Brian N: You're wrong. Many Democrats chided banks for redlining and restricting lending to the poor. The only person that pushed Freddie and Fannie into lending despite warnings from the CBO was Bush. This was the single biggest cause of the collapse. You might find instance where Democrats criticized banks for not lending to the poor but only Bush made it happen.

Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit

Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults

By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004

President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/

Oh, yes. I'm going to listen to the arguments of an adult that uses the word "obamy" when referencing Obama. Good move on establishing your credibility!

Bill Clinton is the one who threw in the "everybody gets a house" and lowered all requirements...heck, that's giving him too much credit...he obliterated any requirements...and had a BOOM...but it was a short-lived boom.

I posted proof that Bush was the one that ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy no down loans despite CBO warnings. You spew lies. Prove it. The housing boom with prices raising 25-30% didn't occur until Bush. Prices rose normally under Clinton. You're simply lying as all you right wingers did last election. How'd that work out for you?

But everything that happened in the 2000's was laid out by Clinton with his National Home Ownership strategy. The entire strategy is available on pdf written by Bill Clinton himself. It explained everything, from the cheapening of housing materials to secondary markets which were involved in the bundled mortgages, and much much more.

Bush's problem was that he continued the programs even took credit for housing in the 2004 campaign. He didn't START these programs; He continued to fund the GSEs that were ran by Democrat chronies. When the Bush admin (to their credit) expressed concern in 2005, Democrat Nancy Pelosi wrote Bush a letter explaining to him in essence that nothing was wrong and he needed to stop his pursuit of GSEs. This letter is also available online.

The Democrats are on record time and TIME again saying there was NO PROBLEM with the GSEs. If anyone was completely clueless on this it was the Democrats. The problem with Republicans is they never get rid of these damned programs, they just find a way to get along with it, or even take credit for them when times are good.

Also I would like to ad that Obama's debt that you all think is so necessary to get us out of a recession has been addressed several times by the CBO as unsustainable. Yet you guys go on thinking that debt poison is the cure.

Of course it's unsustainable as it was under Bush. The problem is we need cuts in spending and new revenue not more tax cuts on those who need it least. I'd rather see us take the pain now rather than later but certainly the Ryan plan to cut top rates another 10% isn't the answer. At least Obama is willing to accept cuts to many social programs including social security. Republicans not only refuse to eliminate any deductions but demand additional tax cuts.

By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

IBD Exclusive Series: What Caused The Loan Crisis?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.

Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

But those rules weren't enough.

Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.

Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.



Dave was right about the housing boom and the push for subprime loans to increase home ownership under Clinton. I work in the housing industry.

Yep, I'm going to believe the republican rag and the person who was part of that lying, corrupt industry.

Take it from prominent Democrat Michael Bloomberg who said just last year: 2011

""I hear your complaints," Bloomberg said. "Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that.

But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."

You are absolutely correct though that certain banks, specifically those like Golden West Financial and Countrywide, run at the time by Democrats Herbert and Marion Sandler and Anthony Mozilo respectively. DID indeed write all that bad paper on purpose knowing they could dump it on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so other Democrats like former Obama advisor Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick could pay themselves millions in "bonuses."

There is no such thing as poverty in this country... Obama just puts you on a government salary one way or the other. Don't worry about a job people. Don't worry about working or being personally responsible. We taxpayers will make sure you live comfortable with free food, internet, phones, and anything else you need.

At this point, it doesn't matter who started it or sustained it. Arguing about it is a waste of time. What matters is how do we fix it?

If you're going to spend time arguing about who did what rather than offer solutions to the problem, you're part of the problem.

We need action, not more pointless arguing.

MSANNOMALLEY.

Agreed. and what is the first step? besides blaming others.

Larry and Standupjerkoff your wrong;

And just so you get it right, it's the blue states sponging off the federal government.

Interesting:CNBC published the top 15 states in the Nation that consume the MOST in welfare. 13-of-15 are DEMOCRAT states; they went Blue in 2008.

The BIGGEST US WELFARE STATES

State--- % of Pop on Welfare--- Spending on Welfare

#1. California……………3.30%………$3.28 BILLION

#2. Maine………………..2.37%……….$61.73 M

#3. Tennessee………….2.15%……..$91.28 M

#4. Massachusetts…….2.09%…….$295.29 M

#5. Vermont…………….2.02%……..$30.92 M

#6. Wash DC…………..1.99%……….$18.67 M

#7. New York…………..1.92%………$1.47 BILLION

#8. Minnesota…………..1.88………$106.29 M

#9. Washington…………1.86%……$265.88 M

#10. NewMexico……….1.83%……$58.87 M

#11. Indiana……………..1.83%……..$102.27 M

#12. Rhode Island……..1.79%…….$57.4 M

#13. Michigan…………..1.60%……..$380.93 M

#14.Pennsylvania……….1.60%……$247.29 M

#15. Oregon…………….1.55..……….$83.85 M

You can add an additional $60 Billion to NY for the hurricane

Larry, I see you post many times and you rarely have your fiscal numbers correct. Post information accurately and we might take you more seriously.

I agree. I live in NY. There are definetly more democrats on welfare than republicans. But the media doesn't like to address this issue under the Obama administration. That's why everyone here looks at the liberal news with a grain of salt and doesn't believe everything they say.

Clinton's changes to banking and the mandatory participation of banking in Clinton's housing bubble and burst stole 1.7 trillion from the middle class and destroyed the economy. Clinton's mandate that 75% of all households be owner occupied was a failure. Unfortunately, now under Obama distribution of wealth will see unprecedented success because of the use of Dodd Frank to regulate the healthy banks and destroy them. HUD's new mandate is to take money only from only white Americans through the use of dignity mortgages and changing equal opportunity to redivision of the pie to specific skin colors and national origins. Go to Greenlight.org, they are in bed with Obama and get on a few progressive web sites. Scary stuff. The Dems have been usurped by socialists. Hopefully enough moderate Dems and independents will smarten up and vote for the man not the party. Go Rand Paul/Ben Carson 2016!

Poverty is a relative term. We have people in poverty that would be considered "middle class" in many countries. Our people in "poverty" have refrigerators, a roof over their heads, internet connection, personal computer, and cell phones (iphones to say the least). That's not to say we still can't improve the standard of living for all citizens but I always had a problem calling it "poverty".

So the question is how do we fix it - well you fix the economy. Nobody is saying in 2007 it wasn't bad. Pointing fingers as to "who" caused it doesn't help. Some say Bush and Republicans and some say Democrats. Regardless, it was bad.

But this country has always been resilient and with expectations of an improving economy we would have recovered quickly. Obama is now the proud title holder of being president during the worst economic recovery in history. People do not care about history. I don't care, and businesses don't care, about what happened the previous years they care about what the NEXT few years will bring.

Well in 2008 they did not see a president that was going to improve the business climate or confidence in the American people. You can't tax people and expect them to buy goods in the economy - they don't have as much. You can't increase taxes and increase costs (regulations/ObamaCare/etc.) on businesses then expect them to invest more in new and existing businesses.

America saw the policies of Obama in 2008 and didn't like them and that is the reason 5 years later we still have unemployment near 8%, GDP average growth of less than 1% since Obama has been president, Food Stamp use up about 40% to where 1 in 7 uses food stamps, 1 in 6 now in Poverty (highest since the 70's), and I can go on and on and on.

And the excuse is always "but Obama inherited......". Bull#%$t. People are not held back by what happened 5 or 6 years ago. They are held back on what they expect the NEXT few years which isn't much. The Obama policies punish success and intelligent people and business owners do not want to invest in future ventures when even IF they are successful will be punished with higher taxes and costs. So they wait.

This could have been easily solved 5 years ago. Businesses had cut back. All we had to do was subsidize new hiring. Rather than giving money to Solyndra or studies to determine why men don't like to wear condoms (part of the "Stimulus" package by the way) why don't we help the CURRENT existing businesses. Incentivize them to open and expand and hiring would have taken off. That hiring would have created increased spending (because more people are working) which would have created even more business expansion. THAT is the definition of "stimulus".

But Obama punished the wealthy and businesses which REDUCED private investment and is why we have the failed economy we currently have.

@jose, post #2.24 and Ron Cee, post#3.12

this is from an online investigative article

"It would take too long to recite all the actions that chipped away at Glass-Steagall but a few highlights stand out. In the mid-1980s a Federal Reserve Board stocked with Reagan-Bush appointees began reinterpreting Glass-Steagall in a series of actions that slowly expanded the ability of banks to engage in other financial operations. In 1990, the Fed, under former J.P. Morgan director Alan Greenspan, permitted guess who–J.P. Morgan–to become the first bank allowed to underwrite securities. It is noteworthy that if William Jennings Bryan had had his way about the Federal Reserve Act, Greenspan would have never ascended to the position that allowed him to weaken the act named for the father of the Federal Reserve System.

Four legislative attempts were made to weaken or repeal parts of Glass-Steagall from 1988-1996. One reason they failed is because smaller banks feared that opening the doors to allow banks to trade in securities would lead to the domination of larger banks–a fate that has come to pass. The biggest change came in 1996 when Alan Greenspan issued a ruling allowing bank investment affiliates to have up to a quarter of their business in investments."

While you are right about Bill Clinton signing the repeal, the root of the problem dates back to the Friedmanite "trickle down" economic policies implemented by the Reagan-Bush administration, heck during the campaign Bush actually and correctly labeled these policies as "voodoo economics", so don't get on a high horse and claim Clinton was the worst, the worse President ever was Ronald Reagan, and his staff that included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a whole host of other criminally insane republican traitors who whole heartedly backed the corporate raiders, the hostile takeovers that shipped millions of jobs overseas, and entities like ENRON.

Just like the health industry in the US, we focus on the remedy rather than cure.

The CURE: Give free birth control, sterilization, and abortions to everyone. If you can't afford to have kids, don't and don't expect others to pay for them.

Do this, and guaranteed, poverty rates would be down for the next generation.

For all you liberals - don't let facts get in the way during your never-ending game of pointing the finger. Clinton is the one that forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to give loans to families that could obviously not afford to pay them back. Not to mention that he is the one that used Social Security like his own personal ATM machine to balance the budget. Now it's the liberals that want the very same people that deposited their money into Social Security to pay back what the government took. But like I say, don't let facts get in the way as you point the finger of blame on the GOP.

Larry,

OBAMA SPENT MORE IN 4 YEARS THAN BUSH SPENT IN 8! How can that be Bush's fault? Everyone wants to blame the debt on Bush, but they ignore the facts. At this rate Obama will more than double the debt again, and he does not care.

http://johndoe2241225.newsvine.com/_news/2013/03/17/17347075-warning-new-disorder-discovered-ois

Before his first term he was constantly asked "How will you find the funds to pay for all the programs you want?" He simply said he would use the money from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for his social programs. How did that work out? Anyone? How long will we turn a blind eye to the true culprit.

From the Reason Foundation and stats from the Tax Foundation....Red States get MORE subsidies from Fed tax dollars.... "Why would voters in red states elect lawmakers who promise them small government when they benefit disproportionately from federal handouts? Why would voters in blue states elect lawmakers who support policies that redistribute their income to red states?

One possible explanation is that the voters are misinformed. According to this theory, the people who benefit the most from federal spending simply don’t understand how much money they receive; they assume their tax dollars are subsidizing others when in fact they are the ones being subsidized. People in rural states might be convinced that liberal urban Northeastern jurisdictions get large subsidies for entitlements, welfare, and industry bailouts, while failing to understand how much their own states benefit from agricultural and welfare spending. They may mistakenly equate life in a low-density environment with self-sufficiency. Subsidies and welfare from the federal government help maintain this illusion, enticing them to vote for advocates of smaller government. By contrast, voters in highly urban areas may assume they are the ones who get the most subsidies. In turn, they vote for big-government politicians, thinking that welfare spending will ease social frictions in big cities.".

Cali may have a larger number of people getting some sort of assistance, but it has a huge population compared to say, Alabama or SC. We still have the 8th largest economy in the world - and if you have a good education and a good job (which many of us do), it's a great place to live. It's worth the taxes to subsidize Mississippi so that I don't have to live in a sh!thole like some of those Southern states are.

@Larry

It took Bush 8 years to double our debt, double the unemployment rate and basically break the economy but it's a democrats fault for not immediately fix this train wreck. No the economy sucks and will for some time but it's better than Bush left it. It'll take many years to recover just as it did in 1929.

And yet, it was Obama himself who said if he couldn't get it fixed in his first three years he'd be a "one term-proposition." What, you don't even believe your own messiah when he said he'd get it fixed?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a71_1312580340

It's kind of funny that when Obama can't keep his own promises lefties like Larry find a way to blame Bush for it, even though Obama added more to our debt in three years than Bush did in eight, and that he's now added more to our debt than all previous administrations combined.

happytimes;

To keep it simple.

Spending by the federal government is not always welfare spending. You can't just combine the two spending initiatives and put it all under "welfare spending". One is an asset, the other is a liability.

"Bush's war!" "Unfunded wars!" "Bush lies took us to war!"

It's amazing how much mileage the left thinks they can get out of this. But history and facts just don't matter to them, obviously.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and a whole lot of other democrats VOTED for Iraq. Unlike Obama bombing Libya without Congressional approval, Bush got approval from Congress with plenty of votes from the democrats. The democrats voted for the wars and the costs that went with them. For some strange reason, the left just can't bring itself to admit that.

And you know what rational those democrats used for bombing Iraq? The same rational they used to let Bill Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998. That's right, WMDs. The WMDs they keep screaming that Bush lied about. Bill Clinton and all the dems were telling the world we had to do something about those very same WMDs just a few years earlier:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Yup, those WMDs were real at the end of 1998, but all a great big lie in 2001 and 2002.

Sorry, the democrats VOTED for Iraq and the costs that went with it. The WMDs were no more nor no less of a lie in 2002 than they were in 1998.

dr - The "poor banks" bailout is corporate welfare, plain and simple. It's all government spending at the end of the day - tax dollar layouts. And the jackasses like AIG needed to be bailed out, or our banking system confidence could have been crushed. But it is still corporate welfare on the backs of citizens who probably would have liked the $$ spent another way - like on education for their kids. Hope BofA is enjoying their write-offs. Hope JP Morgan Chase is too - just within a month they were trying to "stick" the mortgage liabilities assumed from their WAMU purchase back onto the FDIC - you know - the taxpayers. Yeah, my heart bleeds for those poor welfare recipients.

Blaming the politicians is cheap and easy. Why don't you blame the real culprits? The real culprits are corporate CEO's who have cut their employees to the bone, reduced wages, told people either you do the work of 3-4 people or we will find someone else on the unemployment line who will AND then these pieces of garbage raised the prices of their products. Why are they doing this? TO GET THEIR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BONUSES.

It's called greed, people. The only way to stop it is to stop rewarding CEO's for their piggish behavior. Anyone who believes differently is simply stupid.

Just Wrong: No, it is called business. It is quite simple: If a business can hire someone and that person bring in more revenue than the cost to hire that person then the person will be hired. If not then they won't.

And, as you say, anyone who believes differently is simply stupid.

Happy;

Asking the government to bail you out when you can't pay your bills or, asking the government to pay for things that you can't afford but want, is not how a government should be responsibly run. If people would have paid their mortgages the "poor banks" would not have gone belly up. In simple terms, banks were forced by the feds to give loans to people that couldn't afford the loan payments. That was a Democratic initiative by Barney Franks along with uncontrolled Medicare.

If you can't afford to send your kids to college then your kids need to get to work and figure it out. It's not the governments requirement. Government is not here to feed your overspending habits.

When you do finally understand assets and liabilities get back with me.

If it's called business, then the USA will end up collapse on itself. If there are no morals or ethics in business, then we are doomed. Every business owner will try to maximize it's profits no matter how it effects it's employees or the overall economy. Divide and conquer. It'll be the downfall of our society, just like the Romans.

Just Wrong;

If you don't like the way a company and its CEO does business, quit buying their products. It sends a clear message.

Every business owner will try to maximize it's profits no matter how it effects it's employees or the overall economy.

Which is what every business does! That's why they're called "businesses" and not "charities." Profits are how/why all businesses exist. They don't exist to provide jobs they don't need and to satisfy some macroeconomic charity drive.

Sometimes you have to read it to believe it.

The CURE: Give free birth control, sterilization, and abortions to everyone. If you can't afford to have kids, don't and don't expect others to pay for them.

Do this, and guaranteed, poverty rates would be down for the next generation.

All good and well, except for the fact that the people who SHOULD BE utilizing such things as birth control and sterilization will NOT - as long as they know there's a government check waiting on them for the abdication of personal responsibility.

You can offer free abortions all day long and no one will take advantage of them because when there's no litter of babies...

There's No Check.

When you use the strong arm of government to take money, by force, from those who have earned it - for the purpose of rewarding the irrational irresponsibility of others - you get chaos.

If your going to wait for the Democrats to fix the economy you better grab a Snickers. If your going to wait for the Republicans to fix the economy you better grab a case of Snickers. If your waiting for the Librarian's to fix the economy you just better jump off a bridge it would be faster.

The fact is the only person that is going to make things better is you. From the sounds of things she was living not far from her limit but had either Medium- large savings or a large amount of open credit cards(we have two combined an open balance of 30K) possible both. Now in the story it says that she divorced/ single mom. That is one of the number one causes of poverty. The fact is for the higher house hold income brackets you have two income earners for the upper 2/5ths of income earners.

It'll be the downfall of our society, just like the Romans.

Bussiness were not the down fall of Rome.One of the big faters was they had no Exports The US is number three on exports in the world.

The CURE: Give free birth control, sterilization, and abortions to everyone. If you can't afford to have kids, don't and don't expect others to pay for them.

So what is the cure of when people get a divorce? Put a bullet in the child's head? Your a sick individual. Why don't you let the adults have the conversation and leave.

I call bull on the Boston.com article. There were already 100% loans and even 125% loans before 2004. These were championed by Barney Frank. Bush was concerned with the accounting practices of FHLMC & FNMA beginning in 2001 and wanted to create an agency to oversee them. Barney Frank (overseeing FNMA & FHLMC since 1991) & his fellow Dems fought efforts to control the 2 agencies. Barney called it a Chicken Little mentality. He, Pelosi and Reid called Directors at FHLMC un-American for not wanting to expand guidelines for bad credit and undocumented aliens. Well Barney, the sky did fall.

It's easy to point to the community reinvestment act and say that required the banks to do bad loans. That law never did anything of the kind. A very good blog on the issue can be found at http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

The real keys behind the 2008-2009 financial melt down can be traced to the elimination of the Glass-Steagal controls on investment banking done by commercial banks and the combined efforts of the SEC and Fed to prevent any controls or even reporting of financial derivatives. These errors STILL have not been addressed. Dodd-Frank has not touched these fundamental sources of the financial crisis.

When you use the strong arm of government to take money, by force, from those who have earned it - for the purpose of rewarding the irrational irresponsibility of others - you get chaos.

Just look at France. Their new socialist president taxing the rich at 75%+ and there's an exodus of rich people and businesses from the country.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/18/can-the-last-taxpayer-leaving-france-please-turn-out-the-lights/

Like George Bernard Shaw said:

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

But what happens when all that's left are a bunch of Pauls?

Larry, I see you post many times and you rarely have your fiscal numbers correct. Post information accurately and we might take you more seriously.

The thumbs up I get indicates many take me seriously. The problem is when I post one fact your type deflect by trying to paint it a different way. I said red states receive more federal dollars per capita than most blue states and you list the number on welfare. A rural red state receiving massive government aid will receive far more than they pay in while a prosperous blue state with a much higher per capita income might have more on welfare due to large cities with poor inner cities but still pay far more in taxes then they get back. You'll notice on the graph how many blue states receive less than a dollar back while most red receive more.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/

This mess is so owned by Republicans. It is called supply side economics. Paul Ryan's and the Republican budget proposal is more of the same: Tax breaks for the super rich at the expense of everyone else. From Reagan to Dubya and Cheney, that is all Republicans have brought to the table.

I hate to see them go but hopefully, somehow, a wiser, intelligent, pro-science party will emerge from the wreckage. I'm not too optimistic that will happen anytime soon. Especially since all that is left of the Republican party are the Midwestern Whigs and the Southern Know-Nothings.

Mr. Miller-447368

So eliminate welfare and the motivation for bad behavior goes away. People will opt for what would be free rather than watching their kids die of starvation.

Auto 101

You are right! I am a sick individual. I wish a few billion would fall of the face of the planet because we are overpopulated. It can start with people so nearsighted that refuse to accept solutions for decades from now.

In regards to divorce. Why do we let deadbeat parents get away with it? Just for those who stick around to go on assistance?

FYI I am a "responsible" adult who pays for my own, and shouldn't be forced to pay for others through legislation. You get it? I am not a charity. If I am paying for others it takes from mine!

dr - you don't have a clue. WAMU's ad motto was basically "we say yes" to mortgage loans - some citizens, too many, are unaware of the deal delt them because of lack of timely prosecution - which is coming for some of the players, but too little too late. Subprime is history, but its legacy lives on - and some of the big boys of banking are writing off the taxpayer bailout - a sort of "double dipping", for years to come.

If a business can hire someone and that person bring in more revenue than the cost to hire that person then the person will be hired. If not then they won't.

Exactly. And if they can increase their profit by hiring overseas instead of in country, they can choose to do that as well. The result is that the current business climate in America is booming, while we have near historic levels of unemployment. Bravo business community! Way to earn a buck!

Because of their political naivety many suburban families fell into poverty voting for the chameleon, lying GOP. The Republicans are masters of deception. They have managed to convince those that are uninformed in the middle class that they will look after the middle class's interest. Yet, when they are elected, the GOP only acts in the best interest of the 1%. Unfortunately, the rise in poverty in Suburbia is a case of "you only have yourselves to blame."

Plenty of blame to go around. Clinton, Bush II, Obama -- guilty, guilty, guilty. Lots of littler guys too. Only an Uncle Tom, sycophant would blame one guy or one party for this mess.

Plenty of blame to go around. Clinton, Bush II, Obama -- guilty, guilty, guilty. Lots of littler guys too. Only an Uncle Tom, sycophant would blame one guy or one party for this mess.

You just keep telling yourself that. We the people know exactly who is mostly to blame for the greed and income inequality. Supply-side economic policies and outsourcing overseas started eroding away the middle class years ago.

Larry,

Your just like Happytimes. You spin the evidence of the numbers and then spin the response hoping no one questions the fallacy in your statements. Entitlements are liabilities. Homes, whether in foreclosure or not are still assets. Subsidizing USDA products is still subsidizing assets. The government subsidizing the purchase of an asset still aids in purchasing something with intinsic value and is not welfare spending. Welfare is simply welfare and is a liability. Medicare is a liability with no intrinsic value. You may think you're an asset, but that remains to be seen. Slavery went out with the Civil War so, on the books, you're no longer considerered an asset. We can consider you a leach however and that would make you a liability.

Dennis: So what is your alternative? You don't like it when businesses make a profit but if there is no profit incentive there is no business. And if there is no business there is no tax revenue and there are no jobs.

Amazing the number of people who have disdain and contempt for business and despise success but if you want to live in a place without businesses, jobs, or a government (because there are no tax dollars to support it) I believe places like Haiti, Zimbabwe, and Cuba could use your volunteer services (notice I say "volunteer" because there are no jobs of which you can get paid).

Who created the current $60 TRILLION to $100 TRILLION Global Economic Crisis consisting of the Mortgage Crisis, Wall Street Crisis, Financial Crisis, Banking Crisis, Credit Crisis, etc..

The Demoncraptic Party Lie Blaming Bush, Regan, etc. for the current f**ked up US Economy.

Typical Demoncraps this is why people vote up your posts Larry-367607:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Chancellor" - Adolf Hitler.

And when Demoncraps do not like the Facts:

US Demoncraps demand the Murder of the US Citizens of the Republician Party

"President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b!tches out and give America back to an America where we belong," US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during President Obama's Reelection Campaign.

President Obama addressed the crowd shortly after US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior. US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior not arrested for "Terroristic Threatening of US Citizens", "Conspiracy To Commit the Murder of US Citizens", "Homegrown Domestic Terrorism Against US Citizens", etc..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

"Chancellor Hitler, we are your Army. We are ready to march. All Loyal German's Must take back Germany from the Jews". Chancellor Hitler's Brown Shirts, Sturmabteilung, Armed Paramilitary; and his Political Labor Union, National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NAZI.

Chancellor Hitler Ordering the elimination of other Political Parties (and did by Armed Force of his armed private Army, 1933), just like US Democrats demanding the elimination of the Republican Party.

Definition Fascism - dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition and critism, and extreme nationalism

Any Demoncraps that do not want to be described as Fascists NAZI then stop doing those Facist NAZI Actions.

WHERE ARE YOUR RESEARCHED FACTS Larry-367607.

That's correct you don't have any. You don't even verify your sources.

Your lies Larry-367607 like, the LIES TOLD BY "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

1998 State of the Union Address, Overthrow of President Hussein, Demanding War With Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Support of the Islamic Jihadists at Bosnia, etc..

Transcript 1998 State of the Union Address (The Demoncraptic Party Lie "Bush Weapons of Mass Destruction").

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/

Demanding US Law, H.R.4655, "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction. After many covert attempts to Overthrow President Hussein, US Congress Amended H.R.4655 authorizing the Use of US Military Force.

H.R.4655 (the Demoncraptic Party Lie "Iraq Illegal Unfunded").

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057063/posts

President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox that resulted in the US being Condemned as the Great Satan; and in Retaliation against the Great Satan Fundamentalist Islamic Osama Bin Laden starts planning his 9/11 2001 Attacks of the same targets as his previous 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing (Video Tapes Osama Bin Laden).

It was President Clinton's Belief that the Cold War Era US Defense, US Intelligence Agencies, US Military were not longer needed. So President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered the US Defense Budget Cuts resulting in the US Army Corps of Engineers not having Funding for the Levees at New Orleans BEFORE Hurricane Katrina to accomplish the upgrades, modifications, repairs, etc. US Congressional Katrina Hearings; Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies that left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events Leading up to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission Investigations, Findings, and Recommendations, with former President Clinton saying "I'm a so sorry"; President Clinton's Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military required President Bush (43) from 2001 till 2003 to rebuild the US Military that President Clinton (42) Destroyed, for President Bush to Accomplish (Mission Accomplished) the President Clinton US Policy of the Overthrow of President Hussein in accordance with President Clinton's US Law H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction that became 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom.

Unedited Transcript Mission Accomplished Speech (Not the Demoncraptic Party Lies, the President Obama Reelection lie, "Bush Unilateral Military Invasion of Iraq".).

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/us/bush.transcript_1_general-franks-major-combat-allies?_s=PM:US

Like I said Larry-367607

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Chancellor" - Adolf Hitler.

Those of us that have been involved in Iraq since the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, rotated to Operation Cyclone (Afghanistan) till now know the Facts, NOT your LIES.

Definition Fact - Experience or Observations. My Firsthand Experience and Firsthand Observations. NOT YOUR Larry-367607 OPINIONS

Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason.

And even better yet because I KNEW the implications of what you Demoncraps did (first paragraph) I invested, and made $1 Million and $10 Million for a friend that I borrowed $1 Million to invest. Suck on that no experience no facts Larry-367607 only non factual emotive opinions.

And since President Obama has done NOTHING, I will do that again.

Mark VanGelder-1693883

You just keep telling yourself that. We the people know exactly who is mostly to blame for the greed and income inequality. Supply-side economic policies and outsourcing overseas started eroding away the middle class years ago

Mark, you’re right, but you don’t even know why.

The greatest income inequality occurred during the Clinton administration.

Refer to the link below.

Figure A shows how the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio exploded between 1990 and 2000.

It went from a ratio of 53.3-to-1 in 1989 to 411.3-to-1 in 2000.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/

As far as supply side economics are concerned you have two choices. You either admit its success to pull us out of the calamity that Jimmy Carter left and give Reagan credit for it, or, you blame the Democratic Congress of that era.

You realize that Reagan NEVER had control of both houses of government for 8 years, right? He NEVER had control of the House of Representatives where all appropriations must originate from. If you blame the current problems we have on the “Republican” House, which has only had control for 2 year and 3 months, then you have to blame the Democrats for all the chaos and destruction during the Reagan administration.

Also, Jimmy Carter had control of BOTH Houses of Congress for 4 years. So, Democrats can be the only ones we blame Stagflation and malaise during Carters term.

One more thing. If you effusively praise Bill Clinton and his wonderful prosperity and “surplus”, it has to be because of the Republicans who controlled both Houses of Congress for 6 of the 8 years, right?

You CAN’T have it both ways.

If you want to further expand the blame, then this recession is because the Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress from 2007 until 2011.

Right?

I won't even go into the reasons for the outsourcing, except to just mention NAFTA and its 2,000 pages (of which 900 pages are tariffs) and the WTO and its 29,000 pages of controls and regulations, both were passed during the Clinton administration.

Whether or not lower middle class Americans can afford to buy a home, or any pressure applied by government to lend to this segment of the market, is completely irrelevant to what happened to our economy while GW Bush was President.

What killed our economy was the 30 different free trade bills passed by the Republicans and signed into law by GW Bush, which allowed 8 million middle-class jobs move offshore mainly to China, which cost an additional 12 million jobs to be lost too. Certainly there were some jobs created by moving 8000 US factories to China, such as dock crane operator, but the jobs hauling containers from the docks have not replaced the jobs lost in the same industries hauling US-freight and US raw materials.

In addition to the 20 million lost jobs attributable to offshoring, there was the several trillion dollars that we didn't have spent on making Haluburton rich in Iraq, a lot of it stolen from Social Security and 40-some other trust funds, a fact which GW didn't bother to report on during his entire 8 years in-office either.

I read just yesterday that GW and Cheney also authorized the creation of Iraqi death squads to promote sectarian violence in order to keep the war going longer than it would have otherwise too. Plainly GW, Cheney, and their close supporters in Congress should be found guilty of treason if the death squad allegation is true. How many of our troops were wounded or lost their lives because of the Administation's profit motive, how many Iraqi citizens died in order to create more war profit too?

As I recall, the housing bubble had several components, one of which was a gross lack of Federal investment banking oversight which allowed several investment banks to fraudulently repackage low-grade debt and then sell it all over the world as AAA-grade, while some of those banks even bet against their own fraudulent products. Remember when the prime rate suddenly spiked in 2007, followed by gasoline spiking to $5.00/gallon too? What did you think was going to happen to all of those ARMs when their rates spiked upwards?

Now, you Republicans are going to try to blame your illegal investment scam on lower middle-class borrowers or on pressure to lend to that group, which means in-effect that there nothing wrong in your mind with knowingly selling fraudulent investment products? In-effect you are saying that if there hadn't been junk mortgages to repackage and sell as grade AAA securities, then you would have done the same thing with Grade-BBB dent or even single-A debt, knowing full well that if the economy went into recession there would be a financial collapse.

The way that I look at it, many Republicans are guilty of a massive case of fraud and quite a few of you are guilty of treason too. You are also guilty of trying to destroy the financial and retirement security of the average American for your own profit, guilty of trying to severely damage the financial standing of the US government for your own profit, and guilty of genocide overseas too.

Frankly I think that we ought to just round quite a few of you up and try you for your crimes, kind of like what was done right after the collapse of Nazi Germany too.

It's been extremely well documented that it's hard to find jobs for years now. But what does this lady do...? She goes ahead a QUITS her job because she can't get along with the boss BEFORE she lines up a new one!!!? How stupid was that?? And I doubt that rug store job paid the medium of $80,061 a year that you likely need to have to live in that tony suburb she thinks she has to live in.

I see a smart phone charging on the stove there. Is that the daughter's? Heaven forbid she should have to use a pay-as-you-go flip phone for $10 a month. Can't ask the girl to give up the expensive lacrosse either, now can we. Looks like they aren't hurting for nice clothes either.

This woman is not living in real poverty by any means. $2300+ in monthly take home pay does not make for real poverty. She's living in the result of her very poor decision making

Does this suprise anyone? Run by another Democrat. Does anyone still doubt that the Democrat party and our Communist president want to destroy this country? Look at that shining beacon of Democrat policies none other then DETROIT. A once great and beautiful city brought to it knees by the Democrat party and thier sh*t ideas. Look at what this president and the democrats are doing to this country. They are systematically destroying it. Our president cant stop spending money someday we will look like Cypress and Greece. Destroying this country with Progressive fantasy ideas. Wake up people. Its time to put progressives back into the bottle to be thrown to the bottom of the ocean and save this country. Vote democrats out. I think Americans are finally awakening to what a fool this country elected as president.

Our perception of what is middle class, has also drastically changed. Thanks to television, we now believe that a $50,000 kitchen and a $40,000 bathroom and a $37,000 car, are the normal living standards. Heaven forbid you can't go on House Hunters International and see what villa you want in Spain or France.

If you can read the above posts and not get creep-ed out and concerned where it concerns public opinion today - I would conclude that you have lost some of your natural senses...IMO; that is worse than losing a freedom. Civility should trump freedom of speech, otherwise, our future is devolution.

The woman in the article gets over $500 a month in child support - for those of you who want to promote devolution - she would go back to getting nothing...in the "good old days".

We all had to depend on family in the "good old days" - that system evolved from being a farming culture...move on, it ain't coming back...lol.

Hey Old Timer,

You got your history wrong. It was Clinton who opened the floodgates on outsourcing. His administration started the free trade agreements with NAFTA. That's what started the "global economy"; The outsourcing of jobs at lower pay-rates, No taxation on imports, Devaluation of the dollar, Increased foreign borrowing, Raiding the entitlement trust funds....etc...etc...etc.

You "progressive liberal hacks" are always trying to pass your blame onto your opposition. Sigmund Freud has a psychological term for your behavior called "projection", where one disavows their own personal actions and feelings and attributes them to others.

Wow, maybe you even learned something about your own misdirected personality traits today! I hope you feel better now that you understand your inadequacies.

Banks took no loans they didn't want. These pigs thought housing would continue rising and the would steal half the world. When it went sour they set up a phony illegal scam that destroyed the economy. Instead of prison they got billions in bonuses. Both our political parties are owned; all republicans and many democrats.

Our big banks have been get billions in 0% loans and using our own money to drive up the price of essentials. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley alone control over half of oil trades. Everyone in Washington knows this and nothing is done to stop it.

Many middle class people have paid banks 600k for a 200k house, even when the government guaranteed the loan. All such loans should be made directly for a small interest. This would cut house notes by half or more and leave trillions in the hands of or people instead of thieving banks.

Also, our big corporations get special treaties and tax breaks to outsource for slave labor. If we had a government, "for the people" they would force our public owned corporations to pay our minimum wages wherever they go. This would show a little respect for workers and bring back many jobs, fast.

When the CEO of Disney made 600 million in salary and God knows what in bonuses he had children in Haiti working for 12 cents an hour. This is the insane greed that is destroying America! If we don't force real change the pigs and their government will soon have us in depression and chaos. You can't run a nation for 1 or 2% without destroying it.

The question is, How do we fix it? Answer: Stop printing and releasing so much currency into circulation. The more money that gets released into circulation causes the value of that currency to go down. With the current administration giving money away like candy in October, the value continues to go down so inflation continues to rise.

So all of this talk about what is and what is not poverty is irrelevant. Fact is Clinton started it, Brooksley Borne tried to stop it and was silenced by the Fed and Timmy Tax cheat. Bush warned congress to take action to stop it in 2003. Was blocked by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. When challenged by congress in 2006 Fannie and Freddie had cooked the books, meanwhile the heads of both Fannie and Freddie escaped with huge $90 million severance packages.

Lastly Obama continues to allow the FED to print money without consequence.

I wish a few billion would fall of the face of the planet because we are overpopulated. It can start with people so nearsighted that refuse to accept solutions for decades from now.

Just wait a little while. It will happen.

Humans, like locusts and roaches, are incapable and unwilling to control their own populations, so nature has to act on it's own in order to protect and preserve other life forms. That is why we have cancer and other diseases specially designed to cull the greediest species on the planet.

DarnThatDream Only an Uncle Tom, sycophant would blame one guy or one party for this mess.

DarnThatDream,

If you believe that our economic chaos was generated evenly by the Democrats and the GOP, you are totally clueless. Based on your comment, if you are a Fox viewer, you do not have ANY excuse for being on the right. The facts support that the right dumped us into this mess. Worse is that based on their absurd behavior in Washington, D.C. our citizens will experience more pain and suffering.

25, I don't live in the US, don't get Fox, don't vote. I call 'em as I see 'em.

It's all Dumbiyah's fault plain and simple. Just like all repubbies.

DarnThatDream

25, I don't live in the US, don't get Fox, don't vote. I call 'em as I see 'em.

What you see, depends on who is doing the looking. Your "vision" is myopic and stained with an unrealistic "vision" of governing. Please give this forum the solutions as to how YOU would fix America's problems.

So eliminate welfare and the motivation for bad behavior goes away.

I think it gets down to how one defines 'welfare'. I give a lot of money away every year to help support worthy causes - a large percentage of it goes directly to individuals, who are not family by the way.

But if you are saying eliminate the reward, nay Celebration... at taxpayer expense, of completely irrational behaviors - i.e. continuing to make babies you can't afford, then we are in agreement.

I have no problem with helping those whom I personally know need it, and believe it's an essential tenet of the human experience. But to just have the Imperial Federal Government take money from me by force to buy votes.. I'm not so keen on that.

It's a crazy world: We have a president who stands under a 30 ft. banner of (Arafat) one of the greatest terrorists of all time, promising the PLO upwards of 700 million of YOUR tax dollars, and then telling American school children we can't afford to staff enough security so that you can tour the White House - And I'm not talking about any one political 'party' here - they're both corrupt... I'm talking about a system of government without accountability that is sinking us fast.

Ultimately - you get more of the behavior you reward. And less of the behavior you punish.

I get really ticked, when I hear someone like Larry say that Obama has the guts to cut Social Security - that, and Medicare are two things we have been PAYING INTO ALL OUR WORKING LIVES. They're NOT entitlements. We used to have a surplus, until some greedy *&^%$$##@ decided they needed the money to go into the general fund, without ever paying it back.

As I see it, our government runs on greed, and nothing else. I hear a FEW politicians talk about what WE want, but most decide what they want. We can never get the government to function properly, and honestly represent us, until we GET RID of:

1. lobbyists, who do not represent the general population;

2. a President, who does not lead, but takes many vacations;

3. congressmen and congresswomen, who only talk of being "Democrat" or "Republican", instead of "American";

4. corporations, who slip large sums of money into our government, to get laws to bend their way;

5. hyphenated Americans (so few want to be an American, period);

6. dysfunctional justice systems, that ENCOURAGE criminals to commit crimes, and be treated better in prison (free clothes, food, shelter, gymns, TV's, conjugal visits, computers so they can go online, drugs, girlfriends);

7. crooked politicians, who are caught lying to us, but continue on, as if nothing happened. So many are covering up for each other, as if they have a secret creed.

Our society has many priviledges - when someone commits a crime against society, they should LOSE ALL THOSE PRIVILEDGES, not just get them once they're incarcerated, or just get their hand slapped.

Our politicans are supposed to REPRESENT us - we should be responsible to figure out if our local politicians are for us - if not, VOTE THEM OUT! Simple as that.

Which president after 7 1/2 years in office left us 6 trillion more in debt despite taking over from the previous president who had a 450 billion surplus, a financial system in collapse. losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month, started 2 wars, left millions in foreclosure and millions more needing food stamps, welfare and Medicaid? He was from Texas if you need a clue which obviously you do.

the worst thing for this country is that you and morons like you {equaling about 15% percent of the voting public) actually believe the crap you're shoveling. Dubbya created such a gigantic hole that we've been climbing out of it for 5 years and the cloth eared bats with R's behind their names have spent 12 of those 5 years blaming the democrats for what's gone wrong. (yes I know, 12 out of five is a comedic device, not a literal comment.)

Gary, I'm amazed you don't listen. The blame game is a dimwhitcrap slogan. They can't function without it. But if you are smart enough to research instead of having some IQ deficient obamy tell you what your opinion is you would know better. Sorry, but you need to ask someone who is much smarter than you. Any five year old will do.

I love how Democrats are supposedly getting us out of a debt hole with more debt. How in the heck can lefties continue to complain about debt from the previous president while this current administration has already spent more in 3.5 years?

And It didn't take FDR years to get us out; His policies never really ended the depression. He never got the US below 14% annual UE until the start of the war when people would be sent from the UE line to the front line. It was only after FDR was dead and the rest of the industrial world was either completely destroyed, severely damaged, or not developed yet (i.e. China) that our economy began to recover... because we were intact and they weren't

Yes, Hoover is to blame for taking a crashed economy (thanks Federal Reserve) and making it worse. Hoover was a progressive interventionist. He encouraged high wages (Yes, before the Wagner Act), he increased gov't spending and public works programs, and he raised the top marginal rate back to 70% by the end of his term. And let's not forget Smoot-Hawley. The problem is FDR doubled down on Hoover's idea and took it four terms, and called it the New Deal.

This is so such a ridiculous double standard by the Left. I can clearly remember George Bush being blamed for the 2001 recession. No one on the Left said he inherited that one. The 2001 recession itself is what lost the so called surplus that never existed because it was a projected surplus based on economic growth--growth that was predicated on the tech bubble.

I can also remember Reagan being blamed for the recession he inherited and they called it "Reaganomics".

People on the right were upset about the debt during Bush. I know that's hard for the Left to believe because now they live in a world where Obama owns the economy once it's good again along with unicorns and fairies. But the debt is exactly why the right laid down during the 2006 Congressional elections. The right was mad and sick of it. Of course, the dems will spend more like they always do. And spending quickly increased once Pelosi got control.

Pat G. And yet as always democrats prove what they say and RWNJ's like you talk smack. Funny that 4 years with that tactic left you on the losing side. Polls showed even the majority of Republicans believed Bush was mostly responsible. But you go ahead with your gibberish and see what happens in 2016. If you could prove anything you wouldn't rely on childish comments.

There was still a 4 trillion dollar debt when Clinton left office. There is a difference between the debt and the deficit.

The debt was 5.7 trillion when Clinton left office and it was 12.1 trillion after Bush's last budget. That's the problem. Republicans ignored the massive debt build up until Obama was elected. It was a problem then and it's a problem now. Who's the most responsible party the one that want's to make cuts and new spending or the one that wants to cut top rates another 10%. That didn't work well when Bush did it why would it now?

Dave,

People on the right were upset about the debt during Bush. I know that's hard for the Left to believe because now they live in a world where Obama owns the economy once it's good again along with unicorns and fairies. But the debt is exactly why the right laid down during the 2006 Congressional elections. The right was mad and sick of it. Of course, the dems will spend more like they always do. And spending quickly increased once Pelosi got control.

So wait, the right was upset with the amount of spending, so they let the folks who spend without control win? That's a completely stupid thing to do. It's also not what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to vote out the incumbent in the party primary, then elect the guy from your party in the general election. If the right was upset with the amount of spending they should have, I don't know, grown a spine and stood up to party leadership.

But here's what actually happened: independents were sick of the right for a variety of reasons and Democrats were able to harness that discontent. It wasn't that the right laid down, sacrificed their majority in both houses of Congress, and let the Democrats win just because they couldn't fix their own problems. When I say it that way, doesn't it sound ridiculous? Doesn't it sound like the right was being a bunch of limp-wristed simpletons without the capability to know how to dress themselves and not the politically savvy juggernaut that owned all three branches of government?

Obama did not make her quit her job on her own as she did. That's reality. That's life. If you financially need that job, you never quit it until you have another for sure.

Brian: I always snicker when I hear some liberal talking about how great the stock market is on one hand, and how eeeevil Wall Street is on the other. The two faced schizophrenic delusions of liberals really are amazing to watch.

Conservative,

You can see the same thing in conservatives when it comes to the individual right to bear arms but not the individual right to marry who you want.

Just reading the article-sure glad I don't live in USA-great country to visit, however. In my major city in Ontario, no-one wants to live in the suburbs anyhow. All the crime, shootings, etc take place in the eastern and northwest suburbs-and these are people who do live in subsidized housing. Hard to believe that $12.00 /hr wage is considered liveable.

Pragmatic: And tell me, where will I find that "right to marry who you want" in the Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment is there, but I guess my copy of the Constitution left out that "right to marry who you want".

The fact is there is NO right to marry who you want. The several states regulate and maintain their own marriage laws under the 10th Amendment specifically because they are given that authority by virtue of the fact that the Constitution does not address marriage. Currently, there are 9 states that allow for gay marriage, or civil union, in addition to the District of Columbia.

If you wish to be married, you can move to one of those states. The states that do not recognize gay marriage have the right to continue to do so until the Constitution is changed, or as is more likely the case, the Supreme Court, just as it did with abortion, will magically find some new right that doesn't exist, and then pretend it does. How you get from saying a "right to privacy" means a right to murder your unborn child is still twisting logic and reason beyond the breaking point for the sole purpose of excusing inconvenience, selfishness, narcissism, and personal irresponsibility: Four things liberals have raised to an art form.

The Surpeme Court can rule as it sees fit, but no one will ever be able to force me to recognize gay relationships as being a "marriage". It will always be a civil union to me, regardless of what the government or anyone else may call it.

Don't bother telling democrats that. They will bring anything that doesn't relate to the issue at hand in order to prove their point.

You see how they like to stretch the truth with illegal immigrants. Now the democrats claim that they claim that they have rights under the Constitution as well.

hard to believe that Clinton was the driveing force in Bank deregulation ,Insurance deregulation and SubPrime loans when the Republicans controled both houses and PhilGraham and Newt pushed these Rich get Richer schemes thru the senate and congress over the objections of the dems and Clinton ..lets not forget the president does not make the laws republicans have short memories ..before long it will be Obama that lied us into Iraq

ConservativeNotRepublican

...The fact is there is NO right to marry who you want.

is covered under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

Regardless of politics, the Banksters got on the subprime loan bandwagon with eyes wide open, as they built that house of cards. And then the banks left standing bought up their old colleagues for PENNIES on the dollar - and are writing down the "business loss" on their profits of today. Nice work if you can get it - TRILLIONS in "welfare" - taxpayer dollars, and not a poor kid in sight.

For what it's worth, the FDIC is in the process of charging 150-some former, and some still in the biz, CEOs and Officers of those failed financial institutions for gross negligence and fraud.

Who's the most responsible party the one that want's to make cuts and new spending or the one that wants to cut top rates another 10%. That didn't work well when Bush did it why would it now?

The middle class taxes didn't work well under bush ether that is why we need to raise all taxes to the same level as 1970 and remove all tax deductions. that will fix the economy.

This is yet more affirmation that Obama's economic policies are failures. He has been in office almost 5 years and the economomy is still in shambles.

Conservative,

Pragmatic: And tell me, where will I find that "right to marry who you want" in the Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment is there, but I guess my copy of the Constitution left out that "right to marry who you want".

You're moving the goalposts here. I'm talking about rights, you're talking about the Bill of Rights. The right to marry who you want is covered under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. It's been affirmed by the courts. You gotta read past the tenth, because it's still the Constitution. It's also a matter of privacy, because I ain't got no business telling people what they can do in their bedrooms.

This is also the pattern of politics. Any topic that focuses on individual rights is going to be the argument that wins in the end. That's why gun control is framed as a topic of individual rights vs state control. More people will want individual rights over state control.

The Surpeme Court can rule as it sees fit, but no one will ever be able to force me to recognize gay relationships as being a "marriage". It will always be a civil union to me, regardless of what the government or anyone else may call it.

Who said anything about gay marriage? How do you know I wasn't talking about interracial marriage?

And my point still stands. You're arguing against the individual rights when you see fit, just as Democrats will bash Wall st on one hand and reap profits from the stock market on the other. It goes both ways and you've demonstrated it stunningly. Bravo!

Up until 1967 my marriage would not have been legal either. I don't care if you recognize it or not, but the state does now, so that means quite a bit.

Even CNBC acknowledged in 2009 that Democrat states are in fact the worst welfare states in the nation... no matter how many elitist, naive, uniformed, party-owned, liberals pretend otherwise:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310

To get an idea of which states pay out the most welfare checks, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) surveyed state governments. Using the most current information, NCSL then compared the total number of recipients of TANF to the overall state populations (through June 2009).

State--- % of Pop on Welfare--- Spending on Welfare

#1. California……………3.30%………$3.28 BILLION

#2. Maine………………..2.37%……….$61.73 M

#3. Tennessee………….2.15%……..$91.28 M

#4. Massachusetts…….2.09%…….$295.29 M

#5. Vermont…………….2.02%……..$30.92 M

#6. Wash DC…………..1.99%……….$18.67 M

#7. New York…………..1.92%………$1.47 BILLION

#8. Minnesota…………..1.88………$106.29 M

#9. Washington…………1.86%……$265.88 M

#10. NewMexico……….1.83%……$58.87 M

#11. Indiana……………..1.83%……..$102.27 M

#12. Rhode Island……..1.79%…….$57.4 M

#13. Michigan…………..1.60%……..$380.93 M

#14.Pennsylvania……….1.60%……$247.29 M

#15. Oregon…………….1.55..……….$83.85 M

Conservative, the right to marry whomever you want is clearly acknowledged in the 9th and 10th amendments, plus by the absence in the Constitution of the power for either the feds or the states to forbid it.

Larry, you could not be more wrong. Bush allowed Clinton's bubble to expand just the way Clinton designed it to do. The folks that have been hurt the most by Clinton's design are the middle class and elderly. Now Obama is fixing everything so that wealth will get redistributed only to people of color and minorities. That is very bad, especially for the two girls and family in this article. Because of Obama's disparate impact argument, these two girls won't be eligible for college aid or home mortgages because of their skin color. They might be able to get a tan but chances are they will not be able to vote seven times or get a job. Racism is alive and well in the White House. Remember the White House - used to be the peoples house. Now it has been taken over by radical, socialists who are intent on destroying it.

Once again keep spouting easily proven lies, Larry-367607, Common Sense-2004266 , independent jim, Auto 101, happytimesarehearagain

Who created the current $60 TRILLION to $100 TRILLION Global Economic Crisis consisting of the Mortgage Crisis, Wall Street Crisis, Financial Crisis, Banking Crisis, Credit Crisis, etc..

The Demoncraptic Party Lie Blaming Bush, Regan, etc. for the current f**ked up US Economy.

Typical Demoncraps this is why people vote up your posts Larry-367607:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" Chancellor" - Adolf Hitler.

And when Demoncraps do not like the Facts:

US Demoncraps demand the Murder of the US Citizens of the Republician Party

"President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b!tches out and give America back to an America where we belong," US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during President Obama's Reelection Campaign.

President Obama addressed the crowd shortly after US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior. US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior not arrested for "Terroristic Threatening of US Citizens", "Conspiracy To Commit the Murder of US Citizens", "Homegrown Domestic Terrorism Against US Citizens", etc..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

"Chancellor Hitler, we are your Army. We are ready to march. All Loyal German's Must take back Germany from the Jews". Chancellor Hitler's Brown Shirts, Sturmabteilung, Armed Paramilitary; and his Political Labor Union, National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NAZI.

Chancellor Hitler Ordering the elimination of other Political Parties (and did by Armed Force of his armed private Army, 1933), just like US Democrats demanding the elimination of the Republican Party.

Definition Fascism - dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition and critism, and extreme nationalism

Any Demoncraps that do not want to be described as Fascists NAZI then stop doing those Facist NAZI Actions.

WHERE ARE YOUR RESEARCHED FACTS Larry-367607.

That's correct you don't have any. You don't even verify your sources.

Your lies Larry-367607 like, the LIES TOLD BY "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Larry-367607 - started 2 wars

1998 State of the Union Address, Overthrow of President Hussein, Demanding War With Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Support of the Islamic Jihadists at Bosnia, etc..

Transcript 1998 State of the Union Address (The Demoncraptic Party Lie "Bush Weapons of Mass Destruction").

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/

Demanding US Law, H.R.4655, "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction. After many covert attempts to Overthrow President Hussein, US Congress Amended H.R.4655 authorizing the Use of US Military Force.

H.R.4655 (the Demoncraptic Party Lie "Iraq Illegal Unfunded").

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057063/posts

President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox that resulted in the US being Condemned as the Great Satan; and in Retaliation against the Great Satan Fundamentalist Islamic Osama Bin Laden starts planning his 9/11 2001 Attacks of the same targets as his previous 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing (Video Tapes Osama Bin Laden).

It was President Clinton's Belief that the Cold War Era US Defense, US Intelligence Agencies, US Military were not longer needed. So President Clinton as Commander In Chief Ordered the US Defense Budget Cuts resulting in the US Army Corps of Engineers not having Funding for the Levees at New Orleans BEFORE Hurricane Katrina to accomplish the upgrades, modifications, repairs, etc. US Congressional Katrina Hearings; Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies that left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events Leading up to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission Investigations, Findings, and Recommendations, with former President Clinton saying "I'm a so sorry"; President Clinton's Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military required President Bush (43) from 2001 till 2003 to rebuild the US Military that President Clinton (42) Destroyed, for President Bush to Accomplish (Mission Accomplished) the President Clinton US Policy of the Overthrow of President Hussein in accordance with President Clinton's US Law H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction that became 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom.

Unedited Transcript Mission Accomplished Speech (Not the Demoncraptic Party Lies, the President Obama Reelection lie, "Bush Unilateral Military Invasion of Iraq".).

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/us/bush.transcript_1_general-franks-major-combat-allies?_s=PM:US

Like I said Larry-367607

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" Chancellor" - Adolf Hitler.

Those of us that have been involved in Iraq since the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, rotated to Operation Cyclone (Afghanistan) till now know the Facts, NOT your LIES.

Definition Fact - Experience or Observations. My Firsthand Experience and Firsthand Observations. NOT YOUR Larry-367607 OPINIONS

Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason.

And even better yet because I KNEW the implications of what you Demoncraps did (first paragraph) I invested, and made $1 Million and $10 Million for a friend that I borrowed $1 Million to invest. Suck on that no experience no facts Larry-367607 only non factual emotive opinions.

And since President Obama has done NOTHING, I will do that again. President Obama NEVER reinstated those US Laws, that previously made Illegal the Causes of previous Depressions. It was a Demoncrap that eliminated those US Laws, just like if you sign a Blank Check that is on YOU, when I fill in your blank check for more money than you have.

Egg fart opinion Larry-367607,

Interest on the National Debt:

President Clinton $18.9 Billion

President Bush $16.6 Billion

DarnThatDream,

Ever heard of "Separation of Church and State".

Marriage - a Religious Function

Civil Union - a State Function

Larry-367607 - millions more needing food stamps, welfare and Medicaid?

What Larry-367607 you don't like your Demoncraptic Party stated way to "boost the US Economy", as "food stamps stimulates the US Economy" stated by a President Obama Financial Advisor.

Because the Demoncraps cannot admit the Causes they cannot find the Solutions.

President Obama demanded the Spending of $1.7 TRILLION (update: $2.1 Trillion, 2013 update: $2.5 Trillion) that was previously NOT Budgeted For. The Demoncraptic Party Controlled US Senate and US House of Representative gladly approved. To hide the actual costs from the US Public they do not create a US Budget, and create Continuing Resolutions (CRs) based on spending of previous years NOT including the $2.5 Trillion.

The "Tea Party" Fiscal Conservatives demand a US Budget, and a Balanced Budget Ammendment. They get elected to US Congress.

The Waitress arrived with the $2.5 TRILLION Bill for the meal that President Obama ate, President Obama starts looking around for everyone else to pay.

In July 2011, President Obama has Jack Lew give US Senator Harry Reid of the Demoncraptic Party Controlled US Senate his demands to pay for his previously not Budgeted for spending of $2.5 Trillion, as "Across the Board Budget Cuts" (Automatic Sequestration) of All Previously Budgeted for Programs (like Social Security, Medicare, that President Obama calls "Entitlements" and not the US Citizen's Involuntary Contributory Trust Funds; etc.), Projects (like the US Army Corps of Engineers Infrastructure Projects at the US; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that gives High Tech Research Grants to Universities and Colleges; etc.), Agencies (like FEMA, Department of Education, Veteran's Affairs, etc.), including chopping the Benefits and Entitlements of the "47%" (2012 update: 49%, 2013 update 51%).

Previously in attempts to pay for the $2.5 Trillion President Obama as Commander In Chief Ordered the US Military Budget Cuts since April 2009, while the US Military was fighting Two Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and President Obama's Secret Wars. The US Military ends up losing Funding for Maintenance of Aircraft, Ships, Submarines, Vehicles, Weapons Systems, etc. as done by US Civilians (loss of US Jobs); US Military loss of Funding for Sustainment for Ammunition, Fuel, Food, Water, etc. with US Military Families then sending US Military "Care Packages" of Body Armor, Helmets, Boots, Uniforms, Boot Laces, Canned Food, Underware, Toilet Paper, Tooth Brushes, etc., some Corporations start sending US Military basic necessities. US Military lost Funding for Training. President Obama starts his lies, "Iraq was the wrong War, Afghanistan is the right War", "Anything they need to win Afghanistan". Afghanistan during the near Arctic Winters became the modern day Valley Forge. President Obama's Failed Foreign Policies lost the US Military Logistics Support Bases at Pakistan required to support the United Nation's Mission at LANDLOCKED Afghanistan, the unsupportable United Nations, US, NATO must withdraw from US Ally Afghanistan by 2014; just like how President Obama's Failed Foreign Policies lost Iraq to the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran, with the US getting KICKED OUT of Iraq, the Allies of the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran, the Chinese and Russian Federation get the Iraqis Oil that could have paid for the US And US Allies Liberation of Iraq with Decades to Centuries of Iraqis Oil. This loss of the Iraqis Oil made the Libyan Oil of Strategic Importance to the US European Allies (and US Ally Japan), President Obama already outsmarted as the Holy Warriors of Islam are already attacking US Ally Libya from Egypt (US Ally Egypt lost due to President Obama's Failed Foreign Policies).

The US Military kicked out of Iraq are redeployed to US Ally Kuwait, and US Ally Saudi Arabia. These US Military Forces are deployed to the Borders of Syria. Syria one more of the results of President Obama's Failed Foreign Policies tied directly to Iraq (Fundamentalist Islamic Autonomous Kurdistanis Region).

The President Obama lie, Save Money by Ending the War at Iraq. The Syrian Rebels being Al Quada Syria, Al Quada Iraq, and the Kurdistanis PKK, HPG, KGK. President Obama sending money to US Ally Saudi Arabia, and US Ally Kuwait to arm the Syrian Rebels.

Jive Talkin Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7oWK5ewpH8

Obama lied US Ambassador Died

President Obama's Reelection "Osama Bin Laden Is Dead, GM Is Alive" Inflamed the Islamic World to Violent Anti US Demonstrations and Protests. In response the Islamic World chanting, "Obama Declared War Against Muslims", "Obama, Obama We Are All Osama". In response the "Libyan Rebels" supported by President Obama as Ansar Al Shariah (Ansar Alshariaa) attack the US Consulate Benghazi to coincide with the Greatest Defeat of the Great Satan (US), the 9/11 2001 Attacks, by their Greatest Holy Warrior of Islam Superstar Osama Bin Laden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udSEcQbM308

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pJGX1JzyFc

Pragmatic:

The right to marry who you want is covered under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. It's been affirmed by the courts.

Wrong. The right to marry as affirmed by the courts applies ONLY to those parties involved and the state in which it was brought. It has NO application to ANY other state.

If your argument is correct, then please explain to me how states that do not allow gay marriage are able to, not only maintain, but also enforce, the current laws they have on the books. If the courts have upheld it as you claim, then no state has the ability to deny gay marriage right now. If the courts have upheld it as you claim, then no state can refuse to recognize a gay marriage as being legal.

But, as you well know, the other 41 states that do not recognize, or allow gay marriage, continue to do so precisely because a court ruling in another state does NOT apply to them.

And no, I'm not arguing against individual rights. I'm arguing that the court rulings do NOT apply to other states. I'm all for civil unions for gay couples. I'm in favor of them having every right and benefit that is accorded to married couples. I just will not change my definition of marriage to make the politically correct liberal feel better.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but I will not let someone else dictate to me what my opinion is supposed to be.

Trillian: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is contained in the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. The Constitution is the law and specifies the rights of individuals, and more importantly, the limits of government, which have been totally ignored for the last century.

So, nice try, but you have your history and your documents confused. Better luck next time.

Darn That: Then I ask you the same question I asked Pragmatic: If your argument is correct, then explain to me how the states that do not allow or recognize gay marriage are able to enforce their laws?

Explain to me how a gay couple in any other state not currently recognizing gay marriage is not allowed to legally be married right this minute if your argument is valid?

The reason those states can deny gay marriage, of course, is because your argument is totally false. The 10th amendment was specifically designed to allow states to set their own course in every other matter not specifically addressed in the Constitution. That's why the Bill of Rights is so precise in it's language.

Read the Federalist Papers and you'll find the exact same argument.

Wrong. The right to marry as affirmed by the courts applies ONLY to those parties involved and the state in which it was brought. It has NO application to ANY other state.

Not when the Supreme Court of the land gets involved. The states were able to maintain and enforce their laws, until the Supreme Court found that those laws were in violation of the Constitution. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states until the Supreme Court said no, you can't do that, citing the 14th amendment. It happened in 1967. The Constitution is a living document, not writ in stone without the ability to be changed. Things have been clarified since the bill of rights.

Gay marriage is just the modern version of this. Two generations ago, people were having the same arguments over mixed race marriages (known then as miscegenation.) Earl Warren wrote "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

And no, I'm not arguing against individual rights.

Your feelings on this matter were quite muddled by your fervent defense of states violating people's individual rights.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but I will not let someone else dictate to me what my opinion is supposed to be.

You can have your opinion. My job isn't to change your mind on this. I'm pointing out to you that hypocrisy is not limited to one party. What you may believe is also beside the point. Because there are plenty of conservatives who are crystal clear on this matter and very content to deny individual freedoms in situations they don't like, while fighting tooth and nail to preserve others they do. You are surely aware of this.

It doesn't make it right when any party does it. And the sooner we get over this ridiculous partisanship, blaming one party and excusing our own for the same misdeeds, the sooner we as a nation can solve problems. Or we can just blame everybody else for everything and never own up.

Conservative, because the Constitution is enforced only erratically. The DOMA is unconstitutional because it allows the states to ignore a marriage completed in another state, unlike, say, wills, which are honored in states other than where they were constructed. See Article 4.

You're right that the 10th amendment may acknowledge that the states can control marriage.... but it may not. Personally I'd like the govt to get out of the marriage business altogether. I see no valid role for it in a relationship between consenting adults.

Personally I'd like the govt to get out of the marriage business altogether. I see no valid role for it in a relationship between consenting adults.

I agree. The government has no business in a religious ceremony.

Nothing is going to change economically unless we take control of our corrupt financial and corporate system. When the Saudi royal family makes 250 billion off our rigged market while 401ks are tanking it,s time to ask some serious questions; Like, why do we spend billions and precious lives defending big wealth here and in Kuwait, as well as all over the world?

The answer is obvious, most of our politicians are prostitutes to big money. America is not broke. Foreign banks are crammed with several trillion American dollars. If we continue to allow wall street, banks, commodities speculators and insurance companies to run or country we will continue down hill. This group produces nothing; But they own our government and they are destroying our country.

ConservativeNotRepublican

Trillian: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is contained in the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. The Constitution is the law and specifies the rights of individuals, and more importantly, the limits of government, which have been totally ignored for the last century.

So, nice try, but you have your history and your documents confused. Better luck next time.

at its most basic - the ideals for this county come from these docs which include...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - the core beliefs that made this country so great and all our laws are based on.

so nice try ConservativeNotRepublican ;)

Pragmatic: As I said previously, the Supreme Court, when it can't defend it's decision by quoting language that specifically addresses the issue at hand, will make up new rights. They will then cite some other part of the constitution and will completely ignore the 10th Amendment, and more importantly, the original thinking behind that amendment. But hey, Washington, the politicians and the Supreme Court have been ignoring the Constitution for more than a century now. Why is it a surprise that they don't intend to stop now.

Take Obamacare for example. If Obamacare is constitutional because Obama called it a tax, then whenever the government wishes to control anything, all they have to do is pass a law and call it a tax.

That in no way shape or form is what the Founding Fathers intended. It's so sad that Roberts was so enamored of his own legacy in history that he was willing to sell America and the constitution down the river for a few paragraphs in a history book sometime in the future. The liberals on the court are always willing to do that, but everyone expects them to ignore the Constitution. That's par for the course for that half of the court.

DarnThat, Pragmatic: I believe we may have some common ground here. I too would like to see the government out of the marriage business. Let the government define everyone as having a civil union. I have no problem with that. The churches will still define it as a marriage, and those couples will still call themselves married. If there is a church who wishes to legally unite gay couples and wishes to call it a marriage, I have no problem with that either.

The ONLY thing I have EVER reserved for myself is to maintain my own definition of marriage and let anyone else define it as they wish. But for some, they insist on forcing their definition down my throat, and I will never accept it.

Trillian: If you want to use that logic, that's fine, but you can't just pick and choose which parts you like. If you want to apply those concepts to justify gay marriage, then I will use the concept of life to justify denying abortion.

I bet you just said ...WHOA!!! and slammed on the brakes didn't you? Sorry, if you get to define it as you wish, then so do I. After all, liberals are always telling me how "tolerant" and "open minded" they are. Except of course, they are no such thing.

Ummm... PJAM09 - the list of welfare you show is the $ given out per state - it does not take in to account the SIZE of the state (which you obviously omitted to prove an invalid point). The majority of welfare states are, in fact, red (nice try though!):

States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:

1. New Mexico: $2.63
2. West Virginia: $2.57
3. Mississippi: $2.47
4. District of Colombia: $2.41
5. Hawaii: $2.38
6. Alabama: $2.03
7. Alaska: $1.93
8. Montana: $1.92
9. South Carolina: $1.92
10. Maine: $1.78

And, in case you dont understand what this means: Mississippi, for example, gets $2.47 for every dollar it gives to the fed (federal income taxes from residents). So other states PAY Mississippi to subsidize the state. Effectively, the state spends 250% of its income (the extra 150% comes from other states paying their fair share).

You can blame the lack of fedeal taxes for that and the lower abount of millionaires in thoses states

40-50K household is 3.2%
50-75K is 5.7% (when we made 72K we paid 4%)
75-100K is 7.2% ( when we made 91K it was 6% and 87K it was 5%)
100-250K is below 9.9%

now some pay more some pay less. We paid less made in 2012 87K and paid 5.7% in 2011 we made 91K and paid 6.13% in 2010 we made 82K and paid 5.3% in 2009 we made 72K and paid 4.6% in 2008 we made 69K and paid 4.1%. We don't even have a mortgage deduction. That is how federal taxes work only the millionaires that you want to tax really pay it that is why California and New York pay so much.

Now why don't you post what the money is spent on.

but you can?

why?

because of your montary status?

because of your skin color?

because of your sex?

I'm not picking and chosing - when push comes to shove - this is what started it all...the is the sum total of our parts.

yeah, it's all one thing. It all comes down to one simple and mostly wrong thing. This enormous, mega multi connected and interconnected thing called a world economy and what's going wrong in it for us boils down to WalMart. Fantastic. Now we know. Perhaps the genius who brought us this revelation will now give us the simple, one thing will fix it all answer. Shoot me some truth.

This article is messed up, as everyone here is MISSING AN IMPORTANT POINT that has nothing to do with politics or trickle down economics or the slant of the article as one of many people in America struggling...

The BIG QUESTION in this article is: She is a single mom struggling, a story as old as America itself. She needs a hand up for sure, but where is the FATHER in all this? Where is her FAMILY in ALL this? Did her husband die...is he in prison...is he making child support payments? I did not see any mention of money from him. It took at least 2 people to "create" this situation she is in, and neither I, nor her former employer, nor the government or present political party was one of them. I think we need to answer when in her life..and how... she ended up single with a daughter. First question first and start from there. Start at the beginning with ALL THE FACTS and we can discuss the problems up to the present and how to correct them, just do not show me the end result and start a politcal argument, that is just pure MSNBC

Glen, it doesn't matter. We can't go back in time and "fix" anyone's marital status, divorce, number of children, and so on. Why are you so hung up on this question--it's the second time you posted it. The article says she receives child support of $127 a week. Whether he divorced her or she divorced him and why they split is not relevant to the article. I sense that any minute you're going to drag out a bag of "family values" and blame it all on not turning to "the Lord."

What is wrong with you people..another stupid political argument. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Try dealing with the new reality in this nation...less buying power, lower wages, and an absense of jobs. The woman is obviously going to have to adjust in some way; most of us have had to do without in one way or the other. I guess that most of you don't care what the article was stating; you only stroke your own egos and "pseudo" intelligence. It is all about not spending more than you make. That's the bottom line.

The post hung the first time and then came through.

It does matter. Her single mother plight is older than America.

If there is a father, then he is the first line of accountability. Not me, not you, and not the government. My point is that if this article had any merit besides starting a political cat fight or blame game, it would mention the father and why he is not working and paying his fair share. He could be a disabled or dead vet for All I know.

You sense very wrong, I am not one of those bible bashers. I am an independent voter... and realist.

But yes, the problem starts "in the family" behind closed doors, whether standing up or lying flat on one's back and getting some: it could be abuse in any form, addiction, violent video games and lack of responsible upbringing, or a conspiracy plot of passing on detrimental behavior, who the h* knows.

But it starts there.

Try to improve your reading comprehension skills. The article clearly states that she receives about $127.00 a week in child support. It also clearly states that she quit her previous job after a dispute with her employer before she had found another. Anyone who does that in this economy is a fool. However her daughter should not have to pay for her mom's mistakes, and hopefully with temporary aid will make it to college. And what, pray tell, are you going to do with the information about how she became a single mom? Oh that's right, then you can fix all the problems....go join Fauxbama's team, they believe in magic, too.

read the article again....she is getting child support (about 127 per week) and she has total custody

What is wrong with you people..another stupid political argument. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Try dealing with the new reality in this nation...less buying power, lower wages, and an absense of jobs.

When you boil down any problem to a tribal squabble, reality, morality, and what's best for the country fly out the window. It's not between right and wrong, it's who's right and who's wrong. It's an argument with no end.

Walmart has the same quality as Target, Kohls, K-Mart,etc. It is all made in China. Thanks to this wonderful economy its one of the only stores left that offers reasonable prices.

My reading skills are fine. My comprehension and knowledge is good.

Yours: Please find any reference as to why she is only getting paid that amount, and who is paying it? Please find the word father or spouse or husband and if he is paying anything. Custody might be a test tube baby for all we know. In CT his obligation is only based on his ability to pay.

I have to go to work now and generate revenue and taxes.

Please find the word father or spouse or husband and if he is paying anything

Uh, who else would be paying child support? Either the father, or someone who had adopted the daughter. Glen, quit while you're behind.

Thank God Walmart exists or folks in my poor neck of the woods would have no jobs and would not be able to afford Obama's high cost of living. Clinton's bubble and burst is documented. Look up the Community Reinvestment Act and HUD's history. The news media did a great job covering the tenth year anniversary of the Iraq war, leaving Clinto and his castration of the CIA and the military out of the equation. That's how we got into the war. Clinton created two bubbles, the high tech bubble and the housing bubble and got America attacked. But the libs aren't done yet. Sending companies overseas to compete globally, the US economy is now a service economy and service jobs are by nature low paying. It is not rocket science to clean toilets, stock shelves or rake leaves. The pay goes with the job. Great thing about FREEDOM. Walmart employees can get a job elsewhere or start their own company like millions of poor immigrants did for the past few hundred years. What makes you libs special?

Glen #5.2. You are on it. All this trouble was predicted decades ago when people complained of the breakdown in the family unit. It became charming at one point to be divorced, later just ordinary and widely accepted. Judges always, always treated the ex-wife as a victim and the ex-hubby as a perp. All judgements were heavily lopsided toward the woman. Simultaneously, women's lib movement was in high gear. Gubmint programs toward single Mom's caught on. The combined weight of it all is the family is dead in America. US census update for 2011 said for the first time in the US, over 50% of all babaies were born to unwed Mom's. The breakdown of the family, trashing the role of Dads, Men behaving badly, Women not needing a Dad because it's now societies responsibility to raise their kids when 80% of the population is filing claims aginst the gubmint for support all lead to these results. Also, the article didn't say it, but a lot of gubmint housing projects in the cities built in the 70's have aged out. The people have been given section 8 vouchers and moved to the burbs. Naturally all this stuff and more have combined to create more poverty and move it to the burbs. City centers are no longer the heaviest concentration. In some cities the wealthy young professionals are buying buildings and starting luxury condos. They are going to flip it so suburbs are the high crime high poverty centers crowd and the good life will be downtown. When the folks figure that out in 20 years the gubmint will be trying to move the section 8 folks back downtown. And round and round we go.

Ah IREADYOU someone finally got it!!!! The article is IN ERROR and should read "TOUGHER DEAD BEAT DAD LAWS REQUIRED" and "AMERICA to hold individuals of both sexes accountable for their actions" and to make laws so it is legal to force people to work, get educated and trained, and pay their bills in these cases. This article has less to do with crying poverty in the burbs and blaming political parties. This is how you "fix" the situation she and many others have gotten into going forward and not just wonder and whine about it.

I digress and waste time by signing in again.. and now I have to get back to work to support my family and pay my taxes.

For God's sake Glen, how many times, does someone have to tell you, as several poster's have on this site, that the father is paying "child support" of $127.00/week.

Why can't you comprehend this. You continue to ask the same question, over and over when the question is answered in the article. Please go back and read it. Also, many of us have to work and genrate revenue and taxes.

Squabble etc.. The bottom line is: Times are tough. This women is reacting as been taught today. The child too.. Today's children are spoiled rotten, they need some changes. If Mom is having a hard time, what is wrong with moving this child? Nothing.. We pamper our kids and protect them from difficult times, they do the same at school. The children of today can't play ball, or do anything that might scrape his or her knee..

How this news story, turned into child support, I don't know.. That is one check Mothers should not rely on.. They need to take charge of their children, live with in their means and get on with life. Todays economy is so bad and is going to get much worse, having a roof over these kids head is quite an accomplishment. As the great one has said, "their might or will be a bump in the road and these kids will have to go along with the bumps". Youth of today need to plan, PLAN their children, then raise them the best of their ability. This woman knows the ropes, has found ways I never knew existed. Now the kid needs to go with the flow..

Wal Mart wouldn't exitst if millions of people weren't clamoring to buy the @!$%# they sell. Ballots aren't the only, let alone the most effective way Americans vote. Where do you think all that social spending ultimately goes?

Being a single parent is NOT ADMIRABLE. It is one of the things destroying this country. A single parent DOES A WORSE JOB than TWO parents.

People have abandoned all common sense with regards to this. Women and men to some degree are encouraged by EVERYONE not to marry. This is RIDICULOUS. MEN AND WOMEN or MEN AND MEN or WOMEN AND WOMEN need to know they NEED each other to survive in this sort of economy.

This article seems to put blame on something other than the fact that THESE PEOPLE GOT DIVORCED. The broken family IS THE DOWNFALL of the U.S.

There are many well married and hard working families that are having the same problem as this woman. Our Deadly economic trend is to give more and more to a very few and say to hell with the masses of brothers and sisters. We have outsourced for slave labor and huge profits and the government helps the pigs with special treaties and tax breaks.

America is not broke: Trillions are in foreign banks. Forcing our public owned corporations to pay our minimum wages wherever they go would bring back many jobs and show a little regard for workers. We act like we don't know what,s going on can't help the situation. Pure nonsense! There is much we could do to turn this country around. Only a more reasonable distribution of income and wealth can really help. Outsourcing is destroying small business by disabling their customers.

wow. What's this? Almost sounds like common sense and logic. Can't be. Someone actually showed up with some sense. Be careful out there sir, there aren't many of you left.

Speaking of which: is it really imperative that her daughter continues with her lacrosse? I am sure she enjoys it and blah, blah, blah, but how much money is that costing her? Let's prioritize people!!!!

Speaking of which: is it really imperative that her daughter continues with her lacrosse? I am sure she enjoys it and blah, blah, blah, but how much money is that costing her? Let's prioritize people!!!!

If her daughter can earn a lacrosse scholarship, that would probably help immensely. She could go to a good school and take off a lot of the financial burden of her mother.

Tis true, but that is a big IF and she is just a freshman. Striving toward an academic scholarship would be much cheaper!!!!

For women's sports as regards a college scholarship - there is a lot of money for women college sport participants, not everyone realizes that (due to a ruling, they must match $$ spent on men's sports). If the kid is good at Lacrosse but not a stellar scholar, she'd best stick with her sport.
The problem for the mother is the girl is good enough to play at the club level - which is not cheap - for example, soccer can run over a thousand dollars for a "travel team", but once in high school, if they have a team, the coaching and participation should kick in so that the girl could drop the club.

Lots of interesting comments on this article. I especially appreciate this comment by wondergwb - #5.4 "Try dealing with the new reality in this nation...less buying power, lower wages, and an absence of jobs." And Charles Newsome--I like the way you said what you said! The reality of what wondergwb said has made it necessary for all of us to take heed of what Charles said. Overarching all of this is a huge economic problem that has taken decades of miscalculation, mismanagement, and unwise choices made by both Demos and Repubs. We the people are between a rock and a hard place. We the people, on an individual basis, are going to have to figure out ways to take what little money we do have, pay off bills wisely, save it wisely, and spend it wisely, and do our best to do it in a way that will encourage a stronger, ethically and economically sound economy. That's a tall order!! But if we want to truly prosper in healthy ways as a free nation, that is what we must do.

Homelessness due to what? Not finding a job? Do not think so. The majority of homeless are those with mental and addiction issues that were mainstreamed into society by progressive thinking. Great failure but not Reagans fault.

The mainstream news media talk more about homelessness when Republicans are in power. It fits the template. The news media are lazy.... and Democrats. Do your own research.

Meanwhile, congress dicks around with "personhood" bills.

The solution is very easy.

All these working poor Americans need to do is be patient: certainly the Reaganomics Trickle Down effect will hit them soon and all will be well with the world.

The Reaganomics plan has only been effect for 30 years or so. Give it time. Maybe more tax breaks to the super wealthy would help speed things up.

Our middle class meltdown and increase in poverty began with Ronnie Raygun and "Reagonomics"... which President George H.W. Bush termed "Voodoo Economics" and how right he was. Nothing trickles down. It never has trickled down and it never will trickle down because the pipes are clogged at the very top.

When the Walton Family Cabal is worth the equivalent of the lowest 40% of Americans... then add in the Koch Brothers... and we have 7 Walton members and 2 Koch crooks totaling 9 people who are worth more than the lowest 50% of the population. Something is wrong... it seems that the wealth trickles up... and only a few crumbs trickle down.

Before Raygun was elected President I met 2 women who were very close personal friends of Ronnie and Nancy... and one of these women said the following to me: "I pity the poor in this country if he (Ronnie) is elected president." How right she was. The problem is that she should have said: "I pity the 90% of the country who won't get 'trickled down upon' if Ronnie is elected president."

I want to know who it was that was actually running the country for the last several years of Rayguns administration because it's clear he was too far gone mentally to even know his name. When he was suppose to be sworn in for the Iran Contra Hearings... which he should've faced jail time for... the judge said that he couldn't swear in President Reagan because he (the judge) wasn't sure that Reagan could even understand what he was swearing to, or even what his name was.

I was within 50 feet of Raygun one morning when he was jogging (walking slowly) in Central Park... and so help me, I could've said "Nice day here in Chicago isn't it sir?" and he would've replied "Yes." He didn't have a clue... it was obvious he was in la la land. He will go down in history as a horrible president... but still better than "W".

he spent the trillions bailing us out of Dubbya;s hole. If you can't see that, you're either purposefully ignoring it or you're blind.

The CBO stated in 2008 before Obama was elected that whichever party won the 2009 deficit would greatly exceed 1 trillion and would continue to do so until at least 2011. They stated the main causes as the tax cuts, continuing war costs, debt service costs and the economic collapse. All those things occurred under Bush.

Learn math, blind ignorant one. Since the debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED in 4 years of Obama, theoretically Bush's debt, accrued over 8 years, has been "covered".

Also, never forget Maobama's proclamation that Bush's debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic". What does that make Maobama? Somehow virtuous?

Also, a lot of the Bush debt was accrued to build the military back up after the Clinton "peace dividend" paredown, resulting in increasingly destructive attacks against American interests, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. See how that works?

The 2009 budget was passed by Bush in 2008 with a projected 1.2 trillion deficit. Obama may have been sitting in the big chair but he had nothing to do with that 1.2 trillion only stimulus he added. That brought Bush's total from 5.7 trillion to 12.1 trillion even though he started with a surplus, 4.2% unemployment rate and a strong economy. He left Obama with 700,000 a month losing jobs, millions in foreclosure, our banks near collapse and 2 wars still being fought. In other words he began with a high speed train and left Obama with a wreck. You people have been spewing your nonsense for four years. Most Americans including most Republicans know who screwed up our economy. Bush.

Learn math, blind ignorant one. Since the debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED in 4 years of Obama, theoretically Bush's debt, accrued over 8 years, has been "covered".

Bush started at 5.7 trillion and his ending total after his last budget was 12.1 trillion and you call a 16 trillion after 4 years doubling? Talk about math deficient. As I noted above the CBO listed as the main causes of the continuing deficits the tax cuts, continuing war costs, debt servicing and the economic meltdown reducing revenue 500 billion a year and throwing millions on welfare, unemployment, food stamp and Medicaid roles. You can blame Obama for not being able to pay for Bush's excesses but most Americans won't buy it no matter how many times you say it.

Also, a lot of the Bush debt was accrued to build the military back up after the Clinton "peace dividend" paredown, resulting in increasingly destructive attacks against American interests, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. See how that works?

We've fought wars since our founding yet Bush is the only war time president who not only didn't make any effort to pay for those costs he placed them off budget so they wouldn't show up on his deficit projections. So when you look at charts showing the massive deficits Bush ran the wars aren't included. A responsible president pays for his wars. See how it should work?

P.S. He didn't build up the military to defend us he built it up to finish what his daddy left undone looking for imaginary WMD. Don't act like that was a war that should have been fought.

Larry, that is a COMPLETE lie, the 2009 fiscal budget was not passed by the Democratic Congress in 2008, it was passed and signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009.

The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget since.

Larry, that is a COMPLETE lie, the 2009 fiscal budget was not passed by the Democratic Congress in 2008, it was passed and signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009.

Dumb much? Explain what effect Obama had on 2009 spending by signing it in March 2009 when budgets run from October through October. He signed a budget 6 months into the fiscal year when half the money was spent and the other half was already allocated. Below from the conservative Cato institute.

But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

Gary: "You can lay this one at Bush 2's feet. I"

Gary, how about we start by laying it at the FATHER's feet. It took at least 2 people to make this mess she is in and neither I, you???, nor any Democratic or Republican president was one of them (at least I doubt it)

Larry, you are really in the tank for Obama, aren't you. Yes, the FY 2009 budget was mainly set in stone by the time Pres. Obama was sworn in....set in stone by a DEMOCRATIC House and Senate...under continual spending bills votes for BY then Senator Obama. You do realize under our form of government that all spending is authorized by Congress, not the President. So continually blaming Bush for the actions of a Democratic House and Senate...is more than a little partisan.

So David, where can I find the republican filibuster of thses budgets and baby Bush's veto?

A bit of info on the "fiscaly responsible" GW Bush

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22990613/

Larry - If Clinton had not destroyed the CIA and the military we would have had the intelligence to stop Obama. He allowed Obama to build and train and plan and plot. Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, Obama voted for the war.

Larry, unfortunately there is precedent for not paying for wars. LBJ did not pay for Vietnam. There's enough blame here for all these jerks, including Obama. He needs to eliminate the deficit and the debt, although the latter will take some time.

The early 2000s stock market implosion, due to the dot com bubble bursting, began in April 2000 when Clinton was president. But seriously, you overestimate the power of the president -- this is a worldwide problem -- and implicitly assume that a correlation proves cause and effect. The president is not responsible for everything that occurs during his reign.

Bush II was a terrible president, especially WRT the wars which WERE clearly his doing, but Obama seems to be continuing Bush's policies. How is that good? That said, we survived Bush, we will survive Obama, but we can do better. How do we end up with these twerps? Random people off the street -- bound down by a Constitution that is taken seriously and 100+ million guns in private hands -- could do better with a hangover.

Where is the father?

This is what being a single parent is all about! If you are foolish and have a child without having a partner to help raise the child YOU WILL BE POOR!!

Why are we all SO PROUD of people when they say they are a single parent?? Being a single parent is NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

If the father died, THIS IS WHAT LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR. This woman needs to FIND A MAN so she can properly raise this girl before she goes ASTRAY.

Tax rates were double what they are today under Clinton and we had a healthy economy, 4.2% unemployment and a 450 billion surplus yet we're over taxed? The republican solution to cut taxes and spend, spend, spend doesn't work. Tax cuts are great if spending is cut as well. Neither Reagan nor Bush were willing to make the cuts. That's why our debt tripled under Reagan and doubled again under Bush. Romney proposed more tax cuts but wanted to spend 200 billion more on the military and 50 billion or so on a new space program. Does that make sense to any of you people? Do any of you really believe Romney would have been different than Reagan or Bush? Republicans talking about fiscal responsibility when they're anything but should only work once. Many of you still believed the talk with Romney. Incredible.

What is going on now is not working! And all this was caused by Reid and Peloski taking over Congress in 2006. It's pretty funny that Reagan is getting blamed for the 80's when he dealt with a Democratic controlled Congress his whole 8 years in office. Are you Libs saying they did nothing? Or did they have the deer in the headlight look like you all do now.

Tboy: Sorry for your ignorance. Congress has the ability to block funding but every initiative that drove our debt under Reagan was initiated by Reagan. I remember Reagan and his fireside chats asking people to demand Democrats in congress support his tax cut plans most democrats opposed. They did and he got them. It was Reagan that built up the military and began star wars spending. It was Bush that cut taxes again, went to congress hat in hand to get support for his 2 wars and his drug plan. Every single program under Reagan or Bush that drove up our debt were campaign promises kept by those 2 or military actions they initiated. Getting enough democrats in congress to vote yes on a Reagan or Bush program doesn't make them responsible for them. Grow a brain.

Larry, if you are so intelligent, and know all the answers, then run for President, and quit mouthing off. There is no simple solution...Bush is gone, Clinton is gone, and this President has the responsibility of his office; cut spending, and slow this train down before it runs off the track. I don't care about your "debating" skills; get off your posterior, and try doing something..anything.

Steve, READ a little instead of parroting the GOP. US Taxes are lower than the last 60 years, and lower than most industrialized nations. WHY does the GOP want to mislead you on this? Think for yourself.

Larry look in the mirror you will figire it out!!!

Larry,

Tax rates were double what they are today under Clinton and we had a healthy economy, 4.2% unemployment and a 450 billion surplus yet we're over taxed? The republican solution to cut taxes and spend, spend, spend doesn't work.

You're failing to see the goal of this. People in Reagan's administration called it "starve the beast." The idea goes like this: Run up the credit card with popular programs (medicare part D, missile defense shields, etc), deprive the government of revenue with popular tax cuts, when the debt becomes too great there will be the political will to cut spending and thus shrink the size of government. Where the plan always falls apart is that last part. Cutting spending sounds great, until people learn the details. You can't please everyone and everyone has their favorite pet program. Mine is scientific research and NASA. Some one else's might be military or prisons.

Larry, you are really in the tank for Obama, aren't you. Yes, the FY 2009 budget was mainly set in stone by the time Pres. Obama was sworn in....set in stone by a DEMOCRATIC House and Senate...under continual spending bills votes for BY then Senator Obama. You do realize under our form of government that all spending is authorized by Congress, not the President. So continually blaming Bush for the actions of a Democratic House and Senate...is more than a little partisan.

David: No I'm just not a kool aid drinking fool. When a Republican president implements a tax cut that costs 400 billion a year in revenue it isn't the Democrats in congress who allowed him to implement his campaign promise to blame it's the actual tax cut that cut revenue. When a Republican president can convince enough Democrats to support his invasion of Iraq looking for WMD the trillions in dollars and the thousands of lives lost belong to him. When a Republican president gets enough Democratic support to pass a 100 billion a year drug plan it isn't Democrats responsible for the debt that program adds. See a pattern? Every driver of our debt since Bush took office were initiated by Bush yet you blame Democrats because some went along. That makes as much sense as a spendthrift wife blaming her husband for their money troubles because he keeps writing checks for what she buys. Does that make sense in your world?

I blame them both.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Now is the time for leadership. Stop Dodd Frank and changes to the community reinvestment act. Protect sound business practices and decrease gov't. Get gov't out of the housing market and the boardroom and the bedroom. Rand Paul/Ben Carson 2016

Why is this woman single? Single parents WILL BE POOR. Raise your children to REALIZE THE NEW REALITY, which is in essense the OLD reality....being a single parent is NOT THE WAY TO GO. Being a single parent without a job paying over 100k WILL MAKE YOU POOR.

Yep, children are the problem.

If there were no children, they'd be no single parents.

Now, putting this No Children Program into effect will be tricky. Since it would be un-American to force all pregnant women to have abortions, we'll have to just execute them. Ship them off to Texas; down there they'll bust them for overtime parking or something and sentence them to death.

Problem solved. See? You have to think outside the box, people.

here's what makes it worth that. Other teams would pay him that. They would pay him that because they can use him to sell seats, nachos and beer. They can also sell tv rights, stadium rights and merchandising rights. The 20 mil that they spend on the guy over 6 years is paid back 10 fold over that time because you watch football, watch tv ads, drink beer, drives cars and wear clothes with little specks of doritos dust on the front. They can do it because they take out an annuity that helps pay him over time and they insure him against injury so if his knees get torn up or his brain rattles too many times against the inside of his skull, the insurance covers the contracts and the medical bills. 20 million is the going rate for some players because 20 million invested in that player pays off 200 million on 3 out of 4 of them who get such a deal (very few of them get that kind of a deal). If a cop or a teacher could make money for rich people, they'd get paid more. If the lower rungs of workers on the ladder couldn't be replaced with an ad in the paper or on the internet in less than a day, they'd get paid more too. That's the world we live in and railing against it doesn't make it less so.

Start the printing press and print more money.

Start the printing press and print more money.

Oh sure, more big government control. The people as individuals should have the right to print their own money. Because money is speech. (These are jokes, do not argue against them seriously.)

It's time for CEO's and all these sports player to take big giant pay cuts...

Police officers deserver that they put their lives on the line...

Fire Fighters deserve that pay they put their lives on the line....

Our teachers deserve a pay that they can actually live on....

Gary, taxpayers usually cough up bigtime for the stadiums, thus we are paying for part of those salaries. I dig much of your post though.

It's time for CEO's and all these sports player to take big giant pay cuts...

Stop watching them. Stop buying their @!$%#. Vote with your wallet. It's much more effective than pissing and moaning about what other people make in private organizations out of jealousy or some hypothetical social crusade courtesy of other people's money. Their money, regardless of the quantity is none of your business.

Police officers deserver that they put their lives on the line...

Fire Fighters deserve that pay they put their lives on the line....

Our teachers deserve a pay that they can actually live on....

2 of those 3 professions usually make great money and usually only require only a high school diploma along with some specialized training not to mention that most of them just sit around about 90% of the time, but hey, if you want to pay them more, be my guest. I don't.

I am starting to hate the comments regarding giving more and more money to cops fireman and teachers. Most police make damn good money. Most aren't out patrolling Baghdad they are patrolling normal neighborhoods. They get hefty pensions and lots of overtime. The heftiest are the state cops. Ask any state cop that YOU KNOW who will be honest with you about his or her job. You make be shocked at the answer.

Union fireman make a great salary as well. They get a pension and benefits. What should a fireman make 200k? People LOVE being firemen. They love it so much they can staff a firehouse with volunteers. VOLUNTEERS.

Teachers have off from the middle of June to end of August if not beginning of September. They get health benefits for life and a pension.

Stop trying to increase everyone's taxes by giving it to civil servants.

naughtynumbernine

Police officers deserver that they put their lives on the line...

Fire Fighters deserve that pay they put their lives on the line....

Our teachers deserve a pay that they can actually live on....

2 of those 3 professions usually make great money and usually only require only a high school diploma along with some specialized training not to mention that most of them just sit around about 90% of the time, but hey, if you want to pay them more, be my guest. I don't.

Making big money sitting around 90% of the time. Hummmm....well, assuming that's true, consider the job of the trans Atlantic or trans Pacific airline pilot. Those guys make big money and are sitting around bored over 90% of the time.

However, one day a sixty second period may present itself that will require that pilot to save a plane load of people. Being prepared for that sixty seconds 100% of the time is why they're paid so well.

Not unlike the fireman or the cop.

Watch out, the cradle to grave support attitude will increase 80% in the next 15 years. Should I say the buy vote so they can stay in power with no clue will also help it grow.

Yes, DrNoman, why don't you reduce yourself?

Right after you moron.

You are right, doc. They just keep banging and making more with no regard for how to pay for it. Octomom is a perfect example of the extreme idiots in this country. Face it, it's over. Gonna take a major illness outbreak, or a few inner city nukes to fix this

Well, even blind squirrels find acorns sometimes DrMan. Population control is actually a great idea. Our resources are going fast. Unfortunately, your "ideas" about religious freedom and less government translate into don't pay for any type of birth control. I bet you believe that "they" will outnumber us if we don't do something. If you had to live on $5 / day on food, would you buy birth control?

Right after you moron.

If you cannot afford to feed yourself, do not, I repeat, do no procreate and bring children into the world thinking that others will support them for you.

But the most common scenario is that people can afford to feed themselves and live well. They have kids. They live an idyllic middle-class life. Their kids grow. Then suddenly they lose their job. And can't get another for a long time. The kids are 9 years old and 6 years old by now. What are they supposed to do? Achieve clairvoyance and say "better wear a condom, because in 9 years I'm gonna have a tough time!" Yes yes, live within your means depending on your situation. But I just don't buy this argument you're making. Because if everyone abstained from having children based on a worry that they might lose their job in the next 18 years, nobody would have kids.

Firsby-I hate to tell you, but I give away BC samples every day to help people that "can't afford" it...however they smell like rotten smoke, so they CAN afford that! But, even with that FREE BC, they don't take it because they "just can't remember to take it every day" don't get me started on the ones that can afford street drugs and would "buy more if they got more in benefits" It's a non-ending circle, I could go on and on!

That wouldn't be a bad thing....

Wow Dr.Man: Lets follow your example. Then we can have genocide like China. China's people are doing great right?

I agree with Dr.Man. This is why I have always been PRO ABORTION. YUP. Free abortions in ALL POOR AREAS. Free morning after pills, free condoms and free birth control pills in ALL POOR AREAS.

Until people stop having babies with no means to feed them except the government SOCIETY WILL DECLINE. There is NO WAY for THE SYSTEM to make up for PISS POOR PARENTING going on.

Stop glorifying single parents. They are not to be applauded. Applauded for failing? Applauded for becoming poor?

Thank you, TheTruthMaestro. This article shows how folks get themselves into deeper trouble. First, she quit her job before she had another one lined up--or at least, that's how it sounded to me. She had a dispute and walked. She could have done her job search from her work desk instead and discovered the difficulty. She does own up to this.

Second, she decided that her daughter needed a West Hartford address, so is paying for it. Although I can understand why she would want to give her daughter a better chance, she ignored reality.

And third, she used credit services such as a payday loan company to help make it through. Now she has a debt with a high interest rate on top of a low income.

It does sound like she is now figuring it out--looking for better work while she has a job. But it will take her years to climb out of this. I'm sorry for the position she is in--and I hope she learns how to better manage her expenses.

It does sound like she is now figuring it out--looking for better work while she has a job. But it will take her years to climb out of this. I'm sorry for the position she is in--and I hope she learns how to better manage her expenses.

She's older than I am, but not more mature. I know better than to do this kind of stuff. The dispute with the employer is probably the worst. You can be absolutely miserable at your job, but as long as they pay you, that's what counts. Swallow your pride for your children. Then get out the minute you find another job. (Don't burn bridges in your exit interview. It's a small world.)

Quitting her job without having another was the fatal mistake--and she is definitely suffering for it now. One thing my father taught me was to never, ever quit a job without having another one lined up. "Dispute" turns to "desperate" pretty quickly when you are a middle-aged woman without a paycheck! Unless your life is literally in danger, you hang on until you have another offer (in writing!).

But having a West Hartford address is worth the higher cost of rent because she is getting her daughter a much better education without paying private tuition costs. Living in a cheap place and having her kid go to a bad (and dangerous) school would not be a benefit at all. If she and her daughter can hang on long enough to get her daughter through high school, I think it will be worth it. The difference between a good school and a failing school can be the difference between another generation in poverty and a generation that finds success.

Lee, I would have to disagree with your comment. I find it a little difficult to have sympathy for this woman. First she was very foolish for leaving her job without having another position lined up, or if she had planned to leave for some time, having some sort of savings to keep her and her daughter afloat until she could find another position. Second, as a resident of Connecticut, I know there are many towns surrounding West Hartford that are not nearly as expensive and have low crime, well performing schools and excellent sports programs such as Newington, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Plainville, Southington, Berlin, etc. I would love to live in a upper middle class town with access to a walkable town center filled with upscale stores such as White House Black Market, Crate & Barrell, etc (not saying she shops there but it is indicative of the demographic that resides in the area). Even with 2 incomes in the fields of financial services and software development I know if my boyfriend and I rented or purchased a home in West Hartford we would be living paycheck to paycheck, so I am not sure how she thinks she can continue to live there with barely 1 income and a dependent. Since she is renting she can easily pick up and move to one of those towns I mentioned if she truly desires a lower cost of living until she can leave the state. Unfortunately from the information I read from this article she seems to rather want to keep up with the Joneses and struggle.

Yes.

She probably couldn't get unemployment insurance payments because she was terminated for cause or resigned from her job.

Aside from the big financial institutions on Wall Street repackaging risky loans as Prime loans and selling it on to investors etc, and AIG insuring all this nonsense, then when the whole crap crashed these folks got bailed out, the govt took a lot of these 'toxic' loans off their books leaving main street and Jane and Joe Sixpack to fend for themselves.

It is odd though that billions and billions of dollars can be spent rebuilding other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan etc yet to rebuild a falling down bridge, pave roads, build affordable housing, improve public transportation, provide school lunches, employ teachers instead of laying them off, upgrade the electric grid, rebuild the water and sewer pipes etc cannot be done here in the USA. Why? Because the republiconservateas think that that would be too costly, yet waging wars are not expensive to them. These morons are even pushing for a war with Iran.... LOL ... yet cannot even afford to give vets their benefits or healthcare, or housing, or mental healthcare or limbs etc?

Some of you folks need to realize that it was not the poor people who caused the housing implosion, that was a lie that was told in 2008 to blame po folks for the mess that the uberwealthy class had perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public.

Anyway, believe whatever and keep watching Faux news...only remember that you will be next in the line waiting for food while hiding the fact that you are the ones on foodstamps and taking other welfare benefits. What is amazing is that this country can afford to provide schools and education to other countries children but not to our own. But then you don't seem to mind that your child is uneducated.... but then the apple does not fall far from the tree.... so... hmmm. LOL

For those of you who think that there should be population control... you are no doubt the same ones who are against making contraceptives available and/or affordable, against teaching pregnancy and sexual disease prevention in schools etc. Little wonder some of you are so much against any gun proliferation control measures... you want people to 'cull' themselves and their offspring etc, or for some folks to get the feel of the kill, as after all some folks are simply like animals to you.

What the hay.... can't be bothered to address the non actions of the republiconservatea congress who are still being paid, yet 'sorta' 'working' 2 weeks per month since 2010 and who are still getting paid full wages instead of part time pay for doing very little to nothing to rebuild this country's infrastructure that has fallen apart at the seams. States are running on fumes as the tax base gets smaller due to high unemployment, less than full employment etc, and the many empty houses and very little property taxes being paid, and very little will by the rich i.e those 'job creators' to creat jobs even although they were the reciepent of the large tax breaks so they could creat the jobs... they produced the jobs in other countries though as they continue to outsource jobs overseas. LOL Trickledown economics a la Reagan really worked didn't it... it trickled the jobs in a steady stream by outsourcing them overseas under Bush. LOL

Anyway ... whatevvva....

Progressive is anything but. My town has been run by DEMS for over 50 years and it has received billions in Federal Aid and every year it gets poorer. The schools spend more per student than any other school in the state yet they are at the bottom and dangerous as well. A microcosm of the future of our country under socialist Democratic rule. Soon women with breast cancer will be denied the high tech equipment that we as a country have provided to our citizens. Obama is taxing medical equipment manufacturers. You know the evil rich guys that save lives.

Valerie, you are THE example of your towns failing schools.

Hello creek dog

You don't know what the deal was.. where you there? Maybe she was just sticking up for her rights. I have worked my entire life and have many occasions where there where disputes with owners, most of them because the owner was being ridiculous. I have quit at least 3 jobs in my life. I don't mean moved on to a better job, I mean outright said take your job and shove it. There is a line all of us have and when that line is crossed we are going to act, so unless you know the details, get off the lady's back.

At least she has Medicaid. I was laid off last fall and don't have any health insurance at all. It's been a real struggle trying to keep my head above water. I just have to be careful not to get sick or have an accident - if that happened, then I'm in big trouble. I don't get any free food either. I'm selling off my furniture little by little just to stay afloat.

Here we go again, sticking up for rights. Great idea, but maybe one should have enough sense to cover your own bases first. Quit 3 jobs huh? I've quit too, but only when I found a better one. Worked non stop since 16 and never was unemployed. Cover your bases before you open your mouth and you might find life is a bit smarter. I learned a long time ago. Work smart, not hard.

Exactly! You don't like the owner? Get a new job lined up and then quit. Even when I was a teen and working as a waitress at a shady restaurant with a terrible owner, I found a new job before I quit & I didn't even have rent/kid responsibilities then (I did have a car payment I understood required me to keep a job). I feel bad for her daughter, but I recall as a kid not being able to join/play sports because of the costs... several times. I'd bet that some of her being behind is her unwillingness to tell her daughter they can't keep up w/ the Jones. It's an important lesson for her to learn now.

The chickens are coming home to roost. But, the woman admitted she made some mistakes, like quitting her job without another one in hand. Some need to reread the article; the article stated she gets $127/week child support. Younger people have not grown up with the FEAR FACTOR that those of us who came of age before 1960 came of age with.

She has made several financial mistakes, like having a child, getting divorced, quitting her job, trying to live beyond her means, keeping her daughter in an expensive sport. However, it appears that she is trying very hard; good for her. As a result of this article I'll bet someone steps in and pays her daughter's lacross fees, which is good; I'm tempted to do so myself. When I was 10 years old, we did not have the $10 required for me to play organized baseball, and I very vividly remember pressing my hands and face against the glass of the local hardware store window and drooling over a new baseball glove (our softball teams SHARED gloves, or played without). Sad, but I lived, and I have worked hard to accumulate a few things, likely driven by those images that are in my brain. I live in a nice house, but my car is 14 years old, and 76 years of good and bad memories. Life isn't simple or easy.

SARGEANTFLOYD - Yours is the only comment on this whole thread worth reading. Reality is reality, but the fact is that we're all human, too. We all make mistakes and have to own up to them after the fact. The only thing that I disagree with is the 'having a child' part, because I don't see where having one child makes any parent irresponsible, especially now that that child is a teen; if she were popping out kids every other year, would be a different story. Regardless, thank you for pointing out that as real as these issues are, we are still human beings with feelings, and in need of compassion. The world would be a better place if more people acknowledged this. The thing is, it's really easy for many of the commenters here to badmouth, but if they were in the same position, how would they feel? You're so right. Life isn't simple or easy, and things happen to us all, no matter what we have planned for ourselves.

The problem is socialist progressives really believe in a utopia that defies human nature and creates a fascist state of poor and discontent. We are well on our way. That is why the Federal Reserve is stockpiling ammunition. The liberal socialists running our country know that once they seize the banking system (Dodd-Frank) and collapse the economy (Trillions more in debt) they can grab the wealth. With the second amendment rights destroyed, gun control and drones, he will do away with those pesky rich folks. There will be no more middle class because all of our wealth was in the housing market and Clinton and Obama are making certain that that wealth is never recovered. No jobs will force more middle class into poverty. The ranks are already growing.

Valerie - are you off your meds??

There you go happytimesarehhow'sereagain - Nice name. How's La La Land?

Sunny and 60, SoCal isn't perfect, but it's close.

your are right Valerie...where are the jobs to keep this economy going...

and with this sequester...which is really going to hit the poor...

you better hang onto those guns....

Wow the ignorance posted here. They count unemployment they way they always have, people receiving unemployment benefits. Yes thousands drop every month when benefits run out just as they did under Bush, Reagan and Clinton. The conspiracy theories about Obama never end. How about instead of blaming Obama for not creating jobs for these people we blame the guy that cost them their jobs to begin with. It's funny that when a democrats president every thing wrong with the economy is his fault but when a republican is it's democrats in congress to blame. How about blaming the republicans in congress for blocking the jobs bill that Obama proposed that would give tax breaks to companies bringing jobs home and elimination of deductions for companies moving over seas.

That is B.S.! The health Care overhall (obama care) is to help fix the economy and the pricey health care system. Everyone who is employed or has the means to pay for their monthly premium will. What is worse? People using the emergency room like a primary care doctor's office? Then the taxpayers picking up the bill? If those stupid companies will lay people off because of this, perhaps they should move to China.