Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #638115
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
05466 Re: Constitutional issue
   Ron Paul is running again, his first big buy ad, he is opposed to rais... 		clo   ALEA   17 Jul 2011
 1:33 AM
05464 Re: Constitutional issue
   I'll still hold out hope for a split, though it is amazing to me how l... 		Hari Selden   ALEA   17 Jul 2011
 12:45 AM
05460 Re: Constitutional issue
   Hi CF, a year ago or so we discussed the debt problem, the soft econom... 		tkc   ALEA   16 Jul 2011
 10:25 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Constitutional issue

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sat, 16 Jul 11 8:45 PM
Msg. 05459 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 05458 by Hari Selden)
Jump to msg. #  

Hi Hari,

Quick point of clarification: I am using a small c at the beginning of the word constitution to include arrangements that extend beyond the Constitutional document. For example, the filibuster arrangement in the Senate is constitutional in this regard, but it isn't Constitutional.

I don't think the Tea Party people will split. It suits them to control the Republican Party with around a half of its voters. The moderate Republicans cannot afford to toss them out. The result is the unholy alliance that is the conservative status quo, with the moderates increasingly exasperated by the Limbaugh puritans (witness the NYT's Brooks).

Certainly the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate and the House are not mad enough to wish for a default. But, absent a Presidential over-rule (which has questionable legal validity) I believe the House Republicans must vote in favour of raising the threshold in order for it to be raised. The problem is that the Tea Party folks are not susceptible to argument and seem happy enough to destroy the government, as the anti-government dogmas are entrenched.

I don't think anyone contemplated this particular strain of politics when the Constitution was written. The hazards of anarchy have always been known, even if some people have chosen flagrantly to disregard them. Wealth is a product of order (even a kind of dynamic order) rather than chaos.

The mere fact of contemplating default has probably already damaged the US.

I am hoping that one of the Tea Party folks wins the Republican nomination. It is only a good hiding which will send those folks back to the boonies.

By the way, although I mostly disagree with the austerity folks, and agree with the neo-Keynesian folks who think the issue is mostly about growth and demand, there are some portions of government expenditure which might take a haircut - the US military being one area.

Perhaps someone might introduce a kind of national service on the domestic front which will allow young adults to build infrastructure, provide useful services and get some practical training for a year or two after school or college.

On the other hand, as you will remember, I believe it is blindingly obvious that tax rates on upper threshold income earners must increase.