So, you’re saying that Americans are stupider and/or more corrupt than other nationalities?
And you assholes say liberals are “un-American.”
Uh…yeah, that’s precisely what I’m saying. I must congratulate you on your prescience in being able to so immediately ferret out the true meaning of my post. :rolleyes:
Cripes! It’s shit like this that makes me wonder why I even bother to take the time to sit down and compose these posts that I somehow imagine will give people insight to what I’m concerned about in regard to these issues. People around here condemn certain other conservative posters for their occasional drive-by postings, and lately I find myself having to fight the urge to adopt that style myself–and it’s precisely shit like this that leads to it! What’s the point of trying to be cogent when it only leads to idotic posts like yours?
You are the person who believes the US is uniquely incapable of having a good government. Since the government is the people, what exactly is your point?
I would tell you, but I’m late for the Two Minutes’ Hate.
As an addendum, I should add that the reason this country is so ill-equipped to function as a nanny-state is that is was designed from its inception to allow its citizens to be free of government control over their lives. It has nothing to do with stupidity, it has to do with the fact that the country wasn’t designed to function as a nanny-state to begin with, and the design implemented by the country’s founding fathers has been at odds with the ever-increasing attempts at social engineering in this country which was primarily kicked off by that that great (though I believe unintended) socialist, FDR, ever since.
So there, stick that in your smipe and poke it!
In some ways, sure–but that was by people who believed that our nation would consist primarily of farmers, or at least that the voting population would mostly be farmers. Our country was also designed from its inception to have a flexible government that could change with the times, which is what has happened.
No, actually, FDR’s programs have fit perfectly within a constitutional framework, and indeed they did a great deal to move our country away from the Great Depression. The GD was in part caused by our country’s being stuck to laws (not governmental framework, but laws) that were more appropriate for a disparate, sparsely-populated land of farmers than for an industrializing workforce. FDR helped us work within our country’s framework to have laws more appropriate to modern circumstances.
Daniel
We can agree to disagree on what is best in terms of what is the proper role of government in our lives. My own belief, based on my life’s observation, is that government is woefully ill-equipped to properly administer these kinds of programs, with the result being that they are needlessly expensive, complex and beaurocratic, and that they rarely provide anyone with what they really need.
To suggest that my opposition is based on the belief that Americans are more stupid and corrupt than other nationalities, such as jsgoddess did, is…well…stupid. 
If we’re bringing your life’s observation into this, let me ask, how much of your life have you spent observing the working poor, or those living in generational poverty?
Possibly–or possibly you’re not communicating well. The basis for your claims that Americans are uniquely incompetent to administer social programs was not at all well explained earlier in the thread, and the claims you’ve made for our incompetence’s basis in the Founding Father’s vision is pretty suspect, IMO. I’m not sure you’re right to blame jsgoddess for the confusion.
Daniel
Exactly. Hiding behind the design of the country and claiming that it makes us uniquely incompetent to do whatever is a cop out. There is no way to say that Americans cannot do X that other countries can do without it being a claim that Americans are uniquely stupid or incompetent.
Saying we shouldn’t is one thing. Saying we aren’t capable is a ridiculous argument.
Sorry. There are certain things that I just hold to be self-evident, I guess.
Further, I never said Americans were uniquely incompetent to administer social programs; I said the American government was uniquely imcompetent to administer social programs…which it is. Now some, I’m sure, will allege that because the government is made up of Americans, I am ipso, facto, claiming otherwise (and I believe you have more intellectual integrity than this), but I think any of us who are honest about it will acknowledge that government agencies and American citizens are not truly the same things. (I can hardly believe the things I’m forced to clarify around here sometimes. :rolleyes: )
And now, I’m off to dinner with a friend. If I have time, I’ll return later to continue the dialog.
That’s nice. I’m absolutely certain that those are in fact your beliefs, and will not contest that fact.
But so what? That doesn’t constitute evidence. In the world inside your head, where your beliefs are reality, that settles the issue. Out here, though, it’s sweet of you to share, but.
I would also note that you said your belief was that government was ill-equipped to administer the sorts of programs under discussion. In that case, the evidence of how well the assorted government-mandated universal healthcare programs around the world are working should speak to your beliefs.
The only counter to this you have is your claim that the U.S. government is uniquely unsuited to such tasks.
Well, what else have you got? A claim that the U.S. government wasn’t designed at inception to be a nanny state. Guess what - that’s true for most governments that have universal health care. Some of them were designed to be more authoritarian than ours, but that’s as far as you can take it. Pretty much every government with universal health care has a pedigree dating back to a time when no governments were nanny states. They’ve all had to learn over time, just like ours.
So our government is fundamentally handicapped in learning such skills, when compared to its peers. IOW, it’s stupid.
Those things you hold to be self-evident are precisely those things that most endanger your ability to evaluate the world fairly; that’s a pretty big problem, I think.
Actually, this whole paragraph is completely nonsensical to me. What on earth do you see as the difference between American government agencies and American citizens? Of COURSE these agencies are made of citizens; they’re not some alien superorganism that feeds on the body politic. These agencies are part of our culture, part of our society. To claim that there’s some fundamental difference between them–to suggest that the agency isn’t a subset of America–is completely incoherent.
I know you can hardly believe what you’re asked to clarify. From my perspective, that’s a problem with your own thinking, not with the thinking of everyone else. I hope that in being forced to clarify these claims, you’ll start to see that they don’t hold together.
Daniel
Many of his programs most certainly did NOT fit within our constitutional framework, as they were ruled unconstitutional.
Do you include the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (Court-packing) as working within our country’s framework? Really? The Executive doesn’t like the Judiciary’s rulings, so he tries to manufacture a majority on the Supreme Court that will agree with him. I don’t think that’s what the Framers had in mind in terms of Separation of Powers.
I include everything that has ever been ruled Constitutional as being within our country’s governing framework, by definition. That’s not a judgment call, that’s an issue of how I define the term. Some things that are within our government’s framework suck, but that doesn’t mean they’re not within the framework.
That should answer all your questions, Carol.
Daniel
I see. So groups of people acting in a concerted manner can be said to be indiciative of intelligence as a whole…and therefore are you saying the behavior of a lynch mob in the south or the wild west (or ‘subsets of America’, as you put it) accurately reflects the intelligence of Americans in general? Certainly not. Groups, businesses and governmental agencies often behave in ways that their individual members would not if it were up to them, thus stupid agency policies, laws and regulations get carried out by intelligent employees and administrators who may very well like to see things done differently but are powerless to do anything about it, while others can mindless robots or uncaring beaurocrats. Either way, the behavior of the agencies in question is in no way indicative of the intelligence, drive, ambition, compassion (or lack of same), which its employee base comprises.
But you know all this perfectly well, I’m sure.
Now I really do have to go.
When you’re comparing societies, absolutely. A society of stupid people will have stupider agencies than a society of smart people. And the original issue was your comparison of American agencies with those of other nationalities.
SA, again, what seems obvious to you is not obvious to the rest of us. We’re not mind-readers. You do have a (specious) reason for believing American bureaucracies worse than those of other countries, but you didn’t explain what that specious reason was. You now have, and I accept that it’s not because of a belief that Americans are stupid–but the reason you gave also doesn’t hold up.
Daniel
So, pace Ayn Rand, there is such thing as a collective brain.
Actually, I’d also like to respond to this. How many bureaucracies have you worked in? I’ve not worked in a lot, but certainly enough to know that this sentence is nonsense. An agency headed up by a brilliant bureacrat is a true pleasure to work within. One headed up by a self-centered idiot is a misery to work within. Likewise, the competence of one’s coworkers within an agency can make all the difference in the world.
Daniel
Look, you said “No, actually, FDR’s programs have fit perfectly within a constitutional framework”. For many of FDR’s programs, your statement is demonstrably false.
Demonstrate, then, the ones that were declared unconstitutional in the end, and I will amend my statement to exclude those. WPA, Social Security, etc. do not fall in that category.
Daniel