No one cares about the deficit

[Rambunctious]

So why not give every American over 21 1 million dollars? Hell Obama is sending money all over the world anyway. 400 million in cash to a terrorist regime?

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you want to know what the $400 million was for? If so, click here.

For a high level understanding, read the following:

The Tribunal
The IUSCT was established in 1981 to address the crisis in relations between Iran and the United States arising out of the detention of 52 hostages in the US embassy in Tehran and the freezing of Iranian assets by the US. To resolve the crisis, the Algiers Declarations (a “General Declaration” and “Claims Settlement Declaration” (“CSD”)) were recorded by Algeria (acting as intermediary) on 19 January 1981.

The General Declaration set out each State’s undertakings (Iran would secure the release of the hostages, and the US would, inter alia, return Iranian assets in order to restore Iran’s financial position). The CSD established the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been operating since 1 July 1981. Although the Tribunal’s jurisdiction includes claims brought by a national of Iran against the US and vice versa (the so called “private cases” in which the Tribunal has issued thousands of awards), the only cases remaining before the Tribunal are State-to-State disputes. Those remaining disputes are referred to as either “A cases” (involving interpretation of the Algiers Declarations) or “B cases” (arising out of contractual arrangements between the two States for the purchase of goods and services).

The Settlement
On 17 January 2016, the United States and Iran reached a significant settlement in relation to a claim at the Tribunal. A press statement from the US Secretary of State John Kerry on the settlement is here, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry statement is here. The full details of the settlement have not been released, but official statements and media reports indicate that the US has agreed to pay Iran $400,000,000 (all amounts herein are in US Dollars), representing the amount Iran paid into a trust account which was used to purchase military equipment and services. Additionally, the US will pay Iran $1,300,000,000 in accrued interest. The settlement has attracted some controversy. Some have commented that whilst the settlement is a positive step, its close proximity to the release of prisoners from Iranian prisons gives the appearance of ransom.

A review of publicly available tribunal awards indicates that it is likely that the settlement relates to the case (or part thereof) known as Case No. B1 (hereafter “Case B1” or “B1”). Case B1 is the only remaining case before the Tribunal that involves both military sales to Iran and a trust account used for those sales. The achievement of this settlement gives pause to examine this complex and significant case, and the position and future of the Tribunal more generally.

Case B1
Case B1, filed by Iran in 1981, consists of 6 sub-claims (IUSCT Interlocutory Award No. 60-B1-FT of 4 April 1986 (the “Interlocutory Award”), ¶ 1) and a US counterclaim. The factual background to Case B1 is the foreign military sales program (“FMSP”) between Iran and the US. In 1964, with the Shah still in power in Iran, the FMSP between Iran and the US began. FMSPs are managed by US government departments and the US has many of them operating with States all around the world; they are said to be a useful foreign policy tool. By 1979 the value of the Iranian FMSP was 20 billion. Iran kept a trust account funded for purchases and disbursements were made from the account to pay the charges agreed under “Letters of Offer and Acceptance” (LOAs) (effectively sales contracts).

Case B1 Deconstructed
The complicated sub-claim structure of B1 is emblematic of the remaining State-to-State cases before the Tribunal. In grappling with these complex cases, the Tribunal has often employed consolidation, has split cases, or has hived off issues that might prove dispositive. The discussion below gives a brief outline of the sub-claims but focusses on significant or interesting holdings in the history of B1 and is non-exhaustive.

Claim 1. This claim was settled relatively early and it is difficult to glean much about it other than that it involved a claim by Iran for “refund of a payment made by Iran for the purchase of aircraft spare parts.”

Claims 2 & 3. Similarly, little information is publicly available regarding Claim 2, but it is clear from publicly available awards (e.g. Interlocutory Award, ¶ 5) that the Tribunal deals with it together with Claim 3. Claim 3 concerns items Iran says it was billed for but did not receive (to the value of $1,428,800,000).

Claim 4. Claim 4 has been settled. Prior to settlement, in August 1988, the Tribunal issued Award No. 382-B1-FT. Certain findings in this award would go on to be of great significance in subsequent cases. In Claim 4, Iran requested the return of military equipment sold to it under the FMSP that had been sent to the US for repair. The US advised Iran in 1981 that it was unable to license the export of Iranian military equipment located in the US and the equipment therefore could not be returned. The Tribunal found that this refusal to export was lawful in the light of paragraph 9 of the General Declaration that made the obligation to return Iranian property subject to US law in effect prior to November 1979. In the Tribunal’s view, the refusal to export fell within this proviso. However, the Tribunal found that paragraph 9 of the General Declaration created an implicit obligation for the US to compensate Iran for any non-returnable property.

This “implicit obligation” finding would go on to feature in two subsequent awards to very controversial ends. Its serpentine path saw it applied in Case No. A15 (II:A and II:B) (a case involving tangible Iranian property located in the US) in 1992. The Tribunal is yet to determine losses (quantum) in this case and will do so in a second phase of the proceedings. A subsequent partial award in another case, Case No. B61 (in full, Cases nos. A3, A8, A9, A14 and B61) found that the “implicit obligation” was applicable as res judicata (a holding that has been criticised as a misapplication of res judicata under international law) but that Iran was nonetheless due no compensation (Award No. 601-A3/A8/A9/A14/B61-FT (“Partial Award”)). The Partial Award was the subject of a request for revision and challenges to two arbitrators in the majority. Those challenges failed and the Tribunal unanimously refused the Revision Request on procedural grounds, finding that it had no inherent power to revise its awards. The Tribunal’s decision on the Revision Request, issued 1 July 2011 (available here) is a useful resource on the issue of inherent powers to revise, examining extensive practice and jurisprudence.

Claim 5 concerned the purchase by Iran of 332 allegedly defective Bell helicopters. Iran’s claim for $241,205,410 plus interest was dismissed by the Tribunal in an award issued on 16 June 1988 (Award No. 370-B1-FT).

Claim 6. Although there appear to be no publicly available Tribunal awards that deal with the subject matter of Claim 6, it reportedly entails a claim by Iran of $5,000,000,000 for non-delivery (see Charles Brower and Jason Brueschke, The Iran United States Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff, 1998), fn 482).

US Counterclaim. In 1982 the United States filed a counterclaim in Case B1, asserting that Iran had breached contractual obligations to maintain the security of certain classified material and information provided to it under the FMSP. The Tribunal dealt with preliminary objections to the counterclaim in an interlocutory award issued 9 September 2004 (Award No. ITL-B1-FT). One of the interesting aspects of this interlocutory award is the Tribunal’s consideration of the interplay between the Tribunal’s procedural rules (modified UNCITRAL arbitration rules) and the CSD.

The US argued that the procedural rules were incorporated into the CSD. The Tribunal disagreed, but using the framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“VCLT”) found that the procedural rules should be taken into account in interpreting the CSD as “relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” (VCLT Article 31(3)(c)). The Tribunal also considered other aspects of the VCLT interpretive canon, such as subsequent practice, finding that such practice needs to be “concordant, common and consistent” to be of interpretive value.

Source: Bridie McAsey, former Legal Adviser to the President of the IUSCT.​

 

[BULLDOG]

So why not give every American over 21 1 million dollars? Hell Obama is sending money all over the world anyway. 400 million in cash to a terrorist regime?

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We could pay it down by raising revenue, getting out of the wars and fixing our healthcare system. Of course, republicans only bitch and take it out on the American people and our kids.

 

[Rambunctious]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

 

[BULLDOG]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

 

[Rambunctious]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

 

[Brynmr]

So why not give every American over 21 1 million dollars? Hell Obama is sending money all over the world anyway. 400 million in cash to a terrorist regime?

Obama loves radical Islam.

 

[Slave2the$]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

So if the debt goes up to 20 trillion that means Obama's administration has run deficits totalling 10 trillion? The debt was 10 trillion at bushs end? So 10 trillion is Obama's is it not?

Both parties are at fault. But the past 8 years is unprecedented

 

[BULLDOG]

You know the deficit has been cut to a third of what it was under Bush, don't you?

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

So if the debt goes up to 20 trillion that means Obama's administration has run deficits totalling 10 trillion? The debt was 10 trillion at bushs end? So 10 trillion is Obama's is it not?

Both parties are at fault. But the past 8 years is unprecedented

No. The bailouts ran the debt up. The republican/Bush caused economic crash made the bailouts necessary. I suppose you would have rather just let our country finish crashing instead of saving it.

 

[Slave2the$]

What a joke....the national debt has tripled under Obama. By the time his term is over it will be over 20 trillion dollars so your deficit claim is bogus.

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

So if the debt goes up to 20 trillion that means Obama's administration has run deficits totalling 10 trillion? The debt was 10 trillion at bushs end? So 10 trillion is Obama's is it not?

Both parties are at fault. But the past 8 years is unprecedented

No. The bailouts ran the debt up. The republican/Bush caused economic crash made the bailouts necessary. I suppose you would have rather just let our country finish crashing instead of saving it.

So the deficits and the debt from 2008-2016 is on bush?

 

[yiostheoy]

So why not give every American over 21 1 million dollars? Hell Obama is sending money all over the world anyway. 400 million in cash to a terrorist regime?

The ransom payment was Iranian money held in deposit from assets of Iran that have been frozen since 1979.

 

[leftwinger]

Oh Sweet Mother Christmas not this again.
Once upon a time (2007) things were only "pretty bad", not great.

Politicians meddled in the housing market eventually causing the mortgage crash of 08'

TARP was in GWB last budget.........ballooning final deficit to $1.3T. TARP paid back later into Oblamo.

Oblamo/Boner/Ryan/Reid/Pelosi/turtle kept FED spending at TARP/Stimulus level forever.
Hence-forth ipso-facto you have a ~$10T added to debt since 08'

p.s. GWB last years also included at least one $350bil attempt at stimulus (to taxpayer!).

at least thats' how I saw it...........pass the pipe please DeAndre......

 

[Rambunctious]

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

It's not happening at the rate needed to make any kind of dent in the National debt. Especially when our economic growth rate is under 2% for the 7th straight year. We are screwed if we don't turn this recession around. If this is the new norm America will be bankrupt in our lifetime.

 

[leftwinger]

The ransom payment was Iranian money held in deposit from assets of Iran that have been frozen since 1979.

make up a lie so big even Hulk Freakin' Hogan won't believe it.

 

[leftwinger]

Now if you will excuse me I have an honor killing to witness.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit?

Of course and I know an annual deficit can not be categorized as high or low when our nation owes over 20 trillion dollars to other nations...there! I'm sure I wasted my time but there is the answer. If you think our annual deficit trumps the national debt than I can't stop you. You're an idiot.

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

So if the debt goes up to 20 trillion that means Obama's administration has run deficits totalling 10 trillion? The debt was 10 trillion at bushs end? So 10 trillion is Obama's is it not?

Both parties are at fault. But the past 8 years is unprecedented

No. The bailouts ran the debt up. The republican/Bush caused economic crash made the bailouts necessary. I suppose you would have rather just let our country finish crashing instead of saving it.

So the deficits and the debt from 2008-2016 is on bush?

No the drastic increase in the deficit and the debt that happened within the first month's of Obama's presidency was required to deal with the crash caused by Bush and republican policies. That was already on his desk when he got there, and it had to be done. There has been a steady decline since then.

 

[BULLDOG]

You can do better than that. The debt and deficit are two completely different things,but they are related. The only way to reduce the debt is to reduce the deficit, which we have done. There is a lag between the actions of the two, but it is happening

It's not happening at the rate needed to make any kind of dent in the National debt. Especially when our economic growth rate is under 2% for the 7th straight year. We are screwed if we don't turn this recession around. If this is the new norm America will be bankrupt in our lifetime.

Imagine how much faster it could have been reduced if the right wing hadn't blocked every effort made to reduce it more.

 

[speeder099]

Hillary is promising free college to families who make less than 125k, expansion of Obamacare and medicare. Hillary even said she will raise taxes. Now raising taxes isn't nearly as taboo as when her husband ran. Millenials the hypocritical social justice warriors they are are willing to pay higher taxes, and higher inflation so everyone can make minimum wage of 20 an hr and so college and Healthcare will be free

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk