Search Result in All

[08 April 2013] EU fiscal policies unsustainable - English

On the 8th of December 2013 Iran\'s president Hassan Rouhani, submitted the budget draft for next Iranian fiscal year to parliament, a draft that reflects the new government\'s stance on the economy. Hassan Rouhani has been Iran\'s president for a little more than five months. Back in June 2013 when presidential campaigning was going on, Iran\'s television network made it possible for candidates to offer the analysis of the country\'s current situation and make their case for fixing what needs fixing in other\'s presence. And it was Hassan Rouhani who managed to win the people\'s votes with his staunch criticism of the previous administration\'s economic and foreign policies and his promise to make his government based on trust and wisdom and one that will cultivate hope. He also vowed to turn the economy around, something he seems to have done in his first five months in office. The team he put together to make good on his economic policies, all seasoned economists and budget planners, has shown the nation that as well as talking the talk, Rouhani can also walk the walk. Members of parliament have given the president\'s economic cabinet members the vote of confidence, even though the new administration must adhere to the economic policies of the previous one until March 2014 when Iran\'s fiscal year ends. In this addition of the show we focus on the budget draft submitted to parliament, and what\'s been going on since it was drawn up.

Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst says. "The cost of taking care of [the injured troops] … has not really been taken into account seriously, either by economists or by political figures in the United States," historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter told Press TV on Thursday. The new study, conducted by the Nobel Prize winner for economics Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University Professor Linda Bilmes, shows that the long-term costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doubles initial estimates, suggesting the revised six-trillion-dollar figure. The analyst also warned that "the institutional interests of the military itself [is] so enormous that the [US] military is absolutely determined to avoid an end to this war any time soon." Porter called on the people and the politicians in the United States to take action to make their government bring the wars to an end. http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/144762.html **************** Wars could cost over $4 trillion Authors of the book The Three Trillion Dollar War now estimate that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top $4 trillion over time. A lagging economy, increases in the cost of medical care, higher than expected expenditures on post-combat medical and psychiatric care, and a surge in disability benefits are likely to place a significant strain on the federal budget. House Veterans Affairs Chairman, Bob Filner (D-California), stated: "This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming...It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank." Filner aims on utilizing the latest cost estimates to propose a "veterans trust fund" to pay for the long-term war expenses, a proposal that has so far found minimal support in the Democratic-led House due to the startling price tag associated with it. Having already blown past original cost projections, combat operations alone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have cost nearly $1.1 trillion in nine years. With well over 30,000 maimed for life, a PTSD epidemic, and record suicide rates (in the military), an estimated price tag of at least $4 trillion over the next several years appears to be reasonable. As a result, those who claim to be fiscally conservative should take a long hard look at the immense cost of open-ended, overseas wars, especially at a time when America could be facing a debt crisis in the not-too-distant future. Vague objectives, shifting benchmarks, imprecise definitions of victory, and unclear exit strategies inevitably lead to costs that far exceed initial budget estimates. In addition, those who claim to espouse a more progressive, anti-war stance should take a long hard look at the current war policy, as the trillions being spent could be better invested in infrastructure, health care, education, alternative energy, and other domestic programs. Perhaps the strategy of electing leaders who espouse peace, fiscal responsibility, and change in U.S. foreign policy, yet intensify wars, spend even more on the military, and adopt much of their despised opponents' previous platform, should be more critically examined. http://caivn.org/article/2010/09/30/wars-could-cost-over-4-trillion

[21 Mar 2012]Andaz-e-Jahan اندازجہاں ہندوستان کا بجٹ - Sahartv - Urdu مہمان:شمیم فیضی، ظفر آغا، وسیم احمد

[13 June 2012] US exempts India from Iran oil sanctions‎ - English

[19 Dec 2012] Fearing the collapse of Palestinian Authority - English

With each year the American dollar is shrinking in percentage as the world\\\\\\\'s currency supply. The implications could mean a serious decrease in the dollar\\\\\\\'s influence as countries around the world look for alternatives. When compared to other prominent world currencies, the dollar has been experiencing a 15-year low. That\\\\\\\'s according to the International Monetary Fund. And, this indicates that more countries are willing to use other forms of currencies to do business. Experts say it\\\\\\\'s a fault of the US banking system and the Federal Reserve. If the dollar weakens in influence worldwide, it will be harder for the US to print money and pay its debts. In addition, looming battles over budget sequestration in Washington could rekindle long-standing fears of fiscal stability. Colin Campbell, Press TV, Washington

In the US, the House Armed Services Committee has approved an additional funding in military aid to Israel. The committee has approved that nearly half a billion dollars be given to Israel this year. The approval has not yet been finalized but, it\'s expected to get the final okay by the House Appropriations Committee and Senate. The money is in addition to over three billion dollars in military aid that Washington is already planning to send to Tel Aviv in the coming fiscal year. This comes as the US government has made cuts in food assistance program. The cuts have forced nearly forty-eight million Americans to see their food stamps slashed.

As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Guests: - National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON). - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. - Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS. - Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria. 2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels? 3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution? - Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative 4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists? 5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public? 6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure? 7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"? 8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM? 9. What may have happened if Iran was present?

1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. - Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS. - Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria. 2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels? 3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution? - Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative 4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists? 5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public? 6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure? 7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"? 8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM? 9. What may have happened if Iran was present?

Donald Trump ha decidido cortar casi por la mitad el actual programa de refugiados. Muchas de estas personas huyen de sus países para salvar sus vidas. El Gobierno Federal estadounidense anunció que el año 2020 sólo admitirá 18 mil personas perseguidas en distintos países del mundo. La noticia fue confirmada por el Departamento de Estado siendo esta la cifra más baja desde hace décadas. El nuevo plan también reducirá el papel de Naciones Unidas a la hora de elegir a los refugiados para EE.UU. Según informes de la Casa Blanca desde que se creó el sistema de refugiados en 1980, marca una caída de 12 mil respecto a los actuales 30 mil para el año fiscal de 2019 y una drástica reducción del objetivo de 110 mil refugiados que la Administración de Barack Obama se fijó para 2016, su último año en el gobierno. A través de la Oficina de Población Refugiados y Migración el Gobierno de Estados Unidos administra los recursos destinados a atender a las personas que viven en situación de peligro en cualquier parte del mundo. Estados Unidos considera de manera diferente a los migrantes que buscan refugio que a aquellos que buscan asilo aunque ambos, en general, huyen de sus países ya que temen por sus vidas. Rosie Orbach, California El grupo de HispanTV les recuerda a los seguidores de nuestra página en Youtube de que en el caso de que no se suban nuevos vídeos, en 48 horas, esto significa que han bloqueado el acceso de este canal a su cuenta en YouTube. De ser así, haga Clic en el siguiente enlace para obtener nuestra nueva dirección en YouTube: http://htv.mx/kHn https://www.hispantv.com https://www.facebook.com/HispanTV https://twitter.com/HispanTV https://www.hispantv.com/distribucion https://www.hispantv.com/directo https://vk.com/HispanTV