advertisement


The U.S. shutdown and the threat of default

I was reminded of this interesting article in the NYT of a couple of days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/u...nths-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It seems that the wealthy are determined to have their way, and that the USA is seeking to return to the original "democracy" of ancient Greece, in which only citizens of worth had a vote. The last "gilded age" ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which gave the USA FDR and the New Deal - something which the Conservatives have been seeking to undermine ever since.

I get the impression that only a similar catastrophe will bring the USA back to its senses and undermine the desire of the moneyed class to run the country their way.

Alternatively, sean99 has mentioned that the USA is now essentially two different countries, and that these countries are becoming steadily more different, with partisan redistricting to make electoral districts safer for incumbents, and the two parts having less and less in common. So, what's to stop this becoming literally true and the Confederacy finally to post a win? If they get a move on, it could be done in time for the 100th anniversary of the end of Round 1.
 
Interesting article, thanks tones.

It is, let's say audacious to effectively ask for the repeal of a law which, if people can remember that far back, was also passed by the house. This is clearly an attempt to let one political view dominate, no matter what the consequences. If the Republicans get away with their strategy, it will end the checks and balances system in the U.S. constitution. Whoever controls one chamber, be it house or senate, can simply extort the entire government into doing their bidding by threatening another shutdown etc.
 
Markus S said:
Interesting article, thanks tones.

It is, let's say audacious to effectively ask for the repeal of a law which, if people can remember that far back, was also passed by the house. This is clearly an attempt to let one political view dominate, no matter what the consequences. If the Republicans get away with their strategy, it will end the checks and balances system in the U.S. constitution. Whoever controls one chamber, be it house or senate, can simply extort the entire government into doing their bidding by threatening another shutdown etc.
Click to expand...

This raises another interesting possibility - if Obama had the gonads, he could invoke the Patriot Act and instruct Homeland Security to round up the ringleaders of the shutdown on charges of treason against the state and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay for some 'emphatic questioning' and then confiscate all their holdings as recompense for the cost to the state of the shutdown.

This might go some way to preventing any future recurrence as suggested above...

Unfortunately....

PS: There is a popular misconception that the ultra-wealthy are driven by the acquisition of wealth when the reality is that the acquisition of wealth is just a means to the real end - the accumulation of power based on wealth. Then they go and abuse that power...
 
Markus S said:
Interesting article, thanks tones.

It is, let's say audacious to effectively ask for the repeal of a law which, if people can remember that far back, was also passed by the house. This is clearly an attempt to let one political view dominate, no matter what the consequences. If the Republicans get away with their strategy, it will end the checks and balances system in the U.S. constitution. Whoever controls one chamber, be it house or senate, can simply extort the entire government into doing their bidding by threatening another shutdown etc.
Click to expand...

this strategy, to me, is just a more extreme version of the republican senators using the filibuster, requiring a super majority (60%) instead of straight majority (50%) to pass anything. it's an attempt for force the will of the minority on the majority. when the filibuster fails, find more extreme methods to impose your will. given the current US demographic trends, the republicans will remain in minority, at least until the remake themselves, and so we can expect more and more of these acts of extortion.
 
Even Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph says the behaviour of the Republicans borders on parody. Some good insight into the intra-party dynamics, though.
 
Just out of interest - if the traditionally "secessionist" red states were to actually go it alone and leave the two coasts to be the Union - how would the economy split?

California is on its in the top ten of world economies. Arkansas probably isn't. When you remove all the subsidies from agriculture being paid for by the US Government from taxation - do the "stand on your own two feet" GOP politicians represent economic power house, or do they always have their hands in the pork barrel?

Texas and Alaska have oil I suppose?
 
Sorry I can't answer your question, Jonathan. Meanwhile, here's a not terribly coherent but mildly amusing piece in the Guardian about Fox News coverage of the shut-, er, slimdown.

Which reminds me - back in 2011, Paul Ryan made one of his many budget proposals with the intent of slimming down government, one part of the blueprint the Republicans have been following. Ezra Klein predicted a future shutdown, and a major ideological clash, even then. Which makes it kind of interesting that today, Ryan and Cantor seem to seize the GOP initiative about finding a way out of the self-imposed cul-de-sac.
 
Too much oil revenue is a curse as it employs few people, while keeping the currency strong and cost of living high.
A large part of the US deficit is due to the huge navy, mostly based in Blue States
 
Jonathan Ribee said:
Just out of interest - if the traditionally "secessionist" red states were to actually go it alone and leave the two coasts to be the Union - how would the economy split?

California is on its in the top ten of world economies. Arkansas probably isn't. When you remove all the subsidies from agriculture being paid for by the US Government from taxation - do the "stand on your own two feet" GOP politicians represent economic power house, or do they always have their hands in the pork barrel?

Texas and Alaska have oil I suppose?
Click to expand...

not a direct answer to your question...but if you look at a map of taxes in terms of average contribution and allotment, you'll see the red states, on average, receive more federal money than they give, and the blue states just the opposite. the red states are in the red, and the blue states are in the black, on average. this suggests that the blue states would thrive economically if the country split, and the red states would suffer.
 
The Red States seem to be dominated by agriculture and the military economy, the two largest consumers of taxes
 
chainrule said:
not a direct answer to your question...but if you look at a map of taxes in terms of average contribution and allotment, you'll see the red states, on average, receive more federal money than they give, and the blue states just the opposite. the red states are in the red, and the blue states are in the black, on average. this suggests that the blue states would thrive economically if the country split, and the red states would suffer.
Click to expand...

Here that map...

tax.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top