The Unknown Soldier of America Pays Tribute to the Unmourned Soldiers of Special Frontier Force
MONDAY, MAY 25, 2020 – THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER OF AMERICA PAYS TRIBUTE TO THE UNMOURNED FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
MONDAY, MAY 25, 2020 – THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER OF AMERICA PAYS TRIBUTE TO THE UNMOURNED FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
On Monday, May 25, 2020, Memorial Day, I, the Unknown Soldier of America pay my tribute to the Unmourned Freedom Fighters of Special Frontier Force. I am the Living Host of ‘The Living Tibetan Spirits, the Tibetan Soldiers who gave their precious lives on the battlefield in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in 1971. The remote, inaccessible, Chittagong Hill Tracts is the kind of place where human skeletons might sink into the soil undisturbed and unmourned.
I serve in Special Frontier Force as the Unknown Soldier of America to fight a war in occupied Tibet to secure Freedom, Democracy, Peace, and Justice. The service in the military organization called Special Frontier Force qualifies me as ‘Unknown Soldier of America’ for its Secret Mission serves to defend America from Enemy opposed to American Values of Freedom, Democracy, Peace, and Justice. On this Memorial Day, I may not be a Soldier with a Gun, but I am a Soldier for Life.
While training for this secret US sponsored military mission, Freedom Fighters of Special Frontier Force gave their precious lives. Their mortal remains lie buried in unmarked graves in the Chittagong Hill Tracts with none to pay respects with flowers. Their deaths are Unmourned and I ask my readers to Remember and to Honor their Memory. Dying away from home, away from the soil of your birth and to do so unseen and unmourned is a profound horror.
On Sunday, March 08, 2020 I was at Whole Foods Ann Arbor. I learned about a new holiday tradition in the context of promoting the International Women’s Day on March 08.
The Grocery Team at Whole Foods, Ann Arbor initiated a new Holiday Celebration called ‘Happy Women’s Day’ on March 08.
The Grocery Team at Whole Foods, Ann Arbor has eight women Team Members. The Grocery Team Leader, the (Dry/Imperishable) Grocery, Dairy, Frozen and Bulk Department Buyers, and four other crew members (including two who work the overnight shift) are all women. All of them received $10.00 Whole Foods Market Gift Cards to have a Happy Women’s Day by enjoying a Treat of their choice.
In my analysis, the dispute between India and China relates to the status of Tibet. China is in Tibet. But, Tibet is not a part of China. The dispute can be resolved by the eviction of the military occupier of Tibet.
A border dispute with China may push India closer to some of Beijing’s top rivals
CNN June 18, 2020, 12:59 AM EDT
Relations between China and India have always been complicated.
During British colonialism, India was the source of opium foreign traders forced onto Chinese markets, sparking war between the UK and the Qing Empire that ended in humiliation for China. Since independence, India’s relations with its largest neighbor have been tested by issues such as Tibet, Pakistan and the countries’ shared Himalayan border.
This week, that border blew up into renewed conflict, in the bloodiest engagement in 40 years, which left more than 20 soldiers dead after a brutal fight with fists and clubs high in the mountains amid freezing temperatures and scant oxygen.
While both governments are now scrambling to deescalate, the conflict could provide the final push for a pivot already begun by New Delhi, away from Beijing and towards China’s traditional rivals, the United States and Japan, as well as a growing regional one, Australia. As India seeks to push back against what many in the country view as Chinese aggression, it will rely on these allies more than ever.
“The sacrifice made by our soldiers will not go in vain,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Wednesday. “India’s integrity and sovereignty is supreme for us, and no one can stop us from defending it. Nobody should have an iota of doubt about this. India wants peace. But when provoked, India will give a befitting reply.”
Rahul Gandhi, leader of the main opposition Congress Party, put it more bluntly: “How dare China kill our soldiers? How dare they take our land?”
In an editorial Wednesday, the influential Hindustan Times said that “China wants to limit New Delhi’s power and ambition; it wants India to accept Beijing’s primacy in Asia and beyond.”
In response, the newspaper urged, New Delhi should “double down on its partnership with the US, make Quad … a more permanent arrangement, and be a part of any club that seeks to contain Chinese power.”
The Quad, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is an informal strategic forum for the US, Japan, Australia and India, featuring semi-regular summits, information exchanges and military drills. While not a formal military alliance like NATO, it is seen by some as a potential counterweight to growing Chinese influence and alleged aggression in Asia-Pacific.
While members have emphasized the more benign aspects of the relationship, such as recent cooperation on the coronavirus pandemic, the potential for military encirclement by countries has not gone unnoticed by Beijing.
As early as 2007, when the first Quad meetings were proposed, China issued formal diplomatic protests to all parties involved, and later that year Australia pulled out over fears of offending Beijing, and the alliance was put on hold until 2017, when meetings resumed, in large part due to growing concerns over Chinese advances in the South China Sea.
Potentially, an anti-China bloc led by the US could be far larger than the Quad. During a telephone call earlier this month between Modi and US President Donald Trump, the American leader invited India to join the next G7 summit. They also, according to White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany, discussed “the situation on the India-China border.”
Trump has previously spoken of wanting to expand the traditional grouping of mostly European and North American states to include Washington’s allies Australia and South Korea, as well use this year’s planned meeting to “discuss China’s future.”
India has traditionally been wary of getting too close to the US, seeking to balance that relationship with strong economic — if not always diplomatic — ties to Beijing. Amid growing pressure on its border, however, and what appears to be a strong personal bond between Trump and Modi, this could be the perfect time for such a pivot.
Greater Indian participation in both the Quad and other military alliances with the US would have benefits for Washington, according to foreign affairs analyst Amrita Jash, who wrote this week that “India’s strong foothold in the Indo-Pacific provides a counterbalance to China’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean.”
Not without cost
Both Delhi and Beijing have spoken of the desire to deescalate and preserve a peaceful relationship following this week’s clash in the Himalayas, but many experts are skeptical about how feasible, or sustainable this is.
Aidan Milliff, an expert on political violence and South Asia at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, predicted this month that the latest conflict could “portend the development of a Sino-Indian situation that reflects an ‘ugly stability’ between India and Pakistan: persistent low-level conflicts and political-military crises that simmer below the threshold of conventional war.”
Already shaky ties between Beijing and Delhi had already been harmed by the coronavirus pandemic, with many in India blaming China for its initial mishandling of the crisis and Chinese officials frustrated by their Indian counterparts’ perceived failure to express support for Beijing at the World Health Organization and other international forums.
Any major shift towards the Quad or Washington alone would likely only take place if Delhi believes relations with Beijing are beyond repair, however, as they could come with high costs for both India and China.
Under Modi, India’s economic engagement with China has been increasing. Together, the two countries account for 17.6% of the global economy. But although China is India’s largest trading partner, their estimated $84 billion bilateral trade in 2017/18 was a mere fraction of the US-China trade volume, which stood at almost $600 billion.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, China was gradually emerging as a major foreign investor in the growing Indian market, but that trend has been halted by new investment rules passed by Delhi widely seen as aimed at Chinese firms.
Economic pain is not the only thing that will be jointly shared. While Beijing may be loathe to see India cosying up to the US and Japan, it can respond by increasing support for Delhi’s major rival: Pakistan.
China has close economic, diplomatic and military ties with Pakistan, making it one of the nation’s closest allies in the region. Between 2008 and 2017, Islamabad purchased more than $6 billion of Chinese arms, according to think tank CSIS. China has also invested billions in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, an integral part of Xi’s Belt and Road trade and infrastructure mega-project.
Protecting that corridor was seen by some analysts as a driving factor behind the recent spat in the Himalayas, another factor in which was recent Indian moves over Kashmir, in which China supported Pakistan in a failed attempt to censure Delhi at the United Nations.
Similarly, China has made diplomatic and economic inroads in countries traditionally considered as within Delhi’s sphere of influence, including Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
India’s South Asian neighbors have also increasingly looked to China for assistance during the coronavirus pandemic, accelerating a trend that seen Beijing invest heavily in the region.
The willingness of Nepal, in particular, to work with Beijing has led to concerns in Delhi of potential geopolitical realignment. Nepal, which is sandwiched between India and China, and has recently butted heads with its southern neighbor over a decision to approve a revised map that includes areas claimed by Delhi.
Part of the problem in the region are the messy, widely disputed borders that many of the countries share. If relations continue to worsen between Beijing and Delhi, however, they may seem like nothing compared to the nightmare of geopolitical complications that could arise across all of Asia-Pacific.
In my analysis, the American Supremacy on the world stage is threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to provide a Biblical perspective on the economic fallout due to the new Coronavirus Disease. America cannot recover its place of pride in the world without healing described in the Bible. America is on a dangerous slippery slope for God has given the people a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day since the time the US President Bill Clinton transgressed the LORD’s Commandments.
8 Just as it is written:
“God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.”
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” ’
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I [a]should heal them.’
2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.
21 ‘Hear this now, O foolish people, Without [a]understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not:
10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”
COVID-19 KNOCKS ON AMERICAN HEGEMONY
By Ashley J. Tellis
May 4, 2020
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent. He is also a counselor at the National Bureau of Asian Research and the research director of the Strategic Asia Program.
After almost two decades of conflicted hesitancy, the United States finally acknowledged that it is involved in a long-term strategic competition with China. This rivalry, almost by definition, is not merely a wrangle between two major states. Rather, it involves a struggle for dominance in the international system, even if China as the rising power disavows any such ambition. China’s very ascendancy—if sustained—could over time threaten the U.S. hegemony that has been in place since the end of World War II. It is this reality of unequal growth—which has nourished China’s expanding influence and military capabilities—that lies at the root of the evolving rivalry.
Although the term sometimes has unsettling connotations, the United States is a genuine hegemon, understood in the original Greek sense as a leader in the competitive international system. This hegemony derives from the fact that the United States is the world’s single most powerful state. First, it remains the largest economy in real terms, a foundation that underwrites its capacity to project military power globally in ways unmatched by any peers. Second, it possesses a sufficiently effective state that presides over a remarkably productive society. And, third, in partnership with strong allies in North America, Western Europe, East Asia, and Oceania, who share both values and interests, the United States has created an international order that buttresses its primacy materially, institutionally, and ideationally, thereby allowing it to advance diverse interests while economizing on its use of force. Although these foundations have been stressed in recent times, the Covid-19 pandemic now threatens them in deadly ways.
What is certain…is that the U.S. economy will face significant transitions in the aftermath of this pandemic in at least two directions that bear on the future of its national power.
But if the country is in fact now trapped in a period of low productivity growth and persistent weaknesses in aggregate demand…the net result may be a diminished capacity to sustain both the increasing domestic obligations and its extant international interests simultaneously.
While the damage caused to the U.S. economy and the human losses will make the task of preserving U.S. hegemony after the pandemic harder—at a time when most assessments suggest that countries like China are likely to recover faster than the United States—the reputational damage to Washington is just as serious.
Washington must double down on its alliances and partnerships. Only this U.S.-led confederation contains the preponderance of the global product that will durably immunize the liberal international order against any future challenges emanating from China or other rivals.
Preserving American hegemony over the long term thus must begin with consolidating Washington’s leadership within the largest single bloc of material power in order that it may be effective beyond. Ensuring this outcome requires the United States to take seriously—and deepen meaningfully—the special geopolitical ties it has nurtured throughout the postwar period, which would among other things enable it to better shape the world’s engagement with China to advance its own interests. The management of the global pandemic thus far raises doubts about the United States’ ability to sensibly expand its power and to manage the evolving rivalry with China intelligently and in league with the nations that will be most needed for success. This is unfortunate given this administration’s otherwise astute recognition of the return of strategic competition.
In my analysis, the Economic Policy of President Bill Clinton is fundamentally flawed for it violated the principles of Natural Law that make America a proud and prosperous nation in the world. The economic downfall of the United States is relentless and is almost unstoppable. There can be no healing and no recovery without the Blessings promised by God and living up to the Official Motto “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
U.S. deficit to soar to record $3.8 trillion in 2020, budget watchdog group says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A steep economic downturn and massive Coronavirus rescue spending will nearly quadruple the fiscal 2020 U.S. budget deficit to a record $3.8 trillion, a staggering 18.7% of U.S. economic output, a Washington-based watchdog group said on Monday.
Releasing new budget estimates based on spending mandated by law, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) also projected that the fiscal 2021 deficit would reach $2.1 trillion in 2021, and average $1.3 trillion through 2025 as the economy recovers from damage caused by Coronavirus-related shutdowns.
The estimates follow the U.S. Treasury’s report on Friday of a $744 billion budget deficit in the six months through March 30, which included minimal impact from the outbreak of the new Coronavirus. Officials said significant budget impacts from spending and reduced revenues would appear in April’s budget results.
The CRFB, a coalition of former U.S. lawmakers, government officials and economists that has advocated for reducing deficits, said U.S. public debt by the Sept. 30 fiscal year-end would exceed 100% of U.S. GDP, from just under 80% prior to the Coronavirus crisis.
“These projections almost certainly underestimate deficits, since they assume no further legislation is enacted to address the crisis and that policymakers stick to current law when it comes to other tax and spending policies,” the group said in a statement.
CRFB’s projections also assume the economy experiences a strong recovery in 2021 and fully returns to its pre-crisis trajectory by 2025.
If that recovery is achieved, public debt would reach 107% of GDP that year, exceeding levels at the end of World War Two. A slower recovery could cause debt to reach 117% of GDP by 2025, the group said.
The record for a fiscal year deficit was $1.41 billion, set in 2009. Deficits exceeding $1 trillion followed for three subsequent years before subsiding as the economy recovered. But the deficit reached $984 billion in 2019 and the Congressional Budget Office had projected a $1.07 trillion deficit for 2020.
The CRFB started with that pre-crisis CBO estimate and added about $2.2 trillion in spending while subtracting $570 billion in revenue due to reduced economic activity.
Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Paul Simao and Lisa Shumaker
On March 10, 1959, Tibetans band together in revolt, surrounding the summer palace of the Dalai Lama in defiance of Chinese occupation forces.
China’s occupation of Tibet began nearly a decade before, in October 1950, when troops from its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded the country, barely one year after the Communists gained full control of mainland China. The Tibetan government gave into Chinese pressure the following year, signing a treaty that ensured the power of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the country’s spiritual leader, over Tibet’s domestic affairs. Resistance to the Chinese occupation built steadily over the next several years, including a revolt in several areas of eastern Tibet in 1956. By December 1958, rebellion was simmering in Lhasa, the capital, and the PLA command threatened to bomb the city if order was not maintained.
The March 1959 uprising in Lhasa was triggered by fears of a plot to kidnap the Dalai Lama and take him to Beijing. When Chinese military officers invited His Holiness to visit the PLA headquarters for a theatrical performance and official tea, he was told he must come alone, and that no Tibetan military bodyguards or personnel would be allowed past the edges of the military camp. On March 10, 300,000 loyal Tibetans surrounded Norbulinka Palace, preventing the Dalai Lama from accepting the PLA’s invitation. By March 17, Chinese artillery was aimed at the palace, and the Dalai Lama was evacuated to neighboring India. Fighting broke out in Lhasa two days later, with Tibetan rebels hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. Early on March 21, the Chinese began shelling Norbulinka, slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children still camped outside. In the aftermath, the PLA cracked down on Tibetan resistance, executing the Dalai Lama’s guards and destroying Lhasa’s major monasteries along with thousands of their inhabitants.
China’s stranglehold on Tibet and its brutal suppression of separatist activity has continued in the decades following the unsuccessful uprising. Tens of thousands of Tibetans followed their leader to India, where the Dalai Lama has long maintained a government-in-exile in the foothills of the Himalayas.
I like the description of the Dalai Lama as a “Tibetan David who stood up to the Chinese Goliath.” In my analysis, Tibetan Equilibrium, the restoration of Natural Freedom in Tibet is Just a Stone’s Throw Away.
The Dalai Lama: a Tibetan David who stood up to the Chinese Goliath
Author Alexander Norman gives an illuminating account of the Dalai Lama, from his selection as an infant through to his exile and his 21st century persona as a benign all-smiling Buddhist version of the Pope
The Dalai Lama
Rider, hardback, 464 pages, €33.59
February 29 2020 02:30 AM
For most of his adult life, the Dalai Lama has been the leader in exile of a vast mountainous territory under the yoke of communist China. Almost as soon as he took power in Tibet as a spiritual and political leader, his authority was being stripped away from him – and within a decade he had fled to India.
Over the decades, the Dalai Lama, now 84, could only read with horror about what happened in his homeland under Communist rule. Monasteries were destroyed, monks were killed and religious freedom obliterated by the occupying power.
There was a ban on displaying or possessing pictures of his image. Tibetan students were even banned from visiting monasteries or taking part in religious ceremonies, and the Chinese stranglehold has hardly loosened.
And yet, after 61 years of exile, the Rolex-wearing holy man – known by his acolytes as “the Precious Protector” and by Rupert Murdoch as a “canny old monk in Gucci loafers” – remains a potent moral and spiritual force around the world.
In his illuminating biography, Alexander Norman describes the Dalai Lama as the “Tibetan David standing up to the Chinese Goliath, armed only with the rhetoric of compassion”.
He roams the globe as a kind of benign all-smiling Buddhist version of the Pope, welcomed by world leaders and cheered at the Glastonbury rock festival, where he was kissed by the singer Patti Smith.
Bizarrely, he once appeared as a guest judge on the Australian version of Masterchef, and relaxes watching the 1970s BBC comedy, Dad’s Army. He is fascinated by the art of clock and watchmaking, hence his interest in Rolex watches.
His form of spirituality – with its emphasis on extended periods of meditation – is arguably now more appealing in secularised Western societies than traditional Catholicism.
Alexander Norman is clearly an avid admirer of the Tibetan leader, and interviewed him for this biography, but does not gloss over controversies, or romanticise life in the old Tibet.
In the feudal society of Tibet before the communists arrived, there could be bitter infighting between those with an eye on power, and it was far from being a peace-loving Shangri-la.
One senior official from the last century had his eyes gouged out and was consigned to a dungeon. And Reting Rinpoché, who served as regent when the present Dalai Lama was a boy, also met a sorry end.
Depending on which account you believe, he died by having his testicles crushed, he was poisoned or he was strangled.
The appointment of the present Dalai Lama as a young child is one of the more fascinating episodes in this biography.
He is supposedly the reincarnation of the last one. So how is the infant Dalai Lama found?
The lengthy selection process involves senior officials having dreams and visions, sending out search parties, and worthy toddlers undergoing a series of tests.
The two-year-old boy who became the present Dalai Lama had to choose between two drums, one of which belonged to the previous Dalai Lama, and he picked the right one. He also picked out other objects belonging to his predecessor.
Other auspicious signs that he was the rightful heir were that visitors to his home heard the first cuckoo of spring, and on the day he was born, a rainbow appeared above his house.
Once he had been found, the young child was separated from his parents and taken to a monastery, where he lived until his confirmation by the authorities.
The Dalai Lama by Alexander Norman
When he eventually came of age, the communist pressure on Tibet was already being felt and under duress, his officials signed an agreement with Chairman Mao for the “peaceful liberation” of Tibet.
Of course, by liberation, the communists meant suppression.
Still remarkably young, the Tibetan leader tried to appease Mao in the hope that the territory could maintain some of its independence, or at least its religious freedom.
At a banquet in Beijing, Mao impressed the Dalai Lama with his charm, and at one stage even applied to join the Communist Party. Any hopes that there could be peaceful co-existence were dashed, however, with many monks in open rebellion and a growing Chinese military presence.
Trouble flared in the capital Lhasa in March 1959, and amid fears that he might be captured by the Chinese, the Dalai Lama fled his palace. He crossed the border into India after an epic 15-day journey on foot over the Himalayan mountains.
Once the religious leader had gone into exile, the communist invaders seemed to lose all restraint and their opponents were often subjected to beatings and ritualised humiliation.
The death of Chairman Mao seemed to signal a softening of the treatment of Tibet. The new leader Deng Xiaoping fostered these hopes and even wanted the exiled Dalai Lama to return.
But exiled Tibetans who were invited to return on fact-finding missions encountered extreme poverty and intolerance of their religion. Monasteries had been destroyed, temples were used as slaughterhouses, and schoolchildren were not allowed to learn their own language.
In 2011, the Dalai Lama renounced his claim to lead his people as head of state in favour of a democratically elected layman. He now sees his role as that a teacher.
According to Alexander Norman, this makes perfect sense. The word lama is the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word guru – a spiritual guide. Communist tyrants may still hold a grip on China, but across the world, the teachings of the Tibetan holy man have echoed more loudly than the thoughts of Chairman Mao.
The national debt stands at $22.72 trillion as of Sept. 30, 2019. This enormous bill didn’t come from nowhere, and it’s safe to say that the U.S. will likely continue borrowing money in the foreseeable future. So, how worried should Americans be about the national debt? There’s not a lot of agreement across the political spectrum on the answer to that question.
However, understanding why the U.S. borrows money and how different historical events shaped that process is important to any informed voter, especially with another election approaching in November. Knowing how much the federal government borrowed to deal with various issues and events throughout the last century can help you gauge whether each politician’s plans to address the national debt are feasible.
For example, you can note how 1933 saw a marked increase in debt as the new Roosevelt administration broke with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time by employing large deficits to combat the Great Depression. Each recession has correlated with a spike in borrowing, with tax revenues dropping when the needs of the American people were at their highest. All told, tracking the progress of the national debt is a valuable way to understand the U.S. government’s relationship to its people.
Using data from TreasuryDirect and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index inflation calculator, GOBankingRates analyzed the total U.S. national debt from 1900 to present in five-year increments and adjusted the outstanding debt for inflation to provide context in today’s dollars.
Outstanding debt in 1900: $2.14 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $65.37 billion
Outstanding debt in 1904: $2.26 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $65.37 billion
Change in debt between 1900-1904: 5.95% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$4.55 million
Outstanding debt in 1905: $2.27 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $66.42 billion
Outstanding debt in 1909: $2.64 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $74.54 billion
Change in debt between 1905-1909: 16.04% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $8.12 billion
Outstanding debt in 1910: $2.65 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $71.75 billion
Outstanding debt in 1914: $2.91 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $74.84 billion
Change in debt between 1910-1914: 9.80% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $3.09 billion
Outstanding debt in 1915: $3.06 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $77.81 billion
Outstanding debt in 1919: $27.39 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $406.87 billion
Change in debt between 1915-1919: 795.68% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $329.06 billion
Outstanding debt in 1920: $25.95 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $333.46 billion
Outstanding debt in 1924: $21.25 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $319.35 billion
Change in debt between 1920-1924: -18.12% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$14.10 billion
Outstanding debt in 1925: $20.52 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $301.26 billion
Outstanding debt in 1929: $16.93 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $254.44 billion
Change in debt between 1925-1929: -17.47% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$46.83 billion
Outstanding debt in 1930: $16.19 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $249.05 billion
Outstanding debt in 1934: $27.05 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $518.80 billion
Change in debt between 1930-1934: 67.15% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $269.75 billion
Outstanding debt in 1935: $28.70 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $538.35 billion
Outstanding debt in 1939: $40.44 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $747.62 billion
Change in debt between 1935-1939: 40.90% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $209.27 billion
Outstanding debt in 1940: $42.97 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $788.68 billion
Outstanding debt in 1944: $201.00 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.93 trillion
Change in debt between 1940-1944: 367.80% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $2.15 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1945: $258.68 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $3.69 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1949: $252.77 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.73 trillion
Change in debt between 1945-1949: -2.29% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$963.81 billion
Outstanding debt in 1950: $257.36 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.74 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1954: $271.26 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.59 trillion
Change in debt between 1950-1954: 5.40% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$152.83 billion
The increase in national debt from 1950-1954 was outpaced by inflation, so the value of the dollar decreased faster than the rate at which the national debt grew.
Outstanding debt in 1955: $274.37 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.63 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1959: $284.71 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.51 trillion
Change in debt between 1955-1959: 3.77% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$116.70 billion
The increase in national debt from 1955-1959 was outpaced by inflation, so the value of the dollar decreased faster than the rate at which the national debt grew.
Outstanding debt in 1960: $286.33 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.49 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1964: $311.71 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.58 trillion
Change in debt between 1960-1964: 8.86% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $98.14 billion
Outstanding debt in 1965: $317.27 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.59 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1969: $353.72 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.48 trillion
Change in debt between 1965-1969: 11.49% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: -$111.54 billion
The increase in national debt from 1965-1969 was outpaced by inflation, so the value of the dollar decreased faster than the rate at which the national debt grew.
Outstanding debt in 1970: $370.92 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.46 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1974: $475.06 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.48 trillion
Change in debt between 1970-1974: 28.08% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $19.62 billion
Outstanding debt in 1975: $533.19 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.55 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1979: $826.52 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.93 trillion
Change in debt between 1975-1979: 55.01% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $378.78 billion
Outstanding debt in 1980: $907.70 billion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $2.83 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1984: $1.57 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $3.89 trillion
Change in debt between 1980-1984: 73.21% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $1.06 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1985: $1.82 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $4.35 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1989: $2.86 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $5.92 trillion
Change in debt between 1985-1989: 56.73% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $1.57 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1990: $3.23 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $6.36 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1994: $4.69 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $8.14 trillion
Change in debt between 1990-1994: 45.14% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $1.78 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1995: $4.97 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $8.39 trillion
Outstanding debt in 1999: $5.66 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $8.72 trillion
Change in debt between 1995-1999: 13.72% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $337.54 billion
Outstanding debt in 2000: $5.67 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $8.47 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2004: $7.38 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $10.04 trillion
Change in debt between 2000-2004: 30.05% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $1.57 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2005: $7.93 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $10.44 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2009: $11.91 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $14.27 trillion
Change in debt between 2005-2009: 50.14% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $3.83 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2010: $13.56 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $15.98 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2014: $17.82 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $19.35 trillion
Change in debt between 2010-2014: 31.43% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $3.37 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2015: $18.15 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $19.68 trillion
Outstanding debt in 2019: $22.72 trillion
Debt adjusted for inflation: $22.84 trillion
Change in debt between 2015-2019: 25.17% Change in debt adjusted for inflation: $3.16 trillion
In his 5 point peace plan the Dalai Lama called to stop Chinese colonization of Tibet and described the past and present situation. When the newly formed People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1949/50, it created a new source of conflict.
“When the newly formed People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1949/50, it created a new source of conflict.
“This was highlighted when, following the Tibetan national uprising against the Chinese and my flight to India in 1959, tensions between China and India escalated into the border war in 1962.
“Today large numbers of troops are again massed on both sides of the Himalayan border and tension is once more dangerously high.
“The real issue, of course, is not the Indo-Tibetan border demarcation.
“It is China’s illegal occupation of Tibet, which has given it direct access to the Indian sub-continent.
“The Chinese authorities have attempted to confuse the issue by claiming that Tibet has always been a part of China.
“This is untrue. Tibet was a fully independent state when the People’s Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/50.
“Since Tibetan emperors unified Tibet, over a thousand years ago, our country was able to maintain its independence until the middle of this century.
“At times Tibet extended its influence over neighbouring countries and peoples and, in other periods, came itself under the influence of powerful foreign rulers – the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors and the British in India.
“It is, of course, not uncommon for states to be subjected to foreign influence or interference.
“Although so-called satellite relationships are perhaps the clearest examples of this, most major powers exert influence over less powerful allies or neighbours.
“As the most authoritative legal studies have shown, in Tibet’s case, the country’s occasional subjection to foreign influence never entailed a loss of independence.
” And there can be no doubt that when Peking’s communist armies entered Tibet, Tibet was in all respects an independent state…
“Human rights violations in Tibet are among the most serious in the world.
“Discrimination is practiced in Tibet under a policy of ‘apartheid’ which the Chinese call ‘segregation and assimilation’.
“Tibetans are, at best, second class citizens in their own country.
“Deprived of all basic democratic rights and freedoms, they exist under a colonial administration in which all real power is wielded by Chinese officials of the Communist Party and the army.
“Although the Chinese government allows Tibetans to rebuild some Buddhist monasteries and to worship in them, it still forbids serious study and teaching of religion.
“Only a small number of people, approved by the Communist Party, are permitted to join the monasteries.
“While Tibetans in exile exercise their democratic rights under a constitution promulgated by me in 1963, thousands of our countrymen suffer in prisons and labour camps in Tibet for their religious or political convictions…
“The massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a distinct people.
“In the eastern parts of our country, the Chinese now greatly outnumber Tibetans.
“In the Amdo province, for example, where I was born, there are, according to the Chinese statistics, 2.5 million Chinese and only 750,000 Tibetans. Even in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (i.e., central and western Tibet), Chinese government sources now confirm that Chinese outnumber Tibetans.
“The Chinese population transfer policy is not new. It has been systematically applied to other areas before.
“Earlier in this century, the Manchus were a distinct race with their own culture and traditions.
“Today only two to three million Manchurians are left in Manchuria, where 75 million Chinese have settled.
“In Eastern Turkestan, which the Chinese now call Sinkiang, the Chinese population has grown from 200,000 in 1949 to 7 million, more than half of the total population of 13 million. In the wake of the Chinese colonization of Inner Mongolia, Chinese number 8.5 million, Mongols 2.5 million.
“Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent, outnumbering the Tibetan population of 6 million.
“In central and western Tibet, now referred to by the Chinese as the “Tibet Autonomous Region”, Chinese sources admit the 1.9 million Tibetans already constitute a minority of the region’s population.
“These numbers do not take the estimated 300,000-500,000 troops in Tibet into account – 250,000 of them in so-called Tibet Autonomous Region.
“For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China.
“Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past. ”
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (a spending bill) and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (a tax bill) legislated the elimination of the annual budget deficit by 2002. Both bills were passed by Congress by large bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton prior to the August 1997 congressional recess.
Following difficult and highly partisan budget negotiations in 1993 (for the FY 1994 budget) and 1995 (for the FY 1996 budget), the negotiations in 1997 for the FY 1998 were marked largely by bipartisanship, even as the legislators and the President sought to produce the first balanced federal budget since 1969.
In my analysis, President Clinton did not create a Balanced Budget in 1997 for the first time since 1969. In fact, President Clinton violated the preachings of the Bible about Fiscal Policy. This Nation failed to receive the Blessings promised by LORD God. President Clinton foolishly chose to disobey God’s Commandments and invited the Curses promised by LORD God.
President Bill Clinton invoked the Curses promised by the LORD God for acts of disobedience of God in the formulation of the Fiscal Policy of the Nation.
The United States has nothing to fall back in its fight to Slay the Dragon of Debt. The United States needs the promise of Prosperity to Slay the Dragon of Debt. I ask the US Congress to Repeal PRWORA, the Slavery Act of 1996 to correct the transgressions of President Bill Clinton’s Fiscal Policy.
Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada
Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment
U.S. deficit to eclipse $1 trillion in 2020, CBO says, as fiscal imbalance continues to widen
By Jeff Stein
Jan. 28, 2020 at 3:23 p.m. EST
The U.S. government’s budget deficit is projected to reach $1.02 trillion in 2020, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as the federal government continues to spend much more than it collects in tax revenue.
A combination of the 2017 tax cuts and a surge in new spending has pushed the deficit wider. This year would mark the first time since 2012 that the deficit breached $1 trillion, a threshold that has alarmed some budget experts because deficits typically contract — not expand — during periods of sustained economic growth.
Overall, the CBO projected that the federal government will spend $4.6 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 and bring in $3.6 trillion in tax revenue.
And some of the costliest government programs are projected to experience expansions in the next decade. Spending for Medicare, which provides health care for older Americans, will rise from $835 billion in 2020 to $1.7 trillion by 2030, while annual federal spending on Social Security will grow from roughly $1.1 trillion to $1.9 trillion over that span.
The CBO’s estimates assume that Congress will allow tax cuts for individuals passed in Republicans’ 2017 tax law to expire in 2025. GOP lawmakers in Congress will at least try to extend most if not all of these provisions.
This year’s deficit would be an increase from 2019, when the government deficit grew to $984 billion. The deficit in 2016, President Barack Obama’s last full year in office, was $585 billion. CBO now projects that the deficit will be at least $1 trillion each year in perpetuity unless policymakers make changes.
The CBO also projected the economy would grow by 2.2 percent in 2020, which represents a healthy clip but falls short of the 3 percent target set by the Trump administration. The projections were contained in the CBO’s annual budget and economic outlook.
With rising annual deficits, the total debt held by the government is also projected to grow dramatically, from about $18 trillion in 2020 to $31 trillion in 2030, according to the CBO’s projections. The U.S. government must pay interest on this debt to keep borrowing money.
“The U.S. economy is doing well, with low unemployment and rising wages that have drawn people off the sidelines and back into the labor force,” Phillip L. Swagel, the CBO’s director, said in a statement. “But our projections also suggest that over the long-term, changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the budget situation.”
The deficit outlook appears slightly worse than it did just a year ago. In 2019, bipartisan majorities in Congress approved new spending bills that added more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The most expensive new policies were the permanent repeal of taxes created under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, including one on expensive health plans.
These actions would have done more to drive up the deficit had they not been mitigated by lower-than-expected interest rates, which allow the government to borrow money more cheaply than the CBO had originally anticipated.
The CBO projection also appears to cast doubt on recent statements by President Trump and other administration officials that the 2017 Republican tax cut is creating enough revenue through new economic growth that it will offset all near-term losses. White House officials have defended the $1.5 trillion tax legislation, which slashed tax rates for businesses and many households.
Tax revenue has risen slowly since the tax cuts were passed, but many forecasters say the cuts led to a sizable drop-off in projected revenue collections. Combined with an increase in spending, the deficit has ballooned, forcing the Treasury Department to borrow more money to cover the balance.
Trump, asked about the rising deficit following the tax cuts, told CNBC last year: “We’ve taken in more revenue substantially than we did when the taxes were high. Nobody can even believe it.”AD
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also expressed confidence the tax cut would not add to the nation’s debt, saying: “We’ve tracked the numbers, and we’re right on track.”
Trump has told aides he will look for big spending cuts in his second term, a position echoed by Mnuchin, who said government spending must be slowed down. Trump aides have also previewed a potential second round of tax cuts.
The CBO report shows that tax collections are weaker than they would be without the 2017 Republican tax law, which permanently locked in lower rates for many corporations while creating temporary reductions for households. Tax revenue remained roughly flat the first year the law was in effect, despite economic growth of nearly 3 percent. It rose slightly in 2019 but not enough to compensate for flatlining the year before.AD
Asked about Mnuchin’s remarks on Tuesday, Swagel pointed to CBO’s April 2018 analysis finding the GOP tax law would increase the deficit by $1.9 trillion over 10 years. That number accounts for the impact of faster economic growth due to the tax law. Swagel served as a Treasury official in George W. Bush’s administration and worked at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.
In January 2017, before the tax law, the CBO projected corporate tax revenue would represent 1.8 percent of gross domestic product. Now, they are expected to represent only 1.1 percent of GDP.
Many Republicans in recent years have abandoned the calls to slash spending in part because Trump has supported big increases in the budget. During the Obama administration, many Republicans insisted on spending cuts as a way to shrink the deficit. About half of the current deficit can be attributed to spending increases and tax cuts put in place by Congress since 2015, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.AD
“This is an important warning light,” Marc Goldwein, a budget expert with the group, said of the CBO’s report. “We know deficits as a share of GDP have never been this high when the economy is this strong.”
Other economic experts played down the danger posed by the rising deficit. They noted the country is still extremely unlikely to default because of the supremacy of the U.S. dollar among international creditors, and that inflation — one of the potential hazards of high deficits — remains low by historical standards.
“There is simply no threat of inflation on the horizon,” said Robert C. Hockett, a professor at Cornell University who has advised Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on economic policy matters.
Still, Hockett castigated the Trump administration for not putting the higher deficits to better use. Republicans have said the tax cuts have juiced economic growth and boosted wages for U.S. workers, while Democrats have characterized them as a giveaway to the rich.
“Trump is wasting these deficits. It’s fine to engage in deficit spending, but Trump has used them to give tax cuts to billionaires, which does nothing to increase the well-being of the vast majority of Americans or improve the nation’s productivity,” Hockett said.