The Nature and Origin of Money : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

The Nature and Origin of Money : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education:

'via Blog this'

Does Money Matter? Mario Draghi - Who Should Be TIME's Person of the Year 2012? - TIME

Mario Draghi - Who Should Be TIME's Person of the Year 2012? - TIME: "Henry Kissinger famously (and apocryphally) once asked, "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?" Today, the answer is Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, whose influence on the euro's survival makes him Europe's most powerful person. Since becoming ECB chief in late 2011, the 65-year-old Draghi has aided troubled euro-zone banks with $1.3 billion in ultra-cheap loans and has overseen a massive bond-purchasing plan for debt-groggy countries under market attack. Now he's preparing unified supervision of all euro-zone banks. If the currency survives as a result, the entire world will call Draghi with its thanks."

'via Blog this'

Raymond Kurzweil and a Vision of Living Forever - Nature and Community - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

This article was in the October/November 2012 issue of Mother Earth News.

Raymond Kurzweil and a Vision of Living Forever - Nature and Community - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

People is the current problem and will remain so into the future.  We've just got too many damn people on the planet.  Even if the scientific estimate of a maximum sustainable population on the planet of 15 billion, I think we can see that the current 7 billion we have is enough.

Our governmental, food, distribution, energy, systems are all under huge strain as the population continues to grow.  We had all better hope for a global calamity to get the population back to a sustainable level.

Well, there they go again !

Caution!! It's happening again.  In a previous post I mentioned the technique of extending a savings or an expense over a longer period of time to make the number appear and sound more significant.

This larger number is always stated after the base number and this is done because you are more likely to remember the last thing you heard.

So, here's how it works, "We'll save 5 million dollars annually, which will be 50,000,000 over a ten year period".

A candidate whose term is 4 years likes to do this because it creates the impression that the larger number will be the outcome during THEIR 4 year term.

We are constantly being influenced by educated, clever communicators.

Listen CAREFULLY !!  Think Critically !!

Who Benefits the Most ?

Answer the question for yourself.

Here are some possiblities:

• Me
  
• Large Corporations
  
• The rich
  
• The poor
  
• The middle
  

I suggest you consider use of roads, rail, air, parks, mail and other services, banks, investment vehicles, etc., etc.

Who DOES benefit the most from our society, it's economic system, it's government.

Feel free to post an answer in the comment section.  

Jack

Who Benefits

Who has benefited the MOST from the war's in Iraq & Afganistan?

PEOPLE WITH MONEY

THE RICH

BIG CORPORATIONS

Increase taxes on the rich?   You BETCHA !!!

CASE CLOSED!!!!!

Taxing the "Rich"

A case for higher taxes on the wealthy.  No data is used in this analysis, it is purely opinion.

IF, and this seems to be the case, one or two or twenty percent of taxpaying Americans control 90-98 percent of the country's wealth, why SHOULDN'T  they pay more taxes and carry more of the societal burden. MORALS and ETHICS are at the basis of this argument.

My brother's point of view.  "It's MINE, I MADE IT FROM MY OWN EFFORT, NOBODY GAVE IT TO ME, IT'S MINE AND I WANT TO KEEP IT ALL."  Sort of an AMORAL point of  view, but there you have it. BTW he's been physically disabled since he was 21 yrs old and never took a dime in federal assistance or public charity.

Fair enough.  Can't really argue with the logic when you get right down to it.

BUT, consider this!  35% of 100 dollars is 35 dollars, right?  So I have 65 dollars left to live on.

35% of 1,000,000 is 350,000 dollars and I have 650,000 left to live on.  Man, it's hard not to be a smartass as I type this.

Now we are ONLY talking about INCOME.  I EARN 1,000,000 EVERY YEAR.

So what do I get for my 35 or 350,000 dollars?  The guy with 35 dollars gets to eat and live.

The guy with 350,000 has a little left over after food and clothes (really nice food and really nice clothes).

Both guys can INVEST THEIR MONEY.  America, EQUALITY.  OK, let's play with that idea.

So the guy with 65 dollars can buy a 25 dollar US savings bond and have 40 dollars left to live on.

The guy with 650,000 can buy a 250,000 treasury bond, or a corporate bond that will pay him some interest each year.

Each person invests the same percent of their income and who makes the most from their investment.

Both guys get to fly in the same air, drive on the same federally funded highway system, live in the same free and democratic country, etc, etc, etc.

You could make the case quite easily, I believe, that the guy who contributes the 35 dollars gets a bigger bang for his buck, and they BOTH have the same opportunity to invest.  See?   This is where the LOGIC falls apart and morals and ethics begins to take over.

The one guy has SOOOO MUCH, couldn't/ shouldn't he just pay a little more?

Well, when you go to the voting booth, Nov. 6th, that's one of the big questions you have to ask yourself.

Each party has been very clear on where they stand on that issue.

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

Data to inform some of my previous posts.

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist:

'via Blog this'

Confused about the Candidates for President?

As I've often stated, I'm still not convinced that the vote for a presidential candidate amounts to much.

However, in an attempt to discover how much misinformation (We'd call it lying) was spouted by both vice-presidential candidates during the debate on Oct. 11, 2012 I came to the following obvious conclusion.

Vote with your gut.  If you want to go one better than that you can use www.congress.org and check the past voting record of both men.

How they behaved in the past is a strong predictor of how they will behave in the future (thank you Dr.'s Skinner and Whaley).

Politics is not a "gentlemen's" sport.

Money

If you really want to learn about money, there is an excellent conspiracy theory book entitled "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.  BTW, conspiracy theory is his phrase not mine.

None the less, it is an excellent narrative on money, how it came about and a full explanation of it.

I say all this to preface some questions.

First, is Gold valuable?  Well, it has worth in terms of currencies. As I type the value of gold is $1,768.00 US dollars per ounce.  But does gold in and of itself have any intrinsic value?  You can ask the same question about anything. The answer is no.  NOTHING has value except the value someone else places on it.  I can make up thousands of examples and so can you.  My car is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay me for it or some institution is willing to loan me some currency using the car as collateral.

The intrinsic value of gold is and always has beenl based on  it's scarcity.  It is said that if you took ALL of the gold that has ever been mined and refined, it would NOT fill two Olympic sized swimming pools (164' X 25'; 88,000 cu.ft.).  That's amazing, right?

So, now another bit of information. A few years ago, maybe two or three, the Saudis suggested using something other than the US dollar as the currency  to value a barrel of oil.  That is their way of saying let's see if we can make something other than the US dollar the "reserve currency" of the planet.

Next bit of information.  It is arguably agreed that the planet has reached "Peak oil production".  That means that we have discovered, produced, and refined as much petroleum as we ever will.  From this day forward there will never be as much oil as there was yesterday and every drop we pump out of the ground is gone forever and never will be replaced.

What the hell does this have to do with money?!  If oil becomes so rare why not make it the value of gold.  Good question.  Same for water, bread, food in general, air, etc. ad infinitum.

Today, as you would read in the book, currency is referred to as "fiat".  That is to say if has no real, tangible value, save what a person gives it or a government decrees it to be.

The above was all preface to prepare you for the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564236?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/downwiththeprice

The planet has become a very intertwined place.  I suggest that if you are really interested you should investigate what the world might be like without ANY oil or more realistically with just a small amount of oil.

Buttonwood: Voting with the wallet | The Economist

Does YOUR vote matter in a Presidential election?

Well, yes, but with certain provisions understood.  I live in a state that almost always votes "Republican" in presidential elections.  So should I vote and does my vote really count.  Sure it counts and yes I should vote.

The state vote (how the electors are "obligated" to cast their vote) is determined by the precinct , county vote.  So if your candidate has been successful in persuading folks at the local level then that will be reflected at the state level and ultimately in the electoral college.

By The Wazy:  I still stand by my position that the office of president is the least important election we have.  Representatives and Senators are FAR more important, in my opinion.

Buttonwood: Voting with the wallet | The Economist:

'via Blog this'

Ten Years Later, Part of McCain-Feingold Still Stands | Congress.org – Get informed, get involved

Ten Years Later, Part of McCain-Feingold Still Stands | Congress.org – Get informed, get involved:

'via Blog this'

Linear logic.  If you adjust or change law to make it easier for a person to amass a fortune, then you will not only have MORE millionaires and billionaires, but a LOT MORE MONEY for them to play with.

It is in the best self interest of a moneyed person to preserve their money.  Thus, they will contribute to politicians  who promise to help them preserve their money.

Some things are not that hard to predict are they?

The Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) | Washington Times Communities

The Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) | Washington Times Communities:

I believe that the issue we need to be concerned about, as citizens, relative to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the expansion of the interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution.

NOTE: IMO the Interstate Commerce Clause has been horribly misused over the decades and is the result of "legislative and judicial creep".

And that is the best argument for the repeal of the act, from a layman's point of view.  A complete redraft of the act (affordable health care) should be undertaken and specific attention paid to accomplishing it's objective without use of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution.

If you MUST go down the path of WHO should pay for healthcare (and I believe this is a completely different topic of discussion), I would suggest you have to go all the way back to the mid to late 1960's and our buy in to the "great society".

However, I believe that the greatest threat to our freedom's as citizens is in the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Understand, the issue before the Supreme Court is completely out of our hands, so pay no attention to the pleads to sign this or that petition to the Supreme Court, because they will have no effect.  The Justices are not elected political figures and their job is to interpret the constitution.

There are some brilliant public servants in the government, and so beware legislative creep.  It will almost always be buried in some obscure bill as an amendment, or in some highly emotionally charged bill the intent of which is not even remotely related to the creep which will further limit our freedoms.

It is a shame no one reads this blog.  What I've just said is, in fact, actually quite important.

Ridiculous Statement

I've been sitting here trying to let this slide but I just can't.


I heard a man say:


"Why don't we take half the money we were spending on the war in Iraq and put it toward the debt and invest the other half on nation building right here in this country!"


BECAUSE THE MONEY FOR IRAQ WAS NEVER THERE TO BE SPENT!!   WE BORROWED IT.  THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHERE THE DEBT CAME FROM.


That man graduated from Harvard and is said to be smart .  Gimme a break!!


I think I will start saying this at the end of all of my posts: The government doesn't have any money except the money WE give it.  It's OUR MONEY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

Chairman Rogers Statement on Line-Item Veto Act on House Floor | Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives

Some information on the Line Item Veto:
URL direct to page:   http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=278795
It's easier to read at the page link above.

Washington, Feb 8 -

"Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.

"In Article One, Section 9, Clause 7, the U.S. Constitution bestows upon Congress the ‘power of the purse’ – that the representatives of the people should distribute taxpayer dollars as warranted and needed. The Line-Item Veto would weaken that power, shifting budgetary authority to the Executive Branch and giving the President a power that our Founding Fathers did not see fit to give him. In fact, a previous effort to provide the President a line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.

"Two weeks ago during his State of the Union address, we heard how the President would choose to spend our precious taxpayer dollars. The Line-Item Veto would strengthen the President’s ability to give preference to his spending priorities over those of the Congress and the constituents we represent.

"Our Founding Fathers had seen first-hand what an absolute authority could do when wielding too much influence – particularly over spending and taxation – and drafted our Constitution accordingly, providing for checks and balances to prevent too much power from falling into the hands of one branch of government. The Framers would surely shake their heads at the idea of transferring this much authority to the Executive Branch.

"So powerful was this defense of the Congress’ role that James Madison – in Federalist Paper 58 – stated, and I quote:

"'The power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.'

"Not only does the Line-Item Veto fly in the face of our Constitution and the Framers’ protections, but budget experts also doubt its effectiveness as a spending reduction tool. Look back to Congress’ experience with the Line-Item Veto under President Clinton. He wielded this authority to little effect in saving taxpayer dollars. In fact, Congress declared that he “misused” that authority and overturned nearly half of his cancellations. So, to summarize the Line-Item Veto: It is a power likely to be abused, and not likely to save money.

"In an effort to better this flawed bill, to at least improve its chances at having a tangible effect on government spending, we offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have made the bill also apply to tax benefits and runaway entitlement spending. However, that amendment was ruled out-of-order. The amendment wouldn’t have made this bill perfect, nor would have it solved the Constitutional problem, but it would have at least increased the potential for achieving actual budget savings.

"Nearly 25 years ago, former CBO director Rudolph G. Penner famously said in reference to our budget: 'The problem isn’t the process; the problem is the problem.'  Mr. Speaker, today’s problem isn’t with whether or not the President can veto budget line-items, nor is it even with annual discretionary spending. On that front, we have saved more than $95 billion over the last two years, thanks to the support of this House.

"The real problem today lies with exploding and unsustainable mandatory and entitlement spending, which comprises two-thirds of the federal budget and continues to blow up the nation’s deficits and debt at rapid rates, putting our economy and the stability of our nation at risk.

"I urge my colleagues to look beyond the opportunity for the easy press release to see that the line-item veto does more harm than good. We cannot dismiss the fundamental tenets of the Constitution, and we cannot pretend that it will have any positive effect on the nation’s financial predicament. We must put an end to these budgetary smoke screens to find more appropriate and effective ways to address our budget crisis – and focus our efforts on mandatory spending, where the real problems lie."

Ya Gotta Keep Up

      If you wanna know what's going on ya gotta keep up. Here's some language stuff you might want to know.


Communist 1950's through 80's
Replaced by Socialist 80's through early to mid 90's
Liberal 90's to about 2008 or so
and today Progressive


Any time some group wants to change it's image it first changes it's label.


OK, now for our language lesson.


Definition:

rhet·o·ric

   [ret-er-ik]  Show IPA

noun

1.

(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration ordisplay; bombast.

2.

the art or science of all specialized literary uses oflanguage in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.

3.

the study of the effective use of language.

4.

the ability to use language effectively.

5.

the art of prose in general as opposed to verse

OK, so now lets move on to the use of rhetoric:

If I want to obfuscate a topic, I will use a word like obfuscate.  If I really want you to understand me, I might use a longer phrase like "muddy the water" or a more common word like "confuse the ...."  See?

So let's take a phrase like "monetary easing".  monetary easing

Action by a central bank to reduce interest rates and boost money supply as a means to stimulate economic activity.

So a central bank (like the Federal Reserve, or the European Central Bank) lowers cost of getting money and at the same time prints more money, also making it easier to get (presumably).

And how does all this work?  Well, like this.  Money has no real value, only a perceived value.  Now it's all ranked, i.e. 1,2,5,10,20,50,100, etc.  But it has no value except the #'s on the bills help you keep track of how much of it you have.

Let me further illustrate.  Our Federal Reserve used (repeat) used, to keep track of all the money that was floating around out there.  It was call M1.  That was a short hand term which meant "... all the money that was floating around out there."

Then the FR (Federal Reserve) decided that it was better NOT to print that little bit of data.  Why?  Well there are probably a lot of reasons, but one of them is that it's easy arithmetic.  If today the M1 # is 100 and tonight the FR prints some money (monetary easing) so that tomorrow M1 is 125 just about anybody can figure out that the value of their dollar just was reduced by 25% or in this case 25 cents.

Hummm?  Sounds too simple Jack, there must be more to it than this?

Well, let's see.  So you don't want me to just print more money and toss it out in the world, how about this.  I'll print more money, NOT put it into circulation, but issue some US Treasury bonds for somebody to buy (say the social security system, they are a good customer, or maybe the citizens they like bonds, or even China or Saudia Arabia).  Since THEY bought the bonds with their money, then I can convert THEIR MONEY into some new dollars and it's all not so obvious.

But the effect is my 100 became 75 or MY dollar was worth 25 cents less than yesterday and was devalued by that much.

Maybe that's enough of that for now.  It's the kind of topic I return to often.

Next word:

pro·pa·gan·da

 noun \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\

Definition of PROPAGANDA

1

capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

2

: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3

: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

# One is definitely not what I had in mind either #'s 2 or 3 get the idea of where I wanted us to go.

Propaganda says nothing about Lies. Mixing numbers and percent is not lying, it is obfuscating, or misleading the mind and memory.

Quantitative easing is not lying. It's obfuscating.

Collateralized debt obligations is not lying it is obfuscating.

There is much more to know.

So keeping up with vocabulary and being alert is a major part of informing yourself about what is really going on.

And this isn't a rant.  This in information to help you write letters to people who do this sort of thing and tell them to stop.  Let them you know how you feel about them making it so difficult for us to get the information we need to make good decisions.

Media Influence

I'm ready for some comments so this blog is gonna be provocative.


Is the media controlled and by whom?  A RESOUNDING YES!!!


Here's my data to back this up.  Pat Robertson, haven't seen him on CNN lately, Rick Sanchez (fired), others Fired for their remarks.  Who fired them?  Executives of the networks.  And the broadcast networks are not innocent either. There are examples there as well.  All fired.


And why were they fired?  For what they said.  And do networks have the right to fire their employees?  Sure.
And do networks have a right to decide what they want to present and how it is to be presented?  Yes.  And do the networks answer to anyone?  Yes, us.  How?; by what we buy (that they advertise) and by what we watch.


 Do news outlets have an obligation to the public in general?  NO!! The whole notion of "honest" reporting, and the Fourth Estate, is a social fabrication.  Networks, publications of all kinds have only one obligation to the "public" and that is to make a profit from their endeavor.


So if the airwaves are public, don't they then have an obligation to "us" the collective owners of the airwaves?  Sure.  And they do it by paying a licensing fee and filling out paperwork and following the government's rules.
There you have it. 


If you want to experience all of this in action, begin following the reporting on the new book about the young 19 year old intern and John Kennedy when he was president.


I don't know; maybe all this bores you.  But it really informs me on how people arrive at some of the, in my opinion, crazy ideas they have.  I've never understood the reverence to which Kennedy, and the whole clan were/have been elevated.  Rationally and objectively it just doesn't make any sense.  But that has always made me believe that "perception is reality", a concept I want to reject as a critical thinker, but just have to accept on the face of all the evidence.


And who are these executives?  Jews.  WOW, there I go, now I've done it, let the comments roll. But as sure as I am that this is true, I'm just as sure it is not the perception of most of the readers of this blog. (see comments above on perception/reality).


I won't comment or defend that remark.  Just do your own research and see who the prominent media executives are.


Also, at some point we should have a discussion about the strategic foreign relations necessity of Israel relative to the United States v. any other strategic relationship we have.  And we should have this conversation soon, because the Israelis are in the catbird seat as far as drawing the United States into another war in the middle east.


BTW, DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME AND MY BELIEFS.

Catholic | Define Catholic at Dictionary.com

Is the Catholic Church really catholic?

Catholic | Define Catholic at Dictionary.com: "Catholic"

'via Blog this'

Someone Else's Thoughts

Just thought I'd share someone else's thoughts with you today.

Remember that day...So when someone tries to blame Bush . . . 

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
Bush may have been in the car but, the Democrats were in charge of the economic gas pedal and the banking steering wheel as the economy was driven into the ditch.
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank(D) took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd(D) took over the Senate Banking Committee. They became the Chairmen. The economic meltdown that happened later was in BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are largely responsible for taking us from nearly 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP growth, and 4.6% Unemployment...into this CRISIS.

Among MANY other things, they ordered 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans be forced into the economy. They became virtually worthless after their ultra-liberal and fiscally irresponsible Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mandates and policies blew up. The ones that ordered that everyone is entitled to a house...no credit checks...no money down....that’s the “fair” way to run the U.S. housing and banking system. Oh yeah, and be sure to bundle up all those trillions of dollars of risky loans and sell them as investment securities to pension funds, retirees, whoever they could unload them on. Those were the toxic loans that wiped out investors and sank the banks.

President Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie because it was financially risky for the US economy to operate housing financing that way. Barney Frank(D) blocked it and called it Bush’s objections "Chicken Little Philosophy". He said the sky would not fall.

And guess who took the THIRD highest pay-off, campaign contributions, from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA.

And who fought against attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA, and the Democrat Congress. And three former heads of Freddie and Fannie, all disgraced and forced to resign, are Obama’s chief economic advisors at this moment."

You can do the FACT CHECKING  yourself.  I'm certain there are other informed points of view not congruent with this.

After Recess - Change the World - NYTimes.com

This is one of the reasons why I believe in investing in our very young people. They still have dreams, and don't understand: "why not" and "can't".

After Recess - Change the World - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

This is Just For Me

A post for all who believe as I do.

Who wrote:

"Do not let your fire go out
spark by irreplaceable spark,

in the hopeless  swamps of the
not quite, the not yet, and the
not at all, do not let the
hero in your soul perish.

and leave only frustration for the
life you deserved, but never have
been able to reach.

The world you sesire can be won,
it exists, it is real, it is possible.

IT IS YOURS"

                                             Ayn Rand

Interpreting Statistics and Newt Gingrich

How in the world can Newt Gingrich make a statement suggesting students receiving welfare should be given infrastructure/maintenance (janitorial) jobs after school? Juan Williams, journalist and debate moderator, wanted to know if Newt was unable to see how this might be offensive to "blacks" (P.C. People of color)


Here is some data:  While it is true that the actual number of whites on welfare exceeds blacks, roughly 38% whites to 37% blacks (that data is based on a total population of 308 million), it is also apparently true that among welfare recipients the actual number of blacks far exceeds that of whites .....(this data is based on a welfare population of about 15% of total or about 46 million).


So, I guess it just depends on how you want to use numbers (raw number of something "n") or percentage or do you just want to go back and forth from one to the other depending on your agenda? Outside of well researched and peer reviewed academic work, i.e. in politics and media I would say the answer is to just mix them up based on the point that is trying to be made.  Right?

Getting the Facts Straight

Here's the Data on Welfare Recipients:


Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.

Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.



Summary
According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers. 



Argument
Here are the statistics on welfare recipients:

Traits of families on AFDC (1)

Race
--------------
White    38.8%
Black    37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian     2.8
Other     3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months     19.0%
7 to 12 months         15.2
One to two years       19.3
Two to five years      26.9
Over five years        19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One           43.2%
Two           30.7
Three         15.8
Four or more  10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager      7.6%
20 - 29      47.9
30 - 39      32.7
40 or older  11.8

Status of Father        1973     1992
-------------------------------------
Divorced or separated   46.5%    28.6
Deceased                 5.0      1.6
Unemployed or Disabled  14.3      9.0
Not married to mother   31.5     55.3
Other or Unknown         2.7      5.5

Notes on teenagers
As the statistics show, teenage mothers comprise a very small part of the welfare population.

And contrary to popular belief, teenage pregnancy has declined in the last several decades. Many are surprised to learn that the height of teenage pregnancy in the U.S. actually occurred in the 1950s - a decade known for its supposed conservative social values. Between 1960 and 1992, the number of births per 1,000 teenagers (aged 15-19) declined from 89 to 61. (2)

However, this was also an era when individual welfare benefits declined. Between 1970 and 1991, the purchasing power of benefits for the typical AFDC family fell 42 percent, primarily as a result of state and federal cuts. (3) Ironically, many conservatives will be surprised to learn that their correlation still stands, even if they thought it was in the other direction.

However, the period from 1946 to 1963 is known as the "Baby Boom," because all childbearing age groups - not just teenagers - were having children at unusually high rates. The teenage birth rate is not the only one that has declined in the decades since.

Furthermore, the socially conservative 50s featured much less sex education, and many sexually active teenagers were ignorant of birth control. The falling teenage birthrates in the last several decades could as well be correlated with better sex education as falling individual welfare payments.

And on that score, we should compare the U.S to Europe, which not only promotes early sex education to a far greater degree, but also has far greater welfare benefits for mothers with dependent children. And the success or failure of these two very different policies can be seen in the following statistics:

A Look Into the Future

Here is a quote from  a spokesperson for SpaceX the private company who is launching a private mission to the Intl. Space Station:

""In preparation for the upcoming launch, SpaceX continues to conduct extensive testing and analysis," SpaceX spokesperson Kirstin Grantham said in an email statement. "We believe that there are a few areas that will benefit from additional work and will optimize the safety and success of this mission."

A new launch date for the mission has not yet been announced, but SpaceX officials said the company is working with NASA to determine the best time for the test flight."

Get used to corporate "Spin"  regarding our space program as the private sector takes on a larger role.  My gosh I'm cynical.

Link to the whole "blurb" :  1st Private Rocket Launch to Space Station Delayed      www.space.com

What Is Quantitative Easing?

My answer:  Federal Reserve (United States Central Bank) Prints more money.

(See my earlier posts about the federal reserve, what it is and how it works)

More complicated answer:

A quick refresher from Wikipedia, in case you're not quite sure but don't want to sound dumb by asking...

Quantitative Easing

The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").^[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.^[1]

Just bear in mind that whenever this occurs the value of the currency is diluted, devalued, made to be worth less than it was, is not able to buy the same amount for the same price as before.

That's called INFLATION!  So, is quantitative easing good?  And if so for whom?  YOU TELL ME!

NOTE:  All of the currency in circulation in the country is called 

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-09/news/30063162_1_central-bank-money-supply-financial-institutions#ixzz1jYKjjjo0