The Worst President in History?

2. In 1916, at the start of World War I, the public debt was 1 Billion, rising to a peak of 26 Billion in 1919 to finance the war( WARS DO THAT)

Take China for example. As of March of this year, China held over $321 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from the $60 billion it owned at the end of 2000. Similarly, Japan now owns $640 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from $317.7 billion in December 2000. Lately, however, America has also borrowed heavily from oil exporter nations (as defined by the Department of the Treasury), which include many nations that despise America. Luminaries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Indonesia and Iraq, and several other primarily Middle Eastern nations, now own $98 billion worth of U.S. debt.

According to Brad Setser, director of research at Roubini Global Economics, "The irony is that the three countries in the world adding to reserves the fastest and thus buying the most U.S. debt now are China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, none of them democracies. … We are increasingly counting on a group of creditors who are not our closest friends but have a bigger and bigger stake in America," he says.

So America's debt is growing, and a greater amount is in less reliable hands.

This creates two problems.

First, the value of the dollar is increasingly dependent upon foreigners. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to coercion and blackmail.

In commenting on this radical shift in holders of U.S. debt, Frederick Kempe of the Wall Street Journal says, "The more closely economists study that data, the more they worry," especially over America's "decrease[d] influence over … the world's largest market, the $2 trillion in foreign exchange that changes hands daily. The dollar forex market can increasingly be shifted by decisions that foreign governments make about selling dollar assets. What's also at stake is leverage on matters as diverse as U.S. home mortgage rates and America's global political clout" (May 9).

For example, remember what happened on June 23, 1997, when former Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto wondered aloud about what would happen to the U.S. economy if Japan diversified and began to sell some of its, at that time, $300 billion in U.S. Treasury securities (remember Japan now owns more than $640 billion worth). Following Hashimoto's remarks, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged by the largest single day amount (at that time) since the Crash of 1987. Aids to Hashimoto were quick to say that the comments were not intended as a threat. Since then, other foreigners have wondered aloud about dumping U.S. debt (Treasuries), also causing ripple effects through global markets (Moscow Times, May 11).

But what if, at some point, our debtors did want to influence American policy? In a potential conflict between China and Taiwan, would China stand idly by, holding $321 billion in U.S. debt, if the United States was to interfere to protect democratic Taiwan? Would Taiwan simply hold its $68.9 billion if China attacked it and America did not come to its aid?

What if China and Taiwan were to peacefully reunite? Together they would control $389.9 billion worth of U.S. debt. Since China also controls Hong Kong, you can add in an additional $46.6 billion worth of U.S. debt, for a grand total of $436.5 billion.

That is a huge chunk of potential economic or political influence. So much influence that if China even "reduces its Treasury purchases, the U.S. would run into difficulties" financing its debts, says the Nikkei Weekly. That same publication says Chinese leaders have boasted that because China is such an important lender to America, "Beijing is holding a dagger to Washington's throat" (May 1).

The second problem with having foreigners hold so much U.S. debt is the risk that foreigners may choose to stop accumulating it and start spending it. As with any person, the more money you have, the greater the pull to spend. If foreign nations begin to spend their dollars, the increased supply of U.S. greenbacks in circulation would probably drive the value of the dollar down, making American possessions less expensive relative to assets in other currencies. Consequently, American corporations and businesses could increasingly become targets of foreign acquisitions.Overspending has indebted America to the rest of the world. We owe the world so much that the threat of other nations inducing a U.S. economic disaster by just refusing to lend us more money is now a reality. As such, as America's indebtedness grows, America is less able to protect strategic industries from foreign takeovers.

Who is a serf? A serf is one whose destiny is owned by others. Someone else owns the land he slaves on. Someone else owns the profits and technology he develops. All the fruits of his labor flow to his owners.

Debt is turning America into a serfdom.

Dumb and Dumber on 'Bulls and Bears'
Reported by Judy - September 2, 2006 - 54 comments
Brenda Buttner, after pleading with folks to watch her show, delivered one of the dumbest business shows to come along in a long time in Saturday's (September 2, 2006) edition of "Bulls and Bears.".

Buttner not only cobbled together two premises for her show that had nothing to do with business, she also let her unqualified regulars show their incredible ignorance.

She began, for yet another week, with the question of whether Iran's nuclear enrichment plans matter to Wall Street. Charles Payne, of wstreet.com, began with the first of several pretty silly comments, saying this week's deadline was a good thing because it means the U.S. is closer to doing something and that's why the stock market went up last week. Huh?

Nobody else followed the logic in that remark either, with Tobin Smith, of Changewave Research, saying the market doesn't care about Iran right now.

A few minutes later, Payne was back into the mix, saying that the problem in dealing with Iran lies with U.S. allies. "We want to bring Germany and France closer to the fold," he said.

Germany and France? Even Scott Bleier, of hybridinvestors.com, knew that was wrong, correcting Payne that it is China and Russia that appear to want to block sanctions on Iran.

Then it was Tobin Smith's turn to put his foot in the mouth. Pretending he was on his cell phone, Smith said he had just gotten a phone call from Islamabad and that the rulers of Iran were happy that they were the main topic on "Bulls and Bears."

Sorry Toby. As Pat Dorsey, of morningstar.com, pointed out, Islambad is not in Iran, but Pakistan.

Then Tracy Byrnes, New York Post business writer, caught the dumb bug, advocating that the U.S. attack both North Korea and Iran. "We just need to take all these people out, and then we can pretty much go on from there," she said, drawing some murmurs of concern from the regulars.

The show was barely half over and already this bunch had embarrassed itself pretty badly, but Buttner went on to her next segment, which also had absolutely nothing to do with business news. This segment asked whether Wall Street believed Democrats would be better than Republicans in fighting terror.

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich laid out a pretty good case for why people should give up on Republicans as the party to handle national security. "They've given them six years and what have they got? They got a 9/11 commission that the Republicans fought and then the Republicans haven't implemented the recommendations. They've gotten a war in Iraq which is against the wrong enemy, turned the whole world against us. They've got a Department of Homeland Security that can't deal with the mess of Katrina. So I think the idea is when you got a party that can't do the job, you might as well look to the other party for an improvement," she said.

Then Buttner turned the Republicans on the panel loose on her.

Payne noted, "Homeland Security and Katrina -- I don't know that that is necessarily their department." Since when? Did Bush outsource that to Halliburton, too?

Tobin Smith backed up Payne with, "The bottom line is where's the attack? We've probably stopped 15 or 20 that we haven't heard of." I doubt that. Bush wouldn't miss a chance to crow. Look at the publicity over that hapless bunch they arrested in Florida.

Estrich countered with, "The fact that we don't know about it means we should trust the people even though everything we know they've done, they've done wrong? They've bungled the war in Iraq, bungled the response to Katrina, bungled the response to the 9/11 commission, but because of what we don't know about, we should trust them?"

A decent response, but too complicated for this bunch of dummies to understand.

Bush is claiming a big turn towards victory with the arrest of a high official of al-Qaida in Iraq. However, al-Qaida is a sideshow in Iraq, where things are rapidly going down hill. Military experts, including many at the Pentagon, think that Bush is nuts with mental deterioration.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content2/2006/09/bush_diddles_while_iraq_burns.html