The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

Sorry but can anyone tell me the exact law which congress has passed that makes abortion legal in the U.S.?

It was not Congress, it was the US Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade.

That's what I thought.

A bit of a broad generalization, no? What is this based on?

To say that the demise of USA is inevitable is a bit far fetched, but they are for sure going to have some tough years ahead.

And who took the idea seriously that the Soviet Union would be gone in 1983? But by 1991, it found itself on history's dustbin.

The main reason the Soviet Union failed was economic, but other contributing factors were an internal political and social fracturing. I think we can see all of those same forces at play in the US today. By 2018, when the economy is projected to finally start making significant improvements, our national debt will be over $23 trillion. Short of shutting down the government for 12 years, that debt isn't payable in a generation. Our debt crisis far exceeds the Soviets.

Politically, we have never been so polarized. We've reached to point where either past would vote for Satan over Christ if his was with their party.

We are just as fractured socially. Either coast and major metropolitan areas have a completely different set of values from the "fly over" states. North, south, midwest, southwest - there are cultural and social differences.

Those factors influence how we perceive our problems and the solutions. The net result, as we have so aptly displayed here, is disagreement, strife and ultimately, inaction.

We had a saying in the military: The wrong decision might get someone killed; no decision gets everyone killed.

I disagree with most of this.

First, as regards to the Soviet Union, your post suggest that there was at some time a great national sense of unity that fractured. I suppose it could be debated, but my sense is that what you had was an oppressive regime that prior to Gorbachev was happy to use force to maintain stability. When the Soviet government signaled that it was not inclined to use force to maintain the status quo, that is when revolution took place. The large ethnic majorities in Soviet Russia were not part of some great happy union. So, I don't think that any social fracturing happened in the USSR- they were never all that united to begin with. I think that your post suggests that some increase in social polarization caused the fall of the USSR. My view would be that the already present lack of unity was a factor in the fall, but it was to a large extent a "top down" event that was allowed to occur.

The point of agreement that I have is that the parties are polarized. However, I think this does not extend to overall social polarization. Most Americans are moderate in their views (or at least identify themselves as moderates). There has not been a great shift in this in the past 30 years. http://content.thirdway.org/publications/372/Third_Way_Report_-_The_Still_Vital_Center.pdf (this report is clearly written from an organization with left/Dem leaning perspective- but that makes me think it is less biased in analyzing the importance and vitality of moderates).

I do not think we are nearly as socially polarized as you suggest. There are some folks who have shifted to the extreme, and I think this has had a large (oversized) impact on party politics (especially in the Republican Party, with the Tea Party having a disproportionate impact on the GOP positions; however, I have doubts this will be a lasting impact, if, as it is pretty clear it is necessary to have support of moderates and independents in order to prevail in the general election- the analysis at the state level is more complicated, but, without diving too deeply into that issue, not being extreme is important to winning in most states. Take a look at Massachusetts, which most everyone would agree would fall under the "blue state" Dem column but had a string of Republican governors (Weld, Romney, Cellucci, Swift) or Connecticut, with Lieberman able to win as an Independent candidate-though he caucuses with the Dems, and, again, having recent GOP governors (Rowland and Rell).

Bottom line, again, I think none of this suggest the end (or demise) of the US is near. Not by a long shot.

I think you proved my point on polarization. You went to great lengths to to promote a falsehood. The reality is somewhat different:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

Then you characterize the Tea Party as extreme.

Here are their 15 core beliefs:

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
I don't see anything extreme about it. Certainly they aren't advocating abandoning market capitalism like an extreme left group you didn't mention.
Moderates are extremely important to the liberal democrat base. Lose only 5% of them, and its game over. On the other hand, conservatives need only 8% to join with them.

Whatever lengths I went to, they certainly were not great. That aside, promoting a "falsehood" is a strange choice of words. Suggests a conscious lie was being told. I think you mistake a disagreement with a lie. There is a difference and the characterization does not help the argument- it only replaces the issue being discussed with an attack on the other person with the contrary position.

That aside, I think you are reading way too much into the figures cited:



"The reality is somewhat different:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx "

All this shows is a 3-5 percent shift of folks identifying themselves as conservative over the past few years (with the bulk of the shift coming from folks who identify as moderates). But, if you look at the figures as a whole, you see a pretty consistent set of numbers. They don't vary greatly and on average, they are very consistent. The numbers from 2010 track pretty closely with the numbers from 1992 (with the biggest difference being less liberals in 1992). Overall, I do not think a shift of a few points here or there supports a great polarization among the electorate. If you do, then that is just a difference of opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.

"Then you characterize the Tea Party as extreme.

Here are their 15 core beliefs:

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
I don't see anything extreme about it. Certainly they aren't advocating abandoning market capitalism like an extreme left group you didn't mention."

I think most folks characterize the Tea Party as the extreme faction of the Republican Party. I don't think this is controversial, however, if you think they are "mainstream," I think we are using different definitions.

This misses the point- if the GOP takes up extreme positions from the moderate base (by catering to Tea Party demands, for example), then they will alienate that 8%- and lose. It is less important what percentage is needed than whether Democrats actually have policies and positions that achieve the needed percentages. The corollary is if the GOP takes positions that do not appeal to the moderates enough to win their votes- they won't.

Either way, this detour from the main question does not impact on that issue. Nothing about either situation (Democrats or Republicans winning either the Presidency or a majority in either the House or Senate) changes the fact that....drumroll please....the Demise of the United States is not inevitable. And, even if it were, nothing about the party in power shifting slightly one way or another would speed this demise.

I still and will always think it is utterly stupid that one of three words is enough to characterize a group consisting of many different people. I always felt it to be a controlled divide and conquer display. Can't I just have my point of view without being hated on by ALL of the groups...jussayin.

Here we are the UNITED states and it seems to look like people want to fight other groups with words, hurtful if they deem necessary ...all to promote their agenda to the advent of saying "do what you want in your state ..my state will do it's own thing" (to me that is precisely the definition of the demise of the US...our country is defined by it's people...and it is the unity of the citizens that is dying out.). If I was a dirty business man capitalizing on exploits to the system...that's exactly what I would need to continue my misdeeds...people to argue over nothing. The ball goes to where you are looking when you throw it.

On a global level we are judged as one...we should act like it once in a while...then things wont look so depressing.

@jadmperry - do you think our current level of public debt and spending is sustainable (the country as a whole, including the states and local entities)? If not, what do you see the consequences ultimately being? Do you think there is a lack of reality on the part of politicians in dealing with these issues in this country? Or better yet, do you think politicians/bureaucrats are the ones who should be?

(these are all serious questions not meant to bait, I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint )

A lot to comment on here- I will take a shot, but if I miss something or am not clear, feel free to point out what I miss/omit.

Well, this is a really hard question in some respects. That is because it mixes "current" spending (meaning now, of course), with sustainable (which, necessarily is future looking). So, if you mean can current spending be sustained, it probably, at least at the Federal, can be sustained. Whether this level of debt is ideal or not, is a separate question. I just think it is technically feasible, if not ideal. (State and local issues are too broad to probably make generalizations about, but, I will try to offer some thoughts, below). But, I sense you are really talking about the future and sustainability in that context.

So, I will answer that easier question. Barring some great leaps in productivity and national wealth (which, I suppose could happen, but would not count on it in the near term), no, I don't think our present spending level, given projected increases in so called non-discretionary spending, is sustainable.

Well, if it is not sustainable, then the only choice seems to be a decrease in spending.

Clearly, at least as to the part of "politicians" as a whole coming up with a solution that has enough support to translate into legislation and the budgetary process. Now, I think that there are some workable solutions out there, but so far, none has enough support to pass into law. While maybe not ideal (people will certainly disagree on this), the Bowles-Simpson financial responsibility commission came up with a proposal to get spending under control. So, there are some politicians who have made some efforts (that are based in reality). But as a group, the politicians appear to be unable to deal with these issues directly.

Let's not forget, the super committee's failure to come to a consensus means that under current law, we will see an automatic $1.2 trillion cut in spending, including defense and Medicare over a ten year period. Though it is considered highly doubtful that Congress won't step in and change the current legislation, the current legislation seems to be a consequence of the inability of politicians to directly deal with spending and debt.

Well, I don't know who else would be dealing directly with spending, as our process requires Congress to pass the budget. Maybe I am missing the question or your point?

Hope I responded well enough. Reasonable people can disagree on the subject. But, discussion is a way to try to come to consensus.

I like a few of these ... especially #12.
Lots of these cry out "End Stage Redneck Syndrome". 5, 14,15.
Most are inflammatory, and without substance: 1, 6, 13.

I look forward to seeing the Tea Party try to rebut Democrat's plan on making the Taxation System fair.
Should be good for some serious laughs.

LOL Digital Doctor.

I skipped paying too much attention to the TP platform because, well, I don't think they have very serious positions. But after reading your post, I took a second look. Though there are other problems ( and a lot of them) with the platform, I really scratched my head about these two:

13.Intrusive government must be stopped.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

They seem to be mutually exclusive. How can government not be "intrusive" while encouraging "traditional family values"? In order to encourage anything, it seems that government must be intrusive. (And, as Digital Doctor pointed out, there is an issue with special interests here; unless, of course a special interest is not special if you like it or agree with it).

+Like
+Should be what the government does.
+Good for everyone
+Rule of Law

Encouragement is not necessarily intrusive. A government giving a federal discount on, say, membership of a healthclub is encouraging people to stay in shape. A government creating a law stating that gays are not allowed to <insert something here> or that women who got raped are not allowed to get an abortion is intrusive (in my mind).

And yes, the whole thing is subjective. What I would consider traditional family values (parents taking responsibility for their kids', and teaching the kids proper morals and values) might be different than what Romney considers to be traditional family values (like perhaps: A family is a man and a woman, and goes to church every day).

If you believe in the phrase "follow the money", the money is getting out of Dodge.

http://www.infowars.com/cameron-fleeing-america-to-escape-collapse/

Or it is coming to Dodge:

"According to data from the Immigration Service, thousands of wealthy Chinese have applied for the EB-5 Visa, also known as the “green-card-for-money” program.

Under the program, foreign investors must finance commercial projects in the U.S. by investing either $500,000 or $1 million and create at least 10 full-time jobs. The investors have to undergo a background check, identify the source of their wealth and create and sustain 10 full-time jobs. The investors and their families can get citizenship after five years if they fulfill the requirements.

Lots of rich people around the world apply. But the Chinese have become far and away the biggest users and beneficiaries.

In 2011, 2,969 Chinese citizens applied for the program and 934 were approved, according to the Immigration Service. (Approval doesn’t mean they get citizenship, it just means they can start the program). Their numbers represented more than three quarters of the total number of applicants and approvals."

http://updates.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/09/surge-in-rich-chinese-who-invest-in-u-s-citizenship/

Would the list of applicants and approved citizens be available to the public? Also what are the possible downsides to this program?