A glimpse of France in the 1920's which looks eerily like what is happening here.
The Collapse of the Third Republic by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster 1969
Note: Shirer can best be described as an FDR Liberal. So his work is slanted but barring that, pretty good info there.
Excerpt from p 157 (Emphasis added)
"...THE POWER, THE GREED, AND THE FEARS OF THE UPPER CLASS
We confront here, in the fall of Herriot that spring of 1925, and in the frank remarks of an eminent jurist a year later when the financial predicament of the state was even worse despite the frantic efforts of six successive governments to cope with it, some of the abuses of the Third Republic which during the next and last fifteen years would so fatally sap its strength.
The power of a small elite which possessed most of the wealth was greater than the power of the republican government elected by the people, presumably to run the country in the interest of all the citizens. This group was determined to preserve its privileged position and thus its money. In effect, since the triumph of the Republic over President MacMahon there had been a virtual alliance between the possessor class and the Republic, which it manipulated through its control of the Press, the financing of political parties, and the handling of its vast funds to influence the fiscal policies of government.
The mass of the people might elect a radical Chamber of Deputies, as it had in 1924, with a mandate to enforce economic, financial, and social reforms on the country. No matter. The bankers and the businessmen had learned the technique of how in a democratic society to thwart the majority, as the fall of Herriot had demonstrated. Not only in the elections of 1924 but again in those of 1932 and 1936, as we shall see, the voters sent leftish majorities to the Chamber. But they quickly melted away, not because of a change of mind in the electorate (there were no elections in between) but because of political trading in Parliament by the elected representatives, who in each case, after approving a government of the Left, shifted their support to a government either of the Right or of the safe center.
Worried for a moment by the outcome of the elections, the upper classes were soon reassured, at least for a time, by the ability of parliament to frustrate the will of the majority of the electorate. And more and more, as the last years of the Third Republic ticked off, the wealthy found it difficult to put the interest of the nation above that of their class. Faced with specific obligations to the country if the state were not to flounder in a financial morass, they shrank from meeting them.
The Republic might go under but their valuables would be preserved. In the meantime they would not help keep it afloat by paying a fair share of the taxes. The tax burden was for others to shoulder. If that were understood by the politicians, the Republic could continue. If not . . . were there not other forms of government possible which promised more security for entrenched wealth? The thoughts of some of the biggest entrepreneurs began to turn to the Fascist “experiment” in Italy and to the growing success of the Nazi Party in Germany..."
I highlighted that segment to show that the French Parliament of that period was acting the same way that our Congress seems to act. No matter who gets in, nothing seems much to change. In the case of the French, it got worse and worse until the system was paralyzed, which for some was just what they wanted. Unfortunately, the paralysis stayed until the Germans invaded. Too late then.
The French tax system was heavily based on 'use' taxes. The poor (and the French had them in gobs) paid on 100% of their earnings. The Wealthy, on a much lower % of their income which they thought only just. The problem was that the cost of rebuilding France after the war was tremendous, there was not enough money amongst the poor to pay for it. But any scheme to tax the Middle Class or the Wealthy was met with savage opposition. And so it went right up to WWII.
I am of the opinion that we are going to have to have significant tax increases along with savage budget cuts to balance the budget. Yet we got some guy named Norquist (that a French name?) screaming 'Death First! to tax hikes. (I am sure he must be French)
Ain't gonna work.The way to handle tax hikes is to have them become effective after the cuts are in place and operative. But there are going to have to be tax hikes because the public will not stand for 40-50% cuts in the Federal budget in one lump.
Shirer also wrote :The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
After reading these two books, one can only conclude the best got killed in WWI, leaving the dregs to run things. And they did, right into the ground.
"The misfortune of many is the consolation of fools" Ancient proverb
Just finished Shirer's "Berlin Diaries" a couple of months ago - a superb look at history in the making. I haven't read this book but certainly try to pick up a copy - Shirer was a very perceptive journalist and am looking forward to digesting his views...
As for him being a "liberal", people need to get through their heads that there is only ONE party in the US, with a Red team and a Blue team. "Conservative" doesn't matter, "Liberal" doesn't matter. To paraphrase Carlin, Washington is a club and you're not in it...
What is important is one's strength of character and honesty. I have friends here in Chile who ooze integrity and are members of the Communist Party and would trust them much further than others I've had who claim to be "Conservatives".
s for him being a "liberal", people need to get through their heads that there is only ONE party in the US, with a Red team and a Blue team. "Conservative" doesn't matter, "Liberal" doesn't matter. To paraphrase Carlin, Washington is a club and you're not in it...
You are arguing that both 'teams' would pick the same judges. I don't believe that for a moment. And the judges run the country.
"The misfortune of many is the consolation of fools" Ancient proverb
Amazing how accurate Thatcher's comment on socialism is:
"The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
There is NO exception to this observation - not then, not now, not there and not here.
The Day of Financial Reckoning is upon us and we can't continue to pile up even greater gobs of debt to avoid it.
The 'stuff' has met the fan and is rapidly spreading.
If there was a way, even a Constitutional Amendment, to balance
the budget, to FORCE the thieves in Congress to pay down the
debt with added revenues, MAYBE added taxes could be justified.
Any additional revenues may temporarily be used to lower the debt,
but will eventually, sooner than later, find a "NEED" to fill.
Taxes should be cut, the federal government should be downsized
by 50%, federal lands should go up for auction, the revenue of
which go into a "locked box" (where have I heard that before)
to be used to pay down the debt.
We have hit the iceberg.
We can talk about bailing out the ship.
We can start bailing out the ship,
but we are headed for the bottom.
NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.
All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.
"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.