Print 64 comment(s) - last by CuriousRock.. on Aug 28 at 10:13 PM

Despite "smoking gun" U.S. is unlikely to act as it has a long history of tolerating China's abuse

It seemed like just another Chinese propaganda video, designed to promote the fighting spirit of soldiers in China's People's Liberation Army and rouse anti-American sentiments.  The Chinese narrator boldly proclaimed, "America is the first country to propose the concept of a cyberwar, and the first country to implement it in a real war."

I. Proof of Chinese Government Cyber-Attacks

But, as first noted by TheEpochTimes, the Chinese government unwittingly dropped a bomb shell when it used a clip of what it must have thought was stock footage.

Between 12:57 and 13:05 in the video, the B-roll clip rolled, revealing what is most westerners' first glimpse at a live Chinese cyber-attack on the U.S.  Videographic proof that recent cyber-attacks were indeed the work of the Chinese government had never been found -- until now.

At the start of the clip the reflection of a PLA officer in uniform can be seen.  We're not sure what the text up top or below says, but if you speak Chinese please let us know...

The officer quickly leaves that screen, using a keyboard shortcut....

...and fires up an application whose creator is identified in GUI text as the Electrical Engineering University of China's People's Liberation Army.  The GUI panel contains the text "Choose Attack Target" and offers the user a choice of what reportedly are multiple Falun Gong websites (a forbidden Chinese spirtual movement) (feel free to chime in if you can read this...).

...more targets....

The text selected reads "" -- a major Falun Gong homepage -- and the IP address selected is a 138.26.x address, an IP block that belongs to the University of Alabama.  The particular IP in question, according to The Epoch Times has not been used since 2010, with IP staff recalling it may have been used to host the homepage of a Falun Gong practitioner, who hosted meetings on campus.

The "attack" button is pressed in the lower left-hand corner, and the video fades out, as presumably a distributed denial of service attack (possibly botnet assisted) is carried out.

So there it is -- straight from the horse's mouth, as they say, proof that China is indeed attacking entities in the U.S. online.

The video is available here, beware the rewind capability seems to be messed up, so just skip to around 10 minutes if you want to see the good part.

II. U.S. is Too Afraid to Stand up For Itself

We're guessing President Barack Obama's (D) response to this video will fall somewhere between "silence" and  "sweeping it under the rug".  After all, while the U.S. talked tough of physical retaliation for cyberattacks, it continues to let China bully it online.

China controls a great deal of U.S. debt and rare earth metals -- a critical component to high-performance electronic devices.  The U.S. also deeply depends on China for its manufacturing needs, having done away with its own capacity to produce most products decades ago.

Likewise there's a sort of grim complacency in the corporate world.  Google, Inc. (GOOG) claims to have its source code stolen by Chinese hackers, but has been forced into silence by the Chinese government.  The message is clear -- put up with abuse, or get out of the world's biggest market.

Similarly, antivirus firm McAfee last month aired a report on the world's largest series of cyber-attacks dubbed "ShadyRAT", which it said were perpetrated by a nation state.  However, when faced with the overwhelming public assumption that the attacker was China, McAfee equivocated refusing to confirm that the attacks came from China.

What reason would McAfee have for keeping the identity of the attacker in history's most financially damaging cyberattack a secret?  Well, its parent company, Intel Corp. (INTC) has invested much in research and development and production facilities in China -- facilities it doesn't want to lose by alienating the local government.

The few people and organizations who do speak out are largely ignored.  

Recent attacks on American advocacy site, who launched a campaign to free imprisoned Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, led to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonishing China.  But at the end of the day no decisive action was taken by the executive branch or Congress.

In short, China is reportedly gaining advanced intelligence on the U.S. military and its technological secrets; is infiltrating U.S. utilities; and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate secrets, but the U.S. has thus far kept its mouth shut.

For that reason we don't hold much hope that this "smoking gun" will change much of anything in the way U.S. business and the U.S. government bow down to their Chinese abusers.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Load of Garbage
By dsx724 on 8/23/2011 11:21:11 AM , Rating: 5
choice of what reportedly are multiple Falun Gong websites

The war between China and Falun Gong is long and documented. A DDOS is not hacking. This isn't a government target and doesn't involve any hacking techniques so this is hardly a smoking gun to anything. You can find better tools on 4chan written by script kiddies. Please don't sensationalize.

RE: Load of Garbage
By deathwombat on 8/23/2011 3:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Denial of Service is not hacking. Hacking requires intrusion. DDOS is just packet spamming, the network traffic version of email spam.

Official Translation
By The Insolent One on 8/23/2011 4:41:47 PM , Rating: 5
We get signal.

Somebody set up us the bomb.

Main screen turn on.

All your base are belong to us.

You are on the way to destruction.

You have no chance to survive make your time.

For great justice.

RE: Official Translation
By transamdude95 on 8/24/2011 10:15:17 AM , Rating: 2

Why have we left ourselves vulnerable to this?
By AwesomeDuck on 8/23/2011 12:01:32 PM , Rating: 1
I don't advocate retaliation, but why are we allowing this to happen? Why are we always letting bad shit happen and then playing the victim? The best offence is a good defense.

By CuriousMike on 8/23/2011 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
I do wonder what our response could be like if this happened 50 years ago; our government ( and general population ) was much more unified.

By schlenker on 8/23/2011 8:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
In truth if you look back in history the USA rarely has a direct response, even to a direct provocation (i.e. the USS Pueblo and NK). We (USA) typically act covertly or financially unless a strong reaction is part of a larger agenda (picture). And this is true of most 1 or 2 world countries.

By DrApop on 8/24/2011 10:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
Surely you are joking right? You don't think we haven't been doing the same to China...for probably even longer!

We simply don't announce it....we try to play all innocent like we would never do such a thing. But we certainly are using cyber tactics against all countries possible....friend and foe alike.

And if need be we will/have/could induce a DOS attack and/or slip in a virus.

By AnnihilatorX on 8/23/2011 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 5
Well I speak Chinese and the top of the first pic reads:
Security hole report

The bottom of first two pic just reads "There are many ways to attacking a website"

The dialogue window of the third pic reads choose target. Targets of drop down list reads Falun Gong in many geographical locations. The first is US Falun Gong in North America, 2nd one reads Alabama Falun Gong, 3rd one Falun Gong website. 4th one is 5th Falun Gong supporting site (1)...

Since the categories are incoherent, and also the 4th pic that does not have the ip as listed, I have doubts whether they are just placeholders which does not really support the article's conclusion.

By Beenthere54 on 8/23/2011 11:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
China is becoming arrogant an d overconfident: exploit their weakness.

RE: China
By cruisin3style on 8/24/2011 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 3
"Your overconfidence is your weakness"

"Your faith in your friends is yours" (Europe)

By wushuktl on 8/23/2011 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
there are many methods of internet attacks

????? ?????
there exists hard strategies, and also soft strategies

RE: translations:
By wushuktl on 8/23/2011 11:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
not so sure about this one, so called soft attack or soft attack (another word for attack)

mainly compromising of a logic bomb?

sorry, that's the best i could do

"Financial Compensation"
By ForeverStudent on 8/23/2011 8:57:30 PM , Rating: 4
So I realize this idea is much too simple, and that the world doesn't REALLY work this way, but wouldn't it be nice if we could just calculate the total actual financial "damage" or the financial "value" of the stolen information and just say "Ok China, we owe you [Big Random Number] $1 Trillion, and we know that you hacked and stole or damaged $600 Billion worth of information, so now we only owe you $400 Billion."

Wham! Instant deficit reduction!

By transamdude95 on 8/24/2011 9:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
W need to make it so that attacking us is not worth the cost. For each intrusion or DDoS detected and suspected to be from China or the Chinese Gov't, we knock down the amount we owe them by a few billion. Their cyber attacks cost our country money, and we will recuperate these losses from the debt they hold.

Likely, though, China is not the only participant in cyber warfare. It is highly unlikely that our own government is just sitting idly by and watching. They are probably hacking and attacking just the same.

Nothing surprising here.
By masamasa on 8/24/2011 11:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly as expected, as are all of the other similar assumptions.

""Videographic proof""
By vladio on 8/24/2011 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hello boys and girls,
I have only one question to ask you about currect article...
"...Videographic proof that recent cyber-attacks were indeed the work of the Chinese government had never been found -- until now."
Any of you actually have this ..."proof"?!
I mean any kind of "real" original info?
..Or you just puff,puff about something?
Remember: One thing we can say with near certainty is that..
nothing certain in this world, of lies and deceiving.
and more to remember: False Accusations ... is a Very Terrible thing. So, one more time...Any of you actually have ANY "proof"?!

By tech02148 on 8/24/2011 11:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Please destroy america,
they talk too much, they are broke, they will go on strike over $20hr jobs and its not even manufacturing, they are lazy druggy embeciles, they got a gay problem, they hate foreigners and people who pick tomatoes for them, they brag about bullying some third world despots, did i mention they are fat and food challenge? also they cry wolf while they collect taxes of all kinds. aka united stupid as$sholeS.

By pixelslave on 8/25/2011 12:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
>> China controls a great deal of U.S. debt

Look, I still don't understand why we have to fear China when they control a great deal of US debt. They bet most of their money onto us. They ARE THE one who should be scared, not us. What can they do if we say, "We are not going to pay you back?" Nothing! Invade us? Yea, let's just say that they send us a missile. Don't even get me to start how we will strike back. Just having a Chinese missile pass through our sky will probably drive down the value of US dollars significantly -- which means, their investment will suddenly worth A LOT LESS!

By CuriousRock on 8/28/2011 10:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
The so-called hacking tool in the news just show us distributed denial-of-service attack. I don't think this news is valuable to us. The software in the picture is not as powerful as media said. First of all, this tool can't achieve a DDoS. A DDoS needs thousands computers that controlled by attackers. Second, does not have the ip as listed in the video. Maybe the tool's version is too old, it's useless for attacking The title of the software is "People's Liberation Army Institute of Electronic Engineering". That is a Chinese college and the website is [] . So I have doubts whether it's a tool for cyberattack or just a teaching tools.

Couldn't resist...
By KendoTek on 8/23/2011 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 1
If China were to own us, would they say, "Hu's your Daddy?"

By macca007 on 8/24/2011 3:02:38 AM , Rating: 1
I am not American yet I say BS to some of what was said in the story. US may be in debt to China and others but it's not world ending, Sure US needs cheap labour/Manufacturing but China wont be the cheapest much longer, Will be time to move companies to India/Vietnam as wages in China are on the rise. Also it's a 2 edged sword China also needs West to keep buying all their shit otherwise their economy also stumbles!
Secondly recent discoveries have found large quantities of rare earth metals especially in ocean, So China wont have a stranglehold in future. If anything Us probably likes these little attacks as it makes them more aware and how to cope with it, Maybe it's China that should be worried, Have they had their systems compromised enough, Maybe they won't cope who knows. Way I see it from the outside is US is still the one that prints the money and is in control. lol

How We'll Respond
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: How We'll Respond
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 10:31:52 AM , Rating: 1
RE: How We'll Respond
By ThatNewGuy on 8/23/2011 10:34:44 AM , Rating: 2
Aw, it says it's "Forbidden" for me.

RE: How We'll Respond
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 11:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
ARGH! They keep doing that. Ok fine, here's the link to the whole page not just the image.

RE: How We'll Respond
By FITCamaro on 8/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: How We'll Respond
By DanNeely on 8/23/2011 10:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
got a no hot-linking error the first time I tried loading the page. A reload gave a captcha along with text suggesting my computer was infected with a virus. I closed the page without stopping to see what (if anything) they were trying to sell.

President Barack Obama (D)
By Lord 666 on 8/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: President Barack Obama (D)
By monitorjbl on 8/23/2011 1:03:45 PM , Rating: 4 IS his fault that Congress has borrowed money from China and many other countries for the last couple of decades years. You truly are a brave soul to stand up and let the world know that.

RE: President Barack Obama (D)
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you know that the sins of the father are alive and well in politics?

RE: President Barack Obama (D)
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 2:00:45 PM , Rating: 1
And umm the trillion plus he borrowed for the "stimulus"? I guess he didn't do that either, it was the Boogeyman...

RE: President Barack Obama (D)
By dsx724 on 8/23/2011 3:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
Reagan started it when he tripled the national debt from 1T to 3T. It's been a slippery ignorant slope since.

RE: President Barack Obama (D)
By monitorjbl on 8/24/2011 11:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
You know that Congress has to pass bills before they come to the president, right? And that if you're unhappy with a law you should complain to your Congressman/woman and not to the internet about the president? And that the president isn't a sorcerer that made everything you don't like in the world come into being on his own?

If you didn't know these things, that's okay. You do now!

By ipay on 8/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Bullying
By kattanna on 8/23/2011 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
is it time for us to use this link yet?


RE: Bullying
By Dr of crap on 8/23/2011 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
We could make some noise with China.

The problem - we owe to much cash. So until we get our govt right and our financials in order we really can't do anything.

But we also could do the cyber war thing against them. The problem - we're to goody-goody to do that. "it wouldn't be right" But it's OK for them to to it to us!

Why don't we ever do what should be done and ALWAYS bend over to please the " do the right thing" crowd.

RE: Bullying
By kleinma on 8/23/2011 11:36:22 AM , Rating: 5
When you owe as much cash as the US does to China, one could argue it is China that is in trouble if we don't pay them.

RE: Bullying
By heffeque on 8/23/2011 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, try doing that and tell me how that works out. LOL!

RE: Bullying
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2011 1:17:21 PM , Rating: 4
We bought a bunch of weapons with that money. Also, China doesn't own that much US debt. They hold less than 7%.

RE: Bullying
By TSS on 8/24/2011 7:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
Weapons you cannot afford to maintain if the chinese stop lending you money. This discussion always goes like this.

Invading a country to get your money back is an stupid idea to begin with. Even if they conquer you, you're broke. Exactly where are they gonna get their money from?

I'll tell you, they already have gotten their money back. That $3 trillion in government debt they own is their surplus money they couldn't store anywhere else, and it's a hit they can most certainly take. How did they get their money back?

Because you used the lent money to pay for social programs that put that money in the USA's consumers pockets. And what did the USA consumer then do with that money? They bought all kinds of chinese crap.

Seriously they spent a trillion on high speed rail just so they could store their money in another place other then treasuries. They already started buying alot less treasuries at the beginning of this year. Once they've stimulated domestic demand enough, they won't need the american consumer.

Damnit why won't you idiots get it. You will destroy yourselves, the chinese don't have to lift a finger. If they want your land all they have to do is stop lending now, wait 20 years, then half a million soldiers should do. Nukes won't even be a problem since there will hardly be a central government to autherize launching them. There is still room to fix the problem but that calls for some serious action. Or shall we debate republicans vs democrats, AGAIN?

RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 5
The problem - we owe to much cash.

Which is funny because the idea behind the federal reserve system is what allowed America to accumulate much of this fictitious debt in the first place. The United States simply cannot repay it's debt so long as it is not in control of it's currency. So long as money that the United States needs to create for it's continued operation bears a burden of interest, whether borrowed from China or the Federal Reserve, then it is practically impossible to repay.

The debt created by Chinese/FRB interest must be serviced, so it must either be:

1. Borrowed from the system that created it
2. Extracted from the public as taxes/revenues.

The first option is a no-brainer since you cannot repay even a $1 interest burden on $100 borrowed by taking out a further $1 loan at 1%. A simple recursive function can show just how out of control such a system can get in a short period of time when using realistic interest rates. The interest eventually compounds radically and you wind up in deep trouble.

That means that the ONLY place that the money for servicing this interest can logically come from is from government revenues/taxes. Just one look at that sentence and you can tell it's just not going to happen. Doesn't matter if you're looking at class or corporations; nobody wants to be the ones to buck up and pay off these burdens that America has been saddled with. The most shameless thing about it is that the people who benefited the most (corporations and the rich) from the monetary system that got America into this mess, are the most unwilling to pay.

C'est la vie...

RE: Bullying
By FITCamaro on 8/23/2011 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody wants to "buck up" and pay it off because if you confiscated every privately held dime in the US, you still wouldn't have the money.

RE: Bullying
By mcnabney on 8/23/2011 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
My daughter, who is in kindergarten, knows more about economics than you do. You are talking cash, specifically M0, which is a tiny component of existing wealth.

Right now:
M0 is around $1T
M2 is around $9T
Total US 'wealth' is between $50-55T

RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Bullying
By torpor on 8/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 1:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
-Have the agency that prints money buy lots of your own debt. (for the US, that's the Federal Reserve)

Apparently somebody doesn't know how the Federal Reserve Bank works. Money is created in exchange for treasury bonds and the money, not the bond, bears the burden of interest. So long as the printed money comes with that interest burden, you cannot simply devalue your currency to lessen the load because the load is proportional.

For this to work, the United States would have to either nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank (yeah right!), or amend/repeal the Federal Reserve Act and put the power to print money back in the hands of Congress and spin the Fed off as just another private bank up to it's neck in US Treasury bonds.

-Cut interest rates on intrabank loans (the cost of getting money, aka the fed funds rate) as low as it can go

The rate is effectively zero and since it cannot go negative, the FRB is at the limit of it's monetary control and has nowhere to go as far as interest rates are concerned. It cannot print additional funds without taking on Treasury Notes and it cannot get those notes without an order from Congress. Congress cannot print additional notes without taking on additional/future interest burdens and everyone is left praying that the problem fixes itself.

RE: Bullying
By torpor on 8/23/2011 2:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
The fed is currently buying bonds with their unlimited checkbook.

So if the fed both holds the bond and pays the interest due, where does the actual money come from?

Before telling someone they don't know what they're talking about, maybe you should read some news somewhere and check your poor assumptions.

RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
So if the fed both holds the bond and pays the interest due, where does the actual money come from?

Uh, that's not what happening.

These are bonds that the federal government sold to banks in exchange for money that was already in the market and has likely since re-entered the market via government spending.

The government still owes both principle + interest on them. The only difference is that now the government now owes those moneys to the Federal Reserve Bank instead of whomever previously owned the bond. The previous bond holder now sits on however so many newly created, interest-free, dollars and the government is still on the hook.

Meanwhile, the money that the federal reserve printed and lent itself, carries no appreciable interest today (0.25%) compared to the anywhere from 2.7-8% interest that the bond itself yields. Not only that, but it hasn't done accomplished anything as from all appearances the banks are simply sitting on the money or investing it themselves. Credit is still restricted, interest rates are going up and the dollar is not devaluing in any appreciable way. Instead, the Fed takes on risk to make more money, the banks make more money and the government still owes what it owed in the first place.

RE: Bullying
By torpor on 8/23/2011 5:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that the expectation is that the Fed is independent of the federal government/treasury. But, much like with Fannie and Freddie, that's not really the case. I don't find the distincition particularly useful or honest, especially considering the unprecedented level of deficit we've got now. It doesn't matter that the bonds purchased are on the open market; by artifically reducing supply they prop up demand for the next issue.

The market should be spanking US bonds for this kind of spending, but the Fed is preventing it, frankly, by printing money to cover the new debt. I can't consider that the reasonable action of an independent agent.

It's impossible to get around the simple fact that, by buying Federal debt notes with created money, there has been over 1 trillion in new money issued, which would not otherwise be there.

To expect this injection of money supply to have no affect on the value of money is silly. The dollar has not yet devalued much, but it is beginning to do so. (12 month PPI is moving up, but agg. saving is increasing too, sucking some of it up). We're building up enough pressure to create quite a whipsaw if things ever get moving...I know some people have enough faith in Bernanke et. al. to expect them to let off the steam when needed, but then again, all the people who make their living in this racket are pushing gold towards $2000....

RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 4
3. Massively cut the size and budget AND spending power of the Federal Government/Federal Reserve. And this time actually use the surplus on spending down the debt.

A rose by another name... Here you are simply taking option 2 and choosen to spend taxes and revenues on servicing the debt instead of other programs. The public still winds up paying via cessation of services and the people this will hurt the most are the poor and middle classes. Seeing that they make up the majority of the country so you'll have a fun time trying to force it upon them under the current democratic system.

4. Exporting and selling off (like China does) our abundant natural resources for a short time. Lots of countries would pay top dollar for our coil, as an example, which we use little of ourselves. We also have vast untapped natural gas reserves.

Revenues from resources for sale is included under the revenue aspect of number 2 that I already listed. However, to derive any meaningful revenue from this, you would need to cut out intermediary corporations (and I know how against that you would be) or add levies that would render the resource uncompetitive on the global market in the face of the glut it would produce. Not realistic, sorry.

I also find it humorous that you see things in such a mutually exclusive light. That you must cut spending OR raise taxes. Yet economists around the world advocate that the two should be done in conjunction to varying degrees and at different levels. How novel!

RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 1
I also find it humorous that you never even suggested cuts.

Actually, there are quite a few things regularly suggest cutting and other things I would suggest cutting in the absence of sweeping changes.

A key example has been my argument that socialized medicine cannot work in the US so long as patented drug costs remain unchecked. If this isn't changed, federal prescription drug programs like Medicare simply aren't feasible. It's one thing to help your citizens, but it's silly to help them by essentially subsidizing gigantic profit margins on patented drugs.

RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
You say that now, but you only had two items on your list. Borrowing and taxation, correct? And you clearly said "the only ways".

But thank you for clearing that up. Bah who are we kidding anyway? There's no hope really. None at all.

RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 4:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
You say that now, but you only had two items on your list. Borrowing and taxation, correct?

If I wasn't clear enough, then I am sorry. But when I said taxes\revenues I meant exactly that and putting tax money towards debt instead of a program that it previously funded doesn't change the fact that it was tax money in the first place.

RE: Bullying
By NellyFromMA on 8/23/2011 4:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, people aren't exactly talking about raising taxes. If you want to get huffy about accuracy, strive for it yourself.

What is being proposed, again, isn't a tax hike. It's actually allowing a tax BREAK to expire so that the level of taxation goes back to where it had been originally. BIG DIFFERENCE, even if you simplistically want to look at it as tax @ 2013 > 2011

And please, before you get into that whole 'rationale' (term used LOOSELY) you might want to be amply prepared because that's an excrutiatingly uphill battle. Since tax breaks have been in effect, private sector is responsible for virtually NO growth. They have no proportionately invested in US economies while they do so for other nations with their savings directly or indirectly.

It's important to note that taxing the rich 'just cuz' IS stupid. But it's not 'just cuz'. It's because it makes sense and there aren't enough lobby dollars in the world a company can throw at the general population to make me change my mind, and then I'd have another point... why are you spending millions trying to sway public opinion that the top echelon of America's fiscal elite don't 'deserve' to have their tax break taken away instead of investing it in jobs? K thanks!

RE: Bullying
By NellyFromMA on 8/23/2011 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's also equally important to realize letting the tax cuts expire doesn't even come close to addressing the problem at large. It's a huge ammount without respect to the debt, and certainly is a necessary (IMO) source to contribute towards balancing the budget, but it is nowhere near the be all end all solutions I think some people may be thinking. Still, the Tea Party and, maybe, Republicans as a whole would have you think you could cut the budget and not effectively raise their taxes a penny, and that's just about as out of touch as it gets. They ought not to whine about entitlement programs lest they get off the feeling of entitlement themselves.

RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 6:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that Obama himself actually extended the cuts should clue you in at how disastrous it would be if they were to expire at this time. You clearly are one of those who believe all the cuts did were help the rich, but the list of what the Bush tax cuts did is far greater than that if you would choose to view them.

Since tax breaks have been in effect, private sector is responsible for virtually NO growth.

The 4 year period after the tax cuts, the IRS set all time records in revenue tax collection. Disproving the myth that the Bush tax cuts "cost" us money and that them expiring would only increase tax revenue. Now while it's true the cuts did not stop the recession, it's inversely true they did not cause it as well. But to say there was "no" growth isn't factual.

You are trying to put the tax breaks into a vacuum. Wars, recession, a housing/banking collapse, and Bush increasing the Federal Government by about 20% are all relevant factors that greatly impacted our economy and growth rates. We simply cannot deny this.

We have an over accumulation of capital and a massive debt problem. And I fail to see how that can ever be fixed via tax policy. In a three year span under Obama, our national debt has grown beyond the already outrageous debt level set under Bush's eight years. And it's growing daily at a frightening pace.

You post eloquently (besides that train wreck last paragraph), but ultimately I sense the same Progressive class warfare motivations behind your reasoning. We're in trouble so tax the rich until nobody is rich anymore, then we'll be saved.

RE: Bullying
By KoS on 8/23/2011 3:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
IIRR, the top 1% of income earners pays about 40% of the taxes. While the bottom 49% of income earners pays nothing.

I think the rich(income earners) does pays and pays well.

As for paying China. If we don't pay...they won't cut off the hand that feeds them. If their domestic economy tanks, which it would if they got into a conflict with us. They would have more problems internally than externally to deal with.

China couldn't invade us, all they can do is lop missiles and play cyber games. The lopping missiles option is becoming less and less viable. All is left is cyber.

RE: Bullying
By Uncle on 8/23/2011 1:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
The west is always forgiving the loans of third world countries. Now that the US is becoming a banana republic, its time for the US to ask China on bended knees to forgive it loans. Pay back time for all the years of goodness the us has done.

RE: Bullying
By bigdawg1988 on 8/23/2011 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 3
But we also could do the cyber war thing against them. The problem - we're to goody-goody to do that.

I think you forgot to add the j/k to that statement. The U.S. AFRAID to spy?!? Hell, we're not afraid to spy on our own darn people. You just don't hear about our spies getting caught. What's funny is how much we spy on everybody else, and nobody says anything about it.

RE: Bullying
By NellyFromMA on 8/23/2011 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: We dont HEAR about anyone else complaining. That is, unless you look exceptionally deep. You get a small peice of a perpective of world events in your news.

RE: Bullying
By mrkun on 8/23/2011 11:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
China has to hold large volumes of US debt in order to maintain their exchange rate peg, so it's not really an option for them to dump it. Not to mention their debt purchases keep treasury rates low which allows foreign companies to invest more money in China (foreign companies own most of China's production capacity).

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki