Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote: There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention.  I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.

Republicans don't follow you; they only instill in Americans the idea that Hillary killed 4 people, and not that their men killed many dozens. In all the other Republican cases too, attackers were also mad at American foreign policy and actions.

Quote:Second, the welfare and regulatory state you love depends on the petrodollar system remaining intact because that is the only thing maintaining demand for dollars and treasury securities which allows borrowing to continue.  It will not be possible to (raise) taxes enough to close the deficit, particularly when interest rates rise as doubts about the credit worthiness of the US government become commonplace.

If the Chinese want to invest in American debt instruments, what difference does it make what currency they use to buy them? Also, much of the borrowing is from Americans.

Welfare per se is a tiny portion of the budget, compared to the military, debt, and entitlements which people have paid for.

Quote:Once that happens there are three choices.  First, the Fed can choose to monetize the debt, currently called quantitative easing.  Second, the federal government can default on its debt.  It may not even be called that but many promises, often called unfunded liabilities, will not be kept.  Third, the government can live within its means, which will mean the government will become much smaller.

Not necessarily. "Living within its means" only means to cut expenses (military, pork, subsidies, etc) or raise taxes to pay its expenses, which it has the "means" to do. QE seems to work OK in recessions.