Hopefully the latter--otherwise there will be no oil left for VZ's regional partners.

And thus allow Venezuela to sell its oil profitably, instead of having next to no income because they are busy repaying China?

That's what this new ''cold war'' has been about all along. Financial survival. We stick it to the Russians in Ukraine and they stealthily ''invade'' and force them into a truce and a ceasefire before the first pallets of Foreign Aid (in-cash, of course) can be stolen from the airport.

So we get pissed-off that our war wouldn't start because Russia ''interfered'' in our global maniacal NWO-games, and call on the EU to impose sanctions on Russia in retaliation. Then Russia gives Greece $5 Billion loan, pissing-off the EU and screwing up their timetables to take Greece to the pawnshop and see what they can get for it.

And on top of all that, the Rouble's kicking the Euro's and the dollar's ass. Because they've got Elvira on the case and you don't fuck with Elvira. Just because.


Then we have to go and stick it to Venezuela and call them a ''security threat''. Yeah, Venezuela is the next budding Super Power in the hemisphere and we had better keep an eye on them! And their oil. (Damn it we seem so afraid of everyone, you notice?). And so then China gives them a $5 billion loan. Are you sensing a trend here?

The main problem with our policy--planning (for lack of a better term for it not involving profanity) is that if we want to start any really expensive wars we won't be able to charge them on the credit card(s) now, since China and others hold most of the paper.

- They might take offense if we try to bomb any of their BRICs buddies......

it's people who wanted to join the EU (per all polling). The country was on a path to do just that. Yanukovych abruptly changed to a deal with Russia without the support of his people and they protested (and yes some of the protesters were nationalist right wingers, but they didn't make up anything like a majority. Not only did the polling show a majority supporting the EU, the greatest support for a Russian led trade bloc came from the oldest citizens which means in ten years there would be even less support and in twenty years almost none at all.

That is what happens when your country is following an agreed upon direction and the President makes unilateral decisions that affect each resident so gravely.

One of the very reasons for Ukraine's problems was the gas and oil deals they were getting from Russia. Putin kept making deals with Ukraine that were more favorable to Russia and were designed to keep control over Ukraine rather than help it. None of his gas/oil deals gave Ukraine the same rates as other countries. When they couldn't pay he'd use concessions to get the gov't to do what he wanted (like renewing the Black Sea leases). While that isn't illegal, it doesn't breed goodwill or make the country want to sign a trade pact with you.

The US didn't want to get involved in this at all. Obama wanted the EU to handle it. Putin was the one who kept dragging the US into it and that is because the EU is viewed favorably by the Russian citizens but the US isn't. (the US favorability ratings have tanked since Putin came to power. Interesting since there hasn't been much interaction until recently).

The ruble isn't kicking the Euro or the dollar's ass. The ruble is coming back from it's 50% drop, thank God. The ruble is rising but only being down 30% isn't anything to brag about.

Your assessment that Venezuela is the next superpower in the region is ridiculous (I hope you were joking). Why can't Venezuela supporters recognize that VZ is on it's way to becoming a failed state and that has nothing to do with the US. Our primary interaction with VZ is purchasing oil from them (at market prices) that hasn't changed and likely won't unless they reduce their output.

You're like the typical brainwashed communist. You refuse to see the truth and blame everything on the US. All the propaganda can't change reality. As long as people like you refuse to address the very real problems in countries like Venezuela you're only hurting your cause.

China turns around and loans money to countries, indebting them to China in a sort of roundabout way with "our" money, that is the money that we spend in China.

Interesting. Meanwhile, many Americans are either jobless or working at minimum wage. What fools are we?

I am glad that US money is recycling to Venezuela, because the US has severely damaged that nation.

And I suspect the Chinese will be treating their client states a hell of a lot better than the US ever did theirs. It would be hard to do a worse job.

I do worry about quality, though, if China supplies goods.

Watch out, the Venezuela haters will descend soon.

China may soon become Venezuela's largest recipient of oil as they squander away the nations wealth and continue with their disastrous economic policies.

but the biggest causes of the debt are tax cuts & wars. China buys the US debt & later sells it but would never sell their holdings all it once because it would be suicide. Complex reasons for doing so, USD & Yuan currency & interest rates play a role which is conducive to off-shoring but the trade deficit with China isn't part the biggest causes of the debt but holdings lead to more off shoring if makes sense. China actually isn't the country who owns most of our debt anymore but not by much

Japan now holds more U.S. debt than China

At the end of January, entities in Mainland China had held $1239.1 billion in U.S. government debt and entities in Japan had held $1238.6 billion. During February, the Japanese decreased their holdings by $14.2 billion, ending the month with $1,224.4 billion in U.S. government debt.

Mainland Chinese ownership of U.S. government debt has been generally declining since it peaked in November 2013 at $1,316.70 billion. Japanese ownership of U.S. government debt hit its most recent peak in November 2014, when it hit $1,241.50 billion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/china-no-longer-top-foreign-owner-us-debt

The other leading foreign the own US debt

The oil exporting countries are fifth at $297 billion. Brazil is the sixth at $260 billion. The next largest holders are Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK, Hong Kong, India, and Luxembourg (another front). They hold between $113-$202 billion each. (Source: Foreign Holding of U.S. Treasury Securities, December 15, 2014; U.S. Treasury report Petrodollars and Global Imbalances, February 2006) Article updated April 16, 2015. Data is from various reports, so the total may not add up to $18 trillion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

On the issue of "our" money is complicated. Technically, China allow US companies in their borders & politicians allow it happen. China loans money because the US owes money everywhere. I agree with you being against the free trade & off-sharing policies that create those seismic shifts in the wealth imbalance but I really don't see our money going to Venezuela. Defense spending is massive, the lion's share of that go to private defense contractors & you don't even want to imagine what they do with the money. While pocketing the money & imported slave labor of the poor in Asia & Africa is the status quo (especially for Halliburton & KBR) what gets attention & scandals are bribes & kickbacks.

US defense contractor settles bribery charges

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — U.S. defense contractor FLIR Systems Inc. has agreed to pay $9.5 million to settle bribery charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that involved expensive trips and gifts given to Middle Eastern government officials.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the deal Wednesday, saying the thermal-imaging company earned more than $7 million in profits from sales influenced by the gifts.

The commission said two employees in FLIR's Dubai office gave luxury watches to five officials with the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Interior in 2009. The company also arranged travel for Saudi officials, including a 20-night trip with stops in Beirut, Casablanca, Dubai, New York and Paris.

"FLIR's deficient financial controls failed to identify and stop the activities of employees who served as de facto travel agents for influential foreign officials to travel around the world on the company's dime," said Kara Brockmeyer, chief of the SEC enforcement division's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act unit.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-defense-contractor-settles-bribery-charges-001107743.html

That was just from a search into Google news for recent articles that one is dated April 8th. I could really expand this post on bribery kickback issue alone but more of what I consider "our" money.

Defense Contractors Are Making a Killing

Now, with U.S. forces literally blowing through tens of millions of dollars of munitions a day, the industry is not just counting on vast spending to replenish inventory, but hoping for a new era of reliance on supremely expensive military hardware.

“To the extent we can shift away from relying on troops and rely more heavily on equipment — that could present an opportunity,” Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank, whose $66 billion portfolio includes Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co. shares, told Bloomberg.

Defense contractor stocks have far exceeded the performance of the broader market. A Bloomberg index of four of the largest Pentagon contractors rose 19 percent this year, compared to 2.2 percent for the S&P 500.

It’s the munition makers who “stand to reap the biggest windfall, especially in the short term,” says Fortune magazine, citing Raytheon’s long-range Tomahawk missiles, and Lockheed Martin’s Hellfires, among others. “Small diameter bombs could be a huge winner, since aircraft can carry more of them in a single sortie,” one analyst tells the magazine.

U.S. forces used 47 Tomahawk missiles on Monday alone, at $1.5 million apiece.

Smart “small-diameter bombs” cost about $250,000 each.

Richard Clough writes for Bloomberg:

For defense companies, the offensive against Islamic State and al-Qaeda extremists is more than a showcase for big-ticket weapons such as Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor fighter, the stealth jet that debuted in combat this week.

In its first night of airstrikes into Syria, the U.S. dropped about 200 munitions and launched 47 Raytheon-made Tomahawk cruise missiles, according to U.S. Central Command. The military also deployed Boeing’s GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Hellfire missiles from Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, creating an opening for restocking U.S. arsenals.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/25/defense-contractors-making-killing/

Aside from the giddiness over the money making opportunities over death & destruction they are heavily subsidized on top of it simply giving the money away into their hands with no benefits associated with the costs. Practically looting the country.

Still, it seems that so much of what we buy in the stores is made in China.

Further, from an American point of view, we "invest" or spend so much money and effort on our military keeping supply lines and trading passages open for the entire world. And then our wealthiest including our wealthiest corporations refuse to pay the taxes that insure those lines, those trade routes for their business interests. It is crazy.

The problem with American companies bribing foreign companies has existed at least since the early 1970s. If I remember correctly, laws to prevent that bribery were passed maybe in 1973-74. They were at least discussed at that time.

I am aware that the money owed to the Social Security fund is the largest debt owed by the general fund. But that seems to me to be more like the kinds of bonds that Americans used to buy, ordinary Americans used to buy from our government. If our economy were really doing all that well, the Social Security fund would be constantly building up an excess due to the increases in wages and the resulting increases in payroll taxes transferred to the Social Security fund.

As a retired person, I am keenly aware of the fact that reduced wages, wages that are stagnant and have been stagnant for many years are part of the difficulty with our fiscal and budget issues. Much of our tax revenue is derived from wages, from earned income, and when that tax revenue fails to rise adequately, we have a shortfall in the tax revenue.

We have a lot of work to do to balance our economy better so that we can thrive and solve our problems.

For example, I live in Southern California. We have an unbelievable amount of sun, unbelievable. Not enough water, but a surplus of sun, you might say. We should be heating, cooling and energizing our lives with solar energy. But most people in Southern California don't have the income to put solar panels on their homes or commercial buildings. The Germans who live in a much colder, wetter, less sunny climate pay higher taxes and get incentives to put solar panels on their roofs. We who live in this sunny climate get incentives to put the panels on, but the incentives are not big enough for many of us who use relatively little electricity. Our tax structure gives more effective incentives for the production of oil and gas than for the clean, solar energy. Again, those with the money don't pay back enough into the general funds in our country. It's irresponsibility on their part and also their sense of not really being part of the society around them. They don't view the social problems as their own. They view them as the problems of those who have less money.

We could easily manage the tax revenues already there if we scaled back of the corporate welfare -- the subsides, tax breaks, & closing the loopholes.

This is my favorite economic article I've read in a long time.

During the 1992 presidential campaign Vice President Dan Quayle traveled to Michigan to announce a $250 million plan to upgrade the M-1 tank--which happens to be built by General Dynamics in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Before the campaign the Bush administration had argued convincingly that in the post-cold war era the more expensive tank was unnecessary.

Many of the top recipients of technology research grants awarded by the Clinton administration were also substantial contributors to the Clinton-Gore campaign or the Democratic National Committee. For example, table 3 lists ten Fortune 500 firms that were multimillion-dollar award winners of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) or the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) in 1994 that were also large Democratic and Republican campaign contributors, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by Common Cause. (Almost all firms that chase corporate welfare dollars hedge their bets by giving to both parties. In Washington, the way to gain a "seat at the table" is to contribute bipartisanly. Industry learns the rules of engagement in Washington quickly: giving to both parties is tolerated; giving to neither is not.) In sum, corporate welfare programs often put our government programs up for sale to the highest bidder.

4. Corporate welfare benefits workers and consumers. One of the main effects of many corporate subsidy programs is to raise prices to consumers. Trade restrictions, often sought by politically powerful industries, are estimated to cost consumers $80 billion a year.

The sugar program alone is estimated to cost consumers more than $3 billion a year, according to a U.S. Department of Commerce study. The Commerce study concluded, "Because sugar is an ingredient in many food items, the effect of the sugar program is similar to a regressive sales tax, which hits lower-income families harder than upper-income families."

The Commerce Department's ATP program is also advertised as a job saver. But from 1990 to 1994, the ATP provided more than $250 million to eight firms--Amoco, AT&T, Citicorp, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, and Motorola. Over those five years, these firms reduced their total U.S. workforces by 329,000.

http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

I think stronger unions again -- tough anti-trust protections as consolidation. AT&T & Directv recently merged bad for the consumer & as they can offer fewer choices for higher prices, things like that. I don't think we can turn back the clock on off-shoring but need to either have ways to get manufacturing back or a credible jobs program.

The problem with solar & other things like that is right now there isn't a legitimate energy independence with the oil trains out there pushing tar sands like crazy. Probably slowed down, have no idea where gas prices are right now but still probably pretty cheap.

The US DOT recently proposed regulations on oil trains (which includes the ethanol trains to appease the oil companies who use a ethanol refinary in Oregon as an oil train depot. No ethanol being produced there but regulations have to go through the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs which is an agency Reagan created made up of lobbyists & economists who are certainly going to make some changes. All regulations that go through there are gutted.

The oil train regulations have been delayed for the longest time. The DOT proposed this back in December or January (the winter). Apparently we are still waiting on the House of Information & Regulatory Affairs, I remember back in the winter there was a date (I know it would likely be delayed) but have no idea how long they are going to milk this. The DOT is the agency that would know best, OIRA should have finalized it the next day but *sigh*

This was about as recent as I could find

Heitkamp Presses OIRA To Finish Oil Train Rules

“Oh Ira, why can’t you work more quickly?” That might’ve been what tunesmith George Gershwin said to his lyric-writing brother Ira Gershwin. But for transportation purposes, it’s essentially what Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D- N.D., said Thursday to OIRA – pronounced “oh-Ira” – the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget.

OIRA is where proposed regulations go for a final vetting and it now has under review a series of proposed rules on more robust oil tank cars and safer transport of crude oil.

In a letter to OMB director Shaun Donovan, Heitkamp urged OIRA to “quickly finalize” the regulations so that shippers and first responders can know what they must do to more safely ship crude oil. Much of that oil comes from the Bakken formation in Heitkamp’s state and in Montana and is carried by rail to refineries on the East Coast and the West Coast.

She cited the December 2013 derailment, explosion and fire in Casselton, N.D., noting that while no one was killed in that incident “we were lucky… but we cannot depend on luck.”

Meanwhile House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter A. DeFazio, D- Ore., has asked the Government Accountability Office to report to him on what railroads and the federal government are doing to prepare for an oil train derailment and fire “particularly in the most remote and environmentally sensitive areas”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/the-container/category/rail/

Pathetic, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs has a "history" and it is not good. I imagine they are dragging their feet as long as they can while subtracting the regulations that threaten pennies they may not earn. Also gives the oil & gas industry & their loyalists to preach their oil is safe propaganda. They would rather just push the oil in the trains they have in the conditions that are & risk a train here or there derailing, who cares of it blows up a town when suspending to order the safer oil trains & those also cost money too. A train blows them "spillage" send out the next train.

This is just to highlight the green energy, it is safer, renewable & you don't have to worry about an Iran-India pipeline controlling a large share of the Solar supply as well. Look into others, nuclear is good except when it isn't but the wolves came back in Chernobyl & a thriving ecosystem thriving without humans Fukishima a different story right now but it is a huge gamble.

Social security solvency could easily be solved by lifting the cap but a thriving working class economy easily addresses it as well with more people paying payroll taxes. I remember when mainstream Democrats were advocating for yet another Payroll tax cut (3 years in a row) because they like to slam Republicans as being hypocrites on tax cuts during campaign season. Bernie Sanders was still talking about "lifting the cap" a traditional Democratic policy. I wouldn't mind a payroll tax hike personally, I draw the line at slashing it as reforming social security goes. I agree with Warren as she as often proposed expanding social security which polls show most Americans do too (why Democrats don't run on this I have no idea).

"Trade restrictions, often sought by politically powerful industries, are estimated to cost consumers $80 billion a year.

The sugar program alone is estimated to cost consumers more than $3 billion a year, according to a U.S. Department of Commerce study. The Commerce study concluded, "Because sugar is an ingredient in many food items, the effect of the sugar program is similar to a regressive sales tax, which hits lower-income families harder than upper-income families." "

Considering our obesity problem, I'd hate to think what would happen if sugar were cheaper. Of course, if people spent a little less on food with expensive sugar in it, maybe they would spend more on healthier food. I'm joking a bit, but . . . . you never know.

I favor solar in part because it is really clean energy. We need that in California because of our particular geographical problems. You may know that our gasoline in some areas is required to have a slightly different character than the cheaper gasoline sold in some areas of the country (or at least that was the case maybe 12 years ago) because of the unusual environmental issues we have. Los Angeles for example is nearly surrounded by mountains and ocean and that is why smog hangs over us even now at certain times of the year.

I favor raising the cap on Social Security. And I don't think that Medicare or Social Security should be means tested in either direction. Get rid of the loopholes for corporations as you suggested, and collect the excessive payments under Medicare and Social Security for the general fund with the higher revenue that results. Also, I do view closing loopholes as raising taxes. It has the same effect and if the loopholes are closed as they should be, their closing may be done so as to give incentives for positive social behavior. That's my lay view.

...and $5 Billion there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money!

- And the suspense and ulcers this is causing ''some people'' is worth every penny!

[center]
[/center]

K&R