Mutual Assured Destruction Behind U.S. Debt?

Tweet

China's Bargaining Chip Excerpt:
"There is surely something odd about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor," Mr. Summers told the audience gathered at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

But the pro-growth folks don’t look at the greatest exchange in wealth as being a debt situation. They view this as a “stakeholder” position for countries like China, India and Saudi Arabia. This is the first commandment of globalization. If we collapse, they collapse right along with us. They don’t want us to collapse, so they buy our debt. The more they buy the more they become a vital stakeholder in a bankrupt country. In theory, countries buying into America don't want to hurt their own investment.

When Hugo Chavez cashed in some of his country's notes on American debt, it was said Bush was fuming. Our government views that as almost an act of war. When America eventually goes belly-up and is declared officially bankrupt, a country like Venezuela now might not be as greatly effected.

The power players in American government either don’t care too much about the debt, or don't take it seriously. Have you ever noticed how Congress racks up more debt every year - but only brings it up on their opponent during election time? In fact, a national budgetary surplus (Clinton) is considered illegally kept money by many so-called conservatives.

Democrats are not exactly innocent, but this White House, the republican platform, conservatives and Wall Street/Fed policies WANT to borrow and spend, this is one of the main reasons why they are so dead set against taxing and spending. In government, you're labeled as a anti-growth socialist democrat commie if you actually want to support a government expenditure with a tax revenue mechanism.

"What's most disturbing about the U.S. situation is that as America's debts rise higher and higher, the less influence the American government will have over the critical decisions" that will need to be made to address these imbalances," Mr. Tonelson said.

And do you know how they’ll make up for these imbalances? By using mechanisms like interest rates to induce inflation and playing games with currency exchange rates and whatever else the monetary standard is based on. Currently it is oil. The gamble here is that by the time China decides to cash in $2 trillion in notes, the U.S. dollar will be worth only 1/10 what it was worth during the duration of the note. Don’t believe me? The dollar has dropped almost 50% in value since Bush took office and it is still trending downward. When asked about the value of the dollar and what his plans are to strengthen it, Bush (wink-wink) just says he favors a strong dollar. End of story.

And this is the same pro-growth stakeholder scheme they use on everybody. Want to buy a house? If you can’t buy it outright they are more than pleased to encourage you to go into debt. A key talking point is this – don’t worry too much about the actual debt or duration, just get a good interest rate and worry about the details later. You’ll be a stakeholder and by the time you near the end of the loan, you’ll be making much more money – it’ll be easier to pay off. How many times have you heard that line? Why? Because by then, the dollar WILL be worth much less than it was. Simple rampant capitalism. Nobody ever asks “what is the goal or endgame of the pro-growth scheme? or "what happens when the chips are cashed in?”

If it weren’t so true, this all would be very funny.

Bush Policy: Can it get any worse?

Tweet

From the very beginning, one of the things that frosted Bush about Saddam Hussein was the fact that Hussein was dealing oil with nearly everybody in the world except the United States. Afterwards, the Administration with the full cooperation of the media twisted it around and shifted the focus for his own benefit and accused the UN of participating in crooked oil for food deals with Iraq. France, Germany and Russia, and others signed new oil contracts with Iraq just before Bush ordered the invasion. He would have none of it, as commander of the most powerful military on Earth, Bush was prepared to take the oil by force.

Truthout Excerpt:
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry - while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits - more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.

Big Oil will rake off up to 75% of all the profits until their “infrastructure investments” have been repaid? Production sharing agreements have their place, but what was so wrong when some Americans asked that oil rich Iraq share in the cost of their own liberation? Dick Cheney railed against the American public when it was suggested that the American treasury be repaid with oil profits from Iraq. He went as far to say that should Americans taxpayers expect to be repaid, world opinion of America would plummet. Could it really have gone any further down than Bush has taken it? Bush constantly reminds us that the insurgents and militias will take the oil profits if we fail in Iraq, as if it really is the only prize worth fighting for.

Consortium News Excerpt:
Not only have possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, but U.S. forces killed Hussein’s two sons and turned the deposed dictator over to his enemies so he could hanged like a common criminal on Dec. 30.

So there can be little incentive for Iranian or North Korean leaders to follow the Iraq model of disarmament and inspections. Further, the explosion of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has increased risks to the pro-U.S. dictatorship in nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Islamic militants with close ties to al-Qaeda are reported to be gaining strength.

The remaining two of the so-called axis of evil have nothing to lose now by nuking up. To them, it may be the only thing that can guarantee superpower militaries will not invade.

Out of all the conspiracies and accusations, from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 was an inside job to the DaVinci Code, none of them are as believable or convincing enough as the evidence available to support the most inconvenient truth of all – that the Bush War in Iraq is all about oil. He is taking us on a ride to nowhere.

Bush - Legacy of Higher Taxes and National Insecurity

Tweet

Question on national security

Mister President - There have been several different plots of terrorism targeting the U.S. mainland over the past two years that have been foiled by Canada, Britain and other countries using common law enforcement tactics of investigation and arrests. You tell us that the mission in Iraq was necessary and is a matter of national security. Can you give us examples of terror plots against the U.S. mainland originating from Iraq that have been thwarted by our troops?

Question on taxes

Mister President – Some have said the effect of your taxcuts at the Federal level has caused local and state governments across the nation to raise sales and non-income type taxes and fee’s, and coupled with your request to redirect over $325 billion of taxpayer money away from domestic needs to Iraq will result in even higher taxes in the future. What is your response to this?

Watch "It's never been stay the course" video

National Security Program useless without Torture

Tweet

During a morning press conference, President Bush defended his endorsement for a program that uses torture and other outrages upon personal dignity of enemy prisoners in order to gain information.

Bush:
“And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like -- it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

“Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. “

Text of Bush Press conference

But isn't it just the opposite, Mr. President? When laws are written vaguely and open to interpretation, aren't they difficult to enforce? The fact is, the Geneva Conventions are specific and well written, and educated people understand what they read, and know if they're breaking the law. Again, Bush talks to us like we're idiots.

Geneva Conventions Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

I don't see anything that needs clarification, or modification. Anyone who would want to weaken these rules will put our soldiers in danger not only on the battlefield but also when they're captured. When I read this passage, I don't think about our enemy. I think about some young American man or woman captured during combat and made prisoner. The Geneva Conventions provide a common ground for behavior that should be expected from civilized peoples. Our enemies may not agree with that statement, apparently neither does Bush. Obviously, the Geneva Conventions make no guarantee. If our enemy ignores the Conventions and tortures or cuts heads off, that doesn't mean it's okay for us to engage in the same activity. We will never defeat any enemy by being just like them, I should think we're better than that.

Saddam Hussein is accused of torturing and murdering people who were in his view, enemy combatants or enemies of the state. Without the Geneva Conventions as a guide, leaders of countries could round up people, imprison them, kill or torture them as they see fit, all in the name of national security. If Congress caves in to this flawed Bush logic, Saddam should hire Bush as his defense attorney.

Bush and many of his supporters have been playing this up to gain political advantage over Democrats and others who oppose their dangerous ideas. Bush views warrantless eavesdropping and torture not as an affront to civil liberties and freedom but as a twisted machination necessary for national security. Those who oppose this are therefore deemed unpatriotic, unamerican or worse yet, with the terrorists.

Hundreds of websites have parodized Bush's intentions for the past several years just to be funny. It's no longer a joke. Bush really has no use for our Constitution, the U.N. or the Geneva Conventions.

Why does Bush hate our soldiers?