Economists point to rising debt as the next crisis.

Next crisis? I'd say it's a crisis right now, and it's not getting any better as our glorious leader and his socialist majority in congress continue to spend billions daily on ridiculous crap like cap and trade and free medical for everybody. Ah, but he's so eloquent as he sells the country to China....

Some budget-restraint activists claim even the debt understates the nation's true liabilities.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, established by a former commerce secretary and investment banker, argues that the $11.4 trillion debt figures does not take into account roughly $45 trillion in unlisted liabilities and unfunded retirement and health care commitments.

That would put the nation's full obligations at $56 trillion, or roughly $184,000 per American, according to this calculation.

The paragraph above at the end of the article really tells the story. This would put us at almost 400% of GDP if you include these unfunded liabilities. This amount of debt ($184,000 per American) cannot be re-paid. Houston we have a problem.

This has been an ongoing crises for a long time now... Because the way the Government spends our money, and just gives it away to other Countries as well... And how they just give themselves raises all the time... It is always the same, when the Government screws up, it is we the People who have to pay for it, never the Government Politicians... WE need less Government...

Hmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you ever notice that these articles seem to be written by people who don't seem to follow what's going on ??

The posting over the last 6-9 months on Newsvine by so many of us have been calling the spending by Bush and now by obama into question.

Since obama's administration, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have been hard at it the last 12 months, they have committed or spent 7.2 trillion dollars and have a Federal budget of about 3 trillion which has an additional 1.5+ Trillion more dollars in debt. AND........... This article does not mention any of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, That's incredible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who writes these ARTICLES ?? We are the Liberals......... ???

I personally don't want to hear about future un-funded liabilities. Let's work on the current ones !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just like these Clowns talking about Social Security ! It has a 2 Trillion dollar surplus !! Yes, it is in Treasury notes, but we also give these same notes out to the World for our Debt ! Yes, we will be in trouble in about twenty years for Social Security, NOT NOW !!

We should worry about the Real Crisis---Medicare That is what needs to be fixed !! Not the way obama wants to add millions of people to it and totally drive it into the ground.

Hey !! Wake Up out there !!

Remember the Third Great Lie: "Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."

Medicare is an esay fix; simply raise the premium for Part B, and initiate a premium for Part A. Most of those using it will comply... with a little grumbling. Social Security is another matter. One partial solution there is to cut off the huge number of those drawing SS Disability, even though they're as fit as you and I. And believe me, there IS a huge number of them.

WE need less Government...

The debt is a symptom of a growing government. On July 4th we might consider the day honors our founders that sought to free us from the excesses of government so we could realize our potential in a free society. We should be ashamed of the legacy we leave the future generations we have made them slaves of the government.

guess what i believe the economists like i believe the weatherman and the newscasters on cnn,nbc,abc,cbs their guess is probably like yours and mine and the energy global warming thrown in for good measure.. if they were so GREAT as they think they all are they would have predicted this ten years ago, but they are great economist now, great newcaster now, and great weathermen now after the fact... only if we could just have congress in session every five years maybe we might pull out of this recession caused by the dumocrats and barrack hussein obama..

our glorious leader and his socialist majority in congress

I know your talking about Obama but remember it was Bush who gave tax cuts to the rich with 2 wars to pay for, socialized Medicare part D,AIG,the banking industry,and the auto industry with his bailouts before Obama got into office,remember?

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

This can't be right, according to Obamanomics all we had to do was quadruple spending ,and it would cut the deficit in half. Don't listen to those right wing nut job economist, you'll see , "Obama, he gonna pay our rent , buy our gas", (an actual election day quote from an obama supporter, I think it was one of his economic advisors).

yeah, and they're going to vote for him again.

Finally, an article about the biggest problem looking us in the face, but I do have to take exception to one comment in the article;

"Over the past several decades, it has climbed sharply — except for a respite from 1998 to 2000, when there were annual budget surpluses"

There was not a single Fiscal Year under Clinton where there was a REAL budget surplus. Any "surpluses" were pie in the sky PROJECTIONS of FUTURE surpluses. I wish these so-called journalists would check the readily available actual numbers. For example, the DEFICIT for FYE 1998 was $109 Billion, the DEFICIT for 1999 was $127 Billion, and the DEFICIT for 2000 was $23 Billion.

People don't seem concerned about the massive debt that Obama's programs will cause. Ultimately, the cost of the National Debt is reflected in the interest we pay on the debt, which must be paid with tax revenues each year to avoid spiraling out of control.

Here are some interesting facts about the cost of the National Debt.

Under Bill Clinton, the average interest on the National Debt for a family of 4 was $4,780/yr.

Under George W Bush, the average interest on the National Debt for a family of 4 was $4,840/yr, an increase of only $60 per year for a family.

Under Barack Obama’s spending plans, the National Debt is projected to be over $20 Trillion in 8 years, and if the interest rate increases to the 8.05% of Jimmy Carter, the interest expense per year for a family of 4 will increase to approximately $20,000/yr.

That $15,000+ per year extra cost (for interest only) will have to be paid through increased taxes of $1,250 per MONTH for a family of 4.

This is the REAL cost of the wild spending spree that is going on now, and it will lead to a drastic decrease in the standard of living for our children and grandchildren. People will look back in 8 years and ask “How could they have been so foolish?” Since nobody realistically expects the National Debt to be paid down, this will be a debt millstone around the necks of future generations indefinitely.

Is this the “Change we can believe in” you voted for? I suppose the other campaign slogan also applies “Yes we can” drive this great country into the insolvency.

This can't be right, according to Obamanomics all we had to do was quadruple spending ,and it would cut the deficit in half.

Or how about the way Regan,Bush 41,43/Rep's always say tax cuts will bring more taxes in and then run the highest deficits ever for the last 5 years.

Gee the way tax cuts work in "Republican World" you would think the Debt is paid off..........

I would say they are a weeee bit low on that deficit figure considering Obama's administration is spending an average of 100B a DAY!

They just figured out that this is a crisis situation.......spending to get out of debt? They must of all failed Economics 101 and obviously they have no idea how to balance their own checkbooks. What a bunch of dimwits!

Here's another problem who's cost has not been factored in yet. The Cap and Trade bill is estimated to "raise" $600 Billion over 10 years. For a family of 4, that means $7,800 in the form of higher energy costs. Anything else is nothing but "smoke and mirrors". One way or another, that "$7,800 will be passed on to the consumers. There is no "free lunch", and the tax and spend liberals will just take that $600 Billion and spend it on useless programs.

Also, it will do NOTHING for "climate change" because China (world's largest Carbon emitter) and fast growing India will add ten times as much as we save. All we'll accomplish is to send more jobs to lower cost countries like China and India.

If you are as irate as you should be, call your Senators. The phone numbers are as follows - Just dial Area Code 202 + 22 + the number below (ie; 4-6361 would be (202) 224-6361 for Daniel Akaka). The SH-141 for Akaka is his office number in the Senate Building if you want to write..

AKAKA, Daniel K. (D-HI) SH-141 4-6361
ALEXANDER, Lamar (R-TN) SD-455 4-4944
BARRASSO, John (R-WY) SD-307 4-6441
BAUCUS, Max (D-MT) SH-511 4-2651
BAYH, Evan (D-IN) SR-131 4-5623
BEGICH, Mark (D-AK) SR-144 4-3004
BENNET, Michael F. (D-CO) SH-702 4-5852
BENNETT, Robert F. (R-UT) SD-431 4-5444
BINGAMAN, Jeff (D-NM) SH-703 4-5521
BOND, Christopher S. (R-MO) SR-274 4-5721
BOXER, Barbara (D-CA) SH-112 4-3553
BROWN, Sherrod (D-OH) SH-713 4-2315
BROWNBACK, Sam (R-KS) SH-303 4-6521
BUNNING, Jim (R-KY) SH-316 4-4343
BURR, Richard (R-NC) SR-217 4-3154
BURRIS, Roland W. (D-IL) SR-387 4-2854
BYRD, Robert C. (D-WV) SH-311 4-3954
CANTWELL, Maria (D-WA) SD-511 4-3441
CARDIN, Benjamin L. (D-MD) SH-509 4-4524
CARPER, Thomas R. (D-DE) SH-513 4-2441
CASEY, Jr., Robert P. (D-PA) SR-393 4-6324
CHAMBLISS, Saxby (R-GA) SR-416 4-3521
COBURN, Tom (R-OK) SR-172 4-5754
COCHRAN, Thad (R-MS) SD-113 4-5054
COLLINS, Susan M. (R-ME) SD-413 4-2523
CONRAD, Kent (D-ND) SH-530 4-2043
CORKER, Bob (R-TN) SD-185 4-3344
CORNYN, John (R-TX) SH-517 4-2934
CRAPO, Mike (R-ID) SD-239 4-6142
DeMINT, Jim (R-SC) SR-340 4-6121
DODD, Christopher J. (D-CT) SR-448 4-2823
DORGAN, Byron L. (D-ND) SH-322 4-2551
DURBIN, Richard J. (D-IL) SH-309 4-2152
ENSIGN, John (R-NV) SR-119 4-6244
ENZI, Michael B. (R-WY) SR-379A 4-3424
FEINGOLD, Russell D. (D-WI) SH-506 4-5323
FEINSTEIN, Dianne (D-CA) SH-331 4-3841
GILLIBRAND, Kirsten E. (D-NY) SR-478 4-4451
GRAHAM, Lindsey (R-SC) SR-290 4-5972
GRASSLEY, Chuck (R-IA) SH-135 4-3744
GREGG, Judd (R-NH) SR-201 4-3324
HAGAN, Kay R. (D-NC) SD-521 4-6342
HARKIN, Tom (D-IA) SH-731 4-3254
HATCH, Orrin G. (R-UT) SH-104 4-5251
HUTCHISON, Kay Bailey (R-TX) SR-284 4-5922
INHOFE, James M. (R-OK) SR-453 4-4721
INOUYE, Daniel K. (D-HI) SH-722 4-3934
ISAKSON, Johnny (R-GA) SR-120 4-3643
JOHANNS, Mike (R-NE) SR-404 4-4224
JOHNSON, Tim (D-SD) SH-136 4-5842
KAUFMAN, Edward E. (D-DE) SR-383 4-5042
KENNEDY, Edward M. (D-MA) SR-317 4-4543
KERRY, John F. (D-MA) SR-218 4-2742
KLOBUCHAR, Amy (D-MN) SH-302 4-3244
KOHL, Herb (D-WI) SH-330 4-5653
KYL, Jon (R-AZ) SH-730 4-4521
LANDRIEU, Mary L. (D-LA) SH-328 4-5824
LAUTENBERG, Frank R. (D-NJ) SH-324 4-3224
LEAHY, Patrick J. (D-VT) SR-433 4-4242
LEVIN, Carl (D-MI) SR-269 4-6221
LIEBERMAN, Joseph I. (ID-CT) SH-706 4-4041
LINCOLN, Blanche L. (D-AR) SD-355 4-4843
LUGAR, Richard G. (R-IN) SH-306 4-4814
MARTINEZ, Mel (R-FL) SR-356 4-3041
McCAIN, John (R-AZ) SR-241 4-2235
McCASKILL, Claire (D-MO) SH-717 4-6154
McCONNELL, Mitch (R-KY) SR-361A 4-2541
MENENDEZ, Robert (D-NJ) SH-528 4-4744
MERKLEY, Jeff (D-OR) SR-107 4-3753
MIKULSKI, Barbara A. (D-MD) SH-503 4-4654
MINNESOTA (Vacant) (MN) 4-5641
MURKOWSKI, Lisa (R-AK) SH-709 4-6665
MURRAY, Patty (D-WA) SR-173 4-2621
NELSON, Ben (D-NE) SH-720 4-6551
NELSON, Bill (D-FL) SH-716 4-5274
PRYOR, Mark L. (D-AR) SD-255 4-2353
REED, Jack (D-RI) SH-728 4-4642
REID, Harry (D-NV) SH-522 4-3542
RISCH, James E. (R-ID) SR-483 4-2752
ROBERTS, Pat (R-KS) SH-109 4-4774
ROCKEFELLER IV, John D. (D-WV) SH-531 4-6472
SANDERS, Bernard (I-VT) SD-332 4-5141
SCHUMER, Charles E. (D-NY) SH-313 4-6542
SESSIONS, Jeff (R-AL) SR-335 4-4124
SHAHEEN, Jeanne (D-NH) SH-520 4-2841
SHELBY, Richard C. (R-AL) SR-304 4-5744
SNOWE, Olympia J. (R-ME) SR-154 4-5344
SPECTER, Arlen (D-PA) SH-711 4-4254
STABENOW, Debbie (D-MI) SH-133 4-4822
TESTER, Jon (D-MT) SH-724 4-2644
THUNE, John (R-SD) SR-493 4-2321
UDALL, Mark (D-CO) SH-317 4-5941
UDALL, Tom (D-NM) SH-110 4-6621
VITTER, David (R-LA) SH-516 4-4623
VOINOVICH, George V. (R-OH) SH-524 4-3353
WARNER, Mark R. (D-VA) SR-459A 4-2023
WEBB, Jim (D-VA) SR-248 4-4024
WHITEHOUSE, Sheldon (D-RI) SH-502 4-2921
WICKER, Roger F. (R-MS) SD-555 4-6253
WYDEN, Ron (D-OR) SD-223 4-5244

it was Bush who gave tax cuts to the rich

Technically the "rich" pay all the taxes anyway so by definition any tax cut would be for the "rich".

What is sad is that we have a "progressive" income tax system instead of a flat one, and any attempt to bring the thing back to any semblance of fairness is automatically considered a benefit to the rich. The rich don't want an advantage, they just want to be un-****ed. It goes without saying that a person making 50K a year would pay as much taxes as 2 people making 25K, but it ain't so. That one person making 50 pays a larger percentage. This is about as backward thinking as you can get.

Anyway.

National Debt Road Trip - watch this short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

I agree with Roy on Cap and trade bill .

All it will do is raise our power bill and allow the power plants that already aren't producing obscene amounts of greenhouse gasses to sell the amount they have left to over producing plants for cash.It won't change our air purity 1 bit!!!!!!!!!

Protest Cap and Trade and fight for a real soulution to the problem.

Roy

You kill me with this argument.

Yes I will agree with you that the deficit has gotten ridiculously out of control under Obama this year,no denying that. Even though I must remind you that the first stimulus bill and the 700 billion bank bailout where on Bush not Obama,even though they show on this years budget.

But you bitch about reporters using projected numbers for the Clinton years and the surpluses they say happened and then you go and use PROJECTED numbers to condemn Obama's spending habits.

Double standard there????

They just figured out that this is a crisis situation.......spending to get out of debt? They must of all failed Economics 101 and obviously they have no idea how to balance their own checkbooks. What a bunch of dimwits!

It's no different then when Regan,Bush 41 and Bush 43 said that tax cuts would lower the deficit................And then expanded the Government/spent even more after they railed against big government when they were running for office.

Remember Bush 43 saying he didn't agree with nation building during his first debates????And then what did he do try and fail at, to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

People will look back in 8 years and ask “How could they have been so foolish?”

Roy that is exactlly what I've been asking myself for the last 4 years under Bush 43 all we got was a false housing economy and 2 unfinished wars for our almost $5 trillion debt under Bush 43 in 8 years...........

Realistic Ed "Roy that is exactlly what I've been asking myself for the last 4 years under Bush 43 all we got was a false housing economy and 2 unfinished wars for our almost $5 trillion debt under Bush 43 in 8 years"

I would agree with you that Bush went along with a ridiculous spending spree too, but I have to disagree with you on the issue of who's to blame for the "false housing economy" and the resulting financial meltdown. Consider this;

Contributed by PerryJ

For those who want to blame the Bush Administration for lack of concern over the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis until it was too late, consider this:

2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

2003 September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

2003 September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

2003 October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

2003 November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

2004 February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

2004 April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

2004 June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2005 July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

2007 August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

2007 December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

2008 March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

2008 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

2008 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

2008 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

2008 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

2008 September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.

Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:

Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Realistic Ed " Roy - You kill me with this argument. Yes I will agree with you that the deficit has gotten ridiculously out of control under Obama this year,no denying that. Even though I must remind you that the first stimulus bill and the 700 billion bank bailout where on Bush not Obama,even though they show on this years budget. But you @!$%# about reporters using projected numbers for the Clinton years and the surpluses they say happened and then you go and use PROJECTED numbers to condemn Obama's spending habits. Double standard there????"

As to the 700 million bank bailout, this was presented as an "investment that would be repaid", and recent reports indicate that the government will actually make a profit from that "investment, so Barney Frank wants to take the "profit" and use it for more housing programs - just what caused the housing bubble in the first place.

And isn't it interesting that there are no congressional investigations into the biggest financial fiasco in our nations history that has cost our nation over $15 TRILLION in lost wealth- I wonder why? Hint - The Democrats in control of Congress have their hands all over it (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, ACORN, etc.).

As to the "Double standard", I clearly identified which of my figures were actual and which were projections and I think my criticism of claiming "surpluses for 1998-2000" is valid - the reporters didn't do their research and continued a myth.

Roy

I in no way deny that Dems are also at fault for the housing crisis, but you have to remember back to all those speeches Bush gave on expanding home ownership to minorities and low income families. It wasn't just the Dems forcing Fannie and Freddie to do this it was also Bush.

As long as his friends on wall street were making money hand over fist he had no problem with it until 2007 as you quoted, and the problem had already started in places like Cali and Fl. I lived in Fl in 2007 and the housing market was a disaster at that time well before it hit the rest of the country in 2008.

So he didn't get in front of the situation until the downturn had already started and his wall street buddies were starting to get hurt.............

This is a speech he gave to HUD in 2002.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.
We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector.

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy.

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home.

Roy

The Dem's didn't control Congress until after the 2006 election which means they didn't take over until Jan 20 2007. Before then the Rep's controlled all 3 branches. So unless you are going to tell me that the Rep's in control until Jan 19 2007 put forth a bill that the Dem's filibustered or defeated it is very hard to only blame Dem's for this fiasco we are in now.

Everybody Rep/Dem in Congress was getting rich on what was occurring in the housing sector and the resulting wall street derivatives they were peddling and receiving big campaign contributions and stock price run-ups all the while selling us down the river for their own greed/benefit.

For a solid 4+ years between 2002 and 2007 the Bush Administration was touting home ownership as the answer to every-bodies problems,because it made everybody feel rich and it allowed them to go and spend their asses off with big flat screen TV's/new cars/etc and falsely fuel our consumer economy since wages had actually gone down when inflation adjusted during Bush's terms.

Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration.

• Average household income has declined each year during the Bush presidency. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/05) Median weekly earnings have fallen 0.9 percent since 2001 compared with 7.3 percent growth in the last five years of the Clinton Administration. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Like I just said above the housing crisis started in Cali and Fl in the late spring early summer of 2007 ( at least where I was in South Fl) and it is very hard to believe that everything that went wrong is the fault of less then 8 months of Dem Congressional control. Although you and others will attempt to portray it that way.

Yeah I didn't think I would get a response after throwing FACTS around..................

There is no "free lunch", and the tax and spend liberals will just take that $600 Billion and spend it on useless programs.

As opposed to the un-tax and still spend Bush years where we added 5 trillion to the National debt during what was "called" a great economy,lol.

Hearing Conservatives complain about deficits is the worst kind of hypocrisy when they have run up 80% of the $10.6 trillion debt we had when Bush 43 left office and just 8 years ago it $5.7 trillion.............

I just want to know the following, as I am quoting portions of the article:

The odometer-style "debt clock" near Times Square — put in place in 1989 when the debt was a mere $2.7 trillion — ran out of numbers and had to be shut down when the debt surged past $10 trillion in 2008.

So, the clock was shut down--are we sure it's not any higher? I mean, it had to be shut down because it ran out of numbers...

The clock has since been refurbished so higher numbers fit. There are several debt clocks on Web sites maintained by public interest groups that let you watch hundreds, thousands, millions zip by in a matter of seconds.

So that's how the government made its estimate--also, how much money was spent in putting additional spaces so that the number can expand? Is that part of the deficit spending? I just want to know if I need to spread that waste of money into the deficit spending...

The debt gap is "something that keeps me awake at night," Obama says.

As it should, Mr. Obama--because your policies so far have been the most successful failures since the dawn of modern politics.

He pledged to cut the budget "deficit" roughly in half by the end of his first term. But "deficit" just means the difference between government receipts and spending in a single budget year.

So, really, he's not doing anything. It's the token equivalent of putting a band-aid on a bleeding sore.

That's what you get when you get empty promises out of a man without political experience-- a whole lotta nothing.

So, the clock was shut down--are we sure it's not any higher? I mean, it had to be shut down because it ran out of numbers...

Jeez

NO.The debt clock is just like the scoreboard clock in a sporting event. The officials keep time and the scoreboard clock is just for the fans not official, lol.

also, how much money was spent in putting additional spaces so that the number can expand? Is that part of the deficit spending? I just want to know if I need to spread that waste of money into the deficit spending...

NO. It is a privately owned clock,lol.

So, really, he's not doing anything. It's the token equivalent of putting a band-aid on a bleeding sore.

That's what you get when you get empty promises out of a man without political experience-- a whole lotta nothing.

And just what was Bush 43 doing as deficits rose every year for the past 5 years to the highest in history?

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

Please learn just a little bit about things you post about.................

Kudos to you Roy Wilson I read through the whole post and it is one of the finest in your face facts that I have seen on the vine, This has been the Democrats problem since they took over both houses of congress on Jan 20th 2007 well before all of the experts estimate that the problem started the Fall of 2007, and for Dodd to spew his lies about why weren't they informed, and that the administration hadn't been around for the last 8 yrs is despicable and frankly disgusting.

I have posted before, if people want to see how the Democrats will run this country, just look at the states where Democrats are in control, can you say California, or Minnesota, or New York. BROKE

I can not for the life of me understand why this statement makes any sense, why do we want our dollar weak?

But as the U.S. spends trillions to stabilize the recession-wracked economy, helping to force down the value of the dollar, the securities become less attractive as investments.

This has been the Democrats problem since they took over both houses of congress on Jan 20th 2007 well before all of the experts estimate that the problem started the Fall of 2007

I guess you just wish to believe the lie that there were no problems in the economy before the fall of 2007.I lived in South Fl at the time and the housing/construction market was a disaster starting in the winter of 2007.

Housing prices were dropping rapidly and loans were almost impossible to come by as many families lost their homes/jobs/businesses long before the fall of 2007.

Since you wish to just blame Dodd and Dem's for the economy/housing problem I will have to re-post this from above to show you how it was Bush also pushing for new ways to spread home ownership to low income people without down payments so his friends on Wall Street could get rich on the fees they received whether the loans were good or not....

I in no way deny that Dems are also at fault for the housing crisis, but you have to remember back to all those speeches Bush gave on expanding home ownership to minorities and low income families. It wasn't just the Dems forcing Fannie and Freddie to do this it was also Bush.

As long as his friends on wall street were making money hand over fist he had no problem with it until 2007 as you quoted, and the problem had already started in places like Cali and Fl. I lived in Fl in 2007 and the housing market was a disaster at that time well before it hit the rest of the country in 2008.

So he didn't get in front of the situation until the downturn had already started and his wall street buddies were starting to get hurt.............

This is a speech he gave to HUD in 2002.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it. We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector.

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy.

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home.

they can fix this real easy..instead of just taking pictures of other planets..they should be prospecting for Gold, Diamonds and other precious minerals/ elements...that would solve all our woes and insanity...hehehe....they say everything here is in small/ limited supply..forget colonization, go prospecting..

Why doesn't MSNBC tell the truth?

It's because MSNBC's owner GE is in bed with the Obama administration.

GE is also waiting for the Cap and TradeSpend winfall should the senate approve the bill.

A lot of money stands to be made by one of Obama's major campaign contributors.

Gary instead of just blaming the person who inherited the problem why don't you put it where it really belongs on Reagan,Bush 41 and Bush 43. They have run up 80% of the national debt.Bush 43 doubled the debt in just 8 years.But you don't complain about that do you???Hell Bush 43 inherited a surplus and still doubled the debt with his tax cuts for the rich even during 2 wars.

Obama needs to get spending under control also but don't forget just who got us here my friend.

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

Gary instead of just blaming the person who inherited the problem why don't you put it where it really belongs on Reagan,Bush 41 and Bush 43.

Oh sand trap, Clinton gave us NAFTA and the beginning of jobs moving out of the country. The surplus people quote while his leaving office had some bit of accounting magic applied and excluded some debt. He wasn't a hero to every liberal or democrat who looked at hard at his record.

For me, I would push the clock back further back in time, to when Eisenhower took office. President Johnson screwed up badly and moved Social Security from a private fund into the general fund and gave us that lovely entitlement to deal with as well.

Realistic Ed The debt was 7.2 Trillion when Bush took office. The debt was 8.4 at the end of his 8 year term. THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT WAS 9.7 when Bush took office and almost 15 Trillion when he left office. Since Obama took office the National Debt has risen to 12.5 Trillion and the Gross Domestic Product is plummeting. How long are you going to continue making excuses for Obama's failed economic policies.

And one last thing everyone that paid taxes got a tax break under Bush not just the rich and if you don't know that then you don't pay taxes. I am middle class and got a tax break and a $1600 dollar stimulus check!

d Burger

Check your facts because they are wrong.I would like to know how your math equals $1.2 trillion when he added over $5 trillion.

With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtml

By the time George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion. He ran up more debt faster than nearly all of his predecessors combined: just under $4.9-trillion.

The National Debt stood at $10.6-trillon on the day Barack Obama took office

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4872310.shtml

The National debt as of today is 11.5 trillion dollars. Bush was irresponsible but Obama is much worse.

Check your facts. Here is the debt clock

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

d burger

I find it hysterical that someone that I proved is so very wrong actually is trying to tell me to check my facts after I prove how wrong they are...Maybe if you looked at the debt clock before you posted your garbage lies you would know what I had to tell you..............

Yes there is 900 billion added to the deficit since Obama took office but remember Bush spent 400 billion on the first stimulus bill and 700 billion on the bank bailout that is included in this budget so 1.1 trillion of this deficit is still Bush's fault not Obama.

So don't even attempt to tell me how Obama is socializing America when BUSH nationalized AIG,the auto industry and the banking industry within months of leaving office.

Look into the mirror my friend and see what your vote has wrought over the past 8 years.......

Doubled national debt,2 pathetically run wars(whether you agree with them or not) that have lasted 7 years and still are not finished,destroyed economy,broken infrastructure,New Orleans still a hurricane disaster area 4 years later,etc...........

ed

when jobs leave a country so do taxes. when did jobs start leaving this country and what job sector was first hit?

Yes manufacturing jobs leaving this country bother me greatly as a machinist that is out of work from the automotive racing industry.And I blame/hate for Clinton for NAFTA.

BUT you need to remember that it was Bush who said we needed to be a service sector(banking industry) nation,remember all those speeches where he said as much, not a manufacturing nation and pursued that end relentlessly in giving tax breaks to companies that located offshore and exported jobs to China and India.

Don't talk to me about how the person who cracked the door open is more to blame then the person who kicked it wide open and held it there..............

Manufacturing was the first to take a hit, and it's still taking hits.

• One week before leaving office, Bush asked Congress for the remaining $350 billion of the $700 billion Wall Street Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP bailout package.

That same last week, Bush signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 raising the national debt ceiling for the eighth time to $12.104 trillion to accommodate the $11.3 trillion all time record debt he left the incoming administration.

To put some perspective on how out of control our borrowing has become, it took the country about 200 years to run up its first trillion dollars in debt. Then President Reagan took office in 1981 and the national debt started to soar, quadrupling to $4 trillion by the time the first President Bush exited the White House.

Put another way, the country's debt load represented just a third of gross domestic product when Reagan arrived in Washington. By the time Bush gallops back to Texas in January, our debt will represent about 70% of the overall economy.

Or legalize and tax weed and prostitution!!

legalizing anything hasn't helped Nevada or Alaska or any country financially.

Not likely, but it would

• cut back on the number of people in prisons for weed and prostitution (saving tax payer money indirectly),
• provide taxable, high demand products and services,
• provide legal recourse to women who are abused by men during the transfer of services,
• create jobs,
• free up our legal system to pursue more important things (like identity theft or domestic abuse) and
• reduce the impact of illegal drug trade across our borders (undercutting prices and requiring a license to sell, like alcohol) and human trafficking (requiring licenses to operate, filing taxes and legal representation would require accountability in regards to citizenship).

I don't think that legalizing anything is going to fix our debt issue, but it will bring a subset of society out of the shadows and free up our resources to operate more efficiently as a country.

In regards to Alaska and prostitution; it's a no go. Wikipedia said it's only Nevada and RI at this point. As far as weed goes (I am not a fan, I just think criminalization is silly), I think that the expecation would be to have it regulated in the same way alcohol is.

Just an idea. I doubt a comment here would change minds. I appreciate the moral side of the coin as well. Who wants prostitutes smoking weed outside the front steps of church on Sundays anyways. :)

Hooridian2 --I think it's clear Obama wants to destroy the America that exists today.

You "un-spend" the money by cutting back or eliminating future obligations. Cut everyone off. That, after all, is the free market approach.

Before you condemn Obama for as you say destroying America you need to remember that is was Bush that got us into 1 of the 2 wars we are currently in that was a war of choice, and a bad choice at that,unless you consider spending $500 billion or more on Iraq when we didn't need to and spent $700 billion on the bank bailout.

Bush nationalized AIG,the banking industry,the auto industry,and medicare D,not Obama... Where would all of your SS money be right now if Bush's plan to privatize SS went through?????? Holding a cup begging for change on a city street is where you would be with less then half of your retirement money left as of today.

But I don't hear any of you Bushies talking about that do I??????????

There is always hope. We can dig ourself out of this hole by returning to Constitutional spending. Cut out the handouts.

Exactly what is the 'real/intrinsic' value of gold and silver? Can't eat it, like food. Can't build a house from it, like wood. Can't make clothing out of it, like cotton. Can't create warmth in the winter or air conditioning in the summer, like wood,coal and electricity. Can't use it as transportation like a horse or a car.

It's only value is the universal perception from the greed of others around the world simply based on historical conditioning. What's that mean? It means you can barter/trade with it. Ok, that's value, but it sure isn't logical as to why...

Oh and if you could remove people mismanaging government, who would you replace them with? The bright boys from the private sector? Other governments more competent than ours? Mega-conglomerate industries?

There is always hope. We can dig ourself out of this hole by returning to Constitutional spending. Cut out the handouts.

How likely is this?

It's only value is the universal perception from the greed of others around the world simply based on historical conditioning. What's that mean? It means you can barter/trade with it. Ok, that's value, but it sure isn't logical as to why...

What kind of historical conditioning do you mean exactly? Yes, gold and silver has been used as currency for thousands of years, and yes we assign value to them based in part on this "historical conditioning", but why not? I have more faith the gold and silver sitting in my safe than I do in the paper currency in my wallet. If I leave an ounce of any precious metal in my freezer along with a $100 dollar bill, which will have more value in five, 10, 20 years?

Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant by removing people from office. It is entirely within our power to do this every election cycle. It is as simple as finding the right people running for office. I am not sure what you meant when you were referring to the private sector people. CEOs maybe? The point is to make an informed decision based on a thorough evaluation of whoever is running. There are many competent individuals out there that run for political office, but they often receive few votes. Instead the usual suspects, so to speak, are elected and reelected, and the status quo is maintained. (Although this is not the case in every election).

Bottom line, we're all responsible for what happens in this country.

Rep,

Excellent idea there, but people seem to forget: Our federal tax money is not controlled by our government. That control is given to an entity we know of as the Federal Reserve, which is not federal, but actually a private bank whose owners, with the exception of a few, we don't know. Nor do they supply us with any information on what exactly they do with our money. It is time for people to REALLY wake up and realize this:

No president nor any congress created this financial crisis, the Federal Reserve Bank did and has STOLEN our money since 1913, since it is illegal for them to tax our income according to the Supreme Court and congress who gave the government no new taxing power. After taking our money, the invest it.....inflate it, deflate it, whatever it is they feel like doing with it, including LOSING it, we still have no idea where TRILLIONS of dollars over the last 100 years have gone.. Our government BORROWS money from the Fed to run itself and then must pay back the money it borrows from PRIVATE INTEREST BANKERS plus interest.

Herein is how they have enslaved us. Funny how this problem didn't even seem to be on the horizon til when? Last winter? George Bush announced "Oh by the way, we realize after the last 25 years or so of Reagan and Thatcher politics that we already eliminated the majority of the industry and good paying jobs in the U.S., but we are now in further trouble and expecting the tax payers will now have to bail out PRIVATE business, the complete OPPOSITE of a capitalist system." Then exit, stage left, toss a messiah (Obama) at us who was so obviously GROOMED for the job....folks, this wan't an election. IT was a coup, just like G.W.'s election, only there was do much trouble the LAST time the corporations fixed an election that this time they had to make us WANT to get fooled.

The hard, cold truth is there likely isn't any gold to get our hands on, as the Federal Reserve ALSO "assumed control" of all our gold.....in other words, it's likely long GONE. Our enemy is not our current president, nor the last one, but the corporations that have spouted from OUR illegally taken tax money, who have sucked us dry and now are leaving us to die. And guess what? We'll have to pay for all THEIR childrens education in the future while they saddle ours with tons of debt to get an education and that is IF the money will be there to give ours one......Welcome to serfdom, and unless we dump these bastages on their heads, like a good president SHOULD have done and disolve the Fed, we are truly screwed.

The hard, cold truth is there likely isn't any gold to get our hands on, as the Federal Reserve ALSO "assumed control" of all our gold.....in other words, it's likely long GONE.

It is still possible to get a hold of gold. The real question is, how long will we have this opportunity?

how so? for FY2007 we had record state and federal revenues yet Big Bro still couldn't control spending. Cutting defense in these days would be as ignorant as bailing out GM and Banks and insurance companies.

My friend, you have the mushroom complex, "in the dark and covered with manure". Closing bases, retiring carriers, decommision nuclear weapons? These savings (if there are any) would be miniscule. Sure it would be nice to bring home the troops tomorrow, and Iraq may be in the wind down process to accomplish this. Afghanistan, you will remember was home to the organization that flew a couple of planes into buildings. You do remember that? There is still more work to do there and the cost to solve that problem will still pale in comparison to another attack on US soil. Do you recall how many trillions our economy suffered because of the last attack? Our economy as fragile as it is right now, would have a hard time recovering from another.

To get our fiscal house in order has to start with the House of Reps where the spending bills originate. We have no leadership that is rational, San Fran Nan is an extremist, and if you don;t think she is out to profit from the Cap and TRade, you better look to see where her Hubby. This is just an example of where the interests of our Legislators lie, examine the porkulus bill, see where the money is going and who added those line items in the bill. Our POTUS, is still campaigning. TRying to get that second term so in his own mind he will find a revered spot in history. He will find a spot in History, just below Jimmy Carter in POTUS ratings. Our problem is we have very self centered law makers and leaders, who have forgotten the reason they were elected. This occurs on both sides of the aisle, it is not exlcusive to one party or the other. But since one party is in control, they will bear the brunt of criticism. We can only hope our voices will be heard.

You are correct, my friend. We can't do any of the things I just said. We can't bring the troops home, we can't get rid of our nuclear weapons, we can't close those bases, or mothball the fleet because there still plenty of money to made by the corporate elite before they suck each and everyone of us dry. We are at the stage where the Soviet Union was before it collasped. And like them we are seeing a rapid decline economically...in part, because we have over extended our Empire. Did you know how much we spend to keep our Military functioning? Here is a quick list of the biggest defense contracts:

1.

$72,879,271,338

2.

$33,779,594,635

3.

$32,010,854,494

4.

$27,325,674,738

5.

$25,130,774,340

6.
(a subsidiary of Boeing)
$22,084,604,026

7.

$14,209,754,340

8.

$10,136,135,482

9.

$7,579,946,412

10.

$7,436,163,841

11.

$5,696,662,091

12.

$4,678,142,561

13.

$4,504,607,503

14.

$2,738,385,619

15.

$2,277,322,385

You are right...we will have to keep fighting these wars...until we can no longer fight.

Oh and I do most certainly agree with you on the state of Congress and our Corporatist Government. There is only one party...the party that can bend over furthest and take it the deepest from Lockheed-Martin and Haliburton. First it was the Bushies and now it's the Obamas.

And, no, our voices won't be heard... DON'T VOTE DEMOCRACT OR REPUBLICAN in the next election cycle (if we are lucky enough to have one). Pick a third party.

Karl Marx would be proud of you! Any chance you'll move to Cuba? We'll take up a collection for you straight away!

Gee Wiz and I thought people had gotten past the mentality of the 60's 'Love it or Leave it.' Silly me. What's your next original thought...I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee'?

And I am not a Socialist or a Communist...I believe in the smallest government possible. I think Barry Goldwater was Great Man and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in if he had been elected President instead of Lyndon Johnson. Johnson set the pattern for Presidents to lie (like Bush) to get their dirty little wars started.

Is anybody really surprised at any of this,the average American has had this issue breathing down the back of their necks for awhile now,so these expert idiots need to excuse me for not falling over in shock.I hope people will forgive me for not getting in to the "blame game",it's a moot point at best,kinda like two skydivers arguing over who's fault it was for not packing parachutes......on the way down!

mdsj,

Bush didn't write the TARP bill Congress did...They were on board...Did you take civics in high school ? It's pretty basic,so get off Bush did it..

He still needed to clear it.

And I'll stay on Bush did it all I want. He did it.

Also as President-elect Obama told congress he would veto any attempt to stop the second half of the tarp funding. He was for it and supported it as well. So at least share the blame

mdsj,

Typical Liberal..The facts stare you right in the eye and you don't see it..I expected that would be your answer....

Cs - Fair enough, i'll share the blame.

Greg - You still won't comment on how Bush supported it as well. Wasn't just Obama or congress under Bush. Bush had the power to veto it, and he didn't. Also, I am not a liberal nor conservative. I wouldn't prescribe to either fully. There's things I can appreciate on both sides, but wouldn't never fully go one way or the other. I try to find middle ground and call it as I see it.

Yes, Bush did sign it.. If he would have vetoed it,the loss to the Democrats would have been even greater...It was a no win situation for Bush.. Bush only spent one half of the money at first,at the urging of Obama he released the other half. He was going to wait until the change of power... You do recall that right?

I think i am a middle of the ground person,but i am not blind...When you see the distruction of the country it's time to speak out..

Bush didn't write the TARP bill Congress did...They were on board...Did you take civics in high school ? It's pretty basic,so get off Bush did it..

Gee I must be mistaken when I thought I saw Bush on TV saying how very much we needed the 700 billion bailout.I must have also sleeped though him vetoing it and congress must have over ridded his veto according to you.........

Bush only spent one half of the money at first,

Yes I do remember and it was a democratic run congress that held him to the 350 billion of the 700 billion he wanted to spend with a 3 yes 3 page bill that Paulson and the Fed wrote.

Don't try your BS here my friend some of us still have a memory....................

Exactly

Of course, the current party in power will keep telling us....'There is Light at the End of the Tunnel'....

Whoa.....I just had a bad 60's flashback...

I fear this country is going broke and whoever owns the most of us is going to take over. I used to think China would but now I am wondering if maybe our President bowed to his next boss not that long ago. Heaven knows We The People aren't the bosses like we are suppose to be.

You mean wasting trillions of dollars hoping for a short-term "bounce" in the economy wasn't a good idea? No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at our government.

I couldn't agree more.

Ten four Dawn. It really is a sad state of affairs.

. . . and therein lies the problem. Consider the fraction of readers who agree with that sentiment, then the fraction of the U.S. population who read this column, and the "millions of us" becomes that product.

Ditto that response, Dawn.

It is indeed time to overthrow this goverment and go back to one run by the people for the people. I really can see this happening more every day. What are they going to do against millions of us??

Hell, I'm all for it. I'm tired of working like a dog, only to be taxed heavily throughout the year. And if that's not enough, I get to pay again when I file income taxes. And let's not forget those property taxes. There are so many social programs that tax payers pay for, and all of these programs need to be overhauled. There is so much abuse and fraudulent use of these programs. I'm talking about welfare, social security disability, even social security. How is it that a person who has barely worked in the U.S.A can claim such benefits? I don't understand. How many people who are on these programs really need it. Why do the U.S.A always have to be the defenders of the world? Protecting other countries liberties and rights while in America our own is going hungry and losing our homes. What's really sad is that a lot of homeless are those that fought for this country. I see families sleeping in cars when I go on my morning walks. It's heartbreaking. I have no savings, I can't see any accomplishments at the end of the year. Two of my adult children were laid off and are desperately looking for work, any work, yet they can't find any. I have a high school graduate who graduated 2 years ago and can't find work, he has since completed his certification as a pharmacy tech. Where does this craziness end. The government is definitely not for the people. As someone stated earlier, we're lining their pockets. It's devastating. We are a people rather we're republicans, democrats, black, white, green or purple. Do we possess any power at all to put this madness to an end? What can we do? I vote without fail 100% of the time, but just because you vote does not mean the outcome will be in your favor. Sorry to rant and rave. I just needed to get it off my chest.

Shay, I agree with you. Why are drug users on SSI? I read an article years ago in the paper about that.

I have family member who is mentally impaired, has been since birth, when they became an adult the only way they could get medical, since they could no longer be on the family insurance plan was to collect SSI. All the family wanted at that time was medical help but you can not get medicaid if you don't collect SSI. You can not get medicaid if you make too much money on your own in a year and your SSI gets canceled.

Does this sound like a smart government to you?

As I have stated here on the vine before, when I was a single mom many years ago, I didn't have medical insurance. My kids were covered under my x's plan fortunately. Anyway, I went to the local Job and Family Service office to see about getting some kind of medical. The only way I could get it was to live completely off the government, free housing, free food stamps, etc. I didn't require that since I had great parents that let me live with them and I was working a part time job so, instead of taking all I didn't need, I didn't get what I needed.

I had someone tell me I was crazy, I should have played the system and they said you paid taxes you should get some back. They told me I should have taken the free housing and not lived there, I should have taken the food stamps and all the other goodies the government wanted to give away. Why? Why would I want to do that, just because someone else does it? This is why our country is going broke, the government doesn't encourage the people to think and work for themselves.

Greg,

There never was a Clinton surplus,google it..It was bookkeeping manipulation..The debt before Tarp was around 580 billion,Tarp brought it to 1.3 trillion.. Obama has added way more that that in his first 5 months....What do you think the energy bill will do? How about health care...Who is going to pay????

find out how much we spend on illegal imigration ,it dwarfs the iraq war.

You can find an article or a statistic to justify any and every point of view. Here's one I read recently: Obama is responsible for 7% of the current deficit and George Bush is responsible for 33%. The big difference is Bush did it largely off the books - in other words he was sneaky and underhanded. Obama has been right up front about it! And Obama's debt is directed towards legit purposes, not a fake war with the weakest opponent he could find, rather than the war that should have been fought from the beginning with the Afganis hiding Bin Laden.

Lets get together and bail ourselves out. I'm willing to pay a little extra on my next tax return (say $50 each for my wife and I) to help. If everyone who has a job would do that, we would be out of trouble in a short time.

"find out how much we spend on illegal imigration ,it dwarfs the iraq war."

Yes, eliminate illegal immigration and throw ALL the employers of illegals in jail. I agree with you totally. That is another way to save money besides the wasting of $1 trillion occupying Iraq.

"What do you think the energy bill will do? How about health care?"

Energy bill = basically needed, but the country is too self ceneterd and immature to do the right thing. So it will probably be a waste.

Health care = same basic deal. The US is hopeless when it comes to spending tax payer money for the good of the people. Instead we piss it away on wars, military waste and farm subsidies for rednecks who complain about socialism.

Good ideas, keep them coming.

the stock market will crash within 1 year , remember this.

A hole that Obama is digging deeper and faster then Bush ever did.

the new world order is done. Our politicians have made us the pariah of the world, and now countries all over the world do not trust us and are turning their backs on us. That is why in all the prophecies from the Aztec's to Casey their is no mention of the U.S. we will not exist at that time as a country. We will be destroyed or break up into two or three countries and have no say in future events. We have become a joke to the world and all it took was one community organizer and a bunch of welfare crackheads. How easy it is to destroy a nation. At least we will have our revenge when the libs take their game plan to Africa and China they will be executed.

Their is another important book of prophecy and the US is not mentioned there either. Figure it out.

so the line on the map is different next year. The cartography industry grows. The people who live and work here will still be here, doing the same things for different people whom none of us has ever seen. How is that going to change you?