Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - SIX HUNDRED NINETY SIX
Palash Biswas
http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/
http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/
Imperialist AMERICA is on the verge of Bankruptcy! I had been writing from the very beginning that the RECESSION is all about WAR ECONOMY Crisis diluted as Sub Prime Crisis.Hence, the sustenace of Corpoarte Imperialism depends of Great South Asian Market of War and Civil War.Thus, the Strategic Realliance and INDO US Nuclear Deal are the best ESCAPE AVENUE for the Rulers of the Galaxy. Since Vietnam, US Economy is INFLICTED with War. It SURVIVED but the Partner of COLD War, USSR DISINTEGRATED. It was NOT and Ideological Failure but an outright Economic Collapse of Military Socialist Imperialism. Unfortunately, the Zionist Brahamin Rulres INVOLVED India in the Suicidal War Game and the War against Terror to SPACE ADVENTURE via Steep Hike in Defence and Internal Security puts us in the SAME Trap!I have dealt this issue episode by episode in my Novel AMERICA SE SAVDHAN, Be AWARE of America, which went abegging , quite UNNOTICED!
America On The Verge Of Bankruptcy
Jakarta - A Republican plan to cut the budget deficit stumbled toward a vote in Congress on Thursday and its expected demise could force a compromise to avert an imminent and unprecedented debt default by the world's largest economy.With the measure short of as many as four votes, according to aides, the Republican-led House of Representatives abruptly delayed a vote as Speaker John Boehner struggled to overcome objections from conservative rebels in his own party.
Republican Representative Mick Mulvaney, a supporter of the Tea Party movement that demands even deeper spending cuts, said he still would vote against the bill as he left Boehner's office to pray at the congressional chapel.
"I'm still a no," he said.
World markets, unnerved by the risk of a U.S. default or credit downgrade, watched anxiously. The U.S. stock market's broad S&P 500 index fell for a fourth day and interest rates soared on some Treasury bills that mature in August.
International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde warned of the risks of Congress failing to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which would mean the U.S. government runs out of money to pay all of its bills after August 2.
"One of the consequences could be a decline of the dollar as a reserve currency and a dent in people's confidence in the dollar," Lagarde told PBS NewsHour in an interview.
U.S. financial executives added their voices to calls from the business community for Congress to strike a deal that would banish the specter of default. (reuters)
Reuter reports, the Great Recession" was even greater than previously thought, and theUS economy has skated uncomfortably close to a new one this year.
New data on Friday showed the 2007-2009US recession was much more severe than prior measures had found, with economic output declining a cumulative of 5.1 per cent instead of 4.1 per cent.
The report also showed the current slowdown began earlier and has been deeper than previously thought, with growth in the first quarter advancing at only a 0.4 per cent annual pace.
The data indicated the economy began slowing in the fourth quarter of last year before high gasoline prices and supply chain disruptions from Japan's earthquake had hit, suggesting the weakness is more fundamental and less temporary than economists had believed.
The annual revisions ofUS GDP data from the Commerce Department showed economic growth contracted at an annual average rate of 0.3 per cent between 2007 and 2010. Output over that stretch had previously been estimated to have been flat.
At the depth of the recession in the fourth quarter of 2008, output plummeted at an annual rate of 8.9 per cent -- the steepest quarterly decline since 1958, and 2.1 per centage points more than previously reported.
For a table, see see [ID:nCLATIE70O] The recession was already the deepest since the Great Depression and, while it still pales in comparison, the data help explain why it is taking so long to shake off its legacy.
"The general picture of the recession remains pretty much the same, it was a record decline before and now it is a even bigger decline,"Steven Landefeld, the director of the department'sBureau of Economic Analysis, told reporters.
The US President Barack Obama's administration and Republicans have so far failed to thrash out a deal to raise the debt ceiling as August 2 deadline approaches.
Meanwhile, market analysts predict that America will lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached.
Press TV talks with Jeff Steinberg, senior editor for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) magazine from Washington, about why America and its economy are on the verge of collapse and whether there is any solution to the crisis.
What follows is the text of the interview (which is also supported by (Michael Burns and Mike Stathis).
Press TV: Jeff Steinberg, let's look at what lawmakers are debating, basically spending cuts, and expenses, and of course at top of the list is the highest expense, that is the US military, which got over USD 600 trillion plus basis, maintaining that, spending over trillion dollars for war. Why not decrease the war spending?
Steinberg: Well, of course that is a very good point. Look, the Bush Administration took us to war, in Iraq and, as the other guest said, it was based on a complete lie.
For the first time in the history of the US, we went to war and simultaneously gave a significant tax cut to the wealthiest 10 present or more of the population. You can't do that without creating national bankruptcy.
We also deregulated the financial system, and imposed a completely illegal and unconstitutional taxpayers' guarantee on Wall Street's biggest gambling binge in history which is what blew up in 2007, 2008 and still continues to plague us.
The good news, I would add, is that in addition to a serious push for withdrawal of American forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan and a drawdown of our bloated military budget, there is also a bi-partisan legislation in the House of Representatives to reinstate Glass-Steagall, which was the 1933 law that broke up the too big to fail banks of the depression era and reestablish these walls of separation between commercial banking, depository banking and lending from the speculation of the brokerages and insurance companies and now of course add to that the hedge funds and all of these ridiculously leveraged debts.
Give that debt back to those Wall Street gamblers and you are already a significant step towards beginning to bring this problem under control where you can start to reinvest in job creation, infrastructure, improvement and reconstituting a physical economy that generates wealth rather than just debt.
There are 33 cosponsors on HR 1489 and I expect that very shortly we are going to see a majority of members of the House supporting this bill and an identical bill coming into the US Senate probably within days.
So there are solutions that are historically in line with the American constitution and with those occasions where we abused sensible economic policies rather than being victims of greedy speculators.
Press TV: An then you have things that are being thrown into the Senate of which they say the US to go at war any time, something that US President Barak Obama wants for it to get approved.
You have the full spectra of dominance doctrine, in terms of military equipment, in which the US wants to be superior in land, air, and sea where they have intercontinental ballistic submarines billions of dollars each that they cost and several hundred million dollars to maintain.
What about these types of notions and expenses?
Steinberg: Well, there is a pushback against that. In fact, there is an article in the current issue ofTime Magazine by ... Richard Haass, who is actually the president of the council on foreign relations, and while he is not calling for a new isolationism, he is calling for a re-calibrating of US policy where money is invested domestically, on job creation and on restoring our infrastructure, and those kinds of things, at the expense of this enormous expenditure on maintaining the US position as the world's leading military power and also of course as the world's leading military spender.
So I think that there is a dramatic mood shift that even a handful of people in the establishment are getting the whiff of. But the mood in the American population is that anybody who is not prepared to take radical measures to restore this balance and put the general welfare of the American people ahead of the interest of a bunch of Wall Street swindlers, their political career is going to be very short.
Press TV: As of 2007, the top 1 percent of households (the upper class) owned 34.6 percent of all privately held wealth.
Jeff Steinberg, who rules America, when only 15 percent of the wealth is going to the bottom 80 percent the average wage and salary worker?
Looking at the corporate taxes that are paid, when you compare it to what the average American is paying, why is it that the corporations are paying lowest which is 9 percent as compared to the average American?
And also combine that with the distribution wealth of which you have about 36 to 40 percent of the wealth of the United States being controlled by the wealthy which is only 1 percent of the population.
Steinberg: Look, we have had a binge of deregulation that goes back really to the late 70s, early 1980s, and as the result we have basically shadowed off our ability to direct credit into the real economy and along the way we have also absolutely failed to prosecute some of the most egregious cases of white color criminality probably in the history of the world.
There are three reports. You were referencing the Federal Reserve just a moment ago. Last week, the GAOK met with an audit of the Fed. It was something that was attached as an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Bill by senator Burnie Sanders and it not only revealed that 16 trillion dollars in emergency loans went out to Wall Street when in fact there was no justification for that if we had gone back to a Glass-Steagall standard, there would have been no need for a taxpayer's bailout because we would have protected commercial banks that are vital to the real economy and let the gamblers suffer their gambling losses.
We didn't do that, instead we said, as the other guest indicated, the sky is falling, we have got to act, we have got to basically bail out these criminals. You have in the Sanders Commission GAO report evidence that officials of the New York Federal Reserve, who are private citizens, were given waivers to continue the whole stock options in companies that they were directly bailing out.
This was criminal and it should have been prosecuted as criminal. You had the angelities [angelities.com] report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission study that came out in February and then a bipartisan study that came out of the Senate cosigned by Senator Carl Levin and Tom Colbert.
All of this laid out a pattern of clear criminality where government regulators and federal prosecutors simply let people get away with white color crime and as the result; American taxpayers have trillions of dollars in debt that is completely illegal.
In the 1930s, the Senate had the Pecora Commission. Leading Wall Street bankers were frog-marched to Sing Sing prison because of tax evasion and crimes that were on a scale far below the crimes committed by the top Wall Street people today.
But because they pour billions of dollars into lobbying and contributions to political campaigns, they are getting away literally with murder and we have reached the break point where the American people are not going to tolerate it anymore but we are also at the verge of a complete economic breakdown crisis, unless this policy is reversed.
uly 29, 2011 7:14 pm
Congress fights on edge of a cliff
With the deadline of August 2 all but upon it, the US Congress has yet to present a fiscal plan for President Barack Obama's signature. In deploring this lamentable state of affairs, one wonders where to begin. The distance in the debt-ceiling talks between the Republicans and the Democrats narrowed this week to almost nothing, yet still Congress edges to the brink of financial chaos. The ratio of peril to substance at stake has risen off the charts.
Until recently, many Washington observers have seen this fight as mere pantomime: pay no attention, the debt ceiling will be raised in the end. That might still be right – but when even cynics turn pale, one starts to worry. This thing, they are beginning to think, could actually happen.
More
ON THIS STORY
- Jurek Martin US debt drama enters theatre of absurd
- Gillian Tett Five questions for the Fed and Treasury
- FT Alphaville Buiter on US's 1% chance
- Lex The dollar
- Editorial Debt limit damage
The sticking point, now as throughout, has been the intransigence of Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives. This energised, populist-conservative faction combines a zealous, uncompromising desire to roll back government with a blithe disregard for the consequences of default. The desire is legitimate, the recklessness unforgivable.
The reluctance to budge springs partly from mistrust of the administration. Many Tea Party activists see the deadline as a feint. Exactly what happens on August 3 if there is no deal is hard to say – it is an experiment that is best avoided. But some, such as Tea Party champion and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, are opposed to raising the debt ceiling regardless. This crosses the line between fiscal recklessness and something close to madness.
Had this intransigence itself been a feint, John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, could have declared victory already. The Tea Party's refusal to budge has dragged Democrats nearly all the way to Mr Boehner's position. When Senate Democrats insist that their latest proposal for raising the debt ceiling is reasonable, whereas Mr Boehner's plan is outrageous, they protest too much – and for most Democrats the imposture is shamefully obvious.
Senate leader Harry Reid's plan, like Mr Boehner's, calls for a down payment of spending cuts phased over 10 years, followed by a second instalment after further congressional action. The spending figures, put on a comparable basis, are not that different. The numbers for extra taxes, hitherto the main bone of contention, are not that different either: zero, in both cases. But whereas the House plan raises the debt ceiling twice – with the second stage coming in time to plague Mr Obama during next year's re-election campaign – the Senate plan raises it all in one go.
Mr Reid's plan offers the GOP victory: it rewards the Tea Party's hostage-taking, and Democrats are dismayed at the prospect. Yet what stalled the talks this week was the Tea Party's implacable refusal even to go along with Mr Boehner's plan. You see why the cynics blenched.
To resolve the issue, Mr Boehner must find Tea Party supporters who have not entirely taken leave of their senses: refuseniks willing to back not just his plan but also the agreement that must be struck with the Democratic majority in the Senate. Either that, or Mr Boehner must make an alliance with House Democrats.
If the House can start making semi-rational calculations, the terms of a possible House-Senate bargain are known. There would be two debt-ceiling increases, with the second structured as suggested earlier by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, so that it would happen at the president's direction, with the House confined to merely symbolic opposition.
This would hardly be elegant, or all that democratic either. One of the most dismal aspects of this fiasco has been the removal of the country's fiscal discussions to closed-door sessions, leaving voters in ignorance about the necessary budget trade-offs and increasingly alienated from their politicians (were that possible). The sidelining of the president in recent days has aggravated this problem.
Be that as it may, the priority now is to raise the ceiling and avoid default. Later, when tempers have cooled, both parties should agree there will be no repetition. Whatever tactical benefits either might hope for, the risk to the country is vastly too large.
Longer-term fiscal reform should bury this nonsensical debt-ceiling process once and for all. Restoring America's fiscal reputation will require no less. Argue about taxes and argue about spending, but do not argue about whether to default on your debts or pay your bills. That is something no self-respecting nation should do – or, for that matter, need to be told.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools.
Key US debt votes for House and Senate
A Republican bill to raise the US debt ceiling, cut spending and avert default on US debt is set for back-to-back votes in the House and Senate.
House Speaker John Boehner's bill faces a conservative revolt, unanimous opposition by Senate Democrats and the threat of a veto by President Obama. Ahead of the votes, Republicans challenged Democrats to back the bill or take political blame for default.
Congress must raise the US debt limit by a deadline of Tuesday 2nd August.
Andrew North reports from Washington.
Read More
US economy slowed sharply in first half of year: US Commerce Department
WASHINGTON: The U.S. economy expanded at meager 1.3 percent annual rate in the spring after scarcely growing at all in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Friday.
The combined growth for the first six months of the year was the weakest since the recession ended two years ago. The government revised the January-March figures to show just 0.4 percent growth _ down sharply from its previous estimate of 1.9 percent.
High gas prices and scant income gains have forced Americans to pull back sharply on spending in the spring. Consumer spending only increased 0.1 percent this spring, the smallest gain in two years. Government spending fell for the third straight quarter.
Stocks dropped in morning trading. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 100 points, and broader indexes also declined.
"These numbers are extremely bad," saidNigel Gault, an economist atIHS Global Insight. "The momentum in the economy is clearly very weak."
The sharp slowdown means the economy will likely grow this year at a weaker pace than last year. Economists don't expect growth to pick up enough in the second half of the year to lower the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.2 percent last month.
The weaker data will also add pressure to already-tense negotiations between President Barack Obama and lawmakers over increasing the debt limit. Any deal will likely include deep cuts in government spending. That could slow growth further in the short term.
But if Congress fails to raise the debt limit and the government defaults, financial markets could fall and interest rates could rise.
"It is hard to see the economy getting much stronger," Paul Dales, an economist at Capital Economics, said in a research note. "In fact, if the debt ceiling is not raised ... we could well have another recession on our hands."
Earlier this year, economists thought that a Social Security payroll tax cut would accelerate growth in 2011. But most of that money has gone to pay for higher gas prices.
Consumer spending on long-lasting manufactured goods, such as cars and appliances, fell 4.4 percent. Many auto dealers reported shortages of popular models after Japan's March 11 earthquake, cutting into auto sales.
Employers have pulled back on hiring after seeing less spending by consumers. The economy added just 18,000 net jobs in June, the fewest in nine months and a steep drop from the average of 215,000 jobs per month added from February through April.
Those who have jobs are seeing little gain in their incomes. After-tax incomes, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.7 percent, matching the previous quarter and the weakest since the recession ended.
The drop in government spending was driven by cuts at the state and local level. Those governments have slashed spending in seven of the eight quarters since the official end of the recession.
Business investment, which has been a driver of growth during the recovery, also faltered this spring. Spending on equipment and software grew 5.7 percent in the second quarter, down from the first quarter's 8.7 percent pace and below the double-digit gains posted last year.
The government also revised data going back to 2003. The data show the recession was even worse than previously thought. The economy shrank 5.1 percent during the recession, which lasted from December 2007 through June 2009, compared to the earlier estimate of 4.1 percent. Both figures represent the worst downturn since World War II.
"The depth of the recession is now clearly so much deeper," Gault said.
Friday's report is the first of three estimates the government releases of the gross domestic product, which measures everything from restaurant meals to auto production to government spending.
Related Stories:
- US Senate vows to veto Boehner plan
- US economic growth slows: Fed
- Poll: 46% of Americans distrust Congress
- US mostly in debt with own citizens
- 'US credit rating fall worse than default'
- Dollar plunges amid US debt impasse
- Will US raise its debt ceiling?
- Obama threatens to veto Boehner's plan
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191207.html
Boehner Sways Holdouts with Balanced Budget Amendment
House Speaker John Boehner will likely pass his plan to raise the debt ceiling--shelved Thursday night because he couldn't get the votes--by adding a provision that would require a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution to pass both chambers of Congress and be sent to the states for ratification before the limit is raised a second time. Fifty-three senators had already promised to vote down Boehner's plan before the amendment was added, so, as Teagan Goddard writes, "ironically, it seems the only way to pass the bill in the House is to make it more unacceptable to the Senate." And yet the tweaked version of Boehner's bill is still not tough enough for some House conservatives, because the amendment wouldn't require a two-thirds majority in Congress to raise taxes.
If it works, Republicans can say what they wanted to say yesterday: "We've passed two bills, and the Senate hasn't passed anything." But they'd be in a weaker position than they were yesterday, because they've proven that they can't pass a bill without a BBA hostage situation. How would markets react to the threat of an early 2012 debt limit vote that requires a supermajority for passage? We'll never find out. All we found out this morning is that Boehner is as weak as Democrats said he was in his relationship with conservatives.
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author atereeve@nationaljournal.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
-
History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991) - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1982–1991) - CachedThe dissolution of the Soviet Union was a process of systematic disintegration, which occurs in economy, social structure and political structure. ...
-
Dissolution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union- CachedThe dissolution of the Soviet Union was the disintegration of the federal ...
- [PDF]
Disintegration of the Soviet Union and the
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by O Haran - Cited by 1 - Related articles
possibilities of disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Congress and Ukraine. The White House on Union Treaty. 'Chicken Kiev' speech. ...
-
Russia-InfoCentre :: Disintegration of the USSR :: History ...
3 Apr 2006 – Aimed at stopping the reforms, the coup only proved that the USSR was definitely heading towardsdisintegration. On December 8, 1991, ...
-
What were the main factors responsible for thedisintegration of ...
wiki.answers.com › ... › History › European History › Russian History - CachedWhat were the main factors responsible for the disintegrationof the Soviet Union? Improve. In: Russian History [Edit categories] ...
-
Why did USSR disintegrate? - Yahoo! Answers
answers.yahoo.com › ... › Arts & Humanities › History - Cached5 answers - 29 Sep 2006Top answer: Alcoholism is certainly one of the factor... USSR, while keeping up its arm race against USA, could not hope to keep up its economical race against USA. ...
-
Dissolution of the Soviet Union | Facebook
www.facebook.com/pages/...of...Soviet-Union/137857062905199 - CachedThe dissolution of the Soviet Union was the disintegration of the federal political structures and central government of theSoviet Union, resulting in the ...
-
Ussr Disintegration - CSS Forums
www.cssforum.com.pk › ... › Group F › International Relations- CachedAny One Will Plz Post Reasons For Disintegration Of FormerUssr Regards Twilght.
-
Soviet Collapse, USSR Breakup, 1991
15 Dec 2001 – Although he pledged that the GKChP would continue Gorbachev's policies, Yanayev said the disintegrationof the USSR could not be allowed to ...
-
WindowonEurasia: Window on Eurasia: 'Disintegration of USSR Still ...
windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/.../window-on-eurasia-disintegratio... - Cached6 Jan 2011 – Vienna, January 6 – Most politicians, experts and ordinary people treat the disintegration of the USSR as a single event, but in fact, ...
Debt ceiling debate shows GOP at war with itself
There was always a mismatch between the tea party personality of the new Republican majority in the House and the politician that majority chose to lead them, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). After Thursday night's dramatic implosion, the country better understands the consequences.
The stunning events that played out Thursday night, as Boehner was forced to pull from the floor and rework the debt ceiling legislation he had put up for a vote, was both a failure of leadership and a failure by those who wouldn't follow. But it was perhaps inevitable.
Four possible options the Senate could take if it tables the House debt-reduction proposal.
Republicans asked the voters last year to give them the power to help govern the country. Thanks to dissatisfaction with the policies of President Obama and the dismal state of the economy, voters complied.
With that authority awarded through the ballot box came an obligation to recognize both the power they were given and the limits it entailed. Instead, House Republicans have spent the past two weeks debating debt-ceiling proposals that have no possibility of becoming law at this time. What they discovered Thursday night is that they were divided enough internally to scuttle passage of a plan that Boehner had put his prestige behind.
Boehner and other GOP leaders will spend Friday trying to pick up the pieces of Thursday's debacle. How much damage that legislative meltdown has done to resolving what has fast become a real crisis isn't yet known. But the damage to Boehner's credibility as speaker and to the Republican Party more generally could well linger well beyond the outcome of this episode.
Republicans have now steered themselves into a position that could make an ultimate resolution of the debt-ceiling standoff that much more difficult. The changes Boehner has been forced to make to his proposal probably will make it even more difficult for his rebellious colleagues to accept any compromise that comes over from the Senate.
If there is to be a compromise — and the outlines of a plausible agreement were under active discussion on Capitol Hill before the House bill was pulled — it is likely to be one that badly splits the Republicans in the House. Can Boehner afford that, after what happened to him Thursday?
When he broke off negotiations with the White House, Boehner took upon himself the responsibility to find a solution to the debt-ceiling deadlock. He turned the president largely into an observer this week, save for a prime-time speech on Monday and another statement delivered on Friday morning. In so doing, Boehner heightened the pressure on himself to deliver.
When he pulled out of negotiations with the White House a week ago, Boehner accused the president of not being willing to take yes for an answer in their negotiations. What is ironic, or worrisome, is that he has not been able to persuade his troops that, with the collapse of the grand bargain, they had won the argument — certainly for now at least.
Neither Boehner's plan for a two-step process to raise the debt ceiling nor the single-step process advanced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calls for taxes. The grand bargain so prized by the president and, seemingly for a time by the speaker, seems long gone. But for the tea party faction in the House, that hasn't been enough. Their suspicions of Washington run that deep.
-
Economy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States- CachedThroughout this article, the unqualified term "dollar" and the $ symbol refer to the US dollar. The economy of the United States is the world's largest ...
-
Latest news on the American economy, Wall Street and the Federal ...
www.guardian.co.uk/business/useconomy - Cached4 hours ago – Latest news on the sub-prime crisis, theAmerican economy and the Federal Reserve.
-
U.S. Economy - News
news.yahoo.com/economy/ - United States - Cached1 day ago – Get the latest economy news headlines from Yahoo! News. Find breaking economy news, including analysis and opinion on top economy stories, ...
-
ReutersBloomberg - 36 minutes agoPhotographer: David Maung/Bloomberg July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Michael Englund, chief economist at Action Economics LLC, talks about US economic growth. ...1109 related articles
-
United States Economy at a Glance
www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm - CachedBureau of Labor and Statistics of U.S. government tables. -
The Associated Press: Researcher: China worried about US economy
13 Jul 2011 – The U.S. economy "has been doing worse than expected" and Beijing needs to "seriously assess" possible risks to its vast holdings of ...
-
US Economy and Business - US EconomicIndicators - US Economic News
useconomy.about.com/ - CachedLearn about US business and the economy. Understand US economic indicators. Stay informed with US Economic News.
-
US Economy | Economy Watch
www.economywatch.com/world_economy/usa/ - CachedThe United States of America (US or USA) is the largest and most important economy in the world. In 2010, The US economy was responsible for 20.218 percent ...
-
US Economy News & Federal Reserve Board | FT.com
www.ft.com/world/us/economy - United StatesEconomy and Federal Reserve Board us world news, us news headlines, usa economy news, world news, world news headline, global business news, ...
-
US Economy - Business Exchange
bx.businessweek.com/us-economy/ - Cached1 hour ago – US Economy - updated news, articles and reactions. Find US Economy blogs, resources and related information for business professionals.
-
CIA The World Factbook United States - CIA - The World Factbook
12 Jul 2011 – The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47200. In this market-oriented ...
-
Twitter / Breaking News: US economy created 244000 ...
US economy created 244000 jobs in April, third straight month of solid hiring; unemployment rate at 9 percent http://on.wsj.com/ikbSB9.
Breaking News shared this -
Radical Notes » Financialization, Household Credit and Economic ...
30 Jun 2011 – Between 1948 and 1973, real GDP for the U.S.(measured in 2005 chained dollars) economy grew at a compound annual average rate of about 3:98 ...
Radical Notes shared this
The debt ceiling fiasco: It's not about compromise; it's about principle
uly 27, 2011 8:25 PM EDT(NaturalNews) An armed man approaches an innocent old lady on the street, shoves his gun in her face and screams, "Give me everything you own!" The little old lady, flummoxed but determined, angrily answers back, "Screw you! I'm not giving you one red cent!" The mugger pauses for a moment and then retorts, "Well then let's compromise. Just give me all the money you're carrying right now and we'll call it even!"
Related Articles
Growth anemic, debt row poses recession risk
Growth anemic, debt fight poses recession risk
Obama tells Congress to find way out of debt "mess"
Related Topics
Get Global Markets Emails&Alerts
Covers the leading players in the finance industry Sample
[Kick off your trading day with our newsletter]
This is the nature of the Democrats' "compromise" over the looming debt ceiling. Over the last three days, we've heard that word belligerently repeated over and over: "Compromise! Compromise! Compromise!" And yet all their compromise will really deliver to us is a compromised future where spending remains completely out of control and our children inherit total financial bankruptcy.Some compromise, huh?
Maybe we don't need a compromise. Maybe what we need is to stand firm on principle. In this case, I'm talking about the principle of living within your means. Taking responsibility for your spending. Honoring the taxpayers by not eroding the value of their own dollars with incessant Federal Reserve "quantitative easing" (just a code phrase for counterfeiting money and dumping it into circulation).
Must ReadAl-Qaeda Almost Defeated? Not So Fast, Official SaysBoehner, Reid No Closer to Debt Deal As Clock Ticks
Sponsorship LinkFree Forex Software
Like us on FacebookStanding firm on principle takes more courage than compromise
Compromise is not always the answer. If a heroin addict is at a recovery center and says to the doctor there, "I want 10 hits of heroin today" and the doctor says, "You'll get zero," then it's certainly not a good idea to "compromise" with the addict by giving him five hits of heroin. When an addiction is out of control, compromise is destructive, not constructive. And America's debt spending is, much like a heroin junky, an out-of-control addiction. We're addicted to debt, and too many people in Washington (both Democrats and Republicans, by the way) don't really want to quit that addiction. They just want more hits, which is the whole purpose of raising the debt ceiling.Increased spending results in increased power, you see. The more money the government pays out to the citizens in "benefits," the more control it has over their lives. And the more money the government spends on military spending or other projects, the more easily members of Congress can funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of their evil corporate campaign supporters.
No government ever wants to get smaller. It always wants to grow and expand, consuming all the resources around it like a runaway cancer tumor. It is the very nature of power to seek expansion of its own power.
What America needs right now is radical cancer surgery to remove the tumor. That tumor is made up of power-hungry bureaucrats, lawmakers, and federal officials who all want to expand their power, collect more money and leave less on the table for the taxpayers who are footing the entire bill. And right now as we watch Boehner, Obama and Reid argue over the debt ceiling, we are really watching three cancer tumor cells argue over how to divvy up the rest of the healthy tissue they've already infected. To expect Big Government to solve the problems caused by Big Government is to expect cancer tumors to magically and spontaneously create their own cancer cures. It's just not gonna happen, folks. Even full-blown chemotherapy couldn't bring down this runaway debt spending monstrosity...
The cure for cancerous government growth
The cure for Big Government can only be found in the People, not in government itself. This is why America was founded on the idea that when government becomes too oppressive, too powerful or too arrogant, it is the right and the duty of the People to seize control and bring that government back down to a reasonable size -- all while reminding the government to "fear the People" (and serve the People) rather than trying to enslave the People.That's where this is all headed: A massive social revolt against Big Government's ineptitude, arrogance and cancer-like tendencies. Because even if a new debt ceiling is reached by August 2nd (and it probably will be), that doesn't change the fact that the problem of runaway debt spending still looms over us... nor the fact that the Federal Reserve is gutting our economy, looting our nation and stealing our purchasing power away from us while stuffing the pockets of rich banksters with trillions of dollars in money that actually should belong to the American people.
We have been robbed blind, my friends. We have mugged at gunpoint, essentially, by the Fed, Big Government and the incompetent fools (criminals?) in Washington who claim to be working on your behalf while laughing their way down the halls of the Capitol building. They are crooks who make the crimes of Richard Nixon pale in comparison.
Real change may still be possible
There's only one member of Congress today who has the vision, the integrity, and the understanding of economics and the money supply to steer us away from the massive financial catastrophe that lays ahead, and his name is Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul gives us even a chance of making it through this financial challenge without a total collapse, and even Paul himself will admit it may already be too late regardless of who is in the White House.Support Ron Paul at www.RonPaul2012.com -- or get ready for a total financial blowout that will leave most Americans penniless and rioting in the streets.
It's coming, folks. The incompetence in Washington has potentially reached a point of no return. The thieving Federal Reserve criminals and Wall Street banksters have stolen your wealth without you even knowing it. The end of the dollar approaches. The end of America as we know it won't be far behind. Today we stand on the verge of financial doom, and all the Democrats can demand is that we "compromise" yet again.
It's time to end the compromises. It's time to stand for principle -- to stand up against runaway debt spending, against the criminal money creation of the Fed, and against the crooks and cowards who claim to be "leading" America today. I say it's time for a real leader who stands firm on principle -- a man like Rep. Ron Paul. I personally endorse Ron Paul as the only Presidential candidate who stands on principle. He is perhaps the last true leader left in Washington, and he needs your support.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033149_debt_ceiling_compromise.html#ixzz1TPiYRyYD
More from IBT Markets:
Follow us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to get this delivered to your inbox daily
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/188007/20110727/the-debt-ceiling-fiasco-it-s-not-about-compromise-it-s-about-principle.htm
President Obama Is A Mercenary For Private, International Banksters And The Treasonous Oligarchy
By Saman Mohammadi (about the author)
opednews.com
President Obama Is A Mercenary For Private, International Banksters And The Treasonous Oligarchy.
President Obama, like President Bush, President Clinton, and Poppy Bush, is a political mercenary for private, international banks and the treasonous oligarchy that owns the Federal Reserve Bank.
Read Washington's Blog post on July 26, called,Federal Reserve Admits: Fed Banks Are "Not Agencies" But "Independent Corporations" With "Private Boards of Directors," to read the quotes of a Federal Reserve lawyer saying in court that the Federal Reserve is independent from the United States government.
The Federal Reserve's interests are opposed to the interests of the American people and the American economy. What is good for the private owners of the Federal Reserve is bad for the average American family.
In effect, the global treasonous oligarchy is holding the American people and the American government hostage through their ownership and control of the Federal Reserve which illegally prints America's currency, a job delegated to the house of the people, the Congress, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and others are also shameless and traitorous mercenaries for the big private banks that are sucking America dry and using economic terrorism to reduce the standard of living in America to a third-world level.
The object is to make the American people poor and impoverished because it is easier to control a country with mostly poor people (through government handouts, economic pressure, etc) than a country with a strong middle class and productive small businesses.
Oligarchies throughout history destroy a nation's middle class once it gains the possession of the nation's economic and financial levers. The European-American oligarchy took control of America's economic might in 1913 when they persuaded President Woodrow Wilson through their agents to set up a private central bank to print America's money.
Disguising the private and unconstitutional nature of the central bank by calling it "Federal," was a great propaganda coup for the cunning oligarchy. At the time of the bank's creation, Congressman Charles August Lindbergh Sr. saw through the propaganda and called the passage of the Federal Reserve Act the "legislative crime of the ages." Lindbergh said:
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
Nearly a century after the creation of the monstrous Federal Reserve Bank, America is on the verge of bankruptcy and economic implosion because of the Fed's corrupt and illegal economic policies.II. To Save America and the West, Save The Middle Class
"There are three classes of citizens. The first are the rich, who are indolent and yet always crave more. The second are the poor, who have nothing, are full of envy, hate the rich, and are easily led by demagogues. Between the two extremes lie those who make the state secure and uphold the laws." - Euripides
Tyrannical rulers who attempt to bring a nation down to its knees go after the middle class, and divide the people based on racial and income differences. We are see this twofold strategy in America and the West, which has been conquered from within by a corrupt and sociopathic global banking, intellectual and corporate elite.This crazy ruling elite is working behind the scenes to force the collapse of industrial civilization in the West to make way for a new, post-industrial, collectivized, global civilization, and a new global totalitarian government.
In order to save America, Canada, England and Western civilization as a whole we must save the middle class in our countries and establish national public banking systems.
The treasonous oligarchy that controls the White House, Congress, Senate and U.S. Supreme Court want a two-tiered society with them living like kings on top, and the people living like rats at the bottom.
Society in America and other Western countries is already on its way to this reality because a generation of people have bought the lies of "free trade," and "globalization lifts all boats." The reverse is the case. The treasonous oligarchy has profited, while the Western middle class has been the loser in the global race for resources and jobs.
In the event of a societal and economic breakdown billionaire CEOs will hire private security guards to protect their loot from hordes of angry and hungry people.
An unjust and corrupt society always leads to resentment, hatred, anarchy, violence, and ultimately, an endless war between the establishment and the people. This is preventable if rich, poor and middle class patriots across the West unite together to restore the rule of law, generate new jobs and economic competition, establish public banking, support sound money solutions, and hold criminal government officials along with their banking paymasters accountable for their crimes and lies.
It is clear by now to everyone that the big private banks that control America and the West are parasitic institutions that don't provide financial security, or contribute anything of value to society. They are simply used by the treasonous financial oligarchy to suck the life and blood out of the economy and the American people.
As Max Keiser said in April, the global banking system is run on drug money and supported by drug cartels. Keiser said, "When we say bankers are terrorists and they kill people, and they have the moral equivalency of a Mexican drug lord lopping the head off of a baby to support their crime syndicate, that's what we mean. They're the two faces of the same coin. They're terrorists. [Lloyd] Blankfein, [Jamie] Dimon, Jose whomever drug lord, they're all terrorists."
These giant financial institutions that have committed crimes and robbed the American people are not too big to fail. They can be destroyed, and they should be destroyed because they are holding the global economy hostage to try to force down the throats of the people criminal austerity measures.
Every single Federal Reserve Bank building in America should be brought down brick by brick by as many hands as possible. Also, the Fed's board of directors and Chairman should be charged with treason against the U.S. Constitution and the American people, along with the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, including President Obama, former President Bush, former President Clinton, and former President George H. W. Bush.
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/President-Obama-Is-A-Merce-by-Saman-Mohammadi-110727-472.html
28 JUL, 2011, 08.36AM IST, AFP
US debt: How did superpower reach brink of default?
WASHINGTON: How did the United States, the world's richest nation and sole superpower, come to the brink of a catastrophic default on its debt that could send shockwaves through the fragile world economy?
Dire economic downturns -- including the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s -- giant tax cuts, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a pricey new health program for the elderly all helped sour Washington's fiscal picture.
Or, as PresidentBarack Obama put it literally in a speech late Monday to plead for a blend of deep cuts to government programs and increases to tax revenues: "For the last decade, we've spent more money than we took in."
Indeed, Washington posted a $236.2 billion federal budget surplus in the fiscal year ending October 1, 2000, and expected to post a $710 billion surplus a decade later, according to the non-partisanCongressional Budget Office.
"However, enactment of major legislation during the past decade, in combination with changing economic conditions, altered the long-term federal budget outlook dramatically," the CBO said in a March 2010 report.
The dramatic turnaround has left Obama predicting, in his budget released in February, a staggering $1.65 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, a figure the CBO recently narrowed to about $1.3 trillion.
Obama's fellow Democrats like to point out that Washington was running a surplus when Democratic then-president Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, and swung to sky-high deficits under his Republican successor George W. Bush.
But Clinton benefited from deficit-slashing measures enacted by his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, including tax increases that alienated fellow Republicans and helped cost the Republican reelection, as well as a high-tech bubble that helped inflate government revenues.
The younger Bush came into office in January 2001, initially citing the surplus forecasts as a reason to enact historic tax cuts, which he muscled through Congress over strong Democratic objections.
But the high-tech bubble burst, the US economy went into a recession in March 2001, and the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes traumatized the country, followed by tensions over the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Bush ordered US forces into Iraq to toppleSaddam Hussein in 2003, and with his Republican allies in theUS Congress beat back Democratic calls for tax increases or other measures to pay for both conflicts.
But plenty of Democrats ultimately voted to fund the wars on Bush's terms, like a young senator named Barack Obama, who backed some $300 billion in such spending between taking office in 2005 and his history-making 2008White House run.
And plenty of top Republicans now loudly embracing fiscal sobriety backed Bush's approach with little if any complaint, including House SpeakerJohn Boehner and Senate Minority LeaderMitch McConnell.
The United States spent roughly $1.283 trillion on the two wars to 2011, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in a March 2011 report.
And the CRS said in a May 2011 that the overall cost of tax cuts passed in 2001, 2003, and 2004 cost Washington some $1.76 trillion in revenues to 2011.
A new government-backed prescription drug benefit for the elderly, approved in 2003 with bipartisan support, added another $552.2 billion over ten years, the CRS said, citing a CBO analysis.
By the time Bush's second four-year term ended in January 2009, he had piled $4.9 trillion more on top of the $5.7 trillion in debt he had inherited, and the US economy was in freefall, a victim of the 2008 global economic collapse.
"Wall Street got drunk," he explained memorably in July 2008. "It got drunk and now it's got a hangover."
Obama's proposed cure, an $800-billion-dollar stimulus plan passed in 2009 over Republican opposition, stemmed job losses but failed to keep unemployment below 8.0 percent, as the White House had promised.
The US national debt deepened, reaching its congressionally set $14.3 trillion on May 16 and forcing Washington to use spending and accounting adjustments, as well as higher-than-expected tax receipts, to continue operating normally, which it can only do through August 2.
At that point, US leaders will face an agonizing choice about cutting an estimated 40 cents of every dollar in spending and defaulting either on debt payments or on other obligations like government health or retirement benefits.
Finance and business leaders have warned that failure to raise theUS debt ceiling by then would send shockwaves through the fragile world economy, while Obama has predicted a default would trigger economic "Armageddon."
Republican leaders face restive members close to the archconservative Tea Party" movement who are dead set on draconian cuts, reject any tax revenue increases, and even doubt the debt ceiling needs to be raised -- making a compromise elusive.
US economy: GDP growth much weaker than thought
US economic growth is much weaker than first thought, government figures show.
The economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.3% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said. Economists had forecast growth of 1.8%.
And in a surprise move, first-quarter growth was revised down sharply from 1.9% to 0.4%.
This evidence of economic weakness increases the pressure on the government as it attempts to increase its borrowing limit.
Slow growth makes it more difficult for the US to tackle its deficit.
If Congress does not raise the debt limit by 2 August, the US government could face funding shortfalls that it cannot meet by extra borrowing.
President Barack Obama urged Democrats and Republicans in the Senate "to find common ground" on a plan to address the debt crisis.
"There are plenty of ways out of this mess. But we are almost out of time.
"If we don't come to an agreement, we could lose our country's triple A credit rating," he said. "That is inexcusable."
"On a day when we've already been reminded how delicate the economy is, we can end [this crisis] ourselves."
US markets opened lower, with the Dow Jones, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq all falling 1% in early trade.
European markets, which were already in negative territory, saw further falls after the figures were released.
'Shocking'After the revision, the US growth figures now correspond to a quarterly increase of just 0.1% in the first three months of 2011, followed by a 0.3% rise in the second quarter.
Economists had expected steady growth in the second quarter, now that supply constraints from Japan after the earthquake and tsunami are easing.
The main reason for the lower-than-expected second-quarter figure was that consumer spending virtually ground to a halt, growing by just 0.1%, compared with 2.1% growth in the first quarter.
The large downward revision to the first quarter's growth figure was made as a result of lower capital investment and higher imports than first thought, and adjusting how seasonal factors are taken into account.
In addition, growth for the fourth quarter of 2010 was revised down from 3.1% to 2.3%, indicating that the economy had already started slowing before the end of last year.
Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management, said the figures were "shocking".
"Clearly this is evidence of a mid-cycle slowdown. The only question now is do we see a pick-up in the second half and so far the economic data to date doesn't suggest that.
"You might have some analysts come out and talk recession, talk about a double dip. Right now none of the forecasts even come close to that but this is weak data."
Worse recessionThe Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis makes annual revisions to its GDP estimates every July, incorporating more complete and detailed data.
It now says that the US recession of 2007-2009 was more severe than previously reported, with the economy shrinking by 5.1% over that period, rather than 4.1%.
But it also says that growth in 2010 was a bit stronger than it had first estimated.
It now puts 2010 growth at 3%, up from the previous 2.9%.
US Economy
Video Reports
What prospects for US graduates?2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis
 | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. |
 | This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider usingmore specific clean up instructions.) Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (July 2011) |
The 2011 United States debt ceiling crisis concerns the ongoing debate over whether the debt ceiling of the United States should be increased and, if so, the amount of the extension. Also under discussion are: what future spending policies and/or tax code policies should be associated with the action to increase the debt ceiling[citation needed] and what structural changes for future budgeting processes if any (for example, spending caps and/or a Balanced Budget amendment) should be associated with that action.[citation needed] The situation is regarded as a crisis due to the potential for a major worsening of the economic status of the U.S. in case of government default.[citation needed]
The debate is contentious due to the implications of not raising the debt ceiling, political ideologies[1][not in citation given], long-term debtconcerns,[citation needed] and competing plans to address these concerns.[2]
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Background
[edit]Current situation
Federal law currently sets the debt ceiling at $14.3 trillion.[3] According to the Treasury, the debt ceiling was reached on May 16, at which time the Treasury began extraordinary measures to temporarily finance the government (see Debt issuance suspension period and alternate methods of funding). The Treasury estimated that these measures would enable government payments to continue until August 2, 2011, after which Treasury would not be able to fulfill all US obligations.[4]
As of May 2011, approximately 40 percent of US government spending relied on borrowed money.[5] Raising the debt ceiling would allow the Federal Government to continue to borrow money to support current spending levels. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the Federal Government would have to cut spending immediately by 40 percent, affecting many daily operations of the government.[5] The Treasury would determine what items would be paid.[6] If the interest payments on the national debt are not made, the United States would be indefault, potentially causing catastrophic economic consequences for the US and the wider world as well. (Effects outside the US are anticipated because the United States has a very high gross domestic product with the world's largest single national economy; because the US is a major trading partner to many countries, including other major world powers who hold its debt and could demand repayment; and because spending and investment power enable the US to act as a mediator and economic model.)
According to the US Treasury, "failing to increase the debt limit would... cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history".[7] These legal obligations include paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the debt and many other items. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the Treasury will prioritize the items to pay with its ongoing revenue stream. Treasury could choose to pay interest so that the US does not default on its sovereign debt.[8]
[edit]What is the debt ceiling?
If the Treasury does not collect enough in revenue to pay for expenditures by the Federal Government, it may be authorized by Congress to issue debt (in other words, borrow money) to pay for the federal budget deficit. Prior to 1917, the Congress had to authorize each round of borrowing directly. In 1917, in order to provide more flexibility to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, the Congress instituted the concept of "debt ceiling". Since then, the Treasury can only borrow money as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a ceiling stated by law.[citation needed] To change the debt ceiling, Congress must enact specific legislation and the President must sign it into law.
The process of setting the debt ceiling is separate and distinct from the regular process of financing government operations, and raising the debt ceiling neither directly increases nor decreases the budget deficit. The US government passes a federal budget every year. This budget details projected tax collections and outlays and, therefore, the amount of borrowing the government would have to do in that fiscal year. A vote to increase the debt ceiling is, therefore, usually seen as a formality, needed to continue spending that has already been approved previously by the Congress and the President. The Government Accountability Office explains, "the debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred."[9]The apparent redundancy of the debt ceiling has led to suggestions that it should be abolished altogether.[10][11]
The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791). Every President since Harry Truman has added to the National Debt expressed in absolute dollars. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962,[12]including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, 8 times under Bill Clinton, 7 times under George W. Bush and 3 times to date under President Obama.
President Obama opposed one of those increases to the debt ceiling under George W. Bush and criticized Bush for a lack of leadership. "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said before a March 16, 2006, vote on raising the debt limit. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52–48, with all Democrats opposed.[1] This apparent contradiction can be explained by the fact that Democrats and Republicans disagree on how the government spends money and what the money is spent on, not on the idea itself of raising the debt ceiling.
[edit]Impact of budget deficits and long-term debt on debt ceiling debate
The growing anxiety since 2009 over the large United States federal budget deficits and mounting debt led to the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling:
- According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): "At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of fiscal year 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II." The sharp rise in debt after 2008 stems largely from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the severe recession and persistently high unemployment in 2008–11.[13][14]
- In 2009, the Tea Party movement sprang out of Americans being concerned about the increased government spending.[15][16]
- In early 2010, to address concerns of deficits and debt, President Obama established the Bowles-Simpson Commission to propose recommendations to balance the budget by 2015.[17] The commission issued their report in December 2010 but the recommendations were never adopted.
- The Tea Party helped usher in a wave of new Republicans in the 2010 mid-term elections[18] whose major planks during the campaign included cutting Federal spending[19] and stopping any tax increases.[20] These new Republicans and the new Republican House majority greatly affected the political debate in 2011 on raising the debt ceiling.
- In early- and mid-2011, Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit rating services issued warnings that United States could be downgraded because of the continued large deficits and increasing debt. [21][22][23]
- According to CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, without major policy changes the large budget deficits and growing debt would continue, which "would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower income growth in the United States." [24]
- Through 2010–2011, the European sovereign debt crisis was playing out, and there were concerns that the United States was on the same trajectory.[25]
[edit]Debt issuance suspension period and alternate methods of funding
When the debt ceiling is reached, the U.S. Treasury can declare a debt issuance suspension period, and utilize methods other than issuing new debt to acquire funds to meet federal obligations. Several of these methods are described in detail in an Appendix attached to Secretary Geithner's April 4, 2011 letter to Congress[26] These "extraordinary measures" include using some federal employee payroll deductions (those directed to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and to the federal employee Government Securities Investment Fund [G Fund], which is part of a 401(k)-like program known as the Thrift Savings Plan or TSP). These methods have been used in several previous episodes in which federal debt neared its statutory limit.[27]
These methods were implemented as of May 16, 2011 (as the current debt ceiling was exceeded) when, in a letter to Congress, Secretary Geithner declared a "debt issuance suspension period", which provides the Secretary authority to sell assets from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability trust fund and the G Fund of the TSP. According to this letter, this period could "last until August 2, 2011, when the Department of the Treasury projects that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted".[28]
[edit]Implications of not raising the debt ceiling
On August 2, without a raise in the debt ceiling, the Treasury will reach the point at which it will, in addition to being unable to further borrow money to pay its bills, be unable to gather enough funds from alternative sources to pay for all of the federal government's obligations. While the government has enough income from tax revenues and other sources to pay some governmental obligations, it would have to choose which obligations to meet and which not to meet. Choosing which appropriations to pay for does not necessarily amount to defaulting on obligations to bondholders. As an example, satisfying existing interest payments to bondholders, Medicare payments, Social Security payments, unemployment insurance and defense contractors would leave no remaining funds to pay active duty military, federal workers, taxpayers due refunds and many other obligations generally considered essential. [29]
Failure to extend the limit may have serious repercussions. This would probably include causing panic in bond markets and damaging the economic recovery from the Great Recession.[9][30] Such a crisis could throw the United States back into a recession.
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned of serious consequences of a default in July 2011, including: (a) higher borrowing costs for the U.S. government (as much as 1% or $150 billion/year in additional interest costs); and (b) the equivalent of bank runs on the money and other financial markets, potentially as severe as those of September 2008.[31] Bank failures and a potential bank run, curbed bygovernment intervention, were a major catalyst of the Global Financial Crisis that caused the Great Recession.
In response to Jim DeMint and other Republican Senators, who suggested that the current level of the debt ceiling could be maintained by prioritizing payments on the debt above other government spending, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote a letter of reply in late June. He said that this would require "cutting roughly 40 percent of all government payments", which could only be achieved by "selectively defaulting on obligations previously approved by Congress". He argues that this would harm the reputation of the United States so severely that there is "no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities", forcing the government to repay the principal on existing debt as it matures, which it would be unable to do under any conceivable circumstances. He concluded: "There is no alternative to enactment of a timely increase in the debt limit."[32]
Even if the Treasury were to prioritize payments on the debt above other spending and avoid formal default on its bonds, failure to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to reduce its spending by as much as 10% of GDP overnight, leading to a corresponding fall inaggregate demand. Such a significant shock, if sustained, is thought to be able to reverse the recovery and send the country into a recession.[33][34]
[edit]Deadline
According to the Treasury Department, the deadline to increase the debt ceiling is August 2, 2011, when the U.S. government would run out of cash to pay all its bills.[35] According to Barclays Capital the Treasury may run out of cash around August 10, when $8.5 billion in Social Security payments are due. According to Wall Street analysts, the U.S. Treasury can't borrow from the capital markets after August 2, but still has enough cash to meet its obligations until August 15. Analysts also predict that the U.S. Treasury will be able to roll over the $90 billion in U.S. debt that matures on August 4 and gain additional time to avert a crisis.[36] No one knows how the financial market and investors will react if U.S. Treasury is unable to borrow additional funds or meet its financial obligations.
[edit]Proposed resolutions
Congress is now considering whether and by how much to extend the debt ceiling (or eliminate it), and what long-term policy changes (if any) should be made concurrently.[37] The House of Representatives has refused to raise the debt ceiling without deficit reduction, voting down a 'clean' bill to increase the debt ceiling without conditions. The May 31 vote was 318 to 97, with all 236 Republicans and 82 Democrats voting to defeat the bill.[38] The Republicans largely believe a deficit reduction deal should be based solely on spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements, without any tax increases, to reduce or solve the long term issue of debt.[39] President Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress want an increase in the debt ceiling to solve the short-term borrowing problem, and in exchange support a decrease in the budget deficit to be funded by a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.[40] Some prominent liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, and Brad DeLong, and prominent investors such as Bill Gross, go even further, and argue that not only the debt ceiling should be raised, but it should be accompanied by a short-term increase in federal spending (and, therefore, deficit), which would stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment, and ultimately reduce the deficit in medium to long term.[41][42]
Some Tea Party Caucus and other Republicans, however, (including, but not limited to, Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, and Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Allen West, etc.) are skeptical about raising the debt ceiling altogether (with some suggesting the consequences of default are exaggerated), arguing that the debt ceiling should not be raised and "instead the federal debt be "capped" at the current limit,"[43] "although that would oblige the government to cut spending by almost half overnight."[44] For more, see"consequences of not raising the debt ceiling."
Jack Balkin, the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, besides arguing that the President can invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to solve the crisis (see next section), also suggests two other ways to solve the debt ceiling crisis: he points out that the U.S. Treasury has the power to issue platinum coins in any denomination, so it could solve the debt ceiling crisis by issuing two platinum coins in denominations of one trillion dollars each, depositing them into its account in the Federal Reserve, and writing checks on the proceeds. Another way to solve the debt ceiling crisis, Balkin suggests, would be for the Federal Government to sell the Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2 trillion. The Fed would then credit the proceeds to the government's checking account. Once Congress lifts the debt ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or the option could simply expire in 90 days. [45]
Among others, in a report issued by the credit rating agency Moody's, analyst Steven Hess suggested that the government should consider getting rid of the limit altogether, because the difficulty inherent in reaching an agreement to raise the debt ceiling "creates a high level of uncertainty" and an increased risk of default. As reported by The Washington Post, "without a limit dependent on congressional approval, the report said, the agency would worry less about the government's ability to meet its debt obligations."[46]
Additionally, some argue the debt limit is unconstitutional, and suggest that the President could simply declare the debt ceiling as such to resolve the crisis. For more, see the section entitled "constitutionality of the debt ceiling" below.
[edit]Constitutionality of the debt ceiling
During the debate, some scholars and Democratic lawmakers[47] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates theUnited States Constitution and direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[48] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned:
- Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Arguments:
- Jack Balkin, looking into the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, argues that Section 4 was adopted precisely to guard against politically-determined default. Referencing the sponsor of the provision, Senator Benjamin Wade, Balkin argues that "the central rationale for Section Four... was to remove threats of default on federal debts from partisan struggle." Whereas the debt ceiling gives Congress the power for the United States to default on its debts by requiring approval of a higher debt limit; Balkin quotes Senator Wade: "every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress." Balkan claims that this reveals "an important structural principle. The threat of defaulting on government obligations is a powerful weapon, especially in a complex, interconnected world economy. Devoted partisans can use it to disrupt government, to roil ordinary politics, to undermine policies they do not like, even to seek political revenge. Section Four was placed in the Constitution to remove this weapon from ordinary politics."[49]
- Bruce Bartlett, a libertarian former Reagan adviser and columnist for The Fiscal Times, argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and that the President should disregard the debt limit.[50]
- In July 2011, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel argued that the President could use the public debt section of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the Treasury to continue paying its debts if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not reached.[51]
- Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, has called the argument that the public debt clause can nullify the debt ceiling "false hope" and has noted that nothing in the Constitution enabled the president to "usurp legislative power" with regards to the debt. Tribe also notes that since Congress has means other than borrowing to pay the federal debt (including raising taxes, coining money, and selling federal assets), the argument that the president could seize the power to borrow could be extended to give the President the ability to seize those powers as well.[52]
- Garrett Epps argues that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority: calling it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased inThe New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[53] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them; the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out those instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations, and is therefore unconstitutional. President Bill Clinton endorsed this line of argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th amendment, calling it "crazy" that Congress is allowed to first appropriate funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay for them.[54]
- Furthermore, Matthew Zeitlin argues that, were Section 4 invoked, members of Congress would not have standing to sue the President for allegedly usurping congressional authority, even if they were willing to do so; and those likely to have standing would be people "designed to elicit zero public sympathy: those who purchased credit default swaps which would pay off in the event of government default."[53]Relatedly, Matthew Steinglass argues that, because it would come down to the Supreme Court, the Court would not vote in the favor of anyone who could and would sue: it would rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. This is because, for the Court to rule to uphold the debt ceiling, it would, in effect, be voting for the United States to default, with the consequences that would entail; and, Steinglass argues, the Court would not do that.[55]
- Michael Stern, Senior Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004, stated that Garrett Epps "had adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Public Debt Clause and that this interpretation, even if accepted, could not justify invalidating the debt limit" because "the President's duty to safeguard the national debt no more enables him to assume Congress's power of the purse than it would enable him to assume the judicial power when (in his opinion) the Supreme Court acts in an unconstitutional manner."[56]
- Rob Natelson, former Constitutional Law Professor at University of Montana, argues that "this is not some issue in the disputed boundaries between legislative and executive power." He continues "That's why the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2) gives only Congress, not the President, the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." In another agrument, Natelson states that Bruce Bartlett "deftly omits a crucial part of the quote from the Fourteenth Amendment. It actually says, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW . . . shall not be questioned.' In other words, Congress has to approve the debt for it not to be questioned. And note that this language refers to existing debt, not to creating new debt. He also neglects to mention that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to Congress, not to the President, authority to enforce the amendment."[57]:
- Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
George Madison, General Counsel to the US Treasury, wrote on 8 July 2011 that "Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit" and that "the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress." He additionally affirmed that "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."[58]
President Obama himself later stated that he would not use this method to solve the crisis.[citation needed]
[edit]Timeline
- February 12, 2010. The most recent increase in the debt ceiling was signed into law by President Obama, after being passed by theDemocratic 111th Congress. It increased the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion.[59]
- February 18, 2010. President Obama issues an Executive Order to establish the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission. The mission of the Commission was to propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. It was tasked to issue a report with a set of recommendations by December 1, 2010.[60]
- November 2, 2010. United States midterm elections: Considered a major victory, the Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority by 242–193 in the 112th Congress.[61] Major planks for the House Republicans during the election campaign were cutting Federal spending [62] and stopping any tax increases.[63]
- December 1, 2010. The Bowles-Simpson Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issues its report but the recommendations fail to win support of at least 14 of the 18 members necessary to adopt it formally.[64][65] The recommendations were never adopted by Congress nor President Obama.
- January 6, April 4 and May 2, 2011. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner sends three letters requesting an increase in the debt ceiling.[66][67][68]
- January 28, 2011. Moody's Investors Service says it may place a "negative" outlook on the Aaa rating of U.S. debt sooner than anticipated as the country's budget deficit widens.[69]
- February 14, 2011. President Obama releases his budget proposal for fiscal year 2012.[70] Republicans criticize the budget for doing too little to rein in the burgeoning U.S. deficit.[71] The CBO analysis released in April 2011 estimated that the budget would increase total deficits over 10 years by $2.7 trillion: from $6.7 Trillion of the March 2011 baseline to $9.4 Trillion with the proposed budget.[72] The Senate rejects the budget proposal on May 25, 2011 (see below).
- April 14, 2011. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted in favor of the 2011 United States federal budget, 260–167 and 81–19 respectively. This budget projected the 2011 deficit to be $1.645 trillion, and therefore ensured that the debt ceiling would be hit during this fiscal year.
- April 15, 2011. On a party-line vote 235–193, the House of Representatives passed the Republican 2012 budget proposal aimed to reduce total spending by $5.8 trillion and reduce total deficits by $4.4 trillion over 10 years compared to the current-policy baseline.[73] It included reform to Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs which the Democrats criticized as an attempt to leave seniors and poor holding the bag on health care costs. The criticism resonated with the many in the public who voiced opposition to the proposed changes.[74] The Senate rejects the budget proposal on May 25, 2011 (see below).
- April 18, 2011. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its outlook on U.S. to negative due to recent and expected further deterioration in the U.S. fiscal profile, and of the ability and willingness of the U.S. to soon reverse this trend. With the negative outlook, S&P believes there is a likelihood of at least one-in-three of a downward rating adjustment within two years.[75]
- May 16, 2011. The debt ceiling is reached. Secretary Geithner issues a debt issuance suspension period, directing the Treasury to utilize "extraordinary measures" to fund federal obligations.[76]
- May 18, 2011. Bipartisan deficit-reduction talks among the "Gang of Six" high-profile Senators are suspended when Republican Tom Coburn drops out.[77]
- May 24, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden and four Democratic lawmakers begin meeting with the Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the Republican Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, in an effort to continue the talks. Cantor says that these talks would lay the groundwork for further discussions between President Obama, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and other leaders of Congress.[78]
- May 25, 2011. The Senate rejects both the Republican House budget proposal by a vote of 57–40 and the Obama budget proposal by a vote of 97–0.[79]
- May 31, 2011. The House votes on a bill to raise the debt ceiling without any spending cuts tied to the increase. President Obama asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling in a 'clean' vote that included no other conditions. The bill, which would have raised the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, failed by a vote of 97–318. Democrats accused Republicans of playing politics by holding a vote they knew would fail.[80]
- June 23, 2011. Biden's negotiations on the debt ceiling are cut off when both House Majority Leader Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Kylwalk out over disagreements over taxes.[81]
- July 19, 2011. The Republican Majority in the House bring the Cut, Cap and Balance Act (H.R.2560),[82] their proposed solution to the crisis, to a vote. They pass the bill by a vote of 234–190, split closely along party lines: 229 Republicans and 5 Democrats 'for,' 181 Democrats and 9 Republicans 'against;' it is sent to the Senate for consideration. The Bill authorized that the debt ceiling be raised by $2.4 trillion AFTER a Balanced Budget Amendment was passed by Congress. Since Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress to pass, a vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment would require more support than the Cut, Cap and Balance Act bill achieved in the House vote.[83]
- July 22, 2011. The Senate votes along party lines to table the Cut, Cap and Balance Act; 51 Democrats voting to table it and 46 Republicans voting to bring it to debate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Act "one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever be placed on the floor of the United States Senate." Even had it passed Congress, President Obama had promised to veto the bill.[84]
- July 25, 2011. Republicans and Democrats outlined separate deficit-reduction proposals.[85]
- July 25, 2011. President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner addressed the nation separately over network television with regards to the debt ceiling.[86][87]
- August 2, 2011. Date projected by the Department of the Treasury that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted.[88]
[edit]References
- ^ CNN Political Unit (2011-07-21). "CNN Poll: Strong partisan divide on debt ceiling". CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs. Retrieved 2011-07-27.
- ^ The Associated Press (2011-07-25). "Reid, Boehner Outline Competing Deficit Plans". Fox News. Retrieved 2011-07-29.
- ^ "Obama signs debt limit-paygo bill into law". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Murray, Colleen (2011-05-16). "As US Reaches Debt Limit, Geithner Implements Additional Extraordinary Measures to Allow Continued Funding of Government Obligations". US Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2011-07-27.
- ^ a b Timothy Geitner (2011-06-28). "Letter to the Hon Jim Demint". Secretary of Treasury. Retrieved 2011-07-29.
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/28/treasury-to-explain-who-gets-paid-who-doesnt-if-debt-cap-not-raised/#ixzz1TQoTfBzD
- ^ US Treasury, Debt Limit page, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/debt-limit.aspx
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/28/treasury-to-explain-who-gets-paid-who-doesnt-if-debt-cap-not-raised/#ixzz1TQoTfBzD
- ^ a b Government Accountability Office (22 February 2011). "Debt Limit: Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market".
- ^ "Abolish the Debt Ceiling!".
- ^ "Moody's: Abolish the debt limit".
- ^ "Debt ceiling FAQs: What you need to know".
- ^http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf
- ^ "America's Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making".
- ^ http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705289328,00.html
- ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/107193-gallup-tea-partys-top-concerns-are-debt-size-of-government
- ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform
- ^ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/first-us-polls-close-in-key-mid-term-elections-for-house-of-representatives-and-the-senate/story-e6frf7lf-1225947137452
- ^ http://www.gop.gov/pledge/cutspending
- ^ http://www.gop.gov/pledge/jobs
- ^ http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Moody-sSaysTimeShortensforU-S-DebtOutlook/2011/01/28/id/384299
- ^ http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245302919686
- ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/usa-ratings-sp-idUSN1E76R1E920110728
- ^http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf
- ^http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/business/economy/12leonhardt.html
- ^ Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, letter to Senator Harry Reid, dated May 16, 2011.
- ^ Government Accountability Office, Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market, GAO-11-203, February 2011.
- ^ Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, letter to Senator Harry Reid, dated May 16, 2011.
- ^ "Debt Ceiling: Chaos if Congress blows it". CNN Money. July 14, 2011. Retrieved 2011-07-29.
- ^ Sarlin, Benjy (June 22, 2011). "Ex-IMF Chief Economist: Debt Ceiling Default Would Be "A Calamity"". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved 2011-07-03.
- ^ "CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS-Lawrence Summers Interview-July 17, 2011". Transcripts.cnn.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Full Text: Geithner Letter Responding to Republicans on Debt Limit". The Wall Street Journal. 29 June 2011.
- ^ "The Outcome of the Debt Ceiling Battle Could Hurt the Economy".
- ^ "Analysts: Failure To Raise Debt Ceiling Means 44% Spending Cut, 10% Drop In GDP, Recession".
- ^ "Full Text: Business Groups Enter the Fray as Debt Deadline Looms". The Wall Street Journal. 27 July 2011.
- ^ "Is US default deadline truly Aug 2? Analysts say no". Reuters. 26 July 2011.
- ^ Calmes, Jackie (January 6, 2011). "Geithner asks Congress to raise U.S. debt limit quickly". The New York Times [website]. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
- ^ "Congress rejects 'clean' U.S. debt ceiling hike". MarketWatch. 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "House GOP Votes Down Clean Debt Limit Increase, Eyes Medicare In Deal". The Huffington Post. 31 May 2011.
- ^ "Scheme, stonewall and fulminate". The Economist. 21 July 2011.
- ^ "PIMCO Founder To Deficit-Obsessed Congress: Get Back To Reality".
- ^ "Right Now Contractionary Fiscal Policy (Probably) Makes the Long-Run Debt Problem Worse".
- ^ Timothy Geithner (29 June 2011). "Geithner Letter Responding to Republicans on Debt Limit". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ "Scheme, stonewall and fulminate". The Economist. 21 July 2011.
- ^ Three Ways Obama Can Bypass Congress—Jack Balkin—CNN Opinion July 28, 2011:
- ^ Hess, Steven (18 July 2011). "Eliminate the debt ceiling, Moody's suggests". The Washington Post.
- ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/house-democratic-leaders-urge-obama-to-use-14th-amendment_n_910878.html
- ^http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/30/news/economy/debt_ceiling_constitution/index.htm
- ^ Jack Balkin (30 June 2011). "The Legislative History of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment".
- ^ Bruce Bartlett (April 29, 2011). "The Debt Limit Option President Obama Can Use". The Fiscal Times. Retrieved May 3, 2011.
- ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (5 July 2011). "Invoke the 14th — and end the debt standoff". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
- ^ Laurence Tribe (8 July 2011). "A Ceiling We Can't Wish Away".The New York Times.
- ^ a b Zeitlin, Matthew (24 June 2011). "The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It". The New Republic.
- ^ "Bill Clinton Says He'd Raise The Debt Ceiling Using 14th Amendment". NPR. 19 July 2011.
- ^ Steinglass, Matthew (30 June 2011). "The Debt Ceiling: The Constitutional Option". The Economist.
- ^ http://www.pointoforder.com/2011/06/06/snatching-the-power-of-the-purse/
- ^ http://constitution.i2i.org/2011/07/27/can-the-president-raise-the-debt-limit-unilaterally-hell-no/
- ^ U.S. Treasury, Treasury Notes Blog,http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/FACT-CHECK-Treasury-General-Counsel-George-Madison-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Op-Ed-on-14th-Amendment.aspx
- ^ "Obama signs debt limit-paygo bill into law" (February 12, 2010). Reuters [website]. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
- ^ "Executive Order - National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. 2010-02-18. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Shearer, Geoffrey (2010-11-04). "Republican wave swamps the US in mid-term elections". Herald Sun. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Cutting Spending - A Pledge to America". GOP.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Creating Jobs - A Pledge to America". GOP.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ The Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
- ^ Deficit Commission Report Fails to Advance to Congress.December 3, 2010. FoxNews.com
- ^ "Secretary Geithner Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress". Treasury.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Secretary Geithner Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress". Treasury.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Secretary Geithner Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress". Treasury.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Moody's Threatens US With 'Negative' Debt Outlook". Moneynews.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "President Obama's Budget and the Pending Budget Fight - Political Punch". Blogs.abcnews.com. 2011-02-14. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Khan, Huma (2011-02-15). "Obama Defends 2012 Budget, Addresses Deficit, Tax Overhaul in News Conference - ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-AnalysisPresidentsBudget.pdf
- ^ http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/KeyFactsSummary.pdf
- ^ AP (2010-04-07). "House Approves GOP 2012 Budget on Party-Line Vote". FoxNews.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "S&P | Fiscal Challenges Weighing On The 'AAA' Sovereign Credit Rating On The Government Of The United States | Americas". Standardandpoors.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "As US Reaches Debt Limit, Geithner Implements Additional Extraordinary Measures to Allow Continued Funding of Government Obligations". Treasury.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Cowan, Richard and Sullivan, Andy. 'Gang of Six' budget talks founder in Senate. May 18, 2011. Reuters.
- ^ Bull, Alister. Debt Talks: Joe Biden Leads Third Round Of Deficit Negotiations. May 24, 2011. Reuters.
- ^ "Senate rejects budget measure containing Medicare overhaul - CNN". Articles.cnn.com. 2011-05-25. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Congress rejects 'clean' U.S. debt ceiling hike". MarketWatch. 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Parkinson, John R. and Miller, Sunlen. Top Republicans Walk Out of VP Biden's Debt Talks. June 23, 2011. ABCNews.com
- ^ "Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.2560 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_V
- ^ Wong, Scott (July 22, 2011). "Senate rejects 'Cut, Cap, Balance'". Politico.
- ^ AP (2010-04-07). "Reid, Boehner Outline Competing Deficit Plans". FoxNews.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Transcript of Obama's speech: 'Make your voice heard'". CNN.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ "Transcript of Boehner's speech: Washington's spending binge is over". CNN.com. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
- ^ Stanton, John & Humberto Sanchez (July 27, 2011). "A Conservative Revolt in Full". Roll Call. Retrieved July 27, 2011.
Full coverage
Timeline of articles Number of sources covering this story
ImagesVideos  |
-
"End Of America 2011", Porter Stansberry's Newest Scam | MyFDL
-
my.firedoglake.com/.../2011/.../end-of-america-2011-porter-stansbe... - Cached
-
"End Of America 2011″, Porter Stansberry's Newest Scam. By: Bill Egnor Thursday February 24, 2011 7:12 am ...
2011 -- The beginning of the End of America - Double Dip Recession ...
*
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptd3STaEaIA5 min - 17 Aug 2010 -Uploaded by PaulRevere2012
2011 - The United States begins its descent from prosperity to economic stagnation / depression in 2011 as the economic recovery stalls ...
-
End Of America 2011 Is BS
-
www.businessinsider.com/end-of-america-2011-is-bs-2011-4- Cached
-
22 Apr 2011 – End of America 2011 is marketing nonsense. Don't sell your stocks and move to a subterranean shelter with your Krugerrands just yet.
-
New Chinese Fighter Jet May Erase U.S. Air Invincibility - Newsweek
-
www.newsweek.com/2011/.../an-end-to-america-s-air-invincibility.h... - Cached
-
18 Jan 2011 – In future wars America's nearly radar-invisible Boeing F-22 Raptor was supposed to allow U.S. pilots to shoot down an enemy jet from 50 ...
-
Porter Stansberry's "End of America" Video: The Case for ...
-
contraryinvesting.com/.../porter-stansberrys-end-of-am... -United States - Cached
-
Porter Stansberry's "End of America" Video: The Case for Inevitable Hyperinflation and Social Unrest. by Brett on January 1, 2011 ...
-
4press » The End of America 2011 Video: Should You Be Worried?
-
4press.biz › Finance - Cached
-
14 Mar 2011 – While choosing a story for my finance section, I have come across this CNN commercial about the end of America 2011 prediction by Porter ...
-
Porter Stansberry's "End of America" Video: The Case for ...
-
www.themarketfinancial.com/..."end-of-america"...the.../119914- Cached
-
1 Jan 2011 – Porter is Porter Stansberry's "End of America" Video: The Case for Inevitable Hyperinflation ... Sy Harding's Street Smart Outlook for 2011 ...
-
An Important Day in 2011—And Why it Could Be theEnd of America as ...
-
www.offthegridnews.com/.../an-important-day-in-2011—and-why-i... - Cached
-
20 Dec 2010 – 42 Comments to "An Important Day in 2011—And Why it Could Be the End of America as We Know It". alvee42 says: December 22, 2010 at 9:19 am ...
-
Squarestate:: "End Of America 2011", Porter Stansberry's Newest Scam
-
www.squarestate.net/.../end-of-america-2011-porter-stansberrys-ne... - Cached
-
"End Of America 2011", Porter Stansberry's Newest Scam. by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said. Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:09:15 AM MST. con man. Oh, gods! ...
-
Porter Stansberry Research - The End of America -2011 - Topix
-
www.topix.com/forum/city/jamestown-tn/T3RJ646IN3C7NLKCV- Cached
-
20 posts - 13 authors - Last post: 5 Mar
-
Jan 3, 2011. Judged: 1. Porter Stansberry Research - The End of America WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION IS...
-
News for end of america 2011
TIME - 6 hours ago
By Claire Martin Friday, July 29, 2011 The fugitives of the nation may be heaving a sigh of relief at the news that the television show America's Most ...
30 countries on the verge of BANKRUPTCY, US is in the list!
April 27th, 2010
Souce: thecomingdepression.net
Real List Of Countries On Verge Of Bankruptcy
Let's talk a bit about these supposedly broke governments that have been reaching insolvency, and in cases like Iceland in 2006 and Argentina in 2001, have declared bankruptcy. It seems to most, as it would to anyone not ideologically retarded, that for all the public brokeness going on, there is always enough money for a bailout for some big bosses. Indeed, there's never a shortage of money (or credit; whatever you want to call it) when it comes to buying up some big boss bad debt, or fleecing the public purse to provide him (them) with a fat tax cut so they can create jobs (see: off shore, low wage).
Funnier still, there never seems to be a shortage to pay for militaries to go fight wars so the boss(es) can make (or defend) profits in somebody else's country. Now, you might think the above quite naturalÂ, but down here in reality we call that a â€Å"massive subsidy.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/30-countries-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy-us-is-in-the-list/
14 Countries on the Verge of Bankruptcy
Granted, the current economic situation in the U.S. is far from great due to an ever-increasing national debt; but when looking at the financial dilemma on a global scale it quickly becomes obvious that other countries are even worse off than America. While they may not be filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy like an individual would in America, these countries are still on the verge of financial emergency.Here are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy, including the U.S.
Add this infographic to your site:
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/filing-bankruptcy-statistics/countries-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy.html
The Creeping Terror
Two years ago I was in my local Borders bookstore and noticed that they had downsized their stock selection by what looked to be nearly a third. I made a point to ask if this was a chain wide phenomenon. Most employees I talked with said yes. I then asked if they had begun cutting employee hours by significant margins and specifically laying off longtime workers that had built up substantial pay increases. Again, the consensus was yes. Finally, and most importantly, did Borders discuss these changes with their staff in a manner that was informative and open, or, was there a lot of confusion amongst employees as to what exactly was going on? The response was that they were overwhelmingly bewildered by Borders' lack of clear communication as to the direction of the corporation.
My suggestion to them was to start looking for another job, because their company was about to declare bankruptcy. They, of course, denied this was remotely likely:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704329104576138...
It may sound like a stretch, but the reason I bring up Borders' impending chapter 11 is because, to me, it represents a microcosm of the creeping nature of economic collapse, especially when that collapse is being wielded and delegated.
Borders has been on the verge of default for quite a while. Did they refuse to relay this information openly to their employees because they selfishly wanted to maintain profit margins just a little longer until they were ready to pull the plug? Of course! Do global bankers with aspirations of a centralized currency keep the true destabilization of the market spectrum and the coming international dollar dump to themselves because in the end they will benefit from our shock and awe? Of course!
Whether a person loses everything all at once, or a piece at a time, the end result is the same, however, there is something especially cruel in the idea of fiscal theater; the act of inspiring false hope that a financial environment is sound when it has, in truth, already suffocated. Why would our modern day robber barons put so much energy into constructing a fake recovery? There are many reasons, but first and foremost, to create apathy. To lure us towards inaction. To swindle us into assuming the storm will blow over, and all will return as it was. Unfortunately, recovery without intense restructuring of our economic system is impossible. The fundamentals do not support the suggestion in the slightest. The question is, who will be at the helm when the dust settles and this restructuring does eventually occur? Will the American people take the lead, as they should, and commit to a concrete free market rejuvenation of our financial environment? Or, will we sit back yet again, and let the banksters set us up for the next grand disaster?
You can contact Giordano Bruno at: giordano@neithercorp.us
Share your thoughts below. What signs of collapse do you see? Or not see?
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-america-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy/question-1518637/
-
California Bankrupt? - The American Dream
-
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/california-bankrupt- Cached
-
21 Jun 2010 – Is the state of California bankrupt? Well, an increasing number of ... California's health care system is alsoon the verge of collapse. ...
-
Say Anything » Bismarck Tribune's Parent CompanyOn The Verge Of ...
-
sayanythingblog.com/.../bismarck-tribunes-parent-company-on-the-... - Cached
-
15 Jul 2011 – Bismarck Tribune's Parent Company On The Verge Of Bankruptcy ... squeezed by competition from the Internet and the U.S. economic recovery is ...
-
Is the U.S. on the Verge of Bankruptcy? - Page 3 - MTG Salvation ...
-
10 posts - 6 authors - Last post: 6 Mar
-
Page 3-Is the U.S. on the Verge of Bankruptcy? Debate.
-
The Zionist Plot to Rob You to Pay For More Middle East Bloodshed
-
The fact is, the United States is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. The bogus "War on Terror" and the ramping up ofthe U.S. military invasion of the ...
-
American cities at risk of default and bankruptcy - May. 28, 2010
-
money.cnn.com/2010/05/28/news/.../american_cities.../index.htm- Cached
-
28 May 2010 – Three American cities on the brink of broke ...The mayor has said the city won't declare bankruptcy, but the governor has vowed not to bail ...
-
Watching America : » Is It Certain That AmericaWill Not Go Bankrupt?
-
watchingamerica.com/.../is-it-certain-that-america-will-not-go-bankr... - Cached
-
19 Apr 2011 – This is the kind of stuff that is suitable for a third world country on the verge of bankruptcy. The assumption is that America is "too bog ...
-
The Next 17 Big Companies That Are Heading Toward Bankruptcy
-
www.businessinsider.com/companies-close-to-bankruptcy-2011-2 - Cached
-
17 Feb 2011 – B) American Apparel Inc. How did it get this bad? .... When a truly large company is on the brink of bankruptcy, then do an article. ...
-
10 largest bankruptcies in the history of the USA | Day Trading on ...
-
nyse-trade.com/httpnyse-trade-ru10-krupnejshix-bankr... - United States - Cached
-
Probably, all of you heard that procedure of bankruptcy of the legendary American ... that in due course Chrysler already wason the verge of bankruptcy. ...
-
Why the Colonists Feared Corporations… - Gangs of America by Ted ...
-
gangsofamerica.com/4.html - Cached
-
These days we may see those ads as campy and nostalgic, but as argued by Marchand in books such as Creating the Corporate Soul and Advertising the American ...
-
Op-Ed: U.S. on verge of financial catastrophe
-
13 Jun 2011 – China recently called America a debtor nation and then went on to say America was insolvent and on the verge of bankruptcy. ...
Major American Cities on the Verge of Bankruptcy & Default: Finally Going After Public Unions
Vallejo Bankruptcy Plan Offers Unsecured Creditors 5-20%; JPMorgan CEO Forecasts More Municipal Bankruptcies; Bernanke Will Not Rescue CitiesMish over at GlobalEconomicAnaysis?has been probably the best when it comes to documenting and confronting the issues surrounding public unions and their out-right thievery of American tax dollars,?has this great piece out today:
Excerpts (please read entire piece)
In a long overdue move, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is calling for increased retirement ages of public union workers, changes in union seniority rules, and the ability to negotiate directly with unions instead of the state setting pensions.
Chicago Mayor Daley and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both warn of defaults even though the LA Mayor downplays LA's default risk. In Washington state, Governor Christine Gregoire, a life-long bureaucrat and part of Washington's problem, at long last has her hands tied by voters refusing to accept more tax hikes.
http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=2950
America soon insolvent? The explosion of world finance is it tomorrow?
Monday, May 16
the U.S. national debt has gone through the roof of the 14,294 billion. This means that at this level the United States are not, by their own rules able to borrow. In other words, the United States are on the verge of bankruptcy. The U.S. government has, however, granted until August 2 to negotiate with Congress raising the debt ceiling. Plan that can not be accepted by Republicans on the express condition to be accompanied by a drastic reduction of public spending.
This should result in a suspension of processing 800 000 civil servant , some non-vital services closed by the Administration, such as national parks. The remaining part of the army (2.3 million individuals) could also be delayed, as suggested by the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, during a passage on the basis Camp Libert near Baghdad
Three years after the liquidation of Lehman Brother , starting point of the global crash in September 2008, the adage "too big to fail " could therefore no longer apply only to financial institutions but to corrupt the federal government itself that the possible lack of pa yment would ipso facto a crisis of confidence globally. The global financial system is not based there not on the principle of absolute solvency Amerika Big Sister
This is obviously not a coincidence that the rating agency Moody's recently, this Thursday, May 3, to warn the U.S. Congress it was considering lowering the rating of the U.S. if an agreement allowing the raising the ceiling of the public debt was not quickly found. For three consecutive years the U.S. budget deficit is in fact between 9 and 11% of GDP, gross domestic product. Now in reply Barack Obama the President gave the Federal Government weakly voluntary goal of reducing four trillion dollar budget deficit over the next twelve years under the waves … the intentions clearly on the cautery a wooden leg and morethe announcement effect as part of a campaign com. Pre-election as a clear desire.
For what to do now except cut the budgets for social spending and health? Namely, removing what had been laboriously acquired: the reform of health insurance known as the only major success of the quadrennium Obama (with the exception of course of the liquidation spectacular monster bin Laden). This would then accept or less the republican austerity plan, which provides a decrease of 5.8 trillion dollars of public spending over ten years (six times, however, the savings under the proposed Obama) … based on a strict budget revision heartbreaking Medicaid programs and Medicare , the two aspects of the reform of health insurance so painfully passed in 2010.
Obama would be tantamount to political suicide course. A scenario that would help settle the question of whether the current Democratic president is more than a puppet (a fabrication intended to deceive and lead), useful among other things, to drive external actions destabilizing the international balance in favor of a first range of pressure groups and private interests (oil, arms, AIPAC, etc.).? And this even better than its predecessor Republican George Walker Bush! Or if it is still a little so as to serve the American nation, despite flexibility watermark?
Today the White House is thus in the grip of a double bind : on one hand reduce public spending as part of a drastic austerity plan to to obtain congressional approval for an increase in the ceiling of the debt and alienating the electorate, on the other, the domestic electorate and take the chance to see the U.S. lose their label AAA credit, with the consequent risk of further systemic crisis of unprecedented magnitude. A tough choice
Because what if the U.S. were insolvent like Greece, Ireland, or Portugal … or the United Kingdom which no one speaks but the decay economy is most advanced? Nobody dares (or unwilling) to believe that such a catastrophe could occur, yet! Certainly, the American Friend is not only of accounting manipulation, clever counterfeiter, it is also a master in the art of emitting pure money "paper" … The fact remains that the gap actually opens before him: the crisis building is fresh start … the one that was causing the systemic crisis of September 2008, the property prices are being put out again "floors" reached in 2009, plunging tens of millions of Americans in social situations and financial dramas [1]. Yet even the most optimistic do not see the drop-off before 2012.
Is America into recession mega
Despite the trillions of dollars spent since 2008, particularly in Western economies, no country has yet North really recovered its economic and financial base, however. Recall that the four major global central banks, Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England injected directly $ 5000 billion in the global economy between 2008 and 2010, not counting the Japanese bailouts designed to offset the effects of Disaster chain of March 11, 2011). Extravagant sums representing nearly 10% of world GDP with the result that we know: a gigantic public debt, private debt has not decreased and economies in stagflation in the West, many of which are more or less in recession open.
So when Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury minister, insists that the U.S. does not devalue the dollar to regain export points, can only be extremely skeptical … as the devaluation does not say his name occurs de facto before our eyes: the debt burden is such that the confidence in the dollar back to Currently thin air; States (such as Russia, Mexico and Thailand) are scrambling to buy gold and / or diversify their currency reserves out of dollar.
U.S. Treasury have actually almost more buyers since late 2010 and is the Fed itself (a consortium of private banks, remember) who buys almost all of the bonds the American Union. Consider the insane irony of the thing: the value of the dollar does now moves to purchase its own transmitters autophagic! This is why China gets rid of its U.S. securities discreet and committed to a forced march in the diversification of its assets denominated in dollars or 2000 billion. Policy resulting in strong support of the € uro convergence of interests with Europeanist, proponents of the single currency (a pillar of European construction as artificial qu'ultralibérale), to "save "Greece and the € uroland be it by bursting the real Europe with austerity policies unsustainable economically. Beijing to the € uro has become a sort of "safe haven"
why Obama will not save certainly not anti-system international financial born January 6, 1976 with the agreements of Jamaica devoting the abandonment of any reference to gold as the basis for monetary value and the assumption of God with the consequence Dollar deregulation as the only absolute law of the market. Ultimately, the course will remain $ currency as a medium of exchange in trade of hydrocarbons, is the increasing fragility of petromonarchies [2] in an Arab world in turmoil and increased uncertainty concerning the ability actual production of Saudi Arabia, the world largest provider of cheap oil, are certainly called soon to fundamentally alter the balance of power international economic and financial. Particularly for the benefit of Africa and emerging powers to the sustained growth in their population dynamics.
The United States on the brink of civil war
fiscal crisis in which the U.S. is plunging is, willy-nilly is synonymous with collapse of domestic demand, ie the deactivation of the pump and economic, in turn The import ban, which will have incalculable consequences on the economy and global finance that whole sections may well collapse: when America slows down its imports, China's massive orgy.
Keep in mind that " the United States are no longer credible in their ability to reduce their deficits " in the words so mezzo voce Experts IMF (opinion of other commonly shared by the creditors of the U.S.) they are dismayed by the impasse in Parliament s'enferrent America. A Congress unable to reach a compromise on a $ 1800 billion of separating the respective planes of the Democratic and Republican parties for the reduction of public deficits, a cause for concern creditors most pachyderms.
What will it be when it comes – because of the literal explosion of deficits – to impose cuts of hundreds of billions a year? So tomorrow the 'civil war'? In any case, the opinion of Jerry Brown, new governor of California, a state representative until 2009 truck the eighth largest economy with a GDP of $ 1847 billion, or 13% of the GDP of the located in the U.S. But in June 2009, 2.1 million Californians are unemployed, unemployment is now affecting 11.2% – a rate somewhat higher than the national average – the workforce of the opulent West Coast , one of Silicon Valley, orange groves and the arms industry in June 2011 … But California is still "virtually" bankrupt Mister Brown and the current economic and social situation of the United States closely resembles to that prevailing on the eve of the Civil War [3]! Mr. Brown is not the first came, it was important to mention an opinion as incongruous compared to the usual statements of forced optimism of our political ones
accumulation of unprecedented uncertainty and a stack of crises ever seen.
not do that to evoke millennial doom in a clinical practice as they occur. The question nagging, arises as to whether humanity is not a terrible crossroads? At this time of unprecedented crises, social, economic, financial, environmental scan the surface of the earth at the same rate as hurricanes ravaged the center of the North American continent … In Japan a tsunami tidal wave determines a major nuclear accident and Western states, are indebted to worse, and despite the lies the media, the fall of the oligarch Strauss-Kahn is welcome to a bright light illuminating the rise of a global totalitarianism under the guise of global governance … the G8 and the G20 to come, both under the French presidency, putting more and more evidence of collusion between governments and the so-called democratic forces … ie the real representatives of the hyperclass Wizards of the virtual economy with the mistakes and greed pose a real threat on the lives of nations and peoples.
In this year of disgrace for 2011 could end very badly. The uninterrupted succession of geopolitical shocks such as the revolt of the masses of the Arab world, the sordid sex scandal that hits the International Monetary Fund, the increased activity telluric waving the crust of the Japanese archipelago to Iceland, the rise in Europe a challenge to deaf excessive austerity policies in Greece and Spain the most visible, appear as signs announcing the impending storm … In short the world is facing a monumental crisis, the both social, societal, economic, financial and environmental, but the ruling classes, mediacracy, intellocrates, oligarchs, the overwhelming majority seem to ignore the causes or worse, refuse to see them and take them into account. In the wise hello
Notes:
1 – Personal loans are secured on the value of real estate mortgage, if market value falls backlash rates increase debt to exceed revenues, forcing owners to sell, but without free themselves a crushing debt.
2 – The United Arab Emirates have called the company to mercenary Xe Services LLC (formerly Blackwater Worldwide ) to recruit forces that can protect against interference external or internal uprising. Is symptomatic of confidence disappeared against the U.S. and their ability to protect – NY Times 14.05.2011.
3 – CBS Los Angeles April 10, 2011 " Jerry Brown: California, country facing" regime crisis "similar to the Civil War " – " We are at a point of civil discord, and i would not minimize the risk to our country and to our state l. .. We Are Facing What i would call a "regime crisis". The Legitimacy of our very democratic institutions are in question . "
Sources:
AgoraVox citizen media
snub
Related News:
- Little progress in talks: America is struggling to compromise debt
- Impending insolvency: American States tremble for debt crisis
- U.S.: Moody's puts his two cents in the kitchen U.S. fiscal
- Moody's suggests the United States not to cap debt
- Barack Obama criticizes the "imprudence" of Congress on debt
Incoming search terms:
- America in the verge of bankruptcy
- 14 294 billion
- USA on the verge of bankruptcy
- us on brink of bankruptcy
- u s states on verge of bankruptcy
- states on the verge of insolvency
- news insolvent america
- is america and other states on the verge of bankruptcy
- deaf deficit national debt defense limit
- crushing the ceiling in the american budget
News you need to read:
"I made a mistake": the televised mea culpa Renault boss
by De Balie "I made a mistake": the televised mea culpa Renault b...
The prices of some Bordeaux sham collapse, and rightly so ...
by Andres Rueda prices of some Bordeaux sham collapse, and rightly so ... ...
The excesses of political marketing: I. Seduce rather than to convince
by Teemu Mäntynen excesses of political marketing: I. Seduce rather than to...
INSEE figures in the first quarter 2011
by European Parliament INSEE figures in the first quarter 2011 + 1.0% : e...
Drought: it heats!
by Infomatiques Drought: it heats up Lack of water, straw, wheat and money...
Make music! but not at home please ...
by Bud Wise Make music! but not at home please ... On May 10, 1981, Fran...
http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/america-is-insolvent-35603.html
Obama: No deal on debt, deficit without compromise
View larger image
President Barack Obama gestures during a news conference in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, July 11, 2011, before meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders regarding the debt ceiling. (AP / Charles Dharapak)
* View larger image
U.S. President Barack Obama talks about the ongoing budget negotiations in the briefing room of the White House in Washington, Monday, July 11, 2011. (AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
View larger image
U.S. President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, left, meet with Congressional leadership in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sunday, July 10, 2011, in Washington, to discuss the debt. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
View larger image
U.S. President Barack Obama, right, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., left, and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, center, meet with Congressional leadership in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sunday, July 10, 2011, in Washington, to discuss the debt. (AP / Carolyn Kaster)
Updated: Mon Jul. 11 2011 9:13:07 PM
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Monday he would reject any stopgap extension of the nation's borrowing limit, adding fresh urgency for Republicans and fellow Democrats to resolve intense tax and spending disputes and head off economic calamity.
The administration says there must be a deal by Aug. 2 or the U.S. will face its first ever debt default, something that could return the U.S. economy to recession and reverberate in global financial markets.
"If not now, when?" Obama said in a news conference just ahead of his latest bargaining session with congressional leaders at the White House. That meeting lasted about 90 minutes.
He pledged daily bargaining sessions until agreement and refused to even entertain the idea of a backup plan should they fail.
"We are going to get this done," Obama insisted.
Not only the strength of the U.S. economy at stake, but also the political fortunes of Obama himself -- as well as lawmakers -- heading into next year's presidential and congressional elections.
Yet the path to an agreement remained hard to see. Even as he spoke, Republicans affirmed their opposition to the tax increases Obama sees as crucial along with spending cuts for reducing huge federal deficits and restraining the soaring national debt.
A potential deal -- a package of spending cuts and tax increases that could total $2 trillion or more over a decade -- is considered necessary for Congress to lift the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit and avoid default.
Obama renewed his case Monday for a package that would put a historic dent in the country's deficits by blending politically poisonous elements for both parties: tax hikes for the wealthy and big corporations opposed by Republicans and social service cuts that Democrats decry.
Speaking shortly before heading to the White House, House Speaker John Boehner stood firm in his opposition to including tax increases.
"Do you need to raise taxes in order to get control of spending? I think the answer is no," he said.
Obama tried to alter the debate by saying that any potential tax increases on wealthier people would not take effect until 2013. That would fall after the next election, when Obama will seek re-election and control of the House and the Senate will be at stake. Meanwhile, a short-term debt-limit increase would keep the issue boiling during the campaign.
More broadly, Obama sought to position himself as the pragmatist seeking a compromise in a divided town. He tried to build pressure on Congress to prove to a disillusioned American people that "this town can actually do something once in a while."
To Republicans, he said they have long pushed deficit reduction as the way to create desperately needed jobs and now won't take yes for an answer. "Where are they?" he said. "I mean, this is what they claim would be the single biggest boost to business certainty and confidence. So what's the hold up?"
And to Democrats eager to protect entitlements, Obama said doing nothing is not tenable. The president said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have to be made stronger for the longer term and the rising debt each year will crowd out Democratic priorities such as education and medical research.
"So, yeah, we're going to have a sales job," he conceded. "This is not pleasant."
The meeting Monday was expected to focus on potential debt savings identified by Vice-President Joe Biden and lawmakers during earlier talks. But that group, too, was bitterly divided over taxes, and the amount of savings they found elsewhere still falls short of what all sides agree must come together quickly.
For his part, Boehner told reporters that he agreed with Obama that the nation's borrowing limit must be raised, but he said revenues can be raised without hiking taxes. Boehner said Obama insists on raising taxes but the White House isn't serious enough about reforming entitlement programs.
Comments are now closed for this story
Paul ~ Kitchener
What does this show all the world, that this form of American style of a "Republic", has got nothing to offer, over our British Parliamentary System of Federal Government. Maybe all the commentators, that decry our system of government, might want to really look at the U.S. now, and then say - "Thank God we have the Better System" !
scott nova scotia
of course he will raise taxes. The average joe will get nailed for the trillions given to big business. The serfs always pay.
They're in denial
Democrats and Republicans are both in denial regarding the state of the worlds biggest economy and most powerful nation. The US is bankrupt. They're printing currency that has no backing. Their national debt currently exceeds their GDP. It's time to bring the military home, stop spreading money around like peanut butter and concentrate on the domestic economy. Democrats always spend like drunken sailors and Republicans always want zero taxes for their rich supporters. Neither has any clue about how to stop the downward spiral of the current triple dip recession that is leading to default on debt payments. If the US goes into another depression, which is very likely, the world will follow and the war at the end of this one is going to make WWII look like a church picnic.
Chris, Alberta
Why is this happening? Because that idiot George W. Bush started two foreign wars that the USA could not afford. The Soviet Union collapsed because it went broke because it could not afford its military expenditures. The USA is now paying for Bush's stupidity, ignorance and arrogance. They are holding the world on edge while they bicker about their pathetic internal partisan issues. They pretend they can avoid the massive financial collapse that will come sooner or later when the Trillions and Trillions of debt finally bring down their economy. Canada and the world needs to use this time to avoid the world's greatest financial collapse. Look what Greece is causing - what do you think will happen when the USA finally defaults and sooner or later it will.
Gerry from MB.but not N.D.P.
We have a better system and a better goverment.
Jeremy
Just like the right in any country. They will not negotiate in good faith. Conservatives and Republicans are only ever about protecting "BIG BUSINESS", and "The rich and SUPER RICH". Sure you guys can cut medicare payments and Social Security for people in one of the hardest economic times in the last 30 years in the US, but just make sure that General Electric doesn't have to pay any taxes. Seriously, GE last year made a profit of 13,000,000,000.00. do you now how much they paid in Corporate Tax, 0.00, not one penny. How does any party justify breaks to them, and cut support for elderly and the poor. I wonder how much Suncor, and the other tar sands partners pay in corporate tax annually? How unchristian.
David
You can't make a "system" work when people running the country, and the people living in it, have differant values in life. There is a God or there isn't. Does living like there isn't a God really make sense? Then again, some of those, supposively living like there is a God, aren't really making a good example either. The book the very country that helped its promotion, and now is ignoring it, says "don't owe any man". Maybe ignoring a "religous book", and making laws against it, in hind sight, wasn't a good idea after all. Is it too late?
Jeremy
Holy crap David, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. There is a reason why that is a basic component of most democracies across the globe. Besides, religion is dying. people are becoming more enlightened about the universe, and everything in it. Chaos theory does not need a grand creator to come up with us.
dan
GE gets their tax breaks through congress who, by the way , were the Dems. The CEO is invited by Obama to various countries for trade deals and in turn gives plenty of money back to him via contributions to get him re-elected so that they may continue the cycle of favored products and status for more corporate profits. So much for the idea of down in the trenches DEMS who only want to give away the money I worked hard for. I' m sure these losers siting on their couches are loving it though.
Intelligent Liberal
All Obama is asking is a little extension over the 14 trillion debt ceiling. A few trillion more annually is a small price to pay to ensure the global super power retains status as The Global Super Power. It makes financial sense, al they need to do is print more money. Obama is like the Paul Martin of the USA
David
Can Obama be impeached, forced to step down, forced to call an election to let the people decide? This guy isn't planning to run for a second term is he?
Badat
Jeremy: Your wrong, there are far more people in the world that recognize one of the major Religions by far, then those who don't claim any Religion.
Redneck Albertan
So you have the Republicans on one side refusing tax increases, refusing to give up any corporate subsidies and demanding cuts to social programs, while Democrats are saying they must increase taxes and limit spending cuts. Then Corporate America, sitting on hundreds billions of stimulus money dollars, is saying they cannot hire more workers until the jobless rates decrease (seriously -that is true). I love the US and they are Canada's best friend, but what the heck are they thinking down there? It's like they are bent on seeing how far they can take things before they implode.
James
I like how people still think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Americans don't vote for the man, they don't vote for the party, they vote for the corporations holding the politician's purse strings. Hope and change in 2012? Not without campaign finance reform.
Jonathan from Saskatoon
As much as everyone likes to blame Bush for all of this, the sub-prime implosion was really a result of the Clinton administration policies. Obama has spent over a trillion dollars on stimulus, and almost as much on things to slow the economy, like laws that forced businesses that could ill afford it to pay for employee health insurance. Net result? The US lost jobs for all that money spent without a real plan. Just imagine what would have happened had he got the health care program he really wanted. Not that they don't need a better system, but bankrupting struggling businesses is the worst way to try and get one.As for who cuts medicare and social security? Let's remember it was the Liberal team of Creatian/Martin that cut health spending by 2/3 in the mid 90's, then accused the provinces of not doing enough and demanding more control over a provincial responsibility before restoring a little over 5% of the funding the slashed.
USA is in Free Fall
America is broke. And broken. They are not in a recession, they are a nation sinking to the bottom of the ocean and no amount of increased borrowing will save the United States. The American people are to blame for their own demise, after all it is American CEO's & American financial leaders that robbed them blind. And it was American voters who supported George Bush Junior in his campaign of lies and deception and mass murder and illegal war in Iraq for Israel & religious extremists in the USA. This catastrophic cocktail of American greed, sense of entitlement, intellectual laziness and spiritual bankruptcy is the direct cause of the crumbling of this corrupt nation. Obama is trying to keep the world from knowing the truth: America is done for & sliding into financial and social chaos. Increasing their debt will only precipitate the inevitable bottom they are going to hit.
Jeremy
to Dan: so you agree that GE should get those tax breaks. And by the way, that is the BUSH ERA TAX CUTS, do a little more research before you go blaming this or that group. Obama has recently, and is now again trying to roll back the BUSH ERA TAX CUTS, but the republicans will not again negotiate in good faith. Their country is on the verge of financial distress, the Democrats have already signalled their willingness to negotiate some entitlement spending ie: Medicare, Social Assistance. And yet the RIght still refuse to budge on raising taxes on the wealthy. So Dan, what would you suggest they do? I bet I can guess.
Poor Americans
Perhaps now the people of USA realize they should've voted for somebody who knows what they're doing, as opposed to voting for somebody based on the color of their skin or that can only talk pretty words to make them feel good about themselves.
rosie
The US is in trouble not because of the wars but from the sub prime mortgage crisis and people buying on credit and defaulting.The military actually stimulates the economy through employment and manufacturing of arms etc.The whole world is in recession,the US is going down slowly dragging everyone else with it.Canada will fall very fast if oil goes below $80 a barrel( currently at mid 90's.)It is not a pretty picture a year from now.We as Canadians should not be so smug as we have our own debt issues.Watch what happens in late September when the Ontario gov't has to report (honestly)its debt before the election first week of October.Scary!
Shep
Make the rich pay. Nail them, Obama, nail them.
Soldier of Misfortune
What people don't see here is that the USA borrows all it's money from the Federal reserve at interest, by the way the federal reserve is not a government organization, so if the gov't borrows all its money at interest how can it ever pay it back? By borrowing more money right, so the cycle continues and the federal reserve and in turn the world bank, again private companies, get richer. This has nothing to do with Obama any more then it does Bush they are simply puppets for the real powers, the Bankers.
TC
Rep and Dem are just dancing their Scorpion dance. What's the alternative? Fast track U.S.A bankruptcy and suffer in prolong depression and bring down the whole world with it together? Come Aug/2, the debt ceiling will be raised.
Paul
He is doing the job he went there to do, bankrupt the country so it will be forced to take a buyout from the Vatican. Think I'm nuts, wait and see.
Graeme
What do Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, Mike Harris, and Ronald Reagan all have in common? None of them could run as a Republican in the USA, since all raised taxes at some point in one way or another, apparently an unthinkable thing. Reducing the deficit has two options: reduce spending and raising taxes, if you take one of those off the table, you aren't really negotiating.
Reece
The elite never want a compromise which involves them and not the middle class to take a hit for once. Here is some of their clever language.....it is welfare when we ask for a hand up or it's called socialism. But for the elite such funds are called 'stimulous' spending or bailouts. Want socialized medical care? Ummmm....you have to be a pro-elitist politician. Want to declare bankruptcy? Illegal now in most states....but if you are an elitist banker who rammed an entire institution into the ground no prob....here is your golden parachute for a job well done and the emplyees lose their pension and the middle class get to pay for the welfare...er...bailout. A government of the people, by the people for the corporations? I think I read that from the Gettysburg Address.....
Jack in Edmonton
So on August 3 when the US can't pay their bills and becomes another Greece will the people riot? The US economy has been going down the tubes for years, that's why our dollar is worth more than theirs on the world market. Their money is becoming worthless and yet they just keep printing more with nothing to back it up. Bring you wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
And Empires Will Fall
All of civilizations great empires fall. It's easy to see in hindsight exactly why. The US is bankrupted by over 3 decades of aggressive global militarism. Ronald Reagan started the downward spiral of aggressive military spending by tripling the US national debt in 8 years, all spent on tax breaks for the wealthy and buying war toys. This policy has continued pretty much unabated since the early 80's. The US government just hasn't accepted the fact that they are done. Osama Bin Laden said he would cause the demise of the US by having them spend so much money, their economy would collapse. The US might have won a few important battles in The War On Terror but in the end, the victor is Bin Laden. The power of 1 is proven again.
Robert in Burnaby
The egos of Obama's opponents on this will lead to the fall of America. That old saying "pride cometh before the fall" looks to be fulfilled on this one.
Jack
Will China get its money back?doh !!!
URU
@ Gerry from MB.but not N.D.P........ONLY FOOLS WOULD BELIEVE THIS NON SENSE. Our country MIGHT be a LITTLE better off but it's NOT out of the hole yet. Cities, transits are going BROKE. Services will be privatized soon. Everyday our cities and infrastructures are going down hill without any attention aside from the kids arguing in Parliament on what and where to cut spending. Its only a matter of time when we follow suite because we are TOO DEPENDENT on the US economy!
Intelligent New Democrat
I always get the American parties mixed up, but I see here that Obama is a New Democrat, therefore he knows what is best for America and needs the money to save their health care system to make it like Universal as in Canada, but that will cost them some dough. Also pensions for government workers should be doubled, and the right conditions need to met for the french speaking state of Louisiana to become a distinct society. .
Jebus Widowmaker
Raising the debt limit won't fix the problem. Stop the wars. They'll save billions. If I got into finacial trouble raising my credit card limit won't fix it.
Greg - Signs and Wonders
(Gov) Jesse Ventura wrote a book in 2009, Don't Start the Revolution Without Me.....Does anyone sense it's coming to that or all out civil war in the US?
Crazy
Quebec might create its own long-gun registry if the federal government abolishes the database as planned.Moving to the USA is no longer an option.
JB in Ontario
The Republicans are going to have to compromise with the Democrats if the Americans don't want to default on their loans. President Obama is right and if there is no compromise by Aug 2nd by the Republicans, there will be a financial catastrophe.
George V.
It doesn't matter if you'r Democrat or Republican, when the s--t hits the fan both parties will be covered equally. They will have to hurry and put a sustainable debt reduction plan together, work together, cut the partisan crap, none of the typical political moves of one upmanship or media exposure grabbers, otherwise the USA will slide into the abyss, and have financial problems and woes for ages to come.
Brian Fr Langley
Don't you just love all the lets get the rich comments. Last time I looked poor people don't pay much in taxes, poor people have a hard time caring for themselves much less others. Without expendable wealth there is no economy. Without incentive there is no expendable wealth. If the goal for the socialists is equality then I guess if we're all equally poverty stricken, they'll finally be satisfied.
vince
"America is the police of the world" that is what i thought when i was small. after I was growing up and i realized that US started all the wars every way only for his own benefits. He forced chicken to swim like ducks, force the dog to eat grass like cow... everything is his way. No matter the country is poor now, he still started all the drills with Korea, Europes and tries to step in whatever is not his own businness. He should spend the fund to develope his own country!! without US creates all the problem, the world could have been peace!?
Marc
The United States is bankrupt. Anyone who thinks Canada is immune to this is going to get a wake up call in a few years. It's going to hit us here too. Hold on, it's not going to be pretty.
TEA in Sask
Cut government spending!! To not do so is to fritter away our children's future...
InAwe
At the end of July Obama should show the US public all the figures (i.e. CUTS) he's prepared to make to all the many social programs. Let's assume it is 2 trillion $ over x number of years. Then he makes it very public that he expects Boehner to do the same by way of tax increases to the rich to equal the $2 trillion. Then he sits back to see who blinks first. Methinks if the US public sees this then the Republicans will be under so much pressure to do a deal by Aug 2 that they'll have no choice. Either they'll agree or the USA defaults! Simples!!
Trish
Again, HOW MUCH has been spent on the U.S. military and it's operations since George W. Bush decided that the U. S. Was to be the 'Saviour' of the Middle East (& control the oil)?
robin hood
They have raised the debt ceiling 79 times in the past decade or decades it's unclear— having to do with the wording I suspect. Rounding up the increased debt ceiling to a nice "80" (love that number 8 it's got real star power—check it out sideways 8). You did default on payment in 1979 so much for your memory recall. Heads up continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result has apparently been a political foot hold! Each side (Party) to pick their Re: sacred cows? "Sacred cow (idiom), something considered (perhaps unreasonably) immune from question or criticism or "Sacred Cow", the nickname of the first U.S. presidential aircraft, Air Force One." Re: sacred cows; pull off the band aid; eat your peas, interesting code you guys have sure keeps me on my toes! Looks like IMF will be giving Greece a break perhaps allowing them to raise their ceiling debt too or is it just the USA that gets the special treatment? How do you suppose that your money is worth sh it? Show me the gold that backs up your currency pal— if not "you are nothing more than talk and no action". Blah blah blah— blah blah sheep herder! You want to follow Bush's formula and go back to his tax rates—the skull and cross bone boy really? While telling your republican and your own party buddies if you don't like this formula bring me a new package that is sufficiently progressive so as not to balance the budget off the backs of the middle class and working class families when millionaires and billionaires and fortunate people like yourself can afford to give a little more while at the same time not allowing managers of hedge funds and oh I particularly like your reference to "authors and their bestselling books" off the hook? Wow what's the matter can you actually see the end of you and your ilk in the mirror. Without the will of the people—you are nothing!
Stu
The US is broke because of George Bush & his right wing nut thinking. It will take Obama many years to clean up the mess Bush created.
KevinHamilton
The U.S. is doomed if the citizens don't pay their dues. I would say it's tax and spend but in the U.S. case, it's just been spend, spend, spend ever since Reagan initiated his tax cuts. There is an unquestionable correlation between tax cuts and national debt in the U.S. And let me make one thing very clear, TAX CUTS = SPENDING!You can't cut taxes and then not cut programs of equal value to those cut taxes, otherwise you have to borrow to pay it which is why the U.S. is in trouble! They can't afford social security, multiple trillion dollar wars, and medicare for the elderly by not raising taxes. But things like social security and medicare won't be deeply touched because, ironically, the Republican base is older and benefits the most from those government programs. They just don't want to pay for what they use!
Doug
The U.S. is in trouble because you cannot build an economy on government spending and out of control credit system based in large part on nothing but inflation and unfunded entitlements. Obama does not get that. Tinkering with the incomes of millionaires just to win the next election is only a drop in the bucket to the real problem. Raising corporate taxes in this economy is lunacy, and will only fuel inflation and increase unemployment.. This ideological driven president. the biggest single term government spender in U.S. history, is driving the country further down the difficult path already being experienced by many European countries.
Chris
I can't wait to see the US bailed out by China!!
chris paul
As long as America is spending Trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, propping up dictators and doing everything possible to maintain their overbloated empire, the US is destined for bankruptcy. All empires end because they go broke. America is next on the list. Bye-bye empire!!!
Citizen
For all those mocking the US situation, and talking about falling empires. Realize one thing, never before in the history of man, has the ENTIRE world relied so heavily on a single nation. The US provides foreign aid to nations that keep them above water, it provides markets for vast percentages of nations exports. It is heavily invested around the world. If it defaults on Aug 3, it will not just be America who suffers, the entire world will wake up in a very uncertain world. Its time for Obama and Congress to stop playing games, the Debt Ceiling is not a political footaball.
raj
Obama just keeps printing money! it has little to do with George Bush, although, the lefties will say its all to do with him.Obama is a lousy president.Cut some social spending! it might upset some folks, but isnt that too bad!!
Jebus Widowmaker
@Stu. Obama is no different than Bush. He's continued Bushes agenda and is adding more heartache for the American people. On a side note spending over $500 billion a year for the pentagon doesn't help either. Allow company's like GE who paid $0 in tax last year is the kind of problem America is facing. Bailing out banks who are too gready is the kind of think hurting America. The American people aren't supposed to be the only ones paying for all this. Corporate American has to do it's part too.
Chris
Bill Maher said it perfectly. He stated that all those corporate tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs didn't!!! Instead, the fat cat execs themselves took home bigger bonuses. Now I'm glad that at least Canada's tax cuts for corporations have rules the execs MUST follow. Sorry USA, you dug your own hole. Now it's time to lay in it!!!
A little help
Why is this story so grey? Is he in favor of reducing debt or not? I don't understand what a rejection of a stopgag is, but it sounds like a double negative to me... A little help!
Kevin
Raising taxes or cutting programs... There is a third option: they could devalue the dollar. Get ready, Canada. Here come the economic refugees.
Keeder
There is nothing funnier on TV now than Americans trying to debate their problems. When a nation loses the moral character they were built on, they fail.
Al
Canada will be a future economic superpower. However, we will need a military to protect our country. We can't rely on Americans to do this in the future. We are too rich in natural resources to think we will even be a country 100 year from now unless we have the power to protect ourselves.
Jim
Stick to your guns Barack. Remember it was Republican policies that got the U.S. into this situation.
Kojak
Nothing will improve until you rid the corruption, greed, and abuse. Good luck with that.
chris paul
I love how Republicans are all about fiscal responsibilty, small government and cutting spending, yet none of them want to cut the 700 Billion Dollar a year military budget. Hypocrites!!!
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110711/obama-us-debt-ceiling-politics-no-tax-cut-talk-110711/20110711/?hub=OttawaHome
An empire on the verge, again
BY DAN GARDNER, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JULY 10, 2011
7
Americans may have celebrated July 4th with the usual hotdogs and fireworks, but Uncle Sam was a sick old man on his 235th birthday. Deficits and debt. A moribund economy. Appalling unemployment. Crumbling infrastructure. Endless foreign wars. We all know the litany of ills. It's long and grim and the question for most observers is not whether Uncle Sam will continue to decline, but how far, and how fast.
The more excitable sorts, like the journalist Chris Hedges, foresee the end. Or rather, The End. "We stand on the cusp of one of the bleakest periods in human history," Hedges wrote, "when the bright lights of a civilization blink out and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity." But even the sane are glum. "These trends will see a continued erosion of America's ability to provide a good, middle class standard of living at home and to extend security abroad," wrote policy analyst Clyde Prestowitz in Foreign Policy. "The really smart people have already put their money in gold bars and moved to New Zealand."
Somewhat less dramatically, but no less certainly, Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail compared Canada and the United States. "It seems to me our problems can be solved," Wente concluded, "and theirs can't."
Really, it's hard to disagree. In an essay published at the beginning of 2010, James Fallows - esteemed journalist and speech writer in the Carter White House - noted that the problems besetting the United States "are no worse than others the nation has faced in more than 200 years" and Americans are not lacking in the money, technology, and creativity needed to deal with them. But changing course requires an effective political system, and the American system is a shambles. "This is the American tragedy of the early 21st century: a vital and selfrenewing culture that attracts the world's talent, and a governing system that increasingly looks like a joke."
A year and a half later, "joke" is too kind a description. Reasonable discussion and compromise seem impossible, the Republican presidential contenders resemble a troupe of circus clowns piling out of one of those tiny cars, and the entire American political class spent precious weeks obsessed with whether a Democratic congressman had tweeted photographs of his penis and lied about it subsequently. He had. And he resigned. So the political system can deal with penis-tweeters, but issues of greater magnitude seem entirely beyond the capacities of the world's oldest and most successful democracy.
Inevitably, crisis looms. At the end of this month, or early next, Congress must officially permit the U.S. Treasury to take on debt above a defined limit. In the past, raising the debt ceiling has been pro forma. If it's not raised, the United States would default on its debts. The consequences would be catastrophic. You want Chris Hedges' crazy prediction to be right? That's one way to go about it.
And that's exactly what many Republicans want to do. Others have at least threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling if the White House doesn't make concessions, which is tantamount to putting a gun to Uncle Sam's head. One would think Americans would frown on that. But something close to half the political spectrum considers it to be more than acceptable. It's patriotic.
And it's effective. President Obama has made huge concessions, offering trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for the closing of various loopholes which will raise a few hundred million dollars. "If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment," wrote conservative columnist David Brooks in the New York Times.
But the Republican party is no longer a normal party. It has been taken over by fanatics and flakes, although Brooks, being Brooks, puts it much more eloquently. The Republicans may actually pull the trigger, he fears.
So that's it for the world's only superpower, right? It's only a question of how far and how fast.
Maybe. But it's worth remembering Uncle Sam has been in bad shape before. Many times, in fact.
"Throughout the entirety of my conscious life, America has been on the brink of ruination, or so we have heard, from the launch of Sputnik to whatever is the latest indication of national falling apart or falling behind," wrote James Fallows.
Of course we don't remember it ever being this bad. But that's what psychologists call "hindsight bias." It has indeed been this bad before.
Think back to the early 1990s. The U.S. would soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Japan Inc. A best-selling look at the state of federal finances was entitled Bankruptcy 1995. And you want political dysfunction? When Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich squared off, the whole damned government was shut down. The mood of the era was captured perfectly in the Michael Douglas movie Falling Down, featuring Douglas as a laid-off engineer who has a really bad day.
The early 1980s? That wasn't morning in America, sunshine.
The 1970s? A polyester hell. I wrote about that decade's bleak expectations in my book, Future Babble. A short summary took the better part of a chapter.
Remember 1968? The eve of destruction. Political scientist Andrew Hacker published The End of the American Era.
Of course none of this proves Uncle Sam will bounce back today. But he's been written off so many times before, it would be foolish to do it again.
As Winston Churchill once observed, "The Americans always do the right thing. After they have exhausted all the alternatives."
Dan Gardner's column appears Wednesday and Friday. E-mail:dgardner@ottawacitizen.com
Read more:http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/empire+verge+again/5055723/story.html#ixzz1TWPjY0n1
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/empire+verge+again/5055723/story.html
End of space shuttle era is turning point for US' future
America was nostalgic even before the space shuttle Atlantis took off at Kennedy Space Center last week, concluding the three-decade history of the world's only reusable space craft. A New York Times story for this final mission began with the sentence "There was a time, some of us remember, when a countdown at Canaveral stopped the world in its tracks."
A story on the CNN website about Titusville, Florida, a town of 43,000 that had attracted millions of visitors over the last 30 years as the best place to view a launch by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), read like an eulogy on a General Motors town not uncommon a few years back when the America carmaker was on the verge of bankruptcy.
When Atlantis returns to Earth next week, the U.S. government will experience its first gap in manned space travel in nearly half a century. For at least the next few years, U.S. astronauts will have to hitch rides on Russian rockets or private spacecraft, the latter of which have yet to prove their ability to carry people safely. Indeed, if for any reason Atlantis is deemed unable to re-enter Earth, the four astronauts will have to wait inside the International Space Station to be rescued by Russia.
While the U.S. can argue the economic merits of shutting down the shuttle program without a concrete follow-up, the hiatus in the U.S. government-backed space flights will no doubt read to many as yet another sign of the U.S.' decline.
The shuttle program is far from perfect. The project to build a reusable spacecraft came with the promise of cheap and reliable access to space. Yet the program ends with a total bill of nearly US$196 billion, more than double the original NASA estimate of US$90 billion. On average, each launch costs about US$1.5 billion, which is about ten times the cost of a single launch of the much older Russian Proton expendable rockets. The disasters suffered by Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003 also seriously discredited the shuttle's safety. In short, the soon to be former reusable spacecraft program was underperforming, accident-prone and hugely over budget. However, the space shuttle has had a more profound influence that could justify its existence.
Since it served its purpose as a peaceful component of the arms race during the Cold War, the space program has largely become an expensive science project. A commentator from the Financial Times described the shuttle program as the U.S. government's "consolation prize" to NASA after President Richard Nixon ended the Apollo moon flight program and thereby the more ambitious race to Mars. Facing a dim prospect for its economy in the near future, the U.S. has found even the consolation prize too expensive.
In terms of soft power, however, the U.S. space program is invaluable. The red-and-blue NASA logo and the white-black-and-orange space shuttles have for the last three decades been two of the greatest brands the U.S. possesses, not only to impress the world but more importantly to inspire its young citizens. Being an astronaut used to be one of the top aspirations for children around the world and the idea of having a real shot of riding a spacecraft may certainly have been a strong motivator for U.S. students. The innovation, the meticulous work, the ingenuity, the daring, the can-do spirit that encompass the space program help win hearts and minds far better than any PR campaign.
Emerging nations know as much. Asian giants such as mainland China and India are engaging in a new space race, in part to shore up support from their people. The Communist government paraded the first Chinese spaceman Yang Liwei as a national hero.
For now the U.S. is still far ahead in terms of space travel, but others are catching up fast. The superpower must set a bold and steady course for its space program in the near future or the final landing of Atlantis will be remembered as more than the end of a shuttle program
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/world-issues/2011/07/13/309677/End-of.htm
History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991)
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
The history of the Soviet Union from 1982 through 1991, spans the period from Leonid Brezhnev's death and funeral until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Due to the years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth stagnated. Failed attempts at reform, a standstill economy, and the success of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence against the Soviet Union's forces in the war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe. (Source: WorldBook online)
Greater political and social freedoms, instituted by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, created an atmosphere of open criticism of the communist regime. The dramatic drop of the price of oil in 1985 and 1986, and consequent lack of foreign exchange reserves in following years to purchase grain profoundly influenced actions of the Soviet leadership.[1]
Nikolai Tikhonov, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, was succeeded by Nikolai Ryzhkov, and Vasili Kuznetsov, the acting Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, was succeeded by Andrei Gromyko, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Several Soviet Socialist Republics began resisting central control, and increasing democratization led to a weakening of the central government. The USSR's trade gap progressively emptied the coffers of the union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup that had attempted to topple reform-minded Gorbachev.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Leadership transition
By 1982 the stagnation of the Soviet economy was obvious, as evidenced by the fact that the Soviet Union had been importing grain from the U.S. throughout the 1970s, but the system was so firmly entrenched that any real change seemed impossible. A huge rate of defense spending consumed large parts of the economy. The transition period that separated the Brezhnev and Gorbachev eras resembled the former much more than the latter, although hints of reform emerged as early as 1983.
[edit]The Andropov interregnum
Brezhnev died on November 10, 1982. Two days passed between his death and the announcement of the election of Yuri Andropov as the new General Secretary, suggesting to many outsiders that a power struggle had occurred in the Kremlin. Once in power, however, Andropov wasted no time in promoting his supporters. In June 1983, he assumed the post of chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, thus becoming the ceremonial head of state. It had taken Brezhnev thirteen years to acquire this post. During his short rule, he replaced more than one-fifth of the Soviet ministers and regional party first secretaries and more than one-third of the department heads within the Central Committee apparatus. As a result, he replaced the aging leadership with younger, more dynamic administrators. But Andropov's ability to reshape the top leadership was constrained by his poor health and the influence of his rival Konstantin Chernenko, who had previously supervised personnel matters in the Central Committee.
Andropov's domestic policy leaned heavily towards restoring discipline and order to Soviet society. He eschewed radical political and economic reforms, promoting instead a small degree of candor in politics and mild economic experiments similar to those that had been associated with Kosygin in the mid−1960s. In tandem with such economic experiments, Andropov launched an anti-corruption drive that reached high into the government and party ranks. Unlike Brezhnev, who possessed several mansions and a fleet of luxury cars, he lived quite simply. His solution to the country's economic difficulties was basically for the people to work harder and show more discipline.
In foreign affairs, Andropov continued Brezhnev's policies. US−Soviet relations deteriorated rapidly beginning in March 1983, when US President Ronald Reagan dubbed the Soviet Union an "evil empire". The official press agency TASS accused Reagan of "thinking only in terms of confrontation and bellicose, lunatic anti-communism". Further deterioration occurred as a result of the Sept. 1, 1983 Soviet shooting of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 near Moneron Island carrying 269 people including a sitting US congressman, Larry McDonald, and over Reagan's stationing of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe. In Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua and elsewhere, under theReagan Doctrine, the U.S. began undermining Soviet-supported governments by supplying arms to anti-communist resistance movements in these nations.
Andropov's health declined rapidly during the tense summer and fall of 1983, becoming the first Soviet leader to miss the anniversary celebrations of the 1917 revolution that November.[citation needed] He died in February 1984 of kidney failure after disappearing from public view for several months. His most significant legacy to the Soviet Union was his discovery and promotion of Mikhail Gorbachev. Beginning in 1978, Gorbachev advanced in two years through the Kremlin hierarchy to full membership in the Politburo. His responsibilities for the appointment of personnel allowed him to make the contacts and distribute the favours necessary for a future bid to become general secretary. At this point, Western experts believed that Andropov was grooming Gorbachev as his successor. However, although Gorbachev acted as a deputy to the general secretary throughout Andropov's illness, Gorbachev's time had not yet arrived when his patron died early in 1984.
[edit]The Chernenko interregnum
At 71, Konstantin Chernenko was in poor health, suffering from emphysema, and unable to play an active role in policy making when he was chosen, after lengthy discussion, to succeed Andropov. But Chernenko's short time in office did bring some significant policy changes. The personnel changes and investigations into corruption undertaken under Andropov's tutelage came to an end. Chernenko advocated more investment in consumer goods and services and in agriculture. He also called for a reduction in the CPSU's micromanagement of the economy and greater attention to public opinion. However, KGB repression of Soviet dissidents also increased.
Although Chernenko had called for renewed détente with the West, little progress was made towards closing the rift in East−West relations during his rule. The Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, retaliating for the United States boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. In the late summer of 1984, the Soviet Union also prevented a visit to West Germany by East German leaderErich Honecker. Fighting in Afghanistan also intensified, but in the late autumn of 1984 the United States and the Soviet Union did agree to resume arms control talks in early 1985.
The poor state of Chernenko's health made the question of succession an acute one. Chernenko gave Gorbachev high party positions that provided significant influence in the Politburo, and Gorbachev was able to gain the vital support of Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko in the struggle for succession. When Chernenko died in March 1985, Gorbachev assumed power unopposed.
[edit]Rise of Gorbachev
The war in Afghanistan, often referred to as the Soviet Union's "Vietnam War"[2] (see Vietnam War), led to increased public dissatisfaction with the Communist regime. Also, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 added motive force to Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms, which eventually spiraled out of control and caused the Soviet system to collapse.
[edit]Changing of the guard
After years of stagnation, the "new thinking"[citation needed] of younger Communist apparatchiks began to emerge. Following the death of terminally ill Konstantin Chernenko, the Politburo elected Mikhail Gorbachev to the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in March 1985, marking the rise of a new generation of leadership. Under Gorbachev, relatively young, reform-oriented technocrats, who had begun their careers in the heyday of "de−Stalinization" under Nikita Khrushchev (1958–1964), rapidly consolidated power within the CPSU, providing new momentum for political and economic liberalization, and the impetus for cultivating warmer relations and trade with the West.
Nikolai Tikhonov, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, was succeeded by Nikolai Ryzhkov, and Vasili Kuznetsov, the acting Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, was succeeded by Andrei Gromyko, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Jimmy Carter had officially ended the policy of Détente, by financially aiding President of Pakistan Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who in turn putDirectorate for Inter-Services Intelligence in-charge of leading the war against the soviets by training and leading the anti−Soviet Mujahideenmovement in neighboring Afghanistan, which served as a pretext for the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan six months later, with the aims of supporting the Afghan government, controlled by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Tensions between the superpowers increased during this time, when Carter placed trade embargoes on the Soviet Union and stated that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was "the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War."[3]
East-West tensions increased during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1981–1985), reaching levels not seen since the 1962Cuban missile crisis as Reagan increased US military spending to 7% of the GDP.[citation needed] To match the USA's military buildup, the Soviet Union increased its own military spending to 27% of its GDP and froze production of civilian goods at 1980 levels, causing a sharp economic decline in the already failing Soviet economy. However, it is not clear where the number 27% of the GDP came from. This thesis is not confirmed by the extensive study on the causes of the dissolution of the Soviet Union by two prominent economists from the World Bank-William Easterly and Stanley Fisher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "… the study concludes that the increased Soviet defense spending provoked by Mr. Reagan's policies was not the straw that broke the back of the Empire. The Afghan war and the Soviet response to Mr. Reagan's Star Wars program caused only a relatively small rise in defense costs. And the defense effort throughout the period from 1960 to 1987 contributed only marginally to economic decline."[4]
Moreover, according to this thesis, major motivational factor for Gorbachev was his realization that the Soviet Union could not compete economically with the USA. However, if economic premises are taken into account, it is not clear why the Soviet leaders did not adopt the Chinese option - economic liberalization with preservation of political system. Instead Gorbachev chose political liberalization during the years leading to the collapse of the USSR, while not implementing any significant economic reforms.
Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence was responsible for training, equipping and leading Mujaheddin forces against the Soviet Army. The Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence very efficiently fought the war and men like Akhtar Abdur Rahman and Hamid Gul were responsible for winning the war in Afghanistan. US President Reagan also actively hindered the Soviet Union's ability to sell natural gas to Europe whilst simultaneously actively working to keep gas prices low, which kept the price of Soviet oil low and further starved the Soviet Union of foreign capital. This "long-term strategic offensive," which "contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of "containment", accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union by encouraging it to overextend its economic base.[5] The proposition that special operations by CIA in Saudi Arabia affected the prices of the Soviet oil was refuted by Marshall Goldman- eminent and one of the leading experts on the economy of the Soviet Union in his latest book. He pointed out that the Saudis decreased their production of oil in 1985 (it reached 16 year low), whereas the peak of production of oil was reached in 1980. They increased the production of oil in 1986, reduced it in 1987 with subsequent increase in 1988, but not to the levels of 1980 when the production reached the highest level. The real increase happened in 1990, by the time when the Cold War was almost over. In his book he asked the question if Saudi Arabia had such an effect on the Soviet oil prices why the prices did not fall in 1980 when the production of oil by Saudi Arabia reached the highest level- three times as much oil as in the middle of eighties and why the Saudis had been waiting till 1990 to increase their production -five years after CIA supposed intervention? Why the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1980 then? [6]
However this theory ignores the fact that the Soviet Union had already suffered several important setbacks during "reactive and defensive strategy" of "containment". In 1972, Nixon normalized American relationship with China, thus creating pressure on the Soviet Union. Egyptian president Sadat in 1979 after signing of Camp David peace accord severed military and economic relations with the USSR (by that time the USSR provided a lot of assistance to Egypt and supported it in all its military operations against Israel).[7]
By the time Gorbachev ushered in the process that would lead to the dismantling of the Soviet administrative command economy through his programs of glasnost (political openness), uskoreniye (speed-up of economic development) and perestroika (political and economic restructuring) announced in 1986, the Soviet economy suffered from both hidden inflation and pervasive supply shortages aggravated by an increasingly open black market that undermined the official economy.[citation needed] Additionally, the costs of superpower status—the military, space program, subsidies to client states—were out of proportion to the Soviet economy. The new wave of industrialization based upon information technology had left the Soviet Union desperate for Western technology and credits in order to counter its increasingbackwardness.[citation needed]
[edit]Reforms
The Law on Cooperatives enacted in May 1988 was perhaps the most radical of the economic reforms during the early part of the Gorbachev era. For the first time since Vladimir Lenin's New Economic Policy, the law permitted private ownership of businesses in the services, manufacturing, and foreign-trade sectors. Under this provision, cooperative restaurants, shops, and manufacturers became part of the Soviet scene.
Glasnost resulted in greater freedom of speech and the press becoming far less controlled. Thousands of political prisoners and many dissidents were also released.[citation needed] Soviet social science became free to explore and publish on many subjects that had previously been off limits, including conducting public opinion polls. The All−Union Center for Public Opinion Research (VCIOM) — the most prominent of several polling organizations that were started then — was opened. State archives became more accessible, and some social statistics that had been kept secret became open for research and publication on sensitive subjects such as income disparities, crime, suicide, abortion, and infant mortality. The first center for gender studies was opened within a newly formed Institute for the Socio−Economic Study of Human Population.
In January 1987, Gorbachev called for democratization: the infusion of democratic elements such as multi−candidate elections into the Soviet political process. A 1987 conference convened by Soviet economist and Gorbachev adviser Leonid Abalkin, concluded: "Deep transformations in the management of the economy cannot be realised without corresponding changes in the political system."[8]
In June 1988, at the CPSU's Nineteenth Party Conference,[citation needed] Gorbachev launched radical reforms meant to reduce party control of the government apparatus. In December 1988, the Supreme Soviet approved the establishment of a Congress of People's Deputies, which constitutional amendments had established as the Soviet Union's new legislative body.[citation needed]
Elections to the new Congress of People's Deputies were held throughout the USSR in March and April 1989. Gorbachev, as General Secretary of the Communist Party, could be forced to resign at any moment if the communist elite became dissatisfied with him. To proceed with reforms opposed by the majority of the communist party, Gorbachev aimed to consolidate power in a new position, President of the Soviet Union, which was independent from the CPSU and the soviets (councils) and whose holder could be impeached only in case of direct violation of the law.[9] On March 15, 1990, Gorbachev was elected as the first executive president. At the same time, Article 6 of the constitution was changed to deprive the CPSU of a monopoly on political power.[10]
[edit]Unintended consequences
Gorbachev's efforts to streamline the Communist system offered promise, but ultimately proved uncontrollable and resulted in a cascade of events that eventually concluded with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Initially intended as tools to bolster the Soviet economy, the policies of perestroika and glasnost soon led to unintended consequences.
Relaxation under glasnost resulted in the Communist Party losing its absolute grip on the media. Before long, and much to the embarrassment of the authorities, the media began to expose severe social and economic problems the Soviet government had long denied and actively concealed. Problems receiving increased attention included poor housing, alcoholism, drug abuse, pollution, outdated Stalin-era factories, and petty to large−scale corruption, all of which the official media had ignored. Media reports also exposed crimes committed byJoseph Stalin and the Soviet regime, such as the gulags, his treaty with Adolf Hitler, and the Great Purges, which had been ignored by the official media. Moreover, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and the mishandling of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which Gorbachev tried to cover up, further damaged the credibility of the Soviet government at a time when dissatisfaction was increasing.
In all, the positive view of Soviet life long presented to the public by the official media was rapidly fading, and the negative aspects of life in the Soviet Union were brought into the spotlight.[11] This undermined the faith of the public in the Soviet system and eroded the Communist Party's social power base, threatening the identity and integrity of the Soviet Union itself.
Fraying amongst the members of the Warsaw Pact nations and instability of its western allies, first indicated by Lech Wałęsa's 1980 rise to leadership of the trade union Solidarity, accelerated, leaving the Soviet Union unable to depend upon its Eastern European satellite states for protection as a buffer zone. By 1989, Moscow had repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine in favor of non−intervention in the internal affairs of its Warsaw Pact allies. Gradually, each of the Warsaw Pact nations saw their communist governments fall to popular elections and, in the case of Romania, a violent uprising. By 1991 the communist governments of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland andRomania, all of which had been imposed after World War II, were brought down as revolution swept Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union also began experiencing upheaval as the political consequences of glasnost reverberated throughout the country. Despite efforts at containment, the upheaval in Eastern Europe inevitably spread to nationalities within the USSR. In elections to the regional assemblies of the Soviet Union's constituent republics, nationalists as well as radical reformers swept the board. As Gorbachev had weakened the system of internal political repression, the ability of the USSR's central Moscow government to impose its will on the USSR's constituent republics had been largely undermined. Massive peaceful protests in the Baltic Republics such as The Baltic Way and theSinging Revolution drew international attention and bolstered independence movements in various other regions.
The rise of nationalism under freedom of speech soon reawakened simmering ethnic tensions in various Soviet republics, further discrediting the ideal of a unified Soviet people. One instance occurred in February 1988, when the government in Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic Armenian region in the Azerbaijan SSR, passed a resolution calling for unification with the Armenian SSR. Violence against local Azerbaijanis was reported on Soviet television, provoking massacres of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait.
Emboldened by the liberalized atmosphere of glasnost, public dissatisfaction with economic conditions was much more overt than ever before in the Soviet period. Although perestroika was considered bold in the context of Soviet history, Gorbachev's attempts at economic reform were not radical enough to restart the country's chronically sluggish economy in the late 1980s. The reforms made some inroads in decentralization, but Gorbachev and his team left intact most of the fundamental elements of the Stalinist system, including price controls, inconvertibility of the ruble, exclusion of private property ownership, and the government monopoly over most means of production.
By 1990 the Soviet government had lost control over economic conditions. Government spending increased sharply as an increasing number of unprofitable enterprises required state support and consumer price subsidies to continue. Tax revenues declined as republic and local governments withheld tax revenues from the central government under the growing spirit of regional autonomy. The anti−alcohol campaign reduced tax revenues as well, which in 1982 accounted for about 12% of all state revenue. The elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer goods sector, led to the breakdown in traditional supplier−producer relationships without contributing to the formation of new ones. Thus, instead of streamlining the system, Gorbachev's decentralization caused new production bottlenecks.
[edit]Dissolution of the USSR
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a process of systematic disintegration, which occurs ineconomy, social structure and political structure. It resulted in abolition of Soviet Federal Government ("the Union centre") and independence of USSR's republic on 26 December 1991. The process was caused by weakening of the Soviet government, which led to disentegration and took place from about 19 January 1990 to 31 December 1991. The process was characterized by many of the republics of the Soviet Union declaring their independence and being recognized as sovereign nation-states.
[edit]Summary
| | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(February 2011) |
The principal elements of the old Soviet political system were Communist Party dominance, the hierarchy of soviets, state socialism, and ethnic federalism. Gorbachev's programs of perestroika and glasnost produced radical unforeseen effects that brought that system down. As a means of reviving the Soviet state, Gorbachev repeatedly attempted to build a coalition of political leaders supportive of reform and created new arenas and bases of power. He implemented these measures because he wanted to resolve serious economic problems and political inertia that clearly threatened to put the Soviet Union into a state of long−term stagnation.
But by using structural reforms to widen opportunities for leaders and popular movements in the union republics to gain influence, Gorbachev also made it possible for nationalist, orthodox communist, and populist forces to oppose his attempts to liberalize and revitalize Soviet communism. Although some of the new movements aspired to replace the Soviet system altogether with a liberal democratic one, others demanded independence for the national republics. Still others insisted on the restoration of the old Soviet ways. Ultimately, Gorbachev could not forge a compromise among these forces and the consequence was the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
[edit]Post−Soviet restructuring
To restructure the Soviet administrative command system and implement transition to a market-based economy, Yeltsin's shock programwas employed within days of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The subsidies to money-losing farms and industries were cut, price controls abolished, and the ruble moved towards convertibility. New opportunities for Yeltsin's circle and other entrepreneurs to seize the former state property were created thus restructuring old state-owned economy within a few months.
After obtaining power, the vast majority of "idealistic" reformers gained huge possessions of state property using their positions in the government and became business oligarchs in a manner that appeared antithetical to an emerging democracy. Existing institutions were conspicuously abandoned prior to the establishment of new legal structures of the market economy such as those governing private property, overseeing financial markets, and enforcing taxation.
Market economists believed that the dismantling of the administrative command system in Russia would raise GDP and living standards by allocating resources more efficiently. They also thought the collapse would create new production possibilities by eliminating central planning, substituting a decentralized market system, eliminating huge macroeconomic and structural distortions through liberalization, and providing incentives through privatization.
Since the USSR's collapse, Russia faced many problems that free market proponents in 1992 did not expect. Among other things, 25% of the population lived below the poverty line, life expectancy had fallen, birthrates were low, and the GDP was halved. These problems led to a series of crises in the 1990s, which nearly led to election of Yeltsin's Communist challenger, Gennady Zyuganov, in the 1996 presidential election. In the recent years, the economy of Russia has begun to improve greatly, due to major investments and business development and also due to high prices of natural resources.
[edit]See also
- Cold War (1985-1991)
- Making the History of 1989 (online database)
- Predictions of Soviet collapse
- Reagan Doctrine
- Revolutions of 1989 (Eastern Europe)
[edit]References
- ^ Gaidar, Yegor (****-**-**). "The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil".On the Issues: AEI online. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 2009-07-09. (Edited version of a speech given November **, **** at the American Enterprise Institute.)
- ^ Tamarov, Vladislav (1992). Afghanistan: Soviet Vietnam. Mercury House. ISBN 1-5627-9021-8.
- ^ Carter, Jimmy. "State of the Union Address, 1980". Jimmy Carter Library and Museum. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
- ^ Dale, Reginald (June 17, 1994). "Many Can Learn From Soviet Downfall". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010.[dead link]
- ^ "The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan". Wais.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
- ^ Petrostate: Putin, power, and the New Russia. Oxford University Press. 2008. p. 49. ISBN 0195340736.
- ^ "Sadat and Nasser". Commentarymagazine.com. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
- ^ Voprosy Ekonomiki (Moscow), no. 2 (1988), p. 79.
- ^ Российская история | Персонажи | Горбачев Михаил Сергеевич
- ^ "Отмена 6-й статьи Конституции СССР о руководящей роли КПСС. Справка". RIA Novosti. 14 March 2010. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
- ^ Acton, Edward,, (1995) Russia, The Tsarist and Soviet Legacy, Longmann Group Ltd (1995) ISBN 0-582-08922-0
[edit]Further reading
- Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, The End of the Soviet Empire: The Triumph of the Nations, Basic Books, 1992, ISBN 0-465-09818-5
- Gaidar, Yegor (April 19, 2007). "The Soviet Collapse: Grain and Oil". AEI Online. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
- Gaidar, Yegor (2006). Gibel' Imperii: Uroki dlya sovremennoi Rossii [The Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia].
Gaidar, Yegor Gaidar; Antonina W. Bouis (2007). Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-3114-6. - Jack F. Matlock, Jr., Autopsy on an Empire: The American Ambassador's Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Random House, 1995, ISBN 0-679-41376-6
- David Remnick, Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, Vintage Books, 1994, ISBN 0-679-75125-4
- Ronald Grigor Suny, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford University Press, 1993, ISBN 0-8047-2247-1
[edit]External links
- Reform, Coup and Collapse: The End of the Soviet State by Professor Archie Brown.
- Soviet Archives collected by Vladimir Bukovsky
- Candid photos of the Eastern Bloc September–December 1991, in the last months of the USSR
- Kuliabin A. Semine S. Some of aspects of state national economy evolution in the system of the international economic order.- USSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES FAR EAST DIVISION INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC & INTERNATIONAL OCEAN STUDIES Vladivostok, 1991
| ||
| |||
| |||||||||
| ||
| |||
Dissolution of the Soviet Union
| | This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (May 2010) |
| Dissolution of the Soviet Union | |
|---|---|
 Tanks at Red Square during the 1991 Soviet coup d'etat attempt | |
| Participants | People of the Soviet Union Federal government Republican governments Autonomous SSRs |
| Location | Soviet Union |
| Date | January 19, 1990 – December 31, 1991 |
| Result | Dissulution of the Soviet Union into independent republics |
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was the disintegration of the federal political structures and central government of the Soviet Union, resulting in the independence of all 15 republics of the Soviet Union between March 11, 1990 and December 25, 1991.
The direct cause of the dissolution was the failed attempt by Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the USSR from March 11, 1985, to revitalize the Soviet economy through a process of limited political liberalisation (glasnost/perestroika) within the confines of a totalitarian communist one-party state.
The broader result of the dissolution was the fall of Communism as a global ideology between 1989 and 1991 and the end of the cold war. Multi-ethnic communist federal states proved particularly vulnerable to disintegration during this time – the Soviet Union was but one example of three such states that collapsed in Europe as a result of the fall of communism, the others being the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, which broke up in a series of wars in 1991–1992, andCzechoslovak Socialist Republic, which had its peaceful velvet divorce in 1993.
Contents[hide] |
The New General Secretary – 1985
Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary by the Politburo on March 11, 1985, only three hours after Chernenko's death. Upon his accession at age 54, he was the youngest member of the Politburo. Gorbachev's primary goal as General Secretary was to revive the Soviet economy after the stagnant Brezhnev years.
In 1985, he announced that the Soviet economy was stalled and that reorganization was needed. Gorbachev soon realized that fixing the Soviet economy would be nearly impossible without reforming the political and social structure of the Communist nation.[1]
In May 1985 in Leningrad Gorbachev made a speech advocating widespread reforms. The reforms began in personnel changes; the most notable change was the replacement of Andrei Gromyko as Minister of Foreign Affairs with Eduard Shevardnadze. Gromyko, disparaged as "Mr Nyet" in the West, had served for 28 years as Minister of Foreign Affairs and was considered an 'old thinker'.
One of the first reforms Gorbachev introduced was the anti-alcohol campaign, begun in May 1985, which was designed to fight widespread alcoholism in the Soviet Union. Prices of vodka, wine, and beer were raised, and their sales were restricted.[2] It was a serious blow to the state budget—a loss of approximately 100 billion rubles according to Alexander Yakovlev—after alcohol production migrated to the black market economy.[2] The purpose of reform, however, was to prop up the centrally-planned economy, not transition to market socialism.
1986
Latvia – Helsinki-86 and First Demonstration
The CTAG (Latvian: Cilvēktiesību aizstāvības grupa, Human Rights Defense Group) Helsinki-86was founded in July, 1986 in the Latvian port town of Liepāja by three workers: Linards Grantiņš, Raimonds Bitenieks, and Mārtiņš Bariss. Its name refers to the Helsinki Accords and the year of its founding. Helsinki-86 was the first openly anti-Communist organization, and the first openly organized opposition to the Soviet regime in the Soviet Union, setting an example for other ethnic minorities' pro-independence movements.[3]
In Riga, Latvia, on December 26, 1986, in the early morning hours after a rock concert, some 300 working-class Latvian youths gathered in Riga's Cathedral Square and marched down Lenin Avenue toward the Freedom Monument shouting, 'Soviet Russia out! Free Latvia!' Security forces confronted the marchers, and several police vehicles were overturned[4]
Kazakhstan – Jeltoqsan Riots
The ""Jeltoqsan"" or "December" of 1986 were riots[5]that took place in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan in response to General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's dismissal of Dinmukhamed Konayev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan and an ethnic Kazakh, and the subsequent appointment of Gennady Kolbin, an outsider from the Russian SFSR. Demonstrations started in the morning of December 17, 1986 as an initial number of 200–300 students gathered in front of the Central Committee building on Brezhnev square to protest the decision of the CPSU to replace Kunayev with Kolbin. The number of protesters increased to 1,000–5,000 as students from universities and institutes joined the crowd on Brezhnev square. As a response, the CPK Central Committee ordered troops from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, druzhiniki (volunteers), cadets, policemen and the KGB to cordon the square and videotape the participants. The situation escalated around 5 pm, as troops were ordered to disperse the protesters. Clashes between the security forces and the demonstrators continued throughout the night in the square and in different parts of Almaty. The second day, protests turned into civil unrest as clashes in the streets, universities and dormitories between troops, volunteers and militia units and Kazakh students turned into a wide-scale confrontation. The clashes could only be controlled on the third day. The Almaty events were followed by smaller protests and demonstrations in Shymkent, Pavlodar, Karaganda and Taldykorgan. Reports from Kazakh SSR authorities estimated that the riots drew 3,000 people.[6] Other estimates estimates are of at least 30,000 to 40,000 protestors with 5,000 arrested and jailed, and an unknown number of casualties.[7] Jeltoqsan leaders say over sixty thousandKazakhs participated in the protests.[7][8] According to the Kazakh SSR government, there were two deaths during the riots, including a volunteer police worker and a student. Both of them had died due to blows to the head. About 100 others were detained and several others were sentenced to terms in labor camps.[9] Sources cited by Library of Congress claim that at least 200 people died or were summarily executed soon after. Some accounts estimate casualties at more than 1,000. The writer Mukhtar Shakhanov claimed that a KGB officer testified that 168 protesters were killed, but that figure remains unconfirmed as most material about Jeltoksan is in Moscow, locked inCommunist Party of the Soviet Union and KGB archives.
1987
Soviet Union Centre – One-Party Democracy
In January 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev announced the new policy of 'democratization' under which future Soviet elections would offer the electorate a choice between multiple candidates per position, although all candidates would continue to be CPSU members. The concept was introduced by Gorbachev to enable him to circumvent the CPSU hardliners who resisted his perestroika and glasnost reform campaigns, while still maintaining the Soviet Union as a single-party communist state.
On May 6, 1987 Pamyat a Russian Nationalist group held an unsanctioned demonstration in Moscow which the authorities did not break up by force. Later, the police kept traffic out of the demonstrators' way while they marched to an apparently impromptu meeting with Boris Yeltsin, head of the Moscow Communist Party and at that time one of Mikhail Gorbachev's closest allies in the ruling Politburo.[10] On July 25, 1987 a group of 300 Crimean Tatars, calling for the right to return to the Crimean homeland from which they were deported in 1944, staged a noisy demonstration for several hours near the Kremlin Wall as dozens of police and soldiers looked on.[11]
Baltic Republics – First Molotov Pact Protests
In Latvia on June 14, 1987 about 5,000 people gathered at the Freedom Monument to commemorate the victims of the Soviet regime and to lay flowers.
On August 23, 1987, on the 48th anniversary of the secret protocols of Molotov Pact between Hitler and Stalin that ceded the three independent Baltic states to the Soviet Union in 1940, thousands of demonstrators marked the occasion in the capitals of all three Baltic Republics to sing anthems of independence and to hear defiant speeches honoring the victims of Stalin. The gatherings were sharply denounced in the official press and closely watched by the police, but they were not interrupted.[12]
Armenia – Environmental & Nagorno Karabakh demonstrations
On October 17, 1987 3,000 Armenians demonstrated in Yerevan complaining about the condition of Lake Sevan, the Nairit chemicals plant, and the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, and air pollution in Yerevan. Police tried to prevent the protest but took no action to stop it once the march was underway. The demonstration was led by Armenian writers such as Silva Kaputikian, Zori Balayan and Maro Margarian and leaders from the National Survival organization. The march originated at the Opera Plaza after speakers, mainly intellectuals, addressed the crowd.
The following day 1,000 Armenians participated in another demonstration calling for Armenian national rights in Karabagh. The demonstrators demanded the annexation of Nakhichevan andNagorno Karabagh to Armenia, and carried placards to that effect. The police tried to physically prevent the march and after a few incidents, dispersed the demonstrators. The status of Nagorno Karabakh would blow up into violence the following year.[13]
1988
Soviet Union Centre – Starting to lose Control
In 1988 Gorbachev started to lose control in two small but troublesome regions of the Soviet Empire, as the Baltic States were captured by their Popular Fronts, and the Caucasus descended into violence and civil war. Frustrated by the 'old guard's resistance to his attempts to liberalise he changed tack in the summer of 1988 and embarked upon a set of constitutional changes to try and separate party and state, and thereby isolate his conservative opponents. He began the process of calling a new supreme legislative body to be elected in the spring of 1989 called the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union.
Caucasus – Aflame
Azerbaijan – Descent into violence
In February 20, 1988, after a week of growing demonstrations in Stepanakert, capital of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (the Armenian majority area within Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic), the Regional Soviet voted to secede and join with the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia.[14] This local vote in a small virtually unknown part of the Soviet Union was unprecedented and made headlines throughout the world – a part of the Soviet system of government had on its own initiative dared to defy not only its own Republic`s authorities but that of Moscow as well. On February 22, 1988 in what became known as the Askeran clash 2 Azerbaijani`s were killed in clashes with Karabakh Armenians. The announcement of these deaths on state radio led to the Sumgait Pogrom where between February 26 and March 1 the city of Sumgait was subjected to 4 days of violent anti-Armenian riots during which 32 people were killed. The authorities totally lost control of events and finally had to occupy the city with paratroopers and tanks. Almost all the 14,000 Armenian population of Sumgait fled the city.[15]
Gorbahev refused to make any changes to the status of Nagorno Karabakh which remained part of Azerbaijan. He instead sacked the Communist Party Leaders in both Republics – on May 21, 1988 Kamran Baghirov was replaced by Abdulrahman Vezirov as First Secretary of the Azerbaijan Communist Party. From July 23, 1988 through to September 1988 a group of Azerbaijani intellectuals began working on a programme for a new organisation called the 'The Popular Front of Azerbaijan', which was loosely based on the Estonian Popular Front.[16]On September 17, 1988 when gunbattles broke out between Armenians and Azerbaijanis near Stepanakert, 2 soldiers were killed and more than 2 dozen people were injured.[17] This led to almost complete ethnic polarisation in Nagorno-Karabakhs two main towns as the Azerbaijani minority were expelled from the Armenian majority capital of Stepanakert, and the Armenian minority was expelled from the Azerbaijani majority former-capital of Shusha.[18] On November 17, 1988, in response to the exodus of tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, a rolling series of mass demonstrations started in Lenin Square, Baku, which lasted 18 days and regularly attracted half a million demonstraters – until the Soviet police finally moved in, cleared the square by force on 5 December 1988, and imposed a curfew which lasted 10 months.[19]
Armenia – The People Rise
The rebellion of their fellow Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh had an immediate effect in Armenia. Daily demonstrations which began in Yerevan on February 18 with the usual ecological slogans initially attracted few people, but each day the issue ofNagorno-Karabakh became more prominent and the numbers swelled. On February 20 30,000 demonstrated in Theatre Square, by February 22 there were 100,000, the next day 300,000 and a transport strike was declared, by February 25 there were close to a million demonstrators – a staggering quarter of the population of the entire republic.[20] This was the first occurrence of the huge peaceful people power demonstrations that were later to become a feature of the overthrow of communism from Prague, to Berlin, to Moscow. At this time the 11 member Karabakh Committee was formed by leading Armenian intellectuals and nationalists, including future first President of independent Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian, to lead and organise the new Armenian mass movement.
Gorbachev refused to make any changes to the status of Nagorno Karabakh which remained part of Azerbaijan. He instead sacked the Communist Party Leaders in both Republics – on May 21, 1988 Karen Demirchian was replaced by Suren Harutyunyan as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia. However Harutyunyan quickly decided to run before the nationalist wind and on May 28, 1988 allowed the outlawed flag of the First Armenian Republic to be unfurled for the first time in almost 70 years in Yereven.[21] On June 15, 1988 the Supreme Soviet in Yerevan adopted a resolution in which it formally gave it`s approval to the idea of Nagorno Karabakh joining Armenia.[22] Armenia formally one of the most loyal Republics had suddenly turned into the leading rebel in the Soviet Union. On July 5, 1988 when a contingent of troops was sent in to remove demonstrators by force from Yerevan's Zvarnots Airport shots were fired and one student protester died.[23] In September 1988 further large demonstrations in Yereven led to the deployment of armoured vehicles onto the streets.[24] In the autumn of 1988 almost all the 200,000 Azerbaijani minority in Armenia was expelled by Armenian Nationalists, with over 100 killed in the process[25] On November 25, 1988 a military commandant took control of the Armenian capital as the Soviet Government moved to prevent further ethnic violence.[26] Then on December 7, 1988 Armenia was hit by the Spitak earthquake which killed 25,000 people – when Gorbachev rushed to the scene from a visit to the United States he was so angered when even during this national tragedy he was confronted by Armenian protesters calling for Nagorno-Karabakh to be made part of the Armenian Republic, that on December 11, 1988 he ordered the arrest of the entire Karabakh Committee[27]
Georgia – First Demonstrations
In November 1988 in Tbilisi, capital of Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, large numbers of demonstrators camped out in front of the republic's legislature in support of Estonia`s declarion of sovereignty.[28]
Baltic Republics – The Singing Revolution
In 1986 and 1987 Latvia had been in the vanguard of the three Baltic states in pressing for reform. In 1988 Estonia took over the lead role with the foundation of the Soviet Unions first Popular Front and starting to influence state policy.
Estonia – Estonian Popular Front
The Estonian Popular Front was founded in April 1988, On June 16, 1988 Gorbachev replaced Karl Vaino the 'old guard' leader of theCommunist Party of Estonia with the relatively liberal Vaino Väljas Soviet ambassador to Nicaragua.[29] In late June 1988 Väljas bowed to pressure from the Estonian Popular Front and legalized the flying of the former National Flag of independent Estonia, and agreed a new state language law that made Estonian the official language of the Republic.[4]
On November 16, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR adopted a declaration of national sovereignty under which Estonian laws should have precedence over those of the Soviet Union.[30] Estonia's parliament also laid claim to the republic's natural resources: land, inland waters, forests, mineral deposits and to the means of industrial production, agriculture, construction, state banks, transportation, municipal services, etc. in the territory of Estonia's borders.[31]
Lithuania – Sąjūdis
The Popular Front of Lithuania called Sąjūdis was founded in May 1988, On October 19, 1988 Gorbachev replaced Ringaudas Songaila the 'old guard' leader of the Communist Party of Lithuania with the relatively liberal Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas. In October 1988 Brazauskas bowed to pressure from Sąjūdis and legalized the flying of the former National Flag of independent Lithuania, and then in November 1988 agreed a new state language law that made Lithuanian the official language of the Republic.[4]
Latvia – Latvian Popular Front
The Latvian Popular Front was founded in June 1988, On October 4, 1988 Gorbachev replaced Boriss Pugo the 'old guard' leader of theCommunist Party of Latvia with the more liberal Jānis Vagris. In October 1988 Vagris bowed to pressure from the Latvian Popular Front and legalized the flying of the former National Flag of independent Latvia, and agreed on October 6 a new state language law that made Latvian the official language of the Republic.[4]
1989
Soviet Union Centre – Congress of People's Deputies
In December 1988, the 1977 Soviet Constitution was amended to create a new legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, to replace the old Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.
The main elections were held on March 26 and a second round on April 9. While the majority of CPSU-endorsed candidates were elected (84 percent of the Congress consisted of the CPSU candidates by Gorbachev's estimate) over 300 candidates won out over the endorsed candidates. Among them were Boris Yeltsin, physicist Andrei Sakharov, and lawyer Anatoly Sobchak,
The first session of the new Congress of People's Deputies opened in May, 1989. Although hardliners retained control of the chamber, the reformers used the legislature as a platform to debate and criticize the Soviet system, with the state media broadcasting their comments live and uncensored on television which held the population transfixed because nothing like this freedom of debate had ever been witnessed in the USSR. Yeltsin managed to secure a seat on the reconstituted Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and in the summer formed the firstopposition, the Inter-Regional Deputies Group, formed of Russian nationalists and liberals. As it was the final legislative group in the Soviet Union, those elected in 1989 played a vital part in continuing reforms and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union over the next two years.
Loss of Outer Empire
The six Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, whilst nominally independent, were widely recognised in the international community to be part of the Soviet Unions outer empire between 1945 and 1989. All had been occupied by the Soviet Red Army in 1945, had Soviet style totalitarian communist governments imposed upon them, and had very restricted freedom of action in either domestic or international affairs. Any moves towards real independence were suppressed with military force, such as happened in the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968.
Gorbachev abandoned the oppressive and expensive Brezhnev Doctrine in favor of non-intervention in the internal affairs of its Warsaw Pact allies, termed in October 1989 theSinatra Doctrine in a joking reference to the Frank Sinatra song "My Way".
The revolutions of 1989 overthrew the communist regimes in European countries.
1990
On February 7, 1990, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union accepted the recommendation of Mikhail Gorbachev that the party give up its 70 year longmonopoly of political power.[32] During 1990 all 15 constituent republics of the USSR held their first competitive elections, and reformers and ethnic nationalists won many of the seats. The CPSU lost the elections in the following 5 republics;
- Lithuania on February 24, 1990 to Sajudis
- Moldova on February 25, 1990 to the Popular Front of Moldova
- Estonia on March 18, 1990 to the Estonian Popular Front
- Latvia on March 18, 1990 to the Latvian Popular Front
- Georgia on October 28 to Round Table-Free Georgia
The constituent republics began to declare their national sovereignty and started a "war of laws" with the Moscow central government, wherein the governments of the constituent republics rejected union-wide legislation where it conflicted with local laws, asserting control over their local economies and refusing to pay tax revenue to the central Moscow government. This strife caused economic dislocation as supply lines in the economy were severed, and caused the Soviet economy to decline further.[33]
The pro-independence movement in the Lithuanian SSR, Sąjūdis, established on June 3, 1988, caused a visit by President Mikhail Gorbachevin January 1990 to the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, which provoked a pro-independence rally of around 250,000 people.
On March 11, 1990, the Lithuanian SSR, led by Chairman of the Supreme Council Vytautas Landsbergis, declared restoration of independence. However, the Soviet Army attempted to suppress the movement. The Soviet Union initiated an economic blockade of Lithuania and kept troops there "to secure the rights of ethnic Russians."[34]
On March 30, 1990, the Estonian Supreme Council declared Soviet power in Estonian SSR since 1940 to have been illegal, and started a process to reestablish Estonia as an independent state.
Latvia declared restoration of independence on May 4, 1990, with the declaration stipulating a transitional period to complete independence.
1991
Crisis (Jan–Aug 1991)
On January 13, 1991, Soviet troops, along with KGB Spetsnaz Alpha Group, stormed the Vilnius TV Tower in Vilnius, Lithuania to suppress the nationalist media. This ended with 14 unarmed civilians dead and hundreds more injured. Later that month in Georgian SSR, anti-Soviet protesters at Tbilisi demonstrated support for Lithuanian independence.[35]
Attacks in Lithuania prompted Latvians to mount defense by building barricades to block access to strategically important buildings and bridges in Riga. Soviet attacks in following days resulted in 6 people being killed and several injured, one of whom later died.
On January 14, 1991 Nikolai Ryzhkov resigned from his post as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, literally Premier of the Soviet Union, and was succeeded by Valentin Pavlov in the newly-established post of Prime Minister of the Soviet Union.
On March 17, 1991, in a Union-wide referendum 76.4% of all voters voted for the retention of the Soviet Union in a reformed form.[36] The Baltics, Armenia, Georgia, Chechnya (which was by now referring to itself as Ichkeria and despite previously being a region within Russia officially, had a strong desire to emulate the independence of its neighbors)[37] and Moldova boycotted the referendum. In each of the other nine republics, a majority of the voters supported the retention of the renewed Soviet Union.
On June 12, 1991, Boris Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic elections for the post of president of the Russian SFSR, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov, who won 16% of the vote. In his election campaign, Yeltsin criticized the "dictatorship of the centre", but did not suggest the introduction of a market economy. Instead, he said that he would put his head on the railtrack in the event of increased prices. Yeltsin took office on July 10.
On the night of July 31, 1991, Russian OMON from Riga, the Soviet military headquarters in the Baltics, assaulted the Lithuanian border post in Medininkai and killed seven Lithuanian servicemen. This event further weakened the Soviet Union's position, internationally and domestically.
The August 1991 Coup
| | This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(November 2009) |
Faced with growing republic separatism, Gorbachev attempted to restructure the Soviet Union into a less centralized state. On August 20, 1991, the Russian SFSR was scheduled to sign the New Union Treaty, which was to convert the Soviet Union into a federation of independent republics with a common president, foreign policy and military. The new treaty was strongly supported by the Central Asian republics, which needed the economic power and common markets of the other Soviet republics to prosper. However, this meant the preservation of the Communist Party's control over economic and social life.
The more radical reformists were increasingly convinced that a rapid transition to a market economy was required, even if the eventual outcome included the disintegration of the Soviet Union into several independent nation-states. Disintegration of the USSR also accorded with the desires of Yeltsin's presidency of the Russian Federation as well as regional and local authorities, to establish full power over their territories and get rid of pervasive Moscow ideological control. In contrast to the reformers' lukewarm approach to the new treaty, the conservatives and remaining 'patriots' and Russian nationalists of the USSR, still strong within the CPSU and military establishment, were opposed to anything that might contribute to the weakening of the Soviet state and its centralized power base.
On August 19, 1991, Gorbachev's vice president Gennadi Yanayev, prime minister Valentin Pavlov, defense minister Dmitriy Yazov, KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov, and other senior officials acted to prevent the signing of the union treaty by forming the "General Committee on the State Emergency." The "Committee" put Gorbachev (on holiday in Foros, Crimea) under house arrest, reintroduced political censorship, and attempted to stop the perestroika. The coup leaders quickly issued an emergency decree suspending political activity and banning most newspapers.
While coup organizers expected some popular support for their actions, the public sympathy in large cities and in republics was largely against them, manifesting itself in a campaign ofcivil resistance, especially in Moscow. Russian SFSR President Boris Yeltsin was quick to condemn the coup and grab popular support for himself.
Thousands of people in Moscow came out to defend the "White House" (the Russian Federation's parliament and Yeltsin's office), then the symbolic seat of Russian sovereignty. The organizers tried but ultimately failed to arrest Yeltsin, who rallied mass opposition to the coup. The special forces dispatched by the coup leaders took up positions near the White House, but would not storm the barricaded building.
After three days, on August 21, the coup collapsed, the organizers were detained, and Gorbachev returned as president of the Soviet Union. However, Gorbachev's powers were now compromised, as neither the Union nor Russian power structures heeded his commands.
The Fall (Aug–Dec 1991)
Between August and December, 10 republics declared their independence, largely out of fear of another coup. Also during this time, Russia began taking over what remained of the Soviet government, including the Kremlin. The final round of the Soviet Union's collapse took place following the Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, wherein 90% of voters opted for independence. The leaders of the three principal Slavic republics (the Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs) agreed to meet for a discussion of possible forms of relationship, alternative to Gorbachev's struggle for a union.
On December 8, 1991, the leaders of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussianrepublics met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha and signed the Belavezha Accordsdeclaring the Soviet Union dissolved and replacing it with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Gorbachev described this as an unconstitutional coup, but it soon became clear that the development could not be halted.
On December 12, 1991, Russia's secession from the Union was sealed, with the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR formally ratifying the Belavezha Accords and denouncing the 1922 Treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union.
On December 17, 1991, alongside 28 European countries, the European Community, and four non-European countries, twelve of the fifteen Soviet republics signed the European Energy Charter in the Hague as sovereign states.[38]
Doubts remained over the authority of the Belavezha Accords to effect the dissolution of the Soviet Union, since they were signed by only five of the Soviet Republics. However, on December 21, 1991, representatives of all member republics except Georgia signed the Alma-Ata Protocol, in which they confirmed the dissolution of the Union. That same day, all former Soviet republics agreed to join the CIS, with the exception of the three Baltic States and Georgia. The documents signed at Alma-Ata also addressed several issues raised by the Union's extinction. Notably, Russia was authorized to assume the Soviet Union's UN membership, including its permanent membership on the Security Council. The Soviet Ambassador to the UN delivered to the Secretary General a letter signed by Yeltsin, dated December 24, 1991, informing him that, in virtue of that agreement, Russia was the successor state to the USSR for purposes of UN membership. After being circulated among the other UN member states with no objection raised, the statement was declared accepted on December 31.
In the early hours of December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR, declaring the office extinct and ceding all the powers still vested in it to Yeltsin. That night, the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time over the Kremlin. The next day, the Council of Republics (a chamber of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union) formally recognized the dissolution of the Soviet Union and dissolved itself (another chamber of the Supreme Soviet had been unable to work during some months before this, due to absence of a quorum). By December 31, 1991, the few Soviet institutions that hadn't been taken over by Russia had ceased operations, as individual republics assumed the central government's role.
Chronology of Independence Declarations
Before Aug 1991 Coup
During Aug 1991 Coup
After Aug 1991 Coup
- Ukraine – August 24, 1991
- Belarus – August 25, 1991
- Moldova – August 27, 1991
- Azerbaijan – August 30, 1991
- Kyrgyzstan – August 31, 1991
- Uzbekistan – September 1, 1991
- Tajikistan – September 9, 1991
- Armenia – September 21, 1991
- Turkmenistan – October 16, 1991
- Kazakhstan – December 16, 1991
- Russia – December 25, 1991 (As successor state upon dissolution of USSR)
Legacy
According to a 2006 poll by VCIOM 66% of all Russians regretted the collapse of the Soviet Union.[39] 50 percent of respondents in Ukraine in a similar poll held in February 2005 stated they regret the disintegration of the Soviet Union.[40]
The final collapse of the USSR was one of the most sudden and dramatic territorial losses that has happened in the history of Russia or itssuccessor states in centuries. Between 1990 and 1992 the Kremlin had lost direct government control over about one-third of Soviet territory – most of it acquired in the period between 1700 and 1945 – which had about one-half of the Soviet population by the time of the dissolution. The collapse of the Soviet Union hit the Cuban economy severely. The country lost approximately 80% of its imports, 80% of its exports and its Gross Domestic Product dropped by 34 percent. Food and medicine imports stopped or severely slowed. The largest immediate impact was the loss of nearly all of the petroleum imports by the USSR.
United Nations Membership
In a letter dated December 24, 1991, Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian Federation, informed the United Nations Secretary-Generalthat the membership of the USSR in the Security Council and all other UN organs was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The other fourteen independent states established from the former Soviet Republics were all admitted to the UN:
- The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had already joined the UN as original members on October 24, 1945, together with the USSR. After declaring independence, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic changed its name toUkraine on August 24, 1991, and on September 19, 1991, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic informed the UN that it had changed its name to Belarus.
- Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were admitted to the UN on September 17, 1991.
- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan were admitted to the UN on March 2, 1992.
- Georgia was admitted to the UN on July 31, 1992.
See also
- Predictions of Soviet collapse
- Civil resistance
- History of Russia
- Soviet Union
- History of Russia (1992–present)
References
- ^ "Михаил Сергеевич Горбачёв (Mikhail Sergeyevičh Gorbačhëv)". Archontology.org. March 27, 2009. Retrieved April 3, 2009.
- ^ a b Hough, Jerry F. (1997), pp. 124–125
- ^ "Independent Movements in Eastern Europe". Osaarchivum.org. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ a b c dhttp://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_III/issue_3-4/ulfelder.pdf
- ^ Nationalist riots in Kazakhstan: "Violent nationalist riots erupted in Alma-Ata, the capital of. Kazakhstan, on December 17 and 18, 1986."
- ^ Soviet Riots Worse Than First Reported San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Feb 19, 1987. pg. 22
- ^ a b Kazakhstan: Jeltoqsan Protest Marked 20 Years LaterRadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty
- ^ "Jeltoqsan" Movement blames leader of Kazakh Communists.EurasiaNet
- ^ San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand.
- ^ "Russian Nationalists Test Gorbachev – New York Times".The New York Times. May 24, 1987. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Tartars Stage Noisy Protest in Moscow – New York Times".The New York Times. July 26, 1987. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Lithuanians Rally For Stalin Victims – New York Times". The New York Times. August 24, 1987. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Armenia Official Site". Armeniaforeignministry.com. October 18, 1987. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ Pages 10–12 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ Page 40 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ Page 82 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ "Gunfire Erupts in Tense Soviet Area – New York Times". The New York Times. September 20, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ Page 69 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ Page 83 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ Pages 23 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ Pages 60–61 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ "Armenian Legislature Bakcs Calls For Annexing Disputed Territory – New York Times". The New York Times. June 16, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Anger Alters the Chemistry of Armenian Protest – New York Times". The New York Times. July 11, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Parts Of Armenia Are Blocked Off By Soviet Troops – New York Times". The New York Times. September 23, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ Pages 62–63 Black Garden de Waal, Thomas. 2003. NYU. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7
- ^ "Soviet Army Puts Armenian Capital Under Its Control – New York Times". The New York Times. November 26, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "THE GORBACHEV VISIT; Thousands Feared Dead in Soviet Caucasus Quake – New York Times". The New York Times. December 8, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Tension Called High In Armenia Capital, With 1,400 Arrests – New York Times". The New York Times. November 29, 1988. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Estonia Gets Hope". Ellensburg Daily Record. Helsinki, Finland: UPI. October 23, 1989. p. 9. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
- ^ Website of Estonian Embassy in London (National Holidays)
- ^ Walker, Edward (2003). Dissolution. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 63.ISBN 0742524531.
- ^ "Soviet Communist Party gives up monopoly on political power – History.com This Day in History – 2/7/1990". History.com. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ Acton, Edward, (1995) Russia, The Tsarist and Soviet Legacy, Longmann Group Ltd (1995) ISBN 0-582-08922-0
- ^ From Communists to Foreign Capitalists: The Social Foundations of Foreign Direct Investment in Postsocialist Europe by Nina Bandelj, Princeton University Press, 2008, ISBN 0691129126 ISBN 978-0691129129, page 41
- ^ Hastening The End of the Empire, Time Magazine, January 28, 1991
- ^ 1991: March Referendum SovietHistory.org
- ^ King, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: History of the Caucasus
- ^ Concluding document of The Hague Conference on the European Energy Charter
- ^ Russians Regret Collapse of Soviet Union, Angus Reid Global Monitor (January 1, 2006)
- ^ Russians, Ukrainians Evoke Soviet Union, Angus Reid Global Monitor (01/02/05)
External links
- Goodbye Comrade: An Exhibition of Images from the Revolution of '89 and the Collapse of Communism, Special Collections Research Center, The Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library, The George Washington University. The exhibit contains excellent posters that relate the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as background information.
| ||
 | Scholarship applications are invited for Wiki Conference India being held from 18-20 November, 2011 in Mumbai. Apply here. Last date for application is August 15, 2011. |  |
Economy of the United States
| Economy of the United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Rank | 1st (nominal) / 1st (PPP) |
| Currency | United States Dollar (USD) |
| Fiscal year | October 1 – September 30 |
| Statistics | |
| GDP | $14.772 trillion (2011)[1] (1st, nominal and PPP) |
| GDP growth | 2.8% (2010)[1] |
| GDP per capita | $47,275 (2010)[2] (17th, nominal; 6th, PPP) |
| GDP by sector | agriculture: (1.2%), industry: (21.9%), services: (76.9%) (2009 est.) |
| Inflation (CPI) | 2.1% (February 2011)[3] |
| Population below poverty line | 14.3% (2009)[4] |
| Gini index | 45 (List of countries) |
| Labor force | 154.5 million (includes unemployed) (2009 est.) |
| Labor force by occupation | farming, forestry, and fishing: 0.7% manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts: 20.3% managerial, professional, and technical: 37.3% sales and office: 24.2% other services: 17.6% note: figures exclude the unemployed (2009) |
| Unemployment | 9.2% (June 2011) |
| Main industries | petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace,telecommunications, chemicals, creative industries, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining, defense, biomedical research and health care services, computers and robotics |
| Ease of Doing Business Rank | 5th[5] |
| External | |
| Exports | $1.280 trillion f.o.b (2010)[1] |
| Export goods | agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2009) |
| Main export partners | Canada, 13.2%; Mexico, 8.3%; China, 4.3%;Japan, 3.3%. (2009)[6] |
| Imports | $1.948 trillion c.i.f. (2010)[1] |
| Import goods | agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys) (2009) |
| Main import partners | China, 15.4%; Canada, 11.6%; Mexico, 9.1%;Japan, 4.9%; Germany, 3.7%. (2009)[6] |
| FDI stock | $2.398 trillion (31 December 2009 est.) |
| Gross external debt | $14.39 trillion (30 Sept 2010)[7] |
| Public finances | |
| Public debt | $14.77 trillion (Jun 2011)[8] 100% of GDP |
| Revenues | $2.162 trillion (2010)[9] |
| Expenses | $3.456 trillion (2010)[9] |
| Economic aid | ODA $19 billion, 0.2% of GDP (2004)[10] |
| Credit rating | |
| Foreign reserves | US$140.607 billion (May 2011)[13] |
| Main data source: CIA World Fact Book All values, unless otherwise stated, are in US dollars | |
- Throughout this article, the unqualified term "dollar" and the $ symbol refer to the US dollar.
The economy of the United States is the world's largest national economy. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be nearly $14.7 trillion in 2010,[1] approximately a quarter of nominal global GDP.[14][15] Its GDP at purchasing power parity was also the largest in the world, approximately a fifth of global GDP at purchasing power parity.[14] The U.S. economy also maintains a very high level of output per capita. In 2009, it was estimated to have a per capita GDP (PPP) of $46,381, the 6th highest in the world. The U.S is the largest trading nation in the world. Its three largest trading partners as of 2010 are Canada, China and Mexico.
Historically, the U.S. economy has maintained a stable overall GDP growth rate, a low unemployment rate, and high levels of research and capital investment funded by both national and, because of decreasing saving rates, increasingly by foreign investors. It has been the world's largest national economy since the 1870s[16][17]and remains the world's largest manufacturer, representing 19% of the world's manufacturing output. In 2009, consumer spending, coupled with government health care spending constituted 70% of the American economy.[18] About 30% of the entire world's millionaire population reside in the United States (in 2009).[19]Furthermore, 34% of the world's billionaires are American (in 2011).[20][21] The US is also home to the world's largest stock exchange, the New York Stock Exchange. It also boasts the world's largest gold reserves and the world's largest gold depository, the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The United States is also home to 139 of the world's 500 largest companies, which is almost twice that of any other country.[22] A large contributor to the country's success has also been a very strong and stable currency. The US dollar holds about 60% of world reserves, as compared to its top competitor, the euro, which controls about 24%.
Since the 1960s, the United States economy absorbed savings from the rest of the world. The phenomenon is subject to discussion among economists. The USis by far the most heavily invested-into country in the world, with foreign investments made in the US measuring almost $2.4 trillion, which is more than twice that of any other country.[23] The US is also by far the largest investor in the world, with US investments in foreign countries totaling over $3.3 trillion, which is almost twice that of any other country.[24] Like other developed countries, the United States faces retiring baby boomers who have already begun withdrawing money from Social Security; however, the American population is young and growing when compared to Europe or Japan. The United States public debt is in excess of $13 trillion and continues to grow at a rate of about $5.48 billion each day by direct calculation between January 31, 2010 and August 31, 2010.[25][26]Total public and private debt was $50.2 trillion at the end of the first quarter of 2010, or 3.5 times GDP.[27] Domestic financial assets totaled $131 trillion and domestic financial liabilities totaled $106 trillion.[28] Due in part to the amount of both public and private investment, the economy of the United States is regarded as a type of mixed economy.
The American labor market has attracted immigrants from all over the world and in 2009 ranked 16th in terms of net migration rate. The United States is ranked fourth, down from first in 2008-2009 due to the economic crisis, in the Global Competitiveness Report.[29] The country is one of the world's largest and most influential financial markets, home to major stock and commodities exchangeslike NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, CME, and PHLX.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Historical summary
[edit]Early development
The economic history of the United States has its roots in European settlements in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The American colonies went from marginally successful colonial economies to a small, independent farming economy, which in 1776 became the United States of America. In 180 years the United States grew to a huge, integrated, industrialized economy that still makes up over a quarter of theworld economy[citation needed]. The main causes were a large unified market, a supportive political-legal system, vast areas of highly productive farmlands, vast natural resources (especially timber, coal and oil), a cultural landscape that valued entrepreneurship, a commitment to investing in material and human capital, and at times a willingness to exploit labor. In addition, the U.S. was able to utilize these resources due to a unique set of institutions designed to encourage utilization and extraction.[citation needed] As a result, the U.S.'s GDP per capita converged on and eventually surpassed that of the U.K., as well as other nations that it previously trailed economically. The economy has maintained high wages, attracting immigrants by the millions from all over the world.[30]
In the 19th century, recessions frequently coincided with financial crises. The Panic of 1837 was followed by a five-year depression, with the failure of banks and then-record-high unemployment levels.[31] Because of the great changes in the economy over the centuries, it is difficult to compare the severity of modern recessions to early recessions.[32] Recessions after World War II appear to have been less severe than earlier recessions, but the reasons for this are unclear.[33] The Depression of 1893 was one of the worst in American history, with the unemployment rate exceeding 10% for half a decade.[34]
[edit]Since the Great Depression
For many years following the Great Depression of the 1930s, when danger of recessionappeared most serious, the government sought to strengthen the economy by spending heavily itself or cutting taxes so that consumers would spend more, and by fostering rapid growth in the money supply, which also encouraged more spending. Ideas about the best tools for stabilizing the economy changed substantially between the 1930s and the 1980s. From the New Deal era that began in 1933, to the Great Societyinitiatives of the 1960s, national policy makers relied principally on fiscal policy to influence the economy. The approach, advanced by British economist John Maynard Keynes, gave elected officials a leading role in directing the economy, since spending and taxes are controlled by the U.S. President and the Congress. The economy and living standards grew strongly during this era, but a period of high inflation, interest rates and unemployment after 1973 weakened confidence in fiscal policy as a tool for regulating the overall pace of economic activity.[35] Following a series of periodic credit tightening measures designed to combat inflation, a combination of loose monetary policy and record budget deficits, both financed with foreign direct investment andpublic debt, became routine economic policy after 1981.[citation needed]
The U.S. economy grew by an average of 3.8% from 1946 to 1973, while real median household income surged 55% (or 1.6% a year).[4][36] The economy since 1973, however, has been characterized by both slower growth (averaging 2.7%), and nearly stagnant living standards, with household incomes increasing by 10%, or only 0.3% annually.[4] The worst recession in recent decades, in terms of lost output, occurred during the 2008 financial crisis, when GDP fell by 4.1% from the spring of 2008 to the spring of 2009. Other significant recessions took place in 1957–58, when GDP fell 3.7%, following the 1973 oil crisis, with a 3.1% fall from late 1973 to early 1975, and in the 1981–82 recession, when GDP dropped by 2.9%.[37][38] Recent, mild recessions have included the 1990–91 downturn, when output fell by 1.3%, and the 2001 recession, in which GDP slid by 0.3%; the 2001 downturn lasted just eight months.[38] The most vigorous, sustained periods of growth, on the other hand, took place from early 1961 to mid 1969, with an expansion of 53% (5.1% a year), from early 1991 to late in 2000, at 43% (3.8% a year), and from late 1982 to mid 1990, at 37% (4% a year).[37]
Since 1976, the US has sustained trade deficits with other nations, and since 1982, current account deficits; the nation's long-standing surplus in its trade in services was maintained, however, and reached US$140 billion yearly in 2008 and 2009. In recent years, the primary economic concerns have centered on: high household debt ($11 trillion, including $2.5 trillion in revolving debt),[39] high net national debt ($9 trillion), high corporate debt ($9 trillion), high mortgage debt (over $15 trillion as of 2005 year-end), high unfunded Medicare liability ($30 trillion[citation needed]), high unfunded Social Security liability ($12 trillion)[citation needed], high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders), high trade deficits, a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (-24% of GDP),[40] and high unemployment.[41] In 2006, the U.S economy had its lowest saving rate since 1933.[42] These issues have raised concerns amongeconomists and national politicians.[43]
The United States economy experienced a crisis in 2008 led by a derivatives market and subprime mortgage crisis, and a declining dollar value.[44] On December 1, 2008, the NBER declared that the United States entered a recession in December 2007, citing employment and production figures as well as the third quarter decline in GDP.[45] The recession did, however, lead to a reduction in record trade deficits, which fell from $840 billion annually during the 2006-08 period, to $500 billion in 2009,[37][46] as well as to higher personal savings rates, which jumped from a historic low of 1% in early 2008, to nearly 5% in late 2009.[47]
In 1980, the U.S. public debt was $909 billion - or an amount equal to 33.3% of America's gross domestic product (GDP). By 1990, that number had more than tripled to $3.2 trillion - or 55.9% of GDP.[48] In 2001 the national debt was $5.7 trillion; however, the debt-to-GDP ratio remained at 1990 levels.[49] Debt levels rose quickly in the following decade, and on January 28, 2010, the US debt ceiling was raised to $14.3 trillion dollars.[50] Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, total national debt will grow to nearly 100% of GDP, versus a level of approximately 80% in early 2009.[51] The White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019,[52]up from $202 billion in 2009.[53]
The U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2006, non-US citizens and institutions held 44% of federal debt held by the public.[54]China, holding $801.5 billion in treasury bonds, is the largest foreign financier of the record U.S. public debt.[55]
[edit]Overview
A central feature of the U.S. economy is the economic freedom afforded to the private sector by allowing the private sector to make the majority of economic decisions in determining the direction and scale of what the U.S. economy produces.[56] This is enhanced by relatively low levels of regulation and government involvement,[57] as well as a court system that generally protects property rights and enforces contracts. Today, the United States is home to 29.6 million small businesses, 30% of the world's millionaires, 40% of the world's billionaires, as well as 139 of the world's 500 largest companies.[20][22][58][59] From its emergence as an independent nation, the United States has encouraged science andinnovation. As a result, the United States has been the birthplace of 161 of Britannica's 321 Great Inventions, including items such as the airplane,internet, microchip, laser, cellphone, refrigerator, email, microwave, LCDand LED technology, air conditioning, assembly line, supermarket, bar code, electric motor, and ATM.[60]
The United States is rich in mineral resources and fertile farm soil, and it is fortunate to have a moderate climate. It also has extensive coastlines on both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as on the Gulf of Mexico. Rivers flow from far within the continent, and the Great Lakes—five large, inland lakes along the U.S. border with Canada—provide additional shipping access. These extensive waterways have helped shape the country's economic growth over the years and helped bind America's 50 individual states together in a single economic unit.[61]
The number of workers and, more importantly, their productivity help determine the health of the U.S. economy. Throughout its history, the United States has experienced steady growth in the labor force, a phenomenon that is both cause and effect of almost constant economic expansion. Until shortly after World War I, most workers were immigrants from Europe, their immediate descendants, or African Americans who were mostly slaves taken from Africa, or slave descendants.[62] Beginning in the early 20th century, many Latin Americans immigrated; followed by large numbers of Asians following removal of nation-origin based immigration quotas.[63] The promise of high wages brings many highly skilled workers from around the world to the United States. Over 13 million people entered the United States during the 1990s alone.[64]
Labor mobility has also been important to the capacity of the American economy to adapt to changing conditions.[citation needed] When immigrants flooded labor markets on the East Coast, many workers moved inland, often to farmland waiting to be tilled. Similarly, economic opportunities in industrial, northern cities attracted black Americans fromsouthern farms in the first half of the 20th century, in what was known as the Great Migration.
In the United States, the corporation has emerged as an association of owners, known as stockholders, who form a business enterprise governed by a complex set of rules and customs. Brought on by the process of mass production, corporations, such as General Electric, have been instrumental in shaping the United States. Through the stock market, American banks and investors have grown their economy by investing and withdrawing capital from profitable corporations. Today in the era of globalization, American investors and corporations have influence all over the world. The American government is also included among the major investors in the American economy. Government investments have been directed towards public works of scale (such as from the Hoover Dam), military-industrial contracts, and the financial industry.
While consumers and producers make most decisions that mold the economy, government has a powerful effect on the U.S. economy in at least four areas, as the government uses a capitalist system. Strong government regulation in the U.S. economy started in the early 1900s with the rise of the Progressive Movement; prior to this the government promoted economic growth through protective tariffs and subsidies to industry, built infrastructure, and established banking policies, including the gold standard, to encourage savings and investment in productive enterprises. On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce, commenting that the U.S. has outsourced too much in some areas and can no longer rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to drive demand.[65]
[edit]Education
There are 4,352 colleges, universities, and junior colleges in the United States.[66] In 2007, Americans stood second only to Canada in the percentage of 35 to 64 year olds holding at least two-year degrees. Among 25 to 34 year olds, the country stands tenth. The nation stands 15 out of 29 rated nations for college completion rates, slightly above Mexico and Turkey.[67] According to government data, one-tenth of students are enrolled in private schools. Approximately 85% of students enter the public schools.[68]
[edit]Employment
There are approximately 154.4 million employed individuals in the US. Government is the largest employment sector. with 22 million.[69] Small businesses are the largest employer in the country representing 53% of US workers.[70] The second largest share of employment belongs to large businesses, who employ a total of 38% of the US workforce.[70] A total of 91% of Americans are employed by the private sector. Governmentaccounts for 8% of all US workers. Over 99% of all employing organizations in the US are small businesses.[70] The 30 million small businesses in the USA account for 64% of net new jobs (jobs created minus jobs lost).[70]70% of jobs created in the last decade were by small business.[71] The proportion of Americans employed by small business versus large business has remained relatively the same year by year as some small businesses become large businesses and just over half of small businesses survive more than 5 years.[70] Amongst large businesses, several of the largest companies and employers in the world are American companies. Amongst them are Walmart, the largest company and the largest private sectoremployer in the world, which employs 2.1 million people world-wide and 1.4 million in the US alone.[72][73]
There are nearly 30 million small businesses in the USA. Minorities in the US, such as Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, andNative Americans (35% of the country's population),[74] own 4.1 million of the country's businesses. Minority-owned businesses generate almost $700 billion in revenue and employ almost 5 million workers in the US.[70]
The median household income in the US as of 2008 is $52,029.[75] 284,000 working people in the US have two full-time jobs and 7.6 million have a part-time job in addition to their full-time employment.[69] 12% of working individuals in the US belong to a labor union with the majority of labor union members being government workers.[69]
In May 2009, the unemployment rate was 9.4%.[76] A broader measure of unemployment (taking into account marginally attached workers, those employed part time for economic reasons, and discouraged workers) was 15.9%.[77] In 2009 and 2010, following the financial crisis of 2007–2010, the emerging problem of jobless recoveries resulted in record levels of long-term unemployment with over 6 million workers looking for work longer than 6 months as of January, 2010. This particularly affected older workers.[41] Since the recession's end in June 2009 in the United States, immigrants have gained 656,000 jobs, while U.S.-born workers lost more than a million jobs.[78]
In April 2010, the official unemployment rate was 9.9%, but the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate was 17.1%.[79] In the period between February 2008 and February 2010, the number of people working part time for economic reasons has increased by 4 million to 8.8 million, that is a 83% increase in part time workers during the two year period.[80]
Female unemployment continued to be significantly lower than male unemployment (7.5% vs. 9.8%). The unemployment among Caucasians continues to be much lower than African American unemployment (at 8.5% vs. 15.8%).[76] The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948.[81] 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009.[82] Officially, Detroit's unemployment rate is 27%, but Detroit News suggests that nearly half of this city's working-age population may be unemployed.[83]
[edit]Income and wealth
According to the United States Census Bureau, the pretax median household income in 2007 was $50,233. The median ranged from $68,080 in Maryland to $36,338 in Mississippi.[84]
In 2007, the median real annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233, according to the Census Bureau.[85] The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[86]
The recently released US Income Mobility Study showed economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2004 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.[87]
Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[88] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[89] The Fed also said that at the end of 2008, the debt owed by nonfinancial sectors was $33.5 trillion, including household debt valued at $13.8 trillion.[90]
In 2007, financial analyst Gary Shilling estimated that 52.6% of all Americans received a significant portion of their income from the federal government.[91]
[edit]Financial position
The overall financial position of the United States as of 2009 includes $50.7 trillion of debt owed by US households, businesses, and governments, representing more than 3.5 times the annual gross domestic product of the United States.[27] As of the first quarter of 2010, domestic financial assetsA totaled $131 trillion and domestic financial liabilities $106 trillion.[28] Tangible assets in 2008 (such as real estate andequipment) for selected sectorsB totaled an additional $56.3 trillion.[92]
[edit]Sectors
[edit]Retailing
Retailing is a major sector of the economy of the United States, indeed, it is often credited with "leading" the economy. Consumer goods are commonly obtained through international trade, but many consumer products are available that are "made in America".[93][94] In 2011 it was reported that rising commodity and fuel prices and labor costs in China were exerting upward pressure on prices creating a dilemma for retailers who lost sales during the Great Recession and continue to face a weak market.[95]
Major retail firms in the United States include Walmart, Montgomery Ward,Sears, Amazon.com, Target, Macy's, McDonalds, Burger King, Safeway, A & P, and The Home Depot.[citation needed] Some, such as Walmart andKFC, and Enron serve a global market.[citation needed] Outside of the agricultural sector, the cooperative movement is anemic in the United States.[citation needed]
[edit]Energy
The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs(105 exajoules, or 29000 TWh) in 2005. The U.S. ranks seventh in energy consumption per-capita after Canada and a number of other countries.[96][97] The majority of this energy is derived fromfossil fuels: in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 6.8%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams although other renewables are included.[98]
American dependence on oil imports grew from 24% in 1970 to 65% by the end of 2005. At the current rate of unchecked import growth, the US would be 70% to 75% reliant on foreign oil by the middle of the next decade.[99] Transportation has the highest consumption rates, accounting for approximately 68.9% of the oil used in the United States in 2006,[100] and 55% of oil use worldwide as documented in the Hirsch report.
[edit]Agriculture
Agriculture is a major industry in the United States and the country is a net exporter of food. With vast tracts of temperate arable land, technologically advanced agribusiness, and agricultural subsidies, the United States controls almost half of world grain exports.[101]
Products include wheat, corn, other grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton; beef, pork, poultry, dairy products; forest products; fish.
[edit]Manufacturing
The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.[102]
Main industries include petroleum, steel, automobiles, construction machinery, aerospace, agricultural machinery, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining.
The US leads the world in airplane manufacturing,[103] which represents a large portion of US industrial output. American companies such asBoeing, Cessna (see: Textron), Lockheed Martin (see: Skunk Works), and General Dynamics produce a vast majority of the world's civilian and military aircraft in factories stretching across the United States.
The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses over the past several years.[104] In January 2004, the number of such jobs stood at 14.3 million, down by 3.0 million jobs, or 17.5 percent, since July 2000 and about 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950.[105] The number of steel workers fell from 500,000 in 1980 to 224,000 in 2000.[106]
The U.S. produces approximately 21% of the world's manufacturing output, a number which has remained unchanged for the last 40 years. The job loss during this continual volume growth is explained by record breaking productivity gains. In addition, growth in telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, aircraft, heavy machinery and other industries along with declines in low end, low skill industries such as clothing, toys, and other simple manufacturing have resulted in U.S. jobs being more highly skilled and better paying.[citation needed]
[edit]Finance
Measured by value of its listed companies' securities, the New York Stock Exchange is more than three times larger than any other stock exchange in the world.[107] As of October 2008, the combined capitalization of all domestic NYSE listed companies was US$10.1 trillion.[108]New York City is the financial capital of the world alongside London.
NASDAQ is another American stock exchange and the world's 3rd largest exchange after the New York Stock Exchange and Japan's Tokyo Stock Exchange. However NASDAQ's trade value is larger than Japan's TSE.[107] NASDAQ is the largest electronic screen-based equity securities trading market in the USA. With approximately 3,800 companies and corporations, it has more trading volume per hour than any other stock exchange.[109]
[edit]International trade
The United States is the world's largest trading nation. Since it is the world's leading importer, there are many U.S. dollars in circulation all around the planet. The dollar is also used as the standard unit of currency in international markets for commodities such as gold and petroleum (the latter sometimes called petrocurrency is the source of the term petrodollar).
Large foreign economies like China, Japan and the member states of the European Union own huge dollar reserves (especially as the US is more in debt) so there is a fear that they will move away from the dollar.[110] China's reserves are more than $2 trillion, the world's largest.[111] China owns an estimated $1.6 trillion of U.S. securities.[112]
In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion,[113] which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports.[114] The deficit on petroleum products was $386.3 billion.[115] The trade deficit with China was $266.3 billion, a new record and up from $304 million in 1983.[116] The United States had a $144.1 billion surplus on trade in services, and $821.2 billion deficit on trade in goods in 2008.[117]
To fund the national debt (also known as public debt), the United States relies on selling U.S. treasury bonds to people both inside and outside the country, and in recent times a growing percent of buyers are international.
[edit]Economic predictions and forecasting
Predictions about the direction of the United States economy in the short term and long term are crucial factors in determining federal government policies, business decisions, and Federal Reserve decisions. Several institutions make economic predictions, including: Global Insight, and the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Various state agencies, including the California Department of Finance, also make predictions.[citation needed]
[edit]Currency and central bank
The United States dollar is the unit of currency of the United States. The U.S. dollar is the currency most used in international transactions.[118] Several countries use it as their official currency, and in many others it is the de facto currency.[119]
The federal government attempts to use both monetary policy (control of the money supply through mechanisms such as changes in interest rates) and fiscal policy (taxes and spending) to maintain low inflation, high economic growth, and low unemployment. A relatively private central bank, known as the Federal Reserve, was formed in 1913 to provide a stable currency and monetary policy. Despite significant loss of value due to inflation [7], the U.S. dollar has been regarded as one of the more stable currencies in the world and many nations back their own currency with U.S. dollar reserves.
The U.S. dollar has maintained its position as the world's primary reserve currency, although it is gradually being challenged in that role.[120]Almost two-thirds of currency reserves held around the world are held in US dollars, compared to around 25% for the next most popular currency, the Euro.[121] Rising US national debt [8] and the related rise of China have led to some, especially the Chinese, to call for replacing the dollar as the world's reserved currency, but thus far this has been only speculation.[122]
The dollar used gold standard and/or silver standard from 1785 until 1971, when it became a fiat currency. As gold tends to retain its value over long historical time periods, gold-backed currencies are generally much more stable over time than fiat currencies, and this is reflected in the decline of the value of the US dollar as the currency has become unbacked by Gold.
[edit]Government involvement
[edit]Regulations
The U.S. federal government regulates private enterprise in numerous ways. Regulation falls into two general categories..
Some efforts seek, either directly or indirectly, to control prices. Traditionally, the government has sought to create state-regulatedmonopolies such as electric utilities from while allowing prices in the level that would ensure them normal profits. At times, the government has extended economic control to other kinds of industries as well. In the years following the Great Depression, it devised a complex system to stabilize prices for agricultural goods, which tend to fluctuate wildly in response to rapidly changing supply and demand. A number of other industries—trucking and, later, airlines—successfully sought regulation themselves to limit what they considered as harmful price cutting, a process called regulatory capture.[123]
Another form of economic regulation, antitrust law, seeks to strengthen market forces so that direct regulation is unnecessary. The government—and, sometimes, private parties—have used antitrust law to prohibit practices or mergers that would unduly limit competition.[123]
Bank regulation in the United States is highly fragmented compared to other G10 countries where most countries have only one bank regulator. In the U.S., banking is regulated at both the federal and state level. The U.S also has one of the most highly regulated banking environments in the world; however, many of the regulations are not safety and soundness related, but are instead focused on privacy, disclosure, fraud prevention, anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, anti-usury lending, and promoting lending to lower-income segments.[citation needed]
Since the 1970s, government has also exercised control over private companies to achieve social goals, such as improving the public's health and safety or maintaining a healthy environment. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides and enforces standards for workplace safety, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency provides standards and regulations to maintain air, water, and land resources. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates what drugs may reach the market, and also provides standards of disclosure for food products.[123]
American attitudes about regulation changed substantially during the final three decades of the 20th century. Beginning in the 1970s, policy makers grew increasingly convinced that economic regulation protected companies at the expense of consumers in industries such as airlines and trucking. At the same time, technological changes spawned new competitors in some industries, such as telecommunications, that once were considered natural monopolies. Both developments led to a succession of laws easing regulation.[123]
While leaders of America's two most influential political parties generally favored economicderegulation during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, there was less agreement concerning regulations designed to achieve social goals. Social regulation had assumed growing importance in the years following the Depression and World War II, and again in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s, the government relaxed labor, consumer and environmental rules based on the idea that such regulation interfered with free enterprise, increased the costs of doing business, and thus contributed to inflation. The response to such changes is mixed; many Americans continued to voice concerns about specific events or trends, prompting the government to issue new regulations in some areas, including environmental protection.[123]
Where legislative channels have been unresponsive, some citizens have turned to the courts to address social issues more quickly. For instance, in the 1990s, individuals, and eventually the government itself, sued tobacco companies over the health risks of cigarette smoking. The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreementprovided states with long-term payments to cover medical costs to treat smoking-related illnesses.[123]
[edit]Taxation
Taxation in the United States is a complex system which may involve payment to at least four different levels of government and many methods of taxation. Taxes are levied by the federal government, by the state governments, and often by local governments, which may include counties, municipalities, township, school districts, and other special-purpose districts, which include fire, utility, and transit districts.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax ratefor most workers to be about 40% of income.[124][125] The Tax Foundation concluded that government at all levels will collect 30.8% of the nation's income for 2008.[126] Tax Day, the day by which tax returns are due, is usually April 15.
[edit]Expenditure
The United States public sector spending amounts to about a third of the GDP.
Each level of government provides many direct services. The federal government, for example, is responsible for national defense, backs research that often leads to the development of new products, conducts space exploration, and runs numerous programs designed to help workers develop workplace skills and find jobs (including higher education). Government spending has a significant effect on local and regional economies—and even on the overall pace of economic activity.[citation needed]
State governments, meanwhile, are responsible for the construction and maintenance of most highways. State, county, or city governments play the leading role in financing and operating public schools. Local governments are primarily responsible for police and fire protection.[citation needed]
The welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. After theGreat Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.[127]
Overall, federal, state, and local spending accounted for almost 28% of gross domestic product in 1998.[128]
As of January 20, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.627 trillion.[129] The borrowing cap debt ceiling as of 2005 stood at $8.18 trillion.[130] In March 2006, Congress raised that ceiling an additional $0.79 trillion to $8.97 trillion, which is approximately 68% of GDP.[131] Congress has used this method to deal with an encroaching debt ceiling in previous years, as the federal borrowing limit was raised in 2002 and 2003.[132] As of October 4, 2008, the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" raised the current debt ceiling to US$ 11.3 trillion.[133]
The federal government's debt rose by almost $1.4 trillion in 2009, and now stands at $12.1 trillion.[134] While the U.S. public debt is the world's largest in absolute size, another measure is its size relative to the nation's GDP. As of 2009 the debt was 83 percent of GDP. This debt, as a percent of GDP, is still less than the debt of Japan (192%) (the overwhelming number of owners of JGBs are Japanese)[135] and roughly equivalent to those of a few western European nations.[136]
[edit]See also
 | Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Economy of the United States |
- Affluence in the United States
- Energy policy of the United States
- Economic history of the United States
- Economy of Puerto Rico
- Historical Statistics of the United States
- Household income in the United States
- Income inequality in the United States
- Income in the United States
- Labor unions in the United States
- National debt by U.S. presidential terms - includes federal spending and GDP
- Personal income in the United States
- United States federal budget
- Wealth in the United States
Events:
- Late-2000s recession
- Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008)
- Subprime mortgage crisis
- Oil price increases since 2003
Lists:
[edit]References
- ^ a b c d e BEA News Release: Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economic Analysis
- ^ Template:100%Citation
- ^ Consumer Price Index Summary, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2010, retrieved 2010-12-15
- ^ a b c Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage the United States, Census Bureau, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ "Doing Business in the United States 2010". World Bank. Retrieved 2010-08-18.
- ^ a b Depat. of Commerce: Top trade partners
- ^ http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/debta910.html
- ^ The Debt to the Penny, Treasury Department, retrieved 2011-01-10
- ^ a b Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Treasury Department, November 10, 2010
- ^ Biggest donors by GDP, BBC News, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ "Sovereigns rating list". Standard & Poor's. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
- ^ a b c Rogers, Simon; Sedghi, Ami (15 April 2011). "How Fitch, Moody's and S&P rate each country's credit rating". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
- ^ "International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity - UNITED STATES". International Monetary Fund. 20 May 2011. Retrieved 1 June 2011.
- ^ a b "World Economic Outlook Database". International Monetary Fund. October 2009. Retrieved 2010-04-27.
- ^ The European Union has a larger collective economy, but is not a single nation.
- ^ Maddison, Angus (2006). "Historical Statistics for the World Economy". The Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Economics Department of the University of Groningen. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
- ^ Digital History
- ^http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/08/the_retail-impo.html
- ^ "World Wealth Report 2010."
- ^ a b "Forbes". Forbes. March 14, 2011.
- ^ Carlos Slim Tops Forbes List of Billionaires for Second Year
- ^ a b "Global 500 2010: Countries". CNN.
- ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2198rank.html
- ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2199rank.html
- ^ http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htmMonthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD).
- ^ "U.S. Congress may raise debt ceiling to $1.3 trillion". DigitalJournal.com. December 21, 2009.
- ^ a b Components of US debt, retrieved 3 July 2010
- ^ a b Flow of Funds report, p. L.5, L.125, retrieved 3 July 2010
- ^ Rankings: Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, World Economic Forum, retrieved 2008-10-12[dead link] Click the link "Rankings" to access the entire list.
- ^ "Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in the United States of America", US Department of Homeland Security.
- ^ W. J. Rorabaugh, Donald T. Critchlow, Paula C. Baker (2004). "America's promise: a concise history of the United States". Rowman & Littlefield. p.210. ISBN 0742511898
- ^ Moore, Geoffrey H.; Zarnowitz (1986), "Appendix A The Development and Role of the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Chronologies" in Gordon 1986, pp. 743–745
- ^ Knoop, Todd A. (July 30, 2004), Recessions and Depressions: Understanding Business Cycles, Praeger Publishers, pp. 166–71,ISBN 0275981622
- ^ "The Depression of 1893", David O. Whitten, Auburn University.
- ^ Buchanan, James M.; Wagner, Richard E. (1977). "especially chapters 1 - 4". Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 0-86597-227-3. Retrieved 2011-01-19.
- ^ Current Population Reports: Income of nonfarm families and individuals (1946)
- ^ a b c Global Crisis News, GCN, retrieved 2009-06-17
- ^ a b Worries grow of deeper U.S. recession, CNN.com, archived from the original on June 11, 2008, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ Zuckerman, Mortimer B. (December 15–22, 2008), Editorial: Heading Off a Depression, US News and World Report
- ^ Bivens, L. Josh (December 14, 2004). Debt and the dollarEconomic Policy Institute. Retrieved on July 8, 2007.
- ^ a b "Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs" article byPeter S. Goodman in The New York Times February 20, 2010
- ^ Associated Press (January 30, 2006).US savings rate hits lowest level since 1933MSNBC. Retrieved on May 6, 2007.
- ^ Cauchon, Dennis and John Waggoner (October 3, 2004). The Looming National Benefit Crisis. USA Today
- ^ dollar hits record low against euro, oil prices rally
- ^ BBC News (2008-12-01), US recession 'began last year', BBC News, retrieved 2008-12-01
- ^ Department of Commerce: Top U.S. Trade Partners
- ^ BEA: Personal income and its disposition, 2000-09
- ^ FY 2010 Budget Historical Tables Pages 127-128
- ^ "US spends its way to 28 Eiffel towers: made out of pure gold". Times Online. March 17, 2006.
- ^ "Senate backs increase in debt limit to $14.3 trillion". Reuters. January 28, 2010.
- ^ 2010 Budget-Summary Tables S-13 and S-14
- ^ "Debt has become America's life blood". Abc.net.au. December 15, 2009.
- ^ "Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government". The New York Times. November 22, 2009.
- ^ "Analytical Perspectives of the FY 2008 Budget".
- ^ "Washington learns to treat China with care". CNNMoney.com. July 29, 2009.
- ^ Index of Economic Freedom - United States, Heritage.org, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ Anderson, Jack (2006-05-22), Tax Misery & Reform Index, Forbes.com, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ Encyclopædia Britannica's Great Inventions", Encyclopædia Britannica
- ^ U.S. Department of state:How the U.S. Economy WorksRetrieved December 1, 2008
- ^ "Trends in International Migration 2002: Continuous Reporting System on Migration". Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2003). OECD Publishing. p.280. ISBN 9264199497
- ^ Peter S. Canellos (November 11, 2008), Obama victory took root in Kennedy-inspired Immigration Act, The Boston Globe, retrieved 2008-11-14
- ^ "An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes". Jeanette Altarriba, Roberto R. Heredia (2008). p.212. ISBN 0805851356
- ^ Bailey, David and Soyoung Kim(June 26, 2009).GE's Immelt says U.S. economy needs industrial renewal.UK Guardian.. Retrieved on June 28, 2009.
- ^ Neuharth, Al (1 May 2009), College Decision Day, Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today, pp. 11A
- ^ Tuition Levels Rise but Many Students Pay Significantly Less than Published Rates. The College Board (2003). URL accessed on June 20, 2005.
- ^ Education. United States Census (2000). URL accessed on June 17, 2005.
- ^ a b c Mcfeatters, Dale (September 4, 2010). "154 million employed in U.S., 284,000 working 2 full-time jobs". Chicago Sun-Times.
- ^ a b c d e f http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if9NOcUK1F0
- ^ "Global 500 2010: Global 500 1-100". CNN.
- ^ http://www.walmartstores.com/download/2230.pdf
- ^ "Minority population growing in the United States, census estimates show". Los Angeles Times. June 10, 2010.
- ^ http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-2.pdf
- ^ a b Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Government, June 5, 2009, retrieved 2009-06-199
- ^ Alternative measures of labor underutilization (U6, not seasonally adjusted), Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Government, June 5, 2009, retrieved 2009-06-199
- ^ "Immigrants top native born in U.S. job hunt". CNNMoney.com. October 29, 2010.
- ^ "Broader U-6 Unemployment Rate Increases to 17.1% in April". The Wall Street Journal. May 7, 2010.
- ^ Four million more people working part time than 2 years ago, EconPost.com, March 17, 2010, retrieved March 30, 2010
- ^ "Employment and Unemployment Among Youth Summary". United States Department of Labor.
- ^ "Blacks hit hard by economy's punch". The Washington Post. November 24, 2009.
- ^ "Nearly half of Detroit's workers are unemployed". The Detroit News. December 16, 2009.
- ^ Census Bureau: Two-Year-Average Median Household Income by State: 2004 to 2007
- ^ US Census Bureau news release in regards to median income, retrieved 2007-08-28[dead link]
- ^ US Census Bureau median income per household member, retrieved 2008-08-28
- ^ US Treasury Income Mobility Study,, income data, retrieved 2008-08-29
- ^ Roger C. Altman, The Great Crash, 2008 - Roger C. Altman, Foreign Affairs, retrieved 2009-02-27
- ^ "Americans' wealth drops $1.3 trillion". CNNMoney.com. June 11, 2009
- ^ "U.S. household wealth falls $11.2 trillion in 2008". Reuters. March 12, 2009.
- ^ Mark Trumbull (2007-04-16). "As US tax rates drop, government's reach grows". Christian Science Monitor. Christian Science Monitor.
- ^ Net worth of the United States, retrieved 3 July 2010
- ^ "Made in America". ABC News. Retrieved April 23, 2011.
- ^ "USA Only". USAOnly.US. Retrieved April 23, 2011. "This site is dedicated to American companies manufacturing products right here in the USA. We provide product and company info and links so you can buy these quality products quickly and easily."
- ^ Clifford, Stephanie (April 22, 2011). "Camouflaging Price Creep". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2011.
- ^ World Per Capita Total Primary Energy Consumption,1980-2005 (MS Excel format)
- ^ World Resources Institute "Energy Consumption: Consumption per capita" (2001). Nations with higher per-capita consumption are: Qatar, Iceland, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Luxembourg and Canada. Except for Canada, these are small countries with a prominent energy-intensive industry such as oil refining orsteelmaking.
- ^ US Dept. of Energy, "Annual Energy Report" (July 2006), Energy Flow diagram
- ^ Forbes.com
- ^ Domestic Demand for Refined Petroleum Products by Sector, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, retrieved 2007-12-20
- ^ "The Food Bubble Economy". The Institute of Science in Society.
- ^ "[3]
- ^ "[4]
- ^ "Factory jobs: 3 million lost since 2000". USATODAY.com. April 20, 2007.
- ^ "[5]". A series of issue summaries from the Congressional Budget Office February 18, 2004.
- ^ "Congressional Record V. 148, Pt. 4, April 11, 2002 to April 24, 2002". United States Government Printing Office.
- ^ a b [6]
- ^ http://www.nyxdata.com/nysedata/default.aspx?tabid=115
- ^ "NASDAQ Performance Report", NASDAQ Newsroom (The Nasdaq Stock Market), 2007-01-12, retrieved 2007-02-15
- ^ "China, US should adjust approach to economic growth"
- ^ "China alarmed by US money printing". Telegraph.co.uk. September 6, 2009.
- ^ "China must keep buying US Treasuries for now-paper". Reuters. August 19, 2009.
- ^ "May trade deficit falls to lowest in almost 10 years". USATODAY.com. July 10, 2009.
- ^ "The U.S. Trade Deficit". Useconomy.about.com.
- ^ "Annual 2008 Trade Highlights". U.S. Census Bureau.
- ^ "Beijing's Propaganda Goes Global". Gordon G. Chang,Forbes. May 6, 2009.
- ^ "US trade deficit is a significant cause of recession" By Peter Morici, former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission. February 12, 2009.
- ^ The Implementation of Monetary Policy - The Federal Reserve in the International Sphere
- ^ Benjamin J. Cohen, The Future of Money, Princeton University Press, 2006, ISBN 0691116660; cf. "the dollar is the de facto currency in Cambodia", Charles Agar, Frommer's Vietnam, 2006,ISBN 0471798169, p. 17
- ^ "Biggest game in town". BBC News. January 29, 2009.
- ^ http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/cofer/eng/cofer.pdf
- ^ "China's Yuan The Next Reserve Currency?". Spiegel Online. May 26, 2009.
- ^ a b c d e f Regulation and Control in the U.S. Economy: About.com
- ^ Burns, Scott (2007-02-21), Your real tax rate: 40%, MSN Money, retrieved 2008-03-13
- ^ Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose (1980), Free to choose, Harcourt, ISBN 978-0-15-633460-0
- ^ Hodge, Scott A.; Dubay, Curtis S. (2008-03-27), America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day, Tax Foundation, retrieved 2008-03-30
- ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 72. ISBN 0465041957.
- ^ U.S. Budget 2001
- ^ / U.S. Treasury
- ^ MSNBC[dead link]
- ^ Bloomberg
- ^ Washington Post 29 December 2005[dead link]
- ^ Zeng, Min (October 6, 2008), Bailout Funding Promises To Pressure Treasury Prices, WSJ.com, retrieved 2008-11-17
- ^ "U.S. in fiscal peril with $12.1 trillion debt". USATODAY.com. January 4, 2009.
- ^ "S&P warns may cut Japan's rating over soaring debt". Reuters. January 26, 2010.
- ^ Kumar, Vishesh. "Is Rising U.S. Debt Inviting Trouble? Ask Japan". Daily Finance. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
[edit]External links
- Research!America - Economic Impact of Medical Research in the U.S.
- CIA - The World Factbook - United States
- Outline of the U.S. Economy
- Bureau of Economic Analysis: Selected NIPA tables (Lots of U.S. economic data)
- U.S. Economic Calendar
- U.S. Census Bureau
- U.S. Dept of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics
- U.S. Dept of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis
- FRB: Z.1 Release-- Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Release Dates
- OECD's United States country Web site and OECD Economic Survey of the United States
- U.S. Energy Information Administration
- National Bureau of Economic Research (USA) Economics material from the organization that declares Recessions and Recoveries.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics–from the American Labor Department
- US Department of Commerce Economics Statistics
- The Heritage Foundation: Understanding Poverty in America
- GDP growth viz Savings rate since 1985 Comparing GDP growth rate with the Savings rate since 1985
- Gross Domestic Product Growth - USA
- Unemployment Rate - USA
- Consumer Price Index - USA
- A U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Strengthening Democracy and Progress in Latin America
- "Why There Won't Be a Revolution" by Jerry Adler, Newsweek, February 16, 2009
| ||
| ||
| |||
| ||
| ||
| |||
Posts
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}