2 weeks to go, Obama with 8 point lead

Vedderlution_Baby

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way

What's your problem? So what if the person donates a little money to their candidate of choice. And so what is that candidate happens to have record breaking funds? It's something they choose to do. All too often in this country people take an apathetic viewpoint of "Oh, hell, I'm just one person. What can my vote do. What can my five bucks do." It can do alot. It can do a little. But it shouldn't be belittled. So the person has a candidate that they believe in enough to support them both with their vote, and financially. What's the problem?

Dirtie_Frank

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

What's your problem? So what if the person donates a little money to their candidate of choice. And so what is that candidate happens to have record breaking funds? It's something they choose to do. All too often in this country people take an apathetic viewpoint of "Oh, hell, I'm just one person. What can my vote do. What can my five bucks do." It can do alot. It can do a little. But it shouldn't be belittled. So the person has a candidate that they believe in enough to support them both with their vote, and financially. What's the problem?

My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.

If you look at my earlier post I said hey its your world.

Vedderlution_Baby

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.

If you look at my earlier post I said hey its your world.

That's the american politcal system for you. Don't blame the guy for playing the game, and playing it well. It's not like Mccain is sitting there on a soap box trying to tell passerbys about where he stands. What do you expect them to do? Say "Well, we've got a shit load of money, but instead of using it to advertise us to each of you on the one of the biggest, if not the biggest media form in america we're going to spend it different."? Each one of them is playing the fucking game. One just happens to be playing it better and getting rewarded more for it.

Strangest Tribe

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way

yeah, it probably paid one day's rent for the Obama website or for 100 miles for the bus to travel....

it matters!!!!

such an asshole statement

Strangest Tribe

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.

If you look at my earlier post I said hey its your world.

It's not his money, it's our money we give to him for his campaign....we are paying for his commercials...he wouldn't have the money if it weren't for us...

ssdr18

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. *He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. *During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. *Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. *My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? *Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. *When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. *It is at this time he *wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. *Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? *It's not cheap to say the least! **Where did he get money for tuition? *Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. *Why Chicago? *Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
*

By 'chance' *he met *Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. *Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. *Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. *About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. *Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? *Where did he get the money for Law School? *More student loans? *After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. *But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? *They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. *Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. *In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' *for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). *With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? *On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. *Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. *Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. *She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. *Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! *Do we see a pattern here? *Or am I going crazy?
*

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. *This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'. *

*
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? *They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. *Where is that money coming from? *The poor and middle class in this country? *Or could it be from the Middle East? *

*
And the final bit of news. *On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. *Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. *When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. *Some mistake!

*
All of the above information I got on line. *If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

*
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
*

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

*

*

WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?



*

OffHeGoes29

saveuplife wrote:

It's been looking like an Obama victory all along. It will be fun to see people on here freak out about what he does over the course of the next four years.

I'm betting he'll have very few backers by then on here.

I give it six months and the some of the same people that support him will bitch on here.

Mrs.Vedder78

fugawzi wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49J0LF20081021

Looking more like an Obama victory as the clock winds down.

I don't like to count the chicks before they hatch..

it all comes down to the battle ground states Ohio and Florida and as we all know it ain't over until the fat lady sings... or counts the votes ...

I just wish this was over... the next 2 weeks are going to be excruciating..

Mrs.Vedder78

Strangest Tribe wrote:

It's not his money, it's our money we give to him for his campaign....we are paying for his commercials...he wouldn't have the money if it weren't for us...

I agree, I haven't been able to donate tons of money but I have donated a few times throughout the campaign and I expect him to use MY money to help his campaign and make every effort to win, I didn't donate so that he can use it in a different way but in the way I assumed it was going to be used when I donated my hard earned dollars

Open

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way

It doesnt cost shit to feed hate and stereotypes; it costs a lot more to fight those things.

fugawzi

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

I don't like to count the chicks before they hatch..

it all comes down to the battle ground states Ohio and Florida and as we all know it ain't over until the fat lady sings... or counts the votes ...

I just wish this was over... the next 2 weeks are going to be excruciating..

true, but this isn't really the same situation as 2000 or 2004. I don't think Gore or Kerry were up this much at this time in their respective campaigns. Obama is leading in the most of the polls in FL and OH, not to mention other swing states like PA, CO, and VA. He could actually afford to lose FL or OH. Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. He got screwed on the recounts and the mess that ensued. I don't think Obama would let that happen, he's already started addressing the voter suppression issue.

fugawzi

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I give it six months and the some of the same people that support him will bitch on here.

I give it six months and the same people bashing Obama will start loving on him. There, I said something completely presumptuous and unsupported by facts just like you did.

fugawzi

imalive wrote:

I'm just afraid McCain will suspend his campaign with a week to go, airdrop into Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden with his bare hands. :eek:

That's how paranoid I am about the RNC. :mad:

The way it's looking right now, that's probably the only thing he could do before the election in order win the election.

saveuplife

digster wrote:

I must say, you’re one of the first people I’ve seen recently, conservatives included, who claim that the economy under Bush was solid. But I’m no economist, as I said, so we’ll see how well this goes.

It was solid. I am aware it has been poor recently, however. I'm not saying that it has not. I'm saying that under his 8 year term it was solid.

digster wrote:

I’m not questioning GDP as a unit of measurement. I’m questioning your using the GDP as a sole measure of economic “growth” under President Bush, because that’s one of the only economic statistics under his watch that has improved; I think it overlooks far too much of our nation’s economy to be an accurate portrayal of his policies......

REAL GDP is the most common unit of measurement to describe economic growth. I think you agree and are simply saying there's others. True. But, most people look at Real GDP.

Clinton's tax policy was not similar to Obama's because he had a Republican controlled congress. Obama "may" (and probably will) not. You can't really compare them,.... yet. Moreover, Clinton's corporate tax policy is no where near as harsh as Obamas.

digster wrote:

Again, you are saying close to what I am saying, but once again you’re speaking about the GDP like it does not regularly grow from the beginning of a President's term to the end, no matter the president. According to the first chart at the Economic Report of the President: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables08.html it has been growing since they have been measuring. So I take it you agree with me that in comparison to Reagan and Clinton, the GDP percentage growth has been substandard. It is better than Bush I and Carter, but as I said, do you really feel that is deserving of accolades?

I feel as though it's better than average. So, if better than average deserves accolades... yes.

digster wrote:

However, what’s the point of the raised GDP growth if it never makes its way down to citizens? You’re absolutely right that GDP has increased under George W. Bush. However, wages have not kept up with this increased economic growth, in fact according to this article from the New York Times, where they used figures from the Economic Policy Institute, under Bush’s tenure we’ve seen the widest gap between economic growth and earned wages in sixty years. Not a good sign of a strong economic president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

The incredible irony of this chart you mention is that it measures GDP using the income approach. The fact is that the income approach uses
GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports

In the article, they talk about Compensation of employees (wages) and Gross operating surplus (corporate profits).... they fail to talk about Gross mixed income (SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS) and Taxes less subsides on production and imports (TAXES). Bottom line here, if you look back at the chart. Small business profits had to have been at record highs in 06, given the gap. But, they fail to mention that. Moreover, taxes were lower on ALL of the above. Therefore, NET WAGES to employees may have actually been at a high.

Bottom line, this is the NYTimes.... a respected newspaper, however, with a liberal slant. They are not presenting the information properly. The data they are refering to is not bad at all. They just don't care about NET and small business.

digster wrote:

I’m not quite sure where you’re getting your numbers, and I am unable to find a better chart right now than the one I found above from the New York Times. If I find a better one later I will post that one. But the chart confirms my suspicion that wages have no kept up with inflation. Granted that one is from late 2006 but I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the downward trend has continued or stagnated as our economy has gone into the tanker. Look at how the worth of national wages have failed to keep up with increased production, they have declined. Considering the GDP has been climbing no matter who has been in office for the past fifty years, aren’t these facts better markers about the health of the economy, and the capability of the government that is involved with legislation?

Wages have kept up with inflation. Go to back to the chart. There's three of them. Look at the Median Hourly Pay Adjusted for Inflation. Look at Bush's eight-year term. Yes, in 05 it was negative. But, hey, take a look at Clinton's eight-year term. Do you see all the negatives? That's what I was talking about.

digster wrote:

This is another good article from the Times, written on the basis of statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor, showing that the cost of living and inflation has outrun the pace of wage hikes. I’m not sure what your point was about Clinton having three years of wage prices being outrun by inflation; in short, so what? I think it best to measure the overall growth or lack thereof between the two presidents. What does it matter if it happened in three years or eight? The result is the result. The three-year statistic does look favorably towards W. Bush, but I think it’s a relatively meaningless statistic when looking at the total impact of the respective Presidencies on the economy;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/economy/15econ.html?partner=yahoo

I'm not saying Bush had a better economic run than Clinton or Reagan for that matter. What I am saying is that it has been solid growth. Meaning above average. Especially, given the fact that we had 9/11 and a brief inherited recession under his watch.

As for this article, this was in August, and prices have dropped significantly. Look at gas prices. The cost of living has plummeted too. Basically, when an economy slows (which I certainly admit it has), inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases. This article is silly to bring up for our argument because it's not referring to an eight-year span.... like the Bush presidency. I know the economy is slowing now. Moreover, cost of living indices are as different as the person who creates them. There is no cost of living index that is the same. It's a garbage stat.

digster wrote:

I also would like to know where you found the individual measures annually regarding inflation outpacing wages, especially when you consider that the NY Times chart above that is taken from the Economic Policy Insititute seems to say the opposite. I don’t disbelieve you, but I was unable to find such a chart myself.

You can get the data. Go to economagic or freelunch.com. Look for the CPI. Do a year to year % change. Print it out in xls. Then look at the years of the Presidencies.

digster wrote:

You’re not right about this one, although I was admittedly wrong to say that it has steadily increased throughout his entire administration. What it did do was climb sharply, drop and then climb sharply again. The statistics are pretty clear; I used the ones at the U.S. Department of Labor.

Yes. Tese are the same statistics I used. I am not wrong at all.

Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month.

You can't look at month to month changes. That is absolutely ridiculous. You need to look at annual data in order to adjust for the month to month swings. Do you even know how they get this data? It's a household survey. It's obviously not always accurate. Therefore, you need to adjust for volatility. Perhaps you could use a three-month Moving average, but when talking about eight-year terms it's best to stick with annual data.

I certainly admit, that there was a rise in the unemployment rate after 9/11, which ended in 2003. Then there was a constant decline in unemployment until 2006 to 4.61.

digster wrote:

Within three years, unemployment reached 6.2, before lowering once again in the following years. I don’t know how anyone could call the unemployment rise in the past two years “moderate.” When 2007 began, it was 4.6. It is now 6.1, and it shows no signs yet of peaking, and shall surely bleed into the next administration, whether it is Obama or McCain. I wouldn’t call that a “moderate” rise by any stretch of the imagination.

I said there was a moderate increase in 2007. Which it was it went from 4.61 to 4.64. I agree that in 2008 the rate increased. Thus far, it's at 5.41 ANNUALLY. You can't keep looking at monthly data. It's too volatile. My argument was not that the unemployment rate is not increasing right now. It was that the unemployment rate has not "steadily" increased. You were just plain wrong about that. It has increased and it has decreased.

digster wrote:

Despite a high unemployment rate at the start of Clinton’s presidency, he achieved an under 6 rate after a year and a half in office and never went back. Bush, on the other hand, has traveled above the 6.0 unemployment rate twice now. Once again, the numbers here are in Clinton’s favor. Bush Jrs. unemployment rates have never risen as high as they did under the first Bush (who, it should be said, also had a Republican in office eight years beforehand). But again, is that really a compliment, or a good measure of a good president? Saying a president’s shitty economic policy is not as shitty as a previous shitty presidential economic policy? Clinton had a steady decline in unemployment, which seems to me to be a good barometer of sound economic policy. Wild and rapid dips and spikes seem to suggest the opposite.

First, you are wrong about Clinton never having ab above 6.0 unemployment rate. It was 6.91 annually in 1993 and it was 6.1 in 1994.

Second, if you start out at well almost 7.0 in unemployment, and go down that's great and all but, it's not comparable to starting low.

digster wrote:

But if your point is that the numbers look better for Bush than they did for President Carter from nearly thirty years ago, you’re right. Considering circumstances are quite a bit different in the world now, I think a better match up between the most recent Republican president and the Democratic president from 30 years ago is the most recent Republican president and the most recent Democratic president. But if you’re asking me to say George Bush was a better economic president than Jimmy Carter, then fine. You got it.

Fine. Carter's term was the most similar, IMO to what is going on today. I think that Reagan's policy was obviously excellent economically. Therefore, I'd prefer to see a policy somewhat like that (which mccain would bring), rather than an anti-reagan policy which we get from obama.

digster wrote:

I’m surprised to hear you ask this question. You think the de-regulation on Wall Street didn’t contribute to this problem? This was the only thing you said that I’m surprised you think even required an explanation. There were, I’m sure countless factors, many of which I doubt I understand, including lending to borrowers with bad credit, etc. But I haven’t thus far seen anyone dispute the fact that the Republican congress and administration contributed to de-regulation, as Republicans tend to do.

I don't think that this really has much to do with deregulation as moral hazard. I think that if you consistently have gov't bailing corporations and people, for that matter, who make poor decisions, this is what you are going to end up with. Unfortunately, I think the bail out was necessary because of the whole we dug and the consequences. But, I certainly think it should be expressed that bailouts are done after this mess and I also think that the proof is in action. If you give mortgages to people who are not qualified, you aren't going to be helped out by the gov't. If you take a ARM and the interest rate resets.... you should know (or ask so you do know) what you are getting yourself into before you sign that mortgage.

I actually think regulation is not a blessing. But, I agree that it's not as bad as what happened. My point is you need to move in one (regulation or deregulation) and stay there or do the other. You can't have this back and forth crap because that creates the moral hazard. The corporations don't know if they will be bailed out, so they do it in order to compete.

digster wrote:

This whole discussion is also not addressing the journey from surplus to significant deficit that was undertaken in eight years, which is another mark against President Bush. Basically, it seems to me than math is simpler than I originally thought. President Bush cut taxes and increased spending, which balloons the deficit and leaves people and nations borrowing with money they don’t have for more money they don’t have. That kind of economic approach seems to me to be a house of cards.

Well, I agree here. This is the one area I hate Bush for. His spending was horrid. That said, I think his tax cuts were necessary in order to keep the expansion going. I should say, however, that tax cuts don't necessarily mean a decline in tax revenue. You need to think about incentives. Tax cuts can actually increase tax revenue. Look at Reagan for that.

My concern with Obama is that he'll raise taxes and raise spending. IMHO he'll do little to help. And we most likely will have problems due to incentives.

digster wrote:

My last question is about the redistribution of wealth that you have been speaking about (i.e. that’s Obama’s plan). According to Obama’s plan, no tax bracket, from the lowest to the highest, would be paying more on their taxes than they did under President Clinton’s tax plan in the 1990s. Certainly in regards to income, and I’m 99 percent sure in regards to capital gains. Were Clinton’s policies, therefore, also a ‘redistribution of wealth?’

Depends on the brackets and inflation since the Clinton administration. Obviously, incomes have increased. Therefore, it's not completely comparable.

All policies are a redistribution of wealth in America. Even Bush and Reagans. The difference is that Obama wants to increase the redistribution. Moreover, you fail to talk about corporations and small business. This can also result in redistribution of wealth and certainly inefficiency.

saveuplife

JaneNY wrote:

To Saveuplife - I am able to do it because my family chooses to live frugally, below our means, so that we have some disposable income to donate to causes we believe in. We have old cars, and ~1,000 sq. foot house. We do not run up credit card debt that we can't pay, and our house is paid for due to frugality. We do not spend lavishly. I will probably donate more. I've made some changes elsewhere this month so I have funds to donate to what what I believe in.

OK. Let me know if you think that was a waste of money in two years.

Sorry, I had to say that. I just think I'd never donate to a political party. But, that's me. You are entitled to do what you want with your money.

Strangest Tribe

The "solid" growth of the GDP over the last 10 years has been based on credit because the lenders were lending to a large middle class beyond the means of the middle class.

When the middle class couldn't pay back their loans because they lost jobs or lost compensation without appropriate cost-of-living income adjustments then that just proves the "solid" growth was a falsehood.

No I'm not saying credit and loans are a bad thing... I'm just saying someone that makes $100,000 shouldn't live in a $500,000 home and have 6 credit cards with $25,000 credit lines. This ideology hurts everyone in the long run but it's great for the wealthy until it all comes crashing down like it has lately.

saveuplife

Strangest Tribe wrote:

The "solid" growth of the GDP over the last 10 years has been based on credit because the lenders were lending to a large middle class beyond the means of the middle class.

When the middle class couldn't pay back their loans because they lost jobs or lost compensation without appropriate cost-of-living income adjustments then that just proves the "solid" growth was a falsehood.

No I'm not saying credit and loans are a bad thing... I'm just saying someone that makes $100,000 shouldn't live in a $500,000 home and have 6 credit cards with $25,000 credit lines. This ideology hurts everyone in the long run but it's great for the wealthy until it all comes crashing down like it has lately.

So, the sound growth of GDP during the Clinton administration had nothing to do with credit? lol

Come on, man. I know you are pro-Obama, but loans and credit are what make our economy and all leading economies tick. It doesn't matter if it's Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan... credit and loans are important.

Someone who makes $100K should not live in a $500K home and have six credit cards with $25K lines? OK. That's your opinion. My opinion is that if that person wants to do that, fine. He/she should know that they may be getting themself in over their heads. They should know that if they lose their job they may lose their home. They should know that if they took out an exotic mortgage like a variable interest rate mortgage.... mortgage can reset much much higer and F them in the ass. It's called personal responsiblity. It's not the government's fault that a minority of people behave stupidly. People have behaved stupidly since the dawn of man and will continue until the end. Greed is a problem. People need to not get greedy and live by their means. The individuals (OR CORPORATIONS, for that matter) that extend themselves beyond their means should not be bailed out by governments. They need to take the hit. Regroup, declare bankruptcy if they must, and start over. It is without a doubt possible, and they will learn a valuable lesson.... for most, it won't even come to that.

The ideology of credit is good for everyone. It increases the velocity of money. It is good... period. Your argument that credit availability is a bad thing makes little to no sense. Credit availablity is very good. Personal decisions (and corporate decisions) that involve people getting greedy is bad. That's the bad thing here. People need to learn to live in their means. Government involvement will not help this, ever.

Strangest Tribe

Im not saying credit is bad and I said 10 years so that would include the Clinton years.

I'm saying the lenders are just as greedy and irresponsible as the guy that takes out a loan.
Most peeps don't want to lose their home and most try be responsible with their credit line. However, 5 years ago who would have thought that utilities, oil, insurance, and daily necessities would have gone up while the home values plummet. There are other factors that go beyond being fiscally responsible.

The greed of the wealthy in this country is the underlying factor. Instead of making decisions to do the right thing and compensate the workers the wealthy chose to take their extra coin a throw it in the bubble hoping it wouldn't burst. Then they want to blame the workers by saying they are paying them too much so then they use extortion by continuously outsoursing or threatening to outsourse.

momofglynn

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/mccain.blitzer/index.html

McCain is a joke. Keep laughing buddy. It's that attitude that will lose this election.

As far as the last 8 years of the country's economy. Wall Street and the world spoke volumes when they wiped their asses and flushed it down the toilet with Bush's growth over the last 8 years . It doesn't matter how solid it was pre 9/11 or post 9/11. All that growth is gone that's how the American public is going to view it. It's what they are feeling now is all that matters to the masses.

Just my 2 cents

saveuplife

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Im not saying credit is bad and I said 10 years so that would include the Clinton years.

I'm saying the lenders are just as greedy and irresponsible as the guy that takes out a loan.
Most peeps don't want to lose their home and most try be responsible with their credit line. However, 5 years ago who would have thought that utilities, oil, insurance, and daily necessities would have gone up while the home values plummet. There are other factors that go beyond being fiscally responsible.

The greed of the wealthy in this country is the underlying factor. Instead of making decisions to do the right thing and compensate the workers the wealthy chose to take their extra coin a throw it in the bubble hoping it wouldn't burst. Then they want to blame the workers by saying they are paying them too much so then they use extortion by continuously outsoursing or threatening to outsourse.

See, I guess that's where we disagree. This started with subprime problems. Those, along with greedy corporations, are the people who started this mess. The corporations lent to these people with subprime credit. The corporations were wrong to lend to them. THe people with subprime creidt were wrong for taking loans that they couldn't pay back. The rich? I don't see the connection. The subprime tend to not be rich, that's for sure. The corporations.... ok, maybe there's some rich involved there.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Alan Greenspan is to blame for the current mess, not Bush. That's my opinion.