Spokane7
61°
February 16, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: Federal debt won’t shrink by passing the buck
The household analogy seems to hit home when talking about government budgets, so imagine this scenario: In seven years, the interest payment on your credit cards will exceed your monthly mortgage, which is currently your largest bill. Do you:
A) Drop down to a cheaper cable TV package?
B) Bring your lunch to work?
C) Bring in less money?
D) Dissemble about the debt?
E) Declare bankruptcy?
F) Focus most cuts on larger items and bring in more money?
While many households would choose bankruptcy, the federal government can’t really do that. As House Speaker John Boehner has noted, this step would be ruinous to the U.S. and world economies. The Obama administration concurs.
But that is no excuse for both leaders to pursue options A, B, C and D, when the correct answer is F.
The recently released spending plan from Republicans and the president’s new budget proposal aim spending cuts at a small portion of the budget, leaving the biggest items – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense – largely untouched. In addition, both sides continue to extend some or all of the temporary tax cuts, which will bring in less revenue. As a result, the nation’s debt will grow by as much as $13 trillion over the next decade.
These are not serious blueprints, and both sides know it.
The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan deficit reduction group, notes that interest costs for servicing the debt could exceed Medicare costs as soon as 2018 under Obama’s plan. It has panned the House Republicans for a lack of seriousness, too.
While politicians pat themselves on the back for their puny efforts, the bills mount. Sadly, the prospect of passing this debt along to their children does not spur them to seek bipartisan solutions. The Obama administration noted early last year that it was awaiting the findings of a bipartisan deficit panel before unveiling a serious proposal. Instead, the administration has held back support for the commission.
The good news is that a small group of senators from both parties, including U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, are looking at turning some of those recommendations into policy proposals, which offers a glimmer of hope that reality will enter the discussion.
But for the most part, it’s the same game of passing off molehill solutions as mountains. Our leaders talk about the long-term deficit, but their actions point to short-term power plays. Each side is fearful that if they push for cuts in popular entitlement and defense programs or touch taxes, their advocacy will become the subject of 2012 campaign ads about starving the elderly or wounding the troops or pilfering hard-earned money.
When that election is completed, the cycle begins anew, with an eye toward 2014.
This is a problem that demands leadership from people who care more about the country’s future than their party’s short-term fortunes. The whole point of gaining office is public service, not perpetuating a ruinous game of budgetary chicken.
Our nation’s leaders need to treat us like grown-ups. We can handle the truth. We can’t afford the deception.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
watchingfrogsboil on February 16 at 5:36 a.m.
U.S. Debt-to-GDP Ratio Tops 97% with No Debt Reduction Proposals
Many corporate-owned politicians, pundits and other propaganda peddlers appear to be deliberately distorting the difference between “debt” and “deficit” while at the same time heralding “deficit reductions” that are anything but. To clarify in context, the U.S. national “debt” is how much the American government owes, and is presently $14.1 trillion and rising. The U.S. federal budget “deficit” is how much that debt increases in any given fiscal year, and for the current year is projected to be $1.5 trillion. In the real world, a “deficit reduction” would be an actual or mandated increase in revenues or decrease in expenditures which has the effect of decreasing a given year’s deficit (ie. decreasing the increase in the debt for that year). And unless and until a deficit reduction is large enough to not only eliminate the deficit but create a “surplus” that is applied to debt retirement, A DEFICIT REDUCTION DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEBT. Furthermore, reducing planned increases in future spending may avoid a contingent deficit increase, but that is not the same thing as actual deficit reduction.
The American Sheeple need to snap out of their TV/iPhone/Facebook-induced trances and listen closely to what the talking heads are saying: The national debt is not the same thing as the federal budget deficit. Deficit reductions do not necessarily (and in fact rarely) result in debt retirement. Much of what Washington is currently proposing is not really deficit reduction anyway. And even if it was, it’s all too little and too late.
watchingfrogsboil[dot]com
New_Improved_Drywitt2000 on February 16 at 5:43 a.m.
So….let’s just default on the money we owe China.
What are they going to do…….sue us???
Try to attach one of our states?
If so, I suggest giving them one of the red ones.
North Dakota. Or maybe Utah.
Sure……they won’t buy anymore of our bonds…..but what do we care if we learn to live within our means.
mikeln on February 16 at 6:43 a.m.
I would like to know which debts are never paid off. I think we might be suprised at the number of the already too rich that get a nice, big fat check from the taxpayers every year. This check being for goods or services that where delivered decades ago and have been paid for many times over. Nice work if you are well connected and can get it. Time to open up the books and show the people paying taxes where the money really goes.
JBlim on February 16 at 7:04 a.m.
The unwitting now find it in vogue to obsess over the federal debt. Nobody cared when W was president or when Reagan was president. Why now? It’s because your TV tells you what to think and what to spout off about. Deal with it.
DickAdams on February 16 at 7:25 a.m.
watchingfrogsboil: Excellent comment! Most poster do not understand the huge debt and the play on words by the pundits blindfolds most of them.
greyhound2 on February 16 at 7:29 a.m.
How can the Republicans hold unemployment benefits hostage to tax cuts for the rich in December, and the declare that the United States is broke in February?
DickAdams on February 16 at 7:36 a.m.
greyhound2: In December if you will remember, Pelosi and Reid called the shots with the democrat majority. What did the Republicans have to do with it. Hostage is digested food through the bull.
Scoutster on February 16 at 7:56 a.m.
The president suggested the Bush tax breaks be closed for the wealthy, which would significantly reduce the annual deficit.
The new GOP majority said “no way, we will balance without taxes!”.
Obama’s budget is simply saying: “OK. Go ahead and do it without new revenue.” Speaker John and the boys said they can do it…do it!
They can’t even get to the first $100 million without whining.
The ball’s in the court of the US House of Representatives, where budget bills originate. Make us proud, GOP. Show us the money!
Jeffrey_Grey on February 16 at 8:12 a.m.
DickAdams,
‘Hostage’ might indeed be too strong a word, but renewing those tax breaks was most assuredly a Republican idea. To say Pelosi and Reid were ‘calling the shots’ is absurd because, if that was true, those tax cuts would have been allowed to expire.
In any event and as watchingfrogs insightfully points out, what happened in the past isn’t nearly as relevant as what is going to happen in the future. Tax rates are going to have to be revisited - soon. We could balance the budget tomorrow and that would do nothing to reduce the debt that’s eating us alive. Cutting spending simply isn’t enough. We must increase income as well. Anyone who says differently is pushing an agenda.
And this time around, the Republicans in the House no longer have the luxury of finger-pointing and buck passing. It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to step up to the inevitable. “Read my lips! No new taxes!!”
drywitt,
What would happen if we defaulted is our economy - founded as it is upon debt-financing - would collapse, taking a lot of the world’s other economies down with it. The result would be learning to live ‘within our means’ in burned out ruins that would make the Great Depression look like a minor stock-market dip.
It’s not a realistic option.
hawken on February 16 at 8:17 a.m.
The household analogy used in this article is a flawed analogy as it is used.
The government can simply “seize” more money from American families and business. Households cannot seize more money. The only way for a household to increase revenue is by earning it or having it transferred to them by the government who seized it from others. Then factor in the additional “transfer” cost in the form of government employees and benefits. Consequently, the “transfer process” does not even transfer a “dollar seized for a dollar transferred.”
Government produces nothing in this sense. Government simply takes dollars out of the economy through the “seizure” of tax dollars and then transfers it to someone else.
This process is necessary, for necessary government services we all want and need.
The question is: “What is necessary?”
In the past that question has been answered mostly by opposing, ideological, political world views. We are now beyond that. What should answer the question, “What is necessary,” is the gravity of our current, dire, economic situation.
The part of the analogy that does and can work is cutting spending and excessive regulation.
The false analogy is but another way of misleading many to believe that tax cuts and tax increases must go hand in hand, with parity. This FALSELY presumes that every government program is as equally important, necessary and valuable as every tax dollar seized.
That too is a flawed and false presumption. Government is by nature a “antagonist” of spending cuts of any kind. The very nature of government is to grow itself. When a government program is passed and put in place, it typically becomes another “entitlement,” never to be removed.
At the end of a budget year, department heads are told to “spend it or loose it.” Of course, they “spend it.” More unnecessary spending on a large scale.
How many times must it be said? Revenue is NOT the problem. Spending and debt is the problem. Couple that with the fact that when families and business have their money “seized” by the government, it falls into a dark “abyss” of waist, duplication, unnecessary government programs that have long outlived their usefulness, loss through fraud and mismanagement by the government, by the “hundreds of billions” annually, never again to be seen. One need only look at Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, a colossal failure, down the “abyss.”
The informed understand that Republicans promised and want to cut $100 Billion from the budget and go back to 2008 spending levels to boost the economy and get the jobs machine working again. Once that happens, tax revenues will naturally and greatly increase. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it. That is he time to take on serious “debt reduction.” NOT grow government again.
Meanwhile, back at home, Obama promises to “veto” such a bill if it gets past the Democrat controlled Senate.
The first thing to be done is to take an AXE to big government spending and the excessive regulation that business must currently bear. Business and the economy will then grow, unemployment will decrease while tax revenues increase.
Nobody said this would be easy. It is long past “What is Necessary.
Scoutster on February 16 at 8:31 a.m.
The GOP has known they would be here since Nov 2!
They look like deer in the headlights: “Oh, we really have to DO this?”
And I’m especially going to look forward to what that nice Paul Ryan from Wisconsin promised after the State of the Union speech: We will put forward a health plan that cuts costs and expands coverage.
Orphan on February 16 at 8:53 a.m.
Lets tax the rich some more wont work, no country has ever taxed ot way to prosperity. We as a country need to stop spending so much money. There needs to be cuts all across the board, everything from PBS to SS.
Hawkin well said.
If we dont get this under control soon the result will make what just happened in Egypt look like a school yard scuffle.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 16 at 9:55 a.m.
You can posture and repeat partisan dogma to your heart’s content. It won’t alter the facts.
Yes, we must cut spending. That’s simply a given. Nobody with any real insight or input into this is arguing differently. The only question is about what to cut. Therefore to constantly beat the ‘cut spending!’ drum is simply not adding anything.
It’s just the easy evasion for the second part of the question that must also be addressed. And that is the simple fact that we could cut with such wild abandon so as to balance the budget and that still wouldn’t do a thing -not a thing - to lower the debt we’ve already incurred and must eventually repay.
And the only realistic way to do that is to increase revenue. You can shout your dogma at that FACT until you’re blue in the face and it won’t alter it one iota.
It’s just a question of how long it’s going to take Congress to face the inevitable.
Orphan,
The post-war 50s under Truman and Eisenhower saw some of the greatest economic growth in America’s history. The top tax rate during that period varied between 81 to 92 percent.
During President Clinton’s administration - another period of strong economic growth - Clinton ‘saw’ Bush Senior’s “no new taxes!” rate of 31 percent and raised it from 37 and then to 39 percent.
Now this is not to say that raising taxes guarantees economic growth. That is not necessarily true as history shows in other cases. However, it is just as untrue to say that raising taxes or higher taxes inevitably harms economic growth. Once again, history shows that’s simply not true either.
It’s just a ‘truth’ that anti-tax conservatives incessantly parrot.
ethanch on February 16 at 10:12 a.m.
A letter I sent to Cathy McMorris Rodgers In Response to her poll to cut $100 billion from the federal budget
Dear Cathy, I think you are missing the point. This is not an either-or situation. You want to fix the budget? Really? Then let’s start by taxing the super wealthy, trickle-down economics has not worked.
Next, stop letting corporations send our jobs overseas. Fine them if they do, and start imposing taxes on the ones who already have. Maybe then they will bring our jobs back to America.
Third, refuse to let any more imports into our Country, shut it down!! Every day huge cargo ships show up full of stuff from around the world and go back empty. The only thing America exports are our jobs.
Fourth, you could show us some good faith and give up your taxpayer-paid health insurance. You could just pay out of pocket like you want the rest of us to do.
Last, and the one that might actually get those of you in charge working together for once. How about you and every other elected official take a 40% pay cut until you can work together and turn our economy around?
I know this is a big leap, but why should we be the only ones making the sacrifices to fix problems you helped create?
MrNatural on February 16 at 10:28 a.m.
…Well…I think “JOBS” are/is the solution…and the silence is deafening in congress over that prospect.
To me it has been proven that if this country invests in its infrastructure we will have employment and the tax base to reverse the deficit.
hawken on February 16 at 10:34 a.m.
ethanch
In fact “Trickle Down Economics” did and does work. History and facts establish this. I can also give you numbers on Bush II as well, if you like.
Reagan had a choice. (A) Continue the growth of the economy at the time; or (B) Defeat the USSR by outspending them on military and weaponry. He rightly chose (B). When the USSR tired and failed to keep up with out military spending they collapsed. The U.S and whole world is much safer as a result.
hawken on February 16 at 10:39 a.m.
Natural: Obama’s new budget proposal again, is not a friend to jobs. That would be a good place to start.
As you know well….
The Dems still control the Presidency and the Senate.
The president promised unemployment would drop below 8% last summer if only, only, we would accept his massive $800 BILLION stimulus bill. That idea was an abysmal failure!
The only thing it accomplished was more debt which we cannot pay.
Now, the Obama administration is talking about more bailouts! This time the states. More failed stimulus. More debt.
The stimulus did little more than “stimulate” the growth of government. Now more of the same? Bailing out the states? More tax and spend madness!
So, you should be and have been asking for the last two years, “Where are the jobs Mr. President? After two years of failed promises.
hawken on February 16 at 10:49 a.m.
Followup: Good Grief! Obama and the Dems could not even find the time to do a budget in 2010! They were too busy jacking up spending and the national debt with boondoggles the likes of Obamacare.
A national budget plays second fiddle with Dems, whom don’t want to be constrained in their spending by silly things like a budget.
Scoutster on February 16 at 10:57 a.m.
Hawken writes:
As you know well….
The Dems still control the Presidency and the Senate.
++++++++++++
So, that is the new Kool-Aid from Faux News? We could do this if only we had control of everything! Don’t blame us, it’s those guys!
Well, let’s stay in the moment, Hawken. I won’t talk about the failed Bush tax cuts if you won’t talk about the successful Bush tax cuts.
But, what is the House doing TODAY? They said they were ready. Where it is? We’re waiting for that balanced budget plan.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 16 at 11:07 a.m.
The rebuttal to “Trickle economics works!”:
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
(Note - this article was written in 2003. Subsequent history has further vindicated every one of its assertions.)
hawken on February 16 at 11:13 a.m.
Scoutster: No,,,, let’s do talk about the Bush tax cuts. I am sick and tired of liberals trying to re-write history.
Orphan on February 16 at 11:24 a.m.
Mr Natural is correct jobs are the answer to a lot of the problems. More jobs mean more taxes collected. The jobs are not going to happen as long as the wealthy are threatened with higher taxes the wealthy simply will not invest in business under these conditions.
Mr. Gray simply increrasing taxes to cover our spending is only going to cause the wealthy to protect their wealth and that does not create jobs. We need to bite the bullet get rid of the unneeded goverment programs now before its too late.
If our elected representitives had not stolden our SS money we would not be in the spot we are in now.
Obama has had 2 years and so far nothing has improved. I also dont think the Reps are going to do much better. Until we quit spending like a drunken sailor the wealthy will not want to do business in this country. Wealthy people tend to be smart people and they can see what a poor investment our county has become. This is the difference between now and the times Mr. Gray cites.
hawken on February 16 at 11:32 a.m.
Everyone should indeed read and study the graphs offered by Jeffrey_Grey…. regarding his The rebuttal to “Trickle economics works!”:
It offers charts and graphs relating to “economic indicators.”
As for me, I’ll stick with the “actual” results relating to Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II above. They are specific and measured. They are not based upon theoretical, “economic indicators.” Nor are they a “hypothesis.”
Also, you will notice, if you take the time to read Grey’s link…. the authors give themselves plenty of “wiggle room” in their hypothesis.
Here’s the common sense, bottom line argument. You cannot grow an economy by spending more, borrowing more and taxing more.
The fact remains, as proved by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II, that when you lower taxes, the economy grows, tax revenues to the government increase and unemployment takes a nose dive.
“A rising tide lifts all ships”
Scoutster on February 16 at 11:51 a.m.
I”m sorry, Hawken…I must have missed it.
What is your party doing TODAY?! (A two year old article from the WSJ only works on Rush.)
Where are the CUTS?!
What’s taking so long?
Scoutster on February 16 at 11:54 a.m.
A quote from your article, Hawken:
When the bust finally arrived with a vengeance in 2007, the political timing couldn’t have been worse. Mr. Bush tried to rally with one more fiscal “stimulus,” but he repeated his 2001 mistake and agreed to another round of tax rebates. They did little good. The Administration might have prevented the worst of the panic had it sought some sort of TARP-like financing for the banking system months or a year earlier than it did last autumn. But neither the Treasury nor the FDIC seemed to appreciate how big the banking system’s problems were. Their financial triage was well meaning but came too late and in a frenzy that invited mistakes.
Love those stimuli! Love those TARPs!
DeeDee_Loberg on February 16 at 12:05 p.m.
Please someone explain to me how tax breaks for the wealthy will produce as many jobs as updating infrastucture, targeted tax breaks for innovative companies and becoming more self relient when it comes to energy and fuel.
I am tierd of looking backward when we can be leaders moving forward. To rehash every tax break or tax increase does nothing to solve our problems.
hawken on February 16 at 12:34 p.m.
DeeDee….
Looking back is essential to the future. Those who don’t understand history are compelled to repeat it.
Mistakes of the past should not be ignored.
Far too many don’t want to look back, along with you.
johnclarke on February 16 at 12:39 p.m.
Sorry DeeDee, I can’t explain it. No one can, because there is no evidence of it ever working. Tax breaks for the rich increase our debt, transfer the tax burden to the middle class and make rich people richer. Simple math really, and I guess after twelve plus years of historically low tax rates, you would think it would have worked by now. See, it’s just like the “self regulating market” the “laffer curve” and “trickle down economics”, all proven wrong and clung to like some weird religion.
Until we stop the conservative alternate reality nonsense and raise taxes back to reasonable, progressive levels, nothing will really change. Warren Buffett pays 15% tax rate. Ever wonder why? Again, there are a few self appointed poly/sci/history experts on this board, and they are clearly living in a fantasy world - and they either can’t read or choose not to. *yawn* what’s for lunch?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 16 at 12:41 p.m.
Really? So how did we get to where we are today with a struggling economy, governments cutting to the bone (and beyond) trying to find the revenue needed to provide basic services and unemployment stubbornly hovering around 10%?
I don’t know what facts you’re referring to, hawken. I only know they’re not the facts I see looking out the window at the real world.
On the other hand, that article I cited to predicts that ‘trickle down’ does nothing but grow the deficit. Once again, when I look out the window at the real world, the ‘hypothesis’ seems to have been vindicated.
In spades.
MatthewRoot on February 16 at 1:15 p.m.
We need one of those Reagan-O’Neill or Clinton-Gingrich agreements. When there is an Obama-Boehner agreement, we may start to make some progress.
johnclarke on February 16 at 1:33 p.m.
Right on Chip. We need both sides at the table.
greenlibertarian on February 16 at 2:31 p.m.
The ONLY thing that kept the economy from crashing in the 2000s was the MASSIVE debt taken on by citizens, business, and government, to keep the spending going using borrowed money at cheap interest rates.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—
(continues)
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1DxMwRHUr
Marginal tax rates today are are NO WHERE near the point of diminishing returns on the Laffer Curve.
(continues)
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1EAAHUCzl
Diana on February 16 at 2:46 p.m.
Has anyone taken a look at Baggernomics wunderkind Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan? He’ll balance the budget in 2063. But of course by then he will have added $63 trillion to the debt. This guy is ranked among the Republican’s most influential voices on the economy.
A roadmap for America’s future, indeed. ROFLOL!
johnclarke on February 16 at 3:06 p.m.
Green - what’s up with facts and data? Stuff ain’t welcome here you know :)
Diana- Paul Ryan wouldn’t even vote for his own suggestions when he was on the debt reduction committee. I listened to him interviewed last night, and when the interviewer on NPR (on the list of Republican cuts !) asked him to justify his statements with hard numbers, he could not and he tried to change the subject. He is a complete right wing blowhard.
johnclarke on February 16 at 3:12 p.m.
BTW, that is a great article in Time GreenLib, I hope everyone takes the time to read it.
MatthewRoot on February 16 at 3:13 p.m.
Green, you have that right
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most of the economic growth during the Bush administration was due to artificially low interest rates set by Greenspan, adding $5 Trillion to the National Debt, (essentially an average of $600 billion of stimulus every year borrowed from places like China) and population growth. Less than 10 percent of economic growth was attributed to tax cuts
johnclarke on February 16 at 4:47 p.m.
and don’t forget raiding Social Security to offset the tax cuts.
So we have both Laffer and Greenspan saying “huh? What? I was wrong? ”
Um yeah, they were wrong. Really, really wrong.
hawken on February 16 at 5:43 p.m.
To Greenliberal and other liberals….
You can “theorize” and “postulate” along with the college professors you quote above.
What you cannot do is change or deny the real numbers I’ve posted above from both the Reagan and Bush presidencies related to tax cuts.
“Liberal Keynesian Economic Theory.” Namely, “Government Spending Will Grow the Economy.” Is primarily what got us here.
Thus, the $800 Billion Obama stimulus package that was a colossal failure in growing the economy or producing jobs. As you know, unemployment increased by 25% after Obama started spending the stimulus 8%-10% = 25%. To date we’re hovering at 9+% unemployment with no end in sight. Actually, the real unemployment rate, called U6 is over 16%.
People without only a high school education know better.
I’m thinking you might want to “huddle together” with your professors for more liberal theories.
The other thing you cannot deny is that Obama is responsible, just like every president.
ethanch on February 16 at 6:11 p.m.
Hawken
This is the opinion of a Professor at Valencia Community College, the “article” you use to support trickle-down economics is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed. He does not site any sources for his claims that it does work.
Just my opinion, but as a professor at a local university I see scores of students graduate each year with less and less opportunities waiting for them once they graduate.
One student applied over 60 (sixty) times just to get an interview at Boeing.
Companies keep shutting down facilities in America, laying off sometimes thousands of employees at a time, to reopen overseas or just across our borders. For instance; Chrysler and GM asked for another taxpayer bailout. (Apparently learned nothing the first time) Chrysler Builds a new “God” only knows how many billion dollar assembly plant in Canada. For their Charger, Challenger and sedan, and their engine assembly plant in Mexico. Then there’s GM’s new assembly plant in Canada for the Camaro & Cadillac.
Does this only sound crazy to me? They use taxpayer bailouts to keep them afloat, while they take more jobs out of the country, creating fewer taxpayers.
The debate continues….
hawken on February 16 at 6:33 p.m.
Here are more “actual” numbers for the Obama/Democrat administration when they controlled the house, senate and white house. So,,,, are you better off than two years ago?
_______________________________________
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
$1.83 January 2009
$3.104 Recent
69.6% Percent Increase
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
_______________________________________
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
$43.48 January 2009
$104.16 Recent
139.6%% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25 January 2009
$1,369.50 Recent
60.5% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56 January 2009
$6.33 Recent
78.1% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66 January 2009
$13.75 Recent
42.3% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
$13.37 January 2009
$35.39 Recent
164.7% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
7.6% January 2009
9.4% Recent
23.7% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
_______________________________________
Number of food stamp recipients
31,983,716 January 2009
43,200,878 Recent
35.1% Percent Increase
Source: Wall Street Journal
________________________________________
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598 January 2009
9,193,838 Recent
22.2% Percent Increase
Source:U.S. Dept. of Labor
_________________________________________
Number of long-term unemployed
2,600,000 January 2009
6,400,000 Recent
146.2% Percent Increase
Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics;
_________________________________________
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009)
13.2% January 2009
14.3% Recent
8.3% Percent Increase
Source:Census Bureau
_________________________________________
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9 January 2009
23.5 Recent
-21.4% Percent Increase
Source:The Conference Board
_________________________________________
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140 January 2009
164 Recent
17.1% Percent Change
Source:Federal Reserve
__________________________________________
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
89.76 January 2009
82.03 Recent
-8.6% Percent Change
Source: Wall Street Journal
__________________________________________
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
1,575.1 January 2009
1,865.7 Recent
18.4% Percent Change
Source:Federal Reserve
__________________________________________
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
8,310.9 January 2009
8,852.3 Recent
6.5% Percent Increase
Source:Federal Reserve
__________________________________________
National debt, in trillions
$10.627 January 2009
$14.052 Recent
32.2% Percent Increase
Source: U.S. Treasury
___________________________________________
While these numbers fluctuate slightly from day to day, the point remains obvious.
Diana on February 16 at 6:37 p.m.
Here are some more numbers, the point remains obvious:
Reagan…. tripled the national debt.
Bush I….. doubled the national debt in only four years.
Bush II…… added $6 trillion to the national debt, raising the debt ceiling three times in eight years., Cut taxes for the wealthy during war time, something never done in the history of this country.
hawken on February 16 at 6:42 p.m.
Diana…. let’s have some some sources…
hawken on February 16 at 6:50 p.m.
ethanch
I totally agree with you…. GM, et al, including the banks, should never have been bailed out.
greenlibertarian on February 16 at 8:01 p.m.
I trust ADP’s numbers over the Feds:
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/indexSBR.aspx
And
http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/index.aspx
greenlibertarian on February 16 at 8:15 p.m.
Note that ADP’s small business numbers are more akin to what most of us think of as small businesses, less than 50 employees, and this is the place where new entrepreneurs create new companies and new jobs.
Depending on the business category, SBA will count as a small business a company with as many as 1500 employees. The average of all the categories is around 750 employees, not what we usually think of when we hear of a small business.
johnclarke on February 16 at 8:31 p.m.
No green, tax cuts for the rich create jobs. I also have some great water front property in Hillyard if anyone is interested.
Spokanelaw on February 16 at 8:56 p.m.
We had a budget surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. Just roll back the clock minus deregulation of the financial sector, and you have the remedy to most of our fiscal problems.
hawken on February 16 at 9:06 p.m.
Frank:
Clinton had to comply with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in mid-term, who forced him back to the middle from his liberal policies, along with the rejection of “Hillary Care”.
In fact, I think the clock has been rolled back, as you say. With the incoming, new, Republican party as of November past.
Déjà vu?
greenlibertarian on February 16 at 10:50 p.m.
I understand where you’re coming from Frank, but it’s not quite that simple, inasmuch as every entity in the economy took on massive levels of debt in th 2000’s and millions of households went from having a modest net worth, to being totally indebted and upside down.