How America will collapse (by 2025)

[lilyannerose]

'Shell B' pid='109272' dateline='1291950437']
'lilyannerose' pid='109270' dateline='1291949821']

I appreciate your interpretation that I'm being perhaps a little fatalistic

I get the sense that you don't appreciate it at all, but you have to admit that your assessment is rather linear.

Can we erase the board here?

Actually, I do appreciate it. I am interested in what you think. I'm sorry if my "tone" was such that you felt that I was being sarcastic, I assure you that I'm not. I happen to be someone who is right about some things and wrong about others, like everyone else. When I'm right I'm not above making noise about it and when I'm wrong, hell, everyone knows I'm wrong so admit it, blush a little, and move on to the next topic. There's no shame in being human.

however, after watching Americans sit back through one crisis after another with outrage lasting no longer than the next news cycle, I seem to have lost confidence that change will transpire.

That's a blanket statement. I assure you that once something has outraged me, it never ceases to do so.

You are right it was a blanket statement, but it also expresses how I feel and although general it is a sincere expression.

Who do you feel will step up and start to initiate actions that will lead to the majority of the country following in order to change things?

You can't expect me to say who would start a revolution when the need for a full-scale revolution has not arisen. Now, if action were absolutely necessary, there is only the hope that a group would emerge.

We are definitely on the same page.

History shows us that things do not always turn out the way one expects. You can never predict the rise or fall of a country until it is upon you. As I mentioned before, the United States has boosted its economy during a war before. In fact, it was World War II and the Great Depression had just occurred. Crops were fucking ravaged, the economy tanked and Americans persevered. You just never know what will happen.

You speak the truth, it took years but America did recover. What America also had at that point was a unifying event, WWII, as in every war, of course there were those who did not agree with the war, but overall the War did serve to bring Americans together. Unfortunately, at this time we also have a couple of wars occurring, however, they are not serving the need for national unity.

[Valkyrie]

"You speak the truth, it took years but America did recover. What America also had at that point was a unifying event, WWII, as in every war, of course there were those who did not agree with the war, but overall the War did serve to bring Americans together. Unfortunately, at this time we also have a couple of wars occurring, however, they are not serving the need for national unity."

Very true. So, let's take a look at what was different about America's "Greatest Generation" and the current one.

To begin with, during WWII, the income tax rates were extremely high for the wealthiest citizens, at times 91%. We were fighting for our very survival as a nation, and so the wealthy did not object too greatly to contributing- they knew where there bread was buttered. The direct result of this was that the common people actually appreciated the wealthy. There was not as much political dissent as we now have.

Every time a country has a high gini coefficient (income disparity) there is political instability. The poor resent the rich, and the rich resent the poor. One party stands up for each of the two groups, and due to the resentment, very little can be accomplished on a congressional level. Discussion ceases, collaboration dies, and we wind up at a standstill. This leads to political uncertainty and senseless bickering, and we eventually consider that our system is not the most beneficial one.

Republicans in Congress are right now arguing over letting Bush' tax cuts expire, which would return them to the 39% level they once were. NOT 91%, as in WWII, but a mere 39%. Again, we are in a state of war, but the difference is that our survival is not in jeopardy. The wealthy know this, and so they are not willing to fund the war by themselves.

The bottom line is that if we were NOT engaged in a pointless conflict, there would be plenty of money in our coffers.

My second point involves that income disparity, which is creating the political tension we now see. During WWII, the difference in our respective incomes was not nearly so high. We did not resent the wealthy, instead we aspired to emulate them.

The solution, to me, is (gulp) income redistribution. Yes, the beginning of socialism. I don't care for the idea, but it seems we've been backed into a corner by the greed of the rich. Ironically, they will be the first to scream bloody murder if we cap their incomes, and restore the middle class, but that is EXACTLY what needs to be done.

[lilyannerose]

"You speak the truth, it took years but America did recover. What America also had at that point was a unifying event, WWII, as in every war, of course there were those who did not agree with the war, but overall the War did serve to bring Americans together. Unfortunately, at this time we also have a couple of wars occurring, however, they are not serving the need for national unity."

Very true. So, let's take a look at what was different about America's "Greatest Generation" and the current one.

I feel that the other difference between now and "The Greatest Generation" is that you didn't have the influence of all of these clown pundits doing their best to manipulate patriotism as being a loyalty to a political party or a particular agenda. I don't think that the right can envision an America wherein the left had 90% of their wish list actualized and I don't think that the left can let go of a fear of what this country would be if the right had 90% of their agenda actualized. Communication was limited to radio and theater news reels there was no tools il.e., television, internet nor text messaging, for the information overload we experience today. How many people really think about talking points and research them for truth before they use them? I feel that both the left and the right would have to be honest and say guilty to one extent or other. The talking head pundits have two functions to keep the "culture wars" alive and to sell the product of their sponsors, their primary motivation? Money and lots of it.

I watched "A Face in the Crowd" again about three months ago and I was struck by the fact that this movie filmed in 1957 was stuffed full of what one might think is fairly current right wing agenda talking points. Frankly, what more are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck than art come to life as they take on their own version of Lonesome Rhodes. The right wing agenda has certainly been in play for 60 years or more and every opportunity to recruit and influence into the right wing has been exploited. (Consider the impact on politics of the Civil Rights Act and the unforgiving South.) At one time the South could proudly boast of highly regarded statesmen, authors and fine schools. What has happened where the right wing agenda has been allowed to actualize through the vote and to those who embraced it? Where once there were those statesmen and fine authors today you have people challenged on how to do a spell check. I don't know what the percentage is and I'm certainly not stating that this is inclusive of all. Throughout the country are followers of this right wing agenda and through their churches a lot of these folks are programmed for obedience. Do these folks ever consider the fact that their life could have been different it could have been more?

How does one go about bringing these people into a possible revolt or even into this century?

Over the past two days or so there's been this uprising of students in England over the tuition situation. It would appear that there was a quick grasp that those unaffordable tuition hikes meant that the future of these young people is now in doubt and their futures have been stolen from them. There was even an attack on Prince Charles' vehicle.

Why are American campuses so quiet?

My U years were in the late 60's and early 70's, I don't know, maybe my generation all just forgot or didn't know how to 'raise our children well.'

[Shell B]

Lily, just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that there is no way of knowing if you are right and the possibility that you are wrong is high because there are so many different things that can happen.

Valkyrie, we have no way of knowing if the situation would become similar in the next 15 years.

[lilyannerose]

Lily, just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that there is no way of knowing if you are right and the possibility that you are wrong is high because there are so many different things that can happen.

I didn't think you were, once again, my apologies. I was just expressing traits about myself, as I said I can make noise when I'm right about something, but when I'm wrong I admit it also, it was just a comment about myself as I was trying to explaining that I wasn't being sarcastic in the previous post.

[lrh9]

I think America should collapse. The government, military, and most citizens pay lip service to the great ideals this nation was founded on, but prop up a sham with every action and every law. The world will be a better place when America is gone.

[Valkyrie]

Lily, just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that there is no way of knowing if you are right and the possibility that you are wrong is high because there are so many different things that can happen.

Valkyrie, we have no way of knowing if the situation would become similar in the next 15 years.

I agree, Shell B.

I think that the only way this will happen is through economic necessity from their point of view. By that, I mean that when the corporate leaders see the situation as threatening to their survival, they'll instruct Congress to make the appropriate changes. But even then, if there's a choice between the wealthy surviving and the middle class surviving, Congress will protect the wealthy's interests, because only the wealthy contribute to the bank accounts of congresspeople. To be fair, without the rich, those in Congress would have a lot lower incomes.

How many of us would do the right thing if it cost us half our incomes?

[Ashendant]

Lily, just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that there is no way of knowing if you are right and the possibility that you are wrong is high because there are so many different things that can happen.

Valkyrie, we have no way of knowing if the situation would become similar in the next 15 years.

I agree, Shell B.

I think that the only way this will happen is through economic necessity from their point of view. By that, I mean that when the corporate leaders see the situation as threatening to their survival, they'll instruct Congress to make the appropriate changes. But even then, if there's a choice between the wealthy surviving and the middle class surviving, Congress will protect the wealthy's interests, because only the wealthy contribute to the bank accounts of congresspeople. To be fair, without the rich, those in Congress would have a lot lower incomes.

How many of us would do the right thing if it cost us half our incomes?

As long as that income would let me live good i would

[Valkyrie]

Lily, just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am only saying that there is no way of knowing if you are right and the possibility that you are wrong is high because there are so many different things that can happen.

Valkyrie, we have no way of knowing if the situation would become similar in the next 15 years.

I agree, Shell B.

I think that the only way this will happen is through economic necessity from their point of view. By that, I mean that when the corporate leaders see the situation as threatening to their survival, they'll instruct Congress to make the appropriate changes. But even then, if there's a choice between the wealthy surviving and the middle class surviving, Congress will protect the wealthy's interests, because only the wealthy contribute to the bank accounts of congresspeople. To be fair, without the rich, those in Congress would have a lot lower incomes.

How many of us would do the right thing if it cost us half our incomes?

As long as that income would let me live good i would

I'd like to think that I would, too. I have my own version of superhero syndrome, I guess.