[Serereids]

You've got to ask yourself what was so different from the 50's-60's, than from immediately before and since.

Basically you've got the greatest generation at their peak. They grew up in the depression, and survived the war. Now that they were home they where building homes, having families, going to the Moon, building cars and highways, waging the Cold War, ect. The costs of the New Deal/Great Society didn't seem to be a big deal because, hey, look at all these kids. They knew what was real, they saw what really mattered during the war.

Of course in the 30's everyone was scared and cornered and not terribly rational. They wanted hope, and didn't much care about the long term costs. The 70's featured a bunch of spoiled and drug addled baby boomers who knew little of the struggles of their parents. If you go as far back as the 20's you find the first true urban generation who lack the natural protections of the self sufficient rural life. No doubt that is why the depression was so deep. Fast forward to the 80's and you've got baby boomers at their peak, living off the infrastructure their parents built, and still contributing far more to the entitlement system than it needed. Going foreword, one technological advance after another kept us busy. But most of it was so far removed from what was real and what kept things humming. Fat pensions, fat entitlements, ect.

The American people are waking back us to what is real. The regime is trying to cling to what isn't

The main difference between the 50's/60's and every other time is that the rest of the civilised world had just blown itself up with weapons made by the USA which was unscathed. If we didn't become the world's biggest power after that we'd have had to have been the world's biggest schmucks.

The Cold War then came along to keep up on top for another generation as Russia tried to secure themselves by becoming the "Gendarme of Europe" again. It didn't work any better in this century than it did in the last, and finally burned them out. Meanwhile the rest of the world rebuilt.

Since then we've had to readjust to being just another nation in the world. A pretty good one by any measure but that's not enough for conservatives. We have to be "Number 1" by their yardstick since all of them believe that everybody everywhere is really an American trapped in an ungodly foreigner's body

[plalleste]

Of course it's in decline. When you stop exercising muscles, they stop working as well.

And power is the same.

Brain power that is.

America is a country that ranks 26th in education while it's students were polled thinking they were 1st.

That equals a country in decline. Fix the self-deception and perception problem, and then you can fix the rest after that.

[FilmCriticAwezume]

@John Drake

LOL. Karma à la Neocon.

[DoctorIrokezov]

heh the US is in decline due to our spending, and debt.

utter partisan fantasy.

the US is in decline because:

1. It's 'ascent' was based on temporary realities, namely the lack of economic competitors following WW2, and the Soviet Union being the only military rival on a global scale.

2. It's 'ascent' was largely exaggerated to its public, and not as prevalent as is asserted. Agents of propaganda and media sources paint an untrue picture of an economically stratified society.

3. And mostly, the U.S. is in decline because, contrary to some assertions of american mythology, the U.S. is not the only entity capable of centralizing wealth and using it to project power globally. Other places can do this to, have done this in the past, and are starting to do so now with authority. Namely China.

thanks for playing!

[CIAFreeAgent]

utter partisan fantasy.

the US is in decline because:

1. It's 'ascent' was based on temporary realities, namely the lack of economic competitors following WW2, and the Soviet Union being the only military rival on a global scale.

2. It's 'ascent' was largely exaggerated to its public, and not as prevalent as is asserted. Agents of propaganda and media sources paint an untrue picture of an economically stratified society.

3. And mostly, the U.S. is in decline because, contrary to some assertions of american mythology, the U.S. is not the only entity capable of centralizing wealth and using it to project power globally. Other places can do this to, have done this in the past, and are starting to do so now with authority. Namely China.

thanks for playing!

1. Bad logic. This assumes there is some vacuum that makes a country #1 and dismisses any positive conditions within a nation. Ridiculous.

2. One quarter of the world's wealth is American (GDP stats). I'd call that successful and not exaggerated.

3. American (it's capitalized btw) power is based on both economic and military strength not "centralizing wealth" whatever you meant by that. (Actually centralizing wealth may be the US's downfall.) Why would the US have the world's most powerful military if it didn't think there was someone to supplant them? We're not done yet, despite Washington. When China has an immigration problem, then I'll say Pax Americana is kaput.

thanks for playing! :P

[SpecialOFFER]

OK, just totally overlook that we were an oil exporter during our Supreme Years, and the decline started when we began to import oil.
That's just a total coincidence.

[CIAFreeAgent]

OK, just totally overlook that we were an oil exporter during our Supreme Years, and the decline started when we began to import oil.
That's just a total coincidence.

OK, just totally make macroeconomics completely simplistic.

[electmobile]

OK, just totally overlook that we were an oil exporter during our Supreme Years, and the decline started when we began to import oil.
That's just a total coincidence.

Our Supreme Years as you say we're when we were an exporter of oil, I agree. Then I ask why did we stop being an exporter to a importer.

[GogaMegaPis]

OK, just totally overlook that we were an oil exporter during our Supreme Years, and the decline started when we began to import oil.
That's just a total coincidence.

Actually I think there is a lot of meat in that idea. We did really well, when we were producing MORE of our own domestic demand for oil. It's the price of energy that has thrown a monkey wrench in the gears. I still recall the alarm in 1969 and 70 when we heard that gas prices would soar in the future, due to us having reached peak production sometime earlier. At the time, I was only fearful of not being able to fill up my 1969 Road Runner with 440 engine for 8 bucks!! Boy those days of 25 a cents per gallon gas were good ones!

[glopomcyte]

Its seems sure that the US will loose power in the next decades, but i wouldn`t describe this as decline.
Only China and India get stronger, since they unleashed the power of free markets and capitalism. They`ve 2 Billion people with the ambition to get rich as the West. And with the pace of their developement they will sooner or later achieve this goal.
Sure, there are serious economic and ecological probems linked with, but overall it`s positive for the whole world, if much more people contribute their skills in the world-marked. Have i mentioned Riccardos comparative advantage?

It`s a race to the top, with chances and risked, especially when one loks at China. Will a growing middle class demand more political liberty as it was in the 19th entury in Europe? Which consequences hat Chinas awakening for its global aspirations in general and Taiwan in particular? Would China become a role-model für authorian governments?
Will political instabilitioes rise with the emergence of new Superpowers, especially in regions with multiple claims for a sphere on influence.

But i am sure, that the US will be even in the future a dominant world player. The US is the leading economic county with the worlds best universities, and the demographic Trends didn`t hit them as much as Europe or even China. And in the long run i see more potential in India as in China, but India would be more a political partner as Europe is today as a rival like China. Democratic nations tend to have very good relations.

[DoctorIrokezov]

Our Supreme Years as you say we're when we were an exporter of oil, I agree. Then I ask why did we stop being an exporter to a importer.

this is quite mind boggling. unless you consider this quantum theory that perhaps demand for oil in the United States at some point exceeded domestic supplies.

i can show you the calculus, but its theoretical.

[LypeReexy]

this is quite mind boggling. unless you consider this quantum theory that perhaps demand for oil in the United States at some point exceeded domestic supplies.

i can show you the calculus, but its theoretical.

That is some crazy math you've got going there.

[newwebstar]

Brain power that is.

America is a country that ranks 26th in education while it's students were polled thinking they were 1st.

That equals a country in decline. Fix the self-deception and perception problem, and then you can fix the rest after that.

But you can't fix that. Because the politically correct stupidity that has infected this nation has demanded that all achievement be demonized.

You can't show that you're smarter than anyone else, it hurts someone's self esteem. You can't allow people to fail on their own merits, that's just not "fair".

All designed to tear this country down one brick at a time. And doing a wonderful job of it I must say.

[Serereids]

Jesu bleeding Supply Side Jesus in a Scooter anyway.

The US Navy (and yes, I have said this is few times before, just no conservatives will listen) is far and away the most powerful military force that has ever existed in the history of the world. Just ONE of our TWELVE Carrier Groups could easily defeat any THREE navies of any other country existing. Three of these Groups operating in concert could probably defeat all the combined Navies of the entire world put together. This is with conventional weapons only mind you, because the combined MIRV warheads aboard even ONE of our nuclear subs could easily destroy all life of earth, or at least make it not worth living and soon to die anyway. Same goes for the Cruise missiles they AND our guiided missile frigates carrry. So the 12 carriers are a moot point, though yes, they too can do the same thing.

And this isn't even counting what the Army and Air Force has.

Decline, WHAT decline??? Decline in common sense when we've just watched our main enemy bankrupt itself in defense against a paranoid fantasy and we continue to do the same, even worse? That's the the only decline I see and it's getting worse every day.

[en-druzhba]

Quote: Decline, WHAT decline??? Decline in common sense when we've just watched our main enemy bankrupt itself in defense against a paranoid fantasy and we continue to do the same, even worse? That's the the only decline I see and it's getting worse every day. - John

I think you may miss the point that all this military power the U.S. possesses may no longer be what is really needed to keep America from decline as a world power. You cannot fight a currency battle with a nuclear submarine. We are losing (some say "have lost") the trade war to China and they don't have near the sophisticated weapons we do. A stealth bomber loses some of its value when we have to borrow money from adversaries in order to build it.

We are declining from within due to reckless entitlement spending, not because we do not adequately fund the military, as it seems you say.

[baritkello]

BBC News - Roman rise and fall 'recorded in trees'

An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe's climate.

That "extensive study" could actually be rather limited and there are issues with the history that it tries to make connections with. The "sudden shift" of the study is a period of 300 years, I'm unaware of a human government that ever had that degree of planning ability.

On Climate Change and the Fall of the Roman Empire rogueclassicism

[caseferter]

We are declining from within due to reckless entitlement spending, not because we do not adequately fund the military, as it seems you say.

We are declining from within due to 30 years of steadily declining income for almost all working americans and steadily increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

[baritkello]

We are declining from within due to 30 years of steadily declining income for almost all working americans and steadily increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

When they figure out how to outsource burger flipping, warehouse worker and store clerk jobs there will be even less wealth in the U.S.

[GECEDEANY]

We are declining from within due to 30 years of steadily declining income for almost all working americans and steadily increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

I'd like to see some figures to back that up.

Because my understanding is that income is increasing, and has been increasing, across all income demographics in the United States over the last 30 years.

At least that's whhat the statistics show.

The rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting "richer", just not at as great a rate.

This isn't an issue of "haves and have nots" but rather an issuue of “haves and have-mores”.

ETA: Here's a great article The Economist discussing just this issue:

http://www.economist.com/node/179573...57381&fsrc=rss

[perpelverw]

I think our role as world "leader" has already diminished because of our bad policies, especially financial ones, but also foreign policy ones. I thinnk we're still the top world "power" and will be for quite sometime. China may match our 'world power' strength at some point but will probably not supersede us.