how much should we cut defense.

[RavenHawk]

One of tge ceasers had a food program going for the poor.

That is correct. It’s a slow degradation of personal achievement and incentive. Eventually, the Caesars end up buying a cheaper batch of slaves for just the price of a few bread crumbs.

[Almagest]

I truly hope so!

In that time, Socialism was called dictatorship, dictatorship under the Caesars. More and more of the means of production ended up under the control of the Caesars. Individual freedoms were waning away. Along with that was the individual initiative to produce. Socialism tends to destroy that in the person.

So Rome was built by socialism, according to your fluctuating definition of the word. Julius Caesar enjoyed popular support, and he earned it by stripping the power of the entrenched conservative elite in the senate, but he did not hand it over to the people, he kept it for himself. Nothing socialist about that. In fact the position of Dictator was built into the Roman Republic system, and was meant to be a temporary investment of power during times of crisis. Augustus's modus operandi seems to be extending Roman greatness to all of its subjects, not just those born on the Latin peninsula. For the first time those born in Spain, Gaul, Greece, North Africa or Asia Minor had access to Roman citizenship. What exactly is Socialistic about that? The Republic had a grain dole, and Caesar actually lowered it as part of his reforms. Again, not particularly social of him.

But if Socialism is the modern term for what transpired in the day of Caesar and Augustus, then you have to admit that Socialism built an Empire that lasted fifteen centuries.

It wasn't Christianity making soldiers renounce violence and leaving the ranks. It was that Christianity had revealed that the people had become slaves and that caused the loss in the sense of civic duty.

I don't know which variation of Christianity you're referring to. The effect Christianity had on the Roman Legions was quite severe. What Christian Roman soldier would risk his life for an Empire that was due to be destroyed with the rest of the world? What Christian Roman soldier would kill another man for a temporal power if it meant eternal suffering and damnation? Remember the line "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Render unto God what is God's"? Early Christians felt that temporal powers were something to be endured in this life, because they stood to inherit the Kingdom of God. That line of thinking right there is the reason people suffered through Feudalism in Europe. The cost of resisting an oppressive King or Lord was too great compared to the reward, which they'd only be able to enjoy for the rest of their lives if they managed to survive the conflict. Add in the Divine Right of Kings and you can see how such a system endured for so long.

And that lead to calling up conscripts and hiring mercenaries to defend the realm. And when the Barbarian came knocking, people were either Ignorant or Apathetic to the dangers (sound familiar?).

If you're referring to the fall of Western Rome, at the time of the sack of the city by the Goths, the Western Emperor at the time was Romulus Augustulus, who was put on the throne by his father, the master of the Roman army. He was not recognised as being legitimate by the Eastern Emperor at the time, and when Odoacer captured Rome and deposed the young Emperor he was accepted as the ruler of Rome by the Eastern Emperor. Rome was guarded by an army, but was attacked by a better army with a better commander. Had Rome continued it's practise of having well paid, well treated Legions to protect it's border, and had it continued emphasising Statesmanship and Military Command as the two most respectable professions in the Empire, it may have stood against the Goths. And had Zeno cared to preserve the western portion of his Empire he could easily have sent support to defeat the Goths, but obviously a barbarian client state in Italy was preferable to having a pretender to the throne. But Christianity caused a decline in civic duty and then a rift between East and West which led to some very petty politics. So it's not simply a matter of ignorance and apathy. Most people are pretty ignorant and apathetic anyway, and that didn't hinder any of the other Empires in history.

At this point, our saving grace has been the all volunteer, professional standing army. There are still enough with that sense of civic duty.

The US has had a long history of anti-government sentiment, which makes it quite different to the Romans who viewed the government as a means to serve the Republic/Empire. That's not to say one should love or worship their government, on the contrary, the relationship between a government and it's people always has an adversarial nature. But it is an apparatus for change, and should be viewed and used by the populace as such.

The future class war will not be between the haves and have-nots, but the warriors and the low information voters. Something tells me that the differences between those two sets will not be all that great.

Let me guess, you're the former? Everyone who goes on about how stupid everyone is tends to consider themselves an exception, even when they're not.

But as Socialism (today's dictatorship) slowly spreads its tentacles in our society, we too will succumb to the same curse that Rome did. And as the attack on Christianity continues, more and more people will not realize that they are losing their freedoms to the Socialist State.

Nothing socialistic about those trying to bend us all over. The Military-Industrial complex and the banking sector have done more damage to the United States and the West than all the socialists in the world combined.

In that it's the only real productivity in our economy.

And privatisation makes schools more productive, how? Do you seriously believe that private corporations are not interested in having a docile and unquestioning population? All I'm really getting from you is "Privatisation, abra cadabra alakazam, better world."

[questionmark]

So Rome was built by socialism

She will answer yes, as everything right or left of her is socialism. Happens when people throw words around without knowing the meaning of them... nor caring to.

[spartan max2]

I think one of the big reasons Rome fell because of corruption. These people have civil wars all the dam time. A general would win a battel gets some glory then want to taken over.

Its hard to defend your borders when you have to worry about a civil war. Thats why they split Rome in two and doubled the army.

At least thats how I see it

Edited September 12, 2013 by spartan max2

[danielost]

Almagest, I disagree with you partily. The banks would have never those subprime loins if the government hadn't backed them. Of course the government pushed more down their throat, because it was the right thing to do. It made everyone feel good about themselves. Today they say the samething about student loans, food stamps, and obama care(which is no longer backed by the unions, who helped to force feed it to us.

I have already felt the impact of 'the 700 billion cut. I lost my foot doctor on the second. The nurseing home has an in house. But, he wil never be as pretty as she is. Didn't obama promise we could keep our doctors. I have other doctors don't know if I will lose anymore.

[questionmark]

I think one of the big reasons Rome fell because of corruption. These people have civil wars all the dam time. A general would win a barrel gets some glory then want to taken over.

Its hard to defend your borders when you have to worry about a civil war. Thats why they split time in two and doubled the army.

At least thats how I see it

Rome was still there when most thought it fell, only it was called Byzantium.

West Rome fell because they could not find adequate rulers anymore, the Republic ended in civil war (mostly fueled by personal egotism --- wait where are we seeing that today...hmmm?) and the Empire because the hereditary system only works until inbreeding gets the better of it.

East Rome because they could not defend themselves against Ottoman cannons with ballistas.

[Almagest]

Almagest, I disagree with you partily. The banks would have never those subprime loins if the government hadn't backed them. Of course the government pushed more down their throat, because it was the right thing to do. It made everyone feel good about themselves. Today they say the samething about student loans, food stamps, and obama care(which is no longer backed by the unions, who helped to force feed it to us.

Wait wait wait wait, the Government forced deregulation down the banking industry's throat? That is absolutely ridiculous. The banking industry was the one who put pressure on politicians in order to deregulate the market. They have bought and sold politicians, had inside men in every Administration since Reagan's, and have gone so far as to pay off economists to support their arguments. It is in no ones interests, and especially not in the governments interest, to repeal the Glass-Steagall act, unless you're an investment banker looking to merge with a commercial bank in order to get access to more capital. The law was there for a reason, a response to the Great Depression. That we almost had another one because of these guys shows that for our countries' own stability we need to keep banking and investment separate.

As for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, I'll agree that personal responsibility did play a role, but the banks, now teamed up with all the money big investment firms had access to, drastically lowered their standards for handing out these loans. As a result home buyers suffered, the banks giving out the loans suffered, and Henry Paulson and his ilk walked away much, much richer. What has transpired in the three last recessions in the United States has been legalized robbery, nothing more.

I have already felt the impact of 'the 700 billion cut. I lost my foot doctor on the second. The nurseing home has an in house. But, he wil never be as pretty as she is. Didn't obama promise we could keep our doctors. I have other doctors don't know if I will lose anymore.

That's called Austerity, and when too much money accumulates in one region and doesn't flow through the economy, it's what you get.

[Almagest]

East Rome because they could not defend themselves against Ottoman cannons with ballistas.

That reminds me - the Byzantine Empire fell not to barbarians, but to a more sophisticated empire. At the time the Ottomans were the most advanced empire on the planet, and were fighting with a standing army armed with guns at a time when the English were still fighting with feudal armies and bows. So again, it's not enough to say that ignorance and apathy were the cause of their fall. The Byzantine Empire had slowly withdrawn, and had been pillaged multiple times during the Crusades. By the time the Turks came there wasn't really much left. The Byzantines appealed to the Latins for help before the Turks arrived, and in another example of the petty East-West politics, were left to be conquered. Only a handful of Genoan and Venetians gave any assistance to Constantinople.

[danielost]

Questionmark, the roman republic died due to government corruption. Julies ceaser ceazed power nto save rome from the corruption. That I when the republic fell. The senaters had several chances to reinstate the empire. But, no one had the will to do so.

That would be a lack of ego rather thn to much. Yes, the usa is going down that path. No one wants to do what is needed to s top it. We are spending way to much on everything.

Edited September 12, 2013 by danielost

[questionmark]

Questionmark, the roman republic died due to government corruption. Julies ceaser ceazed power nto save rome from the corruption. That I when the republic fell. The senaters had several chances to reinstate the empire. But, no one had the will to do so.

They did not have the means to do so, the money was made in the provinces, not in Rome, the manufacturing was in the provinces, not in Rome, the wheat came form the provinces, not from Rome therefore the power was outside Rome. That is how Trajan (born Hispanic, or Spanish, as you prefer) suddenly ended up being the Roman Emperor about 100 years after Caesar.

And if you think that sounds like something you know: Empires always fizzle out when the moneybags have but one goal: make more money.

[danielost]

The money bags in this case is the democrats.

[Wickian]

Until we actually end all of the wars we're in, we probably shouldn't reduce it at all.

[Gromdor]

That reminds me - the Byzantine Empire fell not to barbarians, but to a more sophisticated empire. At the time the Ottomans were the most advanced empire on the planet, and were fighting with a standing army armed with guns at a time when the English were still fighting with feudal armies and bows. So again, it's not enough to say that ignorance and apathy were the cause of their fall. The Byzantine Empire had slowly withdrawn, and had been pillaged multiple times during the Crusades. By the time the Turks came there wasn't really much left. The Byzantines appealed to the Latins for help before the Turks arrived, and in another example of the petty East-West politics, were left to be conquered. Only a handful of Genoan and Venetians gave any assistance to Constantinople.

I find it most ironic that the Hungarian Orban offered to sell the cannons to the Byzantines first, but they could not afford him, so he turned around and sold it to the Ottomans. Gotta love arms dealers.

[Mr.United_Nations]

But this will lead to job losses, where will the workers go? You could sell though...

[spartan max2]

But this will lead to job losses, where will the workers go? You could sell though...

This is why it is near impossible to cut spending. It is much easier for a politician to "create jobs" by increasing spending. Causing debt which causes us to print more money which causes inflation to rise up up and up.

Edited September 12, 2013 by spartan max2

[questionmark]

The money bags in this case is the democrats.

Oh, they have most money? Did not know that, thanks for the info.

[Jeremiah65]

Daniallost....There is no right and left when it comes to scamming the people out of their hard earned money. The Democrats give it to poor people and the Republicans give it to their rich friends...bottom line is...both sides spend and waste too damn much money!

As far as reducing the military spending causing the loss of jobs....big freaking deal! It's a shell game and the ball under the shell is OUR tax money. The Gov pays way too much for the things they buy from a handful of weapon makers...period...there is no competition in that market.

Worried about losing jobs cause the government tit might dry up? How about this...

How about all the bomb and missile makers become bridge and road builders...I mean shizz...they are already contractors to the GOV...just pop open another division. Our infrastructure is in tatters and gets worse every year because for some fool reason...people think "jobs" building weapons on the tax payers back is better than "jobs" building and fixing bridges and roads...here is a clue...they all require taxpayer input...but one of those options actually helps the country in commerce...moving products...the other helps a handful of people...

[Almagest]

I find it most ironic that the Hungarian Orban offered to sell the cannons to the Byzantines first, but they could not afford him, so he turned around and sold it to the Ottomans. Gotta love arms dealers.

Some things never change. Supposedly he was killed by a misfire during the siege, quite poetic I think.

[Almagest]

Daniallost....There is no right and left when it comes to scamming the people out of their hard earned money. The Democrats give it to poor people and the Republicans give it to their rich friends...bottom line is...both sides spend and waste too damn much money!

As far as reducing the military spending causing the loss of jobs....big freaking deal! It's a shell game and the ball under the shell is OUR tax money. The Gov pays way too much for the things they buy from a handful of weapon makers...period...there is no competition in that market.

Worried about losing jobs cause the government tit might dry up? How about this...

How about all the bomb and missile makers become bridge and road builders...I mean shizz...they are already contractors to the GOV...just pop open another division. Our infrastructure is in tatters and gets worse every year because for some fool reason...people think "jobs" building weapons on the tax payers back is better than "jobs" building and fixing bridges and roads...here is a clue...they all require taxpayer input...but one of those options actually helps the country in commerce...moving products...the other helps a handful of people...

Exactly what Roosevelt did during the Great Depression. Really the economy is one big game, and sometimes you've just gotta get people playing by giving them more money to move around. I think most of us would prefer that it is done by public works instead of welfare. And from watching Dirty Jobs, where Mike Roe implores the viewers every other episode to take notice of how bad the infrastructure in the US is, I think it's necessary.

[questionmark]

To add to the above: there where the middle class is left chanceless the biggest economic motor, innovation and own initiative, is also killed.

And that is what has been going on for at least 25 years, no matter who was running the country we had a gigantic redistribution, from down to up, partially fueled by that, maybe well intended but ill advised, trickle down philosophy of the mid 80s.

If the government sticks its fingers into the actual movement of capital the minimum it has to ensure that this movement does not end up one sided -- no matter if down or up. Because that ends up with a dysfunctional economy in which it is more lucrative to play on exchanges than to actually create something.

And pointing fingers squealing Democrats or Republicans does not help. It makes the situation worse.

[Frank Merton]

Its largely a matter of whether or not the population is willing to spend the money and labor involved in maintaining its walls. To my mind that has a certain priority.

[Jeremiah65]

Not a huge Roosevelt fan but...

The investment in infrastructure is simply that...a "true" investment. If you can move product faster and cheaper, you become more competitive...plain and simple. If we could move products from the heartlands to the major ports cheaper...then we will be cheaper and more competitive on the world market. This translates to more sales...more demand...more need for workers...it's a freaking win-win.

See? This is part of the reason I could no longer be a Republican and become a Libertarian. The point where common sense gets thrown out the window in the name of ideology.

(Disclaimer:...that is a very small reason, mostly it was the "moral majority" that drove me away).

I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does...but I don't mind near as much when I know it is doing something really good or is a sound investment for the nation as a whole...that is just smart...aka...common sense. Spending my taxes by giving it to people that hate us, wasting it in places we don't need to be, overpaying for supplies and weapons for the GOV and the military...these things kinda p!ss me off and most other people as well. This is why we don't like to pay taxes...we feel it is being wasted and abused.

BUT...if you went to just about any American today...grab their little hand and walk them to the nearest bridge and actually showed them it's condition...I'd say nearly 100% would say "we need to fix that".

Edited September 12, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

Investment in infrastructure is good in general, but it can be and often is just pork and corruption.

[Jeremiah65]

Investment in infrastructure is good in general, but it can be and often is just pork and corruption.

That is true.

There are plenty of structural and safety inspections on bridges to clarify what is needed and what is pork. There are thousands of bridges across the country that are structurally deficient. They have had to have their "per vehicle" weight capacity lowered. What does that mean? That means a tractor trailer delivering goods might have to find a longer way to get to destination "B"...this is wasteful of time and money....thus...this is NOT pork.

Beyond that though...sometimes you can only put a band aid on a cut for so long before you need serious medical attention. We slap paint on rusty bridges every few years...that slows it down, but it's still cancer...still working to do it's damage.

This could be avoided in the future when we "have to replace"...we build with ASTM A588 steel (also known by USS steel trade name "Cor-ten"). A588 surface rusts and then seals itself off and does not rust anymore....removing the need to ever be painted. This in itself saves a lot of time and money over the years. Yes, A588 is more expensive than A992-50 or A36 which most structures are made of today....BUT, it is better for exposed structure...period.

Again...a moment of common sense and foresight would be nice once in awhile.

[Almagest]

True, Frank, but if there's going to be pork and corruption no matter the program, wouldn't it be better for the program to be something useful?