Be Careful, Default Is A Venerable Old Liberal Democrat Specialty, Exponentially Imitated By Liberal Republicans

The Atlantic stumbles into the truth, here:

In 1933, President Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold. That violated the so-called gold clause, which required that all public debts be paid in gold coin of a fixed weight. (America’s overwhelmingly pro-Roosevelt Congress simply declared all gold clauses null and void.) The 1933 devaluation effectively amounted to paying off debts with devalued currency, which is widely viewed as a default. In fact, in her exhaustive research on sovereign debt, economist Carmen Reinhart clearly classifies the 1933 devaluation as a domestic default.

----------------------------------

Imagine waking up on a Monday morning only to find out you now needed almost 15 more greenbacks to get back the same ounce of gold which on Friday the government basically confiscated from you for 20 of them, and they wouldn't let you. That's the legacy of the Roosevelt Democrats.

30 million ounces of gold were handed over to the government in exchange for $600 million, and then the price of that gold was effectively raised to $1.05 billion.

The price of gold was kept close to $35 an ounce for 31 of the next 38 years, when at length Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 when gold averaged about $45 an ounce.

Since then dollar devaluation to date has come to an additional almost 97%.

Total dollar devaluation since 1933 as of this very hour now comes to 98.43%.

Total Public Debt Outstanding Kept At $16.738 Trillion By Treasury Dept. For Four Months!

I can't show you all of the data because the format is too long for me to capture it all in a single screen shot.

All of June, all of July, all of August, and now all of September at $16.738 trillion, despite the fact that federal revenues are estimated to be running at $226 billion per month in fiscal 2013.

See for yourself here.

The World Has Learned Nothing Since The Crisis: Global Public Debt Is Up 63% 2008-2013

2008 global public debt $32 trillion

Global public debt, the amount owed by the world's governments, has risen by almost $20 trillion in the five years since the panic of 2008, an increase of nearly 63%.

Note the main offenders, none of whom has been practicing austerity in any sense of the term: America, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, The UK, Europe, India, China, Japan and Australia. Spendthrifts all.

See the data and charts, here.

2013 global public debt $52 trillion

None of this is ever going to be paid back. Chaos awaits.

Rush Limbaugh: The Big Boob On The Right

It's Monday and you know what that means. If Rush Limbaugh is talking about numbers on a Monday he's going to slaughter them.

I counted two major instances today of getting it totally backwards.

The first, on Janet Yellen, is totally missing from the transcripts. He had said she will completely reverse the Bernanke policy and tighten when everyone knows she'll do no such thing. Someone must have called him to correct him, and then he reversed what he had said previously, and corrected it (here) to avoid looking like the total boob that he is:

I was misinformed by a self-professed market expert.  Anyway, my bad.  I got 'em reversed.  That's why the market's doing well today. It is because the priming of the stock market pump is scheduled to continue unabated if this Yellen woman ends up being the chairman of the Fed.  Now, I'll give you the stats on all this quantitative easing. It's basically $85 billion a month.  What it is, is they're not really printing the money.

In other words, the man with the golden EIB microphone doesn't have the brains to discern the one position from the other, nor is any real knowledge about the subject he may possess anything but completely derivative. He relies on what other people whom he trusts tell him, and can't reason it out for himself, not even by checking the stock market before he goes on the air. And for that reason what he says is no good to his audience. He's just quoting an authority figure. But what is really shameful is that he simply blamed his error on someone else when the privilege of holding a microphone going straight into the ears of millions should be viewed by him as a great responsibility which rests on him, not on his sources. Instead he treats his public position, and his hearers, with contempt by blaming someone else.

The second major blunder was that Rush stated that the US created $18 trillion out of thin air during the financial crisis, when that figure is the estimate for global borrowing, and certainly is not money printing:

The overall amount of priming that the federal government and the Federal Reserve along with several other central banks all over the world have done, the amount of money that they put in to the global economy... What was it I heard? It's $18 trillion, and that's just the US number. That's what it is. It's $18 trillion all told for $1 trillion worth of growth.  So in order to get $1 trillion of economic expansion in the past five years, the Fed has spent $18 trillion.  It's been classic Keynesian economics. ...

The bottom line was, folks, that $18 trillion was created out of thin air -- $18 trillion.  I mean, this doesn't even get lopped on to the national debt because this is not money authorized by the federal budget by US Congress.  This is just the Federal Reserve just decided to print money wherever they wanted and send it wherever they wanted, all ostensibly to save the world economy.  All it did was bail out the best and the brightest from the mistakes that they had made. 

Then during a break another panicked phone call comes in from the trusted source and Rush again quickly corrects himself, putting the $18 trillion figure on the global effort, not on the US alone, and designating it as "borrowed" not "printed":

It's $18 trillion. The G7 nations borrowed $18 trillion since the financial crisis and have only $1 trillion in economic growth to show for it.  That's it.  That's what it's bought us. There was $18 trillion borrowed, and a lot of it's gonna be forgiven and not have to be paid back.  By the way, if you want to know what happens to that money, say hello to tax increases down the line.

I'm sure by this time the rubes are completely confused by their hero. There's no point in explaining any of this to Rush because he gets this stuff wrong no matter how many times it is explained to him, which just shows he has no desire to learn it or simply lacks the mental equipment.

In which case he ought to just shut up about it. Spreading falsehoods is bad for the country and bad for the cause. 

Stereotypical Federal Spending Wei Tu Hai

Federal outlays from fiscal 1985 through 2012 are up 274%, from $946.3 billion in 1985 to $3,537.1 billion in 2012. Federal receipts have lagged those outlays, however, up only 234% over the period, resulting in a net addition to deficits in nominal terms of $9.08 trillion as of the end of fiscal 2012, exploding the national debt. The political argument has been whether the taxes were insufficient to cover the spending, or the spending too high given the taxes. But in 24 of those 27 years there were annual deficits, each a message that Sum Ting Wong. Many Democrats shrugged and answered on taxes "Wi Tu Lo". Republicans looked at all that spending and said "Ho Lee Fuk, spending Wei Tu Hai". And now that we are $17 trillion in the hole the people say "Bang Ding Ow". But will they demand a cut to spending? No Fuk Hing Wei. Nao Tu Suun, they will say, as always. Po Ni up Tai Ni Sum later, maybe, but No Like Lee. Besides, Ri Li No Won Tu, anyhow. No Fun. Rather Tai Wan On.

Kudlow Is Right That Obama's Glorious Immediate Post-War Never Existed, But Completely Misses The Spending Cut Angle

Larry Kudlow, here:

[S]peaking in Galesburg, Ill., this summer, Obama served up a convenient historical fairy tale: "In the period after world War II," he said, "a growing middle class was the engine of our prosperity." Presumably he was thinking of a time when high taxes on the rich and industrial-union rule had the middle class soaring. The trouble is, Obama's history is wrong.

--------------------------------

Arguably, government spending cuts were the engine of post-war prosperity.

While Truman's record is second only to JFK/LBJ for real GDP growth in the post-war period, it occurred under special circumstances of extraordinarily deep government spending CUTS, which is little appreciated today when politicians and Keynesian and monetarist economists stress the importance of government spending for GDP. The truly remarkable thing under Truman is how the economy soared as spending decreased by TWO THIRDS from 1945 to 1947, as Arnold Kling reminded us here last year. Funny how Kudlow doesn't mention this. I guess they don't teach that at Princeton.

Under Truman's successor Eisenhower, real GDP growth slowed dramatically because of onerous levels of taxation maintained primarily to retire the war debts, but Eisenhower spent almost as frugally as Truman at the same time, making them the two best presidents we've had when it comes to small increases in the US public debt. That said, only the two Bush presidents and Obama have turned in poorer GDP performances than IKE. Funny also how Kudlow mentions only the one Bush. He leaves out the other one. You know, the "read my lips . . . no new taxes" Bush who ended up raising taxes.

Interestingly enough for US public debt growth, JFK/LBJ come in right behind Truman and Eisenhower while introducing the tax cuts which might have made Eisenhower's GDP record better than it was. Despite the guns and butter era under LBJ, the presidents occupying The White House between 1945 and 1968 were the most fiscally responsible we've had in the post-war, and it was a dramatic resetting of the baseline for spending LOWER under Truman which was the foundation of that period's economic growth.

Total Public Debt Outstanding Stuck At $16.738 Trillion For Over Two Months

The normal explanation for this would be that redemptions of Treasury securities are running at precise equilibrium with issues, which might imply there has been a big shift away from note and bond purchases by the public since the end of May when Ben Bernanke first floated the possibility of a tapering of Fed purchases in the secondary market. Bond outflows in June of nearly $62 billion dramatically reversed a trend (albeit declining) of purchases in 2013 through May.

Theoretically total public debt outstanding occasionally goes down in the rare cases when redemptions exceed issuances, but the maintenance of a consistent level equilibrium is indicative of a deliberate policy, that is, a policy not to exceed the debt limit of $16.7 trillion. This is effected by recourse to extraordinary measures on the part of the US Treasury Dept.

Tax revenues are also running higher in 2013, helping remove pressure from the situation as is the sequester which is curbing outlays. Revenue has also increased from the GSEs, in excess of $59 billion according to Reuters, here. The Associated Press has reported here for July 18th that the current fiscal year deficit is projected to come in over $300 billion less than last year when all is said and done.

Now you know why Congress felt it could take the traditional August recess without doing anything about the debt ceiling. They'll just let Jack Lew sweat it out.

Former Sen. Phil Gramm Underestimates The Cost Of Obama's Debt Bomb

Sen. Phil Gramm for The Wall Street Journal, here:

Since the World War II era, the average maturity of outstanding federal debt has been about five years, and the average interest cost on a five-year Treasury note has been 5.9%. At this interest rate, the expected cost of the Obama debt burden will eventually approach some $590 billion per year in perpetuity, exceeding the current annual cost of any federal program except Social Security.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As might be expected, the senator who didn't understand the consequences of the final repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 grossly underestimates the cost of carrying the national debt under a normalized interest rate environment.

Interest expense on the debt for fiscal 2009-2012 has averaged $404 billion annually. The debt to the penny on October 1 for each year 2009-2012 has averaged $14.1 trillion annually. Therefore the implied interest rate has been 2.87% annually. Normalized to 5.9% as he suggests, which is just a little more than double the current average rate, the debt service interest expense would have been $832 billion annually, over 40% higher than the former senator predicts down the road.

Of course, not all debt resets instantly in a rising interest rate environment, but in view of the number, size and long duration of many of the securities on the fed's balance sheet which would suffer immediate declines in net asset values, it is difficult to imagine how the fed could prevent a bond market debacle and unwind everything as gradually, and as imprudently, as it wound it up in the first place.

This is what passes for conservatism, folks.

Big Deal: Debt To GDP Ratio Comes In At 105%

The debt as of 4/24/13 was $16.7943 trillion. GDP in the latest report was $16.0102 trillion. So the one divided by the other yields 1.05, or 105%. To which I say, Big deal.

In other words, the current annualized national income no longer is sufficient to cover what we owe. But there is no situation in which anyone stops consuming and simply works for a year to pay off everything one owes. At this you'd last maybe 40 days if you were Jesus Christ, but trust me, you aren't Jesus Christ. This is not the way to look at it. Instead, we should look at the debt like a mortgage.

Interest payments on this ever-growing debt in fiscal 2012 came to $360 billion, implying an interest rate paid of a little more than 2%. This rate is artificial. It is the result of manipulation afforded to us by the Federal Reserve's deliberate policy we affectionately call ZIRP, zero interest rate policy, which pushes long term interest rates down into the cellar. A more realistic rate would be double that, 4%, about a half point higher than current averages for 30-year mortgages (call it an extra penalty for having less than AAA status if you want). So, if one were to treat the total public debt outstanding like a mortgage amortized over 30 years at 4% fixed, our "mortgage" payment to pay off the debt would be $80.304 billion monthly, or about $964 billion a year. And you'd have to stop deficit spending.

In the current spending environment, $964 billion annually is about 25% of current government outlays of $3.8 trillion. Current government receipts, however, have lagged the outlays by about $1 trillion annually, so the "mortgage" payment would be closer to 35% of income.

Responsible persons all over this country pay off mortgages with that percentage of income devoted to debt service, and they do it all the time. It's high time the federal government started acting like them. In order to do so, however, current spending apart from the "mortgage" payment would have to be cut $1.96 trillion annually, or 48%, to $1.84 trillion annually for all programs. (That squealing you hear is the sound of stuck pigs).

Somebody get on this right away.     

Pravda Says Illiterate Americans From Communist Controlled Schools Elected Communist Obama As President Of An America Suffering From A Psychosis Called Liberalism

That about sums it up.

From the Department of It Takes One To Know One, English.Pravda.ru, here:

Obama's Soviet Mistake

19.11.2012 15:23

By Xavier Lerma

Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake. ...

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Putin said regarding the military,

"...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."

Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis. O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.  Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.

Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

"...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses. The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state. There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results. Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game. During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.

"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin

The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.   

Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?

Russia lost its civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie! You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean. ...

Government Uses ZIRP To Help Itself, And Screw You

Government interference with interest rates is punishing savers like never before, but allows the Feds to pay record low rates on the US Public Debt it racks up in obscene fashion. The zero interest rate policy effectively nullifies returns from savings which older investors rely on for income in retirement.

The official policy of our civilization is to abort the young before they ever see the light of day, and to impoverish the prudent out of existence. 

Government has now suppressed interest rates to such an extent that the $16.2 trillion US Public Debt in fiscal 2012 effectively costs the Feds a paltry 2.2 percent to carry.

Meanwhile they continue to pile on ever larger sums owed, and never pay off even so much as one thin dime of it.

Mitt Romney is right to call this immoral:

“In my view, it’s not just bad economics; it is immoral for us to pass these burdens on to coming generations.”

Gov. Mitt Romney Is Exposing The Liberalism Of Presidents Reagan And Bush

Gov. Mitt Romney is forcing us to consider seriously how Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got carried away by liberal impulses and got us into troubles.

I think Romney was not a fan of Ronald Reagan in the 1990s because he realized Reagan's program was fiscally irresponsible, cutting taxes while increasing military spending to defeat Soviet Communism. The result was the largest increase in the US public debt since WWII. As a business man who can read a spread sheet, Mitt Romney can recognize fiscal insanity when he sees it.

Now a leaked video of a private fundraiser Romney addressed in Florida in May is being attacked by the left in recent hours. It shows Mitt Romney not too happy with the liberal consensus which uses the tax code as a form of welfare, primarily through the mechanism of tax credits combined with statutory tax rates which nullify income tax liability. This was not a bug in the law. It was a feature intended all along. Romney is signaling that he's not entirely on board with this form of liberalism.

The idea of getting people off welfare was an ingenious one under Reagan, effectively rebating their Social Security contributions when they went to work, instead of collecting a check directly from the federal government while unemployed. But it was fundamentally a compromise with liberalism, and the Earned Income Tax Credit later took on a life of its own, being notably expanded under Bill Clinton and under George W. Bush. Combined with the Child Tax Credit, the two credits represent transfer payments far in excess of the cost of the mortgage interest deduction, the drumbeat against which gets louder by the day. To take away the mortgage interest deduction would yield the government about $80 billion a year in new revenue. But eliminating the two tax credits would end a direct federal government expenditure in excess of $110 billion a year.

If you want to know in what world liberals like Nancy Pelosi under a liberal president like Barack Obama would find it thinkable to consent to a deliberate underfunding of Social Security, liberalism's signature program, by rolling back payroll taxes to help the working poor during the Great Recession, look to Ronald Reagan, who did basically the same thing for poor people through the EITC way back in the 1980s. In making Social Security contributions rebateable to the working poor, Reagan was nothing if not a liberal trendsetter.

Another innovation and accommodation with liberalism by Ronald Reagan was EMTALA, part of the tax reform of 1986, which made it the law that emergency rooms had to provide services regardless of ability to pay. That unfunded mandate costs approximately only $50 billion a year today. I say "only" because lying about the severity of that problem became the heart of the healthcare debate which gave us ObamaCare. The Heritage Foundation may have authored the idea of the individual healthcare mandate in 1989, but once again it was Ronald Reagan who paved the way and provided the cover for accommodating what eventually became ObamaCare's liberal tyranny.

Romney's remarks also question George Bush's two-state solution to peace in Israel, which is nothing but another unrealistic aspiration of liberalism which thinks you can put a chicken and a hungry snake in the same pen and enjoy a quiet Sunday afternoon. To this Romney wisely prefers the unsteady truce of the status quo. In doing so his realism is shining through.

Mitt Romney's looking better all the time, and conservatives should reconsider whether voting for him is such a bad idea after all. 

US Gross Public Debt Grew Most Under Reagan, Least Under Truman Since WWII

The record of Ronald Reagan for increasing the US gross public debt is so bad in the post-war era it is a veritable outlier compared to everyone else.

It represents the price this country paid for hefty tax cuts at the same time defense spending was increased to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Conservatism as understood by Ronald Reagan was primarily anti-communist, not fiscal. This is more in keeping with the Democrat Party of the time which he abandoned as communist influence over it grew through the labor unions. Along with the rest of his record, it is arguable that Ronald Reagan out-liberaled the liberals in many respects, making the Republican Party the home of liberals while the Democrat Party got radicalized by the so-called progressives.

Maybe Mitt Romney had a good reason not to think of himself as a follower of Reagan back in the 1990s. This country could use a Republican in the mold of Eisenhower again to restore some credibility to the Republican Party from the fiscal side.

The 170 percent increase in the public debt metric over an 8 year period under Reagan makes his predecessor Jimmy Carter look almost moderate by comparison, who racked up a 40 percent increase in 4. And Bush The Younger was actually in the very mold of fiscally liberal Ronald Reagan, cutting Clinton's tax increases and increasing spending on The War On Terror as well as Drugs For Seniors. Bush The Younger's 99 percent increase in the debt over 8 years comes out to roughly 12.38 percent per year, but it must be remembered that some of Obama's emergency spending in early 2009 became part of Bush's fiscal record, which ended October 31, 2009, another price of electoral defeat. The winners write the history.

Harry Truman narrowly beats out his successor Dwight Eisenhower for being the king of fiscal rectitude, posting an 11 percent increase in the debt in 4 years with Ike logging 23 percent over 8 years.

The numbers on which I relied for the following come from usgovernmentdebt.us, but not for Barack Obama, for whom I relied on the very latest figures available from treasurydirect.gov, which regrettably go back only through 1993. The percentage average annual increase in the debt shown below is for illustration purposes only since the percentage increase in the debt is calculated from beginning of the fiscal period to the end, not for each individual year. Multiply by 4 or 8 to get the actual figure for the term of office (but shown values are rounded, and Obama's record will not be complete until October 31, 2013, over a year from now, in which case multiply by 3).

Reagan                     21.25 percent

Bush The Younger  12.38 percent

Nixon/Ford              11.75 percent

Obama                     11.64 percent

Bush The Elder       11.50 percent

Carter                      10.00 percent

Clinton                      4.50 percent

Kennedy/LBJ           4.38 percent

Eisenhower              2.88 percent

Truman                    2.75 percent

Over time, Republican presidents have averaged a 12 percent annual increase in the debt while in office, while Democrat presidents have averaged almost 6 percent per annum.

Neither record is good, but things are not what they seem in the Republican Party, so-called home of the fiscal conservatives. 

Peter Schiff Warns About Rising Interest Rates But Avoids The Sorry Truth

Peter Schiff, here:

The current national debt is about $16 trillion (this is just the funded portion...the unfunded liabilities of the Treasury are much, much larger). The only reason the United States is able to service this staggering level of debt is that the currently low interest rate on government debt (now below 2 per cent) keeps debt service payments to a relatively manageable $300 billion per year.

First of all, interest payments on the debt haven't been close to $300 billion a year since 1994. They've been above that level ever since 1994, and frequently way above that level.

In fact, interest payments on the debt have been above $400 billion each year from 2006 inclusive, except for 2009. This is important in the context of a Republican House which congratulates itself endlessly for a one-time spending cut of $38 billion.

Secondly, if we were really paying an effective 2 percent interest rate to service the debt, say in 2011, our interest payment that year would have been closer to $296 billion.

But the total US public debt at the end of the 2011 fiscal year reached almost $14.8 trillion, and interest payments on that debt were actually $454 billion, implying an interest rate in excess of 3 percent, half again as high.

That's the real lesson of rising interest rates. A 50 percent rise in interest rates from 2 percent to 3 on a pile of debt that size means an increased interest expense of $158 billion. People who think rates can't rise that much very quickly haven't been paying attention to the recent experiences of Greece, Spain and Italy. For example in Spain interest rates paid on 10yr paper lept 50 percent in six months' time this year.

In Italy they lept over 35 percent in five months' time.

Third, while Peter Schiff is surely right when he warns that rising interest rates threaten to consume government revenues, leaving nothing for essential services, the sorry truth is that our interest payments on the public debt are really more like the interest-only payments on loans people took out during the housing bubble. Those loans were DESIGNED never to require principal payments, and so the buyers of those homes never built any real equity and never were on a path to retiring those debts. That's our federal government. We NEVER make principal payments on the money we borrow, and we effectively borrow the money we need to make the interest payments, and then some.

Instead of paying $454 billion a year in interest-only payments on the national debt, we should be on a path to retiring that debt. At 3.5 percent interest for 30 years, that would mean interest AND principal payments together totaling $864 billion a year, not $454 billion. And it would also mean: NO MORE BORROWING.

Can you imagine such an America? Of $2.8 trillion in current revenues, that would leave just $1.9 trillion for the feds to spend, 50 percent less than the $3.8 trillion and climbing which they spend now.

If there were any real conservatives in America, let alone in the Republican Party, that's what they'd be telling the American people. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just a pretender.

How Would You Like A Monthly Mortgage Payment Of $72 Billion?

That's what it would take to pay off the total public debt of $16 trillion, financed at 3.5 percent, in 30 years: $25.920 trillion in total payments ($16 trillion principal/$9.92 trillion interest).

Got any collateral?

US Public Debt Under Obama Has Soared Exactly 50 Percent In 43 Months

(Source: little Timmy Geithner's Treasury Department)

Q2 2012 Anemic GDP Nearly Swallowed Whole By June's Debt Service Payment

WTOP reports the annualized dollar figure for Q2 2012 GDP at almost $118 billion, here:

Current-dollar GDP increased at an annual rate of $117.6 billion in the second quarter to $15.6 trillion.

Unfortunately, interest payments on the public debt swelled in June to nearly $104 billion:

The debt service shark just chomped the thing down, leaving the head and shoulders on the beach.

Global Fascism: Casually Described, Matter of Factly Accepted

Today's must-reading comes from The Wall Street Journal, where a libertarian correctly describes the current state of affairs as a global fascist order, but uncritically accepts it as a fact which explains things rather than as a disease to be cured:

The Greek tragedy began with a fiscal crisis—brought on by the government spending more money than it took in—that became a banking crisis. In Spain, there is a fiscal crisis that exacerbates a banking crisis.

Fiscal and banking crises are often linked because in modern economics the state and banking are joined together. Banks purchase government debt, supporting the state, and governments guarantee the liabilities of banks. When one party is weakened, so is the other. ...

The banks, not fiscal deficits, will be the undoing of the euro.

The author believes federal union as in the US should have come first in Europe before the common currency, in order to equalize structural differences in labor markets among other things, for example taxes and spending.

Yes, it should have, the more securely to anchor the foundations of fascism. Somehow ancient memories kept that from happening in Europe, and Spaniards and Greeks still think of themselves as such and not as Europeans who answer to Brussels and the European Central Bank.

But unlike Europe federal union in the US has allowed the partnership between government and banks to run the show unfettered, the more ominously so since 1913 with The Federal Reserve Act, a measure which concentrated power in the hands of the few and took it away from the many.  The bankers were put first in line for Federal Reserve Notes. Citizens last. Like sheep they turned in their gold.

Augmented by the growth of the imperial presidency which got its impetus first under Wilson and then under FDR, the Congress claimed its role in the new cabal in the 1920s by stopping the natural and constitutionally prescribed growth of representation, enhancing nothing but its own importance. Trading on insider information, election to the US House or Senate has become a path to wealth and power, if not fame.

These all act in concert to protect their gig, not yours, not America's.

In its fecklessness and greed, however, the government by turns has lost control of the money creation process, most notably since 1971, and has ceded it to the banking interest and cannot get it back. Our national debt may now surpass our $15 trillion GDP and gold may be $1,600 the ounce, but it takes a banker to really screw things up and create an over the counter market in derivatives with a notional value in excess of $600 trillion. 

The banks won't be the undoing only of the Euro.     

Read the entire column here.

When the People Lose Control of the Public Finances, Tyranny Often Follows

Herbert Hoover has captured the imagination of a number of writers recently, from Walter Russell Mead to R. Christopher Whalen.

Now James Grant weighs in too at The Wall Street Journal, here, contrasting Hoover's fear of tyranny with our desire for it:

Herbert Hoover, who learned a thing or two about debt and adversity, warned in his memoirs that, unless the dollar was convertible into gold, the people would lose control of the public finances, "their first defense against tyranny." Simon Johnson and James Kwak, the authors of "White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You" could not seem to disagree more. To them, the problem today isn't paper money but a government that hovers too little and taxes too lightly. More regulation—especially financial regulation—and selectively higher taxes are the answers, they contend. ...

Johnson and Kwak are special pleaders. Human life being uncertain, they wish to protect us from it. How much risk of sickness, unemployment or indigence do you, a mere individual, wish to bear on your own? "The question we leave you with is this," the pair write: "Are you and your family willing to face these risks alone, not knowing what will happen in the future, or do you want to live in a society that will protect you from misfortunes that lie beyond your control? For that is what the debate over the national debt boils down to, and its outcome depends on you."

More than likely, the outcome does not depend on you, whoever you are. It rather turns on the intellectual climate in which the people at the top frame public choices.

And Mr. Grant makes another good case for the choice of free men: gold.

CBS News Reports Debt Increased More Under Obama Than Under Bush

Don't forget folks, the conservative press is the enemy.

Mark Knoller has the story here:

"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services."