Climategate: Todd Stern of the US State Department pushes forward on AGW agenda

Todd Stern, a climate negotiator during Bill Clinton’s presidency and more recently a fellow at the Center for American Progress, will assume the role of special envoy for climate change at the State Department. “We have no shortage of evidence that our world is facing a climate crisis,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the appointment of special envoy ceremony, who went on to attribute a large part of the problem to the burning of fossil fuels [evidence we now know was based on fraudulent data]. Image Credit: EPA

Climategate: Todd Stern of the US State Department pushes forward on AGW agenda

In the wake of Climategate, the level of consequences brought about due to the fraudulent activities put forth by the climate control political activists and scientists begins to make itself clear.

Todd Stern, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, stated at a February 16, 2010 briefing in Washington, "slightly less than 100 countries have indicated they want to be part of the accord ... but others may still sign on."

Further, on January 28, 2010, Todd Stern placed this statement on the State Deparment's website that read in part, "The United States today officially announced its desire to associate with the Copenhagen Accord and submitted its emissions reduction target to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The U.S. submission reflects President Obama’s continued commitment to meeting the climate change and clean energy challenge through robust domestic and international action that will strengthen our economy, enhance our national security and protect our environment."

Why is the United States State Department playing a role in this effort of participating and policing the Copenhagen Accord when the science that is at the core of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)/Climate Change has been exposed as being based on fraud?

Todd Stern serves as Special Envoy for Climate Change. He speaks about the "Focus the Nation" Clean Energy Town Halls and the Obama Administration's climate policy - "President Obama’s stimulus plan provides $80 billion of new spending and loan guarantees to accelerate our clean energy transformation. In addition, the President has called for a dramatic expansion in our investment in clean energy research and development." [ctrl-click Image to launch video of Todd Stern statement] Image Credit: engeria.gr

This excerpted and edited from AllAfrica.com -

Africa: Nearly 100 Nations to Reduce Emissions Under Copenhagen Accord
Cheryl Pellerin, AllAfrica.com - 18 February 2010

Nearly 100 countries have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding agreement crafted in the final hours of the U.N. climate change conference in December 2009, meeting the first official deadline of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat.
----
The Copenhagen Accord is a 12-paragraph document (PDF, 182 KB) developed by leaders of 25 major greenhouse-gas-emitting nations, including the United States, covering the actions needed by industrialized and developing countries to avoid the worst effects of global climate change.

The accord seeks to limit global temperature rise by pushing developed countries to make deep but unspecified cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and by setting global and national emissions peaks "as soon as possible," with a longer deadline for developing countries.
----
By January 31, countries that wish to be associated with the accord were to notify the UNFCCC secretariat of their support. To date, Todd Stern, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, said at a February 16 briefing in Washington, "slightly less than 100 countries have indicated they want to be part of the accord ... but others may still sign on."
----
In other progress on the accord, a new high-level advisory panel on climate change financing has been created. It will be co-chaired by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopia Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

"The advisory group will develop practical proposals to significantly scale up both short-term and long-term financing for mitigation and adaptation strategies in developing countries," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki moon said in a February 12 press conference with Brown and Meles. "In particular, it will look at how to jump-start the mobilization of new and innovative resources to reach $100 billion annually by 2020. Funding would include both public and private sources."

Funds will support adaptation, mitigation, technology development and transfer, and capacity building in developing countries, with priority for the most vulnerable. Panel members will include a balance of representatives from developed and developing countries.

Ban expects the group to present initial findings during the UNFCCC parties' May 31-June 11 negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, and final recommendations before the 16th conference of the UNFCCC parties (COP-16), to be held November 29-December 10 in Mexico City.

"There are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work," Todd Stern, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, said, "and those things need to be carried forward."

These include:

• Climate fund: A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will be established to support activities in developing countries related to climate change mitigation. The new advisory panel will study potential sources of revenue for the fund.

• Technology mechanism: A mechanism will be established to enhance ways to develop and transfer technology to support country-specific adaptation and mitigation efforts.

• Transparency: The actions of developed and developing countries will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the conference of the parties. The guidelines have yet to be established.

"Whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the direction of action to reduce emissions," Todd Stern, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, said,. "I very much hope we get there sooner rather than later, and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal."
Reference Here>>

The AGW HOAX has placed the lives of people in nearly 100 nations under a process based on activities that were designed to promote life lived ... under a lie. The lie is that the science is "settled" about the effects of human activity and industrialization in our modern world ... in fact, the only settled science is that all of the data used to put forth the concept that human activity creates global warming and climate change was based fraud.

Climategate, as this discovery of mass FRAUD is becoming known, created a gusher of money that flowed into climate research and made clear just how much "AGW/Climate Change research professional fortunes" became tied to the notion of climate catastrophe. It was the fear of catastrophic climate change, after all, that unleashed the rising ocean of money by which their research came to be funded. Findings that might call the hysteria into question would also put at risk the flow of funds into their field and had to be shut down through owning the peer review process.

This article points out the these forces will not go away until they are made to pay back the money these promoters of this hoax have received already. To them, (and this includes Todd Stern, the State Department's special envoy for climate change) keeping the hoax alive is the only thing that matters.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Taxpayers and the Obama nuclear agenda

At Halias technologies, we develop advanced computer systems that meet our clients' specific requirements. Our team has an extensive experience in scientific computing for industry as well as in software engineering. We have experience in Oil and Gas, Energy and Micro-electronics. Caption & Image Credit: Halias Technologies

Taxpayers and the Obama nuclear agenda

The Obama administration, yesterday, pledged $8.3 billion, taxpayer backed loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. This would represent activity on the first new U.S. nuclear plants in more than three decades at a time we do not have any money to loan.

The monies are being loaned with a condition - the amount of credit subsidy that nuclear developers must pay to the government to cover the risk that a project is not completed and the government has to repay the project's lenders. Industry officials have said an upfront credit subsidy payment of 1 to 2 percent of the loan amount would be manageable, but a significantly higher number would kill the proposed new reactor projects.

Simply stated this, condition to be worked out, removes the free-market investor from the risk side of the equation and transfers it to the taxpayer if the nuclear projects were to default.

How a nuclear power plant works? - why nuclear?, what is nuclear energy, nuclear and the environment, top 10 facts, learn more, nuclear glossary, the pressurized water reactor(PWR): containment structure, pressurizer, steam generator, control rods, reactor vessel, turbine, condenser, generator., boiling water reactor(BWR). Caption & Image Credit: Download Electrical and Electronics Books

This excerpted and edited from The New York Times -

DOE Delivers Its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee
By PETER BEHR of ClimateWire - Published: February 17, 2010

Administration climate adviser Carol Browner said yesterday that the Energy Department's preliminary commitment to Southern Co. and its partners in the $14 billion Plant Vogtle development was hopefully "the first of many new nuclear projects."
----
Yesterday's anticipated announcement produced the political anomaly of a Democratic president being cheered by the nuclear power industry for supporting nuclear's long hoped-for revival, while being condemned by nuclear power opponents on the left for putting billions of taxpayer money at risk. The program stalled during the Bush administration, and Southern Co. CEO David Ratcliffe said yesterday that there were times he lost hope for it.
----
The guarantee "is a dirty and dangerous distraction from the clean-energy future the president promised America," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst at Greenpeace.

The administration's unreserved backing of a group of advanced design reactor projects reflects the conviction of President Obama and key aides that the nation cannot reach its goals for reducing carbon emissions from power plants without a bigger contribution from nuclear power, officials say.
----
Southern and its partners, Oglethorpe Power Corp., the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and Dalton Utilities, have 90 days to conclude the agreement announced yesterday. The guarantees would not take effect until the NRC approves operating licenses for the reactors.
----
Doug Koplow of Earth Track Inc., in a paper published last year by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said loan guarantees could reduce nuclear plant financing costs by $500 million a year. "These savings are not 'free' money, as the industry likes to portray them," he said. "Quite the contrary: the savings to a specific industrial facility arise because their business risk is being moved from the investors who will profit from the new reactor to ... taxpayers. It is clearly a good deal for the nuclear industry; far less clear is how the taxpayer is benefiting."

Nuclear power critics assert that there is a substantial risk that the new projects will default, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that estimated a 50 percent likely failure rate. The CBO study, however, was made in 2003, before the loan guarantee program was created. The failure rate calculation assumes that nuclear power from new plants could not complete economically against generating plants fired by coal or natural gas. It did not consider whether future climate policies would make coal or natural gas generation more expensive, or whether environmental regulations would force the closure of coal plants.
Reference Here>>

The biggest risk for the investor and the taxpayer is not if a nuclear power plant goes into default ... however large this may become. The biggest risk comes as to where does one would put the nuclear waste now that the Obama Administration has shut down the only site where the nuclear waste could be deposited - Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

So, the Obama Administration fronts our money to promote nuclear development and prime the pump but PLUGS the valve on the waste this completed development would create thereby insuring a default of process!

And as the last sentence of the article reference states --- "It [the taxpayer loan commitment] did not consider whether future climate policies [of Carol Browner and the Obama Administration's EPA] would make coal or natural gas generation more expensive, or whether environmental regulations would force the closure of coal plants.

This nuclear agenda all adds up to a chaos being created in our country's energy sector by the Obama Administration to pair up with the chaos they have already created in our economic sector. Even Carter could not envision this kind of subversive control and command of chaos on behalf of the progressive/liberal political agenda!

Michelle Obama's Ten Billion Dollar Beat-Up

Tweaks to children's diet can make a positive difference in their health, Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King. Image Credit: CNN

Michelle Obama's Ten Billion Dollar Beat-Up

Let's be honest, we did not vote for Michelle Obama when we elected Barack Obama to the office of President of the United States. We only agree to allow her to live off of our public monies as the wife/spouse of the person we elect into this office. But something has changed with the approach to our understanding of how our elected ... and now, unelected positions ... that occupy our executive branch of Government.

On Tuesday, February 9th, 2010, the President of the United States signed an executive order establishing and funding to the tune of $10,000,000,000 (that is ten billion dollars or using a population number of 300 million people, a tax donation of $33.33 for every man, woman, and child in the United States) the "Let's Move" campaign that seeks to increase awareness and solve the problem of childhood obesity with a comprehensive approach that will encourage families and communities, schools and states, doctors and coaches, private industry and not-for-profits to work in a coordinated effort to attack childhood obesity on multiple fronts simultaneously. “We think that this has enormous promise,” the president said. Turning to his wife, he added, “It’s done, honey.”

Michelle Obama called for overhauling many federal laws and guidelines, including adding $10 billion over the next decade to “update” the Childhood Nutrition Act, which feeds 31 million children at school and would add funding to feed more children.

At this time of expansive Government debts, why can't the first lady issue a simple Public Service Announcement (PSA) and work through existing agencies and not-for-profit organizations without taking an additional $33.33 out of each and everyone's pocket (a family of four will be expected to pony up $143.33)? After all, doesn't this crowd have enough control over our lives?

This excerpted and edited from NEWSWEEK

Michelle Obama's Childhood-Obesity Plan: Reaching Out to America's Moms
Patrice Wingert, The Human Condition - NEWSWEEK - Posted Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:26 PM

When Michelle Obama became first lady, she stressed that her "No. 1 job" would be "first mom." Following through on that focus, today at the White House she elevated her personal concern for her own kids' health and eating habits into a massive national campaign aimed at solving the U.S. epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation.

Calling the issue "one of the most serious threats to their future," Obama noted that childhood-obesity rates have tripled in the past three decades, and that the excess weight kids are carrying these days increases the risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, and asthma. As a result, Obama said, she had "great concern" that too many of today's kids were on track to live shorter and less healthy lives than their parents, even though the problem is "so imminently solvable."

President Barack Obama signs the executive order giving Michelle Obama $10,000,000,000 of federal tax money for the "Let's Move" campaign that will be run out of the office of the first lady. Image Credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais

"This isn't like a disease where we're still waiting for the cure to be discovered, we know the cure for this," Obama told an audience packed into the White House's State Dining Room. "This isn't like putting a man on the moon or inventing the Internet—it doesn't take some stroke of genius or feat of technology. We have everything we need, right now, to help our kids lead healthy lives ... so let's move to solve it."
----
Not only did she call on schools to provide their students with healthier meals and more active playtime, but she said she would work to encourage communities to promote farmers' markets and recreation, pediatricians to write prescriptions for more vegetables and exercise, and the USDA to identify and eliminate "food deserts," often located in poor neighborhoods, where grocery stores don't exist and residents have little option but to buy junk food at convenience stores.
----
And even though she has gotten flak for previously talking about how she struggled with this issue with her own kids, she didn't back away from expanding on her personal experiences, noting that childhood obesity is "an issue of great concern to me, not just as a first lady, but as a mom."
----
But these days, she said, parents often work longer hours and can't always eat together as a family. The cost of fruits and vegetables has risen 50 percent faster than other foods in the past 20 years, making some of the healthiest foods more expensive. While government, private industry, and philanthropies can do some things to help, she stressed that the main responsibility for making healthy decisions for kids ultimately rests with adults, and encouraged parents, particularly, to lead the way by doing simple things, like replacing soda with water or skim milk, encouraging kids to walk places, cutting back on portion size.
----
"Our kids didn't do this to themselves ... no matter how much they beg for pizza, fries, and candy, ultimately, they are not, and should not be, the ones calling the shots at dinnertime. We're in charge. We make these decisions. But that's actually the good news here. If we're the ones who make the decisions, then we can decide to solve the problem."

While the plan she laid out Tuesday was ambitious and multilayered, in the end, it may be her attempts to talk mom-to-mom that may make the biggest impact.
Reference Here>>

If it actually is "her attempts to talk mom-to-mom that may make the biggest impact" as this article suggests, then why doesn't Michelle Obama just issue a PSA as opposed to having her husband issue an executive order creating and funding with uncollected taxes, the ten billion dollar "Let's Move" campaign?

We can not afford the money or the "paid for" parental beat-up by this, or any, First Lady!

Obama’s Ideology of Decline

ABC's Diane Sawyer asked the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, whether Obama would sometimes "sit and confront your own doubts." Obama answered haltingly. "You know, I -- I would say that when I -- the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Image Credit: Jim Treacher - The DC Trawler

Obama’s Ideology of Decline

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama, the man elected to be the 44th President of the United States, is an ideologue.

Many argue that with his statements on Hope and Change centered on the redistribution of America's wealth, along with his documented understanding and teachings of radical political operatives like Saul Alinsky, Cloward/Piven, and Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste", that Barack Obama is a Communist ideologue. The truth is actually more troubling than even this assumption.

Political commentator Charles Krauthammer joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio for an interview and what Charles is able to articulate about the policies that the Obama Administration have pursued during its first full year in office points out that Barack Obama is an ideologue, alright ... he has embraced an ideology of decline.

This excerpted and edited from David Horowitz's Newsreal -

Charles Krauthammer Nails Down Ideologue Obama Perfectly
by Michael van der Galien, NewsReal Blog - 2010 February 2

Appearing on Frank Gaffney’s show on Secure Freedom Radio earlier today, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer delivered the ultimate smackdown of President Barack Obama.

The conservative columnist proved he understands Obama completely. As I argued yesterday, conservatives are making a tragic mistake by mistaking the man for a pragmatist. He is not, he’s a leftist ideologue.

Krauthammer understands that perfectly. He reminded Gaffney that Obama truly reveled in the praise of the world’s most feared dictators and the standing ovation they gave him when he spoke to them at the United Nations, where he apologized for every single thing America had ever done.
----
Another good point Krauthammer made about Obama’s political views, is that he’s an adherent of “declinism,” as all progressives are. This ideology of decline says that the U.S. has peaked and that things can only go down hill from here. China will – somehow logically – become the world’s next superpower, while the U.S. will lose most of the power and influence it has today.
----
Lastly, this president has an unquestionable faith in the United Nations. The UN, Obama believes, can solve every major crisis in the world. Again facts don’t matter. History has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the UN may be a nice debating club, you’re mistaken to believe that it can get anything done. Whenever a serious crisis occurs, “the international community” bails out at the last moment and America – together with some loyal allies – is forced to clean up the mess. This is how it has been ever since the UN was founded. Obama’s refusal to accept this rather obvious truth, is yet more proof that he’s nothing more or less than a leftist ideologue.

I’m happy to see that Krauthammer understands what kind of politician Obama is and what this means for his domestic and for his foreign policy. The more people nail this ideologue down, the better. After all, you can’t fight an opponent you don’t understand.
Reference Here>>

Obama's "Sign Of Progess" hand salute. Image Credit: Moonbattery

And this excerpted and edited from Jonah Goldberg -

Obama Appears Blinded by His Own Ideological Biases
The president isn’t a pragmatist, no matter how often he claims to be one
Jonah Goldberg, NationalReviewOnline - February 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.

‘I am not an ideologue,” President Obama insisted at his truly refreshing confab with the Republican caucus in Baltimore last Friday. When he heard some incredulous murmurs and chuckles from the audience in response to the idea that the most sincerely ideological president in a generation is no ideologue, he added a somewhat plaintive, “I’m not.”
----
It’s clear from interviews that he is fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He’s described himself as a “pragmatist,” even a “ruthless pragmatist,” countless times.
----
Obama routinely insinuates that all of the facts are on his side. He invokes a confabulated consensus of experts to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to disagree with his agenda. After all, with the eggheads and “facts” in his corner, only the other side’s ideological blinders — or stupidity — could account for any dissent.
----
Ideologies don’t require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very question of deciding what to be pragmatic about — this but not that — requires applying an ideological test.
----
A truly “ruthless” pragmatist might opt for summarily executing enemy combatants after torturing them with hot pokers. He might abandon anyone who can’t afford health insurance. He might ban abortion on the grounds that Social Security needs more young people or eliminate college football entirely as a needless distraction and a drain on resources.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then “ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth.” Russell’s point was that there’s nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.

Our values, customs, traditions, and principles provide insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it’s often called an ideology, and there’s no reason to apologize for having one.
Reference Here>>

Get hip to Obama’s ideology of decline as we struggle to survive life here in Carter's Second Term. After all, as stated before in this posting, one can’t fight an opponent one doesn’t understand.

Barack Obama's $3.834 trillion answer to the American voter

Voter outrage shown through a Tea Party gathering in front of the Glendale City Hall after both Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills were passed out of congress (without transparency or being read by members of Congress) and signed by Barack Obama. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2009)

Barack Obama's $3.834 trillion answer to the American voter

The Obama Administration has been in office now for a little over one year, and the Democrat party led Congress (House of Representatives and Senate) has been in office for a little over three.

In this time of Democrat political party leadership, we have seen our economy blow-up and our Government spending balloon to levels (even adjusted for inflation and cost of living) that defy logic. The Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills passed out of Congress and signed into law about ten months ago increased the budgets of the departments of Government on average of about 24% - the perspective on this type of increase is that budgets of Government are generally increased to reflect the increased cost of living and inflation or between 2-3% … no more than 4%. The American voter reacted to this increase in Government spending by organizing gatherings throughout the country on April 15, 2009 – Tax Day, and increased communication at Town Hall meetings throughout the year to voice their displeasure with the direction and depletion of our working labors.

This activity became known as the Tea Party Movement – this is a movement created by a Government wanting to become bigger and bigger in order to gain even greater control over our daily lives … and thereby control over our money. The Tea Party Movement is not left/Democrat Party or right/Republican party politics but a movement of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters who wish to have our country seek a smaller Government and get back to the values outlined in the founding document of our country – The Constitution.

In November 2009, the Tea Party Movement spoke. Entrenched Democrat political party Governors were replaced in Virginia and New Jersey ... and just last month, Massachusetts voters booted out the decades long one-party representation by Edward (Ted) Kennedy (deceased) and the Democrat Party with the stunning election of Scott Brown to the US Senate.

Today, Barack Obama and his administration issued his proposal for the budget of the US Government to a record $3.834 trillion from October 2010 to September 2011. A $1.6 trillion total deficit is projected and as measured against the size of the economy, the $1.6 trillion deficit equals about 11% of the United States gross domestic product.

Debt would double under Obama's plan. Image Credit: The Heritage Foundation

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times –

$100 Billion Increase in Deficit Is Forecast
By JACKIE CALMES - Published: February 1, 2010

The additional tax cuts and public works spending that President Obama has proposed to spur job creation would add $100 billion to this year’s deficit, bringing it to nearly $1.6 trillion, according to an administration official.

A deficit of that size for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 would be about $150 billion greater than last year’s deficit, which was the highest since World War II.

Measured against the size of the economy, a $1.6 trillion shortfall would equal almost 11 percent of the gross domestic product. Economists generally consider annual deficits above 3 percent to be unsustainable.
Reference Here>>

Voter outrage expressed in handmade posters in front of the Glendale City Hall after both Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills were passed out of congress (without transparency or being read by members of Congress) and signed by Barack Obama. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2009)

This analysis excerpted and edited from Reuters –

Analysts View: 2010 budget deficit to hit new record
Reuters – February 1, 2010

Following are analysts' comments after President Barack Obama on Monday projected in his budget for the fiscal year to September 30, 2011 the budget deficit would soar to a fresh record of $1.56 trillion in 2010.

ANDRE BAKHOS, PRESIDENT, PRINCETON FINANCIAL GROUP, NORTH BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY

"We're talking about a record budget with record deficits. In it we have I believe $100 billion stimulus on top of what's already been approved in the past, and it's going to be interesting to see how that plays up.
----
PETER BOOCKVAR, EQUITY STRATEGIST, MILLER TABAK & CO., NEW YORK:

"I don't think there is anything out there that is job creating and I don't have much confidence that some of the spending cuts will actually happen.

"I would rather come in today and focus on fundamental earnings rather than what the government's budget deficit is going to be. It's going to be large, it's going to be big and that's the most disappointing thing and this [budget] doesn't change that."

MARC OSTWALD, CURRENCY, RATES STRATEGIST, MONUMENT SECURITIES, LONDON:

"When the deficit is that size and you want to cut it meaningfully, you have to do more.

"It is still tinkering around the edges. One has to look at more meaningful things in terms of what will actually reduce the deficit, (which is) the revenue picture.

"This is really something that is going to have an impact on equities, rather than the dollar or Treasuries because it's individual areas (such as aerospace) what may be impacted."
----
KORNELIUS PURPS, STRATEGIST, UNICREDIT MIB, MUNICH

"The problem of how we're going to deal with these huge deficits, not only in Greece but in the UK, Germany, this question is unsolved and today's (U.S.) budget figures are just another confirmation that it's probably a huge problem. The bond markets have little choice when it comes to investing in triple-A securities like U.S. or German Bunds because other countries are probably faring even worse than these triple-A rated countries, so I wouldn't expect a particularly negative bond market reaction."

PETER DIXON, ECONOMIST, COMMERZBANK, LONDON

"Probably the spending cuts are not really sufficient to generate the kind of savings required to get the U.S. fiscal balance back in order anytime soon. It looks like we are going to have a situation in which the U.S. budget deficit and consequently the amount of debt will be an issue."
----
KENNETH BROUX, MARKET ECONOMIST, LLOYDS TSB, LONDON

"It looks to me like they are bumping up the deficit forecasts very near term so frontloading the spending just to stabilize the labor market. That's what they want to concentrate on going into the Congressional elections in November. Raising spending near term, get the deficit up but bring it down after that. If they will bring it down below 10 percent next year it will be some unqualified success."

DAVID BUIK, PARTNER, BGC PARTNERS, LONDON

"They have chosen the path of glory which is to spend their way out of trouble and this just endorses it. The taxpayers will pay for this and I think it will damage growth very badly."
Reference Here>>

Barack Obama does not care about the economic damage his Progressive political philosophy will bring to the country he calls home and has been elected to manage from the highest Executive management position in the land.

Welcome world, to Carter’s Second Term!