Home / Culture and Society / On the Nonresolution of the Debt Crisis

On the Nonresolution of the Debt Crisis

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The rhetoric was inevitable. Now that the final decisions, or in this case, lack of decisions are made, the politicians flock to the microphones and cameras to declare victory for one side or the other. What has actually been accomplished is that the government bodies have agreed to raise the ceiling on the national debt, enabling us to pay our bills and to repay our indebtedness. There will be no default. Moreover, at some future time, there will be some discussion and some resolution as to where the money to repay the indebtedness will come from.

The Democrats are still adamant that entitlements won’t be significantly reduced. And the Republicans, locked together elbow in elbow, have taken a giant step in limiting or delaying that the very wealthy and corporations will have to suffer reduced income. It is noteworthy that with Apple having more cash in its tills than the United States government, we are hearing less talk that richer corporations result in more jobs for the people.

We might look forward to a time when wealthy Americans and wealthy corporations are considered separately, not bunched together. It is now trivial and apparent that many in Congress see it as their role to protect the corporations which sponsor them. We might even glean from all this the potential for a third party (and I don’t consider the Tea bunch a separate entity) in America. Some might agree that the damage was done when the U.S. Supreme Court made its decision regarding donations and ongoing support for candidates from groups with particular interests; presumably the court won’t change its aggregate mind.

The question arises: was the matter of the debt ceiling satisfactorily resolved? The obvious answer is no, but at least there is a resolution to discuss the matter further; perhaps when the lights have dimmed, and the fanfare diminished.  So if our AAA rating as a nation falls, it should. If it doesn’t we suspect that someone somewhere is doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • Glenn Contrarian

    handy –

    Roger often makes an inaccurate or even a snide comment and then says something like “I was trying to be colorful, Handy. No kind of offense was intended.

    He’s done the same several times to me, same kind of comment, same kind of mea culpa of questionable sincerity.

    And for Roger – yes, you HAVE done this on several occasions. It would be best for you if you were to take this as constructive criticism. I honestly don’t think you will, but this won’t be the first or the last time I’ll beat my head against a brick wall.

  • I was trying to be colorful, Handy. No kind of offense was intended.

    As to the figures, I was making reference to John’s comment about the “uneducated,” not the TPs.

  • Roger, self-identified Tea Party supporters [meaning they like the ideas/policy/rhetoric] run more like 20-25% in polls, not 60-70%.

    And this is my 3rd comment out of 20 on the thread. You have posted 6. What constitutes “hijacking”? At any rate, it wasn’t my intention.

  • John Lake

    I didn’t propose it, I merely considered such a thought might exist.

  • Clavos

    Greater government regulation in all areas; banking, insurance, health care, manufacturing,… which might include strict limits on expected income for a top few, could easily resolve the issue. (emphasis added)

    Never thought I’d hear an American propose an idea like that one.

  • Of course I agree with you, about manipulation, a small-town environment, etc.
    But how’s that for size? My sister, an MD, certainly well-educated besides in France and the US, well-traveled, is a Tea Party follower and listens only to Fox News.

    People are fed up with the government, John. So however right you are in most respects, you can’t ignore this fact.

  • John Lake

    It is states such as Minnesota which are most heavily impacted by the Tea Party. The people are in many cases high school graduates who have grown up together in a town with a church or two, and a cemetery. They yearn for some excitement, and the TP gives it to them. If they attend a few TP rallies, they get to be group leaders, and see themselves as having some authority. When they hear the rhetoric about the Liberty Bell, and the taxation by England, their hearts swell. Ours may too, but we must consider the source. These small town folk are being manipulated by professionals the like of which they haven’t previously encountered.
    On the touchy matter of church support for candidates, the question arises, are those who speak from the pulpit more honest, or are they inspired by a Creator to have the ability to be always right in their choices? Are there corrupt church people? The mere mention of these concepts alienates by your figures, which may be accurate, 60-70% of the population.

  • Wasn’t sure about #10, John. Now I know.

    As to the TP, you can’t afford not to take them seriously because it is a phenomenon and is already affecting how the business is being done in Washington DC. And “uneducated”? Common, John, you’re talking now about 60-70 percent of our population. What do you suppose we can do about those “slobs”?

    I’ll try to address #10 shortly.

  • John Lake

    And further,Roger, I have difficulty taking the Tea Party movement seriously. They are working together to enhance the wealth of a few investors, under the watchful eye of Heritage, and so on. They speak to the uneducated and semi-interested among the States, and tell them what they want to hear. The Tea party people claim they will cut spending, yet they will be the first to show our great muscle, and wage war at the slightest provocation.
    It is easy for a voter to follow events in Washington. If the States were to take over, so that voters had to listen to boring meetings and boring commentary from State officials, and State Capitols, the prospect for corruption would increase exponentially.

  • John Lake

    Roger, #10 above is all for you.

  • John, now that Clavos removed the ugly punctuation mark, when are you going to get around to answering my query? I realize that Handy hijacked the thread — mustn’t have liked what I said about the Tea Party movement — but why should that affect you?

    Have I thrown a curveball over the plate, or have you been taken out for a pinch hitter? Which is it?

  • Clavos




    [May take some time to show up]

  • John Lake

    “Changing the power of lobbyists and super-PACs through legislation is near-impossible at the moment.”
    near impossible but necessary. Shining the light seems our only course of action. In some countries, those with no other options take their causes to the streets.

  • John Lake

    It surprises me that I haven’t heard you discussing some radical maybe theoretical alterations which might quickly eliminate this and future financial crises. Greater government regulation in all areas; banking, insurance, health care, manufacturing,… which might include strict limits on expected income for a top few, could easily resolve the issue.

  • In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision, super-PACs representing corporate interests [Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity] are free to spend gazillions. They are already spreading massive torrents of vicious lies and distortions, much of it disguised as populist calls-to-action.

    The best [only?] way for liberals to fight this is by shining a spotlight on it unsparingly. Changing the power of lobbyists and super-PACs through legislation is near-impossible at the moment.

    There are likely to be liberal super-PACs too. This may take the moral high ground away from the Dems, but it could conceivably provide a counter-message.

    I think painting all politicians with the same brush is misleading and simplistic. There are certainly numerous pols and pundits warning about the toxic influence of corporate money — mostly on the left, but even a few on the right.

  • Interesting comment, John, not at all what I thought you may have meant. Got to mull i over.

    What first comes to mind — is the Tea Party, the rank and file, I mean, really about “protecting the wealthiest … Americans”? No question that some of their elected representatives may well be, but is that the same thing?

    Essentially, I see it as a populous though somewhat misguided movement, and not elitist for this very reason. Misguided, because it centers on government’s abuses rather than on the very people — Wall Street and our financial sector — who are responsible for the crisis. But then again, this is nothing new in the American political tradition. An “inbred” distrust of government often makes us take our eye off the ball and see less clearly.

  • John Lake

    Roger (#5):
    Since the general organization of the United States had changed, slowly but not gradually over recent years (We remember Eisenhower’s parting words on the Military/Industrial complex), it might be more honest and transparent to concede that many legislators are now favoring the corporations, at the expense of the people. The noble phrase, “Government …for the People…” is less accurate than it once was. Corporations do not have similar needs and motivations as do individuals. In addition, the impact of potential foreign investors hasn’t been much considered. Suppose Palestine, or Iran, were to gather the strength to place a Representative, Senator, or Judge in office.
    That said, it might be more transparent and in keeping with earlier principles to dedicate a party to the specific needs of corporations. When the Tea Party indicates that they are protecting Americans from increased taxes, they are in fact talking about the wealthiest of Americans, and in fact, about the corporations; wealthy individuals are as entitled to representation as anyone.Corporations are a seperate matter. They may even be contrued as benefiting from day-to-day operations of government.
    It is the corporate structure that benefits when we conduct a “Desert Storm” or when me maintain the security of the Suez Canal.

  • Nancy Pelosi, in an interview yesterday, provided a remarkable moment of insight:

    The impasse of the last 6 months has been portrayed as: Obama doesn’t have the votes to get the policy he would prefer.

    But just as true and probably more important: John Boehner can’t get the votes he needs in the House.

    Both the “prevent the government shutdown” continuing budget resolution in April and this week’s debt ceiling “resolution” got only 170-175 Republican votes in the House — nearly 50 votes short of a majority.

    Boehner needed Democratic votes, but too many Dem votes would be poisonous for him.

    And that’s the reason the stalemate went on so long and became so repellently toxic.

  • And BTW, what do you mean when you say,

    “We might look forward to a time when wealthy Americans and wealthy corporations are considered separately, not bunched together.”

  • I wondered about that, too.

  • John,

    Is the cat really out of the bag? I haven’t been watching the news or paying attention. Is that the standard view? People really see through that much now?

    That would be very cool, if it were so.

  • John Lake

    How can that be!

  • Why does John insist on putting periods at the ends of his article titles, and why do the editors insist on never taking them out?