Good luck swimming over there. What a crock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/....

Yeah? Well, I triple dog dare ya!

Hey Gen, why don't you tell us how you really feel

Would Obama have the sense to use that pen?

If he did all those unemployment checks can be used to only buy food.

Obama will rollover for the Chicoms just like he did for the banksters.

<i>Our President can, with the wave of a pen, reduce our outstanding Federal Debt by a trillion dollars. He can issue an executive order that declares that every bond the Chinese Government holds is worthless.</I>

Entirely plausible.

However, every other country who buys our bonds would want to compensated for this new risk (ie - our bonds would not be AAA rated for a generation).

This would force interest rates up and curtail government spending. The government does not want to spend less (that buys less votes).

As if Obama would ever do that...

Well he might, but something much worse would have to happen beforehand.

Wake up, people. China has NO skin in this game.

Quote:

Unlike Moody’s, we think it is absurd to say that the government is going to ‘run out of money’ as our President has repeated. It is not dependent on China or anyone else. There is no operational limit to how much government can spend, when it wants to spend. This includes making interest payments and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid payments. It includes all government payments made in dollars to anyone.

http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=8162

I guess you forgot China is a totalitarian state.

I'm sure you saw the headline (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Iran.... but one of the ZH commenters raises an interesting idea:

Quote:

Iran announces that 25% of its oil output will go to China for the next 20 years in exchange for their $2T reserves. Iran becomes Americas largest creditor.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/more-po....

Read up on chartalism, OK? You're operating in the wrong universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

Steve: China could try that, and Obama could abrogate the Ts in Iran's possession.

There's nothing Iran could do about it either.

Oh, come on...don't wag with the only export item the US has to offer besides it's green crap!

And don't forget chinese had submarine followed American undetected for weeks.
so that does not scare them.

Again, why blame them? lol Because then send us goods and we give them toilet papers and when they want to use that toilet paper, we are ****ed off?



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2....

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

``We take the threat very seriously,'' Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of U.S. naval operations said today.

``Secretary of Defense England has asked us to come to him by April with our approach,'' Mullen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. There ``may not be a single answer. It would probably be a multifaceted.''

The Sizzler ``is very fast and it has maneuvering characteristics that are of concern,'' Mullen said. ``That has put us in a position to make sure we evaluate it as rapidly and specifically as we can.''

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressive Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

`Pressing Threat'

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.

I am in the camp of those hoping they try to sell their bonds. I mean I REALLY hope they try to dump bonds or hell I hope they do anything that even looks like an act of war. I think that will be the hatchet that separates us at the hip.

We can finally bring our millions of jobs over seas and give them to the millions of unemployed Americans. We can let them wallow in their polluted, starving, slave infested country while bringing our wealth that has funded their "progress" at home. The trillion in bonds is a small cry from the trillions in wealth we have transferred over to that country so for all the yapping they should be proud our government allows this to happen.

Im not even religious but if they do start dropping bonds Ill be thanking god because it will be the start of getting our country back. That of course is just my opinion.

I'm in the camp that they already dumped FAR MORE than anybody realizes.

Nah Asimov they havent yet, they just have quit buying them. If they were dumping we would see it

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

I also want to make a point to Mliu_01

You say we have been given items for toilet paper and we have no reason to be mad. We have given them a hell of a lot more than that. Take a look at Mainland China pre 1990 and look at it now. That is from a significant amount of American wealth being transferred over there. China realizes this which is probably why they continue to take our ****.

Our infrastructure is crumbing (Not China's Fault We Are To Busy Rebuilding Countries We Destroy) and China's infrastructure is booming. You can thank us evil Americans whenever you decide to take a drive down one of China's many new highways.

Once again the above is just my opinion. I dont know anything.

Someone should send it to their Chinese embassy. At least **** off a few lower officials.


Looks like you can delete that place as a place to visit. I understand that have many parasites over there anyway.

KMG: You'd only see it there if the treasury wanted you to.

Where did the hundreds of billions of dollars come from for their mining, mineral rights and raw materials purchases last year?

1. Nullify Chinese Ts over foreign-policy dispute?
...crashes bonds even worse as precedent set in motion that US will find excuses to avoid paying its debts, especially in light of....
2. Save a trillion bucks?
...that'll only stave off Ponzi implosion by three months at the current rate of $3.8T and climbing federal budgets.
3. Bring millions of jobs back home?
...if China collapses, they'll simply go to some other country -- not back here until the socialist kleptocracy is kaput. If no other country is better, then they simply disappear. Jobs are not a balloon which, when squeezed on one side, results in a budge elsewhere; a balloon can also *pop*.


Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would counsel that the proper thing to do here vis-a-vis China blustering over Taiwan is....nothing. Publicly blustering a "threat" to default debts is a tactical mistake in that it provides information regarding fears and weaknesses to the enemy which he would not otherwise have.

Mliu,

I'm not too sure that I would want to be on board a Chinese submarine.

Just think of all of those "men" on board that know they'll never find a wife due to China's one-child policy - and how the Chinese murder their little girls.

Some of those "men" might start looking mighty "purty" to each other after a few days in tight quarters.

Right on the money. We would be a little uncofortable for a bit. All these other places would be FUBAR. So keep yapping.

I seldom comment about Karl's articles, but he's flat out wrong on this one. We have way more to lose by canceling T-bonds held by China than does China. So it won't happen. China does everything slowly and over a long period of time - baby steps. That's what they'll do here. They won't roll over 100% of maturing bonds. They won't buy any new issues. We won't know what hit us when interest rates finally go up to a rational number (6% for ten year bonds). The dollar will continue to slowly sink and gold will maintain its intrinsic value of about 300 gallons of gasoline per oz of gold.

Everyone should have at least 25% of their liquid net worth in gold. Those that don't will become poor.

Don:

I love gold as muchas the next guy, but I gotta tell ya, this "the east knows best" BS is just that. The US is a disaster, except for everybody else.

LD

Metals pumpers on my TICKER threads will be removed.

You got until I get tired of reading it on my TICKER thread to get rid of it.

Would abrogating China's treasury holdings not be a form of default? Might it also trigger the "bond dislocation" so often spoke of. Seems like some serious precedent and sounds to me like a hostile act by the USA more so than the Chinese selling.

I've no special place in my heart for China, I'm just saying how it looks from my perspective.