-
[h=3]Nick Corasaniti[/h][h=4]Reporter[/h]
11:47 AM ET
On future deals, Ms. Dillon says: “The Trust agreement imposes severe restrictions on new deals. No new foreign deals will be made whatsoever during the duration of Trump’s presidency. New domestic deals will be allowed but they will go through a rigorous vetting process.”
She adds that Mr. Trump will have no knowledge of or say over the deals. She says he will “only know of the deal if he reads it in the paper or sees it on TV.”
-
[h=3]Julie Hirschfeld Davis[/h][h=4]Reporter[/h]
11:48 AM ET
It is also not what Mr. Trump himself said he would do when he tweeted a few weeks ago about “no new deals” while he is president. Very far from that.
-
[h=3]Glenn Thrush[/h][h=4]Reporter[/h]
11:48 AM ET
Whether intentional or otherwise, Mr. Trump has succeeded in tucking his as-yet opaque efforts to distance himself from his business under the bigger, sexier and ultimately easier-to-parry sex-scandal allegations.
-
[h=3]Maggie Haberman[/h][h=4]Reporter[/h]
11:48 AM ET
Glenn, absolutely.
The BuzzFeed publication of that dossier was something of a gift to him.
It gave him cover today to claim that he was wronged.
And has eaten up a substantial amount of this press conference.
This is interesting, Ms. Dillon saying that Mr. Trump should “not be expected to destroy the company he built.”
The flip side of that argument is that no one forced him to run for president.
Sense this where things heading next few years...
----------
[h=1]Hedge fund star Kyle Bass sees 'stagflation' coming in 2017[/h]Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Wed, 19 Oct '16 | 2:38 PM ET
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
[/COLOR]
The U.S. economy is moving into a period of higher inflation but still-tepid growth, posing a difficult investing environment, famed short-seller Kyle Bass said Wednesday.
Bass, who made his name betting against subprime mortgages ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, warned that the combination will create an environment of "stagflation," a term that came into widespread use during the 1970s when both consumer prices and unemployment were on the rise.
"You have wages up, you have real estate rent moving up, now you have commodities bouncing. So 2017 is going to be a year of increasing inflation but economic growth lagging," Bass said during an interview on CNBC's "Power Lunch." "We're moving into a stagflationary environment in my view."
From an investment standpoint, the Hayman Capital Management founder and CIO said the main advice is for investors to stay away from long-duration bonds. Inflation usually causes bond yields to rise and prices to fall, creating capital losses for investors.
To be sure, recent years have seen repeated calls for investors to avoid fixed income at the far end of the curve. However, the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond exchange-traded fund has had a stellar year, turning in a price gain of 10.2 percent as of afternoon Wednesday.
Economic growth indeed has been slow. Gross domestic product averaged just 1.1 percent growth in the first half of the year. Third-quarter growth is expected to be a bit better. Economists surveyed by Reuters put Q3 GDP at 2.6 percent, though the Atlanta Fed's forecast is for just 2 percent expansion, a number that had been as high as 3.8 percent.
Wages have nudged higher, with average hourly earnings up 2.6 percent on an annualized pace in September. The consumer price index, excluding food and energy, rose at a 2.2 percent pace in September.
Bass said he has few equity holdings, so he had no recommendations on the stock market. However, he said his economic call shouldn't be interpreted as a doomsday prediction for Wall Street.
"I'm not saying the market's going to crash," Bass said. "I'm just saying it's going to have a real hard time generating positive real returns in the next few years."
----------
[h=1]Hedge fund star Kyle Bass sees 'stagflation' coming in 2017[/h]Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Wed, 19 Oct '16 | 2:38 PM ET
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
The U.S. economy is moving into a period of higher inflation but still-tepid growth, posing a difficult investing environment, famed short-seller Kyle Bass said Wednesday.
Bass, who made his name betting against subprime mortgages ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, warned that the combination will create an environment of "stagflation," a term that came into widespread use during the 1970s when both consumer prices and unemployment were on the rise.
"You have wages up, you have real estate rent moving up, now you have commodities bouncing. So 2017 is going to be a year of increasing inflation but economic growth lagging," Bass said during an interview on CNBC's "Power Lunch." "We're moving into a stagflationary environment in my view."
From an investment standpoint, the Hayman Capital Management founder and CIO said the main advice is for investors to stay away from long-duration bonds. Inflation usually causes bond yields to rise and prices to fall, creating capital losses for investors.
To be sure, recent years have seen repeated calls for investors to avoid fixed income at the far end of the curve. However, the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond exchange-traded fund has had a stellar year, turning in a price gain of 10.2 percent as of afternoon Wednesday.
Economic growth indeed has been slow. Gross domestic product averaged just 1.1 percent growth in the first half of the year. Third-quarter growth is expected to be a bit better. Economists surveyed by Reuters put Q3 GDP at 2.6 percent, though the Atlanta Fed's forecast is for just 2 percent expansion, a number that had been as high as 3.8 percent.
Wages have nudged higher, with average hourly earnings up 2.6 percent on an annualized pace in September. The consumer price index, excluding food and energy, rose at a 2.2 percent pace in September.
Bass said he has few equity holdings, so he had no recommendations on the stock market. However, he said his economic call shouldn't be interpreted as a doomsday prediction for Wall Street.
"I'm not saying the market's going to crash," Bass said. "I'm just saying it's going to have a real hard time generating positive real returns in the next few years."
[h=1]The stagflation spectre: Why gold's time may have come - The Globe and Mail[/h]Investment Ideas[h=1]The stagflation spectre: Why gold's time may have come[/h]AVNER MANDELMAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 05, 2016 7:37PM EST
Stagflation is the toughest investment regime, composed of inflation and economic stagnation. In such a period, one of the only investments that appreciates is gold. (ISSEI KATO/REUTERS)
I’ve been a gold bear for four years, but no longer: I think gold may soon rise significantly.
Why did I change?
In a word: Stagflation. It is the toughest investment regime, composed of inflation and economic stagnation. The last time we saw this was in the late 1970s. And it’s coming again. In such a period, one of the only investments that appreciates is gold.
There are four investment regimes in all, defined by economic growth and inflation: In high growth and high inflation, real estate and resources do best. In high growth and low inflation, growth stocks outperform. Low growth and low inflation is where bonds shine. And low growth and high inflation is where most stocks underperform, but gold does best.
Knowing which regime we are currently in isn’t hard. The harder part is sticking to the best investments for that regime and not trading them. What’s the hardest part? Knowing when a regime is ending, and adjusting your portfolio in time. Such a change is upon us: from high growth and low inflation, to low growth and high inflation – i.e., stagflation. Hence my changed view on gold.
Just how certain am I that growth is slowing and inflation awakening?
The evidence is piling up for both.
The economy’s weakness is self-evident: Commodity prices – copper, iron ore, oil – have all gone downhill, partly due to the slowdown in China, partly to Europe’s.
As for the United States, a new president usually gives the U.S. economy bitter medicine in the first two years, to get re-elected after two recovery years. A new president will be elected in November and the market usually anticipates this by nine to 12 months – i.e., now.
Last, but not least, the U.S. Fed just raised rates to slow the economy. Junk bonds sensed it and cratered. This was a sign that the U.S. economy should weaken soon.
What of inflation?
Here, too, the picture has become clearer. The money heap printed by the U.S. Fed and other central banks during the past six years is about ignite inflation: This money is not money supply, but rather money stock. Money supply is money stock (how much the Fed prints) times money velocity (how many times a dollar circulates in a year), and the latter should accelerate once market activity rises during a change of investment regime.
Just listen to Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, who vowed to reignite inflation – this, in the same week that the U.S. Fed chief Janet Yellen said inflation is below target and she’d like to see it higher. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
With all central bankers pushing publicly for inflation, it must soon arrive. But it often overshoots its target, and the Fed must then raise rates to rein it in – which would weaken the economy further. This has already begun, probably, as the crumbing of junk bonds indicates.
Well, then. If it’s hard to make money in stagflation, or even maintain the value of what you have, why not simply keep cash for a while?
First, because inflation erodes its buying power. But second, and more insidiously, European banks now charge 0.5 per cent a year to keep cash. Even the Bank of Canada asked for permission to have negative interest rates in future. And Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff floated the idea of disallowing physical cash altogether.
In Sweden they’re already on the way to do this. Will negative bank rates come here, too? No one knows. But when governments worldwide are enemies of cash, think twice about holding too much of your wealth in it – but do keep some on hand to buy those future cheap stocks.
What of bonds? Unfortunately, once inflation ticks up, bonds underperform, too, as long rates rise.
In sum, gold’s time has arrived. Yes, it may dip one more time, to trap the last bears, but in two or three years, its price should be higher. It’s time to start sprinkling some gold dust on your portfolio.
How?
You can simply buy bullion or gold coins and stash them in your safety deposit box. Or, as I do at Acernis, look for dividend-paying gold stocks with good balance sheets and (this is very important) trustworthy management.
Finally, on a personal level, if you planned to sell some of your gold jewellery, wait a year or two. You’ll likely get more for them later. On the other hand, if you were planning to buy a gold bijou or a ring for your beloved, do it soon. In a year or two, it’ll likely cost you more.
Avner Mandelman is president and CEO of Acernis Capital Management Inc. Acernis may occasionally have long or short positions in securities mentioned in this article.
Special to The Globe and Mail
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 05, 2016 7:37PM EST
I’ve been a gold bear for four years, but no longer: I think gold may soon rise significantly.
Why did I change?
In a word: Stagflation. It is the toughest investment regime, composed of inflation and economic stagnation. The last time we saw this was in the late 1970s. And it’s coming again. In such a period, one of the only investments that appreciates is gold.
There are four investment regimes in all, defined by economic growth and inflation: In high growth and high inflation, real estate and resources do best. In high growth and low inflation, growth stocks outperform. Low growth and low inflation is where bonds shine. And low growth and high inflation is where most stocks underperform, but gold does best.
Knowing which regime we are currently in isn’t hard. The harder part is sticking to the best investments for that regime and not trading them. What’s the hardest part? Knowing when a regime is ending, and adjusting your portfolio in time. Such a change is upon us: from high growth and low inflation, to low growth and high inflation – i.e., stagflation. Hence my changed view on gold.
Just how certain am I that growth is slowing and inflation awakening?
The evidence is piling up for both.
The economy’s weakness is self-evident: Commodity prices – copper, iron ore, oil – have all gone downhill, partly due to the slowdown in China, partly to Europe’s.
As for the United States, a new president usually gives the U.S. economy bitter medicine in the first two years, to get re-elected after two recovery years. A new president will be elected in November and the market usually anticipates this by nine to 12 months – i.e., now.
Last, but not least, the U.S. Fed just raised rates to slow the economy. Junk bonds sensed it and cratered. This was a sign that the U.S. economy should weaken soon.
What of inflation?
Here, too, the picture has become clearer. The money heap printed by the U.S. Fed and other central banks during the past six years is about ignite inflation: This money is not money supply, but rather money stock. Money supply is money stock (how much the Fed prints) times money velocity (how many times a dollar circulates in a year), and the latter should accelerate once market activity rises during a change of investment regime.
Just listen to Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, who vowed to reignite inflation – this, in the same week that the U.S. Fed chief Janet Yellen said inflation is below target and she’d like to see it higher. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
With all central bankers pushing publicly for inflation, it must soon arrive. But it often overshoots its target, and the Fed must then raise rates to rein it in – which would weaken the economy further. This has already begun, probably, as the crumbing of junk bonds indicates.
Well, then. If it’s hard to make money in stagflation, or even maintain the value of what you have, why not simply keep cash for a while?
First, because inflation erodes its buying power. But second, and more insidiously, European banks now charge 0.5 per cent a year to keep cash. Even the Bank of Canada asked for permission to have negative interest rates in future. And Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff floated the idea of disallowing physical cash altogether.
In Sweden they’re already on the way to do this. Will negative bank rates come here, too? No one knows. But when governments worldwide are enemies of cash, think twice about holding too much of your wealth in it – but do keep some on hand to buy those future cheap stocks.
What of bonds? Unfortunately, once inflation ticks up, bonds underperform, too, as long rates rise.
In sum, gold’s time has arrived. Yes, it may dip one more time, to trap the last bears, but in two or three years, its price should be higher. It’s time to start sprinkling some gold dust on your portfolio.
How?
You can simply buy bullion or gold coins and stash them in your safety deposit box. Or, as I do at Acernis, look for dividend-paying gold stocks with good balance sheets and (this is very important) trustworthy management.
Finally, on a personal level, if you planned to sell some of your gold jewellery, wait a year or two. You’ll likely get more for them later. On the other hand, if you were planning to buy a gold bijou or a ring for your beloved, do it soon. In a year or two, it’ll likely cost you more.
Avner Mandelman is president and CEO of Acernis Capital Management Inc. Acernis may occasionally have long or short positions in securities mentioned in this article.
[h=1]Millennials are falling behind their boomer parents[/h]5 Hours Ago
[h=4]Play Video
[/h]
Baby Boomers: your millennial children are worse off than you.
With a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles.
The analysis being released Friday gives concrete details about a troubling generational divide that helps to explain much of the anxiety that defined the 2016 election. Millennials have half the net worth of boomers. Their home ownership rate is lower, while their student debt is drastically higher.
The generational gap is a central dilemma for the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, who essentially pledged a return to the prosperity of post-World War II America. The analysis also hints at the issues of culture and identity that divided many voters, showing that white millennials — who still earn much more than their blacks and Latino peers — have seen their incomes plummet the most relative to boomers.
Andrea Ledesma, 28, says her parents owned a house and were raising kids by her age.
Not so for her. Ledesma graduated from college four years ago. After moving through a series of jobs, she now earns $18,000 making pizza at Classic Slice in Milwaukee, shares a two-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend and has $33,000 in student debt.
"That's not at all how life is now, that's not something that people strive for and it's not something that is even attainable, and I thought it would be at this point," Ledesma said.
Her mother Cheryl Romanowski, 55, was making about $10,000 a year at her age working at a bank without a college education. In today's dollars, that income would be equal to roughly $19,500.
Romanowski said she envies the choices that her daughter has in life, but she acknowledged that her daughter has it harder than her.
"I think the opportunities have just been fading away," she said.
The analysis of the Fed data shows the extent of the decline. It compared 25 to 34 year-olds in 2013, the most recent year available, to the same age group in 1989 after adjusting for inflation.
Education does help boost incomes. But the median college-educated millennial with student debt is only earning slightly more than a baby boomer without a degree did in 1989.
The home ownership rate for this age group dipped to 43 percent from 46 percent in 1989, although the rate has improved for millennials with a college degree relative to boomers.
The median net worth of millennials is $10,090, 56 percent less than it was for boomers.
Whites still earn dramatically more than Blacks and Latinos, reflecting the legacy of discrimination for jobs, education and housing.
Yet compared to white baby boomers, some white millennials appear stuck in a pattern of downward mobility. This group has seen their median income tumble more than 21 percent to $47,688.
Median income for black millennials has fallen just 1.4 percent to $27,892. Latino millennials earn nearly 29 percent more than their boomer predecessors to $30,436.
The analysis fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity. Research last year by economists led by Stanford University's Raj Chetty found that people born in 1950 had a 79 percent chance of making more money than their parents. That figure steadily slipped over the past several decades, such that those born in 1980 had just a 50 percent chance of out-earning their parents.
This decline has occurred even though younger Americans are increasingly college-educated. The proportion of 25 to 29 year-olds with a college degree has risen to 35.6 percent in 2015 from 23.2 percent in 1990, a report this month by the Brookings Institution noted.
The declining fortunes of millennials could impact boomers who are retired or on the cusp of retirement. Payroll taxes from millennials helps to finance the Social Security and Medicare benefits that many boomers receive — programs that Trump has said won't be subject to spending cuts. And those same boomers will need younger generations to buy their homes and invest in the financial markets to protect their own savings.
"The challenges that young adults face today could forecast the challenges that we see down the road," said Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director at Young Invincibles.
[h=4]Play Video
[/h]
Baby Boomers: your millennial children are worse off than you.
With a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles.
The analysis being released Friday gives concrete details about a troubling generational divide that helps to explain much of the anxiety that defined the 2016 election. Millennials have half the net worth of boomers. Their home ownership rate is lower, while their student debt is drastically higher.
The generational gap is a central dilemma for the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, who essentially pledged a return to the prosperity of post-World War II America. The analysis also hints at the issues of culture and identity that divided many voters, showing that white millennials — who still earn much more than their blacks and Latino peers — have seen their incomes plummet the most relative to boomers.
Andrea Ledesma, 28, says her parents owned a house and were raising kids by her age.
Not so for her. Ledesma graduated from college four years ago. After moving through a series of jobs, she now earns $18,000 making pizza at Classic Slice in Milwaukee, shares a two-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend and has $33,000 in student debt.
"That's not at all how life is now, that's not something that people strive for and it's not something that is even attainable, and I thought it would be at this point," Ledesma said.
Her mother Cheryl Romanowski, 55, was making about $10,000 a year at her age working at a bank without a college education. In today's dollars, that income would be equal to roughly $19,500.
Romanowski said she envies the choices that her daughter has in life, but she acknowledged that her daughter has it harder than her.
"I think the opportunities have just been fading away," she said.
The analysis of the Fed data shows the extent of the decline. It compared 25 to 34 year-olds in 2013, the most recent year available, to the same age group in 1989 after adjusting for inflation.
Education does help boost incomes. But the median college-educated millennial with student debt is only earning slightly more than a baby boomer without a degree did in 1989.
The home ownership rate for this age group dipped to 43 percent from 46 percent in 1989, although the rate has improved for millennials with a college degree relative to boomers.
The median net worth of millennials is $10,090, 56 percent less than it was for boomers.
Whites still earn dramatically more than Blacks and Latinos, reflecting the legacy of discrimination for jobs, education and housing.
Yet compared to white baby boomers, some white millennials appear stuck in a pattern of downward mobility. This group has seen their median income tumble more than 21 percent to $47,688.
Median income for black millennials has fallen just 1.4 percent to $27,892. Latino millennials earn nearly 29 percent more than their boomer predecessors to $30,436.
The analysis fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity. Research last year by economists led by Stanford University's Raj Chetty found that people born in 1950 had a 79 percent chance of making more money than their parents. That figure steadily slipped over the past several decades, such that those born in 1980 had just a 50 percent chance of out-earning their parents.
This decline has occurred even though younger Americans are increasingly college-educated. The proportion of 25 to 29 year-olds with a college degree has risen to 35.6 percent in 2015 from 23.2 percent in 1990, a report this month by the Brookings Institution noted.
The declining fortunes of millennials could impact boomers who are retired or on the cusp of retirement. Payroll taxes from millennials helps to finance the Social Security and Medicare benefits that many boomers receive — programs that Trump has said won't be subject to spending cuts. And those same boomers will need younger generations to buy their homes and invest in the financial markets to protect their own savings.
"The challenges that young adults face today could forecast the challenges that we see down the road," said Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director at Young Invincibles.
Obamacare dog and pony show allowing the one party system of big government/fiscal irresponsibility to ram this through
Just passed the house along partisan lines.. only 9 republicans voted no (due to fiscal irresponsibility aspect)
-----------
GOP budget resolution not too conservative
The Nashua Telegraph (N.H.)
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
[/COLOR]
Updated 1 hour ago
The Nashua Telegraph (N.H.) published this editorial on Jan. 11:
Fiscal irresponsibility seems to remain a bipartisan affair.
Members of a Republican-led Congress have pitched a budget resolution this month to add $9.7 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years, a move that would increase the total shortfall to $29 trillion.
The resolution was justified as a step to replace the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – and legislators needed to use a reconciliation process to pass new laws to repeal President Obama's signature measure. Under such a process, The Washington Examiner reports legislation called for under a budget resolution can be passed in the U.S. Senate with a simple majority vote to avoid a filibuster.
The resolution does exempt future GOP-sponsored legislation to replace Obamacare from budget rules designed to impose fiscal discipline, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This means the resolution would permit possible tax/revenue cutbacks from an ACA repeal to possibly loop into its replacement program.
CLOSER TO HOME: Brown offers California spending plan
For a party that campaigned hard on slashing the federal debt, it would be a slap in the face to fiscal conservatives who are seeking reasonable solutions to balance the budget.
As Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said last week: "The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same."
The libertarian-leaning senator was quick to retort some of the GOP responses Monday, when they claimed the resolution is "not a budget" and merely a vehicle to repeal Obamacare.
"We have special rules when you pass the budget that we may be able to repeal Obamacare, and I'm all for that," Paul continued. "But why should we vote on a budget that doesn't represent our conservative view? Why would we vote on a budget that adds $9.7 trillion to the debt?"
Continue reading below
Jim Rubens, a New Hampshire businessman, former state senator and former New Hampshire Republican Party platform committee chairman, called the budget resolution "an early indicator of collapsing GOP support for fiscal restraint" in a release.
Rubens brings his party to task for its evaporating budgetary restraint during the George W. Bush administration, saying fiscal conservatives have been locked in a windowless political basement.
"The only solution will be to bypass our debt-addicted Congress with a constitutional balanced budget amendment proposed under the Article V state-led process," Rubens concluded. "Thirty-four states are needed to launch; 28, including New Hampshire, are already onboard— six states to go."
A constitutional balanced budget amendment has long been a conservative dream, although many economists reject the proposal as unsound policy.
Opponents say implementing a balanced budget amendment disrupts safety net programs and purchasing power at state and local levels. Such an amendment could exacerbate recessions, as well.
Nevertheless, with Republicans seeking to add trillions more in debt over the next decade, a balanced budget amendment should at least be subject to a fair and bipartisan review to curb the reckless spending in Washington.
Originally Published 11:35 a.m. PT Jan. 13, 2017
Updated 1 hour ago
Just passed the house along partisan lines.. only 9 republicans voted no (due to fiscal irresponsibility aspect)
-----------
GOP budget resolution not too conservative
The Nashua Telegraph (N.H.)
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Updated 1 hour ago
The Nashua Telegraph (N.H.) published this editorial on Jan. 11:
Fiscal irresponsibility seems to remain a bipartisan affair.
Members of a Republican-led Congress have pitched a budget resolution this month to add $9.7 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years, a move that would increase the total shortfall to $29 trillion.
The resolution was justified as a step to replace the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – and legislators needed to use a reconciliation process to pass new laws to repeal President Obama's signature measure. Under such a process, The Washington Examiner reports legislation called for under a budget resolution can be passed in the U.S. Senate with a simple majority vote to avoid a filibuster.
The resolution does exempt future GOP-sponsored legislation to replace Obamacare from budget rules designed to impose fiscal discipline, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This means the resolution would permit possible tax/revenue cutbacks from an ACA repeal to possibly loop into its replacement program.
CLOSER TO HOME: Brown offers California spending plan
For a party that campaigned hard on slashing the federal debt, it would be a slap in the face to fiscal conservatives who are seeking reasonable solutions to balance the budget.
As Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said last week: "The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same."
The libertarian-leaning senator was quick to retort some of the GOP responses Monday, when they claimed the resolution is "not a budget" and merely a vehicle to repeal Obamacare.
"We have special rules when you pass the budget that we may be able to repeal Obamacare, and I'm all for that," Paul continued. "But why should we vote on a budget that doesn't represent our conservative view? Why would we vote on a budget that adds $9.7 trillion to the debt?"
Continue reading below
Jim Rubens, a New Hampshire businessman, former state senator and former New Hampshire Republican Party platform committee chairman, called the budget resolution "an early indicator of collapsing GOP support for fiscal restraint" in a release.
Rubens brings his party to task for its evaporating budgetary restraint during the George W. Bush administration, saying fiscal conservatives have been locked in a windowless political basement.
"The only solution will be to bypass our debt-addicted Congress with a constitutional balanced budget amendment proposed under the Article V state-led process," Rubens concluded. "Thirty-four states are needed to launch; 28, including New Hampshire, are already onboard— six states to go."
A constitutional balanced budget amendment has long been a conservative dream, although many economists reject the proposal as unsound policy.
Opponents say implementing a balanced budget amendment disrupts safety net programs and purchasing power at state and local levels. Such an amendment could exacerbate recessions, as well.
Nevertheless, with Republicans seeking to add trillions more in debt over the next decade, a balanced budget amendment should at least be subject to a fair and bipartisan review to curb the reckless spending in Washington.
Originally Published 11:35 a.m. PT Jan. 13, 2017
Updated 1 hour ago
The stock market is the least of our problems
The current Chinese drive towards expansionism is a far greater threat to things over the next 10-20 years. The language they use is highly inflammatory and their fuck-you attitude towards international protocols puts me in mind of the Japanese and the Germans in the 1930s
Hopefully Trump has a full set of cahoonas for this one, Obama was just too much of an appeasing bureaucrat.
Somebody is going to have to say "no!" to the Chinese at some point because as we all know, appeasement never works.
------------------------------
Chinese state media has warned that the US would have to launch a "large-scale war" to prevent Beijing from accessing islands it has built in the South China Sea. It comes after secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said such access should be restricted.
"Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish," the state-sanctioned Global Times newspaper wrote on its English-language website.
It went on to stress that the US "has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea," warning that Tillerson "had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."
The article also said that China has so far "shown restraint" when Trump's cabinet picks have expressed "radical views," as the president-elect has not yet been sworn in. However, it stressed that the US "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of their threats."
"If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash," the article reads, adding that Tillerson's statements are "far from professional."
The former ExxonMobil CEO’s comments were made during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, in which he said that China's activities in the disputed South China Sea were "extremely worrisome."
"Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea. It's taking of territory that others lay claim to," Tillerson said, referring to the reunification of Crimea and Russia, which took place following a referendum in 2014.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."
Tillerson went on to accuse President Obama of being complacent during his tenure, stating that "failure of a response has allowed them (China) to just keep pushing the envelope on this."
China lays claim to much of the South China Sea, despite competing claims from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei. In square opposition to its neighbors' claims, China has added to regional tensions by building artificial islands in the sea, complete with military installations.
It's far from the first time that Beijing has clashed with the US government when it comes to the disputed waters. In October, a US warship sailed near islands claimed by Beijing, drawing a warning from Chinese warships to leave the area. The Chinese Defense Ministry later called the move "illegal" and "provocative."
The article also said it is hoped that Tillerson will seek a productive partnership with China, and that his harsh words were just in order to appease the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
'Let them do it'
Meanwhile, the Philippines unsurprisingly took a much different stance from China when it came to Tillerson's comments.
"They said they would prevent China from doing or undertaking these kind of activity. If it wants to do that, they have the force to do so, let them do it," Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay said during a television interview, as quoted by Reuters.
Last year, judges at the arbitration tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of Manila, stating that China has caused irreparable harm to the ecosystem of the South China Sea's Spratly Islands and breached the Philippines' sovereign rights.
China quickly declared The Hague’s decision “null and void,” and soon started building an artificial island on Scarborough Shoal, just northeast of the Spratlys.
https://www.rt.com/news/373579-china-islands-tillerson-war/
The current Chinese drive towards expansionism is a far greater threat to things over the next 10-20 years. The language they use is highly inflammatory and their fuck-you attitude towards international protocols puts me in mind of the Japanese and the Germans in the 1930s
Hopefully Trump has a full set of cahoonas for this one, Obama was just too much of an appeasing bureaucrat.
Somebody is going to have to say "no!" to the Chinese at some point because as we all know, appeasement never works.
------------------------------
Chinese state media has warned that the US would have to launch a "large-scale war" to prevent Beijing from accessing islands it has built in the South China Sea. It comes after secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said such access should be restricted.
"Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish," the state-sanctioned Global Times newspaper wrote on its English-language website.
It went on to stress that the US "has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea," warning that Tillerson "had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."
The article also said that China has so far "shown restraint" when Trump's cabinet picks have expressed "radical views," as the president-elect has not yet been sworn in. However, it stressed that the US "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of their threats."
"If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash," the article reads, adding that Tillerson's statements are "far from professional."
The former ExxonMobil CEO’s comments were made during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, in which he said that China's activities in the disputed South China Sea were "extremely worrisome."
"Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea. It's taking of territory that others lay claim to," Tillerson said, referring to the reunification of Crimea and Russia, which took place following a referendum in 2014.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."
Tillerson went on to accuse President Obama of being complacent during his tenure, stating that "failure of a response has allowed them (China) to just keep pushing the envelope on this."
China lays claim to much of the South China Sea, despite competing claims from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei. In square opposition to its neighbors' claims, China has added to regional tensions by building artificial islands in the sea, complete with military installations.
It's far from the first time that Beijing has clashed with the US government when it comes to the disputed waters. In October, a US warship sailed near islands claimed by Beijing, drawing a warning from Chinese warships to leave the area. The Chinese Defense Ministry later called the move "illegal" and "provocative."
The article also said it is hoped that Tillerson will seek a productive partnership with China, and that his harsh words were just in order to appease the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
'Let them do it'
Meanwhile, the Philippines unsurprisingly took a much different stance from China when it came to Tillerson's comments.
"They said they would prevent China from doing or undertaking these kind of activity. If it wants to do that, they have the force to do so, let them do it," Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay said during a television interview, as quoted by Reuters.
Last year, judges at the arbitration tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of Manila, stating that China has caused irreparable harm to the ecosystem of the South China Sea's Spratly Islands and breached the Philippines' sovereign rights.
China quickly declared The Hague’s decision “null and void,” and soon started building an artificial island on Scarborough Shoal, just northeast of the Spratlys.
https://www.rt.com/news/373579-china-islands-tillerson-war/
They're probably trying to isolate Taiwan as well, which is the Island on the top right.
As the song goes...
As the song goes...
[h=1]JASDF's Next Generation Fighter[/h][h=2]Select Language:[/h] English Japanese [h=2]Japan[/h]The F-35 Lightning II is designed and built to counter the most advanced airborne and ground-based threats – making it a perfect fit for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).
[h=4][/h]The first F-35A for Japan was presented at an official rollout ceremony on Sept. 23, 2016. Click here to watch a replay of the live stream of the ceremony. This jet is the first of four F-35As assembled at the Fort Worth factory. The remaining 38 F-35As for the JASDF are being assembled at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility in Nagoya, Japan.
The F-35 possesses 5th Generation capabilities that are not found on legacy 4th Generation fighters: very low observable stealth coupled with full fighter performance, advanced sensors and sensor fusion, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. These attributes enable the F-35 to operate and survive in high threat environments, which will provide Japan with strong conventional deterrence and promote stability in the region.
Japan is one of three current U.S. Foreign Military Sales F-35 customers to date, including Israel and the Republic of Korea. The Japanese Ministry of Defense selected the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant as the next generation fighter of choice for the JASDF in December 2011, following the F-X competitive bid process.
Share
The F-35 possesses 5th Generation capabilities that are not found on legacy 4th Generation fighters: very low observable stealth coupled with full fighter performance, advanced sensors and sensor fusion, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. These attributes enable the F-35 to operate and survive in high threat environments, which will provide Japan with strong conventional deterrence and promote stability in the region.
Japan is one of three current U.S. Foreign Military Sales F-35 customers to date, including Israel and the Republic of Korea. The Japanese Ministry of Defense selected the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant as the next generation fighter of choice for the JASDF in December 2011, following the F-X competitive bid process.
Share
[h=1]F-35s Head To Japan As Chinese Bombers and Carrier Make Big Moves[/h][h=2]Chinese long-range military activity has exploded in recent weeks, and there's likely more to come.[/h]
USMC
Marking a major milestone in its development, the long awaited operational deployment of the F-35 is underway. A group of Joint Strike Fighters from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, the “Green Knights,” left their home base at MCAS Yuma in Arizona on Monday, starting their hop across the Pacific to their new home at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan. Once bedded down there, a total of 10 F-35Bs will begin to participate in a number of exercises, many of them multinational, with major allies in the region.
The Japanese Ministry of Defense will be watching the deployment closely, as they're a customer of the F-35, with 28 F-35As on order for JASDF the and another 24 as options. South Korea is also planning to buy 40 of the jets, and will very likely be one of the first places the Green Knights will show up after arriving in the region.
Traditionally, Marine Hornet squadrons forward based at Iwakuni have also found themselves flying alongside their Australian counterparts (another F-35 customer) as well as other Southeast Asian allies. These training detachments paired with the slowly eroding security situation in the region, alongside the unprecedented public affairs push that has accompanied the F-35 program in recent years, will likely result in a well publicized and eventful maiden operational deployment for the type.
Towards the middle of 2017 VMFA-121 will get an extra six F-35Bs which are slated to go on a cruise aboard a Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ship for the first time later in the year. Instead of using the USS Bonhomme Richard, which is already forward deployed to Japan, the ship will be swapped out for the USS Wasp. The Bonhomme Richard will be relocated to San Diego and the Wasp will have to make the long voyage from Norfolk, Virginia to its new home in Japan.
This fairly elaborate swap is the result of an extensive number of costly improvements that have to be made to existing LHDs for them to handle low volumes of F-35Bs. This operational deployment will be the Wasp's second in over a decade.Before a recent deployment the ship had largely been relegated to training and testing duties due to chronic issues with its combat management and support systems. Recent upgrades to its sensors, communications, self-defense and local area network should allow it to finally take on standard operational schedule.
Another deployment for the F-35B, this one slated for early 2018, will see the USS Essex host a contingent of jets from VMFA-211. This deployment could end up seeing the F-35B take part in its first anti-ISIS sorties—which also could be its first combat missions of any kind—as the ship and its Amphibious Strike Group will likely to end up in the Persian Gulf.
Getting the F-35 into the fight, or even operating internationally in any real capacity, is obviously a major goal for the troubled program. In the meantime, a recent response from Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall to a request for clarification from Senator John McCain has been made public, detailing further delays in the Joint Strike Fighter development and test program, which you can read here.
The F-35Bs imminent arrival in Asia comes at a time when China is flexing its power projection muscles like never before. After taking an unprecedented route into the South China Sea and executing exercises in that tense region, China’s only carrier and its newly fully integrated battle group traversed the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday. The move sent pretty much the whole Taiwanese military into high alert, with fighters, surveillance aircraft, and naval vessels scrambled to monitor the Liaoning’s transit.
This is not the first time the ship has taken the route, it did so back in late 2013—but it was not anywhere near as capable as it is today. With the Liaoning and her battlegroup approaching the operational threshold, it won’t be the last—this route will likely become a normal one for Liaoning as she sails from her home port in Qingdao to the turbulent waters of the South China Sea in the future. Vice Foreign Minister of China Liu Zhenmin said the following about Liaoning’s passage through the Taiwan Strait:
"The Taiwan Strait is an international waterway shared between the mainland and Taiwan. So, it is normal for the Liaoning to go back and forth through the Taiwan Strait in the course of training, and it won't have any impact on cross-Strait relations.” Taiwan clearly doesn’t feel the same about the matter.
China’s ever more powerful Carrier Battle Group’s voyage north inside one of the tensest and heavily armed bodies of water on the planet comes just a day after Chinese airmen circumnavigated Taiwan counterclockwise using long-range aircraft, presumably H-6K bombers and intelligence gathering aircraft. Chinese Su-30 fighter escorts also picked up the aerial formation at both ends of its journey.
This is not the first time China has executed this type of fairly provocative perimeter flight of Taiwan. In late November they did the same thing, although in a clockwise manner. That flight included two H-6K bombers, as well as Y-8 and Tu-154 surveillance planes.
Just hours before the Taiwan circumnavigation flight, six Chinese H-6K long-range bombers, an electronic surveillance plane and an airborne early warning and control jet flew from the East China Sea, over the Tsushima Strait and into the Sea of Japan and back. As a result, Japan and South Korea sent dozens of fighters and surveillance aircraft scrambling to monitor the operation. Although Chinese aircraft have passed through the area before, this was by far the largest aerial show of force over the Tsushima Strait put on by the Chinese military.
Adding to this frenzy of activity, just this weekend China’s H-6K bombers were back at it again. This time aircraft circled China’s man-made island outposts in the Spratly Island archipelago that sit at the heart of Beijing’s territorial claims over nearly the entire South China Sea. This was the second time since the beginning of the year that Chinese bombers flew that route.
China’s Navy and long-range PLAAF assets have been increasingly used to expand China’s regional influence and to project new levels of power in recent years. As the number of flights and naval drills have increased rapidly in their range, capability, internationality and complexity, tensions with competing powers in the region and with the US have also heightened. But the activity China has shown over the last few days is unprecedented. Now with America’s long awaited super fighter nesting for the first time in Asia, expect even more elaborate displays of expanding force from China in the coming months.
Contact the author Tyler@thedrive.com
Authors note: A reader mentioned the Wasp just came back from its first operational deployment after serving in a reserve-type role for over a decade. The text was updated to reflect this.
Marking a major milestone in its development, the long awaited operational deployment of the F-35 is underway. A group of Joint Strike Fighters from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, the “Green Knights,” left their home base at MCAS Yuma in Arizona on Monday, starting their hop across the Pacific to their new home at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan. Once bedded down there, a total of 10 F-35Bs will begin to participate in a number of exercises, many of them multinational, with major allies in the region.
The Japanese Ministry of Defense will be watching the deployment closely, as they're a customer of the F-35, with 28 F-35As on order for JASDF the and another 24 as options. South Korea is also planning to buy 40 of the jets, and will very likely be one of the first places the Green Knights will show up after arriving in the region.
Traditionally, Marine Hornet squadrons forward based at Iwakuni have also found themselves flying alongside their Australian counterparts (another F-35 customer) as well as other Southeast Asian allies. These training detachments paired with the slowly eroding security situation in the region, alongside the unprecedented public affairs push that has accompanied the F-35 program in recent years, will likely result in a well publicized and eventful maiden operational deployment for the type.
Towards the middle of 2017 VMFA-121 will get an extra six F-35Bs which are slated to go on a cruise aboard a Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ship for the first time later in the year. Instead of using the USS Bonhomme Richard, which is already forward deployed to Japan, the ship will be swapped out for the USS Wasp. The Bonhomme Richard will be relocated to San Diego and the Wasp will have to make the long voyage from Norfolk, Virginia to its new home in Japan.
This fairly elaborate swap is the result of an extensive number of costly improvements that have to be made to existing LHDs for them to handle low volumes of F-35Bs. This operational deployment will be the Wasp's second in over a decade.Before a recent deployment the ship had largely been relegated to training and testing duties due to chronic issues with its combat management and support systems. Recent upgrades to its sensors, communications, self-defense and local area network should allow it to finally take on standard operational schedule.
Another deployment for the F-35B, this one slated for early 2018, will see the USS Essex host a contingent of jets from VMFA-211. This deployment could end up seeing the F-35B take part in its first anti-ISIS sorties—which also could be its first combat missions of any kind—as the ship and its Amphibious Strike Group will likely to end up in the Persian Gulf.
Getting the F-35 into the fight, or even operating internationally in any real capacity, is obviously a major goal for the troubled program. In the meantime, a recent response from Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall to a request for clarification from Senator John McCain has been made public, detailing further delays in the Joint Strike Fighter development and test program, which you can read here.
The F-35Bs imminent arrival in Asia comes at a time when China is flexing its power projection muscles like never before. After taking an unprecedented route into the South China Sea and executing exercises in that tense region, China’s only carrier and its newly fully integrated battle group traversed the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday. The move sent pretty much the whole Taiwanese military into high alert, with fighters, surveillance aircraft, and naval vessels scrambled to monitor the Liaoning’s transit.
This is not the first time the ship has taken the route, it did so back in late 2013—but it was not anywhere near as capable as it is today. With the Liaoning and her battlegroup approaching the operational threshold, it won’t be the last—this route will likely become a normal one for Liaoning as she sails from her home port in Qingdao to the turbulent waters of the South China Sea in the future. Vice Foreign Minister of China Liu Zhenmin said the following about Liaoning’s passage through the Taiwan Strait:
"The Taiwan Strait is an international waterway shared between the mainland and Taiwan. So, it is normal for the Liaoning to go back and forth through the Taiwan Strait in the course of training, and it won't have any impact on cross-Strait relations.” Taiwan clearly doesn’t feel the same about the matter.
China’s ever more powerful Carrier Battle Group’s voyage north inside one of the tensest and heavily armed bodies of water on the planet comes just a day after Chinese airmen circumnavigated Taiwan counterclockwise using long-range aircraft, presumably H-6K bombers and intelligence gathering aircraft. Chinese Su-30 fighter escorts also picked up the aerial formation at both ends of its journey.
This is not the first time China has executed this type of fairly provocative perimeter flight of Taiwan. In late November they did the same thing, although in a clockwise manner. That flight included two H-6K bombers, as well as Y-8 and Tu-154 surveillance planes.
Just hours before the Taiwan circumnavigation flight, six Chinese H-6K long-range bombers, an electronic surveillance plane and an airborne early warning and control jet flew from the East China Sea, over the Tsushima Strait and into the Sea of Japan and back. As a result, Japan and South Korea sent dozens of fighters and surveillance aircraft scrambling to monitor the operation. Although Chinese aircraft have passed through the area before, this was by far the largest aerial show of force over the Tsushima Strait put on by the Chinese military.
Adding to this frenzy of activity, just this weekend China’s H-6K bombers were back at it again. This time aircraft circled China’s man-made island outposts in the Spratly Island archipelago that sit at the heart of Beijing’s territorial claims over nearly the entire South China Sea. This was the second time since the beginning of the year that Chinese bombers flew that route.
China’s Navy and long-range PLAAF assets have been increasingly used to expand China’s regional influence and to project new levels of power in recent years. As the number of flights and naval drills have increased rapidly in their range, capability, internationality and complexity, tensions with competing powers in the region and with the US have also heightened. But the activity China has shown over the last few days is unprecedented. Now with America’s long awaited super fighter nesting for the first time in Asia, expect even more elaborate displays of expanding force from China in the coming months.
Contact the author Tyler@thedrive.com
Authors note: A reader mentioned the Wasp just came back from its first operational deployment after serving in a reserve-type role for over a decade. The text was updated to reflect this.
[h=1]Russia says US troops arriving in Poland pose threat to its security | US news | The Guardian[/h]Ewen MacAskill Defence correspondent
Thursday 12 January 2017 13.54 EST
American soldiers during a welcome ceremony at the Polish-German border in Olszyna, Poland. Photograph: Natalia Dobryszycka/AFP/Getty ImagesThe Kremlin has hit out at the biggest deployment of US troops in Europe since the end of the cold war, branding the arrival of troops and tanks in Poland as a threat to Russia’s national security.
The deployment, intended to counter what Nato portrays as Russian aggression in eastern Europe, will see US troops permanently stationed along Russia’s western border for the first time.
About 1,000 of a promised 4,000 troops arrived in Poland at the start of the week, and a formal ceremony to welcome them is to be held on Saturday. Some people waved and held up American flags as the troops, tanks and heavy armoured vehicles crossed into south-western Poland from Germany, according to Associated Press.
But their arrival was not universally applauded. In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “We perceive it as a threat. These actions threaten our interests, our security. Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. It’s [the US], not even a European state.”
The Kremlin may hold back on retaliatory action in the hope that a Donald Trumppresidency will herald a rapprochement with Washington. Trump, in remarks during the election campaign and since, has sown seeds of doubt over the deployments by suggesting he would rather work with than confront Putin.
But on Thursday Nato officials played down Trump’s comments, saying they hoped and expected that he would not attempt to reverse the move after he became president on 20 January.
That prediction was reinforced by Trump’s proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation hearings.
Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that Putin was trying to break Nato.
Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “as an act of force” and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount “a proportional show of force”.
Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has struggled to cope with Russia’s use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda, cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.
In response, the US and its Nato allies have been steadily increasing air patrols and training exercises in eastern Europe. The biggest escalation is the current deployment of US troops, agreed at last summer’s Nato summit in Warsaw.
The move was billed as an attempt to reassure eastern European states who have been calling for the permanent deployment of US troops in the belief that Russia would be less likely to encroach on territory where US troops are present.
Peter Cook, the Pentagon press spokesman, said: “The United States is demonstrating its continued commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure Nato allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.”
Poland in particular has pressed for a permanent US troop deployment since soon after the fall of communism in 1989.
Nato officials insist that the US and other alliance troops deployed to eastern Europe are not “permanent”, which would be in breach of an agreement with Russia. The US plans to rotate the troops every nine months, so it can argue they are not in breach of the Russian treaty, but effectively there will be a permanent presence.
Deployment was originally scheduled for later in the month but a decision was made last month to bring it forward, possibly a move by Barack Obama before he leaves office to try to lock the president-elect into the strategy.
The troops from the Third Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Carson, Colorado, along with hundreds of armoured vehicles and tanks, were moved from the US to Germany last week for transit by rail and road to Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. The US is sending 87 tanks, and 144 armoured vehicles.
As well as being stationed in Poland, the US troops will fan out across other eastern European states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania.
The UK is also contributing to the buildup of Nato forces in eastern Europe. The UK formally took command this week of Nato’s response force, made up of 3,000 UK troops plus others from Nato who will be on permanent standby ready to deploy within days. The contributing countries include the US, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Poland.
Few at Nato seriously believe that war with Russia is likely but there have been dangerous developments, with escalation on both sides, including a buildup of Russian troops. Russia alarmed Poland and other eastern European states by moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn. At the time Nato regarded the move as a response to its own deployments.
The Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, voicing concern in eastern Europe that Trump might do a deal with Putin, said this week he hoped that any such reconciliation would not be at Poland’s expense.
Thursday 12 January 2017 13.54 EST
The deployment, intended to counter what Nato portrays as Russian aggression in eastern Europe, will see US troops permanently stationed along Russia’s western border for the first time.
About 1,000 of a promised 4,000 troops arrived in Poland at the start of the week, and a formal ceremony to welcome them is to be held on Saturday. Some people waved and held up American flags as the troops, tanks and heavy armoured vehicles crossed into south-western Poland from Germany, according to Associated Press.
But their arrival was not universally applauded. In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “We perceive it as a threat. These actions threaten our interests, our security. Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. It’s [the US], not even a European state.”
The Kremlin may hold back on retaliatory action in the hope that a Donald Trumppresidency will herald a rapprochement with Washington. Trump, in remarks during the election campaign and since, has sown seeds of doubt over the deployments by suggesting he would rather work with than confront Putin.
But on Thursday Nato officials played down Trump’s comments, saying they hoped and expected that he would not attempt to reverse the move after he became president on 20 January.
That prediction was reinforced by Trump’s proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation hearings.
Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that Putin was trying to break Nato.
Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “as an act of force” and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount “a proportional show of force”.
Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has struggled to cope with Russia’s use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda, cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.
In response, the US and its Nato allies have been steadily increasing air patrols and training exercises in eastern Europe. The biggest escalation is the current deployment of US troops, agreed at last summer’s Nato summit in Warsaw.
The move was billed as an attempt to reassure eastern European states who have been calling for the permanent deployment of US troops in the belief that Russia would be less likely to encroach on territory where US troops are present.
Peter Cook, the Pentagon press spokesman, said: “The United States is demonstrating its continued commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure Nato allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.”
Poland in particular has pressed for a permanent US troop deployment since soon after the fall of communism in 1989.
Nato officials insist that the US and other alliance troops deployed to eastern Europe are not “permanent”, which would be in breach of an agreement with Russia. The US plans to rotate the troops every nine months, so it can argue they are not in breach of the Russian treaty, but effectively there will be a permanent presence.
Deployment was originally scheduled for later in the month but a decision was made last month to bring it forward, possibly a move by Barack Obama before he leaves office to try to lock the president-elect into the strategy.
The troops from the Third Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Carson, Colorado, along with hundreds of armoured vehicles and tanks, were moved from the US to Germany last week for transit by rail and road to Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. The US is sending 87 tanks, and 144 armoured vehicles.
As well as being stationed in Poland, the US troops will fan out across other eastern European states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania.
The UK is also contributing to the buildup of Nato forces in eastern Europe. The UK formally took command this week of Nato’s response force, made up of 3,000 UK troops plus others from Nato who will be on permanent standby ready to deploy within days. The contributing countries include the US, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Poland.
Few at Nato seriously believe that war with Russia is likely but there have been dangerous developments, with escalation on both sides, including a buildup of Russian troops. Russia alarmed Poland and other eastern European states by moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn. At the time Nato regarded the move as a response to its own deployments.
The Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, voicing concern in eastern Europe that Trump might do a deal with Putin, said this week he hoped that any such reconciliation would not be at Poland’s expense.
The best fighter the US ever made IMO was the Northrop F5
It got so good that the government had to cancel it, the upgraded version, the F20 got shot down by "politics" in the 1980s
It cost buttons to build, run and maintain and was way more reliable than contemporaries
Offered as a low-cost option, the F-20 was significantly more expensive than the F-5E, but much less expensive than other designs like the $30 million F-15 Eagle,[SUP][33][/SUP] or $15 million F-16 Fighting Falcon.[SUP][34][/SUP] The F-20 was projected to consume 53% less fuel, to require 52% less maintenance manpower, to have 63% lower operating and maintenance costs and to be four times (400%) more reliable than average front-line designs of the era.[SUP][29][/SUP] The F-20 also offer the ability to fire the beyond-visual-range AIM-7 Sparrow missile, a capability that the F-16 lacked at that time, and did not gain until the Block 15 ADF version in February 1989.[SUP][35]
Northrop F-20 Tigershark
[/SUP]
It got so good that the government had to cancel it, the upgraded version, the F20 got shot down by "politics" in the 1980s
It cost buttons to build, run and maintain and was way more reliable than contemporaries
Offered as a low-cost option, the F-20 was significantly more expensive than the F-5E, but much less expensive than other designs like the $30 million F-15 Eagle,[SUP][33][/SUP] or $15 million F-16 Fighting Falcon.[SUP][34][/SUP] The F-20 was projected to consume 53% less fuel, to require 52% less maintenance manpower, to have 63% lower operating and maintenance costs and to be four times (400%) more reliable than average front-line designs of the era.[SUP][29][/SUP] The F-20 also offer the ability to fire the beyond-visual-range AIM-7 Sparrow missile, a capability that the F-16 lacked at that time, and did not gain until the Block 15 ADF version in February 1989.[SUP][35]
Northrop F-20 Tigershark
[/SUP]
Russia isn't a problem at all, which is lucky for us because both NATO and the baltic/border countries keep on trying to stir up shit with the Russkies
If the west tried the same sort of bullshit with China WW3 would have started years ago, the Russkies have a very high level of tolerance compared to both the US and China
The last time Russia tried to park a few missiles close to the USA we nearly got WW3, the USA like the Chinese have a low tolerance to external border threats
Of the 3 current superpowers, Russia is by far the most tolerant, all this anti-Russia stuff in the media is just propaganda because Putin doesn't get on with a very powerful financial lobby which the United States is in hock to and which dominates its politics
If the west tried the same sort of bullshit with China WW3 would have started years ago, the Russkies have a very high level of tolerance compared to both the US and China
The last time Russia tried to park a few missiles close to the USA we nearly got WW3, the USA like the Chinese have a low tolerance to external border threats
Of the 3 current superpowers, Russia is by far the most tolerant, all this anti-Russia stuff in the media is just propaganda because Putin doesn't get on with a very powerful financial lobby which the United States is in hock to and which dominates its politics
In the end majority of the war shit is complete bullshit.. and an excuse for governments to debt like crazy and spend lotsa money.. while lining the pockets of the elite at the same time .. republicans (which are supposedly the fiscally conservative bunch) just approved budget which will increase the debt 9.7 trillion next 10 years bringing the grand total to 29 trillion
Extremely expensive F-35 economic impact..
-------------
According to standard industry accepted economic forecasting, the multirole 5th generation stealth fighter is responsible for more than 146,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs.
Equally impressive to the program's job creation prowess is the sheer size of its economic footprint. The Lockheed Martin F-35 program teams with more than 1,250 domestic suppliers in 45 states and Puerto Rico to produce thousands of components from highly sophisticated radar sensors to the aircraft's mid fuselage.
Extremely expensive F-35 economic impact..
-------------
According to standard industry accepted economic forecasting, the multirole 5th generation stealth fighter is responsible for more than 146,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs.
Equally impressive to the program's job creation prowess is the sheer size of its economic footprint. The Lockheed Martin F-35 program teams with more than 1,250 domestic suppliers in 45 states and Puerto Rico to produce thousands of components from highly sophisticated radar sensors to the aircraft's mid fuselage.
[h=2]These 8 men are richer than 3.6 billion people combined[/h]By Ivana Kottasova January 16, 2017 04:24AM EST
Eight men now control as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.6 billion people, according to a new report from Oxfam International.
The men -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Amancio Ortega, Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg -- are collectively worth $426 billion, the anti-poverty group said on Sunday.
Eight men now control as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.6 billion people, according to a new report from Oxfam International.
The men -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Amancio Ortega, Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg -- are collectively worth $426 billion, the anti-poverty group said on Sunday.
