Pronk Pops Show 113, June 14, 2013, Segment 2: Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Obama Sending Military Support To Syrian Rebels Including Jabhat al-Nusra (Victory Front is Al Qaeda rebranded) — Neocon Warmonger McCain Approves — All In For World War 3 — Videos

Posted on June 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Computers, Crime, Disasters, Economics, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government, Government Spending, History, Law, Natural Gas, Oil, Oil, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Religion, Resources, Rifles, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 113: June 14, 2013 

Pronk Pops Show 112: June 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 111: May 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 110: May 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 109: May 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 108: May 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 107: May 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 106: April 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 105: April 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 104: April 12, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 113

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 2: Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Obama Sending Military Support To Syrian Rebels Including Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda rebranded) — Neocon Warmonger McCain Approves — All In For World War 3 — Videos

Jabhat al_Nusra fighter

jabhat-nusra

Al-Nusra-Front

jabhat-al-nusra-executes-alawite-shiites

Jabhat-al-Nusra

Ron Paul rips Obama on Arming Al-Qaeda

Should The U.S. Intervene in Syria?

    Glenn Beck  Shocking Video  THIS Is Who We Are Helping In Syria !

G8 Run-Up: Cameron backs Syria rebels, Putin warns of extremist ranks

Golan Frights: Israelis shiver as Iran plans to deploy troops to Syria

Obama Arming al Qaeda? Old News:( 

McCain pushes more intervention in Syria

Obama and the plan for World War 3: Best documentary of the Year 2013 (Please Share this video)

USA To Provide Military Support To Al-Qaeda-Backed Syria ‘Rebels’

Syria crossed ‘red line’ using chemical weapons on rebels says White House

WAR: White House Says Syria Crossed “Red Line” – Will Provide Military Support To Syrian Rebels!

Syria – Who are Jabhat al-Nusra? – Truthloader

Al Nusra Front Terror Camp in Lattakia, Syria (30/12/12)

A video released by an increasingly powerful and well connected Al Qaeda cell in Syria’s Northern Province of Lattakia depicts the terrorist organisation training recruits, many of whom are foreigners in the heavily forested and mountainous terrain typical of Lattakia.

The original video feratured speeches from well known Al Qaeda figures, (which I haven’t included in this video) including slain former second in command Abu Yaya Al Libi who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan. Al Qaeda in Lattakia could beconsidered separate to the major Al Qaeda in Syria branch Jabhat Al Nusra in the sense that they have direct connections to the mainstream global Jihadist community without having to run through Jabhat Al Nusra, itself a known affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The emergence of groups like Al Qaeda in Lattakia mirrors a trend in which new Jihadist groups many connected to previous incarnations of the Al Qaeda brand are now springing up all over Syria making a volatile situation in which extreme Jihadists already dominate the insurgency even more complex and dangerous. There can be little doubt that Afghanistan’s problems with Islamic militany similarly tired to Western support may well be dwarfed by the carnage and terrorism that may emanate from Syria for decades to come should the insurgents not be defeated.

Syria Rebels Overrun Assad Base in Idlib 6-14-13

Until now neither side in this war has managed to take  two strategic bases within 24 hours. The rebels pulled have managed it at incredibly low cost compared to what the regime paid in time, money and manpower to take Qusayr.  They did it before two impending advantages come into play.

When the tank base at Morek fell,  Assad lost his last land route to Aleppo and handed over a ton of equipment to the rebels.  When Al-Islam checkpoint fell, Assad lost over 400 regime troops killed, put a ton of new supplies in rebel hands, and—most importantly—his yielded up his last serious barrier to a full rebel assault on Idlib.   Even if Obama  had not declared the USA would finally arm the rebels it would have been a remarkable 24 hours.

Chemical Weapons Used In Syria   US and Europe Officials

Russia Condemns US Move To Arm Syria Rebels

Russia ready to protect Syria 

Syria has just received Russia’s MOST ADVANCED Anti Ship Missile System TO KILL US SHIPS

SMOTR: Kh-35 – Russian anti-ship missile! (English subtitles)

Russia gears up for World War 3

Inside Syria’s deadly chemical arsenal – Decoder

SYRIA: UN REPORT – CIA/MI6/Mossad/Saudi Supported Rebels used Sarin Gas

UN has testimony showing Syrian rebels used sarin gas

Build-Up to WW3 – Alleged use of Sarin gas in Syria Discussed by Chemical Weapons Expert.

Syria : Obama backed Free Syrian Rebels caught with Sarin Nerve Gas (May 31, 2013)

Declassified, The Taliban. Full Documentary

Documentary seriously in order to understand the Taliban

The Road to World War 3

WW3 Countdown | China Moves Against The Dollar 

World War 3 Has Already Begun

World War 3 – TheBlaze

GLENN Beck Explains Why World War III Could Be on the Horizon

John McCain meets Syrian opposition face-to-face

JOHN McCain Syria Chemical Weapons Use Crosses Red Line Game Changer.

Glenn Beck: We Are on The Wrong Side in Syria

Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help

GERALD CELENTE – The Start Of WW3 – ISRAEL says they have Right to Defend Themselves

Jon Stewart Mercilessly Slams Syria ‘Red Line,’ GOP Hawks: Did You Learn Nothing From Iraq?

NBC/WSJ poll: Americans oppose intervention in Syria

 Mark Murray

Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 9:46:01 AM by Mount Athos

The American public is extremely hesitant to intervene directly in Syria’s civil war.

Asked to pick a response to stop the killing of civilians in Syria, just 15 percent in the poll say they favor U.S. military action, and only 11 percent want to provide arms to the opposition.

By comparison, a plurality of respondents — 42 percent — prefer to provide only humanitarian assistance, and 24 percent believe the U.S. shouldn’t take any action.

Perhaps more significantly, those attitudes cut across party lines and almost all demographic groups.

“Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research.

“It explains the great reticence of the American public,” McInturff added.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3031645/posts

U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing “red line”

By Steve Chaggaris, Stephanie Condon

The Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to overthrow him and, in a major policy shift, President Obama has decided to supply military support to the rebels, the White House announced Thursday.

“The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support,” Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

President Obama has repeatedly said that the use of chemical weapons is a “red line” that, if crossed, would be a “game changer” for more U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

“The President has been clear that the use of chemical weapons – or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups – is a red line for the United States,” said Rhodes in a separate written statement.

“The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” he continued.

In terms of further response, Rhodes said, “we will make decisions on our own timeline” and that Congress and the international community would be consulted. Mr. Obama is heading to Northern Ireland Sunday for a meeting of the G8 group of nations; Rhodes indicated the president will consult with leaders of those countries.

“Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity,” Rhodes said.

To date, the U.S. policy on Syria has primarily focused on offering the rebels nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who met with the rebels last month and has been a vocal critic of the president’s Syria policy said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “We appreciate the President’s finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. We also agree with the President that this fact must affect U.S. policy toward Syria. The President’s red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions.”

“A decision to provide lethal assistance, especially ammunition and heavy weapons, to opposition forces in Syria is long overdue, and we hope the President will take this urgently needed step” they added. Former President Bill Clinton this week, at a private event with McCain, also ratcheted up pressure for the White House to increase its support to the rebels.

However, Rhodes would not detail the type of military support the administration intends on providing. He said helping the opposition improve their effectiveness as a fighting force means helping with “nonlethal assistance” such as communications equipment and transportation. “These are things that allow them to cohere as a unit,” he said.

He added, meanwhile, that no decision has been made about enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria. “A no-fly zone… would carry with it open-ended costs for the international community,” Rhodes said. “Furthermore, there’s not even a clear guarantee that it would dramatically improve the situation on the ground.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589252/u.s.-syria-used-chemical-weapons-crossing-red-line/

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

A Syrian rebel group’s pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.

Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.

“They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria,” Bakri says. “There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups.”

The United States, which supports the overthrow of Assad, designated al Nusra a terrorist entity in December. The Obama administration has said it wants to support only those insurgent groups that are not terrorist organizations.

Al Nusra and groups like it have seen some of the most significant victories against Syrian government forces in the course of the 2-year-old uprising in which Assad’s forces have killed about 80,000 people. Rebels not affiliated with al-Qaeda have pressed Washington for months to send weaponry that will allow them to match the heavy weapons of the Syrian army. They’ve urged the West to mount an air campaign against Assad’s mechanized forces.

President Obama refuses to provide any direct military aid. Foreign radical Islamists streaming into the fight from the Middle East and Europe are making headway with the Syrian population by providing services and gaining ground in battles.

Tamer Mouhieddine, spokesman for the Syrian Free Army, a force made up of Syrian soldiers who have defected, said the recent announcements would not change his group’s attitude toward al Nusra.

“The rebels in Syria have one common enemy — Bashar Assad — and they will collaborate with any faction allowing them to topple his regime,” he said.

He confirmed that al Nusra is generating loyalty in Aleppo, a region battling for months with Assad, by providing financial support as well as setting up charities.

Aaron Zelin at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington says al Nusra’s ability to provide security and basic needs such as bread and fuel to Syrian civilians, as well as to reopen shops and restart bus services, has won gratitude from people who would not usually adhere to its strict ideology.

Zelin says some Syrian people have criticized al Nusra for banning alcohol, forcing women to wear a full veil and whipping men who are seen with women in public.

“This illustrates the need for American leadership in the Syrian conflict, particularly with regard to helping non-Qaeda-aligned rebels contain the growth of (al Nusra) and similar groups,” he said. “Washington should also try to take advantage of cleavages within the rebellion and civilian population, since al Nusra is outside the mainstream and more concerned with establishing a transnational caliphate than maintaining the Syrian state.”

Groups such as the Islamic Liwaa al Tawhid, which collaborates with al Nusra on military operations, worried that Assad would use the announcement from al Nusra as evidence for his claim that he is fighting terrorists, not Syrian citizens who wish an end to his dictatorship, Mouhieddine said.

“We are willing to fight alongside any faction targeting the Assad regime, as long as it does not have a foreign agenda, which seems now the case” of al Nusra, he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/

CIA preparing to deliver rebels arms through Turkey and Jordan

By Greg Miller and Joby Warrick, Published: June 14

The CIA is preparing to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria through clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year in an effort to establish reliable supply routes into the country for nonlethal material, U.S. officials said.

The bases are expected to begin conveying limited shipments of weapons and ammunition within weeks, officials said, serving as critical nodes for an escalation of U.S. involvement in a civil war that has lately seen a shift in momentum toward the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Syria experts cautioned that the opposition to Assad remains a chaotic mix of secular and Islamist elements, highlighting the risk that some American-provided munitions may be diverted from their intended recipients.

But U.S. officials involved in the planning of the new policy of increased military support announced by the Obama administration Thursday said that the CIA has developed a clearer understanding of the composition of rebel forces, which have begun to coalesce in recent months. Within the past year, the CIA also created a new office at its headquarters in Langley to oversee its expanding operational role in Syria.

“We have relationships today in Syria that we didn’t have six months ago,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said during a White House briefing Friday. The United States is capable of delivering material “not only into the country,” Rhodes said, but “into the right hands.”

The confidence conveyed by Rhodes’s statement is in contrast to the concerns expressed by U.S. intelligence officials last year that the CIA and other U.S. spy agencies were still struggling to gain a firm understanding of opposition elements — a factor cited at the time as a reason the Obama administration was unwilling to consider providing arms.

“The Syrian puzzle has come into sharper focus in the past year, especially the makeup of various anti-regime groups,” said a U.S. official familiar with CIA assessments of the conflict. “And while the opposition remains far from monolithic, its military structures and coordination processes have improved.”

The official, like most others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence assessments and planning.

The increased certainty is one of several factors that led to the reversal of a U.S. policy against providing lethal aid that had been in place since the uprising began in Syria more than two years ago.

Rhodes said the change was driven by a new determination by U.S. intelligence agencies that Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons, including sarin gas, on at least four separate occasions. Obama also faced mounting pressure to intervene more aggressively as members of Congress and overseas allies became increasingly alarmed that Assad’s forces were gaining strength with expanded assistance from Russia and Iran.

For the CIA, the shift on Syria marks a return to a covert-action role that was familiar to the agency during Cold War-era conflicts but that gave way to increasingly direct lethal operations as the agency’s drone campaign surged in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The agency’s mission in Syria carries substantial risks, including a long-standing fear that arms could fall into the hands of extremists who may seek to impose Islamist rule in Syria or turn those weapons against targets in Israel and other Western countries.

That concern accounts for initial limits imposed by Obama that will allow the delivery of rifles and other munitions, but not — at least for now — antitank or antiaircraft weapons that rebels have desperately sought.

Obama’s decision to approve CIA weapons shipments, spelled out in an updated covert-action finding recently signed by the president, may also signal that the administration is now prepared to endorse the delivery of heavier arms by regional allies.

“The Qataris and Saudis have been chomping at the bit,” said Will McCants, a research analyst at CNA Analysis and Solutions and former counterterrorism adviser at the State Department. “They’ve been wanting to give heavy weapons, including antitank and antiaircraft, from the beginning. And it’s us that has put the brakes on it.”

The CIA shipments will be aimed at bolstering the capabilities of an umbrella group known as the Supreme Military Council. The council is headed by Gen. Salim Idriss and other former Syrian military officers who favor the creation of a democratic government, although the network includes avowedly Islamist groups.

Some are members of the Syrian Liberation Front, a separate alliance that wants Islamist rule in Syria but is regarded as moderate and pragmatist.

Competing groups advocate the creation of an Islamist state. These include the Syrian Islamist Front as well as more radical groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra — literally “Victory Front” — an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq that is listed as a terrorist group by the Obama administration. Another, Ahrar al-Sham, embraces a similar jihadist ideology and supports the imposition of austere, Taliban-like Islamic rule.

Those groups and potentially dozens of others have been in near-constant flux since the start of the war, adding to the confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials and experts said alliances among rebel organizations in recent months have created clearer ideological boundaries.

The CIA’s expanding role as conduit of nonlethal assistance over the past year has also given the agency deeper insight into the composition of groups and the flow of material, U.S. officials said.

The CIA does not have an established presence inside Syria, one official said. But it has been using bases in Turkey along the Syrian border, near where Idriss is based, since the outset of the conflict.

The agency’s weapons shipments are expected to be concentrated on routes out of Turkey, but U.S. officials said deliveries will also likely flow into southern Syria from Jordan, whose intelligence service has a long-standing relationship with the CIA.

“As the nonlethal aid has ramped up, U.S. intelligence has learned a lot more about who these guys are, who’s trustworthy and who’s not,” said a second U.S. official familiar with the shipment activity.

Less clear is the extent to which the CIA has technical means of monitoring the flow of arms shipments. U.S. military leaders have warned that they have no reliable way to track the heavy weaponry sought by rebel groups, including so-called MANPADs — the man-portable air-defense missiles that could help counter Assad’s air strength but could also be used by terrorist groups against civilian aviation targets.

As part of an effort to reassure the United States, regional allies presented a plan earlier this year in which rebels would be issued a small number of missiles and forced to return empty casings for each before receiving a new supply, said a Middle Eastern diplomat familiar with the plan.

“The Arabs have argued that MANPADs could be provided under highly controlled circumstances,” said the diplomat, who insisted on anonymity in describing private discussions with the United States. “The U.S. administration said it would investigate the matter, but they never responded.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-preparing-to-deliver-rebels-arms-through-turkey-and-jordan/2013/06/14/e38dabf2-d522-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_print.html

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul On Syria – Plans Rumours And War Propaganda For Attacking Syria – Revolution – June 19 2012

Ron Paul First Syria Then Iran

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

CIA Covert Action in the Cold War: Iran, Jamaica, Chile, Cuba, Afghanistan, Libya, Latin America

The CIA’s Covert Operations: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador

World’s Top 10 Military Powers 2012-2013

Top 10 The best Armies on the World 2013 FULL HD

1: United States 2: Russia 3: China 4: India 5: United Kingdom 6: Turkey 7: South Korea 8: France 9: Japan 10: Israel

★ TOP 10 NAVIES IN THE WORLD 2013 ★

TOP 10 AIR FORCES IN 2013 NEW!!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Obama’s CIA Covert Action Operations Provides Arms and Death Squads From Benghazi, Libya to Syria — Graphic Video of Executions — The Consequences of Obama’s Responsibility To Protect Foreign Policy — Sharia Law At Work — World War III? — Video

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 113, June 14, 2013, Segment 0: NSC’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 113, June 14, 2013, Segment 1: Gangster Progressives in Democratic and Republican Party Want Amnesty for 40 Million Plus Illegal Aliens Against The Will of The American People — Tea Party Revolt In Republican Party by Conservatives and Libertarians — Senators Sessions and Cruz Leads The Way on Securing The Borders and Enforcing Immigration Laws — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 107, Segment 2: The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos

Posted on May 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, History, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Media, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Regulation, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 107: May 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 106: April 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 105: April 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 104: April 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 103: March 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 102: March 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 101: March 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 100: March 1, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-107

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 2: The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos

burstbubble

Great_recessionGreat_Depression

Fed-Reserve-Balance-Sheet

fed-dollars-2003-2012fed-balance-sheet-2016

federal_reserve_balance_sheet

Federal_funds_rate

QE-Fed-BalanceSheet-SP500-020413

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!

Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April

U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says

USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers

JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014’

Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014

Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis

Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets

Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!

Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards

Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)

James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar

Currency Wars: Jim Rickards

Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser

CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber

Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2

Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!

Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything

Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview

Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists

Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”

ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING

Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013

Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014

Background Articles and Videos

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010

Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)

The Fall of Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.

Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 107, Segment 1: Ben Bernanke Boom Bubble Blower Busted By The Bubble Film — Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Masters of Money — Keynes — Hayek — Marx — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 93, November 30, 2012: Segment 2: U.S. Debt By Presidents–Obama: $5.073 Trillion in Four Years, Bush: $3.294 Trillion in Eight Years–Videos

Posted on November 27, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Law, Media, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

Pronk Pops Show 93: November 30, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 92: November 10, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 91: November 5, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 90: October 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 89: October 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 88: October 7, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 87: September 7, 2012

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 2: U.S. Debt By Presidents–Obama: $5.073 Trillion in Four Years, Bush: $3.294 Trillion in Eight Years–Videos

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

US Federal Debt since the Founding


Click chart for briefing on Federal Debt.
For numbers from 1792-2016 click here.

The United States federal government began with a substantial debt, the cost of the Revolutionary War. Under Alexander Hamilton’s funding system the debt was paid off by 1840. Government debt has typically peaked after wars. It breached 30 percent of GDP after the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War I. It breached 100 percent of GDP in World War II. Government debt also breached 100 percent of GDP in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.

Gross Federal Debt vs. Net Debt


Click chart for briefing on Federal Debt.
For numbers from 1900-2016 click here.

The US federal government differentiates between Gross Debt issued by the US Treasury and Net Debt held by the public. The numbers on Gross Debt are published by the US Treasury here.

Numbers on various categories of federal debt, including Gross Debt, debt held by federal government accounts, debt held by the public, and debt held by the Federal Reserve System, are published every year by the Office of Management and Budget in the Federal Budget in the Historical Tables as Table 7.1 — Federal Debt at the End of the Year. The table starts in 1940. You can find the latest Table 7.1 in here.

The chart above shows three categories of federal debt.

1. Monetized debt (blue), i.e., federal debt bought by the Federal Reserve System

2. Debt held by the federal government (red) e.g., as IOUs for Social Security

3. Other debt (green), i.e., debt in public hands, including foreign governments.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

http://www.federalbudget.com/

The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department. <<< Click on the chart for more info.The “Debt Total” bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department’s “Debt Report” found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt interestinformation. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.

“Deficit” vs. “Debt”—Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a “budget deficit”. So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you’ll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger). If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don’t have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

“Reducing the deficit” is a meaningless soundbite. If the DEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site’s deficit analysis. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it cuts into our budget big time.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  10/12

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
     NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
     DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
     JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
     FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
     MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
     APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
     MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
     JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
     JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
     AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                            184,316                304,311                119,995

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1012.txt

Projected and Recent US Federal Debt Numbers

Gross
Federal Debt
Debt Held
by Public
Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2013* $17.5 trillion $10.6 trillion $2.1 trillion
FY 2012* $16.4 trillion $9.7 trillion $1.9 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion $8.5 trillion $1.7 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion $8.2 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion $6.8 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2008 $10.0 trillion $5.3 trillion $0.5 trillion

“Gross Federal Debt” is the total debt owed by the United States federal government. It comprises “Debt Held by Public”, including foreign governments, debt held by federal government accounts such as IOUs owed to the Social Security trust fund, and “Debt held by Federal Reserve,” debt bought by the Federal Reserve System as part of the monetary base.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Another Day Older & Deeper In Debt: Federal Deficit to Top $1 Trillion for Fiscal Year 2012

Peter Schiff U.S. Debt Crisis

Vicious cycle of the US Debt & Deficit

President Obama Blaming Bush for Debt

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Public Opinion for Libertarians – Bryan Caplan

Social Security trustees: We’re going broke

John C. Goodma

“…Here’s some bad news: The latest report of the Social Security and Medicare trustees shows an unfunded liability for both programs of $63 trillion. That is equal to about 4.5 times the entire U.S. gross domestic product.

The unfunded liability is the amount we have promised in benefits, looking indefinitely into the future, minus the payroll taxes and premiums we expect to collect. It’s the amount we must have in the bank today, earning interest, for these entitlement programs to be solvent.

We not only don’t have the money in the bank, no one has a serious plan to put it there.

Now — some really bad news. The actual liability is almost twice what the government is reporting. In 2009, the trustees calculated the two programs’ unfunded liability at about 6.5 times the size of the U.S. economy. But the next year the unfunded liability was cut in half. The reason: “Obamacare.” The minute President Barack Obama signed his health reform bill, he cut Medicare’s unfunded liability by more than $50 trillion.

You would think this accomplishment would be an occasion for great joy — for dancing and celebration in the streets. If you’re like most Americans, however, you probably haven’t heard about it. Certainly, the Obama administration isn’t talking.

Here is what’s going on: Obamacare uses cuts in Medicare to pay for more than half the cost of expanding health insurance for young people. So even if the Medicare cuts take place, they won’t reduce the government’s overall obligations. They just replace entitlements for seniors with entitlements for young people. In addition, the health reform bill contains no serious plan for making Medicare more efficient.

So the only realistic way to make cuts in Medicare spending is a mechanism that will pay less and less to doctors and hospitals over time.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s Office of the Actuaries has predicted what this can mean for seniors. By the end of this decade, the fees that Medicare pays to doctors will be lower than what Medicaid pays. From an economic view, seniors will represent a less profitable sector than welfare mothers represent. Also by the end of the decade, one in seven hospitals will be forced out of business. In the decades that follow, the consequences only seem to get worse.

Many serious people inside the Beltway believe these cuts will never take place, however. The reason: Congress has been unwilling to allow similar reductions in doctor fees for nine straight years under previous legislation.

In fact, the possibility of “Obamacare” policies cutting Medicare’s unfunded liability in half is so unlikely that Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, provides an “alternative” report, in addition to the official trustees report, in which he projects much higher levels of Medicare spending.

What about the Medicare trust fund? Workers have been repeatedly told that their payroll taxes are being securely held in trust funds. But they are actually spent the very minute they arrive in the Treasury’s bank account. No money has been saved. No investments have been made. No cash has been stashed in bank vaults. Today’s payroll tax payments are being spent to pay medical bills for today’s retirees. And if any surplus materializes, it is spent on other government programs. As a result, when today’s workers reach the eligibility age of 65, they will be able to receive benefits only if future taxpayers pay (even higher) taxes to support them.

To address these defects, Medicare must be truly reformed. That means shifting from the current “pay as you go” system to one in which workers pay their own way.

My colleagues and I have calculated that workers (and their employers) must save and invest 4 percent of payroll. Eventually, we will reach the point where each generation of retirees will pay for the bulk of its own post-retirement medical care — with a payroll tax no higher than the one we have today.

We also need other reforms, of course. Seniors should be free to manage more of their own health care dollars. Doctors should be free to repackage their services in ways that lower the cost to patients and raise the quality of care. Seniors should also have access to more services, whose price is set in the marketplace rather than dictated by governments.

Most importantly, we need bipartisan commitment from those on Capitol Hill who can make all of this happen.

John C. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the book “Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis,” due out in June. …”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75603.html#ixzz2DRkCo9CU

US could be on path to fifth straight $1 trillion deficit after government runs $120 billion October deficit

“…The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus deficit.

Another soaring deficit puts added pressure on President Barack Obama and Congress to seek a budget deal in the coming weeks.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the October deficit — the gap between the government’s tax revenue and its spending — was 22 percent higher than the same month last year.

Tax revenue increased to $184.3 billion — 13 percent greater than the same month last year. Still, spending also rose to $304.3 billion, a 16.4 percent jump. The budget year begins on Oct. 1. Officials said last year’s figures were held down by a quirk in the calendar: the first day of October fell on a Saturday, which resulted in some benefits being paid in September 2011.

The deficit, in simplest terms, is the amount of money the government has to borrow when revenues fall short of expenses. The government ran a $1.1 trillion annual budget deficit in fiscal year that ended in September. That was lower than the previous year but still painfully high by historical standards.

Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits — the first in history and record he had to vigorously defend during his successful re-election campaign.

The size and scope of this year’s deficit will largely depend on what happens with the so-called fiscal cliff — a package of tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect in January unless the White House and Congress reach a budget deal by then.

If the economy goes over the fiscal cliff, this year’s deficit would shrink to $641 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the CBO also warns that the economy would sink into recession in the first half of 2013.

If the White House and Congress can reach a budget deal that extends the tax cuts and avoids the spending cuts, the deficit will end up roughly $1 trillion for the budget year, the CBO says.

The deficits have been growing for more than a decade but reached a record $1.41 trillion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office. That was largely because of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted during the downturn, while the government spent more on stimulus programs.

The deficits first began to widen after President George W. Bush won approval for broad tax cuts and launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the biggest challenges for the federal budget is the aging of the baby boom generation. That is raising government spending on Social Security and on Medicare and Medicaid. At the same time, the fragile economy, along with tax cuts, has reduced government revenue.

Over the past three years, revenue has fallen below 16 percent of the total economy as measured by the gross domestic product. Spending has exceeded 22 percent of GDP. The government has been forced to borrow to make up the gap, which has pushed the federal debt to $16.2 trillion.

The government is expected to hit its borrowing limit of $16.39 trillion by the end of December, unless Congress votes to raise it again. …”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/us-government-runs-120-billion-october-deficit/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/us-government-runs-120-billion-october-deficit/#ixzz2DRXL3c6c

The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank

James K. Glassman, Contributor

“…Please forgive me. Over and over, I hear misinformation about deficits in prior administrations, and I can’t keep quiet any longer. I have to correct the record.

The latest was on “Squawk Box” on Monday morning. Joe Kernan, the host, is interviewing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, ex-candidate for president and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kernen cites campaign comments about “bad policies” going back “decades” affecting the high rate of unemployment today.

He asks, “What specific policies in the Bush Administration do you think are still being used to explain 8 percent unemployment?”

Dean responds, “The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up…. The deficits were enormous

Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?”

We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run.

I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2

Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5

George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7

Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)

As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.

Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

U.S. Debt by President

By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President:

“…Therefore, the most accurate way to measure the debt by President is to sum all the budget deficits. That’s because the President is responsible for his budget priorities. It takes into account spending, and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes.

There are a few caveats, however. First, Congress does have a role, since it must approve the budget. Second, each President inherits a previous President’s policies. For example, every President has had to compensate for lower revenue thanks to President Reagan’s tax cuts. That’s because tax increases are a sure way to prevent re-election.

Third, while every President has had to deal with a recession, all recessions were not created equal. Furthermore, some Presidents have had to deal with unusual events, like the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. While these weren’t part of the business cycle, they required responses that came with economic price tags.

President Barack Obama:

President Obama contributed the most to the debt, with cumulative deficits totaling $5.073 trillion in just four years. Obama’s budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama’s budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn’t show up until the later years.

President George W. Bush:

President Bush is next, racking up $3.294 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to a new records, between $600-$800 billion a year. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts.

President Ronald Reagan:

President Reagan added $1.412 trillion to the debt during his two terms. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, and the corporate rate from 48% to 34%. He also increased government spending by 2.5% a year. This included a 35% increase in the defense budget, and an expansion of Medicare. Although $1.412 trillion doesn’t sound like a lot, compared to 2012 debt levels, in fact Reagan’s economic policies doubled the debt during his Presidency.

President George H.W. Bush:

President George H.W. Bush added $1.03 trillion to the debt in one term. He responded to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversaw the $125 billion bailout to end the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. Part of his debt contribution was due to lost tax revenue from the 1991 recession.
Although many other Presidents added to the debt, none comes close to these four in terms of overall spending. Part of that is because the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, was so much smaller for other Presidents. For example, in 1981 GDP was only $3 trillion, growing by five times to $15 trillion in 2012. See the table below for a year-by-year detail of each President’s budget deficit since President Woodrow Wilson. (Updated September 12, 2012)

Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year Since 1960:

President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.

  • FY 2013 – $901 billion.
  • FY 2012 – $1.327 trillion.
  • FY 2011 – $1.299 trillion.
  • FY 2010 – $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion. Second Term = $2.027 trillion. Total = $3.294.

  • FY 2009 – $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama’s Stimulus Act)
  • FY 2008 – $458 billion.
  • FY 2007 – $161 billion.
  • FY 2006 – $248 billion.
  • FY 2005 – $318 billion.
  • FY 2004 – $413 billion.
  • FY 2003 – $378 billion.
  • FY 2002 – $158 billion.

President Bill Clinton: First Term = $496 billion. Second Term = ($559 billion surplus). Total = ($63 billion surplus).

  • FY 2001 – $128 billion surplus.
  • FY 2000 – $236 billion surplus.
  • FY 1999 – $126 billion surplus.
  • FY 1998 – $69 billion surplus.
  • FY 1997 – $22 billion.
  • FY 1996 – $107 billion.
  • FY 1995 – $164 billion.
  • FY 1994 – $203 billion.

President George H.W. Bush: First Term = $1.03 trillion.

  • FY 1993 – $255 billion.
  • FY 1992 – $290 billion.
  • FY 1991 – $269 billion.
  • FY 1990 – $221 billion.

President Ronald Reagan: First Term = $733 billion. Second Term = $679 billion. Total = $1.412 trillion.

  • FY 1989 – $153 billion.
  • FY 1988 – $155 billion.
  • FY 1987 – $150 billion.
  • FY 1986 – $221 billion.
  • FY 1985 – $212 billion.
  • FY 1984 – $185 billion.
  • FY 1983 – $208 billion.
  • FY 1982 – $128 billion.

President Jimmy Carter: First Term = $253 billion

  • FY 1981 – $79 billion.
  • FY 1980 – $74 billion.
  • FY 1979 – $41 billion.
  • FY 1978 – $59 billion.

President Gerald Ford: Three Years = $181 billion.

  • FY 1977 – $54 billion.
  • FY 1976 – $74 billion.
  • FY 1975 – $53 billion.

President Richard Nixon: First Term = $64 billion. First Year of Second Term = $6 billion. Total = $70 billion.

  • FY 1974 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1973 – $15 billion.
  • FY 1972 – $23 billion.
  • FY 1971 – $23 billion.
  • FY 1970 – $3 billion.

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Two Years in First Term = $7 billion. Second Term = $35 billion. Total = $42 billion.

  • FY 1969 – $3 billion surplus.
  • FY 1968 – $25 billion.
  • FY 1967 – $9 billion.
  • FY 1966 – $4 billion.
  • FY 1965 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1964 – $6 billion.

President John F. Kennedy: Two Years in First Term = $11 billion.

  • FY 1963 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1962 – $7 billion.

President Dwight Eisenhower: First Term = $3 billion surplus. Second Term = $19 billion. Total = $16 billion.

  • FY 1961 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1960 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1959 – $13 billion.
  • FY 1958 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1957 – $3 billion surplus.
  • FY 1956 – $4 billion surplus.
  • FY 1955 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1954 – $1 billion.

President Harry Truman: First Term = $1 billion surplus. Second Term = $4 billion. Total = $3 billion.

  • FY 1953 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1952 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1951 – $6 billion surplus.
  • FY 1950 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1949 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1948 – $12 billion surplus.
  • FY 1947 – $4 billion surplus.
  • FY 1946 – $16 billion.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: First Term = $13 billion. Second Term = $11 billion. Third Term = $172 billion. Total = $196 billion.

  • FY 1945 – $48 billion.
  • FY 1944 – $48 billion.
  • FY 1943 – $55 billion.
  • FY 1942 – $21 billion.
  • FY 1941 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1940 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1939 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1938 – $0 billion (slight deficit).
  • FY 1937 – $2 billion.
  • FY 1936 – $4 billion.
  • FY 1935 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1934 – $4 billion.

President Herbert Hoover: First Term = $5 billion.

  • FY 1933 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1932 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1931 – $0 billion (slight deficit).
  • FY 1930 – $1 billion surplus.

President Calvin Coolidge: Two Years of First Term = $2 billion surplus. Second Term = $4 billion surplus. Total = $6 billion surplus.

  • FY 1929 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1928 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1927 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1926 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1925 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1924 – $1 billion surplus.

President Warren G. Harding: Two Years of First Term = $2 billion surplus.

  • FY 1923 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1922 – $1 billion surplus.

President Woodrow Wilson: First Term = $1 billion. Second Term = $21 billion. Total = $22 billion.

  • FY 1921 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1920 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1919 – $13 billion.
  • FY 1918 – $9 billion.
  • FY 1917 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1916 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1915 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1914 – $0 billion.

FY 1789 – FY 1913 – $24 billion surplus. (Source: OMB, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2017) …”

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 93, November 27, 2012: Segment 0: The Rise and Fall of General David Petreaus–Leaks and Lying: Lessons Learned–Obama Lied and Americans Died–Email Evasion of Privacy–Benghazigate–The Impeachment of Obama–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 93, November 27, 2012: Segment 1: Forward Off The Fiscal Cliff…Falling…Falling…Splat!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 73, May 9, 2012: Segment 2: Forward Radical Progressive Socialists–Better Not Look Down–More Deadly Than War–Barack Obama–Videos

Posted on May 9, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Consitutional Law, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Media, Monetary Policy, Networking, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Public Sector Unions, Success, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 73: May 9, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 72: May 2, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 71: April 25, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 70: April 23, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 69: April 11, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 68: April 4, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 67: April 2, 2012

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: Forward Radical Progressive Socialists–Better Not Look Down–More Deadly Than War–Barack Obama–Videos

“…The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for ‘Forward’) was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned rom the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.[1]

Forward was used by the US President Barrack Obama as his 2012 presidential campaign slogan. The slogan was used to look back at the begining of his Presidency and the situation he inherited, and the bold strides taken over the four years of his term in office, and as a message towards his reelection. [2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(generic_name_of_socialist_publications)

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Unemployment Level

Number in Thousands

U-3 Unemployment Rate

Percent or Rate

U-6 Unemployment Rate

Percent or Rate

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Forward.

Obama Campaign Slogan ‘Forward’ a Hitler Youth Marching Tune

“If I wanted America to fail”

Better Not Look Down

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 1 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 2 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 3 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 4 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 5 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 6 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 7 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 8 of 8

Obama “Jobs” Bill…

Obama Kicks Off Campaign…

New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism

By Victor Morton

“…The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbxwYxIm_tg&feature=relmfu

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 73, May 9, 2012: Segment 0: 63.6 Percent Labor Participation Rate Lowest in 3 Decades:Labor Force Shrank By 342,000 in April 2012–The Real Reason The Unemployment Rate Fell To 8.1 Percent–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 73, May 9, 2012: Segment 1: The Life of Julia–The New Progressive Woman–Or–How I Learned To Love The State–Collectivist Cradle To Grave Government Dependency Political Propaganda–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 2: America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

Posted on February 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, Business, Crime, Economics, History, Medicine, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Science, Unions, Videos, Violence, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 64: February 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 63: February 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 62: February 15, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 61: February 8, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 60:February 1, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

The Archies – Sugar Sugar (’69)

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

I just can’t believe the loveliness of loving you.

(I just can’t believe it’s true).

I just can’t believe the wonder of this feeling too.

(I just can’t believe it’s true).

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

When I kissed you girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be.

(I know how sweet a kiss can be)

Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me.

(Pour your sweetness over me).

Oh pour little sugar on me honey (sugar)

Pour little sugar on me baby (honey honey)

When you make love so sweet (Yeah Yeah Yeah.)

Pour little sugar on me (oh yeah)

Pour little sugar on me honey

Pour little sugar on me baby I’m gonna make love so sweet (hey hey hey)

Pour little sugar on me honey.

Ah sugar. Oh honey, honey.

You are my candy, girl, and you got me wanting you.

Oh honey (honey, honey, sugar, sugar)

Sugar, sugar You are my candy girl.

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Robert “Sugar: Bitter Truth” Lustig on ABCNews

Big Sugar

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-sugar/

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 1 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 2 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 3 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 4 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 5 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 6 of 6 – Documentary

The Politics of Obesity – Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig

Sugar: The Bitter Truth- March 24, 2011

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (The SHORT Version)

Are You a Sugar Addict?

DEATH BY SUGAR by Jorge Cruise

The Sugar Epidemic: Policy versus Politics

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 1 of 3)

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 2 of 3)

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 3 of 3)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 1 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 2 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 3 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 4 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 5 of 5)

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #1

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #2

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #3

Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #4

SWEET SUICIDE: OR HOW SUGAR RUINS YOUR HEALTH

Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Truth, Still Not Sexy, HFCS

How much sugar does the average american consume?

The Great Sugar Shaft

Sugar Daddy: Taubes tells all

Larry Graham, Chairman of the Coalition for Sugar Reform, Discusses Need to Reform the Sugar Program

Fran Smith, Board Member & Adjunct Fellow at CEI, on the Economic Impact of the Sugar Program

The Case Against the Sugar Program on CNBC Squawk Box

Sugar

“…Sugar is a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose,[1] characterized by a sweet flavor.

Sucrose in its refined form primarily comes from sugar cane and sugar beet. It and the other sugars are present in natural and refined forms in many foods, and the refined forms are also added to many food preparations.

The world produced about 168 million tonnes of sugar in 2011.[2] The world consumed an average of 24 kilograms of sugar for every human being of all ages, equivalent to over 260 food calories per day per human being.[3]

In food, “sugars” refer to all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols,[4] while in its singular form, “sugar” normally refers to sucrose. The other sugars are usually known by more specific names — glucose, fructose or fruit sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc.

Sugar production and trade has influenced human history in many ways. In modern times, sugar influenced the formation of colonies, perpetuation of slavery, transition to indentured labor, migration and abuse of people, wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations, ethnic composition and political structure of the new world.[5][6]

Ancient times and Middle Ages

Sugar has been produced in the Indian subcontinent[7] since ancient times. It was not plentiful or cheap in early times—honey was more often used for sweetening in most parts of the world.

Amongst the ancient manuscripts of China, dated to be from the eight century BC, one of the earliest historical mention of sugar cane is included along with the fact that their knowledge of sugar cane was derived from India.[8] It appears that in about 500 BC, residents of present-day India began making sugar syrup and cooling it in large flat bowls to make crystals that were easier to store and transport. In the local Indian language, these crystals were called khanda (खण्ड), which is the source of the word candy.[9]

Originally, people chewed sugarcane raw to extract its sweetness. Sugarcane was a native of tropical South Asia and Southeast Asia.[10] Different species likely originated in different locations with Saccharum barberi originating in India and S. edule and S. officinarum coming from New Guinea.[10][11]

Sugar remained relatively unimportant until the Indians discovered methods of turning sugarcane juice into granulated crystals that were easier to store and to transport.[12] Crystallized sugar was discovered by the time of the Imperial Guptas, around 5th century AD.[12] Indian sailors, consumers of clarified butter and sugar, carried sugar by various trade routes.[12] Traveling Buddhist monks brought sugar crystallization methods to China.[13] During the reign of Harsha (r. 606–647) in North India, Indian envoys in Tang China taught sugarcane cultivation methods after Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 626–649) made his interest in sugar known, and China soon established its first sugarcane cultivation in the seventh century.[14] Chinese documents confirm at least two missions to India, initiated in 647 AD, for obtaining technology for sugar-refining.[15] In South Asia, the Middle East and China, sugar became a staple of cooking and desserts.

The triumphant progress of Alexander the Great was halted on the banks of river Indus by the refusal of his troops to go further east. They saw people in the Indian subcontinent growing sugarcane and making granulated, salt-like sweet powder, locally called साखर, pronounced as saccharum (ζάκχαρι). On their return journey, the Macedonian soldiers carried the “honey bearing reeds.” Sugarcane remained a limited crop for over a millennium, sugar a rare commodity, and traders of sugar wealthy. Venice, at the height of its financial power, was the chief sugar-distributing center of Europe.[8]

Crusaders brought sugar home with them to Europe after their campaigns in the Holy Land, where they encountered caravans carrying “sweet salt”. Early in the 12th century, Venice acquired some villages near Tyre and set up estates to produce sugar for export to Europe, where it supplemented honey as the only other available sweetener.[16] Crusade chronicler William of Tyre, writing in the late 12th century, described sugar as “very necessary for the use and health of mankind”.[17]

Modern history

In August 1492, Christopher Columbus stopped at La Gomera in the Canary Islands, for wine and water, intending to stay only four days. He became romantically involved with the Governor of the island, Beatriz de Bobadilla y Ossorio, and stayed a month. When he finally sailed she gave him cuttings of sugarcane, which became the first to reach the New World.

Sugar was a luxury in Europe prior to 18th century. It became widely popular in 18th century, then graduated to becoming a necessity in the 19th century. This evolution of taste and demand for sugar as an essential food ingredient unleashed major economic and social changes.[5] It drove, in part, colonization of tropical islands and nations where labor-intensive sugarcane plantations and sugar manufacturing could thrive. The demand for cheap and docile labor for harsh inhumane work, in part, first drove slave trade from Africa (in particular West Africa), followed by indentured labor trade from South Asia (in particular India).[6][18][19] Millions of slave and indentured laborers were brought into the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Islands, East Africa, Natal, north and eastern parts of South America, and southeast Asia. The modern ethnic mix of many nations, settled in last two centuries, has been influenced by sugar.[20][21][22]

Sugar also led to some industrialization of former colonies. For example, Lieutenant J. Paterson, of the Bengal establishment, persuaded British government that sugar cane could be cultivated in British India with many advantages, and at less expense than in the West Indies. As a result, a number of sugar factories were established in Bihar in British India.[23]

More recently it is manufactured in very large quantities in many countries, largely from sugarcane and sugar beet. In processed foods it has increasingly been supplanted by corn syrup.

Etymology

The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity. The English word “sugar”[24] originates from the Arabic word سكر sukkar, itself from the Persian shakar,[25] itself derived from Sanskrit शर्करा sharkara.[26] It most probably came to England by way of Italian merchants. The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre – contemporary French sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris).[27][28] A satisfactory pedigree explaining the spread of the word has yet to be done. Note that the English word jaggery (meaning “coarse brown Indian sugar”) has similar ultimate etymological origins (presumably in Sanskrit).

Production

The five largest producers of sugar in 2010 were Brazil, India, European Union, China and Thailand. The largest exporters in 2010 were Brazil, Thailand, Australia and India; while the largest importers were EU-27, United States and Indonesia. Currently, Brazil is the highest per capita consumer of sugar, followed by Australia, Thailand and EU-27.[29][30]

Consumption

The per capita consumption of refined sugar in America has varied between 27 to 46 kilograms in the last 40 years. In 2008, American per capita total consumption of sugar and sweeteners – exclusive of artificial sweeteners – equaled 61.9 kilograms per year (136.2 pounds).[31][32]

Sugar is an important component of human food balance. According to FAO, about 24 kilograms of sugar – equivalent to over 260 food calories per day – was, on average, consumed annually per human being of all ages in the world in 1999. Even with rising human population, sugar consumption is expected to increase to 25.1 kilograms per human being by 2015.[3]

Health effects

Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms [33] and since most studies do not use a population who are not consuming any “free sugars” at all, the baseline is effectively flawed (or as the report puts it, the studies are “limited”). Hence there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that said in 2008, “Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example.”[34] though the article does continue to discuss other health impacts of sugar. Other articles and studies refer to the increasing evidence supporting the links to hyperactivity.[35] The WHO FAO meta-study suggests that such results are expected when some studies do not effectively segregate or control for free sugars as opposed to sugars still in their natural form (entirely unrefined) while others do.

Blood glucose levels

Sugar, because of its simpler chemical structure, may raise blood glucose levels more quickly than starch. This finding suggests that this basic differentiation between starch and sugar is insufficient reason to segregate these two substances for controlling blood glucose levels in diabetics, the idea behind carbohydrate counting.[36] A more effective distinction could use that suggested by multiple meta-studies between free sugars and naturally-occurring sugars which do suggest different impacts on health.[33][37]

Obesity and diabetes

Studies appear to conflict with some suggesting eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may increase the risk of diabetes,[38][39][39][40][41][42][42][43] while others show links between refined sugar (free sugar) consumption and the onset of diabetes, and negative correlation with the consumption of fiber[44][45][46][47] including a 2010 meta-analysis of eleven studies involving 310,819 participants and 15,043 cases of type 2 diabetes[48] that found that “SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) may increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes not only through obesity but also by increasing dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, and inflammation”. As an overview to consumption related to chronic disease and obesity, the World Health Organization’s independent meta-studies specifically distinguish free sugars (“all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices”) from sugars naturally present in food. The reports prior to 2000 set the limits for free sugars at a maximum of 10% of carbohydrate intake, measured by energy, rather than mass, and since 2002 [33] have aimed for a level across the entire population at less than 10%. The consultation committee recognized that this goal is “controversial. However, the Consultation considered that the studies showing no effect of free sugars on excess weight have limitations.” (p. 57).

Cardiovascular disease

A number of studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysregulation. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.[49] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.[50]

Switching saturated fatty acids for carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically significant positive association with the risk of myocardial infarction.[51]

Other studies have found links between high fat and high glycemic index carbohydrates accelerates the development of cardiac pathology and pump dysfunction in hypertension despite no signs of diabetes and only a modest level of obesity, suggesting that the link between obesity and coronary heart disease should be shifted towards macronutrients and the high glycemic load typical of the “junk-food” diet.[52]

The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.[53]

Studies are suggesting the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant that the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.[54][55]

A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) consumption can substantially increase the risk for heart- and vascular diseases. According to a new Swedish study from Lund University and Malmö University College of 4301 persons, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood fat with a high level of small and medium LDL and reduced HDL blood fat. However the amount of fat intake didn’t affect the blood fats. As a side note, moderate quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to the good HDL blood fat.[56]

Alzheimer disease

It is suggested that Alzheimer Disease is linked with the western diet, characterised by excessive dietary intake of sugar, refined carbohydrates (with a high glycaemic index) and animal products (with a high content of saturated fats) and decreased intake of unrefined seeds. There are also prevention hypotheses that address the diet issue with mono-supplements of specific vitamins or drugs that do not show appreciable results.[57]

Dietary pattern analysis, which considers overall eating patterns comparing those with Alzheimer’s disease as compared to healthy controls using factor analysis, gives a major eating pattern for those with Alzheimer’s characterised by a high intake of meat, butter, high-fat dairy products, eggs and refined sugar, while the other major eating pattern for those without Alzheimer’s was characterised by a high intake of grains and vegetables.[58]

One group of experimenters compared a normal rodent diet (19% protein, 5% fat and 60% complex carbohydrate) with free water access against the same diet but with free access to a 10% sucrose solution. Their data underscore the potential role of dietary sugar in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease and suggest that controlling the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may be an effective way to curtail the risk of developing Alzheimer disease.[59]

Macular degeneration

There are links between free sugar consumption and macular degeneration in older age.[60]

Tooth decay

In regard to contributions to tooth decay, the role of free sugars is also recommended to be below an absolute maximum of 10% of energy intake, with a minimum of zero. There is “convincing evidence from human intervention studies, epidemiological studies, animal studies and experimental studies, for an association between the amount and frequency of free sugars intake and dental caries” while other sugars (complex carbohydrate) consumption is normally associated with a lower rate of dental caries.[37] Lower rates of tooth decay have been seen in individuals with hereditary fructose intolerance.[61]

Terminology

Popular

The term sugar usually refers to sucrose, which is also called “table sugar” or “saccharose.” Sucrose is a white crystalline disaccharide. It is often obtained from sugar cane or sugar beet.[62] Sucrose is the most popular of the various sugars for flavoring, as well as properties (such as mouthfeel, preservation, and texture) of beverages and food.

Chemical

“Sugar” can also be used to refer to water-soluble crystalline carbohydrates with varying sweetness. Sugars include monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, galactose), disaccharides (e.g., sucrose, lactose, maltose), trisaccharides, and oligosaccharides,[63] in contrast to complex carbohydrates such as polysaccharides. Corn syrup, dextrose, crystalline fructose, and maltose, for example, are used in manufacturing and preparing food.

Baking weight/mass volume relationship

Different culinary sugars have different densities due to differences in particle size and inclusion of moisture.

The Domino Sugar Company has established the following volume to weight conversions:

  • Brown sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 195 g = 6.88 oz
  • Granular sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 200 g = 7.06 oz
  • Powdered sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 120 g = 4.23 oz

Bulk density[64]

  • Dextrose sugar 0.62 g/mL
  • Granulated sugar 0.70 g/mL
  • Powdered sugar 0.56 g/mL
  • Beet sugar 0.80 g/mL

Purity standards

The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar.[65]

Chemistry

Sucrose: a disaccharide of glucose (left) and fructose (right), important molecules in the body.
Main article: Carbohydrate

Scientifically, sugar loosely refers to a number of carbohydrates, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, or oligosaccharides. Monosaccharides are also called “simple sugars,” the most important being glucose. Almost all sugars have the formula CnH2nOn (n is between 3 and 7). Glucose has the molecular formula C6H12O6. The names of typical sugars end with “-ose,” as in “glucose”, “dextrose”, and “fructose”. Sometimes such words may also refer to any types of carbohydrates soluble in water. The acyclic mono- and disaccharides contain either aldehyde groups or ketone groups. These carbon-oxygen double bonds (C=O) are the reactive centers. All saccharides with more than one ring in their structure result from two or more monosaccharides joined by glycosidic bonds with the resultant loss of a molecule of water (H2O) per bond.

Monosaccharides in a closed-chain form can form glycosidic bonds with other monosaccharides, creating disaccharides (such as sucrose) and polysaccharides (such as starch). Enzymes must hydrolyze or otherwise break these glycosidic bonds before such compounds become metabolized. After digestion and absorption the principal monosaccharides present in the blood and internal tissues include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Many pentoses and hexoses can form ring structures. In these closed-chain forms, the aldehyde or ketone group remains non-free, so many of the reactions typical of these groups cannot occur. Glucose in solution exists mostly in the ring form at equilibrium, with less than 0.1% of the molecules in the open-chain form.

Natural polymers of sugars

Biopolymers of sugars are common in nature. Through photosynthesis plants produce glucose, which has the formula C6H12O6, and convert it for storage as an energy reserve in the form of other carbohydrates such as starch, or (as in cane and beet) as sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose has the chemical formula C12H22O11. Starch, consisting of two different polymers of glucose, is a readily degradable chemical energy stored by cells, convertible to other types of energy.

Cellulose is a polymer of glucose used by plants as structural component.

DNA and RNA are built up of the sugars ribose and deoxyribose. The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, and has the formula C5H10O4.

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

High-fructose corn syrup

“…High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—also called glucose-fructose syrup[1][2] in the UK, glucose/fructose[3] in Canada, and high-fructose maize syrup in other countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. In the United States, consumer foods and products typically use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. It has become very common in processed foods and beverages in the U.S., including breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments.[4]

According to the USDA, HFCS consists of 24% water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[7]

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions[8] , and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose”, but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]

Use as a replacement for sugar

HFCS replaces sugar in various processed foods in the United States.[16][17] The main reasons for this switch are:

  • Per relative sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.[18]
  • High-fructose corn syrup HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose; HFCS 42 is less sweet than sucrose.
  • HFCS is cheaper in the United States as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.[19] Since the mid 1990s, the United States federal government has subsidized corn growers by $40 billion.[20][21]
  • HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.[22]

Comparison to other sweeteners

High-fructose corn syrup
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,176 kJ (281 kcal)
Carbohydrates 76 g
– Dietary fiber 0 g
Fat 0 g
Protein 0 g
Water 24 g
Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.019 mg (2%)
Niacin (vit. B3) 0 mg (0%)
Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.011 mg (0%)
Vitamin B6 0.024 mg (2%)
Folate (vit. B9) 0 μg (0%)
Vitamin C 0 mg (0%)
Calcium 6 mg (1%)
Iron 0.42 mg (3%)
Magnesium 2 mg (1%)
Phosphorus 4 mg (1%)
Potassium 0 mg (0%)
Sodium 2 mg (0%)
Zinc 0.22 mg (2%)
Shown is for 100 g, roughly 5.25 tbsp. Percentages are relative to US recommendations for adults. Source: USDA Nutrient Database

Cane and beet sugar

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion.[23] Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.[24]

Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by a different mechanism than that for glucose. Glucose stimulates insulin release from the isolated pancreas, but fructose does not. Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Once inside the liver cell, fructose can enter the pathways that provide glycerol, the backbone for triacylglycerol. The growing dietary amount of fructose that is derived from sucrose or HFCS has raised questions about how children and adults respond to fructose alone or when it is accompanied by glucose.[25]

Honey

Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars. Like HFCS, honey contains water and has approximately 3 kcal per gram. Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to “stretch” honey. As a result, checks for adulteration of honey no longer test for higher-than-normal levels of sucrose, which HFCS does not contain, but instead test for small quantities of proteins that can be used to differentiate between HFCS and honey. Consumers should be aware, however, that some honey available in supermarkets contain HFCS or utilized HFCS in its production. Consumer awareness through label-reading is important for those aiming to avoid high-fructose corn syrup. [26]

Production

HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production.[27] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Y. Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. Dr. Y. Takasaki is known to many as the creator of HFCS. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.

High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The enzyme process that changes the 100% glucose corn syrup into HFCS 42 is as follows:

  1. Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called oligosaccharides.
  2. Glucoamylase – which is produced by Aspergillus, species of mold, in a fermentation vat — breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.
  3. Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.

While inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry and used only once, the more costly xylose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it, allowing it to be used repeatedly until it loses its activity. This 42–43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step, where the fructose is enriched to about 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product. Most manufacturers use carbon adsorption for impurity removal. Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.

The units of measurement for sucrose is degrees Brix (symbol °Bx). Brix is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved sucrose to water in a liquid. A 25 °Bx solution has 25 grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution (25% w/w). Or, to put it another way, there are 25 grams of sucrose and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of solution. The Brix measurement was introduced by Antoine Brix.

A more universal measurement of sugars, including HFCS, is called dry solids. Dry solids is defined as the mass ratio of dry sugars to the total weight of the sugar solution. Since Brix is based on the refractive index of light against a sucrose molecule it is not accurate when measuring other sugars such as glucose, maltose, and fructose.

When an infrared Brix sensor is used, it measures the vibrational frequency of the sucrose molecules, giving a Brix degrees measurement. This will not be the same measurement as Brix degrees using a density or refractive index measurement, because it will specifically measure dissolved sugar concentration instead of all dissolved solids. When a refractometer is used, it is correct to report the result as “refractometric dried substance” (RDS). One might speak of a liquid as being 20 °Bx RDS. This is a measure of percent by weight of total dried solids and, although not technically the same as Brix degrees determined through an infrared method, renders an accurate measurement of sucrose content, since the majority of dried solids are in fact sucrose.

Recently, an isotopic method for quantifying sweeteners derived from corn and sugar cane was developed which permits measurement of corn syrup- and cane sugar-derived sweeteners in humans, thus allowing dietary assessment of the intake of these substances relative to total intake.[28]

Sweetener consumption patterns

Historical

Before the mass production of fructose since 1957[citation needed], human beings had little dietary exposure to fructose. Fructose was limited to only a few items such as honey, dates, raisins, grapes and apples. The staples of most early diets, meats and most vegetables, contain no fructose.[29]

United States

US sweetener consumption, 1966-2009, in dry pounds. It is apparent from this graph that overall sweetener consumption, and in particular glucose-fructose mixtures, has increased since the introduction of HFCS. Thus, the amount of fructose consumed in the United States has increased since the early 1980s. This would be true whether the added sweetener was HFCS, table sugar, or any other glucose-fructose mixture.[30]

A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. prices of sugar are twice the global price[31] and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers.[32][33]

HFCS became an attractive substitute, and is preferred over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. and Canada in 1984.[34] Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.[35]

Other countries, including Mexico typically use sugar in soft drinks. Some Americans seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries, because they prefer the taste compared to Coke made with HFCS.[36][37] Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. around the Jewish holiday also uses sucrose rather than HFCS and is also highly sought after by people who prefer the original taste.[38]

The average American consumed approximately 37.8 lb (17.1 kg) of HFCS in 2008, versus 46.7 lb (21.2 kg) of sucrose.[39] In countries where HFCS is not used or rarely used, sucrose consumption per person may be higher than in the USA; sucrose consumption per person from various locations is shown below (2002):[40]

  • USA: 32.4 kg (71 lb)
  • EU: 40.1 kg (88 lb)
  • Brazil: 59.7 kg (132 lb)
  • Australia: 56.2 kg (124 lb)

Of course, in terms of total sugars consumed, the figures from countries where HFCS is not used should be compared to the sum of the sucrose and HFCS figures from countries where HFCS consumption is significant.

European Union

In the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tons; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tons of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.[41] Wide scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in the EU.

Japan

In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.[42]

Health effects

Main article: Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

Health concerns have been raised about high fructose corn syrup, which allege contribution to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by John S White who is a Consultant in sweeteners, HFCS and sucrose for the Food and Beverage Industry and also has a professional association with the Corn Refiners Association, rejects the HFCS-obesity hypothesis and finds that “[a]lthough examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same.”[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 0: Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 1: I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...