US Government to Spent $1 Trillion on F-35 Fighters — That's More Than Australia's GDP

Nobel Piece Prize Laureate Obama, who also happens to be the US President who wages the most wars in history and attacked civil liberties the most, is now to spent $1 trillion on F-35 fighters. The Atlantic is reporting:

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an impressive aircraft: a fifth generation multirole fighter plane with stealth technology. It's also a symbol of everything that's wrong with defense spending in America.
[...]
The F-35 is designed to be the core tactical fighter aircraft for the U.S. military, with three versions for the Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps. Each plane clocks in at around $90 million.
In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia.

So, how many F-35s do we need? 100? 500?  Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.
In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).

The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

Money is pouring into the F-35 vortex. In 2010, Pentagon officials found that the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections. The program has fallen years behind schedule, causing billions of dollars of additional expense, and won't be ready until 2016. An internal Pentagon report concluded that: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar."

US Government Alternative Energy Bankruptcies

CNN Money reports:

a spokesman for the Energy Department said that agency has dozens of programs that funded over 1,300 companies in the renewable energy space.

Amazing number right? How much money was wasted? How many other companies went bust and other energy sources were ignored because of this unfair competition?

Surprised that the government is wasting your money and investing in the worst possible assets? You shouldn't. The aim is not to return any money on the investment, is to buy votes and enrich the select few who are close to those corrupt politicians running these programs.

Here are some of the companies that went bust or made negative headlines:

• A123: The battery maker received a $249 million Department of Energy stimulus grant to build two factories in Michigan to manufacture batteries for electric cars.
  The company drew down $132 million of that grant, and the factories are up and running, according to the DOE.
  As part of A123's bankruptcy announced earlier this week, the factories were sold to Johnson Controls, which is expected to keep them open. Since the investment was a grant, the government got no money back. It's unclear whether Johnson will be eligible to draw down the remaining grant funds. 
• Abound Solar: The manufacturer of thin-film solar panels received a $400 million DOE stimulus loan guarantee to build two factories -- one outside Kokomo, Indiana and another outside of Denver.
  Abound drew down $70 million of the grant to build the Denver factory. Abound declared bankruptcy in June amid strong competition and the collapsing price of solar panels.
  Its assets are being auctioned off, and DOE is expected to lose to $40 to $60 million on the deal. 
• Beacon Power: The company received a $43 million DOE stimulus loan guarantee to build a facility in upstate New York that uses flywheels to store extra energy from the power grid, and then release it when needed. Such technology is seen as essential to integrate wind and solar into the grid, as those sources don't produce energy 24/7.
  The company spent $39 million to build the project, which consists of wheels inside vacuum tubes that can spin at near perpetual motion. Beacon went bankrupt amid low prices for natural gas, which can be burned to produce electricity.
  The flywheel plant was sold to a competitor, and DOE is slated to receive at least $27 million in the deal. 
• Ener1: A subsidiary of the company, EnerDel, received an $118.5 million grant to build two plants outside Indianapolis to manufacture batteries for electric cars and other uses.
  Ener1 declared bankruptcy in January, and the company was bought by a Russian investor. The plants in Indianapolis continue to make batteries. 
• Solyndra: The manufacturer of advanced solar panels received a $535 million loan guarantee to build a factory outside of San Francisco.
  Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011 amid falling prices for solar panels, and has since served as the poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.
  Its assets are being auctioned off, and DOE is not expected to recover any meaningful amount of money.
• Fisker Automotive: The electric car maker received a $529 million DOE-backed stimulus loan to design a mid-priced model and build a factory to manufacture the vehicle in Delaware.
  In February, Fisker put the manufacture of the sedan on hold amid lower than expected demand for electric cars and announced layoffs, though still says it plans on building the car in 2014. The company has drawn down about $200 million of the loan. 
• Nevada Geothermal Power: The firm received a $98 million DOE-backed loan to build a geothermal power plant north of Reno. According to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, an internal audit of the firm revealed $98 million in net losses and significant debt. DOE says the power plant the loan built has a long-term agreement to sell electricity, and its investment will be protected no matter what happens to the parent company. 

In addition to these, OregonLive reports:

Another publicly subsidized green company is going under, this one -- called ReVolt Technology -- backed in Portland by city and state taxpayers.

Losses on ReVolt are tiny compared to those at Solyndra Inc., the notorious California solar company that tanked after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee. Portland and the state of Oregon had committed $6.8 million to ReVolt, which also landed a $5 million federal grant.

But the timing of ReVolt's demise is awkward ahead of the Nov. 6 election for Democrats, who have plugged renewable-energy companies in the face of Republican criticism.

Oregon Democrats who lavished praise on ReVolt as it acquired funds and chose a site in 2010 include U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Tobias Read, of Beaverton, former U.S. Rep. David Wu and former  Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Portland Mayor Sam Adams was also a strong supporter.

Romney and Obama are like night and day, isn't it Obvious?

Channel4truth2012 has put up a great video on YouTube comparing side by side the words and political stances of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. Includes topics like universal health care, gun rights, energy, NDAA, the Patriot Act, Iran, sanctions, economic stimulus. bank and auto bailouts, civil rights, TARP, the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, campaign donations, and more. 

Dear American readers, please watch before voting, there is still a choice. Do not WASTE your vote.

Meet Gary Johnson!

Obama, the Friendliest President to Banks and Big Oil in History

Nobel Peace Prize laureate, President Obama, has been out-bushing Bush on every account; and; while he is on track for a second mandate, it's important to note that:

• he has been waging more wars than any other presidents in the past, W Bush included
• he has been attacking civil liberties more than any other presidents in the past, W Bush included - in case you forgot, he renewed Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, and also create the shiny new Preventive Detention act.
• he has been spending more than any other presidents in the past, with a yearly budget deficit always above $1 Trillion
• he has been, contrary to all impressions, the friendliest President to banks and big oil in history. And I'm not the one saying this latter one:

(Yahoo) The polls suggest President Obama will be re-elected. While there's a legend surrounding the 1980 election when Ronald Reagan overcame a huge poll deficit in September of 1980, the truth says otherwise. 

The reality is a sitting President polling as highly as Obama is now is all but certain to regain the White House. Scott Bleier, the founder of Create Capital, visited Breakout to debunk another bit of conventional wisdom. "Obama has been the friendliest President to banks and big oil in history," he states in the attached video. "Wall Street secretly loves Obama." 

Bleier doesn't intend to make a political statement. His point is that markets have blasted off under Obama at the hand of "free money" from the Federal Reserve. While the Fed and Executive Branch are supposedly independent of one another, Wall Street believes it. Certainly the Fed's recent decision to launch another round of Quantitative Easing, triggering a quick 2% rally did nothing to belie these suspicions. "Obama's a shoe-in unless the market crashes two weeks before the election," says Bleier. "This guy's got it locked up."

But I'm sure none of Obama's supporter care for this a minute. Simple minds or ideologists who believe that "this time will be different" will always get crushed.

Barack "Delano" Obama Announces Meat Purchase to Help Farmers Through Drought

In a tragic move showing how ignorant and incompetent President Barack "Delano" Obama is — and also, in a move to try to buy votes for the coming election, of course — repeating the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which aggravated dramatically the 1929 recession and turned into a full fledge depression.

Well, in the Greater Depression, everything will be at a grander scale, and the depression will be that much worse and longer...

Here's the relevant quote:

President Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa today, announced $170 million in government meat purchases to help farmers struck by drought, helping to send hog prices to a one-week high. 

The purchase of as much as $100 million of pork, $50 million of chicken, and $10 million each of lamb and catfish come on top of $30 million in assistance announced last week. Farmers and ranchers are struggling with the worst combination of heat and dryness since the 1950s, the administration said. 

Obama said he also directed the Defense Department to speed up purchases and hold the meat for later use. The buying will help farmers, and the government will get a better price on products than if they were bought later, he said. 

“We’ll freeze it for later -- but we’ve got a lot of freezers,” Obama told supporters in Council Bluffs as he kicked off a three-day visit to Iowa, a swing state that is also the country’s leading producer of pork, soybeans, corn and ethanol. “That will help ranchers, you know, who are going through tough times right now.”
[...]
Later, as he visited a farm in Missouri Valley, Iowa, Obama called for Congress to pass a five-year agriculture policy bill that the White House said would “provide short-term relief and long-term certainty” to farmers and ranchers. 

“The best way to help these states is for Congress to act,” Obama said. 

A livestock-assistance program in the current farm bill expired last year. The U.S. Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have approved bills to replace the current law which contain livestock relief provisions. House Republican leaders have not set a vote on their legislation. The House on Aug. 2 approved a $383 million stopgap measure to reinstate the livestock aid, while the Senate took no action. The current farm bill was passed in 2008 and expires in September.

I mean what IQ must you have to say something like "We'll freeze it for later -- we've got a lot of freezers"? Now the US Government is in the business of buying and selling meat, and freezing and transporting it as well.

Well, let me tell you something, President. Guess what? The US population have probably more freezers than your government, and they could buy and freeze the meat themselves — if only you would let them! So, why are you interfering again?

The best thing Obama and the Congress can do to beat the draught is to perform a rain dance, and this way, they won't be destroying the US economy and balance sheet any further. Come on Obama, show us what you got!

Social Mood Illustrated by the support the Fed Gets in The Media

Social Mood, as defined by the Socionomics Institute, is the engine of social action:

Social mood waxes and wanes positively and negatively. A positive social mood is associated with a host of social phenomena, such as bull markets, bright colors, short skirts, re-election of incumbents, peace, and deregulation. A negative social mood is also associated with a host of social phenomena, such as bear markets, dark colors, falling hemlines, rejection of incumbents, discord, and regulation. 

A subtle but important point: Although social mood governs social events, it fluctuates independently of such events. In other words, wherever mood goes, events will follow. But, the events themselves have no impact on the direction of social mood; there is no feedback loop. If social mood governs social events, what governs social mood? Answer: The Wave Principle.

With this in mind, look at the following chart: It shows the S&P 500 since early 2010. As you can see, in early October 2011, the S&P 500 was making a one-year low, while in Feb 2012, we are at near a multi-year high:

Now, look at the two following reports, one from early October 2011 and the other one from Feb 2012:

Fed Ridiculed Over Prices People Pay Begets Lip Service to Beef (Oct 14th)

Bernanke-Led Economy Proves Critics Clueless About Fed Policies (Feb 8th)

This yet again shows that at the bottoms of social mood (and hence equity markets) people are dismissive and unsupportive of the Government and their hordes of destructive central planners, and that at peaks of social mood (as measured by tops in equity markets) people are at the exact opposite of the scale. These gyrations can happen in a matter of just 4 months, as shown above.

Here are the quotes:

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve policy makers are giving commodity prices their due. 

[...] Policy makers were “out of touch with the public and politicians,” Feroli said in an interview from his New York office. “Given that the Fed is an increasingly visible public institution, it had to adjust its communications accordingly.”

[...] The communications change comes after the Fed’s November decision to embark on a second round of asset purchases sparked the harshest political backlash in three decades. 

[...] There’s a “disconnect” between the Fed’s recent comments on oil and its historical view that core inflation, stripped of volatile energy and food costs, is the best measure of price stability, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in Charlotte, North Carolina.
“The Fed’s communications are trying to talk down people’s inflation expectations and reinforce that talk by pointing to the lower commodity prices,” Silvia said. “For a lot of professional people like me, it’s like ‘Okay, fine, you want to talk about that, but that’s not what you had to say two years ago when gas prices were rising.’”

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The numbers are proving Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s critics wrong. 

More than a year after Republicans from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas warned that the Fed’s second round of asset purchases risked a sharp acceleration in prices, the surge has failed to materialize. The personal-consumption-expenditures price index rose 2.4 percent for the 12 months ending in December, near the central bank’s 2 percent target. 

[...] Even though the economy is showing signs of strengthening and inflation appears in check, Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who also are running for president, have said they wouldn’t keep Bernanke, 58, when his second four-year term as Fed chairman expires on Jan. 31, 2014. Gingrich said in September that Bernanke was “the most inflationary, dangerous and power-centered chairman” in the central bank’s history. 

“The criticism about the Fed being inflationary is not fact-based,” said Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University who has co-written research with Bernanke. “In terms of an inflation record, the facts are the Fed has been as close to impeccable as you can possibly get.”

The good news is that Bernanke's peak is past us now — he was the Person of the Year 2009 for Time magazine — and it seems that the mood is still negative enough to get him out of the office provided Obama is also ousted.

Peter Schiff Explains Obama's "Jobs" Plan

As usual, Peter Schiff is an extremely good and clear orator and makes a very strong case about the destructive results of the government actions. The 13 min video log is available on YouTube and embedded below:

Obama's $477 Billion Vote Buying Campaign

This week I was quite well served with a speech of The Bernank — the clueless and idiotic money printer. As usual, he explained how the Fed was helping the economy by stealing from the savers to pay banks and the government.

Then Obama presented his plan — my body is starting to have physical rejection actions when I hear him talk. All the lies, and un purpose political deceits now makes me feel sick every time I hear him talk. Obama is falling from a half-honest incompetent — let's give him the benefit of the doubt — to the abyss of liars and deceivers and everything I cannot stand for. I do not think there was a single sentence in his speech that was not a big fat lie.

Peter Schiff went on record saying the day before the President's Speech On Jobs: "Maybe if (President Obama) made this a resignation speech, that would help." If only!

The next day Geithner was on Bloomberg TV cheerleading the plan as a great one and blablablah.

This trio has a fantastic track record of being completely wrong on any of their statements and forecasts. Why do the media force us to hear what they have to say? This is starting to really bother me.

I won't bother spending time on these guys, and will refer you to Mish's great post on the subject:

• Dissecting the Lies in Obama's $447 Billion "Shock-and-Awe" Reelection Ploy
• Devil at My Doorstep; Obama Buys Votes from Big Labor at Enormous Cost to Nation

To conclude, I will quote Mish: I wish to reiterate "The primary purpose of the 447 billion dollar American Jobs Act is simple: To keep one person (namely President Obama), in his job."

QE3 Will Only Come AFTER a Catastrophe

This is a follow up to the Bernank's Jackson Hole speech and the numerous posts I have done stating that the Fed and the Governments are are and will always be late in their action as they are reactive and not proactive entities. Moreover, I stated this again in reply to The Short Side of Long's Tiho who commented on my previous post:

I agree that he will come and print — this is obvious. But the negative mood and the disdain for this charlatan and wall street is growing at the moment, so he will only be able to print after the next crash (due probably soon!). But it means he will always be late.

I was happy to find a report from Graham Summers who states exactly the same thing — though with better wording, otherwise I wouldn't be making this post! This post below summerazises nicely a lot of the points that I have been making in the past many months if not years!

The financial world is buzzing with the news that Bernanke telegraphed QE 3 this Friday. I don’t see it. 

The political landscape in the US is changing fast and the Fed is going to be coming under increased scrutiny going forward. Look at the recent article from Bloomberg revealing the Fed’s issuing $1.2 trillion in secret bailouts to Wall Street. Look at the comments from Paul, Perry, and Bachmann about the Fed. 

This isn’t 2010 when the Fed could launch a new QE program without any real political consequence. Bernanke is going to be lumped in with Obama and used as a political tool for the 2012 Presidential election. 

We’re already seeing signs of this now and the election is still a year away. Remember, Obama was the one who re-instated Bernanke. This fact will be used in the debates and during the political process in general. Not many commentators noted it, but the political tide turned with QE 2 when public consensus went from “the Fed is saving the world,” to “the Fed has blown up the cost of groceries and energy.” 

Going forward, no one will buy the idea that QE is going to help the economy any more. That kind of argument works in an environment without any approaching elections, but we’re no longer in such an environment: within 14 months people will be voting. If you need an example of what I mean, take a look at Angela Merkel in the German elections. Her party has been getting absolutely destroyed. And the primary reason is her backing of the Greek bailouts (56% of Germans say the Euro has brought them disadvantages). 

Bernanke cannot simply launch QE 3 as he pleases anymore. In order for QE 3 or something like it to be unveiled, we’re going to need to see either: 1) A MAJOR bank fail 2) A full-scale Crash with the S&P 500 sub-1000 

Put another way, the Fed’s tools (QE and otherwise) are now going to be implemented to “avert catastrophe,” NOT to “improve the economy.” The bulls don’t want to hear this but it’s true. 

The game has changed dramatically in the world. The next time the Fed acts, it’s going to be in reaction to some BAD happening. So if you’re banking on QE 3 now, you might be in for a big surprise to the downside. The market rally last week was the start of end of the month performance gaming, NOT the market believing QE 3 is coming in a few weeks time. However, regardless of when or if QE 3 comes, the fact remains that the financial markets are on DEFCON Red Alert today. Indeed, I fully believe we have entered the Second Round of the Great Crisis: the Sovereign Default Round. The First Round (2008) was just a warm-up. This time around, we’re going to see entire countries go bankrupt along with stock crashes, civil unrest, food shortages, bank holidays and more.

US Debt Ceiling Deal No More — Is the US the Black Swan Event that Nobody Is Expecting?

Mish is reporting that Boehner Walks Out On Obama; "Grand Bargain" Collapses. Here are a couple of quotes from the official statement made by Boehner:

Our economy is not creating enough jobs, and the policies coming out of Washington are a big reason why. Because of Washington, we have a tax code that is stifling job creation. Because of Washington, we have a debt crisis that is sowing uncertainty and sapping the confidence of small businesses. Because of Washington, our children are financing a government spending binge that is jeopardizing their future.

Since the moment I became Speaker, I’ve urged President Obama to lock arms with me and seize this moment to do something significant to address these challenges. I’ve urged him to partner with congressional Republicans to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country . . . something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our institutions of government, and help small businesses get back to creating jobs.
[...]
During these discussions — as in my earlier discussions — it became evident that the White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future.

A deal was never reached, and was never really close.
[...]
The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won’t be there for their generation unless significant action is taken now.[...]

My friend Tony, over at MacroStory mentions:

The real dark horse, black swan, whatever you want to call it may very well be right here in the US and that is BAC stock breaking down as it currently is. At some point the capital markets will shut it out of raising the capital they need even though they say they don’t. The “contagion” to WFC, JPM, etc could very well be the elephant in the room right now that no one is watching.

Anyone notice a lot of people in the administration talking about how they now have Dodd Frank to unwind a TBTF. Imagine the political gain of saying you took down a Wall Street bank. Get the equity low enough, then BAC is either done or requiring another TARP.

On my side, I am wondering if on top of that, what we were calling a charade, a play, a joke — the debt ceiling debate — might not actually lead a real event?

Handcuffing the US government in their spending binge would be a great thing for the US citizens, all the holders of the US, and generally speaking for the prosperity and peach of the entire planet. But hey, this wouldn't be good for the banks and bankers! Guess where do the politicians side?

Obama's Leadership Failure and Hypocrisy

CNSNews via Mish:

The Obama administration is warning of catastrophic consequences if Congress does not increase the debt ceiling, the legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow, but Barack Obama held a different view on the issue as a senator in 2006.

Five years ago, then-Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) voted against raising the debt ceiling and even spoke about it on the Senate floor before the Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to increase it.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Obama said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

There's not much more I can add.  His own word are quite powerful.

War on Terror: Each Trooper Costs $1 Million A Year

Already $1.2 trillion spent and still $500 billion in the pipeline, and no end in sight. You would have thought that after going after a non-existing Terror Figure, and spending $1.2 trillion to kill that phantom who never existed might put an end to this human, financial and economic waste. But that wouldn't be counting on our Nobel-Prize Winner, President Obama... And the budget crisis? Oh well, this is just show-biz. Extend and Pretend.

An interesting stat comes out of this report: each trooper costs the US tax payer $1,000,000 a year...

June 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon says it has spent at least $1 trillion prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and defending the U.S. homeland, according to newly released Defense Department figures through April 30.

Spending growth on Afghanistan operations helped push the Pentagon over the $1 trillion mark, increasing to $6.2 billion per month in April from $4.3 billion in the first two months of fiscal 2011 that began Oct. 1. Afghanistan spending in fiscal 2009, as Barack Obama became president, averaged $3.9 billion per month.

The spending total includes war-related operations, transportation, special combat pay and benefits, food, medical services, maintenance, replacement of lost combat equipment and building the Iraq and Afghanistan security forces.

Still, the $1 trillion does not include about $95 billion in funds appropriated but still to put on contract or paid to personnel to cover operational costs over the rest of the fiscal year as well as procurement of replacement weapons systems and construction that take years to spend, said Amy Belasco, a Congressional Research Service budget expert.

It also does not include about $100 billion the Pentagon excludes as not ‘war-related,’ such as intelligence, Belasco said. Nor does it include long-term costs for Veterans Administration care, disability costs for wounded Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, or all reconstruction funding for the war- damaged countries.

“This figure represents how much we have actually spent on the wars up to this point,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “What it doesn’t tell you is how much money has been appropriated by Congress, which is $1.2 trillion. The difference between these two figures is how much money is already in the pipeline waiting to be spent.”
[...]
“We will likely spend another $300 billion to $500 billion on top of what is already in the pipeline,” Harrison said.
[...]
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the U.S. spends $10 billion annually for every 10,000 troops it has in Afghanistan.

Obama Resumes Military Trials at Guantanamo [Updated]

If you still needed proof that Obama made promises he never intended to keep in order to get to power and that you thought he would fair better than Bush, let me remind you one thing: Obama has been out-Bushing Bush on every single account but charism.

Here's one more brick to the edifice: Nobel Prize laureate and US President Obama approved the resumption of military trials at Guantanamo, an illegal and fascist detention center that he had promised to close down within one year at the office during his campaign. So we are now two years past the deadline, and he actually approves more of it.

• 2010-03-23 Another area where Obama out-Bushes Bush: Government Transparency
• 2010-01-10 Obama has out-Bushed Bush

Here's the Bloomberg report

March 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama approved a resumption of military trials for suspected terrorists detained at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration will continue to press for terrorism trial in U.S. civilian courts and seek to overturn restrictions on such proceedings imposed by Congress, according to a fact sheet released today with the six-page executive order on the military commissions. It said Obama remains committed to closing the Guantanamo facility [...]

The actions will “broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions and ensure the humane treatment of detainees,” Obama said in statement accompanying his executive order.

Obama has struggled to craft a policy on how to treat detainees who authorities believe are still allied with al-Qaeda or have received training from the organization, which was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and yet can’t be tried because of legal or intelligence constraints. In a May 2009 speech, the president said it was “the single toughest issue that we will face.”

Obama vowed in his presidential campaign that he would close the prison camp within a year of taking office
[...]
McKeon and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, welcomed the decision to resume trials before military commissions.

“The next step is to abandon the ill-advised campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay,” Smith said.

The executive order directs Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to start bringing new charges before military commissions, ending a suspension that the president imposed when he announced his review of detainee policy two years ago.
[...]
There are 172 detainees at the prison, according to Tanya Bradsher, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

Even if you are cold blooded and fascist enough to put the inhuman treatment of people behind, I am still wondering what kind of cost is associated with such a high security off-shore center for only 172 people detained illegally and against any kind of basic human rights.

[Update] According to Bloomberg, the cost of Guantanamo Bay has cost $2 billion from 2002 to 2009 alone. Obama said it's a lot more than any top security prison in the US. But even so, $2 billion seems too small to me. There must be other expenses we are not aware of.

Bernanke and Obama: Lies, Damn Lies

I don't like politicians because generally speaking, you might say that it's their job to sell you a dream world, in which there's no more poverty, where everybody gets free healthcare and 80 days of holidays a year while working 15 hours a week and a retiring at the advanced age of 40. And no, I'm not describing Greece and France, but every country on the planet.

Somehow, and sometimes, I try to convince myself that these politicians are dreamers, and that they do not realise that whatever ideas they are suggesting are completely disconnected from the reality of life. So when they change their plans and do nothing but raise taxes and give money to their friends and forget about the policies that got them elected in the first place, I try to see no evil, but simply the fact that they might realised their objectives were unachievable.

But with some of these guys, even doing my best to be candid and gullible doesn't do the trick. Especially with Bernanke and Obama. See for yourself:

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, in a confidential talk with the commission probing the causes of the financial crisis, said he would defend to his “deathbed” his actions prior to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

“I will maintain to my deathbed, that we made every effort to save Lehman, but we were just unable to do so because of a lack of legal authority,” Bernanke said, referring to the 2008 failure that intensified a crisis that Bernanke said was the worst in history, according to an 89-page transcript of the interview by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Well, hello Ben. Since when the fact that something is illegal prevented you from doing it? Where was the legal authority to bail out AIG?  And GE? What about bailing out all these European banks? Where's the legal authority for the alpha-bet soup of lending facilities?

By the way, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional institution in the first place. So it's mere existence is illegal to begin with. Which means every single action you are conducting lacks any legal authority...

So please, do not try to convince us that what prevented you from bailing out Lehman was legal authority. I'm guessing their balance sheet was such a mess that even you couldn't afford to hold there toxic assets on the balance sheet of the Fed.

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.7 trillion budget that projects the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year in 2012 [...]

The deficit for the current fiscal year is forecast to hit a record $1.6 trillion -- 10.9 percent of gross domestic product -- up from the $1.4 trillion the administration estimated previously. It would be $1.1 trillion in 2012, 7 percent of GDP. By 2015 it would decline to $607 billion, or 3.2 percent of GDP.
[...]
“The only way we can make these investments in the future is if our government starts living within our means,” Obama said

Well, hello Barack. How can you submit yet another budget with a $1 trillion deficit (is this the 2nd or 3rd time you are submitting a budget with such a deficit?) and then expect us to believe that "our government starts living within our means"?  Even a teenager can understand the basic accounting principles behind not spending the money you do not have...

Then again, the next day, Obama is at it again:

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he is “prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans” to seek solutions for long-term deficits fueled by entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

“This is going to be a negotiation process,” Obama said at a Washington news conference, saying a solution to “huge problems” from Medicare and Medicaid spending are possible if “all sides are serious about it and all sides are willing to give a little bit.”
[...]
Obama sent Congress a $3.7 trillion budget yesterday that projects the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year in 2012.

He didn’t offer a specific overhaul of Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, which represent about 40 percent of the budget.
[...]
The government must make “tough choices,” Obama said today. “Cutting domestic spending alone won’t be enough to meet our long term fiscal challenges.” He said he’s “eager” to tackle defense spending, health care and the tax code. “Everyone’s going to have to give a little bit.”

I can't even think of any comment here, I'm speechless.

Sorry for the rant. I try to avoid them as much as possible. But some times, too much is too much.

Buffett Says Goldman Deal Was no Bet: the Government had to take their responsibilities and bail them out by socializing the losses

I have already posted many times during the past 3 years about the complete lack of integrity and ethics that Warren Buffett has been showing since the beginning of the financial crisis.

The "Oracle of Omaha", Warren Buffett, known for the stellar performance of his Berkshire Hathaway stock price, has already admitted many times officially: when he makes money, it's for himself, and it's thanks to his talent, but when he's losing money, he expects the government and the government and the people to come to the rescue and bear the burden of the losses, without ever seeing any of the profits. So the talent might be in some other area than "investment management" and might be more located in the "friend making in government entities".

I'm never surprised by corruption at the state level as any Government is always the breading ground for corruption and wealth transfer from the people to the well-connected few. But I am revulsed that Warren Buffett is still enjoying the image of a white knight / angel / savior or someone whose opinion should be sought after in matters of politics or public policies.

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — Billionaire Warren Buffett said his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. at the depths of the financial crisis was a wager that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then-Treasury Department Secretary Henry Paulson would take on debt to prop up the economy.

“It was a bet essentially on the fact that the government would not really shirk its responsibility at a time like that to leverage up at a time when the rest of the world was trying to deleverage,” Buffett said in an interview released today by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. bought preferred stock in New York-based Goldman Sachs in 2008 after the collapse of rival securities firm Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Paulson had left the chairmanship of Goldman Sachs in 2006 to join the administration of President George W. Bush. Bernanke had been an economist at Princeton University.

“I made the fundamental decision that we had the right people, in Bernanke and Paulson, in there with a president that would back them,” Buffett said.

Berkshire gets a 10 percent annual dividend on the investment and received warrants to buy $5 billion in common stock with a strike price of $115 per share. Goldman Sachs traded for more than $165 a share today on the New York Stock Exchange, compared with $84.39 at the end of 2008.

Buffett had said in 2008, when Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire announced the investment, that he was betting on an “exceptional institution.”
[...]

WikiLeaks nominated for 2011 Nobel peace prize

Another encouraging news today is that WikiLeaks might finally gets the glory it deserves, and might be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Compare the role in defending our liberties and freedoms and fighting against governments that WikeLeaks is playing, and the previous Nobel Peace laureate: Obama, a warmongering, ignorant, and incompetent US president.

The New Age reports:

Whistle-blower site WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize by a Norwegian politician who cited its role in freedom of speech, news agency NTB reported Wednesday.

"WikiLeaks is one of this century's most important contributors to freedom of speech and transparency," parliamentarian Snorre Valen said in his nomination.

Valen cited WikiLeaks role in disclosing the assests of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile.

The member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party, part of Norway's ruling red-green coalition, also noted WikiLeaks publication of documents relating to corruption by authorities, governments and corporations as well as "illegal surveillance, war crimes and torture committed by a number of states."

The five-member Nobel Committee advises those making nominations not to reveal their proposals in advance.

However, there are no formal rules against doing so, allowing for plenty of speculation before the winner is announced, normally in early October.

The 2010 prize was awarded to imprisoned Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, who was unable to collect his award.

Parliamentarians, academics, former peace prize laureates as well as current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are among those who have the right to nominate candidates for the coveted award.

The Peace Prize is one of several prizes endowed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Nobel

Marc Faber on Obama, Bernanke and Governments in General [Updated]

Marc Faber was interviewed on Bloomberg TV on the 25th of Jan. As usual, he doesn't try to be politically correct, and tells very plainly what he thinks about Obama, Bernanke, and the corruption of any centralized government with lots of humor. Very refreshing.

This 11 min interview is a must watch and is available on YouTube.

[Update:] Another interview, on CNBC this time (embedded below, YouTube link) , during the forum in Russia, where Marc Faber gives his economic and markets outlook: an artificial recovery driven by ultra-expansionary monetary and fiscal stimulus that will lead to further issues down the road. This interview is making some buzz because of the statement Marc Faber gives twice in the course of a few minutes: "Bernanke is liar". 

Marc Faber also explains why rising food prices will lead to a lot of unrest in emerging economies and the poorest countries, and he is very concerned that this will happen in Pakistan. 

Volcker is let go of the Obama's administration

Volcker was let go by Obama, and it's not a surprise to be honest. What is surprising to me is that Volker didn't resign sooner, as I was hoping, mid 2009.

Please note that although the report was published before the official announcement, it has now officially happened.

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will name Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric Co.’s chief executive officer, to head his outside panel of economic advisers, replacing former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Immelt wrote in an op-ed today in the Washington Post that Obama asked him to take the helm of the newly renamed President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The group will reach out to labor and business leaders to serve “as a catalyst for action,” he wrote.

Immelt, 54, is an original member of the panel, which was formed as the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board in February 2009. GE’s CEO since 2001, he heads the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, medical-imaging equipment and power-plant turbines and gives the White House a corporate heavyweight to help burnish Obama’s pro-business credentials.

He has sounded many of the administration’s themes: boosting jobs through U.S. exports, ensuring companies can compete with powers like China and India, and jumpstarting a clean-energy economy. Immelt wrote today that he and Obama are committed to making the U.S. “the most competitive and innovating economy in the world.”

“It’s the right aspiration,” Immelt who will still serve as an outside adviser in his new role, said of the president’s goal of doubling American exports to more than $2 trillion in five years, during a Nov. 6 interview in Mumbai, where he joined Obama for a meeting with business leaders. “We’ve done it in the last five years as a company.”

Obama will formally announce Immelt’s appointment today when he travels to Schenectady, New York, an administration official said on condition of anonymity. That’s the birthplace of GE’s energy business and where the steam turbines in a $750 million order from India’s Reliance Power Ltd. announced in November will be built for export.
[...]
The panel’s start-up was delayed, and Volcker, known for taming inflation as Fed chairman in the 1980s, told colleagues he sometimes felt it was more of a public relations tool for the White House, according to a person familiar with his views.

Still, he advised the administration on the rewriting of financial laws. And the Volcker rule -- which banned proprietary trading at banks and restricted their investments in private- equity and hedge funds -- was named after him. Volcker had agreed to serve only for two years as head of the board and plans to be available to advise the administration, according to another person familiar with the matter.
[...]

Patriot Act up for renewal and no one notices

Just quoting the report published on the Examiner:

On January 5th, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced a bill to add yet another year to the soon to be expiring Patriot Act. This would extend it until February of 2012, and passage is likely to happen with little debate or contention. If passed, this would be the second time the Obama administration has punted on campaign promises to roll back excessive surveillance measures allowed under the act passed in the wake of 9/11.

When the Patriot Act was first signed in 2001, it was billed as a temporary measure required because of the extreme circumstances created by the terrorist threat. The fear from its opponents was that executive power, once given, is seldom relinquished. In retrospect, that fear appears well founded. Not only has Obama not given the power back, but he has continued to abuse it to spy on citizens without due process.

In 2007, candidate Obama said during his Presidency there would be "no more National Security Letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" because "that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists." The hope that he'll make good on that statement is seeming pretty audacious.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Patriot Act up for renewal and no one notices

Quantitative Easing Explained

This is an excellent presentation about QE, the Fed, the corruption of the Fed and corporatocracy that is the US Government and Goldman Sachs with the help of Bush and Obama.

Quote:
— "Why do they call it the Quantitative Easing, why don't they just call it the printing of money?"
— "Because printing of money is the last refuge of failed economic empires and banana republics and the Fed doesn't want to admit this is their only idea."

"The plumber is clearly smarter than the Ben Bernank"

More than 2 million views already. Please help it spread.