China on the US Debt Crisis

From today's News...

"BEIJING –With days to go before the United States debt default deadline, Beijing aired its frustrations with the shutdown Sunday, saying it was time to consider a “de-Americanized” world order.
With $1.28 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, China is easily the biggest foreign holder of American debt.
China has also funneled billions of dollars into private American investments – to the tune of an estimated $54 billion in 2012 alone.
“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” according to a stinging op-ed article by state news agency, Xinhua.
The article, published Sunday, conveyed Beijing’s frustration with the spending and debt impasse that has paralyzed Washington for more than two weeks.
"Days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing,” the piece added.
Should Congress not come to an agreement by Thursday’s deadline on a new raised debt ceiling – the upper limit set by Congress on the amount of money the Federal government may borrow – China’s potential losses stand to be devastating.
Prior to Sunday’s commentary article, Chinese officials had been more measured in their analysis of the U.S. budget impasse. Last week, Vice-Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao  noted only that “we have to see that the clock is ticking.”
To many in China, the restraint on the part of China’s ruling Communist Party over its second-largest trade partner’s government problems was perhaps based in the belief that neither party, Democrat or Republican, would allow the U.S. to not honor its financial obligations.
“If we are really rational, I cannot imagine why someone would dare to bear this kind of responsibility because any real default will have a huge impact not only on the U.S. and China, but on the global economy,” said Professor Zhao Longkai, a dean at the Guanghua School of Management at Beijing University. “It’s hard for us to imagine anyone can be that crazy to push the limit to that level.”
Zhao said the patience China had shown until recently was rooted not only in Beijing’s confidence in America’s ability to deal with the budgetary crisis, but also its own burgeoning self-confidence.
“For average Chinese people [the budget crisis] is a show there and we’ve seen it before… we also know that it's not only the United States that we are relying on, we have a lot of other investments,” Zhao said. 
The Xinhua commentary may raise eyebrows in Washington, but Beijing’s frustration underscores a key point: Despite a desire to diversify its holdings, the Chinese government continues to buy U.S. Treasury bonds out of political and economic necessity.
As long as China’s domestic growth and stability are boosted by American debt, the deep ties between the two countries will likely endure.


Here is my response:

"The statement from the Chinese government sounds like the rhetoric so often heard during the Cold War with the then Soviet Union. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

China IS right in one regard, though; that the US has far to large a presence on the world stage. The Founders never intended for the United States to have a world wide military; never for us to exert our beliefs on other countries; never for us to poke our noses in everyone else's business and internal affairs.

Yes, we have done a lot of good over the last 75 years; but at what cost to America? Our manufacturing base is nearly gone, the dollar is at the weakest point it has ever been, the middle class is shrinking--along with its majority tax base--millions of jobs are now on foreign soil, resentment amongst the world community towards the US is at an all time high, the politics in Congress have become an embarrassment to any democratic nation, the last two Presidents (current one incl.) have openly trampled on the very Constitution they both swore to uphold and defend and our national debt is so vast that we will never get it balanced again.

So yeah, China is right about a few things. However, their statement today could be a headline from thirty years ago. In spite of all the change, the Cold War is still going strong...at least in China's overreaching view of the world."

Jihadists and Hypocrisy

British Prince Harry recently returned from a military assignment in Afghanistan, serving as a gunner on a helicopter gunship. He apparently has a number of enemy kills to his credit for which the Prince has come under condemnation by the Taliban, with the usual death threats by this murderous group. An article in today's Seattle Times highlighted this aspect of the ongoing conflict. Here is my response to that article:


"What I don't get is the hypocrisy by these jihadists when it comes to killing people. They murder with impugnity anyone they claim is against Allah (God)--which of course changes as new enemies come up-- but then throw a temper tantrum in front of the international media when anyone kills even one of their fighters and call opposing military personnel sinners, pigs, dogs, a disease, etc.

At least these groups could leave religion out of the discussion and call their efforts what they really are...a power grab with repercussions for anyone who would dare oppose them.

As far as British Prince Harry is concerned, as a soldier he was doing his duty. So he killed Taliban fighters while on field duty; yeah, well how many British troops were killed by the Taliban while Harry was stationed in Afghanistan?

Wait...I'm sorry...it goes back to that same hypocrisy I was talking about earlier. It isn't how many soldiers the Taliban killed; it's all about how many of these jihadists were "martyred" by the imperialist dogs of the West.

Sorry...my bad."

Gingrich the Hypocrite

I've been quietly watching this years' presidential political process--not writing any blogs because of how my brain is processing information--and have not, until now, written anything because I've having difficulty writing clear, coherent and legitimate essays. However, after listening to the New Hampshire Primary coverage, I just have to write even if I don't get my thoughts out properly.

My angst comes from Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Slimy Newt is accusing Romney of being "a liar...and being falsely pious" in his self presentation. Plus, Gingrich is further attacking Romney for his comment yesterday about liking to fire people...a quote taken completely out of context that is intended solely to harm Romney's bid for the presidency.

The real clincher here is that this comes from the lips of a man who resigned from Congress in disgrace over unpaid taxes and some 80+ other ethical violations; and who purposely destroyed Congressional bipartisanship in his 'Contract with America;' and who has demonstrated his lack of moral integrity and commitment by cheating on two wives, and is married to the third woman with whom he cheated on wife number two.

And he is calling another candidate a liar, and questioning his integrity? Mitt Romney has never been removed from office, he ran a successful venture capital firm, and has been married to the same woman for 40+ years.  Plus, Romney ran a successful business, transformed a disastrous Salt Lake City Winter Olympics--scandal ridden and financially destitute--into the best run, most profitable Olympic Games ever, and successfully led a vastly majorative Democratic Massachusetts as a Republican Governor.

Damn that Romney. He just lies, and lies and lies. Poor Newt has never done anything but be honest his entire political career, and always takes the high road both personally and politically.

Newt Gingrich can be summed up in a single, glaring word...Hypocrite.

President Obama's Work Bill

Last week, President Obama asked to speak to a joint session of Congress. During his address, the President introduced legislation that he claims will put Americans to work, and stimulate the economy. Plus, he claims that the $450B price is already paid for, and that Congress "Must pass this bill now!"--a phrase he pushed numerous times during his address. An article in today's Deseret News reiterated that same call from a speech the President made today in Ohio. The following is my reply...

After reading portions of this bill, and listening to and reading the debate, it seems clear to me that the President is pressing Congress to pass this bill so hard because he knows that this is bad legislation, and wants the provisions enacted before anyone takes a close look at the language, outcome of enaction and financial/budgetary consequences.


If this was a solid bill, then I would certainly expect an invitation to scrutinize the legislation. All we hear is, "Pass this bill!" From his Congressional address [in introducing the bill] to his campaign rhetoric; that same call resonates constantly, and should be a warning to Congress. They should study, calculate and scrutinize everything in the language. If not, they could very well be caught in yet another legislative blunder that is eroding public policy and confidence in our elected leaders.

Caffetz for U.S. Senate?

An article appeared in my local paper today that stated House Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) will likely seek the U.S. Senatorial seat now occupied by six-term Sen. Orrin Hatch.

I have lived in Utah since before Chaffetz was elected to the House, and have written him on a number of issues. Any correspondence I send is returned with a Republican party agenda that promises blah, blah, blah and all other such rhetoric. I wrote the following comment to the article:

"I have seen what happens economically to a state that loses a long-serving Senator; and Utah would feel those ramifications for years to come should our awful Rep from central Utah succeed in supplanting Hatch in the Senate.


Chaffetz got elected to the House based solely on his past as a BYU Cougar. Since then, he has done next to nothing as a Representative besides bark his Republican masters vitriolic party agenda/rhetoric instead of doing what he was elected to do...serve his constituency. In all my decades as a voter, I have never seen as useless and inconsequential a Representative as Jason Chaffetz has turned out to be.

Hatch is trying to make a difference for us. Chaffetz only wants the title, then be the lapdog for the Republican National Committee. After all, based on his record thus far, what else would the voters of Utah expect from a Congressman as worthless as Chaffetz? "

What a mistake it would be to elect this guy to the Senate. The representation we would receive in return would be non-existent, as evidenced by Chaffetzs' efforts thus far in the House.

*Note (06/10/11): In the nearly 36 hours since I posted the above response, I have yet to receive a reply of any sort. Maybe I have a point...

Letter to Congressmen

The current budget debate on Capitol Hill concerns me closely.

Part of the discussion taking place involves the funding/defunding of Medicare and Social security. Normally, I would not be interested in these two portions of the budgetary discussion. However, in light of my health and the future involvement of both Medicare and Social Security, I felt it was imperative that I make my position/concerns known to my *Senators.
My letter:

Senator      ,

I am writing due to my personal interest in the ongoing health care/Medicare/SS debate. In Sept 2009 I was diagnosed with late Stage 4 Polycystic Kidney Disease. In the time since, I have entered End stage, and now await the final drop in kidney function to begin dialysis, get placed on the national transplant list, and await life-saving kidney transplantation.

The ongoing Congressional budget debate concerns me greatly as my very future is tied up in the programs currently under budgetary review. I have no insurance, and until I start dialysis, I am accumulating bills that I cannot pay. Being on dialysis will allow me to receive Medicare benefits and will pay a majority of the costs to maintain my life. Once an organ becomes available, Medicare will pick up the costs of the transplant, as well as the required anti-rejection meds for three full years.

However, should the Medicare program be defunded, my personal ability to receive dialysis (let alone a transplant) is in serious jeopardy. Additionally, I am currently going through the process to receive early SS benefits as I am unable to work due to the nature and advancement of the kidney disease, and would remain on this until such time as I am able to work at a job.

I am not alone in the need for these programs to remain intact and fully funded. This issue concerns millions of Americans in every constituency across the country.  While many are concerned and only await the outcome, I am taking the time to write and plead for the programs currently threatened by budget cuts (Medicare, Social Security, and Health care in general) to remain a part of upcoming budgets, funded as is needed by the people that are depending on these programs for their health and well-being.

I fully realize that the country is in a financial crisis. There are no easy answers, and there exist numerous departments and programs that also desperately need proper funding.  But the monies available are also finite, and burdensome to a majority of the taxpayers. I can only suggest that we were once, not so long ago, well on our way to a balanced national budget. We did it before, and this country can do it again with Education, Medicare, Social Security and Infrastructure budgets remaining intact. Let that goal be the driving force towards the financial prosperity this country needs. Let the resiliency, innovation and determination of the American people return the United States to a prominent place amongst the world’s leaders of economic, educational and industrial standings. To that end, stand up and lead us, the people, towards that goal.

In the meantime, I plead once again that the programs that I desperately need remain funded and available; not only for me, but for millions of other Americans who have no other recourse to turn to.

Thank You for your time, and for your consideration on this matter.

As with every letter I write to both the Utah Senators, I do not expect a response. These men are incredibly busy with their innumerable daily responsibilities. But thus far, I have received a personal response to every letter written.

As I've stated before, writing may not make a huge difference; but if millions write and make their views known then change will occur by the sheer force of the will of the people. So please, if this issue concerns you, then write, call or email your Senator a/o House rep. Speak up and let them know your opinion on this and any other subject which concerns you!




*I'd write my House rep; but every time I do he, without fail, returns obvious party rhetoric rather than addressing any concerns I might have. Not once have I received a reply from Rep. Jason Chaffetz that had anything even remotely resembling an answer to my correspondence. He seems to care more about pleasing his party masters than for the concerns of his constituency. Hence, my decision to exclude him from this particular correspondence.

No START Treaty?--My Response

(The following is my response to a story today stating that House Republicans will block any attempt by President Obama to ratify the START Treaty with Russia--aimed at reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles on both sides.

The Republican leaders are claiming that the lame-duck session (around the upcoming holidays) doesn't have enough time to sort out the terms of the treaty. In reality, this is just a taste of the political grandstanding that will occur when the Republican party controls the US House of Representatives in late January [following the recent mid-term elections].

Congress has had the terms of the START Treaty for more than eight months and has failed to even address the issue with any urgency. Now, they are using it against the President in order to gain political power throughout DC ahead of the shift in power within the House.)

"Just another pathetic display by the Republicans to show voters that THEY are now in control--again. A party of Jackasses--at least they got the party logo spot on!

So long as the new policy Republican party further widens the political ideology gap away from Democrats (and even the Moderates, too!), Congressional lawmaking will grind to a complete halt, and national policies and programs will all suffer for the cry-baby tantrum these whiners and demagogues are throwing.

What an embarrassment our democracy has become to the world. Party fighting and in-fighting is raging out of control; the uncooperative air in Congress is beyond anything this country has ever witnessed; and it seems that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to attack the President and destroy any hope of bipartisan cooperation that might help the country to move forward.

'To hell with the country, so long as we (the Republicans) are in power! We'll crucify the President, severely damage our tender relations with Russia by NOT passing the START treaty, undo everything the President has implemented, destroy the environment, plunder every natural resource available, allow the destruction of aquifers that are inconveniently near natural gas deposits, and decimate the hopes of 56 MILLION Americans for getting any sort of health coverage! Beyond that, we really don't have a plan; we just want to destroy the credibility of our President, and decimate his effectiveness simply because he's (gasp!)...... a Democrat.'

If you really paid attention to the just concluded election process, that pretty much sums up the goals of the Hee-Haw party. If you don't see it, then you either don't want to, or are completely blind to the hateful, divisive party rhetoric they've been spewing now for the last 14+ years.

Yeah...great plan....Jackasses.

(And by the way--for all you naysayers, I'm a registered Independent, and have always voted for whomever I believe is best suited for office. My ballots reflect votes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. I do not favor one party over the other.)"

Big Oil Is After ANWR Again!

Today, a story emerged that stated the people behind our ever-present energy dependence--aka Big Oil--are once again trying to persuade Congress to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling once again. All throughout the Gee Dubya Bushie presidency they tried unsuccessfully to open ANWR. To this point, neither Congress, nor the Courts, have been willing to allow this.

I wrote the following commentary to the story, and to the many respondents who are either completely for drilling, or immovably against it.

"I'm against drilling in ANWR. The oil companies would have you believe that the area they want to drill in is of no consequence; when in fact, the area is one of the largest breeding and calving grounds for caribou and polar and grizzly bears. How can drilling NOT impact the area?

Also, Big Oil themselves state that they wouldn't even begin pumping oil for at least 10-15 years! Plus, they have no concrete data on the size of any oil reserves. They estimate, guess and then line the pockets of lobbyists and Congressmen, and spout "oil independence" to a gullible American public.

The last time I read (2005 I think), the US government was giving Big Oil over $5 BILLION dollars in tax breaks per year; but was only giving $7 million dollars towards energy research. Yeah...you read that correctly!

How about the idea that Congress puts $5B towards energy research, and give all of Big Oil just $7M in in tax breaks? After all, with the record profits regularly reported by Big Oil, do we, the people, the source of those record profits, really need to be giving these businesses tax breaks? C'mon! Think about it!

How much research; how much further could we get, if $5B per year were put into energy research? How many new industries [and jobs] would be created because of that investment? How much more secure would the United States be if oil were out of the political and economic landscape for good?

Throughout the history of the United States, anytime we were faced with having to improve, the people rose to the challenge. Just think of industrialization, the increased manufacturing capabilities during WWII, and the drive to reach the moon. Creating alternative, renewable energy resources could very well be the next wave of invention, world leadership and increased pride in being American!

ANWR drilling is NOT the answer! It's time that Congress stands up to Big Oil, and deflate their rather sizable...ahem...economic ego."

Fidel Castro Was Wrong?

I was going to try and comment on this story, but have been feeling so bad that I decided to abandon that effort as this piece of news was too important to let it pass by much longer. So, here is a copy of the story as it appeared early on Thursday, 09 Sept 2010. Full credit is given.


By Jeff Franks (Reuters)

updated 9/8/2010 9:36:59 PM ET

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Cuba's economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported on Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy. Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state's hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities. He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.

Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world. He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."

Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute. During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba's National Aquarium in Havana. They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog. Inside the aquarium, Goldberg was introduced to the veteranarian — a woman named Celia Guevara, Che's daughter.

North Korea: Sabre Rattling Anew

North Korea is at it again.

As per their usual song and dance, the regime of Kim Jong Il is at it again with their thinly veiled threats against South Korea. This time, it was, if we are to believe the claims of the South Korean government, the North that acted first in sinking a South Korean gunboat; supposedly in retaliation for a similar action last year by the South against the North.

No matter the cause, South Korea is on heightened military alert. In response, North Korea has declared that they will defend themselves against unfair and unwarranted aggression by South Korea. Then today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Seoul, South Korea as part of a multi-nation political swing through Eastern Asia, denounced the provocative stance of the North and asked for "North Korea to end its policy of threats and take steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.
"North Korea can still choose another path. Instead of isolation, poverty conflict and condemnation, North Korea could enjoy integration, prosperity, peace and respect," she said. (NPR report 05/26/10)

This whole thing is far from over. I'm sure, after more tension and increasing threats, that North Korea will capitulate its position after receiving "assurances" of an increase of food supplies and cash in exchange for their cooperation.

If all of this sounds familiar that's because this is the exact same political/military cat and mouse game that North Korea plays every couple of years. They feign offense at something, state they'll retaliate, place their military on alert, then give the US and others time to formulate their response based on economic incentives for the North to back down; which they do.

Here's the basic problem with what North Korea is doing. Their government is the last remaining Stalinist-based body in the world. Their actions over the last 25 years or so have isolated them from even their neighbor to the North, China. Their actions have resulted in unceasing embargoes that deny any humanitarian or economic aid to a country so poor that their "non-elite" citizens are starving.

Any so-called aid from these stand-offs never reaches the people who need it most. It is generally funneled to the government and the military. Everyone else is just seemingly out of luck. Meanwhile reports of starvation, military oppression and inflation so rampant that most citizens can't even buy what food there is, come filtering in from those brave souls who risk life and limb to breach the DMZ in order to escape the growing inhumane conditions from which they fled.

I have heard rumblings that the very elderly Kim Jong Il has multiple health problems, and that his son, Kim Jong un, slated to take control in the event of his father's death, is rumored to have a more favorable, conciliatory regard to South Korea and the US. If this proves to be true, then once Kim Jong Il is dead, there is a possibility of thawing relations between the two enmitic states.

In the mean time, we will continue to see more of the same sabre rattling happening that we are witnessing today. In spite of the vitriolic rhetoric we are hearing, there will be no war, no military action, no invasions. The North will threaten, they will get what they are after, and everything will be all happy on the Korean Peninsula once again...Until, that is, Kim Jong Il finds some new excuse to justify yet another round of his menial, small-minded megalomania that only places his already oppressed citizenry at ever-increasing risk.

Fox News Shows Its True Colors

I read recently that Fox News was actually trying to portray itself as a more balanced news organization that leaned less towards a Republican slanted bandwagon out to get any Democrat or Democratic ideology it found was in conflict with anything Republican.

I happened to tune into Fox News today and caught an interview that Neil Cavuto was conducting. He had a guest interviewee on who is an economist (the guy actually looked like a stereotypical economist).

Cavuto's question on which the entire interview was based was, "Is the stock market giving President Obama a vote of No Confidence?"

As the economist was introduced to the question and began his response, it was immediately evident that Neil Cavuto was not interested in fact. Every time his guest began to talk about prevailing market conditions and outlook based on fundamentals, Cavuto would interrupt, and loudly, blatantly try to get the economist to say that President Obama was to blame for the nose dive our economy has taken.

The economist, clearly seeing where this interview was being steered, stuck to his guns and continued to elaborate on economic factors and how the new Administration was in no way responsible for the near-depression level economy. In actuality, he went on, the Bush Administration was at the heart of any and all blame for the financial sickness of our country.

Three times Neil Cavuto interrupted his guest, and three times his guest would not be bullied. Finally, after NOT getting the economist to agree on his hypothesis, Cavutio rudely stopped the interview and went on to other things. The economist graciously said "Thank You for allowing me to be here." Cavuto even dismissed THAT offering.

It was highly evident that Fox News has not changed one bit. The purpose of the interview was only to place blame for the economy on a President that has been in office for just six weeks; and a DEMOCRATIC President at that.

This Republican propoganda machine fronting as a legitimate news agency really needs to examine its intentions here. It stood by a President that devastated our economy and our public lands; ran up $7.5TRILLION of National debt; performed an ecological firesale for the sole benefit of his friends in the big energy companies; eliminated many of the vital social services for Americans living (and working) at or below the poverty level; turned a blind eye towards the off-shoring of millions of American jobs--the list just goes on and on.

Where was fox News to tell us about these things, and shove down our throats that the President was destroying the country? ...

...oh, wait. Bush was a Republican! Silly me to forget that little fact. A Conservative slag rag will staunchly defend its own, even when its own are destroying this country. But heaven forbid if a Democrat takes office. Then they cry out to us all for 'heads to roll.'

Simply put, Fox News disgusts me. They are neither fair, nor balanced, and show time and again that they have neither interest nor inclination to be so.