|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc.
Only because we are the ones in control, but the question is - for how long?
|
On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc.
Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways.
What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead?
That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this?
Like what is he not doing that he should?
|
|
|
This is an underrated topic. She is not handling it well at all, maybe worse than Chris Christie and the bridge thing, which was also not handled well to say the least and it sort of dead-legged his campaign.
|
On March 18 2015 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc. Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways. What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead? That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this? Like what is he not doing that he should?
My gripe is Obama's continued hemorrhaging of American power and influence. No single screw up of Obama's is outcome-dispositive, but the sum of all of them is bad news. That US no longer has the clout to stop something like this from happening is quite telling. Traditional American alliances clearly are weaker now than they were before he arrived.
|
On March 18 2015 00:52 coverpunch wrote:This is an underrated topic. She is not handling it well at all, maybe worse than Chris Christie and the bridge thing, which was also not handled well to say the least and it sort of dead-legged his campaign.
Do you know what the best part about this scandal is? Valerie Jarrett is the one who leaked the story. Think about that one for a moment: Obama intentionally torpedoed Hillary.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the part about hillary's emails data only on clinton servers is wrong. it's backed up to google servers.
|
On March 18 2015 00:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc. Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways. What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead? That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this? Like what is he not doing that he should? My gripe is Obama's continued hemorrhaging of American power and influence. No single screw up of Obama's is outcome-dispositive, but the sum of all of them is bad news. That US no longer has the clout to stop something like this from happening is quite telling. Traditional American alliances clearly are weaker now than they were before he arrived.
You can't lay all of that at Obama's doorstep. Especially this latest bit: China has been growing economically for the last 20 years, and analysts have been heralding the age of China for at least as long as that.
|
On March 18 2015 01:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc. Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways. What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead? That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this? Like what is he not doing that he should? My gripe is Obama's continued hemorrhaging of American power and influence. No single screw up of Obama's is outcome-dispositive, but the sum of all of them is bad news. That US no longer has the clout to stop something like this from happening is quite telling. Traditional American alliances clearly are weaker now than they were before he arrived. You can't lay all of that at Obama's doorstep. Especially this latest bit: China has been growing economically for the last 20 years, and analysts have been heralding the age of China for at least as long as that.
But it surely is Obama's fault that America's allies even dare to consider to expand their markets outside the US. They should be quaking in their boots at the mere thought of betraying America.
Or that is how I read xDaunts stance on this anyway. But maybe the reason they are looking more towards China is because the US based institutions caused a global financial recession in recent years and are back on the course that caused said recession.
|
On March 18 2015 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On March 18 2015 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc. Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways. What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead? That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this? Like what is he not doing that he should? My gripe is Obama's continued hemorrhaging of American power and influence. No single screw up of Obama's is outcome-dispositive, but the sum of all of them is bad news. That US no longer has the clout to stop something like this from happening is quite telling. Traditional American alliances clearly are weaker now than they were before he arrived. You can't lay all of that at Obama's doorstep. Especially this latest bit: China has been growing economically for the last 20 years, and analysts have been heralding the age of China for at least as long as that. But it surely is Obama's fault that America's allies even dare to consider to expand their markets outside the US. They should be quaking in their boots at the mere thought of betraying America. Or that is how I read xDaunts stance on this anyway. But maybe the reason they are looking more towards China is because the US based institutions caused a global financial recession in recent years and are back on the course that caused said recession.
I don't want allies who live in fear of the US. I want real partners. If you look at the past six years, Obama has alienated/antagonized to one agree or another pretty much every ally that we have. The US has not been a reliable partner during the Obama administration.
|
WASHINGTON — The GOP-controlled House and Senate are expected to unveil budget blueprints this week, setting up a familiar ideological showdown with President Barack Obama — but also within the party — over federal spending.
The spending proposals set to be released by the House and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, are largely symbolic documents broadly outlining Republican goals on taxes and spending. But getting a nonbinding budget resolution passed in the House and Senate in the coming weeks is still considered an important test of party unity for the Republicans, who have promised to govern — not to obstruct — with their newly won majority.
To implement the measures included in a budget resolution, lawmakers would have to craft and pass follow-up legislation later this year that would then have to make it past the president's veto pen.
The proposals, authored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., seek to balance the federal budget over 10 years without raising taxes. To achieve those goals, the plans are expected to include $5 trillion in cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, over the course of the next decade.
“The thinking today is, Let’s pass a budget that lays out our aspirational goals over the next decade,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told The Wall Street Journal. “Let’s go through step one and know that step two is coming.”
The GOP proposal will be a marked departure from Obama’s budget, released earlier this year, which asked for billions of dollars in new spending on programs intended to bolster the middle class. Democrats have already begun to slam the GOP’s spending plans, arguing that balancing the budget by making deep cuts to domestic programs — without adding revenue — inevitably places an undue burden on vulnerable populations.
“Balancing the budget on the backs of working families who have borne the brunt of the recession makes no economic sense,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., tweeted last week.
Many Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are balking over the issue of defense spending and are seeking a workaround to the across-the-board spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, also known as sequestration, which would slash $54 billion from the Defense Department’s budget. The 2011 budget deal set defense spending at $523 billion for the next fiscal year — than the $561 billion requested by Obama earlier this year in his budget.
Seventy House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the GOP budget resolution at least match the president’s request.
Source
|
On March 18 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 02:05 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2015 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On March 18 2015 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2015 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 18 2015 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2015 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2015 23:53 Acrofales wrote:On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? Paranoid much? Negotiating with the largest nation on earth to invest in infrastructure is good business, not abandoning the US, lol. You're missing the bigger picture. The AIIB is going to become an alternative to the current, US-dominated international financial institutions. Considering the current US-dominated international financial institutions tend to cause global financial depressions I don't see the problem. From the perspective of American power, it is certainly a problem. But if we're to look at the current state of the global economy, the American financial institutions are in better shape than pretty much everyone else -- Japan, China, Europe, etc. Yeah, the rest didn't get bailed out for nearly as many billions and aren't allowed to go right back to their wicked ways. What is your gripe even? That Obama isn't strong arming other nations into spending money in American banks instead? That the army isn't planning to invade China to stop this? Like what is he not doing that he should? My gripe is Obama's continued hemorrhaging of American power and influence. No single screw up of Obama's is outcome-dispositive, but the sum of all of them is bad news. That US no longer has the clout to stop something like this from happening is quite telling. Traditional American alliances clearly are weaker now than they were before he arrived. You can't lay all of that at Obama's doorstep. Especially this latest bit: China has been growing economically for the last 20 years, and analysts have been heralding the age of China for at least as long as that. But it surely is Obama's fault that America's allies even dare to consider to expand their markets outside the US. They should be quaking in their boots at the mere thought of betraying America. Or that is how I read xDaunts stance on this anyway. But maybe the reason they are looking more towards China is because the US based institutions caused a global financial recession in recent years and are back on the course that caused said recession. I don't want allies who live in fear of the US. I want real partners. If you look at the past six years, Obama has alienated/antagonized to one agree or another pretty much every ally that we have. The US has not been a reliable partner during the Obama administration.
Fairly certain that however you want to spin it, George W. did a far better job of alienating the REAL partners that the US had. If you're talking about strategic allies in the M.E. and northern Africa, then we can reopen that discussion, but the US and mainland Europe were on less friendly terms during Dubbya's presidency than basically any point since the end of WW2.
|
On March 18 2015 02:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — The GOP-controlled House and Senate are expected to unveil budget blueprints this week, setting up a familiar ideological showdown with President Barack Obama — but also within the party — over federal spending.
The spending proposals set to be released by the House and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, are largely symbolic documents broadly outlining Republican goals on taxes and spending. But getting a nonbinding budget resolution passed in the House and Senate in the coming weeks is still considered an important test of party unity for the Republicans, who have promised to govern — not to obstruct — with their newly won majority.
To implement the measures included in a budget resolution, lawmakers would have to craft and pass follow-up legislation later this year that would then have to make it past the president's veto pen.
The proposals, authored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., seek to balance the federal budget over 10 years without raising taxes. To achieve those goals, the plans are expected to include $5 trillion in cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, over the course of the next decade.
“The thinking today is, Let’s pass a budget that lays out our aspirational goals over the next decade,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told The Wall Street Journal. “Let’s go through step one and know that step two is coming.”
The GOP proposal will be a marked departure from Obama’s budget, released earlier this year, which asked for billions of dollars in new spending on programs intended to bolster the middle class. Democrats have already begun to slam the GOP’s spending plans, arguing that balancing the budget by making deep cuts to domestic programs — without adding revenue — inevitably places an undue burden on vulnerable populations.
“Balancing the budget on the backs of working families who have borne the brunt of the recession makes no economic sense,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., tweeted last week.
Many Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are balking over the issue of defense spending and are seeking a workaround to the across-the-board spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, also known as sequestration, which would slash $54 billion from the Defense Department’s budget. The 2011 budget deal set defense spending at $523 billion for the next fiscal year — than the $561 billion requested by Obama earlier this year in his budget.
Seventy House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the GOP budget resolution at least match the president’s request. Source
Why are we spending ~$600 billion a year on defense? Do we really need X-Wings to bomb illiterate mudfarmers in the Middle East? Realistically, what good is our trillion-dollar F35 (which isn't even finished yet) when a Cessna with bomb pylons can flatten shanties just as effectively and for 1/1000th of the cost?
Every cruise missile we've ever fired cost $15 million, and that's excluding maintenance, transportation, and launch equipment prices. How many of them hit anything worth 1/10th of that?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
obama already signaled a quite strong asian pivot for u.s. foreign policy priority, and china is never going to replace the u.s. in the role of the international financial system. it still has closed capital accounts and they have some smelly bodies under the carpet. this development bank is just a way to get capital access to asian markets.
it signals european reliance and weakness rather than u.s. failure. in particular the uk is literally a country run by finance and won't care for either putin or china as long as the money is good.
|
On March 18 2015 02:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 02:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — The GOP-controlled House and Senate are expected to unveil budget blueprints this week, setting up a familiar ideological showdown with President Barack Obama — but also within the party — over federal spending.
The spending proposals set to be released by the House and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, are largely symbolic documents broadly outlining Republican goals on taxes and spending. But getting a nonbinding budget resolution passed in the House and Senate in the coming weeks is still considered an important test of party unity for the Republicans, who have promised to govern — not to obstruct — with their newly won majority.
To implement the measures included in a budget resolution, lawmakers would have to craft and pass follow-up legislation later this year that would then have to make it past the president's veto pen.
The proposals, authored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., seek to balance the federal budget over 10 years without raising taxes. To achieve those goals, the plans are expected to include $5 trillion in cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, over the course of the next decade.
“The thinking today is, Let’s pass a budget that lays out our aspirational goals over the next decade,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told The Wall Street Journal. “Let’s go through step one and know that step two is coming.”
The GOP proposal will be a marked departure from Obama’s budget, released earlier this year, which asked for billions of dollars in new spending on programs intended to bolster the middle class. Democrats have already begun to slam the GOP’s spending plans, arguing that balancing the budget by making deep cuts to domestic programs — without adding revenue — inevitably places an undue burden on vulnerable populations.
“Balancing the budget on the backs of working families who have borne the brunt of the recession makes no economic sense,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., tweeted last week.
Many Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are balking over the issue of defense spending and are seeking a workaround to the across-the-board spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, also known as sequestration, which would slash $54 billion from the Defense Department’s budget. The 2011 budget deal set defense spending at $523 billion for the next fiscal year — than the $561 billion requested by Obama earlier this year in his budget.
Seventy House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the GOP budget resolution at least match the president’s request. Source Why are we spending ~$600 billion a year on defense? Do we really need X-Wings to bomb illiterate mudfarmers in the Middle East? Realistically, what good is our trillion-dollar F35 (which isn't even finished yet) when a Cessna with bomb pylons can flatten shanties just as effectively and for 1/1000th of the cost? Every cruise missile we've ever fired cost $15 million, and that's excluding maintenance, transportation, and launch equipment prices. How many of them hit anything worth 1/10th of that?
Because the military industry spends a lot of money buying, ehm i mean, lobbying politicians and if your campaigning on less defense spending your seen as weak and wanting the terrorists to win.
Yes the US doesn't have to spend this much money on defense. It can spend vastly less and still be #1 for the foreseeable future but that's sadly not how things play out in the world of politics.
|
On March 18 2015 02:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 02:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — The GOP-controlled House and Senate are expected to unveil budget blueprints this week, setting up a familiar ideological showdown with President Barack Obama — but also within the party — over federal spending.
The spending proposals set to be released by the House and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, are largely symbolic documents broadly outlining Republican goals on taxes and spending. But getting a nonbinding budget resolution passed in the House and Senate in the coming weeks is still considered an important test of party unity for the Republicans, who have promised to govern — not to obstruct — with their newly won majority.
To implement the measures included in a budget resolution, lawmakers would have to craft and pass follow-up legislation later this year that would then have to make it past the president's veto pen.
The proposals, authored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., seek to balance the federal budget over 10 years without raising taxes. To achieve those goals, the plans are expected to include $5 trillion in cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, over the course of the next decade.
“The thinking today is, Let’s pass a budget that lays out our aspirational goals over the next decade,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told The Wall Street Journal. “Let’s go through step one and know that step two is coming.”
The GOP proposal will be a marked departure from Obama’s budget, released earlier this year, which asked for billions of dollars in new spending on programs intended to bolster the middle class. Democrats have already begun to slam the GOP’s spending plans, arguing that balancing the budget by making deep cuts to domestic programs — without adding revenue — inevitably places an undue burden on vulnerable populations.
“Balancing the budget on the backs of working families who have borne the brunt of the recession makes no economic sense,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., tweeted last week.
Many Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are balking over the issue of defense spending and are seeking a workaround to the across-the-board spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, also known as sequestration, which would slash $54 billion from the Defense Department’s budget. The 2011 budget deal set defense spending at $523 billion for the next fiscal year — than the $561 billion requested by Obama earlier this year in his budget.
Seventy House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the GOP budget resolution at least match the president’s request. Source Why are we spending ~$600 billion a year on defense? Do we really need X-Wings to bomb illiterate mudfarmers in the Middle East? Realistically, what good is our trillion-dollar F35 (which isn't even finished yet) when a Cessna with bomb pylons can flatten shanties just as effectively and for 1/1000th of the cost? Every cruise missile we've ever fired cost $15 million, and that's excluding maintenance, transportation, and launch equipment prices. How many of them hit anything worth 1/10th of that?
I strongly agree. We need more low-priced weapons that are suitable for low intensity warfare, or for use against targets that don't have good tech. The scrap metal from our bombs is probably worth more than some of the targets they've hit.
Our neighbor mexico has a total military budget of $12 billion.
|
Maybe investing in the world's largest and fastest growing economy is like, a good idea
Gee I don't know
Remember the AliBaba IPO? The reason there was such demand wasn't because it moved more goods than Amazon and Ebay, but because it basically provided proxy access to the Chinese market.
Though to be fair, China has it's own share of problems. Their delegates meeting this year was extremely austere because of crappy growth. They've also had a huge crackdown on financial crimes and corruption. How China comes out of this transition period will determine a lot.
|
I think American concerns in the AIIB are well-founded; the guise of a benevolent international organization is too thinly veiled. At its base it is nothing more than a conduit for Chinese soft power, and considering China's socioeconomic track-record, there are few nations less qualified to lead such an organization.
The idea that the Brits, French or Germans could shape policy within a Chinese (let's drop the "Asian" façade and call it what it really is) organization is pretty far-fetched, considering inequitable economic policies and inhumane social standards are the very means which enable China to thrive on the global market. As the US is unwilling to compromise its economic hegemony on the world stage, so, too, will China be uncompromising in regard to undermining the inequitable trade practices working greatly in its favor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
of course, but in this case it's just europeans throwing their values out of the door and lusting after the money. nothing stopping more russian, saudi and chinese money in london.
|
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) will resign from Congress amid a controversy over his spending habits, Politico reported Tuesday.
In a statement to Politico, the congressman said he will resign effective March 31.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
