"End This Depression Now" by Paul Krugman

Mustang

Gold Member
Jan 15, 2010
9,257
3,230
315
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Attention: This is a BOOK review, not an attempt to engage in a political argument! I can understand the other thread being moved to "Economy" and merged with a different thread since the original thread did not START with a book review, but I added one about half a dozen posts into it, and this is that same review. Consequently, I would appreciate it if the review could stand instead of being buried on post #316 of another thread where nobody could possibly find a review of the book if that's what they were looking for.


I suppose that anyone who knows of Paul Krugman knows he's a columnist for economic and political matters (they're often interrelated) at the NYT, an unabashed Keynesian economist, an author of several books, and a recent recipient of a Nobel Prize in economics in 2008, as well as an occasional TV pundit. He's also routinely denounced by conservatives for many, if not most, of his positions, which is a shame considering that, regarding economic policy, he's routinely taken on Democrats as well as Republicans for years simply because he dislikes bad economic policy, regardless of which political party is pushing it. I get the impression that's because he believes that, too often, public policy is championed for reasons other than its merits. For example, sometimes people push certain policies because they benefit one group or segment of society. Sometimes it's because it's an ideological belief. Sometimes it's simply a lack of a working knowledge of both economics and the historical record of what has worked and what didn't work in previous recessions.

While I've read the occasional column by Krugman, I had never read any of his books. This particular book was just published (April 30, 2012) and it seemed timely considering the current ongoing debate on how to revive the economy. I was also struck by the title (which I don't particular like) because I perceived it as essentially a plea for attention, or at least for serious consideration. But Krugman's title is meant more to describe the human toll that the economic downturn is having on families as opposed to a textbook definition of the state of the economy.

In the book Krugman offers an explanation of our current economic crisis, how we got here, and how best to get out of it. In fact, he states several times that we really don't have to be going through this extended economic downturn at all. He offers historical perspective going back to before the great depression, and an analysis of differing approaches and offers his ideas for how best to solve our current economic problems.

The book is intentionally written for the layperson. While there are a few graphs and charts (I would have preferred more, frankly), there's no math or complicated economic theorems to make the eyes glaze over. It's basically written in a very straightforward style.

Of course Krugman discusses the concept of austerity and the notion of cutting back on national debt immediately as a way of addressing our current problems. And needless to say, Krugman is highly critical of that approach. He offers several example of how and why those policies would have the exact opposite of the intended consequences. Said plainly, Krugman states that such policies will only serve to dig us into a deeper hole. (But that doesn't mean our country won't try it anyway, does it?).

That's not to say that Krugman doesn't think that our huge debt problem needs to be addressed. He does. He just doesn't think it's anywhere near being our most pressing problem, and he offers economic numbers to support his case. And like I said earlier, he says that attacking the debt problem at the wrong time (now) will only make our worst problem (the anemic recovery) worse still.

Krugman also tackles a number of economic myths, both American and European, which he says are getting in the way of solving the economic problems simply because the decision makers don't have an accurate understanding of what the problem is. And as everyone knows, if you don't identify the core problem and how and why it developed in the first place, you're probably not going to make any progress in solving the problem unless blind luck or providence lend a hand.

One of the European myths Krugman tackles is that all the European countries are in trouble because of profligate spending. Untrue, he says. While some countries like Greece have caused many of their own problems, other countries like Spain had actually been paying down their debt relative to GDP for years when the economic crisis struck. In other words, it was the economic crisis which led to the debt crisis, not the other way around.

The one part of the book that I found particular surprising (don't ask me why) was Krugman's chapter on Austerians (Ch 11) where he gives a number of reasons why people embrace austerity. Of course ignorance of economics and history both play a role. Krugman also makes a good case that there's an emotional desire to 'punish bad nations' by making them suffer for their perceived economic sins despite the fact that they're often not at fault for the problem and that it's a counterproductive approach. But more disturbing still is Krugman's belief that powerful people have an economic interest in preventing a recovery even though a recovery would also help them as well as everyone else. If true, I guess we should never underestimate the possibility that powerful people may have suspect motives when their self-interest conflicts with the common good.

Krugman also discusses why the European Union's adoption of the Euro as a common currency is causing so many problems for Europe. For example, he points out that if all the countries still had their own currencies, countries like Greece could devalue their currency relative to the rest of Europe, and that's now that's not an option for any country that uses the Euro.

Despite all the other reasons to read this book, it's worth reading if for no other reason than to better understand the nature of the liquidity trap in which we currently find ourselves, and that's tackled very early in the book.

It's only 238 pp, and it's a great primer in understanding our current economic doldrums.
 
Last edited:
So it's not the debt itself, it's having the debt during a recession? Is THAT what he said?

If so then the solution would be to have no debt ever since you don't know when the recessions are gonna' be?

Right?
 
So it's not the debt itself, it's having the debt during a recession? Is THAT what he said?

If so then the solution would be to have no debt ever since you don't know when the recessions are gonna' be?

Right?

No, that's not it.

One of the points of focusing on growing the economy first (as opposed to trying to pay down the debt even as the economy may be contracting) is because the debt goes down (as opposed to going up) as a percentage of GDP.
 
Granny still waitin' fer her 2nd stimulus check...
:eusa_eh:
The $64,000 Question: How Much Has Debt Increased Per Taxpayer Under Obama?
July 12, 2012 - The national debt has now increased by more than $64,000 per federal taxpayer since Barack Obama was inaugurated president.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the U.S. Treasury, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. By the close of business on July 10, 2012, that debt had climbed to $15,885,854,755,351.47—an increase of $5,258,977,706,438.39. In “Statistics of Income—2009 Individual Income Tax Returns,” which was published this year and is the Internal Revenue Service’s most recent statistical report on individual income tax data, the IRS reported that there were 81,890,189 tax returns filed in 2009 that reported taxable income. If each of these 81,890,189 federal taxpayers were given responsibility for paying off an equal share of the new federal debt added since Obama was inaugurated, they would each need to pay about $64,219.88.

If each of these 81,890,189 federal taxpayers were given responsibility for paying off an equal share of the entire federal debt of $15,885,854,755,351.47, they would each need to pay about $193,989.72 A Republican majority was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2010 and took office in January 2011. Because the previous Congress had passed a continuing resolution that kept the federal government funded until March 4, 2011, the Republican-majority House did not gain legislative responsibility over federal spending until that date. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” A law appropriating money cannot be enacted unless it is approved by the House.

Since the Republican-majority in the House effectively gained its constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government has been funded under a series of spending deals negotiated between the House Republican leadership, the Senate Democratic leadership and President Obama. At the close of business on March 4, 2011, when the first spending deal approved by the Republican House leaders took effect, the total debt of the federal government was $14,182,627,184,881.03. Since then, it has increased by $1,703,227,570,470.44. That $1,703,227,570,470.44 increase in the debt while the Republican-majority House had responsibility for spending bills equals $20,798.92 for each of the 81,890,189 taxpayers who paid federal taxes in 2009.

The median household income in the United States in 2009, according to the Census Bureau, was $49,777. That means the median household would have needed to work all of one year and then the first 106 days of another year and then give all of their earnings from that time period to the federal government just to pay off the $64,219.88 in new federal debt per taxpayer piled up since Obama’s inauguration. To pay off the federal government’s total debt of $193,989.72 per taxpayer, the median household making $49,777 in 2009 would need to give the government all of its earnings for a period of almost four years (3.897 years).

Source

See also:

Americans Will Work More than 6 Months to Pay Cost of Gov't in 2012
July 12, 2012 – This year, Americans have to work until July 15 to pay for the burden of government, more than six months.
In a new report, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated that Americans will spend a total of 197 days toiling to pay for the cost of government.

"Cost of Government Day is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burden imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels," reads the report.

The report, Cost of Government Day, shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

"From a different perspective, the cost of government makes up 54.0 percent of annual gross domestic product (GDP)," reads the report. "What's more, the largest tax hike in the nation's history is scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 unless Congress acts to protect taxpayers. If this tax increase is allowed to hit, COGD [Cost of Government Day] could permanently be pushed back into August and beyond."

Source
 
6 trillion more in debt since 2008...
:omg:
Debt Up $6.35T Since Ryan Predicted--in 2008-U.S. Was Headed Toward Bankruptcy
August 11, 2012 : Rep. Paul Ryan, whom Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has picked as his running mate, told CNSNews.com four years ago, in August 2008, that the U.S. was heading toward bankruptcy on the fiscal path it was then following and that it would be “mindboggling” to make the problem worse by adding the sort of health-care plan that then-Sen. Barack Obama was advocating in his presidential campaign.
CNSNews.com asked Ryan: “If our country, if the federal government of the United States, stays on the fiscal path it is currently following, is the government going to go bankrupt down the road?" “Yes. We know that for a fact,” said Ryan. “All the actuaries, all the objective score-keepers of the federal government are predicting this. So, this much we know. What we know is our government is growing at an unsustainable pace and it will overwhelm our economy’s ability to pay the bills.” Since CNSNews.com first published Ryan making this prediction on Aug. 4, 2008, the debt of the federal government has grown by $6.35 trillion--rising 66 percent, from $9,565,042,361,845.53 then to $15,915,814,457,919.46 now.

Ryan then pointed out that estimates by the Government Accountability Office at that time indicated that the U.S. government already faced $53 trillion in unfunded liability to pay the promises it had made through entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Each year the government put off dealing with these problems, Ryan said, the unfunded liabilities would increase by $3 trillion. To pay for these government promises without reforming the entitlement programs themselves, Ryan explained, would require imposing massive tax increases on future generations of Americans.

Ryan said he had asked the Congressional Budget Office to calcuate what the tax rates would need to be on Americans of his childrens’ generation to pay for the entitlement promises the government had already made. “Well, what they told me was really startling,” said Ryan. “They said that the current low rate, the 10 percent bracket for low-income Americans, would have to go up to 25 percent. The middle-income tax rates for middle-income Americans would have to go up to 66 percent. And the top rate, which is what small businesses pay, would have to go up to 88 percent. Those would be the tax rates you would have to if you wanted to tax your way out of this problem. And if you did that, all experts conclude you would literally crash the American economy.”

If we continued down the fiscal road we were on, Ryan said, America would be bankrupted and the children and grandchildren of his generation would be forced into a lower standard of living than Americans have enjoyed in the past. “What is happening is that these three entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—are going to basically to crowd out the rest of the federal budget,” said Ryan. “In about 30 years, they consume 100 percent of the budget. Right now, entitlements are about 60 percent of the federal budget. In about 20 to 30 years, the estimates are that they crowd out 100 percent of the federal budget.

MORE

See also:

Obama Requests $542 Million In Housing Aid for Drug Addicts
August 9, 2012 -- President Barack Obama has requested over half-a-billion dollars for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs that provide housing assistance to homeless or HIV-positive people in drug treatment.
For the Fiscal Year 2013 National Drug Control budget, Obama has requested $25.6 billion, including $542.4 million to fund HUD programs that provide housing to individuals in drug treatment, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which is charged with developing that budget. According to the ONDCP, the requested FY 2013 budget will “reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States.” (The fiscal year 2013 runs from Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2013.) The $542.4 million in drug control funding for HUD marks an estimated 18 percent increase of $96.4 million over the FY 2012 enacted level of $446 million. Specifically, the nearly half-billion dollars in FY 2013 taxpayer-funds will be used to support programs that provide housing assistance under the Community Planning and Development Program to people with AIDS and homeless persons, a HUD spokesperson explained in an e-mail to CNSNews.com.

The drug control funding for HUD is used by the Community Planning and Development Program component to support, specifically, two housing assistance initiatives: The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and the Continuum of Care-homeless assistance programs, Jereon Brown, a HUD spokesperson, told CNSNews.com. According to Brown, the HOPWA “provides critical resources that reduce homelessness and provide affordable housing for economically vulnerable households who are living with and are often disabled by HIV infection, poverty, and co-occurring chronic illnesses.” The Continuum of Care programs for the homeless are “designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long-term basis for homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those with serious mental illness, chronic problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and AIDS or related diseases),” added the spokesperson. “With 28 percent of the persons using housing under these programs having a demonstrated substance-use disorder, the Strategy specifically calls for programs to prevent homelessness as a step toward recovery from addiction. Finding stable and affordable housing is among the most difficult barriers for individuals in recovery to overcome.”

HUD “provides housing for those in drug-treatment programs,” said Brown when CNSNews.com asked whether the department also funds drug treatment given to people receiving assistance under HOPWA and Continuum of Care. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is charged with developing the National Drug Control Budget, which is aimed at fighting the war against drugs in the United States through treatment and enforcement. The ONCDP represents the executive branch’s drug control policies. In a July 6 report on the president’s latest drug control strategy, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted that, “ONDCP provides advice and government-wide oversight of drug programs and is responsible for coordinating drug control activities, including federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and related funding across the federal government.”

The “ONDCP is required annually to develop the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy), which sets forth a plan to reduce illicit drug use through prevention, treatment, and law enforcement programs, and to develop a Drug Control Budget for implementing the Strategy,” stated the GAO. Most of the drug control funding for federal drug interdiction, enforcement, treatment, and prevention programs are handled by the Department of Heath and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education. In its FY 2013 Drug Control Budget request, the White House is requesting about $9.2 billion for treatment, $1.4 billion for prevention, $9.4 billion for domestic law enforcement, $3.7 billion for interdiction, and $1.2 billion for international efforts. According to the latest federal data, the economic impact that illegal drug use has on the United States, including the cost of crime, health care, and loss of productivity, was estimated to be at more than $193 billion in 2007.

Source
 
Last edited:
Krugman is an idiot! - Famous Paul Krugman quotes from 2001 as he was begging the Fed to create the housing bubble.

- Die Zeit, Germany: (February 2001) - “During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”

- New York Times: (May 2, 2001) - "I’ve always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly — that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.

However, let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed’s four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It’s still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let’s have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.

If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come."

- CNN: (July 18, 2001) - “KRUGMAN: I think frankly it’s got to be — business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?

KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”

- CNN: (August 8th, 2001) - “KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”

- New York Times: (August 14, 2001) - “Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.

- New York Times: (Sept. 14, 2001) - The broken-window fallacy by professor Paul Krugman after 9/11: "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could do some economic good." He went on to note how rebuilding would stimulate the economy by business investment and job creation.

- New York Times: (October 7, 2001) - “Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.

In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”

- New York Times: (Dec 28, 2001) - "The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
 
Granny says she ain't got dat kinda money - make dem politicians an' Wall St. bankers an' rich company owners dats been outsourcin' our jobs an' not payin' dey's fair share o' taxes pay fer gettin' us into dis mess...
:mad:
U.S. Debt On Track to Hit $16 Trillion Within Week
August 26, 2012 - The federal government’s debt could hit an unprecedented $16 trillion this week while the Republican Party is holding its national convention in Tampa, Fla.—in a hall that will prominently feature a running debt clock.
At the close of business on Thursday, Aug. 23, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government’s debt stood at $15,976,519,029,144.14. That left it $23,480,970,855.86 short of the $16 trillion mark. So far in this fiscal year (from Oct. 1 through Aug. 23), the debt has grown by an average of $3,616,398,477.40 per calendar day ($1,186,178,700,586.99 divided by 328 days). Were the debt to grow at that pace in the week following last Thursday’s close of $15.976 trillion, it would hit $16 trillion this Thursday--the day Mitt Romney is scheduled to give his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination.

However, the debt does not grow in a steady, unbroken daily pace. Instead, it expands and retracts from day to day during the business week depending on the value of the bonds the U.S. Treasury sells and redeems. On a day that the Treasury derives more revenue from selling bonds than it pays out to redeem bonds, the debt increases. Last Wednesday, for example, the debt actually declined by almost $9.7 billion--from $15,970,134,937,605.00 to $15,960,468,522,111.20—as the Treasury redeemed bonds of greater value than it sold. However, on Thursday, the debt increased by slightly more than $16 billion, ending that day at $15,976,519,029,144.14.

Also, the Treasury does not report the value of the debt reached at the close of any business day until 4:00 pm on the following business day. For example, the value of the government’s debt as of the close of business on Friday will not be officially reported by the Treasury until 4:00 pm on Monday—and the value of the debt as of the close of business this Thursday will not be reported until 4:00 pm this Friday. Since Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt has increased $5,349,641,980,231.06. That is as much as the entire debt accumulated by the United States from the founding of the country in 1776 until Feb. 28, 1997, when President Bill Clinton was in his second term.

Thus, under Obama, the debt has increased more than under all presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined. During President George W. Bush’s two terms in office, the debt increased $4,899,100,310,608.44. That is also more than all the debt accumulated by all previous presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined. Nonetheless, the $5,349,641,980,231.06 in new debt accumulated in less than four years under Obama is more than the $4,899,100,310,608.44 in new debt accumulated in eight full years under George W. Bush. According to data reported by the IRS earlier this year, there were 81,890,189 tax returns filed for 2009 that showed taxable income. That means the total debt of the United States now equals $195,096.86 for each 2009 federal taxpayer.

MORE
 
We're runnin' outta money - again...
:mad:
Treasury says debt limit will be hit by late 2012
Oct 31, 2012 WASHINGTON - Government will employ "extraordinary" measures to keep functioning if necessary
U.S. Treasury officials say they still expect the government will hit the current debt borrowing limit at the end of this year. But they say they can employ "extraordinary" measures that they have used in the past to keep the government functioning until sometime early next year.

In a statement, Treasury Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford said that Treasury would employ the same types of procedures it has used in the past to keep borrowing under the current debt limit of $16.39 trillion. The nation's debt currently stands $16.16 trillion.

The United States has never failed to meet its debt obligations although the last battle over raising the debt limit in August 2011 went right to the last minute before a compromise was reached between the Obama administration and Congress.

Source
 
Failure to raise the debt ceiling in time will cause another credit downgrade for US government treasuries.
 
Granny says, "There dey go again - gettin' us deeper an' deeper in debt...
:eusa_eh:
Harry Reid on Raising Debt Limit to $18.794T: ‘We’ll Raise It’
November 7, 2012 -– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that if the $16.394 current legal limit on the federal government's debt must be raised in the next few months by another $2.4 trillion, “We’ll raise it."
That would set the debt limit at $18.794 trillion. During a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked: “Senator Reid, the Treasury Department said last week that we will hit the debt ceiling again near the end of the year. Are you prepared—will you support—" “I don’t think the debt ceiling will come after the first of the year,” Reid said. “But please everyone accept this: They tried it before—they, the Republicans.”

“They tried it before – ‘We’re going to shut down the government, and we’re not going to raise the debt ceiling,’” he said. “If they want to go through that again, fine." “But we’re not going to be held subject to something that was done as a matter of fact in all previous administrations,” Reid said.

CNSNews.com then asked, “But will you support raising it by another $2.4 trillion?” “If it has to be raised, we’ll raise it,” he said. On Aug. 2, 2011, Congress and President Barack Obama reached a deal to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. Now, after only 15 months, almost all of that additional borrowing authority has been exhausted, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

CNSNews.com reported that Treasury quietly announced a week ago that it expects the federal government to hit its legal debt limit before the end of this year. "Treasury continues to expect the debt limit to be reached near the end of 2012," said the 10th paragraph of the "Quarterly Refunding Statement" put out by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets Matthew Rutherford. "However, Treasury has the authority to take certain extraordinary measures to give Congress more time to act to ensure we are able to meet the legal obligations of the United States of America," the statement said.

Source
 
Granny says between him an' Mitch McConnell she don't which one is the bigger horse's patoot...
:mad:
Rand Paul: I Won't Break the No-Tax-Increase Pledge I Made to the People
November 27, 2012 - While some Republicans have indicated they may break their no-tax-hike pledge, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is not among them: "I made a pledge to the people of Kentucky that I'm not raising taxes. I took a pledge. I signed a statement, an oath that I wouldn't raise taxes, and I'm going to adhere to it," Sen. Paul told Fox New's Greta Van Susteren Monday night.
In fact, if Paul had his way, he says he'd lower taxes: "I think you should balance budgets, not spend more than comes in, and I think you should lower taxes, not raise taxes. In fact, if you want to stimulate the economy, I'm for cutting tax revenues. All these Republicans who want to give up their taxpayer pledge and raise taxes, I'm the opposite. I want to lower taxes because that's how we'd get actually more economic growth and maybe more revenue, if you cut tax rates.

Paul says the only way he'd raise tax revenue is through economic growth: "You don't have to raise rates or even close loopholes," he said. "If your economy was growing -- you know, when the economy was growing for four years after the Bush tax cuts, we had plenty of revenue. Revenue went down when the recession came. "The reason we have a lack of revenue in Washington is too much spending and no economic growth. So we don't have economic growth. If the economy were growing at 4 percent right now, we'd have plenty of revenue. But you don't get the economy to grow by raising taxes. That's what they want to do now, and I think it's absolutely the wrong thing to do."

Paul says it's a "real problem" that some Republicans are caving in to Democrats on raising taxes without any getting any "concrete proposals" to cut spending. Republicans shouldn't be trading tax hikes for an opportunity to address entitlements, he said: "We're all Americans. The entitlement programs are broken. Why don't we just fix them instead of saying, 'Oh, we have to give you a tax increase in order for you to think about fixing the entitlements.' Doesn't make any sense to me."

Paul said he expects Congress to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, but he's not happy about the way it may happen: "I think there'll be something really big -- some enormous, ugly bill with a lot of stuff in it, including raising the debt ceiling by a couple trillion dollars. They'll squish it into one bill. And sometime before Christmas, they'll pass it." Asked if going off the fiscal cliff "would necessarily be a bad thing," Paul repeated that "it would be a bad thing to raise taxes, but a good thing to lower spending. So I think you have two competing influences in what people are calling the fiscal cliff. That's why it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me."

Source

Treasury Instructs Americans on Making ‘Contributions’ to Reduce Public Debt – by Check or Credit Card
November 27, 2012 – The U.S. Department of Treasury uses it pay.gov website to allow the public to make payments to the federal government, including making “contributions” to reduce the public debt using checks or credit card.
The public is doing so in record numbers – in fiscal year 2012 the annual contributions more than doubled from the previous year with a total of $7,749,618.27. Visitors to the agency’s treasurydirect.gov can access the “gift contributions” dating back to 1996 when Americans gave almost $2 million to pay down the public debt. On that website is a link allowing visitors to learn “how to make a contribution to reduce the debt.”

Visitors who click on the link will be directed to pay.gov where they can register and use a checking or savings account or credit card to contribute online. Visitors are also provided with a mailing address if they prefer to mail a check “payable to the Bureau of Public Debt.”

The website defines the debt held by the public: “The Debt Held by the Public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities,” the website states. “Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.” As of Nov. 23, 2012 the total public debt is $11,474,590,079,642.49 trillion.

Source
 
Granny says, "Big deal - dat don't even pay the interest onna debt...
:eusa_eh:
Voluntary Contributions To Pay National Debt Hit Record: 0.00005% of Total
November 27, 2012 – The U.S. Treasury Department website states that voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt in fiscal year 2012 reached a record amount of $7.7 million, which is 0.00005 percent of the total national debt of $16,309,738,056,362.44, or approximately $16.3 trillion.
In addition, in fiscal year 2012 -- Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012 -- the debt of the U.S. government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74, or $1.3 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. That translates into about $3.5 billion per day, or $145,833,333.00 per hour, $2,430,555.00 per minute, and $40,509.00 per second. Based on those numbers, the federal government spent the $7.7 million in voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt in approximately 3 minutes and 10 seconds.

In fiscal year 2012 the annual voluntary contributions totaled more than double from the previous year's total of $3,277,369.23, tallying up to $7,749,618.27. Visitors to the agency’s treasurydirect.gov can access the “gift contributions” dating back to 1996 when Americans gave almost $2 million to pay down the public debt. On that website is a link allowing visitors to learn “how to make a contribution to reduce the debt.”

Visitors who click on the link will be directed to pay.gov where they can register and use a checking or savings account or credit card to contribute online. Visitors are also provided with a mailing address, if they prefer to mail a check “payable to the Bureau of Public Debt.”

The website defines the debt held by the public: “The Debt Held by the Public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities,” the website states. “Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.” As of Nov. 27, 2012 the total public debt is $11,476,501,231,339.55 trillion.

Source
 
Granny says somebody needs to take Obama's credit card away from him...
:eusa_eh:
Obama’s Now Borrowed More Than All Presidents from Washington to W
November 30, 2012 - The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama’s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into the first term of President George W. Bush.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury. At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98. That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.

On July 2, 2001, more than five months after President George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on July 3, 2001, it had risen to 5,698,195,769,465.40. Since then, the debt has never again dropped below $5,696,206,400,691.90—the amount it has increased in less than one full term of Obama. (Between late 1999 and the middle of 2001, as federal revenues sometimes exceeded expenditures, the debt fluctuated back and forth over the $5.696 trillion mark--only to finally pass that threshold, without retrenching, between July 2 and 3, 2001.)

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that Congress give President Obama the unilateral authority to lift the limit on the national debt. The Census Bureau estimated in September that there were 114,916,000 households in the United States. That means that the $5,696,206,400,691.90 the Obama administration has borrowed in the name of U.S. taxpayers now equals about $49,568 per household.

Source

See also:

Give Obama Power to Personally Lift Debt Limit to Infinity
November 30, 2012 - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on Friday that Congress should hand over to President Barack Obama the power to unilateral increase the limit on the U.S. government's debt.
In effect, under the plan Pelosi is endorsing, the only limit on the national debt would be President Obama's willingness to borrow money in the name of American taxpayers. At a Friday press conference, a reporter asked Pelosi if she agreed with a proposal made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that Congress give Obama the power to unilaterally increase the debt limit. "Yes," she said.

The Constitution expressly gives the power to borrow money to Congress--not the president. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 says: "Congress shall have power ... To borrow money on the credit of the United States." When he met with members of Congress on Thursday to discuss a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that is set to occur at the end of this year, Secretary Geithner suggested that Congress give Obama the personal power as president to lift the legal limit on the federal government's debt.

In keeping with its constitutional power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, Congress periodically enacts legislation authorizing the president, through the Treasury, to borrow money up to a certain set limit. Pursuant to a deal negotiated by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in August 2011, Congress enacted legislation increasing the debt limit by $2.4 trillion to a maximum of $16.304 trillion In the 16 months since Congress gave the administration that $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing authority, the Treasury has almost exhausted all of it. As of the close of business Thursday, it had only another $110 billion left.

Source
 
Last edited:
Granny says, "How two-faced ya wanna get here?...

'Zero' Chance Obama Would've Given Bush Unlimited Borrowing Power
December 13, 2012 – House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said there was “zero” chance that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and then-Sen. Barack Obama would have supported giving President George W. Bush the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, as they propose giving the chief executive today.
When negotiating to avert looming across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts at the end of the year President Obama has asked for permanent and unilateral authority to raise the debt limit, in addition to calls for a $1.6 trillion tax increase. During his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Boehner was asked if united support from Democrats, including Reid to the president’s proposal would complicate his efforts next year in the House. “Do you think that Senator Reid or then-Senator Obama would have ever given to President George W. Bush the unlimited ability to raise the debt limit?” Boehner said. “They’re talking about doing it now,” a reporter replied. “I know they’re talking about doing it now,” Boehner said, jokingly. “Do you think there’s any chance that Senator Reid or then-Senator Obama would have done that?”

“Zero!” he said. “Congress is never going to give up our ability to control the purse,” Boehner said. “And the fact is that the debt limit ought to be used to bring fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C.” Boehner has advocated using the debt ceiling, which currently stands at $16.394 trillion and is expected to be met near the end of the year, as a bargaining chip in the fiscal cliff negotiations to obtain dollar-for-dollar cuts in spending. As of the close of business Tuesday, the total public debt stood at $16.376 trillion, leaving less than $20 billion before the ceiling is met.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he is opposed to involving the debt limit in the negotiations, because it is "not real.” “If this were real, I would agree that the Congress ought not to give up its authority to do that,” Hoyer said Tuesday. “But Congress does ultimately have the authority to do it, obviously; demonstrably it has that authority, but no one believes – not Mitch McConnell, not John Boehner, not Eric Cantor, ‘cause I’ve talked to all of them. Certainly, none of us believe that America’s defaulting on our debt makes sense.” The Constitution expressly gives the power to borrow money only to Congress – not the president. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 says: "Congress shall have power ... To borrow money on the credit of the United States."

Source
 
Granny says Chinese gonna leave us holdin' the bag, are divesting from Treasury bills...

$5.5T: U.S. Foreign Debt Hits New High; $47,482 Per Full-Time Worker; Up 78% Under Obama
December 17, 2012 - The amount of money the U.S. government has borrowed from foreign interests hit a record high at the end of October, according to data released today by the U.S. Treasury.
As of Oct. 31, the U.S. government owed $5,482,200,000,000 to foreign interests, according to the Treasury. That was up from $5,476,200,000 as of Sept. 30. The foreign debt of the U.S. government equaled $47,482 for each of the 115,459,000 full-time workers (including full-time government workers) there were in the United States in October, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Similarly, it equaled $47,706 for each of the 114,916,000 households the Census Bureau estimated there were in the United States in September.

At the end of January 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. government owed $3,071,700,000,000 to foreign interests. Since then the U.S. government’s debt to foreign interests has increased by $2,410,500,000,000—or 78 percent. As of the end of October, entities in Mainland China remained the largest holders of U.S. government debt, with $1,161,500,000,000 in holdings. However, over the past year, the Mainland Chinese have actually decreased their holding of U.S. government debt. As of the end of October 2011, entities in Mainland China had owned $1,256,000,000,000 in U.S. government debt. Since then, they have dropped $94,500,000,000 of their U.S. government debt holdings—or 7.5 percent.

The Chinese have especially divested from low-yield short-term U.S. Treasury bills. At the end of May 2009, entities in Mainland China had owned $210.407 billion in U.S. Treasury bills. As of the end of October, they owned only $3.866 billion—a drop of more than 98 percent. While the Mainland Chinese have drawn back their investment in U.S. government debt, the Japanese have increased theirs. At the end of October 2011, the Japanese owned, $1,006,100,000,000 in U.S. government debt. At then end of October 2012, they owned $1,134,700,000,000—and increase of 128,600,000,000, or almost 13 percent.

MORE

See also:

Fiscal cliff: 2014 budget already delayed
12/16/12 - The year-end budget impasse is being felt already in 2014.
The White House confirmed to POLITICO Sunday that it has deliberately slowed preparations for President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2014 budget until it has a better fix on the current talks with Republicans in Congress. The customary late November pass-backs from the Office of Management and Budget—telling federal agencies what resources they can expect to get in the the president’s request—have been put on hold. “Yes. OMB has held off on pass-backs to agencies to determine if adjustments will be needed based on the current negotiations,” an administration official said after POLITICO asked about the delay.

The likely result is the 2014 budget itself will also be later—possibly slipping into March when a stop gap spending bill to keep the government running for the current fiscal year is also slated to expire. At one level, the self-imposed pause by OMB makes sense given that so much is up in the air right now. But it also shows how disruptive the impasse has become, sending out ripples that impact a wider circle of government. House-Senate talks over a five-year farm bill are caught in the same quandary. Differences remain over the commodity and nutrition titles, but negotiators also seem reluctant to make the necessary compromises until they see a clear path for the bill to move forward.

A veteran of many farm bill debates, Mary Kay Thatcher, a chief lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau, told POLITICO that a deal is “entirely doable, positively doable” before Christmas. But at this stage no one is certain of the outcome, creating the real threat of a spike in milk prices after Jan 1 when the current dairy provisions expire. A draft government-wide omnibus spending bill for the current fiscal year is in the same fix. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees are anxious to move but without some breakthrough, agencies will continue to operate under an outdated—and often inefficient— continuing resolution approved as a temporary measure in September. At the same time, history has to smile a little bit at the latest gambit to move a disaster aid bill through in these closing days.

The Senate this week takes up the $60.4 billion package which includes tens of billions in emergency community development, transit, and Army Corps of Engineers funds for states like New York and New Jersey recovering from Hurricane Sandy. And since spending bills typically begin in the House, an old shell had to be found as a vehicle. In this case it will be HR 1, the very same, budget-cutting continuing resolution that began this Congress in February 2011 and set the stage for the great government shutdown crisis that spring. Like an old car it’s been kept on blocks in the Senate for this moment—- and now will be rolled out to carry the disaster aid package to the House.

Source
 
Last edited:
Granny says like she always tellin' ya'll - let the rich folks pay fer it, dey can afford it...

Boehner’s House Has Increased Debt $18,944 Per Household
December 18, 2012 - Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by $2,176,949,774,695.46—or approximately $18,944 for per American household.
The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending. The 112th House came into power on Jan. 5, 2011, electing Rep. John Boehner as its speaker on that day. The Boehner-led House did not have a direct impact on the fiscal policy of the federal government until March 4, 2011, when a continuing resolution enacted on Dec. 21, 2010 in the lame-duck session of the previous Congress expired.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government.

At the close of business on March 4, 2011, when the first Boehner-Obama deal took effect, the federal government’s debt was $14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the U.S. Treasury. As of the close of business on Friday, Dec. 14, 2012, the federal government's debt was $16,359,576,959,576.49.

That is an increase of $2,176,949,774,695.46. The latest Census Bureau estimate is that as of September there were about 114,916,000 households in the United States. That means the Republican-majority House of Representatives, elected in November 2010 and led by Speaker John Boehner, has increased the federal government’s debt by approximately $18,944 per household.

Source

See also:

Washington region’s rising wealth brings new luxury brands and wealth managers
With plenty of two-income highly educated families, the D.C. region already has a reputation as one of the most affluent in the country. But the area is fast emerging as a home to the truly rich as well.
High-end luxury retailers are responding. Brands such as Aston Martin are expanding their operations into the area — betting, for instance, that there will be plenty of customers who can afford the $280,000 sports car James Bond drives in the movies. Nearby in Tysons, a Saint Laurent store and the high-end electric car maker Tesla are also set to open their doors. The region’s top one percent of households make more than a half million dollars yearly — far more than the national average for the one percent, according to a study of Census data by Sentier Research, an Annapolis-based data analysis firm.

And these top earners — many of whom are from dual-income households and benefit from federal contracting — weathered the recession better than their counterparts in some other metropolitan areas and the nation. More are moving beyond comfortable affluence to a much higher standard of living. “What is unique to D.C. is that there has been a change in the complexion of wealth here. There didn’t used to be much of this ultra-high-net-worth business here and now there is,” said Susan Traver, the regional president of BNY Mellon Wealth Management.

The firm expanded its operations and opened a new office downtown late last year to capi*tal*ize on what it refers to as one of the top-10 wealth markets in the country. Since then, the firm has added more than two dozen clients whose assets range from $10 to $50 million on average, Traver said. The firm works with real estate developers, heirs and small business owners who have sold their companies, some of whom are worth as much as $100 million, she said.

Data on assets can be difficult to come by at the metropolitan level because the sample sizes are so small, experts say. But wealth managers such as Traver point to industry research, for example, Capgemini’s Metro Wealth Index, which recently estimated that the number of high-net-worth residents in the region has grown from 127,000 to 166,000 since 2008, a 30 percent increase. They define “high net worth” as investable assets of more than $1 million, excluding the value of a primary home and collectibles.

MORE
 
Granny says we oughta welch out on all dem countries dat take our money den hold anti-American demonstrations...
:eusa_clap:
US fiscal cliff: Treasury to act to delay debt limit
26 December 2012 - Mr Geithner said the moves were needed to avoid default on legal obligations
The US Treasury is to begin taking extraordinary measures to delay reaching a 31 December borrowing limit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said it would take accounting measures to save about $200bn to prevent reaching the $16.4tn borrowing limit. The move comes as the so-called "fiscal cliff" looms. This is a round of tax increases and huge spending cuts due to come into force in January but over which the Democrats and Republicans are stalled.

'Default'

In a letter to Congress, Mr Geithner said the $200bn (£124bn) would prevent the government from reaching the borrowing limit for about another two months. This $16.4tn is the amount the government is allowed to borrow to finance its operations. Mr Geithner said the extraordinary measures were needed to "temporarily postpone the date that the United States would otherwise default on its legal obligations".

President Barack Obama is expected to meet Republican leaders again to try to negotiate a solution, although no new date has been announced. Failure to do so could damage the US and global markets, and threatens to send the US economy into recession. The two sides remain far apart on the fiscal cliff's $600bn in tax rises and spending cuts that are set to come into force on 1 January, but analysts say a short-term deal may be agreed that will postpone the cuts until spring.

On Wednesday, the Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner called on the Democrat-led Senate to come up with legislation on how it would avoid the cliff, and pass it to the House for consideration. However, a senior administration official said it was up to Republican leaders not to stand in the way of an agreement.

BBC News - US fiscal cliff: Treasury to act to delay debt limit
 
we recovered from the great depression and the depression in the early 80's we will this one too, because it's mostly propaganda.
 

Forum List

Back
Top