Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Sunday, February 9, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 306)

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chinese President Xi Jinping during the G20 leaders summit in Hamburg, Germany July 7, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chinese President Xi Jinping during the G20 leaders summit in Hamburg, Germany July 7, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Chinese banks received instructions Monday telling them to halt business with North Korea and strictly implement U.S.-led sanctions approved by the United Nations (UN). Sources told Reuters that banks received a document from the central bank telling them to stop providing financial services to new North Korean customers and to wind down loans with existing customers.

“At present, management of North Korea-related business has become an issue of national-level politics and national security,” according to the document seen by the sources. “Our bank is fulfilling our international obligations and implementing United Nations sanctions against North Korea. As such, we refuse to handle any individual loans connected to North Korea.”

The instructions also came with a warning to those who do not enforce the UN Security Council Resolutions, specifically economic losses and reputational risks. The UN Security Council unanimously voted to approve two new rounds of resolutions pushed by the Trump Administration.

The first came after intercontinental ballistic missile tests and the other after Pyongyang conducted the sixth and most powerful nuclear weapons device.

President Donald Trump praised China after reports revealed its banks are halting business with North Korea, a move that comes after he has repeated called on President Xi to do more to isolate Kim Jong Un’s dictatorship.

“We appreciate it,” President Trump said Thursday.

The U.S. president also signed an executive order Thursday targeting nations who trade with North Korea, calling it a “powerful” new tool aimed at isolating and de-nuclearizing the regime. On Tuesday, President Trump addressed more than 150 international delegations at the UN General Assembly for the first time, laying out the tenets of what he calls principled realism.

“It is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal rogue regime,” President Trump said. “Foreign banks will face a clear choice. Do business with the United States, or facilitate trade with the lawless regime in North Korea.”

He argued that North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs threaten the entire world and called out cheater nations who violate unanimously passed UN Security Council resolutions imposing embargoes and trade restrictions on Pyongyang.

“It is an outrage that some nations will trade with the country and arm supplies to the country,” he said, warning if the regime continues to threaten the U.S. and to destabilize East Asia, the Trump Administration would be prepared to use overwhelming force.

“We will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Meanwhile, South Korea’s relatively new liberal government on Thursday approved $8 million in supposed humanitarian aid to North Korea, a move allies and critics say will send a mixed signal to Pyongyang and the world.

Son Kim-ju, a lawmaker and spokesman of the opposition People’s Party, told The Associated Press the announcement is “badly timed.”

“The international community is strengthening sanctions and pressure against North Korea and even [President Moon Jae-in] is in the United States to strengthen international coordination against the North Korean problem,” Son said. “If our government contradicts itself and beats to a different beat, it won’t be able to gain the approval of its own people, let alone other countries.”

Chinese banks received instructions Monday to halt

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe walks to his seat at a luncheon with President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the Palace Hotel during the United Nations General Assembly, Thursday, Sept. 21, 2017, in New York. From left, Vice President Mike Pence, Abe, Trump, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. (Photo: AP Photo)

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe walks to his seat at a luncheon with President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the Palace Hotel during the United Nations General Assembly, Thursday, Sept. 21, 2017, in New York. From left, Vice President Mike Pence, Abe, Trump, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. (Photo: AP Photo)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday targeting nations who trade with North Korea, calling it a “powerful” new tool aimed at isolating and de-nuclearizing the regime. The Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea came as the U.S. president met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the UN General Assembly.

On Tuesday, President Trump addressed more than 150 international delegations at the UN General Assembly for the first time, laying out the tenets of what he calls principled realism. He argued that North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs threaten the entire world and called out cheater nations who violate unanimously passed UN Security Council resolutions imposing embargoes and trade restrictions on Pyongyang.

“It is an outrage that some nations will trade with the country and arm supplies to the country,” he said, warning if the regime continues to threaten the U.S. and to destabilize East Asia, the Trump Administration would be prepared to use overwhelming force.

“We will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

President Trump said the order would help target individuals and companies doing business with the rogue leftwing communist regime. It gives the U.S. Treasury Department authority to target those conducting significant trade with the regime, including the sanctioning of foreign banks.

“It is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal rogue regime,” President Trump said. “Foreign banks will face a clear choice. Do business with the United States, or facilitate trade with the lawless regime in North Korea.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also weighed in on the sanctions and issued a warning to foreign banks at a news conference Thursday.

“Foreign financial institutions are now on notice that going forward they can choose to do business with the United States or with North Korea, but not both,” Mr. Mnuchin said, adding that Treasury can now suspend U.S. account access to foreign banks that knowingly facilitate “significant transactions tied to trade with North Korea.”

“For too long, North Korea has evaded sanctions and used the international financial system to facilitate funding for its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs,” Secretary Mnuchin continued. “No bank in any country should be used to facilitate Kim Jong Un’s destructive behavior.”

The executive order issues a 180-day ban on vessels and aircraft that have traveled to North Korea after visiting the United States. It also gives the green light on sanctions targeting those involved in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order

Homes are seen for sale in the northwest area of Portland, Oregon, in this file photo taken March 20, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

Homes are seen for sale in the northwest area of Portland, Oregon, in this file photo taken March 20, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) said the House Price Index (HPI) posted a 0.2% increase in U.S. house prices in July from the previous month. Still, from July 2016 to July 2017, house prices in the U.S. were up 6.3%.

For the 9 census divisions, seasonally adjusted monthly price changes from June 2017 to July 2017 ranged from -0.5% in the West North Central and Pacific divisions to +0.6% in the East North Central division. But the 12-month changes were all positive, ranging from +4.2% in the West North Central division to +8.2% in the Mountain and Pacific divisions.

The FHFA monthly HPI is calculated using home sales price information from mortgages sold to, or guaranteed by, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) said the

A manufacturing assembly line at the Heinz factory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Courtesy of Heinz)

A manufacturing assembly line at the Heinz factory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Courtesy of Heinz)

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s Mid-Atlantic manufacturing survey rose 5 points to a very strong 23.8, making September another month of enormous strength. The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, which was forecast to come in at 18.0, has now shown 14 consecutive months of growth.

The indexes for general activity, new orders, and shipments increased this month, and employment remained positive. Firms also reported renewed price pressures this month and backlog orders are showing the largest build in 25 years.

Current Indicators

Nearly 39% of the firms responding to the survey indicated increased factory activity this month, while just 15% reported decreased activity. The new orders and shipments indexes also gained, by 9 points and 8 points, respectively.

Both the unfilled orders and delivery times indexes were positive for the 11th consecutive month, which indicates longer delivery times and an increase in unfilled orders. The percentage of firms reporting an increase in employment (18%) was greater than the percentage reporting a decrease (12%). While the current employment index fell 4 points it has remained positive for 10 consecutive months.

Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey

Firms forecast an acceleration of production growth for the upcoming fourth quarter, and firms’ overall forecast for the next six months showed further improvement.

Six-Month Indexes

The diffusion index for future general activity shot up from 42.3 in August to 55.2 in September, marking the third consecutive month of gains. It is now at its highest reading since March.

The indexes for future new orders and shipments also showed improvement, gaining 8 points and 12 points, respectively. Even though firms remained optimistic about increases in employment over the next 6 months, the future employment diffusion index fell 3 points. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the firms expect increases in employment and only 6% expect decreases.

The future capital spending index remained at a high level, with almost 44% of the firms expecting capital spending increases over the next 6 months.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve's Mid-Atlantic manufacturing survey

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

The Labor Department said Thursday first-time jobless claims fell 23,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 259,000 for the week ending September 16. The report easily beat the 303,000 median forecast and is welcomed news after claims surged following Hurricane Harvey last week.

Claims for the prior week were revised down by 2,000 from 284,000 to 282,000. The four-week moving average was 268,750, an increase of 6,000 from the previous week’s revised average.

While it is the highest level for this average since June 4, 2016 when it was 269,500, Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma both impacted this week’s data. In Florida, which was estimated in the prior week, doubled to nearly 10,000 post-Irma. But claims from Texas, which shot up by 40,000 last week following Harvey, fell dramatically to about 28,500.

Even though that is still double than normal, it’s clearly a good sign. The previous week’s four-week average was revised down by 500 from 263,250 to 262,750.

Continuing claims, in lagging data for the September 9 week, was also indicative of hurricane impacts, rising significantly by 44,000 to 1.980 million. Still, the 4-week average is only marginally higher at 1.953 million and the unemployment for insured workers is unchanged at a very low 1.4%.

No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending September 2.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending September 2 were in Puerto Rico (2.7), New Jersey (2.6), Alaska (2.0), Connecticut (2.0), Pennsylvania (1.9), California (1.8), Massachusetts (1.7), New York (1.7), Illinois (1.6), Nevada (1.6), and Rhode Island (1.6).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending September 9 were in Iowa (+534), Nebraska (+64), Tennessee (+30), Wyoming (+23), and Washington (+22), while the largest decreases were in Texas (-11,764), California (-7,375), Michigan (-4,483), New York (-2,938), and Florida (-2,289).

The Labor Department said first-time jobless claims

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power stands near the first Cameroon Ivory Burn at the Palais des Congres in Yaounde, Cameroon. (Photo: AP)

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power stands near the first Cameroon Ivory Burn at the Palais des Congres in Yaounde, Cameroon. (Photo: AP)

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (UN), “unmasked” hundreds of Americans in the final days of the Obama administration. Sources tell Fox News she averaged more than one request for every working business day in 2016 and continued to seek information in the days leading up to the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

The process of “unmasking” refers to the revealing of legally-protected names of U.S. persons caught up in the nation’s vast surveillance programs. American citizens are legally required to be referred to as “U.S. Person #1” or “U.S. Person #2.”

Powers and former national security advisor Susan Rice are two of several Obama administration officials in the crosshairs of congressional investigators for their role in seeking to unmask the names of Trump associates in intelligence reports.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., wrote a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats in July stating he had information confirming “one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

Rice initially denied the allegations by Chairman Nunes, who has since stepped aside from the investigation after a leftwing group filed an ethics complaint in the House against him.

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said just a few weeks ago after the head of the House Intelligence Committee confirmed “incidental collection” of intelligence did occur. “I was surprised to see reports by Chairman Nunes on this account today. I’m not sure to what Chairman Nunes was referring.”

The intelligence reports in which members of the Trump transition were unmasked by Rice involve personal details unrelated to national security, PPD confirmed and reported in early March. The reports support the suspicion that the Obama Administration used the cover of the legitimate surveillance to spy on the incoming administration.

“This is information about their everyday lives,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said. “Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

A spokesperson for Power declined to comment on the new report, specifically relating to the number or timing of her requests. David Pressman, her lawyer, did issue a previous statement when reports first surfaced.

“While serving as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Power was also a member of the National Security Council responsible for advising the President on the full-range of threats confronting the United States,” he said. “Any insinuation that Ambassador Power was involved in leaking classified information is absolutely false.”

However, experts say the fact the materials are unrelated to Russia or national security may mean the legal standard for unmasking was not met. Further, unlike Rice, the former ambassador has no reason nor traditional authority to unmask citizens in intelligence reports, though Mr. Obama did sign executive orders widely disseminating intelligence.

“U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S. persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence of collusion,” notable liberal law Professor Jonathan Turley noted. “Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.”

The committee is also seeking further testimony from former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Brennan. They have issued subpoenas to the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) for information relating to unmasking by the aforementioned three individuals, as well as for Obama advisor Ben Rhodes.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and member of the House Intel Committee, previously asked Mr. Brennan under oath if he had knowledge of any ambassador requesting the name of U.S. persons to be unmasked.

Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?

Brennan: I don’t know. Maybe it’s ringing a vague bell but I’m not — I could not answer with any confidence.

Gowdy continued, asking: On either January 19 or up till noon on January 20, did you make any unmasking requests?

Brennan: I do not believe I did.

Gowdy: So you did not make any requests on the last day that you were employed?

Brennan: No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed.

Brennan later corrected the record, admitting he was at CIA headquarters on January 20.

“I went there to collect some final personal materials as well as to pay my last respects to a memorial wall,” he said. “But I was there for a brief period of time and just to take care of some final — final things that were important to me.”

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Most economic policy debates are predictable. Folks on the left urge higher taxes and bigger government, while folks on the right advocate lower taxes and smaller government. Thanks to “public choice” incentives, many supposedly pro-market politicians don’t follow through on those principles once they’re in office, but that’s a separate issue.

The normal dividing line between right and left disappears, however, when looking at whether the welfare state should be replaced by a “universal basic income” that would provide money to every legal resident of a nation.

There are some compelling arguments in favor of such an idea. Some leftists like the notion of income security for everybody. Some on the right like the fact that there would be no need for massive bureaucracies to oversee the dozens of income redistribution programs that currently exist. And since everyone automatically would get a check, regardless of income, lower-income people seeking a better life no longer would face very high implicit tax rates as they replaced handouts with income.

But there are plenty of libertarians and small-government conservatives who are skeptical. I’m in this group because of my concern that the net result would be bigger government and I don’t trust that the rest of the welfare state would be abolished. Moreover, I worry that universal handouts would erode the work ethic and exacerbate the dependency problem.

And I have an ally of the other side of the ideological spectrum.

Former Vice President Joe Biden…will push back against “Universal Basic Income,”… UBI is a check to every American adult, but Biden thinks that it’s the job that is important, not just the income. In a blog post…timed to the launch of the Joe Biden Institute at the University of Delaware, Biden will quote his father telling him how a job is “about your dignity. It’s about your self-respect. It’s about your place in your community.”

I often don’t agree with Biden, but he’s right on this issue.

Having a job, earning a paycheck, and being self-sufficient are valuable forms of societal or cultural capital.

By contrast, a nation that trades the work ethic for universal handouts is taking a very risky gamble.

Let’s look at what’s been written on this topic.

In an article for the Week, Damon Linker explores the importance of work and the downside of dependency.

…a UBI would not address (and would actually intensify) the worst consequences of joblessness, which are not economic but rather psychological or spiritual. …a person who falls out of the workforce permanently will be prone to depression and other forms of psychological and spiritual degradation. When we say that an employee “earns a living,” it’s not merely a synonym for “receives a regular lump sum of money.” The element of deserving (“earns”) is crucial. …a job can be and often is a significant (even the primary) source of a person’s sense of self-worth. …A job gives a person purpose, a reason to get up in the morning, to engage with the world and interact with fellow citizens in a common endeavor, however modest. And at the end of the week or the month, there’s the satisfaction of having earned, through one’s own efforts, the income that will enable oneself and one’s family to continue to survive and hopefully even thrive.

Dan Nidess, in a column for the Wall Street Journal, opines about the downsides of universal handouts.

At the heart of a functioning democratic society is a social contract built on the independence and equality of individuals. Casually accepting the mass unemployment of a large part of the country and viewing those people as burdens would undermine this social contract, as millions of Americans become dependent on the government and the taxpaying elite. It would also create a structural division of society that would destroy any pretense of equality. …UBI would also weaken American democracy. How long before the well-educated, technocratic elites come to believe the unemployed underclass should no longer have the right to vote? Will the “useless class” react with gratitude for the handout and admiration for the increasingly divergent culture and values of the “productive class”? If Donald Trump’s election, and the elites’ reactions, are any indication, the opposite is likelier. …In the same Harvard commencement speech in which Mr. Zuckerberg called for a basic income, he also spent significant time talking about the need for purpose. But purpose can’t be manufactured, nor can it be given out alongside a government subsidy. It comes from having deep-seated responsibility—to yourself, your family and society as a whole.

An article in the American Interest echoes this point.

…work, for most people, isn’t just a means of making money—it is a source of dignity and meaning and a central part of the social compact. Simply opting for accelerated creative destruction while deliberately warehousing the part of the population that cannot participate might work as a theoretical exercise, but it does not mesh with the wants and desires and aspirations of human beings. Communities subsisting on UBIs will not be happy or healthy; the spectacle of free public redistribution without any work requirement will breed resentment and distrust.

Writing for National Review, Oren Cass discusses some negative implications of a basic income.

…even if it could work, it should be rejected on principle. A UBI would redefine the relationship between individuals, families, communities, and the state by giving government the role of provider. It would make work optional and render self-reliance moot. An underclass dependent on government handouts would no longer be one of society’s greatest challenges but instead would be recast as one of its proudest achievements. Universal basic income is a logical successor to the worst public policies and social movements of the past 50 years. These have taken hold not just through massive government spending but through fundamental cultural changes that have absolved people of responsibility for themselves and one another, supported destructive conduct while discouraging work, and thereby eroded the foundational institutions of family and community that give shape to society. …Those who work to provide for themselves and their families know they are playing a critical and worthwhile role, which imbues the work with meaning no matter how unfulfilling the particular task may be. As the term “breadwinner” suggests, the abstractions of a market economy do not obscure the way essentials are earned. A UBI would undermine all this: Work by definition would become optional, and consumption would become an entitlement disconnected from production. Stripped of its essential role as the way to earn a living, work would instead be an activity one engaged in by choice, for enjoyment, or to afford nicer things. …Work gives not only meaning but also structure and stability to life. It provides both socialization and a source of social capital. It helps establish for the next generation virtues such as responsibility, perseverance, and industriousness. …there is simply no substitute for stepping onto the first rung. A UBI might provide the same income as such a job, but it can offer none of the experience, skills, or socialization.

Tyler Cowen expresses reservations in his Bloomberg column.

I used to think that it might be a good idea for the federal government to guarantee everyone a universal basic income, to combat income inequality, slow wage growth, advancing automation and fragmented welfare programs. Now I’m more skeptical. …I see merit in tying welfare to work as a symbolic commitment to certain American ideals. It’s as if we are putting up a big sign saying, “America is about coming here to work and get ahead!” Over time, that changes the mix of immigrants the U.S. attracts and shapes the culture for the better. I wonder whether this cultural and symbolic commitment to work might do greater humanitarian good than a transfer policy that is on the surface more generous. …It’s fair to ask whether a universal income guarantee would be affordable, but my doubts run deeper than that. If two able-bodied people live next door to each other, and one works and the other chooses to live off universal basic income checks, albeit at a lower standard of living, I wonder if this disparity can last. One neighbor feels like she is paying for the other, and indeed she is.

In a piece for the City Journal, Aaron Renn also comments on the impact of a basic income on national character. He starts by observing that guaranteed incomes haven’t produced good outcomes for Indian tribes.

…consider the poor results from annual per-capita payments of casino revenues to American Indian tribes (not discussed in the book). Some tribes enjoy a very high “basic income”—sometimes as high as $100,000 per year— in the form of these payments. But as the Economist reports, “as payment grows more Native Americans have stopped working and fallen into a drug and alcohol abuse lifestyle that has carried them back into poverty.”

And he fears the results would be equally bad for the overall population.

Another major problem with the basic-income thesis is that its intrinsic vision of society is morally problematic, even perverse: individuals are entitled to a share of social prosperity but have no obligation to contribute anything to it. In the authors’ vision, it is perfectly acceptable for able-bodied young men to collect a perpetual income while living in mom’s basement or a small apartment and doing nothing but play video games and watch Internet porn.

Jared Dillian also looks at the issue of idleness in a column for Bloomberg.

I do not like the idea of a universal basic income. Its advocates fundamentally misunderstand human nature. What they do not realize about human beings is that for the vast majority of them, a subsistence level of income is enough — and those advocates are blind to the corrosive effects that widespread idleness would have on society. If you give people money for doing nothing, they will probably do nothing. …A huge controlled experiment on basic income has already been run — in Saudi Arabia, where most of the population enjoys the dividends of the country’s oil wealth. Saudi Arabia has found that idleness leads to more political extremism, not less. We have a smaller version of that controlled experiment here in the U.S. — for example, the able-bodied workers who have obtained Social Security Disability Insurance payments and are willing to stay at home for a piddling amount of money. …the overarching principle is that people need work that is worthwhile, for practical and psychological reasons. If we hand out cash to anyone who can fog a mirror, I figure we are about two generations away from revolution.

By the way, it’s not just American Indians and Saudi Arabians that are getting bad results with universal handouts.

Finland has been conducting an experiment and the early results don’t look promising.

The bottom line is that our current welfare system is a dysfunctional mess. It’s bad for taxpayers and recipients.

Replacing it with a basic income probably would make the system simpler, but at a potentially very high cost in terms of cultural capital.

That’s why I view federalism as a much better approach. Get Washington out of the redistribution racket and allow states to compete and innovate as they find ways to help the less fortunate without trapping them in dependency.

Joe Biden is against Universal Basic Income

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the 72nd United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 19, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the 72nd United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 19, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

American voters agree with President Donald Trump when he stressed burden sharing in his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly, a new poll finds. On Tuesday, President Trump told more than 150 international delegations they should no longer expect hollow demands for a good return on their investment in the UN.

“The United States will forever be a great friend to the world and especially to its allies,” he said. “But we can no longer enter into a one-sided deal where the U.S. gets nothing in return.”

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds just 29% of American voters believe U.S. taxpayers are “getting a good return on their investment,”  while a 44% plurality do not. While that compares to 22% and 55%, respectively, measured last October, a solid 27% are now not sure.

The U.S. is far and away the largest provider of financial contributions to the UN. In 2015, the U.S. provided 22% of the UN budget and 28% of the peacekeeping budget. Meanwhile, China pays just 8% and Russia pays around 3%. The disparity gives the U.S. great leverage over the UN, which past presidents have been hesitant to use.


Just 36% of likely voters think the U.S. should continue to give more money to the UN than any other country in the world, while 46% do not agree. Men are slightly less likely (45%) than woman (47%) to say the U.S. shouldn’t give more money, while women are slightly less likely (32%) than men (39%) to say yes.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans say no and 50% of Democrats say yes. Unaffiliated voters by a 51% to 33% margin say the U.S. should not continue to give more money to the UN than any other country in the world. Ideologically, the numbers break down a little different.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of conservatives say the U.S. should not give more to the UN than other nations, but just 42% of moderates and 22% of liberals agree.

President Trump earlier in the year weighed whether the U.S. should dramatically reduce funding for the UN. Voters by a large 50% to 33% margin favored that major cutback.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 18-19, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

American voters agreed with President Trump when

[brid video=”165184″ player=”2077″ title=”President Donald Trump First Speech to UN General Assembly”]

President Donald Trump addressed the 72nd UN General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York on September 19, 2017. The full transcript is below.


Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates: Welcome to New York. It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.

As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid. The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high — a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.

International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch. This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example. We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in the world today.

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are: “We the people.”

Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first. (Applause.)

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.

But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.

But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations Charter. Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall. America’s devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies, from the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.

It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others. Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope. We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room. It is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face. Or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today, so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow?

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests, and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow. And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.

The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries.

If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.

We were all witness to the regime’s deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later. We saw it in the assassination of the dictator’s brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport. We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea’s spies.

If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.

It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.

It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future. The United Nations Security Council recently held two unanimous 15-0 votes adopting hard-hitting resolutions against North Korea, and I want to thank China and Russia for joining the vote to impose sanctions, along with all of the other members of the Security Council. Thank you to all involved.

But we must do much more. It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior.

We face this decision not only in North Korea. It is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime — one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people.

Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors. This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. (Applause.) The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. And above all, Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors.

The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most. This is what causes the regime to restrict Internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protestors, and imprison political reformers.

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror? Or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?

The Iranian regime’s support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing.

In Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations. We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamist extremism that inspires them.

We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.

We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology. We must drive them out of our nations. It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and others that slaughter innocent people.

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people.

Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.

I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups. In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined.

We seek the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens — even innocent children — shock the conscience of every decent person. No society can be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

We appreciate the efforts of United Nations agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict.

The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort. We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people, and which enables their eventual return to their home countries, to be part of the rebuilding process.

For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region. Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region, and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible. This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach.

For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere. We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.

For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.

For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

I want to salute the work of the United Nations in seeking to address the problems that cause people to flee from their homes. The United Nations and African Union led peacekeeping missions to have invaluable contributions in stabilizing conflicts in Africa. The United States continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief in South Sudan, Somalia, and northern Nigeria and Yemen.

We have invested in better health and opportunity all over the world through programs like PEPFAR, which funds AIDS relief; the President’s Malaria Initiative; the Global Health Security Agenda; the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery; and the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, part of our commitment to empowering women all across the globe.

We also thank — (applause) — we also thank the Secretary General for recognizing that the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity. Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.

In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes. The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but, to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell. But the powerful people in this room, under the guidance and auspices of the United Nations, can solve many of these vicious and complex problems.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world. In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.

That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom. My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.

We have also imposed tough, calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse.

The socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country. This corrupt regime destroyed a prosperous nation by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. To make matters worse, Maduro has defied his own people, stealing power from their elected representatives to preserve his disastrous rule.

The Venezuelan people are starving and their country is collapsing. Their democratic institutions are being destroyed. This situation is completely unacceptable and we cannot stand by and watch.

As a responsible neighbor and friend, we and all others have a goal. That goal is to help them regain their freedom, recover their country, and restore their democracy. I would like to thank leaders in this room for condemning the regime and providing vital support to the Venezuelan people.

The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable. We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

We are fortunate to have incredibly strong and healthy trade relationships with many of the Latin American countries gathered here today. Our economic bond forms a critical foundation for advancing peace and prosperity for all of our people and all of our neighbors.

I ask every country represented here today to be prepared to do more to address this very real crisis. We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. (Applause.)

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. (Applause.) From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.

America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their wellbeing, including their prosperity.

In America, we seek stronger ties of business and trade with all nations of good will, but this trade must be fair and it must be reciprocal.

For too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success. But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules. And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.

While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government: the duty of our citizens. This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.

If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the “independent strength of its members.” If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substitute for strong, sovereign, and independent nations — nations that are rooted in their histories and invested in their destinies; nations that seek allies to befriend, not enemies to conquer; and most important of all, nations that are home to patriots, to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countries, their fellow citizens, and for all that is best in the human spirit.

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil also fought for the nations that they loved.

Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.

Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, and our minds in our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

We cannot wait for someone else, for faraway countries or far-off bureaucrats — we can’t do it. We must solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures, or we will be vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat.

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

One of the greatest American patriots, John Adams, wrote that the American Revolution was “effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

That was the moment when America awoke, when we looked around and understood that we were a nation. We realized who we were, what we valued, and what we would give our lives to defend. From its very first moments, the American story is the story of what is possible when people take ownership of their future.

The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people, and their patriotism.

History is asking us whether we are up to the task. Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion. We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself.

Our hope is a word and world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all: a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.

This is the true vision of the United Nations, the ancient wish of every people, and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul.

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world: We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the nations of the world. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much.

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the 72nd

A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)

A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)

The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday existing home sales in the U.S. fell in August for the fourth time in 5 months, slightly missing the forecast. Strained supply levels continue to subdue overall activity, but Hurricane Harvey fueled weakness in Houston.

Total existing home sales — completed transactions that include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops — declined in August by 1.7% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.35 million, down from 5.44 million in July. Last month’s sales pace is 0.2% above last August, and is the lowest since that same month.

“Steady employment gains, slowly rising incomes and lower mortgage rates generated sustained buyer interest all summer long, but unfortunately, not more home sales,” Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist said. “What’s ailing the housing market and continues to weigh on overall sales is the inadequate levels of available inventory and the upward pressure it’s putting on prices in several parts of the country. Sales have been unable to break out because there are simply not enough homes for sale.”

Increases in the Northeast and Midwest were more than offset by declines in the South and West.

“Some of the South region’s decline in closings can be attributed to the devastation Hurricane Harvey caused to the greater Houston area. Sales will be impacted the rest of the year in Houston, as well as in the most severely affected areas in Florida from Hurricane Irma. However, nearly all of the lost activity will likely show up in 2018.”

The median existing home price for all housing types in August was $253,500, up 5.6% from August 2016 when it was $240,000. Last month marks the 66th straight month of year-over-year gains in prices. Inventory at the end of August was down 2.1% to 1.88 million existing homes available for sale, and is now 6.5% lower than a year ago when it was at 2.01 million.

Inventory has fallen year-over-year for 27 consecutive months. Unsold inventory would supply the market for 4.2-months at the current sales pace, which is down from 4.5% a year ago. Properties typically stayed on the market for 30 days in August, which is unchanged from July and down from 36 days a year ago. Fifty-one percent (51%) sold during the month were on the market for less than a month.

“Market conditions continue to be stressful and challenging for both prospective first-time buyers and homeowners looking to trade up,” said Yun. “The ongoing rise in home prices is straining the budgets of some of these would-be buyers, and what is available for sale is moving off the market quickly because supply remains minimal in the lower- and mid-price ranges.”

First-time buyers represented 31% of all existing home sales in August, down from 33% in July and the lowest share since last August (also 31%).

Existing home sales in the Northeast shot up 10.8% to an annual rate of 720,000 and are now 1.4% above a year ago. The median price in the region was $289,500, or 5.6% higher than in August 2016.

In the Midwest, existing home sales increased 2.4% to an annual rate of 1.28 million in August and are now 0.8% higher than a year ago. The median price in the Midwest was $200,500, up 5.0% from a year ago.

The South saw sales decline by 5.7% to an annual rate of 2.15 million in August and are now 0.9% lower than a year ago. The median price in the South was $220,400, a gain of 5.4% from a year ago.

The West fell 4.8% to an annual rate of 1.20 million in August. However, they are still 0.8% above a year ago. The median price in the West was $374,700, up 7.7% from August 2016.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) said

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial