Is the American dream dying?

Nothing ever changes. Nothing ever invalidates time tested economic truths. "Socialists" will always invent reasons to
accept what history has shown to be unworkable.
The fall of great nations will always be do to people voting
themselves money from it's coffers.

due

Politicians in both parties should take off their blinders and look at the challenges that lie before us.

Too late .... when all the members, in a good captialist way, of one house of Congress are at least millionairs it is "Freedom, my ass - I will vote for my best interest." (and condemn anyone else as a socialist, like that was a bad thing).

It's not the millionaires. It's which millionaires.
Which party has the millionaires which produce nothing
of practical value.

Like you don't vote your best interest. Just because someone has something you'd like but didn't earn, that makes socialism good?

It's not the millionaires. It's which millionaires.
Which party has the millionaires which produce nothing
of practical value.

They are ALL millionairs .... a case of Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dee; one a bad as another.

We can avoid reality but we cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. We are now enjoying the fruits of generations of avoiding reality. A is A

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, Robert Hessen (Signet, 1967, 1989)

http://www.amazon...51147952

@ Doug_Huffman: All valid points, but they don't apply as Rand rarely flirted with reality in her works. You know Gult's Gulch is powered by a perpetual motion machine, right? A is A, and not always how you want it to be.

<--agree with FrankH. at any rate she (Rand) spoke of when America produced THINGS - the economy did not tank on the economics of THINGS - it died from fiscal chicanery, games with financial instruments.

The 'progressives' have been running the USA since the early 1900's and what do we have for it? Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Federal Reserve, income tax, bankrupt Social 'security', Medicare, Medicaid, all bankrupt, dozens of agencies and several new cabinent posts to run the Regulatory State.
The American dream has been turned into a 'progressive'/socialist nightmare.

I'm Baaaack. ryg2, I agree with you 99%, but much of this would have come about anyway.
Re:article: What works isn't capitalism, though that's far preferable to socialism. What works are the concepts of liberty in all aspects of life, limited only by the need to prevent the abuse of it. "Progressivism" is nothing more than
a semi-metered institutionalization of total social and economic control by a doomed coalition of the discontented.
Doomed to equality in poverty or in death through psuedo-ideological struggles. There!!!

What works isn't capitalism,

You had better define what you mean by capitalism because the definition in capitialism.org has been demonstrated to promote liberty and prosperity.

I'll carefully stay away from trying to define capitalism and just say that when I hear the term used, whether by conservatives or liberals it, like socialism implies some kind of control over an economy, I assume the conservatives mean the knowledgeable business community while the liberals mean the super-rich.
When I imply "won't work" I'm thinking that it's arrogant for anyone to think that a large, healthy economy can be creatively controlled for any length of time. If the traditional principals of liberty are applied to an economy with just consequences for those who abuse it at the expense of others, then an economy doesn't need control.

I'll carefully stay away from trying to define capitalism

You just did.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. " http://capitalism...lism.htm
And you apparently agree with definition above.

Yep, I like capitalism then. But that's not, to me, the way that most in either political party would define it, based on the majority of discussions and debates that I hear.

It's not the millionaires. It's which millionaires.
Which party has the millionaires which produce nothing
of practical value.

Like the banksters on Wall Street and the speculators in our commodity markets!

Words have meaning. 'Progressives' have continuously changed their name to keep obfuscating their statist/socialist agenda.
'Progressive' was the term used in the early 1900s. Then it switched to 'liberal'. Now 'liberal' is out of favor so they now use 'progressive' again.
Of course they are practicing newspeak as what they are 'progressing' to is more state control over everything and they are certainly not liberal.

It's not the millionaires. It's which millionaires.
Which party has the millionaires which produce nothing
of practical value.

Like the banksters on Wall Street and the speculators in our commodity markets!

What is wrong with commodity market speculators? They are gambling with their own money and help markets predict future prices.

If Obama opened the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, east and west coasts and the interior of the USA to oil drilling and fracking, the speculators would speculate a drop in oil prices.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z, edited by Harry Binswanger with an Introduction by Leonard Peikoff (Penguin Meridian, NY, 1986)

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The 'progressive' era:
"While standard accounts of the Progressive Era regard the "reforms" as being in the interest of the masses and against those of business interests, in fact the evidence, first brought to light by such historians as Gabriel Kolko, indicates that most of the measures were essentially proposed and shaped by the specific business interests that were the presumed targets. While private attempts had failed, such business interests found government agencies uniquely effective to create and police cartels, fix prices, extract corporate welfare, and otherwise enrich themselves at the expense of all. For example, the large meat packers initiated efforts for federal meat inspection. "
http://www.onpowe...rog.html

Speculators and especially bankers are a healthy part of an economy. Some do more harm than good. None have done the harm that Fanny and Freddie have.

Let me rephrase. All the worst (dishonest) bankers and speculators in history, all put together, haven't done the harm that Fanny and Freddie have.

I'll carefully stay away from trying to define capitalism

You just did.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. " http://capitalism...lism.htm
And you apparently agree with definition above.

More of the cited page

What is a capitalist?

An advocate of laissez-faire is known as a capitalist, e.g., novelist Ayn Rand is a capitalist; e.g., though economically Engels came from a wealthy background, politically he is recognized as a socialist/communist because of his ideas; e.g., billionaire George Soros is not a capitalist as he does not advocate capitalism, but he advocates some form of a mixed economy statism.

What works is when people are good. The real question is not capitalism or socialism, it is good or bad. Currently, this basic capacity to distinguish good from bad is beyond most people. For example, few people realize anymore that it is unethical (i.e. NOT good) to agree to a deal with another person if you know that they aren't getting what their good/service is really worth. People who do so were once called "con artists", now they are "shrewd". Paradoxically, society as a whole might improve if people start agreeing to take LESS than what something is worth if they are dealing with someone of lesser means. But that would be selfless rather than selfish, so it ain't gonna happen.

And also, there are so many opinions masquerading as facts on this message board (e.g. "The 'progressives' have been running the USA since the early 1900's", except not since 1980). If I was administrating this board I would delete every comment as they add nothing but hot air to an important debate.

What works is when people are good.

What is 'good'?

What works is when people are free to act in their own self interest as described by Adam Smith a few years ago.

capacity to distinguish good from bad is beyond most people

What is your evidence?

The primary excuse I hear from socialists regarding why socialism keeps failing is that the 'right', 'good' person was not in power.

so many opinions

That's YOUR opinion.

"Like you don't vote your best interest." - blisk

Doing so is the American way, and the cause of America's destruction.

I must say that I have never voted based on my own self interest. When I cast my vote it is always targeted to benefit society and the biosphere as a whole.

"What works is when people are free to act in their own self interest as described by Adam Smith a few years ago." - RyggTard

Adam Smith was smart enough to realize that government regulation to restrict the power of the powerful was required so that the powerful could not user their disproportionate powers to vote themselves even greater powers at the expense of the less powerful.

Adam Smith was vastly more intelligent than you RyggTard

I must say that I have never voted based on my own self interest.

Liar

When I cast my vote it is always targeted to benefit society and the biosphere as a whole.

Doesn't this benefit you, too?

What works is when people are good.

What you should have said is 'honest' instead of 'good'. But, in a free market, fraud is not tolerated for long. If you are cheated will you do business that person again? My guess you will tell everyone you can that you were cheated. So the cheater will soon be out of business or he will stop cheating.
Unless, of course, he is protected by the state. Bernie Madoff could get away with fraud because the govt implicitly said he wasn't cheating. He operated in a highly regulated environment so surely everything he did was honest, right? Even when someone suspected fraud, the SEC did nothing which sends a signal Bernie was honest.
What do you do when the govt is not 'good' and fails to vigorously prosecute fraud?

"The primary excuse I hear from socialists regarding why socialism keeps failing is that the 'right', 'good' person was not in power." - RyggTard

Poor KyggTard. He is completely incapable of comprehending that it was American Capitalism that has failed. Not Socialism.

Socialism is alive and well all over the world. Including China, which now owns a good deal of America.

"I must say that I have never voted based on my own self interest." - Me

"Liar" - RyggTard

A response that nicely illustrates that Libertarian/Randite Retards like RyggTard, have such polluted minds that they can't even conceive of someone knowingly sacrificing their own self interest for the benefit of everyone and/or everything.

Other than the economic destruction of their own nation, and grubbing for money, Libertarian/Randite's have no grand vision, and no sense of morality.

That is why Libertarian/Randites they are universally hated.

Adam Smith was smart enough to realize that government regulation to restrict the power of the powerful was required so that the powerful could not user their disproportionate powers to vote themselves even greater powers at the expense of the less powerful.

Where did he say that?

But you are right about Adam Smith being quite intelligent.

"no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient [for] the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employment most suitable to the interest of the society."
Adam Smith
"Adam Smith long ago recognized that a system of natural liberty needed at most a very small government. He was not far from H.L. Menckens view that The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone one which barely escapes being no government at all. "
http://blog.mises...ernment/

"But, in a free market, fraud is not tolerated for long." - RyggTard

Poory RyggTard. He is incapable of realizing the fact that the entire free market system is necessarily based on fraud.

I particularly love Raynd's fraud in accepting state handouts to stay alive rather than dying homeless in a ditch where she advised others to live, and where she belonged.

Socialism is alive and well

Socialism is alive, but not very well as the Chinese had to resort to capitalism to prosper. Castro has had to start practicing capitalism too to survive.
DPRK and Zimbabwe demonstrate the failure of socialism.
Even Sweden has had to tone down its socialism to prosper by ending their wealth tax to attract wealthy Swedes to invest in Sweden.

Ron Paul for Pres 2012! Go go free market and cutting all the bureaucratic bull**** LETS TAKE BACK THE AMERICAN DREAM!

So, mangynowrintintin is hard at work peddlin' and proselytizin' that "freemarket" Ponzi Scheme. A sweet, narcotic dream, to be sure. Then one day you wake up to the realization that only the Ruling Class can live upstream.

There's a very good reason why the "Novo Ordo Seclorum" is represented by the pyramid, also infamous as a representation of the aforementioned Ponzi. Mangynowrintin wants to be at the tip-top of that there Ponzipyramid, but in order to do that, he has to sell you on the product --Madoff/Merrill-Lynch/Worldcom style-- and gave it a snazzy new label- the "freemarket".

Same crap, different decade.

Happy Independence Day, everyone.

The American dream is being killed by the 'progressives'.

Please note that the opponents of the free market are NOT defending socialism/statism/progressivism, they are just trying to shout down their opponents.
But that is understandable as their system cannot be defended.

"Happy Independence Day, everyone."

(Translated):
Fourth yourselves.

"Ikeda suggests that given a statist ideological bent in the society, it becomes natural to see the market as the problem rather than the governments intrusions into the marketplace. Furthermore, the very complexity of market activities makes it difficult for many to follow the logical chains of causation that would clearly point the figure of guilt at the interventionist policies themselves. Besides, the more the state intervenes and politicizes market relationships, the more a growing number of people begin to turn to the state for additional counterinterventions to provide them with protections and social safety nets from both the remaining market forces and the earlier interventions.

Eventually the cumulative negative effects of the interventionist-welfare state reach a crisis point. It is at this moment that the society either turns back toward a free market or marches on into more comprehensive collectivism."
http://www.fff.or...797g.asp

Ayn Rand was an idiot. All she did was take a basic statement "every man for himself" and wrap thousands of pages of text around it. She saw no value in humanism, where one might actually choose to care about his or her neighbor, just because they are neighbors. She was one step removed from social Darwinism and nazism. I don't see how anyone could view her hate speech as anything but veiled social anarchy where everyone takes as much as they can from their fellow people. Don't be fooled by her tripe.

"The primary excuse I hear from socialists regarding why socialism keeps failing is that the 'right', 'good' person was not in power." - RyggTard

Poor KyggTard. He is completely incapable of comprehending that it was American Capitalism that has failed. Not Socialism.

Socialism is alive and well all over the world. Including China, which now owns a good deal of America.

@ Vendicar: Can't sgree with ya there. Captialism has been spectacu;arily successful. It has layered society; defined the classes; unevenly redistrubited the wealth of the economy. It has done all the things it is supposed to do.

John LeCarre has a good line about how even the worst system, if administered with kindness, caring and humanity will work well, and how even the best system if run with uncareing cruelity will be a terror. That seems appropriate here.

'Progressive' interventionism by the govt has not worked well.
"The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday."
http://www.cnbc.c...43598606

John LeCarre has a good line about how even the worst system, if administered with kindness, caring and humanity will work well,

According to this, the reason socialism failed is because the leaders were not nice? They should have murdered their opponents in a kindly fashion.

Then one day you wake up to the realization that only the Ruling Class can live upstream.

Read Angelo Codevilla's TAS essay America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution in which he effectively defines the two American classes - the Ruling Class and the Country Class. Compare and contrast (a la Ayn Rand's Objectivists) Ferdinand Toennies' 1885 Gemeineschaft und Gesellschaft.

He reserved the splintered-shaft for Frank Sherbert, hard, deep and dry - no kissey-kissy.

Quote: Just because someone has something you'd like but didn't earn, that makes socialism good?
Answer: Let's put a bit of a twist on that. How about one cannot afford that which one **needs** BECAUSE of the overconsumption / greed of a few. IE: gasoline prices going up before holidays BECAUSE of those motorhomes and boats and planes.

John LeCarre has a good line about how even the worst system, if administered with kindness, caring and humanity will work well,

According to this, the reason socialism failed is because the leaders were not nice? They should have murdered their opponents in a kindly fashion.

Now you are talking about American foreign policy - assassinate anyone, Americans included, that does not follow, chapter and verse, the billionair approved dictates.

Dying?? It died.

It's not the millionaires. It's which millionaires.
Which party has the millionaires which produce nothing
of practical value.

Like the banksters on Wall Street and the speculators in our commodity markets!

What is wrong with commodity market speculators? They are gambling with their own money and help markets predict future prices.

If Obama opened the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, east and west coasts and the interior of the USA to oil drilling and fracking, the speculators would speculate a drop in oil prices.

You must be a paid troll if not you need to go seek help with your ideological delusions.

'Progressive' interventionism by the govt has not worked well.
"The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday."
http://www.cnbc.c...43598606

CNBC, now that's 'a reputable link. Do you have anymore koolaide for us to drink.

Quote: Just because someone has something you'd like but didn't earn, that makes socialism good?
Answer: Let's put a bit of a twist on that. How about one cannot afford that which one **needs** BECAUSE of the overconsumption / greed of a few. IE: gasoline prices going up before holidays BECAUSE of those motorhomes and boats and planes.

How about govt policies that limit the supply of gasoline that drives up the cost, intentionally? That's what Obama wants, artificially high gas prices.
Your scenario is a false one.

He reserved the splintered-shaft for Frank Sherbert, hard, deep and dry - no kissey-kissy.

@Doug_Huffman,
So now you want to sodomize me? Very christian of you, sir.

Hey doug, I fixed that little spiel you're so fond of appending your posts with.

"Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth (and broom sticks for sodomizing people)."

Doug_Huffman keeps squatting in our forum and none dare call it terrorism. A is A.

Does an NPR link change what Greenspan said?

"Today, the second round of the Federal Reserve's stimulus came to an end. In an interview with CNBC, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the second round of quantitative easing or QE2 as it's come to be known did very little."
http://www.npr.or...s-worked

And I'm sure if Greenspan disagreed with you, you would wear it as a badge of honor because of his tenure as Fed Chairman.

A conspiracy theorist can always warp any evidence, even mutually exclusive, to fit his worldview.

What's the matter Frank? Is Greenspan going off the reservation?

Greenspan rode off the reservation when he mounted Ayn Rand.

"Our past housing and government spending mistakes leave us with no good choices. But please no more government spending! The deficit must now be faced. Avoid any new taxes; they are unlikely to reduce the deficit without discouraging recovery.

Our best shot at increasing employment and output is to reduce business taxes and the cost of creating new start-up companies. Dont subsidize them; just reduce their taxes even as they become larger; also reduce any unnecessary impediments to their formation."
Vernon L. Smith, the George L. Argyros Professor in Finance and Economics at Chapman University, is a 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics.
http://www.thedai...ing.html

Greenspan rode off the reservation when he mounted Ayn Rand.

Frank, what your excuse for the current, spectacular failure of your socialism?
I predict the answer is, "the govt has not spent enough money and has not confiscated enough wealth from the 'rich'".

Frank, what your excuse for the current, spectacular failure of your socialism?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Greenspan rode off the reservation when he mounted Ayn Rand.

Well, no, not "off the reservation." If you knew anything about Rand's personal life, as from print or film biographies, Frank Sherbert might know that such was quite possible and acceptable. Sherbert is a solipsist.

Quote: How about govt policies that limit the supply of gasoline that drives up the cost, intentionally? That's what Obama wants, artificially high gas prices.
Your scenario is a false one
Answer: Somehow Socialism is what Obama thinks ? The 'artificially high gas price' could be reserved for 'above and beyond' what is REQUIRED by a family or production of goods. The same as 'purple gas' was used exclusively by farmers to fuel their combines and tractors. The scenario being gas required for personal NEED to be of very little cost. NEED being the operative word. The NEED being subsidized / offset by the **frivolous** use.

The determination of need or frivolity is rank tyranny.

The scenario being gas required for personal NEED to be of very little cost.

How do you define need?
I NEED to drive a Ford Excursion 60 miles to work and back every day. The govt should subsidize my gas?

"Perhaps the strongest indication that Obama wants higher gas prices is the fact that he appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary. Before his nomination, Chu told the Wall Street Journal, Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,"
http://www.humane...id=44429

The same as 'purple gas' was used exclusively by farmers to fuel their combines and tractors.

What is purple gas?
I know fuel oil used to heat houses in New England is the same as diesel fuel used in engines. Dyes are added to try an prevent people from using cheaper fuel oil, cheaper because is not taxed the same.

This seems to describe 'iron' quite well:
"North and South the progressives believe that the masses need to be governed: they will drink too much without Prohibition, they will drive too much unless gasoline is heavily taxed, they will eat the wrong things, the poor weaklings, if we allow fried food in the school cafeteria."
http://blogs.the-...e-blues/

The determination of need or frivolity is rank tyranny.

No it would be pretty much the same as what the government is proposing with pollution. Those who pollute the most / use services unrequired for sustaining life. Life being defined as heat and light and food and that being a 'personal carbon allotment'. If YOU feel that you cannot survive with your allotment you can apply to have your allotment raised. You shouldn't have to though seeing you have money to burn ?

We could use this formula.

"They use a formula similar to that in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone.

In this latest incident, the driver faces a penalty of just over $1 million for traveling at the highest speed ever recorded on a public road in Switzerland."

If YOU feel that you cannot survive with your allotment you can apply to have your allotment raised.

What if your masters deny your plea?

Firstly, my apologies, Frank H, for the accidental downrank. A mere slip of the mouse.

Now to mangy's "steaming pile":

"The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar[...]Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday."

The Federal Government, mangy, doesn't control the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank. And Greenspan was absolutely right- the QE2 didn't help our economic woes. And for the simple reason that it was never intended to.

It was instead intended to keep fueling the financial industry's casino, and allow them the chance to replace their debt liabilities with free dollars and commodities holdings.

Which is the priciple reason for the cost all consumer goods and commodities to be pushed to record highs, the profitability of US exports to fall while volume increased, and for executive compensation to soar while we are still tanked.

Lying moron.

If YOU feel that you cannot survive with your allotment you can apply to have your allotment raised.

What if your masters deny your plea?

You pay extra FOR that 'right' TO be large consumer.

If YOU feel that you cannot survive with your allotment you can apply to have your allotment raised.

What if your masters deny your plea?

You pay extra FOR that 'right' TO be large consumer.

Pay? That's what people do now if they want more gasoline. No need for a govt gasoline allotment bureau.

Socialism, how fragile!

"Hopefully, nothing will happen to him. Without Chavez, things in Cuba would get extremely rough again like before. We would be back to blackouts," said Elisa Castellanos, a 68-year-old housewife."
http://news.yahoo...974.html

Pay? That's what people do now if they want more gasoline. No need for a govt gasoline allotment bureau.

The operative word is need though. One needs heat and electricity. One DOESN'T need to have access to , at a reasonable price , frivolous liberal use of essential services. IF one WISHES to use MORE essential services one pays the jacked price. THAT way everyone get the 'deal' BUT not everyone wishes t use MORE than their fair share and so they don't pay those high prices.

The operative word is need though.

Who decides what you need?

frivolous liberal use of essential services.

Define 'frivolous'.

I don't expect a reply as you are now wasting electricity on the frivolous internet and you will stop to save the planet.

se MORE than their fair share and so they don't pay those high prices.

In a market system, the more one uses, the cheaper the product becomes due to competition and more efficient production methods.

Quote: I don't expect a reply as you are now wasting electricity on the frivolous internet and you will stop to save the planet.
Answer: I don't think you understand the concept of starving to death while you freeze. ESSENTIAL versus frivolous.

"In a market system, the more one uses, the cheaper the product becomes due to competition and more efficient production methods."

Is that the same 'market system' that says it is okay to restrict blacks from your drug store - because some by some majic process they will turn white and be allowed in? Allowed in ...somewhere ..

What kind of foolishness are you promoting here? An unfettered (what you call) free market is a disaster.

Is that the same 'market system' that says it is okay to restrict blacks from your drug store - because some by some majic process they will turn white and be allowed in? Allowed in ...somewhere ..

What market system did that? Jim Crow laws were LAWS created by the state.
All money is green. Any business that excludes customers will find his competitor won't.

I don't think you understand the concept of starving to death while you freeze. ESSENTIAL versus frivolous.

Will you first do an audit to ensure they are not wasting their money on cell phones, video games, cable TV,or some other frivolous product?

Does need include addiction and excuse it from frivolity?

Mothers, you must ensure your sons' right to un-frivolous needs, addict them now via mothers' milk!

Will you first do an audit to ensure they are not wasting their money on cell phones, video games, cable TV,or some other frivolous product?

Would you support the bureaucracy needed to carry out such audits? Despite your desire to make poor people live in hovels with no amenities until they can pull themselves up by their ballsacks, I'm fairly confident such audits would cost more than any current abuse in the system.

"All money is green. Any business that excludes customers will find his competitor won't."

I was not there, but whites only businesses apparently did quite well in the American south, TYVM. This is what senator Paul wants to return to.

I'm fairly confident such audits would cost more than any current abuse in the system.

I guess that's how fraud in Medicare and Medicaid are enabled.
Of course audits would cost more. Let's let Joe Kennedy and Hugo provide fuel oil to the poor.
And there are all sorts of govt programs now that people can apply for for food and heat, and they usually require income verification. And of course their is no food stamp abuse is there?
FL just passed a law requiring all welfare recipients to be drug tested. Why should taxpayers subsidize alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs?

I was not there,

Then how do you know?

The end of US dominance is on the horizon. With the rising costs of oil and the world already after Peak Oil, America will not be able to rebuild its global position.
With the falling production and consumption the next step now is to radically cut spending and begin the shutdown process of the costly military operations.

The end of US dominance is on the horizon. With the rising costs of oil and the world already after Peak Oil, America will not be able to rebuild its global position.
With the falling production and consumption the next step now is to radically cut spending and begin the shutdown process of the costly military operations.

SZ,

You're more or less right about everything you mention in your post. Prepare for the new Feudalist State!

Unfortunately, I fear you are incorrect about the Military, however. We can reliably expect that expenditure to be the very last cut, for as long as any Government remains on American soil to levy taxes. Say hello to the Press Gangs!