$100's a barrel

[wez]

The Truth on Trade

by Daniel T. Griswold

 

 

PRINT PAGE E-MAIL PAGE TEXT SIZE

President Bush urged Congress yesterday to pass four pending trade agreements, telling a White House audience that open markets boost economic growth, raise standards of living by creating higher-paying jobs and deliver more choice and better prices for consumers. Despite claims to the contrary by populist opponents of trade expansion, the president has the facts and decades of experience on his side.

 

Critics of trade counter that real wages have stagnated while the middle class has been squeezed by a loss of jobs to low-wage competitors such as China and Mexico. Democrats in Congress point to those anxieties to justify their opposition to any meaningful trade-expanding legislation ? including pending free trade accords with South Korea and Colombia and renewal of presidential trade-promotion authority.

 

Like so many assumptions about trade, the belief that more global competition has somehow lowered the living standards of the average American worker and family is just a myth.

 

Daniel Griswold directs the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies and authored the new study, "Trading Up: How Expanding Trade Has Delivered Better Jobs and Higher Living Standards for American Workers," available at freetrade.org.

 

More by Daniel T. GriswoldThe critics have it all wrong: The middle class isn't disappearing ? it's moving up.

 

The Census reports that the share of U.S. households earning $35,000 to $75,000 a year (in '06 dollars) ? roughly, the middle class ? has indeed shrunk slightly over the last decade, from 34 percent to 33 percent. But so, too, has the share earning less than $35,000 ? from 40 percent to 37 percent.

 

It's the share of households earning more than $75,000 that's jumped ? from 26 percent to 30 percent.

 

Trade has helped America transform itself into a middle-class service economy. Yes, the country's lost a net 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade ? but it's added a net 11.6 million jobs in service and other sectors where average wages are higher than in manufacturing. Most of these new jobs are in better-paying categories, like professional and business services, finance and education and health services.

 

Trade and globalization have also helped bolster the balance sheets of American households by delivering higher incomes, lower interest rates and wider investment opportunities. From 1995 to 2004, the real median net worth of U.S. households jumped by 31 percent, boosted by rising home values and stock prices. (Even with the recent housing slump, average home values remain more than 2.5 times what they were a decade ago, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index.)

 

Despite frequently heard worries, American families are not "drowning in debt." Yes, total household debt has risen in the past decade ? but total assets have risen in value even faster.

 

On average, U.S. households spent 14.4 percent of their income on debt payments in 2004, not much different from the 14.1 percent they spent in 1995. The bulk of what we've borrowed hasn't paid for groceries or big-screen TVs but for housing ? which, again, has appreciated strongly in the last decade.

 

Like so many assumptions floating around about trade, the belief that more global competition has somehow lowered the living standards of the average worker and family is just a myth. In fact, trade has delivered lower prices, higher worker compensation and an upwardly mobile middle class.

 

The critics have it all wrong: The middle class isn't disappearing ? it's moving up.

Critics of trade repeat as a mantra that real wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. But the data on real wages exclude benefits ? which have been rising as a share of worker compensation. Those data also rely on a cost-of-living index that has systematically overstated inflation and thus understated real income gains.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average real hourly compensation earned by Americans has actually grown by 22 percent during the past decade ? even as trade and other measures of globalization have grown rapidly.

 

Trade has brought us lower prices on a broad range of goods ? from fruits and vegetables to consumer electronics and automobiles ? stretching the paychecks of U.S. workers.

 

Household incomes have also been rising. When they point to a small decline in median household income compared to 2000, opponents of trade are cherry-picking their numbers. That year was the frothy peak of a decade-long expansion. Use 1996 ? the comparable point in the previous business cycle ? as the baseline, and you see a 6 percent rise in median income.

 

Convincing Americans that we are worse off than we were in years past has become a popular line of attack against globalization and trade expansion. But trade has played an important part in the positive story of long-term gains in hourly compensation, household income and net wealth.

 

To promote further progress for U.S. workers and their families, Congress and the administration should work together to pursue policies that expand the freedom of Americans to participate in global markets.

 

 

 

Clark W. Griswold is a f cking idiot.

[wez]

Misery index

 

1976-01 14.62

1976-02 13.99

1976-03 13.67

1976-04 13.75

1976-05 13.60

1976-06 13.57

1976-07 13.15

1976-08 13.51

1976-09 13.09

1976-10 13.16

1976-11 12.68

1976-12 12.66

1977-01 12.72 Carter

1977-02 13.51

1977-03 13.84

1977-04 14.15

1977-05 13.73

1977-06 14.07

1977-07 13.73

1977-08 13.62

1977-09 13.40

1977-10 13.19

1977-11 13.52

1977-12 13.10

2006-01 8.69

2006-02 8.40

2006-03 8.06

2006-04 8.25

2006-05 8.77

2006-06 8.92

2006-07 8.95

2006-08 8.52

2006-09 6.66

2006-10 5.71

2006-11 6.47

2006-12 7.04

2007-01 6.68

2007-02 6.92

2007-03 7.18

2007-04 7.07

2007-05 7.19

2007-06 7.19

2007-07 6.96

2007-08 6.57

2007-09 7.46

 

30 years ago really sucked.

 

More good news. Millions of American homebuyers are going to find purchasing a home cheaper this year.

 

 

Yeah, Vietnam wasn't cool.. I suppose it's not so bad as there isn't footage of American dead and footage of the fighting along with the daily casualty count on the evening news every night. Monkey no see, monkey no care...

[ImWithStupid]

President Bush urged Congress yesterday to pass four pending trade agreements, telling a White House audience that open markets boost economic growth, raise standards of living by creating higher-paying jobs and deliver more choice and better prices for consumers. Despite claims to the contrary by populist opponents of trade expansion, the president has the facts and decades of experience on his side.

 

 

There is some truth to this statement...

 

I?ve observed knee-jerk conservatives on TV who go on endlessly about how wonderful the economy is and how Bush?s implementation of Reagan-style economics has created a bounty for the nation. They speak of Reagan with a reverence usually due a saint. Well, this economy is like a skinny guy looking at himself in a sideshow muscle-mirror. Ronald Reagan was the guy with the big smile running the carny. Things ain?t as they appear.

 

Last month I wrote: Leon Levy, the head guy at Oppenheimer wrote a book just before he died. It was called The Mind of Wall Street. His book was published during the market crash (August 2002). He said that the stock market was in grave danger and would sink much lower and back to 1995 levels (around 600). He said, "The only thing that could hold up this economy would be a massive fiscal expenditure program on the level of WWII."

 

That's exactly what we got. The Bush administration, supported by the Federal Reserve and congress, went on a spending binge after 2001 to pull the economy out of its tailspin after the stock market crash. The national debt was $5.5 trillion in 2001 when Bush took office and will be $10 trillion when he leaves. After the 2001 market crash, he will have doubled the US national debt in 8 years to prop up the financial markets. The money was spent on his Iraq war, tax cut programs and any other pork project congress could dream up. No spending bills were vetoed. Loan standards were dramatically loosened and consumers were induced to borrow money and spend it. This could only happen with the Federal Reserve's approval. Thus, the subprime loan mess is the direct result of US government policy.

 

Why did this debt surge occur? It happened because the government typically uses fiscal stimulus (spending lots of money by issuing debt) to lift the economy out of recessions. This traditional method has been used for most of the 20th century. The 2001 recession was so dangerous that they took a big risk and encouraged consumers to borrow and spend recklessly. The Feds needed every dollar from every source to lift the economy.

 

Back to Leon Levy. He was certain the stock market would go much lower after the 2001 crash, but he was wrong. Why was he wrong and how did the US avoid that fate? Levy was certain stocks would fall because he recognized in 2002 that the level of debt needed to lift the economy would require a ruinous amount of leverage. In 2002 he found it impossible to believe that the president and congress would be so reckless that they?d double the national debt. But, that?s precisely what they did.

 

Deficit spending works well for a while because every dollar spent has a multiplier effect as it ripples through the economy. Company A gets a government contract and spends on widgets from Company B who earns a profit and pays employees who buy consumer goods from Company C. The government gets tax revenue from companies and workers at each step. Things look great UNTIL the interest on the debt grows faster than the incremental tax revenue collected. At a critical point, the rate of debt growth exceeds the rate of economic growth.

 

http://www.thomasnogales.com/US-Debt-Nowhere-to-Hide.htm

 

but it only works for a while and we're about to the end of this "while".

[wez]

More good news. Millions of American homebuyers are going to find purchasing a home cheaper this year.

 

Yeah, if you have the cash cuz you aint getting a good loan for cheap...

 

Millions? Nay.... Hundreds of thousands maybe..

[hugo]

Yeah, if you have the cash cuz you aint getting a good loan for cheap...

 

Millions? Nay.... Hundreds of thousands maybe..

 

If you are a responsible individual (one who pays his bills) you can still get an FHA loan for most housing. You can still get conventional 5% loans. If you are an irresponsible individual, with no money, you can no longer move into a home of your own for less than an apartment deposit.

[hugo]

There is some truth to this statement...

 

 

 

http://www.thomasnogales.com/US-Debt-Nowhere-to-Hide.htm

 

but it only works for a while and we're about to the end of this "while".

 

Why America's Debt Burden Is Declining

by Brian M. Riedl

 

The Congressional Budget Office’s new budget estimates are once again focusing budget watchers on the issue of government debt. While the grow ing federal debt is worrisome, many lawmakers and reporters focus on the wrong numbers and oppose debt for reasons that are not supported by eco nomic data.

 

First, annual budget deficit figures, which are cited frequently by budget watchers, say little about the nation’s true debt burden and its ability to finance this debt. Second, the legacy of government debt is steep increases in taxes rather than steep hikes in interest rates. Federal debt represents gov ernment’s failure to live within its means as well as a preference for dumping current costs into the laps of future generations—with interest.

 

When measured properly, the federal govern ment’s debt burden is actually below the post–World War II average. It is lower than it was at any time during the 1990s. However, unless Social Security and Medicare are reformed, lawmakers risk allowing debt levels to increase until they cause the highest intergenerational tax increase in history.

 

Budget Deficits Versus Debt Ratios

 

For example, is a family carrying too much debt if it borrows $5,000 this year? That question cannot be answered without knowing two additional variables:

 

Total debt. The family must repay not only the amount borrowed this year, but also all outstanding debt from previous years. If the family still owes $95,000 from previous borrowing, the additional $5,000 is less affordable than if the family had no prior debt.

Income. Assuming the fam ily was already $95,000 in debt and this new $5,000 loan increases its total debt to $100,000, whether or not the additional $5,000 in debt is manageable depends on the family’s income. While Bill Gates could easily afford this debt, many low-income fami lies could not.

Combining these two variables, the proper way to measure the impact of borrowing is by calculating the total debt as a percentage of income. This “debt ratio” is used by banks to determine how large a loan families and business can afford.

 

The same common sense applies to measuring the federal government’s finances. A $413 billion budget deficit merely shows the approximate annual change in the national debt. However, that number reveals nothing about whether or not the debt burden is too high; nor does it show whether the overall debt burden is increasing or decreasing.

 

Just as an individual’s debt ratio is calculated in terms of total debt as a percentage of annual income, the government’s debt ratio is calculated in terms of publicly held debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).[1] This measures total debt as a percentage of national income and therefore helps determine how much of a burden the national debt is placing on the American economy.

 

Economic Growth Is Reducing the Debt Ratio

 

Chart 1 shows America’s debt ratio since 1940. In 2004, America’s $4.3 trillion debt represents 38 percent of its $11.6 trillion GDP. Despite all the hand-wringing over increased budget deficits, the 38 percent debt ratio is actually below the post–World War II average of 43 percent. Conse quently, America’s debt burden is actually low by historical standards.[2]

 

During World War II, the debt ratio surged from 40 percent to 109 percent, meaning the nation’s debt was actually larger than its GDP. After drop ping down to 23 percent of GDP by 1974, the debt ratio increased to 49 percent by 1994 before drop ping to 38 percent in 2004.

 

 

 

There is no mystery to why the debt ratio has dropped so much since World War II: Economic growth has dwarfed the amount of new debt. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted debt has grown by 84 percent, but the economy has grown by 429 percent— more than five times as fast. (See Chart 2.) Just as a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and take on more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to absorb its new debt.

 

Economic growth has played a large part in the recent declines as well. Since 1994, the national debt has expanded by 6 percent while the economy has grown by 35 percent. This has reduced the debt burden from 49 percent to 38 percent. In fact, the current debt ratio is below the level for every year of the 1990s. Thus, it is not surprising that recent budget deficits have not dev astated the economy.

 

 

 

Debt Ratios and Interest Rates

 

The most commonly cited argument against budget deficits is that they substantially raise inter est rates, but the numbers tell a different story. Since 2000, the $236 billion budget surplus has been replaced by a $413 billion budget deficit. However, instead of rising, the real interest rate on the 10-year Treasury bond has actually dropped from 2.6 percent to 1.8 percent.[3] (See Chart 3.)

 

The first and most obvious reason for this discon nect is the erroneous focus on the budget deficit rather than the debt ratio. While the $649 billion decline in the nation’s fiscal position seems very large, the debt ratio has barely budged, rising from 35 percent to 38 percent. That is not an extraordi nary movement in the nation’s debt burden.

 

The second issue is whether or not increasing the debt ratio really causes higher interest rates. In the ory, higher demand for a good or service will cause higher prices. Money is no different: An increase in the demand for borrowing money will increase the price of borrowing money (i.e., the interest rate). This is true regardless of whether the borrower is a government, a corporation, or an individual.

 

The more important question is by how much the interest rate will increase, and that depends on how much is being borrowed and whether the market is large enough to absorb that amount. Today’s global economy is so large and inte grated—trillions of dollars move around the globe each day—that it can easily absorb the federal gov ernment’s borrowing without triggering a substan tial increase in interest rates.

 

An increase of 1 percentage point in America’s debt-to-GDP ratio raises interest rates by approxi mately 0.05 percentage point. If all 12 countries increased their ratios by 1 percentage point, interest rates would increase by approximately 0.1 percentage point.

In other words, raising interest rates by just 1 percent would require all 12 nations to raise their debt ratios by a full 10 per centage points.

 

If just the United States incurred all new debt, the effect on interest rates would be much smaller. Research by the American Enterprise Institute’s Eric Engen and Columbia University economist (and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers) Glenn Hubbard shows that a 1 percent age point increase in the U.S. debt ratio increases long-term interest rates by approximately 0.035 percent. In other words, it would take a 29 percent increase in the U.S. debt ratio—totaling $3.3 tril lion in new debt—to raise long-term interest rates by just 1 percentage point.[5]

 

Furthermore, while debt ratios may slightly affect interest rates, these small movements are usually overwhelmed by larger trends affecting real interest rates, such as economic growth and expec tations of future inflation.

 

 

 

Federal Spending and Debt

 

The largest danger posed by rising debt is that it represents a claim on future taxes. Interest on the federal debt cost taxpayers $160 billion in 2004, and these costs will increase as interest rates move up toward historically high levels. Even if Wash ington continues to roll over its debt (thus perma nently deferring the principal), increased borrowing will mean rising interest costs.

 

This debt is the result of lawmakers spending beyond the nation’s means. In 2004, Washington collected $1,880 billion in revenues but spent $2,292 billion. Families and businesses have to live within their means, and so should lawmakers.

 

Some analysts support raising taxes to reduce the debt ratio. This method is doomed to fail because, although tax increases may reduce the federal debt, they also reduce economic growth by reducing incentives to work, save, and invest. With both the debt and the GDP decreasing, the debt ratio would not be likely to improve at all. Americans would have sacrificed their tax dollars and a healthy economy for nothing.

 

Instead, the best way to reduce the long-term debt burden is to combine spending restraint with a pro-growth tax policy that keeps America’s debt levels affordable. Unlike the tax increase option, spending restraint promotes economic growth, retains a low tax burden, and can actually succeed in reducing the debt burden. With corporate wel fare, pork-barrel projects, obsolete programs, and waste totaling hundreds of billions of dollars annually, lawmakers have little excuse for not streamlining spending.

 

Social Security and Medicare pose the most seri ous danger to long-term spending restraint. Together, these programs face an unfunded liabil ity of $33.2 trillion,[6] which is eight times larger than the current national debt. Without reform, lawmakers have two choices: They can either raise taxes to levels unseen in American history or increase the debt ratio to levels comparable to lev els experienced during World War II. Either way, Americans could expect substantially higher taxes, lower incomes, and more poverty.

 

In bold is our only real problem. The national debt is quite manageable.

[wez]

Why America's Debt Burden Is Declining

by Brian M. Riedl

 

This gentleman is obviously a raging dip sh t.

 

 

 

In bold is our only real problem. The national debt is quite manageable.

 

 

That is a pretty big problem. Change the face of the Earth as we know it...

[timesjoke]

The day I trust statistics over my own perception is the day I die... or get dementia...

 

 

And that is why you are wrong most of the time.

 

 

There is not one person in the world who knows everything. You can only perceive what you are around and you are not around most of what is and has happened around the world.

 

I keep seeing you time and again make claims, get proven wrong and either attack that person:

This gentleman is obviously a raging dip sh t.

 

Or just ignore you were proven wrong and change the subject hoping nobody noticed.

 

 

 

 

The problem you clearly point out is not that the economy is less welcoming to the young but is intead the young is not wanting to put in the hard work that the old put in to succeed.

 

America has had very bad times, just starting out this Country was massively difficult every day. In the last 20 years, I have been sick and missed work exactly 8 days. 3 of those days were from an injury that kept me from walking but I still did basic work from home.

 

It is called work ethic, and younger people seem to not have any these days.

[wez]

And that is why you are wrong most of the time.

 

perhaps I should acquire a nuke, then I can be right all the time, right, tough guy?

 

 

 

There is not one person in the world who knows everything. You can only perceive what you are around and you are not around most of what is and has happened around the world.

 

 

 

Sure there is, that individual human being named America, right, tough guy?

 

 

 

I keep seeing you time and again make claims, get proven wrong and either attack that person:

 

 

Or just ignore you were proven wrong and change the subject hoping nobody noticed.

 

 

 

Repeating something is not poving anything wrong, and money as we know it is a joke, redesigned to validate an illusion of "power", mixed along with fear to control people. Money is worthless. What does it provide that people need to live? Motivation through fear?

 

 

 

 

 

The problem you clearly point out is not that the economy is less welcoming to the young but is intead the young is not wanting to put in the hard work that the old put in to succeed.

 

America has had very bad times, just starting out this Country was massively difficult every day. In the last 20 years, I have been sick and missed work exactly 8 days. 3 of those days were from an injury that kept me from walking but I still did basic work from home.

 

It is called work ethic, and younger people seem to not have any these days.

 

 

 

Perhaps kids take a look at morons such as yourself and say, "I don't want to end up like that". Perhaps they see adults that work the least have the most while those that work the hardest have the least, just like it's always been, and say, "that's f cked up".

 

 

 

Perhaps kids are working harder and longer than they ever did.. Almost all the kids I go to school with work full time as well as attend school full time..

 

 

 

Perhaps you're just a bitter old man who likes to scare and control women and children because you can't control what's in your own head, eh, tough guy?

 

 

 

Ever had a women accuse you of being a control phreak or was she too scared to say it to your face? If so, she just didn't appreciate your "good works".... Hahahahahahahaha

[Guest Unbleached]

If the current times and coming changes scare you, then you have not been paying attention for a very long time, squandered your opportunities and wasted your resources. Those who have paid attention will merely take advantage of the declining markets and economic sectors and come out even more secure. Opportunity is coming not disaster.

[atlantic]

If the current times and coming changes scare you, then you have not been paying attention for a very long time, squandered your opportunities and wasted your resources. Those who have paid attention will merely take advantage of the declining markets and economic sectors and come out even more secure. Opportunity is coming not disaster.

Are you speaking from a stockbroker's point of view, CEO or retiree?

[Old Salt]

If the current times and coming changes scare you, then you have not been paying attention for a very long time, squandered your opportunities and wasted your resources. Those who have paid attention will merely take advantage of the declining markets and economic sectors and come out even more secure. Opportunity is coming not disaster.

One person's disaster is another person's opportunity. It just depends on which side you're looking from. If you're young and have the resources, you can take advantage of the situation. But in that, you're taking advantage of someone else's problems.

[ImWithStupid]

One person's disaster is another person's opportunity. It just depends on which side you're looking from. If you're young and have the resources, you can take advantage of the situation. But in that, you're taking advantage of someone else's problems.

 

That's how it works in a free market economy and the American Way.

[wez]

If the current times and coming changes scare you, then you have not been paying attention for a very long time, squandered your opportunities and wasted your resources. Those who have paid attention will merely take advantage of the declining markets and economic sectors and come out even more secure. Opportunity is coming not disaster.

 

 

That's good to know.. We'll be sure to line your pine box with your security and bury you in an affluent cemetary....

 

And your tombstone can read.. Here lies vulture..."Always paid attention, never wasted his resources, or squandered an opportunity to take advantage and build self worth and security upon the suffering of others"..R.I.P.

[timesjoke]

That's how it works in a free market economy and the American Way.

 

 

I must agree, we are not living in a socialist Country, we are living in America and thise too lazy to work hard will be stepped on as those of us who are willing to work hard pass them by.

 

I know many people want to turn America into a socialist Country, and we have many socialist like programs to help the lazy, but it is not the lazy that made America great, and people need to remember that.

[wez]

I must agree, we are not living in a socialist Country, we are living in America and thise too lazy to work hard will be stepped on as those of us who are willing to work hard pass them by.

 

I know many people want to turn America into a socialist Country, and we have many socialist like programs to help the lazy, but it is not the lazy that made America great, and people need to remember that.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the slave owners who sat on the porch sipping lemonade, who made the country great, aren't lazy, the black men who worked the cotton fields 16 hours a day for no pay at the end of a whip were lazy...

 

 

 

You got some wild fantasies running through the noggin there bud... You are what you hate and you and your ideas of who made what great are a blight to humanity and all that is good and pure in the world.... The truth is the truth no matter what you say and how many people say it... And for your sake, you better hope your religious beliefs are as real as your historical fantasies.

 

 

 

Bet you hate young, rich, black rappers too.. How dare they.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

You have kind of a twisted view. And you speak on things that you are ignorant about. Let's reign that in some.

[wez]

You have kind of a twisted view. And you speak on things that you are ignorant about. Let's reign that in some.

 

 

Yes, he does have a twisted view.. and is quite ignorant of what he speaks of.

 

 

However, rather than reign it in, let the light shine....

[wez]

Here's someone who made America great... My family tree traces directly to him on my fathers side.

 

One thing it doesn't mention, he died at the plantation of his nephew in Maryland.. Wonder if he had any slaves. I'd like to believe not, but most likely did...

 

I don't judge an individual by their mistakes... He did a lot more good than bad in this world and I'm quite proud of my heritage and legacy.. But telling the truth is never wrong and I'm sure my family tree would agree.. My great grandpa, my grandpa, and my father couldn't lie even if they wanted to no matter how big and small... They were smarter than that, and luckily, so am I.

 

 

John Hanson, American Patriot and First President of the United States

(1715-1783)

 

 

He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots – his great-grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny.

 

As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca – both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter – his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon – began to espouse the cause of the patriots.

 

In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. Was John Hanson the first President of the United States?

 

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the Revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.

 

As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington.

 

Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

 

The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.

 

Six other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office. Why don't we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States? It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution.

 

George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.

 

http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html

 

 

 

Here's wikapedia's profile... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson

 

Wikapedia also has a bunch of myths about him as well.. One was that he was a black man and the decendent of a slave..... hahahahahaha

 

 

Interesting.. cites the possibilty that he decended from an indentured servant who worked his way out of debt, which was quite common at that time... certainly wasn't a black man.. But possibly decended from a slave..

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson_%28myths%29

 

 

 

What I do know, is he always told the truth to the best of his ability.. it's in the genes.

[hugo]

What made America great was a Constitution, that while flawed, had the concept of limited government at it's core. Sadly, our Constitution has been under attack for the last three-quarters of a century and we no longer have a federal government limited to the powers itemized in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution. Slevery was a gross violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence which declared that all men had inalienable rights. These inalienable rights were derived from natural law. We have veered far from the natural law basis of our Constitution. I am a slave from Jan till May every year. You have no right to claim anothers labor for your own. This does not matter if you are a slaveowner or a welfare bum. I got more respect for the slaveowners. Washington and Jefferson come to mind as great individuals with the flaw, common to their times, of prejudice. I can think of no welfare bums who contribute to society.

 

Sadly, the anti-federalists turned out to be right. The Constitution has been bastardized, by judicial decree, into a constitution that allows a tyrannical federal government far from the vision of it's authors. Ron Paul in 2008, for a return to constitutional government.

[wez]

 

 

Sadly, the anti-federalists turned out to be right. The Constitution has been bastardized.

 

 

No sh t, teach.

[wez]

If you haven't noticed TJ, we have quite the socialist government and a nation of citizens who now expect the government to provide for them at every turn. Not one thing in this world should need to be subsidized by anything. You do it because it's right, not because you have to for fear of retribution by control phreaks... and if you think what we got is great, you're an idiot

 

 

The worst welfare recipients in this country wear suits, ride in limo's and make laws to keep us blind and slaving on their behalf...

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I say we cut off welfare. Let the bastards that don't work die. Survival of the fittest. Right?

[wez]

I say we cut off welfare. Let the bastards that don't work die. Survival of the fittest. Right?

 

 

 

Wouldn't bother me to see some raggedy suit wearing, limo losing mother f cker begging on the street... Might even throw em a bone from the fruits of my labor.... If they're lucky and they tell the truth...

 

 

Course, I'd never give them cash... I know alls they'd do is blow it on a new toupee and a dry cleaning in the hopes of regaining they're (sic) "power"... Hahahahahahaha

 

 

Does anyone here truly believe they actually own anything that can't be taken away by the federal government, including your life? Does that sound great?

[wez]

These were listed on Wikapedia which says that it only discusses things that are confirmable through documentation or almost universally agreed upon facts.. Pretty cool stuff.

 

Notice the one in red? Hahahahahaha... Perhaps next time you wanna judge France, you'll think again.. Hahahahaha

 

Oh yeah, don't forget to thank John Hanson for his service to this once great nation this Thanksgiving when you feast....

 

 

 

 

Among the accomplishments of Hanson's presidency of Congress:

 

 

 

Delivered the official Thanks of Congress to George Washington for his victory at Yorktown

 

Commended Gen. Lafayette and thanked France for his services

 

Pressed states to keep up their commitments to sending delegates to Congress, which was often short of a quorum

 

Passed legislation for the Bank of North America, the first central bank

 

Appointed a Secretary of the United States to assist in correspondence and record-keeping

 

Granted Gen. Washington broad powers to negotiate prisoner exchanges with Britain; Washington immediately worked out a trade of Gen. Cornwallis for Henry Laurens, the first president of the Continental Congress

 

Established the United States Mint

 

Established the predecessor agency of the State Department

 

Proclaimed the first national Thanksgiving holiday

 

Created the position of Chairman of Congress, a predecessor of the vice-presidency

 

Negotiated a peace treaty with Britain

 

Settled a dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, with Hanson acting as an equivalent of Chief Justice

 

Called for the first national census

 

 

 

Hey Teach, how about "we" revive the anti-federalist party and run you for prez? Hahahahaha.. Anyone got 500,000,000 dollars "we" can borrow for playing the campaign game? Not enough time before next years election to raise that kinda money... and I don't like debt... Nor do I like asking people for handouts and in return serve their selfish interests.. Whats a patriot to do?