The "Tea Party" and the "Fiscal Cliff"
Is there anyone on my friends list who knows of a link to a simple, clear explanation of why the "Tea Party" representatives would be so obstructive, so ideologically rigid?
Not to sound alarmist, but if they don't compromise, it's going to cause this country incalculable harm, in both the short and long term.
It will weaken us in the global marketplace, loosening our already tenuous grip on world leadership status, and impose enormous debt on future generations.
I'm having trouble coming up with a believable explanation for their collective behavior.
For any one individual, stupidity or mental defect is always a possibility, but there's too many of them for that to be the reason.
Same with treason: it's possible to imagine any one individual being in the pay of a foreign power or a domestic speculator, but there's too many of them for that to make any sense, and certainly, nobody's bribing their supporters.
Somehow, a largish number of representatives and their constituents believe that these actions are prudent and ethical, but the basis for that belief eludes me.
So: do any of you have a link which explains why they appear to be taking the position that destroying the recovery is a good move?
Honestly - I'll read it with as much of an open mind as I can manage.
Not to sound alarmist, but if they don't compromise, it's going to cause this country incalculable harm, in both the short and long term.
It will weaken us in the global marketplace, loosening our already tenuous grip on world leadership status, and impose enormous debt on future generations.
I'm having trouble coming up with a believable explanation for their collective behavior.
For any one individual, stupidity or mental defect is always a possibility, but there's too many of them for that to be the reason.
Same with treason: it's possible to imagine any one individual being in the pay of a foreign power or a domestic speculator, but there's too many of them for that to make any sense, and certainly, nobody's bribing their supporters.
Somehow, a largish number of representatives and their constituents believe that these actions are prudent and ethical, but the basis for that belief eludes me.
So: do any of you have a link which explains why they appear to be taking the position that destroying the recovery is a good move?
Honestly - I'll read it with as much of an open mind as I can manage.