Now this is not to bash the rank and file of the Tea Party. Most of rank and file members of the Tea Party are relatively average Middle Class Americans who are simply looking for a chance to live the “American Dream.” They are concerned about the nature and direction that the United States is going in, but few will claim to be experts in politics or economics.

And herein lies the problem, the world has changed and America’s rank and role has changed as well, but the Tea Party Mantra is built on a corrupt and dated ideology (neoliberalism) that does not recognize nor cope with this change. Most of the followers of the Tea Party have never conducted more than a cursory study of economics, and yet their leaders are now vehemently pushing an economic ideology, and an economic ideology of ruin, at that.

Neoliberalism is built on numerous faulty and idealistic notions. It is a system predicated by greed as the driving force of society, and competition as the only regulation. Yet it relies on the concept that all people are perfectly rational, adhere to basic moral standards (that people will not cheat, lie, or commit fraud), and that we all have access to all information at all times.

It is also predicated on a system in which no single company is “too big to fail.” As our last economic crisis proved, years of lax anti-monopoly law enforcement have created massive companies whose collapse could drag down the entire world economy.

In other words, the whole system relies on perfectly rational people making perfectly rational and moral decisions and acting in a system in which the fall of no single actor could threaten the entire system. A complete and utter impossibility in the real world.

Nor does Neoliberalism address the concrete fact that businesses and individuals will not always be able to muster the resources to advance technology and research. America was built by entrepreneurs, but for the last 70 years and at nearly every step of the way these entrepreneurs have relied upon government funding and support. FedEx and UPS exist because of government investments in infrastructure and aircraft technology. All tech firms owe homage to U.S. investments in computing and internet technology. And so the list goes on.

Perhaps the greatest crime is the fact that the immense energy of the Tea Party is being misspent chasing ideals that will only quicken the fall of America. If the energy of the Tea Party could be utilized to gallivant the Middle and Working classes then perhaps real change could be brought about in America.

The Tea Party is not a failure for wanting change, the Tea Party is a failure for fighting for the wrong type of change. Most of their policies are simply continuations and reiterations of the failed policies that have gotten us into this mess. For example, the movement to gut our national research and development base, along with our sterling University system will only cause the United States to fall further behind.

America does need to shift its tendencies away from spending money, and return towards investing money. In the last several decades politicians have become obsessed with pet projects and private interests. Competitive and fruitful research and investments have become increasingly disregarded in the name of campaign contributions and constituent votes, but if America is to succeed we need to elect politicians that are more concerned with the long term well-being of the United States than lining their own pockets.

The Tea Party is right to challenge these politicians, but their alternative is only a refinement of the corrupt and broken ideologies that have already laid waste to the Middle Class in the United States. American needs a New Way built upon pragmatism and aimed at increasing the well-being of our nation as a whole, not the repeat of failed and corrupt politics.

College tuition rates are spiraling out of control. As federal and state support for public universities and financial aid dries up, colleges are left with little other choice than to raise tuition rates. Many students are now graduating with unsustainable debt levels, and facing a bleak job market in which only one in two college graduates will find full time college graduate level employment.

Meanwhile social security remains under funded even as the baby boomer generation is reaching the age of retirement. The healthcare and social security costs of the baby booming generation will be a huge financial drain on the United States and unfortunately for decades our politicians have been far too obsessed with pet projects and ideological stances to adequately plan ahead.

Despite what our politicians in D.C. seem to think someone will have to pay for our debt someday. Given the continued refusal of D.C. politicians to set aside their own pet projects, seriously consider a staged reduction of the U.S. Armed forces, and a lack of willingness to tax the wealthiest few percent, the United States will be facing deficits for years to come. Who will bear that burden? The youngest generations, of course.

With the continued rise of the rest of the world, it is hard to imagine how the United States will maintain its place as the world’s strongest and most innovative economy. And without an exceptionally strong economy in which every member of society is used productively, it is even harder to imagine how the United States will meet its debts.

Millions of young Americans are being enslaved by student loan debt, shoved into a poor economy, and will eventually left to pay for the decades of waste and mismanagement in Washington D.C. In return, they will receive an over-priced education, a bankrupt social security system, and a likely non-existent Medicaid system.

So what on earth is holding up the negotiations? To begin with let’s look at the right. Speaker Boehner is asking for massive cuts to very popular social programs but that’s nothing new. There are 2 deal breakers. Firstly, the president is asking to increase the revenue of the government, aka tax increases and closing tax loopholes for the upper 1/3. Secondly, President Obama is requesting that the debt ceiling be increased through 2012. Obviously Boehner is vehemently opposed. He feels that there needs to be debt reduction via spending cuts with a renewed debt ceiling debate in a few months.

While I will always agree that the only real way to reduce debt is with cuts, I am not sure the said reduction is necessary right this second. That being said it certainly makes Boehner’s position less relevant when he is making calls for the debt to be reduced and refusing to raise taxes. Wouldn’t the logical move be to do both? I’m not saying we should, I’m only pointing out the obvious.
What should we do? First things first: Raise the debt ceiling. Second: Who cares because we’ll figure it out later. Both sides are to blame for this mess. Compromise is dead in this country. Not only is it dead, but it’s looked at as a sign of weakness. Commiserating with the enemy! There used to be a time when reaching across the aisle was a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter.

Look, the issues that all sides of this argument are bringing up are relevant and grave. But we need to raise the ceiling asap or else we are going to have a lot worse issues facing us. Congress and the President bury their pride and work together now. We have the next 2 years to ruin each others reputations before the next elections anyway.

The fall of the Euro will not be caused (at least not solely) by the fall of Greece, or any other single member of the Eurozone, but instead by the underlying tensions that plague the one-currency system. In the liberalized and globalized economy a currency is a sort of one-all barometer that encompasses political, economy, social, and cultural issues. And herein lies the problem. The Eurozone is made up of seventeen different economies managed in seventeen different ways, and at varying levels on economic development.

Germany is one of the world’s most advanced and competitive economies, Slovakia has a still-developing economy. Austria has pursued a relatively liberal and competitive economic model that features moderate rates of debt. For decades Greece has refused to make the tough choices necessary to create a competitive modern economy, and has instead borrowed its way into bankruptcy. Italy has a competitive and strong economy, but its debt levels are astronomical.

These varying circumstances dictate the need for national currencies. In order to succeed each country needs to have its own customized “barometer” that will ensure that governments and economic ministries have the flexibility to deal with individual circumstances.

This isn’t to say that one member of the Eurozone is right, another wrong, but more to say that they are different. The economic policies and needs in Germany are vastly different that the policies and needs in Slovenia. The style of governance in Italy is different than the style of governance in Ireland, and the economic model of France is nothing like the economic system in Greece.

If Greece does fall, it will almost certainly be the nail in the coffin for the Euro, even if the collapse is not immediate. If Italy, or any other country, goes down with Greece, well you’ll be making wall-paper with your Euro’s.

Does this mean violence is useless? No, the first Apple computer could still be used to type up a term paper, so long as you have twenty minutes to waste on the computer starting up, and a few handfuls of hair to spare for every time the computer freezes and crashes.

The Chinese no longer cower in fear of U.S. aircraft carriers and Russian nukes, but instead quake at the thought of Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and every other form of advanced communication setting off mass protests. Dictators like KIM II are more concerned with keeping radios and cell phones out of the hands of their populace than building anti-aircraft defenses. Suppress a people who have access to advanced means of communication, and it is only a matter of time until a revolution comes a brewing.

Why? The basic mechanics go back to Ghandiji and his non-violent movement. In a certain sense Ghandiji was the first to use advances means of communication as a tool of revolt. Using newspapers, radios, phones and telegraphs he united mass numbers of Indians to effectively shut down society. Without the ability to coordinate mass strikes across the vast and diverse nation of India there was no way his non-violent movement could succeed.

This brings us to the new millennium, with the dust having yet settled in the Middle East.  Already several tyrants have been thrown from power as the ability of large scale coordination among the masses to coordinate quickly amongst themselves is reshaping the world. It was only twenty years ago that an entrenched tyrant seemed to be impervious to every threat except well-armed revolts or the intervention of a world power. In the modern world, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, and SMS are allowing the masses to take issues into their own hand and unite against their governments. The united masses in turn have proven that they can go toe-to-toe with tanks and tyrants, so long as the will for revolution is present.

The threat of mass demonstrations shaking the foundations of governments is not just limited to tyrannical governments and top down violence. With increasing social and financial crisis gripping Europe and the United States, the possibility of a government overstepping societal boundaries and setting off mass demonstrations is very real. Indeed, austerity cuts in Greece’s continuing fiscal debacle have already set off mass social unrest.

Moving forward leaders will have to be weary of the ability of their domestic population to effectively shut down society. In this context, the use of violence will become an increasing gamble, as one swing too hard or one bullet too many might spark a society wide revolt that will be carried through Twitter, across Facebook, and via e-mail. A tyrant standing alone, or with but a few solders cannot stand in the face of a society united and try as he might, he will fall.

In order to understand the irony of our policy in the Middle East, we need to start at the beginning. The reasons for our presence in the region are obvious. Afghanistan was not an unknown commodity to the U.S. or its armed forces. Looking into history at the Russian occupation, one can see that no matter how many bullets you put into these people, they will always keep fighting. And when you think their done, you realize they haven’t even begun. It is beyond me that the military planners did not see that they needed to be spending as much on bullets and bombs as they were on aid and schools. That is the only way to truly win in the war on terror. You must take away the weapon that Al-Qaida leaders hold so dearly, fear. You must become the good guy. We cannot be seen as the oppressor or the imperial. But lo and behold what have we done? We have muddled the whole affair up overreaching and sticking our nose into areas that we have no place in.

The true irony of the entire situation is that the Arab spring should have been our doing. But it wasn’t and there is a valid reason why it wasn’t. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. People have to fight for their own reasons. When you are forcing the ideals of democracy and freedom down people’s throat, it’s easy to see it as control and proxy government. This is the reason why we are so unpopular over there. It has nothing to do what our freedom or our religions or our way of life here. If you have bombs with U.S. flags on them dropping on civilians in countries similar to yours, it doesn’t matter what the original intent of the war was, only that the war is killing your kinsman.

Obama administration, take heed: If you truly want to change things for the better in the Middle East, it is very simple. Act as the silent observer. Always stand on the side of peaceful protest and civil disobedience against tyranny. When a government loses the will of the people it will fall. If the threat of genocide rises up (The threat has to be legitimate, Libya!) then do your part to save innocents. We have enough problems on our own turf, the Middle East seems to be working things out just fine without us.

Greece defaulting in-and-of-itself would not threaten the global market. A country defaults every couple of years, and the world moves on. The problem with Greece is two-fold. For one, it is a member of the Eurozone and uses the Euro currency. A default on Greece’s part could cause a devaluation of the Euro itself, which would cause major disruptions for the economies of Germany, France, and Italy, among others. A disruption on this scale would spread through Europe and the rest of the world.

Second, bankers around the world are beginning to look more closely at sovereign debt. Once assumed to be among the safest investments, many bankers are beginning to question whether the low returns justify the risks. Decades of ill-advised spending and chronic deficits have created huge debt-to GDP ratios for numerous countries and in recent days many are beginning to seriously question the fiscal stability of Italy. Ireland, Spain, and Portugal also remain a major concern. Should the Eurozone financial crisis spread to another major European economy, the whole Eurozone, and thus Europe, would be at risk.

Millions of Americans are having trouble finding work and the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. Without wages, many families have come to rely on unemployment benefits. These benefits are then used to purchase goods and services and pay rent. This spending, in turn, stimulates the economy. Once these benefits run out, billions of dollars that was being ejecting into the economy will quickly evaporate. Consumer spending will decline, and the risk of a consumer lead recession could become very real.

A similar threat is posed by the looming budget cuts. As the government slashes its budgets, less money will be spent on goods and services. Road construction will be delayed or cancelled, the government will slow its purchases of goods and services, and government employees may be laid off. Perhaps these harsh measures are necessary for the long term fiscal stability of the United States, but that doesn’t mean that the short term effects will be any less painful. Government spending has long been a major driver of the economy and as the government cuts spending there is a risk of a major economic slow down.

The combination of these three factors may prove to be enough to overwhelm the United State’s already weak economy. Government leaders around the world have been putting off tough choices for decades and now various issues are coming to head at the same time. If the United States does go into a double dip, the rest of the world is sure to follow. In the long run Asia would likely come out as the winner, but that is assuming that China and other Asian countries are able to cope with their own problems.

What makes Pakistan different from most hell-holes is that it’s armed with nukes, and it rests in the all-important but highly volatile South West Asia. Southwest Asia is vital to the long term interests of the United States, and the global economy in general. And a nuclear terrorist attack could single handedly cripple the United States, or else set off World War III.

The United States government does not really like or actually want to cooperate with the Pakistani government. Yes, the President and every other major official will smile and talk about how close we are with Pakistan, and how vital they are to American interests. True and true, but this is a shot-gun marriage, nothing more.

Pakistan has long withheld information from the United States, especially in regards to terrorist and Taliban linked groups. Billions of dollars in U.S. aid has either been wasted or gone missing. And whenever the U.S. needs Pakistan to cooperate, feet dragging, excuses, and half-truths should be expected.

We need the comparatively Pro-American government to make sure that Pakistan’s nukes stay out of the hands of extremists and terrorists. If a Taliban like regime were to ever gain power in Pakistan, the risk of a nuclear missile falling in the hands of a terrorist group would increase dramatically.

Indeed, if not for the nukes the United States might be able to disregard Pakistan. Our drones would still be able to launch attacks on terrorist camps within the country and they would pose little threats to their neighbors. We would lose some occasional allies on sweep and destroy missions, but by and large these missions are ineffective anyways.

Yet with extremism on the rise in the tribal lands bordering Afghanistan, and with a crisis only narrowly averted but a year ago, Pakistan remains a fragile nation-state, and a fragile nation-state armed with nuclear missiles. All aid, all assistance, all U.S. cooperation in general, revolves around these nuclear missiles. The Pakistanis are able to do something that the Soviet Union never could, hold the United States hostage with nukes. Why? Because there are groups within and around Pakistan who are actually crazy enough to use nuclear bombs.

Unless these missiles are somehow secured, or Pakistan undergoes a rapid and radical change for the better, the United States will have to continue to support any pro-Western government that comes into power. Even the 800 million in cut “aid” will likely be restored at some point, and should extremists ever mount another push towards Islamabad you can be sure that U.S. money will flow into the country quicker than any flood rains.