Sunday, August 23, 2015

BloggeRhythms

An article today, by Jonathan Weisman @nytimes.com, is a cause for scratching one’s head in confusion. Mr. Weisman writes that: “In his most comprehensive effort to assure wavering Democrats, President Obama wrote in a letter to Congress that the United States would unilaterally maintain economic pressure and deploy military options if needed to deter Iranian aggression, both during and beyond the proposed nuclear accord.”
 
Addressed to N.Y. Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler, it’s also aimed at other Democrats with concerns about the deal
 
Now here’s the really confusing part: “Obama pledged to increase missile defense funding for Israel, accelerate co-development of missile defense systems, and boost tunnel detection and mapping technologies. He also vowed to increase cooperation with Israel and Persian Gulf allies to counter Iran’s efforts to destabilize Yemen, its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its efforts to preserve the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”
 
However, while all of the steps described by the POTUS make absolute sense, why not take them anyway without an agreement and keep the sanctions in place. Because the sanctions are obviously working at present and the odds of bringing them back in the event of an almost guaranteed Iranian default are likely lees than zero.
 
Which means that, as suspected here all along in the past, the POTUS has another agenda in play. Because even he knows that this deal is nothing but a huge giveaway to Iran, and a major threat to rest of the Middle-East. Particularly Israel immediately, and then the U.S. later on. 
 
Another subject continues the article addressed yesterday by David A. Fahrenthold @washingtonpost.com titled: “Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform: Because I said so.”
 
In essence, the article pointed out that except for trying to sound tougher than other Republican presidential contenders regarding illegal immigration, Trump’s platform on everything else is basically repackaged hot air. 
 
Furthermore, when pressed for specifics as to how his ideas would be implemented, Trump most often answers that he knows how to do it, and therefore doesn’t have to go into details and should just be trusted because of who he is. Which is exactly the same way that Obama and Nancy Pelosi misled the voters about Obamacare, one of the worst program ever foisted on the American public. 
 
On another topic: “Trump has contemplated expensive new plans. To fight the Islamic State, for instance, he has advocated a military campaign aimed at removing the oil out from under the militants’ territory. 
 
“Take back their wealth. Take back the oil. . . . You bomb the hell out of them and then you encircle it, and then you go in” with an oil company, Trump has said. “Once you take that oil, they have nothing left. And it’s so simple.” 
 
However, what the military genius left out, or didn’t contemplate, is that after you “bomb the hell out of them,” you have also more than likely destroyed the wells. And if you didn’t, how do you transport the oil through bombed out pipelines? Perhaps a cup at a time with a ladle and an empty bottle.    
 
What he said that does sound sensible, though, is calling for “a 25 percent tariff on all goods imported from China if China wouldn’t stop unfair trade practices.” He has also called for increased tariffs on imports from Mexico in order to pay for his wall. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, China is presently going through an economic reversal and in all likelihood will clean up its own act if it wants to survive financially. While in Mexico's case, he’s going to need their help in handling the outpouring of illegals he’s proposing. Making tax increases probably unlikely at present. 
 
And finally, he did suggest something truly valid by also threatening “American companies with tariffs if those companies wanted to shift U.S. jobs overseas.”
 
Trump said, “I would call up the head of Ford, who I know. If I was president, I’d say, ‘Congratulations. I understand that you’re building a nice $2.5 billion car factory in Mexico and that you’re going to take your cars and sell them to the United States, zero tax,’ ” Trump said during his campaign announcement. “So I would say, ‘Congratulations. That’s the good news. Let me give you the bad news . . . we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax.’ ”
 
Thus, while the tariff would be a good idea for many reasons, it still doesn’t offset the problems inherent in electing an inexperienced amateur at national governance. Especially one who’s gone bankrupt four time in business ventures while saving his real estate entities from the same fate thanks to a bailout pact agreed upon in August 1990 by some 70 banks. 
 
The bailout allowed Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed. Sounds pretty much like the way Obama’s running the whole debt ridden U.S. he’s ruined economically. Except Obama got his bailout money from the biggest bank of all, the Federal Reserve.  
 
On the other side, Josh Lederman and Ken Thomas @myway.com, write about Joe Biden, saying his meeting yesterday with Elizabeth Warren “was the latest sign that the vice president is seriously considering entering the race, and that he's increasingly discussing it with Democratic leaders outside of his small cadre of longtime advisers.
 
The authors believe this is, “extremely important because Warren, a vocal advocate for economic fairness and Wall Street reform, has notably refrained from endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders or the other candidates. She retains the vocal support of many in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, making her endorsement one of the most highly sought in the primary.”
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who according to Amy Chozick @nytimes.com, “had planned to spend the last two weeks of August on vacation, unwinding and fund-raising on the exclusive shores of Long Island. But, as it turns out, this is no time for a vacation.
 
"Amid concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s softening poll numbers and her exclusive use of a personal email server as secretary of state, she will interrupt her Hamptons stay next week to travel to the Midwest and try to shift attention back to her campaign message by unveiling new policy positions.”
 
What’s interesting here, is that Bill’s wife advocates helping those in need, including plans leaning toward income redistribution. Yet, after her emergency campaign trip: “She will then return to the Hamptons, where she and former President Bill Clinton are renting a beachside estate in Amagansett that costs $100,000 for a two-week stay, and will attend several $2,700-per-person fund-raisers hosted there by her wealthy friends.”
 
Ms Chozick goes on to note that, “With questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email persisting — a federal judge said Thursday that the practice did not comply with government policies — and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. considering seeking the Democratic nomination, the late-August doldrums have proven anything but.” 
 
Leading to the daily question which Joe Biden may already be answering: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 
 
That's it for today folks. 
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment