@stagedriverI don't have enough breathing room with my work schedule to respond to every single point you made, but I find myself fundamentally agreeing with your core argument regarding the need for a more efficient and equitable nation that actually delivers prosperity to its people.
Where our perspectives diverge—and there is certainly no requirement for us to see eye to eye—is in how we interpret the underlying causes of these issues, though I’d prefer to set aside those WWII historical debates as they hold very little interest for me.
To be blunt, I find little substance in that final paragraph because Americans simply aren't prepared for:
Deep-seated civil service reforms
A complete pivot in fiscal policy
Healthcare restructuring and parts of the education system
Judicial reform
Reducing state intervention, stopping the subsidization of loss-making entities, and divesting from state-owned assets that don't serve a vital national purpose (take, for instance, how we handle loss-making agencies, or why we wouldn't just privatize Kraft Heinz or let Henry Ford-style industrial giants run without government lifelines)
Stricter oversight on public procurement
Other structural shifts designed to reshape the GDP
It is a strange paradox here, much like seeing certain local government salaries actually outpace the median pay in the private sector. A country structured this way lacks a future because it fails to generate any meaningful growth.
While you touched on ideology and worldview, the reality is that this landscape remains largely unchanged regardless of which administration holds power or what the government is called. I might be a weary defeatist at times, but I have seen countless instances where the failures mentioned above had nothing to do with a specific ideology, despite how much people love to debate those topics.
All the best.
EDIT
@driftingtinkerI was referring to that punk concert