3 ms·

I don't see where we disagree[1], but perhaps your argument is lost in the attempt to parody my post? [1] Minus the "trillions" bit... see posts below. Perhaps

• slg 13y ago
  "China owns trillions of US national debt... this is debt that the leaders of our country have given willingly, and gladly pocketed the resulting cash. How is that any less treason than alerting our lenders that their systems have been broken into?" A passage like this perpetuates the misconception that China owns a dangerous portion of US debt. It is stretching the facts of the case so it better supports your argument. They own 1.25 trillion, which is not "trillions". It is also less than either the Federal Reserve or Social Security trust hold and right around the last numbers I saw for private US holders. The phrasing you use to explain the transaction makes it seem like the US government shouldn't sell this type of debt to China. In your post you are claiming that the Chinese should have the same level of human rights as us but that we shouldn't provide them the same level of economic rights? Finally it is also disingenuous to say that our leaders "gladly pocketed the resulting cash". That implies some sort of embezzlement, which is just furthered by your comparison to treason. Selling debt is a critical part of the economic equation for almost all world governments (yes, even China). It annoys me when people state that selling debt to China is somehow destroying this country or causing long term damage.