This is How the USA Will Collapse – Congress is Incapable to Ruling the Country | Armstrong Economics

this-is-how-the-usa-will-collapse-congress-is-incapable-to-ruling-the-country-armstrong-economics

18-01-19 10:41:00,

Believe it or not, member of Congress continue to get paid even when there is a shutdown on the basis that Congress refuses to fund the government. Elizabeth Warren has come out and stated that she will donate her salary during the shutdown. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is paid $223,500 per year. The Democrats fought to include a new top bracket raising it from $250,000 to $500,000 to reach 37% tax rate. It was embarrassing when you are earning close to $250,000 and you keep demonetizing the rich.

Of course, Congress is excluded from Obamacare. They get their own golden deals of unlimited care. That is worth more than $50,000 annually which they do not include in a salary.

So any wonder why the member of Congress can let a shutdown go on and on? Easy, they still get paid when everyone else does not. Nancy Pelosi reiterated that Democrats will not agree to a border wall but joked that she’d give Trump $1 for it.

They believe they can make Trump look like the bad guy here and the shutdown can be a long one indeed. They have dug in their heels and it is hard to see how they can back down now without losing face. The fact that the wall would be $5.7 billion and one week’s interest bill to keep rolling the debt comes in at $6.7 billion. This is simply a political standoff demonstrating that Congress has lost all civility and is incapable of managing the country going forward. There is no reversal in sight and we simply cascade in this death spiral into 2032. Perhaps now we can see that indeed the United States will cease to exist as we know it after 2032. The USA will be prone to separatist movements as well after 2024. That appears to be the target for absolute political disintegration.

 » Lees verder

Americans Need a Congress that Represents Americans – Global Research

americans-need-a-congress-that-represents-americans-8211-global-research

11-01-19 08:34:00,

US Senator Marco Rubio poses as a representative of Florida Republicans, but in truth he represents the interests of Israel. He is sponsor of legislation that punishes Americans who boycott Israel as their way of protesting Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. That Rubio is doing his best to dismantle what little is left of the First Amendment doesn’t seem to bother Florida voters or the presstitute media, who are no longer protective of the First Amendment.

Yesterday (January 9, 2019) the legislation failed to pass the Senate, because Democrats blocked it. But not really. The Democrats are not opposed to the bill. Indeed, the senators of both parties are too well paid in campaign contributions by the Israel Lobby to vote against anything that Israel wants. Moreover, they know that if they do, the money and the media support in their next election will flow to their opponent. The reason the Democrats blocked the passage of the bill is that they are making a point that no legislation will pass until President Trump gives in on the issue of The Wall and signs the necessary money bill to reopen the government.

Every 18 months the US government hands over to Israel enough money to build Trump’s wall. Israel had no hesitation in using Americans’ money to build its wall, which keeps Palestinians out of Palestine. It is OK with the US Congress for Americans to finance Israel’s construction of a wall that keeps a people out of their own country, but it is not OK for Trump to use American money to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States.

How much more plain can it be? The US Congress represents Israel, not Americans. The US Congress will even destroy the US Constitution for Israel. And the United States is called a democracy?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov

About the author:

Paul Craig Roberts,

 » Lees verder

No Matter How You Vote, The New Congress Won’t Represent You

no-matter-how-you-vote-the-new-congress-won8217t-represent-you

06-11-18 11:30:00,

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

One of the most foundational assumptions behind modern democracy is that the elected officials somehow represent the interests of those who elected them.

Advocates for the political status quo flog this position repeatedly, claiming that taxation and the regulatory state are all morally legitimate because the voters are “represented.” Even conservatives, who often claim to be for “small government” often oppose radicalism of any kind — such as secession — on the grounds that political resistance movements such as the American Revolution are only acceptable when there is “taxation without representation.”The implication being that since the United States holds elections every now and then, no political action outside of voting — and maybe a little sign waving — is allowed.

This, position, however, rests on the idea that elected officials are truly representative. If taxation with representation makes government legitimate – as some argue – then we must first establish that the government’s claims of representation are believable.

On a theoretical level, Gerard Casey has already cast serious doubt on these claims. Casey draws on the work of Hanna Pitkin, who admits it is plausible that:

Perhaps representation in politics is only a fiction, a myth forming part of the folklore of our society. Or perhaps representation must be redefined to fit our politics; perhaps we must simply accept the fact that what we have been calling representative government is in reality just party competition for office.

After all, as Casey points out, representation in the private sector usually means there is an agent-principal relationship in which the agent is legally bound to attempt to represent the material interests of a clearly defined person or group of people. Clearly, this does not describe political representation. Not only is is unclear what the material interests of the voters — as a group — are, but the supposed agent in the relationship — the elected official — is not legally bound to represent the interests of the voters he supposedly represents.

To conclude therefore, that any specific voter has consented to, say, a tax increase because his “representative” approved it, is an extremely sketchy endeavor,

 » Lees verder

Congress to bind President’s hands on troop removal from Korean peninsula

Congress to bind President’s hands on troop removal from Korean peninsula

14-06-18 06:54:00,

When the President wants to wage a war somewhere, he just does it, and no one bats an eye. But for the first time in a very long time, as opposed to escalating tensions, invading, and bombing somewhere, a US president is proposing to deescalate a situation and establish peace somewhere.

That’s a major thing in and of itself. But that’s not alright in the minds of US congressmen, who are concerned that a peace arrangement might be brokered with North Korea if Trump withdraws American troops from the Korean peninsula.

Due to this worry, predicated on the reality that they simply don’t trust Trump at his word, quite openly, they are drafting up some legislation, in both houses, that would bind the president’s hands in order to prevent any meaningful reduction or removal of US military presence in Korea.

ABC News reports:

A pair of Senate Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that would prevent President Donald Trump from unilaterally drawing down the American troop presence on the Korean peninsula – not necessarily because he’s said he will, but because they don’t want to rely on his word that he won’t.

Other measures that also tie the president’s hands, but don’t go as far, are already closer to being passed as part of an essential military policy bill.

The new legislation, from Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., would prevent Trump from withdrawing troops from South Korea unless the secretary of defense says it’s in the interest of national security and that it would not undermine the security of allies in the region.

“U.S. troops are not bargaining chips to be offered up in an off-handed manner,” Duckworth said in a statement.

During his summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Trump announced the U.S. would be ending large-scale annual military exercises conducted with South Korea but insisted that the status of the 28,500 American soldiers on the peninsula is not up for negotiation.

 » Lees verder