How long will the US democracy last?

[JEDI]

The US is nearing 230 years old. it's close to $8 Trillion in debt.

How much longer do you think the US will last b4 a new world revolution will occur and either the US will no longer be dominant and/or the Bill of Rights will be reformed?

 

[1EZduzit]

What bill of rights?

 

[Dissipate]

I think a revolution could occur within 20 years (hopefully non-violent). Aside from the debt, technology is going to cause the state to lose control of a lot of areas. Once government issued currency becomes obsolete, the end is near for the modern social democratic state.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

What democracy?

The US has never been a democracy.

 

[jimkyser]

I suspect some time in the middle of this century the US will cease to be the main economic power of the world just as England ceased to be the same early in the 20th century. I think the new powerhouses will be India and China. Over time their military might will exceed our as well after their economic might does.

I don't know about political changes within the US.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think a revolution could occur within 20 years (hopefully non-violent). Aside from the debt, technology is going to cause the state to lose control of a lot of areas. Once government issued currency becomes obsolete, the end is near for the modern social democratic state.

How do you see that happening?

 

[coomar]

i think he's referring to the states growing debt causing the country to experience explosive inflation and currency devaluation at some point in the future

 

[MisterCornell]

The debt as a percentage of GDP is not desireable, but not exactly disastrous as you make it out to be either.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think a revolution could occur within 20 years (hopefully non-violent). Aside from the debt, technology is going to cause the state to lose control of a lot of areas. Once government issued currency becomes obsolete, the end is near for the modern social democratic state.

How do you see that happening?

When currency goes digital and people no longer distinguish between government issued currency and private issuers.

 

[filterxg]

Bill of Rights will be amended or expanded within the next 50 years. But thats my opinion and not really justifiable.

The US will last a lot longer. As the superpower, another 100 years would be a surprise. Globalization (where present) is equalizing GDP per capita. Long run US will be richer, but China and India will join us economic superpowers based off population alone (assuming they continue getting their act together). Where we have the advantage is we will have the strongest investor class long after those two countries pass us in productivity and research.

Enough rambling. Just don't overestimate the significance of the debt. That debt is paid off over 30 years (30-year T-Bonds). As long as we are considered the most stable country, we can carry that or even a larger debt load (not that it is smart). US T-Bonds are the safest investment in the world, which makes it attractive and that is not being threatened.

Oh and militaries will become decreasingly relevant. You'll continue to see a decrease in Cold War era bases, and when the Middle East stuff wraps up our military will begin to come home for good. But unless WW3 happens, which isn't likely thanks to globalization, it will no longer be much of a judge of power.

 

[coomar]

china and india will easily be super-powers in 50 years

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: filterxg
Bill of Rights will be amended or expanded within the next 50 years. But thats my opinion and not really justifiable.

The US will last a lot longer. As the superpower, another 100 years would be a surprise. Globalization (where present) is equalizing GDP per capita. Long run US will be richer, but China and India will join us economic superpowers based off population alone (assuming they continue getting their act together). Where we have the advantage is we will have the strongest investor class long after those two countries pass us in productivity and research.

Enough rambling. Just don't overestimate the significance of the debt. That debt is paid off over 30 years (30-year T-Bonds). As long as we are considered the most stable country, we can carry that or even a larger debt load (not that it is smart). US T-Bonds are the safest investment in the world, which makes it attractive and that is not being threatened.

Oh and militaries will become decreasingly relevant. You'll continue to see a decrease in Cold War era bases, and when the Middle East stuff wraps up our military will begin to come home for good. But unless WW3 happens, which isn't likely thanks to globalization, it will no longer be much of a judge of power.

Those countries will NEVER pass us in productivety. They will eventually pass us in sheer GDP, but we will always be more productive than them.

 

[raildogg]

50 years?

more like 25 years

keep in mind that the US is a more or less liberal country when compared to countries in the east. compared to the sex crazy insane culture of Europe, we're conservative.

the west has turned China into the world's factory. be vary of the pace at which the Chinese economy grows though.

 

[kylebisme]

They are generally more open about sex in the east as well as in Europe, we just have a bunch of prudes around here.

 

[imported_Condor]

Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

How is spending money on war better than on social programs? Don't get me wrong, I don't like social programs either. I just don't see how war is any better, and is quite possibly a lot worse.

As for NASA, from where I am standing the whole thing is a complete boondoggle. It should be dismantled entirely ASAP.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

How is spending money on war better than on social programs? Don't get me wrong, I don't like social programs either. I just don't see how war is any better, and is quite possibly a lot worse.

As for NASA, from where I am standing the whole thing is a complete boondoggle. It should be dismantled entirely ASAP.

Monies spent on war are recirculated into the economy. They also provide a facade of strength. Much of what caused the Soviet system to fall wasn't stuff that we actually could do, but what they feared we could. The Soviets have traveled here enough in recent years that the fear is dissipating and you can witness that they are getting more bold almost monthly.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

How is spending money on war better than on social programs? Don't get me wrong, I don't like social programs either. I just don't see how war is any better, and is quite possibly a lot worse.

As for NASA, from where I am standing the whole thing is a complete boondoggle. It should be dismantled entirely ASAP.

Monies spent on war are recirculated into the economy. They also provide a facade of strength. Much of what caused the Soviet system to fall wasn't stuff that we actually could do, but what they feared we could. The Soviets have traveled here enough in recent years that the fear is dissipating and you can witness that they are getting more bold almost monthly.

Biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. Money spent on war is just about a complete waste. First of all, it takes thousands of able bodies men and women out of the workforce, and second of all it wastes resources that would otherwise go towards more desirable consumer wants (i.e. healthcare, college education, housing, electronics etc. etc.). This is true of any government program, not just war. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

The cold war is over, it is time to cut back on all areas of government spending, especially military spending. I would start by getting out of Iraq ASAP, and then after that start closing down the U.S. military bases that are currently in 100+ countries around the world.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

A nation is strong as long as it's strength is respected and feared. The goal is to be left to prosper without outside interference. Social programs are fine and neccessary as long as they don't tap the strength of the nation. We just went a little too far when we squandered our military and space programs for that social outreach.

How is spending money on war better than on social programs? Don't get me wrong, I don't like social programs either. I just don't see how war is any better, and is quite possibly a lot worse.

As for NASA, from where I am standing the whole thing is a complete boondoggle. It should be dismantled entirely ASAP.

Monies spent on war are recirculated into the economy. They also provide a facade of strength. Much of what caused the Soviet system to fall wasn't stuff that we actually could do, but what they feared we could. The Soviets have traveled here enough in recent years that the fear is dissipating and you can witness that they are getting more bold almost monthly.

Biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. Money spent on war is just about a complete waste. First of all, it takes thousands of able bodies men and women out of the workforce, and second of all it wastes resources that would otherwise go towards more desirable consumer wants (i.e. healthcare, college education, housing, electronics etc. etc.). This is true of any government program, not just war. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

The cold war is over, it is time to cut back on all areas of government spending, especially military spending. I would start by getting out of Iraq ASAP, and then after that start closing down the U.S. military bases that are currently in 100+ countries around the world.

U are one BS, ignorant liberal aren't you? Just asking. Obviously not a student of economics.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

That was the lesson of Jesus, right Condor?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

That was the lesson of Jesus, right Condor?

Historically, it seems like Rome won that one. Did I mention that I don't attend church?

 

[johnnobts]

there are only 2 real superpowers in the world today, the US and China. The question is which country would you rather have take the lead in the world? Even if you're jealous of the US and critical of our policies at times, the bottom line is that the free world would still much rather have us as the head rooster in the world rather than the latter country.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor
Depends on how long we can keep the libs at bay! All is lost when a country turns inward toward social programs instead of outward toward strength.

So perpetual war and fostering of the warfare state is 'strength?'

That was the lesson of Jesus, right Condor?

Historically, it seems like Rome won that one. Did I mention that I don't attend church?

You support the "Christian" philisophy of unending war and death. You must watch the televanglists on TV... which one is your favorite?