Here are some interesting facts to consider:
# of People Employed in August 2001: 132.0 million
# of People Employed in August 2011: 131.1 million
Unemployment rate, August 2001: 4.9%
Unemployment rate, August 2011: 9.1%
Dow Jones Industrial Average – Sept. 10, 2001: 9605.01
Dow Jones Industrial Average – Sept. 8, 2011: 11295.81
Federal Spending % of GDP in 2001: approx. 18%
Federal Spending % of GDP in 2011: approx. 24%
Debt in 2001: around 32% of GDP
Debt in 2011: around 100% of GDP
The dollar has fallen 37 percent in the past decade
Gold has increased 500%
Source
“Debt in 2001: around 32% of GDP
Debt in 2011: around 100% of GDP”
Excellent. “Just the facts M’am”
It would be interesting to add to the stat comparisons all the liabilities relating to the Enron-like off-balance sheet items in Medicare, Medicaid and government pensions.
Rush mentioned the other day that when Social Security started there were 130 individual supporters to every individual benefiting from it; now the ratio is 4 to 1 and will drop to 2 to 1 in 2030. Plus there are no trustee accounts that people paid into with their name on it. If a business did that, the CEO would go to jail like Madoff.
I just read an interesting piece from a Florida newspaper The St. Petersburg Times …. Check it out …. it is right on topic.
The Big Lie, The Big Bust
This kind of juxtaposition could be fun —
2001
// the Bush administration gave the nation a new foreign policy. […] , we now have an administration willing to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of American national interests. Rather than contain American power within a vast web of constraining international agreements, the new unilateralism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global ends
The new unilateralism recognizes the uniqueness of the unipolar world we now inhabit and thus marks the real beginning of American post-Cold War foreign policy. //
The New Unilateralism by Charles Krauthammer WP June 8
&
2008 [saying good-bye to]
// America’s unipolar moment […] The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. […]. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.
[…] What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle. //
Waving Goodbye to Hegemony By PARAG KHANNA NYT January 27
It’s probably nothing.
I blame blogs. They’ve destroyed productivity in the workplace.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to go check out Instapundit. And then maybe Lileks.
Osama Bin Laden’s dream was to destroy the United States in the same way he destroyed the Soviet Union.
The jury is still out as to whether or not he’s done it.
+300 million people with +45 million on food stamps, nearly 30 million unskilled illegal aliens (14m “officially”), +50 million working uselessly for the government, and the bulk remainder of the private sector citizens, either unemployed or offering services & sales.
Oh yea, there will be a recovery, in China.
Jeff at September 9, 2011 11:58 AM
“Osama Bin Laden’s dream was to destroy the United States in the same way he destroyed the Soviet Union.”
Really? You’re giving OBL credit for destroying the USSR? I think there may have been others more deserving like a lady named Margaret, a guy named Ronald, and a Pope from Poland.
As for destroying the US, OBL had very little to do with it. Most of what we’re suffering now was self-inflicted.
rindlrad: Perhaps Jeff was referring to OBAMA bin Laden?
From those numbers, it is easy to conclude that the terrorists have been wildly successful. But it is really the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste progressives who have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Nemo2 at September 9, 2011 12:23 PM
🙂
As much as I’d love to pin all the blame for the current mess in the US on Obama, he’s really only responsible for making it worse. Our problems were decades in the making.
rindlrad >
“he’s really only responsible for making it worse”
Hmmmmm.
A few months ago I saw a chart reproduced in a John Mauldin letter showing that the US private sector GDP today is at the same level as it was in 1998. IOW, all net growth since that time has been in the public sector. The tech bubble, 9/11, wars, housing bubble and resultant financial crises, all contributed to disguise the underlying stasis of the US economy.
The only way out is through shrinking the public sector while radically deregulating, initially triggering a deeper but short-lived recession that to-date has not been allowed by the bubble prolongers and Keynesian’s. None of this can happen for at least a year and a half and only if the White House and Senate change hands. Best case scenario will see an increase in left wing violence, strikes, and vitriol not seen for almost a century. The magnitude of such will be directly proportional to the quality and determination of the next POTUS. Think Wisconsin on steroids.
The present course unaltered will see the near total destruction of all middle class wealth in America along with societal collapse perhaps channeled into a Marxist fascist monstrosity. Obama’s fundamental transformation?
Robert:
It might be interesting to ask from where did Laura get her numbers? There is a rather large discrepancy with her 2001 debt numbers and those on Wikipedia’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
The Wikipedia article list gross debt and distinguishes gross debt from public debt with the following comment: “Gross debt and public debt are different. Public debt is the gross debt minus intra-governmental obligations (such as the money that the government owes to the two Social Security Trust Funds, the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, and the Social Security Disability Insurance program).”
Specifically, their numbers for gross debt are:
1981 32%
2001 56%
2011 98%
Knight 99 at September 9, 2011 12:46 PM
“”he’s really only responsible for making it worse”
Hmmmmm.”
I’m assuming that you’re disagreeing with my statement.
I’m basing it on the fact that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been ticking time bombs for decades. If I remember correctly, Ronald Reagan wanted to reform Social Security in the 80s, but backed off when the political heat was turned up. George W Bush did the same during his Administration. Obama is not responsible for any of these programs or the failure to reform them prior to his Administration.
I’m also basing it on the fact that much of the regulatory infrastructure was already in place before Obama was even elected as a US Senator. Banking regulations, the Department of Education, the EPA, etc., were all in place before Obama was elected.
As predicted at SDA-
“Stocks Fall”
The big Naught’s speech had an effect.
(I think he deserves the nickname- Will Naught)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html
John Chittick and rindirad – nice summary.
ET, agreed, John Chittick and rindirad are 100% correct.
Filling in a bit from Brent’s link —
Carter—–D—-1977–1981 –35.8% to 32.5% minus 3.3%
Reagan—R—-1981–1989–32.5% to 53.1% plus 20.6%
Bush 41–R—-1989–1993–53.1% to 66.1% plus 13.0%
Clinton—-D—-1993–2001–66.1% to 56.4% minus 9.7%
Bush 43–R—-2001–2009–56.4% to 84.2% plus 27.8%
Obama—D—–2009–2011–84.2% to 98.0% plus13.0%
“Rush mentioned the other day that when Social Security started there were 130 individual supporters to every individual benefiting from it; now the ratio is 4 to 1 and will drop to 2 to 1 in 2030. Plus there are no trustee accounts that people paid into with their name on it. If a business did that, the CEO would go to jail like Madoff.”
Yet when I say “CPP is a Ponzi scheme”(Perry stole MY line) and we need to “end the charade now”, I get roasted by Baby Boomers at SDA who are naught but socialists themselves. Gimmie My Entitlements!
Brent, prior to posting I was curious about that too. I searched and found this.
We will see always victims story that some one abused a person or group
later that person made revolutional change
or lead to lengthy war outcomes…
and gold hero medal always goes to … USA
so:
I think US government are richer than what we think they are richer than their American richest billionar too.
It depends to see the source of reason (s):
1.2 trillion of wealth are in hands of 400 people in USA who are billionars in USA start from wealth of 1 billion to 54 billions among
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400#p_1_s_arank_-1_
14 million unemployed in USA need per year:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
they need to gain $15000 per year welfare $200 billion money per/year to feed them to survive.
US by borrow 14.7 trillion can feed those hunger for another next 25 years future this money can investe to survive hunger in US for period of 25 years.
and 14 trillion of debt but still we can call it
(wealth) is in hand of US government borrowed from China japan and Englan and oil exporter and others NOW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us-china-trade-data-foreign-holdings-treasury-securities-2000-2010.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
other forign relationship with near countries:
Canada: After America …!
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Flaherty-asks-probe-capress-4292668702.html
plus:
US business realtioship with other countries:
http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=United%20states's%20business%20relationship%20with%20other%20countries&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e1e287f58b98d22f&biw=1024&bih=571&pf=p&pdl=500
and war costs
======
ALL moneys goes to …
when some one always is best and always richest people think how come
some one must be cut short here to let some one get rich on other side of story
Am I right!
nothing personal all is business at end of day.peace.
US people need real work done in future with ethic this time no more trick please to others.
Rindlrad >
Not disagreeing with statement entirely, only the dismissive, defensive tone of it.
The fact that he’s “making it worse” puts the liabilities squarely on him. Presidents are supposed to be far above the kindergarten mentality of today’s average person. Finger pointing, shirking responsibilities and blaming the “other guy” is far below what the office is supposed to represent. Indeed Obamba has made an absolute mockery of the US and its presidency. Doing nothing would have sufficed as better management on his part.
So in a nutshell your statement…….“As much as I’d love to pin all the blame for the current mess in the US on Obama, he’s really only responsible for making it worse.”……….Is partially correct yet vacuous considering the scope of the damage done by a sitting president who is not mature enough to dig in heels, look forward, forget the past, and lead a superpower.
Wrong man for the job would be the understatement of the century.
And speaking about 10 years ago, here’s a Mark Steyn 9/11 anniversary column:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/roll-316321-let-mark.html
[via five feet of fury]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPmpMZgOIGk
Mark Steyn need to keep his neck not bended too much when he talks I feel neck pain when I watch him
Knight, the point that rindlrad is making is that the US has a systemic problem. It’s not the product of one man and one administration but many of them, and that it’s been wrong for quite a long time.
The only vacuous thing here was your comment. Why should Obama buck this tide given the expectations of who elected him? By this measure, they’ve all been wrong for the job, not just Obama.
cgh >
I believe I understood Rindlrad’s point quite well, but thanks for jumping in and rescuing him. Though I didn’t think I was beating him up, at least you set me right.
cgh – “..They’ve all been wrong for the job, not just Obama”.
Guess we agree on one thing.
cgh – “Why should Obama buck this tide given the expectations of who elected him?”
I see your comments are so much better than my drivel, so based on you defeatist logic let’s all go out and slash our wrists. As with Obamba, “why buck the tide” when he’s such a magical genius, American’s could not have expected better after all.
Actually why bother electing a President; obviously anyone would be useless and ineffectual? Why bother to criticise? The man grandstanded and was elected on “Hope & Change” meaning “the system”, most believed, yet when it all goes south and he can’t deliver they come riding to his aid like a damsel in distress. “He can’t do it alone, he’s just one lowly man after all” sniff.
Wow,talk about low expectations of the first black American Affirmative Action President – or what?
Robert @ 4:43 pm
Yes. Your source displays the information more completely and in a more readable format than the Wikipedia article. The reason I sourced the Wikipedia article is that they source the Congressional Budget Office and I could not find the information in nice graphs or charts in my search of the CBO.
Knight 99 at September 9, 2011 5:07 PM
“Not disagreeing with statement entirely, only the dismissive, defensive tone of it.”
Not defensive or dismissive. I was simply stating the FACT that you cannot solely blame Obama for the state of the US economy right now. I defended my statement with my post at September 9, 2011 1:03 PM.
“The fact that he’s “making it worse” puts the liabilities squarely on him.”
He has made things worse. To get the economy back on track, private businesses need to feel confidence in the future and that they can reasonably plan for the types of expenses that they will be paying. Obama and the Democrats have destroyed any confidence private businesses have by constantly talking about raising corporate taxes, vilifying private business, creating legislation that makes the cost of hiring new employees prohibitive (Obama Care), spending money we don’t have and borrowing billions from the Chinese, and letting the bureaucracy loose on the private sector (DOJ & EPA). Until the business climate becomes friendlier, there will be no recovery in the US economy. Obama is responsible for this. However, with all that he has done wrong, he did not create the entitlement spending that is the biggest threat to economic well-being of the nation in the long-run.
“Finger pointing, shirking responsibilities and blaming the “other guy” is far below what the office is supposed to represent. Indeed Obama has made an absolute mockery of the US and its presidency. Doing nothing would have sufficed as better management on his part.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. Obama is an utter failure as POTUS and an embarrassment to the entire country.
“So in a nutshell your statement…….“As much as I’d love to pin all the blame for the current mess in the US on Obama, he’s really only responsible for making it worse.”……….Is partially correct yet vacuous considering the scope of the damage done by a sitting president who is not mature enough to dig in heels, look forward, forget the past, and lead a superpower.”
I’m not sure you fully understand what the word “vacuous” means. My statement was simply made to communicate that as bad as Obama’s leadership is, it is unfair to say that he has created the entire situation. Again, I defend this statement in my post at September 9, 2011 1:03 PM.
“Wrong man for the job would be the understatement of the century.”
You and I have no disagreement here.
Posted by: cgh at September 9, 2011 6:55 PM
“Knight, the point that rindlrad is making is that the US has a systemic problem. It’s not the product of one man and one administration but many of them, and that it’s been wrong for quite a long time.”
You are correct. This is what I meant.
“Why should Obama buck this tide given the expectations of who elected him? By this measure, they’ve all been wrong for the job, not just Obama.”
I do have to disagree with you here. The American people do have high expectations of their Presidents, including Obama. (Maybe expectations for Obama were actually higher because of how he was built-up by the Media.) Obama’s poll numbers are falling, which would indicate that he’s not living up to what the American people expected of him.
I do think there have been Presidents that were in the right place at the right time. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR (his leadership during WWII, not his domestic policy), Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush (again for his leadership on 9/11) are examples.