More On Osama, Bill Gross Goes After Treasuries Again, 1 in 7 Receive Food Stamps in U.S. and Other Great Charts

In what should be labeled as "no surprise here," the White House is retracting on their initial play of events leading up to bin Laden's death according to Politico:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday publicly revised the administration’s account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, telling reporters that the Al Qaeda leader wasn’t armed during the assault and didn’t use one of his wives as a shield.

So how will getting bin Laden bode for Obama's chance at reelection? Mark Perry takes a stab at it:

For those interested, here is a link to the picture of the supposedly dead bin Laden (the first was deemed unofficial and it is graphic).  In another instance of complete inefficiency, the Guardian is just reporting that the U.S. was only a few hundred yards from Osama at one point back in 2008:

US forces were stationed just a few hundred yards from Osama Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound in October 2008, according to reports within the WikiLeaks embassy cables.
The revelation that US forces were so close to the world's most wanted man in 2008 comes after material from the Guantánamo files suggested the US may have received the intelligence that led them to Bin Laden as early as 2008.

Thank you Wikileaks.  Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Treasury and former Associate Editor at the Wall Street Journal, easily has the best take on the whole bin Laden situation.  Here are a few excerpts from his Lewrockwell.com article:

In a propaganda piece reeking of US Triumphalism, two alleged journalists, Adam Goldman and Chris Brummitt, of the Associated Press or, rather, of the White House Ministry of Truth, write, or copy off a White House or CIA press release that "Osama bin Laden, the terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago (emphasis added) from detainees at secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe, officials disclosed Monday."
How many Americans will notice that the first paragraph of the "report" justifies CIA prisons and torture? Without secret prisons and torture "the terror mastermind" would still be running free, despite having died from renal failure in 2001.

So the claimed murder of bin Laden by the US in a sovereign foreign country with which the US is not at war, a crime under international law...

Terrorists will avenge bin Laden’s death, says the CIA, setting up another false flag attack to keep the profits flowing into the military/security complex and the power flowing into the unaccountable CIA. Homeland Security can extend the domestic police state, abuse of travelers, and arrests of war protestors. And Pakistan is under the gun of invasion and takeover (for India, of course) for shielding bin Laden.

The two reporters question nothing in the government’s propaganda. Instead, the reporters join in the celebration. Nevertheless they let slip that "officials were weighing the release of at least one photo taken of bin Laden’s body as part of what Brennan called an effort to make sure ‘nobody has any basis to try and deny the death.’"
As the Guardian and European newspapers have revealed, the photo of the dead bin Laden is a fake. As the alleged body has been dumped into the ocean, nothing remains but the word of the US government, which lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, about yellowcake, about Iranian nukes, and, according to thousands of experts, about 9/11. Suddenly the government is telling us the truth about bin Laden’s death? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll let you have for a good price.
My initial interpretation of the faked bin Laden death was that Obama needed closure of the Afghan war and occupation in order to deal with the US budget deficit.

The article is highly recommended.

Bill Gross of the PIMCO hedge fund is back at it again with criticizing U.S. Treasuries.  From his monthly newsletter:

"PIMCO advocates not so much a mutiny but a renewed vigilance on this new ship, stressing bond market “safe spread” alternatives available globally, including developing/emerging market debt at higher yields denominated in non-dollar currencies." Bottom line: "The Treasury market is on a collision course with financial repression and it is time to adjust your rudder to starboard to get home safely."

Now for the graphs, first is an interactive one from the Wall Street Journal showing the rate of people on food stamps in all 50 states.  According to the article, about 1 in 7 in the U.S. receive food stamps. Just click on the link to see the chart.  Mark Perry has a great chart showing the correlation between U.S. home prices, the Consumer Price Index, and the Consumer Price Index for college tuition.  Guess which one has risen the most?

Puts the Housing bubble to shame.  And here is a chart from PEW which basically labels what accounts for the current fiscal deficits from 2001 to now.:

I will end with some good news for music lovers and bad news for those of you who enjoy hearing about the rich paying higher taxes.  First, Amazon has slashed music prices:

Earlier today, Amazon slashed prices for its online music store, making downloads available for 69 cents, well below Apple iTunes $0.99-$1.29 range per song.
That move prompted Lazard Capital to opine: “We believe price is one part of Amazon’s multi-pronged strategy to boost its market share in digital media and introduce new consumers to its media offerings.” Lazard Capital rates Amazon a buy and has a $220 target price, which is swiftly approaching.

A valiant effort, but I doubt Amazon will be getting an edge on itunes anytime soon.  Second is a great article by Gary Rivlin in Newsweek:

It drives economist Bruce Bartlett crazy every time he hears another bazillionaire announce he’s in favor of paying higher taxes. Most recently it was Mark Zuckerberg who got Bartlett’s blood boiling when the Facebook founder declared himself “cool” with paying more in federal taxes, joining such tycoons as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and even a stray hedge-fund manager or two.

Bartlett, a former member of the Reagan White House, isn’t against the wealthy paying higher taxes. He’s that rare conservative who thinks higher taxes need to be part of the deficit debate. His beef? It’s a hollow gesture to say the federal government should raise the tax rate on the country’s top wage earners when the likes of Zuckerberg have most of their wealth tied up in stock. Many of the super-rich see virtually all their income as capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate—15 percent—than ordinary income. When Warren Buffett talks about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, that’s because she sees most of her pay through a paycheck, while the bulk of his compensation comes in the form of capital gains and dividends. In 2006, for instance, Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary lost 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government.

I always thought it was rather shady that billionaires such as Gates and Zuckerberg would rather have more of their money go to the government rather than give it to private charities and causes.

Update- Just watched the new Glee where they covered a number of songs from Fleetwood Mac's Rumours; easily one of the greatest albums of all time.  Needless to say, the episode was fantastic.  Unfortunately they didn't perform "Second Hand News" but here are the highlights: