Decius wrote:
the Republic fell because people chose short term stability over liberty
What sort of liberty? Economic? Social?

I do think the US has a non-trivial problem with overconsumption. We're a country that coasts along on debt. We have big houses and big cars and we don't own them.

The real problem begins with you start paying off your credit card bills with borrowed money. I think we're starting to do that. You can't juggle forever. Eventually, you miss a throw.

i really shouldn't blog when i've been drinking which i had when i wrote that

ok the fall of Rome and it's connection to Tiberius Gracchus (plus this is my interpretation from my own reading and not something I learned at school)
the crisis that occured when Gracchus was murdered was to do with the army
because of the latifundia soldiers who returned from military service couldn't make a living and, as I quoted, ended up in Rome unemployed. This was to create a huge political crisis in the first century BC with Sulla and then later Julius Caesar this revolved around what happened to veterans (Sulla i'm a little hazy about). One of the causes of the Sulla's dictatorship then Caesar's was getting the Senate to appropriately reward veterans. The members of the Senate were the big landowners who controlled the what had previously been publically owned land (the latifundia) and parcels of this land would previously and should have gone to army veterans after a war. The Senate didn't want to relinquish control of this lucrative land so Sulla and then later Julius Caesar broke with tradition and used the army as a political weapon. The Roman army destroyed the republic. Like modern Pakistan, Thailand, Burma etc and a string of 20th century examples; it was control of the army which was key to political power (in the case of Rome being Emperor). Being Emperor was about how many legions you had.
However the ethnic make up of the Roman army changed during the first centuries AD until, by the time of Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 AD, ethnically the Roman armies and the barbarian hordes where indistinguishable. It was not a Roman (of Rome) civilian army. It was like expecting the Iraqi army to defend Washington DC from Iranians (ish parallel). Alaric could easily have been another Emperor.
What prevents the army from taking control in Britain, Germany and the US etc is tradition and ideolgy. By crossing the Rubicon Caesar broke tradition; he used the army to settle a political dispute, like Musharraf.
The US has no political tradition of direct military involvement in politics. The various schemes helping US veterans financially to enter higher education is an extraordinarily far sighted legislation it encourages a civilian army. Yes the poorest currently bare the brunt of military service but it gives the veterans a huge stake in the society they have fought to defend, through education and the economic boot strapping that provides, it ensures a steady supply of input into the army of people who share the values of the society they are defending. It is their home, it is their history, their culture, their future, their children's future, their Constitution they are defending.
The talk of an overstretched military is only true in the short term. The US army is not a force of global occupation in the way that the Roman army was. I can tell you that Britain and Europe are not subjugated by fear of the US and the US military. We are democratic allies with shared beliefs and interests who elect our own leaders clearly this is in complete contrast to the vassal areas of the Roman empire which is why I said it was crap.
The global ecomomy is largely fuelled by debt (hence the recent liquidity problem) but debt and repayment is the engine the global economy and although it is sometimes out of balance this is not a structural problem. Global growth is driven by debt and repayment. Money is not a fixed quantity but grows through the debt and repayment process.

debt isn't a threat to the US republic -- there is something of a debt spiral and an adjustment on a national and personal scale may be required. If the UK could financially afford WW2 (loans we've only just finished repaying) then this is nothing for the US. Affordable debt is fine and economicaly good. Borrowing to pay debt is also called loan restructure.

debt however can effect US predominance just as debt effected and ended British predominace mid 20th century

Rome fell because of it's army. The Republic fell because the army became the political force. Won't happen in America on current trends. The future citizens of the army have a real stake in their society through educational entitlements resulting from military service unlike Roman veterans. The sack of Rome happened because the Roman army was no longer an army of Romans but clearly the US has a citizen army.
many of the choices made for short term political stability versus political liberty are seen in countries like Turkey, Thailand, Burma, Pakistan. We know in the West that the short term political stability that army interference in politics buys is far outweighed by the longer term political instability it creates. The army is not in the longer term a force for political stability when it periodically interferes in politics worse it is a destabalising influence in the longer term. The choice of Caesar was the choice of Musharraf. He saw corruption in the legislature and the judiciary, his own political power and the chaos in recent polical history. He thought the political class was incapable of putting its own house in order and he heard the siren call for a strong leader and the stability that would bring. With the question of remuneration for the army as a lever Caesar could manipulate the troops and their loyalties.

RE: FT.com / World - Learn from the fall of Rome, US Comptroller warns