Third Party Insurance: America you had a choice

'What the two-party-system basically does is impose one sole mainstream ideological road that’s been previously surveyed and approved as “politically correct” for Global Power Master interests and objectives. Then, they put a face to each party: your Obamas, Romneys, Bushes, McCains, Clintons… Then, they let voters play around making believe they have an absolutely free and democratic choice to decide whether they will drive on the left side or right side of that one sole road' - Adrian Salbuchi for RT on Johnson/Stein debate. Third party insurance: America, you have a choice (Op-Ed) Get short URL email story to a friendprint version Published: 02 November, 2012, 14:51 TAGS: Election, Politics, USA TRENDS: US Election 2012 Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode (2nd R) makes a point as Jill Stein (L) from the Green Party, Rocky Anderson (2nd L) from the Justice Party and Gary Johnson (R) from the Libertarian Party look on during a debate hosted by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation and moderated by former CNN talk-show host Larry King on October 23, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images/AFP) Millions of voting Americans have been misled – even coaxed – into believing that either incumbent Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney must become the next president of the US. A bad choice? Sure, but… “No buts!” ­Look again, however, because Americans do have a choice. For instance, consider what presidential candidates Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party have to say. Watch Monday evening’s second and final Third Party Presidential Debate from Washington DC, hosted by RT, where both these candidates will offer American voters real options; or at least different options from what political look-alikes Mitt and Barack are offering; “Oromney” and “Rombama” as some have dubbed them. Two sides of same coin Many American voters were particularly taken aback by the latest major prime-time candidate “debate” focusing on foreign policy, in which Obama and Romney seemed to agree on all those key issues that have got – and continue to get – America and the world into so much trouble. Both expressed unflinching support for Israel, even though it’s the sole saber-rattling nuclear power in the Middle East; both continue to threaten Iran with unilateral military attack, demonizing that country as a “threat to the international community,” even though Iran hasn’t attacked any neighbor in over a century (actually, Iran was repeatedly attacked directly by the Western powers or through proxies like Saddam Hussein); both pledged continued support for terrorist “freedom fighters” in Syria’s civil war triggered by the US and allies, just as they did in Iraq and Libya; and both will continue hi-tech drone attacks over Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which seem particularly fond of local wedding parties. But are there no foreign policy options? How about pulling out of the Middle East and stop triggering generalized civil war in the region – aka, “Arab Spring”? Why not curb America’s pro-Israel foreign policy lobbies and put the US national interest back in center stage instead of Israel’s national interest as happens today? On the global financial scene, why not stop bailing out the irresponsible and criminal Bankster claque to the tune of trillions upon trillions of dollars – with the Fed’s recently-announced QEIII acting as yet another open-ended Bankster Charity Fund – and start bailing out American workers for a change? Here Republicans and Democrats are in full pro-bankster sync. US voters have other coins in their pockets It doesn’t always have to be this way. Although it doesn’t hit mainstream media headlines, American Voters do have other choices. A week ago, the Free & Equal Elections Foundation sponsored a Third Party Candidates Debate that included Gary Jackson and Jill Stein, together with Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. It was aired nationwide and worldwide by RT, moderated by Larry King, and boycotted by the mainstream media. Obama and Romney also boycotted this debate by declining invitations to attend, a clear snub at the American voter. Reflecting the public’s favorites from that first debate, tomorrow Johnson and Stein will meet once again to speak to America on key issues. Gary Johnson, a former Republican, says lots of things millions of Americans want to hear: cut military spending by 43 per cent; stop meddling in Syria and Libya; stop threatening Iran with military attack; refuse to support Israel if it decides to go against Iran on its own; stop fueling America’s imperial overdrive and over-reach. Johnson also supports Ron Paul’s crusade to audit the Federal Reserve Bank and even to close it down altogether, recognizing that the Fed is the culprit for the ongoing financial crisis, having allowed the Bankster takeover of the US and global financial systems. Jill Stein of the Green Party, in turn, also says things millions are eager to hear. When announcing her presidential candidacy a year ago in her native Massachusetts, the Boston Globe quotes her as saying, “We are all realizing that we, the people, have to take charge because the political parties that are serving the top 1 per cent are not going to solve the problems that the rest of us face. We need people in Washington who will refuse to be bought by lobbyists and for whom change is not just a slogan.” A courageous and powerful statement from a female candidate who personally took part in the Occupy Wall Street movement and was arrested several times for peacefully and democratically daring to express her ideas in a country that is fast becoming a police state under Gestapo-like FEMA/FBI/CIA/NSA/local police thugs. No more fizzy drinks A key factor to the Global Power Elite’s stranglehold on We the People is what America and its favorite allies call the “two-party system”, glorifying it as the “backbone of democracy”. If we take a closer look, however, we find that “two-party-system-democracy” – whether of Democrats and Republicans as in America, Labour and Conservatives in the UK, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany, and similar variants in most other countries – hides a neat and simplistic mechanism of coaxing people into the lowest infantile common denominators for “solutions to our nation’s problems”. What the two-party-system basically does is impose one sole mainstream ideological road that’s been previously surveyed and approved as “politically correct” for Global Power Master interests and objectives. Then, they put a face to each party: your Obamas, Romneys, Bushes, McCains, Clintons… Then, they let voters play around making believe they have an absolutely free and democratic choice to decide whether they will drive on the left side or right side of that one sole road. But don’t they dare look around for other, more direct highways or “kinder, gentler” side-roads that might carry them and their nation towards a very different, far more beneficial destination! No, no. In America, voters must choose between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, or Obama and McCain, or Obama and Romney. It must boil down to the “have-a-pepsi-or-coke…” option: you might think you’ve been given a choice, but more and more people are realizing that both are basically the same brown, sugary, bubbly slushy soda drink. So, if you insist on drinking something different, that’s when the Powers That Be will brand independent thinkers as trouble-maker anarchists, communists, fascists, or “downright stupid for throwing your vote away on a third party candidate.” It doesn’t always have to be that way. Why should the world care? In an incredible twist of history, US “democracy” has sunk to such loathsome depths that in order for American voters to even learn about electoral options for their country, they must now tune-in to RT of the Russian Federation. How times have changed from when the Global Power Masters played with our fears about the “red menace”, “mutually assured destruction” and “better dead than red”! But why should people outside the US really care whether Americans will pay more or less in taxes, have better or worse healthcare, or whether unemployment, inflation and poverty will rise or fall? Here’s why: in today’s highly complex global power structure, where an unelected but extremely powerful private Global Power Elite have become embedded into the US and its key allies, whatever happens there will affect all of us. If, for example, Argentineans vote for the wrong leaders (and believe me, we do!), or the Colombians, or the Greeks, or Malaysians, the consequences of such mistaken choices are basically suffered only by those peoples. The world can just sit back and look at us, for example, and mutter, “Those Argentineans…always making mistakes; serves them right!!” But when US voters put the wrong guy in the White House, that means untold millions of dead, injured, maimed and wrecked lives in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Latin America, Africa, Asia and other places in this dark, troubled world. So, yes, it is our business to make sure slumbering American Voters wake up. Not just for their sakes, but for the rest of the world’s sake. Precedent begs perspective A new generation of war-mongers is right now preparing to double their bets on the geopolitical arena. They have no qualms in risking outright military confrontation, not just with Iran, but even with Russia and China. Maybe that reflects their mad geopolitical ambitions; maybe it’s about their less mad realization that they have so completely destroyed the global financial system that their only way out is to “flee forwards” to an overwhelming world war, the likes of which mankind can hardly fathom. The Global Power Masters already pulled something like that back in 1914 and especially in 1939; why shouldn’t they be tempted to so again? So, “friends, Americans, countrymen” tomorrow evening please watch the Jackson-Stein Debate. “Lend them your ears!!” Not that they’re a panacea for America. Not that American voters should childishly “fall in love and rave” about them. Actually, it’s not so much that Jackson or Stein are better, but rather that Obama and Romney are so much worse! A final irony: in a world where politicians and media moguls speak and drool over “democracy”, on November 6 around 60, maybe 70, million US voters will decide the destiny over the next four years for 7 billion people. That’s 1 per cent deciding for the remaining 99 per cent. Democracy should be made of sterner stuff! Let’s hope US voters realize the huge global responsibility they carry upon their shoulders. In the end, the world will hold them accountable. ­Adrian Salbuchi for RT ­Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. = Organized crime financing US candidates Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:04:29 GMT A political analyst says that of the billions of dollars being contributed to US presidential candidates, more than one billion dollars is from organized crime, Press TV reports. “…We’re estimating it to be in this election over one billion dollars worth of organized crime money that will go to support political parties in the US,” political commentator and senior editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff told Press TV during an interview. “We have floating around the world in hedge funds, the most loose capital in the world. It’s related to organized crime, the drug market, which grows between 100 and 200 billion dollars per year and frankly they are very loud voices in American politics.” Duff also said that the United States’ electoral and political systems go against the country's constitution. “The issue isn’t even as much the Electoral College... In the United States Senate we have senators that represent ten million people; we have senators representing forty thousand people. The Senate itself is a violation of the equal protection provisions of our own Constitution”. The US presidential candidates also receive funds from the Israeli lobby. According to the analyst, nearly 80 percent of American Jews voted for President Obama in 2008. “Yet, of money that comes in from the Israeli lobby almost all of it goes to the Republican candidate and not to the candidate supported by American Jews.” ======== The U.S. is Canada’s biggest threat to economy, says finance minister By Julian Beltrame The Canadian Press Share this Article The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld Finance Minister Jim Flaherty speaks with the media following party caucus on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday October 3, 2012. OTTAWA – Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Canada’s closest ally and trading partner, the United States, has replaced Europe as the biggest threat to the domestic economy. The minister made the comment Monday evening on a conference call after wrapping up two days of meetings with his G20 counterparts in Mexico City, which had a mood he described as serious but not “doom and gloom.” Europe’s troubled finances and the U.S. fiscal cliff have both been hanging over the global economy for months, but Flaherty said the U.S. situation now potentially packs the bigger potential wallop. “I think the difference we have now is that the European leadership is starting to take some concrete actions with deadlines, and that’s quite encouraging,” he explained. “And more importantly, we’ve got less than 60 days for this fiscal cliff to be resolved in a very difficult political climate in the United States. Now it’s going to require breaking through that political gridlock … otherwise the consequences are dire.” Flaherty said failure to avoid the so-called cliff — the automatic lapse of about $600 billion in government spending and tax cuts that represents about four percentage points of U.S. economic growth — would push America into recession, with Canada likely to follow. He said the U.S. Congress must reach a compromise regardless of who — President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney — is elected Tuesday. Earlier, the G20 ministers and central bankers issued a communique calling on the world’s largest economies to reject protectionism and currency manipulation, and called on the U.S. to “carefully calibrate the pace of fiscal tightening to ensure that public finances are placed on a sustainable long-run path, while avoiding a sharp fiscal contraction in 2013.” The communique made clear the world remains hobbled by moderate growth expectations and a mountain of risks, including weaker growth in some emerging economies and additional supply concerns in some commodity markets. That sober finding still left space for some optimism, Flaherty said. “It’s looking a little bit better in Europe, it’s looking a little bit better in the United States, the emerging economies still have significant growth,” he said. “So it wasn’t doom and gloom, it was cautious though.” One of the bright spots, he said, is the recovery in the U.S. housing market, which is already stimulating the lumber industry in British Columbia. Flaherty said he achieved one of his goals prior to the meeting: securing an agreement to establish a regime whereby G20 nations will “publish” their records on meeting commitments they have reached. One of those commitments was the target made in 2010 to halve national deficits by 2013. Many countries, including the U.S., will miss that goal. The G20 officials decided it was appropriate to loosen the hard target on some countries to support growth. Flaherty also said he discussed the challenge Canada faces in coping with foreign investments in the resource sector, particularly from state-owned enterprises. On Friday, Ottawa extended for the second time its review of Chinese-owned CNOOC’s $15.1 billion takeover of Calgary oil producer Nexen Inc. “Some countries have struggled with it and I had actually some very good discussions with them about how they approached the issue, how they managed it,” he said. He added that there was no suggestions from his colleagues to questions of whether Canada remains open for business. In other declarations, G20 officials moved to head off concerns that China or some other countries may resort to manipulating their currencies in order to support exports.

“We reiterate our commitments to move more rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying fundamentals, avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments and refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies,” the

officials said. The G20 represents most of the world’s biggest economies, including some with fixed currencies like China. As well, Germany and the United Kingdom proposed that the world’s biggest economies form a common front against tax evasion related to Internet commerce and other revenue-shifting schemes, and said they received strong support at the meeting of officials from the G-20 nations. — With files from The Associated Press ========== Ohio, Florida, NC, VA, CO too close to call BREAKING NEWS Wed, 07 Nov 2012 03:13:29 GMT US President Barack Obama has won the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire but the big swing states where polls have closed -- Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado -- are all too close to call. =========== Obama gains momentum against Romney, all eyes on Ohio Tue, Nov 06 22:36 PM EST 1 of 28 By Steve Holland and John Whitesides WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama rolled up victories in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania on Tuesday and limited Republican challenger Mitt Romney's path to victory as U.S. voters decided between two starkly different visions for the country. Obama's victories in the two states put pressure on Romney to score victories in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, three battleground states where the race was too close to call. At least 120 million people were expected to decide between the Democratic incumbent and Romney after a long, expensive and bitter presidential campaign centered around how to repair the ailing U.S. economy. In the state-by-state battle to get to 270 electoral votes needed for the presidency, Obama and Romney piled up early victories in the states they were expected to win easily. Early vote-counting in the swing state of Florida showed them running neck-and-neck. Obama led in the critical battleground state of Ohio and Romney held an early lead in a third swing state, Virginia. Romney needs all three of those states to navigate a narrow path to the presidency, while Obama could afford to lose one or two of them and still win a second four-year term. The Republican's chances were hit by Obama victories in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, as well as New Hampshire. Romney last week visited Wisconsin, home state of his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, and had stopped in Pennsylvania earlier on Tuesday in hopes of pulling off a surprise win there. In a victory that also limited Romney's path to a victory, Obama won Michigan, the Republican's state of birth but where he ran afoul of voters by opposing an auto industry bailout pushed by Obama. Some polls had shown a tight race there. Television networks projected Romney the winner, as expected, in Republican states Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Indiana. He was declared the winner in Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Obama was projected the winner in the Democratic strongholds of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and his home state of Illinois, as well as Washington, D.C. Who Americans choose will set the country's course for the next four years on spending, taxes, healthcare, the role of government and foreign policy challenges such as the rise of China and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Each man offered different policies to cure what ails America's weak economy, with Obama pledging to raise taxes on the wealthy and Romney offering across-the-board tax cuts as a way to ignite strong economic growth. National opinion polls before the election showed Obama and Romney in a virtual dead heat, although Obama had a slight advantage in several vital swing states - most notably Ohio - that could give him the 270 electoral votes needed to win the state-by-state contest. According to Reuters-Ipsos Election Day polling, one in three Obama voters said the economy was the most important issue for them, while half of Romney voters agreed. Healthcare was the second most important issue for Obama voters and the budget deficit was second for Romney voters. Unemployment was third for both. Three-quarters of both Romney and Obama supporters decided to vote for their preferred candidate before the October debates between the candidates, according to the data. The Romney side was encouraged by what was described as heavy turnout in Republican areas from Florida to Colorado. Romney made last-minute visits to Ohio and Pennsylvania on Tuesday to try to drive up turnout in those states, while Vice President Joe Biden was dispatched to Ohio. Obama remained in his hometown of Chicago. 'I'M VERY PROUD' Expressing confidence, Romney told reporters on his plane as he flew back to Boston that he had written only one speech for evening, one celebrating his victory. "I'm very proud of the campaign that I've run, to tell you the truth," he said. "I'm sure like any campaign, people can talk to mistakes, but that's going to be part of anything that's produced by human beings," he said. Obama told a Denver television station he had speeches ready for either outcome. "You always have two speeches prepared because you can't take anything for granted," he told FOX31. The multimillionaire former head of a private equity firm and a former governor of Massachusetts, Romney would be the first Mormon president and one of the wealthiest Americans to assume the nation's highest office. Obama, the country's first black president, seeks to avoid being relegated to a single term, something that has happened to only one of the previous four occupants of the White House. Whichever candidate wins, a razor-thin margin might not bode well for the clear mandate needed to help break the partisan gridlock in Washington. Fueled by record spending on negative ads, the battle between the two men was focused primarily on the lagging economic recovery and persistently high unemployment, but at times it turned personal. The close race raises the prospect of a disputed outcome similar to the 2000 election, which ended with a U.S. Supreme Court decision favoring George W. Bush over Al Gore after legal challenges to the tight vote in Florida. Both the Romney and Obama campaigns have assembled legal teams to deal with possible voting problems, challenges or recounts. COMPLAINTS AND FRUSTRATION Although voting appeared to go smoothly in most places, complaints about procedures and possible irregularities surfaced sporadically across the electoral map. But there were no immediate claims of anything widespread or systematic enough to cast doubt on the credibility of the election outcome. Storm-weary residents across New York and New Jersey encountered long lines as they went to cast their ballots just over a week after the devastating storm Sandy caused havoc in the region. New Jersey granted a last-minute extension to the deadline for email voting. The balance of power in the U.S. Congress will also be at stake in races for the Senate and House of Representatives that could affect the outcome of "fiscal-cliff" negotiations on spending cuts and tax increases, which kick in at the end of the year unless a deal is reached. Obama's Democrats are now expected to narrowly hold their Senate majority, while Romney's Republicans were projected to retain House control. Former Maine Governor Angus King won a three-way contest for the Senate seat of retiring Republican Olympia Snowe. King ran as an independent, but he is expected to caucus with Democrats in what would amount to a Democratic pick-up. Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson easily beat back a challenge from Republican congressman Connie Mack to win a third term, while Democratic congressman Chris Murphy beat Republican Linda McMahon, a businesswoman who had served as chief executive of a professional wrestling company. Democrat Elizabeth Warren won the U.S. Senate seat for Massachusetts. In the high-profile Senate race, Warren, a law professor who headed the watchdog panel that oversaw the government's financial sector bailout, defeated incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in Chicago, Patricia Zengerle in Boston, Edith Honan in New York, Brendan O'Brien in Milwaukee, Dave Warner in Philadelphia, Philip Barbara in New Jersey, Matt Spetalnick, Lisa Lambert, Susan Heavey, Thomas Ferraro, Susan Cornwell, Anna Yukhananov and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Writing by Steve Holland and John Whitesides; Editing by Claudia Parsons and Will Dunham) ============= Soros says Obama victory means 'more sensible politics' Wed, Nov 07 00:33 AM EST By Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein (Reuters) - Billionaire investor George Soros said late Tuesday that the projected re-election of President Barack Obama will open "the door for more sensible politics." Soros, who has contributed mightily to Democratic causes and supported many liberal and progressive groups, told Reuters: "I'm delighted that President Obama has won. The American electorate has rejected extremist positions." In an email exchange, Soros, who was in Budapest, said he hopes "the Republicans in office will make better partners in the coming years." He noted that cooperation between America's political parties is "urgently" needed to deal with the so-called fiscal cliff - the yearend combination of expiring Bush-era tax reductions and steep cuts in domestic spending. Soros, 82, rose to fame and fortune two decades ago on a now-historic trade in which he took on the Bank of England and shrewdly wagered on a devaluation of the British pound. Last year, Soros, who frequently speaks out on world economic events, converted his hedge fund into a "family office," managing money for relatives and friends. He stopped managing money for outside investors. (Reporting By Jennifer Ablan and Matthew Goldstein; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Ciro Scotti) ============ Having dispatched Romney, Obama faces Iran, Syria Wed, Nov 07 02:45 AM EST By Arshad Mohammed WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Having defeated Republican Mitt Romney at home, Barack Obama has no shortage of adversaries to grapple with abroad, including the governments of Iran, Syria and possibly China. The Democratic president's re-election ensures continuity in U.S. foreign policy but leaves open questions such as whether diplomacy can constrain Iran's nuclear program or whether Israel or the United States might resort to air strikes. Nor is it obvious whether Obama will be able to sustain his refusal so far to try to tip the scales in Syria's civil war by allowing U.S. arms to flow to the rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. If events permit, U.S. foreign policy analysts said Obama will continue his "pivot" to Asia, seeking to reorient U.S. policy to take advantage of the projected growth in such nations as China and India and gradually withdraw from the Middle East. However, both Iran, which the United States and its allies suspect of developing nuclear weapons, and Syria, where a car bomb killed and wounded dozens in the capital, Damascus, on Tuesday, will demand attention. 2013 DECISIVE ON IRAN? Martin Indyk, vice president of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution think tank, said 2013 could be a decisive year on Iran and suggested Obama's wider commitment to nonproliferation could produce a "focused and assertive" policy. "It's going to be very high on the agenda," Indyk said. "Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a critical imperative for bolstering the nonproliferation regime." Iran denies U.S. accusations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons under cover of its civilian atomic program, saying its program is for peaceful uses such as generating electricity and producing medical isotopes. Talks between the major powers and Iran on a diplomatic solution are expected to resume - possibly as early as this month - but it is by no means clear whether one can be fashioned under which Iran might rein in its program. In an effort to drive Iran to compromise, the United States and the European Union have gone for the jugular - Iran's oil exports - over the last year. The United States has targeted foreign banks that deal with Iran's central bank, the clearing house for its oil sales, and the European Union has ceased importing Iranian crude entirely. The United States and Israel, which regards a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence, have also hinted at the possibility of military strikes against Iran. In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that a decision on force could come by next spring. Tehran's U.N. mission responded by saying Iran has the means and right to retaliate with full force against any attack. Israel, presumed to be the region's only nuclear power, has twice destroyed sites it feared could be used to develop atomic weapons - in 1981 in Iraq and in 2007 in Syria. Obama has said the United States will "do what we must" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and has repeatedly said that all options are on the table - code for the possibility of using force. James Dobbins, director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, said he thought Obama might be forced by events to intervene to some degree in Syria, possibly by supplying arms, but was unlikely to strike Iran. "I don't think it's viable to stand aside if Syria gets worse and unless the Iranians are stupid enough to give us a better rationale for an unprovoked attack, I don't think the administration would do it," Dobbins said. Analysts said that the overarching challenge for Obama will be to try to shape the international environment to the United States' advantage at a time when the country is deeply in debt, other powers are rising and it faces transnational threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and global warming. "My read of Obama is that he, essentially, wants to turn away from the Middle East and focus on Asia," said Indyk, saying Obama was unlikely to make a fresh run at Israeli-Palestinian peace, nor to make great efforts to shape the outcome in Syria or to deeply engage Islamist governments in Egypt and Tunisia. "I just don't see those things as high on his agenda versus building a relationship with China, promoting India's rise in Asia and seeking the opportunities that lie in that region of the world," he said. Despite having referred to China as "both an adversary but also a potential partner," in his final debate with Romney, Obama's prime focus is likely to be to try to find ways to cooperate with, rather than confront, China. "We will increasingly think of ourselves as a Pacific nation rather than an Atlantic nation," said Jon Alterman, who holds the Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (Editing by Jim Loney) ============== REFILE-UPDATE 1-Obama win has U.S. investors staring at fiscal cliff Wed, Nov 07 03:15 AM EST * Result eases uncertainty about Fed, regulation * Stocks could struggle early, bonds rise By Rodrigo Campos and Steven C. Johnson NEW YORK, Nov 7 (Reuters) - U.S. investors will hit trading floors this morning with the same president and the same problems in gridlocked Washington. First up: a looming budget crisis that could send the U.S. economy reeling. President Barack Obama beat back Republican challenger Mitt Romney to win a second term, but he will still have to contend with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives that could make forging a compromise on pressing issues like the coming "fiscal cliff" difficult. "There will be an immediate shift to government gridlock and the fiscal cliff issue, and that will be a headwind for stocks," said Michael Yoshikami, chief executive officer and founder of Destination Wealth Management in Walnut Creek, California. The fiscal cliff is a $600 billion package of automatic tax increases and spending cuts, scheduled to take effect at the end of 2012, that could severely strain economic growth. Obama is expected to demand tax increases for the wealthy as part of a deal to reduce spending to tackle the nation's deficit. Many investors thought that Romney as president-elect would have had a smoother time in negotiations. "The real challenge is for (Obama) to bridge the differences with Congress and work to get in the middle," said Jason Ader, a former Wall Street gaming analyst and a Romney supporter. Steven Englander, Citigroup's head of G10 foreign exchange strategy, said markets could panic toward year end if it looks as though no deal is imminent to avoid the fiscal cliff. If that happens, investors will think twice about lending the U.S. government money at low interest rates, which would strain the economy, widen the deficit and hurt the dollar. It also raises the possibility that major credit-rating agencies will cut the U.S. debt rating. Standard & Poor's stripped the U.S. of its pristine triple-A rating in 2011; the agencies have said they will evaluate budget negotiations and solutions and may take action next year. Investors have had a tendency to downplay problems emanating from Washington only to find themselves surprised when lawmakers cannot get together on critical issues. The market reacted harshly to Washington gridlock after failed legislation to backstop the banks in 2008 and again during protracted talks to raise the U.S. debt ceiling in 2011. Whitney Tilson, a hedge fund manager and one of the only managers in the $2 trillion industry publicly to endorse Obama for a second term, said he was optimistic that the two parties would compromise. "This was a victory for moderates," he said. "I hope both parties recognize this and move toward each other - to the center - to address the pressing problems our country faces." The end of the drawn-out election campaign puts to rest questions about regulation and monetary policy - Romney had said he would replace Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke - but some investors remained on edge about taxes and overall economic health. Billionaire investor George Soros said late Tuesday that the re-election of Obama will open "the door for more sensible politics." Soros, a major contributor to Democratic causes, said in an email exchange with Reuters that he hoped "the Republicans in office will make better partners in the coming years." CLARITY ON THE FED, LESS ON THE ECONOMY Although markets came into the night expecting Obama to win, most traders and investors supported Romney, who raised more money on Wall Street than the incumbent. Obama's win did remove uncertainty about the future of Fed policy. Romney had said he would replace Bernanke, whose dovish monetary policy has helped propel gains in both U.S. bond and stock prices in recent years. The benchmark S&P 500 has rallied 67 percent since Obama took office - one of the most impressive runs ever for stocks under a single president. Benchmark bond yields hit record lows despite a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating last year. Cumulative returns for maturities on all U.S. Treasuries are at 14 percent since Obama took office, according to Barclays. The Fed's easy-money policy has pushed down the value of the dollar, though, and some worry more dollar weakness may be in store, particularly if investors see signs of rising inflation. "The market rewards this certainty by bidding up gold and selling the dollar against all major currencies," said Axel Merk, president of Merk Investments in Palo Alto, California. Under a second Obama presidency, Wall Street will have to forgo trying to repeal Dodd-Frank financial reforms and instead continue to use personal relationships in Washington to keep the law from harming firms, said Karen Shaw Petrou of Federal Financial Analytics, a Washington-based research firm. Wall Street has bristled at the reforms, which include stricter capital requirements for banks, and the Volcker Rule, which is intended to stop banks from making bets in the financial markets with insured deposits. But some welcomed the changes. "I don't think any reasonable observer would want to go back to the risk that we had in the system before the financial crisis," said Evercore CEO Ralph Schlosstein. ================== Tax hike for wealthy Americans won't kill growth: CBO Thu, Nov 08 18:50 PM EST By David Lawder and Kim Dixon WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday, stepping into a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over how to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff." The report by the authoritative non-partisan arm of Congress is expected to fuel President Barack Obama's demand for higher taxes on the rich, part of his proposal to avoid the full impact of the expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending reductions set to begin in early 2013 unless Congress acts. Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy, particularly to small businesses, and to U.S. employment rates. They have held firm to their position that none of the cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire. The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner. Obama has also stuck to his position, with the White House reiterating on Thursday that the president sees his election victory on Tuesday as an endorsement by voters of his view on higher taxes for the affluent. "One of the messages that was sent by the American people throughout this campaign is ... (they) clearly chose the president's view of making sure that the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more in the context of reducing our deficit in a balanced way," senior White House adviser David Plouffe said. UNCERTAINTY SCARING MARKETS The disagreement over the tax cuts is a major roadblock to any agreement in Congress, as it is coupled with the spending issues also on the table. The lack of progress in ending the standoff is spooking global markets, which fell again Thursday in part because of political uncertainty in Washington. The concern was underscored by the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, which said on Thursday it sees an increasing chance that the U.S. economy will go over the cliff next year. But it also said it expects policymakers will probably compromise in time to avoid that outcome. Analysts at the agency see about a 15 percent chance that political brinkmanship will push the world's largest economy over the fiscal cliff. With only five days remaining before the U.S. Congress begins its post-election session, top political leaders in Washington provided little new assurance Thursday that they can act in time.

In an interview with ABC Television's Diane Sawyer, Boehner repeated what he has been saying for two years: "Raising tax rates is unacceptable. ... Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate," he said, according to a transcript provided by the network.

The Democratic White House did not respond publicly to an initiative launched on Wednesday by Boehner to get talks going to avoid the cliff. The president is scheduled to make a statement on the economy Friday. In the absence of concrete developments, the CBO report became the focus of argument Thursday. Reports by the CBO are designed to assist Congress in making difficult fiscal decisions, but they are also used by partisans to bolster their own arguments. A statement from the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee said the CBO report "confirms that raising taxes on all taxpayers will result in fewer ‘help wanted' signs hanging in the windows of businesses across the country. Job creators agree, and have made it clear, that raising taxes will result in a weaker economy and fewer jobs for the millions of Americans struggling to find work." Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the report "underscores the need to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff from harming American families and businesses, and to instead enact a balanced, long-term deficit reduction plan." The term "balanced" plan is the Democratic code for tax increases. The tax cuts were enacted during the Bush administration, but were made temporary, in part to reduce the appearance of exploding the already soaring U.S. deficit over the long term. They were extended in 2010 for two years under an agreement between Republicans and Obama, after Republicans swept the mid-term elections that year and took control of the House. That extension is running out, just as the trigger date arrives for automatic spending cuts Congress approved in 2011 as part of a deal to avoid a default on U.S. government debt. VARIOUS SCENARIOS The report from CBO laid out the economic effects of a number of options that lawmakers will consider as they deal with the fiscal cliff events. The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points. If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent. Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent. Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said. But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years. "CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said. (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan, Mark Felsenthal and Jeff Mason; Editing by Stacey Joyce, Eric Walsh and Fred Barbash) ==================