BUSH LEAVES US DEFENSE TO WHIMS OF FOREIGN INVESTORS?

[ulTRAX]

Bush hopes to claim national security as his forte... to prove he's a leader he invades nations that pose no threat to us and pushes up military spending so we now outspend... what... the next 25 nations combined? Color me impressed.

OK... how does Bush expect to pay for it? The FY04 deficit is estimated to be $675 Billion. Take away the 155ish billion borrowed from SS... that leaves about $520 Billion. What is the current military budget? About $400 Billion?

Certainly Bush is not borrowing all this money from domestic sources. So where is this money coming from? According to Congressman John Tanner "70% of the 2003 federal deficit was borrowed from foreign investors." source: http://www.house.gov/tanner/foreignholdings.htm
(note... there's two ways to define the deficit: looking at the unified budget which includes money borrowed from Social Security... and just looking at the on-budget deficit. It's the latter that's 675 Billion. I'm not sure how "deficit" is defined by Tanner.)

Has Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies left our national defense subject to the whims of lenders in such places as China and Saudi Arabia? It seems so. Imagine the Kerry ads!! This might kill two birds with one stone... driving home to the tax cut nuts just how dangerous their obsession is.

"It makes you wonder if U.S. citizens understand the extent to which Asians subsidize their way of life. Japan and China are the two biggest holders of U.S. debt, owning a combined $832 billion. Add in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand and the figure grows to $1.04 trillion out of $1.75 trillion of Treasuries held overseas......... Will China's vast U.S. debt holdings become an issue, too? They will if U.S. Congressman John Tanner, a Tennessee Democrat, gets his way. "There has never been a nation that was strong, free and bankrupt," Tanner said at the convention. He's one of the so-called Blue Dogs, a group of moderate-conservative Democrats urging fiscal discipline.

There's more than a bit of hyperbole here. Yet Tanner isn't alone in worrying that growing holdings of U.S. Treasuries by foreign nations like China are a threat to national economic security. At a time when Kerry's campaign is calling for an end to U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil, it may also turn its attention to the unhealthy reliance of the U.S. on Asia's money.
source: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...columnist_pesek

There's a great chart here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis...alternative.htm

[unblock]

1. "economic security" sould be a major campaign theme

it covers the deficit, social security, health insurance, jobs, and foreign trade, and taxes.

people need economic security, and the nation needs economic security.

[ulTRAX]

2. MORE INFO

Here's the mother lode of data on foreign holdings in the US national debt: http://www.treas.gov/tic/fpis.html

This 180+ page report "Report on Foreign Portfolio Holdings of U.S. Securities as of June 30, 2003" at http://www.treas.gov/tic/shl2003r.pdf may be a bit dated but it's the most recent report available.

I have tried to go though it but my eyes glaze over. LOL

[necso]

3. Bush's "Free Market" policies

leave practically the entire economy at the whim of foreigner investors, producers, etc. Countries like China have way too much potential influence on this country... And this is to say nothing of the levels of foreign influence on American policy right now.

Eliminating the federal deficit and paying down the debt, as we were on the road to doing, is a most wise policy on many levels. Running up large budget and trade deficits is not. Neither should be more than a temporary expedient to help get over rough spots.

And if these rough spots seem to last forever, sooner or later people are going to catch on, in spite of themselves!

[Nancy Waterman]

4. This could be a huge issue

The country would be scared sh*tless if they knew how much of our debt was inforeign hands. Bush likes to scare people with terrorists. It is time we scared people about Bush!!

[necso]

5. I am sorry to say

that I think that you give people way too much credit.

Much of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into should be pretty obvious to anyone making even a casual, open-minded study.

The war in Iraq is a transparent failure, hopeless of recovery to "our" original goals -- hopeless!. The tax cuts have been a miserable failure, which would have been a foregone conclusion if one had so much as looked at the expected churn of those dollars -- particularly when compared to the churn expected if those tax cuts had actually been given to poor and middle Americans. The export of business from this country has gone on from technology, capital and jobs to transporting actual factories and letting foreign workers compete directly for jobs long considered domestic by necessity.

And I could go on at length.

People go through life believing a thin tissue of lies, often lies that harm them.

In previous days one might have appealed to common interests, or to the national interest. But a sense of these things, a sense that we all share things (and should share some common appreciation of and duty to these things) has died.

And I do not believe that it is coming back.

Use this sort of thing against Bush? Why should we need to do anything more than to have people (other than that small minority that profits by this mess) just look around with open eyes?

That we do says pretty much everything that we need to know... Real, permanent, victory will prove most difficult to acheive.

...You asked, I answered.

[ulTRAX]

6. Kerry Has Never Exploited the Budget Issue

The Democratic agenda depends on healthy government finances. The rabid Right knows this and since Reagan been trying to strangle government by sabotaging revenues. And it's an easy sell. The GOP buys votes today with money borrowed from our children. Few have any sense of just how big the numbers are or how hard it was to get to a balanced budget.

Rather than exploiting this issue, Kerry helps Bush hide it. Ya, Kerry mentions "record deficits" but never fleshes them out where Joe Six Pack can comprehend. Kerry's "Plan for America" book doesn't even use the correct deficit numbers. They are using the unified budget numbers and understating the true deficit by some 190 Billion. Who's going to knock some sense into the bozos that are running the Kerry campaign?

Tying the deficits to defense is just another way to peel away support from Bush. Explaining Bush's fiscal irresponsibility by exposing the Right's "strangle the beast" conspiracy helps the Democrats frame the debate in a broader ideological context. Kerry has to get Bush voters to have second thoughts.

[ulTRAX]

7. new deficit estimates

I had been using the 675 BILLION Deficit figure which I got from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html Table S–12. Budget Summary by Category then to the On-budget deficit line. Under the FY04 column the on-budget deficit was 675 BILLION with a 154 Billion off-budget surplus.

Here's the latest projections from OMB and CBO:

If you download a copy of the CBO's "SEPTEMBER 2004 The Budget
and Economic Outlook: An Update" from www.cbo.gov

Scroll down to Table 1.2 CBO’s Baseline Budget Projections

Unified Deficit = 422 BILLION (number reported in news)
Off-budget surplus = +153 BILLION
On-budget deficit = -574 BILLION

Using the 422 Billion figure is dishonest. It includes 153 Billion borrowed from the off-budget surplus yet treats it as regular revenue. The TRUE figure is the on-budget deficit.... whatever that turns out to be.

OMB also has a newer estimate dated 7-30-04: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf
This provides the Whitehouse's 455 Billion deficit figure cited a few weeks ago. You'll have to scroll down to Table 14. BUDGET SUMMARY BY CATEGORY where you'll see the real off-budget deficit is 600 BILLION.... with 155 Billion in off-budget surpluses being borrowed give that dishonest 455 Billion deficit figure.

[underpants]

8. Clinton -"...how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers"

When he said that I went and looked this up. Yep Japan and China own most of our debt, basically they are majority stockholders of the US. I shocked several people at a dinner party a few weeks ago when I told them that in part of a conversation.

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125919&ct=158734

These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left—enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement—into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it’s not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they’re competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it’s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry’s your man.

[ulTRAX]

9. Clinton Blew it

At the time I thought Clinton gave a great speech.... but looking at this section I think he lost a golden opportunity to undermine Bush's credibility: "These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left—enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement—into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it’s not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they’re competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it’s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry’s your man."

First of all, even the unified debt is much higher than 400 billion. Clinton COULD have used the most recent deficit estimate which at the time may have been the 525 Billion estimate. The Democrats REFUSE to use the off-budget deficit figure which was once 675 Billion even when it can help them. I can only assume it's because they have been complicit in deceiving the American People about budget issues. Yet since Clinton managed a true on-budget SURPLUS... not just a unified budget surplus, he should crow about it.

Second... in retrospect Clinton could have made a more effective argument. If Bush's irresponsible tax cuts have sabotaged finances to the point that we can not even fund our own military without the help of foreign investors like China THAT'S SCANDALOUS! And what is Bush's defense? That the US need not worry whether the nation can afford to defend itself?

Since the scale of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility is staggering, the budget issue is Kerry's to lose. He needs to take off the gloves, educate the nation on budget issues and the immense size of the Bush deficits/debt and then connect it all to programs like Social Security and, of course, national defense.

[annabanana]

10. Oh yeah.. We're into China bigtime...........

Them and the Saudi's OWN our ass......

(give it a little Mob flavor)