1.25.2004
Bush Administration Called To Task?
Good to see that the Democrats are calling the Bush Administration to claim responsibility for their war on Iraq based on their various claims that Iraq was an imminent threat due to it's supposedly active nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program.
Kerry was joined in his call for an investigation by other Democrats on the campaign trail who are vying for the chance to beat President Bush in November.
The Neocon influence on intelligence to make it "fit" their aims is something we have spoken about here many times, and the truth is getting mainstream.
Cheney and his most senior aide reportedly made multiple trips to the CIA before the war to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs. Cheney has denied his visits were intended to pressure analysts into making assessments fit the administration policy objective of ousting Saddam.
Mr Powell is no longer sure about the existence of the banned weapons in Iraq. While sightsseing in Rome a reporter asked Dick Cheney about Mr Powells less cocksure stance on the weapons:
The vice president stopped briefly for photographers as he was greeted at the museum entrance, but headed inside when a reporter asked if he had any reaction to Secretary of State Colin Powell's weekend statement that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had banned weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion.
"Nice to see you all," Cheney said as he headed into the museum, the first stop on a day of sightseeing.
Let justice be served.
Get a copy of 'Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war" by Robert Greenwald
If you haven't noticed, the Administration has changed it's phraseing about the weapons:
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities
An instructive introduction to Mr Bush's lies concerning Iraq has been compiled by Steve Perry, read "Bring 'Em On!
The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies About War and Terrorism".
1/25/2004
|
Just some scattered thoughts.
I've been trying to grasp the implications of the US trade deficit with China, coupled with the fact that China is financing the Bush driven record US budgetary deficit.
One simple basis for that Bush boom is that China is recycling its US$100 billion-plus trade surplus with the US back into dollars, and especially into US Treasury bonds. Almost half of the US Treasury bonds are now owned in Asia. So China is financing Bush's bold economic experiment: running two or more wars simultaneously with a huge budget and trade deficit, and equally huge tax handouts for the richest Americans.
This gives China leverage over US foreign policy.
One has to question the long-term economic rationale for China of putting its long-term assets into very low-interest bonds in a currency that has already dropped recently by a third - and is going to drop even more. It certainly makes strategic sense: if push came to shove over, for example, the Taiwan Strait, all Beijing has to do is to mention the possibility of a sell order going down the wires. It would devastate the US economy more than any nuclear strike the Chinese could manage at the moment.
World trade is forcasted to rise
The UN also forecast a significant increase in world trade - from 4.7 per cent in 2003 to 7.5 per cent in 2004.
The UN said "the US remained the locomotive of growth in the developed economies". They cited strong consumer spending and said improving corporate profits and higher stockmarket prices "have laid foundations for further growth of business investment and for an improvement of employment into 2004".
The profits of US based multinationals grow whether the jobs created by "free trade" are in the US or not, moreso where wages are low of course, where benefits are non-existent. The lower the wage scale, the higher the profits to be realized. More profitability brings the stock price up, of course, signaling economic recovery to the uninitiated. You tell me though, if a car made in Mexico costs the US consumer the same as one made in the US, who profits? The loss of a US wage earner's taxes paid into the economy costs us plus the multiplier effect of the workers spending in the local economy is immense.
Contracting jobs overseas is 'simply the latest manifestation of free trade', a top White House economic aide said in defence of a practice used by American companies.
'Public policy needs to help workers find new jobs, not retreat from the principles of free trade that have benefited the US and economies around the world,' Greg Mankiw, chairman of President George W Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said in a question-and-answer forum on the White House web site.
When trying to research the numbers of "Overseas relocation separations" from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics I recieved a message that the figures where currently unavailable. "Overseas relocation layoff" figures do not exist I am told.
Just what allows the US to be "the locomotive for growth in developed economies?"
As I have mentioned here before, US personal debt is at an all time high, as are personal bankruptcies.
According to the latest figures from the Federal Reserve, America's consumer debt has topped $2 trillion for the first time, continuing what debt experts view as an alarming surge in recent years.
To some, the nation's consumer debt, which dwarfs that of any other country, represents the kind of "bubble" that the stock market grew into during the 1990s.
There is some doubt about the Bush handling of the US economy:
Billionaire financier George Soros criticized U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy and said the administration's economic plan will cause a ``boom in 2004 and bust in 2005.''
Soros said the effect of policies that stimulated growth, including $1.7 trillion of tax cuts to fuel demand, won't last beyond this year's presidential election. The U.S. economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter
If any of you have some links to help me understand the China/US economic connection, please send them my way.
1/25/2004
|
|
|
