The Trump Way — Blood Oath — American People Want This Deal — The Chicago Way Not To Be Confused With Appeaser Obama’s Red Line Way — Videos

Posted on January 8, 2020. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, Bunker Busters, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Computers, Computers, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Data, Diasters, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Generations, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Islam, Journalism, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Middle East, Missiles, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Movies, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Police, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press, Psychology, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Social Sciences, Spying, State, Strategy, Success, Sunni, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Television, Television, Terrorism, Torture, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Video, Wahhabism, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

The Trump Way — Blood Oath — American People Want This Deal — The Chicago Way Not To Be Confused With Appeaser Obama’s Red Line Way — Videos

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imagePresident Donald Trump delivered a high-stakes address to the world on Wednesday, offering Iran peace if it abandons its nuclear ambitions but also threatening the use of hypersonic weapons if war follows

 

Trump responds to Iranian airstrike: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon

Special Report: Trump addresses Iran attack on U.S. bases in Iraq

Rep. Dan Crenshaw says Obama-era officials are obsessed with defending their appeasement of Iran

Tucker Carlson Tonight 1/8/20 | Fox News Today January 8, 2020

Sen. Ted Cruz on Sen. Mike Lee’s public frustration with intel briefing on Soleimani strike

Petraeus says U.S. had “lost the element of deterrence” before Soleimani strike

Iran strikes back at US with missile attack at bases in Iraq

Iran Strikes Back at U.S.With Missile Attack on Bases in Iraq | News 4 Now

Shields and Brooks on Iran general’s killing, 2020 Democrats’ fundraising

Trump says Iran will be hit ‘very fast’ if they strike American assets

See the source image

The Chicago Way – The Untouchables (2/10) Movie CLIP

(1987) HD

A Clip From The Blind Side

The Blind Side

 

Donald Trump blames Barack Obama for giving Iran the cash to buy missiles flung at U.S. bases-as he offers to ’embrace peace’ and claims Tehran is ‘standing down’ but warns of ‘hypersonic weapons’ and ‘lethal and fast’ attacks

  • President said Iran can choose peace but warned of new weaponry that’s ready to strike
  • He blamed the Obama administration for unfreezing $150 billion and delivering $1.5 billion in cash to jump-start a nuclear nonproliferation deal that has since fallen apart
  • ‘As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be be allowed have a nuclear weapon,’ he vowed, even before saying ‘Good morning’
  • ‘Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal and fast,’ he said, sending a warning in nearly the same breath as an olive branch
  • ‘Under construction are many hypersonic missiles,’ he warned, standing amid a tableau of stern-faced military leaders
  • Iran fired 22 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops early Wednesday local time
  • Strikes are not thought to have killed any U.S. or Iraqi personnel, though extent of damage is being assessed
  • Ayatollah Khamenei said U.S. was given a ‘slap’ but strikes alone are ‘not enough’ and wants troops kicked out 
  • There are still fears for U.S. troops after Iran-backed militias in Iraq threatened to carry out their own strikes

Donald Trump blamed Barack Obama on Wednesday for supplying Iran with the money to purchase a torrent of missiles fired at American military positions Tuesday night.

‘The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,’ he said, citing $150 billion in frozen assets that the previous president released and $1.5 billion flown by the U.S. to Tehran.

He began his speech to the world on Wednesday with a familiar ultimatum, even before saying ‘Good morning.’

‘As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be be allowed have a nuclear weapon,’ he said.

And Trump backed up that vow with a threat:

‘Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal and fast,’ he said, sending a warning in nearly the same breath as an olive branch.

‘Under construction are many hypersonic missiles,’ he warned, standing amid a tableau of stern-faced military leaders.

Minutes later he offered an olive branch, urging European nations to make ‘a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place’ and allows Iran to explore its ‘untapped potential’ as a mainstream trading partner.

‘We want you to have a future, and a great future,’ he told Iran’s people, claiming its military ‘appears to be standing down.’

President Donald Trump delivered a high-stakes address to the world on Wednesday, offering Iran peace if it abandons its nuclear ambitions but also threatening the use of hypersonic weapons if war follows

President Donald Trump delivered a high-stakes address to the world on Wednesday, offering Iran peace if it abandons its nuclear ambitions but also threatening the use of hypersonic weapons if war follows

Talking peace and war: Donald Trump offered to 'embrace peace' with Iran if it gives up its nuclear ambitions and its terrorism - but listed U.S. military capabilities

Talking peace and war: Donald Trump offered to ’embrace peace’ with Iran if it gives up its nuclear ambitions and its terrorism – but listed U.S. military capabilities

The president spoke in the Grand Foyer of the White House, speaking with the aid of a teleprompter in measured tones

The president spoke in the Grand Foyer of the White House, speaking with the aid of a teleprompter in measured tones

Trump's made-for-TV tableau included Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Vice President Mike Pence

Trump’s made-for-TV tableau included Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Vice President Mike Pence

Tightly-scripted: Donald Trump stuck to the teleprompter version of his address to the nation about Iran

Tightly-scripted: Donald Trump stuck to the teleprompter version of his address to the nation about Iran

No questions: Donald Trump left without taking any questions from reporters who had been brought into the room before his speech

No questions: Donald Trump left without taking any questions from reporters who had been brought into the room before his speech

Television entrance: Donald Trump enters to address the nation in the aftermath of missile strikes by Iran on a U.S. base in Iraq

Television entrance: Donald Trump enters to address the nation in the aftermath of missile strikes by Iran on a U.S. base in Iraq

The president's audience-of-one was Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the iron-fisted theocrat who is the mortal enemy of Israel and the United States

The president’s audience-of-one was Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the iron-fisted theocrat who is the mortal enemy of Israel and the United States

His remarks, watched live around the world, came after Tehran’s armies rained missiles down on Iraqi military installations where American troops have been stationed for more than 16 years.

‘No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,’ the president said. ‘We suffered no casualties.’

Iranian state-run television claimed at least 20 U.S. servicemen and women were killed.

U.S. officials believe the missiles were deliberately fired into unpopulated areas, in what a senior official called a ‘heads-up bombing.’

The president spoke with the aid of tele-prompters in the Grand Foyer, the main entrance hall in the front of the White House.

He blasted Tehran’s ‘destructive and destabilizing behavior’ and said the days of Western patience ‘are over.’

Trump has long seen himself as a maverick loner on the world stage, unpredictable and unbothered by ruffling feathers overseas.

He boasts that his low approval ratings in foreign countries are an indication that he is focused on Americans’ welfare—not the priorities of real and nominal allies.

That approach could be tested as Iran and the U.S. creep toward what some, but not all, in the national security establishment see as an inevitable war.

The White House isn’t expecting one, the senior official said Wednesday: ‘This doesn’t have to end badly, and frankly right now we might be in the best position ever for diplomacy with Tehran.’

As he has in the past, the president trashed the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration along with Tehran and six other powers. He called the deal, which the administration already backed away from, ‘very defective’ noting that it ‘expires anyway.’

He called on other negotiating parties, including Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia – to ‘break away from the remnants of the Iran deal.

At the same time, Trump did not completely foreclose negotiation. He called for a ‘deal with Iran that makes the world a more peaceful and safer place.’

Trump, who spoke to reporters but had yet to speak directly to the nation since ordering the killing of Soleimani, called the Iranian general ‘the world’s top terrorist,’ and said he was ‘personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.’

‘Soleimani’s hands were drenched in both American and Iranian blood,’ Trump said. ‘He should have been terminated long ago. By removing Soleimani, we have sent a powerful message to terrorists: If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people,’ he added.

Trump announced that the U.S. would impose ‘powerful’ sanctions on the already heavily-sanctioned Iranian regime. But the White House did not immediately provide specifics. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was seen exiting the meeting Trump had with top military and security advisors moments before the speech.

‘The United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior,’ Trump said.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired on the Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq and Erbil International airport in the north in the early hours of Wednesday, but failed to kill a single US or Iraqi solider.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking on Iranian TV shortly after the missiles were launched, described the strikes as ‘a slap’ and said they ‘are not sufficient (for revenge)’ while vowing further action to kick US troops out of the region.

But foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the attack was now ‘concluded,’ praising Iran’s ‘proportionate’ response and adding: ‘We do not seek escalation or war.’

Trump tweeted late Tuesday to say ‘so far so good’ as American forces assessed the damage and casualties.

Iranian television had tried to claim that 80 ‘American terrorists’ were killed, but that figure was quickly rubbished by Iraqi and US officials.

Images showed several missiles had either failed to explode on impact or else missed their targets.  The remains of one was found near the town of Duhok, some 70 miles from Erbil air base, which was the intended target.

Tehran fired an ineffective missile strike at U.S. forces at Iraqi airb

Tehran fired an ineffective missile strike at U.S. forces at Iraqi air bases after promising brutal revenge for Trump’s drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani (pictured), the architect of terror attacks that have killed hundreds of American servicemen and women

Iran has fired 22 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops in a revenge attack for the U.S. drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani

Iran has fired 22 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops in a revenge attack for the U.S. drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani

The rockets hit Ain Asad (pictured) which houses US and coalition troops

The rockets hit Ain Asad (pictured) which houses US and coalition troops

The Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq that was visited by Donald Trump in December 2018 and the Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan were both struck by the missiles on Tuesday at about 5.20pm EST (1.20am local time)

It is thought Iran used Fatteh-110 and Qaim-1 ballistic missiles during the attack, which failed to kill any US or Iraqi troops (pictured, one of the missiles is launched in Iran)

It is thought Iran used Fatteh-110 and Qaim-1 ballistic missiles during the attack, which failed to kill any US or Iraqi troops (pictured, one of the missiles is launched in Iran)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Qais al-Khazali

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (left) said the attack it is ‘not enough’ for revenge against the US, before Iraqi militia commander Qais al-Khazali (right) vowed to exact his own revenge for the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis

Iraqi security forces clear away pieces of shrapnel from the Ain al-Asad airbase after it was struck by ballistic missiles fired by Iran as part of operation 'Martyr Soleimani'+

Iraqi security forces clear away pieces of shrapnel from the Ain al-Asad airbase after it was struck by ballistic missiles fired by Iran as part of operation ‘Martyr Soleimani’

Initial reports indicate at least 15 missiles were fired at two American bases in Iraq, though officials said early warning systems sounded alarms at the Ain al-Asad base (pictured) allowing troops to scramble for cover+49

Initial reports indicate at least 15 missiles were fired at two American bases in Iraq, though officials said early warning systems sounded alarms at the Ain al-Asad base (pictured) allowing troops to scramble for cover

A man holds shrapnel from a missile launched by Iran on U.S.-led coalition forces on the outskirts of Duhok, in northern Iraq 70 miles from Erbil, following Iranian missile strikes

A man holds shrapnel from a missile launched by Iran on U.S.-led coalition forces on the outskirts of Duhok, in northern Iraq 70 miles from Erbil, following Iranian missile strikes

Wreckage of a missile that was fired at Ain al-Asad military base in western Iraq but failed to explode on impact

Wreckage of a missile that was fired at Ain al-Asad military base in western Iraq but failed to explode on impact

US officials said early warning systems sounded alarms at the Ain al-Asad base, allowing troops to scramble for cover

US officials said early warning systems sounded alarms at the Ain al-Asad base, allowing troops to scramble for cover

Wreckage of an Iranian missile near Ain al-Asad

Wreckage of an Iranian missile near Ain al-Asad

Iraq said 17 missiles were fired at the Ain al-Asad base, two of which failed to explode (pictured, unexploded wreckage)

In an attempt to talk-up the impact of the strikes, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said they show ‘we don’t retreat in the face of America.’

‘If America has committed a crime… it should know that it will receive a decisive response,’ Rouhani said in a televised address. ‘If they are wise, they won’t take any other action at this juncture.’

It is thought Iran gave advanced warning of the strikes, after Iraq, Finland and Lithuania – which all had troops stationed at the bases which were targeted – all said they were informed in advance.

America said that ‘early warning systems’ detected the missile launches and sirens were sounded at the Asad base, allowing soldiers to seek shelter. It is not clear whether they were also informed by Iran.

Prominent analysts suggested Iran may have deliberately pulled its punches because they are fearful of the ‘disproportionate’ response threatened by Trump if US personnel were killed.

‘With the attacks, Tehran signalled its capacity and readiness to respond to US attacks, thus saving face, and yet they have been well targeted to avoid fatalities and thus avoid provoking Trump’s reaction,’ said Annalisa Perteghella of the Institute for International Political Studies in Milan.

President Donald Trump says 'all is well' and 'so far so good' as the damage and casualties continue to be assessed after Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops

President Donald Trump says ‘all is well’ and ‘so far so good’ as the damage and casualties continue to be assessed after Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops

Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif called the attacks 'self-defense' but said they did 'not seek escalation' but would defend itself against further aggression

 

Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif called the attacks ‘self-defense’ but said they did ‘not seek escalation’ but would defend itself against further aggression

Hours after the launch, a Ukrainian Airlines Boeing 737 caught fire crashed near Tehran killing all 177 passengers and crew – including 63 Canadian and three Britons – amid fears it could have been caught up in the attack.

The Ukrainian embassy in Tehran initially stated that the crash had been caused by an engine failure rather than terrorism or a missile attack, but later deleted that claim.

Iran has blamed technical failure and an engine fire for the crash, after early saying the pilot had lost control during an engine fire.

If it emerges that Iran did shoot down the plane – either accidentally or on purpose – then it is likely to prompt a global response that will escalate tensions in the region even further.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry said of those killed, 82 were Iranian, 63 Canadian, 11 Ukrainian, three British, with the remainder hailing from SwedenAfghanistan, and Germany.

The timing of the Iranian strikes – around 1.20am local time – occurred at the same time as the US drone strike which killed Soleimani.

Following the strikes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned any further strikes by America would be met with fresh attacks, and that any allied countries used as a base for such strikes would themselves become targets.

The Iraqi military said 22 missiles were fired in total – 17 at the Asad base, two of which failed to explode, and five more that struck Erbil International Airport. US officials put the total slightly lower at 15 – ten of which hit Asad, one which hit Erbil, four which failed in flight.

Iran said it had used Fatteh-110 ballistic missiles for the attack, though analysts said images of wreckage near the Aasd base also appears to show Qaim-1 ballistic missiles were used.

The Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq – visited by Trump in December 2018 – and Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan were struck by the missiles around 5.20pm EST Tuesday in an operation dubbed ‘Martyr Soleimani’ by Iran.

The Pentagon says the missiles were ‘clearly launched from Iran’ to target U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. A US official said there were no immediate reports of American casualties, though buildings were still being searched. Iraqi officials say there were no casualties among their forces either.

There are still fears for US forces in the region after Qais al-Khazali, a commander of Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, vowed to exact revenge for the killing of deputy-leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

‘The first Iranian response to the assassination of the martyr leader Soleimani took place,’ he tweeted. ‘Now is the time for the initial Iraqi response to the assassination of the martyr leader Muhandis.

‘And because the Iraqis are brave and zealous, their response will not be less than the size of the Iranian response, and this is a promise.’

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran had delivered a 'slap in the face' to American forces but added that missile strikes are 'not enough' and called for the US to be 'uprooted' from the region

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran had delivered a ‘slap in the face’ to American forces but added that missile strikes are ‘not enough’ and called for the US to be ‘uprooted’ from the region

The Ayatollah spoke in a televised address early Wednesday during which he praised a 'measured' strike against the US, which he said embodied the spirit of slain general Soleimani

The Ayatollah spoke in a televised address early Wednesday during which he praised a ‘measured’ strike against the US, which he said embodied the spirit of slain general Soleimani

The Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq and the Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan were both struck by the missiles on Tuesday at about 5.30pm (EST)

 

The Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq and the Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan were both struck by the missiles on Tuesday at about 5.30pm (EST)

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were spotted arriving at the White House soon after news of the strikes broke

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were spotted arriving at the White House soon after news of the strikes broke

Iraqi security forces and citizens gather to inspect the site where missiles fired by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps landed outside the Ain al-Asad airbase

Iraqi security forces and citizens gather to inspect the site where missiles fired by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps landed outside the Ain al-Asad airbase

Pieces of shrapnel are seen near the Ain al-Asad airbase after a missile strike by Iran

Pieces of shrapnel are seen near the Ain al-Asad airbase after a missile strike by Iran

Members of Peshmerga fighters stand guard in center of Erbil in the aftermath of Iran's launch of a number of missiles at bases in Iraq

Members of Peshmerga fighters stand guard in center of Erbil in the aftermath of Iran’s launch of a number of missiles at bases in Iraq

Members of Kurdistan's regional government attend a meeting to discuss security after Iranian missiles targeted Erbil International Airport early Wednesday

Members of Kurdistan’s regional government attend a meeting to discuss security after Iranian missiles targeted Erbil International Airport early Wednesday

Britain, Australia, France, Poland, Denmark and Finland have confirmed that none of their troops stationed in Iraq were hurt in the attack, while calling for an end to hostilities and a return to talks.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen vowed the EU will ‘spare no effort’ in trying to save the nuclear deal that Iran signed with President Obama and was ripped up by Trump, sparking the current tensions.

China and Russia, both key Iranian allies, also warned against escalating strikes with Vladimir Dzhabarov, lawmaker with Russia’s upper house of parliament, warning the conflict could easily lead to a nuclear war.

The Syrian government, another key ally of Iran, has expressed full solidarity with Iran, saying Tehran has the right to defend itself ‘in the face of American threats and attacks.’

The foreign ministry said in a statement Wednesday that Syria holds the ‘American regime responsible for all the repercussions due to its reckless policy and arrogant mentality.’

Meanwhile Turkey, which is a NATO member but also has ties to Iran in Syria, said its foreign minister will visit Iraq on Thursday as part of diplomatic efforts to ‘alleviate the escalated tension’ in the region.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which controls the country’s missile program, confirmed that they fired the rockets in retaliation for last week’s killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

They reported the operation’s name was ‘Martyr Soleimani’ and it took place just hours after the slain general’s funeral.

The rockets used in the attack, according to Iranian TV, were Fatteh-110 ballistic missiles, which have a range of 186 miles or 300km.

The Iranian air force has since deployed multiple fighter jets to patrol it airspace, according to reports – as Iran warned the U.S. and its allies in the region not to retaliate.

The Pentagon said it was still working to assess the damage.

Iranian missiles that blitzed Iraqi airbases can deliver a precision-guided 500lb warhead over a range of more than 180 miles

Two types of ballistic missiles were reportedly used to hit U.S. Military bases in Ain al-Asad in western Iraq and also around Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The majority of those used are believed to be the Fateh-110, which can travel 180 miles or 300km and have a payload of around 500lb.

Reports also suggest the Qiam-1 was also used, a short range ballistic missile produced by Iran which can travel 500 miles and carry 750lb warheads.

The Fateh-110 is an Iranian-designed, short-range, surface-to-surface ballistic missile that can be launched from any location.

While the Qiam-1 was specifically built to target U.S. bases in the Middle East, which have ‘encircled Iran’, according to Iranian sources.

When it was launched the Fateh-110 was described by Iranian defence minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami as ‘100-percent domestically made – agile, stealth, tactical (and) precision-guided’.

Both missiles are reported to have been fired from Tabriz and Kermanshah provinces in Iran.

‘In recent days and in response to Iranian threats and actions, the Department of Defense has taken all appropriate measures to safeguard our personnel and partners. These bases have been on high alert due to indications that the Iranian regime planned to attack our forces,’ a statement from the Pentagon read.

‘It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at al-Assad and Irbil. We are working on initial battle damage assessments.

‘As we evaluate the situation and our response, we will take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region.’

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces, reportedly said Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei was personally in the control center coordinating the attacks.

They also warned U.S. allies in the Middle East that they would face retaliation if America strikes back against any Iranian targets from their bases.

‘We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted,’ they said. It also threatened Israel.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were spotted arriving at the White House soon after news of the strikes broke.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday night that the missile strikes were an ‘act of war’ and said Trump had all the power he needed to act.

‘This is an act of war by any reasonable definition,’ Graham told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. ‘The President has all the authority he needs under Article II to respond.’

People stand near the wreckage after a Ukrainian plane carrying 177 passengers crashed near Imam Khomeini airport

People stand near the wreckage after a Ukrainian plane carrying 177 passengers crashed near Imam Khomeini airport

Rescue workers in protective suits gather up the bodies of passengers who were killed in the Boeing 737 crash in Iran today

Rescue workers in protective suits gather up the bodies of passengers who were killed in the Boeing 737 crash in Iran today

An aerial view of the crash site where rescuers searched the debris this morning with the cause of the crash still unclear

An aerial view of the crash site where rescuers searched the debris this morning with the cause of the crash still unclear

Mohammad Reza Kadkhoda-Zadeh (pictured), 40, has been named as the first British victim of the Ukrainian Airlines disaster

Mohammad Reza Kadkhoda-Zadeh (pictured), 40, has been named as the first British victim of the Ukrainian Airlines disaster

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted that the U.S., as well as the rest of the world, ‘cannot afford war’.

‘Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war,’ she tweeted.

After the strikes, Saeed Jalili – a former Iranian nuclear negotiator and foreign minister – posted a picture of the Islamic Republic’s flag on Twitter, appearing to mimic Trump who posted an American flag following the killing of Soleimani and others in the drone strike in Baghdad.

Ain al-Asad air base was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, and later saw American troops stationed there amid the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. It houses about 1,500 U.S. and coalition forces.

About 70 Norwegian troops also were on the air base but no injuries were reported, Brynjar Stordal, a spokesperson for the Norwegian Armed Forces said.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said on Tuesday it would ban U.S. carriers from operating in the airspace over Iraq, Iran, the Gulf of Oman and the waters between Iran and Saudi Arabia after the missile attack on U.S.-led forces.

Earlier on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the United States should anticipate retaliation from Iran over the killing in Iraq of Soleimani.

‘I think we should expect that they will retaliate in some way, shape or form,’ Esper told a news briefing at the Pentagon, adding that such retaliation could be through Iran-backed proxy groups outside of Iran or ‘by their own hand.’

‘We’re prepared for any contingency. And then we will respond appropriately to whatever they do.’

Trump had also earlier told reporters about the prospect of an Iranian attack: ‘We’re totally prepared.’

‘They’re going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly,’ he said from the Oval Office during a meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

Meanwhile, early reports of an attack at the al-Taji military base, just outside Baghdad, was later reported as a drill.

Local reports initially suggested that five rockets had struck the base after ‘shelter in place’ sirens were heard ringing out around the compound.

Sirens were also heard blaring out inside the U.S. consulate in Erbil, which was one of the bases struck in the missile attack.

Iran said the attack, dubbed Operation Martyr Soleimani, was launched hours after the funeral service for General Qassem Soleimani (pictured) - who was killed in a US drone strike - had finished

Iran said the attack, dubbed Operation Martyr Soleimani, was launched hours after the funeral service for General Qassem Soleimani (pictured) – who was killed in a US drone strike – had finished

Mourners attend funeral and burial of General Soleimani in his hometown in Kerman early Wednesday morning

Mourners attend funeral and burial of General Soleimani in his hometown in Kerman early Wednesday morning

People lower the coffin of Qassem Soleimani into his grave in the city of Kerman, central Iran

People lower the coffin of Qassem Soleimani into his grave in the city of Kerman, central Iran

Mourners rush to lay their hands on the coffin of General Soleimani before it is lowered into a grave in the cit of Kerman

Mourners rush to lay their hands on the coffin of General Soleimani before it is lowered into a grave in the cit of Kerman

Was the Ukrainian jet brought down by an Iranian missile – or were the 176 people on board killed by a mechanical failure? Here are the five key theories

Theory one: Mechanical failure or pilot error 

Iranian authorities have said that initial investigations point to either an engine failure – or a catastrophic pilot error.

The three-year-old Boeing 737 jet came down just three minutes after take-off from Imam Khomeini International Airport.

Iranian officials said the pilot had lost control of the Boeing jet after a fire struck one of the plane’s engines, but said the crew had not reported an emergency and did not say what caused the fire.

Footage of the crash appears to show the plane streaking downwards with a small blaze on the wing, near its jet engines (pictured above on the ground).

But critics have questioned the Iranian account, calling it the ‘fastest investigation in aviation history’ – and said the Boeing 737 has a largely outstanding safety record with no recent history of an engine failure of this kind.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has instructed prosecutors to open criminal proceedings – a clear signal that he is unsure about Iran’s version of events.

His Government also revealed the plane was inspected just two days ago.

Theory two: Accidentally hit by an Iranian missile

The plane came down shortly after Iran launched its missile attacks Iraq with tens of ballistic weapons fired from the rogue state.

Photographs of the downed Ukrainian airlines jet show that the fuselage appears to be peppered with shrapnel damage.

Experts have said that an engine fire or pilot error does not explain those holes (pictured).

Ilya Kusa, a Ukrainian international affairs expert, said amid the US-Iranian tensions and said: ‘It is difficult not to connect the plane crash with the US-Iran confrontation. The situation is very difficult. One must understand that this happened shortly after Iran’s missile attacks on US military facilities’.

Just hours before the crash, the US Federal Aviation Administration had banned US airlines from flying over Iran, Iraq and the waters of the Persian Gulf due to the Middle East crisis.

This was due to the possibility of missiles flying towards Iraq – and airlines are still skirting the region as they head to and from Asia.

Theory three: Jet was deliberately brought down by a missile 

+49

Video footage tweeted by the BBC‘s Iran correspondent, Ali Hashem, appeared to show the plane already burning in the sky before it crashed in a massive explosion.

It sparked speculation that the jet could have been shot down accidentally by nervous Iranian air defence soldiers, hours after Iran fired 22 ballistic missiles at US bases in retaliation for the killing of general Qassem Soleimani.

But there is a major question mark over whether Iran would shoot down a plane with so many of its own citizens on board.

Many of the world’s major airlines have stopped flying through or even near Iranian airspace as they cross the globe amid safety fears after US/Iran tensions boiled over in the past week.

Iran is a key ally of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which grabbed Crimea from Ukraine and has been involved in an on-off conflict with its neighbour since 2014.

Russia has denied shooting down the ill-fated MH17 jet five years ago – but experts say otherwise with three Russians arrested over the disaster.

 Theory four: An accidental drone strike

Experts have speculated that the Ukrainian aircraft could have collided with a military drone before crashing.

The drone may have smashed into the engine – or been sucked in – with the pilot unsighted because it was after dark.

This could cause an explosion and the fire seen as the plane hit the ground (pictured).

Experts said Iranian were in the air at the time – in case the US decided to fight back – and not always picked up by radar.

Russian military pilot Vladimir Popov said: ‘It could have been an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which are small in size and poorly visible on radars. A plane in a collision could get significant damage and even catch fire in the air.’

Theory five: Sabotage or a terror attack

Aviation experts have urged investigators to rule out whether the plane was brought down by terrorists or as an act of sabotage.

They say that while a flaming engine is highly unusual, the sudden loss of data communications from the plane is even more so.

This could be caused by a bomb, that blew up after the 737 took to the air, wrecking its systems.

An electronic jammer weapon that knocked out the plane’s controls could also explain it.

British expert Julian Bray said it ‘could be an altitude triggered device set to detonate during take off. Unusual that engine seen to be on fire before crash, points to catastrophic incident’ or being ‘deliberately brought down’.

He added that based on the footage pilot error looks ‘unlikely’.

Experts have said that if the black box is not recovered by Iranian security officials (pictured) from the wreckage it could point to it being a deliberate act.

After the crash the Ukrainian embassy in Tehran reported that the crash had been caused by an engine failure rather than terrorism – but this was later deleted on social media.

The strikes by Iran were a major escalation of tensions that have been rising steadily across the Mideast following months of threats and attacks after Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers.

Soleimani’s killing and Iran’s missile strikes also marked the first time in recent years that Washington and Tehran have attacked each other directly rather than through proxies in the region.

After the strikes, Saeed Jalili - a former Iranian nuclear negotiator - posted a picture of the Islamic Republic's flag on Twitter, appearing to mimic Trump who posted an American flag following the killing of Soleimani and others in the drone strike in Baghdad

After the strikes, Saeed Jalili – a former Iranian nuclear negotiator – posted a picture of the Islamic Republic’s flag on Twitter, appearing to mimic Trump who posted an American flag following the killing of Soleimani and others in the drone strike in Baghdad

It raised the chances of open conflict erupting between the two nations, which have been foes since the days immediately following Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The revenge attack came a mere few hours after crowds in Iran mourned Soleimani and as the U.S. continued to reinforce its own positions in the region and warned of an unspecified threat to shipping from Iran in the region’s waterways, crucial routes for global energy supplies.

U.S. embassies and consulates from Asia to Africa and Europe issued security alerts for Americans. The U.S. Air Force launched a drill with 52 fighter jets in Utah on Monday, just days after Trump threatened to hit 52 sites in Iran.

Meanwhile a stampede broke out Tuesday at Soleimani’s funeral in his hometown of Kerman and at least 56 people were killed and more than 200 were injured as thousands thronged the procession, Iranian news reports said.

There was no information about what set off the crush in the packed streets. Online videos showed only its aftermath: people lying apparently lifeless, their faces covered by clothing, emergency crews performing CPR on the fallen and onlookers wailing and crying out to God.

A procession in Tehran on Monday drew over one million people in the Iranian capital, crowding both main avenues and side streets.

Hossein Salami, Soleimani’s successor as leader of the Revolutionary Guard, addressed a crowd of supporters gathered at the coffin in a central square in Kernan.

He vowed to avenge Soleimani, saying: ‘We tell our enemies that we will retaliate but if they take another action we will set ablaze the places that they like and are passionate about’.

The al-Asad base for American and coalition troops (pictured above in December) was struck by missiles ‘clearly launched from Iran’, U.S. officials say

The Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan, which provides facilities and services to at least hundreds of coalition personnel and CIA operatives, was also hit in the missile attack+49

The Erbil base in Iraqi Kurdistan, which provides facilities and services to at least hundreds of coalition personnel and CIA operatives, was also hit in the missile attack

President Trump’s speech on Iran

As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Good morning. I’m pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.

Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.

No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well. I salute the incredible skill and courage of America’s men and women in uniform.

For far too long — all the way back to 1979, to be exact — nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen.

Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives. At my direction, the United States military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.

He trained terrorist armies, including Hezbollah, launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the region. He viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims.

Soleimani directed the recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq that badly wounded four service members and killed one American, and he orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.

Soleimani’s hands were drenched in both American and Iranian blood. He should have been terminated long ago. By removing Soleimani, we have sent a powerful message to terrorists: If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people.

As we continue to evaluate options in response to Iranian aggression, the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.

In recent months alone, Iran has seized ships in international waters, fired an unprovoked strike on Saudi Arabia, and shot down two U.S. drones.

Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying “thank you” to the United States, they chanted “death to America.” In fact, they chanted “death to America” the day the agreement was signed.

Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country, even recently killing 1,500 people at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran.

The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway, and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout. Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China to recognize this reality.

They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal -– or JCPOA –- and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place. We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper, and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential. Iran can be a great country.

Peace and stability cannot prevail in the Middle East as long as Iran continues to foment violence, unrest, hatred, and war. The civilized world must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime: Your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated any longer. It will not be allowed to go forward.

Today, I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process. Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accompliments [accomplishments] changed our strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East oil.

The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration, at a cost of $2.5 trillion. U.S. Armed Forces are stronger than ever before. Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast. Under construction are many hypersonic missiles.

The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it. We do not want to use it. American strength, both military and economic, is the best deterrent.

Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for so much death, including the mass beheadings of Christians, Muslims, and all who stood in his way. He was a monster. Al-Baghdadi was trying again to rebuild the ISIS caliphate, and failed.

Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters have been killed or captured during my administration. ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.

Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran: We want you to have a future and a great future — one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.

I want to thank you, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

– White House transcript

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7865171/Trump-address-world-Iran-Ayatollah-calls-missile-attack-not-revenge.html

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Progressive Interventionist Neoconservative Warmonger Senator John McCain — Let The NATO Nations Defend Themselves and Pay For Their Own Defense — Progressive Democrats and Republicans Have Given The American People The Warfare and Welfare State and Replaced The Constitutional American Republic With A Declining and Falling American Empire of The Two Party Tyranny — $20 Trillion in Debt and Unfunced Liabilities Exceeding $210 Trillion and Growing — A Day of Reckoning — United States Is Bankrupt — Steve Bannon and President Trump Know It — Videos

Posted on March 16, 2017. Filed under: Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”

~George Washington

 “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”

~Thomas Jefferson

Image result for quotes george washington on steer clear of permanent alliancesImage result for quotes george washington on alliances

Image result for NATO map

Image result for NATO list of countries and date joined

Image result for NATO list of countries and date joined

Image result for NATO list of countries and date joined

Image result for NATO list of countries and date joined

Image result for quotes george washington on alliances

Image result for quotes george washington on alliancesImage result for thomas jefferson on debt burdening future generationsImage result for thomas jefferson on debt burdening future generations

National Debt Clock

Image result

Sen McCain on Sen. Paul: “The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.” (C-SPAN)

Rand Paul ‘John McCain is proof we need term limits’

[youtube3=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGT4wCmKjas]

RAND PAUL VS. JOHN MCCAIN: RAND REACTS TO MCCAIN’S RUSSIAN AGENT CLAIM!!

Rand Paul: McCain ‘past his prime,’ maybe ‘unhinged’

Pence: Time For Allies To Pay Fair Share For NATO

Other NATO members need to pay their fair share?

Trump complains at NATO countries for not paying defense share

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Steve Bannon Lays Out His AMAZING Political Philosophy

Published on Nov 18, 2016

Speech by Stephen K. Bannon (Steve Bannon), Donald Trump’s senior strategic advisor and architect of his winning 2016 election. In this speech delivered to the Liberty Restoration Foundation, Bannon layed out the poliitical philosophy both he and Trump embrace, and which appealed to the American people in the election. It is conservative, perhaps explaining why the political liberal left has resorted to evidently incorrect allegations of antisemitism or racism to try to derail his appointment. Bannon was a Hollywood producer who invested in the Seinfeld comedy TV series, and later became the chair of the Brietbart News Service, expanding it into one of the leading news sources nationally, as an alternative to liberal media outlets that previously dominated US media. He joined the Trump campaign in June 2016, leading him to victory and the White House. Do you think that Bannon is racist, as the democrats have alleged?

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Uploaded on May 10, 2010

Huge budget deficits and record levels of national debt are getting a lot of attention, but this video explains that unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are Americas real red-ink challenge. More important, this CF&P mini-documentary reveals that deficits and debt are symptoms of the real problem of an excessive burden of government spending. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

III – Unfunded Liabilities

Rhett Talks – Is the United States Bankrupt?

Laurence Kotlikoff at MTSU November 5, 2015

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Unfunded Liabilities: James Cox of Silver Bullion interviews Professor Kotlikoff

The Actual Fiscal Gap Is Approximately $210 Trillion Dollars With All The Unfunded Liabilities, The Average Person, Every Man, Woman, And Child Owes……$666,666.667

8 years ago, when Obama took office, the Debt Clock was at 9 TRILLION Dollars.
Today, the US Debt Clock at almost 20 TRILLION Dollars.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

This is an 87% increase.

The actual Fiscal Gap is approximately $210 TRILLION Dollars.
with all the unfunded liabilities.

With the population of the US is over 315 MILLION People, this means that the average person, every man, woman, and child owes……$666,666.667

Where does this lead?
Look at Brazil, Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, Italy,……

Who ends up with the bill?
THE TAXPAYER!

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-actual-fiscal-gap-is-approximately-210-trillion-dollars-with-all-the-unfunded-liabilities-the-average-person-every-man-woman-and-child-owes-666666-667/

17 Nobel Laureates and 1200+ Economists Agree with Ben Carson re U.S. Fiscal Gap

I cover economics, personal, national, and international.

Michelle Lee, a fact checker with the Washington Post, just posted a long and, to my mind, highly political column. Her column, read carefully, undermines Presidential candidate Ben Carson’s absolutely correct claim, made in announcing his candidacy, that the true measure of U.S. fiscal debt is not the $13 trillion our government reports as its debt. Instead, our true debt is over $200 trillion. Obviously, most of this true debt has been kept off the books by our politicians.

In this column, I’m going to defend Dr. Carson’s statement. But I want to point out that I don’t know Dr. Carson. I have never spoken with him. And I don’t yet know enough about Dr. Carson’s positions to have a view about his overall suitability for President. I am, however, impressed that out of the gate he is talking about the right measure of our nation’s fiscal condition.

I spoke at length to Michelle Lee prior to her writing her column. She told me she was a fact checker. But when fact checking turns into disguised political commentary, there’s a problem. Fact checkers are supposed to check the facts with experts. When it comes to economics, the experts are PhD economists, not political organizations or people, without real economics training, parading as economists, both of which she quotes in undermining Dr. Carson’s credibility.

Now let me turn to the substance. In referring to $211 trillion in unfunded mandates, Dr. Carson was referencing my calculation of the U.S. fiscal gap. As I explained in a NY Times op ed, the U.S. fiscal gap is $210 trillion. So Dr. Carson was off by $1 trillion – by less than one half of one percent.

The fiscal gap is the present value of all projected future expenditures less the present value of all projected future taxes. The fiscal gap is calculated over the infinite horizon. But since future expenditures and taxes far off in the future are being discounted, their contribution to the fiscal gap is smaller the farther out one goes. The $210 trillion figure is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario projections, which I extended beyond their 75-year horizon.

Dr. Carson referenced $211 trillion as the size of “unfunded mandates.” Michelle Lee correctly points out that Dr. Carson was referencing the U.S. fiscal gap, not the present value of mandatory spending. What she knew (because I told her), but failed to say, is that the present value of mandatory spending is far larger than $210 trillion because the fiscal gap is a net, not a gross number.

Michelle Lee is not a PhD economist. Nor is Bruce Barlett, whose truly absurd statement about the debt being an asset she quotes. Yes, it’s an asset, but it’s an asset that young and future generations must pay off. Social Security benefits are also an asset to their recipients, but again, they must be paid off by people who aren’t getting the benefits.

Michelle Lee apparently takes Bruce Bartell’s views more seriously than the views of 17 Nobel Laureates in economics and over 1200 PhD economists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and lesser known universities and colleges around the country. Each of these economists has endorsed The Inform Act, a bi-partisan bill that requires the CBO, GAO, and OMB to do infinite horizon fiscal gap accounting on a routine and ongoing basis.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2015/05/13/17-nobel-laureates-and-1200-economists-agree-with-ben-carson-re-u-s-fiscal-gap/#46c13e954d17

National Debt

What You’ll Find

Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about the national debt. Learn about various measures of the national debt, contributing factors, consequences, and more. For example:


Citation Generator

Introductory Notes

In keeping with the practice of the Congressional Budget Office and other federal agencies that deal with budget policy, many of the federal debt, spending, and revenue figures in this research are expressed as a portion of gross domestic product (GDP). This is because debates about the size of government and the effects of its debt are frequently centered upon how much of a nation’s economy is consumed by government. This measure also accounts for population growth, some of the effects of inflation, and the relative capacity of government to service its debt.

However, the federal government does not have the entire U.S. economy at its disposal to service federal debt. The private sector, which produces the goods and services that comprise most of the economy, utilizes some of these resources, and local and state governments also consume some of the nation’s GDP. Hence, this research sometimes expresses federal debt as a portion of annual federal revenues. This is a more direct measure of the federal government’s capacity to service its debt.

In keeping with Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility, all graphs in this research show the full range of available data, and all facts are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others.

Click here for a video that summarizes some of the key facts in this research.

Quantifying the National Debt

* As of March 1, 2017, the official debt of the United States government is $19.9 trillion ($19,920,418,771,289).[1] This amounts to:

  • $61,365 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
  • $158,326 for every household in the U.S.[3]
  • 106% of the U.S. gross domestic product.[4]
  • 560% of annual federal revenues.[5]
Debt as a Portion of the Economy

[6]

* Publicly traded companies are legally required to account for “explicit” and “implicit” future obligations such as employee pensions and retirement benefits.[7] [8] [9] The federal budget, which is the “government’s primary financial planning and control tool,” is not bound by this rule.[10] [11]

* At the close of the federal government’s 2016 fiscal year (September 30, 2016), the federal government had roughly:

  • $8.5 trillion ($8,542,000,000,000) in liabilities that are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt, such as federal employee retirement benefits, accounts payable, and environmental/disposal liabilities.[12]
  • $29.0 trillion ($29,038,000,000,000) in obligations for current Social Security participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund.[13] [14]
  • $32.9 trillion ($32,900,000,000,000) in obligations for current Medicare participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll taxes, benefit taxes, premium payments, and assets of the Medicare trust fund.[15] [16]

* The figures above are determined in a manner that approximates how publicly traded companies are required to calculate their liabilities and obligations.[17] [18] [19] The obligations for Social Security and Medicare represent how much money must be immediately placed in interest-bearing investments to cover the projected shortfalls between dedicated revenues and expenditures for all current participants in these programs (both taxpayers and beneficiaries).[20] [21] [22]

* Combining the figures above with the national debt and subtracting the value of federal assets, the federal government had about $84.3 trillion ($84,306,000,000,000) in debts, liabilities, and unfunded obligations at the close of its 2016 fiscal year.[23]

* This $84.3 trillion shortfall is 93% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles and furniture.[24] [25]

* This shortfall equates to:

  • $260,382 for every person living in the U.S.[26]
  • $670,058 for every household in the U.S.[27]
  • 451% of the U.S. gross domestic product.[28]
  • 2,370% of annual federal revenues.[29]

* These figures do not account for the future costs implied by any current policies except those of the Social Security and Medicare programs.[30]

* These figures are based upon current federal law and “a wide range of complex assumptions” made by federal agencies.[31] Regarding this:

  • The Board of Social Security Trustees has stated that “significant uncertainty” surrounds the “best estimates” of future circumstances.”[32]
  • The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s financial projections “are highly uncertain, especially when looking out more than several decades.”
  • The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s long-term costs may be “substantially higher” than projected under current law. This is because current law includes the effects of the Affordable Care Act, which will cut Medicare prices for “many” healthcare services to “less than half of their level” under prior law. Per the Trustees:
Absent an unprecedented change in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services will fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. … Before such an outcome would occur, lawmakers would likely intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.[33]

Causes of the National Debt

Spending and Taxes

Current Expenditures and Receipts

† To measure the entirety of government expenditures and receipts, “total” instead of “current” figures are preferable, but such data (shown in the next graph) only extends back to 1960.[34]

‡ In 2015, receipts consisted of: 97% taxes; 2% premiums, settlements, donations, fines, fees, & penalties; 1% interest & dividends.[35]

[36]

* Data from the graph above:

Year Receipts
(Portion of GDP)
Expenditures
(Portion of GDP)
1930 3% 3%
1940 8% 9%
1950 16% 16%
1960 17% 17%
1970 17% 20%
1980 19% 22%
1990 18% 22%
2000 20% 19%
2010 16% 25%
2015 19% 22%

Total Expenditures and Receipts

[37]

* Data from the graph above:

Year Receipts
(Portion of GDP)
Expenditures
(Portion of GDP)
1960 18% 19%
1970 18% 21%
1980 19% 23%
1990 18% 22%
2000 20% 19%
2010 16% 27%
2015 19% 22%

Spending Distribution

Current Expenditures by Function

† Social programs include income security, healthcare, education, housing, and recreation.

‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans’ benefits.

§ General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments.

# Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space. (This excludes spending for infrastructure projects such as new highways, which is not accounted for in this graph.[38])

£ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, prisons, and immigration enforcement.

[39]

* Data from the graph above:

Category Portion of Total Federal Spending
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
Social Programs 21% 32% 45% 44% 54% 61% 63%
National Defense 53% 42% 26% 25% 19% 20% 19%
General Government & Debt Service 19% 18% 21% 25% 21% 13% 13%
Economic Affairs & Infrastructure 6% 7% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4%
Public Order & Safety 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Tax Distribution

Effective Tax Rates by Income

NOTE: This data does not account for 7% of federal revenues that could not be allocated to households by income group.

[40]

* Data from the graph above:

Average Effective Federal Tax Burdens (2013)
Income Group Household Income Tax Rate Taxes Paid
Lowest 20% $25,400 3.3% $838
Second 20% $47,400 8.4% $3,982
Middle 20% $69,700 12.8% $8,922
Fourth 20% $103,700 17.0% $17,629
Highest 20% $265,000 26.3% $69,695

* Breakdown of the highest 20%:

Income Group Household Income Tax Rate Taxes Paid
81st – 90th $147,100 20.7% $30,450
91st – 95th $201,400 23.0% $46,322
96th – 99th $326,800 26.3% $85,948
Top 1 % $1,571,600 34.0% $534,344

Consequences

* As detailed in publications of the Congressional Budget Office, the Brookings Institution, and Princeton University Press, the following are some potential consequences of unchecked government debt:

  • reduced “future national income and living standards.”[41] [42] [43]
  • “reductions in spending” on “government programs.”[44]
  • “higher marginal tax rates.”[45]
  • “higher inflation” that increases “the size of future budget deficits” and decreases the “the purchasing power” of citizens’ savings and income.”[46] [47]
  • restricted “ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or international crises.”[48]
  • “losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of federal debt.”[49]
  • increased “probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.”[50] [51]

* In 2012, the Journal of Economic Perspectives published a paper about the economic consequences of government debt. Using 2,000+ data points on national debt and economic growth in 20 advanced economies (such as the United States, France, and Japan) from 1800–2009, the authors found that countries with national debts above 90% of GDP averaged 34% less real annual economic growth than when their debts were below 90% of GDP.[52]

* The United States exceeded a debt/GDP level of 90% in the second quarter of 2010.[53]

* Per the textbook Microeconomics for Today:

GDP per capita provides a general index of a country’s standard of living. Countries with low GDP per capita and slow growth in GDP per capita are less able to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.[54]

* In 2013, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, published a working paper about the economic consequences of government debt. Using data on national debt and economic growth in 20 advanced economies from 1946-2009, the authors found that countries with national debts over 90% of GDP averaged:

  • 31% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 60% to 90% of GDP,
  • 29% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 30% to 60% of GDP,
  • and 48% less real annual economic growth than countries with debts from 0% to 30% of GDP.[55]

* The authors of the above-cited papers have engaged in a heated dispute about the results of their respective papers and the effects of government debt on economic growth. Facts about these issues can be found in the Just Facts Daily article, “Do large national debts harm economies?

Politics

Responsibility

* The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the powers to tax, spend, and pay the debts of the federal government. Legislation to carry out these functions must either be:

  • passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and approved by the President; or
  • passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and then passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress; or
  • passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and left unaddressed by the President for ten days.[56]

* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents,[57] economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.[58]


Current Policies

* In 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the debt that the U.S. government would accumulate under current federal policies.[59] The projection used the following assumptions:

  • Unemployment will incrementally decline from 6.8% in 2014 to 5.8% in 2018 and 5.3% in 2027, where it will remain thereafter.[60] (For reference, the average of the previous 40 years is 6.5%.[61])
  • GDP growth will incrementally decline from an average rate of 3.4% above the rate of inflation in 2015 to 1.9% in 2021 and remain constant thereafter.[62] (The average of the previous 40 years is 2.9%.[63])
  • Federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will incrementally increase from 17.4% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2024 and remain constant thereafter.[64] (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.[65])
  • Federal spending will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 23.6% in 2025 and 31.8% in 2040.[66] (The average of the previous 40 years is 20.5%.[67])
  • Payments for Medicare services will undergo scheduled reductions that would likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”[68] [69]

* Combining these projections with historical data yields the following results:

Revenues and Spending Under Current Policies

[70]

Debt Under Current Policies

† To measure the entirety of the national debt, it would be preferable to show “gross” debt instead of “publicly held” debt, but this data is not presented in this report. Nonetheless, it would make little difference because the excluded debt primarily resides in federal government trust funds that dwindle and become insolvent during the projection period.[71] Facts regarding why and how the federal government keeps its books in this manner are covered in the section of this research entitled “Government Accounting.”

[72]

* Per CBO, postponing action to stabilize the debt will:

  • punish younger generations of Americans, because most of the burden would fall on them.
  • reward older generations of Americans, because “they would partly or entirely avoid the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt.”
  • “substantially increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course.”[73] [74]

* The following Ph.D. economists and political scientists have claimed that the level of national debt during World War II is a good reason to not be overly concerned about the modern national debt:

  • Paul Davidson, editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and author of The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity:[75]
Rather than bankrupting the nation, this large growth in the national debt [during World War II] promoted a prosperous economy. By 1946, the average American household was living much better economically than in the prewar days. Moreover, the children of that Depression–World War II generation were not burdened by having to pay off what then was considered a huge national debt. Instead, for the next quarter century, the economy continued on a path of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity….[76]
  • Douglas J. Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College:[77]
Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP—nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s.[78]
  • Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Princeton University professor:[79]
Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II.
Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the U.S. included, have had in the past, and dealt with.[80]

* In the 40 years that followed the end of World War II (1946–1985):

  • federal spending as a percent of GDP averaged 42% lower than the last year of the war.[81]
  • publicly held debt as a percent of GDP decreased by 72 percentage points.[82]

* In 2010, around the time when the statements above were written, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under current policy and a sustained economic recovery over the next 40 years:

  • federal spending as a percent of GDP will average over 78% higher than in the four decades that followed World War II.[83]
  • publicly held debt as a percent of GDP will rise by 277 percentage points.[84]

Alternative Policies

* As alternatives to the CBO’s current policy projections detailed above, the CBO also ran projections for scenarios such as these:

1) Current law:[85]

  • Federal revenues will incrementally increase from 17.6% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2020, 19.9% in 2044, and 23.5% in 2084.[86] [87] At this point, federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will be 35% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.[88]
  • Federal spending on all government functions will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 21.5% in 2020, and 26.0% in 2040.[89] At this point, spending will be 27% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.[90]
  • Payments for Medicare services will undergo reductions that will likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”[91] [92]

2) Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2014 budget resolution, called the “The Path to Prosperity”:[93]

  • Starting in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries will have a choice to enroll in private plans paid for by Medicare or remain in the traditional Medicare program.[94] Also starting in 2024, the eligibility age for Medicare benefits will incrementally rise to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age.[95] Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicare spending will be 0.5% lower in 2016, 2% lower in 2020, and 4% lower in 2024.[96]
  • Federal Medicaid spending will be converted to an “allotment that each state could tailor to meet its needs, indexed for inflation and population growth.”[97] The expansion of Medicaid manadated by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) will be repealed.[98] Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicaid spending will be 9% lower in 2016, 19% lower in 2020, and 24% lower in 2024.[99]
  • All federal spending related to Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will be repealed.[100]
  • Spending on all government functions except for interest payments on the national debt will incrementally decline from 18.9% of GDP in 2015 to 16% in 2025 before increasing to 16.4% in 2035.[101] (The average of the previous 40 years is 18.3%).[102]
  • Revenues will increase from 18.2% of GDP in 2015 to 18.4% in 2025, 19% in 2032 and stay constant thereafter.[103] (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.[104])

* Combining historical data on the national debt with CBO’s projections for current policy, current law, and the Ryan plan yields the following results:

Debt Under Different Policies

[105] [106]


Public Opinion

* A poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal in February 2011 found that:

  • 80% of Americans are concerned “a great deal” or “quite a bit” about federal budget deficits and the national debt.
  • if the deficit cannot be eliminated by cutting wasteful spending, 35% of Americans prefer to cut important programs while 33% prefer to raise taxes.
  • 22% think cuts in Social Security spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 49% do not, and 29% have no opinion or are not sure.
  • 18% think cuts in Medicare spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 54% do not, and 28% have no opinion or are not sure.[107]

* Other than interest on the national debt, most of the long-term growth in federal spending (as a percent of GDP) under the CBO’s current policy and current law scenarios stems from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) subsidies.[108]

* A poll conducted in November 2010 by the Associated Press and CNBC found that:

  • 85% of Americans are worried that the national debt “will harm future generations.”
  • 56% think “the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade.”
  • when asked to choose between two options to balance the budget, 59% prefer to cut unspecified government services, while 30% prefer to raise unspecified taxes.[109]

* A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Associated Press and Ipsos found that:

  • 70% of Americans were worried about the size of the federal deficit.
  • 35% were willing to cut government spending.
  • 18% were willing to raise taxes.
  • 1% were willing to cut government spending and raise taxes.[110]

Congresses

* During the first session of the 113th Congress (January–December 2013), U.S. Representatives and Senators introduced 168 bills that would have reduced spending and 828 bills that would have raised spending.[111]

* The table below quantifies the costs and savings of these bills by political party. This data is provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:

Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored

in 2013 by Typical Congressman (in Billions)

Increases Decreases Net Agenda
House Democrats $407 $10 $397
Senate Democrats $22 $3 $18
House Republicans $9 $91 -$83
Senate Republicans $6 $165 -$159

[112] [113]

* Click here to look up any member of Congress and see the annual costs or savings from the legislation he or she has sponsored or cosponsored.

* The table below quantifies the net agendas of the political parties in previous Congresses:

Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored in the First

Sessions of Congress by Typical Congressman (in Billions)

2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999
House Democrats $497 $500 $547 $547 $402 $262 $34
Senate Democrats $24 $134 $59 $52 $174 $88 $15
House Republicans -$130 -$45 $7 $12 $31 $20 -$5
Senate Republicans -$239 $51 $7 $11 $26 $19 -$324
NOTE: Data not adjusted for inflation.

[114]


Presidents

* In February 2001, Republican President George W. Bush stated:

Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.[115]

* From the time that Congress enacted Bush’s first major economic proposal (June 7, 2001[116]) until the time that he left office (January 20, 2009), the national debt rose from 53% of GDP to 74%, or an average of 2.7 percentage points per year.[117]

* During eight years in office, President Bush vetoed 12 bills, four of which were overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval.[118] These bills were projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the deficit by $26 billion during 2008–2022.[119]


* In February 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama stated:

I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay—and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.[120]

* From the time that Congress enacted Obama’s first major economic proposal (February 17, 2009[121]) until September 30, 2016, the national debt rose from 74% of GDP to 105%, or an average of 4.0 percentage points per year.[122]

* As of November 4, 2016, President Obama has vetoed twelve bills, one of which has been overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval.[123] This bill is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to “have no significant effect on the federal budget.”[124]

Government Accounting

Trust Funds and the Two Main Categories of Debt

* Some federal programs (such as Social Security) have “trust funds” that are legally separated from the rest of the federal government.[125]

* When these programs spend less than the federal government allocates to them, their surpluses are loaned to the federal government. This creates a legal obligation for the federal government to pay money and interest to these programs, thus adding to the national debt.[126] [127] [128] [129] [130]

* The federal government divides the national debt into two main categories:[131] [132]

  1. Money that it owes to federal entities such as the Social Security program.
  2. Money that it owes to non-federal entities such as individuals, corporations, local governments, and foreign governments.[133] Also, money owed to the Federal Reserve is classified under this category, even though the Federal Reserve is a federal entity.[134] [135]

NOTE: Just Facts has identified numerous instances in which politicians and journalists have used terms that technically refer to the overall national debt, when in fact, they are only referring to a portion of it. In order to clear up some of the confusion this has created, below are common terms for the national debt categorized by their proper meanings:

  • Overall national debt: gross debt, federal debt, public debt[136]
  • Portion of the national debt owed to federal entities: debt held by government accounts, government-held debt, intragovernmental holdings[137] [138] [139]
  • Portion of the national debt owed to non-federal entities: debt held by the public, publicly held debt[140][141]

* On September 30, 2016, the national debt consisted of:

  • $5.4 trillion owed to federal entities
  • $14.2 trillion owed to non-federal entities
  • $19.6 trillion owed in total[142]

* The federal law that governs the repayment of the national debt draws no distinction between the debt owed to federal and non-federal entities. Both must be repaid with interest.[143]

* The White House Office,[144] [145] Congressional Budget Office,[146] and other federal agencies[147] sometimes exclude the debt owed to federal entities in their reckonings of the national debt because this portion of the debt “represents internal transactions of the government and thus has no effect on credit markets.”

* Federal programs to which this money is owed, such as Social Security and Medicare, include this money and the interest it generates in their assets and financial projections.[148] [149] [150]

* In the 2000 presidential race, the Gore-Liebermann campaign released a 192-page economic plan that contains over 150 uses of the word “debt.” In none of these instances does the plan mention or account for any of the debt owed to federal entities.[151] The same plan includes the debt owed to federal entities in the assets of the Social Security and Medicare programs.[152]


“Deficits” and “Surpluses”

* During the federal government’s 2010 fiscal year (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010[153]), the national debt rose from $12.0 trillion to $13.6 trillion, thus increasing by $1.6 trillion.[154]

* The White House,[155] USA Today,[156] Reuters,[157] and other government and media entities reported that the 2010 federal “deficit” was $1.3 trillion.

* The difference between the national debt increase of $1.6 trillion and the reported deficit of $1.3 trillion is attributable to the following accounting practices:

  • When calculating the reported deficit, the federal government merges the finances of all federal programs into what is called the “unified budget.” Hence, the deficit does not account for the intergovernmental debt that arises when programs such as Social Security loan their surpluses to the federal government.[158]
  • When the federal government lays out money for programs such as TARP and student loans, the outgo is not fully counted in the deficit. The deficit reflects only what the government expects to lose or gain on these loans.[159] [160]

* PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times to “help you find the truth in politics,”[161] has stated that there were “several years of budget surpluses” during Bill Clinton’s presidency. This same article cites the rise in “national debt” during the tenure of George W. Bush.[162]

* Using the same criterion PolitiFact applied to Bush’s presidency (change in gross national debt), the national debt rose every year of Clinton’s presidency:

Year National Debt on Inauguration Date†

(billions)

1993 $4,188
1994 $4,501
1995 $4,797
1996 $4,988
1997 $5,310
1998 $5,496
1999 $5,624
2000 $5,706
2001 $5,728
† NOTE: PolitiFact used the inauguration date for its debt baseline.

The national debt also rose every fiscal year of Clinton’s presidency.

[163] [164]

Ownership

* As of September 30, 2016, the national debt consists of:

Amount Owed To: Portion of Total
$14.2 trillion owed to non-federal entities (i.e., publicly held debt) 72%
$5.4 trillion owed to federal entities (i.e., intragovernmental debt) 28%

[165]


Debt Owed to Non-Federal Entities

* Ownership of publicly held debt as of September 30, 2016:

Debt Owed to Non-Federal Entities

* Data from the chart above:

Entities Amount (billions) Portion of Total
Foreign & International $6,148 45%
Federal Reserve[166] $2,462 18%
Other Investors $1,343 10%
Mutual Funds $1,315 10%
State & Local Governments $687 5%
Banks & Savings Institutions $547 4%
Private Pension Funds $540 4%
Insurance Companies $297 2%
U.S. Savings Bonds $172 1%
State and Local Government Pension Funds $164 1%

[167]


Debt Owed to Foreign Entities

* Per the White House Office of Management and Budget (2016):

During most of American history, the Federal debt was held almost entirely by individuals and institutions within the United States. In the late 1960s, foreign holdings were just over $10 billion, less than 5 percent of the total Federal debt held by the public. Foreign holdings began to grow significantly starting in the 1970s and now represent almost half of outstanding [publicly held] debt.[168]

* Ownership of U.S. government debt by foreign creditors as of August 31, 2016:

Debt Owed to Foreign Entities

* Data from the chart above:

Country Amount (billions) Portion of Total
China, Mainland $1,185 19%
Japan $1,144 18%
Ireland $266 4%
Cayman Islands $264 4%
Brazil $256 4%
Switzerland $238 4%
Luxembourg $220 4%
United Kingdom $205 3%
Hong Kong $192 3%
Taiwan $190 3%
Others $2,037 33%
Total $6,196 100%

[169]

* Foreign purchases of U.S. government debt increase the demand for this debt, thus putting downward pressure on U.S. interest rates. Conversely, foreign sales of U.S. government debt place upward pressure on U.S. interest rates.[170] [171]

* Per a 2008 Congressional Research Service report, a “potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly” sell its holding of U.S. government debt. Possible effects could include:

  • “a more general financial reaction (or panic), in which all foreigners responded by reducing their holdings of U.S. assets”;
  • “a sudden and large depreciation in the value of the dollar”;
  • “a sudden and large increase in U.S. interest rates”;
  • a stock market fall; and/or
  • “a recession.”[172]

* The same report states:

The likelihood that China would suddenly reduce its holdings of U.S. securities is questionable because it is unlikely that doing so would be in China’s economic interests. First, a large sell-off of China’s U.S. holdings could diminish the value of these securities in international markets…. Second, such a move would diminish U.S. demand for Chinese imports…. A sharp reduction of U.S. imports from China could have a significant impact on China’s economy….[173]

* During a visit to China in February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

By continuing to support American Treasury instruments [i.e., buy U.S. government debt] the Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. … We have to incur more debt. It would not be in China’s interest if we were unable to get our economy moving again. … The U.S. needs the investment in Treasury bonds to shore up its economy to continue to buy Chinese products.[174]

* In August 2007 during a currency dispute between the U.S. and China, two leading officials of Chinese Communist Party bodies suggested that China use the threat of selling U.S. debt as a “bargaining chip.”[175]

* In February 2009 during a dispute over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a Chinese general made the following statements in the state-run magazine Outlook Weekly:

Our retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we should adopt a strategic package of counterpunches covering politics, military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms and root cause of this disease. … [W]e could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U.S. government bonds.[176]

* One month later while appearing before China’s parliament, the head of China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange said:

the U.S. Treasury market is important to us. … This is purely market-driven investment behavior. I would hope not to see this matter politicized.[177]

Debt Owed to Federal Entities

* Ownership of intergovernmental debt as of September 30, 2016:

Debt Owed to Federal Entities

* Data from the chart above:

Funds Amount (billions) Portion of Total
Social Security $2,843 53%
Civil Service Retirement and Disability $874 16%
Military Retirement $591 11%
Medicare $256 5%
Department of Defense Retiree Healthcare $213 4%
Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits $51 1%
Other $572 11%

[178]

Media

Budget Cuts

* In April 2011, journalists reported on a $38 billion federal budget cut agreement with the following headlines and phraseology:

  • “New Cuts Detailed in Agreement for $38 Billion in Reductions”; “deep budget cuts in programs for the poor, law enforcement, the environment and civic projects” – Los Angeles Times[179]
  • “Congress Sends Budget Cut Bill to Obama”; “cutting a record $38 billion from domestic spending” – Associated Press[180]
  • “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown”; “Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats….” – New York Times[181]

* None of these articles reported that this figure of $38 billion in cuts was primarily relative to a portion of the budget called “discretionary non-emergency appropriations.”[182] Relative to the entire federal budget, this cut left a projected spending increase of $135 billion from 2010 to 2011. This equates to an inflation-adjusted increase of $49 billion or 0.1 percentage points of GDP:[183]

Federal Outlays

[184]

* None of the articles quoted above contains a budget-wide frame of reference for the cuts. A spending reduction of $38 billion equates to 1.0% of the estimated 2011 budget or 2.7% of the projected deficit:

Budget Cut

[185]


Bush Tax Cuts

* In February 2010, Fareed Zakaria of CNN stated:

Now, please understand that the Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.[186]

* In 2010, the Bush tax cuts lowered federal revenues by about $283 billion.[187] [188] This was equivalent to 8% of the federal budget or 22% of the deficit.[189]

* Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Most parameters of the tax code are not indexed for real income growth, and some are not indexed for inflation.” Thus, if tax cuts are not periodically implemented, average federal tax rates “increase in the long run.”[190]

* In 2000, the year before the first Bush tax cuts were passed,[191] the federal government collected revenues equal to 20.4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level in the history of the United States.[192] Over the previous 30 years, federal revenues averaged 18.3% of GDP.[193]

* In 2000, the stock market “dot.com” bubble burst,[194] the NASDAQ lost 39% of its value,[195] and profits for nonfinancial corporations fell by 18%.[196] In the first quarter of 2001, the nation’s GDP contracted and a recession began.[197] [198]

* In June 2001 and May 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed laws that implemented various tax cuts.[199] [200]

* After the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, federal revenues were 17.8% of GDP in 2005, 18.5% in 2006, and 18.6% in 2007.[201] Average federal revenues for the 30 years preceding the Bush tax cuts were 18.4%.[202]

* The Great Recession began in December 2007,[203] and federal revenues declined to 17.7% of GDP in 2008.[204]

* In February 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed a law that implemented various tax cuts.[205]

* Federal revenues declined to 15.7% of GDP in 2009 and 16.4% in 2010.[206]

* Federal spending rose from 21.0% of GDP in 2007 to 26.5% in 2010.[207] Average federal spending for the 30 years preceding the Great Recession was 21.8%.[208]


The “Do Nothing” Plan

* In April 2011, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post posted a graph of spending and revenue projections based upon CBO’s “current law” scenario and wrote that it:

shows what happens if we do … nothing. The answer, as you can see, is that the budget comes roughly into balance.[209]

* Klein’s graph and commentary omitted the interest and outcome of the national debt under this plan.[210] In the “do nothing” scenario, outlays were projected to exceed revenues every year through 2084, and the publicly held debt was projected to increase from 62% of GDP in 2010, to 74% in 2030, 90% in 2050, and 113% in 2084.[211]

* In the same commentary, Klein wrote that the “current law” scenario is “a pretty good plan” that contains:

a balanced mix of revenues, through returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels and implementing the taxes in the Affordable Care Act, and program cuts … in Medicare….[212]

* Under this scenario:

  • Certain elements of the tax code are not indexed for inflation or wage growth. Consequently, taxpayers are shifted over time into higher tax brackets.
  • According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 revenues “reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history.”
  • Revenues as a portion of GDP continue climbing through 2084, rising 69% higher than the average of the past 40 years and 47% higher than ever recorded in the history of the United States.[213] [214]
  • As a portion of GDP, federal spending without interest on the national debt rises by 2084 to 68% higher than the average of the past 40 years.[215]

Context

* Without mentioning the role of Congress in taxes, spending, or the national debt,[216] [217] PolitiFact (in the same article cited above) wrote that the national debt increased by $5.73 trillion “under” George W. Bush whereas there were budget surpluses “at the end of the Clinton administration.”[218]

* Below are the fluctuations in national debt organized by the tenures of recent presidents and congressional majorities:

Political Power

Dates

Average Annual Change in National Debt

(Percentage Points of GDP)

Bill Clinton with Democratic House and Senate 1/20/93 – 1/4/95 0.9
Bill Clinton with Republican House and Senate 1/4/95 – 1/19/01 -1.6
George W. Bush with Republican House and Senate 1/19/01 – 6/6/01, 11/12/02 – 1/4/07 0.8
George W. Bush with Republican House and Democratic Senate 6/6/01 – 11/12/02 2.3
George W. Bush with Democratic House and Senate 1/4/07 – 1/20/09 6.5
Barack Obama with Democratic House and Senate 1/20/09 – 1/4/11 9.3
Barack Obama with Republican House and Democratic Senate 1/5/11 – 1/6/15 1.9

[219]

* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to: legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents,[220] economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.[221]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

People Peace Doves vs. Politician War Hawks– Bye Bye Birdie — Obama’s Secret Sincere Syria Weapon? — War, Eve of Destruction, Where Have All The Flowers Gone? — Videos

Posted on September 8, 2013. Filed under: Airplanes, American History, Ammunition, Blogroll, Bomb, Catholic Church, College, Communications, Constitution, Coptic Christian, Crime, Drones, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Rifles, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Transportation, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

peace-white-dove

hawkdoves-hawks

Bye Bye Birdie HONESTLY SINCERE 1963 Jesse Pearson Ann Margret

American People Making It Clear To THEIR REPRESENTATIVES They Do NOT Want War With Syria!

The Truth About War With Syria

Americans Oppose US Intervention In Syria But…

Why Americans are Against War on Syria

What do Americans think about War with Syria

Syria: Obama Joins Al-Qaeda…

Syria: Iraq Part Deux…

Screw the Economy!!! We’re Going to WAR!!!!

“US out of the Middle East”: anti-war protests gain momentum

There’s no public support for a Syrian war

Poll: majority of French oppose military intervention in Syria

Ann Coulter Syria Shows ‘You Cannot Trust Democrats to Be Commander in Chief’

Obama Talks Syria With McCain, Graham at WH

[youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAIoUREM2X8]

Bill Kristol: Obama Gave ‘Hawks’ Like McCain and Graham an Opening

Chris Wallace: Full Rand Paul Interview on Fox News – Congress Authorize Strike on Syria? – 9/8/13

Crisis in Syria Debated on the Fox News Sunday Panel – Chris Wallace – 9- 8-13

Ann-Margret BYE BYE BIRDIE title song

War –  Edwin Starr

Barry McGuire – Eve of Destruction

Pete Seeger: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Obama’s Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel

Bob Dreyfuss

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.

By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.

Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Item for consideration: a new column by the Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the chief think tank of the Israel lobby. Andrew Tabler headlines his piece: “Attacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran.” In it, he says:

At first glance, the festering Syria crisis seems bad news for diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. In actuality, however, achieving U.S. objectives in the Syria crisis is an opportunity to pressure Iran into making hard choices not only in Syria, but regarding its nuclear program as well. More U.S. involvement to achieve its objectives in Syria will inevitably run counter to Tehran’s interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assad’s calculus and forcing him to “step aside” at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.

Many in U.S. policymaking circles have viewed containing swelling Iranian influence in Syria and preventing Iran from going nuclear as two distinct policy discussions, as the Obama Administration only has so much “bandwidth” to deal with Middle East threats. But the recent deepening of cooperation between Tehran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, combined with their public acknowledgement of these activities, indicates that they themselves see these activities as furthering the efficacy of the “resistance axis.”

Like every alliance, its members will only make hard policy choices if the costs of its current policies far outweigh the benefits. U.S. strikes on the Assad regime, if properly calibrated as part of an overall plan to degrade the regime, would force Tehran to become more involved in Syria in order to rescue its stalwart ally. This would be costly for Iran financially, militarily and politically. Those costs would make the Iranian regime and its people reassess aspirations to go nuclear.

Needless to say, such a strategy is bound to be counterproductive, since—by slamming Syria, never mind toppling Assad—Washington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, who’ll be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.

In fact, both Russia and Iran have signaled recently, in the wake of Syria’s obvious deployment and use of sarin gas and other deadly weapons that they might be getting ready to join the rest of the world in condemning Syria’s chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia “Geneva II” peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhani’s new administration in Tehran is softening its tone on Syria, and it reports that the new Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has acknowledged the Syria has erred, saying: “We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, while issuing scathing denunciations of the coming U.S. attack on Syria, has dropped broad hints that he might be willing to join with other nations if and when the United Nations weapons team concludes that Assad used nerve gas, suggesting that Russia might not block a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. In his much-reported interview with the Associated Press, Putin insisted on waiting for the UN report:

“If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council. And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”

Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

But a change in tone on the part of Russia and Iran—the latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occurs—won’t mean a thing if the object of war with Syria is to send a message to Iran. As Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for Bloomberg, says, for Israel it’s all about Iran:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahu’s perspective, Israel isn’t unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.

Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syria’s primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obama’s red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple: “If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.”

In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry—now the administration’s über-hawk—repeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:

“The fact is that if we act and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here.”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176040/obamas-syria-war-really-about-iran-and-israel#

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Obama’s Red Lines — Videos

Who used chemical weapons in Syria? Syrian Rebels (FSA) or Syrian Regime (SAA) — American People Do Not Want To Take Sides in Syrian Civil War — Videos

Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Obama Sending Military Support To Syrian Rebels Including Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda connected) — Neocon Warmonger McCain Approves — All In For World War 3 — Videos

Launching World War 3 with The Missiles of September — Videos

Who Wants World War 3 To Start in Syria? The Warmongers Obama and McCain — Not The American People! — Videos

Muslim Brotherhood Massive Attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt — Silence From President Obama Who Supports Muslim Brotherhood — Muslim Ethnic Cleansing of Coptic Christians — Videos

Obama’s Siding With Muslim Brotherhood Not Popular in Egypt or in The United States — Videos

Muslim Brotherhood in America — Videos

Jeremy Salt on Syria — Videos

A History of Syria — Videos

The Truth About War With Syria — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who Wants World War 3 To Start in Syria? The Warmongers Obama and McCain — Not The American People! — Videos

Posted on August 26, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Coptic Christian, Crime, Diasters, Dirty Bomb, Energy, Federal Government, history, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Narcissism, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Sunni, Talk Radio, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

~Aeschylus

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”

~George Washington, 1st President of the United States, Farewell Address

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”

~Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

~John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States (1825-29)

Obama Warns Syria’s Assad Chemical Weapons A ‘RED Line’

‘Poison Gas’ Claims in Syria Crossing Obama’s Red Line?

Syria Chemical attack claims reignites Obama’s ‘Red Line’ intervention in Syria Aug 21, 2013

Jon Stewart harnesses of Obama about the Red Line from Syria

 

Chemical Weapon Use In Syria – Special Report All Star Panel

 

‘US fixing intelligence around Syria as unsure who’s behind chemical attack’

Too Little Too Late UN Inspectors Allowed to Visit Syria

Did John Kerry Orchestrate The Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria?

Syrian Girl Clears The Air on Chemical Attack in Syria

 

UPDATE: False Flag! World War 3 is upon us! (Expect more false flags soon!)

WW3 UPDATE – West Hell Bent On War Despite Syria Opening “Chemical Attack” Site To Inspectors

World War 3 : Iran warns of War, threatens U.S. as Warships draw close to Syria (Aug 24, 2013)

URGENT: U.S Green Light For Attack On Syria and World War 3

US strengthens naval force off Syrian coast

Did Syria Use Chemical Weapons on Its People?

Chemical expert breaks down attack in Syria

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Poison Gas Attack In Syria

Syria : Chemical attack claims reignites Obama’s ‘Red Line’ intervention in Syria (Aug 21, 2013)

Ramp Up to Syrian Invasion Hits DEFCON 3

Syria: Obama Admin Tells Congress ‘We’ll Inform You What We Decide’ to Wage War

Toxic Warfare: Rebels caught with sarin gas amid Syria arms supply scandal

TOP SECRET – ( RED-ALERT-WW3) Russia,China, Iran Send 90000 Troops to Syria 12 Warships

Syria Polls Find Most Americans Are Wary Of Intervention

By JENNIFER AGIESTA 08/27/13

As the U.S. weighs a response to Syria, recent polling has shown Americans largely opposed to military action and few paying close attention to the ongoing conflict. But that could change with the Syrian government’s use of what the Obama administration says were chemical weapons.

No polling has been conducted on the public’s views of Syria since that government was accused of using chemical weapons. But the trend lines against military action have been clear:

_ Seventy percent told Pew Research Center pollsters in June that they opposed sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria. That poll was conducted around the time the Obama administration announced it would be providing military aid to the anti-government forces.

_ An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier in June showed that two-thirds of Americans preferred that the U.S. provide only humanitarian assistance or take no action, compared with just a quarter who favored either providing arms or taking military action.

_ A Gallup survey in May found 68 percent thought the U.S. should not intervene militarily to end the conflict should economic and diplomatic efforts to end it fail.

Even with that consensus, a Washington Post/ABC News poll in December suggested that the government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people could change public opinion. In that poll, just 17 percent thought the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict as it was at the time, but 63 percent said they would support military intervention if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people.

The Pew Research Center has tracked public attention to news about the conflict in Syria since May 2011, and has consistently found most Americans are tuned out. Each time they’ve asked, a majority said they were not following closely.

So far, few have said they think the U.S. has a responsibility to intervene in Syria. A June CBS News/New York Times poll found just 28 percent said the U.S. had a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria, while 61 percent said it did not.

While the fighting in Syria has stretched on and escalated, Americans’ views on the U.S. duty to act have changed little. Several news organizations have asked the same question about Syria, and a February 2012 CNN/ORC International poll was the first, finding just 25 percent thought the U.S. had a duty to act. That sense of responsibility peaked in May 2012 at 33 percent.

Since the end of the Cold War, Americans have felt an obligation to get involved in just a few conflicts that did not directly involve the U.S. – about half said the nation had a duty to intervene in Somalia in 1993 and Darfur in the mid-2000s, and most said the U.S. had a responsibility to act in Kosovo in 1999.

The pattern with Syria is similar to the public’s long-standing skepticism about U.S. involvement in the Bosnian war in the mid-1990s. CBS News and The New York Times tracked public opinion on the fighting between Serbs and Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia, and from 1993 through 1995, regardless of the intensity of the conflict, those who felt no responsibility to act outnumbered those who did.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-poll_n_3822101.html

 

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days – just as Syria’s civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans’ resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.

The results – and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June – suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad’s regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some foreign and U.S. officials – notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 – have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week’s poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama’s caution.

“The United States has become too much of the world’s policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours,” Kohls said in an interview. “I don’t think we ought to” intervene in Syria.

Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.

CROSSING THE ‘RED LINE’

Obama has called the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Wednesday “an event of great concern” and directed U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the allegations of chemical use as he weighs potential responses.

The president met with his national security advisers on Saturday but U.S. officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.

U.S. defense officials, meanwhile, have repositioned naval forces in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option for a missile strike on Assad’s regime, which has been backed by Russia and China.

Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.

The president warned Syria’s government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a “red line.”

The White House said that Assad’s military appeared to cross such a threshold in June, and responded to reports of Syrian troops using chemical weapons by agreeing to offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels.

It does not appear that any U.S. weapons have been delivered to rebels so far. As the war has escalated, Obama’s administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.

LIKE OBAMA, AMERICANS CAUTIOUS

However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.

In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.

About 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.

Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.

Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a “no-fly” zone over Syria that would ground Assad’s air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).

Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.

“I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons,” Powell said.

Asked what changed her mind, she said: “What’s going on over there is terrible.” However, Powell praised Obama’s wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.

Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.

Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was “happy that we didn’t get involved from the start and I’m glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should’ve been involved in some way.”

He said reports of chemical weapons use “went way past the line.”

**To see the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria if chemical weapons are used there, go to polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-current

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Gulf of Tonkin and The Straight of Hormuz–Neocons and Progressives Beating The Drums of War-Warmongers–Videos

Posted on July 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Bill Moyers:  LBJ’s Path to War (1)

Bill Moyers:  LBJ’s Path to War (2)

Bill Moyers:  LBJ’s Path to War (3)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident Declassified

What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf? 60 Minutes opening

Robert McNamara admits Gulf of Tonkin attack did not happen

Iran: A Path to War? 

Straits of Hormuz – U.S. Navy fires on fishing boat

BREAKING NEWS – US Navy Kill Innocent Man On Fishing Vessel Near Dubai

Global World War to Erupt In Syria SOON?! (July 15, 2012)

‘Attack on Iran after Syria falls major goal of the West’ 

All roads lead to Iran

Ron Paul, When will we attack Syria?

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Background Articles and Videos

The Fifty Years War – Israel and the Arabs – [1/2]

 

The Fifty Years War – Israel and the Arabs – [2/2] 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Gingrich Attacks Ron Paul As A Racist–Gingrich Is A Liar and Progressive Neoconservative Warmonger–Like Obama, Romney and Santorum–All Progressives And Fake Conservatives–Videos

Posted on February 26, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Newt’s Nightmare Trifecta [Gingrich loves Teddy Roosevelt, FDR & Woodrow Wilson]

Glenn Beck – The Case Against Newt Gingrich

The Real Newt Gingrich 

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Ron Paul Ad – Betrayal

Rick Santorum a Progressive Conservative?

Rick Santorum on Illegal Immigration – NOT Conservative

Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe in … Freedom? ( Freedom Watch Judge Napolitano 1-5-2012 )

Big Government Liberal Rick Santorum Exposed

Matt Welch Discusses Rick Santorum’s Anti-Libertarian Beliefs on Freedom Watch

Ron Paul OWNS Rick Santorum!

Mitt Romney: I’m Progressive

MITT ROMNEY eX- posed:The Great Flip Flopper and Fed Shill

Mitt Romney on Taxes, Guns, Abortion

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives

Ron Paul: Absolutely “No Deal” with Romney

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

No One But Paul — Can Beat Obama

My political philosophy is classical liberalism or what is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism.

Starting with Barry Goldwater in 1964 I have been a member of the conservative movement.

Today I am also a supporter of the tea party movement.

I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative, although I am comfortable with both traditional conservatives and national defense conservatives.

A limited constitutional government in scope, size and power with balanced or surplus budgets  is the number one issue with me.

Since 2006 I have been an independent.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are not fiscally responsible.

I will never vote for a progressive and/or neoconservative whether Republican or Democratic.

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Ron Paul, the ONLY Constant Conservative

Big government progressive Republicans in the past include Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford,  George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are all big government progressive neoconservative Republicans.

The only true libertarian conservative  president that won two landslide victories was President Ronald Reagan.

Only one candidate would cut the U.S government budget by $1 trillion or $1,000 billion in fiscal year 2013, close five federal departments and balance the budget in three years–Ron Paul– a libertarian conservative.

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

This is what the conservative and tea party movements want most of all.

Only one candidate of either party has the wisdom, vision and courage to propose such a plan.

If you want another war, great depression/recession, escalating gas and food prices and food stamps–a warfare and welfare state– than vote for Gingrich, Romney, Santorum or Obama.

If you want a peace and prosperity economy and your freedom vote for Ron Paul.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul as a Republican or as a candidate on another party’s ticket.

I will never vote for any progressive and/or neoconservative in either political party.

Unfortunately, most voters including conservatives, vote for the candidate they like and identify with instead of examining a candidate’s political philosophy and position on the issues.

SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy

Largely out of ignorance they fall for fake conservative candidates that are big government progressives and/or neoconservatives.

Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are undeniably big government progressive neoconservatives as evidenced by their own words and actions.

The American people are slowly but surely waking up to the fact that progressive politicians control both political parties in the United States.

Neither libertarian conservatives nor traditional conservatives will support big government progressive conservatives.

They will mostly stay home if the choice is between Obama, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney.

The conservative and tea party movements must rally behind Ron Paul.

No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul is a consistent libertarian conservative and a man of character and integrity.

He is the best candidate the American people have for he truly understands how dire the economic situation really is and knows what needs to be done to avoid another Great Depression.

Joe Scarborough Credits Ron Paul for Predicting the Housing Bubble

Peter Schiff – “Remember, I Supported Ron Paul”

Peter Schiff – “Ron Paul Only Candidate I Trust”

Jim Rogers – none of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul

Support and vote for Ron Paul.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CBS–Communists, Bolshevik, Socialists–Progressives All–Limited Ron Paul To 90 Seconds And Pulls Poll In Republican Presidential Debate On Foreign Policy–Warfare and Welfare Washington vs. Peace and Prosperity People–Videos

Posted on November 14, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul CBS Debate Bias

Obama’s great white hope – Ron Paul

Professor Murray Sabrin admits Ron Paul is silenced by the media because of the Federal Reserve

Jerry Doyle: Exposes CBS Bias and the GOP Candidates Copying Paul’s Views (11-14-11)

CBS 90 Seconds Or Less

Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak: Silenced by CBS

CNBC 600 Seconds or More

Ron Paul Responses At Debate (11-9-11)

Info News 2011-11-14 Monday Part 1/6

Ron Paul – CBSNews.com Post-Debate Poll plus General Poll – Results 11-14-11

Ron Paul 2012 Wins Again Nov 12th 2011 CBS Debate CORRUPT MEDIA (UPDATED)

Who won the GOP Debate? Take our poll

The GOP Post-Debate Poll

Paul Got Over 35 Percent of The Vote!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57323832/who-won-the-gop-debate-take-our-poll/

Ron Paul “Super Brochures” On Sale @ RonPaulProducts

Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak In CBS Debate

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 13, 2011

“…Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.

“…Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.

As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.

After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded. …”

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-gets-89-seconds-to-speak-in-cbs-debate/

CBS on defensive after Republican debate

By Josh Lederman

“…”CBS’ coverage of the Republican Debate from Wofford College in Spartanburg was scheduled by the network to air for one hour on the CBS affiliates around the country with any overage to air Sunday morning on Face the Nation,” said Rob Romine, the station’s general manager. “We are sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and for any confusion Mr. Pelley’s comments have caused by telling South Carolina viewers to stay tuned for more debate coverage.”

The other major line of attack came from the candidates, many of whom complained during the debate that strict adherence to 60-second time limits and 30-second rebuttals prevented them from fully articulating any policy and kept many of the minor candidates in the shadows. Jon Huntsman joked that he felt like he was in Siberia; Rick Santorum concurred.

Ron Paul’s campaign was the first to cry foul after the debate, with his chairman, Jesse Benton, accusing CBS News of arrogance and of thinking they could choose the next president. Two hours later, Paul supporters received a message with the subject line “What a joke.”

“Ninety seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds,” wrote campaign manager John Tate.

But it was Michele Bachmann whose complaint came backed up by evidence that concerns about candidates’ being sidelined were raised even before the debate took place.

Just after the debate ended, Bachmann’s campaign accused CBS News of deliberately keeping her questions to a minimum and planning a biased debate, with campaign manager, Keith Nahigian, reportedly calling CBS’s newly anointed political director, John Dickerson, a “piece of s**t.” …”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/193263-cbs-on-defense-after-gop-debate

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: Principle, Patriotism and Constitutional Government

This is a classic edition of Conservative Roundtable from 1997, the nationally broadcast conservative television program hosted by Howard Phillips, and produced by The Conservative Caucus. Producer: Art Harman.
Unlike “politicians,” statesman Ron Paul never lost his belief that government is the problem, not the answer; you’ll see here that his positions are as sound today as when this was recorded in 1997!

Alan Keyes discusses media bias with Bernard Goldberg

VOICES OF REASON – Bernard Goldberg

Scott Pelley


Pelley’s Liberal Path to the Anchor Chair

“…On Monday, June 6, 2011, Scott Pelley took over as anchor of the CBS Evening News, following the departure of Katie Couric. A review of the MRC’s archive reveals Pelley will most likely continue the long tradition of liberal bias advanced by his anchor predecessors Couric, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.

From celebrating the likes of liberal heroes like Hillary Clinton, saying that she is of the rare few that can match Barack Obama’s “global star power” to even offering praise of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, depicting him as a “genuinely humble” figure with “no fancy clothes, fancy cars” who was “absolutely incorruptible,” Pelley’s new stint as anchor promises to be one filled with biased platitudes for those on the left and harsh criticism of the right. Below are just a dozen examples of Pelley’s slanted take over the years as a CBS correspondent for the Evening News and 60 Minutes. …”

http://www.mrc.org/static/profiles/ScottPelley/NewEveningNewsAnchor.aspx

Bolshevik

“…The Bolsheviks, originally also[1] Bolshevists[2] (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular) Russian pronunciation: [bəlʲʂᵻˈvʲik], derived from bol’shinstvo, “majority”) were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction[3] at the Second Party Congress in 1903. [4]

The Bolsheviks were the majority faction in a crucial vote, hence their name. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[5] The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917, and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which would later in 1922 become the chief constituent of the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin, were by 1905 a mass organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism. Bolshevik revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky commonly used the terms “Bolshevism” and “Bolshevist” after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Republican Party Presidential/Commander In Chief Debate–November 12, 2011-Spartanburg, South Carolina–Foreign Policy and National Security–CBS–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...