talkpolitics | When The Captors Want The Hostage Dead, Is It Kidnapping?

peristaltor.livejournal.com posting in

The sheer silliness of even casting a shadow of a glimmer of a sliver of blame on the Democratic Party members in Congress regarding this shutdown thing is laughable enough. There is more than enough evidence that the Tea Party has run with this ball all the way. I won't bother recounting it here.

What I found interesting was a very conservative political person suggesting why default may be the ultimate aim, not a stated consequence. Regarding the debt:

What I don’t think [the Obama administration and those on Wall Street] understand is that there has been a movement under way for some years among right-wing economists and activists not merely to default on the debt, but even to repudiate it.

Those making this argument are largely unknown to professional economists and journalists, but their research permeates the obscure Web sites where Tea Party members get their ideas. And not all are obscure.

As with most weirdnesses in our country, much of this can be traced back to the bloodiest time in our entire nation's history, the battle between the Northern industrial states and the Southern agricultural states. More Americans died in that corpse factory than in all other of our wars combined. The last time the debt limit was extended recently, Bartlett noted that a little-known section of the Constitution in the 14th Amendment distinguished between the types of debt incurred by parties:

Sec. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

That seems fair enough. The section puts our national financial obligations above the petty squabbles rampant in politics. Ah, but the rub lies in the very next sentence:

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Got that? This section declares in strong language that the obligations incurred by the North to put down the Southern insurrectionists—"debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion"—are to be honored, as opposed to the debts incurred by the South to maintain their separation from Federal dictates—"any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States . . . shall be held illegal and void." Bartlett summerizes:

[Defeated] Southerners were very hostile to being taxed to repay the Union debt after the Civil War, while the Confederate debt was repudiated and not permitted to be repaid by the states. This is the reason that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing the validity of the national debt, was included in that amendment. . . .

There are still many in the South, where the Republican Party is now based, whose hostility to the national debt traces back to those days.

Both Americans and those wondering about why Americans are so insane sometimes should realize that the Civil War was "won" only in scare quotes. Both sides were sick of the slaughter, depleted and demoralized by the ongoing conflict. When the South finally relented, the North constantly took steps to gut, humiliate and cripple the South . . . steps like the 14th Amendment. These steps have been the source of fierce resentment ever since. I could count examples—State flags in much of the deep south reflecting their old Confederate counterparts, weak governorship positions outlined in many southern constitutions to rebut the influence of North-appointed governors decades after the conflict had ended—but let's move on. Back to today:

Any number of Republicans in Congress have said they will never vote to increase the debt ceiling, no matter what. Others believe the threat of default is the only way to force President Obama to accept their demands. . . .

Default advocates are a small minority . . . although at present they appear to be the tail wagging the G.O.P. dog. But most Republicans probably share the view that the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, expressed after the 2011 debt showdown.

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he told the Washington Post. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”

But hostages sometimes die in the crossfire.

Ah, but if a small minority is just itching to pull that trigger, I don't thing Mob Boss McConnell would throw himself in the bullet's path just to save the hostage.

That means if the default occurs, we can consider this less a kidnapping, more premeditated murder.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

rimpala.livejournal.com

Only the tea party will express glee in the destruction of our economy, then it's fan boys will insist it wasn't their fault.

In fact they'll insist it was Obama's fault, that he wanted the default to happen.

And we will never have nice things, ever. Say hello to the rest of your lives, in recession.

Edited Date: 16/10/13 23:13 (UTC)

From:

mrbogey.livejournal.com

'Only the tea party will express glee in the destruction of our economy, then it's fan boys will insist it wasn't their fault.'

Obama has destroyed this economy. Stop kissing the whip. Wasn't Detroit enough of a wake-up call?

Democrats own 80% of the Federal gov't but still won't accept even a sliver of blame for the failures of their policies. It's like dealing with children who think that parents are mean because they won't give them everything they want.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

When The Captors Want The Hostage Dead, Is It Kidnapping?

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)

(frozen) (no subject)