http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17547

Some where on this board was a discussion about why North Korea wasn't treated the same as Iraq. About how much of a threat North Korea is and Iraq wasn't.

Well according to the above article it would seem that the US has allowed itself to get into a bit of a fix.

"China and Japan, but also South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that are reinvesting their trade surplus in treasury bonds" US Treasury bonds. Which maybe why the US hasn't wanted to push North Korea?

Should Asia decide to cash in on their bonds this could/would bankrupt the US. Is this likely? And if so what will be the US response?

Well, I think its very likely.... It depends on who is in power when/if this happens... If Bush was in power... War... But most other Candidates for the 2004 election would probably be a little more subtle then that...

This is a month old, and a bit long, but please permit me to post this, its not rhetoric - it even has some facts from the conservative Heritage Institute:


No Escaping the Red Ink as Bush Pens '04 Agenda
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: December 5, 2003

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — President Bush is heading into 2004 facing a growing budget deficit, frustration among some Republicans about what they see as a lack of fiscal discipline and a challenge in putting together an election-year agenda that will not plunge the government all the deeper into debt, lawmakers, analysts and administration officials say.
The legislative victories chalked up by the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress this year, including a new round of tax cuts and the final approval this week of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, came with a price tag that further weighed down a budget already saddled with the costs of fighting terrorism and stabilizing Iraq.

The deficit, projected a few months ago to be around $475 billion for the fiscal year that started on Oct. 1, now seems likely to hit $500 billion, up from $374 billion last year. The White House's goal of cutting it at least in half within a few years will be hard to achieve despite the economic rebound and the growth in tax revenue it is expected to generate, budget analysts in the government and on Wall Street say.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush administration official who is now director of the Congressional Budget Office, said bringing the deficit down to some $250 billion in the next five years "is going to be very hard to do" even if the economic recovery remains strong and unemployment falls sharply.

***"The thing I would caution is that economic growth is not going to be enough"*** to solve the fiscal problem, Mr. Holtz-Eakin said in an interview. [my emphasis]

It is not clear whether the deficit will be enough of an issue next year to hurt Mr. Bush's chances of re-election. But at a minimum it is limiting the White House's options as the administration looks at new policy proposals, from further tax cuts to new spending.

At the same time, Mr. Bush is coming under intensifying pressure from conservatives in the Republican ranks who want him to do more to choke off what they see as an orgy of spending since he took office.

Although Mr. Bush has had some success at slowing growth in spending on programs that receive annual appropriations, overall government spending — including money for the war in Iraq, farm subsidies, medical research and other undertakings — has grown at rates that have given some Republicans heartburn.

"I would be in favor of the administration being much tougher, taking the toughest possible stance on fiscal discipline," said the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa.

Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said government spending per household in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was $20,301 — the highest level since World War II, he said, even after adjustment for inflation. (His analysis showed that the figure peaked in 1944 at $26,445, as measured in current dollars.)


Since that was written, Bush has ALSO decided to spend BILLIONS to go to the moon, Lord knows how much to go to Mars -
and now he will spend a Billion-and-a-half on a programme to "promote interpersonal skills among low-income married couples.

"Lard Tunderin' Jeezuz"... what next?

Most of the new expenses of the new space program will hit after Bush is out of office, nonrev. The next five years comes almost exclusively out of NASAs present budget so even if he he gets re-elected he's safe.

The reality of the costs will likely cause it to be killed or cut back severely further on down the road. In other words...this is nothing but an election year promise. Sneaky, huh?

I think that's too bad because space missions, real ones, drive technology.