We have too many checkds and balances to collapse completely. We have fared before in hard times.

The bigger they are, yadda yadda yadda.

He is right. A USSR collapse would be more sever in the US. Why? I am reminded of the line Margaret Houlihan told BJ Honeycutt on a MASH episode. "The only reason you have more to lose is because you have more!"

Very true. A collapse in Bangladesh would hardly be felt as falling from an inch above the floor would hardly hurt. While the old USSR was far above Bangladesh, so is the US far above the old USSR. It can happen. Anything can happen, but as Stevendedalus points out, there are a lot of checks and balances that are in place to prevent it.

And if the US does collapse, it will not be as relatively uneventful as the collapse of the Soviet Union. It will plunge the world into financial chaos for a time to come. If the Collapse is sudden. if it is gradual, the pain will be lessened. But there will be pain. You dont chop off that huge a chunk of global GDP without feeling some pain.

No amount of checks and balances will be able to save us if our economy crumbles due to inflation, the declining dollar, and the fact that we owe so much money to foreign nations.  If our economy takes a major tumble, worse thant he great depression, then it is not at all far fetched to think of the entire government crumbling as well.

Except we dont really have to pay back those foreign nations.  China one of those countries at one time nationalized our property in their nation. We could always just  pay em back.  Ya it would cost us... but not as much as collapsing would.

1. What does this have to do with collapsing? Japan has no oil production, did it collapse?

2. How are our miliary budgets, inflated? Last year, military spending was about 4% of our GDP (by contrast, when Carter was President, it was 4.7%).

3. National debt today is about the same as it was during the  Eisenhower admin and less than it was during much of the clinton administration.

4. This is purely subjective. Define "reform". Aren't you in favor of redistributing wealth? Is that your idea of reform? Stealing money from one citizen to give to another. The USSR collapsed precisely because of that.

5. Purely subjective.  I would say taking 10 seconds to look up your assertions would do you more good.

Comparing Japan to the U.S is a very poor example. Geographically they don't require a fraction of the amount of energy we do for transport, for starters. Also, they kinda did get involved in WW2 largely over their lack of access to oil... that turned out real well in their favor, didn't it?

Yes, this is true. Two things:

1) This 4.7 % of U.S GDP accounts for over 44.5 % of total world military spending (next biggest is China at only 7.3 % of world military spending.... so by far you are the biggest spender!)

2) The number calculated for U.S "GDP" also happens to include the value and sale of an obscene amount of goods made outside of the U.S. So all those cars made in Mexico and computer parts made in Indonesia all count as U.S GDP even though it is in reality massive debt. This is called cooking the books. This is the same kind of trickery used to calculate "core" inflation, in which food and energy prices were intentionally left out to make it appear that inflation was only 3-4 % when in reality it was more like 9%.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Ok. So looks like you're sitting pretty then right? Well, the world has changed a lot since the Eisenhower administration!

1) After WW 2 the U.S was the world's biggest lender. Now it is the world's biggest debtor.

2) After WW 2 the U.S was a net exporter of energy. Now you have to import nearly 65 % of your energy from foreign sources.

3) That's a nice chart you posted. Here's another one- http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/debt_gdp.png

with the root site here-

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Where did you get that idea from??? Did you read the actual presentation I linked to? The fellow was arguing about how the government of the late soviet union was essentially useless due to corruption and being completely alienated from the reality on the ground. I argue that your current congress is in exactly that state (and it doesn't matter who's in control of it, dems or republicans ultimately serve the same special interest paymasters at the end of the day)

While your nation is facing issues of economic crises, depletion of major aquifers and core energy policy, politicians on both side of the isle pontificate about flag burning, gay marriage, abortion and whether or not 'to drill' or 'not to drill'. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. This is nothing new!

That's nice. They're not my assertions, by the way, which you would know if you read the presentation linked to. They're the assertions of the author, but for the record I do think they merit serious study. And delusions of grandeur do indeed prevent an honest discussion of problems. Delusions like saying "it could never happen here, we're the greatest country in the world!"

The U.S happens to be the greatest country in the world, at this particular moment in time. History is full of massive empires that were the greatest country in the world during their 15 minutes of fame. They had a good run, intimidated all the other empires and then ultimately fell apart for a variety of reasons. To state that the U.S will avoid the same fate is to say that human nature has somehow been altered irrevocably in your particular circumstance, which I think would be highly unlikely!

Actually it is quite good - it shows you can adapt and change, not blindly follow old paradigms to extinction.



So? 60 years ago the US percent of total military spending was much higher. It is not the world GDP that has to pay for it, it is the US. Saying because your brother cannot afford a million dollar mortgage you cannot is irrelevant.



So has the US. Do you expect it to continue to be the "one and only" in the world? YOu slam brad for using historical comparisons, yet use them yourself for the opposite purpose.



Sad but true - and also old news. The problem with being a big dog is abuse of power. This is not unique to the US, but it is an unfortunate truism.



See the bolded part. Thankfully, the US is not one of them. And never has been. While it has been imperialistic in the past, those were fleeting bouts of testerone that faded quickly. The US has something that no other country ever has before (and only a few since). A voice - not of the government making.

As I said, any country can fail. And the writer was clearly talking about the similarities of the USSR and the US, failing to even consider the differences. It was an exercise in hypothetics. And interesting from that perspective. But of little use for any scholarly research (although what sometimes passes as such could easily be confused with this).

History is to learn from, and man is condemned to repeat many mistakes because at times man is very stupid. But even a stupid dog eventually learns, and so has the world. That does not mean we have a brand new world today, only that the world today is nothing like what has transpired in the past. And so while we must continue to look to the past for lessons, we cannot look to the past for a road map. We are charting new territory.

Draginol,

This reminds me of something I read in a German newspaper. The subject was why so many Germans emigrated, especially to America. It's a big problem in Germany as the economy runs out of skilled workers, especially in the IT field.

The author of the article argued that the erosion of the social security system in Germany makes people leave. The solution was, the author argued, bringing back the complete social security system of the earlier decades.

The emigrants, of course, happily left for countries with no social security system to speak of. So I'm not sure how it would occur to anybody that they would stay for a better one.

The point is that liberals are very focused. They have a strategy and they will apply it to solve the problem. And if the problem was caused by that strategy they will double their efforts.

 

You forgot one:

6) The rise in bleating hearts that support illegal immigration and housing bailouts, protest the troops, and generally despise and wish to usher in the demise of the country that has supported their freedoms and way of life in exchange for socialism or worse.

Yes, and in order for that to happen their empire collapsed, their economy was in ruins, two cities were completely flatenned and large parts of their capital city vaporized with saturation fire bombing. It was only with the oversight and assistance from the U.S that Japan was able to have the revival that they did. Which begs the question, would the U.S have to be militarily conquered as well in order for a similar outcome to occur?

Yes, and 60 years ago the U.S was able to domestically produce all the energy you needed AND build all your weapons and consumer goods inside your own borders. Today the only thing that remains is that you still produce your own weapons locally. That wonderful number called GDP today currently counts your debt to other countries as part of the GDP, a nice way of covering it up!

On the contrary, I'm not "slamming" anyone. I enjoy a good argument!

I would argue to the contrary. Seeing as the U.S has several hundred military installations on foreign soil (how many military bases do the British or Germans have in the continental U.S? Would they be welcomed if they were to ask for one?) now practices pre-emptive warfare (fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here) and has been involved in that wonderful game of coups and assasinations in nations around the world in order to place leaders in power who would play ball with the U.S, often-times getting rid of a democratically elected government.

This makes the U.S essentially an empire, just without the official title!

This is partially true, and at the same time a very dangerous argument. To state that "this time is different" as I said earlier, contradicts basic human nature. It doesn't and hasn't changed!

Ahh yes, the old "everything is the fault of those guys over there" argument. For anyone who has grown past kindergarten, you will see that this statement is childish and contributes nothing to the argument. Anyone can point a finger!

3 - you forgot the fire bombing of Tokyo where more people died than in the other 2 combined - it just took more bombs.

That was their choice however, it was not necessary. China was "flattened" and did nothing. now it is. India was never flattened, and is going strong. Neither has much of a petroleum industry (other than usage) to speak of.



Not true. While we were coming out the isolationism of the 30s (a knee jerk reaction that FDR abetted and contributed to the Great Depression), much of the stuff was farmed out, and raw materials were imported. You don't have to make every widget just because you can. You make better things and let others that cant make better things make the stupid widgets.



A base is not control, and we have been kicked out enough of them when our welcome expired. The only place empires are kicked out of are those they are not in, or are in when the empire collapses (not even then all the time - See Roman). That is a bad stretch of the imagination to say the least.



Now, to not acknowledge the difference means that you have not learned from history. Hitler was no Kaiser. yes, Germany was a very aggressive state under both, but to say that "there is no difference" belies the fact that there were very real differences. The Kaiser was a farce in comparison to Hitler. The world almost lost that one.

That is always the part liberals "forget".

It's like the neo-Nazis in Germany and their yearly Dresden campaign. Yes, the bombing of Dresden was tragic. But the allies didn't do it for fun. The people of Dresden had a choice. The people of Warsaw did not.

To be fair to Dresden its citizens did not vote hitler into power, and voted against him.  Peronally I think we should have brought out the butchers knife in world war 2 much sooner, many G.I.'s died needlessly to save German and Japanese lives. 

Considering he never got more than 33% of the vote (in a non-fixed election), most of Germany can say that as well.