The Price of Politics - Would the US fall over the fiscal cliff ?

In the current atmosphere of the 2016 presidential elections, the tension between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is extremely high, there is almost no sign of any civility between these 2 opposing parties. Politics is a total gridlock, the public impression of Congress is at an all time low and people want some kind of change.
The hostilities between the 2 parties is something that has been there for many years (nay, decades). However, there has been cooperation between the parties, there has been compromise. Previous Presidents have worked with Congress controlled by the opposition parties and managed to get new laws and bills passed. However, the 2010 rise of the Tea Party movement and the election of a set of new representatives in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate is pushing a move towards fiscally responsible principles. Overall, the Republican Party has been seen to be more fiscally conservative, with the concept of keeping 'giveaways' in check, and there has been a large section of the population who believe that if they can keep their finances in check, why can't the federal Government, a Government which they believe has gone out of control.




And who is to be blamed for fiscal irresponsibility ? Why, the current President, Barack Obama under whose policies the overall debt of the US has ballooned, where there is no control of the finances of the Government and the Government itself seeks to expand rather than trying to keep control of itself. On the other side, the Democrats and the President believe that the 2008-2009 financial disaster was something that could put the US into a deep recession which would be very painful, and there was a need to try to rise out of this morass, if this required suspending some of the measures of trying to put a hard check on rising finances. So there was Government support for major financial entities whose collapse could hurt sentiment and the economy, and all of this money had to increase the debt.
By the time of the entry of the Tea Party representatives, there was a push to not let this wasteful increase of finances keep on going on, somebody needs to push to prevent any further increase of the debt. As a result, by mid 2011, there was a hard line that was being reached. The US had reached a limit about how much the debt of the US could be, and Congress needed to increase the debt ceiling. And this was just one of the battles that were being fought between the 2 opposing parties. There was almost no compromise between the opposing parties, since there was a clash of ideologies. What hung in the balance was the fiscal condition of the US, and indeed the world, since if the debt ceiling was not raised, there was the danger of a worldwide loss of confidence in the US economy and the Government. The other main battle was about the healthcare law called Obamacare, and it was tagged in almost every bill that was making its way through Congress. The dispute showcased a high amount of rigidity at the highest political level, and reading this makes for horrific reading - how can the people elected to work for the betterment of the US and its citizenry be so unwilling to work with each other to resolve crisis ? Get an insight into the people involved in all these discussions through this book.

History - A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East (Published in 2009)

The current state of the Middle East seems like a total mess. From the time of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would seem that everything is going topsy-turvy. However, the region has been in a state of turmoil for decades (maybe even a century) - can one forget the turmoil between the Jews and the Arabs during the 1930's and 1940's, which increased with the end of the Second World War and the push towards getting a Jewish homeland. On the other side, the Ottoman Empire was ending, and leading to a push by the various communities for power through the area. Ibn Saud was battling to conquer the land of Arabia and setup Saudi Arabia. There were powers to be everywhere; and the ever present Shia-Sunni conflict would rear up its ugly head.
However, if you were to look at the current political structure of the Middle East, there is the emphasis on one particular event which seems to be the grand-daddy of all the chaos that is currently there, the precursor to the various nations that have been setup (so, for example, if you look at Syria, it is an amalgamation of many different tribes and communities and the scope for chaos, ruthlessly put down all these years, has risen so fast that the future of the country seems totally at risk with other similar examples) - this was an arrangement between the colonial powers of a century ago, France and Great Britain. This was the Sykes - Picot agreement (named after the good gentlemen who negotiated the agreement from both sides), and the agreement delineated the spheres of control for both countries once the Ottoman Empire was defeated at the end of the First World War (link to Wiki site for the agreement).



This book provides a good reference for the events of that time. There was a huge amount of politics in that area ongoing, and during the course of the First World War, Britain and France had decided that in the event of winning the war, the Ottoman Empire would be distributed among the victorious parties in terms of mandates and regions of influence. At the same time, there was a Turkish upheaval that was against the Ottoman Empire and who wanted their own set of power and authority at the end of the war, there was the demand for a homeland for the Zionists, there were other influential figures whose support was needed by Britain and France, and yet they also felt like a kind of parental authority for the region, that they had the best interests for everybody in the region. If you go through the book and see the flow of history, you would start to see some of the background for the problems that have occurred now, especially the way that the nation states have been setup in that region. Even the 2 colonial powers who had made the agreement, were constantly jealous of the authority of the other, and especially when territory was won in the war, there was a lot of reluctance to honor previous agreements. A great deal of the background between the animosity between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and even the fight between the Jewish underground militias and the British authority in Palestine (modern day Israel) could be traced to a slow boil that started in the first and second decade of the 20th century.