Have you looked at the federal budget? A very significant and increasing portion of it is tied up to “promoting the general welfare”
Again, I think in absolute terms we’re still doing better and better. The trend toward greater income inequality is worrying, but ISTM that it’s as much a structural issue as anything else. The sort of jobs that once existed at places like Boeing, where high school graduates could earn $80K a year after a decade of on-the-job training - are gone and they’re not coming back. The question - and it’s not exclusively or even largely an American one - is what unskilled workers are going to do.
It punctured a layer of oblivious complacency that many Americans held. My wife and I discuss this frequently. To me - having grown up in the UK, where Irish Republican terrorism was frequent - it was basically just a bigger-than-normal bomb. To her it was a paradigm shift; she’s very intelligent, but until then she was somewhat unaware of global politics and it simply never occurred to her that we could be threatened by a foreign actor short of a nuclear strike.
Was Sweden ever a “great power”? 
We discuss this seriously all the time. Healthcare policy is among the most heavily discussed political topics of the day. Infrastructure spending was one of the centerpieces of the bailout.
Our military expenditures are basically an employment program. Not so much direct military hiring - though we have an awful lot of soldiers and sailors - as keeping our defense industry humming. The problem with cutting military spending is that the sort of giant military establishment that you need in case of war can’t be built up overnight, and technology must continue to advance.
Boeing is a poor example. Aerospace is one industry where the kind of high-level blue collar jobs that still exist.
See, some of these problems could be easily fixed once we get a solid majority onboard with fixing them.
Income inequality? We could raise taxes on the rich. Radical, I know. And then use that tax money to fund stuff like universal health coverage. And that frees up economic mobility as corporations and small businesses and the self-employed no longer have to handle health insurance.
The great thing about looking around and seeing these horrible inefficiencies is that a few common sense solutions can result in massive improvements.
Yes, it is radical. This is like an anti-sacrifice Aztec wondering why they don’t just stop pulling hearts out of people to please the Gods. You are a fringe figure. The majority of your country’s citizens disagree with your propositions on a basic level.
Also, the line is that UHC is cheaper and more efficient than America’s system. No need to raise taxes to pay for it.
I would pick 1973 for the oil embargo and a year after the last Moon landing.
But consumerism is ultimately doomed because it cannot work with increasing population. The global population hit 4 billion in 1974. Lots of things have to give, but we were all brainwashed into believing in “the good life” and won’t give it up without a fight.
Nuke them Arabs, take the oil, global warming is a Chinese hoax. :smack:
psik
It sure was.
You can Google “Sweden Great Power Era” or “Swedish Empire”. Generally considered to have ended in 1718/1719. Starting is a bit more controversial, but late 16th or early 17th centuries.
I tried really hard to find something open source to look at but it is all mainly books. Sorry. 
But here’s a wikipedia (shudder) link: Swedish Empire - Wikipedia
[1] Roberts, M. (1984). The Swedish imperial experience 1560-1718. Cambridge University Press.
[2] Scott, F. D. (1988). Sweden, the Nation’s History. SIU Press.
[3] Bain, R. N. (1899). Charles XII and the Collapse of the Swedish Empire, 1682-1719. GP Putnam’s sons.
So Americans fundamentally are opposed to higher taxes on the rich? Really? They’d be happy to pay more in taxes themselves, but for God’s sake don’t touch the rich?
I know that rich people constantly put out propaganda that the rich should pay lower taxes, and some people like you believe it, but it’s simply nonsensical to believe that most Americans think the rich deserve a tax cut.
And of course we’d have to raise taxes to pay for UHC, even if it were cheaper than our current system, because right now only half of spending on health care goes through the government. Sure we could spend less net, but that would be because your employer isn’t spending thousands and thousands of dollars every year for your health insurance.
It’s a simple fact that health care costs in America are much much higher than in any other country, and our health care metrics are pretty lackluster for all that spending. So why is it that Americans are so backwards that we can’t accomplish what other crappy countries can accomplish?
To be fair I can’t take credit for the claim that it is more that the rest of the world is improving (not that the US is declining), I read about it from Fareed Zakaria.
I might just do that next time 
Fortunately the aeroplane had powerpoints in the seatrests in economy class, but not all airlines are so thoughtful. 
Huh. Thanks!
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
I believe almost everyone would be happy to raise taxes on the rich, except for the rich themselves, who have a very disproportionate say in whether their taxes get raised.
The facts of the economics of universal health care are obvious – but the right-wing rich, who want health care to be a for-profit enterprise only – control what a substantial segment of the voting public believes. It is this which is the great immovable foundation of American Stupidity about healthcare.
Personally, I noticed that America was a lying narcissistic shitball of a place when I was fifteen and forty years have not dislodged my opinion at all. The greatness of the US was its generosity and optimism, not its wealth and power. The former is definitely wizened and crumbling. The latter can be boringly debated if one wishes.
Er, no. The line is that the increase in taxes will be considerably dwarfed by the amount not being paid in premiums and deductibles, and in return far better outcomes will be achieved overall.
Not to mention the huge quality of life improvements - even indirectly - for pretty much every single person in the US.
And more freedom of job movement, as people won’t be reluctant or unable to switch jobs due to the effects of changing employer-based health plans.
Is restriction of job movement the reason why American business isn’t lining up behind single payer? I keep asking a form of this question here and at another board and (1) no one seems to have a knowledgeable answer and (2) it doesn’t seem to be a question that many people find interesting. But I think getting the enthusiastic support of the business community is the final linchpin in getting a single payer system moving in congress.
That half is actually still more than the vast majority of developed nations spend on UHC. As a percentage of GDP or in dollars per citizen.
If you compare it to the cheaper systems out there… US government ******healthcare spending, ~4600 per citizen. UK government spending on healthcare, purchasing full free-at-the-point-of-use NHS for all residents, ~2800 per citizen.
I remember a kerfluffle many years ago when some liberal blogger opined that Americans love tax cuts and war more than the health of their own children. With the current Republican healthcare proposal that proposition may be put to the test.
No, I don’t believe it. Not sure where you got that.
Democrats are stuck defending Romneycare and they’re wiped out at every level. America doesn’t have a secret progressive heart. Not even California will pass UHC. I’m not saying give up, but it’s important to recognize reality.
Restriction of job movement is typically something business doesn’t like, and it’s one of the reasons that the business community keeps trying to decouple employment from healthcare through other means (mostly making individual health plan premiums tax deductible like employer premiums).
Obama had both houses for a while, hardly tied up due to obstruction. His legacy fair or not is accumulating more debt than all other Presidents combined, and a soon to be failed healthcare bill coined after his last name.
But Trump does have a point, the USA in many cases is still doing the heavy lifting ( SUCH as in NATO ) and has too many unfavorable trade deals.
I do not think the USA is in a visible decline. They are still rated highly in science, business, sports, natural resources, and have a very stable population pyramid. What I think we are seeing is the rise in other nations ability to compete.