>Please don't buy into the idea that government, by its nature, is dysfunctional--please look at other countries around the world to see that it is possible to have a non-corrupt, beneficent government entity that improves life for its citizens.

No, it's not possible, in the US. Outside the US, yes, as you've pointed out, but it's just not possible here; there's too many internal problems to make it possible. It's like saying it's possible to have a non-corrupt, beneficient government in Afghanistan; no, it really isn't, not for many generations. The social problems there prevent it.

You have a very unrealistic image of governmental history. As mentioned a big part of the reason Nixon decided to can the space program was because he literally did not like JFK. That was in 1972. If you want to go back further in history we had a vice president and secretary of the treasury literally engage in a duel to the death over their disputes. In particular the man on the $10 bill was killed by vice president of the man on the nickel. That was in 1804. If you'd like to go in between those we dates were busy killing each other off in a Civil War.

Even looking at the present, I think many are not aware of what's happening in Europe. Systems from Scandinavia's welfare state to the UK's NHS are in increasingly bad shape with things looking to only become worse. It's a mixture of increasing migration, an aging population, in the case of healthcare systems populations becoming generally less healthful, and increasing ideological fracturing of society. These are all issues that the US has has been an unfortunate leader on. The solidity of these systems will be illustrated over the next decade or two. Suffice to say, places like Sweden are already a good distance from the country you may think you are idealizing, and a few decades from now it will likely be even further away from that ideal. The point of this is that you need to compare apples to apples. If you're still idealizing Europe in a couple of decades, I'll concede the point - but I doubt you will be.

>In particular the man on the $20 bill was killed by vice president of the man on the nickel. That was in 1804.

What the heck are you talking about? Andrew Jackson died in 1845 of old age. Jackson killed some guy in 1806 in a duel, and apparently had a hot temper and challenged others to duels, but he himself died at the old age of 78.

Edit: you're thinking of the Hamilton-Burr duel, where Alexander Hamilton (who's on the $10 bill, not 20) was killed in 1804 by Aaron Burr, VP for Jefferson.

Indeed, my mistake on the $10 vs $20. Edited that in my post now. I did not even know that Jackson also killed somebody in a duel. Quite interesting!

You could also say man on the $10 was killed by the VP of the man on the $2.