Posted on 03/03/2007 9:30:28 PM PST by toaster
...what happened...underscores the exposure of our economy to economic developments in countries like China. As we have been running trade and budget deficits, they have been buying our debt and in essence becoming our banker...I have long argued that a great source of vulnerability is the fact that other countries, including China, own so much of our debt. Today, foreign nations according to the most recent Treasury statistics hold over $2.2 trillion or 44% of all publicly held United States (U.S.) debt with Japan and China alone holding nearly $1 trillion. In essence, 16% of our entire economy is being loaned to us by the Central Banks of other nations. Having so much debt owned by other countries can be economically unsound...
(Excerpt) Read more at economicpolicyreview.com ...
The Saudi's are or is her husbands banker.
And having so many of our politicians owned by other countries is politically unsound, Hillary. Care to share how much of your campaign coffers came from China?
True but dubya has been doing a lot of business too with China the trade deficit has gotten even bigger.
I for one avoid buying things from China as much as possible. I try to keep as much money as I can out of the hands of communists.
No doubt, kinda like the way RR handled the Commies. Back when Commies were bad.
Yeah, you're right. The Bill and Newt team did also delivered welfare reform and the balanced budget.
That is comparing foreign countries to each other but not taking in the whole picture.
I have done it several times, but not many listen to me....
Figure out how much debt as a whole we have out, then divide it by the amount China has...
Post the results here...
Anytime someone suggests this sort of thing I cringe.
Oh well, I was taught that morals matter, but I see they don't.
You make a promise to pay someone for something, then default you are breaking your promise. Is this what you teach your kids, assuming you have any? Make promises and break them? What other promises are ok to break, marriage vows, your mortgage? How would you like it if everyone who ever owed you money just defaulted because they didn't feel like paying. That wouldn't be very nice.
Finally, the Treasury doesn't just print money. Any money we get is borrowed at interest from bankers which have the power to issue credit represented by their own symbols. Taking this action contributes to inflation which robs savers and has a detrimental effect on the cost of living especially for the poor and elderly. And it adds to the national debt.
There was a very good system of international finance based on gold and silver coin in the 18 and 19th centuries, much of it set up by the British Empire. It all went to hell in 1914. Now we talk glibly of walking away from our obligations as if nothing were ever wrong with that. Worse, we do it all the time, with inflation.
China holds approximately between 3 and 4 percent of the total US debt.
Jeez, this woman's insane.
They hold about $350 billion, about $400 billion if you include Hong Kong.
Sorry this is a long post,(And a repost) but if you haven't read the first two articles, IMHO, they are worth reading.
The last part was my reply to the articles.
Check this out from a recent FR thread:
1993 : (DISASTEROUS CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TEST BAN TREATY POLICY MAKES NUCLEAR INFORMATION PUBLIC, WOULD RESULT IN PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY - See ENERGY DEPARTMENT "OPENNESS INITIATIVE," HAZEL O'LEARY ) Back in 1993, when the terrors of the Cold War were still fresh, the administration decided that the best way to keep the nuclear arms race from heating up again was to get the world's nations to sign a test-ban treaty.
The idea was that even if a country knew how to make a bomb, it couldn't perfect new ones and build up advanced forces without physically testing new designs. So development of new weapons would be frozen, ending the vicious spiral of nuclear move and countermove.
Releasing many of America's nuclear secrets was seen as an essential part of this strategy, since it would signal a new global order in which nuclear know-how was suddenly and irreparably devalued and real security would lie in the collective knowledge that nobody was able to push weaponry beyond the known boundaries.
What had been gold would become dross, and the atom would lose power and prestige. Driven by such logic, the administration made public masses of generalities about nuclear arms, even as specific weapon designs were kept secret.
... Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative" has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the 1980s saw two such actions. The unveilings have included no details of specific weapons, like the W-88, a compact design Chinese spies are suspected of having stolen from the weapons lab at Los Alamos, N.M.
But they include a slew of general secrets. ... the disclosures... such things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a second). No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.
The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms and war. - "Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes," By WILLIAM J. BROAD, the New York Times, May 30, 1999
DECEMBER 1993 : (ENERGY SECRETARY HAZEL O'LEARY PROUDLY DECLASSIFYING NUCLEAR SECRETS...) And the devaluing of nuclear secrets, highlighted by the rush of atomic declassifications, was seen as a prerequisite to the [Nuclear Test Ban Treaty] ban's achievement. The symbolism alone was potent, officials say. Openness let them advertise a dramatic new state of affairs where hidden actions were to be kept to a minimum, replacing decades of secrecy and paranoia.
"The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the department."
Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. - "Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes," By WILLIAM J. BROAD, the New York Times, May 30, 1999
U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China's targeting was made more accurate by Loral's unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral's actions were "criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful."
In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.
Congress is finally starting to realize that American national security is at stake. On May 20, the House voted 364 to 54 to ban the export of all satellites to China. And, by 417 to 4, the House passed a resolution warning Clinton not to enter into any new agreements with China involving space or missile technology during his forthcoming trip to Beijing. The resolution also rebuked Clinton by declaring that his decision to issue the waiver to Loral Space and Communications earlier this year was "not in the national interest of the United States," and instructed the President to indefinitely suspend all U.S. satellite exports to China, including a pending Loral deal.
The fact that Clinton personally issued the waivers to allow shipments of U.S. technology that greatly improved the accuracy and reliability of Communist China's missiles is grounds for impeachment, regardless of whether or not there was any quid pro quo for those decisions. U.S. space technology was just what China needs to make intercontinental ballistic missiles and point them more accurately at U.S. cities. And he did it despite the objections of the U.S. State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies.
Because China shared U.S. technology and equipment with Pakistan, Clinton is also responsible for India starting the nuclear race in Asia. India has fought three wars with its neighbor, Pakistan, since the end of World War II and looks upon Pakistan's new military capabilities as a direct threat.
Clinton's policy decisions were, on their face, damaging and dangerous to U.S. national security. And the calendar provides an ominous frame of reference. When Clinton's policy decisions that dramatically benefited China's military capability and Loral's profits, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign donations from the Chinese government and from Loral, are all placed on the calendar, the sequence shows a pattern of corruption that cannot be ignored. That's the real campaign finance scandal.
This part was the reply to the above post, and my reply back:
(Reply to my #46 Post):
"Holy Cow! Congress knew what clinton was up too and even warned him."
IIRC, THIS was the REAL reason for Clinton's impeachment trial. Most of The House members that ACTUALLY read ALL the Articles of Impeachment,( they were almost classified, but every Congress critter was ALLOWED to read them , held in a secure place which meant read under supervision only) voted for impeaching Clinton.
It was brought out at the Senate trial, (and in the House also) that alot of the dems NEVER read ALL the Articles of Impeachment (basically treason) against Clinton, because if they did, they would have had ZERO excuse for NOT voting for impeachment.
THIS is why Carville, Belgalla et al, beat the "It's only about sex" drum so loudly, to hide the other REAL reasons why Clinton was being impeached.
IMHO, think of the implications in and to the whole country, AND the World, IF it would have been WIDELY broadcast, that US President was ACTUALLY being tried for TREASON !!
Think of all the nasty dirty stuff treason wise that would have WORLDWIDE have had to be aired about our president, and the US political situation.
It would have rocked the world, made our friends NOT trust us, collapsed the economy worldwide, along with ours, KILLED the dems darn near FOREVER from holding office for the Presidency, and basically destroyed the American people from having faith in their Gov't for a LONG time.
This is why the Repubs went with the "sex" angle for the impeachment, to soften THAT blow, keep all the REALLY bad stuff from being made public, and the dems THEN used THAT as the ONLY reason for impeachment.
Think of it THIS way. The US Gov't wanted Al Capone put away in the worst way. An organized crime boss, responsible for an untold number of deaths, police and gov't bribery and coruption, drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc.
He needed to go to prison.
Capones' hold on the police, judges, and local gov't was SO strong, that Capone was NEVER convicted in a court of law for ANY of the crimes mentioned above.
But Capone DID go to prison for the rest of his life.
He was convicted of INCOME TAX EVASION.
Bill Clinton needed to be Impeached for his treasonous activities against the United States of America. It would have been hard to get THAT conviction in "court", with so many Clinton cronies entrenched in it, so the Repubs, and a FEW dems, went for the 'sure thing " conviction of lying undr oath, to a Federal Grand Jury.
It passed in the House, but the Senate turned it down, and Clinton got away with more treason than many people have been executed for.
In other words, Monica was Bill's "income tax evasion", and when it REALLY counted, he was found "not guilty".
We the people are STILL and WILL be paying for Clinton's traeson for a LONG time. End.
IMHO, These two should NEVER be allowed to be ANYWHERE near the WHITE HOUSE in a position as POTUS ever again.
725 posted on 11/05/2006 5:41:17 PM EST by musicman
When she was claiming she 'couldn't recall' Maggie Williams, her personal assistant took $50,000 from Johnny Chung, 'Mr. put a quarter in the Subway turnstile' for access to Clinton.
This attention from the First Lady seemed to have sparked in Chung a remarkable fascination with and admiration for her.10 Her chief of staff, Margaret A. (``Maggie'') Williams, testified in her deposition that Chung told her ``how much he admired and respected'' the First Lady and that he believed that ``her encouragement had been the turning point in his business.'' 11 As Chung's admiration grew, on many of his visits to the White House he would simply sit in the vestibule of the First Lady's office and stare at pictures of her, apparently without any other reason for being there.12 Williams' assistant Evan Ryan, for example, testified that if Chung were ``in the building'' visiting someone else, ``he would stop by.'' 13 The First Lady's staff found these visits ``disturbing,'' because Chung talked constantly during these visits--continually telling them about himself, his business, and his admiration for the First Lady.14
(recounting accepting envelope given her by Chung to pass along to DNC); copy of canceled check for $50,000 to the DNC dated March 9, 1995 from Johnny Chung and Katharina Chung (Ex. 22). Chung also handed Williams two sweaters for the First Lady on March 9, 1995. See White House Gift Register (Ex. 23); White House gift tracking form for two sweaters presented by Johnny Chung to Maggie Williams on March 9, 1995 (Ex. 24). Although Ryan testified that she did not remember seeing Chung present the sweaters to Williams, she did remember seeing them on Williams' couch on either March 8 or 9.
Hillary was on the board of wal-mart.
This is a total BS issue. Of course, these countries hold US debt because they expect a good return on their investment.
The real problem is not that they hold our debt. It is that China's economy is soaring and that money is being invested in military power. The response to that will be to liberalize the regulatory environment on businesses in this country to keep the market here more competitive.
Raising a red herring is her way to appear smart and caring about Chinese power. She is full of $hit!
And those jobs she promised New York?
Hillary is an idiot.
Oh well, I was taught that morals matter, but I see they don't.
You're not getting it. When it's stupid to increase the taxes to balance the budget, and there's no political will to cut spending, the fees to borrow from foreignors is chump change at these interest rates.
What Hillary and most do not understand is that DEBT is not equity. We just pay them interest, in turn we hold there money for that interest payment. They are indebt to us as we must be economically viable otherwise we go awry and their loan goes bust...... so in a way we own them.
Trolling for donations in exchange for Nuclear Secrets again? Well it worked last time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.