Obama: Sell B-2 Bomber blueprints to China for debt relief!

October 25th, 2011

Record deficits and a crashing economy appear to be taking a toll on the young Barack Obama Administration. The Administration has been talking about hiking income taxes and perhaps instituting a VAT tax.

China is also concerned with the mounting deficits in the United States budget. China is the single biggest holder of US Treasury Bonds and is one of Washingtons biggest trading partners. The Peoples Republic has had a burgeoning economy, but is increasingly wary of the falling US dollar.

While the exact amount of Chinese ownership of US treasuries is unknown, it is estimated to add up to over a trillion dollars. If China were to call in US guarantees on these bonds, economists fear it could lead to an economic collapse larger than the Great Depression.

China has recently expanded its defense budget, ostensibly to keep up with its economic growth. China is reportedly working on its own version of a stealth bomber (the US has the only functioning model) but is lagged by technological defects.

On April 1st, President Obama spoke to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao during the G20 Summit. During this meeting, Mr. Hu expressed interest in writing off some of the US debt in exchange for military technology. The President has since referred the matter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Defense Department is reportedly furious with the Presidents proposal to sell blueprints of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to the Peoples Republic. Gates has flatly rejected the Presidents plan, but has since been asked to step down if he will not facilitate the process.

According to the deal, the United States would sell the plans for the B-2, along with radar-absorbing paints and metals in exchange for $50 billion in debt relief. The B-2 cost the US government $23 billion to develop the bomber in the 1980s.

According to the Administration, this proposal will help the United States resolve its debt issues. They point out their belief that the B-2 bomber is “strategically obsoleteÂ