Americans have put up with the whiners. Now let them put up or shut up.

In the United States, a government of, by, and for the People has achieved greatness. As filmmaker Ken Burns recently ticked off, “the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Land Grant College Act, the Homestead Act, national parks, public education, antitrust laws, Social Security, a National Labor Relations Act, Glass-Steagall, the G.I. Bill, interstate highways, the man on the moon, and the ACA" are amongst the significant attainments the People have achieved through self-governance.

Why is there now a mob of strident wrecking ballers hellbent on trashing what is demonstrably the greatest democratic achievement in the history of civilisation?

What alternative paradigm do they offer beyond their paranoid plaint, "Gub'mint is the enemy!"?

The nations that top the Human Development Index are Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, USA, Japan, and Ireland. All, not coincidentally, embrace self-governance in administering social welfare and regulating free-market capitalism.

So, do the maligners of democratic rule have an alternative metric by which they measure relative success, and what is the preferable paradigm such an appraisal would cause them to propose?

Aynrandistan?

Rule #1 in confronting reality: Get real.

A) Specify your criteria.

B) Name the extant nation you would prefer to emulate based upon your criteria.​

 

It never fails.

I offer the opportunity to discuss demonstrable reality vs airy-fairy ideological dogma, and it's as if I've suddenly illuminated a beacon that triggers a roach stampede.

 

And what "demonstrable reality" did you discuss in your OP? Nada, just "airy-fairy ideological dogma." How special all you leftists are, not beholden to meet even your own stated standards.

The reason you have to bumpo your own thread is that it is so biased and dishonestly structured, from the title to almost every line of the OP, as usual with your threads, that few if any care to reply. Like many leftists, you seem to have a problem expressing yourself or taking a position in a clear, direct way without hyperbolic slant and spin. This particular OP is so slanted that it almost forecloses discussion. Instead of merely asking for a response or opinions, you set up all these biased conditions and prestructure prospective replies in your favor that it's no wonder not many people reply. Why bother? Would it do any good? I had hoped this latest slantthread would fade away off the front page rapidly, but since you are now bumpoing it yourself...

It's Sunday, and the movie I was watching sucks, so OK.

Some deslanting is in order first. With respect to the title, you have slanted "Americans" on one side and "whiners" on the other. LOL. Why not just say "anyone who disagrees with any of my POVs is whining" right off the bat? That would be far more honest than your jingoistic thread title. Most of your threads start off with this degree of inherent slant. Moreover, the topic is too general, and since you don't even answer your own questions posed at the end, why should anyone else attempt to? It's plain from the title and what lies within that your intent is to annoy, not seek any kind of discussion of particular issues.

Turning to the substance of the OP, you cite to a filmmaker list of American achievements, begin the list with possibly the three greatest human achievements in recent history, and then pepper in -your- (or Burns') ideological opinions many would strongly disagree with, things like ACA, Social Security, NLRA, some other things that many would categorize as good things, but also as small potatoes, GI Bill, Homestead Act, Land Grant College Act. Why not simply say, "here's what -I- think are our greatest achievement, agree or disagree," without the pretext? In short, Burns' list is his opinion, why not state yours?

Then you get patently dishonest and hyperbolic to the point of absurdity with, "mob of strident wrecking ballers hellbent on trashing"... the whole of Democratic civilization? Seriously? So without mentioning any specific topics for a reasonable discussion, you lay out an ignorant generalization, once again condemning "people who don't agree with me." "Anyone who wants changes I don't want is not only a mob wrecking baller, but unamerican." That about size up the -real- translated topic of the thread so far? Seems so.

To the next paragraph, more of the same. translates is "Anyone who wants changes I don't want is ignorant and has no coherent policy for change." The big irony here is that there's nothing specific in your own OP other than the "big government we have is good, just look at what this filmmaker says are its achievements!" no reasoning or specific paradigmatic statement at all. Once more, you are simply mudslinging, not seeking any kind of discussion, and in this case, your own OP is just as bad as the "less gubmint" folks you deride. Frankly, you look really silly here.

Then to your list of Human Development Index Countries, you don't tell us why the index is what we should strive for, nor give specific examples, just a list of countries? Huh? Is there a claim in here? If we are doing things that these other countries do, what are they specifically? Once again, you aren't coming anywhere close to meeting your own criteria for posting to the thread.

Then to next paragraph, "maligners of democratic rule?" then "Aynrandistan?" Geez. Lots wrong here in the slanted hyperbole arena you live in, but it's self-evident so won't say more.

Then to A) and B), YOU didn't do A) yourself, so why would anyone reply seriously within your stringent requirements? As far as B) why should we be limited to extant nations in our political aspirations, is that the best we can do? You don't offer any reasoning at all that grounds the "choose a nation to emulate." Just because most all the countries in the world are less free and prosperous than the US doesn't speak to limiting our desire for better government here.

Now, finally to actual substantive reply. 1. The paradigm I propose for governing is the Constitutional Republic with limited, enumerated powers, strong Lockean property rights, rule of law. Basically what the Constitutional framers envisioned. We deviated from this from the start, but especially with the progressivism of the early 20th century to present day. We ended up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies

and it is a lie to compare that claiming what is listed in the above is "too much" equates to establishing "AynRandistan" or taking a "wrecking ball" to what makes us great, or rule by the people. I'm not obligated to get more specific at this point as to what to get rid of because you certainly weren't specific at all with setting up your "us good Americans versus the whiny wrecking baller" absurdity.

Turning to question B) instead of answering it directly, I will point out that most of the countries on that list have a far smaller and far more homogenous population than MY... SINGLE... STATE. So the real underlying question is "how would those human development countries react to large, heinously expensive central government?" and interestingly enough, that's a question we can attempt to answer hypothetically because most of those countries on your list are indeed EU members.

So I ask you, if the EU suddenly unilaterally increased its budget, say, 10-20 fold, conscripted a permanent military from members, levied a 20-40% tax on the income of every individual in every member state, unilaterally increased its own powers whenever it wanted by ignoring the foundational EU docs, sold graft benefits to special interests in exchange for brown bags down the road... you get the idea. What if the EU suddenly became unilaterally more like the central US government? Would your teeny tiny statelike "human development star" countries like that much? Would their complaints and military actions in response be just the "paranoia" of "whiny wrecking ballers?" against "you and the other patriots?" Would they all be "hellbent on trashing" their great central power?

Along the lines of -your own- list, all the "angry white wrecking ball" crowd you so dishonestly and perpetually posture against in snarky, unreasoned thread after snarky, unreasoned thread, are really just people who have a different view of how large and powerful a distant, greedy, bullying, horrendously expensive, out of touch, central government should be. What chance is it that they are just reasonable people who are recoiling over exactly the same things the Irish, Dutch, Swedish or other small, independent nations would recoil over if their governing structure suddenly resembled the US more? Aren't the localists the ones actually advocating rule by the people locally over you and yours who make constant excuses for gigantic, violent, graft-laden central bureaucracy grown out of control? Wouldn't curtailing central power in favor of more local power, within reason, make us look more like the countries on your list other than Japan and the US? Hey, it's your own list I'm working with, if Iceland with under a million population makes your list of great countries, why shouldn't we allow our individual states to be more self-governing?

Oh and to preempt a particularly imbecilic retort that I anticipate from the left, but shouldn't have to deal with, when speaking with reasonable adults, no one is talking about repealing the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air or Water Acts, equal pay laws, antitrust laws, etc. No one is talking about instituting anarchy or anything near it. So spare any replies in that vein.

 

Let's dispense with the evasive blather, and cut to the chase.

In regard to a preferable alternative to the enumerated democratic societies that address social welfare needs and regulate capitalism, you can neither A) specify your criteria, nor B) name any extant nation you would prefer to emulate based upon those criteria.

 

Either deal with my clear, responsive answer honestly and the many legitimate points it raises, or go back to bumpoing your own threads that few here bother replying to because of all the snarky, puerile, dishonest hyperbole you infuse into your OPs. Choice is yours.

 

Dang Sanskrit, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Of course you will be ignored because reality is not what the OP is interested in.

 

You were doing fine up and untill you listed obamacare.

 

Good luck with your quest - Sadly I think it might be a fools errand though.

Everyone these days are so desperate to hang tags on things, the reason the thing exists is forgotten. History shows us absolute socialism does not work, equally absolute capitalism fails. The successful nations of the modern era are those that found the balance, the mix that suits their national identity and their culture. The US sees Australia as a socialist nanny state, Sweden sees Australia as a draconian capitalist driven society.

The reality is many concepts the US holds true where socialist or liberal in origin. Child labor laws, universal basic education are clear examples, even the Plimsoll line was seen as anti business. Time now shows us these were ultimately great ideas and added to the value of a culture.

 

I see, neither you nor bumpo attempt to answer the questions in the OP, specifically the first one, other than with platitudes, "here's some filmmaker's list of why we are great," or yours, "history shows us absolute socialism doesn't work, equally absolute capitalism fails."

Perhaps one shouldn't ask questions that they themselves don't answer.

But really, any adult here can see this thread is just gussied up flamebait. If as you say, "everyone these days is so desperate to hang tags on things," you seem to have no problem whatsoever with tags such as "whiners," "mob of strident wrecking ballers hellbent on trashing democracy," "maligners of democratic rule," "Aynrandistan," or at least you rush right over those in an effort to mollycoddle OP's immense failure of a flamebait thread.

 

We have a "constitutional scholar " who pisses on it daily before golf.

We deserve the government we get.

 

The answer is supplied by the avalanche of idiot threads posted here. And the fact you refer to Ken Burns as "some film maker" says a lot more about you than Ken Burns.

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

What "avalanche of idiot threads?" You are just as bad as the OP. You two should just coauthor a thread, "Everyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot!" which ironically is exactly the clear intent of this thread.

Well, OP, at least you got some more bumps now, which in retrospect I think is great; now more people can see this monstrosity before it fades away.

 

The OP first referred to "filmmaker Ken Burns" in this thread, not me, and I stand by my assessment based on how -wacky- the list he "ticked off" as America's greatest achievements is... objectively... wacky.

 

1) Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall, he, Gramm and others needed to do so to consolidate their businesses. This would later pave the way for Fannie& Freddie.
2)None of the aforementioned pieces of legislations represent "Self-governance" but rather are social products, which may or may not have worked.
3) Scratch that, even if they didn't work, they 'worked' for some(the ACA being a prime example) and so in your mind, it's an "example of "self-governance"

Other examples of accepted, but miserably failed Liberal legislation include: SSA.(Stripping people of their income, to pay them off later. Who died and made the government king?) Of course, suffice to say the Liberal also failed to account for the Baby Boomer Impact.

Public Education: In lieu of poor testing, failure to churn out workers and/or industrial leaders, now's not the time to cite "Public Education". America: When's the last time your school got some significant upgrades? Exactly, and you have the teacher's Union to thank for that.


Land Grant/Government involvement in Secondary Education as a whole: Hey, good for them to devote resources to Agricultural studies, but why not to other fields? Is foreign language that unimportant? Especially in light of Liberal America's seething hatred for all things English. Can't have us be "multicultural" and have only one native tongue now can you?

Secondly, for all good that Grants in general have done for greater access, they've also jacked up the prices to levels unsustainable levels, making grants even worse then the actual price of enrollment. Liberal America should pull a Finland and provide free secondary education or NOT at all.

Prices won't rise without grants, quite the opposite: They'll drop like a rock. Because unless it's a private institution, it's money OWED to the State. They need enrollment.

Pell Grants, etc has been like half-assing it, with all the known consequences half-assing comes with.

Then of course, I take exception to Liberals highlighting key documents of America's beginning. Since MOST Liberals would've been King George's lapdog. Unless you're telling us that in certain situations only do you value the Individual over Statism.

So let's review:

-Half of this list wouldn't apply to Modern Liberals, and even though they serve as examples of freedom. At best, our good friend Natty here only endorses it from a historical and personal perspective. Most likely, Liberals cite the oft-hated Founders to score political points.

-Of the half that DOES apply to Modern Liberals, most are counterproductive and/or irrelevant(National Banks). The ones that are counterproductive, are largely because Liberal America failed to take in, among other things:

-Total Cost
-Future Cost
-Productivity

As a 'providing government', that glorious misrepresentation of what the Founders meant. The Liberals will bankrupt us at this point by 2020-2025(at the latest).

The Liberals may very well charge that my prediction is vague. Not necessarily. It's only vague in not knowing when the final spending plunge will shoot us over. If a Liberal wants to argue otherwise, let's see the Liberal plan to cut the National Debt.

Liberals will NEVER tighten the wallet. That assures us that this mess is far from over.

A: My Criteria: Every Item on the budget is PAID for. Discretionary spending is eliminated, pork barrel projects are GONE. This extends to Districts. Funding will be on a first-come, first-served basis. And primarily based off the Return of Investment theory.

Return of Investment(ROI): If X gets $120 dollars in a loan, X must make $240 in PROFIT. Gone are the days where we run our deficits in the red.

B: Finland comes to mind for Economic Reform, but as far as a Pro-business government model, some governments are more financially prudent than others. But if you'll allow me to use history: Fascist Italy and NS Germany ran far superior Economic Models to what we're using now..

 

Then feel free to show me the matrix for establishing that objective wackiness. Show me exactly how wacky man landing on the moon is. Then show me the index comparison between that event and the GI bill

 

I posted a reasonable if long answer to both questions in the OP. It has not been addressed at all, not a single point in it, by you, OP or anyone else. So, no, I'm not beholden to "show you this or show you that" at this point. I will say that I wouldn't consider the GI Bill, College Bills, the NLRA, Glass Steagall, and especially not the ACA as appropriate in a top ten list of US achievements from any ideological perspective. What is objectively "wacky," and I should have just said "disingenuous" or "asinine" instead of trying to be polite, is opening a list of US achievements with the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then sliding in ideologically debatable "achievements" after. You are welcome to feel otherwise of course.

As is usually the case, leftists consider it their prerogative to rattle off a bunch of unsubstantiated half-claims and then recoil as the "concerned social scientist" seeking absolute epistemological certainty with respect to any counterclaims raised. Sorry, this isn't a 100 level social sciences class where such double standards are business as usual.

 

You should have said subjectively - as in your opinion

 

Oddly enough - or not - I have found that 99.9% of the people who rant and rail against 'socialist countries' have never actually lived in one. Strange, that.

 

A) Maximized individual liberty for the greatest number of people possible.

B) Iceland is hip these days. But to be honest, I'm thinking more along the lines of the United Federation of Planets.

 

The ACA is closer to the challenger space launch than the moon landing.

There's just too many things wrong with your post to list them all. I know that when you live in a college bubble, the only conservatives are crazy guys with signs about armageddon and libertarians, but there's a reason why most older people are conservative and it has nothing to do with pretty much anything you've written down here.

 

That's not true. Consider Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson's recent comment: Tony Blair has ‘finally gone mad’ in his call for a new intervention in Iraq, Boris Johnson claimed today as senior Tories appeared split on the wisdom of the 2003 invasion. The London Mayor claimed Mr Blair ‘surely needs professional psychiatric help’ for refusing the accept that the Iraq War was a ‘tragic mistake’.

You need not pretend that my pragmatic approach - simply noting what actually works best vs airy-fairy ideological dogma - is flawed for reasons you are unable to explain. Let's ground our politics in reality.

All you need to do is present the alternatives that you prefer:

A) Specify your criteria.

B) Name the extant nation you would prefer to emulate based upon your criteria.​

 

Personally I've never given a ratsass for party or labels. I - to paraphrase Chou En Lai or Mao or whomever - don't care what colour the cat is as long as it catches mice. Most ideologues tend to be simple minded folk who really really need the structure and framework to navigate life. And yes, that includes religion to a large degree.

 

It may be a meritocracy, but it has no currency and almost no personal belongings. It suggests that capitalism will become extinct in favor of a collectivist society that rewards people with prestige rather than property.