First of all, trying to predict the future based on past performance is a fundamental logical flaw; supposing that the United States has never suffered any protracted economic downturn, it would nevertheless be logically unjustifiable to imply that it never will. And the United States has had prolonged periods of economic difficulty, the most notable of which was the Great Depression in the late 1920s and 1930s; it was only able to recover because of World War II. Going back further, during the 1870s the Long Depression, although less severe, was, as the name implies, a long period of stagnation and little growth.
On the topic of the United States' natural resources, the United States has already exhausted much of its available resources. Most continental oil reserves have been depleted, and coal reserves are becoming increasingly difficult to access, so the United States has had to look to foreign sources of fuel. Of course, the only reason it has such easy access to Arabian oil is through territorial aggression: case in point, consider that the United States has attacked Libya, which has oil reserves, and has not attacked Syria, which has perpetrated similar crimes against humanity and does not have oil reserves.
Furthermore, saying that Russia remains economically vibrant due to its natural resources is simply not a correct statement. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has experienced negative population growth and frequently negative economic growth; it was this sluggish economy that toppled the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. Russia now is nowhere as strong as the Soviet Union used to be, and is inarguably weaker than China. In an interesting turn of history, with the retirement of the last NASA space shuttle, the United States space program is now entirely dependent... on Russia.
This is not to say that it will not be a long time until China surpasses the United States; China surely has institutional problems that it must address. However, the reasons that you gave are not the reasons for this.
