Arctic ice starts growing
September 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm by Bill Steffen under Bill's Blog, Weather
<–click here for full screen graphic. It looks like the Arctic icecap has reached it’s annual minimum and has started to increase. As you can see the areal extent of Arctic ice at the end summer 2009 is well above the level of last year, which was well above the level of 2007. This year’s minimum is almost one million square kilometers — around twice the size of Spain — above that for 2007, when the minimum sea-ice extent dropped to its lowest ever, at 4.1 million square kilometers. When you hear on the news that the Arctic icecap is shrinking rapidly, keep in mind that was true until 2007, but that it’s come back about 40% toward the historic average in the past two years. At the town of Alert in far northeast Canada, they had their first below zero temperature of the season on Sunday (high: 12, low -3). BTW – Antarctic ice remains near a historic maximum. While we may have one small emerging sunspot, the sun has been unusually quiet this year (in fact since 2004). There are a number of scientists that are concerned about possibly global cooling associated with an extended sunspot minimum, as has happened in the past. In any case, it won’t be getting cool anytime soon in West Michigan. Temperatures will continue to be warmer than normal this week and probably through early October. The main jet stream is well north into Canada. Mosinee on James Bay had a high of 83 on Sunday. Up at Churchill, September is going to be warmer than it was in July by about three degrees. Their average high is just 56. Our overall pattern remains dry, so be grateful for the rain we receive.
So it looks like we are making up for the cool July! I’m loving the above average temps! Artic Ice is increasing, huh? WOW! That is very interesting news! Does it still appear that we MAY have our first snow in late October or are temps continuing to trend warmer? I know the farther out you go, the more difficult the weather becomes to predict with accuracy.
I enjoy reading your blogs, but this is also a comment concerning getting you as a speaker. I do not really think this is the way to go about it, but I have no other way of getting in touch with you. Do you speak, especially on global warming or cooling as suggested? We have a Wed. evening family night at church who would love to have you speak on weather. If there is a way to contact you I would appreciate it. Thanks so much Bev Leegwater
Bev,
Bill’s email is bill.steffen@woodtv.com. Why not send him an email with your question?
It’s a little tougher to get out in the evening. It depends on the weather that day. If there is nothing on radar and I’m caught up, I can get away (usually to run home for dinner) between the 6 PM and 10 PM newscasts…but other than that, I kind of work 2nd shift. It’s especially hard to travel any distance to speak on a weekday evening. It would be better for me to do a weekend.
I have no strong feelings for GW – but the part that amazes me is during our cold summer people kept saying “Where is global warming?” Now that we’ve had such a strangely warm September, where are those people?
I may be way off base and this doesnt directly relate to your question really, but I was thinking…does it seem that the seasons are “shifting” a little bit? Like winter hangs on longer, spring starts later, summer starts later, cool fall weather starts a little later…Like I said, could be an observation for just the past couple of years. I remember April being warmer than it has in the past and September/October being cooler…but that could be because I was a kid and I did not care to pay much attention to the temperatures??
Sarah,
Strangely enough, many proponents of global warming speak of what you are saying. That is, pattern shifts and more extremes are closely related to the changes that we have made to the Earth’s atmosphere. We are way to young on this planet to really know what effects we have had in such a short amount of time, but we are experiencing a lot of strange patterns and extremes in recent years. As Bill has pointed out, we have had a solar minimum as related to sun spot activity. Many scientists agree that this has helped to hide the effects of Global Warming and when the sun spot activity returns to normal, we are in for a big shock. As far as the glacial ice is concerned, Bill is again referring to perennial sea ice, which comes and goes each summer. Has the lack of solar activity helped to rebuild some sea ice? We will find out soon enough, but I believe it is irresponsible to say we know for sure one way or another.
Rob, I agree with you. But to be fair, I think that most of those people are just speaking to be heard and really have no sensible input to give on the subject.
Peace Out
Weather has ALWAYS had a lot of strange patterns and extremes. Some of us just think the ones we are seeing now are more strange and extreme because WE’RE seeing them.
What if we are in a 100 to 300 year solar minimum? I know its too early to tell and more likely then not we are not in that long on a minimum but just what if? As for extremes as michael g stated we always have had extremes and wild swings just look at the 1930′s.
As far as I feel (and believe me not may people care LOL) man may very well be contributing to GW and we are destroying our environment which should be the real focus on why we want to change our ways. But as for GW just remember a warm planet is much better then a cold and frozen one. So we should make changes that make our environment better but not always tie it into whether or not we are changing the Earths climate ever time we do something one way or the other. And remember doing all of the “right” things are going to cost money, lots of money and its money we may need for other issues that will come along. No matter what we will either survive or we will not. This is a very emotional topic and most people will not change their minds unless something in a crises comes along and I do not see that as far as climate is concerned in a long time.
SlimJim
Michael G,
The extremes that I am referring to are record setters, not just cold and warm days that we are seeing. Record snow events, record dry patterns, record cold months, record warm months, records are being set on a very frequent timeline lately. You can’t argue with that. I really don’t get your point.
Slim,
The problem with your belief system is that you think everything is more important than the Earth. Let’s face it, the Earth is a living thing. Every living thing has a limit to the amount of abuse it can take before it reacts. Does it cost money to clean your house? Mow your lawn? Wash your car? Take a shower? These are all things that you readily pay for, but you think that cleaning up the Earth is not important! Can you see the hipocracy in that? You also think that a warm planet is better than a cold planet. I didn’t know that those were our only choices. How about cleaning up our garbage and respecting God’s creation so our children’s children can enjoy it too, even it it costs a few of the almighty dollars that we have earmarked for other important things.
Peace Out
I’m sure you have some evidence that records are being set much more frequently now right? Or is that just your general impression?
Bill, off the subject a bit. Noticed this the last couple of runs. What would it mean for GR? My brother in law is getting married that day. Thanks.
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/18/fp0_288.shtml
Jim S.
)
My two cents, not worth much, but hey….If that pattern were true, it would be some cool air with potential snow showers (warm ground/warm lakes .yada yada)
..my kind of pattern,But with the modles flipping like they did for this upcoming weekend, I wouldnt put much faith in it just yet!
It would mean there are too many people looking at that
As we saw this week, the GFS has no value at long range in this pattern. Watch the FIM as the day gets closer.
Off subject latest
Michigan Crop Weather
Released
September 21, 2009
http://www.nass.usda.gov/weather/cpcurr/mi-crop-weather
Mike
Many scientists agree the quickest way to an infinite research grant is to say natural cooling is just masking AGW =)
I always believed in GW just not AGW so why bring it up when it warms? That is what the media is for, I bring up the cold so maybe someone realizes the weather actually changes from time to time. AGW believers are the ones saying the world will end etc. not me. Obama directly related the Greensburg tornado to AGW and said it killed 10,000 people there because of it, not me… by the way it killed fewer than 10… Where is he when cold kills hundreds?
Oh yeah, Man-Bear-Pig comes out when it is cold and they’re busy trying to find it…
Direfloyd,
time to lay off the dubage my friend. I suppose you were bashing Bush when Katrina slammed the Gulf, Right??? I think that it’s a nice change having a leader not trying to fleece the United States to make all of his friends filthy rich.
Only in the feeble minds of “progressives” does opposition to Obama become unblinking devotion to George Bush. What the hell does Bush have to do with direfloyd’s (amusing) points?
Now if you want to talk about The Chosen Ones partners in crime, ACORN and SEIU, that’s a different story. May I introduce you to the RICO Act?
I laugh at anyone who thinks the Government should come save you anytime… so no I didn’t decry bush. Good thing obama wasn’t around, probably would have left New Orleans flooded as a reminder of climate change…
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab.
Here you will find various unique products regarding global snow cover. Maps, graphic products and tabular data are available.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/
Mike
Kevin – government failed on all levels during Katrina…let’s hear you defend Blanco or Nagin. I’m waiting. Still waiting. Thought so. What worked in New Orleans was the military (General Honore and the Coast Guard) and private organizations, led by the Salvation Army and Red Cross. There were many private religious churches, synagogues, temples and yes, even mosques who came to the aid of hurricane victims in a collective big way. This has all been well documented. They were much more effective (and especially cost effective) than any branch of government. And…all politicians help the people who elected them. Obama signed off on the huge bonuses for his “friends” on Wall St., for the execs. at Fannie and Freddie Mac. The bailout of Chrysler has already amounted to over $23,000 PER EMPLOYEE! Does anyone think Chrysler isn’t going to be back over and over for more of your tax dollars to stay in business? Now he wants to bail out the newspaper industry (more “friends”).
Bill, Who the heck was talking about Gov Blanco or Mayor Nagin? Waiting, still waiting! Are you 3 years old with that garbage? Isn’t the military part of our government? Let’s face it, gov failed on all levels during Katrina including the military. This was not due to our soldiers, but rather the polititions who make the decisions. I am glad that the red cross, along with many organizations including, as you pointed out, religious organizations helped. But, the sad fact it is that many people died due to the government sitting on their hands during the entire disaster. As Barbara Bush so elequintly pointed out, “What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.” That was the mentality of the rich running our country. How can you defend that? I really hope that you aren’t insinuating that The government didn’t help the golf coast residents during Katrina because they weren’t republicans. You said that they help who elected them. Didn’t you, well didn’t you? I’m waiting, still waiting. See how childish that sounds?
Peace Out
As I said the politicians ( AL Gore ) has got this G W Wrong now we got more ice Bill keep up your great reporting
Government doesn’t work well on disasters like hurricanes/etc. because no one can do anything without b.s. meetings/voting/approval from someone else who doesn’t have a clue. As Bill mentioned, the Red Cross and non-profits work so much better because they understand the concept of immediate need,not suggest something to be done then wait until it’s too late or wait around and have meetings about it, which is what happend with hurricane Katrina (i.e. FEMA b.s.).
We need to keep supporting the local Red Cross,crisis centers, etc. that help our own communities. Government obviously isn’t going to be there to help the little people.
Kevin,
I know better than to go down the GW road with you. What I do want to know is who will pay for allof the stimulus efforts to get the economy going? Will Obama pay those tax bills? What about the whole idea of taking the scalpel to the Federal Budget (Obama’s words). Point is, political belief or not somebody will be left holding the bag or in this case paying the bill.
The Federal Deficit is projected to be in excess on 10 trillion dollars (told to me by a financial expert not my words) Who will pay for that? It will not be Obama. A couple of very simple questions, really.
Are you people crazy? Bush put us in this giant hole. Biggest spender in history. That’s right, the one you idiots voted for because you are religious nutbags that vote for right to life. Brainwashed hypocrites, the lot of ya. Clinton had us out of the hole and prospering like never before. Bush takes over after you stinking dumb asses elected him TWO TIMES and wammy!!!! We are screwed. Now Obama is in office for 9 months and it’s his fault. How can you be that stupid? Yes, that is stupid stupid stupid. Your worried about taxes! Give us a break loosers. Bush taxed us up and down. The main difference is that he channeled the money to large corporations. Yes, his buddies, pals, cohorts, partners, monitary thiefs. How did that help any of us? Oh ya, let me answer. IT DIDN’T you fricken sheep. It made the filthy rich even richer. Good old trickle down at it’s finest. Wow are you people on this site dumb.
Dan, What did your financial buddy say was his expert plan to get the economy going? Do you understand the reference of the scalpal? The only proof that we have is what we can see and we have seen hell with Bush. Did you want that back? Hello Mcfly anybody home?
Wake Up West Michigan:
While you are stating your points can you do this without name calling? I didn’t call you or anybody else any names. I only titled the post to Kevin and asked simple questions. I’m not going to argue politics on a weather blog.
I asked some simple questions about who will pay for the “bail outs”
Oh yes, doesn’t using a scalpel mean cutting dollars through excess pork barrel?
I don’t think Bush was the only one at fault. What about the other houses of government? Who was running the houses of government? Also, I don’t think I represent everybody as you have stated, I’m only representing myself. You’ll have to do better than that!
Dan,
Who do you think was running the government? The Republicans for 6 of the last 8 years. House and Senate. Where have you been?
President sets the agenda and the House and Senate choose to push it through. Bush had a free ride and he screwed us left and right. Take off the blinders. Open the eyes and learn when you are being screwed. Now this Bill guy is trying to persuade all of us of the Conservative agenda. This guy is nuts and alters data left and right to make people like you believe him. This site is full of some of the dumbest people in the area that I have ever conversed with. The scalpel comment was used to show that he will go through the agenda with a fine tooth comb to that the conservatives stop hidding their crap. Not cutting excessive pork. You must be one of the blindest people I’ve seen on here yet,
Funny thing…”Wake Up West Michigan” has the same IP address as “Kevin”. Seems we can play pit bull with “Wake Up” and still “Peace Out” with “Kevin”. Dang you are so clever. FYI – there are several people who comment here under multiple names.
Bill, Just scrolling through and came upon your entry. Maybe I am a little confused about IP address, but I have no way of knowing why you are stating that I have the same IP as anyone else. I know that a proxy server will use the same IP and also a same business router will too. Now if someone in my office loggon on your site, I would not be shocked due to the conversations that we have about your ideals and beliefs. I cannot stop that, but please don’t insinuate that I am someone else.
Peace Out,
Hey Wake Up West Michigan:
You need to check your facts. The Dems have been in control of the houses since 2004. That gave them the majority. Its only been since Obama was elected that all three houses of government are in Democrat control. Its obivious that you don’t want to see that, look that up its there. I’ll take you to task on the scalpel comment, the context of the comment was to cut the Federal Budget, were you paying attention? John McCain challenged Obama’s comments on this. You should go back and listen to those comments, it is actually a very good exchange between the two. Oh thats right the Dems don’t hide money. You say, “I’m blindest person you have seen here yet” Is that supposed to be funny? All that aside, who is going to pay for all these bail outs? You still haven’t answered my question. Instead you call me “brainwashed, blind and stupid” Sounds to me like you really don’t know what you are talking about because you have to result to name calling. Oh yes, President Obama would never take care of his friends (Acorn, etc) just follow the money. I will not continue this discussion unless you can answer my questions.
Dan,
I don’t know if I want to jump in here, but I believe that you are both wrong on your stats. Rebulican control of both the House and Senate started in 95 and continued until 2007 when the Dems took both houses. The exception was in 2001 when the dems won the House for one term. This gave the Republicans complete control from 03 to 07 and the Dems complete control in 09 only. I’m sure that I could get you both a reference if you really need it, but I assure you that it is correct. I’m also not sure about the entire money trail comment. I would rather look at historical stats rather than speculating on who is giving money where, which we are spoon fed from the media. The following information is based up to 2007 when the Dems took control. I don’t believe that it would be fare to point the 2007 to 2009 stats on the Dems or Republicans due to the dead locked Houses.
For millions of hard-working, middle-class families, life under the Bush presidency has grown less affordable and less secure. President Bush’s record of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement, and Republicans’ close ties with special interests, have helped lead to both lower wages on the one hand and skyrocketing costs for basic necessities like gas, health care, and college tuition on the other. Unfortunately, instead of producing solutions to the problems facing the middle class, Bush Republicans have ignored them and pushed for policies that would make matters even worse.
In addition to tightening the squeeze on families, Republican policies have made our entire nation less financially secure. Republicans increased our debt to nearly $9 trillion and have insisted on spending billions of dollars every year on budget-busting tax breaks for special interests and multi-millionaires. The Bush Administration also comprimised our economic security by increasing our reliance on foreign investment from in China, Japan, and Dubai.
Middle-class families, and our nation, deserve better. Under Democratic leadership, the Senate has already passed legislation that would begin to make college more affordable and accessible, by increasing Pell Grants. We also came together in a bipartisan fashion and passed The America COMPETES Act, legislation to maintain America’s competitive advantage by ensuring that America keeps its edge in science, research and technology. In addition, Senate Democrats are working on other measures to make college more affordable, ensure fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs, and provide more affordable and sustainable sources of energy. Finally, House and Senate Democrats have approved balanced budgets to restore fiscal responsibility and help promote the economic growth that provided so many benefits to middle-class families during the 1990s.
Health care premiums have increased by over 80 percent. The cost of family health insurance has skyrocketed 80.8 percent since 2000. Premiums are rising twice as fast as wages and inflation. The typical family health insurance premium is now $11,480 a year compared with $6,348 in 2000.[1] The number of uninsured Americans has increased every year since President Bush took office, from 39.8 million in 2000 to a record high of 46.6 million in 2005.[2]
Gas prices have climbed over $4 a gallon. Prices at the gas pump have jumped 107 percent from $1.47 per gallon the week President Bush took office in January 2001[3] to $ 3.05 in the latest week of energy price data.[4] The price for a barrel of oil has more than doubled during the Bush Administration from $30.63 in January 2001 to $65.26 in April 2007.[5] The average household with children will spend about $3,887 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 104 percent or $1,984 over 2001 costs.[6]
College education costs have risen by 44 percent. Average tuition, fees, room, and board costs at four-year private universities have increased by $6,786 from $22,240 in the 2000-2001 academic year to $29,026 in the 2005-2006 academic year. Tuition, fees, room, and board charges at four-year public colleges grew more rapidly between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006, after adjusting for inflation, than during any other five-year period since 1975. Total costs jumped from $8,439 in 2000-2001 to $12,127 in 2005-2006 – an increase of $3,688, or 44 percent.[7]
The cost of a college education is rising faster than family income, but key federal tuition assistance programs such as the Pell Grant program have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of college. While the maximum Pell Grant covered 51 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college during the 1986-1987 school year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs in 2004-2005.[8] Democrats have already enacted a modest increase in Pell Grants this year, but much more remains to be done to help families better afford college.
Housing affordability has reached a 15-year low. In 2006, housing affordability reached its lowest level since 1991.[9] According to the Washington Post, “the scarcity of affordable housing is a deepening national crisis, and not just for inner-city families on welfare. The problem has climbed the income ladder and moved to the suburbs, where service workers cram their families into overcrowded apartments, college graduates have to crash with their parents, and firefighters, police officers and teachers can’t afford to live in the communities they serve.”[10]
In addition, the Post reports that “[o]ne of every 92 U.S. households faced foreclosure last year and the number is expected to get larger. Over the next two years, monthly payments on millions of loans will surge as their low introductory interest rates balloon by as much as 50 percent. The nonprofit Center for Responsible Lending predicts that one in five subprime mortgages taken out in the past two years – those marketed to borrowers with poor credit histories and limited incomes – will end up in foreclosure. The crisis may eventually cost as much as $164 billion…There is considerable fear that the pace of foreclosures, which jumped again in the first three months of this year, will continue to rise and jeopardize the entire economy.”[11]
While families work harder, their wages continue to decline. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person – that is, productivity – has gone to profits, not wages.”[12] Median household income, adjusted for inflation, has declined $1,273 from $47,599 in 2000 to $46,326 in 2005.[13]
The real median earnings of both male and female full-time, full-year workers declined between 2004 and 2005 by 1.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.[14] Median weekly earnings have risen only 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2006 compared with 7.1 percent growth between 1996 and 2000 under the Clinton Administration.[15]
Meanwhile, employment compensation has lagged behind productivity gains. While the productivity of the American worker rose by 17.5 percent between the first quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2006, real compensation per hour increased by only 8.7 percent.[16] In the first quarter of 2007, productivity in the non-farm business sector further improved by 1.7 percent, while real weekly earnings increased by only 1.2 percent.[17] Therefore, Americans have worked harder – and more productively – for their families, but are not receiving the proportionally increased rewards for their hard work.
Earnings for workers with college degrees declining. The LA Times has reported that: “Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor’s degrees for the first time in 30 years. Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists…Not since the 1970s have workers with bachelor’s degrees seen a prolonged slump in earnings during a time of economic growth…trends for people with master’s and other advanced degrees…have found that their inflation-adjusted wages were essentially flat between 2000 and 2004.”[18]
Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration. A growing economy should be good news for those seeking jobs. But over the course of President Bush’s term in office, his Administration has the worst overall job creation record since Herbert Hoover more than 70 years ago.[19]
Overall non-farm payroll employment has increased by just 5.2 million since President Bush took office in January 2001 compared with 22.7 million during the Clinton presidency. Overall employment growth has averaged just 70,000 per month under President Bush – much lower than the approximately 150,000 jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. It was not uncommon to see monthly job gains of 300,000 and even 400,000 during economic expansions under previous Administrations. [20]
Private sector job creation has been especially poor during the Bush presidency, with an average annual job growth rate of only 0.5 percent per year since 2001.[21] Just 3.8
million private sector jobs have been created during the Bush presidency, compared with over 20 million private sector jobs during the Clinton presidency.[22]
The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost three million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration.[23] Nearly half of the jobs created since 2001 were part-time and freelance positions without benefits.[24] This slow pace of private sector job creation is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery.
Unemployment has increased 7.1 percent and long-term joblessness has nearly doubled. In part because of this failure to create a sufficient number of jobs, the national unemployment rate stands at 4.5 percent,[25] which is 7.1 percent higher than the 4.2 percent rate when President Bush took office. Unfortunately, once unemployed, America’s workers also are staying unemployed longer. In 2006, over one in six of the unemployed had been out of work for more than 26 weeks.[26] The number of long-term unemployed has increased by 61 percent since President Bush took office.[27]
Bush’s deficit-financed tax cuts have widened the income gap between millionaires and middle-class workers. In testimony before the Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned against rising income inequality: “[T]o the extent that incomes and wealth are spreading apart, I think that is not a good trend.”[28] Bernanke’s predecessor as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, expressed similar concerns in congressional testimony in July 2004.[29] In January 2007, for the first time, President Bush finally acknowledged that “income inequality is real; it’s been rising for more than 25 years.”[30] The Wall Street Journal, however, has attributed the widening income gap to President Bush’s tax policies: “[I]t appears that the highest-salaried workers – executives, managers and professionals – are widening their lead on the typical worker…The Bush tax cuts appear to have widened the income gap, according to many analyses.”[31]
In fact, President Bush’s capital gains and dividends tax cuts will cost $197 billion over ten years, with most of the benefits going to multimillionaires. In an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, economists found that the immediate effect of the Bush tax cuts has been “skewed in favor of those with high incomes,” benefiting the most wealthy households the most.[32] In 2006, for example, “families making more than $1 million a year saw their after-tax income increase by 6 percent because of the tax cuts, while families making $40,000 to $75,000 saw after-tax income rise by about 2.5 percent.”[33]
More American families and children face severe financial problems. The average annual increase in the poverty rate during President Bush’s first term is second only to that during George H.W. Bush’s administration and contrasts sharply with the declines in the Clinton and Kennedy-Johnson Administrations.[34] The poverty rate has increased 12 percent to 12.6 percent since 2000.[35] Nearly thirty-seven million Americans were living in poverty in 2005,[36] an increase of 5.4 million over the 2000 level, the year before President Bush took office.[37] Poverty has hit America’s children particularly hard. According to the latest Census report, almost one out of every six American children lives in poverty.[38] The number of children living in poverty has increased 6.5 percent during the Bush Administration. Bush Republicans turned record budget surpluses into record deficits. President Bush inherited a unified budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest surplus in American history.[40] Budget surpluses were expected to continue for another ten years when President Bush took office in January 2001.[41] By 2002, however, the unified federal budget had returned to a deficit of $158 billion and has reached historic highs. Last year, the budget deficit was $248 billion, or 1.9 percent of GDP.[42]
Bush Republicans, addicted to borrowing, increased the national debt by $3 trillion. President Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible American president, having presided over the largest explosion of debt in our nation’s history. Every year since taking office, President Bush asked Congress to increase the statutory debt limit, resulting in a $3 trillion, or 51 percent, increase.[43] At the end of 2006, the federal debt totaled $8.68 trillion.[44] By 2012, the President’s budget would increase the public debt to 12.2 trillion.[45]Enormous trade deficit is undermining U.S. competitiveness. In 2006, the U.S. trade deficit was at an alarming record high of $765.262 billion – twice the size of the trade deficit in 2001.[46] Even more troubling, our trade in Advanced Technology Products, a strong indicator of U.S. competitiveness, which was in surplus as recently as 2001, experienced a deficit of more than $38 billion in 2006.
Debt owed to foreigners climbs to record levels. In order to finance record budget deficits, the United States has had to borrow at unprecedented rates from foreigners. As of February 2007, the United States had accumulated $1.1 trillion more in debt to foreigners than this country had accumulated in its first 224 years.[48] By contrast, during the last three years of the Clinton Administration, the United States paid off more than $200 billion in debt to foreigners.[49]
Record government and personal debt levels threaten economic future. Record federal deficits and debt create record interest costs for Americans. In 2006, interest costs on the federal debt amounted to $405.9 billion and this figure will grow to $614.9 billion by 2016.[50] “Flat wages and rising debt nationally have converged to leave millions of middle-class households feeling acutely vulnerable to bumps in their financial planning…According to a study by the Federal Reserve Board, the ratio of financial obligations — primarily mortgage and consumer debt — to disposable personal income rose to a modern record of 18.7 percent…”
Average student loan debt soared to more than $19,000. Interest rates for Stafford student loans have risen substantially over the past two years, from 3.4 percent to 7.14 percent for outstanding loans and 6.8 percent on new loans.[52] As a result, loan payments will be considerably higher for students taking out new loans and for those who did not consolidate loans in recent years. Without adequate federal grants funding, students and their parents must rely more on student loans to finance their college educations. More than 60 percent of undergraduates at four-year colleges have to take out loans, and the average amount of federal student loan debt upon graduation has increased from $7,650 in 1992-1993 to $17,400 in 2003-2004. When private loans are factored in as well, average student loan debt in 2003-2004 was more than $19,000.[53]
Erosion of employer-provided pensions threatens Americans’ retirement security. Workers should be able to count on the retirement promises made by their employers. Increasingly, that is not the case. An analysis by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal entity created by Congress to protect employee pensions, found that nearly 10 percent of pension plans halted benefit accruals in 2003 alone, the latest year for which complete data is available. According to PBGC Executive Director Bradley Belt, anecdotal evidence suggests that this number has been even higher since then. Unfortunately, Bush Administration proposals to expand tax-favored savings accounts that primarily benefit the wealthy risk further pension plan erosion.
Hope this helps,
Peace Out
Thanks, Kevin! Its quite simple to see that you regurgitate info.
If you recall, I asked a very simple question. I will point out that nobody has answered it yet. Instead of answering the question, you spout all kinds of info.
Why is that to confuse the issue?
Dan,
There really is no need to get nasty. If you read what I wrote you, you would see that I responded to you that handpicking a point like you did shows nothing. I rather showed you, with facts, what a lousy president will do for us. This is very simple. What I demonstrated is what poor decisions will do. This is not speculation, AS YOU ARE DOING AGAIN! Look at the facts my friend. I have always been a logical person. I don’t like cherry picking data and asking silly questions. It really isn’t very logical and doesn’t ever have an answer. This is why I gave you some good hard facts to help you, but my guess is that you didn’t read it. Sorry it was so long.
Peace Out,
Exactly my point, Kevin. Who is getting nasty? I asked a very simple question in my original post It could have been answered in a few words. I also said politics or not and its quite apparant that you must be quick to point out how you feel. THATS FINE! Speculation? Speculation? How can you say I’m speculating when in fact, I’m only asking a question, go back to my original post to you. IT WAS then that “Wake up WEST MICHIGAN and You are now saying things that just aren’t true and for what? So this blog can filled with rancor? What possible purpose can there be in that? Kevin, I’m not speculating, nor am I cherry picking anyone’s data. Asking a question is all and I get labeled as “brainwashed, stupid, illogical, etc, etc” Did my question ever get answered? No, I received continual put downs and somebody’s “stump speech” notes. ANYBODY, can cut and paste notes. Kevin, I expected much better from you! Kevin, don’t you really have your own opinion? Yes, I asked that question. Looks to me like you want to be strongly associated in somebody’s camp which is fine if that is how you feel.
Then why do continually label and accuse people of the very same things that you do? NASTY? How am I being nasty?
Dan, telling me that I am regergitating information is insulting. Facts are facts. I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding my point. It is very simple. You are wondering who is going to pay for the bail outs, insinuating that Obama is responsible for our current economic downturn. You and I both know that is obserd. Could you please show how his policies have changed the economy for the worse in the short time that he has been in office???? Now, I did just that for you with president Bush. I also corrected you and Wake up west michigan on your data of the house and senate. Now you are calling me nasty. How have I been anything but corgile? I am in nobodys camp as you put it.
Your original questions are truely speculation of deficts and who will pay for bailouts. You may state that you are asking a question, but you are quick to point out that Obama won’t pay. What does that even mean? Of course the tax payers will pay. That question has no merrit. Who else will pay for government expenditures? I think your points are silly and I responded with historical data, regergitated or not, it is still data. This was an example of how the economy turns under Repuplican control. How can you dispute any of that? These are all facts, not speculation of who will pay for something. Also, what do you mean with your condisending comment about expecting more from me? Is it your opinion that we should not use any data to proove a point? Are we only to give our opinions and ask questions? You have really lost me here. Our conversations last winter were filled with your ideas of good debators. Doesn’t a good debator provide facts or regergitations as you put it?
Peace out
I really have no additional time to entertain you Kevin. I stated as I will state one more time, “Politics or not, somebody will pay, and you know what? We have no stinking choice in the matter” My grand children and great, great grandchildren will be saddled with huge tax bills. What about the financial experts that point out (not me)the deficit will be above 10 trillion in the next 2 years! My points are silly? We can’t ask questions in a blog? Who are you? The Blog police? My comments are not condescending but I expected you to “bring it” and all it looks like you have done in your rather lengthy post is, deflect the issue and bury it in somebody’s notes. My final question is do we or don’t we have the right as citizens to ask questions of those that govern us?
Have a great day!
Entertain me? You are wonderful with your condisending remarks. If you are so worried about your children and grandchildren paying for governmental mistakes, you should have been speaking out when the last administration put us so far into the hole that it will take decades to dig out. I really don’t know what you are crying about now. Nice remark with the blog police too. Ask all of the questions that you like, but if they are silly and pointless, don’t be suprised if anyone out there addresses that. It’s to bad that you don’t understand my post to you that you call lengthy and buried in somebody elses post. It really has a lot of good FACTS for you, but are obviously too hard to understand. Instead you will ask SILLY questions like our right to question those who govern us. Do you really think that anyone would say that you don’t? Com’n man, ask all the questions that you want to. Like I said before, I don’t like to point fingers at government without hard data. That is why I gave you a lot of it. I thought that you may be able to comprehend it. Instead, I get another silly question. What are you really trying to prove? Do you believe that the current administration is responsible for our current financial problems? If that is the case, you have no possible way to proove anything of the sort. I would dare you to try with some hard data, not silly questions.
Peace Out Dan