State of the US and its economy

[Cantiliahantan]

i hope yall are all intersted

[Neo Nibu]

Yea idk man things are pretty bad and I really don't have much faith in the system, Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, not really a difference between them when their bought and owned by companies.

Have you guys heard about this protest, Occupy Wall Street? A ton of people all marched in and set up camp on Wall street last month and plan to stay there until their demands are met. And they have other events starting up in different cities, its a pretty big movement compared to past protests.

You can find some info on them here; occupywallst.org/

And here; www.occupytogether.org/

Also a list of their demands here; coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

I hope it really leads to something, i'd like to join them maybe even, but i'm too busy with school right now, maybe if its still going on this summer.

[Kardas]

Oct 5, 2011 10:51:23 GMT -5 Neo Nibu said:

and I really don't have much faith in the system

Hah, Dave Mustaine has been on this since 2004!


I believe much of the US' two-party system is to blame. What we see now in Washington are two parties that more or less refuse to work with each other not because what the other party proposes will not work, but simply because it's 'those other guys'. Here in the Netherlands, there have been some protests about the government of Mark Rutte (because of cuts in the healthcare, public transport and education budget. He also cut the defense budget, but no one seems to bothered about that), but at least Rutte gets stuff done.

Another theory is complacency. As we all now, the US came out of the Cold War as the sole superpower, and everyone was happy. But through this feeling of superiority there is little desire to innovate and improve the system. People believe the system is fine even though other countries are improving theirs and surpassing them.

Actually, maybe that's another thing the US could use- a cut in defense spending. Honestly, no one dares attack the US directly simply because their military is that good. In my opinion, a lot of that is overkill.

I actually read about Occupy Wall Street on Wikipedia. It sounds totally awesome. If I weren't stuck here I might have joined the movement too.

[Neo Nibu]

Yea I agree, the amount of money we spend on the military dwarfs everything else. It's rather ridiculous how little education and welfare gets by comparison.

I'm really looking forward to see where this goes, if it is still going on by the summer once schools out I'm probably gona go join them for a bit.

[Cantiliahantan]

i would as well if i wasnt all the way in texas with no ride ....id have to not totally but still disagree with yall we do need to cut military spending yes but i think that it allways needs to be in at least the top 2 or three things we spend the most money on the untited states has made the mistake of low military funding early in its history and it ended in disater (war of 1812) and more recentntly (world war 1) but also we shouldnt spend billions on machines that pretty much do one task ..and our education is being rapidly surpased by many other nations as well as our roads electric systems etc so-on so-on

[Cantiliahantan]

and besides like th e last option was supposed to say "america will follow the path of every empire in history" i mean we are one of the greates if not the greatest but every single empire has fallen and thye perfect example is the romans they were really a anceint carbon copy of us the biggeszt baddest most diverse and cocky natiot (enpire) and they fell from their infrastructure failing

[Kardas]

@ Canti: Back then there were a lot more countries that would actually oppose the US. Nations such as Iran or North Korea may dislike the US, but have to resort to covert methods if they want to actively oppose.

Plus I don't see how low military funding resulted in a bad outcome for WW1. In fact, the entrance of the US in WW1 was what sped the conflict up. Germany knew that they would have to act quick, or they would lose the attrition war. Hence their failed Spring Offensive in 1918.

Another theory on the fall of the Roman Empire was one we discussed in our Big History class: The Romans were initially successful as an empire because they acquired resources by quick conquests. Much of their resources were gained as large spoils of war. But when the Empire grew to large to effectively enlarge, they were forced to consolidate their holdings. They needed taxes, for example. This method was more constant, but overall had gave a lower income than their earlier conquests.
IMO, the Romans fell because of a combination of reasons:
- resource issues (above)
- loyalty (there was more political infighting in the Empire's later years, in addition to a larger proportion of foreign mercenaries in the Roman armies)
- little to no reform or adaptation to a different situation (What Canti said. actually, IMO, an eerie parallel to the US' situation)
- disease (the Romans suffered a few epidemics in their later years)
- and the continual weakening by resurgent empires (ie; Persians) and barbarian migrations (Goths moved towards Italy as they were displaced by other tribes)

BTW these might be some useful links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

EDIT: Here's an interesting quote by Robert Gates, the US' Defense Secretary, on military spending:

"What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."

[seattile]

Even though this might be off topic I have a sudden urge to qoute the military mastermind Sun Tzu.
But what Sun Tzu says does have some stuffs that have to do with todays econemy, like Wars cost money and Sun Tzu says
"A nation never profeits from a protracted (long) war"
or
"To capture the enemy's army is better than to destory it; to take a battalion, a company or a five-man squad is better than to destory it".

The US is very predicable in war, we try to destory the enemy forces by bombing then until they are but dust in the wind, this cost money. Our enemies know this so they hide in the mountians and caves, we would need to send in the Navy Seals or Delta Force or Army Rangers if we send in small groups of men trained to take out forces larger then them so this would cost less money and less men.