archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

[bosdevelopment]

^No.

Not only are you wrong about how our own financial system works, but you're wrong about the cause of unemployment.

Despite the globalization of the world's economies the problem is more fundamental. There simply is no new industry driving growth.

Facebook!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKkKqkZRh1s

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Whats wrong with the Left/Progressive....?

 

[Lurker]

Liberal/Progressive doesn't mean what it meant at the turn of the 20th century. The language, like many other things, was usurped by ideologies which are anything but Liberal or Progressive. It is much more difficult to honestly debate ideas when the language and labels are obfuscated. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the ability to even think of dissent let alone have the vocabulary to formulate a question or challenge. See Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt school for details. George Orwell, despite being a flaming Socialist, understood full well how dangerous all of this was and tried to provide warnings in his novels mid century.

Look at Political Correctness these days and read into the history of this stuff. You'll realize how little the 'modern' world has changed from the late 19th century when it comes to repeating itself.

 

[datadyne007]

Finally, someone writes a coherent piece as to why this country really does not have a spending problem right now, especially when we stop the war in Afghanistan and the Middle East next year.

Dwindling Deficit Disorder
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 10, 2013

For three years and more, policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of budget deficits. A few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is all wrong, that deficit spending is actually appropriate in a depressed economy. But even though the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far — where are the soaring interest rates we were promised? — protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on deaf ears.

What’s really remarkable at this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding, as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable path; in fact, the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down to sustainable levels, and it is too small given the state of the economy.

Start with the raw numbers. America’s budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing! Federal spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the private sector was in panicked retreat; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government was the main reason the Great Recession didn’t turn into a full replay of the Great Depression.

But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t.

Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period.

Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The “cyclically adjusted” deficit — what the deficit would be if we were near full employment — is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And that’s why budget office projections show the nation’s debt position more or less stable over the next decade.

So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years to come.

There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently too small.

Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector won’t, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom — and it is headed down.

Yes, we’ll want to reduce deficits once the economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still unacceptably high. “The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity,” John Maynard Keynes declared many years ago. He was right — all you have to do is look at Europe to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a boom.

Now, I’m aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry don’t want to let evidence undermine their scare tactics; as the deficit dwindles, we’re sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show that we’re still in some kind of fiscal crisis.

But we aren’t. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 11, 2013, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Dwindling Deficit Disorder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/o...g-deficit-disorder.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=2&

 

[KentXie]

^No.

Not only are you wrong about how our own financial system works, but you're wrong about the cause of unemployment.

Despite the globalization of the world's economies the problem is more fundamental. There simply is no new industry driving growth.

Facebook!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKkKqkZRh1s

So you're telling me Europe has absolutely no effect on demand for US products which could bring some of the unemployment down if the demand is higher.

Next thing you'll tell me is that China could survive without any demand from US.

And yes there are industries driving growth, specifically tech and health, just not enough people in the labor force with the skills to fill those jobs.

 

[Lurker]

First problem, you are quoting former Enron Advisor Krugman.

Second problem, the 'savings' from ending both wars have already been counted and spent.

Third problem, compound interest on accrued debt.

"low borrowing costs" is a bloody joke when the Fed is artificially borrowing fiat money at fairy tale rates from itself. That is not sustainable.

This country is in major trouble if it doesn't return to adjusted for inflation rates of Clinton era spending with any additional revenue toward debt service.

 

[TheRifleman]

“‘Devaluing a currency,’ one senior Federal Reserve official once told me, ‘is like peeing in bed. It feels good at first, but pretty soon it becomes a real mess.’”

—Francesco Guerrera, The Wall Street Journal, 4 Feb 2013.

 

[GW2500]

^No.

Not only are you wrong about how our own financial system works, but you're wrong about the cause of unemployment.

Despite the globalization of the world's economies the problem is more fundamental. There simply is no new industry driving growth.

Facebook!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKkKqkZRh1s

I think there is a fair amount of truth to that. And also I believe that business is getting too efficient for the 7 billion people that live in this global economy. I work in manufacturing and IMO by mid century most of it will be done by robots and computers. And whats really big right now, facebook and google, I just don't see the business model in it, or how many jobs it will create. I wouldn't pay for Facebook or Google and if they did charge a new site would pop up and takes it's place. I think the values these companies get are very fluffy. Sure they are very popular and in the daily vernacular but again where is the business model.

 

[Lurker]

This is why the term "progressive" became tainted and disused until recently.

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html

You want a more 'progressive' America? Careful what you wish for.

Voters should remember what happened under Woodrow Wilson.

Jonah Goldberg
(Courtesy of Jonah Goldberg)


By Jonah Goldberg / February 5, 2008 at 12:00 am EST
Washington

I'm thinking of an American president who demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state, censored the press, imprisoned dissidents, bullied political opponents, spewed propaganda, often expressed contempt for the Constitution, approved warrantless searches and eavesdropping, and pursued his policies with a blind, religious certainty.
Oh, and I'm not thinking of George W. Bush, but another "W" – actually "WW": Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who served from 1913 to 1921.
President Wilson is mostly remembered today as the first modern liberal president, the first (and only) POTUS with a PhD, and the only political scientist to occupy the Oval Office. He was the champion of "self determination" and the author of the idealistic but doomed "Fourteen Points" – his vision of peace for Europe and his hope for a League of Nations. But the nature of his presidency has largely been forgotten.
That's a shame, because Wilson's two terms in office provide the clearest historical window into the soul of progressivism. Wilson's racism, his ideological rigidity, and his antipathy toward the Constitution were all products of the progressive worldview. And since "progressivism" is suddenly in vogue – today's leading Democrats proudly wear the label – it's worth actually reviewing what progressivism was and what actually happened under the last full-throated progressive president.
The record should give sober pause to anyone who's mesmerized by the progressive promise.
Wilson, like the bulk of progressive intellectuals in fin-de-siècle America, was deeply influenced by three strands of thought: philosophical Pragmatism, Hegelianism, and Darwinism. This heady intellectual cocktail produced a drunken arrogance and the conviction that the old rules no longer applied.
The classical liberalism of the Founders – free markets, individualism, property rights, etc. – had been eclipsed by a new "experimental" age. Horace Kallen, a protégé of Pragmatism exponent William James, denounced fixed philosophical dogmas as mere rationalizations of the status quo. Sounding much like today's critical theorists, Mr. Kallen lamented that "Men have invented philosophy precisely because they find change, chance, and process too much for them, and desire infallible security and certainty."
The old conception of absolute truths and immutable laws had been replaced by a "Darwinian" vision of organic change.
Hence Wilson argued that the old "Newtonian" vision – fixed rules enshrined in the Constitution and laws – had to give way to the "Darwinian" view of "living constitutions" and the like.
"Government," Wilson wrote approvingly in his magnum opus, "The State," "does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." "No doubt," he wrote elsewhere, taking dead aim at the Declaration of Independence, "a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."
In his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," Wilson explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."
Wilson once told a black delegation, that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." But his racism wasn't just a product of his Southern roots; it was often of a piece with the reigning progressive obsession with eugenics, the pseudoscience that strove to perfect society through better breeding.
Again, Wilson was merely one voice in the progressive chorus of the age. "[W]e must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many," declared the progressive social activist Jane Addams.
"New forms of association must be created," explained Walter Rauschenbusch, a leading progressive theologian of the Social Gospel movement, in 1896. "Our disorganized competitive life must pass into an organic cooperative life." Elsewhere, Rauschenbusch put it more simply: "Individualism means tyranny."
Not surprisingly, such intellectual kindling was easy to ignite when World War I broke out. The philosopher John Dewey, New Republic founder Herbert Croly, and countless other progressive intellectuals welcomed what Mr. Dewey dubbed "the social possibilities of war." The war provided an opportunity to force Americans to, as journalist Frederick Lewis Allen put it, "lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step." Or as another progressive put it, "Laissez faire is dead. Long live social control."
With the intellectuals on their side, Wilson recruited journalist George Creel to become a propaganda minister as head of the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI).
Mr. Creel declared that it was his mission to inflame the American public into "one white-hot mass" under the banner of "100 percent Americanism." Fear was a vital tool, he argued, "an important element to be bred in the civilian population."
The CPI printed millions of posters, buttons, pamphlets, that did just that. A typical poster for Liberty Bonds cautioned, "I am Public Opinion. All men fear me!... f you have the money to buy and do not buy, I will make this No Man's Land for you!" One of Creel's greatest ideas – an instance of "viral marketing" before its time – was the creation of an army of about 75,000 "Four Minute Men." Each was equipped and trained by the CPI to deliver a four-minute speech at town meetings, in restaurants, in theaters – anyplace they could get an audience – to spread the word that the "very future of democracy" was at stake. In 1917-18 alone, some 7,555,190 speeches were delivered in 5,200 communities. These speeches celebrated Wilson as a larger-than-life leader and the Germans as less-than-human Huns.
Meanwhile, the CPI released a string of propaganda films with such titles as "The Kaiser," "The Beast of Berlin," and "The Prussian Cur." Remember when French fries became "freedom fries" in the run-up to the Iraq war? Thanks in part to the CPI, sauerkraut become "victory cabbage."
Under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, Wilson's administration shut down newspapers and magazines at an astounding pace. Indeed, any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn you a prison sentence. One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he didn't want to buy Liberty Bonds.
The Wilson administration sanctioned what could be called an American fascisti, the American Protective League. The APL – a quarter million strong at its height, with offices in 600 cities – carried government-issued badges while beating up dissidents and protesters and conducting warrantless searches and interrogations. Even after the war, Wilson refused to release the last of America's political prisoners, leaving it to subsequent Republican administrations to free the anti-war Socialist Eugene V. Debs and others.
Now, obviously, none of the current crop of self-described progressives are eager to replay this dark chapter. But we make a mistake when we assume that we can cherry pick only the good parts of our past to re-create.
Today's progressives still share many of the core assumptions of the progressives of yore. It may be gauche to talk about patriotism too much in liberal circles, but what is Barack Obama's obsession with unity other than patriotism by another name? Indeed, he champions unity for its own sake, as a good in and of itself. But unity can be quite amoral. Mobs and gangs are dangerous because of their unblinking unity.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, often insists that we must move "beyond" ideology, labels, partisanship, etc. The sentiment is a direct echo of the Pragmatists who felt that dogma needed to be jettisoned to give social planners a free hand. Of course, then as now, the "beyond ideology" refrain is itself an ideological position favoring whatever state intervention social planners prefer.
In Senator Clinton's case, the most vital intervention is intruding on the family. Mrs. Clinton proudly follows the "child saver" tradition of Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Jane Addams. In 1996, she proclaimed "as adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." In her book, "It Takes A Village," she insists that children are born in crisis, requiring progressive government intervention from infancy on. She seems to subscribe to Wilson's view, when president of Princeton, that the chief job of an educator is to make children as unlike their parents as possible.
In a Democratic debate, Clinton famously rejected the word "liberal" in favor of "progressive." Shouldn't we at least ask what that means? If Mike Huckabee proclaimed that he prefers the label "confederate" over "conservative," pundits would rightly denounce his association with such a tainted legacy. But when it comes to progressivism, there's no such obligation to account for your ideological heritage. It seems progressivism is never wrong.
• Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's editor-at-large, is the author of "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."



© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.

 

[KentXie]

—Francesco Guerrera, The Wall Street Journal, 4 Feb 2013.

It depends. Sometimes, by devaluing you currency, you become more competitive (i.e. your goods become cheaper) and thus attract more foreign consumers. Why else would China try so hard to keep the value of their currency low?

 

[TheRifleman]

It depends. Sometimes, by devaluing you currency, you become more competitive (i.e. your goods become cheaper) and thus attract more foreign consumers. Why else would China try so hard to keep the value of their currency low?

devaluing currency is nothing more than creating working slaves. Let companies value their goods & services through innovation & competition. Our govt has let over 80 Million corporate jobs go overseas with the help of new laws & regulations now they need to devalue our currency to help us create new jobs so America is competing.

The problem with corporations is it cost to much money to employ and American Person especially Healthcosts, unemployment insurance, liability insurance. Just too many rules, regulations and money to even consider a small business today.

Wake up

 

[underground]

Goldberg makes me feel good. If someone can turn an argument as flimsy as his into a NYTs best seller, than there's a chance I could to!

 

[TheRifleman]

Anybody heard a peep about this audit on the TV evening news? Didn't think so. Great leaders we have

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/20...-today-the-results-are-startling-2449770.html

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."- Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011):

Looks like Benedict Bernanke along with our political hacks have looted the nations taxpayers working class dollar. At this point you are working for Debt slave wages.

I'm not sure how our GOVT can rationalize Bernanke bailing out foreign banks by printing on the backs of the American taxpayers. Can we say TREASON?

 

[bosdevelopment]

Detadyne, aren't you (gasp!) poor? I remember you somewhere earlier indicating that you'd "gladly pay more taxes if you could (gulp) afford to.."

How's this economic recovery going for you?

 

[davem]

Rif, have you thought about changing your style of argument to be a bit more, uhh... coherent? You obviously care a great deal about the issues and have something to say. Yelling to "wake up" and about "political hacks" and that "we dont even know..." doesn't really engage an audience. Its equivalent to beginning a debate on racism with "You people". Your current style of scare tactics mixed with RANDOM ENRAGED ALL CAPS interrupted by long, long quotes from sometimes not-so-scholarly-sources makes my eyes glaze over. Typically I don't even read what you have to say because its such an incoherent mess.

A thoughtful, edited post with links to other sources would go a great way to making your point heard. The whole us vs them attitude kills it too. We are all in this together, understanding the other side (despite disagreeing with it) goes a long way to being able to better prove your point and start an informative discussion.

The same can be said for a few other posters here too. If you actually argue your points vs preaching them an actual debate might begin vs the flinging poo at each other style that has proliferated here. This can be said for the national stage too, but I see that happening right alongside world peace.

Case in point; bosdevelopment's aggressive post above me does nothing to help in the discussion or understanding of the issues on both sides, but does a lot to make him look like an asshat. Even if he makes amazing points and wins a nobel prize in the future I will probably disregard everything he says as absurd because of that.

 

[datadyne007]

Detadyne, aren't you (gasp!) poor? I remember you somewhere earlier indicating that you'd "gladly pay more taxes if you could (gulp) afford to.."

How's this economic recovery going for you?

It hasn't been as smooth as we'd like it to be, but it's going far better than if a Republican had won. I'm actually not Obama's biggest fan (I'm still not over Hillary losing the nom) because I think he's not liberal enough to make change happen. He makes great proposals that make Nancy Pelosi clap her heart out and grin from ear to ear, but doesn't quite follow through on them. This recovery could really be jumpstarted with a massive infrastructure overhaul, which he likes to talk about but really doesn't push any further than that. I understand that it's the obstructionist republican Congress that is holding progress up, but the President should be at least campaigning and trying to push this kind of legislature. This recovery would be going a whole HELL of a lot better if the obstructionists hadn't blocked EVERY JOBS BILL that has been proposed (which included infrastructure and other investments).

Also, regarding the ridiculous personal attack about me being so called "poor," I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford a small apartment, car, and such with my husband and we gladly pay our taxes (at much higher rates than millionaires, mind you) knowing that there are others out there that really need some help with government programs that we are helping to fund. When our finances become more stable as we get older, we will be living modestly and comfortably, but not in excess with 10% of our income going to the church (my husband is a minister) and the rest in charitable donations.

 

[datadyne007]

Also, on a related note, the MVP of the 2012 election (the guy who taped the 47%) has finally revealed himself. He's an apolitical bartender from Boston who simply wanted people who couldn't afford to pay $50,000 per plate to hear all the (awful)* things Mitt had to say. He went to work that night with the intention of taking pictures with Romney and company (like Clinton had done), but decided to start taping once he heard what was being said so all citizens, Dem, Rep, Ind, etc. could hear what Romney was saying behind closed doors compared to what he was telling the public.

Ed got the first interview with him:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/51170895

**Parenthetical emphasis mine.

 

[kmp1284]

Back in 2006 and 2007 when George W. Bush was president and most of my contemporaries were graduating college nearly all of them had their pick of jobs months in advance of graduation so actually things were better then.

 

[datadyne007]

Back in 2006 and 2007 when George W. Bush was president and most of my contemporaries were graduating college nearly all of them had their pick of jobs months in advance of graduation so actually things were better then.

The economy hadn't crashed yet. The Great Recession began during the 3rd quarter of 2008 (but businesses had been posting losses through 2007). Bush's reckless policies were in full swing and slowly destroying the economy as we knew it. Were your friends in banking, finance, or business? There were plenty of those jobs at the time...

 

[TheRifleman]

^^^Datadyne, I think you missed these facts. Bush and Obama are the same. Reckless govt spenders. They have no concept of what real freedom & peace are.

Then = 10/09/07; Now = Almost 5 years 4 months later
The numbers speak for themselves. Obama just supported the current environment and kept the game going.

Then & Now: The Last Time the Dow Touched 14,164

LAST TIME THE DOW TOUCHED 14,164:

•GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%

•Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73

•Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million

•Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million •
Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01trillion
•US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%

•US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion

•Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion

*******************************
Added data points:
Then = 10/09/07; Now = Almost 5 years 4 months later
Current Dollar GDP: 2007 $14.028 Trillion; Now (2012) $15.682 Trillion (11.8% increase)
GDP Price Deflator: (10/1/07) 106.958; (10/1/12) 116.068 (8.5% increase)
GDP increase adjusted for inflation (as understated by the FED) $14.028 Trillion to $14.451 Trillion (3% increase)

What is the most troubling is if we go to a cashless society which the person behind the curtain can just add a couple of zeros to their accounts.