system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is the typical U.S. conservative explanation of how the Roman Empire fell factually correct and is their comparison of it to the U.S. accurate?

I've been hearing something like this a lot lately:

>It should be noted that in the history of Rome, when the people became increasingly dependent upon handouts from the government, personal initiative, responsibility, and enterprise declined accordingly.

Many conservatives have used this example to compare it to the United States as an argument for less taxes and regulation.

First, is the statement about Rome even correct? Second, is there anything else to the downfall of Rome? Third, and most important, is the comparison of the U.S. and Rome correct and is our situation actually similar?

edit: I've seen similar posts recently about this. Sorry if people are tired of answering it. I feel like the question is more specific and has more relevancy to our political climate in America.

edit2: Seems like the general consensus is that conservatives that say this are full of shit. Thanks everyone! I learned a lot today.
gpt
This demonstrably false. Reliance on a slave and tribute economy was far more likely to have a crowding out effect than handouts to the plebs, who were a tiny fraction of the population of the Empire. Pleb welfare wasn't significant enough to cause economic problems.

Also, the Roman Empire, as many people still believe, did not "fall". Urban life collapsed as trade slowed due to external factors, and the legions were no longer able to maintain security on the borders, but rural and plantation life continued much as it had before well into the Middle Ages. In fact, it formed the basis for the feudal system of tenant farmers and landlords. Landlords were more than capable of fielding their own militias or allowing "barbarians" to settle and even own land.