Obama Blocks Chinese Wind Farms In Oregon Over National Security

Hugh Pickens writes "Reuters reports that President Barack Obama has invoked a little-used law to block a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a Navy military site in Oregon due to national security concerns. 'There is credible evidence that leads me to believe' that Ralls Corp, Sany Group and the two Sany Group executives who own Ralls 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' said Obama in issuing his decision. The military uses the Oregon naval facility to test unmanned drones and the EA-18G 'Growler.' The electronic warfare aircraft accompanies US fighter bombers on missions and protectively jams enemy radar, destroying them with missiles along the way. At the Oregon site, the planes fly as low as 60 m and at almost 480 km/h. The administration would not say what risks the wind farm purchases presented but the Treasury Department said the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, made its recommendation to Obama after receiving an analysis of the potential threats from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The last time a president used the law to block a transaction was in 1990, when George H.W. Bush voided the sale of an aerospace company, Mamco Manufacturing, to a Chinese agency."

Comments

Obligated to point out another security concern

[crazyjj]

Most computers and computer components sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China now. Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[war4peace]

Then use your in-house built electronics. Ah, too expensive? Well, tough shit, pay up or... what, no money? Maybe because of a debt that measures in trillions? Oh well, ask the Chinese for a big loan. Oh wait... :)

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Debt for our nation is a good thing, within reason. Also the Chinese do not own most of our debt, they own only a decent percentage of foreign debt. When the USA can borrow money for negative interest, which is basically what is happening now, it should. We should use that money for investing in our nation and pay it back in better times.

Having no debt is bad for our nation, we then have no ability to influence interest rates.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Anonymous Coward]

That last bit makes no sense. If we have no debt, then other countries would still have debt to us. We would influence interest rates directly, by chosing how much interest we charge them on the loans we give them.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[ShanghaiBill]

We should use that money for investing in our nation and pay it back in better times.

It makes sense to borrow money at low (or negative) interest rates to invest in infrastructure, education, etc., because those investments will lead to higher growth in the future. But that is not what we are doing. We are borrowing money to put off dealing with entitlement reform. Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth. Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

We would not have to do that, if we could invest in things that would lead to higher growth. We have a political party that opposes doing so and fights it at every turn. This is of course because their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America.

Please don't forget the entitlements to the defense contractors when you offer up the solution of removing the bread from the mouths of our seniors.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

Inconveniently, you can run something that looks remarkably like a free market economy while still executing inconvenient dissidents(the fantastic thing about dissidents is how often they are students, intellectuals, and other economically near-irrelevant bit players...) In fact, certain flavors of authoritarianism might actually make that easier: If the political process is free enough that it is viable and cost-effective to attempt to convert money into political influence(Americans should be readily familiar with this situation), there is a strong likelihood that either the private sector incumbents will gradually overrun the state and use it to suppress the aspects of the free market that are bad for margins(such as 'competition' and 'low barriers to entry') or public sector incumbents will gradually overrun the private sector in an attempt to suppress potential threats and ensure that the oligarchs of the private sector are in line with the strongmen of the public sector(the most notable case of this is probably Russia, where virtually anyone with a net worth worth talking about is either kissing Putin's ass, in prison on dubious tax charges, or hanging out in London).

If political authoritarianism is sufficiently ossified, such that money cannot be used to easily buy power, a certain dente comes to exist between the two sectors: because it is authoritarianism, the private sector will be coopted to some degree for state ends(espionage, vaguely mercantilist development/employment policies, enforcement of media blackouts and censorship; but because wealth is not easily transferrable to power, the state apparatus has an incentive to smile on anybody who is content to make money and keep his nose out of politics.

You can't have a command economy and a free market economy; but other flavors of unfreedom are substantially less incompatible...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[FirstNoel]

When you have a small loan, the bank owns you. When you have a large loan, you own the bank. ( more or less )

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth

Agreed.

Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues. If any of them survive until our finances are in order, *then* we can take attend them. That's what civilized people do, don't you know - cast out their old and infirm, their non-contributors.

~

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

We are borrowing money to put off dealing with entitlement reform. Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption

I've been paying SS and Medicare taxes for 45 years. I fucking paid for it. Congress kept borrowing from the money we PAID. Yes, we ARE entitled to that SS amd medicare. Are you entitled to the food you bought and paid for? Are you entitled to the money you put in the bank? Yes, you are, and if you fuck with my retirement income, good luck getting reelected, kid.

BTW, fuck everyone who is against my getting what I PAID FOR. Goddamned thieves...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Anonymous Coward]

You paid it in and you (and your generation) elected politicians who squandered it. Your generation delivered the current economic problems to my generation and now you expect US to clean up YOUR mess. YOUR generation destroyed the SS and Medicare system. YOU should have been more responsible.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[war4peace]

Until shit hits the fan. Which is going to happen sometime during YOUR lifetime.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Svartalf]

Not all of them are that way. As an observation any DoD gear tends to not have ROC parts in the device- it's kind of a requirement even now.

Just in case you missed it...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[GigsVT]

Consider how many "US company" parts are actually counterfeit chinese parts, I'd say there's probably no device without Chinese parts in it.

A recent audit of military jets showed a huge percentage of the parts were Chinese counterfeit.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[beelsebob]

The security concern here is very simple... The naval base will have a fancy radar installation, a bunch of giant rotating blades will make it give fubar results in one direction.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

Having no debt is bad for our nation, we then have no ability to influence interest rates.

It's one thing to sell a 30-year bond and then build a bridge with it that is expected to last at least as long.

It's another thing to use that bond to make payroll.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[tgd]

Most computers and computer components sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China now. Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

Yes, I'm sure you're privy to all sorts of information the President of the United States isn't aware of.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues

That's not the only choice. You could cut some of them off - like the ones who don't absolutely need it. You could set up neutral panels of doctors to review end-of-life spending decisions (death panels, if you prefer). The entire point is that we can't "take care of our debt issues" without tackling entitlement spending.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[beelsebob]

Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth. Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

On the contrary...
Scenario 1: I, at 30, know that at 80 I will have to pay a bunch of extremely expensive medical bills out of my own pocket. The result – I squirrel my money away, and do nothing with it, because I know I'll be fucked later if I don't.
Scenario 2: I, at 30, know that at 80 I will have no such problems, and that the government will provide me with medical care at a significantly lower cost than if I'd had to pay it myself. The result – I put my money straight into the economy now by buying all kinds of shiny stuff, hence driving the economy.

You might say that the money I save gets worked by the banks I save with, but ultimately it works much less hard than the money I spend. You might also say that the money I pay in tax towards such a scheme would also be squirrelled away and hence not used for bolstering the economy, but that misses two critical things - 1) that it's much less money than I would be putting away myself as the healthcare is much cheaper this way 2) it's being paid for out of the negative interest, not my tax anyway.

Conclusion: investing in health care for the over 80 (or in fact socialised health care for everyone) is an excellent plan!

Aside – socialised health care for everyone would result in an even bigger boost to economic output, as it would make sure that as many as possible people were fit and healthy, ready to go and work, earn money, and spend it again.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[timeOday]

...if we could invest in things that would lead to higher growth.

What would that be? It doesn't seem to me there is a shortage of capital to invest; interest rates are absurdly low. A company can borrow money to grow almost interest-free. And the stock market is so loaded up with money that has nowhere else to go, that now we're just getting investment bubbles with little if any long-term growth. How about investing in education? There are millions of new college graduates who can't demand a high enough salary to repay the costs of their education.

You can see I'd be a lousy politician because I do not see the solution. Where do we go from here?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Then it does not matter at all.
If you really think the SHTF will occur, then we might as well rack up as much debt as possible now, then pay it off with printed currency.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Why not ROC parts?
I would think those would be no worse than any other foreign parts. The PRC is who we should be avoiding for parts.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

I fucking paid for it.

No, what you did was pretend to pay for it. Your generation tallied up the money that they paid in. They called this tally a "trust fund". Then they took the money and spent it on the general fund. Your parents' generation was complicit in this, and they are the ones who benefited from the scam.

We 30-somethings all want to know why you didn't burn these politicians at the stake in the 1980s when they set up this system. Our kids will want to know why my generation let Bush and Obama do the same thing to them.

Calling you children's generation "thieves" will not make them more sympathetic to you saddling them with trillions in debt.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mabhatter654]

Social security is still cash positive right now... WE (not the 1%) pay that tax out of our paychecks. The govt has borrowed $2-3 Trillion from that fund.

Health care is a big line item that comes from the general fund. Only a small portion is cornered by the 1.75% payroll tax. Of course, they conveniently omit that we could bump up that specific tax.. If you could convince folks it would go to the correct purpose.

So aside from those items, most Federal money goes to employees or CONTRACTORS... Often at non-competitive rates compared to the real world.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Infrastructure, we have bridges in poor shape, we have a power grid that is a total joke, we have a lack of power in some parts of the country in the summer.

Investing properly in education would solve that last part. By that I mean free university education for those who qualify at public universities.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[paiute]

You paid it in and you (and your generation) elected politicians who squandered it. Your generation delivered the current economic problems to my generation and now you expect US to clean up YOUR mess. YOUR generation destroyed the SS and Medicare system. YOU should have been more responsible.

I just wanted to point out that there are no such things as "generations". That term is used by media as a filler because they don't have the time or inclination to be more subtle in their analyses. It isn't like humans give birth every 20 years en masse. The distribution of birth dates in the population follows a nice epidemiological curve.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Phelan]

Those were replacement parts purchased on contract. Some small business probably got the contract for replacement parts and decided to cut corners

For items that absolutely need to be TAA compliant a lot of auditing is done. Especially with products that require that all handling is done on a NOFORN basis. If one of the units we manufacture and market under these regulations would be found to have a ROC sourced component it would be good night sweetheart for us.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Anonymous Coward]

Investing properly in education would solve that last part. By that I mean free university education for those who qualify at public universities.

Free to the students. So who pays for it?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[0xdeadbeef]

Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

Dude, you better fly out there, right now, and go to the Oval Office and demand to speak to the President. And don't let the rent-a-cops with the sunglasses and hearing aids stop you, national security is at stake, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS THIS INFORMATION WHICH ONLY YOU CAN PROVIDE!

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[fustakrakich]

Goddamned thieves...

As the first responder said, 'thieves' that YOU (collectively) voted for and reelected time after time, despite knowing better. The fraud is staring us in the face, and we continue to enable it to this day. I'm in the same boat and will have to work until I'm dead dead dead, but I recognize who screwed up, and I really can't sympathize or feel sorry for myself.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

The taxpayer, like most 1st world nations do to a large degree.

Having an educated society is of value to all members of that society. The party that embraces anti-education would of course fight this tooth and nail.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[ZeroSumHappiness]

...you should have created a private retirement account such as a 401k or IRA (or just a simple bank savings account).

With all that money that you were forced by law to pay into Social Security?

Wat?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[crazyjj]

Bruce Willis and I are heading there in a speeding car even as I type this.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[crazyjj]

Yes, I'm sure you're privy to all sorts of information the President of the United States isn't aware of.

Damn straight. You think anyone ever told HIM how to write a decent method in C#?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[ArcherB]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors.

Then, of course, there was that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. Isn't that preferring to ship jobs overseas rather than investing in jobs here in America?

The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.

But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Alex Zepeda]

So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors

The difference is that Apple's primary focus is not shipping companies overseas. The company that Bain invested in specializes in offshoring.

But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/10/illinois-workers-bain-outsourcing

From the article:

"This company is competitive globally. They make a profit here. But Bain Capital decided to squeeze it a little further. That is not what capitalism is meant to be about," said Freeport mayor George Gaulrapp, 52, pictured.

So, yes, it seems to me that Romey prefers overseas jobs.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[thereitis]

Must've clicked on the "Protect national security with this weird old trick" banner ad.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[websitebroke]

Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil.

Probably something to do with that big ass oil spill a few years ago. He can look like he's protecting the environment here, while simply getting the oil from elsewhere.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because it's not like China doesn't engage in espionage....I'm sure building a wind farm next to a naval base where the do drone testing was just over sight....

Moron.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[DarkOx]

Check your math, it is most certainly an entitlement.

Based on current life expectancies and medical cost structures odds you only paid in a tiny fraction of what you will take out, even if you consider the time value of money.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Beardo the Bearded]

Stop it.

70% of the US debt is internal to the United States.

China only owns 7% of the total US debt.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Ravaldy]

You ignorant for saying what you said. You complain about people who lived before you and you will complain about the people after you. Your comment is garbage.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Beardo the Bearded]

Actually, he's automated the entire White House with a bunch of Arduinos, five Raspberry Pis, and programmed the whole thing on a custom port of Visual Studio onto Slackware.

Fucker can code.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Gryle]

Heck, anything military personnel are issued, in terms of clothing, has to be manufactured in the USA. That's why military personnel buy their own running shoes instead of having them issued. As only New Balance makes their running shoes in the USA anymore, issuing sneakers would effectively give a no-bid contract to New Balance.*

*Source: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/127204-maine-sneaker-maker-could-provide-military-footwea/

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

So what? Granted that is strategically better from an international relations point of view - but I don't see how that makes using debt to pay for recurrent expenses a good thing.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[cayenne8]

Probably something to do with that big ass oil spill a few years ago. He can look like he's protecting the environment here, while simply getting the oil from elsewhere.

And at the cost of many, many US jobs....and decimating industries in the Gulf south (LA, TX, etc)....and causing oil companies to move their rig deployment resources out of the Gulf to other countries....possibly never to come back.

It is our waters here....give us more a choice in allowing drilling. We're just fine down here....we've recovered....seafood industry has been tested (more than any other in history) and has been just fine for years now.....the oil spill was a bit of a burp...but we're over it....but Obama is killing jobs and money coming in here in this area by not allowing new oil leases....

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Intrepid imaginaut]

If one wished to put a numerical value on it, higher taxes are paid by people who earn more, and who not coincidentally are better educated. So "free" education is an investment in future economic growth.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[gorzek]

Every reform proposal I've seen thus far comes with a caveat that it won't affect anyone already receiving benefits, and usually not anyone over 55, so if you are close to retirement (or already retired), you don't have anything to worry about as far as your benefits being slashed.

That said, the system will not be solvent for future beneficiaries, so we have to do something about that.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[polar red]

You can't have a free market economy

PERIOD
It's a physical impossibility. because some of the assumptions in economic theory require an infinitely big economic space.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[war4peace]

When shit hits the fan, all currency will be useless. Look up hyperinflation, friend.
This mindset is exactly what leads to shit hitting the fan. Better stockpile water and canned food starting now.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[nschubach]

Infrastructure, we have bridges in poor shape, we have a power grid that is a total joke, we have a lack of power in some parts of the country in the summer.

Investing properly in education would solve that last part. By that I mean free university education for those who qualify at public universities.

How is education supposed to help with power distribution issues? Wouldn't that money be better spend burying the existing and new power lines?

I mean, I have no problem with education funding... but to state that the reason some parts of the country have no power in the summer because of education funding is reaching.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[gorzek]

I've made that particular healthcare argument more times than I can count, and because it is so sensible in terms of its cause, effect, and goals, you can only get responses that take issue with the very idea of government involvement in healthcare:

* "It's wrong for my neighbor to reach into my pocket to pay for what he can't afford." This is the libertarian argument, which is impossible to argue with because it comes from a fundamentally different view of government's purpose.
* "Let's get the government out of the healthcare business and let the free market sort it out." This is the conservative argument, which is naive at best and malevolent at worst. The "free market" is concerned with rent-seeking, not ensuring a healthy, productive workforce. Such policies have been proven over and over not to work, but conservatives keep pushing them because, I guess, enough people are gullible enough to buy them.
* Insert random argument about how socialized healthcare makes people lazy, dependent, etc. etc. etc.

Those who oppose a single-payer/socialized system in the US never seem to have an explanation for why healthcare is so much more expensive here, in our "free market" system, than in more socialized (e.g. European) systems. When confronted with this, their solution, puzzlingly enough, is to embrace even more "free market" policies to "bring costs down." It makes absolutely no sense.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[zlives]

"Democratic" the word doesn't means what you think it does.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Look up hyperinflation yourself. All currency is not useless just that one experiencing hyperinflation. In Zimbabwe for example, they are now using the Rand after their own currency experienced hyperinflation.

You sound like the Y2K nutters.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job buying into the delusion they're preaching at you. Hint: we are not in debt because of entitlements.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[immaterial]

They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund." Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year? Of course not; that would be idiotic. It should be invested -- but, given the importance of the security of that money, it needs to be invested very safely indeed. US treasury bonds happen to be the safest investment in the world; there is a reason people are happy to buy them up even now, when the interest rate is slightly negative (generally its slightly positive, but only slightly).

As such, the Social Security trust fund mainly buys and holds treasury bonds rather than a giant pile of cash. But that investment is perfectly safe (again, people invest in US Treasury bonds for exactly that reason; the US always pays its debts). It also allows that money to be put to use in the mean time, rather than be essentially taken out of the economy and hoarded in an account somewhere (aren't free-market fans always touting the power of investment? I thought that's why we have to keep capital gains taxes so low!). I know it's weird to think of an entity lending money to itself, but it is a fairly normal practice.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Will.Woodhull]

English is evolving very rapidly now. The impact of having more English as a second language users than native speakers is bringing about rapid changes in what is acceptable.

At this point, using "their" instead of "his" or "hers" is now acceptable when the gender of the person is unknown. Also, "themself" in place of "himself" or "herself", etc.

This is not a bad thing. With the Internet a truly international language has had to be developed and for several reasons English has emerged as the best basis for that language.

One of these reasons is that English grammar has long been recognized as descriptive of accepted usage. Not prescriptive. The basic rule of English grammar is that so long as the statement is understood as intended by the consensus of its audience, the grammar used is acceptable.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[GrimShady]

I agree with this. Critical thinking should be applied to your side as well as "the other guy I hate".

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[the eric conspiracy]

China is certainly not democratic. No elections above the village level are open to private citizens. The only people elected to authority above the village level are members of the Chinese Communist Party.

As far as capitalistic, something like 50% of their economy is state-owned.

That's VERY different from the US.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MooseTick]

The problem with this view is it is unrealistic. Yes, some peolple would realize this and react as you suggest. Most people though, will not save even if they know there will be no one there to bail them out and will end up at 80 with nothing anyway. Social security alone is not a great retirement, yet tons of people squirrel $0 away.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Will.Woodhull]

that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. . . . I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil.

Above sounds like some Romney's statements, criticising actions without bothering to learn anything about the situation first.

There is clearly at least one poster on slashdot who either has not bothered to pay attention to the news, or does not have the wits to fill in the dots. Brazil sits on a huge reserve of off shore oil. It needs money to develop deep drilling techniques. The reserves are large enough that they could free the USA and the rest of the developed world from dependency on Mid East oil. Compared to the Brazilian reserves, Mexico's reserves are small potatoes. They certainly are not large enough that any investment there would change the USA position wrt other oil producers.

The USA investment in developing Brazil's deep water oil reserves will be paid back in barrels of oil. The benefits will be huge.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Bengie]

Almost every corp has some amount of jobs over seas as you have to compete globally, but some corps move jobs over seas not to compete globally, but locally.

Most of Intel's current plants, new plants, and research jobs are in the USA. Might as well start talking about how the NFL is off-shoring jobs.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[LourensV]

The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.

The Netherlands has quite a substantial amount of natural gas in fields in the north of the country. We've been exploiting those fields, but not as much as we could, and we're buying gas from abroad to fulfil the rest of our need. Essentially, we're treating it partially as a strategic reserve; when fossil fuels run out, we'll have a buffer supply to get us through a transition to other types of energy. Gas production is done by a commercial company, but they pay the government for the privilege, and that money ends up in a special fund for infrastructure investment, i.e. new motorways, train lines, and even some for improvements in education as well IIRC.

Anyway, it may not be a bad idea at all for the US to save some of its domestic supply for later, and get oil from elsewhere while those other countries are still willing to sell. Obama strikes me as smart enough to think ahead strategically. Or else the oil is Brazil is pumped up by an American company and they lobbied for some more subsidies...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Bengie]

So "baby boomers" aren't real? Ohh thank God, I thought there was a "generation" with lots of extra births.

Even though you won't find "generations" based on birth dates, you will find people with-in a given age range, will have some common pop-culture commonality. They tend to define their child-hoods fairly similarly.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[dywolf]

Wind turbine pylons make good, discreet antennaes (or housings for them). A farm of them is even better. Grab all the signals emitted by the EA-18's in the area. Analyze. Plot the spectrum and the variations...

ECM is an ever changing game. The codes, frequencies, spectrum, wattage, every single specification, all classed Secret for that reason. Updates are issued frequently (not as often as the once a day nuke codes, but still).

I can see there being concern about someone getting a leg up on the ECM game.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[dywolf]

And where does the money the Gov uses to pay for your really-expensive-over-80-medical-care come from?

And no its not cheaper just cause the gov pays for it. Cost is cost, regardless. The gov may pay less due to rules it writes itself, or other things, but a Dollar Steak is a Dollar Steak even if I pass a law stating no one can charge more than $0.50 for it.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[h4rr4r]

Since when does the president set the budget?

I would fire the current board, the congress.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[roc97007]

Don't drive and type. Hand the phone to Bruce.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[TheSync]

Social security is still cash positive right now.

Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011 The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Anachragnome]

Seriously? You're all concerned about the security issues of this situation? Did nobody read the original AP article written by Julie Pace? She handed Democrat voters a BOMBSHELL...and everyone is talking about debt.

From the Original AP article written by Julie Pace (and the REAL meat of the article):

"Huawei, one of the world's largest producers of computer network switching gear, has repeatedly struggled to convince U.S. authorities that they can be trusted to oversee sensitive technology sometimes used in national security work. In 2008, CFIUS concerns led Huawei and private equity firm Bain Capital to abandon an $2.2 billion deal to buy a firm that produces anti-hacking software for the U.S. military"

MY emphasis. Did nobody notice that shortly after Mitt Romney split from Bain Capitol he decided to run for President? Julie Pace just gave us the reason for this...Mitt Romney has been sleeping with the Chinese all along.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[wisnoskij]

Sure they only have one party, but the US only has two, and look what their bickering has turned your country into.
Personally I always thought that parties run completely against the idea of a working democracy, and one party is the same as no party.

"Elections in the People's Republic of China are based on a hierarchical electoral system, whereby local People's Congresses () are directly elected, and all higher levels of People's Congresses up to the National People's Congress, the national legislature, are indirectly elected by the People's Congress of the level immediately below."
I am not sure how you do it in the US exactly, but in Canada this is pretty much exactly it. We elect local representatives, but all the important people are elected by the government.

But more similar to the US, China has shown a willingness and ability to go after activists and journalists who dislike how things are run. So pretty much like the US, not that I would consider either particularly free, fare, or by the people for the people.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

It's noy my parents and children who are thieves, it's the politicians.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund."

You are right, it was worse than that. They spent the money AND put the next generation in debt.

Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year?

Yes, this is the argument that you all fell for. First of all, you should have questioned why Social Security needed a "trust fund" in the first place, after running so long without one. Second, there are some really good investments if the argument is persuasive enough:
- A mix of commodities. Hell, even just straight gold. Inflation proof and government proof.
- Annuities. Buy guaranteed payments for a fixed price. Spread the risk by using several different insurance companies and making certain regulations about how they can invest the money. The worst thing that can happen is the insurance companies fail, in which case you are right back where we are today, which is the tax payers are on the hook for the "fund".
- Spend it and then pretend it was "invested". Oh wait, that's what you did.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you guys thought the trust fund would accomplish, besides pissing off the younger generation.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[vakuona]

Actually, they don't set the interest rate. They can set the coupon rate, and investors bid for the bonds. They do try to make sure that the bonds are priced at par, i.e. if the bond has a principal of £100, they will try to set the coupon so that investors pay £100 initially.

However, the actual interest rate is based entirely on what investors are willing to pay. So if the BOE issues a bond with a coupon of 1% per half year, and investors will only lend to the UK govt at 4% per annum, they will bid below £100 for each bond.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

It's not my SS I'm worried about, it's yours. We have SS because when my grandparents were young, old people starved.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

I think you are right, we do need to reduce our defense expenditures as well and probably raise taxes.

AND reform entitlements.

Actually, my personal solution (should I become emperor):
- Tax reform: eliminate the special rates for capital gains and dividends, eliminate corporate tax. Phase out almost all deductions and credits. Make the now simplified tax brackets progressive and adjust rates to keep overall revenue neutral.
- Spending freeze: completely freeze spending at today's levels. Wait for economic growth to eliminate the deficit. If someone needs more money, it means a reduction somewhere else. Forward spending would capped at 5-year averages for revenue until most debt was retired. New debt can only be issued for capital projects.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

There are ways to fix this, by starting social security later, or paying less back per month.

When my grandparents were young, only the rich paid taxes. Now the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income than the rich do. The answer is simple: get rid of the $75k income ceiling when taxing, keep a ceiling when paying back. Let those who can afford it pay for it. After all, their wealth comes from our labor.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

Yes, I agree that tax reform needs to occur as well.

I didn't say that there are no other options, I said that entitlement reform needs to be part of any deficit reduction...

You make a jolly good attempt at stuffing words in my mouth, but the kinds of entitlement reform I would go after first are low-hanging fruit: retirees who don't need the Social Security but it does improve their quality of life... my grandmother called it her "cruise money". I loved my grandma, but the government didn't need to be giving her "cruise money". As for Medicaid, well for starters I'd let the government negotiate for prices on drugs... even Obama found 3/4 billion dollars of waste in Medicare. Paul Ryan agreed and used it in his budget - this stuff isn't remotely controversial.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

Agreed. But the politicians were stealing in the 80s, and I couldn't vote.

Bush and Obama are even worse, so we really need to change things or risk the same thing happening to the next generation.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[beelsebob]

Most people though, will not save even if they know there will be no one there to bail them out and will end up at 80 with nothing anyway

The result of which is that you end up with individual people in massive debt who can't pay their mortgages on time, and cause banks to go bust... oh wait...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[beelsebob]

And where does the money the Gov uses to pay for your really-expensive-over-80-medical-care come from?

That was covered in the post –in an environment where you aren't paying negative interest, it comes from taxation. In an environment where you are, it comes from that negative interest. The taxation is fine, because that taxation is less than the money the people being taxed would have to be saving for their future medical bills (because socialised health care is known to be about 4 times cheaper than capitalised health care).

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[beelsebob]

What makes you say that? I'm relying on the fact that it's cheaper to have socialised health care than to have capitalised health care, and thus you allow more money to be spent on not looking after the over-80s.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[war4peace]

Time will tell, friend. Time will tell.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Nyder]

We should use that money for investing in our nation and pay it back in better times.

It makes sense to borrow money at low (or negative) interest rates to invest in infrastructure, education, etc., because those investments will lead to higher growth in the future. But that is not what we are doing. We are borrowing money to put off dealing with entitlement reform. Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth. Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

Dude, the amount of money we are spending on pensions and healthcare are pocket change compared to what we are spending on military.

We need to cut back on military spending and get our country in shape.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

And then watch every single wealthy person transfer their entire fortune into a corporation that they are the CEO of, and that does nothing but spend money on travel, housing, and business entertainment for their CEO. Of course, that mostly already happens, since businesses can write off expenses against income that individuals can not.

Right, I would never propose this without also eliminating most deductions. Business travel would obviously be an expense. But travel on anything other than coach - the difference would be taxed as salary. Accommodations? Anything over the going rate for a hotel room would be taxed as salary. Company car? Non-business use taxed as salary. Basically make it impossible or very difficult to do exactly what you very rightly point out would be a problem. Of course, as you point out my solution wouldn't depend on this loophole closure since they already do this. :)

Better solution : Eliminate all other taxes, and just tax all bank transactions. No company is going to revert to paying people in cash (well, any more than they do now), you can't pay your credit card in cash, and as a bonus cash tips go back to really meaning something - tax free.

I forget the exact reason, but I read a paper that studied this and it had some pretty harsh repercussions. Perhaps it could be made workable. Collection would certainly be simple.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[strikethree]

Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

The money was "borrowed" from the people who are receiving it. It is not their fault that the money was spent before it was returned to them as initially promised.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[strikethree]

So why isn't there enough money to pay the obligations? Something is clearly not right.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[immaterial]

There are two arguments going on here and I think you're conflating the two. One is that the US government is getting itself into more debt than it should. You and I might actually agree on that at least to some degree. The second argument is that the Social Security trust fund is bankrupt, or has been stolen from, or scammed. This is what I am arguing against, because it is thoroughly not true. The SS trust fund is a separate entity from the Treasury. The fact that they both happen to be part of the federal government has no bearing on the solvency of one versus the other.

Yes, this is the argument that you all fell for. First of all, you should have questioned why Social Security needed a "trust fund" in the first place, after running so long without one.

The Social Security trust fund was set up in 1939. I wasn't around to "fall for" anything -- not even my parents were!

Social Security tries to be as pay-as-you-go as possible (the current workforce paying for current retirees), but there are issues with this:
* With a growing population, sometimes you take in more money than you pay out. Should that extra cash just be burned?
* Recessions/depressions can suddenly reduce tax income, but retirees will still need their social security. There needs to be a buffer.
* Changing demographics also require a buffer. The proportion of retirees to workers was great when the Boomers were in the workforce; as that group transitions to retirement the ratio changes unfavorably. To keep things pay-as-you-go we would have to increase taxes a lot on current workers so they can pay for their parents. Instead, the Boomers themselves paid enough extra to build up the trust fund in an attempt to cover this. This is why we increased SS taxes in the 80's and started building up the fund more than previously.

People talk as if the money in the trust fund is gone. It is not gone any more than anyone's money is gone when they invest in something; the value is still there (and hopefully actually is increasing, with the caveat that investing also risks loss of value, but see me next paragraph). If I take my life savings of $500,000 and buy bonds, I'm not suddenly broke. I have $500,000 in bonds (and at the end of a few years of interest payments, I'll have even more).

Second, there are some really good investments if the argument is persuasive enough:

The safety and stability of US Treasury bonds is so good that people and institutions continue to buy them at a negative interest rate . Anything else is adding risk to money that has to be there when the payees retire.

The worst thing that can happen is the insurance companies fail, in which case you are right back where we are today, which is the tax payers are on the hook for the "fund".

Doing it this way exposes the taxpayers to all the risk and none of the reward. I might loan $10,000 to my Uncle Sam so he can open a rib joint, knowing that even if the investment doesn't pay off enough he's willing to pay it back out of his own pocket. That's one thing; Uncle Sam at least has the rib joint. What you're proposing is that I loan $10,000 to my neighbor Mr. Goldman under the premise that, well, my Uncle Sam will still cover any losses because Mr. Goldman is such an important member of the community we can't have him going bankrupt. That may be true (and I thoroughly disagree with allowing Mr. Goldman to get into that position to begin with), but I've exposed Uncle Sam to all the risk while Mr. Goldman gets to take advantage.

As for whether there is any reward for the investment at all...

Spend it and then pretend it was "invested".

This has strayed beyond the "is SS solvent" argument, but I'll bite anyway.

Do you drive on roads? Use airports? Enjoy the security of police, fire departments, the US military (not that I agree with everything the latter is asked to do)? Clean drin

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[fustakrakich]

...it's the politicians.

Dude, what's wrong with you? Nobody was forced to vote for them. This denial of yours and the others and all the defensive reaction is worse than the problem itself. If you (collectively) vote for a thief, then you are an accomplice, at the very least. 98% of you are demanding that they steal even more. When a politician is rewarded for stealing, what in the world do you expect of them?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[ArcherB]

So because Bain invests in a company that specializes in outsourcing, Romney "prefers" to employ overseas workers? Have you considered that maybe the company could make money, and is therefor a good investment? I don't know how well you did in economics, but that is what successful companies do.

Also, the article you pointed to is about a decision that Bain is making RIGHT NOW. Romney hasn't been a manager at Bain for years and has nothing to do with this decision. Trying to tie this action to Romney is like trying to tie Obama to.... Oh wait. He's never worked for a company. I guess it would be like blaming Obama because the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama left the Senate and entered the White House.

So... Try again.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

The SS trust fund is a separate entity from the Treasury. The fact that they both happen to be part of the federal government has no bearing on the solvency of one versus the other.

I'm not talking about solvency. I'm talking about taking working people's money, telling them that you need to take extra so that they can build up a trust fund for their future, and then spending this extra money. The fact that there is a ledger somewhere saying exactly what is owed does not change the fact that the money is gone.

The Social Security trust fund was set up in 1939. I wasn't around to "fall for" anything -- not even my parents were!

I was referring to the big revamp in '86 IIRC that gave us the current "trust fund".

With a growing population, sometimes you take in more money than you pay out. Should that extra cash just be burned?

My personal preference would be for the payroll tax to be reduced. But barring that, a sensible investment in either annuities or commodities.

Recessions/depressions can suddenly reduce tax income, but retirees will still need their social security. There needs to be a buffer.

That's fine. Base the payroll tax on long term moving average (perhaps 3-5 years). That will produce a small surplus in boom years that can be drawn from in down years.

Changing demographics also require a buffer.

This principle is sound, but they then went and spent the buffer. Also, it just shifts the problem down the road (to their grand-kids instead of their kids). I'd rather have a slow increase of the payroll tax then a sudden crises when the system's "trust fund" inevitably runs out.

People talk as if the money in the trust fund is gone.

It's not "gone", it was never there. They've used it to pay for deficit spending until very recently when the fund stopped growing.

What you're proposing is that I loan $10,000 to my neighbor Mr. Goldman under the premise that, well, my Uncle Sam will still cover any losses because Mr. Goldman is such an important member of the community we can't have him going bankrupt.

No, what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't have let Uncle Sam have this money in the first place. Or rather, it should have been raised through regular taxes that didn't put your kids into deep debt. If you insist on giving the government all this money to keep you nice and safe, for God's sake don't let him spend it and then turn around and tell you that it is "invested". It's invested in a big filing cabinet full of paper. Sure, they are Treasury Bonds... very safe investment. Do you think you'll ever be allowed to cash them in? I think not. At least, not before inflation renders them worth a lot less.

If I take my life savings of $500,000 and buy bonds, I'm not suddenly broke. I have $500,000 in bonds (and at the end of a few years of interest payments, I'll have even more).

They government did not "buy bonds". They bought their own bonds and then spent the money. The analog is that you took your life savings of $500,000, wrote yourself an IOU, and then spent the money. Sure, you have a piece of paper that says $500,000 - but that doesn't mean you'll ever see it.

In the case of SS, I have no doubt that they will draw down the fund.... and finance that activity with more bonds, but on the other side of the Treasury balance sheet. Or worse, they'll print some more money and pay it off with that. By the time they are done, you'll get your promised $1800/month or whatever - but it will be seriously devalued and your kids will still be in debt.

But you act as if the government spends money by burning it, and we never see a positive benefit at all.

That is not my contention. I actually think debt can be a very good thing. Large capital projects should probably b

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[immaterial]

I'm not talking about solvency. I'm talking about taking working people's money, telling them that you need to take extra so that they can build up a trust fund for their future, and then spending this extra money. The fact that there is a ledger somewhere saying exactly what is owed does not change the fact that the money is gone.

This is what you're not getting. When the trust fund buys bonds, the value is no more gone than if they had put it in annuities or commodities as you suggest (in fact the value is more secure than if it were in annuities or commodities!). Those bonds get paid back. They don't disappear into the ether.

They government did not "buy bonds". They bought their own bonds and then spent the money. The analog is that you took your life savings of $500,000, wrote yourself an IOU, and then spent the money. Sure, you have a piece of paper that says $500,000 - but that doesn't mean you'll ever see it.

Just because two entities are under the same umbrella does not mean they are one and the same. The SS trust fund is separate from the Treasury. They even have different income streams (though that's not really necessary) Your analogy would be better like this: I take my $500,000 life savings and give it to my wife, who writes me an IOU (plus interest!) and then spends the money - and my wife has her own income stream and has never failed to pay off an IOU.

I'm going to stop here. I agree with some of your points and disagree with many others and I imagine we could sit here all day running in circles... But I have some meat in the fridge that needs grilling!

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[MightyYar]

This is what you're not getting. When the trust fund buys bonds, the value is no more gone than if they had put it in annuities or commodities as you suggest (in fact the value is more secure than if it were in annuities or commodities!). Those bonds get paid back. They don't disappear into the ether.

Yes, I am not making myself clear. Sorry.

I know that treasuries are safe investments. I know that the SS Administration will be able to redeem the bonds.

The problem is this: if the SS Administration had purchased - let's just use plain gold for example. If they had purchased 2.7 trillion dollars worth of gold, there would now be an unbelievable pile of gold sitting at Fort Knox, just waiting for the boomers to retire. Instead, they bought government debt. So instead of having a $2.7 trillion asset, this generation has a $2.7 trillion liability.

Boomers would be in a substantially better position saying, "give us our gold, you thieves!" then they are saying, "pay back our debt, you thieves!"

Just because two entities are under the same umbrella does not mean they are one and the same.

This is where "they" fooled you. It does not matter whether they take your money out of your paycheck with FICA next to it or with WITHHOLDING next to it... it all went to the general fund. The "two income streams" both come from your paycheck, they just put them in two different ledgers. But all of that money went into the same fund. The Social Security Trust Fund exists only on paper, and was nothing but a huge scam to kick the obvious problems down the road to the next generation. "Solving" a problem by loading up on debt is not going to work.

Get grilling!

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Trogre]

The result - I put my money straight into the Chinese economy now by buying all kinds of shiny stuff, hence driving the Chinese economy.

FTFY

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[khallow]

Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues. If any of them survive until our finances are in order, *then* we can take attend them. That's what civilized people do, don't you know - cast out their old and infirm, their non-contributors.

That's very helpful for dealing with morality we can't afford, but I gather there's a certain lack of sincerity in the suggestion. I suppose we could just dwell in hysteria as you appear to do above and not do anything until our economic failures become profound enough that the proffered pensions and health care have no meaning anymore. That would be the civilized way to commit societal suicide.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[khallow]

The SS trust fund is a separate entity from the Treasury.

The SS Trust fund doesn't exist at all. And there's many tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities in Social Security. When is that going to find its way into the federal accounting books?

Most government spending is an investment in the health and safety of our society.

In my view, most government spending is squandered money and just redistributes wealth to more politically connected parties.

But you act as if the government spends money by burning it, and we never see a positive benefit at all.

Social Security is such an example. It transfers wealth from young adults to wealthy elderly who simply don't need it as much since they aren't paying for education, new families, or establishing new lives.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[khallow]

I've been paying SS and Medicare taxes for 45 years. I fucking paid for it.

That's interesting.

Congress kept borrowing from the money we PAID. Yes, we ARE entitled to that SS amd medicare.

Well, no you aren't. Congress kept borrowing from the money you paid? Then it's gone.

BTW, fuck everyone who is against my getting what I PAID FOR.

And the number one group on that list is the federal government of the past eighty years. The time to have done something about preserving what you paid in was decades ago not now. That's why I want to end Social Security. It's a con that has outlived the people who set it in motion. It has no purpose, even as a vehicle of theft, any more.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[khallow]

I know it's weird to think of an entity lending money to itself, but it is a fairly normal practice.

Such entities also have to obey laws and regulations on how they report such practices. The US government doesn't. As a result there are tens of trillions of dollars of unreported liabilities just from Social Security. If you genuinely want the federal government to be able to do such things as loaning money to itself, then you need to put in accounting requirements so that the US citizenry understands what liabilities have been generated.

But that investment is perfectly safe (again, people invest in US Treasury bonds for exactly that reason; the US always pays its debts).

You ignore inflation, the standard way to default on US debt.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[the eric conspiracy]

> But more similar to the US, China has shown a willingness and ability to go after activists and journalists who dislike how things are run

China has the largest number of journalists in the world in prison. The US at present has no journalists in its jails except perhaps transiently.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1679

The US has the strongest institution of free press in the world, China one of the weakest.

> but the US only has two

Baloney. The US has many political parties. The Greens, Socialists, Libertarians etc. and they all put candidates on the ballot. Some even get elected. For example there is a Socialist Party senator.

> and look what their bickering has turned your country into.

The freest country in human history? Sorry but bickering is the very essence of free expression and democracy. It's perhaps been THE core aspect of democracy in America for 240 years. Read the Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison.

China of course doesn't have bickering.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[wisnoskij]

Well first off China does have bickering, there one party system is forming groups of like minded individuals inside of it.

And of course the US does not jail any journalists for doing their job, they have freedom of the press. They have to come up with more imaginative ways of dealing with dissenters.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

Dude, what's wrong with you? Nobody was forced to vote for them.

When there is only one candidate running, how is any vote meaningful? That's often the case with congressmen. And what do you do when you have 5 candidates (not unusual) and no matter who wins, they raid SS?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[fustakrakich]

I'm sorry, sir. It's up to us to fix that. Our obligation is to find the right person for the job, not just wait for someone with their hand out, begging for the position. If there's only one candidate, you can still leave the box empty. I'll grant that it's pretty much a 'feel good' thing to do, but at least you're not supporting him. Our problem is that our fellow voters do support them. We are the columns that the system stands on. Gandhi's way of 'non-cooperation' would be all it takes to bring it down. But it has to come from us. It won't cure itself. No leader can lead without followers. There is no exception. So many people fail to acknowledge that, and so we all suffer for it. The system is ours to make or break, and right now it is doing a very good job of making you feel helpless when you are not.

How does that Eagles song go?

So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key

The door is open. All you gotta do is step through. Don't try to fight the laws of nature. Look to the cause, not the results.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[Galestar]

We are borrowing money to give the rich big tax breaks.

FTFY

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[GigsVT]

You are not very familiar with how pervasive the counterfeit problem is. We aren't talking about little companies, we are talking about companies like Digikey, Mouser, etc.

Many big distributors have been found to be unknowingly distributing copious quantities of counterfeits.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[mcgrew]

If there's only one candidate, you can still leave the box empty.

That's what I do even if I think (s)he'll do a good job. When I only see one candidate I feel like I'm living in the Soviet Union.

The door is open. All you gotta do is step through.

The door's too big for one person to enter alone.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern

[fustakrakich]

The door's too big for one person to enter alone.

Oh c'mon... You not gonna let a little ol' thing like fear stop you, are you? Don't cower in the corner. Stand tall without a care in the world, and let them mock you. Relish in it... with a little chili and cornbread, and maybe some pork chops to make a full meal.

"Sany"?

[Quakeulf]

Isn't that how people tend to pronounce Sony in certain dialects of the US-English language variant?

China Conflation

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I don't know if there is ulterior motives, but if it was an American company they would probably do the same thing. China is not the issue. The concern is that wind farms effectively create radar blind spots. There is ongoing research attempting to solve this issue. It has happened a lot with British military bases.

Re:China Conflation

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Now I don't know if there is ulterior motives, but if it was an American company they would probably do the same thing. China is not the issue. The concern is that wind farms effectively create radar blind spots. There is ongoing research attempting to solve this issue. It has happened a lot with British military bases.

It wouldn't entirely surprise me if somebody looked at the 'Red Chinese wish to place a field of antenna-shaped objects with wind turbines on top next to an ECM test site' concept and turned a slightly funny color, as well.

Re:China Conflation

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'd be more concerned about wind farms being used to hold listening antennae to try to figure out drone protocols, details of actial radar systems in use, and so on.

It's official: the Cold War is back

[concealment]

The fact is that you can't have three big dogs in the same room, and not have each one want to be the top dog. USA, China and Russia are going to duke it out for who's top dog.

That being said, it's foolish that we allow so many Chinese firms to make vital parts of our infrastructure. The solution there won't be as easy as invoking a little-known law.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[ShanghaiBill]

USA, China and Russia are going to duke it out for who's top dog.

That is two big dogs and a chihuahua. Does anyone really thing Russia will ever be a "top dog" again? Russia's economy is smaller than the economy of Brazil or Italy. Russia's population is declining, partly because of low birthrate and poor public health policies, but also because of emigration of the best and brightest.

If a third major power emerges in the 21st century, it is more likely to be India than Russia. India already has a bigger economy, and far more upside potential. They just need the will to reform their country, get rid of the corruption and subsidies, and open up their economy. If they did that, they could grow as fast as China.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[blind biker]

That is two big dogs and a chihuahua. Does anyone really thing Russia will ever be a "top dog" again? Russia's economy is smaller than the economy of Brazil or Italy [wikipedia.org]. Russia's population is declining, partly because of low birthrate and poor public health policies, but also because of emigration of the best and brightest.

Actually, Russia's fertility rate has picked up steam in the last decade, and if the trend continues, the country is not in danger from "white death".

Other than that, I fully agree with your post.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[fustakrakich]

Nations are dogs?

Yeah actually, most of them are.. leading unruly and chaotic lives, fighting and mating in an uncontrolled way, stealing food, barking and howling, and in general being dirty and uncivilised. Sounds like a pretty close match.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[wisnoskij]

Shows how little you know about the modern world that you think Russia is even in the running.
Autralia or Canada are closer to being a top dog than Russia.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[Beardo the Bearded]

USA, China and Russia are going to duke it out for who's top dog.

That is two big dogs and a chihuahua.

More like one giant cybernetically-enhanced genetically-modified killer dog, a litter of puppies, and an old dog with liver problems.

The US is the biggest dog on the planet, despite what you'll see on sites and shows that want to scare you to make money.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[DarkOx]

I don't buy your argument. India is full of smart people but they have such a huge infrastructure deficit coupled with such a large population I don't seem them every being competitive. You could say the same thing about China but compared to India their major economic centers are well equipped, there are two Chinas urban China and everywhere else. India pretty much a mess everywhere you go save a couple bright spots.

India being a more open society does not have the option of just sitting by and letting the less productive regions starve and the people their die, at least not as an "official" policy anyway.

Russia, on the other hand has some rotten infrastructure as well but their rapid depopulation has left them with some head room in that. The situation is probably not all that impaired compared with our own. I would also hazard that Russia's political problems and impediments are more easily solved than the coming tsunami of population related issues India is facing (global warming is going to destroy their food supply). Russia also has as an accident of history at this point a pretty vertically integrated market place. A Russian firm can likely build a car dealing with only other Russian firms for the most part. That lack of interdependence while in normal times less efficient and productive economically speaking, might prove to offer them lots more flexibility during a major geopolitical dislocation, a substantive trade war with the Chinese for example. Oh and the Russians have huge energy reserves too, lets not forget that.

I would hardly count Russia out. Will they be top dog not likely, but that is because USA, China, and possibly Brazil lead them. India won't be factor, nor will the middle East, or any of Southern Asia.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[shutdown -p now]

That is two big dogs and a chihuahua. Does anyone really thing Russia will ever be a "top dog" again? Russia's economy is smaller than the economy of Brazil or Italy. Russia's population is declining, partly because of low birthrate and poor public health policies, but also because of emigration of the best and brightest.

It's all true, but the country still hasn't squandered all its old gains from Soviet times, and it certainly has potential to get back there with the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) people in power.

For a ready example of how this works, remember the rise of Nazi Germany back in the day. A country coming from economic ruin without an army to an industrial powerhouse and the strongest military in Europe in, what, about a decade?

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[jkflying]

Do you have any idea how few people live in those two countries?
Australia: 22 million
Canada: 34 million

Let's compare that to:
Russia: 141 million
Brazil: 196 million
USA: 310 million
India: 1241 million
China: 1344 million

Just by drafting 1 person per 100, china could have an army of over 13 million people, more than half the population of Australia.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[styrotech]

And some of them get carried around in their owners handbag to every stupid event the owner goes to and made to wear silly sparkly outfits.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[wisnoskij]

I never said there was anywhere near the top, just way ahead of Russia.

And population is not everything, Germany never had that huge of a population when you consider how close they came to world domination.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[strikethree]

They are in decline and they are no longer a superpower. But... Russia has nukes, is able to field an army, and can be VERY aggressive. Not quite a chihuahua, perhaps more like a bulldog amongst wolfhounds. More time needs to pass for them to fade enough to feel confident that they are chihuahuas on the world stage.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back

[bhiestand]

They are in decline and they are no longer a superpower. But... Russia has nukes, is able to field an army, and can be VERY aggressive. Not quite a chihuahua, perhaps more like a bulldog amongst wolfhounds. More time needs to pass for them to fade enough to feel confident that they are chihuahuas on the world stage.

I don't know dog breeds all that well, but Russia can only "field an army" to a certain degree. They can certainly deploy enough troops to invade a small neighbor for a short period of time. They are almost certainly incapable of conducting large-scale operations across the globe. Their military is underpaid, undertrained, ill-equipped, and has low morale... I wouldn't put too much stock in their success against a major power. Given the competition, Russia is unlikely to become a regional hegemon in the next several decades. Without their UNSC veto and nuclear arsenal, Russia would be rather weak.

In other news...

[Errol backfiring]

USA elects Don Quixote for president!

Is this even Constitutional?

[Compaqt]

What's the legal framework for this, exactly?

AFAIK, the laws of buying and selling and property registration (land for the wind farm) are all state laws, none federal.

Or are they bringing this under interstate commerce?

Anyway, isn't this banned under WTO regs? Don't you have to give international companies the same treatment as national companies? Sounds like the kind of thing the US Trade Representative would complain about if China were to ban a US company's investment for nebulous "national security" reasons.

Re:Is this even Constitutional?

[drinkypoo]

A US company wouldn't be permitted to put up a wind farm in China at all, they would have to do it by partnering with a Chinese corporation which would build and actually own it.

Re:Is this even Constitutional?

[h4rr4r]

The legal framework is in the fucking constitution. Try reading it before suggesting it forbids it.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Seems plausible

[drinkypoo]

If you're testing ECM you probably don't want someone affiliated with a foreign power putting up a bunch of tall towers in the vicinity.

Maybe it's bullshit, but it's a great excuse.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bad enough that foreign interests have taken up much of our manufacturing capability, but we certainly don't need them buying up our power generation capability. Every country should produce its own power. That's a mater of national security.

Re:WTF?

[polar red]

Every country should produce its own power. That's a mater of national security.

that includes oil, right? Maybe you should try closing the borders, and see what happens.

Surely he's

[Chrisq]

Obama has invoked a little-used law to block a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a Navy military site in Oregon due to national security concerns.

Surely he's just tilting at windmills.

Re:it's about the campaign

[JackieBrown]

He's tough on China now that Romney criticized him for not being tough on China. It will go right back to status quo right after the election.

Yes, it is constitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

From Section. 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence" and later on "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". This is clearly both.The president is complying with an enacted law providing for the common defense by attemption to prevent a foreign nation from putting an ECM suite next to a test range, which is also a law which regulates commerce with foreign nations.

Re:Crony capitalism

[GigsVT]

Occam's razor. Mod parent up.

Social Security is entirely self-funding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the payments in have been raided for entitlement programs for the "wealth creators" by giving them a tax break that wasn't paid for.

But seriously,

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Anybody hear anything about any launch codes?

Similar issues in Canada

[phorm]

There's been a lot of controversy over the attempted Chinese purchase of Nexen, a Canadian Petroleum company.

There are many concerns about Chinese companies' safety records, as well as the issues of foreign ownership of companies which exploit local natural resources (oddly, Canada seems to have less issue with US ownership of said companies).

Re:Similar issues in Canada

[ColdWetDog]

There are many concerns about Chinese companies' safety records, as well as the issues of foreign ownership of companies which exploit local natural resources ... .

Substitute 'Great Britain' for 'Chinese' in your sentence and you have an interesting counterpoint.

What about Walmarts?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

They're packed to the rafters with technology stuff from China.

And I guess most US households are, as well.

Although, back in the 80's, when Japan bashing was all the rage, I don't remember that the US ever accused Japan of military spying. Just good old industrial spying, which every county in the world does, more or less.

Re:What about Walmarts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Japan has been basically demilitarized since WW2 probably has something to do with that.

Re:What about Walmarts?

[Chuckstar]

We weren't worried about Japanese military spying in the 80s because the Japanese had a tiny military, a pacifist constitution and, perhaps most importantly, seemed to have no interest in rebuilding military power.

China has a huge military, is overtly increasing its capabilities and has obvious aspirations to regional military hegemony.

Re:What about Walmarts?

[ColdWetDog]

The United States has a huge military, is overtly increasing it's capabilities and has obvious aspirations to regional (ie, Pacific Ocean) military hegemony.

Funny, seems to work this way as well.

Re:What about Walmarts?

[Chuckstar]

But so what? The question was "why are we worried about China but we weren't worried about Japan back in the day?"

The question wasn't "is China the only one with aspirations of regional hegemony?"

Re:What about Walmarts?

[Chuckstar]

Oh, and BTW, we don't have aspirations of regional military hegemony. We have actual regional military hegemony. :-)

(And by "we" I mean "the U.S." as in "me and the rest of my countrymen". I don't necessarily mean "you and me", since I don't know if you are in U.S. or not.)

Vizine: Get the Reds Out

[fm6]

"Red Chinese" is kind of a silly term to use these days. When I was a kid, that was how you differentiated the Communist government on the mainland (which we didn't recognize) from the Nationalist Chinese government on Taiwan (which we no longer recognize but still support militarily!). And although, technically, the mainlanders are still comies and still at war with the Taiwanese, the reality is that the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest capitalist entity on the planet, And they got there, in part, by collaborating with Taiwanese business.

If the U.S. and China ever fight another war, it won't be over whether Mark and Mao are kewler than Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson. It'll be over access to natural resources.

Re:Vizine: Get the Reds Out

[khallow]

Even when the ideology was purer, it was still a fight over resources, here, billions of people.

Re:it's about the campaign

[Mashiki]

Pretty typical for Obama, leading from behind.

Why pretend we have a free global market?

[scamper_22]

Why pretend we have a free global market? This goes for all countries. They all sit around signing global free trade and open investment, but it is clear no country is really willing to deal with true global free trade. They're not willing to pay the true price of it.

Is there a soul on this planet who actually thinks Obama is concerned with national security in terms of this Wind Farm?

Let's not even get into Buy America, Stimulus packages...

Just don't sign free-trade deals if you really don't want free trade. It's not the end of the world, if nations/regions have their own companies. If anything, at least its a bit of global redundancy.

Disclaimer: I think global free trade should be illegal as it applies different rules to different people. American workers have to obey a minimum wage which Chinese workers do not.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jkflying]

Occam's razor indeed.

You're saying that:

A large conglomeration of green energy companies wanted to block competitors so they hired a bunch of lawyers who looked through arcane lawbooks and found a little used law that said they could block their competitor by getting the president to make a personal declaration against it

is more likely than:

Paranoid US security forces were more than a bit nervous when they discovered that the big towers going up near their top secret testing location were owned by a nation which is involved in numerous cases of industrial and military espionage.

Hate to say it, but the official version sounds more plausible.

Cold War never ended

[poity]

and it started long before the 50's. Great powers have always been vying for dominance either in cold wars or hot. There has never been non-adversarial relationships between them, and it will never stop until the last government in the world stops trying to press an advantage (and that will never happen since if you're the only one to press the advantage you're guaranteed to win, and no one else is willing to get left behind)

Well, now...

[poofmeisterp]

Since he was solely responsible for this prevention AND it making public news, I will vote for this wonderful man who, single-handedly, removed third party terrorism potential from American soil.

It's a good thing, too, because no one has ever seen or heard of those drones before, whose specifications aren't available online. Surely another country couldn't make their own. Thanks, O'Bama, oh savior of American Freedom!

*gag*

Re:Occam's Razor

[GigsVT]

That's what they want you to think.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jkflying]

Then you clearly don't understand Occam's Razor in the slightest.