Obamanomics Disposable income biggest plunge since 1959 | Drudge Retort

Friday, March 01, 2013

Obamanomics Disposable income biggest plunge since 1959

Consumer spending in the U.S. rose in January even as incomes dropped by the most in 20 years, showing households were weathering the payroll-tax increase by socking away less money in the bank.

Disposable income, or the money left over after taxes, dropped 4 percent after adjusting for inflation, the biggest plunge since monthly records began in 1959.

Posted by paneocon at 09:33 AM | 73 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Advertisement

Menu

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

Author Info

Joined 2008/11/02
Visited 2013/05/20

Status: user

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

AP CEO: Sources Less Willing to Talk (32 comments) ...

Arends: College Tuition is a Scam (52 comments) ...

IRS Official Over Targeting Now Handles ACA (43 comments) ...

Obama: Rush Limbaugh's fault I can't get anything done (41 comments) ...

Cancer treatments more expensive under ObamaCare (14 comments) ...

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

U.S. Consumer Spending Up; Income Falls by Most in 20 Years

U.S. consumer spending rose in January as Americans spent more on services, with savings providing a cushion after income recorded its biggest drop in 20 years.

Economists expect consumer spending in the first three months of this year to slow down sharply from the fourth quarter's 2.1 percent annual pace.

Income tumbled 3.6 percent, the largest drop since January 1993.

With income dropping sharply and spending rising, the saving rate - the percentage of disposable income households are socking away - fell to 2.4 percent, the lowest level since November 2007. The rate had jumped to 6.4 percent in December.

Savings were the smallest since December 2007.

Read more: www.foxbusiness.com

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Congress and President Barack Obama allowed the payroll tax to return to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent at the start of the year, which means an American who earns $50,000 is taking home about $83 less a month.

Where does an American who earns 50K rank globally, in the 1%?

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country.

As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

There was only one problem: The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession.

Read more: www.rollingstone.com

It's hard werk to "tidy up afterward" from a GOP Recession.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

No Corky, our economic problems all started the day the black guy became President and will end the day we put a Tea Bagger in the WH.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where does an American who earns 50K rank globally, in the 1%?
#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Null are you getting ready to making a case here for global income redistribution?

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Better headline:

Crumbling Capitalism Results in Biggest Income Plunge since 1959

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Null are you getting ready to making a case here for global income redistribution?"

I'm just asking a question. Where does that 50k income earner rank globally?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corky is going to deflect to a tax cutting strategy 33 years old to explain a drop in disposable income from one month ago. And he knows that the major cause of this drop in disposable income was the result of a 50% increase in payroll taxes most Americans were subject to as of Jan 1.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Where does that 50k income earner rank globally?"

top 1%

todayforward.typepad.com

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession.
#3 | POSTED BY CORKY

The facts say your full of it as usual. If the Reagan recovery was a deep recession what do you call Obamanomics? Under Reagan GDP grew and revenue to the treasury ranged between 16.95% and 19.17%

Year Total Direct Revenue-fed percent GDP
1980 226.546 18.55 a
1981 228.670 19.17 a
1982 230.815 18.99 a
1983 232.979 16.99 a
1984 235.164 16.95 a
1985 237.369 17.40 a
1986 239.595 17.25 a
1987 241.842 18.04 a
1988 244.110 17.83 a
1989 246.399 18.08 a
1990 248.710 17.79 a

Legend:
a - actual reported
i - interpolated between actual reported values

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

CORKY CNBC or WSJ doesn't now crap about music or drugs but you should try them for you economic information some time.

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

now = know

#12 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Notice how in this liberal rag in the first sentence, emphasis is on consumer spending and INCOMES DROPPING THE MOST IN 20 YEARS and the LARGE PAYROLL TAX is almost buried. Is it time for OBAMA to own this yet? Or is it still Bush's fault? Is anyone going to hold Obama accountable?

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-01 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

you know, everytime I see some partisan rant and rave about Reagan, I want to skip ahead and remind them that they also believe Clinton fixed all those woes.

I mean, if I fixed your roof, and a hailstorm damaged your roof 8 years later....are you going to back and blame the original damage fixed years earlier?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

And I bet the DOW is going to end in positive territory today, even with this news. Anybody wanna bet?

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-01 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I've long given up thinking that the DOW will react to news in any rational manor so nope, your on you own on this one BOAZ.

#17 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | Posted by boaz

What are you whining about? Your boy Willard wanted to rip off the working class even more and give it to his cronies in the 1%.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

" a partisan hypocrite whining about partisan hypocrisy"

noticed by a whining hypocrit who pretends to be independent but is really just cynical. Refuses to understand how our system works.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your boy Willard

Stop deflecting. Romney isnt president and he doesnt have an administration in charge of monetary policy. Obama does. OWN IT.

All I know is one thing. Whatever Obama's leadership is on the economy, IT ISNT WORKING. Obama's administration is responsible for this. Period. And what ever he is doing to fix this(which is nothing), isnt working. That's fact. Obama has been in office long enough to have an effect.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-01 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody cares...Emperor Barackus will save the worthy. THAT is why he was reelected. America wants Emperor Barackus.

#21 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-03-01 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"noticed by a whining hypocrit who pretends to be independent but is really just cynical. Refuses to understand how our system works."

I don't pretend to be independent in my voting. I am. To an extreme leftie such as yourself, anybody like me is viewed as a rightie.

I'm cynical? If I tried, I could't be more negative than you, Danni. On my worst day, in fact.

Oh, and if I want to know how the system works? well, I can find the secretary at a print shop anywhere to educate me.

advice on whether or not to emboss my business cards? I'll check with you on that........

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The Reagan tax cuts spiked the federal deficit to a dangerous level, even as the country remained mired in a deep recession."

I believe the highest annual deficit during the Reagan years was a little less than $300 billion. If you believe that $200 or $300 billion deficits are "dangerous" levels, how would you grade constant deficits well over a TRILLION dollars? As far as that "deep recession" you mention, the official records kinda refute that.

"The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990..."

"In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years."

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-01 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, who to believe?

Reagan's own Budget Dirs quoted in the article, or DR posters?

Tough decision, eh?

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country."

Is still the GOP strategery.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Reagan's own Budget Dirs quoted in the article, or DR posters?"

good question actually. The DR poster who posts it as a deflection to explain disposable income dropping in January is not to believed.

the articles are fine.

The poster? yeah.....not with it at all.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

- as a deflection

NO, as an explanation of how the Great Bush Recession is still affecting our economy... which is a long-held purposeful strategy of the GOP.

Those who ignore history are doomed to...

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Those who ignore history are doomed to...keep posting the same 4 articles even when they have nothing to do with the thread's subject.

yep.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"the Great Bush Recession"

now it's the Bush recession, instead of Reagan? wait...no..is this before Clinton fixed Reagan's mess or Bush's mess. no...that's not right.

nevermind. just blame bush for everything...Obama for nothing and pretend that's an informative position and hope nobody notices.......

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The economic dots are there, and obvious; if you cannot connect them, then it's because you are not trying.

Trickle-Down Voodoo does not worker, and Starve the Beast is a political ploy that only damages the economy.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those who ignore history are doomed to...keep posting the same 4 articles even when they have nothing to do with the thread's subject.

yep.

#28 | Posted by eberly

Neo-curmudgeon!

#31 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"you know, everytime I see some partisan rant and rave about Reagan, I want to skip ahead and remind them that they also believe Clinton fixed all those woes. "

As if we don't know the things Clinton did which enabled the bankers to create the housing bubble disaster. His signature was on the legislation, he didn't expect it to result the way it did but his signature was on it and we all know it.
However, that won't pay down the debt created by tax cuts made by both Reagan and Bush 2.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

work

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it a mystery why disposable income dropped? Taxes went back up on the Payroll Tax, I think it was expected.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Is it a mystery

Shoestrings are a mystery to some people.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is it a mystery why disposable income dropped?"

It is to Corky. He's blaming it on Reagan and the GOP.

I agree with you....clearly the payroll tax increase drove that drop.

that fact has nothing to do with partisanship.....it's just a fact and I'm sure it was expected.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Trickle-Down Voodoo does not worker, and Starve the Beast is a political ploy that only damages the economy."

how dense does someone have to be not see there is no argument over that on this thread? The thread is about something different.

Christ............

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hey, America! Republicans want to raise your taxes

The big lie of the fiscal cliff is that the argument is between Democrats who want to raise your taxes and Republicans who want to cut your taxes. That's wrong. Republicans want to raise taxes on more people than the White House does.

So yes, Democrats want to raise some taxes.

But so do Republicans. They want to let the payroll tax cut and the various stimulus tax credits (notably the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit) expire.

Those are the tax cuts that primarily help poor and middle-class Americans. In fact, 87.8 percent of the payroll tax cut's benefits go to taxpayers making less than $200,000 and 99.9 percent of the stimulus tax credits' benefits go to taxpayers making less than $200,000.

www.washingtonpost.com

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37

Context is a 4 letter word to some posters.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

This POTUS believes in "trickle up" economics---get as many people on food stamps and unemployment and other benefits as you can and we'll be better off----you can tell this guy never took any practical courses in his educational experience.

#40 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those who ignore history are doomed to...

...voting for Obama a second time?

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-01 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

context is a foreign word to some posters, actually.

deflecting with unrelated data is the act of someone who has no idea of what context even means, obviously.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#41

Still being butt-hurt about their first vote?

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is Rethugonomics, with Obama sitting, watching and even playing along with concern for deficits, which will only increase.

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-01 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

-unrelated data

-He's blaming it on Reagan and the GOP.

-"But so do Republicans. They want to let the payroll tax cut and the various stimulus tax credits (notably the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit) expire."

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-01 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is Rethugonomics, with Obama sitting, watching and even playing along with concern for deficits, which will only increase.

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-01 12:21 PM | Reply

We know that's right on since the guy should have taken some courses in leadership instead of excuses/blame.

#46 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

And he knows that the major cause of this drop in disposable income was the result of a 50% increase in payroll taxes most Americans were subject to as of Jan 1.

#9 | Posted by eberly

So in your mind a temporary payroll tax holiday (in an attempt to stimulate the economy) is a 50% tax increase when it expires?

Does twisting the truth into a pretzel make you feel uncomfortable at all?

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-01 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"However, that won't pay down the debt created by tax cuts made by both Reagan and Bush 2."

Danni is right about this...it won't pay down the debt created by LBJ either...or Nixon, or Ford, Carter, or any of the others and it DAMN sure ain't gonna pay down the HUMONGOUS debt created by Barackus Caesar SPENDING during the last and in the coming four years.

#48 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-01 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So in your mind a temporary payroll tax holiday (in an attempt to stimulate the economy) is a 50% tax increase when it expires?"

Well, that would make sense if someone believes that a smaller increase in spending is actually a spending cut...wouldn't it?

#49 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-01 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look, Obama is going along with the program although he protests too much---he's playing to his base and when we do have sequester (and it will happen) he can attempt to pin it on the rethugs and wash his hands like Pilate and go back to the golf course and laugh hilariously at his base for being dumb enough to buy into the scam. The sequester will be benign and won't create all the "hell and damnation" that Obummer is broadcasting.

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni is right about this...it won't pay down the debt created by LBJ either...or Nixon, or Ford, Carter, or any of the others and it DAMN sure ain't gonna pay down the HUMONGOUS debt created by Barackus Caesar SPENDING during the last and in the coming four years."

And meanwhile Treasury bonds continue to sell because they are the safest investment in the world.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

And meanwhile Treasury bonds continue to sell because they are the safest investment in the world.

And who is buying those bonds?

I'll give you a hint, the largest buyer is printing money to buy their own bonds with.

Does that make sense to you?

Oh wait, you are a liberal....

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-01 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 02:05 PM | Reply |

It's also like saying; oh, look at how well the stock market is doing, it must be a reflection of how well the economy is doing.

#54 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the truth though isn't it Matsop. Despite the attempts by Republicans to destroy the credit rating of the United States investors are still buying our Treasury Bonds. Now, I don't know if that will always be true with the GOP so dilligently trying to destroy our economy but so far it is still true.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, I don't know if that will always be true with the GOP so dilligently trying to destroy our economy but so far it is still true.

Danni, I know you are intelligent, but that looked like something Larry would have written. If anything, the republicans are trying to save this nation from the crushing debt that you so conviently forget about.

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-01 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

As if we don't know the things Clinton did which enabled the bankers to create the housing bubble disaster. His signature was on the legislation, he didn't expect it to result the way it did but his signature was on it and we all know it.
However, that won't pay down the debt created by tax cuts made by both Reagan and Bush 2.

#32 | Posted by danni

Are you feeling OK? You must have set your fingers on fire typing that.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-01 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So in your mind a temporary payroll tax holiday (in an attempt to stimulate the economy) is a 50% tax increase when it expires?"

I know it was temporary. But facts are facts. It is a 50% increase in payroll taxes.

And it is the primary reason for the reduction in disposable income for the month.

not blaming or playing partisan with that....both parties approved this "holiday" and its end.

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

But facts are facts. It is a 50% increase in payroll taxes.
#58 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I'm having a little trouble with your math?

Payroll Tax Holiday Expires. See How Much You'll Pay Now

That tax dropped from 6.2% down to 4.2%.

What does this mean to your wallet? I did the math for you:

Income: / Was 4.2% / Now 6.2% / Difference Bi-Wkly

$20,000 / $840 / $1240 / $400 / $15

$30,000 / $1260 / $1860 / $600 / $23

$40,000 $1680 $2480 $800 $31

$50,000 $2100 $3100 $1000 $38

$60,000 $2520 $3720 $1200 $46

$70,000 $2940 $4340 $1400 $54

$80,000 $3360 $4960 $1600 $62

$90,000 $3780 $5580 $1800 $69

$100,000 $4200 $6200 $2000 $77

$110,000 $4620 $6820 $2200 $85

$113,700 $4775 $7049 $2274 $87

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

#59 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-01 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paneocon,

simply....a raise from 4.2 to 6.2 is 2 points 2/4.2 is close to 50%.

"$100,000 $4200 $6200 $2000 $77"

looking at the above....$2,000/$4,200 = 48% increase

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eberly, you're calculating a partial differential, not the total increase back to the normal tax rate.

|(4.2-6.2)/6.2| X 100%

|(O-T)/T| X 100% = 32.25%

#61 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-01 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

are you a scientist?

there is nothing wrong with my math.

when it dropped from 6.2 to 4.2 then it was a 32% drop...but when it comes back up ...it's a 48% increase.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-01 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh well, so much for trying to have an honest conversation with you Eberly. Back to the kiddie's card table you go.

#63 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-01 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

You obviously don't even know what |absolute value| notation is.

#64 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-01 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

32% or 48% it's too much. That's my mathematical conclusion.

#66 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-01 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't expect you, Roadrunner22/L E Light to give an honest answer either...since I've yet to see you type anything resembling the truth since I've been a member of this site.

#68 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-01 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's rich, LE Light/Roadrunner22, coming from a real-life astroturfing fraud.

#70 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-01 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the truth though isn't it Matsop. Despite the attempts by Republicans to destroy the credit rating of the United States investors are still buying our Treasury Bonds. Now, I don't know if that will always be true with the GOP so dilligently trying to destroy our economy but so far it is still true.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 02:19 PM | Reply |

Danni, from my memory (which is often fantastic) the Federal Reserve purchases about 90% of short term treasuries and 40% of long term treasuries. That means most investors don't look at treasuries as safe. The Fed has to buy them because they know the demand isn't there and they know what will happen if interest rates go higher. The country would shut down and the markets would collapse.

#71 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-01 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 ok, ok, I'll yield

- the first % is delta DECREASE, as such the "high #" is the baseline
- the second % is delta INCREASE, as such the "low #" is the baseline
hence, the deltas identical, reference points differ, results differ

heck, buffalo bob could understand that w half his brain tied behind his back

#72 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-01 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Fed has to buy them because they know the demand isn't there and they know what will happen if interest rates go higher. The country would shut down and the markets would collapse.

#71 | Posted by matsop

yup, the Fed MUST purchase to maintain the illusion that money supply is under control

#73 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-01 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-01 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag; Hasn't yet received word that U.S. credit rating has already been lowered once and is at risk for another drop.

Observe, danni...those "investors" you refer to....

"The Federal Reserve is propping up the entire U.S. economy by buying 61 percent of the government debt issued by the Treasury Department, a trend that cannot last, Lawrence Goodman, a former Treasury official and current president of the Center for Financial Stability, writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion article published Wednesday."

www.moneynews.com

#74 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-02 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

#74 Danni doesn't deal in facts, just partisan talking points. Has no idea what QE3 is, why we are doing it, and what the consequences are of such.

#75 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-02 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is for Danni and her view of the safety of treasuries that foreigners and domestic investors are flocking to:

"Fed intervention in the government debt market makes demand for Treasury bonds appear higher than it really is, as foreign creditors and other investors have fled U.S. government debt instruments and are looking elsewhere until the government makes serious attempts to curb spending and narrow its gaping deficits.

Goodman notes that foreign investors like Japan and China that once scooped up U.S. debt are shunning it. In 2009, such foreign purchases of U.S. debt amounted to 6 percent of GDP and has since falled by over eighty percent to a paltry 0.9 percent.

Without foreign buyers and a shrinking base of U.S. corporate and bank buyers, the Treasury has had to resort to the Federal Reserve itself to make the purchases. The Fed purchasing not only makes up the shortfall, but can keep long term interest rates artificially low."

"The Fed is in effect subsidizing U.S. government spending and borrowing via expansion of its balance sheet and massive purchases of Treasury bonds. This keeps Treasury interest rates abnormally low, camouflaging the true size of the budget deficit," Goodman writes.

Gee, did I say something like that before?

#76 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-02 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jesus, some here are such partisans, they are unable to understand basic facts

#77 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-02 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bush's fault!

sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net

#78 | Posted by KBM at 2013-03-02 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eberly,

"when it dropped from 6.2 to 4.2 then it was a 32% drop...but when it comes back up ...it's a 48% increase."

I'm looking at it differently.

It went from 6.2 to 4.2.

Then it went from 4.2 to 6.2

What was the net effect?

Zero.

We just got the benefit of paying less taxes for awhile.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2013-03-02 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

Advertisement