Study: Middle Class Having ‘Worst Decade In Modern History’

This thread needs an applause button.

emaxxman ✉
Aug '12

I think we should stand up and MAKE the change. I will be casting my vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Taking back our democracy one vote at a time . . .

mefoley4literacy ✉
Aug '12

"As of June, the median household income for all Americans was $50,964, or 4.8 percent lower than its level three years earlier, when the inflation-adjusted median income was $53,508."


This is the true economic fact that we should all focus on. It doesn't matter if the unemployment rate drops to record lows if the spending power per person drops below pre-recession levels. The number of friends who got laid off and are now, luckily, working at 1/2 their original salary levels is disheartening.

I've said it time and time again - take care of the middle-class and the rich and poor will be taken well care of. We are the life blood of the economy.

emaxxman ✉
Aug '12

jj, did you miss the first post? i was trying to establish a framework for an honest discussion about the financial future of the country, with out the usual 'stone throwing'

it's about the economy, not about the socialists, not about red state vs blue state.

it's the economy, it's the economy

did you have a comment about the economy or not?

btw, use your real name next time, i don't care for usurpers or provocateurs, it's that pesky character thing again.

BrotherDog ✉
Aug '12

Part of the trouble is that we are looking at future unemployment numbers that will continue to be high. This is especially significant for workers in their late 40's and 50's, or nearing retirement age but not ready just yet but who may likely never work full time again, joining a large group of long term unemployed.

The issue at stake is that people do tend to go all "red" and "blue" about this as if the president actually has control over creation of jobs (like JJ). The problem is that in the midst of this recession, companies figured out how to do much more with far fewer people. And they have little to no incentive therefore to start hiring. Remember, businesses are there to make money, not to provide jobs and salaries for you and me. If the company is large enough to be publicly traded, their responsibility is to the shareholders; again, not the general public. I see it everywhere. My brother was fortunate to be spared large rounds of layoffs at his company but now does the work of 2-3 people and for the same money. And companies will continue to work their employees hard because they know the workers are too afraid of being unemployed to quit such a job. No constructive conversation about our economic state is complete without realizing these corporate employment trends.

eperot ✉
Aug '12

the truth is that George Bush started the wars...and our economy bleeds from his mismanagement...our country bleeds from our wars overseas...the trash over in the countries we are at war with...enjoy the money ...that our foolish government sends money and troops over there...we USA citizens are the fools...we bring imbecile Islamics...here...because they squealed on their neighbors...back in the old country...and they become another class of moochers...been there seen it...

oldman ✉
Aug '12

The green party has no chance... a vote for them is a vote for Obama... sad but true

G-Ma
Aug '12

I think the greed is shared between the Unions, the consumer, and the businessmen. Consumers didn't have to love those lower prices from Japan, then Korea, then China. Businessmen didn't have to care about shareholders only.

It's shared.

And oldman is not clueless; if America wants to be more than a warlord then we have to divert some of our military spending into something more useful to American unless we plan to start actually making money with all those weapons and troops. And a large chunk of our deficit ARE the multiple wars we are waging world-wide. Another HUGE chunk is the defense mechanism we have in place with navies and air forces all over the world. Why are we protecting the oil for Japan, China, and Korea, and not getting something in return? Oldman is not clueless in how the military spending is a boat anchor we need to cut the chain on.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

Unions were formed to protect workers from company abuse. Of course if you are union member in a public sector job in NJ, that doesnt mean much with this governer. He has decided , with public support, to not only stop cost of living increases, but also has not contributed the government obligation of payment into the fund, and not pay what the state took out of the fund some years ago. If you tried that you would be in jail. What happens to all those people 20 years from now when the pension amount has remained unchanged? Gonna be alot of 70 and 80 year olds looking for work.

Boobalaa ✉
Aug '12

OK OK emaxxx..

There are lots of issues but I think the one that's top-dead-center is the deficit and while we can talk about how we got here (Bush wars, Obama stimulus, HJC's great Amerikan hand-outs, JITs structural imperfections, the fact remains --- here we are.

1. Re-engineer entitlements and right-size SS and Medicare. Re-engineer them to self-sustaining levels within 5 years. Raise the age limits. End or limit payments to the rich. If you get lucky and strike it rich, well then, you got lucky. If you get poor again, apply for SS and Medicare when you get there.

2. Remove all loopholes in the tax code. All of them. Replace any they want through Congress, let them take the heat from Norquist on day one for any new loopholes. Target all additional revenues to pay down the deficit; this will be the tax increase to the poor and middle class to pay down the deficit.

3. Raise income taxes on the rich to Clintonian levels of 39% or Reaganian levels of 50% and earmark all additional revenues to pay down the deficit. Who cares if it's stealing. Everybody gives. So let the rich give a lousey extra 4% or tell em Ronnie wanted 15%.

4. Remove capital gains tax and tax gains as income. Keep it simple, income is income is income. However, all additional gains taxes would be used to pay down the deficit. And don't tell us that the rich guy "risks" more by buying stock than the poor guy does by policing the inner city, going into the coal mine or entering the classroom with your kids.

The point is to build trust back into the dollar and the economy, the deficit needs to come down. Sure, jobs are important but who's gonna employ while we go $1T into the red every year. And all the tax cuts, stimulus, or any other Harry Houdini ideas ain't gonna cut it. We need to add revenues too. And don't tell me the rich are suffering, clearly they are not and everybody must give, but they are rich and they should give a fair share --- not the same share ---- a fair share. If you want more tax from the middle class, then just raise the tax on the rich above 39% accordingly. Use the Romney flat rate percentage formula --- yeah, I like that one. If it works going down, it must work going up too. All additional revenues raised by the above motions MUST be earmarked for paying off the deficit until such time as it hits zero. Then we can remove the taxes or redeploy for other needs or some of each.

How's that?

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

Maja - agreed with almost everything you said...except "Not often mentioned are computers."

Without computers, we would not have (dare I say) almost every quality of life advancement made in the last 30-40 years.

emaxxman ✉
Aug '12

mistergoogle for President!

gadfly ✉
Aug '12

now who is clue less Notafan...it just might be you...

oldman ✉
Aug '12

gas prices exceeding 3.75 per gallon and going up fast

affects everything we do, takes spendable cash out of the economy, raises food prices across the nation,

no end In sight to the pain at the pump,

W.H.Y. . . .A.R.E. . . .W.E. . . .N.O.T. . . .T.A..L.K.I.N.G. . . .A.B.O.U.T. . . .T.H.I.S. . .??

BrotherDog ✉
Aug '12

Our hands are tied with the gas prices. Nothing we can do. We all have to get from Point A to Point B and they know it, so we are going to pay for gas, regardless of what the price is. If you have any suggestions on what we can do about it, please let us know, but I dont think there is anything we can do, unfortunately.

botheredbyu ✉
Aug '12

Our troops should not be over there. Our govt is a disgrace for "allowing" our troops to be killed.

botheredbyu ✉
Aug '12

BDog: It's ez to say "stop spending more," it's just a bit harder to say "stop spending."

You chose the later but what spending would you stop?

Here's your chance to play god: http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

I agree that spending needs to be curtailed starting with "no new spending." until we get to zero budget. But cutting existing spending is more complex.

For fiscal 2012/2013, OMB estimates:

Defense: 24%, 24%
Pensions: 22%, 24%
Healthcare: 22%, 23%
Welfare: 12%, 11%
Interest: 6%, 7%
Other: 5%, 3%
Education: 4%, 4%
Transportation: 3%, 3%
Protection: 2%, 2%
General Govt: 1%, 1%

While you want to pick on welfare cheats, the fact remains that the top three entries hold 70% of the budget. Also remember that most places that you cut, you fire somebody. If you cut welfare or pensions, then the poor, military, and ex-govt people don't spend that money and somebody gets fired. If you don;t fund defense, somebody gets fired. So the goal is to cut the least productive to the economy. Like what is more productive: a bridge or a bullet? Your choice.

For defense, try: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/02/us/you-cut-the-defense-budget.html

Pensions are mostly Social Security which is a trust fund created by your taxes and still fully funded. So it really should not be a budget item since a cut would actually reflect a return of assets to payers or a tax cut to current workers. The actual federal pensions are smaller, about 3% or about equal to veterans payments which is included in Defense spending.

So really, the big hitters are Defense and Healthcare for close to 50% of the budget. Healthcare is Medicare/Medicaid which are in deficit and getting worse. Obviously there is some self-funding in Medicare but since these accounts are in deficit, they are fair game.

Have fun kids. And remember, when you go after Defense, you are hitting the 25% gorilla; when you go after welfare cheats, you are looking at a corner case of the 11% and when you pick on teachers ---- wow ---- aiming at 4% at the Federal level. Foreign aid --- sorry --- 1%.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

PS --- so I think we get that I think paying down the deficit is one of the most important steps we can make to strengthen the economy and create jobs. To do that, I believe we need, at least, to

1. create revenue (as shown above)
2. cap spending increases
3. cut spending.

Some ways to cut spending:

1. cut defense by 50%. Reduce navy, army, etc. Bring boys home. Reduce foreign bases unless foreign-paid-for. How can I say such a thing? If we cut our budget by 50%, we will still outspend the next ten countries --- combined --- Are we that poor in our choices that we have to outspend our enemies by 20:1 or more? We could fund US Healthcare and not loose a cent; the choice is that HUGE. Here: http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

2. re-engineer entitlements (welfare, ss, medicaid/care): heightened means testing, raise age caps, add/lower wealth caps. Voucher system A-OK as long as existing system remains intact as a choice, i.e. vouchers can only be used to purchase equal or superior competitive plans. Need to make these programs both solvent and humane.

3. Means testing for all pensions --- general and military

4. Shop interest. Once we do steps one through three and raise revenues, we should be able to re-finance and shop for better interest rates.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

yeah you still are!

Notafan ✉
Aug '12

JJ

Why is Obama a socialist? Because someone in his administration said that higher fuel prices would spur alternative energy? That does not equal socialism. You got any other facts or you just spewing spin again?

How does high fuel prices force anyone to buy Volt? Must not be working since they stopped producing Volts ---- again.....but fuel prices are high. Where's the connection?

Wow, Kenya --- is that a birther comment or do you actually know the median income per household for Kenya? And how does Kenya's economy has anything to do with the U.S.?

OK, let's play the game by JJs rules of spin, slander, and stigma:
For example if JJ were a liberal then he might he say: Now --- Mitt Romney is truly a EuroSocialist businessman with millions and millions invested in Eurosocialist businesses under his tax shelters invested in Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands. Mitt funds and supports Eurosocialism with hidden profits made in the U.S. Mitt made millions investing hundreds of millions in Eurosocialism on behalf of others as an expert in hiding assets, investments and income in these places. He has been doing this for decades.

Mittls socialistic governmental ideals were born in Massachusetts, the most socialist state in the Union with socialized RomneyCare. He now want to bring these soicalistic programs to you by forcing you to buy medical insurance with medicare vouchers. Government forcing you to buy insurance. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, he invented ObamaCare in Mass calling it RomneyCare. HIs Ryan voucher program is just another twist to force you to buy insurance in Romney's socialized world.

Or might JJ say: Ask yourself this: wouldn't Mitt freely divulge his income tax records like any other Presidential candidate if they didn't DISQUALIFY him as a Presidential candidate. They must DISQUALIFY him or he would proudly show them. Do they hide those Caymen transactions to support Eurosocialist investments?

What we do know about Romey's taxes is that he pays 13% while in the 35% tax bracket meaning he takes over $5 million per year in socialistic handouts or 22% of what he should owe. Instead of paying, he takes the handouts like a socialist. He is the biggest welfare recipient in the nation.

Or could JJ even say: And why doesn't he want to show us his birth certificate. A lot of his family is from Mexico and have been illegal aliens in both countries hopping back and forth across the border to make more money.

JJ might even say: And Mitts minions want to push Granny off the cliff instead of taking care of her while sacrificing your children's lives by making them a new war in Iran just to protect Israel and lowering their income by 10% to pay for medicare.

And if JJ is really feeling nasty, he might say: Romney just wants to increase the welfare and foodstamp rolls by making "forcibly raped" and incest victims have kids that they can not afford to raise creating a new wefare class.

Lucky for JJ that they we all don't think the way he does.

Some of us really tried to have the honest debate that BDog asked for. Oh well. Sigh.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

I hear the phrase "it's only 1%" or "it's only 2%" all too often. When did that style of complacency become a justification for allowing spending and/or not cutting. People should instead start to realize that every 1% IS important and should be scrutinized as those 1%s add up very quickly into something real.

r-man
Aug '12

If you want to help the middle class (and thereby save the country), LOWER TAXES and CUT SPENDING. It's really quite simple. And since lowering spending isn't something the greedy politicians are willing to do, I'll settle for cutting taxes. IT WORKS EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED.

The Reagan Tax cuts increased the revenue to the federal government, because it allowed the people to keep and use more of their money, investing in business, thereby earning even more money, thereby paying more in taxes. This isn't rocket science: LET THE PEOPLE MAKE MONEY WITHOUT RAPING THEM WITH TAX RATES, and prosperity and revenues go up. If you REALLY want to "tax the rich" - let them make more money (no joke)

Even the House of Representatives agreed the Reagan tax cuts worked: here's the text, that I had saved from the report, the link is no longer found on the government servers...but it was a couple months ago... hmmm interesting...

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance,

****and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich.**** (my emphasis for all you rich-haters)

High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Aug '12

MG,

Always the extreme example to validate your point. Please get real world and define the exact process for "means testing"? I'd like to see some specifics to your plan as opposed to a campaign sound-bite.

r-man
Aug '12

r-man: Do your own research. According to Paul Rath: "John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney have all signed on (for means testing of ALL entitlements). So has Governor Mitch Daniels, alas." While for Social Security, they would means test at $55K per or $110K per couple; I suggest a means test at the point Social Security is irrelevant.

Same can be said for Medicare and Unemployment Insurance.

trekster: flat tax seems simple and fair but it advantages the rich and super rich unless you flat tax disposable income which is as hard to do as doing a fair progressive tax. Since the rich have a greater percentage of income as disposable income than the lower brackets to begin with, and since disposable income is where you pay taxes from, then the rich are advantaged by a flat tax and end up with an even greater percentage of disposable income before paying taxes. The flat tax increases their percentage of disposable income over the lower brackets disproportionately. That just does not sound fair to me. And unless the rate is adjusted, a flat tax could increase or do nothing for the deficit.

jeff: while I realize all taxes are "excessive" to you, they did use the word excessive. Amazing that you listen to the house on this especially from the Republican Staff Director to the JEC that pulled down over $160K a year as just a staffer way, way back then. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy from 70 to 50%. I would say that can be called excessive and I would gladly go back to 50% if that would make you happy (remember, said that above). By 1986, he had two tax rates of 28/15% HOWEVER, there were far, far less loopholes for the rich to hide things in.

Two points: Reganomics did usher economic prosperity for some at the top especially if you measure after the fact. It did not trickle down, extra jobs were not created. And he was followed by a Republican who was forced to go back on his word, raise taxes to cover the shortfall of the inevitable recession, and be summarily replaced by Bill Clinton who raised taxes again and, guess what........

Second: Regan started at a 70% tax level. Today we are at 35% where the Mitts of the world shelter millions in income in hidden off-shore accounts that fund foreign assets; funnel more millions into kiddee inheritance trust funds while us normal folk can do $12K a year or get put in jail and STILL the Mitts of the world only pay 13% of their reduced reported income as an effective tax rate. Not 50%, not 35% but 13%. And all us greedy hand-out socialist folks are asking for is 4% extra from the Mitts of this world to help with America's deficit.

And I will tell you what: I will go point for point if Mitt wants. If he goes 4%, so will I as long as he pulls those off-shore hidden investments back into his U.S. income and quits hiding it. :Let's all chip in and pay down this deficit!

So even if I give you that Reaganomics was the gas the fueled the turbo engine that is the American economy; there is no more room at the Inn to lower taxes anyway. The rich own more American assets than at any time in history and can afford fairly to pay a little more. I would too because it is important.

So if you say, "well, just cut spending." Yes, I agree, we need to cap any spending increase and cut spending too starting with Defense at 50%. But cutting spending alone will not do it.

So if yoiu say, "well, just cut entitlements." Yes, I agree, we need to re-engineer entitlements to be self-sufficient SAFETY NETS as they were intended. And if you don't need a safety net, well then, god bless, and thank you very much. That's called means testing. Biut just cutting spending and re-engineering entitlements alone will not do it.

But if you just say CUT TAXES, I say where? They are, especially for the rich, at the lowest level in years and have been there for 12 years. It has not worked. The rich are getting richer, the middle and poor are getting less and most important ----- this free ride of Bush tax cuts has added more to the deficit than any Obama stimulus by multiple times. It has not worked. The 12-year party is over. It's time to raise revenue, cut spending, cut entitlements, and pay down the deficit and get America going again.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

Seems like the truth police is needed again...Reagan lowered top tax from 70% (1980) to 28% (1988) ..... (not 50%)

Source:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Under Reagan Tax Revenue essentially doubled $463B (end 1979) $909B (1988)

Source:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

hjc ✉
Aug '12

@MG:

"Yes, I agree, we need to cap any spending increase and cut spending too starting with Defense at 50%"

Why? Because YOU want to? Well how about we repeal Obamacare instead, which would also be a HUGE spending cut. Why? Because *I* want to.

Let me know when you want to start discussing history/what works, instead of just what YOU want.


As far as the only prosperity Reagan created was for the rich, if that were true, tell me o great mistergoogle-carnac, how in the world did he ever get re-elected to a second term, and then his vice president get elected, if Reagan's tactics were so bad or only favored the rich? That's ok- you don't have to answer- it's a rhetorical question- because we all know the answer. America LOVED him. Had a 3rd term been possible, he would have been re-elected again, because he brought us out of the Carter disaster and into a prosperous America. The most popular president since FDR. (I'm not comparing the two, other than in their popularity, so don't even go there.)

If Obama has DONE WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD, he should have no problem getting re-elected. Just like Reagan. Guess we'll see.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Aug '12

Jeff: BDog asked for some rational dialog on how to cut the deficit and I noted that I believe we need to
1. raise revenue (to pay down the deficit, not to spend)
2. cap spending increases and cut spending
3. re-engineer entitlements including means testing

Do you disagree that we need to do all three?

For spending cuts, our defense budget is higher than the next 15 countries combined and could be cut by 50% and still would dwarf any aggressor's budget like the Sun dwarfs our Moon by greater than a factor of 10:1 or much, much more. Our defense budget is the biggest budget entry at 24% of the federal budget. While the vast majority of entitlements are funded by payroll social security and medicare taxes, our defense budget is funded solely by income taxes. It is the obvious place to plan spending cuts.

For the biggest entitlements, social security and medicare, we need to re-engineer them to be right-sized with matching incoming payroll funds. Means testing, age limit increases, are just a couple of re-engineering concepts on the table.

For taxes, you want to lower revenues by cutting taxes which, without corresponding cuts to discretionary spending, would increase the deficit while we wait for trickle down. What do you propose to cut? Remember, only the deficit portion of medicare is fair game since social security is fully funded until 2026 according to the CBO (I think). So what would you cut? For example, sure, let;s cut ObamaCare. What would we save on the deficit and does it cover your tax cuts?

Your response to my concept ot raise taxes on the rich was it was wrong because it's what I want, blaming me for not discussing history, and then calling me carnac...

OK but not sure what that has to do with a rational discussion but here goes:

As far as Reagan, yes he was popular, more so in the beginning, and yes the economy was robust, as I said, more so for the upper brackets, which came home to roost during the Bush recession followed by his rightly raising taxes followed by his one-term ouster. But it was a good run and Bush Sr. was a brave and righteous man --- I admire him more as the years pass by.

But this is about ideas for the deficit and the economy --- ideas not politics. And like I said, Reagan lowered EXCESSIVE taxes from 70% to 50% then 28% on the rich and it did make the rich, richer, and the economy grew. But it did not trickle down and ultimately petered out. And, HISTORICALLY speaking, like the JEC report stated: lowering excessive taxes can have postitive. effect.

But are you saying a 35% marginal tax rate with loopholes that deliver a 13% effective rate is excessive? I mean if Mitt has his 20% tax cut, he will only be paying a 5%. effective tax rate and instead of making $22M he will make $23.6M and somehow that will move the economy? (Or will he move the extra profit to the Caymans?)

If so, I am all for it but I do not see it. Do you really think it will help?

I mean historically speaking we have had the lowest tax rate in decades for the part 12 years and it has not helped. It did not help Bush Jr. and it is not helping Obama. We just extended the lower tax rates on the rich because Republicans said it was that answer. It was not.

We have a real bad deficit problem. Cuts alone are not going ot cut it. Period.

But you tell me what the tax cuts on the current rates will produce. I am all ears.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

oh and this is much better ---

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829?fb_action_ids=4572152421294&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224572152421294%22%3A274212942690135%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224572152421294%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

His business experience has been to CAUSE debt, pay off the management and run off with the money (and bring it off-shore), leaving whoever's left holding the bag:
-----------------------
"The objective of the LBO business is maximizing returns for investors." When it comes to private equity, American workers – not to mention their families and communities – simply don't enter into the equation.

Take a typical Bain transaction involving an Indiana-based company called American Pad and Paper. Bain bought Ampad in 1992 for just $5 million, financing the rest of the deal with borrowed cash. Within three years, Ampad was paying $60 million in annual debt payments, plus an additional $7 million in management fees. A year later, Bain led Ampad to go public, cashed out about $50 million in stock for itself and its investors, charged the firm $2 million for arranging the IPO and pocketed another $5 million in "management" fees. Ampad wound up going bankrupt, and hundreds of workers lost their jobs, but Bain and Romney weren't crying: They'd made more than $100 million on a $5 million investment."

Maybe this is why he doesn't want us to see his tax returns.....

trekster3 ✉
Aug '12

The Rolling Stone????????? That's high test liberal koolaid, boy! LMAO

hjc ✉
Aug '12

OK,, since we are off the track again on the deficit after HFC's argument literally failed to add up and he fails to respond.

And now that Trekster has completed the loop attacking back with Mitt's tax filing woes, it's time to diatribe!!!!

Treks: the reason Mitt does not release more tax filings is that MITT'S TAX FILINGS DISQUALIFY HIM FROM BEING PRESIDENT. Plain and simple. Otherwise, since he has told us the bottom lines: 13% effective tax rate, 10% charity (all the the cult church), what else might he have to hide? Just being disqualified from being President, that's all !

Plus, he makes jokes about being born here to throw us off the track to have him produce his birth certificate. Why? Because most of his family are boarder jumpers from Mexico. Where do you think he was really born.

Plus, he is worse than a muslim, he is a Mormon, the secretive mason-affiliated cult church that did not recognize blacks until 1978 and said: "And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." :Let's face it, unless you like sharing, Mormon views on women none too great either and that's what drove El Romney south of the boarder. Come on, the Mormon's wrote their bible using "peep stones" and most of their traditions and secrecy come straight from the masons.

Meanwhile the evil letter from Obama. How about those Seals. So much for secrecy eh.... A good convention can bring out the best in people. OK Obama and the seals. HJC, you are an insensitive a$$. Period. You should apologize to the man. Obama met with 75 family members, in person, in private, without fanfare, for hours, at the tarmac in Dover. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-dover-obama-salutes-troops-killed-in-afghan-helicopter-crash/2011/08/09/gIQAZ47O5I_story.html

And form letters are a way of life. At least this President signs them even though he is NOT the President who started the War. That President had henchmen sign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10891-2004Dec18.html

Shame on you HJC for hi-jacking the discussion in a troll-like fashion and shame on you for spreading this junk before checking.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

Yesterday, hjc wrote, "Abiding by Brotherdog's request to have a "reasonable discussion" I will refrain from any names/mud-slinging and just present and DOCUMENT the facts on the budget."

Later that same day, hjc wrote, "Low class, anti-american, anti-military, scum$ag president"

Nice!

Gadfly ✉
Aug '12

1. Gadfly: Re my comment on the president's form letter... I don't suffer people who dis the military. A failing of mine..but let's just say I have my reasons.
2. Mrgoogle...I believe I'm the one waiting for you to admit that Defense budget is only 13.8% of the total fed budget. There are no "assumptions" just 2 numbers.....as referenced. You conveniently bypassed that post. Expected
3. Mrgoogle.....I'm very glad to see that, based on my response to you, you corrected your previous error on Reagan's reduced top tax rate .... 28% not 50% as I schooled you on. You could have at least said Thank you. ;)
4. Mrgoogle.....have a 7th grader explain to you why American has a defense budget many times larger than other countries (and always will). Reduce some? Yes. 50%?....Are You workin for Russia? China? Iran? North Korea? Terrorists? .... Get ur head out of ur #%%!!! LMAO
5. Mrgoogle: you worried about military secrets? Your president told the world in his same night, now famous "I...I...I...." speech OBL was killed thereby putting people at risk and destroying any ability to use just captured intelligence. All for desperate political points. That why they wrote the books....the military has no respect for him....only his office.
6. Finally....so, I'm an "insensative a$$" Ohhhhhh that hurt. I love that word "insensative" .... it's such a "manly" word don't you think? ;) LMAO

hjc ✉
Aug '12

HJC: Please refrain from lowering yourself by name calling.

2. I corrected you but will try again, briefer this time. You can't take a discretionary budget (which is only half of the total defense budget) and then divide it into the total discretionary/mandatory budget to come up with the proportion that is total defense. The total defense budget is close to $1T. Ask Ron Paul when he says: "Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.". Use the total budget.

3. It was both 50 and 28. The first drop was from 70% to 50%, the second was to 28%. He stuttered and dropped it two times. I never got it wrong. Plus, like I said, there were far less loopholes so that even Willard Mitt Romney couldn't get to his 13% effective rate from Reagan's 28%.

4. Oh yeah, that's mature. No, you explain. No, you. Use the chart from WIKI to help. We be the BIG bar, the one that is between 4 and 10 times higher than the other guys.

5. And yes, you are insensitive and, as long as you keep hurling invectives -- an a$$ as well. No matter what the President does, you are against it. And for anyone who disagrees you call them some demeaning name. Name anything he has done that meets your approval. Even if he does the same thing you approve of for "your guy," you are against it. Name something that meets your approval. Anything.

mistergoogle ✉
Aug '12

no more stone throwing !! the conversation loses focus when you guys do this!

it's about the economy, OUR economy, it is in terrible condition

and our economy has been manipulated and mishandled by both political parties,

i am conservative and mostly side with Republicans but not blindly and not all the time, i hate what the bush dynasty has done to the Conservative movement, they have set us back and tainted our brand big time.

yes it's the economy,

and that's why we are all feeling so upset this election cycle,

because it affects all of us those who are still clinging onto a decent job and those who are scratching to make ends meet by cobbling together a bunch of low paid gigs that don;t provide health care.

enough bickering already !!


check this out, bernanke has got to go imho;


Bernanke signals Fed ready to act

quoted from the article comes this scary proposal:

"Much of the speech was taken up with a review of the Fed’s actions since the financial crisis. Mr Bernanke argued that large-scale asset purchases aimed at driving down long-term interest rates – known as quantitative easing, or QE – have worked.

“A balanced reading of the evidence supports the conclusion that central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery while mitigating deflationary risks,” he said.

Mr Bernanke reviewed four possible costs of additional asset purchases. He said they could damage the function of securities markets, raise inflation expectations, undermine financial stability or cause the Fed to make financial losses. He said those costs were uncertain, but concluded: “At the same time, the costs of non-traditional policies, when considered carefully, appear manageable, implying that we should not rule out the further use of such policies if economic conditions warrant.”

Paul Dales of Capital Economics in London, arguing that Mr Bernanke had paved the way for a third wave of quantitative easing, said: “The speech comes across as a staunch defence of the effectiveness of unconventional monetary policy"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/540b1fe0-f374-11e1-9c6c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25AoVIh3b

BrotherDog ✉
Aug '12

Keiser Report: Debt Bomb (E332)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91WbIYsqa1A

Me4 ✉
Aug '12

I think the Fed is required by law to take actions that are expected to maximize employment.

I'm not going to pretend I know what the Fed should do, or not, but it's not like Bernanke can do, or not do, anything he wants.

jd2 ✉
Aug '12

JIT: For debt numbers, all of them, go to: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Check some of the other pages like Energy too.

Makes it pretty clear that it's not just too much spending. There's two problems: there's too much going out and not enough coming in. My recommendations for improvement stand.

When you look at the deficit, look at the picture I attached from the times. I am NOT assessing blame, just the sources of deficit. You can note the Bush Tax Cuts (carried forward by Obama -CFBO), Defense (CFBO), the Wars (CFBO), TARP, Stimulus and others. You will also note the cuts, not by Bush who NEVER vetoed ANY spending package, but by Obama.

Meanwhile, check out the spending charts: you can start with just the pictures for entitlements, defense, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

This page shows Defense at 19%; other CBO pages have it at 24%. IT may be larger depending how you count. Like adding veterans pensions or foreign aid since a lot of foreign aid = weapons we supply as defense for our friends. Defense is the 900 lb gorilla especially when you consider there are separate incoming revenue streams for social security and medicare. But Defense budgets come from the common income tax pool with all the other slices of the pie beyond social security and medicare making it even a bigger drain if you just look at what is supported by the federal INCOME tax..

We outspend in defense our biggest competitor by 5:1 odds. We outspend the next 15 countries combined, some of whom are our friends buying our weapons.

I think we can do better with less and be smarter, more efficient and effective. We own the air. We own the sea. The only thing we don't own is their land and we can send any country back to the middle ages in a matter of days. How much more do we need?

Again, my recommendations for reducing the deficit stand:

1. Targeted tax reform starting with repealing the Bush tax cuts on the upper brackets, removing most or all loopholes
2. re-engineer entitlements, raise age limits, means testing, right-size social secuity and medicare
3. cap all spending increases
4. cut spending starting with defense at 50%. Bring the boys home. Close some of the 800 military bases in over 63 countries world-wide. It's a game of numbers. Many tout the excesses and waste in the $.7T stimulus. How much waste do you think is in our yearly $.9T defense budget? It's too big to fail, too big to be efficient.

Frankly, at 50% reduction, the unemployment created will be extreme and we might want to reduce it by creating a jobs program. I would also recommend re-training, re-tooling the military for other peace time purposes. Perhaps drought remediation for the mid-west or alternative energy basic research. Let's build it together!

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Mark said
"I believe that we now live in a country that has been so dumbed down, where so many more people care about Kim Kardashian (why is this woman famous I really do not know) and Jersey shore then what the real impact of a $16 Trillion dollar debt is going to do to us that the light at the end of the tunnel is dimming more and more each day."

Yep. And this election may just be the tipping point of no return, if Obama is re-elected.

It amazes me the minutiae people get caught up in. If you haven't figured it out by now, this election isn't about "how much do we cut the defense budget", "do we help pay for student loans", or much of this other flotsam being discussed. It's about big govt vs small govt. Less liberty vs more liberty. America as a euro-socialist society vs America as the capitalist society she was designed as.

If you haven't figured out who you're voting for by now, you're a political ignoramus (and that's not name calling- I'm using the term literally.) That also goes for those of you who feel NEITHER candidate is worthy- you still have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils, and the differences between the 2 candidates is pretty big. Shouldn't be a tough decision to make.

If you're standing in the voting booth, trying to figure out who to vote for, ask yourself this question: "do I want to leave my children with the mess Greece is in right now?" Because that's exactly what you'll be doing if you vote for Obama. And the only superpower left in the world will be China... sound like a nice world?

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

the fed is independent of the government, it answers to itself and there is some question of who is actually pulling the purse strings over there, no one, i mean no one really knows for sure who it is that is setting the polices and for what reasons.

JIT??? care to elucidate on this for us???

i do support a return to the gold std. , even if economic expansion is slowed as a result, at least gold is something we can sink our teeth into

us tax code has to be totally redone from the bottom up. if a slightly 'graduated' flat tax structure is the only compromise that can be voted on by both sides , then i think that is better than what we have now.

upping the capitol gains tax to Reagan era levels seems prudent to me only if we can REDUCE the size and scope of all levels of government (this includes the public school system), by 20 percent, that includes defense, parks, ALL agencies etc., across the board cuts n departments, buildings, equipment and yes , personnel, the public sector was never supposed tog row this big, and t is like the Borg, we will all be 'assimilated' and they (public workers and government toadies and appointed bureaucrats) keep telling us , 'resistance is futile'

I have to agree with setting a 'means test' for those who are of sufficient means, they don;t need the SS checks, they know they don't need it. also, limiting taxable income subject to SS tax should be eliminated completely, SS tax should be based on 100 percent of everybody's income, never understood why it stopped at 82K or whatever it is right now, shouldn't have a top end.

the safety net should be just that, a 'safety net', those circus acts that are of sufficient skill level willingly perform their act without a net, because they know they can, this should be no different.

what else should we be encouraging our 'elected' leaders to do for us?

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

jd2, yes and no:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/05/24/fed-salaries-it-pays-to-be-private/

www.federalreserveeducation.org/about-the-fed/structure-and-functions/

The only part of the Fed that's under direct (well, kind of) control of the government is the Federal Reserve Board which consists of seven members. Their salaries are dictated by Congress as is their mandated goals. How those goals are fulfilled, however, are completely outside of the federal government with the exception of any laws that have been specifically passed to dictate their actions (ie The Federal Reserve Act of 1913). IOW, the extent of the Federal governments "controlling interest" is through the FRA of 1913 and it's ammendments.

Other than the Federal Reserve Board, AFAIK all other personnel of the Fed are paid by the Fed banks which are owned by the reserve system's member banks (mandatory shareholders).

The bottom line is that the Fed has A LOT of leeway to conduct it's business.

Have you read anything about the attempts to "audit" the Federal Reserve? The word audit is used loosely IMO because it's not just about a monetary audit of the Board of Governors or even the Federal Reserve banks. It's about finding out what the Fed actually *does* - the actions it takes - in order to fulfill it's lawful responsibilities. While the government might mandate the Fed's goals it has practically zero influence on the actual actions the Fed takes to reach those goals. Thus it's private institutions making monetary decisions to fulfill it's public legal mandate.

Bottom line is that the extent of the governments influence over the Federal Reserve come primarily from the law (predominately the Federal Reserve Act) and the appointed Federal Reserve Board. That's it.

As an example, does the following look like something that was voted on by Congress (note the scale)?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=a3O

and the longer term graph for perspective:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ADJRESSL?cid=123

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Ive posted this before you may want to take a look at it.

The American Dream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

jit, thanks for your second link; it's very good - required reading for anyone commenting on the "Fed", probably. Your third and fourth links are too much detail for me, right now.

All in all, I am satisfied that the Federal Reserve System (is that the best term to use?) is indeed part of the Federal Government, but, as you point out, under minimal control of other parts of the government.

But that's by design, isn't it? Otherwise, it could become as ineffective as, say, Congress.

jd2 ✉
Sep '12

I suppose "ineffective" is a relative term jd2, based on each of our perspectives.

IMO the Fed has been very "effective", but at what cost? I can certainly see why many people view fiat Fed money as such a great idea because it makes it a lot easier to get the things we need and want in life. I don't think anyone can claim that our society has not benefited from the Feds existence, specifically it's authority to legally create money from nothing. The ease of access to money for our government to fund itself through the sale of Treasury bonds, for instance, has made for some wonderful social programs. If your perspective is from this point of view I can see why the Fed looks so attractive.

The other view, the one I happen to take, is a bit more long term and sadly a bit more negative. I see the benefits fiat money as temporary, but I am fully aware that it's because my time frame of reference is longer than most. I happen to look at the consequences of the actions of our Fed and of Congress over a longer span of time and see a system that is in no way sustainable. We have sooooo many people dependent on the government for part or all of their livelihoods today that it's scary. With such dependence, is it too much to ask ourselves what would happen if the support system failed? I don't think so.

I also don't see how anyone can think that we can create money from nothing forever and not expect some very, very bad things to come from it. History is full of examples of societies doing this very thing. Where are those societies now?

So while I fully acknowledge the "benefits" of the Fed, IMO a deeper, more in depth view is required. That's what I've tried to do personally and, quite frankly, I don't like what I see. Not at all.

Anyway, back to your point about the Fed being part of the government. The Fed mandate is for stable prices, maximum employment and maintaining medium long-term interest rates. What grade would you give the Fed for meeting those goals?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

With minimal oversight and just a handful of laws dictating in general terms what lines cannot be crossed, the Fed has relatively free reign to accomplish those goals So no, I don't see the Fed as being a part of the government at all. They are a private institution *granted* the authority to create money in our society.

What has the Fed done well though? The most glaring result of the Feds actions, IMO, is the wealth disparity that's created the 99%-1% divide. Our Congress's chosen method in dealing with that particular problem hasn't been to say "hey Federal Reserve, what exactly have you been doing?" but rather "hey wealthy people, you've got too much money so we're going to forcibly relive you of large portion of it". IMO the problem is the Fed, so the solution needs to be focused on the Fed, which is why I've consistently been saying we have to stop addressing the symptom (wealth disparity) and address the problem (Federal reserve having too much power and un-checked authority to manipulate our economy). The class warfare is just a distraction keeping us from addressing the real problem.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

JIT: so what's the issue with the big reserves?

And add in, how does/did the Fed create wealth disparity?

You seem to keep noting the symptoms and then tossing the Fed under the bus, but I am looking for the how? Unless "unchecked power" is the answer? Not sure but seems like many organizations seem to have that.......

What's wrong with HUGE reserves and HOW does the Fed create disparate wealth classes? (not disagreeing, yet, just that inquiring minds want to know)

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Okay, JIT, you make some good points, which I'll keep in mind.

Of course, some of what the Fed is doing, like the policy of low inflation, has to do with the task Congress gave it of maximizing employment.

And I agree with you about the problem of people usually taking "sides". Truth and understanding don't have much of a chance under those conditions.

jd2 ✉
Sep '12

"JIT: Your last two links are interesting, but so what? I can't fathom a clue as to: "does the following look like something that was voted on by Congress (note the scale)?" And you aren't telling either.....:>)

Do you see a problem with the trend in the reserves? Why?"

misterg, I thought you knew the meaning of the feds reserve balances, why they are there and the actions it took to create them. Do your google thing and I hope the answer will become clear. Let's just say that if those reserves - that now total more than 10% of the US GDP - are in fact part of the federal government as jd2 believes, then the reality is that the federal government now controls *more* than 50% of the economic activity in the US. If that doesn't alarm you then I don't know what would.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Why do you continue to throw in your emotion-triggering adjectives around? Do you think you're funny or something, or is it that you feel demeaning the view of others is an easy way for you to look smart? I can guarantee you it's not the later. KNOCK IT OFF!

Your summary is good, thanks. Since you like patting yourself on the back though, I'll do the same for a moment and remind you that, amazingly enough, all of that has been posted here on HL in the past - all of it in threads in which you were a participant. It seems that we are inching closer to being able to fully understand each other.

"When the Fed creates money, as you know, there is an expansion effect. So the Fed creates a buck, the bank gets it, the bank puts 10 cents in reserves (reserve requirement by law) and puts 90 cents to work as loans or investments. The 90 cents ends up in a bank, that bank puts 9 cents in reserves, loans 81 cents and so and so on until the $1 of created money becomes about $10 of "created money," give or take. It's called the expansion effect as you know and, of course, the effect is not as exact as I have represented nor is the timing on how long the $1 takes to become $10."

That's how money is primarily created, but what about how it's destroyed? It's when those loans are paid off the money gets destroyed, balances out the system (with the exception of interest) and the money supply decreases. What would happen if everyone payed off their loans and didn't take out any new ones?

But a key point to address is interest: Where does the interest come from to pay off the loans initiated to create new money? This is important in the grand scheme of things, very important actually, and might help you better understand my perspective.

"Here, you can read it too since it seems you posed the question without knowing the answer."
I know damn well what the answer is, and your link confirmed it. Just because you want to spin it to your liking doesn't change what it is. Anyway, here's a key snippet from the link you posted:
"However, a careful examination of the balance sheet effects of central bank actions shows that the high level of reserves is simply a by-product of the Fed’s new lending facilities and asset purchase programs."

Now read the second-to-last last line in my previous post, then consider the "asset purchase programs" mentioned above. Now do you understand? (hint: from the same link, why is it that "reserve balances" make up the majority of the *liabilities* side of the Fed balance sheet?)

Regardless, I have NEVER said the "sky is falling". NEVER. NOT ONCE. So cut the crap. What I have said, REPEATEDLY, is that the TRENDS rarely abate, and when they do they quickly bounce back in the same direction they've always gone. What I continue to say, even though your political mind continues to read something different, is that the economic model you've described so well has an inherent end, mathematically, *unless* some restraint is shown every so often to pull things back into balance (that's what we need, restraint, and is what I consistently call for). That economic model also requires one other thing that, if you can answer the question about interest above, is the primary driver for the economic disparity in our country (think the Occupy movement and the 99% debate)

justintime ✉
Sep '12

"Don't want to play your game any more just to be called demeaning."

Fine. Knock off the playground comments then. I don't care to discuss things with you either. I'll sign off this thread by clearing up a few details, but I'm done. I too am tired of the nah-nah-nah pettiness of where these discussions always seem to go whenever you're involved.

I believe you are misinformed if you think the majority of loan money isn't destroyed as a loans are payed off. You said it yourself - the banks need only have a small amount of actual money, reserves, to originate a loan. The 90% balance comes from the bank borrowing money from the Fed. The fed creates the money for the loan then destroys it as the banks pay them off. That's the very basis of fractional reserve banking. You described the other primary money creation method just fine.

The interest question is complicated, so I'll try to simplify it even though it's not entirely accurate. Let's assume the only way to create money is through fractional reserve banking. It's loaned into existence and is paid back with interest. Somewhere new money was needed to pay the interest. If the only way to create money is via loans that means you would always need *new* loans issued before the old ones were paid off so that money was available to make the interest payments. IOW, the only way to keep the supply of money from falling is to constantly make new loans, or stated another way, to constantly grow the economy. No growth in the economy = contraction of the money supply.

If we wanted to look at the other method of money creation you described - basically the Fed buying Treasury securities - you could say that new money is created when the federal government goes into debt. Like fractional reserve banking, treasuries are nothing more than the federal government borrowing money to be paid back at a later date. And just like paying off a loan, when the US government pays off it's debt that money gets destroyed.

I'm not sure that's clear, but if it is can you see why debt overhang is actually good for the economy, in terms of money creation? Lowering our debt too fast would do the reverse; it would be harmful to the economy unless consumer and commercial lending increased enough to offset.

The "hockey stick" graph (more like a vertical take-off) was posted in answer to a question as to whether or not the increased reserves had been "approved" by Congress. Reserves had gone from roughly 100 billion to 1600 billion (1.6T) in less than four years, a 16 fold increase. This is roughly the same as the US deficit for 2011. Kind of a big deal, no? I certainly think so. I wanted to know if anyone thought the Congress had approved it, that's all.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Mr. G., Capitalism requires constant growth or it dies. It is a "non-sustainable system". The stress we have put on our environment since the Industrial Revolution is not sustainable.

iJay ✉
Sep '12

Well, I see we have cut back on the demeaning with only a "playground" retort and some "nah-nah-nah"-ness. You are a piece of work. I am really just trying to understand, get a little peeved at your teacher-like assignments you hand out, but really get hacked when I "show my work," and you say, "I know that" or "we already discussed that." Really, I am just trying to understand and was pretty darned clear that the Fed paying interest on Excess Reserves was news to me. Seemingly was news to you too, but I just couldn't take the time to audit when you said: "we already discussed that." So sure, stop or stay on point. Either one or the other.

First, this is a very confused loan/money-creation/interest thread you have created. I would love to understand this, but still seems cloudy. For example, when you say:

"I believe you are misinformed if you think the majority of loan money isn't destroyed as a loans are payed off. You said it yourself - the banks need only have a small amount of actual money, reserves, to originate a loan. The 90% balance comes from the bank borrowing money from the Fed."

Who is loaning who? You got the Fed, Banks, and individuals/businesses all capable of making and taking loans. Need some clarity here.

But trying to move forward, we will use a simple model with full monetary expansion and where all money is loaned out. When a bank originates a loan, it can use it's own assets to create a loan for an individual/business or it can take a loan from the Fed. In this case, you want the bank to take a loan from the Fed (I think). So, bank one borrows $1 from the Fed, puts .1 in the fed in required reserves (RR) and gets ready to loan .9 which is in the fed's excess reserves ER). So far the FED has a $1 "loan" on its books on the liability side; and on the asset side, a corresponding .1 in RR and .9 in ER (I am not too good with balance sheet so sorry if I got my assets/liabilities backwards). The bank takes the .9 out of the Fed's ER and loans it to an individual/business starting the monetary expansion effect. At the end of the day, the Fed has a $1 loan on it's books and a corresponding $1 in RR. The $9 in expansion is in the system as a loan from the banks, on the bank books, not on the Fed books.

It is being counted as being part of the money supply that the Fed tries to count and control (good luck on both accounts).

When the $10 in loans are paid off, there are a number of possible outcomes. One is that the money is loaned out again, no change to the system. A second is that the money is not loaned but is put in the Fed into ER. In this case, there would be a severe contraction in the money supply. However, as your chart indicates, the "new money" is not being loaned but is sticking in the ER. Since it is in ER, it is not part of the money supply and has not expanded the system. According the the article, it has no real detrimental effect to the money supply and thus the hockey stick in your charts has no reall effect on the economy. Again, I am not sure I agree with this, but it is ER, not RR which is still the original $1.

And, think about it, if we move from today's bloated ER to actually paying off the original $1; does the money supply contract? Yes and no. Yes it contracts, if the dollar is paid off, but that is from the RR, not from the ER which are not part of the money supply, so I think the answer is who cares? Why? Because RRs have been relatively stable, the Fed has essentially stunted any potential contraction from the stimulus and easing's. Brilliant new tool.

Now the interesting interest part.... First, individual/business loans to local banks and the interest therein. I take it that is not the interest you are talking about since that just affects the local bank balance sheet and the indivual's account.

At the Fed level, there is the interest paid to the Fed on the original $1 that it loaned. This money comes from the banks based on their profits from individual/businesses and then is turned into Fed profit which is turned over to the US Treasury after expenses. The Fed turned over $29B in 2006 for example. I doubt that that keeps you up night except to realize that this number has probably become massive since 2008, probably $80B in 2010.

Now the interesting part. For the ER where the Fed as of the end of 2008 pays interest on what essentially is a loan or money that is not loaned. I think this is what you have been alluding to as the interesting part of interest. The new interest paid on RR and ER by the Fed. This interest payment comes from the taxpayer. And it is .25% approx. So, $80B in profits per year, about $200B in interest per year, American taxpayer down $120B in taxes ---- stable economy, low interest loans, low inflation ---- priceless.

National Defense yearly budget = $1T. Now that's interesting to the taxpayer.

And now you know the rest of the story of how you can put over $1T in the system via stimulus and QE and still remain stable.

In terms of debt creation, that's a different story with an interest profile that is staggering.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

How exactly do you go back to the gold standard when the debt is $16 trill? At today's price there is only $10trill or so total in the whole world. That leaves some gruesome alternatives to get there - buy gold heavily to inflate the price making loaves of bread cost $200, sell Yellowstone and Nation Parks to privateers, or maybe devalue your currency risking economic destabilization. (not to mention the middle class with pitch forks and torches when they find their salary is now $8,000 a year, the house is now worth $30,000 but the mortgage is still $180,000)

There's a really good reason Reagan had that looked into and promptly dropped it. No matter a few bits of appeal, the reality is economically crushing. Not to mention a return to failed past policies ala 1973 Recession.

GC ✉
Sep '12

What happens next is that unless we pay down the deficit, we will come a cropper against dollar value and financial ratings.

Major causes of the deficit need to be eradicated and they are not "the stimulus" or welfare spending. Medicare is bleeding, Social Security is funded but running a deficit, tax revenues suck, and defense spending is so bloody out of control that fixing it will cause a recession unto itself.

I will run some pictures. Here is the deficit over time. No blame, just timing. Note the projections which only make matters worse. (from the NYTimes)

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

So you can see the policy changes feeding into the Deficit and tax revenues (Bush tax cuts) are huge, the wars are huge, stimulus is huge and defense is huge.

We need to let the Bush tax cut extensions run out or at least some of them. Romney's plan to cut taxes 20% not only advantages the rich, go figure, but how the heck does he plan to pay for them. Even if trickle-down works, how much time does he have against the deficit 20% less revenue will cause. Where will he get the corresponding cuts to cover the short term loss or, in the Bush case ---- forever.....

We need no more stimulus, need to cap spending increases, and no new spending unless we cut something else --- period. So when you hear a Democrat say we need to "invest in America," be positive. Say sure, what you do want to cut for it?

When we look at the fed budget, the three largest elements are defense, medicare and social security.

Social Security is self-funded, running a deficit as boomers age, but will not go bankrupt to 2026, we have some time, but should be addressed and right-sized. Means testing, raising age limits, lots of things can help.

Medicare is bleeding, needs help now. Vouchers are an answer but pretty darn mean to, as Biden says, make Grammy go to open market to buy insurance with a check that's too small to cover.... ObamaCare helps but its not the fix. Needs re-engineering.

Defense is too big and could be cut 50% --- yeah, it's that big, and we would still spend more than everyone ---- by far. We spend 5 times the Chinese, we spend as much as the next 15 countries combined --- some of these are our friends. We spend 24% of our yearly budget, 25 cents of every dollar is spent protecting us. From what? We can return any country to the middle ages in 7 days. We can't make them American and we will never have enough defense budget to do that. But we own the air, we own the sea, and we can reduce anyone to rubble, in days, without nukes. When is it enough. See the pic.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Mistergoogle, your prescriptions look pretty sound.

Both parties and we the public are all responsible for the huge debt. It was primarily the democrats that started social entitlements that may not be sustainable in the long-term, but the public embraced them. The republicans, starting with Reagan (as JIT says) but hugely accelerated under Bush, cut the revenues to pay for the programs but not the spending, thereby locking in huge annual deficits.

No one (no politician, that is) has a plan to bring things back into balance, because the necessary tax increases and spending cuts seem like political suicide.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Sep '12

JIT - The Gold Standard may well impose restraint, but I think that's more of the effect than the cause. It's supposed to be used for cross evaluating worth between currencies, ie it's for forex. The restraint is a by product, and that to me is one of the issues. Reagan I'm not so sure set out intending to be such a Keynesian deficit spender. The Gold Standard looked good because it's so supply side. But it just was so unfeasible to instantly lock up the budget that was so out of control - so it was going to make hardships even worse getting there, on top of the inability to keep it. To me it was more of a non-starter just like you said it's too late today. Then I think Reagan finding the joys of spending what you don't have came later.

In any case, it's positively true it's too late. Having a single country on a Gold Standard is useless - and I don't see the writing on the European wall saying they'll be doing it any time soon. It would wreck everything to have to put a whole new currency in place which you can ask Yeltsin how well that goes over. Some other commodity does two things - it invokes what ever problems there are in the market of that commodity, and it makes for a stable but zero growth economy in a cash crunch. Not where anyone wants to be. Plus it misses that the world is no longer only a commodity market. That's the real problem - there's more to life than hard goods which is how our economies now run.

Some other way out has to be found. The deficit spending has to be curtailed, for sure, and unilaterally not just one party's pet projects. So does tax fairness that neither soaks anyone, nor allows anyone off the hook. Corporations most of all. But that's for long term so what ever gets fixed stays fixed. It doesn't solve how to get there to begin with. Instant fixes all crash one thing or another, it has to be a phased in approach. And it has to be universal which means you need more than the US involved. There has to be enough flexibility to allow for changes in economies and yet enough constraints that prevent endless funny money. The Fed or the IMF aren't inherently bad, the management of them is. Letting foxes running the hen house has to stop. Banks are involved and need to be at the table that affects them - but they shouldn't be running the show feeding just enough tastes of their drug to get their prey hooked.

There is no simple solution, there are many pieces that are interrelated. But on this particular subject, the whole way the US has structured their debt has been wrong from day one. It's always been treated as a super short term spot market credit extension. It's like maxing out a billion credit cards one at a time. Non-sense, if you know you're going to be in debt for a while like on a home, you take out a secured long term loan. Time to right that wrong to begin with - debt restructuring is what would happen on a personal level, because assets are there and it can be paid back eventually. And it's time to change bankers and have the current bank put through a full audit. Dishing out all those tiny credit card loans isn't the sign of a trustworthy bank, so getting to the bottom of the hanky panky is part of the restructuring. (not to mention some foreign issues are likely to surface like where )

That alone is enough of an upheaval. But it's done without collapsing the currency and hurting the everyday guy. It won't make banks happy, and some related financial markets won't be happy - but it doesn't have to collapse them too if you're not talking just plain walking away from the debt. Restructuring is what banks are used to, particularly today.

GC ✉
Sep '12

JIT - "My desire for a commodity standard is for one and only one reason: restraint."

That's my big point. Choose restraint as the goal, but then something besides a commodity. Pick a low growth commodity and your whole economy is low growth. Yet your population grows and you can't meet that - positively correct and the reason why it can't be commodity based.

Two things on your other comment - first you're just too fixated on "tax, tax, tax". There's just as much "spend, spend, spend". If you don't address both sides you're in just as much trouble.

Second is the restructuring may have a cost, but we're not talking personal finance here. This isn't a matter of thousands of people not paying their mortgage on purpose just to get a bail out. That's why I'm not suggesting the national debt just instantly disappear. I'm saying the credit junky has to pay the piper but the money pusher has his own crime. That's why I'm comparing it to a load of credit card debt while you've got a home loan waiting for you. That's not punishing the innocent, that's just getting better terms from a better banker.

But the underlying issue still remains - is legal restraint enough or will it simply be undone later? How do you realistically evaluate the service base of an economy? That's what's at stake because that's the way you grow - it's not hard goods but the ability to turn them into something of worth is where the value add is.

GC ✉
Sep '12

Hyperinflation will come and wipe away the debt and the savings of many...

iJay ✉
Sep '12

Then there's the famous "it's the interest servicing the debt that will kill us." Bull. Not against GDP, it's chump change. Economist say default is possible around 12%, we run 3%. It's not the interest that will get us.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

misterg:

- http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2012USp_13s1li011mcn_F0fF0sF0l

If you're looking at the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP, it's probably good to know what percentage of GDP was due to government intervention at the time. Deficits of roughly 10% of GDP in 2010 isn't so bad except when you consider that 40% of GDP is now driven by government spending. The only time it's been worse was during WWII when deficits were 25% and spending was near 50% of GDP

--- What was the interest rate during each time period in the interest graph you posted? Surely lower interest rates would lower the amount of interest owed, right?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TB1YR?cid=116

That's just one graph of many for Treasury bills, all of them exhibiting the same declining behavior since 1980. One might ask what our interest payments would be like if interest rates weren't so low (for instance, if the 1980 rates were in place)? In fact, people are asking today and deducing, correctly IMO, that should rates rise by even a single percentage point the manageability of making interest payments would become quite difficult. Remember, we've been near zero for nearly four years. Any change in the rate will affect our interest payments.

--- "The best measure of debt is against what you earn our GDP. Think of the GDP as your GROSS income, what you make before taxes. Then your NET income would be tax receipts for the FED."

I recall you saying that before, and I don't disagree. It makes sense except when you look at how much influence the federal government has on GDP (about 40% per above). Would you call the 40% of government induced GDP "earned"? How can that be when the government has no money of it's own. It either has to tax or borrow the money it spends. The higher the percentage of GDP the government induces the poorer we become. I don't see how it can be any other way.

BD:
"Where does the money come from to pay the interest on the fixed total of all the money in the economy that is defined by the factor '10x' ?"

IMO, more loans. This is what I was trying to state earlier to misterg, that the only way to obtain the money needed for interest in a debt-based money system is to increase or "grow" the number of loans. Others disagree, saying that as interest is paid it is then put back into the economy and freely used for transactions. I suspect this has some truth to it, but for true growth this type of money needs to expand as well. If the only way to create money is through debt then the first theory must hold true.

If you have some time Google "Money as Debt" and look for some videos. Specifically see http://www.moneyasdebt.net/ for a film that discusses this issue. If you have time make sure you look at the dispute page to get an idea of where people disagree ( http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/disputed_information.html)

justintime ✉
Sep '12

But Mr. G do you honestly believe that we will have tremendous growth in the coming years to easily handle the debt like after WW2? This is the key. If our economy does not get out of this rut we will not bring in additional revenue to pay down this debt. Then what?

iJay ✉
Sep '12

Back to our story....

At the beginning of the 1900's our debt/GDP was 10%, the Great Depression pushed it to 40% (gee, we should mortgaged a bigger house then) but it was WWII, when we went over 120% debt/GDP ratio, we took 35 years to bring that number way down to 32% in the mid 70's. Then we met Ronnie.

Ronnie lower taxes, spent billions to end the cold war spending Russia into the ditch and raising our debt ratio for the first time in 35 years to over 60%. After a brief respite with Clinton dropping only to 56% we were off to the races. Bush got us to over 70% and Obama doubled down to 102% where we might be leveling.

So the bad news is here we are. From 2000-2008, what we got was a 911 safety net, a couple of wars, a HUGE military, a HUGER mercenary and outsourced military, rebuilding a couple countries and paying for their military too, lowest taxes in a long time especially for the rich, rising health-care costs and people living longer. And then we paid for the crash of 2008: saving the financial system, saving the auto industry, lowering taxes more on the middle class, saving some jobs for teachers, firemen, etc. and paying extra unemployment. And a huge military and continuance of most of the Bush policies. That's what we mortgaged for.

But the good news. The sky is not falling. We have been here before. The number is staggering but so is our GDP. We can fix it, but it won't happen by just lowering taxes, that's a fool's game. Look at the history, ask yourself where will we make it up. Cuts? Not bloody likely since the problem itself can not be solved JUST by cuts much less by lowering taxes and THEN trying to cut. By surpercharging those rich folk to hire more, invest more, create more jobs. That's called trickle down from the tax cuts and we have been waiting 12 years since Bush made the first cuts. Adds up, no. Insanity yes.

We can fix it. It will NOT take 35 years but it will take a lifetime or two. We need to be smart. Raise taxes smartly. End the loopholes and re-engineer our system of deductions and credits. The same with the subsidy programs. We need to re-engineer entitlements, not just slash and burn. Telling grammy "here's a voucher, you're on your own." IS pushing her off the cliff. How about smart re-engineering, raising age limits means testing, both liberal and conservative ideas.

And we need to make cuts starting with the military. Again, smart cuts. I think 50% can be done. I am sure you don;t agree, so maybe 30%.... Either way, we will need to spend money to re-tool, re-train, and re-engineer this "industry" into plowshares. And bring those boys home now. We need the strength, we need their creativity, and we don't need them in Afghanistan to protect Broadway.

We do need conservative ideas, there are good ones. What we don't need is a do-nothing Congress that is allowing this to continue out of hand just by taking their hands off the tiller.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

iJay, we can't forget about our population level either. Add in the fact that so many factories are highly automated one has to wonder what jobs will be available to fill. Too many people, too few jobs?

It would be great to know in advance what the next "big thing" will be. It has to be really, really big though...

justintime ✉
Sep '12

JIT: got it on the interest and the interest on the debt is paid for by taxpayers; it is our mortgage interest. And low or not, it now represents things we got in the past (hope they were worth it) and things we will forgo in the future (hope there are no good sales at Costco).

And yes, in the scheme of things, the interest value is low but still is much better at zero.

I am not sure, since the link was broken, how they calculated govt control of GDP. According to NPR: "Federal spending has grown roughly as fast as the overall economy over the past 50 years. In 1962, federal spending was $707 billion and accounted for 18 percent of U.S. GDP. In 2011, federal spending was $3.1 trillion and accounted for 24 percent of GDP. (The dollar figures are adjusted for inflation.)"

But to answer the question, if govt controls 100% of GDP, that's communism and it fails.

But spending alone does not equal control and 24% is a factor but has been relatively stable since the 1960's whien it was 18%.

I think the biggest worry is "stigma" and that is, will consumers and lenders begin to loose faith and trust in the dollar and therefore not spend, invest or loan. Like you said, the economy demands growth, and recession (or lack of money) means contraction which means lower production, lost jobs, bad, bad things.

Personally, I think we could use a little more money and perhaps some inflation; my 5% CDs are all maturing !!!! And any bank satisfied with .25% on excess reserves ain;t gonna throw me a bone, and to your point, how much more risk can I take. After all, I am not Mitt Romney.......

OK, let's wrap er up with a summary. Here's how the govt spent your money over time. Remember, this is a 100% chart so the values have increased by a factor of 3 over the time period. But NOTE: Sure defense is small piece of pie but still the largest slice on the plate. Also REMEMBER --- social security is a separate tax, self-sufficient based on you working, and fully funded till 2026. Sure it is running in the red, but not draining other taxes. Same with medicare but much shorter time clock and much more in the red. But funded, like SS, from payroll. That's why they need to be re-engineered, not cut. Unless you feel we should end the safety nets, quit paying the tax, and let our old folk roll their own.

All the other components are income tax related and feel free to have at em, cut away....

So again, in summary. Cut defense. Re-engineer SS and Medicaid/caire. As to the rest, sure, peck away at em. Get rid of the liars and the cheats, but let's face it; if we tackle the big three and let the other one alone, we will fix over 50% on the spending side.

The the tax side. We need more, it's only fair. Either across the board hikes or targeted. I say hit the people whose safety and security will be impacted the least, but that's just me. Hit em all if you have to, but one way or the other, we need some revenue. We cut enough and added way to much to the debts by doing so.

Jobs, the future, etc. I will tackle that next but that's the toughest one. We need to re-engineer ourselves and no amount of "bring back those factories" is going to cut it. But later on that one. Enjoy the pic, it's from NPR.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Ron Paul vs Bernanke on the Bailout Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMznVB-svNQ&feature=related

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

the unemployed and the under-employed when added together with those who are discouraged from looking for work is close to 19 percent of all americans

these numbers are as bad as anything we experienced during the great depression, but we are not talking about it,

why not? everybody out there knows of someone who is reeling back on their heels, running out of money and getting further depressed mentally in this horrifically abusive economy that is at depression era levels

the middle class has lost ground, they are earning less and paying more every year (look it up), over 50 percent of recent college grads cannot find jobs in their field, but guess what, the loans are all due anyways. why are we not talking about this?

where does this train ride to hell end?

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

Current Economic Crisis Worse than the Great Depression

The most extraordinary thing is that the mainstream media has never attempted to compare the current economic environment to the one preceding the Great Depression. In essence, it is assumed outright that the Great Depression can never possibly happen again, ever, thus obviating the need for such a comparison. I actually believe that the macroeconomic fundamentals today are much worse, so that we are in for a protracted period of economic depression – a depression much worse than the Great Depression, a depression that would likely be remembered in history as “The Second Great Depression” or The Greater Depression , as Doug Casey has called it so aptly. Here is why I believe that this is the case.

Worse than the Great Depression

So, why Worse Than The Great Depression ? What makes me believe that the current depression will be worse than the Great Depression? I present six of the most important fundamentals that are “baked in the cake” and that suggest of a Greater Depression .

Overvalued Real Estate. The real estate market has been driven by a number of innovations in real estate finance. Overvaluation in real estate implies overvaluation in real estate financial instruments; an implosion of real estate prices implies an implosion in those instruments. It is widely recognized by economists that the Case-Shiller Index is a good proxy for the prices of real estate. A widely-recognized chart from 1890 to 2007 tells the story. The chart makes it crystal clear that the current overvaluation of real estate in real terms grossly exceeds the one during the 1920s. The coming correction in real estate will be protracted and gut-wrenching, with an expected cumulative effect that is much worse than the Great Depression.

Total U.S. Credit. Credit makes leverage: the more credit in the financial system, the more leveraged it is. Today's total U.S. credit relative to GDP has surpassed significantly the levels preceding the Great Depression. Back then, the total amount of credit in the financial system almost reached an astonishing 250% of GDP. Using the same metric today, the debt level in the U.S. financial system surpassed 350% in 2008, while the level in 1982 was “only” 130%. As Charles Dumas from Lombard Street Research put it quite aptly, "we've had a 30-year leveraging up of America, ending in an unchecked orgy."

Explosion of Derivatives. Derivatives have been likened by Warren Buffet to “financial weapons of mass destruction”. The notional amount of total derivatives, as well as “Value at Risk” (VaR), has skyrocketed in recent years with the potential to destabilize the financial system for decades. To put it more allegorically, derivatives hang like a sword of Damocles over the financial system.

A comparison with the 1920s is difficult to make. mostly Derivatives back then were extensively used, although not widely understood. Given that I am not aware of any statistics of derivatives for the period of the 1920s, a meaningful comparison based on hard data is admittedly impossible. Nevertheless, I would venture to make an intelligent guess that the size of modern-day derivatives is hundreds or even thousands of times larger relative to the size of the economy in comparison to the 1920s. Some of the latest reports indicate that the total notional value of derivatives outstanding surpasses one quadrillion dollars. To put this into perspective, this amounts to almost 100 times the GDP of the U.S. economy.

Dow-Gold Ratio. The Dow-Gold ratio represents the most important ratio between the relative prices of financial assets and real assets. The Dow component represents the valuation of financial assets; the gold component – of real assets. When leverage in the financial system increases significantly, so does this ratio. A very high ratio is interpreted as an imbalance between financial and real assets – financial assets are grossly overvalued, while real assets are grossly undervalued. It also implies that a correction eventually will be necessary – either through deflation, which implies deleveraging and a collapsing stock market, or through inflation, which implies stagnant stock market for many years and steadily rising prices of real assets, commodities, and gold, usually associated with stagnant economy and typically resulting in stagflation. The first case—deflation—occurred during the 1930s, while the second case—stagflation—occurred during the 1970s.

Global Bubbles . It is impossible to make direct comparison with the 1920s, but today the global economy is rife with bubbles. Back then in the 1920s, the U.S. had its stock and real estate bubbles, while the European economies were struggling to rebuild from the devastations of WW1 that ended in 1919. I am personally not aware of any other bubbles during this period, although I welcome reader feedback on this topic.

Today the picture is very different. The U.S. economy had a stock market and real estate bubble that has surpassed its own during the 1920s. Colossal US current account deficits have fuelled extraordinary growth in global monetary reserves. As a result, Europe has real estate bubbles across the board, from the U.K. and Ireland, throughout the Mediterranean (Spain, France, Italy and Greece), to the entire Baltic region (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and the Balkans (Romaina and Bulgaria). Even worse, many Asian countries (China, Korea, etc.) also have their own stock and property bubbles, only with the exception of Japan, which is still in the process of recovering from its own during the 1980s. Thus, during the 1920s only the U.S. suffered from gross financial imbalances, while today the imbalances have engulfed the whole world – both developed and developing. It stands to reason that the unwinding of those global imbalances is likely to be more painful today than it was during the Great Depression due to both size and scope.
Collapsing Bretton Woods II. The global monetary system was on a quasi-gold standard during the 1920s. Back then dollars and pounds were convertible to gold, while all other currencies were convertible to dollars and pounds. An appropriate way to think about it is that of a precursor to the Bretton Woods from 1945-1971. What is important to understand is that while the system was fiat in nature, gold imposed significant limitations to credit expansion and leveraging.

Somewhat similar was the role of Bretton Woods that lasted from 1945 to 1971. The dollar was tied to gold, while all other fiat currencies were tied to the dollar. Just like the interwar period, gold imposed some limitations on credit and financial imbalances.

We now live in what has been termed Bretton Woods II. Essentially, this is a pure fiat dollar standard, where all currencies are convertible to dollars, either at fixed or floating exchange rates, while the dollar itself is convertible to “nothing”. Thus, the dollar has no limitations imposed to it by gold, so without the discipline of gold, the current global monetary system has accumulated significantly more imbalances than ever before in modern capitalism. These imbalances show up in the international monetary system as unsustainable trade deficits (and surpluses), skyrocketing official dollar reserves in some European and many Asian central banks, and the proliferation of Sovereign Wealth Funds; more generally, these imbalances result in a myriad of bubbles, overleveraging, and other maladjustments already discussed above.

Today Bretton Woods II is in the process of disintegration. The world is slowly but steadily losing its confidence in the dollar as the world reserve currency. A flight from the dollar is in progress and the collapse of the global monetary system is imminent. As Bretton Woods II disintegrates and a new system replaces it, the process of readjustment will be necessarily more painful than the respective process during the Great Depression.

A caution on terminology is necessary here. While the literature over the last 10-20 years has widely recognized the term “Bretton Woods II”, in September-October of 2008 the term was widely used by the media to describe a proposed international summit with the goal of reconstructing a new international monetary system designed from scratch, just like “Bretton Woods”. Instantly dubbed by the media “Bretton Woods II”, this term could be potentially very confusing as it could mean very different things to different people. The interested reader should consult Wikipedia's Bretton Woods II where both meanings are explained in detail.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7099.html

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

You're assuming the "Great Recession" (a complete misnomer IMO) is over. It's not by many accounts (housing, unemployment (not sure where you got your 10% reference above), food stamps, etc). We do seem to have achieved a status quo though, with many of the underlying problems being "papered over" by gobs of borrowed money, biding time until things return to normal. But what is "normal" - borrowing too much to finance what we want today, pushing the bill onto our children and grand-children?

It's great to be optimistic, but IMO we're not there yet. Actually, not even close.

Technically the Fed is not different than any other business - they have to abide by whatever laws are on the books pertaining to their "industry". The *only* thing that makes the Fed even remotely federal is it's board of directors. Other than that, it's just as private as any other business that has to abide by our country's laws.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Check out this "ALICE" study from the United Way about the plight of NJ working poor:

http://www.unitedwaynnj.org/ourwork/alice.php

Stan ✉
Sep '12

..We Are Living in a ‘Modern-Day Depression’

The Federal Reserve cut its growth forecast for the second half of 2012 and 2013 last week, raising concerns yet again about the potential for a "double-dip" recession. While some, notably the cycle watchers at ECRI, believe the U.S. economy is definitely heading for another recession (or already there), Gluskin Sheff's chief economist and strategist David Rosenberg goes a big step further.

"We are living in a modern-day depression," he declares.

This dramatic statement is based on several factors, including the record number of Americans living on Food Stamps — 46 million or 1-in-7 in 2011. Because these benefits are now given in the form of electronic debit cards, we don't have bread lines like in the 1930s, but they are there in virtual form. And that's just the most obvious form of government support for its struggling citizenry. (See: Marion Nestle on The (Big) Business of Food Stamps: "Here's Where the Profits Come In")

"Government transfers to the personal sector now makes up nearly one-fifth of total household income," Rosenberg writes. "Even Lyndon Johnson, architect of the 'Great Society', would blush at that."

In the accompanying video Rosenberg also cites:

Wealth Destruction: The Fed's recent report on the massive 40% drop in median household wealth from 2007-2010. (See: The American Dream Shrinks: Avg. Net Worth Falls 40% From 2007-2010)

The Housing Bust: Despite recent signs of stabilization, the national housing market remains depressed, with nearly 30% of mortgage holders under water. This is particularly troubling for Baby Boomers, who had viewed their homes as a major source of potential income for retirement but now wear them as a "ball and chain," Rosenberg quips.

Unemployment: As with housing, Rosenberg dismisses the job market's improvement in recent years. He cites the "real" unemployment rate — currently 14.8% -- and the fact the country is still down 5 million jobs from its 2007 peak.

While the economy has been growing for three years, the recovery is the worst in the post-war ear, he says. Growth is "pathetic" given the "gargantuan" support the federal government and Federal Reserve have provided, he declares, noting this is not a U.S.-only phenomenon.

"Three years into the aftermath of the worst recession since the 1930s, the global economy still cannot manage to expand organically — that is, without the need for ongoing life support from central banks and governments."

While many shudder to think what the economy would look like without that support, Rosenberg says policymakers' attempting to "put a floor" under the economy only serve to "prolong the agony."

Judging by historical research on past debt deleveraging cycles, this 'modern-day depression' is only halfway done, Rosenberg says, and that's his glass half-FULL outlook.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/living-modern-day-depression-david-rosenberg-121332909.html

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

ok ,ok, gc ,you are right, he is trying to sell gold,

but thought some of the suggestions about the debt and the concurrent associated risk was worth talking about,

we are in a precarious state and it could tip the wrong way, over into depression,

i wasn't shilling for you guys to go and buy gold, and certainly not from this guy, but there is some substance and logic to the suggestion that:

"Today's total U.S. credit relative to GDP has surpassed significantly the levels preceding the Great Depression. Back then, the total amount of credit in the financial system almost reached an astonishing 250% of GDP. Using the same metric today, the debt level in the U.S. financial system surpassed 350% in 2008, while the level in 1982 was “only” 130%. As Charles Dumas from Lombard Street Research put it quite aptly, "we've had a 30-year leveraging up of America, ending in an unchecked orgy."

i will try and stay away from spaghetti westerns in future posts.

i do fear the economy is in much worse shape than they are letting on , another great depression is coming around the bend again and we are not talking about what to do to right the ship.

the dollar is based on 'nothing' and that is why the fed can print up money that doesn't really exist,

i wish we had never gone off of the old gold standard, at least that was something real that you could sink your teeth into.

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

"record number of Americans living on Food Stamps — 46 million or 1-in-7 in 2011. Because these benefits are now given in the form of electronic debit cards, we don't have bread lines like in the 1930s, but they are there in virtual form. And that's just the most obvious form of government support for its struggling citizenry"

That's accurate as far as I can tell. I've seen similar reports in the past, and the FNS Program data for 2011 is very close
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.htm

"Government transfers to the personal sector now makes up nearly one-fifth of total household income," Rosenberg writes. "Even Lyndon Johnson, architect of the 'Great Society', would blush at that."

From The Economist:
"In 2010, the typical American household earned an inflation-adjusted income of $49,445, scarcely different from that in 1989 and a fall of 2.3% since 2009."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

From The NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/relying-on-government-benefits.html
Entitlements as a share of income were about 18% in 2011 (not sure if that was an estimated number as shown on the graph). 18% is awfully close to 20%, the 1 in 5 referenced in BD's quote above.


"Wealth Destruction: The Fed's recent report on the massive 40% drop in median household wealth from 2007-2010. (See: The American Dream Shrinks: Avg. Net Worth Falls 40% From 2007-2010)"
(not a validation IMO, but it is from a relative mainstream outlet)
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/american-dream-shrinks-avg-net-worth-falls-40-160150749.html

"Unemployment: As with housing, Rosenberg dismisses the job market's improvement in recent years. He cites the "real" unemployment rate — currently 14.8% -- and the fact the country is still down 5 million jobs from its 2007 peak."

That would be U6 unemployment, not the often-stated U3. Plenty of links have been posted here in the past...


Looking at BD's post, I could probably validate the majority of the facts.

BD, don't give up so easily. I recommend staying away from posting any article that imposes an emotional slant. If you're trying to convey a point the emotional language is like a huge STOP sign and will more often than not just cause the reader to dismiss out-of-hand the information. Remember too, that all of us want solutions. Hearing the "doomsday" stuff as misterg likes to call it is not fun at all. But neither is burying our heads in the sand.

All that said, information is power so to speak. Post what you want and the readership can validate if they want. Or not.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

An example of people chipping in?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/10/us/illinois-strike-emanuel/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

LOL!...

iJay ✉
Sep '12

I'm done trying to convince people... if you don't know who you're voting for yet, you're a political moron.

Just waiting for Nov 6, then I'll either be spending what little money I have investing in my business to help it grow, or I'll invest it in more ammo.

How the disintegration will likely happen (directly related to the 'electronic food stamps' mentioned above:
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-music-stops-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

it is about the economy and the steadily eroding job market, there are fewer americans working today than n 2009; read on:

Looking at our current labor market, the official unemployment rate was at a high of 10 percent in October 2009, and has fallen to 8.1 percent. Some politicians say this is evidence that their policies are bringing back jobs. But, much of the decline in the unemployment rate is due to people giving up looking for work. If we were to add back the people who have stopped looking for work since October 2009, the unemployment rate would be more than 11 percent (see graph). The official unemployment rate has fallen largely because we've stopped counting large numbers of jobless people.

you read the whole article right here:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/29/3-lies-about-jobs-and-the-unemployment-rate

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

"overly-selfish people".... that describes a large part of Obama's voting block. Rob from the rich to give to the poor/redistribution of wealth, same thing.

There have already been flash riots on convenient stores, clothing stores... for no good reason. Just wait until the govt runs out of money (yes, it can happen), and the food stamp cards quit working. I'd be terrified if I lived in an urban area when that happens. Luckily, I don't. And I'm a damn good shot.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Jeff Rep - I think you are exactly correct, it boggles my mind that people cannot see what is happening all around them as they happily go about their day to day watching Kim Kardashian, saying how great Obummer is doing and not looking at the big picture. I have said it before and will say it again we are a country of declining common sense and intelligence. The progressives/liberals have done a fantastic job of realizing this and bringing this sector of the population to the voting booths to advance their positions.

I too hope I can expand my businesses come November but am also preparing for the alternative.

Look around people the signs are all around you.

Mark ✉
Sep '12

Common sense says that we have to stop the 1 trillion in excess spending but neither candidate will go here...

Ron Paul put forward a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars starting immediately (next fiscal year). It included unpopular things like overseas military cuts and aid to Israel (a small first world country running about a 40 billion surplus).

It is standard operating procedure in Washington. The politicians got back from their 5 weeks off and it is back to usual.

If we do not cap spending, it will erode the savings and value in things such as homes, and increase unemplyment when our economy stutters...

iJay ✉
Sep '12

Romney's plan "doesn't add up", but Obama's DOES, after 4 years of it being a failure? You must have been taught "new math" in the public school system.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

"Moody’s Investors Service said it may join Standard & Poor’s in downgrading the U.S.’s credit rating unless Congress next year reduces the percentage of debt- to-gross-domestic-product during budget negotiations."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/u-s-rating-may-be-cut-by-moody-s-if-debt-to-gdp-not-reduced-1-.html

misterg, you absolutely refuse to let up on the Tea Party. Why? The threat to cut our credit rating is due to our *DEBT* to GDP ratio, and you are knocking the guys who want to prevent us from going FURTHER into debt?

Can you explain for me the logic you continue to use here? I don't get it. All I can see is that by not raising the debt ceiling some things *must* be cut. Since GDP won't magically raise on it's own (although you might argue that it has, in a weird, circular way, due to government borrowing then spending that money into the economy) the only thing you can do to reduce the ratio is to curb our debt.

Seriously, lay off the opposition for a moment and briefly explain how raising our debt limit - INCREASING OUR DEBT - can reduce the Debt-to-GDP ratio. Is this some funky, new google math or what? ;)

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Since JR said it in capital letters, it must be true.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Sep '12

Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House next week, but can't fit Israeli Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu in for a visit.

...you can do your own digging the the full stories.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

I will correct myself: the statement I heard that I thought was the President's was in actuality issued by the Egyptian embassy, the statement apologizing for people "hurting muslim's feelings". MY apologies for the error. Obama's statements after the attack sounded good, I hope he is a man of his word and makes good on them, proving they were not just words.

However- it was an easy error to make, after almost 4 years of our president apologizing to the world for America. THAT is disgraceful.

The stories above are just more examples of this administration doing the WRONG things, over & over & over, with regards to the Islamic spring, Israel, and the middle east in general.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

JeffersonRepub: Obama inherited a nightmare. OK, let's give him that. Here we are, almost 4 years later, and NOTHING is better.

Nothing?
George Bush left us with the DJIA at 8800. It's 13,500 today. 3.5 years later.
Both Bushes couldn't get Bin Laden in how many years of trying? 12? Obama did it in 3.
20 months of job growth.
YOU can debate the US Auto Industry being saved, but talk to those families who are gainfully employed. They'll tell you it was saved, as are all those jobs that are *not* on the unemployment rolls.
I know previously existing conditions, free pap smears and birth control, and college grads getting insurance until they are 26 means nothing to you, but this is BETTER than 4 years ago for *millions* of Americans.

You point to the unemployment rate as if it were the one true measure. *Economists* know it is a *lagging indicator*. Look it up. Unemployment is the last to go bad when an economy is tanking and the last to improve.

You may choose to ignore facts and just repeat yourself ad nauseum, but it doesn't make your points accurate or true.

Bill Clinton about the Republicans: "We left Obama a mess, he didn't clean it up fast enough, put us back in."

Not happening.

PS
www.politify.us.
Fill in your information.
THEN add a 1 in front of your salary.
Do it again.
And again.
Notice the trend?

Who you going to vote for? If you are in the 98% *and* voting for the Republicans, you will be subsidizing offshore investments for multi-millionaires. The filthiest of rich benefit from the Republican tax plans. Then the filthy rich take their money ... and it *doesn't trickle down* to the rest of us. Instead, they put it in tax havens and off shore accounts.

That's what *your* candidate does.

NTS
Sep '12

JeffersonRepub when I hear people say that to me I always ask them where did you see the video or transcripts and surprise surprise they always say it was something I heard I really would like to see the video or transcripts where Pres. Obama said I apologize for the United States I really would like to see it I have looked for it on numerous occasions and just can't find it may be you tea partiers have a copy that I can watch and as for Israel they are a big country now I believe they are well over 50 years old you would think they could take care of themselves once in a while you get all that and a shape about Iran getting nuclear weapons but say nothing about the ones Israel has yes that's a dirty little secret Israel and everybody else knows but says nothing Israel has had nuclear weapons since the mid-70s they will not let the United Nations look at them they refused to let the United Nations put radiation devices in their country

oldred
Sep '12

JR: I don't agree with your "take" on things, but that's OK. Thank you for your response.

cbel ✉
Sep '12

oldred...

1) it wasn't simply "something I heard"... what I heard was a national news broadcast, that read the apology. *I* incorrectly assumed it was from the apologist-in-chief, Mr. Obama.

2) Reagan raised taxes. As a COMPROMISE with the democrats, a deal: he raised taxes, and the congress passed spending cuts. It was supposed to be a 1-2 punch to help the economy. Reagan kept HIS end of the deal, and raised taxes as he agreed to do. He also DIED waiting for the double-crossing democrats enact their spending cuts. They did NOT keep up their end of the deal. Big surprise there.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Jeff: Overall Reagan lowered taxes by lowering income tax rates. He did reduce deductions, and he did raise capital gains but overall the effect was still lower. Here, again is a conservative piece explaining your wrongness: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

JIT: Nope, I answered the question. You just need to read it and your own links as well. Your first link dealing with the Summer downgrade refers to " the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short" as the reason for the downgrade. Not the Debt Ceiling approval. Further they said: "We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling."

On one hand they are talking about the shortcomings of the plan in affecting the debt, not the debt ceiling, and on the other, they are talking about the hostage taking action of the debt ceiling, not the debt itself. That was DC I

For DC II, Moodys is a little more clear: "The rating outlook also assumes a relatively orderly process for the increase in the statutory debt limit, says Moody's. The debt limit will likely be reached around the end of this year, and the government's ability to meet interest and other expenses out of available resources would likely be exhausted within a few months after the limit is reached."

So, like I said JIT, there are two factors at work here. One is are we going to pass DC II orderly (it;s a yes or no vote --- it DOES NOT AFFECT the budget). The second is are we going to have a budget plan that reduces debt/GDP.

The first factor, the debt ceiling, DC II, if held hostage to force hands in the second factor I (the budget), can result in the downgrade independent and previous to any budget plan being passed or not passed. No matter what happens in the budget, the debt ceiling will have to be increased early next year. If we cut spending to zero today, we still have to pay EXISTING BILLS and therefore have to raise the debt ceiling at DC II. And if it is not raised, our credit rating drops, and the sky falls since we are admitting we are not paying our EXISTING BILLS.

The second factor is budget plans where if the debt/GDP factor is not addressed, this too will result in a credit rating drop, however, the sky might not fall as fast as when you admit that you will not pay your EXISTING bills. But at a 102% factor, I wouldn't take that bet which is why I say we must raise revenues and lower spending via budgetary controls ASAP. The debt celing vote should have nothing to do with that unless fools decide to hold up paying our EXISTING bills to make some point regarding future budgetary plans.

I think I was pretty clear before, I think Moodys and S&P have backed me up and are pretty clear too. I have listed some links to support this. If I am not doing the job, try some self goggling to see if you can find out more why the debt ceiling and budget plans and separable. Matter of fact, the debt ceiling really should not matter and should not exist at all.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

When your government tells you we are going to print money out of thin air for as far as the eye can see -

I would be concerned about the value of your house, the price of the food you buy & the future of your children.

But it looks like Obama is going down that road - don't blame him if the only cares about getting re-elected cause that path is destruction..

Peace

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

Me4: Obama controls the Fed now? The Fed is part of the government? Is he now part of the ultra-white banker elite with his vast wealth of old money and hidden off-shore accounts?

Let me guess, which candidate better fits that description?

I think you got the right idea but the wrong paranoia going. Read more of thread, it describes who controls the Fed and the fiat money. But by all means, buy gold because all the rich guys doing it. After all, if your mantra is buy high, sell higher, today is most certainly your day!

Back to the real world, and just for you JIT; a 6-month debt ceiling extension was passed today. I have hope. Now on to the real work and let's pass Obama's extension of Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets; amend the upper bracket tax rise NOT to be 39.6% but instead be 39.6% AFTER the first 250K and then roll up our Congressional sleeves and then re-engineer the 1.2T Jan 2013 across the board tax cuts of which 50% will hit Defense to be surgically applied rather than across-the-board. Those are the laws that are on the books that will take effect on Jan 2013.

I am heartened by the recent action, think 6 months sends a warning to the liberals to be fiscally prudent NOW. Heres what Bloomberg thinks (I agree): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/uncontested-spending-bill-shows-debt-ceiling-sham-view.html

And after they take care of Jan 2013 laws, Congress should:
1. re-vamp the tax code, blow away deductions like Ronnie did and then bring the good ones, Congress decides, back
3. Re-engineer entitlements including that great conservative idea for means testing and raising age limits for those under 55
4. Go after Federal spending waste with a meat cleaver. Give our rewards to Congressman's states who find them

The tax code changes alone can lower our deficit from over $1T to about 200B according to the CBO. We can turn this around and begin our DECADES of progress in bringing down the debt/GDP ratio and, most importantly, getting Me4 stuck with a bunch of gold and silver bought at inflated prices !!!!

It can be done! Yea Tea Party --- I just may have to eat my words!

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Middle Class is $39,000-$188,000

Good old Mitt think its $250k and less.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-does-not-think-middle-class-starts-181052583.html

darwin ✉
Sep '12

Report on Max Keiser from Wiki: "He hosts Keiser Report, a financial program broadcast on RT (formerly Russia Today).[1] Keiser also anchors On the Edge, a program of news and analysis hosted by Iran's Press TV.[2] He hosted the New Year's Eve special, The Keiser's Business Guide to 2010 for BBC Radio 5 Live.[3] Keiser presented a season of The Oracle with Max Keiser on BBC World News. Previously he produced and appeared regularly in the TV series People & Power on the Al-Jazeera English network. He also presents a weekly show about finance and markets on London's Resonance FM, as well as writing for The Huffington Post.[4]"

Favorites pitch is buy silver; guess who funds him?

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

jeffersonrepud This is your big chance to prove me wrong still waiting for you to show me the transcripts or the video of Pres. Obama apologizing for the United States your quick to spout off about how he's apologizing but slow with the facts show me where he said this like I said before you heard that he said it cluster Fox news I bet or the drug addict behind the Golden microphone and in your blind hatred of the president without even checking to see if it was true you just regurgitat it you can't come up with any proof because it never happened but you will say anything you hear from these right wing haters because you were not intelligent enough to form your own opinion

oldred
Sep '12

Bessie, I agree that blaming the President is an exercise in futility. He's only ONE MAN yet a great many of us believe that he can make or break the complex economy of the US. The position is powerful, of course. but we do have other branches of government, ie Congress, that has much more influence over financial matters than the President. IMO the Federal Reserve, as I'm sure you know ;), is far and away more responsible for increasing prices than anything else, so some focus should be on having the Congress deal with the Fed. Anyway, take a few minutes to play with the CPI inflation calculator and what I mean should be obvious.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

What you bought 20 years ago costs 64% more today than it did then (irregardless of productivity improvements). This is intentional monetary policy by the Fed. Speaking of which, the QE-forever just announced by the Fed will, with 100% certainty, bump up the yearly inflation rate. Translation: all things being equal, prices must go up.

Back to misterg's credit rating downgrade discussion (all good points by the way), Egan-Jones just issued their own statement, dropping their rating of the US to AA-.

(one of many links)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/egan-jones-downgrades-us-debt-rating-to-aa--from-aa-citing-feds-plans-to-stimulate-economy/2012/09/14/7b3131e4-feab-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

So misterg, while your reasoning is sound I'm not so sure that your perspective on things allows for acknowledgement of just how serious a situation (IMO of course) we are in. I fully understand where you are coming from, and in "normal" circumstances I wouldn't disagree as much as I do today. There's never ONE single reason for making big decisions, but ultimately there is usually one primary factor. In this case, the continuing trend of increasing debt has to abate. I don't think anyone can deny that.

That said, I'll admit that I am struggling - constantly - to balance what I know about finances and money matters with the blind faith that our government is putting into the "extend and pretend" game. It almost seems like a religion now, Keynesianism, the faith that is required to believe that all will be good in the world if we just continue to create insane amounts of money just to keep the system in place. Systems fail, for a variety of reasons, and I'm having difficulty finding even miniscule reasons lately to believe that ours isn't failing miserably. That being the case, ask yourself what you would do, what types of changes you would make, if you believed that systemic failure is inevitable? That's where I'm at now. That's why IMO continuing what we're doing will only make things much worse later on. It's kind of like putting out a fire by blowing on the flames. If the fire is small enough it will work, but once it gets bigger you need to find alternative solutions because simply blowing harder will just make the fire worse. If too much debt is the problem it's hard for me to comprehend how more debt will be the solution, especially given that (I'm recalling from memory here, so I'm sure the numbers aren't exactly right) we only get $1 additional GDP for every $3 borrowed.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It's always good to see other perspectives.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Bessie: welcome to the internet and the new century. The good news is there's lots of info! With regards to understanding: I have a pretty advanced degree, read a lot, have been JIT-tutored on the FED, but I will tell you, when the FED says QEIII will be done by purchasing Mortgage backed whatever s, as far as what that means I understand, as far as what it will produce ------ I am still cleaning up the grey stuff that's leaking out of my brain and waiting for someone to tell me while praying I don't have an open mouth with my tongue hanging out while I nod my head like a dog not understanding a single word. It takes some time and you have to have a desire neither of which I find I have sometimes. That's why I make JIT mad when I say "stop telling me to look it up and just tell me the answer............." It just hurts to learn this stuff sometimes.

JIT: I think I was pretty clear that we can crash and burn but for different reasons.

1. The Debt/GDP is bad, we may be at the tipping point from which there is no return
2. The "witching hour" or fiscal cliff is real, it IS the tipping point and some of the players don't seem to understand the game which needs to be played very carefully given number 1.
= that's why I was heartened by the debt ceiling extension and pray there is hope

I can't answer your question because I don't feel system crash is inevitable. Quite the opposite, I know it is redeemable and I see hope especially if the Tea Party starts to roll up their sleeves and force the Democrats to work. And again, the debt ceiling extension is a sign and the six month window is a warning. Cool, carrot and stick.

I have noted my recommendations for redemption to right the ship but they don't touch the fundamentals of the system. Don't have to to right the ship and mucking with the fundamentals while you are treading water would not be smart . We have been sunk worse than this before and have come back. I see re-engineering and modification to the fundamentals of the system, including the FED, but not a do-over. It is the greatest system mankind has created thus far.

To you other point: yes, free floating or modified float fiat money causes inflation. But not sure it is as evil as you make it. So for that and system modifications at the infrstructure level I will postpone answser until another time. To the garden I must go!!!!

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

What is QE3?

"It’s not a big British cruise ship.

You’ve probably seen countless discussion of will or won’t the Federal Reserve launch QE3 Thursday. But what does that acronym mean?

Quantitative easing is a monetary policy under which a central bank tries to stimulate growth by lowering borrowing costs by buying up debt, thus pushing yields lower. It also puts a lot of money in the hands of people who otherwise had those securities it just bought, so they can go out and buy something else, which has included U.S. stocks.

In the U.S. this has been done through the Fed’s purchases of Treasury and mortgage-related debt (the latter specifically targeting housing finance, with the idea that lower borrowing costs would revive the battered and important housing sector.)

The first two rounds of quantitative easing — QE1 and QE2 — are a big part of what pushed mortgage rates and Treasury yields to record lows recently. So, in theory at least, QE3 would be good for bonds because you have a new, deep-pocketed buyer. (How it plays out in real life is more complicated because of lots of other influences, such as the European debt crisis.)

But it’s a fairly controversial policy, because having a central bank buy up a lot of securities is essentially the same as if it printed money.

That’s seen as potentially creating inflation, and devaluing a country’s currency because they’re making more of it available. Some central banks, such as Germany’s Bundesbank, are strongly against adding extra money to their financial system through special measures like bond buying; critics cite examples like the hyperinflation Germany faced between World War I and World War II as a reason QE is a bad idea.

In general, QE tends to be negative for the dollar, and positive for gold and other hard assets seen as an alternative and hedge against devaluation and inflation. That’s been the case for gold since 2008. Advocates of QE says it’s a necessary risk to help the U.S. avoid a depression, which would be even worse for the dollar.

The Fed has completed two similar programs already since the Great Recession, so this is seen as the third round – hence called QE3. And Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has made pretty clear he thinks the policy has been helpful to the economy.

So we’ll see Thursday whether Fed policy makers actually decide to try it again."

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/09/13/what-is-qe3/

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

Simply put every piece of paper US Private Federal Reserve Note/ Dollar you hold in your hand is a loan to the US Government.

Not only that but every barrel of oil traded in the World is traded in US Federal Reserve Notes/Dollars & every multi-national corporate transaction is settled in US Federal Reserve Notes/Dollars. Say a company in Russia sells a million parts to a company in Iraq - that transaction will be paid in US Dollars cause the US Dollar has been the most stable currency in the world to date.

What would happen if the world's oil was traded in another currency - like the Chinese Yuan?

No more loans to the US Government...no more Social Security - no more Medicare - no more US Government debt limits being extended.

Now we have a guy Ben Bernanke Chairman of the Private Federal Reserve Bank - who believes the only way we can get out of a debt crisis is to put us farther in debt...he is going to print money out of thin air putting US Taxpayers farther in to debt to pay the off these private bankers.

I dunno sooner or later the world is going to realize the US Dollars is worth nothing cause we are so far into debt who is going to pay it back? Like every man, woman & child is $67,000 in debt to the US Government/Private Federal Reserve Bank.

& trust me all these stock guys are going to say - stay the course no major changes - like Mr. Google...

Hey I was born at night but it wasn't last night & i dont have Finance degrees...all you need to know is the bankers are ripping us off 6 days to Sunday & what are you going to do about it?

Peace

PS - Mitts Romney will be no help to you & Obama well he is steering the ship currently so maybe its time to look elsewhere?

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

The QE scenarios are a disaster waiting to happen for sure. It is more can kicking but kicking the can right into the middle classes butts.

It always reminds me of the picture of the snake eating its own tail.. What we have is one part of the govt printing yet more money (which is why gas is rising and food is rising), then another part of the govt taking that money buying debt either its own or commercial debt such as the mortgages announced last week and in turn pouring more money into the world.
I am lucky I work in the financial markets trading so for me it is great, although we all know the rising market is a house of cards, for the banks great, for people that can leverage and understand great..for most hard working Americans a disaster.

This is why gas and food is so high...our money is worth less and less..we are setting up a situation that could truly be armagedden. The classic line of "time to pay the piper" will have to be fulfilled here sooner or later.

Mark ✉
Sep '12

mark is spot on,

when your method of payment is based on thin air, then the real stuff you need to buy with it goes up in price. food and fuel are real and tangible, the paper dollar is just that, paper, not real.

gas is twice as much as it was just 3 and a half years ago.

anybody who needs to eat can comment on how much food has gone up dramatically in the last few years.

this hurts the families who are being paid less than they were before.

real income has gone down in real dollars while at the same time the things we need to live on , (food and fuel) has gone up. way up. and those two things are not included when the government calculates the inflation rate? that's just crazy talk right there, we require food and fuel on a daily basis, everybody, i mean everybody, needs to eat, and heat their homes and drive their cars. ridiculous that these two items are ignored by the government that says it's ok to keep printing money as an 'economic sugar fix'.

wow, just wow,

this is a double whammy that hurts.

the only reason we don't have bread lines right now is that the over 47 million Americans who are on food assistance get a government issued card to buy the food with. we won't see lines like the great depression, but make no mistake, it is happening again.

this explains why the depression like symptoms we are experiencing are not as obvious as the 1930's.

ask around, talk with your family and friends, how many of them are part of the over 24 million unemployed, underemployed or discouraged workforce? how many of them are on some type of government assistance?

check it out, the misery is systemic and prevalent. check it out, and look around, really look around at what is really happening.

it is bad and ugly out there, no end in sight,

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

oldred,

My silence proves only that I have been away from my computer, staying at a friend's house over the weekend. So maybe it's YOU that needs to get some ACTUAL facts instead of making stuff up to reach your conclusions. But then that's what the liberals have been doing an awful lot lately, since they don't have anything positive to run Obama on.

And once again, punctuation is your friend. You really should use it sometime, if you wish to be thought of as possessing some level of education and intelligence, and someone to be taken seriously.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Not only do I use actual facts, I source them!

And I am very positive on Barak Hussein Obama especially when comparing him to Willard Mitt Romney.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

the internet can provide facts, but it cannot provide the wisdom to understand them,

that's the fact, jack.

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

I talk to all my friends and family... not a single one is part of the 24million unemployed, underemployed or discouraged workforce... although not sure what "discuoraged" means since most people don't LOVE their job.

all my friends and family went to college, earned a degree and are hard workers. So I guess they all are going to vote for Obama then?

darwin ✉
Sep '12

JIT,

It's an important topic, but there is nothing in the article you provided suggesting that the US dollar is no longer the "primary" oil currency. Maybe they meant "sole" oil currency? Big difference.

The article's style is also rather bombastic.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Sep '12

the us dollar is based on thin air, oil and gas and food are real tangible items. The price of tangible items goes up when the government decides to just print more money.

40 billion extra dollars being printed each and every month with no ending date announced. the paper dollar is just paper, it is not real.

gas is twice as much as it was just 3 and a half years ago partly because paper dollars are worth less than they were before because there are more dollars in circulation now that are not backed up by anything at all.

anybody who has to eat to live knows how much food has gone up. food is tangible, it is real, and the paper dollars to buy food have to be increased when the government turns on the printing presses

those who don't know anyone who is struggling in this down depressed economy have got their heads buried deep in the sands of denial, and it's no wonder they cannot empathize personally with those who are suffering in this depressed economy, they and theirs are doing just fine, thank you very much, the economic pain is just sound bites on the 24 hours news cycle. i urge you to reflect thoughtfully and be careful out there, you could be next in line on the chopping block at work, good luck replacing your current salary in the competitive job market (if you are lucky enough to even land a job)

but is refreshing to hear a liberal like Darwin admit that without education and hard work you cannot succeed. that is one of the conservative prinicples that this country was founded on. individualism and hard work, good stuff Darwin. but i guess from your persepctive there is no trouble with the economy? beacuse all of your friends and family are getting along just fine? can you please elaborate for us?

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

JIT: I am not ignoring the info because of the source, I am ignoring the source. Big difference. Without collaboration, it is not a vetted fact. And if written by the enemy, yet another grain of salt.

Your information, bombastic or not, can be sourced to multiple credible sources;: I just listed the first. There were plenty of sources and they did not all start in one place. Big difference in acceptability when you can vet info this way.

PS: all it means is that the Yuan is accepted as a solid currency. So is the Pound.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

JD2 - Please tell me then how to discern the criticism toward some of the posters here who reference sources that you and others view as not having a decent reputation? Just because some don't like the tone of an article, even if the information posted is 100% accurate why do they feel the need to criticize when, as mrg pointed out, there are confirming sources easily verifiable with an internet search?

Not only that, but more often than not major media simply can't report on every little event that happens in the world - there's just too much going on. Reading reports of events that aren't picked up by "reputable" media doesn't make the stories untrue - it just makes them non-newsworthy in the eyes of an editor who is trying to keep it's paying audience coughing up the dough.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that there are some people who will completely dismiss information because of the source instead of saying "well, maybe that's true. Let me cross reference". And even if a story isn't confirmed, there's no harm in storing the information in your memory banks for confirmation at a later date.

It seems to me that confirmation bias works both ways, does it not?

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Seems like googie is doing a character assassination of Mitt Romney. Anybody could do a better job than O'bama - anybody.

boney sono
Sep '12

Interesting to think that this man feels he can be President of our nation when he says and thinks like this. In a series of candid moments from a May Romney fundraiser at which the presidential candidate said, among other things, that no matter what" he does, 47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they are "are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

In the video, Romney is also shown saying, "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

How many of these people were put out of work by Bain capital while Mitt made millions upon millions? He doesn't care about 47% of the American population??

Lady Jayne ✉
Sep '12

romney happens to be correct: he cares about them, for sure, but he was speaking about the vote, not that he doesn't care: look at some real numbers to get what he is actually saying for once. (don't buy the MSM hype, they are all in the tank for obama) read on:

Entitlements:

According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit. (The total population at the time was 305 million).

The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

the numbers are essentially correct, it is the interpretation and selected nuance of the details of them that can lead to separate opinions. Romney was quickly summing up one election strategy for garnering votes, and he was spot on in his analysis, it is the middle independents who will decide this election. (even msnbc says the same thing), and the partisan and liberally based Annenberg Foundation which owns and runs factcheck.org have a long history with BHO, and have every reason to be hyper-critical of his opponent with their so called (and mislabeled) fact checking, which is really an opinion piece, they wrote an editorial, not facts.


people need to be careful with factcheck.org. they are funded by the very liberal Annenberg Foundation that has a organizational stake in protecting Barrack Hussein Obama, as our current president was a leading board member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for eight years, which was funded by the owners of factcheck.org, the Annenberg Foundation.

read on:

Annenberg Challenge

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.

In late 1993, Bill Ayers, now an associate professor of education at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle Campus, organized a team to put together a grant proposal to secure nearly $50 million from the Annenberg Challenge. The money was to be used by Ayers and company to bolster the radical Local School Councils reform project that Ayers and Obama had championed back in 1988 through the ABCs.

The grant application was successful and in early 1995 Barack Obama was named chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers was named co-chair of the Challenge's operative and strategic body, the Chicago School Reform Collaborative. Ayers and Obama work together for the next five years on raising an additional $60 million in matching money from local foundations and corporations and using the money to intervene in the governance of the Chicago public schools.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/BillAyers.htm

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

"Thanks for that link, Bessie. It was a really stupid comment that Romney made, but I have some sympathy for him. Running for president, and having to do all those fund-raisers, has to really wear you out. Who knows what any of us may say when we're really really tired? Or when we think the comments are only among friends?"

I left out the name of the poster because I really don't want to be argumentative.

BUT, don't you think that *being* the president can wear you out big time? If a man can't handle the pressures of the campaign, how is he going to handle the pressures if he's elected president?

cbel ✉
Sep '12

jerseyduchman2, I've said it before, it's the constant one or two sentences posted all over the place (not just here) to piss one side or the other off, and they react and repost, without getting all the facts. If you choose to give an opinion after reading the whole thing, so be it, but for Gods sake, please stop with the one liners..they do nothing for the cause, whatever it is. All this does is divides this country more and more and you have to wonder how much of the division is based on the untruths and soundbites we get fed on a daily basis. I have reached the point where I don't believe anything that headlines the paper or tv news without trying to get all the facts. I would never get into any political debates because the bottom line is you vote for who you want and I vote for who I want. I have to agree with someone that posted here and commented something along the lines of who in their right mind would ever want the job of president..the political environment now is nothing more than a no win situation no matter who gets elected. Only my thoughts, no need to bash or agree.

Bessie ✉
Sep '12

cbel, once he's elected, he can quit pretending to be someone different every day depending on whose fundraiser he happens to be attending. That really has to wear a person out... juggling all those identities and keeping them straight.

Leave it to the GOP to nominate the one person in the country who CAN'T beat Obama. It's actually kind of comical, but sad at the same time. Wake me up on the first Wednesday in November...

iPhone-imal ✉
Sep '12

I think you'll find (if romney wins), unlike the Carter/Reagan election, where people were not only voting against Carter but also voting FOR Reagan, this time around most people aren't voting for Romney because they really like him, they'll vote for Romney because he is the lesser of the 2 evils- no one can do a worse job than Obama has. Between the still-lagging economy, the union messes, the still-high unemployment, and the threat of Obamacare (Which will raise taxes for everyone), people just don't have anything good to vote FOR with Obama. His policies haven't worked. It's quite simple, it's not rocket science.

If the core dem/repub voters vote for Obama/Romney, that leaves the middle.... and based on Obama's dismal record, and the fact that no one is better off than they were 4 years ago, despite the fact that romney is richie rich all grown up, people will vote for him, because it's clear Obamanomics and ObamaForeignPolicy does NOT work.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

BDog: Here's Bill Ayers who was never convicted of any bombings and never implicated in any harm to people, just property. This is not to say he did not cross the line, but to indicate that he is not a Terrorist with a capital T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers And yes, I destroyed public property during that time, many did in our misplaced outrage.

For the "conspiracy" Dog mentions between Ayers and Obama via Chicago's Annenberg Challenge, I guess you must, at minimum, add at least 30 dedicated philanthropists listed as Barak's co-directors of the Challenge of which Ayers was not one. He was a co-author of the grant along with Chapman and Hallett, not Obama.

According to WIKI: "At a meeting with Simmons and Patricia Albjerg Graham, Deborah Leff suggested that Barack Obama would make a good board chairman.[36] After meeting and being impressed by Obama, Graham told Obama that she wanted him to be chairman of the Board of Directors.[36] Obama said that he would agree to serve as chairman if Graham would be vice chairman, to which Graham agreed.[36]"

Here, read about how "tight" the relationship was through the Challenge. It was not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

As far as the Ayers/Obama connection: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

But the Challenge connection is the weakest piece of disinformation yet in this grand conspiracy with a militaristic protestor who stopped in the early 70's and was never convicited of any violence. Not to mention being in the wrong thread Dog. And most will take factcheck.org over theobamafile.com any day of the week.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Factcheck does throw some opinion in the rhetoric, and a few colored descriptions. It's not nearly as bad as others, but at least they do their research and do have numbers of how the group of people is broken down. Snopes tends to do a really good job of simply going at each statement and getting a hard number to say yes or no. I don't know if they've gone over the Mittgaff or not, but it's a place to look.

As for the actual statement, I won't even worry about how it affects the election because we'll all see soon enough without having to guess.

But glossing it over as just strategy talk entirely misses what it's about. Sure, it may well be going after the independent vote is a good route for his campaign to go. But his statement says all those "unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged" are government dependent and lost votes to Obama. Their own answer to "are you better off" seems to be saying they believe at least 47% of the population is better off. It contradicts their current statements. Plus, if the income tax is all that's on their minds, then FICA and property taxes killing the middle class (which is the original theme of the thread) aren't going to get any better.

If Romney just said, he has his supporters, and we have ours, and we need to concentrate on the undecided, this whole thing wouldn't be news. His perception of who the 47% is made news.

GC ✉
Sep '12

i tend to agree with you GC, and for his part, he admits that he mis-spoke and he said it inarticulately, so can we give him a break?

like we give obama a break on saying all 57 states"?

it is a long grueling season, not everything is going to come out perfect,

i'm tired of the 'gotcha' moments that are trumpeted for a full week by a complicit press core. He was essesntially correct on his anaylsis, the complaints are mostly ‘gotcha’ rhetoric, and there are plenty of ‘gotcha’ moments for Obama as well,

like when obama said that Egypt was not an ally, his own state dept had to correct the commander in chief the next day, where is the media on that one? if they were fair they would be trumpeting that 'gotcha' moment all week long.

Latest polls have them within one point of each other, it's a dead heat.

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

mg,

You should come out of the closet. Admit you're a socialist/marxist. We all know it already anyway... I've never seen anybody (except professionals at the major news networks) spin the facts like you do. Anything to continue believing what you believe in. I've said it before, what i don't get, is WHY won't you people just ADMIT your agenda? I admit mine, I make no bones about being a constitutional conservative and follower of the founders. But you people obfuscate, finagle, spin, anything but admit what you really are and what your agenda really is (do you even KNOW? Or are you just one of Lenin's useful idiots?). Luckily, alot of us already know. I just hope it's enough in november.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

FWIW: No matter which side you're on, I sure would like our president to be referred to as President Obama rather than Barrack Hussein Obama. Every president deserves that.

BTW, it's Barack, not Barrack.

cbel ✉
Sep '12

he wasn't president yet when he was the the director of the Annenberg Foundation in 1995 - 2001. so the title would be used in error there.

only one r, thank you for reading my posts so attentively, it's refreshing and motivatng to know people care about me as much as you do.

so instead of Barrack Hussen Obama should have typed Barack Hussein Obama.

thanks for correcting my spelling, appreciate the attention,

do you drop the D in FDR? or do you drop the F from JFK? did you ever, even one time say "Tricky Dick Nixon"? No? be honest now. don't forget, I know how you think . .. .

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

"FWIW: No matter which side you're on, I sure would like our president to be referred to as President Obama rather than Barrack Hussein Obama."


If he doesn't like what his middle name unfortunately connotes, perhaps he should change his name... again. Maybe he should go back to his given name, we could call him President Barry Soetoro.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Jeff:
Lenin? Marxist? Who the heck sees Lenin Marxists anywhere in the world? I think he is dead. Do we need to do desk dive drills again? Are you with Willard Mitt Romney in seeing mother Russia as the biggest threat to our freedoms?

Thanks for calling me a professional spin artist on the level of the major news networks. I really appreciate the compliment. And to return the compliment, I would say you equal the trash-mouth taunts of a Russ Limbaugh. Nicely played Madam, nicely played.

So how am I a socialist? Whatever do you mean? I did not attend a meeting, I did not join a club. I do not contribute. How am I a socialist? You are right, I really do not know what you are talking about. Do you? How are you defining me as a socialist? What "closet" are you referring to? Would that be the gay socialist lenin marxist idiot closet?

PS: I just loved your random survey in the area proving that " in my personal life and observations, I have met 10 "anybody but Obama" voters to every 1 Obama re-voter. And that's saying something, living in NJ." Let me guess. And not one black person or latino among them.... You need to get out of Warren county more. It's a diverse world across the Musconetcong.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Well, finally Me4, you got a point there.

Dollar versus Euro's value:
2002 .84 (that's good)
12/2007 1.44 (Bush debt, that's bad)
12/2008 1.39 (recession holding cash)
12.2009 1.43 (ouch, bad again)
12.2010 1.39 (euro crisis)
12/2011 1.30 (getting better)
2/2012 1.35 (euro crisis being handled)

So what was Greenspan saying? Maybe there's another look.

Dollar versus Treasury Note:

pre 4/2008 3.91 - 4.23% yeild indicates fairly steady dollar
4/2008 3,57 --- dollar stronger
3/2009 2.93 --- even stronger
12/2009 3.29 --- dollar weaker
10/2010 --- 2.41% --- dollar stronger but QE II inflation fears hit
3/2011 --- 3.75 --- dollar much weaker due to inflation fears
12/2011 --- 1.89 Wow, inflation fears gone ,the dollar is back
2/2012 --- 1.98 still show low yeild, strong demand for dollars and treasury.

Really, what was Greenspan saying?

Actually what he is saying makes a lot of sense and it isn't the printing of money per se that's the problem, it's the Debt/GDP ratio that's the killer. That's what will make foreign holders of dollars, and there's more of them than ever before, question whether to start selling them off. At the end of 2011, the foreign reserves, at an all time high, had fallen by 5% still an all time high but signaling that foreign investments in the dollar were weakening. That's bad if our creditors decide to go elsewhere. Here's a good assessment: http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Dollar_Value.htm

Now there's also the "what does a dollar buy" discussion which gets at the fact that no matter what the value of the dollar against foreign currency, there is inflation so you would need $22 today to but what you could get for $1 in 1913. Of course we had deflation during The Great Depression but since 1950 have been steady on with inflation reducing the purchasing power of the dollar. Here's the concept: http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/value_of_a_dollar_today.htm

With an expanding economy comes inflation. To me the question is not so much, "what is the purchasing power of today's dollar versus yesterday, but also ---- what can you get for your dollar. All the dollars in the world could not get you a large screen TV, PC, Ipod, Iphone, turbo-car, etc. in 1913. We have a lot of cool stuff we can afford. Today many of us can afford to have those even with our ever-shrinking, over inflated dollars. So who is better off? Don't know how to answer that one, but I do think it's good to shrink the size of the lower class and raise the size of the middle and upper classes if we can and that the converse (which is what has been happening for decades) is very bad.

So yes, Greenspan is right but it did not happen when he said it before which is not to say it won't happen now because he is right --- printing money should cause inflation. But I think the question is Debt/GDP and that's what the Fed needs to monitor as it decides to print money in any form. We might afford more debt, we might be able to print money, but we can not afford a higher Debt/GDP ratio and we should not take any more risk there....at all. We are at the tipping point and must reign that ratio in.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

The continuing problem is our debt level and the rate it is growing. As usual the government and fed are banking that many in America are too stupid to understand it, feel the government has their best interest in mind, or do not want to miss the next episode of the Kardashians or Dr Phil to learn about what is happening.
Quantitative Easing, or QE3 as we are now in our 3rd round of flooding the market with new money, from a business perspective is usually a last ditch desperation effort to save a company. When I worked in mergers and acquisitions we looked for companies that were doing this and centered in on them as targets for takeover, leveraged buyouts etc because we knew they were is a desperate state and close to failure. This is exactly where the US is now.

On top of everything else that is wrong Obama, the questionable people he surrounds himself with, gas prices, food prices, our ambassadors left unprotected and killed, our credit level dropped, historic unemployment, historic numbers of people on food stamps, his hate for energy independence, his hate of success, his love for big government, healthcare plans that are surprising us day by day with how much they will cost, a stated support for wealth distribution...etc, etc, etc the most dangerous part is his inability to stop spending money. He will NEVER be able to take the steps to acutally reduce debt and I do not mean just reducing the acceleration of spending that most people call debt reduction.

If more people "really" understood what this debt will do to us there would already be panic in the streets. I am preparing I hope everyone else is as well.

Mark ✉
Sep '12

"Talk about spin, wow."

:)

misterg - in all seriousness, were you a salesman once upon a time? You are *really* good at the spin. I have a technical background and find it almost amusing how we can look at the same information and come to completely different conclusions...

justintime ✉
Sep '12

Don't believe the polls. They are skewed. All you have to do to skew a poll is skew who you're asking the questions to. Same thing happened with Reagan vs Carter... Carter was leading big-time in sept in the polls, then lost in a landslide. Just more media trying to influence the outcome of an election, nothing new here...

Many sources, this is just one:

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-likely-election-win-indicated-by-polls-released-today-from-key-swing

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

We can only wait until election day and see what happens.

Bessie ✉
Sep '12

Your a scary dude Mister Google - hope they come knockin on your door first.
lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLiyDbQaTo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXDVLSDvL5w

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

GOD DAMN AMERICA - Rev Jeremiah Wright & Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo


Okay - I'm done Mr. Google & now you can prepare your Saturday talking points.
lol

Peace

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

No matter how you spin it, the situation in the middle east has gone down hill. I'm pleased Hillary Clinton is calling the attack against our diplomat a "terrorist attack". Thus far the majority of the Presidents administration, including the president is saying this was a "spontaneous uprising".

The economy is really tough for the middle class here at home and our foreign policy seems to be bereft of direction. Sad.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

the videos reveal a lot of 'FACTS' that should be part of the public debate this election cycle. there is a lot of truth in these videos. folks should watch them and think about what is being presented even if the content doesn't ft their preconceived version of reality.

those who want to be well informed should take note.

if these facts are an inconvenient truth, they are still 'FACTS'

again , facts without context and analyzed with a lack of wisdom are just editorial spin

it is up to each of us, our civic duty and our social responsibility to reason out our reaction to these inconvenient 'FACTS' and make a decision in the voting booth

i feel people need a wide variety of information sources in order to be reasonably well informed, go to the other side, see what they are saying and why they are saying it.

fox news - conservative

nbc news - liberal

msnbc news - extremely liberal (they are off the charts with venom against all things republican , conservative, Christean and Jewish)

abc news - liberal

cbs news - still liberal even though they are trying to come back into the center

cnn - very liberal, they claim they are n the center, but they are really not, majority of the anchors are full blown liberal democrats with personal agendas

NYT - very liberal with a clear political agenda

WSJ - very conservative with a clear political agenda

Washington Post - very liberal with a clear political agenda

Washington Times - very conservative with a clear political agenda

LA Times - even more liberal (and angry about t too) than the NYT with a clearly partisan agenda

Newark Star Ledger - very liberal paper with a real hatred for our republican governor

Philadelphia Inquirer - liberal paper with a clearly consistent liberal agenda

all of us who want to be informed need to gather input for current events from as many of these sources (and others) as possible and then evaluate them all critically with the god given tools and life experience that makes up each of our individual beings

we can come together to rationally discuss differences of opinions, but make no mistake, it is really all of our own spin in the final analysis,

that's why, along the way, i work hard on not taking any human victims while these hot topics are debated back and forth. at the end we are all Amercians who want the best for our country and our families.

that's all i'm sayn'

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

BDog: What facts are presented of relevance? Anything from this century?

Still waiting for Jeff to answer those pesky socialist marxist lenin idiot definitions...... how am I a socialist?

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

yes maybe so PBM, but did you consider what I am suggesting?

do you watch Fox and msnbc? and read NYT and WSJ?

do you include sources that come from the other side of your politcal spectrum or not?

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

It's really not about being conservative or liberal. It's more about being willing to make some difficult choices.
Both sides of the isle are to blame for our current state.
House hold income has remained the same or declined in all but one state over the last 4 years. Prices have not stayed the same. Everything we buy from clothes, groceries, gasoline, etc has gone up.
It's sad that the American people continue to vote for politicians who are unwilling to address the problems we face.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

Politicians are to blame, true.
Voters are to blame, true also.
But don't many politicians want what is best for the country? Don't many voters want that too?
There are things about our *system* that are not working.
A few key constitutional amendments may be needed to change the system into something more workable.
People like Jefferson and Madison expected each generation to make its own rules.
Very difficult to do, I know.

jd2 ✉
Sep '12

Mr. Google;
You can blame everyone but President Obama, that's okay and that's your point of view, your "Spin".

What you can't deny is the sad state of our economy and the horrible situation in the middle east.
>Record number of people on food stamps.
>Very high unemployment
>High numbers of people who have dropped out of the job market.
>Household income is down over the last 4 years in all but one state.
>For the month of September gas prices have never been higher.
>Groceries are more expensive.

Things are tough on the middle class and getting tougher. This is a sad situation and you really can't "spin" that.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

MSNBC and Current?

what do you use to contrast their hatred for all things 'R' ?? (Romney, Ryan, Republican)

they are off the charts with their liberal bias. I watch them to be aware of how they are framing and seeing the debate, so I can be better informed from multiple news sources.

but please be honest , do you thnk they are fair?

from a poll about trust in the media:

In U.S., Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Remains a Rarity
No more than 25% say they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either
by Lymari Morales

Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news -- with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/Confidence-Newspapers-News-Remains-Rarity.aspx

BrotherDog ✉
Sep '12

I am part of the middle class, probably the lower end of the middle class if there is such a place and I will be the first to admit, things were pretty tough for a while but our situation has improved. We struggled through credit card debt, paying off 2 cars on one income, and took a pretty big hit 4 years ago on my 401K. We no longer live on credit cards, the cars are paid off (and they're both still on the road) and I recouped my losses on my 401k after about 2 years. It's increased above what I had, maybe not as much as I would like, but up just the same. Here's the only problem I have with the "we're having a really tough time scenario", and I know there are many, many that truly are still struggling and this is not to take one thing away from how hard they have it. From my personal situation, yes I join in and say groceries are so high , gas is so high, but I'm still able to feed my family very well (with bargain shopping and coupons), I'm putting gas in my compact car, have a cell phone, have cable and internet at home, can still afford a meal out, so the question to myself is always, how hard is it really for us..we could do without the cell phones, resort to basic cable, not eat out, lower my grocery bill. I've always lived in an apartment, never bought a house because I couldn't afford one but that was never an issue for me. I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Not trying to take on the economics of the world, just the economics of my world.

Bessie ✉
Sep '12

The host of TYT on Current is a progressive. He even criticizes Democratics. Some of his comments annoy me. Jennifer Granholm is very informative.
What about Rachel Maddow of MSNBC? She also is very informative.
Both women have educated me on the dirty tricks of voter suppression. Voter fraud, my eye!
One state is even allowing anyone to question a voter at the polls about their voter ID. They need no reason. Another state is giving the unregistered voters many pages of a form to read before they can either register or vote. How many pages did you have to read before you registered? One state wants to remove President Obama's name from the ballot because the Republican who suggested this is a birther.
These women have shown charts to disprove many of the "R" claims. I trust them. If Rachel does not agree with a guest, but cannot back up her claim at the time, she will research it and come back the next evening with the facts to back up her claim.
I have never heard any host on either channel tell a guest to shut up like O'Reilly does.
Hannity is fair? Talking about "the anointed one"? He doesn't hate President Obama? Hannity criticized the Democratics for using a video against Romney that was from " way back in May". But they are now criticizing an edited video from Obama that was from "1998".
I am still waiting for him to be water boarded. Whatever happened there? He was supposedly doing it for charity. Keith Olbermann offered him $10, 000.

Fox is fair? O'Reilly, Hannity, Carl Rove, Dennis Milller, Dick Morris, Sarah Palin, and many more of their hosts and guests? You don't think they spew hatred? The only one I like is Sheperd Smith.
Yes, I am being honest. You are the second person that didn't believe me because I didn't agree with their opinion.

PBM ✉
Sep '12

Freedom Watch,

The amount of common sense you're showing doesn't fly around here.

;)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

All of this discussion about the government wanting to seize more money from the tax payers is naught anyway. The continuing lies from Obama that these proposed tax increases are going to do "anything" about our debt were meant for the ever growing percentages of misinformed and gullible Americans that the progressives and democrats continue to exploit.

According to the New York Times, the president’s plan to abolish the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 is expected to bring in merely $0.7 trillion over the next decade, or about 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product per year. As a comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit over the same period is going to be $13 trillion, more than 6 percent of GDP per year.

Again people look at the numbers, this will do NOTHING for the debt a drop in the bucket at most, and even the lemmings from our beloved left must realize that any additional money brought in by these taxes will not be applied to the debt anyway, it will just be squandered.

Obama's entire "soak the rich" philosophy has nothing to do with debt and revenue, it is only there to continue to spark more class warfare and probably reduce growth.

Mark ✉
Sep '12

Predator,

I am not on any gov't assistance. I work and make 6 figures. I am STILL voting for Obama. I have nothing to be ashamed about. :)

darwin ✉
Sep '12

PREDATOR: And so you get no government support? No government assistance?" You want zero help from the government?

What do you do to get from place to place? Levitate?

When you buy things, do you look for any safety labels?

So we can REALLY send our boys home, I mean turn in them guns and go home?

And so if you are unemployed, you are dependent? If you are disabled, you are dependent? If you are down on your luck during the worst recession since the depression and you get a handout, you are dependent? If you only play 13% in taxes, you are dependent? If you hide all your money in tax-free shelters in the Caymens, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, you are dependent? If you set up tax-free kiddee trust funds for over $100M when all we can set up is a $12K gift per year, you are dependent? When you write-off a dancing horse as a business expense, you are dependent?

Harsh man, harsh. Guess you have to vote Obama since he is less dependent on the government than Mitt.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

mg,

You really should send your resume to MSNBC. They can always use another good inflammatory propagandist. You have a real talent.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Jeff: Thanks for saying I have real talent. What inflammatory propaganda are you talking about?

Still waiting for Jeff to answer those pesky socialist marxist lenin idiot definitions...... how am I a socialist?

You're good at tossing the tossing the names, not so good at standing on the line.

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."
--attributed to Elbert Hubbard

"I'd call him a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile, but that would be beating a dead horse."
--Woody Allen

Keep those cards n letters coming Jeff, keep em coming :>) Good luck figuring out what you mean by calling me a socialist.

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Reality Check: What is QE3? And What It Means For The U.S. Economy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf2WAw81OqQ&feature=youtu.be

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

mg,

You want government expansion/larger government, more government regulation, higher taxes/class warfare (tax the rich), and are supporting for president a socialist/marxist who believes in the widespread distribution of wealth, not for equal opportunity but for equal outcomes. He has has marxist professors/mentors, and while not using the word socialist, it's no secret now that his entire philosophy and belief system in government leans heavily on socialism. But America has figured that out now (some of us knew it before he was became president.)

No sources are needed for this information, it's in the news EVERY DAY now, as America has finally woken up... heck, there's even the occasional MSM report on his failures/socialist leanings (which is sayin' somethin, if the MSM is starting to be honest about him... NBC/MSNBC need not apply).

I frankly don't have the time to go back-and-forth with you anymore, typing the large tomes you do, attempting to prove myself right (I know I am right), and besides- you're a socialist, you BELIEVE in these principles, so it's a waste of time to discuss it with you. I'm just surprised you're not upset with Obama for not paying your mortgage and gas bills with his 'Obama money' like so many other Obama voters...

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

And btw, mg... when did "socialist" become a vile name? Is it? Then you'd better not vote for Obama...

I still don't understand why you refuse to admit you're a socialist, or at least have heavy socialist leanings. All one has to do is read your plethora of tomes to know it's true, I would think you would be proud of being a socialist, especially since that's what you apparently want America to become more like... unless you're trying to hide from us the fact that you are indeed such an animal...

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”
-Norman Thomas
Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948.
(but it almost sounds like you could have written it yourself, mg... you'd have to take out the "vile name" of socialist of course...)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Tax free gift is currently 13k per year, Mr. G.

MeisterNJ ✉
Sep '12

Wow, up by $1,000. No doubt another handout to the middle class by Obama..... Lucky that neither number matter to Mitt and his accountant team. Guess you know where I fall on the "extra cash for kids issue....." Not quite ready yet.....:>)

Jeff: perhaps it is the way you are using it :>)

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

Hasn't worked out too well so far? Really? Got a better place? Got a better example?

One man's forced is another man's fair. It's not like I am recommending higher taxes on the upper brackets to benefit me; it's to benefit us --- you and the upper brackets included. My recommendation is to earmark all revenues to paying down the debt, capping spending, cutting costs, etc.

Really think your theft complaint is silly actually.

After WWII, we were in a similar debt/GDP ratio problem --- a but worse actually. It was only through common sacrifice and focus on thrift that we brought it down over the next 35 years. But we did not cut all spending, we did not stop all "theft." Quite the opposite, we took some HUGE loans, invested them in some GREAT projects and PROFITED our FUTURES mightily.

I am not going to list all the great things Government helped build, you pretty well know them.

There is no reason not to believe that if we work together we can do it again. But reducing taxes will not get us there; the math does not work

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

"Jeff: perhaps it is the way you are using it :>)"

What, you mean FACTUALLY? Hell, even if it was only opinion, it's still a valid word... certainly not a "name" (as in "name-calling") or derogatory. It is what it is.

It's only a dirty word in that the people who believe in it, don't want to be known for believing in it, because they know the majority of Americans not only want nothing to do with it, but will rebel against it.

It took 4 years, but I think a majority of us finally know Obama is a socialist. He told us he was before he was elected, but people chose to ignore it. There's no ignoring it now- if you vote for him, it's because you WANT more socialism in American government.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

>It sounds like some support the TARP program. That came from GW's administration. A republican....hmmm. Not a good reason to vote this administration back into office.
>Did this administration save the auto industry or did they save GM? Ford didn't take a bail out and Chrysler was sold to a French company. Toyota employes thousands in the US and didn't take a bail out and Hundai is the fastest growing auto company here in the USA. Many would say by propping up GM, the administration bailed out poor management and poor leadership. That's no role for government, an no reason to vote them back into office.
> Did the stimulus work? This has been debated over and over again. It may be to soon to say with certainty that it "worked". What we can say with certainty, is that many of the stimulus funds were mismanaged and wasted (lots of documentation on this one). Even the administration has admitted that mistakes were made. We shouldn't re-elect those who mismanaged and wasted some of the funds that were designated to help the economy.
>He lowered all our taxes BUT increased spending. Reducing revenue and increasing spending? That's no reason to re-elect this administration.
>Appointing women to the Supreme Court is not a good reason to re-elect this administration. Supreme court appointees should be based on more than gender.
> Credit card interest rates are still outrageous, billing cycles are less that 30 days and consumer debt is still a huge problem for the country. I don't think this is a good reason to re-elect this administration.
>The situation in the Middle East: The Muslim Brotherhood has risen to power in Egypt. Terrorists have murdered our ambassador in Libya. The situation in Iran has only grown more dangerous. Afghanistan is huge mess and hasn't improved. Our relationship with Israel and Pakistan has deteriorated. Foreign policy is not a good reason to re-elect this administration.
>We have the freedom to vote for whomever we want BUT we shouldn't re-elect the same politicians and expect different results.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

Common sense answers... cut spending, cut waste, cut fraud, and more personal accountability.

The simple "opposite" is to just tax the "richer" more. This is not an answer. The boat is sinking, the leaks are too great. The taxing of the "richer" will not keep up with the leaks, we will sink.

Parting thought... at what point can you say that you don't own your house? Say you do the right thing and eventually pay off your house's mortgage. You still have to pay property taxes or the government will take your house. The issue is the amount of property taxes. In many countries, property taxes are quite low -- your home is your castle. But in many states, such as New Jersey, there are liberals that want to tax you to the grave. They say you have a lot so give some more. Give some more for more public workers and their benefits. It is right, NO it is wrong!

iJay ✉
Sep '12

mg, i TOLD you... I posted the reasons you are a socialist (or at the very least a socialist-leaning liberal), but it was apparently axed by mods for some reason, and it's not the first time.

But yes- you are a socialist, or at the very least a socialist-leaning liberal. And the evidence is in your political beliefs, especially your opinions on redistribution of wealth, and want of even more government- more government "help", more government regulations/taxes, more more more.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Well, it doesn't really matter what name you put on the policies of this administration or any previous administration. Names don't change the fact that the Middle Class is having a very tough time. Based on polls, the country is about to vote the same politicians back into office and hope for different results.

The middle class feels the brunt of our current economy. The families of our military are mostly "middle class" and they feel the brunt of failed middle east policy.

Foreign and domestic policies have impacted the middle class in a very negative way.
If your happy with the economy, vote these politicians back into office.
If your happy with the immigration policies we have, vote these politicians back in office.
If your happy with the way our current politicians work with each other, vote them back in office.
If your happy with the situation in the Middle East, vote them back in office.
BUT, don't vote them back in office and expect different results.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

Polls are polls and I think many of them are "configured" to make people believe that the election is heading one way or the other. To disparage people from going to the polls and set an air of expectation. As usual we have all of the news outlets, can we really call them news outlets anymore, propagandists is probably a more applicable term now, wildly announcing any polls that show Obama ahead. This is all part of the plan, it is part of the advantage of having all main stream news sources in your camp.
Looking at the Rasmussen daily tracking poll from yesterday he has Romney up by 2 pts. All of these have to be taken with a grain of salt and I would stress that everyone Democrat and Republican get out and vote. It is one of the few freedoms we are left with in our declining America.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Mark ✉
Sep '12

I'm not a republican, for the record. And I'm only voting for Romney because he's the lesser of the evils, not because he's who I'd want for president.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

"... in the end that's why I use every deduction in the book to cut my taxes and I sleep very well at night."

"The discussion is never about whether or not it's wrong to take from someone else for your benefit, rather it's always about how to do it legally so that you get more than the next guy"

The system we live under in a nutshell: Everyone wants to take out more than they put in. Sustainable? Not by any metric I've seen.

justintime ✉
Sep '12

I pay much more than I take out justintime...

iJay ✉
Sep '12

Increasing taxes stink, but there is no doubt, the government needs more revenue to pay for all the "benefits" it provides. (Today the Postal Service announced default on a $5.6 Billion payment to the US Treasury. Over the last 2 months the post office has defaulted on over $11 BILLION). BUT will the increased revenue be used/spent wisely by our current administration? Can we trust the government to spend our money the right way? If Fed Ex or UPS defaulted on $Billions they would simply go out of business.
As a nation we are in trouble and the Middle Class is taking the brunt.
I don't think if we re-elect our current politicians, we will see different results.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

I'm not a Federal Reserve or Bernanke basher, but saw this interesting quote in an op-ed piece in Wednesday's Star-Ledger:

"Ben Bernanke is taking U.S. monetary policy to places it has never been before, beyond the frontiers of economic knowledge."

The author (Charles Lane of the Washington Post) hopes the benefits of the policies will exceed the costs. But as they are "beyond the frontiers of economic knowledge" [love that phrase!], "no one can really be sure".

jd2 ✉
Sep '12

Is this our future? I hope not...

http://news.yahoo.com/france-unveils-budget-heavy-taxes-124501335--finance.html

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

I'm not as horrified by the threat of high taxes, but AS THE ARTICLE SAID, terrified of high taxes that STILL WON'T FIX the problem. As if high taxes aren't bad enough.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

Keiser Report: Boom & Bust Vicious Cycle (E346)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TpbxORxmnY

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!

You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

Andrew Jackson

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

mg, I have posted sources, over and over, that shows lowering taxes ALWAYS INCREASES government revenues, thru increased incentives to earn more money. Reaganomics WORKED. It's history. Learn from it.

Or don't, which seems to be how we got into this mess in the first place... high taxes don't work, quantitative easing doesn't work, socialism doesn't work.... as messed up as our government is right now, a capitalist democratic republic is still the best form of government the planet has yet seen. We need to work on preserving it, not destroying it, we don't want to become Greece, or Japan, or the Weimar Republic.

But as I've said, you're vision of truth has been cemented in your mind, facts & truth & history be damned, so there's no point in debating with you.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Sep '12

From above: "I have posted sources, over and over, that shows lowering taxes ALWAYS INCREASES government revenues"

Obviously, this cannot be true. For example, lower taxes to zero, and gov't revenues are zero also.

jd2 ✉
Sep '12

It seems to me, if you lower overall rates (for everyone) but close loopholes, you in effect really help those who don't take advantage loopholes (the middle class), and the folks who take advantage of loopholes (the very wealthy) will either pay the same and perhaps even more taxes. Of course this depends on which "loopholes" are closed.
But no matter, we have an administration that has not successfully closed loopholes.

>We have very high unemployment still over 8%.
>That unemployment number is very understated as we have very high number of people who stopped looking for a job so they are not included in the 8% calculation.
>"Underemployment" is also very high. (The administration takes credit for creating new jobs, but many are part time with no benefits). In effect, this creates more "working poor". That's not progress.
>The immigration problem at our borders has not improved. We have an administration that spent more money suing the states over immigrations laws instead of working with the states to address the problem. (agree or disagree with the state laws that were passed; we can all agree the administration has not worked well with our border states to create solutions and law suits didn't help)
>The situation in the Middle East has gotten worse. We have fewer allies there and new threats are gaining strength. Even the Afghan troops, who our soldiers are training, are turning their weapons against our brave men and women. Now terrorists have planned and killed our ambassador in Libya, but the administration is having a hard time agreeing with that assessment by the intelligence community.

IF you want more of the same, re-elect these same politicians. But don't re-elect them and expect different results.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

Me4 is the worst kind of troll promulgating lies and filth and I wonder about his love of America. First he posts a link to a guy who writes for terrorist publications, this rat Kaiser (see above for the POS outlets he works for) who wants to install fear in you on behalf of the terrorists and then he posts a fake Jefferson quote: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

So JR --- what you are saying is taxes = socialism and I am a socialist because I think we need to raise taxes, in a targeted fashion for the upper brackets, to pay down our debt? Is that your argument and proof?

IF so, then G. Bush Sr. was a socialist. Clinton was a socialist (and economically that was great!), and all the Presidents from WWII to 1964 were rabid socialists. RABID. But good news, LBJ was your guy and not a socialist ---- he lowered taxes!!!!

Meanwhile, what I see in Reaganomics is a false economy built by putting money in the rich man's pockets while spending money we don't have and expecting the rich to create some jobs benefit they never do. Meanwhile we lower regulations on the rich so they can create even more wealth at the cost of our safety --- health and financial. And nothing trickles down below the upper brackets. Meanwhile, your taxes, what little you pay today, does not go just to the poor, more of it gets spent on the rich through funding their arms factories, their tank factories, their war plane and ship factories needed to support the wars that are ultimately supported on the backs of our middle class boys. Mitt Romney's Dad didn't serve. Mitt didn't serve, he defertmented to France. Mittls sons don't serve. The 47% serve. Reagan spent us down the shoot outspending Russia on guns and bullets and for what? Were we ever in danger of turning red?

So Reagan took 35 years of progress from a Debt/GDP ratio after WWII of 120% down to 32% in 1974 and trashed it. When Reagan took office where he changed the 35-year downward trajectory upward doubling the Debt/GDP to 66%. That's your economic boom, he borrowed it. Then Clinton brought the taxes up during his great economic boom. And his own disciple, G. Bush /sr, raised taxes less than 4 years later before Clinton's tax spike which I guess countermands the Regan tax theory since the Clinton era was, I think, pretty good economically.

Do you really think Bush Sr. was a socialist or just real stupid to raise taxes or do you think he was prudent, did it for the benefit of the country even if he sacrificed his own legacy by doing it? Or course not. He knew he had to do it to stop the Debt/GDP ratio from skyrocketing.

So from my standpoint, Reagan's tax drop sets up:
- the current status of the rich owning more of America's assets than ever before in history (therefore the rest have less)
- the assault on middle class wages, pensions, health benefits that continues today
- increase in poverty (that Clinton brought down dramatically)
- a pentagon that's out of control eating 25% of every tax dollar and asking for more

He takes us to the Debt/GDP races and Bush Jr. doubles down with two UNBUDGETED wars, etc. etc. etc. sailing us to a 70% ratio where Obama catches the rising Debt/GDP ratio sinking ship, has to bail water to keep us afloat, spends the last of our good name in doing so and now we level out at about 102% ---- the worst since WWII.

And you say anyone who suggests raising taxes to pay down that debt is a socialist, a lenin-idiot-stooge-socialist, to paraphrase your eloquence.

Now, after WWII, Americans recognized the Debt/GDP problem and they all sacrificed to pay it down. The tax rate at the upper end was 90% for many, many, many years. They were not socialists, they were thrifty and paid their debts. Roosevelt -- socialist. Truman ---- socialist, Eisenhower --- flippin socialist, Kennedy --- oh yeah, rum running socialist. LBJ --- JR's guy and not a socialist (hmmmmm),

That's what I am saying. That we need to be thrifty, we need to follow recommendations both on lowering spending and raising taxes. We need to pony up, lust like the greatest generation and the ones that followed for the next 35 years. It's time to set a new standard of Ameican resolve. You just can't get there any other way. And if you think that my recommendation on raising taxes to pay down our debt makes me a socialist; then JR, you are a simpleton when it comes to both politics and finance.

Meanwhile, here's a couple of views on how Reaganomics sucks pond water from the bottom of the economic pond: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=0

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/20/the-dark-legacy-of-reaganomics/

But personally, I say just look at the debt/GDP ratio chart I have posted above and the shortfall of Reagnomics whether by Reagan or Bush Jr. are pictorially apparent even to non-socialists like you. Look at the picture JR, look at the picture.

-

mistergoogle ✉
Sep '12

The Communist Manifesto

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

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

Me4 ✉
Sep '12

There is one point that I think we can all agree on. The greatest generation, when down, worked really hard and pulled themselves up.

The greatest generation and those before them truly understood what it meant to be "American". The generations that have followed, in my opinion, have slowly lost that understanding. There has been a steady trend in the US towards a "Europe like" economy. There seems to be a focus on how much vacation time we can get, much like Europe. A focus on getting more but without the significant effort that should be required.

All of that really doesn't change were we are today. Without calling names, without anger, the main point of this thread's heading is true. The middle class is having a tough time and it doesn't seem to be improving.

We simply can't tolerate the high unemployment rate, the high number of people in poverty with record numbers needing food stamps. An immigration policy that has not made improvements. The declining situation in the Middle East. All of these issues have a direct impact on the middle class.

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

Sorry to change focus to NJ politics, however we have a problem here in NJ.
Recently our NJ legislature spent time (which is money) on the issue of "Dog Seat Belts". Is this issue so important that it trumps things like Ethics reform, Shared services and addressing the property tax issues?

Please don't vote these NJ politicians back into office and expect different results.

I'm not sure seat belts for dogs will help the middle class here in NJ (unless you are in the business of selling dog seat belts ;-)

Freedom Watch
Sep '12

To ALL,
I'm not sure why Mr. G is "targeting" specific politicians. If there was something in my post that caused that, then I would like to retract that post. It was not my intent to call out any specific politicians. (Mr. G, to be fair to Governor Christy, he was asked a question about the dog seat belts proposal on a radio "call in" show and he responded. He believes the legislation is a waste of time. He would prefer the legislature not spend time on that topic and focus on more important issues. I may have missed your point with regard to your comment directed at the governor, but I feel it was inappropriate and has no place in a public forum.)

To be clear, the point I have been attempting to make in this thread is this: The USA has had a legislature and leaders that have left the middle class in pretty bad shape. It hasn't gotten much better in the last 4 years. Domestically things are bad as outlined in previous posts referencing very high unemployment and RECORD numbers of people who need food stamps etc. Internationally it's bad and getting worse (specifically referencing, the situation in the Middle East).

To sum it up (without spin, without anger, without name calling or labels): Don't vote for the same politicians and expect different results.

Freedom Watch
Oct '12

Freedom:

I took you at your word and listed the NJ politicians who actually spent time either creating the law for or the law against the pet seat belt laws. Sure the Christie part was tongue-in-cheek, but he too spent a few moments on the bill as well mostly so he could use his favorite stupid word stupid.

Meanwhile, again taking you at your word, if we look at the last 4 year at the Federal Level (since you changed from Jersey to USA politicians which I figure means Congress), we can break the Congressional part (the guys who write the laws) into two parts --- the Pelosi two years and the Bohner two years at the House of Representatives level where laws first get written. During the Pelosi two years, we passed more laws than most, if not all, Congressional sessions. Sure, we can argue quality and results, but it was productive. Sure we can say it was a Democratic Congress, but it was productive. And we can look at results. Faced with The Great Recession, we did cap unemployment at 10% and drive it to 8%; we did "end" the recession and begin to show growth (didn;t feel it, but we did do it), we saved the financial and banking industries, we saved the auto industry, we saved a lot of state/local first responders and teacher jobs, we did lower taxes -- especially on the middle class, and a number of other things to mitigate or lessen the recession. It was not fast enough, it was not perfect, but we were beginning to turn the corner.

Then we entered the next two years or the reign of the Bohner where we have had the least productive Congress in history whose main STATED PURPOSE was to make Obama a single term President. Not to fix the economy, not to serve the American public, not to make anything better. Just get rid of Obama --- they are on the record as saying this is the goal. They did nothing, passed a handful of legislation most of which was DOA at the Senate. No jobs bill, botched the debt ceiling vote, and recently turned down a jobs bill for veterans. But they did push a vote to repeal ObamaCare 32 times with absolutely zero chance of passing the Senate. Zero chance and they thought that was productive to do 32 times. And so while the economy began to stagnate, while unemployment wouldn't budge below 8%, they did nothing. As we approach the witching hour of the fiscal cliff, they take recess.

So again, I agree. Vote the bums doing nothing, obstructing everything, out of office.

Let's get some people in there who can pull together as a team and begin to move us in the right direction. For me, that would be the recommendations I have listed which include both liberal and conservative ideas, mostly fiscal for now.

In this election we need both parties. We need their ideas and we need them to work together to get things done. And we need speed, America and America's middle class does not have much time left as the Debt clock keeps ticking. And, like I have said, it will take decades to fix --- it is not trivial.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '12

Unemployment has been DOWN? Stats, please.

It hasn't been below 8.1% in 41 months. (and we all know that's not the real number anyway.)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

It seriously boggles the mind how some of you can have have actual statistics in front of you, yet are somehow capable of weaving a bright fairy tale around the numbers. Unemployment could be 20%, the war could still be going full-force, and our debt could be past 20B, and you'd STILL vote for this guy. Unbelievable. That's why I don't debate much anymore, as it's impossible to fight against NONSENSE and FICTION. You people have made up your mind what the truth is, regardless of what it ACTUALLY is.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '12

JR the war is still going on. The only difference. We're losing. So it's not making the news. Our military are now being murdered. Who's to blame now? Who's got our soldiers blood on their hands? We lived this nightmare before, lets not repeat it. Bring them home NOW. They are nothing more than sitting ducks.

auntiel
Oct '12

Here are the real moochers.....


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/almost-2-400-millionaires-pocketed-unemployment-benefits.html

PBM ✉
Oct '12

Has Mitt stated what specific policy he would put in place that will improve the unemployment rate? This is a serious question because this man has been running for President for 7yrs yet I can't name a single specific policy he said he would put in place.

darwin ✉
Oct '12

Gee, I missed the part where Mark left out a year :>) Must be MSNBC-ing.

I am guessing that Reality mis-spoke and meant to say unemployment is down from it's highest point in the Great Recession. That is true as shown in the picture. As you can see, unemployment went up 50% under Bush, another 50% under Obama and has retreated 20% from it's highest point. Percentages are misleading since at any point, it is just too damn high.

I don't think anyone would say that unemployment over 8% is an good improvement, that a 20% improvement is good, just that it is better than it was and is still awful.

And Reality is right to say taxes are down, etc. etc.

But I think no one would say the stimulus worked or is working just that it allowed us to save things that were falling over the cliff and to begin our recovery.

My point was that it was starting to work before the Tea Party came to town and stopped any progress with no work whatsoever. It's a simple equation: it you do nothing to effect change, you can' t expect change.

But this thing we are in started with Reagan, got worse with Bush; we have decades getting here. And we have decades of bailing to get out of it. And if you think just cutting taxes on the rich will do it, then I have a bridge to sell you since the rich won't buy it, they aren't that stupid. They will be buying off-shore eurosocialist investments from the Caymens with the extra Mitt money they will get. Again do the math. Under the Mitt plan, they get a higher percentage rebate on taxes than you do. They profit more.

Look at the Debt/GDP ratio chart I posted above. Those are the stats I think show the big picture. It makes it pretty darn clear which policies increased our Debt and which increased our GDP and lowered our debt. If you still think that Mitt is the better answer, ask yourself this:

- He wants to lower taxes by 20% across the board (who cares that this will benefit the rich, let's just take him at his word).
= this is the linchpin of his economic improvement program

- He states that this program will be revenue-neutral which is Mitt-speak for tax payments to the government won't go down because he will close enough loopholes to make up for the tax cut..

So if there is no change to tax receipts, then taxes did not go down. And if taxes did not go down, they how does Mitts tax reduction improve the economy. Even if you believe that tax reductions work to improve the economy, Mitt's tax reduction program does not reduce taxes. This idiot just thinks JR and others just can't add or understand English.

JR ---- are those the stats you can believe in. Is that the kind of programs that you think will make the economy better? He has a tax reduction program that will not reduce the tax. And that's the truth. Look it up.

So yeah, I don't like where we are. I liked where we were even less. And I will go with the man with a plan versus a couple of Hucksters with smoke and mirrors, a lack of details, and out n out lies.

I will go with the guy who wants to make taxes fair versus the guy who thinks gaming the system is his right since he creates jobs and you only work for a living. The guys who pays less tax because he invests versus the Doctor who pays more taxes because he saves lives. These are the real character tax stats: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-17/obama-romney-tax-income-comparison/57161254/1

So go with this guy because your overriding stat is ABO and the rest does not matter to you at all.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '12

A drop in unemployment to 8.1%.... trying to spin that into a good thing is laughable. No president since FDR has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.4%.

Hey- out debt is only 16 TRILLION!!!!! At least Obama didn't get it up to 20 trillion- so that's a good thing!!! Re-elect Obama!

Nov. 6 can't get here fast enough. There's really nothing else to be said at this point, it's socialist Euro-merica vs capitalist America. We'll see where the people stand.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '12

Regarding the unemployment numbers, I came across this tidbit today:

"In August 2008, just before the Lehman Brothers collapse, the number of employed persons in the United States was 145.47 million persons. Over the subsequent years, the employment figure dipped to as low as 139.27 million. Today it stands at 142.1 million. Even if this is considered recovery, to ‘rescue’ those 2.8 million jobs, it took the federal government an additional $6.421 trillion worth of debt ($2.3 million per job), and a $1.9 trillion (203%) expansion of the Federal Reserve balance sheet."

There's obviously not a 1:1 correlation between our debt and the number of jobs "created or saved" over the last four years, but the implication is that there are A LOT of intertwined events occurring having interrelated effects. So while it's OK to get upset about one aspect of the economy remember that there are a great many other factors in play...

And JR - I can't fathom a scenario where either of the major candidates will do a blessed thing about our problems, other than continue trying to deal with their symptoms. IOW, we'll be right back in the same place four years from now. The symptoms we all discuss daily might have abated (or not) but I can' virtually assure you that the problems will not have been dealt with.

justintime ✉
Oct '12

JIT: You would have reached the same conclusions re the problems as you see them during the Clinton years but the Debt/GDP ratio moved down, and all the other important factors got better.

We fixed this after WWII and we can do it again if we all pull together as a team.

Or we can have a Tea Party instead.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '12

Republicans look at who your 2012 Candidates were:

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Bachmann
Ron Paul
Herman Cain
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Jon Huntsman

Please please come up with someone worth voting for in 2016.

buckeye ✉
Oct '12

Google indicates that i am a troll & anti-American cause I post videos that oppose global bankers including Bernanke & Obama. But there a few people who have awoken & will not get ripped off or fooled again.

Sorry Goog's pack your lunch cause i ain't going anywhere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H19AAcAfVg8

Me4 ✉
Oct '12

cbel - i dont search for it - i live it.

When guys like Google can't win an argument they start with the personal attacks If i can wake up a few people in the area than thats all i want.

Those that are meant to wake up - will. Those that aren't meant to wake up - won't.

Peace


Gerald Celente ~ Crime of the century with Max Kesier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSD9IQjWhKw&feature=fvst

Me4 ✉
Oct '12

Okay - Good luck & Godspeed to you.

Me4 ✉
Oct '12