79 Billion, that is not even as much as our government uses to blow it's nose...Just understand this, when it is our turn for the hot seat, it will be the first time you will see "$" followed by what ever comes after Trillion

Suffering? These people were only working three hour workdays, three days a week, taking two hour long coffee breaks and got to retire at 40 and had pensions and healthcare. All on the dime of those few who actually WORKED and contributed to the system. Now it's time for them to the pay the piper. They can't believe the party's over - and the gravy train has derailed.

Another example of a failed welfare state.

Spain is smarter than Greece and more advanced and able to adapt than the US in many respects. They are at least acknowledging and addressing the issue, albeit on a smaller scale. Who knows, they might be the next world power (again) after the dust clears in the next decade because they took action when everyone else rode into the ground!

most of the banks paid back ALL of their bailout coin.

Really I hadn't heard they paid back the billions shoveled to them through AIG. How about all the free money the Fed gave them? Did they move those junk derivatives back out of the FDIC covered accounts? Of course they haven't. You are just echoing a propaganda point. Repeat the big lie enough times and some people believe it.

hotticket said it well. Even the Prime Minister is quoted as referring to Spain as a welfare state. The signature feature of a welfare state is people who should be able, sitting around waiting for someone else to feed them, clothe them, house them, entertain them and when they get sick, take care of them. There are a few workers and producers but most people view them as "lucky" and under socialism the majority declares the lucky people owe them a living and they set up laws and regulations to take from the producers and give it to the unlucky. Most of the people try to get themselves declared as unlucky. Of course when they are good at it they overwhelm the producers with their demands and their system collapses under it's own weight. We should look at these failed states along the Mediteranian and see what not to do. IT may also be helpful to figure out why people along the Med seem lazy and corrupt to a degree far greater then folks in the colder climes (Japan, Canada, US, northern Europe).

why cant the republicans understand that this is what has to be done here? If I am in financial trouble I have to quit going out to eat, movies, golf and maybe even get a second job.

all of our taxes should be raised in the US and Government stop the spending like drunk sailors.

Flat tax 20 pct no loopholes, repeal ACA and single payer every American covered - cuts expenses to business and they reinvest in America's Economy - nuff said!

"This is the reality. There is no other and we have to get out of this hole and we have to do it as soon as possible and there is no room for fantasies or off-the cuff improvisations because there is no choice," he added.

Too bad Barry and the rest of the democrats live in fantasy land...there is NO FREE LUNCH! All we have to do is watch that BIG RED FLAG waving in Europe but he still wants to turn the USA into Europe!

How desperating...

Before the 2008 crisis, Spain had less debt (60%) than Germany (80%), France (85%), USA (100%) and Japan (235%) and a more equilibrated budget (logic, if they borrowed less).

We are in front of :

1/ a housing bubble (classical ponzi scheme coming from right wing unregulated market)

2/ which collapsed banks,

3/ which do not lend money anymore so the economy is collapsing,

4/ so less taxes raised, so unbalanced budget,

5/ so cut in spending/more taxes which in turn impact badly on economy (return to 3/)

This chain of event would be the same whichever the color of the government, as it is only a matter of budget balance, and not type of program. But some id iots like "give it a rest!" or "hotticket" blame it on socialism... Forums remind me more and more this movie called Idiocraty.

Hot Ticket, you have just described the 1%. While the middle class struggles, that is how they live, whining about how the rest of us feel entitled.

Rev

You only hear bits and pieces in the news media. A bank the other day returned it's 350 Million. Most TARP money still out is in mid and lower level banks. The total amount loaned according to the US Treasury was $412 Billion with $344 Billion returned or 80%.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/New-on-the-Treasury-Website-The-TARP-Tracker.aspx

Remember in your discussion. Part of the Bush deficit in fiscal 2009 was TARP which most of what he loaned, including $14 Billion to GM, was returned under fiscal 2010. I.E. The Bush deficit was swelled by TARP and shrunk Obama's in 2010.

The whole point of TARP was to get banks back to a solvency in the sense of lending to asset Ratio which was ravaged by the crash of the values of homes. Once they were able to lower open credit, such as unused Credit card balances, close open lines of credit, and cost cutting, they were able to pay this back.

The Obama administration then raised the ratio (and that's another story) forcing the delay of payment from mid 2009 to late 2009.

My question is what does Spain produced as an export(s)? I know they are good and running form Bulls and getting gored but I rarely see products made in Spain. The US has exported wars and contributed to those local economies while giving stimulus money in foriegn aid even to those that still despise "democracy".........

They produce some great wine.

about that

Flat tax 20 pct no loopholes, repeal ACA and single payer every American covered - cuts expenses to business and they reinvest in America's Economy - nuff said!

The ACA is a deceitful way to cut costs because the structure encourages businesses in the short term to drop Employer Insurance and in the long term costs them more to drop an Employer Insurance plan.

No, the Republicans have a handle on the matter. They understand that the way it is structured promotes dependence on Government aka the many failing foreign government deficit creating versions of government involvement in health care and it's insurance.

There is ONLY one Government Run that doesn't cause a problem and the is the Swiss System, and the ACA does not copy it.

ItsAboutTime-3704531,

If you remember, it was Bush who warned about the housing bubble and it was Barney Frank and company who said that Fannie and Freddie were sound and that Republicans were making up the problem.

The good thing about all these European countries going under is that it spells the end of socialism forever. It doesn't work. Yay!

The bubble that burst in Spain's manufacturing sector that hurt their economy was a huge investment in solar energy. They were the leading producer of solar cells, all based on government investment and no real market.

How much more evidence do we need to see, to understand that socialism/liberalism looks good on paper... but is definitely not an effective means of government!

The problem we face in America today is that the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living!

hotticket

These people were only working three hour workdays, three days a week, taking two hour long coffee breaks and got to retire at 40 and had pensions and healthcare

So what you are saying is, they are politicians.

pride

The problem we face in America today is that the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living!

So that's how the GOP stays in office.

Politicians love a value added Tax. It is an announced tax, that really hidden and inflates the cost of a product throughout the adding of value. Consumers will only see an inflationary rise in their daily costs to live, and will only see what part of the tax they pay on the final product. When the consumer has to pay more, they will buy less, decreasing the anticipated increase of tax revenue to some degree. I.E. Spain will not get $79 billion in new tax unless they allowed for the slowing of sales that will occur unless the consumers use debt to cover the new shortfalls in income over expenses.

Our "hidden" taxes are really the business taxes, Corporate taxes and regulations. An example of a hidden tax is the Employer paid portion of Social Security. Busineses just add the cost into the cost of the product. Regulations are a no-brainer, companies simply raise the price they sell their products to cover for the increased cost. ditto for the taxes.

You'd be shocked how little products would cost if business taxes were dropped. Of course, the government would have staggering deficits, but you would live like a king until the government collapsed.

Its about time: Bush is responsible for the housing bubble

This is the biggest lie the liberals would like us to believe! Bush is on record in 2004 warning Congress to rein in Fannie and Freddie who were giving mortgages to anyone who wanted to buy a house. This was Carter and Clinton's dream and made possible by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. At the time Congress was controlled by Democrats and Bush's efforts to stop this widespread fraud was rejected.

The real shame is that here we are in 2012 and none of the culprits in this mortgage scam have been indicted!

ItsAboutTime-3704531,

Actually, it started under Jimmy Carter with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977.

Did you read the articles you posted? Your times link is correct in that it says that Bush recognized the dangers posed by Fannie and Freddie, but Barney Frank reused to toughen regulations.

Mark from Lake Tahoe & armurray

LOL. Liberal? I am a moderate. In 2002, BUSH is the one that pushed Congress to USE tax payer dollars to make it so MORE Americans had the "RIGHT" to purchase a home. Hmmm... cold hard facts are tough to ignore. If BUSH was more effective, couldn't he have 'urged' Congress and the entire GOP to "undo" what you claim Carter, Clinton and Barney did?

Amazing...

armurray

They were the leading producer of solar cells

Not even close. They are a big user of solar power; around 20% of their power is from solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.

That is a complete lie, it was house democrats that set us up with minimum standards concerning "lending rules" which took down up front costs such as down payments etc.. not to exceed 3% of the homes cost. Just liberal bull from democratic talking points. Would you like to look on YouTube and hit Barney Frank on housing? It's there for all to see Time.

It's about time - you aren't totally off, but here is the full story.

Bush asked for simpled language in the loan documents thus streamlining the process and to help them understand what they were signing. What Bush also asked for, and this is his real error is that the down payment be paid by the Government for those who legitimately otherwise qualified for a mortgage.

IT IS a contributing cause, but still not the cause. 75% of all first home loans are made by mortgage companies who after the 1999 reform began rebadging themselves as "banks". Their sole source of income was making money off the closing costs per Government mandate. They sell the loans shortly after closing the loan to a mortgage servicing company or as a security to Banks, Insurance, Finance or other Investors.

What happed was two things. SOME mortgage companies became mortgage mills and offered bonuses for higher volumes of loans being made. So far, none of these companies has been taken to court for fudging qualifications for home buyers.

But, perhaps the straw that broke the back was the Fed side. The reason the CRA was enacted in 1977 was to eliminate discrimination on loans to minorities. In 1977, If you thought you were discriminated, you were encouraged to sue the bank or Mortgage company. Obama used this in a class action suit in 1995 or 1996 against Citibank to force them to make loans to Minorities (really force them to ignore known safe financial requirements).

In 1999 with the Graham Leachy Bliley act was dead in conference committee when the Demcrats promised house republican the votes they needed to pass the Senate version of finance reform IF they added their bill strengthening the CRA. Instead of consumers coming forward over discrimination, now the fed could investigate financial institutes using all agencies whether involved or not any financial institutions that appeared to be discriminating against low income earners (minorities, really). Financial Institutions qualified as potentially discriminating were identified on the basis of either not having enough loans from poor areas and/or not having bank branches in poor areas.

Now, banks were in a position that they too were now issuing loans to ANY poor person regardless of income or credit record. The pressure on the Fed was really coming from members of congress who publicly were demanding more loans to poor people.

Banks aren't stupid. They knew the loans would fail at a higher rate. So they sold them. And that is how the system got broken. It was everyone, lead by our government.

Wake up all you tax and spend libs, this is your future.

21 percent sales tax ought to reduce the sales of those products. Imagine if you had one of those services trying to make a living and now a 21 percent tax.

What I didn't hear, which is the same case here in the US, but NOT in China, is the need to help the private sector create more jobs. China recognizing their economy is stalling is doing everything it can to help the private sector hoping they can create more jobs and keep the middle class growing.

Here is an example. Back in 2009, the state of MN made a deal with a company I know that was slowly expanding. The state paid their wages for 6 mos until the new product line was up and going and the workers trained. It worked great. That savings was diverted to another product line in which they needed more machinery which they were able to buy. That company today is now out of room and doubling their present location.

I am a business owner myself. If the local or state asked us what they could do to help I have a laundry list. We have expanded throughout the entire recession, hired, and renovated continuously. We had to pay for everything out of our own savings because nobody would lend to us. On top of that the state and local governments needing money have increased taxes, fees, assessments, etc. We even provide health insurance now to full-time employees. Again, as the owner and investor, I haven't taken a dime in years. We are trying to weather the on-going recession, but we sure aren't getting any help from the government.

Politicians do not YET understand what improved an economy. Increasing government jobs as Obama wants to do, and has by adding 130,000 federal jobs since he took office, is a burden, because it takes the private sector to work to pay for those jobs.

Back in the 90s for every 1 person receiving some sort of subsidy, 30 private sector workers were working. Today that number is 16. An idiot can see that we are headed quickly in the wrong direction.

BTW, since Obama took office he has created 2.6m jobs. Unfortunately 3.1m workers are not collecting disability. So if a worker cannot find work, they now go on disability and of course this is permanent.

Have a look at the truth of the matter Time.

Coming soon to America : (

anybody that has kids.....too bad their future don't look bright....better take off the shades

About that

"

why cant the republicans understand that this is what has to be done here? If I am in financial trouble I have to quit going out to eat, movies, golf and maybe even get a second job.

all of our taxes should be raised in the US and Government stop the spending like drunk sailors.

Flat tax 20 pct no loopholes, repeal ACA and single payer every American covered - cuts expenses to business and they reinvest in America's Economy - nuff said!"

You think 50% of the population going from paying no Federal INCOME tax to everybody paying 20% is going to fly with the Dems? HELL NO!

Plus do you think 20% is going to pay for SS and all Health Insurance? Or are you think of still having that 6.2% percent?

So every American is going to pay 26% of their income to the Feds and 5 give or take to the State. Plus sales tax, gas tax, energy tax and property taxes, and some how the economy is going to survive?

Again HELL NO.

ItsAboutTime:

BUSH wouldn't have neglected the economy and allowed rampant and risky lending practices

If you just do a little reading about the Great Recession you might learn something.

Clinton started the program for risky lending practices and Greenspan blocked the regulation of derivatives

Is there anyone on here who would have the proper stats to show what a temporary 1% or 2% increase in sales tax across the board (excluding necessities such as unprocessed food, like in PA) would equal in increased revenue? Just wondering how much it would amount to.

“about that”

“why cant the republicans understand that this is what has to be done here? If I am in financial trouble I have to quit going out to eat, movies, golf and maybe even get a second job.”

Um – last time I looked – Republicans wanted less government, less welfare. Democrats wanted bigger government, more welfare. Just saying...

The approach of grossly hiking taxes seems very illogical to me. Whenever prices, taxes etc. go up, the first thing I do is economize because I have X number of dollars to spend and since the money fairy is off playing in someone else’s backyard – I’m not getting any more to spend. So, let’s say I budgeted $5 for Fairy Dust – which cost $2.50 each - of which $1.00 goes to Washington to be frittered away. I can afford 2 boxes. Washington decides they need more money, so they increase taxes (both sales and income), forcing the price to go up to $3.50 each – of which $1.50 is for Washington’s “quick, let’s waste it while they aren’t looking” fund. I still only have $5 for Fairy Dust, so now I can only afford to buy one (the remaining money is going under the mattress just in case) and Washington’s cut went from $2 to $1.50. Maybe it’s just me, but the math just doesn’t seem to be going the way Washington planned it.

For the record, if the money fairy ever comes back and I end up with more money than I know what to do with – I’m still only going to spend X number of dollars because I refuse to keep contributing to big government and big welfare. If I want to give my money away – I’ll do it through my church or through a charity of my choosing, not through Obama’s “spread the wealth” campaign.

@It's About Time

Obama had a democractic house and senate for the first two years of his administration. If everything Bush did screwed up the economy, Obama had ample opportunity to rectify the situation. Republicans couldn't stop him or the democrats at all, they had a free pass to push through any legislation that they desired in order to fix our economy...annnnnnnd now we're worse off for it. "But now the Reps hold the house! We can't get anything done!" Still doesn't excuse 2 full years of an all-you-can-pass legislation buffet that the Democrats had. If they have all the answers as you seem to think they do, then how come things aren't fixed yet?

Here's the problem with Obama (and democrats) wanting to blame Bush for the current situation, it looks bad for them regardless of if it's true or if they're just making excuses.

1: It's true and Bush is to blame. Well, as I discussed above, what does that say about the Democrats and Obama's ability to lead? As mentioned, they had a full free ride for the first two years of his administration...why aren't we living in a utopia yet? If Bush is to blame, then Obama is utterly incompetant for being unable to lead us out of this situation and therefor should be replaced.

2: It's an excuse and the policies that Obama and the Democrats are implementing are the ones that are responsible for our current situation. This proves that liberalism is a failed political ideal, that its policies are destructive, and as such we should vote liberals out of office.

Like I said, either way the Democrats come out with egg on their face. "Blame Bush!!!!!" might have slid on by for the first months or so...hell, even give it the first year of Obama's administration. But at what point to you say one of these two things: "When do things start becoming Obama and the Democrats' fault?" or "Does this guy and his party have any idea what they're doing?"

I know change takes time, but 2 free years of being able to pass anything your party desires is a LOT of time that your party could be using to fix things...instead your party spent the majority of that time working up backroom deals with congressmen in THEIR OWN PARTY just to get enough votes to pass ObamaCare.

Obama has specifically pointed to Spain as an example that he wanted the US to follow (back when he was on his big Green Jobs kick before the bottom of that fell out with the companies he gave tax-money to just taking that money and running off), as such his policies would be directing us to be more like Spain, right? Well this article should let you know just how well that will work out in the end.

What is the US going to do about its deficit? Why are Congress and Presidents not fixing the problem? They are just kicking the can down the road until the next election, problem is there will always be a next election.

Heard a piece on NPR yesterday. Under this program the banks must get rid of all toxic assets ASAP, even if they have to sell it at a loss. As a result, foreign investors, referred to as vultures, are buying Spain's real estate at a record pace.

There isn't a single case in history that shows austerity saved an economy and there never will be. It's just too bad the right wingers are too stupid to understand this simple concept.

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results each time.

armurray

ItsAboutTime-3704531,

If you remember, it was Bush who warned about the housing bubble and it was Barney Frank and company who said that Fannie and Freddie were sound and that Republicans were making up the problem.

I honestly cant believe people still think the economic collapse had anything to do with Fannie and Freddie. I know Fox hammers that point all the time but it still doesnt make it true.

obama-azz,

What are you even babbling about? What would Clinton and Greenspan pay back? Do you seriously think they made money that much from working for the government? And Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand - it's rumored that when they were young they even had capitalist orgies at her pad. He's a big proponent of limited regulation and limited government. That's how Wall St. got out of control. He even put SEC regulator Brooksley Born in her place when she found out about the crazy s hit going on their. Get your facts straight before you babble.

We can expect the same thing here, thanks to our idiot Marxist president and Senate

David

There isn't a single case in history that shows austerity saved an economy and there never will be.

Your knowledge of history is quite limited as seems to be common in America to which the educational community and news meda community is over whelmingly democrat based.

1919 - 1923 was about bloat and over taxation to austerity and tax cuts and then started the largest economic growth and prosperity ever seen up to that time.

1919 18.5 Billion outlays on 5.1 Billion Revenues

1920 6.4 Billion Outlays on 6.6 billion in Revenues. The 25% increase in taxes caused business to shutter. The cuts were mostly no war contracts, giving money to rebuild Europe, and starting the "League of nations".

1921 5.1 Billion Outlays on 5.6 Billion in Revenues - recovery begins.

1922 3.3 Billion Outlays on 4.0 Billion in Revenues

1923 3.1 Billion Outlays on 3.8 Billion of Revenues - Economy equals that of 1919.

Compare that to 1932 - 1939 Where the government Started inteventional spending in 1932 under Hoover, and Roosevelt changed the names of the programs and doubled the spending on them.

He that does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.

Which history are we repeating? 1920 - 23 or 1932 - 39?

Which one should we be pursuing? 1920 - 23 or 1932 - 39?

I just want to say that a 20% flat tax is a stupid idea and a regressive tax. The problem in this country is everyone wants govt. services and noone wants to pay taxes. This does not work. Cut spending across the board ( yes even your beloved military ) and increase taxes to the Clinton levels. This is a good start, but the rethuglicans just cant seem to cut what they love or raise taxes.

Fannie not including Freddie's subprime book of business that went belly up is larger than Countrywide and the other top 5 companies entire book of business.

Example Freddie's subprime was 18% of its book but its book was over 2.8 trillion which is now down to 2.4 trillion.

18% of 2,8T is 504 billion Countrywide total book good and bad was 157 billion

A small ripple by the GSEs = huge effects on the economy. The bailout money was 200 billion

Housing was a large problem in the recession but not the only one

JCB

President Bush made it clear that his and Congress' vision is to make homeownership a right and not a privilege"

Bush said no such thing. I saw the speech, and it still is on You-Tube. He simply wanted to make home owning more available by the government paying the $2000 down payment provided they were otherwise qualified meaning they had the income history, debt ratio, and good credit history. His program merely brought 40,000 mortgages to people who would have otherwise qualified for a loan legitimately in 1 or 2 years.

This is kind of like the cash for clunkers deal, the money only brought purchasers of tomorrow forward to today. From studying that, we got a 1 quarter boost in production, but it left a drop-off the next quarter because those that would have bought then had already purchased the previous quarter. Unseen problems this program cost was the cars the government purchased were crushed, not salvaged. This caused a shortage of used cars (up goes the price during a shortage) and shortage of used parts (up goes car theft) and people who would have bought used parts forced to pay more for a used part or a new one.

Where things went wrong is P\pressure by the fed (from Congress) for banks to make more low income housing loans than people were actually qualified for AND several mortgage companies becoming "mortgage mills" by encouraging bonuses for top management achieving for making more mortgages.

With both of these operating a multitude of bad loans were made and passed on to unsuspecting investors.

The answer is simple but people just don't like to hear the truth. The banks should have been left to fail. The FED should have forced banks to lower debt to income to less not more. Drop it by about 25% or so. SImply if you owed 200,000, of which the bank only needed around 2,000 in deposits to generate this money out of thin air (the fed prints the money),the banks should have been told to adjust to a 75 to 1 ratio or so, e.g., they can collect ~$150,000 and the result should be immediate drop in all persons/companies mortgage and loan payments to the terms of the loan had it been given at that rate. The banks would have hurt no more or less from this as the FED just scribbles it away. This would have had some inflationary impact but it would have helped everyone, unemployment benefits should have only reached 6 or 9 months instead of the 99 weeks, to motivate people to get back to work sooner.

We can still tap the banks the same way not but inflation would skyrocket, so you tap them a little less and then you start cutting the deficit. You cannot raise taxes now, the american public won't allow it and they would just vote for someone that would cut them later anyway. we must cut every department (except social security/medi) by 65% and balance the budget. Once you do that the number of umemployed will rise considerably (causing deflation). then you tap the banks again and you blanket deregulate simple businesses i.e., You make it so you don't need a licence to cut flowers or hair and you don't allow towns or states require more than $500 to start any business that doesn't have large liabilities. Say lawn mowing services or lemonaide stands. You can keep regulations on pharmacies and doctors and lawyers and contractors that do critical work like roofing electric and plumbing. You don't make business with fewer than 40 workers buy health insurance (they can't afford it) and you switch to a truely buyer beware situation.

it would take maybe 3 years or so to get back to real growth but at this rate we'll never see growth. We cannot hit bottom because we keep making the bottom bigger. Rip the damn bandaid off now.

Take a picture as a reminder - because this is what we will see in less than 5 years in the United States if we don't get our own "house" in order. Just 5 years ago (2007) annual government spending was about $2.7 Trillion and tax revenue was $2.5 Trillion (so our deficit, and amount needing to borrow, was about $200 Billion).

Here we are 5 years later and annual tax revenue is about $2.4 Trillion (just slightly less due to the economic downturn) but our government is spending $3.8 TRILLION!!! Tax revenues down slightly but government spending UP over 50%?!??! Now our deficit, and amount we must borrow, is $1.4 Trillion per year?!?!?

We do not have a "tax revenue" problem - we have an "out of control government spending" problem. We have two choices: We can either get our government spending under control ourselves OR wait for the "Spain equivalent" in less than 5 years. Your choice................

I love watching the socialists dominoes in Europe come crashing down.
Too funny!!!!!

Comrade

Clinton started the program for risky lending practices

Actually the fiasco started with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act by Carter and the Democrats.

Prospective low income buyers denied a loan now had a clear path to sue financial institutions for discrimination. Pres. Obama used this law in Chicago (1996) to force CitiBank to violate good lending pracitices (income history, debt to income ratio, good credit history) to get more mortgages in poorer neighborhoods.

The 1977 CRA was put on Steriods in the 1999 Graham Leachy Bliley Act. The Republican's had failed to compromise on differing passed versions of how to handle the repeal of the Glass-Steagall provision prohibiting Finance, Banking, Investment, and Insurance to be under one entitiy. Democrats in the house offered the votes to pass the Senate version IF republicans would include their bill for strengthening the 1977 CRA Act. Republicans agreed.

What "Strengthening" actually meant was that any federal agency could investigate and prosecute Banks for discrimination if they did not make a "sufficient" number of low income mortgages or did not have Branches in "low Income" neighborhoods.

Clinton did not ask for the bill, a veto meant little, because the bill had passed in overwhelming numbers in the house. I saw numbers the other day that the senate did not have the override votes which is in conflict with what I have previously scene that the Senate also was veto proof.

Mark Taft,

Socialist? Like Ireland? You types only think in black and white, don't you?

More warning signs coming from Europe. Shows us that fantasy land socialism doesn't always work. The government can't promise everyone the moon and deliver.

How many articles about this do we have to read to get the picture?

And the democrats think they can make it work because 'they haven't tried it their 'unique' way'....

this will make things much worse for Spain, not better

but keep believing the BS that Austerity is what is needed

Ya Know Phil.. the fantasy land of capitalism isn't working is it...

But keep subscribing to the loser mentality that trickle down economics works.. Things have only been getting worse for the middle classes since reaganomics

Financial day of reckoning. Many to blame most of all corrupt and incompetent politicians as well as rampant consumerism. That is a thirst that cannot be quenched. The start of all this was credit cards. before there were layaway plans and people payed cash. Then along came credit finally manifesting itself in "easy credit". Sooner or later we must pay the piper. Its like some long lingering bender.

Most people worked hard....payed their taxes, raised their children all the while doing their best to get by. They were cajolled by TV ad's extolling products, gimmickery and why you need the fanciest car, house, appliance...whatever. 90% of this was not necessary (the products). But all of us are swayed and fall into the trap set by creditors. With their exorbitant interest rates they enslaved us most just making interest payments (which is what they want).

Now comes the cruncher. What's the possible outcome? In the past....war! Today since that makes no sense in a nuclear age then depression. Once spending ceases and curiously it must the system breaks down. The rich hoard their resources not that they have really made much of a contribution anyway and the rest of us line up for soup......NO SOUP FOR YOU!

The housing bust was NOT caused by mortgages or mortgage lenders. Lehman was not a mortgage lending bank. Bear Stearns was not a mortgage lending bank. TARP was not designed to buy mortgages. The TARP loans were not made to mortgage lending banks. AIG was not issuing swaps on mortgages. Moody, Fitch, and S&P were not rating mortgages. The worry about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac was not mortgages.

Investment banks collapsed - not commercial, mortgage lending, banks. Investment banks got the TARP loans.

The entire housing collapse was caused by derivatives. By slicing up the mortgages and packaging them as derivatives - the investment banks side stepped both government regulation AND self regulation by the industry.

Raiders, traders, profiteers, and the artificially successful caused the recession - because they were making money without working for it. The CRA had nothing to do with the housing bust.

The entire Eurozone quagmire is an attempt to 'save' Europe's artificially successful, too. The governments did not spend too much - the financial wizards performed too little. The United States is, indeed, headed for the same problems because we continue to subsidize our artificially successful and non-productive financial wizards.

After 40 years of living beyond a countries income, austerity will take time, and be painful! In Spain, now, and in the US, when the debt and bloated government in the US is finally addressed!

The future is arriving!

Dong Work 4 Yuda

Ya Know Phil.. the fantasy land of capitalism isn't working is it...

It would work better if the greedy money grubbing redistribution freaks would keep their hands out of the pockets of the people who want to live honestly and not be on the government dole. Oh that's right, Democrats don't like work, they like to take money from the suckers who do and give it to themselves.

Liberal policy has spoiled free market capitalism by tinkering and regulation. The Dems are in bed with the big businesses just as much as anyone else now too, which has also contributed to the existing decline.

Reagan tripled the national debt and when asked about the National debt he responded, "the National debt is big enough to fend for itself."

Cheney---"Deficits don't matter."

Facts:

Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.[17]

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

But, but, but---The GOP lies and cries---don't tax, yet spend like hell.

This will dispell all of the right wing lies above and it is on the WH web site!

http://georgewbush
-whitehouse.archives.gov
/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html

That being said it was not the housing bubble that caused the crash it was something called CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS! Used to be that if you issued insurance you had to keep so much Capital in reserve! In the last act before Clinton left office the right wingers in Congress held up all of the spending bills and grouped tham into what was called an omnibus spending bill which was huge. Phil Graham a senator from Texas had been touting a revamp of regulations on banking that was very much sought after by the banking and mainly the wall street people who wanted a piece of the pie. It did away with the requirement that you had to have those reserves. He had very little success getting this thing passed on its own so they slipped it into this huge bill and to keep the government running Clinton signed it. Then the cat was out of the bag and every body on wall street and banks all go into the hedge business. You could buy insurance that paid you if certain mortgages failed. So now a bank could take a risky mortgage then buy insurance that if it failed the insurance company like Lehman brothers would pay. They cut up mortgages put pieces of them into many of these swaps and dold them to unsuspecting clients. Thos clients did not know they did not have the money to back their swapps! Then these companies turned around and hedged the bets and they were in a win win situataion. As it turned out Lehman Brothers defaulted on 350 BILLION dollars in these worthless securities. Banks all over the world got stung. As you can see countries with smaller economies like Spail and Greece etc suffered the worst from this. They made a bad move thinking they were buying insurance that was just a dream. As soon as the chit hit the fan the industry hir PR people to divert the finger pointing to loans they should never have made in the first place. Friend or ex friend of mine ok'd me for a 600K mortgage when in reality I should have never been ok'd to over 300k. I passed some did not. They became the canary in the coal mine so to speak. After Bush and his cronies snuck around and borrowed so much to support the wars the dollars value decreased. Since oil prices are based on the dollar the price of oil went up and the collapse began. People lost their jobs got behind in their mortgages and the elephant in the room took a dump. Banks were anxious to cash in and forclosed at the drop of a hat. Why not? Because the had insurance and wanted to get paid. When they went to get the payments the crisis hit hard. There was not enough money to pay and things fell apart. banks lending institutions and countries holding the worthless paper came u done and the rest is history. We are still a long way from seeing the end of this stupid idiotic venture because the wall street guys took the money and ran and guess what? They are back at it again. Thank Papa Bush for the new world order. Thank Gingrich and Phil Graham for the Contract and than Bush's son all for this stupidity.

The CRA they point to has nothing to do with anything that happened. Contrary to popular belief it did not tell any bank they had to lend to unquallified custmers. It mearly said that if they discriminated against qualified customers thay would not get backing insurance from the government. The CRA was put into effect to stop what was called red lineing. If certain areas were designated for certain incomes a pers who had a lesser income was unwelcome to buy into that hood even though they qualified. This affected not only minoritites but lower class whites also.

Pardon the grouping but every time I paragraph I get hit with their stupis spam alert.

Liberal policy has spoiled free market capitalism by tinkering and regulation. The Dems are in bed with the big businesses just as much as anyone else now too, which has also contributed to the existing decline.

The nominee for the biggest lie of the week here. All you have to do is look at who is backing the venture capitalist to upchuck that comment.

Hello Phil, you do know that the largest recipients of Social Welfare in the history of the world is our "Free Market Capitalist" banks and financial institutions, right? Remember the bailouts? John and Jane Q taxpayer bailed out the banks to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. Who's really the entity that takes money from the "suckers"? Who are the real socialists? It is Socialism for the Banksters and capitalism for the tax paying smucks. Remember their motto, privatize profits and socialize losses!

golly, all the countries dems have been using as templates for their plans are all going bankrupt...

der, blame bush!

Dong Work: Being naive doesn't have to be a curse. Opening your eyes and learning how the "real world" works can be a blessing - I suggest you try it. A country's economy is not much different than a family's budget or a company's budget.

When a family continues to spend more than they have they go deeper and deeper in debt. So they have sacrificed, or traded, FUTURE consumption for current consumption. In other words when you want a bigger house (or boat or new car or ......) and go into debt to buy it you get that additional excitement and satisfaction at the time of purchase but then for years you must GIVE UP future consumption to pay for it. The payments make your budget "tight" thus when you buy that new car on debt you must give up vacations, new furniture, etc. until that debt is paid off. For those who don't learn to "give up" and continue to borrow at some point down the road the banks look at this family and simply say "sorry, we will not lend you any more money". And you are FORCED to drastically cut back on spending and may actually be too late with a foreclosure or bankruptcy in their immediate future.

When a company spends more than they have and resorts to debt then higher and higher payments must go towards these payments leaving less money for hiring more workers, expanding their business, etc. Sacrificing future consumption on current consumption. So going into debt actually SLOWS DOWN their company growth. And the companies that don't get a handle on that QUICKLY finds themselves owing so much money that they are FORCED to cut way back to even save their company (if not too late).

Well we are there in our country. For years (and this is both a Democrat and Republican problem over the years) we as a country continued to want "current consumption" but not willing to cut "future consumption". Well the "future consumption" is now here. So for the last 40 years we have continued to borrow money so we don't have to cut the "consumption" at that time but our credit card is now maxed out. We are hitting that point where the global financial markets will act like the banks in the family example above looking at the U.S. and saying "sorry, we are not comfortable lending you any more money". That is what is happening to Spain so they don't have a choice. They are FORCED to cut drastically because they are having difficulty finding anybody willing to lend them money at a reasonable rate.

We are not there YET but it is very very close. The United States can either decide TODAY we are going to cut spending and get our deficit and debt under control or, in less than 5 years, the global financial markets will make that decision for us. And when THAT happens we are talking DRASTIC cuts in government spending. Not by choice at that time but forced by the global financial markets.

So your naivety is incredible but just because you don't understand doesn't mean it won't happen. So we have two choices: Either cut government spending on our own (and it will hurt - that's for sure) OR we cut government spending when the financial markets FORCE us to (and that would REALLY hurt). So the choice is ours to make.........hurt now or in a few years hurt significantly more...........Your choice.......

@Breadex:

Every time you post evidence proving how the other side is a bunch of liars, there's 7 people on the other side that have just as convincing evidence that proves that your side is a bunch of liars.

ComradeObama

Clinton started the program for risky lending practices and Greenspan blocked the regulation of derivatives

BRAVO! It’s rare that I see someone bring up two of the major policy issues that promoted the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse. We all know that despite the revisionists attempts to protect the Community Reinvestment Acts role in this massive collapse in equity, its effect was significant. Reagan and Bush added to it during their terms but the biggest secret occurred during Clintons terms.

As you stated, Clintons National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream was most likely one of the biggest causes for the incredible redistribution attempt of home ownership and the housing bubbles expansion.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994.

The group formulated a plan for “creative” measures to promote home ownership. One of the WORST ideas, which fortunately never gained approval but points to the extremes that his administration wanted to enable unqualified people to own a home, was to allow first-time homebuyers to tap into their IRA or 401(k) plans with NO PENALTY to create a down payment.

The most glaring part of the Strategy was,,,

“For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required down payment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”

This “creativity” brought about the famous NINJA loans that catapulted the housing collapse.

Here is a very good link to explain its incredible effect:

theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx

While leading the CFTC in 1998 Brooksley Born fought for regulations of CDS’s and CDO’s, she was summarily ignored and ridiculed by Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt. After Congress exempted the contracts from oversight in 1998 and again in 2000 the market grew from about $1 trillion dollar to $684 trillion in less than 2 years. The rest is history.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton fully opened the door to abuse. With the subsequent resistance of further regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when OFHEO demanded it in 2003 and 2004, the script for the greatest economic collapse was in place.

The famous words of Maxine Water (BTW will she ever be tried for her ethics violations?), “we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines”.

This was only surpassed by Barney Franks incompetent statement, “I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems”.

Today Americans have been raped of over 40% of their wealth. The most amazing part of all this is that there was government malfeasance for decades and despite regulations and deregulations no one has been found responsible. The initial feel-good Community Reinvestment Act began a 30 year bubble that will be analyzed over and over by economists and other authorities. Yes, the same people who denied its existence and never saw the bubble growing will now decide what happened.

Good luck with that wet-dream.

Free enterprise is NOT capitalism. That lie has been told so often over the last 30 years that it is accepted as fact - but - IT IS STILL A LIE.

Capitalism rewards productive work with the creation of wealth. Capitalism creates that wealth by combining resources and labor to create something of greater value. Capitalism is value added economics.

Free enterprise economics rewards non-productive redistribution of wealth from those that create it to those that do not. Wall Street operates on the principle of redistribution of wealth - Wall Street does not create anything. Stocks - bonds - loans - 401k plans - mutual funds - derivatives - provide a return by redistributing wealth from those that create wealth to those that only siphon off wealth.

Profits are generated by hiring the fewest workers possible, by paying the lowest wages possible, by circulating the least amount of money in the economy as possible. Profits are a tool to redistribute wealth from those that create the wealth to those that do not. Investment banking generates returns by siphoning a portion of those profits. Investment banking DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH - investment banking redistributes wealth.

Our government debt - our failing economy - has been caused by abandoning capitalism. The United States economy - just as the Eurozone economies - relies on redistributing wealth. There is no longer enough wealth being created to support Free Enterprise economics.

Socialism, just doesn't work does it?

Wealth isn't created. It's transferred. Right now the industrialists transferred the jobs to 3rd world country and we still buy the goods. I have lived off grid for 9 years, use biodiesel in a 1978 Ford truck, free range hens, catch the fish I eat, and grow the fruit and veggies that I need and sell the rest. PS--I'm a Liberal and I am debt free. I will vote Obama-Biden 2012 for the preservation of my fellow citizens. His money is invested in US Treasury Bonds while Williard Rove/Romney has his hidden in Switzerland and The Caymans.

I don't trust the GOP in Congress but I have no problem trusting President Obama.

Tell those Spaniards that the Dow Jones jumped 170+ at the news of their bailout and austerity plan ... and lots of Democrats made out big that day. Quit complaining!

Hello Gabriel, socialism works for the banks, doesn't it?

Nerm_L...

"Our government debt - our failing economy - has been caused by abandoning capitalism. The United States economy - just as the Eurozone economies - relies on redistributing wealth. There is no longer enough wealth being created to support Free Enterprise economics."

Many would say capitalism and greed got us into this mess in the first place. I think a big problem now is that those at the top dont really care about those at the bottom anymore.

Seems it used to be...I really want my company (as a whole, employees included) to do great.

Now it's, I really want my company (meaning myself, shareholders, others at the top) to do great.

Wouldn't hurt to end lobbying either...

@sandtrich

First off, I wouldn't consider having internet access and being an active member of a news comment section as being "off the grid." :P

But joking aside, you're quite mistaken. Wealth is created, not transfered. If it weren't created, there'd be no such thing as economic growth. It's that simple. You can say whatever you want about not liking where Romney has his money, that's fair enough. But what you're saying implies that there's only a set amount of money and no more will ever be gained...that's simply incorrect.

And since you're so concerned about the economic states of 3rd world countries, keep in mind that a redistribution of wealth as is the liberal ideal would render everyone in this country living as though they're in a 3rd world country. You say you'll use your vote to help out your fellow citizens? Then I'd suggest voting for someone other than the person who wants to take money from the people/companies that use said money to pay their employees, i.e. those fellow citizens you're concerned about.

You want to see how trustworthy the Democrats are? Look at the story of Denise Rich. She supported and was a fundraiser for the Democrats, the party which wants to tax the evil rich people......then she turns around and renounces her citizenship with the US to avoid high taxes on the rich, like herself.

All come down to 2 choices

For a big governmemt

For the creation of more social programs borrowing money from China

For more welfare and government dependency

For a socialist European style country.... Vote for Obama

For an small government

For fiscal responsibility

For individual responsibility

For free market and capitalism

For opportunities for all.

For illegal immigration control

For an American style , free market, pro- business.........Vote Romney

DB Akron...

1919 - 1923 was about bloat and over taxation to austerity and tax cuts and then started the largest economic growth and prosperity ever seen up to that time.

1919 18.5 Billion outlays on 5.1 Billion Revenues

1920 6.4 Billion Outlays on 6.6 billion in Revenues. The 25% increase in taxes caused business to shutter. The cuts were mostly no war contracts, giving money to rebuild Europe, and starting the "League of nations".

1921 5.1 Billion Outlays on 5.6 Billion in Revenues - recovery begins.

1922 3.3 Billion Outlays on 4.0 Billion in Revenues

1923 3.1 Billion Outlays on 3.8 Billion of Revenues - Economy equals that of 1919.

And then the great depression hit in 1929...

Investors (greed) isnt helping spain at all...

Just google "how to short the euro"

The title of this webpage says it all...

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2010/05/18/how-to-short-the-euro-as-it-heads-for-the-abyss

Disgusting.

Hello folks, the Republican Democrat blame game is in full swing on this blog. If you think replacing one puppet for another is going to change anything, it won't. Both parties have turned into a two headed one party system serving their masters the banksters/Federal Reserve and Wall Street! Our current CEO in chief is just continuing the policies of the last CEO in chief and the next one will do the same. God help us all!

@American Socialist -- What people fail to recognize is that ALL economies create wealth by capitalism. ALL economies create wealth the same way - there are no exceptions.

Socialism - communism - free enterprise - free markets - describe the mechanism for distributing (or redistributing) wealth within the economy.

The Soviet Union created national wealth in exactly the same way that the United States created wealth - by combining resources and labor to create something of greater value. During the cold war the Soviet Union distributed that wealth within their economy differently than did the United States.

The Republicans whine about socialism - which is just a mechanism to redistribute wealth - while they argue for using their mechanism to redistribute wealth. The Republicans are no different than the old Soviet Politburo - redistributing wealth from those that create wealth to those that do not.

"This is the reality. There is no other and we have to get out of this hole and we have to do it as soon as possible and there is no room for fantasies or off-the cuff improvisations because there is no choice,"

Coming to a theater near you.

Of course Obama has a much simpler solution - "Just borrow and spend more money".

America is headed in the same direction as Europe is. Let's look at some facts: Obama's radical mom was a communist and so was his absentee dad. If you think Obama isn't a communist then you really need to look at his past and rise to power. He hung around with radicals and he hates America's colonialism and his agenda is to bring America down a few pegs. Did you know that the rationing part of Obamcare was past with the stimulus package? That is why he was so determined to shove Obamcare down our throats and why it was such a priority. Do you also know that beginning in January 2013 anyone who sells their home will be paying a 3.8% tax to the federal government? What did THAT have to do with fixing our insurance problems? The wealthy people will be giving up their citzenship so they don't have to pay U.S. taxes and they have the means to do so, while the rest of us will be stuck here paying for everything, and once the largest tax increases in our history kicks in, because of Obamacare, we are going to be nothing more than a third world country since this will affect the middle class. As a communist he is definately "spreading the wealth" as Castro said before he took over Cuba, and look how well that turned out for the Cuban people.... There will be 2 classes if Obama get re-elected: the poor and the rich elites running the country. If Obama gets re-elected America is done. At least Romney is NOT a communist.

In amerika, cities just default on their debt transferring the losses to muni bond holders, some of which post on here and don't even know they just lost money, and then expect the bankers to buy their paper again and sell it to grandma so they can default all over again. Government's the problem, quit deflecting.

Grandma's going to be eating dog food soon, cause amerika is in a far worse position than spain...

@Against Union Thievery -- Yes, the United States is headed in the same direction as Europe.

That can easily be seen by the recovery of the stock markets, investment banks, and corporate profits. The parts of our economy that thrive on redistributing wealth have recovered. The parts of our economy that actually produce wealth have not.

The United States is headed for the same type of Eurozone collapse because we are not producing enough wealth to maintain the failed system of redistribution to banking and non-productive investments.

Our governments are going bankrupt because we fail to tax the non-productive profits of banking and finance. Banking and finance did not really 'earn' that money - they simply took it from the economy. Governments should be taxing that non-productive redistribution of wealth much heavier.

Hot ticket - your are referencing what the greece problem is. The article is about spain. The only similarities between how each got to here is high unemployment and perhaps the government promising more than it could deliver.

RJ17

@sandtrich

First off, I wouldn't consider having internet access and being an active member of a news comment section as being "off the grid." :P

But joking aside, you're quite mistaken. Wealth is created, not transfered. If it weren't created, there'd be no such thing as economic growth. It's that simple. You can say whatever you want about not liking where Romney has his money, that's fair enough. But what you're saying implies that there's only a set amount of money and no more will ever be gained...that's simply incorrect.

And since you're so concerned about the economic states of 3rd world countries, keep in mind that a redistribution of wealth as is the liberal ideal would render everyone in this country living as though they're in a 3rd world country. You say you'll use your vote to help out your fellow citizens? Then I'd suggest voting for someone other than the person who wants to take money from the people/companies that use said money to pay their employees, i.e. those fellow citizens you're concerned about.

You want to see how trustworthy the Democrats are? Look at the story of Denise Rich. She supported and was a fundraiser for the Democrats, the party which wants to tax the evil rich people......then she turns around and renounces her citizenship with the US to avoid high taxes on the rich, like herself.

"Off grid" means that I produce my own power with solar, use catchment tanks for water, etc. Prior to moving to Pahoa, HI, I lived up the Hamakua Coast on The Big Island. The property bordered a year round stream and we used a turbine--water supplied the power and went back into the stream as clean water. The fact that I use Wifi is my only communication method.

On the other area---government is supposed to work for the people. Of the G5 nations we spend less than the others on social programs, yet as much as the entire world combined on defense. Get back to me when we cut off our biggest "social program"---defense. 1/2 of all discretionary spending goes to defense and it's not much to the service members---it's to the defense contractors. Check opensecrets for the "contributions." The top 10 are split--5 R's and 5 D's. Is that creating wealth for Congress and Defense Contractors or transference of our dwindling tax dollars to thieves ? It's socialism and/or plutocracy.

Red neckleso, gabriel, & others. right now capitalism isn't working very good either so you're statements are irrelevant. Sounds like Spain is going through the same things we're going thru and things look like they're not going to get better any time soon here in the U.S.A. You have states, counties, cities who can't pay their bills. I laugh when I hear people talking about how we can't live beyond our means but these same people are the ones who'll probably scream if their share of the handout gets cut. For example, the man who vents against socialist medicine (when you go to a free county hospital because you have no insurance) today will probably be screaming tomorrow when that county hospital has been shutdown and he's got no place to take his ill children to. Not living beyond our has many implications. So we gotta either cut the military, social security, or medicare/medical (our 3 major expenditures). You have to ask yourself what it is you want--do you want to still be a world power miltitarily, or do you want that income coming in every month after retirement so you can pay your bills, or do you want to have healtcare. It doesn't matter if your dem or repub or whatever as being one party or the other only affects which funds get sent where and who benefits. So vent but remember the programs you scream against may one day be the program you'll need.

NermL...

Or perhaps it is just because our politicians can't keep spending in line with revenues.

@David-3783221

There isn't a single case in history that shows austerity saved an economy and there never will be. It's just too bad the right wingers are too stupid to understand this simple concept.

I love it when people make these broad statements without any attempt to provide examples. Do you even know of any economies that austerity failed to save or are you just parroting what you've heard someone else say? A couple of examples would have gone a long way to bolster your case; since you failed to supply any it seems likely that you are talking out your ass.

And of course even if true, we can clearly see that liberals riot in the streets as soon as it is mentioned and then do everything in their power to stop or delay it. Maybe austerity can't work because liberals refuse to attempt it until it's too late. If you refuse to admit the boat is sinking until you're up to your neck in water it might just be too late to start bailing.

@JoeCal

Red neckleso, gabriel, & others. right now capitalism isn't working very good either so you're statements are irrelevant.

Capitalism works just fine. It's the crony capitalism that we've got a problem with, unfortunately most people don't know that there is a difference.

@american-2051576 -- Yes, deficits are the result of spending not being paid by revenue. The government's tax system was created before the rise of free enterprise economics. The government's tax system is, indeed, designed to extract wealth from the economy.

When government revenue is not sufficient to pay for expenditures - the economy is no longer generating enough wealth to pay for government.

The proposed remedy is to reduce spending to match revenue. That will address the deficit but does nothing to address the fact that the economy is not generating wealth.

'Fixing' the government is NOT going to fix the economy.

Private sector redistribution of wealth is no better than government redistribution of wealth. Free enterprise is NOT the answer.

I support SOCIALISM, like TrustVerify says if it works for the banks it can work for US!!!

@Backcountry164 -- Free enterprise - free market - economics IS crony capitalism.

The United States has abandoned true capitalism. We no longer 'invest' in creating wealth - we invest in redistributing wealth.

The bottom line is our country under Obama and this Congress(Dems & Rep.) are taking us to the same place as Spain. Bush did spent too much period! However, Obama has spent and is spending us and our children into poverty. Is Romney the answer? I am not sure. What I am sure of is we can not stand another 4 years of Obama and his spend till you drop attitude. We just can not!! He has to go and if Romney doesn't do better then I will vote to show him the door.

They need to force the rich to pay their fair share.........That's right there no rich left... our future once O'Bammacare kicks in.

Sandtrich - your first line is plain false. True just as JimSpence states, mush is moved around with added service charges, that is probably what you are alluding to. But business certainly does create money, that is why they call it 'making money'

You take raw material, machines and labor - Cost, say $150.00 and you make a product that you sell for $50.00. You have made and created $50.00 out of $150.00.