US Deficit breaking records, not being covered?

www.abc.net.au...

The US current account deficit, the broadest measure of trade and investment flows, has hit a record $US166.2 billion in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said.

The deficit increased to a record 5.7 per cent of gross domestic product during the quarter.

Had a brief look on CNN.com and can't seem to find any reference to this, a little odd that theres no particular note of it? Fairly big news I would have thought? Considering election and all.

....and "complicit corporate media". It more of a recurring theme:

- the economic picture is frightening

- the domestic security picture is absolutely frightening

- the international "war" picture is one of loss with no plan being offered

These things don't make it anywhere near prime time in the 24 hour news cycle in the US.

If GW Bush received 25% of the investigative scrutiny that Gore/McCain/Kerry got in prime time, no Republican would ever had voted for him. Yet, the media made this monster by turning a blind eye to Texas, to the 2000 campaign inadequacies and now with 4 years of non-performance ( so bad that anyone would be sacked in any other professional context).

Yet, nobody has gotten fired!?!

You are right !

Both sides of politics don't want to scare the voters. Just move along folks, nothing to see here.

How can you hide this it�s going to catch with us one way or another.

There it goes the retirement for lots of people in US went this start to affect the nation.

I believe we covert this on a post a while back, but it was not that high at the time and it was just a few months ago.

Originally posted by Kano
Had a brief look on CNN.com and can't seem to find any reference to this, a little odd that theres no particular note of it? Fairly big news I would have thought? Considering election and all.

Old news to them. They covered it in the eighties.

The power of the fourth estate to actually affect change and hold politicians accountable has been thoroughly beaten to death in the current blogosphere of crying "wolf-owitz" at even a shade of "liberal" criticism.

Remember the 70's? That was news. Brutal. And not just on Nixon. The networks stuck Jimmy Carter's feet in the fire and held them there with nightly counts of "how many days since this or that..." (see my current siggy)

I was 10 and knew the press wasn't liberal. Every night, they shredded Carter over the Hostage Crisis. Wow, "crisis" ... remember when the press could even say that?

They also did their bit over the deficit "crisis" in the 80's actually educating the public on what a "trillion" really was. They weren't repeating talking points, or delivering right or left wing spin. They were...what would you call it? Oh, yes...denying ignorance.

Now they promote it. In the 90's Gingrich revolution of Internet and AM radio, the messages of media were steered into endless cycles of self serving dialogue and inverted analysis. A never ending cannibal of itself, feeding on it's own poop 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Here's what FOX is saying Drudge is saying about what CNN says Clinton is saying about sex, sex, sex. No effort to debunk or interject or provide any relevence, platform or context. Then on to the "debate" of "News Rock Stars" that have since replaced real reporters unilaterally. :shk:

It's really a damn shame. I see it's effect in today's 20 somethings the most. Hey, if I grew up in the 90's, I'd think Clinton was the devil too. And a "deficit" must be no big deal since even he could fix one with a surplus.

News. They've tried their little hearts out before the election cycle to cover outsourcing. Why'd they even bother. It's known as a "good thing" now. And I can prove it with a link.

And now, back to "good video" of Iraq.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by RANT]

actually the higher the deficit, the higher interest rates will go, which is good for retired folk living on a fixed income.

Think about it.

we will always have a deficit.

so what.

Originally posted by moxyone
actually the higher the deficit, the higher interest rates will go, which is good for retired folk living on a fixed income.

Think about it.

we will always have a deficit.

so what.

Higher the deficit, less the value of the US dollar. Countries and banking corporations stop buying US bonds and start switching to Euros. Value of dollar drops. Think about it. Huge deficit and massive trade disparity kills confidence in US dollar.

Why do you think Clinton's plan was to kill the national debt, because he was a stupid tax-and-spend liberal or he realized that it's essential to the US?

bs.

the dollar will only weaken nominally.

and guess what?...

when push comes to shove, the world buys dollars.'

not euros.

Originally posted by moxyone
Think about it.

we will always have a deficit.

so what.

As long as we vote Republican, you're right.

Are you saying you had a problem with government solvency in the 90's under Clinton's surplus?

Wait. You just said something about the deficit (which came from Bush spending the surplus marked for social security) being a GOOD THING for retired folk on fixed income.

Never mind. I see the "talking points" got to you. :shk:

Bring back REAL NEWS!!!

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by moxyone
actually the higher the deficit, the higher interest rates will go, which is good for retired folk living on a fixed income.

Think about it.

we will always have a deficit.

so what.

Higher the deficit, less the value of the US dollar. Countries and banking corporations stop buying US bonds and start switching to Euros. Value of dollar drops. Think about it. Huge deficit and massive trade disparity kills confidence in US dollar.

Why do you think Clinton's plan was to kill the national debt, because he was a stupid tax-and-spend liberal or he realized that it's essential to the US?

But if the value of the dollar drops,less companies will out source to other countries which would create new jobs in America. Its a double edged sword the better your money does the more companies will out source to other countries.

Clintons plan could never have killed the debt It slowed it down alittle. He also made the military weaker.

If current administration, next admin, and the one after that followed Clinton plan we could have erased US debt. It's not even Clinton's plan, it's simply economic sense. The US does not need debt to keep the dollar strong, and dropping value of the dollar will not benefit this country in the short or long term.

Entire world economy follows the US dollar. 80% of world currency trading is done in US dollars. This current war is a means by which we are enforcably securing the international use of the US dollar and further shoring it up by securing the most important source of the world's most important commodity.

Clinton weakening the military theory is an entirely different thread subject.

Originally posted by moxyone
when push comes to shove, the world buys dollars.'

not euros.

You realise the risk of this statement becoming false becomes greater and greater the further strain is put on the US economy. I'm still amazed this is being so completely ignored by the US media. As well as US ATS members it seems, what am I missing here?

I can't remember the exact stats, but for the past 100 years or so, the US has average a running deficit of around 4-5 percent, and that's regardless of the political party in the White House.

Also, 5.7 percent isn't really the record, it's the 166 billion that's the record, but if you know anything about the time value of money/inflation, the actual dolllar amount of a deficit, not the percentage, should be larger than previous amounts.

Hell, in WWII, for a couple of years there the US was running deficits at 50 percent of GDP. You throw in a little time value of money and adjust that for today, and that's a deficit of 5 trillion +, but during that era, it was just in the hundreds of billions.

The deficits kicked in during the Spanish-American war, which was the start of the US becoming more Imperialistic. The current war is causing deficits to help preserve the value of the dollar in the light of massive debt. Odd, that.

And yeah, the media doesn't play it up much because it's well proven that NUMBERS ARE BORING.

But we do have national debt clocks clicking away in cities supported by concerned citizens who are far more realistic and heroic than our own politicians and media reps.

Originally posted by moxyone
bs.

the dollar will only weaken nominally.

and guess what?...

when push comes to shove, the world buys dollars.'

not euros.

The dollar has lost favor somewhat in global commerce.

middleeastinfo.org...
In just a few years the Euro has emerged as a real alternative to challenge the dollar hegemony in world trade. It has established itself as the second most important currency on the world�s financial markets. Just before the introduction of the euro, the outstanding amount of bonds and notes denominated in the legacy currencies of the euro accounted for barely 28 % of world issues, compared to 45 % for dollar-denominated bonds and notes. By mid-2003, the gap became much smaller: the share of issues in dollars had fallen to 43 %, while the euro�s share had increased to 41 %. And even more spectacular development took place on the money market. At the end of 1998, money market instruments denominated in the euro�s predecessor currencies accounted for just over 17 % of world issues, compared to 58 % for dollar denominated instruments. By mid-2003, the share of issues in dollars had fallen to 30 %, while the share of euro issues had climbed to almost 46 %. The Euro today accounts for one quarter of the global market.