How Long Does USA Have?

[SUBMAN1]

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

[SUBMAN1]

Incase anyone needs the above to be simplified, it comes down to the fact that when the have nots exceed the haves, chaos insues, resulting in America not being America from then on. The country will cease to exist in its current state.

This is what will happen if 20 million + illegal aliens become citizens.

The same thing happened to the Romans and the Greeks.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

Should've checked that back...

taken from here (http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html)

Joseph Olson
jolson@gw.hamline.edu
Phone: 651 523-2142
Professor of Law
A.B., University of Notre Dame
J.D., (Distinction) Duke University School of Law
LL.M., University of Florida Law Center

"A business attorney is continually dealing with the future continually calculating and exercising foresight to counsel a client. The legal aspects of business demand effort, compel earnestness, require knowledge, and grease the wheels of industry."

Professor Olson is a leading authority on tax and business law. His treatise, Federal Taxation of Intellectual Property Transfers, was first published in 1986 and is updated bi-annually. He is a legal counselor's counselor, being called upon by colleagues for information on areas of business law.

He drafted the close corporation amendments to the Minnesota Business Corporation act and writes articles on corporate planning. He is a frequent lecturer and arbitrator in contractual disputes involving securities dealer-client and manufacturer-distributor issues. Professor Olson has served as administrative law judge for the state of Minnesota and has consulted with judges, state legislators, and municipal officials.

Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Olson was with Dorsey & Whitney. While in law school he was elected to the academic honor society Order of the Coif. He was an officer in the Air Force. Currently, Professor Olson is president of Academics for the Second Amendment, and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. He is past-president of The Corporate Counsel Association and has been on the Board of Minnesota Continuing Legal Education.

Professor Olson teaches Business Associations, Business Planning, Contracts, Corporate Finance, and taxation courses.

DISCLAIMER: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I've been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.



See also http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=259035

[SUBMAN1]

Should've checked that back...

taken from here (http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html)

Good find since this did appear in my email box today, so I figured I'd post it. I wonder if someone took some of these figures from a lecture???

It still doesn't change the facts of the end result however since the problem it describes is one we are facing. Democracy will not go on forever and this is a known problem. An example is Ceasar over the Senate, etc. When you can vote your way to increase your own purse strings, you are at the beginning of the end.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

Should've checked that back...

taken from here (http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html)

Good find since this did appear in my email box today, so I figured I'd post it. I wonder if someone took some of these figures from a lecture???

It still doesn't change the facts of the end result however since the problem it describes is one we are facing. Democracy will not go on forever and this is a known problem. An example is Ceasar over the Senate, etc. When you can vote your way to increase your own purse strings, you are at the beginning of the end.

-S

well in the two links posted there is some clarification as to where this 8 stages quote seems to come from...

It appears, here I go again..., That the quote is assorted from various quotes made by unknown american republican* people before WWII. They were later attributed to Tyler/Tytler/Aenswon etc, etc, etc.

Mr Tytler did exist as a professor but the quotes were never his. The only quote I managed to dig up, but I'm still investigating its plausability, is this one:

It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.


So it's not completely a Hoax. But there is a substantial amount of vapour involved

* appears to be incorrect. 'Private political thinkers' is probably more likely.



-----

IMHO democracy is the best form of government we've found so far, despite its flaws.

The policies in a democracy will always only be as intelligent as the voters. By that I mean if you only want instant gratification, and don't look at the consequences, you'll vote someone who promises just that, if there are too much people like this, it won't end well.

I'll add some more tomorrow/today, but I need to get some sleep now...

[SUBMAN1]

Should've checked that back...

taken from here (http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html)
Good find since this did appear in my email box today, so I figured I'd post it. I wonder if someone took some of these figures from a lecture???

It still doesn't change the facts of the end result however since the problem it describes is one we are facing. Democracy will not go on forever and this is a known problem. An example is Ceasar over the Senate, etc. When you can vote your way to increase your own purse strings, you are at the beginning of the end.

-S
well in the two links posted there is some clarification as to where this 8 stages quote seems to come from...

It appears, here I go again..., That the quote is assorted from various quotes made by unknown american republican* people before WWII. They were later attributed to Tyler/Tytler/Aenswon etc, etc, etc.

Mr Tytler did exist as a professor but the quotes were never his. The only quote I managed to dig up, but I'm still investigating its plausability, is this one:

It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.

So it's not completely a Hoax. But there is a substantial amount of vapour involved

* appears to be incorrect. 'Private political thinkers' is probably more likely.


-----

IMHO democracy is the best form of government we've found so far, despite its flaws.

The policies in a democracy will always only be as intelligent as the voters. By that I mean if you only want instant gratification, and don't look at the consequences, you'll vote someone who promises just that, if there are too much people like this, it won't end well.

I'll add some more tomorrow/today, but I need to get some sleep now...

The problem is the Welfare moms that drive their kids to daycare in their Cadillac Escalades (When they don't even have jobs, so why daycare?), yet they have on all the latest Nike outfits (costing probably in the 4 digit range), while getting their daycare subsidized, and they've got food stamps which they use to buy their much needed junk food! Anyone see a problem here? They have to earn 6 digits to maintain that lifestyle! My father owns a daycare as one of his enterprising business ideas (I think it is more than a headache than its worth, and he should stick to his other businesses) and this is normal to see this every single day.

The point is, these people will stop being the minority one day (they are at the 40 percentile range) and out vote you to maintain their lifestyle, changing the landscape forever. That is just the beginning of the end.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

The problem is the Welfare moms that drive their kids to daycare in their Cadillac Escalades (When they don't even have jobs, so why daycare?), yet they have on all the latest Nike outfits (costing probably in the 4 digit range), while getting their daycare subsidized, and they've got food stamps which they use to buy their much needed junk food! Anyone see a problem here? They have to earn 6 digits to maintain that lifestyle! My father owns a daycare as one of his enterprising business ideas (I think it is more than a headache than its worth, and he should stick to his other businesses) and this is normal to see this every single day.

The point is, these people will stop being the minority one day (they are at the 40 percentile range) and out vote you to maintain their lifestyle, changing the landscape forever. That is just the beginning of the end.

-S

Sorry if I don't get the point, but what has that got to do with illegal immigrants becoming legal citizens?

Is the point that others will not be able to maintain their bloated lifestyle? I don't think it'll be the end of democracy if they have to make some sacrifice.

[SUBMAN1]

The problem is the Welfare moms that drive their kids to daycare in their Cadillac Escalades (When they don't even have jobs, so why daycare?), yet they have on all the latest Nike outfits (costing probably in the 4 digit range), while getting their daycare subsidized, and they've got food stamps which they use to buy their much needed junk food! Anyone see a problem here? They have to earn 6 digits to maintain that lifestyle! My father owns a daycare as one of his enterprising business ideas (I think it is more than a headache than its worth, and he should stick to his other businesses) and this is normal to see this every single day.

The point is, these people will stop being the minority one day (they are at the 40 percentile range) and out vote you to maintain their lifestyle, changing the landscape forever. That is just the beginning of the end.

-S
Sorry if I don't get the point, but what has that got to do with illegal immigrants becoming legal citizens?

Is the point that others will not be able to maintain their bloated lifestyle? I don't think it'll be the end of democracy if they have to make some sacrifice.
Quite simply, they are a drain on the system, costing a state like Colorado over a billion $ per year already. When you hear them at the daycare, they talk about pumping out one more so they can simply get another paycheck. They never get married on purpose simply because that would kill a welfare check. Imagine if this lifestyle becomes the majority and votes their lifestyle over your vote. Do I need to paint a picture? I can keep going on about this and describing in more detail, but if you don't get the picture already, then you never will.

-S

[VipertheSniper]

Got some official links with figures, preferably split up in racial groups?

[SUBMAN1]

Got some official links with figures, preferably split up in racial groups?
What do you mean? Like this?


Illegal aliens cost $10 billion in 2002

A new Center for Immigration Studies report was released in August, 2004 that shows that illegal immigration cost $10 billion in 2002.4 Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings:

* Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
* Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
* If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.
* Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
* Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
* However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
* About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income is the primary determinant of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State are almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to the study's findings of 45 percent.

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

[VipertheSniper]

Got some official links with figures, preferably split up in racial groups?
What do you mean? Like this?

Illegal aliens cost $10 billion in 2002

A new Center for Immigration Studies report was released in August, 2004 that shows that illegal immigration cost $10 billion in 2002.4 Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings:

* Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
* Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
* If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.
* Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
* Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
* However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
* About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income is the primary determinant of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State are almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to the study's findings of 45 percent.

I was more thinking about who puts the most strain on your budgets, rather then how much illegal aliens attribute to it, since I only got the figures of legal immigrants to check against atm, I guess they put an even higher strain on the budget, than the illegals...

Anyway, why are they even there in the first place? Can't be because you don't like them, since most of them surely got at least once employed by a US citizen as cheap labor. Guess they are proofing that they aren't that cheap after all, I guess you got no one to blame but capitalism.

[SKeeM]

The point really is that niether DEMs or GOPs care at all about us! They all sell us out evryday for a profit. They all have there own agenda and we are not on it. Just look at the NAFTA agreement Clinton signed. And the free trade agreements Bush signed. They all mean less jobs for Americans and more jobs for other countries. They use technoligy to eleminate jobs to be more cost affective. I really dont know what they are thinking because at some point who do they think will be paying tax's to support all there pet programs? The ILLEGAL aliens? Surely not the big corperations that they give the big tax breaks too! Were do they think the money is gonna come from? Do they think there familys will be so rich at that point that it wont matter to them? We give 600 Million to Columbia A year, And in return we get 6 Million tons of cocain!!! How does that work for us? Our local goverments spend big money evry year fighting the war on drugs. But it seams like the FEDs dont even try to help out. There aint but 1 part of the world that the coca leaf grows. We invented napalm and agent orange to destroy vegetation. So why are we not raining bombs on those locations? Recently in Mexico there was a city that rose up againts there political leader. And the US issued a warning to all American tourrist to avoid being in the area because it is againts Mexican law for foreiners to protest the Mexican goverment.!!!! But it was OK for Millions of Mexicans here Illegaly to protest our laws againts the crimes they have committed? Just where is our country heading?

[Tchocky]

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Um, one man, one vote, anyone? nevermind first-past-the-post or how many square miles were won, more people voted for Gore than Bush. I'm not trying to turn this into an election argument, but surely when more people vote for a candidate it doesnt matter how many acres they represent?

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

I know this is fake, but to whoever wrote this, why do some votes matter more than others? Follow that line of thinking...

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Why are illegal immigrants going to end the USA? What freedom of yours are they putting in danger?

[The Avon Lady]

Why are illegal immigrants going to end the USA? What freedom of yours are they putting in danger?
There are a number of potential reasons but the simplest is to just do the math (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069).

[PeriscopeDepth]

They also happen to be what keeps our service economy chugging. Fact. I don't think amnesty is a good idea, but we've gotten ourselves into a hell of a problem.

PD

[P_Funk]

Um, one man, one vote, anyone? nevermind first-past-the-post or how many square miles were won, more people voted for Gore than Bush. I'm not trying to turn this into an election argument, but surely when more people vote for a candidate it doesnt matter how many acres they represent?
It isn't saying that anything about what mattersa per se. Its examining the trends. WHo votes for who and where they're from is an indicator of what is on the minds of certain people and what they are inclined towards. You certainly can't deny the existance of democratic and republuican strongholds and theres more to that than just mom and dad always voted the same way. Like poor people voting for Democrats and rich or well off middle class people that are attracted to tax cuts.

Who votes for what is important in tracking the trends in any society.


I know this is fake, but to whoever wrote this, why do some votes matter more than others? Follow that line of thinking...
The matter isn't that certain votes are worth more necessarily but that Bush got more voting land because those that vote for him own land while those that vote for Gore own nothing.

Think about that.

[Sailor Steve]

The matter isn't that certain votes are worth more necessarily but that Bush got more voting land because those that vote for him own land while those that vote for Gore own nothing.

Think about that.
Not true. It's a function of the electoral college system created 200 years ago. At that time the electors were appointed by the state legislatures; the people didn't vote for senators or the president at all. At one point the states divided the electoral votes by who voted for which candidate, so no one candidate carried the whole state.

I'm all for having the popular vote elect the president, but if that had been true in 2000 Bill Clinton might still be president today. Florida wasn't the only disputed state, and if we had had twenty Floridas we might still be recounting today.

[tycho102]

It's a function of the electoral college system created 200 years ago.

At that time the electors were appointed by the state legislatures; the people didn't vote for senators or the president at all.

At one point the states divided the electoral votes by who voted for which candidate, so no one candidate carried the whole state.

Absolutely.

You elect your state representatives on character and they're responsible right up the whole chain of command. Those bastards in the state legislature were deftly accountable for their votes because their every vote was tangible to the county. They did not fly back for a wednesday afternoon vote, then hit the yacht club on thursday for a four-day weekend of binge drinking and sexual relations with their interns.

At one time, only "propertied" men could vote. The idea being that they had a real stake in the politics, and paid attention to the issues because their fiscal security required it. They did not vote a "straight party ticket".

We've got too many dead-enders in congress. Guys that have nothing else to do, and nowhere else to go. China is going to surpass us in every single way by 2020. I don't much care for communism, but the communists have been making some highly pragmatic investments based on long-term (~25 years) returns.

To answer the original question: 15 years.