can for your nation.
Buy your flag and wave it with pride - but not to the point where it becomes a symbol of hatred for others.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. In their recent presidential election there was 80% voter participation.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man was very early in the evolution of post-revolutionary French politics. As for parallels, it is difficult to compare with the war for independence. France was surrounded by historical enemies that immediately invaded at the start of the revolution. America had the luxury of developing without aggressive neighbors. The sad events between 1791 and 1871 could only have been avoided if perfect guidance had been in place; there was no margin of error.
America has no such excuse. Its massive riches should have assured a peaceful, prosperous nation with plenty for all.

We can respectfully agree to disagree on the definition of self governance. Voter participation is NOT self governance. Voter particiipation was pretty high in Iraq when Saddam boasted that he had the overwhelming support of his people. He who votes does not hold the power in most countries. He who counts the votes does.

That should not be construed as a suggestion that French elections are corrupt. But the French have less experience with a democratic republic than we do because for most of its history, France was a monarchy with the government having total power.

Self governance as the Founders saw it was a government that was assigned its responsibility by the people. The purpose of the central government was to provide a process by which the various states could be one country and to secure the rights of the people. The central government would then leave the states and the people entirely alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to prosper or fail according to the choices they made.

The French government set itself up to direct much of that process and provide social services which invariably place much more control with the government itself. In America the government cannot amend the Constitution--that is a process that can be done only by the states/people. In France the government amends its own Constitution.

In France, the government assigns what rights the people may have and can just as easily take them away.

In America the people were seen as having unalienable rights from God and the Constitution was ntended to assign responsibility to the government. It is that concept which at least some of us see as the one critical component that has made the USA the great nation that it is, even the greatest nation the world has ever known. And it is that concept which at least some of us are seeing under attack to the detriment of the country. Once the government of the USA assigns the rights the people may have, our decline will be certain and our mediocrity or worse will be sealed.

 

[Foxfyre]

It took me a bit to find it, but the fact is, the people are so happy in Denmark that there is a tremendous labor shortage because so many young Danes can’t wait to get out of there once they complete their free education. The high taxes and resulting almost Spartan standard of living when compared to much of Europe and the USA is not conducive to the educated and motivated to remain there.

[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/b.../05iht-labor.4.8603880.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The Times article speaks of a percentage of young Danes who took advantage of the free education and benefits afforded by that nation's socialist system but wish to expatriate because they don't want to pay the kind of tax which enabled their success. But the article does not speak for all Danes. And while the NY Times is an authoritative source, so is the following:

(Excerpt)

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?


"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.

(Close)

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News


So perhaps the question I should ask is what you believe to be the difference between greatness and happiness. And which of the two conditions would you prefer to live within?

Again Denmark occupies a land mass less than that of New York State and the Danish population is an extremely cohesive homogenous group sharing generations of history and total about two thirds of the population of New York City. To assume that the definition of happiness to a Dane is the same definition of happiness to a Texan or New Yorker or Californian is a huge assumption.

You can also read that the rates of suicide and diagnosed depression are higher per capita among the Danes than among people in many other parts of the world. Sociologists also write that the Danes have pretty well accepted the inevitable results of shared mediocrity, lack of opportunity to change one's circumstances, even shared mild deprivation. Not much difference than Mr. Foxfyre and I were when we were first starting out with extremely limited resources and just getting by the best we could. We were among the nation's 'poor' and there was no welfare state as yet at that time. But we were happy because almost all our friends were in the same boat. So we shared our franks and beans and played pinochle all night on the weekends and life was good. And in time we have all prospered.

We remember that part of our life fondly. Would we return to it now given an opportunity to do so? Probably not.

In Oprah's writings, she was amazed at the somewhat spartan conditions under which the Danes lived compared to much of the rest of the free world. Sociologists writing on the Danish life speculate that their 'happiness' comes from meeting very low expectations for themselves and their society. If you don't want much or have llittle ambition for anything different, you are happy with what you have.

 

[there4eyeM]

First, remember that France is the equivalent of a state in the US.
The majority of the time since 1789, France has been a republic. The concept of the social contract was born there. The founding fathers studied Montaigne, Voltaire and Rousseau along with other European philosophers. Most of their concepts came from there.
The French constitution may be changed with careful scrutiny by the representatives of the people chosen by direct election. Laws are scrutinized for constitutional adherence automatically by the judiciary.
As for taking away rights, what difference is there between anything in France and what has happened in the US with atrocities like the 'Patriot Act' and random police checks? Clearly unconstitutional bull fertilizer is dispensed all the time with very little protest from the Prozac-age American electorate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Further to MikeK, there is no denying that Americans, like all people of the world, are imperfect people and they, like all people of the world, established an imperfect nation. We Americans, as do all people of the world, have a history checkered with nobility and greatness and also failure and the indefensible.

But as much as you wish to point to the indefensible in America's history as somehow different or unique or more terrible than the indefensible in anybody else's history, we, like so many others who have chosen a higher path, have recognized our "sins" and have repented and we have reformed.

Now we should be looking at 'new sins' and the 'new indefensible' that many of us see. And as the greatest nation in the world, we should be seeking to correct that which we intend as good but which in fact is hurting people. The welfare state should be No. 1 on the list in that regard.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Now we should be looking at 'new sins' and the 'new indefensible' that many of us see. And as the greatest nation in the world, we should be seeking to correct that which we intend as good but which in fact is hurting people. The welfare state should be No. 1 on the list in that regard."

Can you be truly serious? America a welfare state? Absurd! The foremost problem is the accurate perception in the international community the the US is a danger to peace and the rule of law. What needs to be done is a massive work to undo the destruction to America wrought by 'W' and his henchmen.
America could still be a force for constructive change. That is the greatest thing it could do.
Welfare state!?! Would that we really were concerned with the welfare of those who cannot live a decent life in the richest country the world has ever seen!

 

[Synthaholic]

You have failed completely to prove your point.

I doubt you even understand what point I was making.

You want to doubt that, but doing so does not - despite your hope - make you any more intelligent or, in this case, correct. Your failure stands.

The point was that Rightwing policies hurt the poor more than the rich.

You have yet to refute that.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.

Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil. So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.

Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was. That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188


And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:

I think, since you started this thread, it is incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters for discussion are.

​

It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.

Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil. So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.

Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was. That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188


And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:

I think, since you started this thread, it is incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters for discussion are.

​

It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.

There are people who are in the business of making guns, tanks, missiles, and other trappings of war. Such people are going to do well when there is a market for such trappings of war. It is as wrong, however, to promote war or sabotage peace as it would be wrong to sabotage the petroleum industry so that 'green industries' can thrive or to case false accusations about somebody in order to look better to the electorate or the person who will offer the job. There are all manner of people who do wrong for their own interests.

Perhaps it is a consequence of being the last and only military superpower that encourages war profiteers to pull strings and circumvent laws. To think that diminishes the USA as 'the greatest nation' is pretty shortsighted and tunnel visioned, however.

 

[Synthaholic]

Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil. So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.

Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was. That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188


And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:

I think, since you started this thread, it is incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters for discussion are.

​

It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.

There are people who are in the business of making guns, tanks, missiles, and other trappings of war. Such people are going to do well when there is a market for such trappings of war. It is as wrong, however, to promote war or sabotage peace as it would be wrong to sabotage the petroleum industry so that 'green industries' can thrive or to case false accusations about somebody in order to look better to the electorate or the person who will offer the job. There are all manner of people who do wrong for their own interests.

Perhaps it is a consequence of being the last and only military superpower that encourages war profiteers to pull strings and circumvent laws. To think that diminishes the USA as 'the greatest nation' is pretty shortsighted and tunnel visioned, however.

I was right: you don't know what a war profiteer is.

Hint: it's not about profits:


prof·it·eer (pr

f

-tîr

)n. One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

intr.v. prof·it·eered, prof·it·eer·ing, prof·it·eers To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.


**************************************

profiteer [ˌprɒfɪˈtɪə]n (Business / Commerce) a person who makes excessive profits, esp by charging exorbitant prices for goods in short supply

vb (Business / Commerce) (intr) to make excessive profitsprofiteering n


***********************************************

prof·it·eer

   [prof-i-teer] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, especially through the sale of scarce or rationed goods.


verb (used without object) 2. to act as a profiteer.




*************************************

Definition of PROFITEER

: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

— profiteer intransitive verb




I like the last one, from Merriam-Webster, the best.

 

[Synthaholic]

Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.

 

[Liability]

Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.

Link

 

[Swagger]

There are several European nations that are capable of fielding their militaries in times of war that host - and indulge - arms manufacturers that pull strings (lobbying) and circumvent laws (often with the assistance of officials) when it comes to marketing hardware and securing contracts. See BAE Systems and QinetiQ of the UK, Bofors and Saab of Sweden, Heckler & Koch of Germany and Aérospatiale-Matra, Dassault and Eurocopter of France. The U.S. is far from alone in that respect.

 

[Synthaholic]

Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.

Link

Here's one for $45 per case:

Halliburton Watch

And $100 for a load of laundry.

Then there's this:

A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:

This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116 billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. As an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest. Duckworth pointed out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors accountable," she said.​

More:

Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research


There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are several European nations that are capable of fielding their militaries in times of war that host - and indulge - arms manufacturers that pull strings (lobbying) and circumvent laws (often with the assistance of officials) when it comes to marketing hardware and securing contracts. See BAE Systems and QinetiQ of the UK, Bofors and Saab of Sweden, Heckler & Koch of Germany and Aérospatiale-Matra, Dassault and Eurocopter of France. The U.S. is far from alone in that respect.

Yep, and whether it is profits or excess profits as Synthaholic seems to be fixated on--what is 'excessive' is also arbirtarily defined depending on who is defining it--the government buying the armaments sets the price for those armaments. So if somebody is overcharging for something, however that is defined, the government has the option of accepting the price or buying from somebody else at a lower price. Does the system sometimes corrupt those letting the contracts and/or those accepting them. Yep it sure does.

Does the welfare state that some think doesn't exist in the USA corrupt those issuing the benevolence as well as those receiving it? Yes, that happens too.

There is truth in the old saw of "killing somebody with kindness." The truly merciful will look at that and whether it is worthy of the world's greatest nation. The ideologically fixated will refuse to do so.

 

[Liability]

Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.

Link

Here's one for $45 per case:

Halliburton Watch

And $100 for a load of laundry.

Then there's this:

A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:

This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116 billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. As an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest. Duckworth pointed out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors accountable," she said.​

More:

Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research


There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.

There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.

Some of it might be very well justified.

But consider the source.

You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda. But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid. And be honest: you don't give a shit.