The Rooster
"Okeydoke"
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Economic ties the USA and Russia can build should overshadow any objections to National Security issues regarding escalation of nukes.
Besides the obvious potential muscle flexing of how the USA exerts power when there are 'investments' abroad; the 'idea' that sensitive areas of the Russia economy can literally be invaded by Wall Street and breech their security venues is a huge issue. There are entanglements for investment in Russia that aren't healthy for Russia or the USA and those venues need to be eliminated if there is going to be healthy relationships of mutual interests.
The Bush/Cheney Executive Branch was interested in exploiting every aspect of Russian assets for their cronies. That level of 'invasive' economics is a direct threat to Russia and most communist countries and they risk a loss of their culture. As people within a country are 'demoralized' from their culture the stability of the government shifts and not always for the best. Any turmoil or uprising, if accompanied by violence, risks the people themselves that we hope to engage in 'trade.'
In the year 2009, I do not see 'investment' as healthy in any international relationship. It is a direct imposition on sovereignty and places too much importance on 'government control' which increases the risk of the investor and loss of their capital. We have witnessed repeatedly since 2000, challenges to oligarchs that sincerely threatened the stability of Russia, including those that obtained fighter jets for the building of their own empires.
The point is that 'invasive investing' touted by the Republicans as capitalism and the expansion of democratic principles is far from it. Communist nations do not provide 'private ownership' of property. They will never have a 'mortgage crisis' simply because they don't own property. One of the ways that Democracy is imposed on these nations is to demand 'owenship rights' of natural resources and 'other concepts' of investment such as 'intellectual property.'
It is my opinion, the 'Western' idea of investment is counter culture to countries such as Russia and do not serve to 'reassure' them when it come to building strong relationships with the USA and Europe. Commerce has literally become a 'weapon' between the USA and Russia and it is a dangerous one.
There are ways that Russia and the USA can build 'strong' economic ties in the way of trade, but, to insure such a relationship each country has to have something to trade. Healthy balances of goods transported to and from other nations to the USA is vital to a healthy global economy. The USA has to return to manufacturing goods as well as purchasing them. Part of the global economic collapse lies in the 'lack of balance of trade' between countries and the 'free for all' investment and credit extension by nations such as China. When China provides huge loans to the USA to fund its government programs, there are compromise to the Chinese economy when those 'investment structures' are insulted. As a result, the people of China are imposed upon to produce differently and our 'issues' then translate directly to Chinese hardship. It's "W"rong and it has to stop.
International relations between countries have to 'resume' better boundaries. The 'idea' that the world is 'one family of countries' needs to be scrapped. The economic interdependancy of the Bush "World of National Families' has proven to be a complete disaster. It threatened alliances and caused nations to move their 'interests' into 'isolationist' mode. If anyone wants to know where the majority of the first $350 billion of the $700 billion AMERICAN bank bailout disappeared to, one can look directly at the Chinese loan structure. The monies disappeared and China has made its case why such things should occur, but, the fact of the matter is countries need to redefine 'the wealth of nations' as trade partners with self sustaining economies rather than 'co-dependant' entities that can only separate their efforts through war.
Economic interdependence is NOT beneficial when it crashes every economy on Earth. It is not beneficial when it promotes abuses of Earth's troposphere and robs the well being of future generations. It is not beneficial when countries 'compete' unhealthly in the global economic sphere to 'take jobs' away from a nation's population for the sake of 'profits.' When profits 'override' beneficial relationships of diplomacy there is something vitally lost.
If "Peace" is to be a directive of the Obama Administration, there needs to be a redefinition of diplomacy to RETURN to traditional models of addressing issues in a way that moves past economic issues and address the priorities of Mutual Interests in National Security rather than interests in mutual investments. The dynamics are all "W"rong and need to be abandoned. The USA was on its way to becoming a third world nation with the military being the best paying job within its borders before the Obama Stimulus for the sake of outsourcing and destroyed manufacturing sector.
Let's not return to that in the future. To that end, disarming from nuclear capacity should be a high priority in cooperation with building strong economies with good trading relationships. The 'interest' of money is NOT the best outcome to diplomacy, but, securing countries from the brink of mutual distruction needs to be. Treaties and not contracts is the best venue for diplomatic corps.
...Foreign investment in the 39 strategic sectors of the Russian economy is monitored by the Federal Security Service (FSB),[44] the agency responsible for carrying out many functions formerly performed by the KGB. Investors that have either inadvertently or purposely committed their funds to one of these sectors will not be without due recourse, as the actions of the FSB in relation to foreign investment are still subject to oversight by Russian courts. For example, if the FSB finds out that foreigners have bought up shares in a strategic enterprise via Russian front companies, it will have to report this to the authorized body, and the government commission will challenge the deal in court. [45] ...
The problem of course, is that where America 'has interests' so goes its military. THAT is an issue with Russia. It hasn't been with China, but, then again China owns the USA for the most part.
The Bush/Cheney Executive Branch was interested in exploiting every aspect of Russian assets for their cronies. That level of 'invasive' economics is a direct threat to Russia and most communist countries and they risk a loss of their culture. As people within a country are 'demoralized' from their culture the stability of the government shifts and not always for the best. Any turmoil or uprising, if accompanied by violence, risks the people themselves that we hope to engage in 'trade.'
In the year 2009, I do not see 'investment' as healthy in any international relationship. It is a direct imposition on sovereignty and places too much importance on 'government control' which increases the risk of the investor and loss of their capital. We have witnessed repeatedly since 2000, challenges to oligarchs that sincerely threatened the stability of Russia, including those that obtained fighter jets for the building of their own empires.
The point is that 'invasive investing' touted by the Republicans as capitalism and the expansion of democratic principles is far from it. Communist nations do not provide 'private ownership' of property. They will never have a 'mortgage crisis' simply because they don't own property. One of the ways that Democracy is imposed on these nations is to demand 'owenship rights' of natural resources and 'other concepts' of investment such as 'intellectual property.'
It is my opinion, the 'Western' idea of investment is counter culture to countries such as Russia and do not serve to 'reassure' them when it come to building strong relationships with the USA and Europe. Commerce has literally become a 'weapon' between the USA and Russia and it is a dangerous one.
There are ways that Russia and the USA can build 'strong' economic ties in the way of trade, but, to insure such a relationship each country has to have something to trade. Healthy balances of goods transported to and from other nations to the USA is vital to a healthy global economy. The USA has to return to manufacturing goods as well as purchasing them. Part of the global economic collapse lies in the 'lack of balance of trade' between countries and the 'free for all' investment and credit extension by nations such as China. When China provides huge loans to the USA to fund its government programs, there are compromise to the Chinese economy when those 'investment structures' are insulted. As a result, the people of China are imposed upon to produce differently and our 'issues' then translate directly to Chinese hardship. It's "W"rong and it has to stop.
International relations between countries have to 'resume' better boundaries. The 'idea' that the world is 'one family of countries' needs to be scrapped. The economic interdependancy of the Bush "World of National Families' has proven to be a complete disaster. It threatened alliances and caused nations to move their 'interests' into 'isolationist' mode. If anyone wants to know where the majority of the first $350 billion of the $700 billion AMERICAN bank bailout disappeared to, one can look directly at the Chinese loan structure. The monies disappeared and China has made its case why such things should occur, but, the fact of the matter is countries need to redefine 'the wealth of nations' as trade partners with self sustaining economies rather than 'co-dependant' entities that can only separate their efforts through war.
Economic interdependence is NOT beneficial when it crashes every economy on Earth. It is not beneficial when it promotes abuses of Earth's troposphere and robs the well being of future generations. It is not beneficial when countries 'compete' unhealthly in the global economic sphere to 'take jobs' away from a nation's population for the sake of 'profits.' When profits 'override' beneficial relationships of diplomacy there is something vitally lost.
If "Peace" is to be a directive of the Obama Administration, there needs to be a redefinition of diplomacy to RETURN to traditional models of addressing issues in a way that moves past economic issues and address the priorities of Mutual Interests in National Security rather than interests in mutual investments. The dynamics are all "W"rong and need to be abandoned. The USA was on its way to becoming a third world nation with the military being the best paying job within its borders before the Obama Stimulus for the sake of outsourcing and destroyed manufacturing sector.
Let's not return to that in the future. To that end, disarming from nuclear capacity should be a high priority in cooperation with building strong economies with good trading relationships. The 'interest' of money is NOT the best outcome to diplomacy, but, securing countries from the brink of mutual distruction needs to be. Treaties and not contracts is the best venue for diplomatic corps.
...Foreign investment in the 39 strategic sectors of the Russian economy is monitored by the Federal Security Service (FSB),[44] the agency responsible for carrying out many functions formerly performed by the KGB. Investors that have either inadvertently or purposely committed their funds to one of these sectors will not be without due recourse, as the actions of the FSB in relation to foreign investment are still subject to oversight by Russian courts. For example, if the FSB finds out that foreigners have bought up shares in a strategic enterprise via Russian front companies, it will have to report this to the authorized body, and the government commission will challenge the deal in court. [45] ...
The problem of course, is that where America 'has interests' so goes its military. THAT is an issue with Russia. It hasn't been with China, but, then again China owns the USA for the most part.
VI. Conclusion
Russia Are foreign investors squandering valuable opportunities by not capitalizing on the business opportunities presented by the growth of the Russian economy? Or perhaps the reluctance to take on the risks Russia presents is justified? Is Russia really unsafe for foreign investors? Or is this just a stereotype propagated by the Western media fueled by doubt that Russia will ever be able to adopt a true market economy? Perhaps there is a genuine misunderstanding of Russia ’s strengthening government? Will the reforms touted by Putin’s administration really be enough to address Russia's historical problem of poorly defined property rights and protect investors? The answers to many of these questions will undoubtedly be revealed in the years to come.
How does Secretary Hillary actually reset a 'critical reset' button with Russia? Humor can help, but, the USA is seriously reclaiming its democracy..
...and it is a position Russia has never faced with the USA before. It is my estimate, the rapid deployment of diplomatic efforts by the USA would be a strong indication that the people of this country haven't changed 'their will' so much as had it kidnapped for some eight years.
Just the same, Russia needs reassurances that it will no longer fall victim to 'political trade winds' in the USA and ultimately face 'threats' again from a country that it has mostly existed in peace with for generations. Russia wants 'the doubt' of its power and integrity removed, how that is accomplished with this administration will be odd, interesting and cautiously approached. It will be more than interesting to see what the two diplomats initially agree upon and watch it grow from there.
Just the same, Russia needs reassurances that it will no longer fall victim to 'political trade winds' in the USA and ultimately face 'threats' again from a country that it has mostly existed in peace with for generations. Russia wants 'the doubt' of its power and integrity removed, how that is accomplished with this administration will be odd, interesting and cautiously approached. It will be more than interesting to see what the two diplomats initially agree upon and watch it grow from there.
Ali Saleh al Marri, 43, a Qatari, the only enemy combatant on U.S. soil, at the U.S. Navy brig at Charleston, S.C., brig in January 2009.
The Miami Herald knows something about foreign nationals that come to American soil with suspect pasts. It will be of interest to their opinion of all this, however, in seeking Russian support by Secretary Hillary where does Russia begin to 'estimate' its future with the USA? Where can the two countries agree and how do we 'close the gap' on uncertain wars in the future. The 'course' the USA was on was Anti-America. It was Anti-Democracy. It was Anti-American Prosperity. It was Anti-Peace. The USA was hostile, aggressive while at the same time, 'contained' through global efforts. It was a hideous place for the USA to exist and it was more than uncomfortable for many patriotic Americans.
In some ways, the Russians should know what it is to have a revitalization of 'The Worker's Party.' It shouldn't be so much of a reach to find 'common ground' and bring about constructive change to finally end the hideous presence of nuclear weapons on Earth. If we are to end nuclear weapon capacity as was the 'spirit' of Non-Proliferation; what are the understandings and will both countries legislatively cease such research as an initial way of verifying their overall intentions and as example to other countries, including Iran, that the day of 'The Bomb' is over?
Supreme Court ends enemy combatant's detention challenge (click here)
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge Friday by suspected al Qaeda sleeper agent Ali al Marri to the president's authority to detain people without charges, granting an Obama administration request to end the high court case.
The Supreme Court also threw out, as moot, the federal appeals court ruling Marri was challenging that affirmed the president's power to detain people in the United States without trial.
Last week, President Barack Obama ordered Marri transferred from military to civilian custody to face federal charges of conspiracy and providing support to terrorists.
But Obama has not renounced the use of preventive detention, which was pursued and defended aggressively by the Bush administration after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The administration's silence on this issue was the main reason Marri's lawyers pushed the court to hear the case, even after their client got what he was seeking -- if not his release, a trial at which he could answer criminal charges....
As suspected previously, there was a lot of damage done to our intelligence agencies with the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch. Records destroyed, policies changed and basically turning a democratic process of handling 'critical' information into a dictatorship that would 'secure the exoneration of its Chief Executives.'
Until the agencies finally cleanse themselves of 'ill gotten' policy and over reaching authority there will be little change as security overrides change. The agencies will more than likely 'tweek' their procedures and laws to better accommodate the needs of the country. Incremental change may be the word of the day as a reassurance to those that handle sensitive information it is on the path to better protections from a position of strength rather than compromise. I would hope the change President Obama will bring to the intelligence communities are policies they have longer for to enhance their abilities while protecting the precious freedoms guaranteed every American.
Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos (click here)
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies....
Michael Moore. Are you paying attention? The 'Dream' is coming true.
It is going to take a short while to pass the necessary legislation to reform the American Health Care System, so until that occurs, President Obama has included a subsidy for people that can lose their coverage due to the recession/depression. 65% sudsidy to COBRA recipients so they can continue to keep their 'wellness' while looking for work.
Not bad, Mike.
Not bad at all.
Thank you.
More about the COBRA subsidy (click title to entry - thank you)
One thing is clear, only those who lost their jobs between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009, are eligible.
By Francesca Lunzer Kritz March 9, 2009
After last week’s column on the insurance subsidy included in President Obama's stimulus package, we received quite a lot of mail asking more questions. That's understandable. The details are complicated. In a nutshell, some laid-off employees can get a 65% subsidy, for up to nine months, to help defray the cost of continuing their healthcare coverage through a program known as COBRA. The subsidy only applies to people who lost, or will lose, their jobs between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009.
No money changes hands. People who qualify for the subsidy will pay their employers for 35% (instead of 100%) of coverage costs each month they receive subsidies, up to nine months. If an employee continues with COBRA after the nine months, the payment goes up to full cost....
Just laid off? Go for COBRA (click here)
Posted by Cheryl Costa March 5, 2009 10:06 AM
...Starting March 1, 2009, anyone who loses their job between August 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009 can elect coverage under COBRA and 65% of their premium will be paid by the government for up to nine months. That's a huge savings considering the cost of coverage for a family can be $1,000 per month or more. For example, without this new break, a family would be responsible for paying the full monthly COBRA premium. Now, the family would pay only 35 percent or $350 per month. Over nine months, that is a total savings of almost $6,000....
8 Questions You May Have About the New COBRA Subsidy (click here)
March 05, 2009 08:00 AM ET Michelle Andrews
...Unfortunately, passing the law is only the first step in the process. A significant amount of bureaucratic machinery must grind into gear before the federal government is ready to actually start paying for the subsidy. In fact, consumers may not get relief until May, says Cheryl Fish-Parcham, deputy director of health policy for Families USA, a consumer advocacy organization. If that happens, people who've paid their full premiums for March and/or April will be able to get either a refund for premiums paid since February 17, when the bill was signed, or a credit against future premiums....
Russ Feingold really suprised me when he wanted President Obama to veto the spending bill. I half expect Bayh to do such a thing, but, not Feingold.
U.S. President Barack Obama walks with the White House Chief Usher Stephen Rochon to the Oval Office before departing on a day trip to Ohio from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, March 6, 2009. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress on Friday sent President Barack Obama a bill to fund much of the government into next week, after Democrats hit a snag wrapping up a $410 billion measure to pay for the rest of this fiscal year which ends September 30....
In a back handed way, Feingold and Bayh did President Obama a favor. By opposing a spending bill that takes care of the federal government operations until September 30, 2009; they brought to focus how silly the opposition was in the first place.
If the bill passed in a majority without a complaint it would appear to be an administration that simply spends without regard to promises or concern. But, when Bayh and Feingold opposed the omnibus bill because of 'earmarks (click here), it brought to focus the 'FACT' that President was telling the truth. Imagine that a President that doesn't lie and has the intelligence to know that vetoing a vital bill is out of the question regardless of campaign promises to stop earmarks.
See, the 'naysayers' are struggling to dismiss the 'real responsibility' for the earmarks, which are last years left overs AGAIN. It is sad to realize that people and even trusted Senators are literally 'lying' about the origins of these earmarks and how this administration is NOT responsible for them being attached to vital fiscal legislation.
President Obama is AGAIN correct. The only effective way of stopping the abusive use of earmarks is to generate legislation that prevents it. Hello?
It boggles my mind to understand why President Obama is smeared in the media and by others that simply can't seem to grasp how incredible his leadership is and appreciate the energy and 'capacity' he can bring to the Executive Branch. He is a very ambitious President, but, he's doing it all correctly. He is NOT taking on all the tasks alone, but, EMPOWERING groups of people to move all the issues regarding the economy, global warming and health care to the forefront of 'action' for resolution.
All these issues are inter-related. The economy can't be strong without the reform to health care the President is pursuing. People don't understand that? Why bother 'fixing' the economy and building new energy sources if the health of the nation will only put a drag on all the improvements.
I swear, some folks are simply 'Party - Poopers.' Go get 'em, Barak.
Senators may punish Feingold, Bayh for opposing spending bill (click here)
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 03/05/09 07:25 PM [ET]
Senate Democrats are debating whether Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) should be punished for opposing a $410 billion omnibus.Some Senate Democrats, including members of the Appropriations Committee, are angry that Feingold and Bayh have panned the massive spending bill after legislative priorities important to both lawmakers were included in the package....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)