Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#1
The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress.

While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#5
nhojsmith said:
USA!! USA!! the democrats promised to save america, im not worried.

lol thats funny.

On a serious note what do you see coming for our economy, and foreign policy, and country?
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#6
Are we Rome?

That is, are we Americans, citizens of the mightiest empire the world has known since the days of the Caesars, living in the last days of our civilization? Is the United States, like the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, doomed to collapse from its own decadence? Or can we avoid Rome's fate?

As historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously observed, "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." While any number of Rome's particular poisons could have been most responsible for its demise, the generally accepted view is that wealth and power corrupted its character, eroding the virtues that made Rome great and leading to its ultimate dissolution.

In his fascinating new book "Are We Rome?" journalist Cullen Murphy argues that yes, contemporary America is unnervingly like the Late Roman Empire. But it also has saving graces and resources that the doomed Romans lacked.

In Murphy's view, America parallels Rome in its late imperial phase in six broad ways:

-- The overweening importance of the capital city.

-- A military unsuited for imperial responsibilities.

-- A tendency toward private exploitation of public goods.

-- A self-centeredness that deforms attitudes toward and perceptions of the rest of the world.

-- Porous borders.

-- A complexity that risks becoming unmanageable.

Several are central to American politics of the moment, none more than military overstretch. Rome couldn't sustain the army it needed to maintain imperial commitments. Most late Romans of means had no desire to set aside private pursuits for military service. Rome - especially the Roman elite - went soft. As has America.

The same brash self-confidence that allowed Rome and America to stand boldly astride the world blinded the imperial powers to reality. The arrogant Romans couldn't conceive that others didn't see things as they did. They thought themselves an exceptional people divinely appointed to rule and civilize humanity, which naturally wanted to be Roman.

So it goes today with American liberal democracy. To read President Bush's second inaugural address is to encounter the U.S. version of this fallacious worldview at its lyrical messianic height. To read the news out of Iraq is to behold the cost of living by it.

And there's the matter of migration across borders of the imperium. Rome had always assimilated barbarian tribes but toward the end lost the ability to control the rate of migration, as well as the facility for effectively Romanizing the immigrants. The comparison with the United States' relationship to Mexico is obvious.

Further, the corruption of civic virtue in the politicians and the people dovetails worrisomely with the immigration crisis. Murphy writes that in Rome's final days, "a republic sustained by flinty yeomen had become a precarious autocracy administered by grasping bureaucrats." The Roman masses came to depend too heavily on the government, and the governing elites ruled as if the common good coincided with their private interests. In latter-day Washington, this sensibility is on full display in the carnival of pork-barrel spending (which the public never punishes), and the oily machinations of the lobbying industry.

What does this have to do with immigration? Fredo Arias-King, foreign policy adviser to former Mexican president Vicente Fox, wrote last year of a visit he and a delegation made to Washington in 2000. They met with 80 congressional lawmakers, nearly all of whom - Republicans and Democrats - openly welcomed immigration because, in his view, they saw Mexicans as potential dependents on the state and therefore loyal voters. The advance into the U.S. of the client-patron model of governance, which has helped stagnate Mexico, bothered Arias-King greatly.

For all these troubling parallels, there are crucial differences between the U.S. and Rome - and these could make the saving difference. Most important, says Murphy, we are a middle-class democracy, not an aristocracy with sharp, cruel gaps between the classes. Americans have far more power to control their fate. Murphy contends that if Americans recommit ourselves to good government, if we focus more intensely on assimilating new immigrants, if we quit asking our armed forces to do more than is reasonable and we start paying more attention to other cultures - well, we just might succeed where Rome failed.

This is right, but not entirely so. Murphy does not pay enough attention to the health of our culture. Classical historian Jerome Carcopino, for example, pointed to the loss of social cohesion and purpose that resulted from the traditional family's decline as a reason for Rome's collapse. The habits of civic virtue that Murphy identifies as critical come first from an ordered home and a commonly shared commitment to remissive moral norms, which contemporary American individualism undermines.

Under late Rome's decadent "bread and circuses" regime, the common man satisfied himself with material pleasures, ignoring the betterment of himself and society. Murphy sees this in contemporary America, but it's hard to discern why, absent a robust belief in God or some other authoritative ideal, people can be convinced to sacrifice the pursuit of luxury for a higher good - even their civilization's survival.

If Murphy's optimistic prescriptions fail to take, we're left with an alternative posited by philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. In his 1981 book "After Virtue," he noted the parallels between late Rome and our own time and wrote that "a crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium."

Those men and women decided that the survival of the moral community would not be possible under the old order - so they pioneered the nucleus of a new one. They became the Benedictine monks and nuns and their followers, who spread throughout the Europe of the Dark Ages, preserving the remnants of Christian and classical virtues and laying the groundwork for the rebirth of a new civilization.

The question facing men and women of good will today: Do we believe that America can and should be renewed, and therefore seek restoration through the exercise of heroic republican virtue, like the venerated early Roman Cincinnatus? Or do we believe that America is bound to succumb to the process the great 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon identified as "the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness" - and so await what MacIntyre identified as "a new, and doubtless very different, St. Benedict"?

The Cincinnatus Option or the Benedict Option - sooner or later, the choice is going to be upon us. As Gibbon saw, it is a law of history and human nature that prosperity ripens the principle of decay. To live as if our present peace and prosperity will last forever would be a most foolish mistake.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is the U.S. like Rome?
Both see themselves as the center of the world, divinely appointed to lead.

Both have unusual capital cities where government is the main industry.

Both let the private sector exploit public goods.

Both are successful multi-ethnic empires, though with increasingly porous borders.

Both have militaries stretched too thin to maintain imperial power.

Both are unmanageably complex.


How is the U.S. unlike Rome?

The U.S. is a socially mobile, middle-class democracy; Rome was a rigid aristocracy.

Americans are reluctant to be an empire; Romans accepted it.

Rome was economically static; America is economically transformative.

Romans were self-satisfied by nature; Americans strive for improvement.

Romans committed to ruthless perseverance; Americans lack staying power.


How can we avoid Rome's fate?

Accept that change is inevitable and that adaptation is necessary.

Instill an appreciation of the wider world.

Stop treating government as a necessary evil.

Fortify the institutions that promote assimilation.

Take some weight off the military.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/06/EDC2RA7LL1.DTL

This article appeared on page D - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#7
GTS said:
lol thats funny.

On a serious note what do you see coming for our economy, and foreign policy, and country?
economy not looking so good but not really as bad as the doomsday people talk about either. this whole thing with china and our debt is NOT new, housing will slide a bit more, barring any freak changes, the market will trend down or stay flat until the elections and then there will be a boost. this has to do with uncertainty, the market does not like uncertainty, once the elections are settled, there will be a temporary spike regardless of who wins just because the uncertainty is diminished.

foreign policy im not so sure. one thing that wil stay the same is the US support for israel. nothing will change this, our paths are inseparable, christianity is an offshoot of judaism. we will stay in the middle east like we did in japan. we will build bases, solidify our ties with the saudis, and eventually go after iran whether directly or by proxy. global terrorism is not a fad, it is the new phase in warfare and we will never escape it.

there is a clear intent in washington to leave the mexican border open. we already voted for a fence and heightened border security and nothing has been done. i think a deal was struck between the bush camp and the mexican government, so i cant really say what will happen.

the US will be alright, unfortunately clinton sold the nucelar secret to the chinese and allowed AQ Khan to sell it to whomever he pleased, so to preserve our posistion will require military force, but other economic and political forces. this is why i am for pre-emptive war, its the only way we can achieve an advantage and eliminate threats before they pose a greater risk. the by product is fanatacism, terrorism, whatever you want to call it, but i already said that that is inescapable at this point.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#8
nhojsmith said:
economy not looking so good but not really as bad as the doomsday people talk about either. this whole thing with china and our debt is NOT new, housing will slide a bit more, barring any freak changes, the market will trend down or stay flat until the elections and then there will be a boost. this has to do with uncertainty, the market does not like uncertainty, once the elections are settled, there will be a temporary spike regardless of who wins just because the uncertainty is diminished.

foreign policy im not so sure. one thing that wil stay the same is the US support for israel. nothing will change this, our paths are inseparable, christianity is an offshoot of judaism. we will stay in the middle east like we did in japan. we will build bases, solidify our ties with the saudis, and eventually go after iran whether directly or by proxy. global terrorism is not a fad, it is the new phase in warfare and we will never escape it.

there is a clear intent in washington to leave the mexican border open. we already voted for a fence and heightened border security and nothing has been done. i think a deal was struck between the bush camp and the mexican government, so i cant really say what will happen.

the US will be alright, unfortunately clinton sold the nucelar secret to the chinese and allowed AQ Khan to sell it to whomever he pleased, so to preserve our posistion will require military force, but other economic and political forces. this is why i am for pre-emptive war, its the only way we can achieve an advantage and eliminate threats before they pose a greater risk. the by product is fanatacism, terrorism, whatever you want to call it, but i already said that that is inescapable at this point.
good points I would agree on most of it. And your right as long as Israel and USA are joined at the hip we'll be at war in the middle east. A lot of deceivers out there spreading shit. Pre-emptive war is the kicker though, another 9/11 seems to be a way to get that, and it seems like your a subscriber to the PNAC. lol
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#9
GTS said:
good points I would agree on most of it. And your right as long as Israel and USA are joined at the hip we'll be at war in the middle east. A lot of deceivers out there spreading shit. Pre-emptive war is the kicker though, another 9/11 seems to be a way to get that, and it seems like your a subscriber to the PNAC. lol
never heard of pnac. id like to hear you answer your own question, where do you see us going? and addiotnally, where should we be going?
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#10
nhojsmith said:
never heard of pnac. id like to hear you answer your own question, where do you see us going? and addiotnally, where should we be going?
google pnac if you don't know
I'm not too knowledgable in macro economics but the stock market is due for something bad. Loans will no longer be given to people that can't repay them. Why they were in the first place is the question. Why it went on for so long is another. The Federal Reserve is a wierd situation because I've NEVER EVER heard anyone blast them accept Ron Paul, which is kinda wierd how no other politicians do(JFK did and he got dealt with). The president says that unemployment is down, but if anyone knows anything they would agree that as the economic situation worsens companys will be forced to downsize to maximize profits. People are the most expendable. So um I think shit will hit the fan soon.

Foreign Policy-
your guess is good as mine. Are we blindly following fake religious Israel lovers? Are we in it for oil? Are we after the evildoers?lol I can't tell you because what info we do get is probably a load of shit. I do know that we meddle and put in puppet masters in place and have done so throughout history. At the same time how do you beat people that are willing to commit a suicide bombing? Technology can't fight that war.

I don't know where we should go but it's a very intense time in the world imo. A lot of hate out there, coexisting doesn't work very well. The wifey is due in March so my outlook on things is alittle different.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#11
GTS said:
I don't know where we should go but it's a very intense time in the world imo. A lot of hate out there, coexisting doesn't work very well. The wifey is due in March so my outlook on things is alittle different.
definitely an awesome time to be alive, and your world is about to get pushed to a whole new level, congrats man
 
Feb 23, 2005
367
0
0
#12
It's arrogant and ignorant to think we will defeat terrorism by military means. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country or a group. You can defeat a country and a group is harder to defeat. You can't stop terrorism 100%. Plus there will always be a group of people out there who try to do harm to the United States.