• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

Nice spin.Notice my 2 sources are not the MSM. The MSM are quiet on this.

Uh, what?

Your two sources are the Financial Times and the Christian Science Monitor. In what alternate universe are those not classic examples of the mainstream media?

But if you insist:

China cuts U.S. Treasury holdings | Reuters
The Associated Press: Beijing's Treasury holdings fall as it diversifies
China Loses Top Spot As Holder Of US Treasurys - WSJ.com


Obama selling weapons to Taiwan and meeting with the Dalai Lama is not helping.

Both of which Bush did as well, and we all know how much that caused China to cut their treasury holdings.
 
Last edited:
Those are points on which U.S. and Chinese foreign policy diverge. Those are irritants for China, but the impact should be limited. There won't be a rupture in relations.

Significant damage in relations or an outright rupture in relations would arise if, for example, the U.S. rescinded its "One China" policy or if it recognized Tibet as an independent state. Neither outcome is even remotely likely at this time.

Ok you know it all. Obama is playing with fire and we may all get burned
 
Ok you know it all. Obama is playing with fire and we may all get burned

U.S. foreign policy has not changed on those two issues. President Bush met with the Dalai Lama. Under President Bush, the U.S. sold weapons to Taiwan. At this time, continuity is the theme with respect to U.S. policy on those two issues. Nothing has been done to represent a dramatic policy break to the extent that China would fundamentally reassess its relationship with the U.S.
 
Cutting our military by 50%, and the commitments cuts that the 50% cut would require, would decimate Europe's Public health Care system.

They would have to spend the money on their military instead of relying on us for protection.

Yeah Germany would have to increase its military Budget to defend against the massive Polish army accross the boarder waiting to invade when the US leaves. Or is it the Italians Germany needs to worry about?

Russia does not have the capability to invade Europe. It's population is around double that of Germany, no more then 1/4 that of the EU. It's military budget is propably 20% that of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy (when combined). It has plenty of its military tied down in the Georgia, Chechnya region.

Or of course Europe needs a massive military to defend against the massive muslim navy just waiting to cross the med and invade
 
How exactly will health care reform fix Medicare's unfunded liability?

By decreasing medical care costs and increasing revenues into the system. Removing the caps placed on the wealthy would be one way to increase the revenue.

No, you're presenting a legal argument, claiming that the Constitution doesn't authorize it. How on earth is that a moral argument?

I presented two reasons for my perspective. One was the Constitution does not authorize it and that it is morally wrong to kill others to gain control of their possessions.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

I am familiar with the popularity of the philosophy of might makes right and the ends justify the means!

I find it highly ironic that its not what we teach our children but we find it permissible for our foreign policy.

Some apparently do not see the double standard in our ethics.
 
Cutting our military by 50%, and the commitments cuts that the 50% cut would require, would decimate Europe's Public health Care system.

They would have to spend the money on their military instead of relying on us for protection.

That was not the case before Bush & Co doubled the military budget.
 
A capability to maintain open shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf was one example of a vital international interest. A nation's defense posture can't be grounded solely in a single interest.


What was the deficiency in our nation's defensive capabilities before Bush doubled our military budget?

The U.S. has no policy that advocates the killing of innocent people. In fact, just the opposite is true. For example, the February 15, 2010 edition of The New York Times revealed efforts that U.S. is undertaking to minimize civilian casualties:

The fact that our foreign policy knowingly inflicts civilian casualties for oil interests contrasts with that sentiment.

They [NATO and Afghan military officials] acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

But troops complain that strict rules of engagement -- imposed to spare civilian casualties -- are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

Which explains why al Qaeda keeps growing world wide while go deeper in debt.
 
By decreasing medical care costs and increasing revenues into the system.

Got something more specific than "it would totally fix it"? Any actual evidence to show that this would fix the $89T liability?

Removing the caps placed on the wealthy would be one way to increase the revenue.

There is no cap on Medicare's payroll tax.

Contribution and Benefit Base

I presented two reasons for my perspective. One was the Constitution does not authorize it and that it is morally wrong to kill others to gain control of their possessions.

And your first argument is simply not supported by the Constitution. As to your second, there's no point in arguing with you about this.

I am familiar with the popularity of the philosophy of might makes right and the ends justify the means!

I find it highly ironic that its not what we teach our children but we find it permissible for our foreign policy.

Some apparently do not see the double standard in our ethics.

And you don't see the irony in comparing what we teach our children to the flaw in your logic that I pointed out re: Rwanda?

I guess I missed the day in Kindergarten where we learned that we should allow genocide to occur overseas because anything else would be an improper imposition of our values on other societies.
 
Got something more specific than "it would totally fix it"? Any actual evidence to show that this would fix the $89T liability?

You might want to ask whoever you quoted there.


There is no cap on Medicare's payroll tax.

Did I say anything at all about payroll tax? No

"FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax]Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

And you don't see the irony in comparing what we teach our children to the flaw in your logic that I pointed out re: Rwanda?

Have you heard me complain about our conduct in Rwanda? No.

My complaint is about a foreign policy that excuses the killing of innocent people to make the Middle East safe for big oil?
 
You might want to ask whoever you quoted there.

I'm asking you for any evidence that your proposals would fix the gap.

Did I say anything at all about payroll tax? No

"FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets."
Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:rofl Nice try.

1) FICA is a payroll tax, so pretending that that's not what you were talking about by saying you "didn't mention payroll tax" doesn't quite work.

2) FICA is the SS and Medicare tax, which is what I referred to.

3) Since FICA is a payroll tax, it doesn't make sense to call a proposal to expand it to other forms of income a "lifting of the cap." There is no cap as related to Medicare - it's just not what you're trying to do.

There's no need to dance around it, just come out and say that your plan to fix the $89T unfunded liability can be described in all its complexity as "tax the rich."

Have you heard me complain about our conduct in Rwanda? No.

...which is the point.
 
I'm asking you for any evidence that your proposals would fix the gap.

My ideas are to reduce health care costs and increase revenues. If you want something more specific, go to the person you quoted above. Who was that you quoted above btw? I would like to talk with him or her.

:rofl Nice try.

1) FICA is a payroll tax, so pretending that that's not what you were talking about by saying you "didn't mention payroll tax" doesn't quite work.

2) FICA is the SS and Medicare tax, which is what I referred to.

3) Since FICA is a payroll tax, it doesn't make sense to call a proposal to expand it to other forms of income a "lifting of the cap." There is no cap as related to Medicare - it's just not what you're trying to do.

There's no need to dance around it, just come out and say that your plan to fix the $89T unfunded liability can be described in all its complexity as "tax the rich."

You are the one that brought up payroll taxes, not me.

I pointed out that:

"FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets."

Look to the sources in bold for increased revenue.
 
My ideas are to reduce health care costs and increase revenues. If you want something more specific, go to the person you quoted above. Who was that you quoted above btw? I would like to talk with him or her.

Me: "How exactly will health care reform fix Medicare's unfunded liability?"
You: "By decreasing medical care costs and increasing revenues into the system."

I'm asking you for specific examples of how you would decrease medical care costs and increase revenues in such a way as to cover the unfunded liability, preferably using numbers. I'm not interested in more non-answers and avoidance, so if that's all you're going to offer, let's just end this now.

You are the one that brought up payroll taxes, not me.

I pointed out that:

"FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets."

Look to the sources in bold for increased revenue.

How do you think we should "look to those sources"? What tax would you like to impose on them? How much money will that raise?

You can't just throw out vague proposals and expect to be taken seriously. If you think you know how to fix this gap, you need more than that.
 
Me: "How exactly will health care reform fix Medicare's unfunded liability?"
You: "By decreasing medical care costs and increasing revenues into the system."

Then you:

Got something more specific than "it would totally fix it"?

Ask the person you quoted.

How do you think we should "look to those sources"? What tax would you like to impose on them? How much money will that raise?

There are many variables, what kind of mechanisms can be put in place to prevent the government from mismanaging the funds that helped create the problem we are facing, how many cost cutting measures can be made through health care reform, how much we can realistically increase user fees.

What is the alternative to fixing M/M? Eliminating it? That doesn't eliminate the cost of unaffordable health care, it just shifts the costs to those that can least afford it. Is that your solution?
 
Then you:



Ask the person you quoted.

So you have no interest in actually debating anything, you'd rather just run away once you're called out on a topic that you don't understand. Given your history, I don't know why I expected anything else.


There are many variables, what kind of mechanisms can be put in place to prevent the government from mismanaging the funds that helped create the problem we are facing, how many cost cutting measures can be made through health care reform, how much we can realistically increase user fees.

What is the alternative to fixing M/M? Eliminating it? That doesn't eliminate the cost of unaffordable health care, it just shifts the costs to those that can least afford it. Is that your solution?

No, my solution is to implement cost-effectiveness panels, put an end to these "doctor fixes", and raise the enrollment age.
 
So you have no interest in actually debating anything, you'd rather just run away once you're called out on a topic that you don't understand. Given your history, I don't know why I expected anything else.




No, my solution is to implement cost-effectiveness panels, put an end to these "doctor fixes", and raise the enrollment age.

You realize that cost-effectiveness panels are what were referred to as the evil mythical "death panels".
 
You realize that cost-effectiveness panels are what were referred to as the evil mythical "death panels".

Yes. They're probably the most useful thing we can do toward meaningful health reform (short of bringing our obesity rate in line with the rest of the world). It's a shame that it's going to be so hard to get them past the public now.
 
No, my solution is to implement cost-effectiveness panels, put an end to these "doctor fixes", and raise the enrollment age.

You'll have quite the fight on your hands getting conservatives to go along with death panels.

I would be interested in seeing your "specific examples of how you would decrease medical care costs and increase revenues in such a way as to cover the unfunded liability, preferably using numbers."
 
Foreign demand for US Treasury securities fell by a record amount in December as China purged some of its holdings of government debt, the US Treasury department said on Tuesday.

yup. here come the attempts to coerce Americans into buying more bonds in order to make up the loss.
 
U.S. foreign policy has not changed on those two issues. President Bush met with the Dalai Lama. Under President Bush, the U.S. sold weapons to Taiwan. At this time, continuity is the theme with respect to U.S. policy on those two issues. Nothing has been done to represent a dramatic policy break to the extent that China would fundamentally reassess its relationship with the U.S.

Bush does not matter. The spending of Obama makes this much more serious.
 
What was the deficiency in our nation's defensive capabilities before Bush doubled our military budget?



The fact that our foreign policy knowingly inflicts civilian casualties for oil interests contrasts with that sentiment.



Which explains why al Qaeda keeps growing world wide while go deeper in debt.

Bush had to double it since Clinton gutted the military
 
Bush had to double it since Clinton gutted the military

Clinton helped decrease our debt by cutting wasteful spending in the military without reducing our defensive capability.

Are we no longer interested in debt reduction?
 
Clinton helped decrease our debt by cutting wasteful spending in the military without reducing our defensive capability.

Are we no longer interested in debt reduction?

CNN.com - Transcripts

KAGAN: First, I want to get to the big picture of this hearing. It's to look at the overall size of the U.S. military. Where do you think that number should be, and is the current number too large or too small?

HUNTER: Well, we've cut -- Daryn, we've cut the military almost in half since 1991. We had -- during the first Gulf War we had 18 Army divisions. We're now down to 10. We had 24 active fighter air wings. We've now cut that down to only 13, so we've cut air power almost in half. And we had a Navy with 546 ships in 1991. That's down to just about 300 right now. So, we have a much smaller force structure.

Now, I heard the president's statement, and we do have to give the president his due. This defense budget this year that we're about ready to pass is $90 billion more than the last Clinton defense budget. Nonetheless, we have commitments around the world, and this country has to have a military with broad capability. Obviously, we have to be able to win a conventional armored attack like we launched in Iraq. We have to be able to handle guerrilla warfare. We also have to handle an occupation, which is being undertaken right now in Iraq. That takes a lot of people. And I personally would like to see an extra couple of divisions and an extra couple of fighter air wings and more bomber strength.
 
CNN.com - Transcripts

KAGAN: First, I want to get to the big picture of this hearing. It's to look at the overall size of the U.S. military. Where do you think that number should be, and is the current number too large or too small?

HUNTER: Well, we've cut -- Daryn, we've cut the military almost in half since 1991. We had -- during the first Gulf War we had 18 Army divisions. We're now down to 10. We had 24 active fighter air wings. We've now cut that down to only 13, so we've cut air power almost in half. And we had a Navy with 546 ships in 1991. That's down to just about 300 right now. So, we have a much smaller force structure.

Now, I heard the president's statement, and we do have to give the president his due. This defense budget this year that we're about ready to pass is $90 billion more than the last Clinton defense budget. Nonetheless, we have commitments around the world, and this country has to have a military with broad capability. Obviously, we have to be able to win a conventional armored attack like we launched in Iraq. We have to be able to handle guerrilla warfare. We also have to handle an occupation, which is being undertaken right now in Iraq. That takes a lot of people. And I personally would like to see an extra couple of divisions and an extra couple of fighter air wings and more bomber strength.

I am talking about defensive capability not imperialistic capability. Iraq was unnecessary except to allow big oil back in Iraq for the first time since Saddam kicked them out. Let big oil pay for it!

We now spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined!!!

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

"Summarizing some key details from chapter 5 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2009 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2008:

* World military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have reached $1.464 trillion in current dollars (just over $1.2 trillion in 2005 constant dollars, as per above graph);

* This represents a 4 per cent increase in real terms since 2007 and a 45 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1999;

* This corresponds to 2.4 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), or $217 for each person in the world;

* The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 41.5% of the world total;"

World Military Spending ? Global Issues
 
I am talking about defensive capability not imperialistic capability. Iraq was unnecessary except to allow big oil back in Iraq for the first time since Saddam kicked them out. Let big oil pay for it!

We now spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined!!!

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

"Summarizing some key details from chapter 5 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2009 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2008:

* World military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have reached $1.464 trillion in current dollars (just over $1.2 trillion in 2005 constant dollars, as per above graph);

* This represents a 4 per cent increase in real terms since 2007 and a 45 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1999;

* This corresponds to 2.4 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), or $217 for each person in the world;

* The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 41.5% of the world total;"

World Military Spending ? Global Issues


Nice spin to avoid the facts. Clinton nearly cut the Military in half.
 
Nice spin to avoid the facts. Clinton nearly cut the Military in half.

That is because it was twice as large as needed for defense, and reduced our debt in the process.

Bush doubled spending to twice the amount the needed for defense, and increased our debt in the process.

I guess when our debt is a big enough for people to become concerned about it, we will again cut the waste from our military spending.
 
Back
Top Bottom