In the United States cultural differences are political. How else do you account for the fact that most low income whites in the U.S. vote Republican, and that many do so with considerable enthusiasm? They are afraid that the Democrats will take their guns, and they resent the possibility that "cultural elitists" in the Democrat Party look down on their evangelical religious practices, their interest in NASCAR competitions, their nationalism, and their taste in country and western music. In addition, the large coastal cities, with their polyglot populations are alien and frightening to them.
I think some people like to feed into the divisions that are created by the media, which is exactly what the powers in charge want. Most relatively informed people are beginning to wake up and see beyond the left vs. right illusion and realize that both sides are essentially the same and selling the people out. But, people have been conditioned to take sides and point the finger instead of understanding the truth about things. This is why this country will fall, and it's hard not to say that the people are at least somewhat at fault for this. I mean, when you see the Democrats supporting Bush's bailout package so adamantly, that should at least tell you something. Kind of like how the people voted the Democrats back in in '06 to end the war when of course that did not happen. So to think the Democrats are any more on the side of the people than the Republicans is pretty naive.
The only way the Democrats could have ended the war after the election of 2006 was to have cut off spending. They did not have enough of a majority to do that, and it would have been unpopular with the voters. The real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is in who they tax, and in what they spend money for. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the richest 5% of the country. By one evaluation, 41% of George Bush's tax cuts went to the richest !% of the country. Also, under Clinton the minimum wage was increased twice. It has not been increased under Bush. Under Clinton there was a broad based economic expansion that benefitted most Americans. Most Americans are not better off than they were when Clinton left office.
No. Soviet Russia fell unto itself for many separate reasons and continues to intervene in neighbouring country affairs to this day. Economic markets exist in the USA, democracy and free trade is rampant. It's not going to fall the same way.
I do not think it is likely that the United States will divide into two or more parts. I only think that is a possibility. I do think the United States will lose ground economically to the European Union, China, and India, and that the U.S. standard of living will decline. I think this will have profound, and possibly ugly effects on American politics. I would like for this to benefit the left, which I define broadly enough to include the Democrat Party. I want a more equalitarian economy. However, it might result in a xenophobic and racist backlash.
The US was first, Europe is second. Three European banks were taken over today, in three different countries. Don't think the US is the only country that has a mess to work through.
nah. we'll drag the rest of the world with us: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48S00W20080929
lol i was about to counter The Scibes humping of Europe with the mention of their banks failing as well, but you beat me to the punch...
I don't think Europe will fall as far as we do. I think it will recover sooner. The United States has had it. Our best days are over.
Europe sank down to it's knees earlier on. It now is based on nothing more than hanging on the US's coattails. Britain actually failed for the same reasons the USSR did . And the US will decline. How we handle that is up in the air. Empire building is never good for an entity. Rome, Britain, Germany, France, the USSR, China, Japan and the US seem to not learn from past experience Let's hope China now rising can benefit from our mistakes. Because they hold the money, or perhaps the Saudis can bail us out.