American People Do Not Trust Big Government Democratic and Republican Parties and The Political Elitist Establishment In Washington — New Political Party Formed When Independents Represent 50% or More of Voters — When? 2022 or 2024 — Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Constitutional Government, Consumption Tax Replacing All Federal Taxes, and Stopping All Legal and Illegal Immigration Exceeding 1 Million Persons Per Year, Replacing The Warfare and Welfare State With A Peace and Prosperity Economy — Jobs For Everyone — I Have A Dream — The Winner Takes It All — Part 1 — Videos

Posted on December 9, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Energy, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, Music, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Radio, Raves, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

 

Story 1: American People Do Not Trust Big Government Democratic and Republican Parties and The Political Elitist Establishment In Washington — New Political Party Formed When Independents Represent 50% or More of Voters — When? 2022 or 2024 — Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Constitutional Government, Consumption Tax Replacing All Federal Taxes, and Stopping All Legal and Illegal Immigration Exceeding 1 Million Persons Per Year, Replacing The Warfare and Welfare State With A Peace and Prosperity Economy — Jobs For Everyone — I Have A Dream — The Winner Takes It All — Part 1 — Videos

 

ABBA – I Have A Dream (From The Late Late Breakfast Show, England 1982)

Abba – The Winner Takes It All

Party Affiliation

Trend: Party affiliation in U.S. plus leaners

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

U.S. Partisanship Shifts to GOP After Midterms

Story Highlights

  • U.S. partisanship shifts to net-Republican after midterms
  • GOP also made gains after 1994 and 2002 midterms
  • Democrats made gains following 2006 midterms

PRINCETON, N.J. — Since the Republican Party’s strong showing on Election Day last month, Americans’ political allegiances have shifted toward the GOP. Prior to the elections, 43% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 39% identified as or leaned Republican. Since then, Republicans have opened up a slight advantage, 42% to 41%, representing a net shift of five percentage points in the partisanship gap.

U.S. Partisanship Before and After the 2014 Midterm Elections

The pre-election results are based on Gallup Daily tracking interviews with 17,259 U.S. adults, conducted between Oct. 1 and Nov. 4. The post-election interviews are based on 12,671 interviews conducted Nov. 5-30.

There have been similar “bandwagon” effects for the winning party in the past, including after the 1994 and 2002 midterm elections, when Republicans benefited, and after the 2006 election, when Democrats made gains.

U.S. Partisanship Before and After Recent Midterm Elections

The most dramatic shift occurred after the 1994 midterms, in which Republicans picked up more than 50 seats in the House of Representatives to gain a majority in that chamber for the first time in 40 years. Before the 1994 elections, Democrats enjoyed a four-point advantage in party affiliation, but after the GOP wave, Republicans emerged with a 12-point margin, for a total shift of 16 points in the gap.

In 2002, Republicans capitalized on the popularity of George W. Bush to accomplish the rare feat of having the president’s party gain seats in Congress in a midterm election. After that strong showing, partisanship moved from a five-point Democratic edge to a four-point Republican margin.

Four years later, with Bush’s job approval rating stuck below 40%, Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress. An already strong Democratic partisanship advantage of 14 points swelled to 22 points after the election.

Not every “wave” election has produced a distinct shift in a party’s advantage. The 1998 and 2010 midterms were also notable for their outcomes, but did not produce any apparent change in Americans’ basic party loyalties. In 1998, Democrats gained seats in the House even with a Democratic president in office. In 2010, Republicans gained a net of 63 seats in the House to win back control of that chamber. That year, the shifts in party allegiances seemed to be in place before the election, with the smallest Democratic edge seen in any recent midterm year. Consequently, in 2010 it appeared that shifts in party allegiances drove the election results, whereas in other years the election results seemed to produce shifts in party affiliation after the election.

The bandwagon effect can largely be explained by the amount of positive publicity given to the victorious party after its success. However, it is unclear why there would be a bandwagon effect following most midterm elections but not all of them.

No Clear Historical Pattern on How Long Post-Midterm Party Gains Last

One key question is how long the effects persist when they do occur. A review of the three elections with obvious bandwagon effects reveals no consistent pattern.

  • The 1994 Republican surge in partisanship was the largest and the longest lasting. Republicans maintained a healthy eight-point advantage in partisanship through December 1994, and an average four-point advantage from January through March 1995. By April, Democrats had regained a slight edge, and for the most part held it throughout the remainder of the year.
  • The 2002 Republican gains were fairly short-lived, evident in November and December and largely gone by January 2003. However, when the Iraq War commenced in March, Republicans saw another surge in partisanship.
  • The 2006 Democratic gains were the most brief, disappearing by December — though that still left the party with a healthy 12-point edge in partisanship.

Implications

The 2014 midterms were an unqualified success for the Republican Party. The GOP took control of the Senate and expanded its majority in the House, giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 2006. And that success has caused Americans to view the Republican Party more favorably than the Democratic Party, as well as to say congressional Republicans should have more influence than President Barack Obama over the direction the nation takes in the next year. Americans are also now more likely to align themselves politically with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

It is not clear how long these good feelings toward the GOP will last. That could be influenced by what Republicans do with their enhanced power. While they are unlikely to achieve many of their major policy objectives with a Democratic president in office, how they and the president navigate the key issues facing the nation over the next two years will go a long way toward determining where each party stands heading into the 2016 presidential election.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 5-30, 2014, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 12,671 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179840/partisanship-shifts-gop-midterms.aspx

Obama Loses Support Among White Millennials

Story Highlights

  • Obama job approval among whites aged 18 to 29 is down to 34%
  • White millennials’ approval only 3 points above older whites’
  • Obama approval remains much higher among nonwhite 18-29s

PRINCETON, N.J. — President Barack Obama’s job approval rating in 2014 among white 18- to 29-year-olds is 34%, three points higher than among whites aged 30 and older. This is the narrowest approval gap between the president’s previously strong support base of white millennials and older white Americans since Obama took office.

Obama Job Approval, Younger vs. Older Whites, and All Americans, 2009-2014

By contrast, the president’s approval rating was nine percentage points higher among younger whites in 2009, and 10 points higher in 2010. Additionally, while the president’s approval among younger whites matched his overall national rating in his first two years in office, it is now eight points below the national average. These data underscore the gradual erosion of the disproportionately strong support Obama received from young white voters as he took office in 2009 and ran for re-election in 2012.

The data are based on yearly averages from Gallup’s Daily tracking, including 2014 data through November.

Obama’s support among white millennials has factored into his two presidential election successes. Exit polls conducted after the 2012 election, for example, showed that Obama received 44% of the vote of white 18- to 29-year-olds, about six points higher than he received among whites aged 30 and older. Obama’s 45% job approval rating among 18- to 29-year-old whites in 2012 mirrored these voting results closely. But the president’s 11-point drop among white 18- to 29-year-olds since 2012 is almost double the six-point drop among the national population and among older whites.

Younger Whites’ Approval Now Closer to All Other Age Groups

From a broader perspective, there is relatively little difference today in Obama’s job approval ratings among whites in any of the four major age groups. Whites aged 30 to 49, as well as those 65 and older, have given Obama a 31% approval rating so far in 2014, with 50- to 64-year-olds coming in at 32% and 18- to 29-year-olds at 34%. The spread among age categories was slightly larger in the earliest years of the Obama administration.

Obama Job Approval Among Whites, by Age, 2009-2014

Support Down, but Still Higher Among Nonwhite Than Among White Young People

Although Obama’s approval rating has dropped among black, Hispanic and Asian 18- to 29-year-olds from 2009 to 2014, just as it has among white millennials, the president maintains a much higher level of support among these groups than among whites. Specifically, Obama’s approval is 80% among young blacks, 68% among young Asians, and 55% among Hispanic 18- to 29-year-olds — contrasted with his 34% approval among white young adults.

Age affects Obama’s approval ratings differently among each of these racial and ethnic groups. Obama does slightly less well among black young people than among older blacks, and significantly better among Asians younger than 50 than among those who are older. There is little significant difference in his approval rating by age within the Hispanic population.

Obama Job Approval, by Age and Race/Ethnicity, 2014

Implications

While Obama is significantly more popular among nonwhites than among whites, he was able to count on proportionately stronger support from young whites than older whites in his 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns. Now, his support among white millennials appears to be waning, and these young Americans give Obama an approval rating that is only marginally higher than that among older whites.

These findings demonstrate the general importance of race and ethnicity when one talks about Obama’s job approval ratings by age. Obama continues to enjoy higher approval ratings among all 18- to 29-year-olds — regardless of race or ethnicity — than he does among the general population, but this is largely attributable to younger age groups in the U.S. being disproportionately composed of nonwhites. In other words, a big part of the age gap in Obama’s approval ratings today is attributable not so much to differences in approval within racial or ethnic groups, but to the fact that the white population in the U.S. skews older, while the nonwhite population skews younger.

The white vote has become an increasing challenge for Democratic presidential candidates in recent years, as well as Senate candidates in many Southern and swing states. Just this past weekend, a lack of strong support among white voters was instrumental in incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s loss in Louisiana’s senatorial runoff election. That loss gives the Republicans control of every southern Senate seat from Texas to the Carolinas. While Democrats are likely to be helped in coming years by a growing Hispanic population, Democratic presidential candidates — and senatorial candidates in many states — will continue to need the votes of a substantial minority of white voters in order to put together a winning coalition. Thus, Obama’s continuing loss of support among younger white voters highlights one of the potential challenges ahead for Democratic candidates in 2016.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey from 2009 through November 2014, with random samples of approximately 355,000 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia for each of the 2009-2012 yearly samples; approximately 175,000 adults for 2013; and 163,847 adults for Jan. 2-Nov. 30, 2014. For results based on the total sample of national adults in each yearly average, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. The margin of sampling error for each year’s age subgroups varies by sample size.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179921/obama-loses-support-among-white-millennials.aspx

how_congress_spends_your_money

About the bar chart and the U.S. Federal Budget.

Bar Chart Data Source: Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) published by the U. S. Treasury Department. WE DON’T MAKE THIS UP! IT COMES FROM THE U. S. GOVERNMENT! NO ADJUSTMENTS.

The MTS published in October, reports the final actual expenditures for the previous FY. This chart shows FY2014 actual spending data. Here is the link to download your own copy from the Treasury Department web site.

The chart normally shows the proposed budget line for the next fiscal year (FY2015 started 1 October 2014), but Congress has not passed a “budget” for FY2015; we’re still using continuing resolutions to fund the federal government.

The Congressional Budget Office reported on the Federal Debt and the Risk of a Financial Crisis in this report on the non-budget.

NDAC Challenge: Look at the bar chart to find items that are growing and items that are being reduced. Example: One of the largest growth departments is at the Department of Agriculture; it handles Food Stamps (SNAP). You pay taxes, your money is paying for food stamps.

– – – – – – –

Here is a MUST SEE … The Budget in Pictures!

NDAC studies the Budget Proposals submitted to the U.S. Senate each year by the President of the United States and by the House of Representatives. The budget submissions include Budget Historical Tables published by OMB. Expenditures are shown in Table 4.1, scroll way right to find current years actuals and estimates. Our analysis is discussed on the home page of this web site.

“Deficit” vs. “Debt”

Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a “budget deficit”. So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you’ll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger). If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don’t have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

“Reducing the deficit” is a meaningless soundbite. If theDEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site’s deficit analysis. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it dramatically cuts into our budget.

Cut spending??? What would you cut?
[All federal expenses are shown on the chart above].
And there is a lot of missing money! Where is it?
The Treasury Department has the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense andentitlement programs (run by Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) spend more. As the debt increases, so does the interest payment. Entitlement spending is the largest item in our federal budget. Do you have “Compassion” for lower income earners? In FY2013 the U. S. Treasury Department spent $416 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.
Compare that to NASA at $17B,
Agriculture at $156B,
Labor at $80B,
Transportation at $76B!Can the federal budget be balanced? Here’s a video about that.
When you buy something, all the companies involved in producing and delivering it, were charged a wide range of taxes, and those costs are part of the price ofeverything you buy. The price of everything you buy will go up to cover any business tax increases.You are paying those corporate taxes! Read more about the proposed Energy Tax increases. So don’t forget that the price of fuel is in the cost of everything. The “Economic Stimulus” is shifting us from an “economic crisis” to a debt crisis!Consider this; if businesses could print their own money and give it away to customers so they could buy the products, many folks would be happy for a while; but the businesses would go bankrupt. Well, that’s what our government is currently doing, printing and giving away money.

 

  • It has been reported that about 50% of Americans pay no income tax. But, if those folks buy anything, they pay “embedded taxes”*. Here is a video about taxation.
    *[About 22% of the price of any product you buy is because of taxation on the companies that were involved in that product being produced and being at a place where it could be bought; and that’s before local sales taxes were added.] Every company must cover ALL its costs (including taxation) in the price of its product; or it will go bankrupt.

 

OPPOSING VIEWS AND MORE:

  • Government Programs always cost more than originally predicted. What about Healthcare?

**The Government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking money from someone else to pay for it.

NOTABLE QUOTES

  • “For society as a whole, nothing comes as a ‘right’ to which we are ‘entitled’. Even bare subsistence has to be produced…. The only way anyone can have a right to something that has to be produced is to force someone else to produce it… The more things are provided as rights, the less the recipients have to work and the more the providers have to carry the load.” Thomas Sowell, quoted in Forbes and Reader’s Digest.
  • According to Mr. Kneeland, “…all dollars come from the people. Where do [you] think Coca-Cola gets the money to pay its taxes, Exxon gets its money to pay the Exxon Valdez fines, Denny’s gets the money to pay its Justice Department fines, or even Microsoft gets the money to defend itself? It all ultimately can come from only one place, and that’s from individuals.” ED: When you buy a product, the price of that product has to cover ALL the costs to get that product to you.
  • “A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it.” Neal Boortz.
  • “There is no such thing as government money – only taxpayer money.” William Weld, quoted in Readers Digest.
  • “Who will provide the roof to protect you from the rain, the heat to comfort you from the cold, and the coffee to fill your stomach when the damn, greedy capitalists are all gone?” – David Berresford, Thursday, May 20, 2010, Canada Free Press.
SOCIAL SECURITYis not part of the Federal Budget (General Fund). It is a separate account from the General Fund, and has its own source of income (“Payroll Tax”). Social Security payments go in the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The SSTF is supposed to be used to pay benefits. But, the Government is under NO OBLIGATION to pay Social Security benefits, and has even borrowed substantially fromtheSSTF for general operations!As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its “surplus”.Other Government agencies borrowed from that trust fund, and now have to pay it back. But they already spent it! So how will they pay it back? Through bailouts and taxes. Here is a “must read” about the problem. Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!The Social Security Administration’s FAQ page about the Trust Fund, and their latestReport (May 2011) explain it well.Beware the term “Social Security Surplus”; there is no such thing. Social Security is aPonzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

Social Security must be fixed. Here is a debate page. And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.

The Government does not have any money, it does nothing to earn money (maybe defense). Government takes money from you and borrows more (from your children), then spends that! The bailouts of 2008 and 2009 are purely deficit spending. Expect to see enormous deficits in the forseeable future, leading to much more debt.Interest payments on that growing debt will become the largest item in the federal budget. On C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.” In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created with the duty of preserving the dollar, one 20-dollar bill could buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Today, fifty 20-dollar bills are needed to buy one 20-dollar gold piece. Under the Fed’s custody, the U.S. dollar has lost 98 percent of its value. The dollar is the storehouse of our wealth. Has the Fed faithfully safeguarded that storehouse? Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power let us hear no more of trust in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”

http://www.federalbudget.com/

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-600americas-deficit-federal-spending-600spending-cuts-680budget-entitlement-programs-680national-defense-spending-680impact-medicare-spending-growth-680federal-spending-per-household-680

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The GOP’s ‘Cromnibus’ Compromise

Republicans look to strike back after the president’s executive action on immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner answers questions during his weekly press conference on Dec. 4, 2014, in Washington, D.C.

House Speaker John Boehner has acknowledged that there is no simple way for the GOP to undue the president’s executive action on immigration reform.

By Dec. 8, 2014
A perfect storm of historic dysfunction combined with a lame-duck Congress, a looming power change in the Senate, a budget deadline, the holidays and the countdown to the 2016 elections has not prodded lawmakers to make compromises or to do their basic budgetary work. It has, however, led to a brand-new Washington term. Enter the “cromnibus.”

That’s the name being assigned to a tortured GOP strategy to stick it to President Barack Obama and make a bold statement on immigration and border security – all while avoiding shutting down the federal government right before the holidays, a tactic that didn’t work out so well for the GOP when it happened last year.

Described as a trial balloon, the approach was floated by House Speaker John Boehner at the party’s Tuesday morning meeting last week. The GOP plan goes like this: Congress would pass an omnibus funding bill to keep almost the entire government running into September 2015. However, the Department of Homeland Security – the department that deals with the implementation of Obama’s executive action on immigration, which the Republicans hate – would limp along on a mere continuing resolution that would fund it until sometime next March. That would give Republicans time and opportunity to pressure the Obama administration into backing off its executive action somehow – or at least isolate the DHS budget so Republicans, who next year will control both the House and Senate, could deny the funds needed to implement the action. Meanwhile, House members were given a chance, before recessing for the year, to take what is widely regarded as a show vote to undo the executive action.

[READ: Republicans Use Gridlock Because It Works]

This way, lawmakers explained, House Republicans can vent about border security, Obama and the use of an executive action to grant temporary legal status to more than 4 million people in the country illegally, all without suffering the political consequences of another government shutdown.

Boehner acknowledged that there’s no easy way for congressional Republicans to undo Obama’s executive action; rank-and-file members have thrown around ideas ranging from refusing to provide funds to implement the action to a lawsuit or impeachment.

Each has its logistical and political complications: Refusing to fund Homeland Security could make Republicans look like they don’t care about the safety of the nation’s citizens; a lawsuit (even if the House is deemed to have standing to sue) could cause a political backlash; and impeachment could lead to a repeat of 1998, when a similar action against former President Bill Clinton backfired against the GOP.

Pictured: Immigration reform protesters, left, and tea party protesters, right.

In countering Obama on immigration, the GOP has to weigh the interests of the Hispanic community against the ideals of the party’s base.

And Republicans must be mindful of two important constituencies in 2016 – the GOP base, which wants the action undone and might reject a presidential primary candidate who won’t commit to doing so, and the Hispanic community, which might align itself even more firmly against Republicans if the GOP commits to a policy that would break up families living here with temporary legal status.

“We’re looking at a variety of options, both for right now and when Republicans control both houses of the Congress next year,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. “Frankly, we have limited options and limited abilities to deal with it directly.”

Thus, GOP strategists have proposed the “cromnibus,” a compromise that would keep nearly all agencies and programs humming along until next September (since Congress has been unable to pass any of the appropriations bills that make up the federal budget) and avoid a government shutdown that would occur if nothing is done before the current continuing resolution expires Dec. 11.

[ALSO: NSA Reform Axed From ‘Cromnibus’]

Meanwhile, Homeland Security would be put on a short budgetary leash until March. By that point, Republicans reason, they will be running both chambers of Congress and will be able to pass legislation excising funding for the part of the department that deals with the new executive action, killing it by starvation.

“The most effective thing we can do is to limit spending,” says Rep. John Fleming, R-La. While Fleming says Obama is assuming excessive powers as the nation’s chief executive, “we’ve got our own power – the power of the purse,” he adds.

Graphic quote by Rep. John Fleming, R-La.: "Republicans are blamed for everything, anyway. What difference does it make?”

But Fleming, like some other House conservatives, is irked by the idea that the House should wait until next year to go full-force against the immigration action – meaning Boehner may need House Democrats to get such a plan approved.

“I don’t think anybody wants a shutdown,” says Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz. But “I think we have significant leverage.”

The simmering rebellion by House conservatives means Boehner is likely to continue to face the same internal divisions he’s had since 2011, when a wave of new tea party-aligned lawmakers gave the GOP the House majority and demanded a rightward turn in the way the party ran things. That pressure largely drove the 16-day government shutdown in October 2013 – a development polls showed Americans blamed on Republicans. So would the public also blame the GOP if Homeland Security does not get the cash it needs to keep Americans safe?

[MORE: Poll Finds Latino Boost for Obama]

“Republicans are blamed for everything, anyway – what difference does it make?” Fleming says.

However, Senate Democrats are determined not to end their reign with a shutdown, even if the GOP gets blamed for it. Getting almost all of the government funded until next fall would be “a big accomplishment,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.

Moreover, the GOP needs to worry about overreach, Democrats say. Any specific effort to undo the executive action is likely to be vetoed by Obama. That leaves Republicans in the same position as they were with the Affordable Care Act. They could hold a series of votes opposing it or defunding it, but none would get signed into law. And the difference with immigration, notes Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is that the substance of the order (as opposed to the process) is indeed popular with the public, in a way Obamacare is not.

“You’re talking about changing the trajectory of a family’s destiny for generations – that’s deep,” Cummings says.

Opposing Obama’s order as executive overreach might excite the GOP base, but Hispanic families are equally excited about the opportunity to stay intact in the U.S., he adds. For Boehner, the challenge may be keeping his Republican family united.

George Carlin – It’s a big club and you ain’t in it

Senator Ted Cruz: ” Let Me Be Clear, I Don’t Trust The Republicans ” – 5/22/13

Rush Limbaugh On Eric Garner, Fox News Criticism FULL INTERVIEW Rush Limbaugh Fox News Sunday

Krauthammer: A Gov’t Shutdown Would Be A Disaster For Republicans – Lou Dobbs – America’s Newsroom

Nation’s Debt Tops $18 Trillion As Dc Continues To Spend – Cavuto

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Urgent Issue Of Immigration & The Budget – Special Report 1st Segment

Americans: In Obama we don’t trust

President’s Unilateral Action on Immigration Undermines Americans’ Trust

***AMERICANS DONT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT *** there criminals.

Top 10 Government Lies – When said ‘Trust Us’

Krauthammer on Obama: American “People Think This Is Failed Presidency”

Why Shouldn’t I Work for the NSA? (Good Will Hunting)

U.S. Drones kill more people than ISIS: Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges, author, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and polemicist discusses the importance of resistance to empire, and passionately condemns US foreign policy, saying “There is no difference between a beheading by ISIL and a US drone strike.”

Chris Hedges: The Absurdity of American Empire [FULL INTERVIEW]

Chris Hedges Call to Action to create “New Movements” replacing corrupt Government

George Carlin on American Foreign Policy – Bombing Brown People

The Best of George Carlin: Exposing our government and fall of humanity one joke at a time

The Pursuit Of Happyness – Job Interview

Best scene pursuit of happyness, Will Smith at his best

Motivational Speech from Pursuit of Happiness

Abba – Take A Chance On Me

ABBA – Thank You for the Music

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-384

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1 Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing — Videos

Posted on December 6, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, British History, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Constitution, Crisis, Data, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Obamacare, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Sunni, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Story 1: First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1  Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing —  Videos

national-debt-wave

37b-cartoon Cartoon-Stretched-Thin-ALG-600 national_debt

sinkhole-cartoon_thumb

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

sgs-emp

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

private sector payroll employment monthly change

gdp_large

world-oil-supplyunnamed

Crude Oil Brent

Latest Price & Chart for Crude Oil Brent

End of day Commodity Futures Price Quotes for Crude Oil Brent

oil_spot

 http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil-brent.aspx#ixzz3LA0mUyxX

OilPriceChartDec2014

Get Ready for More Layoffs and Higher Unemployment

Ep 28: Media Spins Horrible Holiday Sales as Reflecting Economic Strength

The Real Reason for Falling Oil and Gas Prices

Crude Oil Drop – Richard Perrin – December 5, 2014

Could Oil Fall To $60?

Series Preview: The Global Drop in Oil Prices

Falling Gas Prices Impact US Oil Extraction

Over $150 Billion of Oil Projects Face Axe in 2015

Nook Fail, Jobs Report, Buffet backs Clinton – Today’s Investor News

Mohamed El-Erian: Nov. Jobs Report Is Great News for Economy

Hiring surge: 321k jobs added in November

Employment Situation Report – November 2014

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Employment Level

147,287,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

 

employment level

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138451(1) 138599 138752 139309 139247 139148 139179 139427 139393 139111 139030 139266
2011 139287(1) 139422 139655 139622 139653 139409 139524 139904 140154 140335 140747 140836
2012 141677(1) 141943 142079 141963 142257 142432 142272 142204 142947 143369 143233 143212
2013 143384(1) 143464 143393 143676 143919 144075 144285 144179 144270 143485 144443 144586
2014 145224(1) 145266 145742 145669 145814 146221 146352 146368 146600 147283 147287
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Civilian Labor Force Level

156,397,000

Civilian Labor Force


Series Id:           
LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153404(1) 153720 153964 154642 154106 153631 153706 154087 153971 153631 154127 153639
2011 153198(1) 153280 153403 153566 153526 153379 153309 153724 154059 153940 154072 153927
2012 154328(1) 154826 154811 154565 154946 155134 154970 154669 155018 155507 155279 155485
2013 155699(1) 155511 155099 155359 155609 155822 155693 155435 155473 154625 155284 154937
2014 155460(1) 155724 156227 155421 155613 155694 156023 155959 155862 156278 156397
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

Labor Participation Rate

Series Id: LNS11300000

Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.8

 

Unemployment Level

9,110,000

 

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

unemployment level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 14953 15121 15212 15333 14858 14483 14527 14660 14578 14520 15097 14373
2011 13910 13858 13748 13944 13873 13971 13785 13820 13905 13604 13326 13090
2012 12650 12883 12732 12603 12689 12702 12698 12464 12070 12138 12045 12273
2013 12315 12047 11706 11683 11690 11747 11408 11256 11203 11140 10841 10351
2014 10236 10459 10486 9753 9799 9474 9671 9591 9262 8995 9110

Unemployment Rate U-3

5.8%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
unemployment rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8

 

Employment -Population Ratio

5.9%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

employment population ratio

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.5
2012 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.2 58.6 58.6
2014 58.8 58.8 58.9 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.2 59.2

 

Unemployment Rate 16-19 Years Old

17.7%


Series Id:           
LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 yearsteenage unemployment rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.3 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 26.9 26.7
2010 26.0 25.6 26.2 25.4 26.5 26.0 25.9 25.6 25.8 27.3 24.8 25.3
2011 25.5 24.1 24.3 24.5 23.9 24.8 24.8 25.1 24.5 24.2 24.1 23.3
2012 23.5 23.8 24.8 24.6 24.2 23.7 23.7 24.4 23.8 23.8 23.9 24.0
2013 23.5 25.2 23.9 23.7 24.1 23.8 23.4 22.6 21.3 22.0 20.8 20.2
2014 20.7 21.4 20.9 19.1 19.2 21.0 20.2 19.6 20.0 18.6 17.7

 

Average Weeks Unemployed

33.0%

 


Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

average weeks unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.2 20.9 21.7 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.6 27.5 28.9 29.7
2010 30.3 29.9 31.6 33.3 33.9 34.5 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.2 33.9 34.8
2011 37.2 37.5 39.2 38.7 39.5 39.7 40.4 40.2 40.2 39.1 40.3 40.7
2012 40.1 40.0 39.4 39.3 39.6 40.0 38.8 39.1 39.4 40.3 39.2 38.0
2013 35.4 36.9 37.0 36.6 36.9 35.7 36.7 37.0 36.8 36.0 37.1 37.1
2014 35.4 37.1 35.6 35.1 34.5 33.5 32.4 31.7 31.5 32.7 33.0

Not In Labor Force

2,109,000


Series Id:                       LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Available to work now

Not In Labor force
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 1207 1281 1219 1216 1113 1142 1172 1097 1166 1044 1100 1125 1157
2001 1295 1337 1109 1131 1157 1170 1232 1364 1335 1398 1331 1330 1266
2002 1532 1423 1358 1397 1467 1380 1507 1456 1501 1416 1401 1432 1439
2003 1598 1590 1577 1399 1428 1468 1566 1665 1544 1586 1473 1483 1531
2004 1670 1691 1643 1526 1533 1492 1557 1587 1561 1647 1517 1463 1574
2005 1804 1673 1588 1511 1428 1583 1516 1583 1438 1414 1415 1589 1545
2006 1644 1471 1468 1310 1388 1584 1522 1592 1299 1478 1366 1252 1448
2007 1577 1451 1385 1391 1406 1454 1376 1365 1268 1364 1363 1344 1395
2008 1729 1585 1352 1414 1416 1558 1573 1640 1604 1637 1947 1908 1614
2009 2130 2051 2106 2089 2210 2176 2282 2270 2219 2373 2323 2486 2226
2010 2539 2527 2255 2432 2223 2591 2622 2370 2548 2602 2531 2609 2487
2011 2800 2730 2434 2466 2206 2680 2785 2575 2511 2555 2591 2540 2573
2012 2809 2608 2352 2363 2423 2483 2529 2561 2517 2433 2505 2614 2516
2013 2443 2588 2326 2347 2164 2582 2414 2342 2302 2283 2096 2427 2360
2014 2592 2303 2168 2160 2130 2028 2178 2141 2226 2192 2109

 

Not In Labor Force Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking

698,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects  (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 236 267 258 331 280 309 266 203 253 232 236 269 262
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770 698

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

11.4%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.5 11.4

 

Employment Situation Summary

 

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                  USDL-14-2184
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 5, 2014

Technical information:
 Household data:      (202) 691-6378  •  cpsinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:  (202) 691-6555  •  cesinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:       (202) 691-5902  •  PressOffice@bls.gov


                             THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2014


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 321,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 5.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Job gains were widespread, led by growth in professional and business services, retail
trade, health care, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.8 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons was little changed at 9.1 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and
the number of unemployed persons were down by 1.2 percentage points and 1.7 million,
respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men rose to 5.4 percent
in November. The rates for adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.7 percent), whites
(4.9 percent), blacks (11.1 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little change
over the month. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 30.7 percent of
the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed declined
by 1.2 million. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate held at 62.8 percent in November and has
been essentially unchanged since April. The employment-population ratio, at 59.2
percent, was unchanged in November but is up by 0.6 percentage point over the year.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers), at 6.9 million, changed little in November. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

In November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 698,000 discouraged workers in November,
little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such as school
attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 321,000 in November, compared with an
average monthly gain of 224,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
was widespread, led by gains in professional and business services, retail trade,
health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 86,000 in November,
compared with an average gain of 57,000 per month over the prior 12 months. Within
the industry, accounting and bookkeeping services added 16,000 jobs in November.
Employment continued to trend up in temporary help services (+23,000), management
and technical consulting services (+7,000), computer systems design and related
services (+7,000), and architectural and engineering services (+5,000).

Employment in retail trade rose by 50,000 in November, compared with an average
gain of 22,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred
in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+11,000); clothing and accessories stores
(+11,000); sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+9,000); and nonstore
retailers (+6,000).

Health care added 29,000 jobs over the month. Employment continued to trend up in
offices of physicians (+7,000), home health care services (+5,000), outpatient care
centers (+4,000), and hospitals (+4,000). Over the past 12 months, employment in
health care has increased by 261,000.

In November, manufacturing added 28,000 jobs. Durable goods manufacturers accounted
for 17,000 of the increase, with small gains in most of the component industries.
Employment in nondurable goods increased by 11,000, with plastics and rubber products
(+7,000) accounting for most of the gain. Over the year, manufacturing has added
171,000 jobs, largely in durable goods.

Financial activities added 20,000 jobs in November, with half of the gain in insurance
carriers and related activities. Over the past year, insurance has contributed 70,000
jobs to the overall employment gain of 114,000 in financial activities.

Transportation and warehousing employment increased by 17,000 in November, with a
gain in couriers and messengers (+5,000). Over the past 12 months, transportation
and warehousing has added 143,000 jobs.

Employment in food services and drinking places continued to trend up in November
(+27,000) and has increased by 321,000 over the year.

Construction employment also continued to trend up in November (+20,000). Employment in
specialty trade contractors rose by 21,000, mostly in the residential component. Over
the past 12 months, construction has added 213,000 jobs, with just over half the gain
among specialty trade contractors.

In November, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2 hour to 41.1 hours,
and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average workweek for
production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents
to $24.66 in November. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1 percent.
In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 4 cents to $20.74. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +256,000
to +271,000, and the change for October was revised from +214,000 to +243,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 44,000 more
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 9, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |               Upcoming Changes to the Employment Situation News Release          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Effective with the release of January 2015 data on February 6, 2015, the U.S.     |
  |Bureau of Labor Statistics will introduce several changes to The Employment       |
  |Situation news release tables.                                                    |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-2 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Asians. These series will appear in addition to the not  |
  |seasonally adjusted data for Asians currently displayed in the table. Also, in    |
  |summary table A, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Asians will replace|
  |the not seasonally adjusted series that is currently displayed for the group.     |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-3 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Hispanic men age 20 and over, Hispanic women age 20 and  |
  |over, and Hispanic teenagers age 16 to 19. The not seasonally adjusted series for |
  |these groups will continue to be displayed in the table.                          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |The establishment survey will introduce two data series: (1) total nonfarm        |
  |employment, 3-month average change and (2) total private employment, 3-month      |
  |average change. These new series will be added to establishment survey summary    |
  |table B. Additionally, in the employment section of summary table B, the list     |
  |of industries will be expanded to include utilities (currently published in       |
  |table B-1). Also, hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees   |
  |will be removed from summary table B, although these series will continue to be   |
  |published in establishment survey tables B-7 and B-8. A sample of the new summary |
  |table B is available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/ces/cesnewsumb.pdf.        |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|




   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |            Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                 |
  |                                                                                  |
  |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation news release for      |
  |December 2014, scheduled for January 9, 2015, will incorporate annual revisions in|
  |seasonally adjusted household survey data. Seasonally adjusted data for the most  |
  |recent 5 years are subject to revision.                                           |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|



 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryNov.
2013Sept.
2014Oct.
2014Nov.
2014Change from:
Oct.
2014-
Nov.
2014

Employment status

 

Civilian noninstitutional population

246,567248,446248,657248,844187

Civilian labor force

155,284155,862156,278156,397119

Participation rate

63.062.762.862.80.0

Employed

144,443146,600147,283147,2874

Employment-population ratio

58.659.059.259.20.0

Unemployed

10,8419,2628,9959,110115

Unemployment rate

7.05.95.85.80.0

Not in labor force

91,28392,58492,37892,44769

Unemployment rates

 

Total, 16 years and over

7.05.95.85.80.0

Adult men (20 years and over)

6.75.35.15.40.3

Adult women (20 years and over)

6.25.55.45.3-0.1

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

20.820.018.617.7-0.9

White

6.15.14.84.90.1

Black or African American

12.411.010.911.10.2

Asian (not seasonally adjusted)

5.34.35.04.8

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

8.76.96.86.6-0.2

Total, 25 years and over

5.84.74.74.70.0

Less than a high school diploma

10.68.47.98.50.6

High school graduates, no college

7.35.35.75.6-0.1

Some college or associate degree

6.45.44.84.90.1

Bachelor’s degree and higher

3.42.93.13.20.1

Reason for unemployment

 

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

5,7314,5304,3584,483125

Job leavers

89082979483844

Reentrants

3,0652,8092,8712,773-98

New entrants

1,1691,1051,0631,0641

Duration of unemployment

 

Less than 5 weeks

2,4392,3832,4732,52956

5 to 14 weeks

2,5852,5082,3122,39078

15 to 26 weeks

1,7421,4161,4171,43114

27 weeks and over

4,0442,9542,9162,815-101

Employed persons at work part time

 

Part time for economic reasons

7,7237,1037,0276,850-177

Slack work or business conditions

4,8694,1624,2144,064-150

Could only find part-time work

2,4992,5622,4472,4536

Part time for noneconomic reasons

18,85819,56119,76920,004235

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

 

Marginally attached to the labor force

2,0962,2262,1922,109

Discouraged workers

762698770698

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

 

 

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Nov.
2013
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014(p)
Nov.
2014(p)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

274 271 243 321

Total private

272 249 236 314

Goods-producing

68 36 28 48

Mining and logging

1 6 1 0

Construction

32 18 7 20

Manufacturing

35 12 20 28

Durable goods(1)

19 11 18 17

Motor vehicles and parts

4.7 1.7 2.0 3.0

Nondurable goods

16 1 2 11

Private service-providing(1)

204 213 208 266

Wholesale trade

16.8 2.9 6.1 2.5

Retail trade

22.3 39.9 34.2 50.2

Transportation and warehousing

32.4 7.0 15.3 16.7

Information

1 3 -5 4

Financial activities

-4 14 6 20

Professional and business services(1)

73 66 52 86

Temporary help services

36.6 23.2 19.5 22.7

Education and health services(1)

25 35 37 38

Health care and social assistance

24.4 24.8 31.5 37.2

Leisure and hospitality

37 47 55 32

Other services

-1 0 7 15

Government

2 22 7 7

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.4 49.4 49.3

Total private women employees

48.0 47.9 47.9 47.9

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.5 34.5 34.5 34.6

Average hourly earnings

$24.15 $24.54 $24.57 $24.66

Average weekly earnings

$833.18 $846.63 $847.67 $853.24

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

99.6 101.4 101.6 102.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

114.8 118.7 119.1 120.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9

HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

33.7 33.7 33.8 33.8

Average hourly earnings

$20.30 $20.67 $20.70 $20.74

Average weekly earnings

$684.11 $696.58 $699.66 $701.01

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)

107.1 109.1 109.6 109.8

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 -0.1 0.5 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4)

145.3 150.6 151.6 152.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 -0.1 0.7 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)

Total private (264 industries)

66.9 63.4 63.8 69.7

Manufacturing (81 industries)

65.4 59.3 64.2 63.0

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2014
BEA 14-59

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Kate Shoemaker: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2014 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United
States, adjusted for price changes -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter of
2014, according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second
quarter, real GDP increased 4.6 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.5
percent.  With the second estimate for the third quarter, private inventory investment decreased less than
previously estimated, and both personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and nonresidential fixed
investment increased more.  In contrast, exports increased less than previously estimated (see
"Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions from PCE,
nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and
state and local government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from private
inventory investment.  Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

      The deceleration in the percent change in real GDP reflected a downturn in private inventory
investment and decelerations in exports, in nonresidential fixed investment, in state and local
government spending, in PCE, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a downturn
in imports and an upturn in federal government spending.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, 0.1 percentage point more than in the advance estimate; this
index increased 2.0 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for
gross domestic purchases increased 1.6 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.7
percent in the second.


_____
FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA's Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related
to this release.  For information on revisions, see "The Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."
_____

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.5 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 8.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.1 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.2 percent, the same increase as in the second
quarter.  Services increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 7.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 9.7 percent in the second.  Investment in nonresidential structures increased 1.1 percent,
compared with an increase of 12.6 percent.  Investment in equipment increased 10.7 percent, compared
with an increase of 11.2 percent.  Investment in intellectual property products increased 6.4 percent,
compared with an increase of 5.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 8.8 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 4.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 11.1 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.7 percent, in
contrast to an increase of 11.3 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.9 percent
in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second.  National defense increased
16.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.  Nondefense increased 0.4 percent, in contrast to
a decrease of 3.8 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.12 percentage point from the third-quarter
change in real GDP after adding 1.42 percentage points to the second-quarter change.  Private
businesses increased inventories $79.1 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $84.8 billion in
the second quarter and $35.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 4.1
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 3.2 percent in the second.


Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.0 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.8 percent in the
second.


Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the labor and
property supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.8 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.6 percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the
rest of the world, which decreased $1.6 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $1.4
billion in the second; in the third quarter, receipts decreased $1.1 billion, and payments increased $0.5
billion.


Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the production of goods and services in the United
States -- increased 5.3 percent, or $227.0 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $17,555.2 billion.  In
the second quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 6.8 percent, or $284.2 billion.


Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the value of the production of goods and
services in the United States as the costs incurred and the incomes earned on that production, increased
4.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.0 percent (revised) in the second.  For a
given quarter, the estimates of GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the
incorporation of largely independent source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of
GDP and GDI tend to follow similar patterns of change.


Revisions

      The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment, to personal consumption expenditures, and to nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by a downward revision to exports and an upward revision to imports.


                                         Advance Estimate  Second Estimate

                                     (Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP...............................         3.5            3.9
Current-dollar GDP.....................         4.9            5.3
Real GDI...............................         --             4.5
Gross domestic purchases price index...         1.3            1.4
Corporate Profits


Profits from current production

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $43.8 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $164.1 billion in the second.

      Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $20.3 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $33.3 billion in the second.  Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased
$22.5 billion, compared with an increase of $134.3 billion.  The rest-of-the-world component of profits
increased $1.0 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $3.6 billion.  This measure is calculated as the
difference between receipts from the rest of the world and payments to the rest of the world.  In the third
quarter, receipts were unchanged, and payments decreased $1.0 billion.

      Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase
of $45.7 billion in the second.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $48.6 billion, compared
with an increase of $118.4 billion.

      Dividends decreased $3.9 billion in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of $0.5 billion in
the second.  Undistributed profits increased $52.5 billion, compared with an increase of $118.8 billion.
Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $25.1
billion, compared with an increase of $133.4 billion.

	The IVA and CCAdj are adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of
fixed assets reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in
the national income and product accounts.  The IVA increased $16.8 billion in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of $11.9 billion in the second.  The CCAdj increased $1.2 billion, in contrast
to a decrease of $0.8 billion.


Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business

      In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real gross value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices
that was partly offset by an increase in unit nonlabor costs; unit labor costs were unchanged.


                                     *          *          *

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.


                                     *          *          *


                     Next release -- December 23, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                  Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2014 (Third Estimate)
                    Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter 2014 (Revised Estimate)


                                     *          *          *


Release dates in 2015


Gross Domestic Product

                 2014: IV and 2014 annual     2015: I          2015: II          2015: III

Advance....           January 30              April 29         July 30           October 29
Second.....           February 27             May 29           August 27         November 24
Third......           March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22


Corporate Profits

Preliminary...        ..                      May 29           August 27         November 24
Revised.......        March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Era of Austerity is Over — Let The Big Spending Beginning — President Is Delusional Suffers From Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2014. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Math, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-216

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Story 1: Obama’s Era of Austerity is Over — Let The Big Spending Beginning — President Is Delusional Suffers From Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Videos

 Congressional Budget Office’s newest reports

45086-land-Figure1

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

http://cbo.gov/publication/45086

Federal Budget Deficits Are Projected to Decline Through 2015 but Rise Thereafter, Further Boosting Federal Debt

posted by Barry Blom & Leigh Angres on february 20, 2014

CBO recently released The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024. In that report, CBO projects that if current laws remain in place, the federal budget deficit will total $514 billion in fiscal year 2014. That deficit will be $166 billion smaller than the figure posted in 2013 and down sharply from the shortfalls recorded between 2009 and 2012, which exceeded $1 trillion annually. At 3.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), this year’s deficit would be near the average experienced over the past 40 years and about 7 percentage points lower than the figure recorded in 2009.

Today’s post summarizes CBO’s assessment of the budget outlook over the next decade. Three more posts—to appear over the next several days—will provide more detail about the outlook for spending, revenues, and the economy. One more post will expand upon CBO’s economic forecast, explaining the reasons behind the slow recovery of the labor market.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Grow to 79 Percent of GDP at the End of 2024, CBO Estimates

CBO constructs it baseline projections of federal revenues and spending over the coming decade under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged. Under that assumption, revenues are projected to grow by about 1 percentage point of GDP over the next 10 years—from 17.5 percent in 2014 to 18.4 percent in 2024. But outlays are projected to rise twice as much, from 20.5 percent of GDP in 2014 to 22.4 percent in 2024. The increase in outlays reflects substantial growth in the cost of the largest benefit programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—and in payments of interest on the government’s debt; those increases would more than offset a significant decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy.

Although the deficit in CBO’s baseline projections continues to decline as a percentage of GDP in 2015, to 2.6 percent, it then starts to increase again in 2016, reaching 4.0 percent of GDP in 2024. That figure for the end of the 10-year projection period is roughly 1 percentage point above the average deficit over the past 40 years relative to the size of the economy.

That pattern of lower deficits initially, followed by higher deficits for the remainder of the projection period, would cause debt held by the public to follow a similar trajectory (see the figure below). Relative to the nation’s output, debt held by the public is projected to decline from 74 percent of GDP in 2014 to 72 percent of GDP in 2017, but to rise thereafter, to 79 percent of GDP at the end of 2024. (As recently as the end of 2007, debt held by the public was equal to 35 percent of GDP.)

Federal Debt Held by the Public

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates. (For a discussion of the consequences of elevated debt, see CBO’s December 2013 report Choices for Deficit Reduction: An Update.)

Projected Deficits Reflect Substantial Growth in the Cost of the Largest Benefit Programs

Projected deficits and debt for the coming decade reflect some of the long-term budgetary pressures facing the nation. The aging of the population, the rising costs of health care, and the expansion in federal subsidies for health insurance that is now under way will substantially boost federal spending on Social Security and the government’s major health care programs by 2 percentage points of GDP over the next 10 years (see the figure below). But the pressures of aging and the rising costs of health care will intensify during the next few decades. Unless the laws governing those programs are changed—or the increased spending is accompanied by corresponding reductions in other spending relative to GDP, by sufficiently higher tax revenues, or by a combination of those changes—debt will rise sharply relative to GDP after 2024. (For a more detailed discussion of the long-term budget situation, see CBO’s September 2013 report The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook.)

Spending and Revenues Projected in CBO's Baseline, Compared With Levels in 1974

Moreover, holding discretionary spending within the limits required under current law—an assumption that underlies these projections—may be quite difficult. The caps on discretionary budget authority established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and subsequently amended will reduce such spending to an unusually small amount relative to the size of the economy. With those caps in place, CBO projects, discretionary spending will equal 5.2 percent of GDP in 2024; by comparison, the lowest share for discretionary spending in any year since 1962 (the earliest year for which such data have been reported) was 6.0 percent in 1999. (Nevertheless, total federal spending would be a larger share of GDP than its average during the past 40 years because of higher spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other health insurance subsidies for low-income people, and interest payments on the debt.) Because the allocation of discretionary spending is determined by annual appropriation acts, lawmakers have not yet decided which specific government services and benefits will be reduced or constrained to meet the specified overall limits.

The Budget Outlook for the Coming Decade Has Worsened Since May 2013

The baseline budget outlook has worsened since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections. A description of the changes in CBO’s baseline since May 2013 can be found in Appendix A of the report. At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion, mostly because of changes in the economic outlook. A decrease of $0.6 trillion in projected outlays through 2023 partially offset that change.

Barry Blom is an analyst in CBO’s Budget Analysis Division and Leigh Angres is special assistant to the CBO Director.

how_congress_spends_your_money

Bar Chart Data Source: Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) published by the U. S. Treasury Department. WE DON’T MAKE THIS UP! IT COMES FROM THE U. S. GOVERNMENT! NO ADJUSTMENTS.

The MTS published in October, reports the final actual expenditures for the previous FY. This chart shows FY2013 actual spending data. Here is the link to download your own copy from the Treasury Department web site.

The chart normally shows the proposed budget line for the next fiscal year (FY2014 started 1 October 2013), but the two-year deal for 2014-2015 signed in December 2013, has so few details that showing a “budget” for 2014 or 2015 is no possible. And now Congress has passed the Appropriations (spending) bill that funds the budget through end of FY2014. The details are in a 1500+ page bill that no one in Congress read. But you CAN read it. Here it is H.R.3547 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. (it’s a large pdf document … give it time.)

But we may have an option; we will use the historical tables published by the OMB, about mid-FY2014, take the data from the “estimated” 2014 column. Look for it later.

The Congressional Budget Office reported on the Federal Debt and the Risk of a Financial Crisis in this report on the non-budget.

Look at the bar chart to find items that are growing and items that are being reduced. The largest growth is at the Department of Agriculture; it handles Food Stamps (SNAP). You pay taxes, your money is paying for food stamps.

– – – – – – –

Here is a MUST SEE … The Budget in Pictures!

NDAC studies the Budget Proposals submitted to the U.S. Senate each year by the President of the United States and the House of Representatives. One of the documents that goes along with the budget proposals, “Historical Tables“, is published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our analysis is discussed on the home page of this web site.

http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Out-of-Control Spending Is to Blame for America’s Deficit Problem

Federal spending is projected to grow at a rapid pace beyond the 10-year budget window. Without reforms, spending on interest on the debt, health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc.), and Social Security will reach unsustainable levels. As a result, these spending levels will cause exploding deficits as tax revenues will be at their modern average level (1952-2008).

americas-deficit-federal-spending-680

Where Does All the Money Go?

In 2012, the major entitlement programs-Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care-consumed 45 percent of all federal spending. These programs, and interest on the debt, are on track to consume an even greater share of spending in future years, while the portion of federal spending dedicated to other national priorities will decline.

SHARE OF FEDERAL SPENDING IN 2012

where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-680

Entitlement Program Spending Is Massive

Annual spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs is massive compared to other federal spending priorities. There is too much waste and inappropriate spending in the discretionary budget as well, but Congress will not be able to rein in spending and debt without reforming the entitlement programs.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL SPENDING IN 2014

spending-cuts-680

Publicly Held Debt Set to Skyrocket

Runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels over the next few decades. Total national debt comprises publicly held debt (the most relevant to credit markets) and debt that one part of the government owes to another, such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

national-debt-skyrocket-680

All Tax Revenue Will Go Toward Entitlements and Net Interest by 2030

In less than two decades, all projected tax revenues would be consumed by three federal programs (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which includes CHIP and Obamacare) and interest on the debt. Entitlement reform is a must.

entitlements-historical-tax-levels-680

What if a Typical Family Spent and Borrowed Like the Federal Government?

Families understand that it is unwise to repeatedly spend much more than they take in. But Washington continues its shopping spree on the taxpayer credit card with seemingly no regard to the stack of bills the nation has already piled up.

typical-family-spent-like-government-680

debt-limit-by-president-680

The Beatles – Taxman

How Obama could kill the Democratic Party

The Price of a U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade

U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO

Top 10 MILITARY BUDGETS

America : DHS preparing for possible Riots / Martial Law on Nov 1st over Food Stamps

With 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to era of austerity

By Zachary A. Goldfarb

President Obama’s forthcoming budget request will seek tens of billions of dollars in fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to tame the national debt in part by trimming Social Security benefits.

With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans. Instead, the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections.

As part of that strategy, Obama will jettison the framework he unveiled last year for a so-called grand bargain that would have raised taxes on the rich and reined in skyrocketing retirement spending. A centerpiece of that framework was a proposal — demanded by GOP leaders — to use a less-generous measure of inflation to calculate Social Security benefits.

The idea infuriated Democrats and never gained much traction with rank-and-file Republicans, who also were unwilling to contemplate tax increases of any kind. On Thursday, administration officials said that the grand-bargain framework remains on the table but that it was time to move on.

“Over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit-reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close,” said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the budget before its official release. “That is not going to stop the president from promoting new policies that should be part of our public debate.”

Republicans said emerging details of the president’s budget prove he was never serious about addressing the nation’s long-term debt problems.

“This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis,” Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement. “The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans.”

The new budget request, due out March 4, comes during a relative lull in Washington’s lengthy budget wars. Late last year, Congress approved a two-year spending plan negotiated by the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), that would ease automatic cuts, known as the sequester, that were eating away at agency spending. And this month, Congress agreed to forgo another battle over the federal debt limit, voting to suspend its enforcement until March 2015.

The lack of conflict is due in part to the collapse of the deficit as a political issue. While annual budget deficits remain high by historical standards, they have shrunken rapidly over the past few years as the economy recovered and Congress acted to cut spending.

The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the deficit falling to$514 billion this year and to $478 billion in fiscal 2015 — well below the trillion-dollar deficits the nation racked up during the recession and immediately afterward. But the CBO warned that deficits would start to grow again in a few years.

n recognition of that fact, Obama would retain some parts of his grand-bargain framework, including a proposal to require wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare benefits than they do now. White House officials said the president continues to believe that entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security must be reformed to be sustainable.

Meanwhile, Obama would fully pay for proposed new spending in his budget request, administration officials said, including $56 billion for what they called “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.” The package, which would be split between domestic programs and defense, will include fresh cash for 45 new manufacturing institutes; a “Race to the Top” for states that promote energy efficiency; new job training programs and apprenticeships; and expanded educational programs for pre­schoolers.

White House officials declined to say Thursday how they would fund the initiative. But Obama has in the past proposed limiting the value of income-tax deductions for wealthy households and closing a variety of corporate tax breaks.

A senior administration official said the budget would also propose new corporate tax rules aimed at preventing companies from moving profits overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. For instance, the rules will seek to limit a company’s ability to borrow domestically — and take large tax deductions on the interest — and then invest the money overseas.

Prohibiting corporations from gaming the tax code has been a popular issue among Senate Democrats and would help emphasize bread-and-butter themes in a year when Democrats will also be focusing on raising the minimum wage and other populist measures.

“President Obama’s budget will be a powerful statement of Democratic principles,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement.

Senior administration officials said they decided to chart a more partisan, aspirational path after Republicans failed to respond to the olive branch offered last year. Then, after two years of near-misses on the budget in negotiations with Boehner, Obama still believed a deal was possible.

Now, they said, the president is not so optimistic. And he believes it is up to Republicans to make the next move.

At the same time, the nation’s debt problem has become markedly less urgent, they said, leading the president to back away from the most controversial part of his debt-reduction framework — the proposal to adopt a new measure of inflation known as the chained consumer price index, or chained CPI.

Although other cost-cutting proposals could yet cause tensions within his party, Obama’s decision not to include chained CPI in his budget request immediately won praise from Democrats.

“I applaud President Obama for his important decision to protect Social Security,” Sen. Bernard Sanders, the liberal independent from Vermont, said in a statement. “With the middle class struggling and more people living in poverty than ever before, we cannot afford to make life even more difficult for seniors and some of the most vulnerable people in America.”

Officials said Obama’s budget request will include other nuggets of note. For example, it assumes that an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws will pass Congress despite deep divisions in Republican ranks. It also assumes that a sharp, but somewhat mysterious slowdown in health-care spending will continue throughout the next decade.

As a result, the White House projects that annual budget deficits will fall below 2 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade. That outlook is much rosier than CBO projections, which show the deficit rising to 4 percent of GDP in 2024.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-2015-budget-request-obama-will-call-for-an-end-to-era-of-austerity/2014/02/20/332808c2-9a6e-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

Obama’s “End of Austerity” Budget Is Incoherent

Kevin Glass

President Obama’s legally-required but constantly-delayed official budget request to Congress will be on Capitol Hill soon. The Washington Post reportsthat “Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency.” There is much wrong with this worldview.

The only coherent way in which “austerity” has defined much of President Obama’s presidency is one in which America faced a once-in-a-generation economic crisis that President Obama himself responded to by massively ramping up federal spending over the course of his first few years in office. That increase in federal spending was combined with below-average tax revenue to create massive budget deficits that everyone, including President Obama, agreed were a problem.

In accordance with the general principles of Keynesian economics, Barack Obama enacted policies that cut the deficit as we continue to climb back out of the 2008 recession. Now, though, President Obama thinks the deficit is no longer a problem – so it’s time to increase it.

If I were a self-absorbed “fact checker” I’d rate this claim half-true. We’ve largely tamed the medium-term deficit through a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts. Taming the deficit doesn’t mean that it won’t be a problem in the future – and indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s newest reports confirm that the deficit should still rate highly on the problems that policymakers should be looking to solve.

The CBO’s long-term budget report finds that the deficit will dip in 2014 and 2015 but then will start rising – and will never stop due to our increasing health and retirement obligations. The CBO reports on why that’s bad:

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

It’s absurd that anyone would need to have a refresher on this, but apparently it’s needed: more debt is worse than less debt!

The CBO also confirms what has become even more apparent in the wake of Obamacare: the federal government is becoming less of a traditional government and more of a social insurance state, as more and more spending will go toward health and retirement entitlements, as well as the mere cost of servicing debt:

As Jonathan Chait points out, as a practical political reality, fighting the rise of our retirement obligations has about a ten-year lag time. It’s impractical to change the structure of retirement benefits – both Social Security and Medicare – for current and near-future beneficiaries. We need to get started on reforms now.

President Obama may want to put an end to the “era of austerity,” but it’s an era that he explicitly pushed for through his rhetoric, his desire for tax hikes and his compromises on spending cuts. The medium-term deficit might be under control, but that doesn’t mean fighting future deficits should no longer be a priority for policymakers.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/02/21/obamas-end-of-austerity-budget-is-incoherent-n1798636

Obama budget declares end to … austerity?

Say, did you know that we are living in the age of austerity budgets in Washington? This year’s budget will spend more than last year’s $3.44 trillion, but not as much as Barack Obama requested for FY2014, which was an apparently austere $3.778 trillion. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reports that a newly-emboldened President will demandan end to an “era of austerity” that we haven’t seen in decades with his new FY2015 budget proposal:

President Obama’s forthcoming budget request will seek tens of billions of dollars in fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to tame the national debt in part by trimming Social Security benefits.

With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans. Instead, the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections. …

Republicans said emerging details of the president’s budget prove he was never serious about addressing the nation’s long-term debt problems.

“This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis,” Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement. “The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans.”

The new budget request, due out March 4, comes during a relative lull in Washington’s lengthy budget wars. Late last year, Congress approved a two-year spending plan negotiated by the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), that would ease automatic cuts, known as the sequester, that were eating away at agency spending. And this month, Congress agreed to forgo another battle over the federal debt limit, voting to suspend its enforcement until March 2015.

So what will be the top-line number for the FY2015 budget that will end this “era of austerity”? Actually, the Post doesn’t report the top-line outlay number, and the OMB doesn’t have the budget request available on the White House portal yet. One presumes that ending austerity means a demand north of the $3.498 trillion that House Republicans proposed in their budget plan from late last year. It may just be an additional $56 billion over the actual FY2014 levels, which would make it far below his FY2014 proposed budget.

Let’s take a look at all that austerity in the Obama presidency, shall we? Heritage produced this handy graphic in the middle of last year, but it’s very useful now:

heritage-fed-spending

Outlays for FY2014 authorized in the recent budget deal are still a bit ambiguous in the reams of data from both Congress and the White House, but CBO estimates it at $3.54 trillion. At that level, we are spending 9.3% more in FY2014 than in FY2008, the last budget signed by George W. Bush (Democrats stalled the FY2009 budget with continuing resolutions until Obama signed an omnibus bill in March 2009 to complete that budget).If the new budget ends “austerity” by returning to Obama’s original top-line outlay demand of last year’s budget request, that will mean an additional increase of federal spending of 6.7% in just one year. If it’s just $56 billion more than the actual FY2014 outlays, then the notion that this ends “austerity” is doubly laughable.

The notion that we’ve been laboring under an “era of austerity” is as ridiculous and out of touch as … well, as most of Obama’s budget requests during his presidency. This one has just as much chance of being enacted, too. The Post suggests that Democrats can use this to beat up Republicans on the campaign trail, but the GOP can easily parry that with this question: “Do you really believe Washington deserves a 6.7% raise after ObamaCare?” Good luck winning on this issue.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/21/obama-budget-declares-end-to-austerity/

Obama budget could be costly to Dems

By Chris Stirewalt

OBAMA BUDGET COULD BE COSTLY TO DEMS
The White House is teasing the president’s soon-to-be released blueprint for the next federal fiscal year. In a nod to his core liberal supporters, the president has dropped a prior nod to entitlement fixes, so-called “chained CPI,” a change in how to calculate the size of future increases to Social Security and other programs. The president is sucking up to his political base, the members of which consider the current trajectory for future hikes to be sacrosanct. That’s pretty good politics, especially since Obama did not seem particularly enthused about the idea before and that there is zero chance that this budget or any budget will be passed this election year. Republicans may be harrumphing about the president’s “unserious” approach to the debt, but it’s not like they thought otherwise before. Nor will the House GOP budget be anything more than pipe dreams. Poof!

You call that austerity? – Many pixels are being slaughtered to discuss the president’s irrelevant budget. Why? Partly, it’s because reporters salivate over anything that looks exclusive or new in a city where governing goes to die. Here in the great gridlock desert, this stuff may pass for news. But also because liberals are excited to see their champion drop the smokescreen of deficit concern. The prevailing Democratic wisdom is that deficits don’t matter and that Republicans ought to shut up about them. The WaPo enthused: “With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans.” Austerity? The federal government continues to spend way more than it takes in and outlays in the Obama era have increased. From 2009 through 2012, the administration spent about $3.5 trillion a year. The approximate federal spending for the fiscal year that ended in October was $3.62 trillion. The estimate for the current year: $3.78 trillion. The Greeks would love to get some austerity like that.

Unicorns, rainbows and midterms – The WaPo goes on to say that instead of worrying about deficits, “…the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections… The lack of conflict is due in part to the collapse of the deficit as a political issue. While annual budget deficits remain high by historical standards, they have shrunken rapidly over the past few years as the economy recovered and Congress acted to cut spending.” Wait. What? A Fox News Poll at the end of January showed that more voters said the federal deficit and Social Security outranked terrorism, foreign policy, guns and immigration as the most important issues for the government. Only the economy and health care were higher on the list of voter concerns. Nothing come close to those two, but do Democrats really think that they are off the hook for being the party of more borrowing and spending? Just because Republicans scampered away from the last debt limit lift fight doesn’t mean this isn’t potent stuff. If Democrats believe that borrowing more than half-a-trillion dollars can be turned into a political plus, they must be back to smoking Hopium. And remember, we haven’t even heard about all of the new taxes that the president will propose. Democrats are marching forward with the banner of bigger government aloft at precisely the moment Americans are fed up with ObamaCare the last big government initiative the Obama Democrats bequeathed them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/obama-budget-could-be-costly-to-dems/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Inventory Increases of 1.7% Pumps Up Real GDP in 3 Quarter 2013 to 3.6% — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

Breaking views: U.S. growth mirage

Fall of the dollar 2014 – America Economy Will Soon Collapse! – Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff – Whatever the Fed Does, Gold Will Rally! US Economy Already Ruined!

Peter Schiff was Right – The party is over, Ben Stein thinks the earnings are huge

Peter Schiff: US lost ability to produce, can’t live without debt

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
BEA 13-57

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Howard Krakower: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2013 (second estimate);
Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2013 (preliminary estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3). With this second estimate for the third quarter, the increase in
private inventory investment was larger than previously estimated.

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset
by a negative contribution from federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in
private inventory investment, a deceleration in imports, and an acceleration in state and local
government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in exports, in PCE, and in nonresidential
fixed investment.

_________
FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related
to this release.  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".
_________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.8 percent in the third quarter, the same increase as in the advance estimate; this index
increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.8 percent
in the second.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.8 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 7.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 6.2 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent.  Services was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter, services increased 1.2
percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.7 percent in the second.  Nonresidential structures increased 13.8 percent, compared with
an increase of 17.6 percent.  Equipment was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter,
equipment increased 3.3 percent.  Intellectual property products increased 1.7 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 13.0 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.2 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 8.0 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 6.9 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.4 percent
in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.6 percent in the second.  National defense decreased
0.3 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.1 percent, the same
decrease as in the second quarter.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 1.68 percentage points to the third-quarter change in
real GDP, after adding 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $116.5 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $56.6 billion in the second quarter
and $42.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.9
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the
second.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $13.7 billion in the third quarter after increasing $7.7 billion in the second; in the
third quarter, receipts increased $1.7 billion, and payments decreased $12.1billion.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.6 percent, or $229.8 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $16,890.8 billion.  In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 3.1 percent, or $125.7 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.2 percent (revised) in the second.  For a given quarter, the estimates of
GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent
source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar
patterns of change.

Revisions

      The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment and to nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upward
revision to imports and a downward revision to exports.

                                                                     Advance Estimate             Second Estimate
                                                                       (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP................................................                    2.8                        3.6
Current-dollar GDP......................................                    4.8                        5.6
Gross domestic purchases price index....................                    1.8                        1.8

                                            Corporate Profits

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $38.3 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $66.8 billion in the second.  Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion, in contrast to
an increase of $10.0 billion.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $43.0 billion, compared
with an increase of $56.9 billion.

      Dividends decreased $179.7 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $273.5
billion in the second.  The large third-quarter decrease primarily reflected dividends paid by Fannie Mae
to the federal government in the second quarter.  Undistributed profits increased $222.8 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $216.6 billion.  Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to
corporations for investment -- increased $234.5 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $205.3 billion.

_________
BOX.  Profits from current production reflect the depreciation of
fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation profiles.
These profiles are based on used-asset prices and do not depend on the
depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns.  The IVA and CCAdj are
adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of fixed assets reported on a tax-return,
historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in the national income and product
accounts.
_________

Corporate profits by industry

      Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $8.6 billion in the third quarter, compared to
an increase of $24.5 billion in the second.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased $13.0
billion, compared to an increase of $37.8 billion.

      The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $16.7 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $4.6 billion in the second.  This measure is calculated as the difference between
receipts from rest of the world and payments to rest of the world.

Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business

      In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices that
was partly offset by increases in both unit labor costs and nonlabor costs incurred by corporations.

                                     *          *          *

BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                     *          *          *

                         Next release -- December 20, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                       Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2013 (Third Estimate)
                          Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter (Revised Estimate)

                                     *          *          *
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 142, October 3, 2013, Segment 1: U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew Panics Plays Politics With Debt Ceiling — Claims U.S. Will Default On Treasury Debt If Debt Ceiling Is Not Raise and Will Cause Recession — Pure Propaganda — Treasury Receives About $200 Billion Per Month With Interest On Debt Less Than $35 Billion Per Month! — Videos

Posted on October 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 140: September 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 139: September 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 138: September 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 137: September 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 136: September 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 135: September 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 134: September 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 133: September 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 132: September 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 131: September 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 130: September 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 129: September 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 128: September 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 127: September 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 126: September 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 125: September 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 124: September 6, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 1: U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew Panics Plays Politics With Debt Ceiling — Claims U.S. Will Default On Treasury Debt If Debt Ceiling Is Not Raise and Will Cause Recession — Pure Propaganda — Treasury Receives About $200 Billion Per Month With Interest On Debt Less Than $35 Billion Per Month!  — Videos

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Economy

debt_ceiling

national debt and recession, obama cartoons

national debt wave

jacob-lewJacob_Lew_2

debt_ceiling_biga-summer-2013-who-really-owns-us-national-debtNational-Debt-Graphentitlements-consume-economy-606

national-debt-hypocrisy_obama

 BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
     NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
     DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
     JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
     FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
     MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
     APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
     MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
     JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
     JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
     AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
     FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
     MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
     APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
     MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
     JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
     JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
     AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,472,542              3,227,888                755,345
-

 

Chris Wallace Rips Jack Lew Over ObamaCare Sign-ups: Is the Number ‘Embarrassingly Small?’

US government shutdown 23 questions and answers about the government shutdown

Jack Lew on dangers of not raising the debt ceiling

 

How Big is a Trillion Dollars?

The U.S. Budget – A Visual Perspective

Rand Paul Will America Default

Default America: Lew Rockwell Excerpt

The Debt Limit Explained

Peter Schiff – Government Knowa US Economy Will Crash, They Have To Raise The Debt Ceiling!

Ron Paul: Not Raising Debt Ceiling Won’t Put U.S. In Default

Obama Taps Chief of Staff Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary

President Obama’s speech today on Secretary of the Treasury

US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt! 2014 Debt Crisis and Default

Hatch Speaks on Nomination of Jacob Lew to Serve as Treasury Secretary

Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa pressed Treasury Secretary nominee Jacob Lew today on hi

In Conversation with Jacob J. Lew, US Secretary of the

Treasury (Full Session)

Who Is Jacob Lew?

Treasury warns default could be worse than Great Recession

he U.S. Treasury Department is warning that the economy could plunge into a downturn worse than the Great Recession if Congress fails to raise the federal borrowing limit and the country defaults on its debt obligations.

A default could cause the nation’s credit markets to freeze, the value of the dollar to plummet and U.S. interest rates to skyrocket, according to the Treasury report released Thursday.

(Read more:Buffett speaks out against DC’s ‘extreme idiocy’)

Treasury officials hope by laying out potential consequences they will be able to bring pressure on Congress to act. Treasury SecretaryJacob Lew has said he will have used up the extraordinary measures to avoid breaching the debt ceiling by Oct. 17. After that, the government will have around $30 billion of cash on hand.

The report looked at the disruptions caused to financial markets during a similar stand-off between the administration and Congress over raising the debt limit. It then made projections about what could occur if there were an actual default.

In August 2011, Congress eventually raised the nation’s borrowing limit before a default occurred but only after a protracted debate. The politics that nearly led to a default prompted Standard & Poor’s to cut the nation’s credit rating by a notch.

(Read moreHank Paulson: Tea party ‘hijacked the debate’)

“As we saw two years ago, prolonged uncertainty over whether our nation will pay its bills in full and on time hurts our economy,” Lew said in a statement. “Postponing a debt ceiling increase to the very last minute is exactly what our economy does not need—a self-inflicted wound harming families and businesses.”

Our nation has worked hard to recover from the 2008 financial crisis, and Congress must act now to lift the debt ceiling before that recovery is put in jeopardy,” Lew said.

The report notes that even the possibility of a default could roil financial markets and damage the economy, thereby harming American businesses and households. Sharp declines in household wealth, increases in the cost of financing for businesses and households, and a fall in private-sector confidence, all tend to undermine economic expansion. It also states that if the current government shutdown is protracted, it could make the U.S. economy even more susceptible to the adverse effects from a debt ceiling impasse than it was prior to the shutdown.

In the event of a default, the U.S. economy could be plunged into a recession worse than any seen since the Great Depression, it said.

“The U.S. dollar and Treasury securities are at the center of the international finance system. In the catastrophic event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default on Treasury securities, financial markets could be shaken to their core as was seen in late 2008, which resulted in a recession worse than any seen since the Great Depression.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/treasury-warns-default-could-be-worse-great-recession-8C11329540

Simple facts show Obama’s debt-ceiling default threats are nonsense

The United States of America isn’t going to default on its debt, even if Congress doesn’t increase the statutory borrowing authority in the next couple of months. Everyone in Washington knows, or should know, this. Any assertions to the contrary are tantamount to — perish the thought! — playing politics with the debt ceiling.This is the second time in less than two years that the nation finds itself at this juncture, with Republicans in Congress threatening to hold the debt ceiling hostage. Some lawmakers are willing to shut down the government in order to pressure President Barack Obama to agree to spending cuts.

A shutdown is certainly possible. A debt default? Not gonna happen.

Why? Because the income taxes withheld from most of our paychecks each month exceed the interest the Treasury owes on its debt outstanding. In November, for example, the Treasury’sinterest expense totaled $25 billion. That compares with tax receipts of $161.7 billion. The ratio of receipts to interest expense varies from month to month, but what comes in more than covers what goes out in debt service.

Without an increase in the $16.394 trillion debt limit, the federal government can’t pay all of its bills: It borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Still, “debt service would come first,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson Icap LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Prioritizing Payments

Wait. The Treasury claims it has no authority to prioritize payments, to pay bondholders first.

That’s what it says, yes. Others beg to differ. In response to a congressional inquiry on the issue in 1985, the Government Accountability Office concluded the following: “We are aware of no statute or any other basis for concluding that Treasury is required to pay outstanding obligations in the order in which they are presented for payment unless it chooses to do so.”

The GAO is equally unaware of any new law that would alter its opinion in any way. So repeat after me: The U.S. isn’t going to fail to make timely payment of principal and interest on its sovereign debt. If it can’t issue new debt, it can roll over maturing debt. Borrowers may very well demand a higher rate of interest, especially if Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner raise the specter of default, as they did in 2011.

Issuing such a threat is irresponsible and even counterproductive if it prompts bondholders to dump Treasuries. That’s what happened initially during the debt-ceiling negotiations in July and August of 2011, costing the U.S. Treasury an additional $1.3 billion in interest expense, according to the GAO.

Once Standard & Poor’s put the U.S.’s AAA rating on credit watch on July 14, stocks went into the tank and Treasuries ignored the downgrade threat, which became a reality on Aug. 5.

“The bond market has its own credit-rating system,”Crandall said.

I am not suggesting that a failure to raise the debt ceiling wouldn’t be disruptive or cause undue hardship to those who rely on government checks. Social Security payments might not get processed. Medicare and Medicaid providers wouldn’t get paid. Neither would those serving in the military.

The sad part is that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the debt problem. It merely allows Treasury to borrow what Congress has already spent. It does not authorize new spending commitments.

Options to get around the statutory debt limit, such as invoking the 14th Amendment or minting a $1 trillion platinum coin, seem like a bad precedent (the former) or a gimmick (the latter) to circumvent a relic. Neither is likely to be implemented.

‘Finished, Over’

The only solution is to address the debt ceiling directly. Obama has made it clear he won’t negotiate with Congress over the government’s borrowing authority. Republicans have made it equally clear they aren’t going to give him what he wants without extracting concessions on spending cuts. Given thepublic’s view of them as spoilers, Republicans would be better served by using their leverage in negotiations over the sequester. As part of the deal to avert the fiscal cliff, the first installment of the 10-year, $1.2 trillion of not-so-automatic discretionary-spending cuts was delayed for two months.

Obama no longer has the leverage he had in the cliff negotiations: tax increases for all if Congress failed to act. Republicans, as a rule, oppose cuts in defense spending. So does the Pentagon. Obama doesn’t want to pare nondefense spending. In fact, he would like to increase it under the guise of”investment.” (It sounds so much better.)

Obama has also said that any deficit-reduction agreement must be balanced, by which he means spending cuts only in return for additional tax increases. Congress just made the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for all but the top 0.7 percent of earners. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoing the view of his caucus, said the “tax issue is finished, over, completed.”

The lines in the sand have been drawn — rather sharply, as it turns out. The negotiations could get interesting if Republicans pick their battles carefully, addressing spending cuts at a time and place that’s appropriate.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net.

More government insanity:

This is the “bottom line” on Washington’s fiscal-cliff deal

New poll shows the majority of Americans HATE Congress

The worst effect of Obama’s re-election may have nothing to do with taxes, healthcare, or handouts

Jacob Lew

Jacob JosephJackLew (born August 29, 1955) is an American government administrator and attorney who is the 76th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving since 2013. He served as the 25th White House Chief of Staff from 2012 to 2013. Lew previously served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton and Obama Administrations, and is a member of the Democratic Party.

Born in New York City, Lew received his A.B. from Harvard College and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. Lew began his career as a legislative assistant to Representative Joe Moakley and as a senior policy adviser to former House Speaker Tip O’Neill. Lew then worked as an attorney in private practice before working as a deputy in Boston’s office of management and budget. In 1993, he began work for the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant to the President. In 1994 Lew served as Associate Director for Legislative Affairs and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, where he served as Director of that agency from 1998 to 2001 and from 2010 to 2012. After leaving the Clinton Administration, Lew worked as the Executive Vice President for Operations at New York University from 2001 to 2006, and as the COO at Citigroup from 2006 to 2008. Lew then served as the first Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, from 2009 to 2010.

On January 10, 2013, Lew was nominated as the replacement for retiring Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to serve in President Barack Obama‘s second term.[2] On February 27, 2013, the Senate confirmed Lew for the position. He was sworn in the following day.

Early life, education, and early career

Lew was born in New York City. He attended New York City public schools, graduating from Forest Hills High School.[3] His father was a lawyer and rare-book dealer who came to the United States from Poland as a child.[4] Lew attended Carleton College in Minnesota where his faculty adviser was Paul Wellstone, who eventually represented Minnesota in the U.S. Senate.[5] He graduated from Harvard College in 1978 and the Georgetown University Law Center in 1983.[6]

He worked as an aide to Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) from 1974 to 1975.[7] He then was a senior policy adviser to House Speaker Tip O’Neill.[8] Under O’Neill he served at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee as Assistant Director and then Executive Director, and was responsible for work on domestic and economic issues including Social Security, Medicare, budget, tax, trade, appropriations, and energy issues.[1]

Lew practiced as an attorney for five years as a partner at Van Ness, Feldman and Curtis.[9] His practice dealt primarily with electric power generation. He has also worked as Executive Director of the Center for Middle East Research, Issues Director for the Democratic National Committee’s Campaign 88, and Deputy Director of the Office of Program Analysis in the city of Boston‘s Office of Management and Budget. [10][11]

Clinton administration

From February 1993 to 1994, Lew served as Special Assistant to the President under President Clinton.[12] Lew was responsible for policy development and the drafting of the national service initiative (AmeriCorps) and health care reform legislation.[13]

Lew left the White House in October 1994 to work as OMB’s Executive Associate Director and Associate Director for Legislative Affairs.[14] From August 1995 until July 1998, Lew served as Deputy Director of OMB.[15] There, Lew was chief operating officer responsible for day-to-day management of a staff of 500. He had crosscutting responsibilities to coordinate Clinton administration efforts on budget and appropriations matters. He frequently served as a member of the Administration negotiating team, including regarding the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

President Clinton nominated Lew to be Director of the OMB,[16] and the United States Senate confirmed him for that job on July 31, 1998.[17] He served in that capacity until the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001. As OMB Director, Lew had the lead responsibility for the Clinton Administration’s policies on budget, management, and appropriations issues. As a member of the Cabinet and senior member of the economic team, he advised the President on a broad range of domestic and international policies. He represented the Administration in budget negotiations with Congress and served as a member of the National Security Council.

Between Clinton and Obama tenures

After leaving public office in the Clinton administration, Lew served as the Executive Vice President for Operations at New York University and was a Clinical Professor of Public Administration at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service.[18] While at NYU, Lew aided the university in ending graduate students’ collective bargaining rights. The Obama administration has maintained that Lew supports workers’ union rights.[19] According to a 2004 report in NYU’s student newspaper, the Washington Square News, Lew was paid $840,339 during the 2002-2003 academic year.[20]In addition to his salary, several hundred thousand dollars in mortgage loans from NYU to Mr. Lew were forgiven by the University.[21]

In June 2006, Lew was named chief operating officer of Citigroup‘s Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group. The unit he oversaw invested in a hedge fund “that bet on the housing market to collapse.”[22] During his work at Citigroup, Lew had invested heavily in funds in Ugland House while he worked as an investment banker at Citigroup during the 2008 financial meltdown.[23] Lew also had oversight of Citigroup subsidiaries in countries including, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Hong Kong; and during his time at Citigroup, Citigroup subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands increased to 113.[24]

Lew co-chaired the Advisory Board for City Year New York.[25] He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project Advisory Board, and the National Academy of Social Insurance.[26] Lew is also a member of the bar in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.[27]

Obama administration

Deputy Secretary of State

Lew with former Chair of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen at the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad, July 27, 2010.

As Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Lew was the State Department‘s chief operating officer and was primarily responsible for resource issues, while James Steinberg, who also served as Deputy Secretary of State during that period was responsible for policy.[28][29] Lew was co-leader of the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.[30]

Budget director

On July 13, 2010, the White House announced that Lew had been chosen to replace Peter Orszag as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), subject to Senate confirmation.[31] During confirmation hearings in the Senate, in response to questioning by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Lew said that he did not believe deregulation was a “proximate cause” of the financial crisis of 2007–2008: Lew told the panel that “the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation,” and after discussing those issues, added that he didn’t “personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause.”[32][33]

On November 18, 2010, Lew was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent.

The $3.7 trillion 2011 budget President Obama unveiled the administration estimated reductions to federal spending deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade if adopted and economic assumptions were fully achieved. Two-thirds of the that estimated reduction would come from spending cuts through a 5-year freeze in discretionary spending first announced in Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, as well as savings to mandatory programs such as Medicare and lower interest payments on the debt that would result from the lower spending. Tax increases are responsible for the other third of the reduction, including a cap on itemized reductions for wealthier taxpayers and the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas companies.[34] Economist and former financial fraud investigator William K. Black warned that the OMB budget statement prepared under Lew’s direction was “an ode to austerity,” and that austerity would force the U.S. economy back into recession.[35]

Lew meeting with President Barack Obama and the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Rob Nabors

In an op-ed in the Huffington Post, Lew cited top Administration priorities to achieve deficit reduction; including: $400 billion in savings from non-security discretionary spending freezes, $78 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense, returning to the Clinton-era tax rates for the top 2% of income earners, and lowering the Corporate tax from 35% to 25%.[36]

Chief of Staff

On January 9, 2012, President Obama announced that Lew would replace William M. Daley as White House Chief of Staff.[37] Lew’s nomination was followed with criticism[38][39][40][41] after renewed reports that he received over $900,000 in bonuses while working at Citigroup, which had been rescued with $45 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) after losing $27.7 billion, or 90% of its value.[42][43]

During his tenure as Chief of Staff, Lew was seen as a supporter and top negotiator for a “grand bargain” deal between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, to avoid “Fiscal cliff” sequester cuts and tax increases.[1]

Lew’s Old Signature

Secretary of the Treasury

Lew’s New Money Signature

On January 10, 2013, President Obama nominated Lew for the position of Secretary of the Treasury.[2] The nomination became the subject of some humorous commentary, due to Lew’s unusual loopy signature, which would appear on all U.S. paper currency for the duration of his tenure;[44] the signature generated enough media attention that Obama joked at a press conference that he had considered rescinding his nomination when he learned of it.[45] Lew later adopted a more conventional signature for currency.[46] The Senate Finance Committee held confirmation hearings for Lew on February 13, 2013, and approved his nomination 19–5 on February 26, 2013, sending his nomination to the full Senate.[47]

During his confirmation hearings before the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley expressed concern that Lew did not know what Ugland House was, though he had invested in it.[48] During his work at Citigroup, Lew had invested heavily in funds in Ugland House while he worked as an investment banker at Citigroup during the 2008 financial meltdown.[49] He had taken advantage of current tax law and his financial allocation in the venture resulted in Lew taking roughly a 2.8% loss, a $1,582 decrease in his investment principal.[50]

On February 27, 2013, the full Senate voted and approved Lew for Secretary of the Treasury 71–26. He was sworn into office on February 28.[51]

Religion

Lew is an Orthodox Jew who observes the Jewish Sabbath [52][53] and attends Congregation Beth Sholom.[54]

Interviewed in a 2010 article, Lew’s former boss on the National Security Council, Sandy Berger, commented that “Lew’s faith never got in the way of performing his duties.”[52] Berger also said that Lew’s commitment to his family was also extremely important, but that Lew “was able to balance the requirements, which was very, very hard – and he was determined to observe his religious traditions.”[52]

A 2011 press release from the Religion News Service noted that Lew also “has extensive connections in the American Jewish community,” and that he might be able to help President Obama “build a more friendly rapport” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[55]

References

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c Cook, Nancy (9 January 2013). “Jack Lew: The Man Who Could Save Obama’s Legacy”. National Journal. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b Jackie Calmes (January 10, 2013). “Lew Would Complete Transformation of Obama’s Economic Team”. The New York Times. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
  3. Jump up ^ “Homecoming”. whitehouse.gov. June 27, 2011.
  4. Jump up ^ “Trusted Aide to Obama Faces Test in Budget Showdown”. nytimes.com. December 1, 2012.
  5. Jump up ^ Luke Johnson Jack Lew Biography: Meet The New White House Chief Of Staff January 9, 2012 Huffington Post
  6. Jump up ^ “Biographical information on Jack Lew”. online.wallstreetjournal.com. January 9, 2012.
  7. Jump up ^ “Incoming White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew like Rahm sans %@#!”. thehill.com. January 12, 2012.
  8. Jump up ^ “Biographical information on Jack Lew”. seattletimes.com. January 9, 2012.
  9. Jump up ^ “Van Ness Feldman Congratulates Jack Lew on His Anticipated Nomination to Serve as Head of the White House Office of Management and Budget”. vnf.com. July 13, 2010.
  10. Jump up ^ “Thompson Schedules Nomination Hearing on Jacob J. Lew”. hsgac.senate.gov. Thursday, May 28, 1998.
  11. Jump up ^ “Jacob J. Lew”. nytimes.com. November 15, 2008.
  12. Jump up ^ “OBAMA’S NEW CHIEF OF STAFF THIRD GU ALUMNUS TO SERVE IN POST”. georgetown.edu. January 18, 2012.
  13. Jump up ^ “Lew, Jacob J. “Jack””. January 26, 2012. ourcampaigns.com.
  14. Jump up ^ “The White House Office of the Press Secretary”. Houston, Texas: National Archives and Records Administration. April 14, 1998. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
  15. Jump up ^ “A Look at the New White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew”. news.yahoo.com. January 9, 2012.
  16. Jump up ^ “President Clinton Announces OMB Director Raines’ Departure”. clinton4.nara.gov. April 14, 1998.
  17. Jump up ^ “OMB’s Organization”. clinton3.nara.gov.
  18. Jump up ^ “Nat’l Security Team Additions”. realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com. December 23, 2008.
  19. Jump up ^ Eidelson, Josh. “Jack Lew’s union-busting past”. Salon. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
  20. Jump up ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324329204578269821728015016.html
  21. Jump up ^ Kaminer, Ariel. “NYU will cease loans to top employees for second homes”. The New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
  22. Jump up ^ “Flashback: Lew’s Time at Citi And Other Disappointments”. motherjones.com. January 9, 2012.
  23. Jump up ^ February 2013 “From the Citi to the Caymans”. WSJ News. 12 February 2012.
  24. Jump up ^ Daniel Halper (13 February 2013). “Jack Lew Oversaw Up to 113 Cayman Island Investment Funds”. Weekly Standard. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
  25. Jump up ^ “Director Jack Lew Blogs About CYNY”. cityyearnewyork.wordpress.com. January 18, 2011.
  26. Jump up ^ “White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Keynote December 16 Convocation; Stanley Raskas, Moise Safra and Diane Wassner to be Honored”. blogs.yu.edu. November 26, 2012.
  27. Jump up ^ “Obama National Security Team Takes Shape”. National Journal. December 23, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2010.
  28. Jump up ^ “Obama Names Steinberg, Lew State Department Deputies”. Bloomberg L.P. December 23, 2008. Retrieved February 6, 2011.
  29. Jump up ^ “Senior Officials”. United States Department of State. Retrieved February 6, 2011.
  30. Jump up ^ Long, Emily (July 15, 2009). “State Department launches quadrennial review”. Government Executive. Retrieved February 6, 2011.
  31. Jump up ^ “President Obama Announces His Intent to Nominate Jacob Lew as OMB Director”. http://www.whitehouse.gov. July 13, 2010.
  32. Jump up ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/obama-nominee-jacob-lew-f_n_732594.html
  33. Jump up ^ “Matt Taibbi & Bill Black: Obama’s New Treasury Secretary a ‘Failure of Epic Proportions'”. http://www.alternet.org. January 11, 2013.
  34. Jump up ^ Wasson, Erik (2011-02-14). “Obama 2012 budget proposes $1.1T deficit cut over next decade”. Thehill.com. Retrieved 2012-11-14.
  35. Jump up ^ “Obama’s OMB Channels its Inner Tea Party”. http://neweconomicperspectives.org/. December 27, 2012.
  36. Jump up ^ “The 2012 Budget”. huffingtonpost.com. February 14, 2011. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  37. Jump up ^ “Obama chief of staff Bill Daley steps down, budget chief Jack Lew steps up”. Cbsnews.com. 2012-01-09. Retrieved 2012-11-14.
  38. Jump up ^ “The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup”. salon.com. January 10, 2012. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  39. Jump up ^ “Are These Examples of Washington Corruption?”. cato.org. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  40. Jump up ^ “OMB nominee got $900,000 after Citigroup bailout”. washingtontimes.com. July 28, 2010. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  41. Jump up ^ “Advisers’ Citigroup Ties Raise Questions”. nytimes.com. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  42. Jump up ^ “BUSTED: Obama’s New Budget Chief Got A $900K Bonus From Citigroup After It Got A Bailout”. businessinsider.com. July 29, 2010. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  43. Jump up ^ “Citigroup Inc.”. nytimes.com. December 5, 2012. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  44. Jump up ^ “Likely Treasury Secretary Under Fire for Signature”. abcnews.go.com. January 9, 2013. Retrieved January 9, 2013.
  45. Jump up ^ Rachel Weiner (January 10, 2013). “Obama mocks Lew’s signature”. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
  46. Jump up ^ Goldfarb, Zachary A. (June 18, 2013). “Treasury Secretary Jack Lew unveils new signature after quibbles with his scribble”. The Washington Post (The Washington Post Company). Retrieved July 29, 2013.
  47. Jump up ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-finance-approves-jack-lew-nomination-for-treasury-88091.html?hp=r1
  48. Jump up ^ “Grassley Says Lew’s Ignorance of Ugland House ‘Does not Build Confidence'”. Tax Notes Today. February 13, 2013. p. 2013 TNT 31-26. Missing or empty |url= (help); |accessdate= requires |url= (help)
  49. Jump up ^ “From the Citi to the Caymans”. WSJ News. February 12, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2013.
  50. Jump up ^ Timothy W. Coleman (February 16, 2013). “Politically inconvenient taxation”. Washington Times Communities. Retrieved February 18, 2013.
  51. Jump up ^ “Jack Lew Gets Enough Senate Votes to Be Confirmed as Treasury Secretary”. CNBC. Retrieved 27 February 2013.
  52. ^ Jump up to: a b c Wagner, Ellis, White House Correspondent, “Clinton’s Budget Brain Returning to OMB Helm,” Politics Daily, July 16, 2010, retrieved February 5, 2012.
  53. Jump up ^ “Obama names Jack Lew new chief of staff”. Ynetnews. Retrieved January 9, 2012.
  54. Jump up ^ Donn, Yochonon “Jack Lew: Liberal Jew, White House’s First ‘Gabbai'” Hamodia, retrieved January 3, 2013.
  55. Jump up ^ Gibson, David, “New White House Staffers, Cecille Munoz and Jacob Lew, Have Strategic Catholic, Jewish Ties,” Religion News Service, January 10, 2012, retrieved February 5, 2012.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Jacob Lew.

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

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 142, October 3, 2013, Segment 0: Driver Rams White House Barricade, Police Chase Car, Women Killed By Capitol Police, 18 Month Old Rescued — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

James Grant Interviewed by James Turk–Federal Reserve, National Debt, Money, Gold — Videos

Posted on May 11, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

james_grant

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

Fed-Reserve-Balance-Sheet

fed-dollars-2003-2012fed-balance-sheet-2016

federal_reserve_balance_sheet

Federal_funds_rate

QE-Fed-BalanceSheet-SP500-020413

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Skyrocketing U.S. National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities For Medicare and Social Security — Videos

Posted on May 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Climate, College, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

national debt cartoon

national-debt-skyrocket-606

national-debt-burden-606

obama-budget-debt-606

budget-create-deficits-606

chart_5

CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP

Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2012

US-Public-Debt-Ownership

Federal_Debt_RR

Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern

american_concerns_about_14_major_issues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Most Important Problem

economy_problem

major_concerns_of_america

top_issues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts

Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke

Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco

US Debt A Threat To National Security

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

Funding Government by the Minute

Why Not Print More Money?

Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?

US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).

federal_debt_held_by_public

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.

With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.

Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.

Revenues

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

Outlays

In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.

Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.

Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:

  • Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
  • The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
  • A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.

Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.

GDP_and_potential_GDP

Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.

Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.

The Economic Outlook for 2013

CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.

Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos

Posted on April 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

burstbubble

Great_recessionGreat_Depression

Fed-Reserve-Balance-Sheet

fed-dollars-2003-2012fed-balance-sheet-2016

federal_reserve_balance_sheet

Federal_funds_rate

QE-Fed-BalanceSheet-SP500-020413

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!

Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April

U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says 

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers

JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014’

Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014

Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis

Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets

Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!

Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards

Jim Rickards  Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)

James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar

Currency Wars: Jim Rickards

Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser

CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber

Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1

Marc Faber  ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2

Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!

Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything

Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview

Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists

Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”

ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING

Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013

Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014

Background Articles and Videos

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010 

Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010) 

The Fall of Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

 

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

 

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.

Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Crime of the Century–Global Banking Cartel Grand Theft of American People Continues–The Hidden Inflation Tax–Videos

Posted on September 1, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Federal Reserve Explained 

Bank Bailouts Explained 

Quantitative Easing Explained

Clarke and Dawe – Quantitative Easing 

What is quantitative easing all about? 

Alan Greenspan ~ The Federal Reserve Is Above The Law

Dear America, Your Taxes Are Going Up 20%, Food and Gas Prices Will Skyrocket, Fed Drops Bomb On Us 

Exposing the Federal Reserve!

CURRENCY COLLAPSE Why The Government Won’t Act

CURRENCY COLLAPSE: How the US Government Is Destroying the Dollar

CURRENCY COLLAPSE: Interest Rates, The Fed, and History Repeating 

Press TV-On the Edge with Max Keiser-Global Banking Cartel-08-10-2010 (Part 1) 

Press TV-On the Edge with Max Keiser-Global Banking Cartel-08-10-2010 (Part 2) 

G Edward Griffin Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve 

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin) 

Ron Paul on Understanding Power: the Federal Reserve, Finance, Money, and the Economy 

The US Economy is Doomed

Masters of the Universe, The Secret Birth of the Federal Reserve

“Bernanke Threatens The Congress”  We will cause an Economic Collapse if you audit the Fed!

Ron Paul to Ben Bernanke “What Would It Take For You To Admit You Were Wrong? 

Bernanke signals Fed ready to act

By Robin Harding in Jackson Hole

“…Ben Bernanke sent a clear signal that the US Federal Reserve was ready to do  more to support the US economy, saying that its condition was “far from  satisfactory”.

Speaking at the Fed’s annual gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Mr Bernanke  offered no direct promise of further intervention. But by spelling out the  feeble state of the economy, the Fed’s intention to be forceful and its range of  policy tools, he raised expectations of action in September.

“Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the  Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to  promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labour market  conditions,” said the Fed chairman on Friday.

The clearest hint that Mr Bernanke is ready to do more came from his  disappointment with the economy’s progress. He noted some recovery over the past  few years but said that improvement in the labour market has been “painfully  slow”.

He said “unless the economy begins to grow more quickly than it has recently,  the unemployment rate is likely to remain far above levels consistent with  maximum employment for some time”.

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.”

By midday, the S&P had rebounded from a drop after Mr Bernanke’s  comments, and closed up 0.5 per cent. The 10-year Treasury note rose, pushing  its yield 5 basis points lower to 1.58 per cent, as markets decided Mr  Bernanke’s comments did signal further easing.

Mr Bernanke argued that the Fed’s forecasts of future interest rates – it  anticipates rates staying low at least until late 2014 – illustrated its resolve  in supporting a recovery.

In one possible hint of future policy, he said that the current late-2014  date “is broadly consistent with prescriptions coming from a range of standard  benchmarks”, but that “a number of considerations also argue for planning to  keep rates low for a longer time than implied by policy rules developed during  more normal periods”. …”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/540b1fe0-f374-11e1-9c6c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25JoVb4VM

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin   The Dangerous Servant   A Discourse on Government

 

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010 

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 4-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Campaign Strategy Switches From Romney The Progressive Flip Flopper To Romney The Severe Conservative Right-Wing Extremist–Why?–Romney Is Beating Obama In Internal Polls With Independent Voters–Why? Obama’s Record of Failure–High Unemployment Rates and Gas Prices and Massive Government Deficits–$5 Trillion–Videos

Posted on April 25, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Shields, Brooks on Voter Volatility, Obama vs. Romney

Obama Against Romney The ‘Flip-Flopper’ or The ‘Severe Conservative’? (P1/2) 

Obama Against Romney The ‘Flip-Flopper’ or The ‘Severe Conservative’? (P2/2) 

The Moderate, Progressive, Severely Conservative Romney 

The Real Romney 

Mitt Romney ‘I Was A Severely Conservative Governor’

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

David Axelrod People dont know Romney (4/22/12)

Extreme Intolerance: Willard Mitt Romney’s ‘Severe Conservative’ Problem

The Last Word – Romney Tries To Rewrite His Resume 

Right-Wing Extremists Stand Against Flip-Flopping, ‘Unprincipled’ Willard Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Interview on Breitbart TV

Mitt Romney, Vietnam, & Mormon Church Discrimination

Obama adviser David Axelrod makes case for Mitt Romney for President

Axelrod » Obama Boulevard is a Dead End

In Strategy Shift, Obama Team Attacks Romney From the Left

By HELENE COOPER

“…So long, flip-flopper. Hello, right-wing extremist.

After months of depicting Mr. Romney as the ultimate squishy, double-talking, no-core soul, Team Obama is shifting gears. Senior administration officials, along with Democratic and campaign officials, all say their strategy now will be to tell the world that Mr. Romney has a core after all — and it’s deep red.

Mr. Romney’s overheard remarks at a fund-raiser in Florida on Sunday night that, if elected, he planned to slash government programs (though he has not spelled that out for the voters) gave Obama backers the perfect opening, and they jumped on it. “Mitt Romney Tells Rich Voters His Secret Plan to Cut Housing Assistance,” said a headline from ThinkProgress, a blog put out by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Democratic officials followed that up with a call to reporters on Thursday charging that Mr. Romney’s proposal would “cut critical funds for homeless veterans.” …”

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=democrats+paint+romney+as+right-wing+extremist&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Slaughtering The PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain)–The Coming Defaults in Sovereign Debt–Euro Collapse–Videos

Posted on April 24, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Axel Merk – Euro Contagion

The Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis: Investment Risks and Opportunities

Inside the Issues 2.20 – Sovereign Debtors in Distress

Following the recent CIGI-INET (Institute for New Economic Thinking) conference Sovereign Debtors in Distress, Pierre Siklos explains how European countries have become indebted in an unsustainable manner, and what financial mechanisms and policy options exist for states on the verge of default. A conference participant at Sovereign Debtors, Siklos is also a CIGI Senior Fellow and director of the Viessmann European Research Centre at Wilfrid Laurier University.

CIGI-INET Sovereign Debtors: Conference Overview

The CIGI-INET partnership brings together two world-class organizations that are tackling common problems together. “Sovereign Debtors in Distress” was the first CIGI-INET conference held in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and focused on unraveling the complex global threat of unsustainable sovereign debt. This video, featuring comments by CIGI Executive Director Thomas Bernes, INET Executive Director Robert Johnson, and the world-leading experts who participated in this conference, provides an overview of the discussions held from February 24-26, 2012.

CIGI-INET Sovereign Debtors: Roadmap for dealing with sovereign debt crises

Sovereign Debtors in Distress conference chair Susan Schadler joins panellists Michael Bordo (Rutgers University), Lewis Alexander (Nomura) and Martin Gilman (Centre for Advanced Studies) to discuss the roadmap for dealing with sovereign debt crises in the future.

CIGI-INET Sovereign Debtors: Institutional reform for sovereign debt crises

CIGI-INET Sovereign Debtors: Lessons from the Past

European Debt Crisis Explained

Europe’s Sovereign Debt Crisis: Causes, Consequences for the United States, and Lessons Learned

Northern EUSSR countries bail out more PIGS (07Apr11)

“SORRY – NO ONE BELIEVES YOU ANY MORE” – Nigel Farage

Debating the collapsing Euro and European economies, part1/2 (21Apr12)

Debating the collapsing Euro and European economies, part2/2 (21Apr12)

Moore Says Europe Debt Default Biggest Risk for Markets

Are Central Bankers just Economic Make-up Artists, Sexing-up Prices? 

Debt-ridden Countries IMF’d as “Euro Collapse” threat lures Bailout Bucks w/Michael Hudson

Marc Faber, “The Ego of Mr. Bernanke has been Badly Inflated”

Jim Rogers on Ben Bernanke, the Dollar and “Saving the Saver”

Marc Faber the Great Depression all over again

Marc Faber – When the Government Will Take Your Gold

Stimulus High Fading, Dollar, Gold, History According to Obama

Peter Schiff on Max Keiser Report April 2012

Eurozone’s debt troubles continue

Dutch Government Resigns as Austerity Talks Fail

Euro bounces back on solid Dutch debt sale

Point Break: ‘Spain last nail in Euro-coffin’

Spain sells bonds but pays higher yields

Willem Buiter: Spain And Italy Could Default In Months Or Less

After Second Bailout, Is Greece Still Likely to Default?

Marc Faber – Is Greece Irrelevant for global Markets – 10 feb 2012

Big contrast in Iberian debt 

Spain and Italy borrowing rates soar in latest auctions

Borrowing costs for both Spain and Italy rose today in their latest auction of government bonds.

“…Spain’s borrowing rate nearly doubled in a short-term debt auction as investors fretted over the euro zone’s determination to deal with its debts.

And Italy raised nearly €3.5 billion in a short-term bond sale today but at sharply higher interest rates amid fresh concerns over the euro zone outlook, the Bank of Italy said.

The Spanish treasury said it raised €1.933 billion but the timing could hardly have been worse, with financial markets slumping on concern that Europeans are wavering in their commitment to austerity.

The sale of three-month and six-month bills came a day after Spain’s central bank declared the country had plunged back into recession in the first quarter of 2012.

Markets were shaken after a first round of French presidential elections on Sunday put Socialist Francois Hollande, who wants the euro zone to focus on growth rather than austerity, ahead of incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. The two contenders face off in a final vote May 6.

Further undermining stability, the Netherlands’ government collapsed yesterday after failing to reach agreement over austerity measures, placing its AAA credit rating at risk. But Spain still managed to lure strong interest in the auction with overall demand outstripping supply by more than four-to-one.

The money raised was towards the top of its targeted range of €1-2 billion. But it had to pay a steep price. The borrowing rate leapt to 0.634% from 0.381% for three-month bills and to 1.58% from 0.836% for six month bills, when compared with the last similar auction on March 27.

Spain has promised to cut its public deficit – the annual shortfall of income compared to spending – to 5.3% of gross domestic product in 2012 and just 3% of GDP in 2013. Last year it had allowed the deficit to hit 8.5% of GDP – 2.5 percentage points over target.

Desperate to meet its targets, the government approved €27 billion in fiscal tightening in its 2012 budget, in addition to an earlier round of tax increases and spending cuts amounting to €15.2 billion. …”

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0424/spain-borrowing-rate-soars-for-short-term-debt.html

UPDATE 1-More grief for Greece as recession seen deeper

By George Georgiopoulos

“…Greece’s economy will contract a deeper than expected 5 percent this year, the country’s central bank chief said on Tuesday, piling more pressure on to a citizenry already battered by crippling austerity and record joblessness.

The projection topped a previous forecast the central bank made in March, when it projected the 215 billion euro economy would contract 4.5 percent after a 6.9 percent slump in 2011.

Twice bailed-out Greece is in its fifth consecutive year of recession.

Speaking to shareholders at the central bank’s annual assembly, George Provopoulos, also a European Central Bank Governing Council member, urged strict adherence to reform and fiscal adjustment commitments Greece has agreed with its euro zone partners, saying they were needed to return the economy to sustainable growth.

Athens is under pressure to apply more fiscal austerity to shore up its finances as part of a new rescue package agreed this year with its euro zone partners and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to avert a chaotic default.

Its continued funding under the 130 billion euro package will hinge on meeting targets.

Provopoulos warned that Greece’s euro zone membership was at stake if it failed to follow through on its pledges, especially after national elections next month.

“If following the election doubts emerge about the new government and society’s will to implement the programme, the current favourable prospects will reverse,” he said.

Greece is set to pick a new government on May 6, with the two main parties in the current coalition seen barely securing a majority in parliament, according to the latest opinion polls.

Whoever wins will have to agree additional spending cuts of 5.5 percent of GDP, or worth about 11 billion euros for 2013-2014, and gather about another 3 billion from better tax collection to keep getting aid, the IMF has said. …”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/greece-cenbanker-idUSL5E8FO4VU20120424

Background Articles and Videos

 

Euro is Dead – Long Live Germany? Anger over PIGS states’ bailout

Future of the US and Europe with Nigel Farage and Lew Rockwell on

Michael Pento, Eurozone Crisis, US Housing Bailouts? – Capital Account (11/11/11)

Gerald Celente talks Trade Wars, Eurozone Breakup, and MF Global

Greek crisis & Euro collapse-On the Edge with Max Keiser-12-02-2011

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Arthur Brooks–The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America’s Future–Vidoes

Posted on April 13, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Arthur C. Brooks on the Battle Between Free Enterprise and Big Government

AIM: Bloggers Briefing Interview with Arthur Brooks 

Arthur Brooks speaks at the Chamber of Commerce 

Nick Schulz, editor of American.com, sits down with AEI president Arthur C. Brooks to discuss Mr. Brooks new book, The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future (Basic Books, June 2010).

Arthur Brooks on the New Culture War Over Free Enterprise 

Arthur Brooks: Why I Wrote “The Battle”

Arthur Brooks: 70% of Americans Favor Free Enterprise 

Arthur Brooks: Why Earned Success is so Important 

Arthur Brooks on Money and Happiness 

Book TV: Arthur Brooks “The Battle” 

 Arthur Brooks (10/25/10) 

Free Enterprise Versus Big Government: The Battle for America’s Future
Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute; Author, The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future
Brooks outlines a new culture war — not the old struggle over guns or abortion or religion, but over two competing visions of America. In one, America continues as a unique and exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise. In the other, the U.S. moves toward a European-style social democracy characterized by increasing bureaucracies, income redistribution and government control of corporations. Brooks argues that free enterprise is not merely an economic system but an expression of American values and American culture, and he makes the case that free enterprise is the system that delivers the greatest levels of prosperity to the greatest numbers of people.

Dr. Arthur C. Brooks at Toledo Law 

A Moral Debate: Why Capitalism is Best for America – CBN.com 

Does Capitalism Have a Soul? (Arthur C. Brooks vs Jim Wallis) 

FreedomFest 2011 Arthur Brooks “How To Win The Battle For Free Enterprise” 

Arthur C. Brooks

“…Arthur C. Brooks is the president of AEI. Until January 1, 2009, he was the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University. He is the author of ten books and many articles on topics ranging from the economics of the arts to applied mathematics. His most recent books include The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future (Basic Books, May 2010), Gross National Happiness (Basic Books, 2008), Social Entrepreneurship (Prentice-Hall, 2008), and Who Really Cares(Basic Books, 2006). Before pursuing his work in public policy, Mr. Brooks spent twelve years as a professional French hornist with the City Orchestra of Barcelona and other ensembles.

Mr. Brooks is the author of the forthcoming book, The Road to Freedom, to be released on May 8th 2012.

Experience

  • Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy, 2007-2008; Professor of Public Administration, 2006-2008; Senior Research Associate, Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2003-2008; Director, Nonprofit Studies Program, 2003-2007; Associate Professor of Public Administration, 2001-2005; Senior Research Associate, Center for Policy Research, 2001-2003, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University
  • Consultant, RAND Corporation, 1998-2008
  • Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Economics, Georgia State University, 1998-2001
  • Doctoral Fellow, RAND Corporation, 1996-98
  • Professor of French Horn, Harid Conservatory of Music, Lynn University, 1992-95
  • French Hornist, Barcelona Symphony Orchestra, Annapolis Brass Quintet, 1983-92

Education

Ph.D., M.Phil., policy analysis, Pardee RAND Graduate School
M.A., economics, Florida Atlantic University
B.A., economics, Thomas Edison State College …”

http://www.aei.org/scholar/arthur-c-brooks/

Arthur C. Brooks

“…Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964, in Spokane, Wash.) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Brooks is best known for his work on the junctions between culture, economics, and politics. Two of his popular volumes, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism and Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It, explore these themes in greater depth. He is a self-described independent.

Early life and musical career

Brooks was raised in Seattle’s Queen Anne neighborhood. His parents were professors, and his upbringing has been described as “liberal.”[1][2][dead link]

After high school, Brooks pursued a career as a professional French hornist, serving from 1983 to 1989 with the Annapolis Brass Quintet in Baltimore, from 1989 to 1992 as the associate principal French hornist with the City Orchestra of Barcelona in Spain, and teaching from 1992 to 1995 at Lynn University’s Harid Conservatory of Music.[3]

Academia

Toward the end of his professional music career, Brooks began higher education with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1994 from Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey, a public university that offers distance and nontraditional education programs to working adults. He received a master’s degree from Florida Atlantic University in 1995 before pursuing a doctorate at the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, a public policy program located at the RAND Corporation, where he was also a doctoral fellow.[3]

After receiving his PhD in policy analysis in 1998, Brooks continued to be affiliated with RAND, for which he produced a number of studies (see bibliography below; his articles appeared in dozens of academic journals as well), mostly of arts funding and orchestra operations. But he began to dive into the junction of culture, politics, and economics that would come to be his trademark. “He kept his head down during the early years of his academic career, publishing the usual economics fare on philanthropy—such as how tax rates and government spending affect giving,” writes Ben Gose. Brooks himself said, “I made my academic career doing that stuff, but the whole time I knew I was missing something.”[1]

After a stint at Georgia State University, Brooks landed at Syracuse University in 2001. In 2005, he became a full professor, and he held the Louis A. Bantle Chair in Business and Government Policy from 2007 to 2008. At Syracuse, Brooks held joint appointments in the public affairs and management schools. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Books

Fouad Ajami–The Foreigner’s Gift–Videos

Robert Baer–The Devil We Know–Videos

Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos

Michael Barone–Our First Revolution–Videos

Allan Bloom–The Closing of The American Mind–Videos

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Ian Bremmer–The End of the Free Market–Videos

Arthur Brooks–The Road To Freedom: How To Win The Fight for Free Enterprise–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Ron Chernow–Alexander Hamilton–Videos

Steve Coll– The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century; Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 –Videos

Dinesh D’Souza–The Enemy At Home–Videos

Dinesh D’Souza–The Roots of Obama’s Rage–Videos

Thomas J. DiLorenzon–Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for Americans Today–Videos

Cory Doctorow–Makers–Videos

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellency: George Washington–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Bruce Feiler–Walking the Bible–Videos

Niall Ferguson–”The Ascent of Money–Videos

Milton Friedman–Capitalism and Freedom–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Burton Folsom Jr.–New Deal or Raw Deal–Videos

Brigitte Gabriel–Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America–Videos

Brigitte Gabriel–They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It –Videos

Robert Gallately–Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Catastrophe–Videos

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch–The Declaration of Independents–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

David Goodwillie–American Subversive–A Novel

Malcolm Gladwell–Outliers–Videos

Victor Davis Hansen–A War Like No Other–Videos

Robert Higgs–Crisis and Leviathan–Videos

David Horowitz and Richard Poe–The Shadow Party–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

David Kirkpatrick–The Facebook Effect–Videos

Michael Korda–Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia

Stanley Kurtz–Radical-Chief: Barack Obama and The Untold Story of American Socialism–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Michael Lewis–The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine–Videos

John Locke–The Second Treatise of Civil Government–Videos

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos

Gretchen Morgenson & Joshua Rosner–Reckless Endangerment–Videos

Barack Obama Cartoon Concisely Communicates What’s Wrong With Progressive Radical Socialism–Why Do We Need Jobs For?–A Hayek and Mises Moment!

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Eric Metaxas–Dietrich Bonhoeffer–Videos

Kenneth Minogue–Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology–Videos

Ron Paul–End The Fed–Videos

Marshall Poe: A History of Communications: Media and Society from the Evolution of Speech to the Internet–Videos

Melanie Phillips–Londonistan–Videos

Melanie Phillips–The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power–Video

James Piereson–Camelot and The Cultural Revolution–Videos

Jim Powell–FDR’s Folly–Videos

Samantha Power–A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide–Chasing The Flame–Videos

Paul Rahe–Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Economic Thought Before Adam Smith–Videos

Murray Rothbard–What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Leonard J Santow–Do They Walk On Water: Federal Reserve Chairman and The Fed–Videos

Eugen Maria Schulak and Herbert Unterköfler: The Austrian School of Economics: A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions–Videos

Roy Spencer–The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists –Videos

Mark Steyn–America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Michael Scheuer–Through Our Enemies’ Eyes–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell–Black Rednecks and White Liberals–The Missing Nobel Laureates–Videos

Thomas Sowell–Intellectuals and Society–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Nassim Nicholas Taleb–The Black Swan–Videos

Gillian Tett–Fool’s Gold–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama!

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

R. Christopher Whalen–Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream–Videos

David Wessel–In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke’s War On The Great Panic–Videos

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–Meltdown–Videos

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–We Who Dared to Say No to War–Videos

Samuel F. Yette–The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America-Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

In Four Years Barack Obama Bankrupts American People With $5 Trillion In Budget Deficits and Increased Debt–Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Dead On Arrival–Videos

Posted on February 11, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

http://www.federalbudget.com

BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Budget of the United States Government is a collection of documents that contains the budget message of the President, information about the President’s budget proposals for a given fiscal year, and other budgetary publications that have been issued throughout the fiscal year. Other related and supporting budget publications are included, which may vary from year to year. About the Budget of the United States Government

GPO has signed and certified the PDF files to assure users that the online documents are official and authentic. The digitally signed PDF files should be viewed using Adobe Acrobat or Reader version 7.0 or higher. Download the most recent version of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

U.S Debt Clock Real Time

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Fair share? – Each American’s share of debt up $16,000 under Obama

Monday Hangover: Obama’s Budget ‘Fictitious Dream’

Top 15 Holders of US Public DEBT – Whom does the US owe?

National Debt- How Much Is A Billion Dollars? Dave Walker

What Does A Trillion Dollars Look Like?

David Walker – America at a Crossroads

Ron Paul Interview On The Kudlow Report (1-30-12)

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

They tell Us that Ron Paul is a Lunatic?

 
Here is what we are told that a lunatic wants:
Obeying The Constitution- keeping the oath the every President swears
Sound money
Freedom, liberty, and justice for All
Peace
No Wars Unless We are Attacked, and then only when Congress declares war.
Protecting Our Own Borders
End the Income Tax
No Entangling Alliances
Minding our own business
Keeping our money at home to take care of our own needs.
Decrease our militarism in other countries. Stop conquest and nation building.
HERE IS WHAT ALL THE OTHER “SANE” CANDIDATES WANT:
United Nations resolutions, Agenda 21, NAFTA, World Trade Organization.
Indefinite detention of American citizens; without a charge, trial, or a lawyer.
Federal Reserve printing unlimited fiat paper money
Debt
Government control over everything
Government regulation of every aspect of life.
CONTINUOUS UNDECLARED WARS
Protecting Borders in other countries, but not our own.
HIGH Taxes of all types.
Entangling Alliances, Global Governance
Policing the world
Borrowing money from big dictatorships, and then giving it away to small dictatorships.
Build a military base and colony on the moon, and make the moon the 51st state.

Ron Paul . I will cut $1 Trillion first year as President

Ron Paul Plan To Restore America Press Conference

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

GPO and OMB to Distribute President Obama’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2013

Friday, February 10, 2012

Press release from the issuing company

WHAT:
The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are releasing President Barack Obama’s Budget for the U.S. Government, FY 2013. Printed copies are available through GPO’s retail and online bookstore. The Budget is also available electronically on GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) www.fdsys.gov.

WHEN:
Monday, February 13, 2012 11:15 a.m. EST

WHERE:
U.S. Government Printing Office 710 North Capitol Street, NW (GPO Bookstore Entrance) Washington, D.C. 20401 (North Capitol and G Streets)

COST:
Hard copies of the Budget may be purchased through GPO’s retail and online bookstore. There will be no complimentary hard copies for the media.

American Express, Visa, MC, Discover are accepted. Please make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. Orders may also be placed online: http://bookstore.gpo.gov/collections/budget.jsp

Budget of the U.S. Government $39
Budget Appendix $76
Analytical Perspectives $53
Historical Tables $50
CD-ROM $27

ONLINE:
The authentic online version will be available through a direct link on GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) after 11:15 a.m. EST. www.fdsys.gov

http://whattheythink.com/news/56184-gpo-omb-distribute-president-obamas-budget-fiscal-year-2013/

Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate

By Lori Montgomery,

“…President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.

1638

Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.

The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.

To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits.

Obama’s budget also calls for new investments in education, manufacturing and federal research and development, and it would devote an additional $350 billion to boosting economic growth. That sum includes extending a temporary payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits through the end of the year. Both are scheduled to expire at the end of this month and are currently the focus of intense debate in Congress.

The president’s plan would push this year’s deficit above current projections, with the budget gap growing to $1.33 trillion — slightly higher than last year’s $1.3 trillion deficit and $200 billion more than congressional budget analysts recently projected for the fiscal year that ends in September.

The deficit would fall to $900 billion in 2013, and government borrowing would continue to slow through 2022, leaving the debt elevated by historic standards but no longer growing faster than the overall economy. …”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

2013 United States federal budget

2013 Budget of the United States federal government
‹ 2012 ·  · 2014 ›
Submitted February 13, 2012 (expected)[1]
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 112th Congress
Total revenue $2.964 trillion (projected)[2]
Total expenditures $3.693 trillion (projected)[2]

“…The United States federal budget request for government operations in fiscal year 2013 (October 2012–September 2013) is expected to be submitted by President Barack Obama in February 2012, according to the budget process. The actual appropriations for fiscal year 2013 must be authorized by the full Congress before the budget can take effect. Under current law, the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandates caps on discretionary spending levels. In addition, several temporary tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire at the beginning of the 2013 calendar year, including the Bush tax cuts on income and capital gains taxes, and cuts to the estate tax, due to the expiration of provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

History

 Implications of the Budget Control Act

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in August 2011 as a resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis. The fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget is the first to be affected by the second of two rounds of budget cuts specified in the act. (The first round of cuts has already been applied to the ten years beginning in FY2012.) For this second round of cuts, the Budget Control Act had formed the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes referred to as the “supercommittee”, to identify at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the ten years beginning with FY2013, and specified automatic across-the-board cuts if no such budget reduction legislation was passed by Congress.[3]

On November 21, 2011, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction announced that it did not reach a deal on the budget-cutting legislation, raising the possibility that the automatic cuts would be activated if the full Congress could not enact its own deficit reduction legislation by December 23, 2011. The supercommittee’s lack of an agreement was attributed to the refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increases, combined with Democratic insistence on including these revenue increases such as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which under current law expire at the end of 2012.[4]

The automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years would be split equally between security and non-security programs, and include $500 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense. The FY2013 defense budget would be reduced 11%, from $525 billion to $472 billion, after already having been cut from $571 billion in the first installment of cuts in the Budget Control Act. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta initially gave the total cut figure as 23%.[5] The planned cuts include reductions in troop levels, a modest limit in pay raises for soldiers starting in 2015, an increase in health fees for veterans, delays in the construction of new naval ships and in the purchasing of new fighter aircraft such as the F-35, and the possibility of a round of base closings within the United States, but cuts to special operations, cyberwarfare, and intellegence programs were avoided.[6] Initial reports had also suggested that the number of carrier battle groups might be reduced from 11 to 10,[5] although it was later determined that the number of aircraft carriers would not in fact be cut.[7] Some Republicans in Congress advocated reversing the cuts to the military, citing the effect on national security, and Secretary Panetta has opposed the cuts, calling them “devastating” and raising “substantial risk of not being able to meet our defense needs.” President Obama has promised to veto any legislation seeking to avoid the cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner also indicated his commitment to following the cuts in the Budget Control Act.[4][8]

The Budget Control Act also specifies automatic cuts of 7.8% to domestic programs and 2% to Medicare, while Medicaid and Social Security will be unaffected. These entitlement programs were protected from cuts in return for the absence of new revenues in the Budget Control Act.[9]

The automatic cuts to domestic programs would include cuts of up to 11% to science research and development agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the U. S. National Laboratories run by the Department of Energy. It is anticipated that this could cause federal grant acceptance levels to fall into the single digits, a consequence which has been called catastrophic for academic institutions by Michael Lubell of the American Physical Society. The cuts could also endanger politically controversial research such as climate change research programs in NASA and NOAA.[10] Due to the role of scientific research in economic growth and job creation, and given international competition in this field, the cuts have been opposed by professional and academic organizations, and federal support of research and development has been called “an area of U.S. investment too critical to be cut” by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[11][12]

 Total revenues and spending

As of September 2011, the Obama administration projected that the FY2013 budget would contain $2.964 trillion in receipts and $3.693 trillion in outlays.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Happy Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre–Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Budget of $4,000 Billion: Driving America Off The Cliff–Videos

Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff–This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly–A Decade of Debt–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Movements Sold Out and Betrayed By Gang of Six and Progressive Republicans In Senate–Videos

Posted on July 19, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Pronk Pops Show 37:July 20, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 36:July 13, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 35:July 6, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

Segment 4: Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Movements Sold Out and Betrayed By Gang of Six and Progressive Republicans In Senate–Videos

Gang of 6 Plan Could Offer GOP Path to Debt Deal

The CBS Evening News w…: Clock ticking on debt reform plans

2011 07 19 Crapo on Bloomberg

Senator Warner calls for a bipartisan solution to the deficit

Face The Nation with B…: Coburn, Durbin agree debt compromise will be

Solving the Debt Ceiling Crisis

Obama Applauds ‘Gang Of Six’

 

Meet the Senate’s “Gang of Six”

Dr. Coburn on CNBC Kudlow Report: “Came to an impasse in Gang of Six negotiations”

Michael Bennet: Gang of Six ‘Not Dead’

Crapo on Fox News’ Special Report with Brett Baier

Grover Norquist Responds to Sen. Tom Coburn- MSNBC

Debt Ceiling: Chris Mathews Dukes it Out With ‘NO’ Mastermind, Republican Grover Norquist

Sen. Toomey Talks Debt Limit on Fox and Friends

Senator Pat Toomey Explains That Failing To Raise Debt Limit Doesn’t Cause Default

Sen. Toomey Gives a Speech on the Debt Limit at AEI

“Cut, Cap and Balance,” the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Conviction, Not Compromise!

Ron Paul to Congress If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It

The estimated total tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2012 are estimated to be between $2,500 billion and $2,600 billion.

The gang of six Fiscal Year 2012 budget will have outlays or spending between $3,500 billion to $3,700 billion

The Fiscal Year 2012 will result in a deficit of over $1,000 billion under the gang of six’s plan.

The Fiscal Year 2012 budget for outlays or spending needs to be reduced by $500 billion to $3,000 billion or less.

This would result in a deficit of about $500 billion.

Any politician who votes for the gang of six so-called compromise balanced approach of more taxes now and spending cuts in the out years will not be getting my vote.

Both President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush fell for a similar compromise of tax increases now for future spending cuts that never happened.

Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit: Revenue 19% of GDP; Spending is 23%; Revenue is sufficient

Cut spending and balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013.

Pass the FairTax bill.

Tax increases will put the economy into another recession or depression.

Monetization of the debt by the Federal Reserve only leads to defaulting on the debt by debasing or devaluing of the currency which results in rising prices or inflation and a decrease in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.

Explanation of Fed Monetizing US Debt

Quantitative Easing Explained

The gang of six compromise is a betrayal of the American people.

No deal.

Background Articles and Videos

 

Debt hope: Obama praises ‘Gang of Six’ plan

Obama, some Republicans laud Senate ‘Gang of Six’ deficits plan as a way ahead on debt limit

“…President Barack Obama and a startling number of Republican senators lauded a bipartisan deficit-reduction plan Tuesday that includes $1 trillion in higher taxes, raising hopes of a last-minute compromise to repair the nation’s finances while averting a government default. Wall Street saluted as well. …”

“…Unlike Obama, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. was harshly critical, calling McConnell’s approach “smoke and mirrors.”

“If Republicans do not show the political will to stop the spending, and use the debt limit to make our case, the party is gone,” he was quoted as saying on National Review Online.

The Gang of Six envisioned a two-stage process in which $500 billion in savings would be enacted swiftly, with the more complicated changes in programs like Medicare and Medicaid to follow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Debt-hope-Obama-praises-Gang-apf-120819518.html?x=0

Obama Backs New Senate Debt Plan

“…The proposal would cut spending, overhaul entitlement programs such as Medicare, rework the tax code, and make significant changes to Social Security. He said he still hadn’t read all the details of the plan, and said it will be difficult for all parties to reach agreement.

The plan is sweeping in its scope but was thought for months to be both overly ambitious and slightly ambiguous, which nearly led the effort to collapse in recent weeks. But the plan was revived, in part by its lead authors—Sens. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.)—and the flood of bipartisan support coming out of the meeting surprised them both, the lawmakers said.

Mr. Obama’s endorsement of a bipartisan Senate deficit-reduction proposal, however, could isolate conservative House Republicans who have yet to embrace the president’s call for a deficit-cutting plan that includes tax-code changes. It faces an uncertain future in the House, and even in the Senate, however.

Senate Democratic leaders reacted cautiously, saying the Gang of Six plan had come too late to be incorporated into legislation increasing the debt ceiling.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill), one of six senators who helped crafted the plan, said it wouldn’t form part of a debt-ceiling package that must be passed by Congress before Aug. 2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said he thought there could be elements of the plan that might be wrapped into the legislation increasing the debt ceiling.

Aides said the plan still lacked many crucial details. Its release, instead, would influence the budget landscape after Aug. 2, aides said. …”

“…Central parts of the plan would:

• Impose immediate spending cuts and caps that reduce the deficit by $500 billion over 10 years.

• Make changes to Social Security to make the program solvent over 75 years.

• Direct key congressional committees to find specific levels of deficit reduction within their areas of jurisdiction. If the committees fail, then five Democratic and five Republican senators would be able to offeKr their own deficit-reduction plan as a replacement.

Messrs. Warner and Chambliss said they asked the other lawmakers at the meeting to report back to them within 24 hours with any feedback, and several lawmakers said the group had already begun drafting legislation. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456042405686316.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Senator Tom Coburn–A Real Conservative and An Excellent Vice-President Candidate

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul On The National Debt Ceiling, Government Deficit Spending and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Posted on July 12, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, European History, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Language, Law, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul on Debt Limit, FED And Default…What To Do About IT

 

Ron Paul won’t seek re election for Congress

 

Ron Paul 2012: Debt Ceiling, Default, & Inflation

 

Ron Paul: The World Will Give Up on the Dollar

 

Ron Paul: The Purpose of a Central Bank Is to Deceive and Defraud the People

 

Ron Paul – Will Congress Raise the Debt Ceiling – Your share in debt ceiling 2011

 

 

Ron Paul on the Debt Ceiling, Sanctuary Cities and Entitlement Program

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Posted on June 23, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Computers, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 33:June 22, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 32:June 15, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 31:June 8, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 30:June 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”

~James Madison

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?

Isolationist: GOP’s dirty word?

SA@TAC – Is America Becoming ‘Isolationist?’

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

Ron Paul – Misguided Policy of Nation Building in Iraq

American Isolationism in the 30s

Charles Lindbergh’s – September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

SA Radio – World War 2 and American Intervention

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

SA@Takimag – John McCain’s Boogeyman

SA@TAC – What is Sarah Palin?

SA@Takimag – The War Party

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Speech given by Congressman Ron Paul on the House floor on July 10, 2003

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

Ron Paul “Republicans Want A NeoCon Influence In The Tea Party Movement

Background Articles and Videos

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt1/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt2/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt3/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt4/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt5/5

Isolationism

“…Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

  1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
  2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

“Isolationism” has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries.

The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one’s economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.[1]

All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and experienced an expansion of the division of labor, which generally raised living standards. However, some characterize this as “a wage race to the bottom” in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor—i.e. employing protectionist trading policies—could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Others argue that as the world’s biggest consumer, with its own natural resources, the U.S. can wisely dictate what conditions can apply to goods and services imported for U.S. consumption, misunderstanding the nature of prices and their emergent, non-centrally planned, nature. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. But “best” too often means monetary, excluding human and ecological costs, due to firms externalizing costs as a result of inadequately defined property rights. Protectionism allegedly interferes in the market process, making people poorer than they would be otherwise. …”

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

Nonintervention

“…Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

United States Non-interventionism

“…Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of “realism”.

Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States’ interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.

Non-intervention is similar to isolationism. While isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies.

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

George Washington’s farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

John Adams followed George Washington’s ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France. Many Americans were clamoring for war and Adams refusal and persistence in seeking negotiation would lead his political rival Thomas Jefferson to take the presidency in the next election.[citation needed]

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s phrase “entangling alliances” is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[1]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to “join in a protest to the Tsar.”[2] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, “defending ‘our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'” and insisted that “[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”[2]

The United States’ policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.

20th century non-intervention

Theodore Roosevelt’s administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).

United States President Woodrow Wilson, after winning reelection with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” promptly, but reluctantly, intervened in World War I. Yet non-interventionist sentiment remained; the U.S. Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.

Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism Between the Two World Wars

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force. First, the United States Congress rejected president Woodrow Wilson’s most cherished condition of the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations. Many Americans felt that they did not need the rest of the world, and that they were fine making decisions concerning peace on their own.[3] Even though ‘anti-League’ was the policy of the nation, private citizens and lower diplomats either supported or observed the League.[4] This quasi-isolationism shows that the US was interested in foreign affairs, but was afraid that by pledging full support for the League, the United States would lose the ability to act on foreign policy as it pleased.

Although the United States was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they were willing to engage in foreign affairs on their own terms. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand.[5] This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.[6] For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.[7] The Kellogg-Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.

Isolationism took a new turn after the Crash of 1929. With the economic hysteria, the US began to focus solely on fixing its economy within its borders and ignored the outside world. As the world’s democratic powers were busy fixing their economies within their borders, the fascist powers of Europe and Asia silently moved their armies into a position to start World War II. With military victory came the spoils of war – a very draconian pummeling of Germany into submission, via the Treaty of Versailles. This near-total humiliation of Germany in the wake of World War I – as the treaty placed sole blame for the war on the nation – laid the groundwork for a pride-hungry German people to embrace Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Isolationism Just Before WWII

As Europe moved closer and closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress was doing everything it could to prevent it. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of the pro-Britain President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. These Acts did everything they could to delay U.S. entry into a European war. These Acts were not aimed at keeping America out of a modern world war, but the previous one.[8] For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations, potential causes for U.S. entry into war.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.[9] However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said.[10] Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.[11]

The war in Europe split the American people into two distinct groups: isolationists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America’s involvement in this Second World War. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France had fallen to the Germans, and Britain was the only democratic stronghold between Germany and the United States.[12] Interventionists feared that if Britain fell, their security as a nation would shrink immediately.[13] They were also afraid of a world after this war, a world where they would have to coexist with the fascist power of Europe. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”[14]

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers is what made the core of the interventionist argument. “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?”[15] writer Archibald MacLeish questioned. The reason why interventionists said we could not coexist with the fascist powers was not due to economic pressures or deficiencies in our armed forces but rather because it was the goal of fascist leaders to destroy the American ideology of democracy. In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “…the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”[16] It is not that the interventionists are war mongering and power hungry, it is that they are fearful for the preservation of the American way of life, after these years of war.

However, there were still many who held on to the age-old tenets of isolationism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress.[17] Isolationists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I.[18] Ultimately, it came down to the moral and physical separation of the United States from the rest of the world. “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,” Robert Hutschins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay.[19] Isolationists believed that our safety as a nation was more important than any foreign war.[20] The interesting thing is that the arguments the isolationists used in 1940 echoed the themes of Washington and Jefferson. Charles Lindbergh’s words in a 1940 speech, “…those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must … organize for strength,”[21] are not that different from Washington’s pleas for international isolation.

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.[17] This policy was quickly dubbed, ‘Cash and Carry.’[22] The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President, “…to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.’”[23] He used these two programs to side economically with the British and the French in their fight against the Nazis. In doing so, he made the American economy dependent upon an allied victory. In terms of policy, the United States was on a path to war but the American people still wished to avoid it at all costs, a wish that would come untrue.

Overt Military intervention since 1945

Both Republican and Democratic presidents who, since the 1950s, have often considered used military intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including in major cases: (in some cases the policies were continued by subsequent presidents.)[24]

  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1947 decision to NOT intervene militarily in the Chinese Civil War.
  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1950 intervention in Korea to stop the Communist invasion of South Korea, at UN direction
  • President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1954 decision to NOT intervene to support the French in Vietnam.
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Dominican Republic
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Vietnam
  • President John F. Kennedy’s intervention in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
  • President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 intervention in Grenada
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1991 intervention in Kuwait to liberate it from Iraqi occupiers, at UN direction
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1992 intervention in Somalia for humanitarian reasons, as directed by the UN Security Council
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1994 decision NOT to intervene in the Rwanda genocide
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1995 intervention in Bosnia, via NATO to prevent ethnic cleansing
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo and attacks on Serbia with NATO involvement
  • President George W. Bush’s 2001 intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban following the September 11 attacks.
  • President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein
  • President Barack Obama’s involvement in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Taxman Obama’s Hidden Tax Increase On The Rich That Results In Fewer Jobs And Lower Economic Growth vs. Ryan’s Long and Winding Road To Economic Stagnation vs. Senators Lee, DeMint and Paul’s Stairway To Peace and Prosperity With A Balanced Budget!–Videos

Posted on May 23, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 29:May 26, 2011 

 The Beatles – Taxman

One, two, three, four…
Hrmm!
One, two, (one, two, three, four!)

Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

(if you drive a car, car;) – I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) – I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) – I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) – I’ll tax your feet.

Taxman!

‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you’re working for no one but me.

Taxman!
 

The Contrast on Taxes – Pro-growth reform or Job Crushing Tax Hikes

 

The Budget Debate’s Missing Ingredient – Economic Growth

Paul Ryan at the Economic Club of Chicago: Shared Scarcity vs Renewed Prosperity

 

Neither higher taxes nor more deficits and a higher national debt are the path to economic growth and prosperity.

President Obama hides in his budget proposal a tax rate increase to 44% for the so-called rich whose businesses create wealth and jobs in America .

This is a great speech or talk by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Unfortunately, while Paul Ryan talks the talk, his proposed Republican Budget simply does not walk the walk.

Congressman Ryan hides the Republican Party’s deficit in the open yet the press cannot even figure it out.

The proposed Ryan Republican budget for fiscal year 2012 results in an estimated deficit of $995 billion dollars or about another $1,000 billion increase in the national debt.

Yes, this is better than President Obama’s estimated  Fiscal Year 2012 budget deficit of $1,101 billion.

Yet both proposed budgets are not fiscally responsible but business as usual for the Democratic and  Republican Party establishments.

Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party budget proposals are the road to peace and prosperity but a Tea Party budget with balanced budgets most definitely is:

Which Budgets Are Balanced And Living Within The Means of The American People?

Republican Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup

(Nominal Dollars in Billions)

Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,618 2,230 -1,388 10,351
2012 3,529 2,533 -995 11,418
2013 3,559 2,860 -699 12,217
2014 3,586 3,094 -492 12,801
2015 3,671 3,237 -434 13,326
2016 3,858 3,377 -481 13,886
2017 3,998 3,589 -408 14,363
2018 4,123 3,745 -379 14,800
2019 4,352 3,939 -414 15,254
2020 4,544 4,142 -402 15,681
2021 4,739 4,354 -385 16,071
2012-2021 39,958 34,870 -5,088 n.a.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Democratic Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,819 2,174 -1,645 10,856
2012 3,729 2,627 -1,101 11,881
2013 3,771 3,003 -768 12,784
2014 3,977 3,333 -646 13,562
2015 4,190 3,583 -607 14,301
2016 4,468 3,819 -649 15,064
2017 4,669 4,042 -627 15,795
2018 4,876 4,257 -619 16,513
2019 5,154 4,473 -681 17,284
2020 5,442 4,686 -735 18,103
2021 5,697 4,923 -774 18,967
2012-2021 45,952 38,747 -7,205 n.a.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Tea Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Surpluses Debt Held By Public
2012 2,500 2,500 0 10,900
2013 2,800 2,800 0 10,900
2014 3,000 3,000 0 10,900
2015 3,200 3,200 0 10,900
2016 3,300 3,300 0 10,900
2017 3,400 3,500 100 10,800
2018 3,500 3,700 200 10,600
2019 3,600 3,900 300 10,300
2020 3,700 4,000 300 10,000
2021 3,800 4,300 500 9,500
2012-2021 32,800 34,200 1,400 n.a.

The real problem is out of control government spending and unbalanced budgets for nearly three more decades.

Paul Ryan long and winding road to a balanced budget in twenty-five years or longer is not a path to prosperity but a road to economic stagnation and financial ruin for the United States.

I applaud Paul Ryan’s growth and jobs message.

However, more and more deficit spending and an ever increasing national debt are a recipe for failure.

Stop spinning and distracting  us Mr. Ryan.

Balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 or you too will be replaced with someone from the tea party movement who will balance the budget and really cut spending.

Senators DeMint, Lee and Paul are on the right track for a peace and prosperity balanced budget that would cut spending by permanently closing Federal Departments.

Rand Paul “I Don’t Think We’re On A Path To Balancing The Budget”

 

3/09/11: Sen. Rand Paul on balancing the budget

 

03/17/11: Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan

 

Rep. Garrett explains the RSC plan to balance the budget in less than ten years on “Stossel”

 

 However, five years is simply too slow and the cuts are too small.

The United States economy is on the brink of another recession that must be prevented by balancing the budget now to restore business and consumer confidence that Congress understands both the scope and urgency of problem.

Time is running out on both the Democratic and Republican Party establishment and their leadership.

With over thirty million American searching for a full time job, the American people will vote out of office both big spending Democrats and Republicans. 

Food and gasoline prices as well the prices of imports and other goods and service are going up as the Federal Reserve devalues the dollar by massively increasing the money supply with so-called qunatitative easing.

In other words the purchasing power of your money is falling in value to pay for the Federal Government’s out of control spending.

Ron Paul: There’s Too Much Bipartisanship in Spending and Welfare/Warfarism

 

Ron Paul: Fall of the Federal Empire

The tea party movement wants balanced budgets and absolutely no increase in the National Debt ceiling.

Any Republican or Democratic in the House or Senate that votes for unbalanced budgets starting in Fiscal Year 2012 and an increase in the National Debt ceiling should be voted out of office in the next election.

 

 

Rep. Garrett dissects the debt ceiling with Judge Napolitano

 

National Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Neither Taxman Obama nor The Long and Winding Road Ryan are the stairway to heaven with peace and prosperity. 

George Michael – The Long And Winding Road

 

The Beatles The Long & Winding Road (2009 Stereo Remaster)

The long and winding road
That leads to your door
Will never disappear
I’ve seen that road before
It always leads me here
Lead me to your door.

The wild and windy night
That the rain washed away
Has left a pool of tears
Crying for the day.
Why leave me standing here?
Let me know the way.

Many times I’ve been alone
And many times I’ve cried,
Anyway you’ll never know
The many ways I’ve tried.

And still they lead me back
To the long, winding road
You left me standing here
A long, long time ago
Don’t leave me waiting here
Lead me to your door.

But still they lead me back
To the long winding road
You left me standing here
A long, long time ago (ohhh)
Don’t keep me waiting here (don’t keep me waiting)
Lead me to your door. (yeah yeah yeah yeah)

 

The tea party movement and the American people are looking for the piper of living within ones means with balanced budgets and a dollar that is stable in value or purchasing power.

The American people will be calling the tune and throwing out of office both Democrats and Republicans who waste the people’s hard earned money on all that glitters–warfare and welfare.

The American people are looking for a rock and not being rolled by yet another articulate but fundamentally deceitful politician.

Led Zeppelin-Stairway to Heaven

“Stairway To Heaven”

There’s a lady who’s sure all that glitters is gold
And she’s buying the stairway to heaven.
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for.
Ooh, ooh, and she’s buying the stairway to heaven.

There’s a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In a tree by the brook, there’s a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There’s a feeling I get when I look to the west,
And my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

And it’s whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter.

If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,
It’s just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.
And it makes me wonder.

Your head is humming and it won’t go, in case you don’t know,
The piper’s calling you to join him,
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind.

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold.
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll.

And she’s buying the stairway to heaven.

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

47% See Major Changes in Defense, Social Security, Medicare As Necessary to Big Budget Cuts, 36% Don’t

“…Most voters know they want to cut government spending in a serious way, but despite the ongoing national budget-cutting debate, they don’t seem to recognize what that’s going to take.

The majority of U.S. federal spending is allotted to national defense, Social Security and Medicare. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 47% of Likely U.S. Voters correctly recognize that it is necessary to make major changes in those areas to make truly significant long-term cuts in government spending. Thirty-six percent (36%) don’t believe big changes in these three areas are needed, while another 17% aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This marks virtually no change from early April but shows increased voter awareness from February of last year.

The most high-profile plan for changing Medicare that’s currently on the table is the one proposed by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. That plan, which includes allowing individuals to purchase private health insurance as an alternative and raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, has been denounced by most Democrats and even has drawn the criticism of Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.

But despite the attention politicians and pundits are giving Ryan’s plan, public views of it are virtually unchanged from late last month. Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters continue to favor Ryan’s budget proposal, while 34% are opposed to it. The plurality (40%) is not sure what they think of the plan. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/may_2011/47_see_major_changes_in_defense_social_security_medicare_as_necessary_to_big_budget_cuts_36_don_t

 
 

Will ‘Watchdog’ Media Report on Obama’s Stealth Tax Hike?

By Lachlan Markay | May 23, 2011

“…New facts released by the office of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reveal a hidden tax increase in President Obama’s budget proposal. Obama’s plan would, these facts demonstrate, impose a 20 percent increase in the top income tax rate – a significantly greater increase than the president has admitted.

The news media fancies itself a watchdog, so if the president is going to dramatically hike taxes, one would hope that Americans would hear about it first. But thus far, there has been almost no coverage of these stealth tax hikes. On Monday, Washington Post fact-checker Greg Kessler confirmed the veracity of Ryan’s claims. Whether other major media outlets report on them will be the true test.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/05/23/will-watchdog-media-report-obamas-stealth-tax-hike#ixzz1NDysW22U

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Herman Cain–The Tea Party Movement Candidate–Running On Cutting Spending, Opposing Higher Debt Ceiling, Enforcing Immigration Laws, Defunding Planned Parenthood, Nominating Pro Life Judges, And Passing The FairTax–Common Sense Solutions!–Videos

Posted on May 23, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 29:May 26, 2011  

 

Who is Herman Cain ?

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Cain

 

Herman Cain on Taxes

 

Herman Cain on Jack Kemp

 

Herman Cain on ABC This Week panel June 5, 2011

 

Herman Cain 2012 Event! 1 of 3

 

 

2011 NRA Annual Meetings – Herman Cain – Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum

 

Herman Cain: “Priorities”

Herman Cain on America Live

 

 Herman Cain on Sean Hannity – 5/23/11

 

 

Fox News Sunday – Exclusive With Herman Cain May 22 2011

 

Just Herman Cain’s Answers in First Republican Debate for 2012

 

All Ron Paul 2012 Presidential debate answers full HQ

 

Frank Luntz Focus Group Picks Winner of First GOP Debate!

 

Herman Cain: We Need to Secure the Border With Technology and Guns

 

Herman Cain – Immigration

 

Herman Cain Explains the Fair Tax

 

Herman Cain Discusses Fair Tax with Neil Cavuto

 

Herman Cain on Second Amendment and Abortion

 

 

Herman Cain Talks Social Issues

 

Herman Cain says if he runs for President he would defund Planned Parenthood

 

America Loves Herman Cain!

 

Herman Cain – We need to return to Gold Standard and Eliminate the Debt

 

 

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Is America Ready for Common Sense Solutions?

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

My favorites candidates for the office of President of The United States are Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

The one thing all three have in common is character and integrity.

The one thing all three do not have is the support of the Republican Party establishment in Washington, D.C.

All three are pro life and would defund Planned Parenthood, all three want Federal Government spending cut with no increase in the National debt ceiling, and all three favor lower taxation and comprehensive income tax reform such as the FairTax

All three would make an outstanding President of the United States.

While my dream ticket is Ron Paul as the  candidate for President and Michele Bachmann as the candidate for Vice-President on the Republican Party ticket, Herman Cain would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury Department or Chairman of the Republican Party.

Let the American people decide for themselves who is the best candidate.

 

Background Articles and Videos

Rush Limbaugh – Herman Cain Is Serious Snerdley

 

Herman Cain versus Bill Clinton

 

Herman Cain – Bill Bennett – May 11, 2011

 

Glenn Beck Loves Herman Cain

 

 

Mark Levin Interviews Herman Cain

 

Herman Cain – Laura Ingraham

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 1

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 2

 

Herman Cain

“…Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, political activist, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2] Cain’s newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[3]

Background

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[4][5] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.[2] He was raised in Georgia.[6] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[7] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May 2005).

Business career

After completing his master’s degree from Purdue, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for The Coca-Cola Company as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain’s leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather’s to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather’s from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather’s.[8]

Cain became a member of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and served as its chairman from January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics.[9] Cain was a 1996 recipient of the Horatio Alger Award.[10]

Media work

Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a Cox Radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded “Hermanator’s Intelligent Thinkers Movement” (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping government spending, and Restructuring Social Security.[11]

Political activities

 Role in the defeat of the Clinton health care plan

Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. While president-elect of the National Restaurant Association he challenged Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the bill, criticizing its effect on small businesses. Cain has been described as one of the primary “saboteurs” of the plan:

The Clintons would later blame “Harry and Louise,” the fictional couple in the ads aired by the insurance industry, for undermining health reform. But the real saboteurs are named Herman and John. Herman Cain is the president of Godfather’s Pizza and president-elect of the National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the “employer mandate.” Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted. “Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate,” he told the president. “In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn’t work that way.”[12]

Joshua Green of The Atlantic has called Cain’s exchange with Clinton his “auspicious debut on the national political stage.”[13]

1996 Senior Adviser of Dole/Kemp Campaign

Cain was a senior economic adviser to the Dole/ Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.[14]

2004 U.S. Senate candidacy

Main article: United States Senate election in Georgia, 2004

In 2004, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, pursuing the seat that came open with the retirement of Democrat Zell Miller. Cain sought the Republican nomination, facing congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins in the primary. Cain and Collins both hoped to deny Isakson a majority on primary day in order to force him into a runoff.[citation needed] Collins tried to paint Cain as a moderate,[15] citing Cain’s support for affirmative action programs, while Cain argued that he was a conservative, noting that he opposed the legality of abortion even in cases of rape and incest.[16] Cain finished second in the primary with 26.2% of the vote, ahead of Collins, who won 20.6%, but because Isakson won 53.2% of the vote, Isakson was able to avoid a runoff.[17]

 2012 presidential candidacy

Main article: Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012

In 2010, “Cain addressed more than 40 Tea Party rallies, hit all the early presidential states, and became a YouTube sensation.”[6] In April, he teased the audience at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference about his being a possible 2012 presidential candidate by saying that there may be a “dark horse candidate.”[18][19] On September 24, 2010, Cain announced that he was considering a run for president in 2012 on the Republican Party ticket.[20] “In December, he was the surprise choice for 2012 GOP nominee in a reader poll on the conservative Web site RedState.com, narrowly edging out Palin.”[6]

Cain announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on January 12, 2011 on the Fox News Channel program Your World with Neil Cavuto.[21] [22]

Cain supports a non-federally subsidized efficient economic stimulus, saying: “We could grow this economy faster if we had bolder, more direct stimulus policies,” criticizing President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan as simply a “spending bill” instead of meaningful stimulus through permanent tax cuts.[23]

In December 2010, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review wrote of Cain: “it’s hard to imagine him amounting to more than an exciting also-ran.”[24]

In February 2011, Cain addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).[25] Ed Morrisey of the conservative website Hot Air said he “stole the show” and that some attendees were moved to tears by the speech.[26] In contrast, liberal website AlterNet accused Cain of pandering to white conservatives and referred to him and other black conservatives as “garbage pail kids”. Cain called the news website’s attacks racist and condemned its “shameful behavior”.[27]

Following a number of comments made by Cain regarding his attitudes toward Muslim people, he was asked in March 2011 if he would feel comfortable appointing a Muslim to his administration or as a Judge. Cain said “No, I will not … There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt, to gradually ease Shariah Law, and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government”[28][29] and he went on to cite court cases in Oklahoma[30] and New Jersey as evidence.[31] This led to criticisms of “bigotry” and “muslim bashing” from CAIR, whose spokesperson stated “It would be laughable if it weren’t having such a negative impact on the lives of Muslim Americans”.[32][33]

On May 5, 2011 Fox News presented a presidential campaign debate. Cain was one of five potential candidates who participated. (The others were Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Gary E. Johnson and Rick Santorum as the higher-profile candidates declined Fox’s invitation.) Cain was declared the winner by pollster Frank Luntz after a show of hands among 29 debate witnesses who were chosen by Fox to act as a post-performance focus group.[34][35] …”

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

 

 

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

 

Herman Cain: Liberals ‘Don’t Want People to Know the Truth’

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Leave It To Beaver–Newt Gingrich–The Beaver Puppet of The Republican Washington D.C. Establishment Political Class With It Social Engineered Warfare and Welfare Economy with A $3,500 Billion Unbalanced Budget For Fiscal Year 2012 with Nearly $1,000 Billion In Deficit Spending!–Videos

Posted on May 17, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 28:May 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 27:May 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 26:May 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-28

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

THE BEAVER – Trailer

 

  

“…One other trend is that Americans are becoming more averse to partisan labels. While Republican affiliation has fallen by four points since 2005 to 25, and Democratic affiliation dropped by a point to 32 percent, the number of independents rose 7 point to 37 percent. (These numbers do not square with the ones in the chart because they reflect polling in the first quarter of 2011, and not annual averages used in the typology studies).

On the pivotal issue of the role of government, 96 percent of Staunch Conservatives and 74 percent of Main Street Republicans want a smaller government providing fewer services. Among Democrats, 53 percent of the Hard Pressed, 65 percent of New Coalitioners and 74 percent of Solid Liberals favor bigger government providing more services.

The majority of independents want smaller government, with 84 percent of Libertarians holding that view, far higher than the other independent “types.” …”

http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/05/04/clashing-views-of-government-deepening-the-political-divide/

Gingrich: GOP Budget Plan Is “Right-Wing Social Engineering”

Newt Gingrich’s scathing criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget has House Republicans peeved

Paul Ryan Defends Against Newt Gingrich Attack

Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich Square Off

Bill Bennett Interviews Newt Gingrich about His Paul Ryan Comments

Newt Gingrich Tries to Rehabilitate Himself on the Mark Levin Show in Wake of Ryan Disaster

Rush Limbaugh – Newt Gingrich Trying To Carve Himself Out A Place In The Campaign

The Real Newt Gingrich (complete film)

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 2

 

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 3

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 4

Larry McDonald – John Birch Society Chairman – CFR NWO 1983 1/2

Larry McDonald – John Birch Society Chairman – CFR NWO 1983 2/2

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
~Thomas Jefferson

The Republican Party establishment or political class in Washington D.C. is out of touch with the American people.

Many long time members of the conservative movement who in the past voted Republican, now consider themselves independents and support the tea party movement.

After twelve years of the Bushes with their wars,  unbalanced budgets, deficit spending, growing national debt and low economic growth rates, conservatives and libertarians concluded that the Republican Party was deeply penetrated by big government interventionist who in the past were called progressives and/or Rockefeller Republicans–and are now called country club Republicans or Republicans In Name Only–RINOS.

Smart and wise conservatives and libertarians recognized that the two-party system in the United States made it difficult if not impossible to win as a third-party candidate.

If you wanted to run for public office such as for Congress, the Senate or for President of the United States, you had no choice but to run on the Republican ticket.

This meant fighting the Republican establishment progressives or big government interventionists in primaries just to get on the ballot.

After the elections of 2006 and 2008, the Republican Party brand was damaged as both conservatives and libertarians left the Republican Party having concluded they were betrayed by the Republican Party establishment in Washington D.C.

Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, Debt Ceiling

Rand Paul “Republicans & Democrats Have Been On A Drunken Spending Spree Up Here”

The tea party movement became the new home of both former Republicans and Democrats who strongly felt that their political parties had left them.

George Wallace, who was  elected Governor of Alabama four times and ran for President of the United States four times,  once said “There’s not a dimes worth of difference” between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Wallace was echoing Huey Long who was a one-term Governor and one term Senator of  Louisiana before he was assassinated in September 1935:

With inflation the difference between the Republican Party proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012 and  the Democratic Party or President Obama’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012 has grown to about $200 billion.

Both the Republican and Democratic Party Fiscal Year 2012 budgets are massively unbalanced.

Both the Republican and Democratic Party Fiscal Year 2012 budgets run deficits of about $1,000 and $1,200 billion respectively and which in turn increases the National Debt by the same amount.

Both the Republican and Democratic Party Fiscal Year 2012 budgets are living beyond the means of the American people to pay for in taxes and are fiscally irresponsible.

Which Budgets Are Balanced And Living Within The Means of The American People?

Republican Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup

(Nominal Dollars in Billions)

Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,618 2,230 -1,388 10,351
2012 3,529 2,533 -995 11,418
2013 3,559 2,860 -699 12,217
2014 3,586 3,094 -492 12,801
2015 3,671 3,237 -434 13,326
2016 3,858 3,377 -481 13,886
2017 3,998 3,589 -408 14,363
2018 4,123 3,745 -379 14,800
2019 4,352 3,939 -414 15,254
2020 4,544 4,142 -402 15,681
2021 4,739 4,354 -385 16,071
2012-2021 39,958 34,870 -5,088 n.a.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Democratic Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,819 2,174 -1,645 10,856
2012 3,729 2,627 -1,101 11,881
2013 3,771 3,003 -768 12,784
2014 3,977 3,333 -646 13,562
2015 4,190 3,583 -607 14,301
2016 4,468 3,819 -649 15,064
2017 4,669 4,042 -627 15,795
2018 4,876 4,257 -619 16,513
2019 5,154 4,473 -681 17,284
2020 5,442 4,686 -735 18,103
2021 5,697 4,923 -774 18,967
2012-2021 45,952 38,747 -7,205 n.a.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Tea Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Surpluses Debt Held By Public
2012 2,500 2,500 0 10,900
2013 2,800 2,800 0 10,900
2014 3,000 3,000 0 10,900
2015 3,200 3,200 0 10,900
2016 3,300 3,300 0 10,900
2017 3,400 3,500 100 10,800
2018 3,500 3,700 200 10,600
2019 3,600 3,900 300 10,300
2020 3,700 4,000 300 10,000
2021 3,800 4,300 500 9,500
2012-2021 32,800 34,200 1,400 n.a.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party’s beaver puppet, to the tea party movement and American people was wrong when he labelled the Republican Party’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget of Paul Ryan “right-wing social engineering”.

The Paul Ryan and Republican Party budget is the social engineering of the Republican Party establishment in  that the budget protects the massively bloated bureaucracy and budget baseline.

Cutting the rate of growth in the budget baseline by over $6,000 billion sounds impressive but it really is only business as usual.

These so-called cuts are not real cuts or lower year to year budget outlays.

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Tea party conservatives and libertarians are not asking, they are demanding massive cuts in the budget baseline or Federal Government spending and balanced budgets starting in Fiscal Year 2012.

Tea party conservatives and libertarians are insisting that eight to ten Federal Departments be closed permanently.

Tea party conservatives and libertarians are demanding these changes before the Republican establishment even mentions entitlement reforms to Social Security and Medicare.

If the tea party conservatives and libertarians do not get them, they will vote out of office any Republican or Democratic Representative and Senator who votes for an increase in the National Debt ceiling and the massively bloated Fiscal Year 2012 unbalanced budget.

The tea party movement is not falling for either  Newt Gingrich, The Beaver puppet of the Republican establishment, nor Paul Ryan’s twenty-five years to a balanced budget pathway to prosperity.

If the Republican Party establishment cannot balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 then the tea party movement will find people who will in future years.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties still do not get.

Both Senator Rand Paul and Ron Paul do get it as well as the urgency of the situation.

Rand Paul ‘It’s Amazing To Me To Be Lectured To Hear About How Awful The Tea Party Is’ 4/15/11

Neither Bill Bennet nor Mark Levin nor Rush Limbaugh are pointing out to the audiences that the Republican Party or Paul Ryan’s proposed budgets are massively out of balance and would not balance for over twenty-five years.

May I suggest these talk show hosts do their homework before singing the praises of Paul Ryan or criticising Newt Gingrich, who at least got it half right.

Ryan’s or the Republican Party’s proposed budgets are not courageous, serious or balanced–these budget are fiscally irresponsible and living way beyond the means of the American people.

The days or wine and roses are over.

Stop spending and start balancing the budget or you will be replaced.

The tea party movement will be replacing the current puppet in the White House in 2012 with a person who talks the talk and walks the walk–a fiscally responsible conservative or libertarian.

“If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely.”

~Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 5

NPR on Ron Paul: Why The Young Flock To An Old Idealist

Ron Paul: The ‘Status Quo’ Is My Toughest Competition

Ronald Reagan on Limited Government

 

Background Articles and Videos

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 1/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 2/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 3/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 4/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 5/5

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489

For a history of the Federal Government’s Receipts (Revenues), Outlays, and Deficits and Surpluses

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Ryan Unveils Much Anticipated 2012 Budget Plan

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Newt Gingrich Running For President As A Big Govenment Interventionist Republican Progressive aka Green “Compassionate” Conservative?–Favors Individual Health Care Mandates While Attacking Paul Ryan As A Right Wing Radical Social Engineer For Proposing A Premium Support or $15,000 Voucher System To Save Medicare From Bankruptcy!–Videos

Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

National Debt Ceiling Hit–No More Increases In The National Debt Ceiling–Live Within Your Means By Balanced Budgets–Spending=Tax Revenues–Videos

Posted on May 16, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 28:May 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 27:May 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 26:May 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-28

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576325583050561022.html

 

U.S. Debt Clock 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

The National Debt Crisis

 

Obama/Boehner’s Phony Spending Cuts

 

Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, Debt Ceiling

 

 

The Federal Debt Limit and Credible Commitment

 

Ron Paul On Raising the Debt Ceiling

 

Charles Krauthammer With Hannity: “Debt Ceiling Disaster!”

 

Debt Ceiling Debate [NBC: 5-09-2011]

 

Boehner: Ready to cut a deal on debt limit

 

Peter Schiff: “Refuse to allow the debt ceiling to be raised”

 

U.S. Senator Mike Lee Proposes a Constitutional Amendment to Limit Congress’ Spending

 

Spend, Spend, Spend

 

The Tea Party vs. John Boehner

 

US Debt Ceiling is $14.3 Trillion

 

The Debt Limit: Made Simple

 

Rep. Ryan on Debt Ceiling: “You Can’t Tax Your Way Out of This Problem”

 

Ron Paul: I’ll Vote Against Raising the Debt Limit

 

 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
                                                  STAR – TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  04/11

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   135,293                311,656                176,363
     NOVEMBER                                                              133,563                253,850                120,287
     DECEMBER                                                               218,919                 310,329                 91,410
     JANUARY                                                                205,239                247,873                 42,634
     FEBRUARY                                                              107,520                328,429                220,909
     MARCH                                                                     153,358                  218,745                 65,387
     APRIL                                                                        245,260                 327,950                 82,689
     MAY                                                                           146,794                 282,721                135,927
     JUNE                                                                           251,048                319,470                 68,422
     JULY                                                                           155,546                320,588                165,043
     AUGUST                                                                    163,998                254,524                 90,526
     SEPTEMBER                                                            245,207                279,813                 34,607

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                         2,161,746              3,455,949              1,294,204

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   145,951                286,384                140,432
     NOVEMBER                                                               148,970              299,364                150,394
     DECEMBER                                                                236,875              315,009                 78,134
     JANUARY                                                                 226,550              276,346                 49,796
     FEBRUARY                                                               110,656               333,156                222,500
     MARCH                                                                      150,894               339,047                188,153
     APRIL                                                                         289,543               330,030                 40,488

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                     1,309,439              2,179,337                869,898

 

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0411.txt

 

 

 

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985