The Global Economy & European Debt Crisis: U.S. Fiscal Policy - Austerity and Stimulus (2012)

In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two. Austerity policies may be attempts to demonstrate governments' liquidity to their creditors and credit rating agencies by bringing fiscal incomes closer to expenditures.

In macroeconomics, reducing government deficits generally increases unemployment in the short run. This increases safety net spending and reduces tax revenues, to some extent. Government spending contributes to gross domestic product (GDP), so the debt-to-GDP ratio, an index of liquidity, may not immediately improve. Short-term deficit spending contributes to GDP growth particularly when consumers and businesses are unwilling or unable to spend. Under the controversial theory of expansionary fiscal contraction (EFC), a major reduction in government spending can change future expectations about taxes and government spending, encouraging private consumption and resulting in overall economic expansion.

Initial austerity results in Europe have been as predicted by macroeconomics, with unemployment rising to record levels and debt-to-GDP ratios rising, despite reductions in budget deficits relative to GDP. Eurostat reported that unemployment in the 17 Euro area countries (EA17) reached record levels in March 2013, at 12.1%,[8] up from 11.0% in March 2012 and 10.3% in March 2011;[9] and that the overall debt-to-GDP ratio for the EA17 was 70.1% in 2008, 80.0% in 2009, 85.4% in 2010, 87.3% in 2011, and 90.6% in 2012.[10][11][12] Further, real GDP in the EA17 declined for six straight quarters from Q4 2011 to Q1 2013.[13] The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated in August 2012 that if the U.S. implemented moderate austerity measures, the unemployment rate would rise by over 1% and economic growth would be significantly reduced in 2013.[14] The U.S. partially avoided the "fiscal cliff" through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. U.S. unemployment has fallen steadily from a peak of 10% in early 2010 to 7.6% by March 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

Bond Bubble May Be Bursting Right Now! - Bud Conrad of Casey Research Interview

Bond Bubble May Be Bursting Right Now! - Bud Conrad of Casey Research Interview

CHINESE TROOPS IN U.S. UPDATE

It is important to separate hunting down terrorists who attack our country and deserve justice (which Ron Paul is 100% for), and not confuse justice with occupying entire countries for a decade under the guise of the "War on Terror" or "Spreading Democracy". Terrorists are individuals and small groups, so why are we picking fights with entire nations? BILLIONS for Defense, NOT A PENNY for Empire.

This speech is called "Imagine" and it was given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009. The original text of the talk is below:

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.