Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Constitutional issue

By: Hari Selden in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 17 Jul 11 12:45 AM | 38 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 05464 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 05459 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I'll still hold out hope for a split, though it is amazing to me how low some old time Republicans are willing to stoop in accepting the Tea Party within their ranks.

Either way, it weakens the Republicans to have such extremists in control. It will only chase moderates into the Democrats camp. Perhaps that is what Obama is counting on for the election. He may hold off on advocating for jobs creation directly by the Government for this reason.

I think that we need to stop giving tax breaks to huge corporations; end the wars; re-configure the military away from huge expensive weapons systems like large naval ships, heavy bombers, tanks, and the like to instead light weapons and operations to deal with terrorists more effectively; reset taxes to where they were at the end of the Clinton administration; and use the savings and extra income to pay down the debt and to rebuild the public infrastructure of this country. There should be enough money to do it all.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Constitutional issue
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sat, 16 Jul 11 8:45 PM 		Msg. 05459 of 54959

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.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next