How will the US pay back its debt? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Everything from personal credit card debt to government borrowing debt.

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

User avatar
By Drlee
#13760955
2. Reduced deficit, means stronger dollar. Since Chinese RMB is pegged to the Dollar, it means a stronger dollar = a stronger RMB. Stronger RMB makes Chinese goods more expensive. This would be an opportunity for American manufacturers to sell more goods globally. More sales = more export. More export = lower deficit.


:lol:

He rik. Did it ever occur to you that oil wells do not exist under every drill? Did you know that the US oil reserves are estimated at 21 billion barrels? Did you know that we do not have enough water to significantly exploit tar sands? Did you know that we burn about 19 million barrels of oil per day?

It would be easier for us to reinstate the draft, raise a larger army and just go take Venezuela. They would be powerless to resist, we would be kind and generous occupiers, we would bring them real democracy it would take us about two weeks to secure the country (if that) and they have the largest oil reserves in the world. Then by massively exploiting this 297 billion barrel reserve we could accomplish all you desire. We could pay down our debt, eliminate our trade deficit, strengthen the dollar bring prosperity to the country again. We need to act fast. Everyone knows that Chavez has a secret nuclear weapons program. Just ask the CIA. Just ask Colon Powell. We need to act before he allows Russian missiles in South America so close to our shores. We need to act fast before he kicks because the American people don't like his ass anyway. That is the answer. Invade and annex Venezuela. We can free the poor people of Venezuela from tyranny and bring the benefits of a free market to all Venezuelans. Just look at this pirate. You can tell he is dangerous.

Image
User avatar
By Red Barn
#13760996
^ :lol:

But we'd still have to nationalize the oil companies to pocket the proceeds, DrLee - or else tax the private companies who inherited poor old Hugo's little empire. (Gosh, I love that picture. :) )

What people like Rik fail to realize is that "our" private oil companies would simply trade "our" oil on the international market, just like everybody else does. There wouldn't be "less import" unless the state somehow appropriated the companies' products for American use only - and it's hard to imagine Beck University supporting that gem of an idea.

All his other arguments fall apart in exactly the same way. Because oil is traded internationally, there's no reason to think that US oil companies getting richer would somehow make gas cheaper in the US. (It certainly hasn't thus far. They've regularly enjoyed record profits in exactly those times when Americans have paid through the nose.) Our reserves are fairly unimpressive anyway, so their impact on the global market would be minimal to boot.

Not only that, but the US (like Canada) heavily subsidizes its oil industry through tax breaks, making it even less likely that We the People would profit by so much as a single penny. This leaves us with Norway - Rik's other example - which is, indeed, oil rich. Why? Because its oil industry is nationalized.

:roll:

Oddly enough, the only person in Rik's camp who seems to grasp this very basic point is the supposedly brainless Sarah Palin, who, when it came to Alaskan oil, was a veritable communist. Funny how her fans rarely mention this, aye?
By rik
#13761007
Did you know that the US oil reserves are estimated at 21 billion barrels?

You're giving me numbers for ANWR. But even that is incorrect.

In ANWR alone:
Department of Energy (DOE) reports US proved reserves are roughly 29 billion barrels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ref ... l_reserves

Gulf of Mexico estimates
15 billion barrels
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00275.html

Oil Shale Reserves
1.5 trillion barrels of oil (five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia)
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/

Here is what you're ignoring, how the price of crude is determined by OPEC.
It's a Futures market. All about demand and supply. It doesn't matter how much oil we have or don't have, the mere mention of the US drilling, would send the price of crude tumbling. Once oil futures hears that the US would start drilling, people would start predicting a fall in price.

It happened with Bush Jr. When crude shot up to $147/barrel, Bush lifted the drilling moratorium put in place by Bush Sr. That act alone brought the price of oil down to about $50/barrel.

But at the end of the day, only oil exploration would tell us how much oil we have. Unfortunately, Obama is refusing to issue permits to oil companies.

Ghana recently discovered huge reserves of oil that it never knew existed before. In just about 4 year, Ghana is now an oil producing country. How would they have discovered the oil reserves without oil exploration?
By Kman
#13761032
dilpill wrote:No, this is not a form of standard price fixing. Since the Fed actually changes the supply of money instead of just telling banks that they have to lend at certain interest rates, there aren't the same problems as when the government has a price floor or price ceiling.


It is not as fixed as a straight up price ceiling or price floor but it is still heavy manipulation of a market signal.

dilpill wrote:The Fed didn't buy the treasuries because the government is in debt. They utilized expansionary monetary policy because inflation is low, GDP is below potential, and unemployment is high.


Modern Keynesian economics is just one big pile of bad excuses for creating monetary inflation and enriching the government and the financial elite in the process, sadly some modern ''economists'' (a disgrace to the word to even call them that) that actually believe all this mathematical non-sense that justifies the most outrageous policies, like for example the notion that letting the government spend a dollar creates more than a dollar in wealth in society overall, if this is true we should double or triple the budget of the government because hey, then we will all be richer. :knife:

dilpill wrote:People aren't forced to change how they save.


No they just get heavily taxed if they save in gold or silver because every time the dollar goes down in value the holders of hard currency get a special tax bill, the gold coins they own might not even have risen in value against any other currency or commodity in the world, but if the US federal reserve decides to double the money supply and then cause the dollar to fall roughly 50% in value then gold coin owners get a large tax bill from the IRS, even though the gold coin cannot buy anymore food or oil or clothing.
Does the same thing happen if a federal reserve note goes up in value? do holders of these notes get a tax bill? no! and this is because the dollar enjoys special privileges in the US today and gold and silver coin holders gets heavily persecuted with all kinds of special taxes to remove the financial incentives for using them as money.
So no it is not a straight up ban on gold and silver, it is just heavy tax manipulation in favor of the Federal Reserve notes since the evil Fedsters know that if gold money was put on an equal standing to paper money then paper money would get fucking crushed in the long run.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13761070
Rik.

I read your fucking link. Don't think that people here are that stupid. Here is a direct quote from the article you posted:

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy reported uncertainties about the USGS oil estimates for ANWR and the projected effects on oil price and supplies. "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region.... ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.... Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States."[24]

The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3).[38] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.[17]


Here is another one that puts our reserves between 21 and 30 billion barrels.


http://www.eia.gov/international/reserves.html
User avatar
By dilpill
#13761087
Kman wrote:letting the government spend a dollar creates more than a dollar in wealth in society overall, if this is true we should double or triple the budget of the government because hey, then we will all be richer. :knife:

Under circumstances where there are substantial idle resources (excess unemployment), low inflation, and low interest rates, yes, government spending can generate economic growth without crowding out the private sector. Not many economists at all want to double or triple the government's budget, and I don't know of any that would say to do so permanently (with economic growth as the objective).

Kman wrote:No they just get heavily taxed if they save in gold or silver because every time the dollar goes down in value the holders of hard currency get a special tax bill, the gold coins they own might not even have risen in value against any other currency or commodity in the world, but if the US federal reserve decides to double the money supply and then cause the dollar to fall roughly 50% in value then gold coin owners get a large tax bill from the IRS, even though the gold coin cannot buy anymore food or oil or clothing.

For most households, the allowances for tax-advantageous retirement savings plans are large enough and the long-term capital gains tax rates are low enough for this to be almost inconsequential. Additionally, we don't have the kind of devaluation you're talking about. 2.5% or so inflation each year is very manageable.
By Kman
#13761272
dilpill wrote:Not many economists at all want to double or triple the government's budget, and I don't know of any that would say to do so permanently (with economic growth as the objective).


Why not? If there really is a Keynesian multiplier then the road to prosperity is to increase government budgets right? why does this multiplier suddenly stop working when the government grows to a certain size and where is this limit exactly?

dilpill wrote:For most households, the allowances for tax-advantageous retirement savings plans are large enough and the long-term capital gains tax rates are low enough for this to be almost inconsequential.


If you saved up 800.000 dollars for retirement in gold coins at current prices how much in taxes would you have to pay if the dollar lost 50% of its purchasing power? (meaning the gold price would double when measured in dollars).

dilpill wrote:2.5% or so inflation each year is very manageable.


2.5% inflation means that after 20 years the value of the dollar you put in a bank has gone down 40% or so, that is a huge amount lost from a retirement fund, if you save up for 40 years then its something like 75% aprox. (too lazy to do the precise math on this). If you save in gold coins however then they usually retain all their value in terms of purchasing power, then you do not lose all that money to inflation after saving for 40-50 years.
There is also the matter of how incredibly inprecise inflation measurements on individual goods are, it is a statistic open to enormous manipulation based on what kind of good you are using for measuring and what kind of quality it has, I know the US government is engaging in very deceitful ways of measuring inflation rates since the lower they can push this number the less money they have to give out to people.
User avatar
By Drlee
#13761295
Is what you say about gold true?

In his book Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell argued that, in the long-term, gold does not hold its value compared to stocks and bonds:
To take an extreme example, while a dollar invested in bonds in 1801 would be worth nearly a thousand dollars by 1998, a dollar invested in stocks that same year would be worth more than half a million dollars. All this is in real terms, taking inflation into account. Meanwhile, a dollar invested in gold in 1801 would by 1998 be worth just 78 cents.


I know the US government is engaging in very deceitful ways of measuring inflation rates since the lower they can push this number the less money they have to give out to people.


Post your proof here. Right below. Show us how you know that. Don't run or hide. Just do it. Or be quiet about it.
Last edited by Drlee on 21 Jul 2011 23:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By dilpill
#13761296
Kman wrote:Why not? If there really is a Keynesian multiplier then the road to prosperity is to increase government budgets right? why does this multiplier suddenly stop working when the government grows to a certain size and where is this limit exactly?

It's simple: the multiplier is not a constant. It is affected by all of the things I mentioned in my last post. Taxing and spending multipliers are higher when there are more idle resources in the economy. When there are relatively fewer idle resources, these multipliers get smaller, and at a certain point, the costs of more deficit spending outweigh the benefits.

Kman wrote:If you saved up 800.000 dollars for retirement in gold coins at current prices how much in taxes would you have to pay if the dollar lost 50% of its purchasing power? (meaning the gold price would double when measured in dollars).

That isn't an easily answered question because of the complexity and uncertainty of the tax system. At current tax rates, a married couple could take a long term capital gain of as much as $68000 a year (assuming no other income) tax free. However, since tax brackets are often increased to compensate for inflation, under the circumstance you gave, it would end up being significantly higher than that. If a couple sold that much gold over a period of 15 years or so, they could probably get away with paying no taxes on it at all.

Factoring in things like special retirement plans, future tax brackets, future tax rates, etc. would make the calculation a lot more complicated.

Kman wrote:2.5% inflation means that after 20 years the value of the dollar you put in a bank has gone down 40% or so, that is a huge amount lost from a retirement fund, if you save up for 40 years then its something like 75% aprox. (too lazy to do the precise math on this). If you save in gold coins however then they usually retain all their value in terms of purchasing power, then you do not lose all that money to inflation after saving for 40-50 years.
It's a stupid idea to save for retirement in cash anyway. Like I said before, even 5-year government bonds over the last 50 years have tended to have a positive real interest rate.
By Kman
#13761308
Drlee wrote:Is what you say about gold true?


I dont really think Thomas Sowell is correct on this one, investing in a company is risky since there is a risk of the stock price going down or the company going bankrupt completely in which case you lose your whole deposit. Gold however tends to stay at a reasonable stable level in terms of purchasing power, atm you can buy a barrel of oil for the same amount of gold that you could buy a barrel of oil with in the 1950's for example.

Drlee wrote:Post your proof here. Right below. Show us how you know that. Don't run or hide. Just do it. It be quiet about it.


http://mises.org/daily/2302

There you go, its interesting reading.

dilpill wrote:It's simple: the multiplier is not a constant. It is affected by all of the things I mentioned in my last post. Taxing and spending multipliers are higher when there are more idle resources in the economy. When there are relatively fewer idle resources, these multipliers get smaller, and at a certain point, the costs of more deficit spending outweigh the benefits.


Why does the government know better what to invest in than private entrepreneurs? Government officials dont operate with the profit and loss model so they cannot calculate what makes a desired investment and what doesnt. They cannot calculate opportunity costs, just like the socialist central planners cannot calculate opportunity costs (this was the main criticism that Mises brought against the socialists in 1922 when he wrote a book describing why communism would never work).

dilpill wrote:That isn't an easily answered question because of the complexity and uncertainty of the tax system. At current tax rates, a married couple could take a long term capital gain of as much as $68000 a year (assuming no other income) tax free. However, since tax brackets are often increased to compensate for inflation, under the circumstance you gave, it would end up being significantly higher than that. If a couple sold that much gold over a period of 15 years or so, they could probably get away with paying no taxes on it at all.

Factoring in things like special retirement plans, future tax brackets, future tax rates, etc. would make the calculation a lot more complicated.


I am not asking you to speculate about tax systems in the future, I am asking you to explain how it would work hypothetically if tax laws did not change for the saving duration. Also trying to calculate this based on them not having any other income is totally unrealistic since in order to save up that kind of money and still be able to cover living expenses takes a decent salary I think. Just try and calculate it with a an average middle class income (and remember if you are gonna double up and say its a married couple then you need to change the calculation to 1.6 million dollars in gold coins at current market rates of 1600 dollars per ounce). I am not asking what the situation would be like if they saved this money while retired since I doubt your average middle class couple can save up 1.6 million dollars while being retired.

Edit: I am only asking this because I want to know the exact taxation level for gold coin owners, so lets just say that for this hypothetical question income brackets and taxation levels do not change for the saving period.

dilpill wrote: It's a stupid idea to save for retirement in cash anyway. Like I said before, even 5-year government bonds over the last 50 years have tended to have a positive real interest rate.


Saving in gold coins is not a stupid idea since gold is about the safest store of value that you can find (in a country with no special taxes laid on gold ownership), generally people saving for retirement are not looking for huge dividends and high risk ventures, they are looking for rock solid stores of value that can put food on their table when they are too old and decrepid to work.

Government bonds are also not safe since bonds are vulnerable to inflation, if you buy a 30 year bond and the dollar loses 70% during this period then you are pretty screwed when the bond matures and you get back this depreciated money. As for your claim that they have a positive real interest rate, that depends on whether you believe the CPI lies the government is telling people. Government bonds when the government is in fiscal trouble like the US government is also very dangerous since debt problems encourage default via inflation.
User avatar
By dilpill
#13761353
Kman wrote:Why does the government know better what to invest in than private entrepreneurs? Government officials dont operate with the profit and loss model so they cannot calculate what makes a desired investment and what doesnt. They cannot calculate opportunity costs, just like the socialist central planners cannot calculate opportunity costs (this was the main criticism that Mises brought against the socialists in 1922 when he wrote a book describing why communism would never work).

[1] Keynesianism is not central planning, so you can't just transfer criticisms of communism to it.
[2] The situation I described two posts ago is an example of when opportunity costs for expanding government spending are low. When the private sector is suffering from recession and resources are sitting idle, the utilization of those resources for anything productive (even if not as efficiently as the private sector) would result in an increase in output compared to not doing anything.
[3] Government purchases aren't the only way for expansionary fiscal policy to work. Increasing transfer payments and/or decreasing taxes increases the amount of money individuals can spend, leading to further activity in the private sector.

Kman wrote:I am not asking you to speculate about tax systems in the future, I am asking you to explain how it would work hypothetically if tax laws did not change for the saving duration. Also trying to calculate this based on them not having any other income is totally unrealistic since in order to save up that kind of money and still be able to cover living expenses takes a decent salary I think. Just try and calculate it with a an average middle class income (and remember if you are gonna double up and say its a married couple then you need to change the calculation to 1.6 million dollars in gold coins at current market rates of 1600 dollars per ounce). I am not asking what the situation would be like if they saved this money while retired since I doubt your average middle class couple can save up 1.6 million dollars while being retired.
The relevant tax in this situation is the capital gains tax, which applies at the time of sale of a financial asset on the difference between the amount received in the sale and the original cost of the asset. Our taxes are way too complex (even ignoring future changes) for me to make a very accurate estimate of what an average person would pay in that situation. If you just ignore exemptions, special plans, and capital gains tax-exempt brackets, the tax owed on the gains from buying $800,000 worth of gold in one time, and selling that gold for $1,600,000 later would be $120,000 ($60,000 in original year dollars).

However, those exemptions, plans, and tax exempt brackets all would significantly reduce that amount depending on individual circumstances and planning. It's not worth the time for me to research them all and go through all of the necessary calculations. If you're really interested in figuring it out, read about IRAs, 401ks, capital gains tax, and income tax.

Kman wrote:Government bonds are also not safe since bonds are vulnerable to inflation, if you buy a 30 year bond and the dollar loses 70% during this period then you are pretty screwed when the bond matures and you get back this depreciated money. As for your claim that they have a positive real interest rate, that depends on whether you believe the CPI lies the government is telling people. Government bonds when the government is in fiscal trouble like the US government is also very dangerous since debt problems encourage default via inflation.

There isn't much evidence that the US is understating the true rate of inflation, so this is a pretty unfounded fear.
User avatar
By Headache
#13761406
rik wrote:2. Reduced deficit, means stronger dollar. Since Chinese RMB is pegged to the Dollar, it means a stronger dollar = a stronger RMB. Stronger RMB makes Chinese goods more expensive. This would be an opportunity for American manufacturers to sell more goods globally. More sales = more export. More export = lower deficit.

Now I'm not an economics major or anything (I only took a couple classes), but wouldn't a stronger US dollar also mean that US goods are more expensive as well? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RMB being stronger because the US dollar is stronger doesn't really present an opportunity in my mind. I'd assume you'd basically be in the exact same position you were before. Then again, I'm a retard and you are a genius, so there is a good possibility that you aren't mistaken here because you never are.
By rik
#13762121
Headache wrote:Now I'm not an economics major or anything (I only took a couple classes), but wouldn't a stronger US dollar also mean that US goods are more expensive as well? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the RMB being stronger because the US dollar is stronger doesn't really present an opportunity in my mind. I'd assume you'd basically be in the exact same position you were before. Then again, I'm a retard and you are a genius, so there is a good possibility that you aren't mistaken here because you never are.

You're looking at it wrong. We'd be in the same exact position, if we manufactured everything only in China or the US.
The advantage of a stronger dollar is in the fact that we manufacture most of our stuff overseas now. So a strong dollar equates to cheaper labor cost, and cheaper raw materials.

China however, manufactures everything locally. A stronger RMB is not useful to China, since they don't exchange their currency in the manufacturing process.


Drlee wrote:I read your fucking link. Don't think that people here are that stupid.

Behave. Watch your dirty mouth.
Yes, by all means, feel free to cherry pick the numbers. We'll just go with what you like, and ignore what you don't. You should be so lucky.

The numbers don't lie. They're official estimates...

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) reports US proved reserves are roughly 29 billion barrels (4.6×109 m3) of crude and natural gas liquids, of which 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) are crude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ref ... l_reserves

Gulf of Mexico estimates
15 billion barrels
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00275.html

Oil Shale Reserves
1.5 trillion barrels of oil (five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia)
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/
User avatar
By Drlee
#13762166
^^

Just doen't get it. I see you need Natural gas to try to save your argument, which is by the way mostly natural gas.

I am too tired to deal with you now. I have been teaching all day and just don't want to continue. Fortunately my students pay atention. They are graduate students so they lay no claim to omniscience.
By jlwelch
#13767070
Personally, I don't think it is possible. I believe the problem is that we use our tax dollars waaaaaay to much for social programs, foreign aid, etc...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what we should use our tax dollars for...

Infrastructure (roads, bridges, and the like)
Military
Research and Development (i.e. - new energy sources and such)
Nothing else

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we should abolish in its entirety...

Social spending
The Department of Energy (it produces no energy)
The Department of Agriculture (it produces no agriculture)
The ponzi scheme known as social security (pay back those who have paid into it, but that's it)
Foreign aid (we can't afford to take care of others when we can't take care of ourselves)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is what I would do. I'm sure there are no shortage of people who will argue that welfare and whatnot is important but at the end of the day, we cannot afford to pour tax dollars into social programs like that. Expenditures like social programs and foreign aid are what got us here in the first place.
I am sure there
#14696739
It won't pay it back,it's you & I that will pay for it.

The American dollar is 'Fiat' money,there are no real assets in America,save for Fort Knox.

The dollar is only afloat because it's a 'petro-currency',otherwise it would sink like the Weimark currency.

It's why President PUTIN would like an 'alternative' when trading Russian oil & it is doing just that with it's trading partners.

America will continue printing $$$$'s until the cows come home,ONLY when people & governments acknowledge that PUTIN is right will they stop using American wastepaper as the medium for distribution & exchange.

There always is a day of reckoning, printing money to pay of existing debt is fraud & defrauds not just the country's debtors,but it's own citizens as well as it's businesses.
#14696751
Andropov wrote:It is mathematically impossible at this point, as this article suggests?: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... ional-debt

What happens if the country just keeps borrowing and borrowing and raising the debt ceiling higher and higher?

Without deficit, the debt would actually decrease very quickly.

This is because rich countries borrow at very low rates, far below their growth rate. So between the moment a country borrows and the moment it pays back, it earns a lot more than before. Without deficit and with a decent growth rate (3%), the debt measured in shares of the GDP is halved over a mere few decades.

The only problem is to cancel the debt. Almost all western countries face this issue, in one way (financial debt) or another (demographic gap). Maybe this is a matter of taxes artificially lowered to maintain competitiveness, requiring cooperation between many countries to collectively rise their taxes.
#14705154
The US does not need to pay off the debt. All it needs to do is balance the budget, and keep it balanced. After that, the debt will pay itself off via inflation, albeit, slowly, but still. It would also have to grow the GDP as well.
#14705173
The Federal Reserve controls all auctions for Treasury Bonds. If need be, it could buy up all the bonds itself, while providing the money to pay off existing bonds. The US could also avoid taking on any future debt by either repealing the law requiring any deficit spending to be funded by Treasury bonds, or work around this law by issuing a coin to the Federal Reserve denominated for whatever amount it needs to borrow any time it wishes to fund some spending project. There is no reason why a nation with monetary sovereignty should need to take on debt in the first place, but doing so can be advantageous for trade purposes or for transferring wealth upward to the ruling class, even as it funds projects ostensibly benefiting the masses.
By D Z
#14707198
dilpill wrote:No, that's not what happens. The government sells Treasury securities to the general public. To carry out monetary policy, the Federal Reserve purchases (or sells some of its holdings of) these securities from (or to) the same general public. The biggest holders (in no particular order) of Treasury securities are banks, pension funds, foreign central banks, and the US government itself (the Federal Reserve, the Social Security trust fund, and various other places).


I agree the quote you showed is horribly non-technical and really just wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't a feedback allowing the Fed to support sovereign borrowing though. The way the ECB does it is even more transparent since purchasing sovereign debt is basically a stated policy goal. However, the primary dealers, as well as the bond trading populace, have come to fully expect large open market operations clearing a material portion of Treasury inventory from bank coffers. It's created an arbitrage heaven for bond traders and is partly responsible for the volume of negative rate bonds still being funded.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

You Zionists just can't stop lying can you. It wa[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]