Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
It's the Debt, Stupid
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Who caused the American financial panic and the wild swings in our financial system -- and what are we going to do about it in the long term after the markets settle down?

Republicans point to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politically wired executives at Fannie and Freddie cooked the books. They received mega-bonuses and took cover through campaign gifts to their Democratic supporters in Congress. Then almost everyone involved justified their scams by claiming that, as good liberals, they only wanted to help the poor buy homes.

Democrats counter that Republicans always pushed for more deregulation and, as good conservatives, kept quiet about multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses paid out from shaky Wall Street firms and passed off as good for business - rather than symptoms of suicidal greed.

Those in the present Bush administration blame the Clintonites for seeding the disaster; those in the last administration blame the present one for harvesting it.

Long ago, John McCain warned about the antics of Freddie and Fannie, and later charged that Barack Obama and some of his advisers received too much money from these agencies for looking the other way. Obama has countered that McCain was a reckless deregulator and that some on his staff were lobbyists for Wall Street firms.

The blame game goes on and on. But so far no one seems willing to tell the American people the truth: It is not just "they," but we, the people, who have recklessly borrowed to spend what we haven't yet earned.

Take energy. In recent years, we've borrowed trillions of dollars overseas to buy oil from foreign producers. Wind and solar may sound like neat and easy solutions. But for decades to come, Americans must drill more oil and natural gas of our own for transportation and heating; we must build more coal and nuclear power plants to power the electric grid; and we must conserve. Otherwise, we'll go broke before clean alternate fuels become accessible and affordable.

Our energy challenges do not just concern independence, natural security and global warming. They involve basic financial solvency as well. Yet so far, none of our public officials have warned us that the energy crisis is largely a money matter: We're borrowing too much to buy what we won't or can't produce at home.

Second, as a nation of debtors, we are renting money from Asia to buy its exports with our credit cards. Given our talents and natural wealth, we could easily consume more than others in the world and still balance the books. But Americans cannot charge all that we desire on unlimited credit. Surely one of our presidential candidates can warn the American people to save a little more, use our credit cards a little less and pay off what we already owe.

Third, the government can only hand out more entitlements by borrowing even more to pay for them. Raising taxes on anyone in a recession is insane. But even crazier is cutting them further at a time of skyrocketing national debt without commensurate reductions in spending.

So who will tell the people that we can't raise - or reduce - taxes and that we can't borrow for any more new programs until we first cut expenses and begin paying off the trillions we've already borrowed?

In a hugely productive economy that creates each year some $13 trillion of goods and services, the government has the resources to make real headway in paying down our $10 trillion national debt in relatively short order - if we have leaders brave enough to quit promising to spend a few more hundred billion here and there that we simply don't have.

Fourth, will some candidate explain to the wheeler-dealer public that most real estate is not going to double or triple in value every few years? Instead, houses should once again be seen as homes to live in, rather than investments to get rich from.

If 70 percent of the American people scrimp to buy a home, we can't endanger their financial solvency by waiving the rules for others, who can't or won't pay the mortgage debts they freely incurred. It's time to tell the public that you must budget to buy a house, see it as a place to raise a family and pay the mortgage you took on. And if that's not possible, then keep renting.

The problems on Wall Street, our energy woes, the election-year fight over taxes versus more programs, and the housing crash have one common denominator: massive debt. They are simply the collective reflections of our own spendthrift habits of buying things with borrowed money that we now either can't or don't want to pay back.

In this year's presidential race, the honest candidate who stops promising endless bailouts and has the guts to lead us out of debt could well end up winning.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I agree with most of it.
I do have one question regarding this sentence:

So who will tell the people that we can't raise - or reduce - taxes and that we can't borrow for any more new programs until we first cut expenses and begin paying off the trillions we've already borrowed?

If reducing taxes will lead to increased government revenue, why can't we reduce taxes? Certainly we should not add new programs, but increased revenue from lower taxes seems like a good thing. Is it your position that government revenue would go down with decreased taxes?

Generally agree, but...
"But even crazier is cutting them further at a time of skyrocketing national debt without commensurate reductions in spending."

Wrong. At present (high) tax levels, cutting tax rates produces more gov't revenue because it increases economic activity by removing some of the disincentive to produce and earn. It's just a cold, hard fact, proven yet again by the Bush tax cuts. I can understand why many leftists with their heads buried in the ground would fail to grasp such an obvious and proven fact about human behavior, but it's inexcusable for an historian like Hanson. Has he learned nothing from U.S. economic history?

limitedgovernment
Oops! You beat me to it. It's funny, though, that we both had the same reaction.

It's the Unfunded Liability Stupid
The unfunded liabilities of Medicare and SS dwarf the national debt. Throw in Medicaid and things look bleaker. Throw in the (growing) unfunded liabilities in defined benefit pension plans and we are in total darkness. What politician has any chance of getting elected if he addresses these problems?! We are a nation of people too willing to use the force of government to achieve redistribution. The golden goose is constipated.

SHARE YOUR PET PEEVES!
really, let's solve everyone's favorite issues ... blah blah blah.

Not.

There's a time and a place for the whole philosophical / ideological thing, but I prefer being pragmatic right now.

Spike oil down more. Gas around a buck = no recession. Boost to consumer spending and confidence. Economic recovery. Improved credit. No need for new world banking order. Doesn't require added spending or changes to gov't revenue stream. blah blah blah. The end.

The Core Problem
Is that you are talking to Politicians. You have to keep it simple.

http://blog.topicaltopics.net/2008/10/economics-101-for-stu pid-politicians/

PELOSI AND REID CAUSED IT !
All of that mentioned is correct.....FannyFreddie crooks, thieves in Congress and Wall St. pigs.

Pelosi and Reid caused the actual collapse by refusing to allow drilling for oil.

Gas prices doubled and food prices almost doubled. That caused millions who struggled to keep up with their mortgage to fall short by $200 or $300 a month because that money went for food or into their gas tanks.

Given a choice between eating or a mortgage payment, they ate and defaulted.

The no-drill Dems caused the whole collapse.
Vote them out!

reality
Thank you, VDH, you seem to be the only
person with this attitude. I was listening
to NPR the other day (My 1st mistake) They
had on some politician, Chris Dodd I think.
The conversation as I remember it went
something like this:

Politician: We are going to have FDIC insure all
bank accounts for more than we do now.
NPR Reporter: What if FDIC runs out of money?
Politician: Don't worry! The US Treasury will make
sure that FDIC has all the money it needs!!!

I thought "how can they do that?" Raise taxes in
the face of a recession and wreck the economy?
Borrow money by selling bonds and raising the
already huge debt? Inflate the currency and
screw everyone holding dollars?

This ponzi scheme can't go on forever. OK,
so maybe the FDIC won't need the money. It was
the attitude and the idea that the US Treasury
can somehow magically make money problems disappear
without consequence that seems to be fueling this,
that we can go on spending and borrowing.
People don't seem to realize that things need
to be paid for sooner or later.










Terrific article!
We must all get our houses in order. We as a people and we as the government cannot keep spending money we don't have. It's insane.

Buster (#6)
You are totally on the money, sir.

The tribulations of Wall St. bankers are peanuts compared with the government-sponsored debt tsunamis which will batter us, and our kids and theirs, as the self-disciplined, self-reliant peoples of emergent Asia, close knit in families and proudly patriotic, take over economic leadership of the world.

Meanwhile, as Pat Buchanan keeps pointing out, we are urged by neocons and belligerent chickenhawks such as Hanson to guard countries richer than ourselves from dead or imaginary threats-- such as Soviet communism and "Islamofascism"

We. can't. Afford. It.

By 2050 America will be majority non-white, stuffed with low-IQ folks clamoring ceaselessly for welfare, set-asides, financial aspirin for their intellectual and moral incapacity.

America's average IQ will be 94 to China's and Japan's 105. The dumb will be subsidized to breed, out of wedlock, and paid for by the smart fraction.

Now imagine one candidate at any level above dogcatcher, seeking office, daring to blurt out one syllable of truth about this developing demographic disaster. He'd be dead in a heartbeat.

Since 1988 the Republican Party has nursed socialistic welfare state schemes to keep hold of votes (vainly- the blacks and Latinos are a lost cause) while insulting its own base of thrifty, hard-working, sorely taxed white people. Bush Jr did it; fact is, he added to it with No Child Left Behind. RINO McNasty would do it.

Never mind who abused Freddie and Fanny. Why weren't they abolished, long ago? Conservatives are afraid to roll the tide back any more. Those blacks and peons will riot if they don't have $400K homes like the ones they see on the tube!

Race is the killer, debt is the symptom. Secession into separate, white-majority polities is the only way out of the Federal swamp. November 4 could be the death knell for two-party politics in the 300m-population USA.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Good article.
I am not a fan of raising taxes, but if lowering taxes supposedly creates lots more revenue to the federal coffer(presumably due to increased business activity), why have the last eight years of G.W. Bush tax cuts saddled our nation with such monstrous deficits and national debt?

Foreign creditors in China, Saudi Arabia, and other places will place the U.S. Government on a leash, restricting loans or purchase of our bonds so we will no longer be able to spend in such a reckless fashion.

Similarly, they will place the U.S. consumer on a leash.

This new economic reality will result curtailments in both domestic spending and spending abroad.

Entitlement programs will grow at a far slower rate if they grow at all, and neocon adventurism abroad will be abandoned.

We can't afford the latter, and there will be belt-tightening with the former.

Excellent Article?
Yes, but politically naive. Why?

PPs: Professional Politicians whose primary purpose is to get re-elected by promising free lunchs to the most paid for by others.

Solution: Term limits, change to a consumption tax versus income tax, no legislation not justified by Constitution.

Father Bush
WLL, you said it well. Father Bush apparently started the presidential executive order routine prohibiting off shore drilling. From that point it was easy to rely on mid-east oil. Conspiracy theory is that it was a plan to keep oil dominated in dollars, and to keep the oil flowing to the European countries and the US. That is an easy conspiracy to believe. Father Bush returned home from a mid-east visit with a planeload of gifts. Son Bush, Jorge the Amnesty, said no more and in his 7th year (just before he gets ejected) he lifts the order. And the Demos say they will not reimpose the prohibition. So who gets blamed for the money crises? All of them. And toss in the free traders. In our 32nd year of consecutive trade deficits, the free traders are still screaming for more free trade. Hey, wasn't Jimmah Kattah prez when that started?

Mr.Hanson
Your understanding of economics is extremely limited,as is that of most Americans. The American opportunity lies but a few feet away and yet it seems like trillions of miles. Your speaking of Fannie and Freddie,tells me,that your understanding of this economy is almost none existent. I would suggest,that you a Historian,re-read the narratives of the Great Depression. I have been waiting for this CRASH for 7 years,that is why I was able to give it's date. I could have given the time of day but that would have been "Showing-Off"... I could help you but I won't!!! Sorry???

If the energy crunch would end
AC in DC and the mutts had to go home from March to October as they once did, we'd all be better off.

Texaco found natural gas off Atlantic City in NJ in 1978, but before it was developed, Congress banned all off-shore drilling.

NJ has an advantage lacking in many states. We already produce 40% of our own energy (we need it for having more cars per miles than any other place save LA County in CA), have refineries (those the greens haven't forced to close), and nat. gas storage, which most states (like MA, stopped by Kennedy and Frank) don't have.

The biggest oppositin here now is our own SENATORS, who've sworn never to allow off-shore drilling.

They should get out of their limos that cost us over $$$$2 (two) $$$BILLION$$$ a year in DC and walk.

Limited Govn't #1
Reducing taxes, especially at this time will not stimulate treasury receipts. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 did not significantly increase revenues. But they did increase the national debt by about $30-50 billion dollars per year.

We have $10 trillion dollars of borrowed money on our national books and if we do not pay that down with spending cuts AND maintaining the current stream then the national debt will continue to increase.

We could get into a debate about how tax cuts pay for themselves in the long run but right now we need to pay our bills.

P.S. Cutting earmarks/pork will not even make a dent. They account for about $18 billion dollars/year.

Tax cuts do not pay #2
For themselves. Take a look at the links;
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/01/do-tax-cuts -pay.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-greenstein/rising-deficit s-dont-blam_b_126986.html

The morality of tax cuts for the wealthy;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/the-moral-sub text-of-the_b_129358.html

From 2008 Nobel winner in economics;
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-reven ues-another-history-lesson/

Tax cuts artificially stimulate the economy for a brief period and then it returns to its normal direction.

Look at the "Stimulus Package" in the spring. $110 billion dollars to the middle class. Bumped the economy up for a few weeks and then blahhhh.

In a $14 trillion dollar economy $110 billion dollars is around 1% infusion. It takes a lot more than that to get this giant running.

Plus, it took $110 billion dollars out of the Treasury Dept. that could have been used to pay down the debt.

Andy #6
That was a good lead and i have saved it for future use.

If you look at both candidates tax plan for 2012 taxes, $250k/year adjusted gross income;

McCain's = You owe $73,393
Obama's = You owe $77,634

Now please tell me how $3-4,000/year difference in taxes is going to stop the economy and cut jobs.

http://www.electiontaxes.com/



Mantra of the retarded
VDH is usually spot on - but he's consumed the kool-aid.

"We" don't borrow from China to buy Oil. The US Government sells bonds (that's borrowing)

The US consumer buy's oil based products. They don't do it with the principle of Government debt. They do it with hard earned money.

Linking these two un-related events demonstrates economic illiteracy.

BillinOrlando #7
Interesting theory. So by not drilling for oil in the U.S. the Democrats destroyed the economy?

I was just watching some stuff that said multiple Wall Street investment firms made huge bets with money they borrowed from the Federal Reserve to gamble on the spread between what they thought they could get and what they actually got.

Part of it was the Credit Default Swaps/un-regulated financial insurance thing.

And F & F was not the cause but a minor symptom of the free-for-all on Wall Street.

I could be wrong though.


Wll #10
Well you got me there.

It's the blacks and the Mezicans that did it. All us White Folk need to do is secede from the Union, put up a big friggin' wall to keep "those" people out and everything will be OKAY.

Sounds like a plan.

Lestat
There were three elements to the recovery after the market meltdown. The federal government increased its deficit spending from an average of less than $200 billion in the 90's, to an average of $500 billion over the last 8 years. This put $300 billion a year in borrowed money into the economy. The second element was that the Fed reduced interest rates to 1% by 2003, and this encouraged spending, and the principal componenet of that was for Americans' to refinance their houses. 80% of all 1st mortgages have been rewritten since the beginning of 2002. This, combined with the inflation in housing, enabled consumers to take money out and, in combination with other spending, caused consumers to increase their debt by $7 trillion, or almost $1 trillion a year. The Fed repeatedly called this a "consumer" led recovery. The third element was the tax cuts.

The tax cuts were the smallest portion of this. As such, they also had the smallest impact. The principal causes of the increase in federal revenues and of the appearance of a recovery was consumer and federal debt - not tax cuts.

Hanson, of course, is right. You cannot continue these types of policies without dealing with this debt. Prior to the meltdown, Bush projected a deficit next year of $482 billion - and that was based on assumption of tax income which we now know will not be met. Add in the cost of all of these bailouts, and any other spending, and we will easily hit $750 billion or more. And every bit of that will have to be borrowed by selling bonds.

We cannot simply cut taxes without cutting spending. No amount of tax cuts will get us out of this mess.

What went wrong?
Look at the smart folks that didn't listen to a simple woman back when President Clinton was in office. She warned our Congress hat the Derivative market needed more transperency in its tading, more oversight and a central clearing house. These persons trading these derivatives were leveraged upto 200 - 1. here was over 530 Trillion not Billion dollarsof these investment papers running around at a time when the total stock market was valued at 30 Trillion.
Alan Greenspan and other leaders appointed and elected dropped this ball and the World i now suffering.

the debt burden, a culture burden
Thank you, Victor Davis Hanson. We are a nation of indentured slaves. We will not pull ourselves out of this, until we have paid off our debts and become free men.

it's time to do with out a new flatscreen and video game system and relearn bridge and chess. It's time to grow a garden, and learn to bake bread. It's time to relearn sewing our won clothes. We mush learn to play our own music, not listen to CD's.

We are a nation of consumers. We need to become a nation of producers.

Yes, it is the debt, but,
the real problem is that the federal gvoernment has promoted this debt mentality by continuing to set the example. Both parties have spent everything they could get their hands on, including the Social Security "Trust" Fund. Then, they borrowed more and more to pay for the goodies they were handing out. We, in turn of course, accepted the goodies without thinking about how they would be paid for. We were duped into thinking that debt is wealth, and that attitude is still on full display in the current bailout mess.

The real answer is to reject the propaganda put out by the DEM/GOP/MSM machines and wake up. The two major parties are destroying this nation in their constant battle for power. We must re-assert our authority as the owners of this nation and elect independent candidates at all levels who will put the Constitution and the American people first. It is the only way we can reclaim our inheritance which has been stolen from us by the elites.

If you care to see how the elites have pulled off the greatest scam ever, you need to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Check it out, you will not be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

What went Wrong part two
As arly as 1993 Jim Leach R - Iowa tried to get Congress to take this seriously and they didn't. The following year both Jim Leach and Henry Gonzalez D - Texas both introduced bills to reighn in the erivative market and these bills failed.

In 1998 A Firm called Long Term Capital Management told the Fes couldn't handle their 4 Billion dollars in losses in the derivative market for that 4 Billion in debt the firm had 40 million on hand. That is like having one thousand dollars to your name and owing 200,000.

Neither the derivatie market nor the loans to persons who do not quailify for a home loan have been shut down. Fannie Me and Freddie Mac are still taking the kinds of loans that got the housing market into troubl. Wow bail them out and don't restructure the way they do busiess. What fools we are!

On the plus side
Usually Hanson makes ludicrous arguments that he pretends to justify based on silly historical analogies that don't work.

On economic issues he still makes ludicrous arguments, but at least he doesn't pretend to be an expert. That is something of a plus.

cresen7 is right that Hanson seems to run together individual debt and federal debt which are rather different things.

And the idea that one can't raise on lower taxes during a crisis is silliness. There is a serious argument to be had as to what the consequences of particular tax cuts and increases, and it could happen to be the case after careful analysis that taxes are right just where they are. But to take the view that without argument we can know that both tax increases and tax cuts (without even consideration of what increases and cuts are being discussed) will both be disastrous is the height of simplemindedness.

The federal debt (run up mostly under Reagan and Bush as it happens) limits our ability to deal with the current crisis. But it is not directly related to the causes of the current crisis. We need to get through the current crisis to get the economy growing again, and we need to get the debt under control. But starting with the latter goal is certain to get in the way of the former goal. (Hanson is actually encouraging people to spend less going into a recession. Wow.)

Obama on his tax plan
Plumber: Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?

Obama: It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got the chance at success too … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Obama seems to have told The Plumber he would raise taxes, distribute wealth (which is socialism) and Tax small Businesses.... That is how I read it!

http://www.youtube.com/v/wNuqV7N_bj0&hl=en&fs=1"


It's race, stupid.
Obama wouldn't even be a candidate if he were not black. Unless he renounces being black the vast majority of his supporters will always back him because he is black.

ACORN Pushed For SubPrim Loans
The main stream media hasn't brought the fact that ACORN-OBAMA pushed for sub-prime loans and were a major player in the collapse of our economy. Theoretically, ACORN could be a charitable group who is used to subvert the economic stability of this great country and register terrorists as voters and other illegal persons and use the funding to put their boys in place and spread the wealth to their own for their own agenda - It's only a theory folks, don't get mad!

In short order.

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for.

Static accounting is factually incorrect. Tax cuts provide incentives, which provide investments, which provides economic growth and jobs, which in turn provide increased government revenues. All historically accurate.

Cutting spending is good - all by itself.

Just as it is for individuals, it is NOT about income as much as it is about spending. The government spends WAY too much on what history has shown us that private individuals and community and faith-based organizations have done and do far better and more effectively.

Raising taxes in this economy is a disaster.

Anyone owning a 401K or a retirement plan better be real careful in engaging in "class warfare" against those "undeserved" rich. Raising taxes now, which Obama will do, will kill jobs, change your life for the worse and sink many of your retirement plans.

The main culprit if this financial mess.

Housing. And tragically, it was the Democrats who removed the essential safeguards against sub-prime lending. That Wall Street was over-leveraged and that some CEOs are way over compensated is true, but has little bearing on the horrible credit crunch that is now threatening Main Street. Again class warfare.

Moral of the story...

... keep that far-left liberal Obama away from the People's House.






Protest the Media event Oct 21
Tired of the MSM Bias?

Join our "Protest the Media" Event on Oct. 21.

Check it out: http://www.protestthemedia.com

Help by spreading the word.

Lowering Taxes
Lowering the right taxes could mean a boom in federal revenue. For instance, I don't want to sell any of my securities because of the capital gain I would have to pay. By lowering the capital gains tax - I am more likely to sell - thereby increasing the taxes collected on my capital gain (which, incidentally - I have already paid taxes on) from zero to some number. I suspect the same could occur with other taxes - such as the corporate income tax. It might encourage some companies to come on shore again!

Bush Report BLASTS GOP YEARS !
DEREGULATION and GREED in PRIVATE SECTOR!
— NOT Fannie and Freddie —

Fannie and Freddie don't lend money to minorities or anyone else however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

FROM:
President's Working Group on Financial Markets


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported..

============================================


BUSH ADMIN. & REPUBLICANS OPENED THE GATES.

It started right off with BushCo!

Bush's Greenspan told bank regulators May 18, 2001
"Make more money easier to borrow" (paraphrased)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2001/2001
0518/default.htm


"THE VOLUME OF SUBPRIME LOANS TRIPLED FROM 2002 TO 2006."(page 13)
(WHO WAS RUNNING LOCKSTEP WITH BUSH THOSE YEARS?)

http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/OFHEOPARNovember2007508.pdf


AMERICAN DREAM DOWN PAYMENT ACT of 2003 BUSH AND LOCK-STEPPED REPUBLICANS RAMMED THROUGH.

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr03-140.cfm

Bush's Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in 2003. “We think it would be a mistake” to more deeply regulate the derivatives contracts.

During the following three years, private investment banks — NOT Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48% of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24%, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance.

jerabaub - an answer to your question
"I am not a fan of raising taxes, but if lowering taxes supposedly creates lots more revenue to the federal coffer(presumably due to increased business activity), why have the last eight years of G.W. Bush tax cuts saddled our nation with such monstrous deficits and national debt?"

Here is part of the answer from Larry Elder's column today (q.v.):

'In promoting his tax cuts, President Kennedy said, "The soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now." When Kennedy says it, it's Camelot. When Reagan says it, it's trickledown. By the way, Kennedy cut taxes by 22 percent (reducing the top marginal rate from 90 percent to 70 percent), and Reagan by 60 percent (top marginal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent). The "unfair, pro-rich" Bush tax cuts that are set to expire? A reduction in the top marginal rate of approximately 7.5 percent. A recent headline in Agence France-Presse says it all: "Sweden Announces Income Tax Cuts to Boost Jobs."'

Couple this with the unresrained spending on earmarks, farm subsidiies, and intitlements.

Liberals, Financial Institutions ,Media
Who keeps tempting the weak people with more and more credit cards?

How can the honest people in this country make any headway when there are a whole lot of liberals out there voting for socialist candidates that offer them more goodies.(free healthcare)

And the media keeps lying instead of doing their job which is to tell the truth about the liberals buying votes from the people that live off of the government. Who are really living off of me.

The banks that are handing out credit to those who can't pay are bailed out by socialist politicians in our government.

There is no way to stop this circular problem.

Once and For All
No matter how much you conservatives want your vision of teh world to be to be true, you have to face reality. The economic meltdown was NOT caused by Fannie and Freddy. Nor was it caused by Sub-prime mortgages offered to low income minorities. These things contributed to it, but not that much.

The mortgage meltdown was a result of mortgage banks lending too much money to middle class folks to buy condo's, second homes and McMansions. The famous CRA did not even apply to mortgage and investment banks. It applied only to deposit banks, which are not suffering unduly from their lending.

The CRA fostered lending to increase the number of people living in homes they owned. The mortgage banks fostered lending so property ownership could become an investment strategy. That's what got us in the end.

As far as debt goes, Hanson is correct. Whether it's personal or national debt, it's unsustainable.


Ya know
you goof balls can spin this anyway you like but Freddie and Fannie are the heart of the problem by way of social engineering. To say all debt is bad is ridiculous and just plain dumb. It seems most do not understand how their own government operates hence the reason we have a bunch of dunderheads in Congress. the people electing them are dunderheads and fall for their schtick.

As to not enough saving that is true. It seems the old adage "A Penny saved is a Penny Earned" has been forgotten.

The Real Straight-Talk Express
VDH proves to be the true straight-talker! Too bad McCain wouldn't or couldn't speak this straight. It's costing him the election.

Rich D
Appreciate your remarks.

There may be some truth that taxcuts by JFK did not engender the criticism from the Left that such tax cuts from Reagan did.

The Left does play favorites. I suspect the Right does too.

From what I have read, Reagan tax cuts resulted in deficits ballooning from 2.7% of GDP in 1980, to 6.0% of GDP in 1983.

So one could well argue tax cuts do not reduce the size of deficits.

They make them worse.

However, I will say in Reagan's defense that his deficits probably were due largely to a radical increase in government spending for our military to deal with the very real threat posed by the USSR.

That contrasts markedly with the huge deficits of the G.W. Bush years, a substantial portion of which were to finance what Pat Buchanan so rightly observed was "the invasion of a nation that never attacked us so that we could destroy weapons it did not have".

But that was 700 billion dollars(and counting) ago.

The key point...
is, "...without commensurate reductions in spending." (Paragraph #10).

It really doesn't matter how much money the feds confiscate via taxes, it matters how much our benevolent, democrat led congress spends. Right now, they are spending more than they are taking in. Hence, the rather large deficit.

How many Americans actually ask congress to spend less?


Subprime, Banks, F&F, & Investment Banks
The treasury department's analysis pointed out that F&F did not write nor finance most of what are now called subprime loans because their rules couldn't qualify them. The Wall Street Investment banks came up with a securitized investment consisting of mortgage loans, convinced insurers to insure them credit default swaps), and then sold them. Mortgage companies then found themselves with a new market for loans having nothing to do with F&F. They also quickly learned that neither the Investment Banks nor the Insurance companies were conducting due diligence on the loans. They simply packaged the subprimes with conventional loans, which made up 90% or so of the total, and everyone looked the other way. As long as real estate inflated, no one worried because the value of the house would enable them to recover most or all of the loan value - if necessary. Further, everyone assumed they could keep refinancing the loan as the houses value would be greater. Once the market levelled and then fell, then the scheme fell apart.


Cont'd.
At the same time, F&F and many banks also wrote bad loans in the context that whereas they were not writing the so-called no-doc no-down interest only balloon payment loans, they were writing conventional 30 years loans on homes whose inflated value pushed buyers right to the edge of what they afford. And, sometimes over.

With F&F, some of this was clearly due to their mission to expand homeownership. With the major banks though, it was more often the desire to loan cheap money provided by the feds at interest rates that gave them a bigger spread, and therefore, larger profits.

Ironically, these bad loans did not cause the market crisis we see. A $60 trillion financial sector should have been able to deal with it. What caused it was the fact that these loans were packaged with trillions of dollars in other mortgage loans, and once the bubble burst, the values of those securities fell and no one knew what they had - or what they were worth. A $650 billion to $1 trillion problem then became a $7 or $8 trillion problem.

And everything started freezing up. After all, they were throwing 100's to 1000's of mortgages together, valuing the package, and then selling it. No on every looked at the loans.

Perhaps the one great irony, is that these packages were then sold in pieces. You might have, for example, bought 33% of one package. Now, to unwind the mortgages, you have to get the agreement of the banks/hedge funds, whatever, who each bought a piece, as they each own 1/3 of each mortgage. And this is why it's going to be such a mess to sort out.

Cont'd.
At the same time, F&F and many banks also wrote bad loans in the context that whereas they were not writing the so-called no-doc no-down interest only balloon payment loans, they were writing conventional 30 years loans on homes whose inflated value pushed buyers right to the edge of what they afford.

With F&F, some of this was clearly due to their mission to expand homeownership. With the major banks though, it was more often the desire to loan cheap money provided by the feds at interest rates that gave them a bigger spread, and therefore, larger profits.

Ironically, these bad loans did not cause the market crisis we see. A $60 trillion financial sector should have been able to deal with it. What caused it was the fact that these loans were packaged with trillions of dollars in other mortgage loans, and once the bubble burst, the values of those securities fell and no one knew what they had - or what they were worth. A $650 billion to $1 trillion problem then became a $7 or $8 trillion problem.

Rose #30
ACORN did not get us into the meltdown.

I would suggest that you take a gander at the link and read it all the way through. You will see that sub-prime loans made to middle class and lower middle class borrowers had absolutely nothing to do with the current insanity.

But it is common for some people to blame a situation on those that seem to be "on the other side".
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstan din.html

TeeHall @ 7:36 AM
Tee wrote, "Father Bush apparently started the presidential executive order routine prohibiting off shore drilling." Tee claims that's why we rely on "foreign" oil.

Executive orders do NOT carry the weight of law. They are merely internal policy changes in the federal government. The "no offshore drilling" prohibition only prevents the federal government from drilling offshore (something it doesn't do anyway!)


Another "Conservative" crock
When new vocabularies are brought into vogue, start holding on to your wallet.

Would anyone have allowed the scope of sub prime loans if they were called what they were: really risky loans?

Creative financing? Mortgage backed securities? A really risky loan backing a security - wow, what a concept. Derivative markets? How about calling it a crap shoot?

Have any of you seen a "stock" commercial that has the end disclaimer of "Past performance is no guarantee of future earnings"?

You, the fiscal conservatives and religious right, have joined forces to the detriment of both. You can believe anything you want, no matter how wacko it is, as long as it masquerades as a form of christianity: no muslim need apply. We will tell you how wonderful conservatism is and with smoke and mirrors hide the fact we are robbing you.

Congratulations, you have what you want.


j,

you nailed it, this ponzi scheme cannot go on forever.

Increasing government spending and taxation will hasten the economy's demise. In the end, this may be the only thing that will bring about fiscal and monetary sanity.

God help us all!!!

Scott #31
Of course tax cuts have to be paid for, otherwise we are just borrowing more money to pay off the national debt.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 did not significantly stimulate the economy to cover the reduction in revenues.

The tax cuts will cost approximately $1.4 trillion dollars over the ten years they are in place.

It is estimated that the cuts increased revenues by 7% over a twenty year period. But the reduction in tax revenue is immediate.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-18-08tax.htm



ScottK #31
"Housing. And tragically, it was the Democrats who removed the essential safeguards against sub-prime lending. That Wall Street was over-leveraged and that some CEOs are way over compensated is true, but has little bearing on the horrible credit crunch that is now threatening Main Street. Again class warfare."

Wall Street was overleveraged but that had nothing to do with the credit crunch?

Here are a few videos on how a "credit default swap" works and what "collateralized debt obligations" are far as Wall St. investment houses are concerned.

Please watch them and then come back and tell me it was "class warfare" that caused this B.S.

Click on "Crisis Explainer Videos"

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/episodes/show_rundown.ph p?show_id=15

Sharkie #32
Nobody is going to sell their securities right now or in the foreseeable future.

If you sell now you will definitely take a loss, which you can deduct from your income tax.

Unless the market goes up significantly no one will sell except for institutional houses.

Pablo @ 12:42 PM
So Pablo has tasked himself to re-write history!

The tax cuts increased tax revenue, as all tax cuts have done in the past. The problem is that the US Congress (which controls the purse strings) kept spending more than was taken in (that's called "deficit spending").

Bush inherited a mild recession (the burst of the dot.com bubble), but until the Socialist-Democrats took back control of the US Congress, we had a pretty darn good economy.

Pablo and the kool-aid drinkers would repeal the Bush tax cuts, thereby RAISING our taxes. Yeah, Pablo, that's the ticket: take MORE money from the public's wallet and THAT will stimulate the economy.

What a maroon!

Lone #34
Here is the link from the report you referenced;

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/q4progress%20 update.pdf

Reference paragraph "The PWG found that the principal underlying causes of the turmoil in financial markets
were:"

Funny reading.

This is the best column
I have read on the financial mess

Thank you

The American people need to take personal responsibility for demanding entitlements with tax cuts, spending beyond their personal means, and for basically making it impossible for any politician to actually tell them the truth.

Where's The Gratitude?
Pablo, Redlac, myself and a few other are patiently trying to explain to you loons what really happened in this economic crisis. You should be grateful that someone is trying to alleviate your ignorance.

Once again, the CRA applied only to deposit banks. Those banks are not suffering unduly from sub-prime lending. The meltdown happened in the investment/mortgage bank sector! These banks were not pressured to lend to minorities (which is what you really think): these banks lent way too much money to middle and upper middle class borrowers because they could sell mortgage backed securities as investments.

There is blame to go around for everyone politically. That's fine. But getting the facts wrong will only guarantee that you repeat the mistake again ten or twenty years down teh road.

Don't be blinded by your partisanship.


Lon
Individual debt greatly impacts our economy. We are not a lending nation we are a debtor nation because we don't save at anywhere the rate other industrialized countries do. Individual debt is also generated by buying huge amounts of products made overseas leading to trade deficits. Individual debt also causes long-term economic insecurity for the entire country by taking money that could be used productively out of the economy. This type of debt also makes it difficult for many people to save for rainy days, retirement, college, house downpayment -- it's a vicious cycle that leads to multinational banks making huge profits at loanshark level interest rates.

FIXING THE PROBLEMS
The first fix is to take off all artificial restrictions on using our own energy resources--provided we meet reasonable anti-pollution and meet no subsidy or left field pork projects allowed economic rules.

At present this probably means drill here drill now--offshore and in ANWAR. Construction on nuclear power plants also. In a few years we will have provided many new jobs here and we will handicap our enemies (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabian supporting madrassahs) financially. Our balance of payments will improve dramatically.

Second fix--longer term goals should provide non-traditional energy sources. Take off the import tax barrier on Brazil's ethanol--take off the U.S. corn based ethanol subsidy--if this program is any good economically it will stand alone--if not, hasta la vista baby!

No government subsidies for wind power, hydrogen powered vehicles, etc. Private industry will do these jobs if they make sense financially--and if they really meet pollution and safety standards. No "pie in the sky" or "then a miracle occurs" stuff allowed.

Third fix--make U.S. business taxes lower so our products have a better chance to compete with other countries products. Reduce taxes on our small businesses--they employ most of our workers. A $250K bigger tax bite will kill our economy.

Fourth Fix--stop the deficit building government spending and social engineering project spending. These programs are not using other people's money--they are using U.S. Taxpayer money.

Reality check--the O'Bummer will probably win--and none of the above will happen. Get ready for Jimmy Carter II and great depression II when the Messiah's policies kick in. I can still dream.

Rocketman

Good news
Finally, a conservative who understands we can't shop our way out of a crisis, that saving the world consists of more than visiting a mall in an SUV or parking in front of an over priced five bedroom house, and that government borrowing is a hidden tax.

Financial Crisis
It's not the debt stupid, it's the stupid corrupt members of congress. They keep yacking about Bush's eight years of failed policy. Who needs eight more years of the immoral and Whitewater Clinton years. The President leads and guides. Congress makes the laws. If Bush's policies failed from his first day in office they are due to the obstructionist liberals lead by Gephardt and Daschle. They followed up with characters like Dinghy Harry and Pelosi, and of course Schummer, Levin, Leahy, Dodd, Byrd, Kennedy, Conrad, Wrangel, Frank, Rockerfeller, Obama, Webb, Kerry. Their rating is even lower then the Presidents. "All" corrupt members should be thrown out on their butts. Liberals are not competitive so they legislate to put things in their favor. I always thought fifty one was a majority. They had to make it sixty. After "years and years" of listening to liberal news they are faced with conservative talk radio, they legistate to silence freedom of speech by enacting a so called Fair and Balanced law. What a bunch of weak kneed phoney's . Shout, yell, talk over, all tactics of a good liberal. Never respond directly to a question. They respond by saying, ,"you've got to look at the big or bigger picture here". I'm sick of all their hogwash.

Rich D #35
First of all Mr. Elder should check his calculator. A reduction in the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 35% is a 12% reduction not 7.5%.

Second, the tax cuts have produced almost negligible increases in revenues while removing $1.4 trillion from Treasury receipts.

John says:
Reality check--the O'Bummer will probably win--and none of the above will happen. Get ready for Jimmy Carter II and great depression II when the Messiah's policies kick in. I can still dream.


I've thought about this and if you don't lose your job and all your money isn't taxed away a return to the Carter years could be a good thing for people without debt who don't need to sell their house or retire in the near-term. Under Carter the interest rates for borrowing were atrocious but the corresponding 10% interest paid at banks for saving could be a nice way to sock away money during the Obama depression (if the banks are still solvent).

Lolo1 #38
Can you please direct me to a link that could substitiate your claim that F & F are to blame for the current mess?

This is all I have;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greens pan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstan din.html

Great column
It tells the truth of the matter.

Jack @ 1:05
Jack from PA wrote, "these [investment/morgage] banks lent way too much money to middle and upper middle class borrowers because they could sell mortgage backed securities as investments."

Mortgages which were being PAID BACK to the lenders didn't cause the problem. The problem occurred when those borrowers (who normally wouldn't have been lent money) started to default because of sharp increases in gas and food prices.

Those mortgages had been bundled and formed the basis of securities which were sold. Once the basis of the securities lost value (i.e., defaulted mortgages), Fannie, Freddie etc. saw their asset value plummet. When liabilities exceed assets, Jack, you're bankrupt.

Don't blame the middle and upper class (unless, as I suspect, you're in lock-step with the Obama's 21st century socialism). You're simply echoing the Obama talking point of class warfare.

Redlac #42
I appreciate your comments. They are always well thought out, concise and without the hyperbole.

I don't think we would agree on all political points but I do learn something from your posts.

Thank you.

Remember at Nuremberg,

it was determined that if you know something is wrong, it is no excuse to say, “But I was told to do it.” Throw them in the jail.

Lets remember that people who had studied economics, and people who made their living doing and saying things about the economy, each and every time said, “A financial problem is coming a financial problem is coming.”

Then they said, “See we told you so, we told you so.”

Next comes, “We can tell how to get out of it, we can tell how to get out of it.”

Next, “See we told you, we told you.”

Then “See things are booming, things are booming.”

Well, if you economists are so smart why didn’t you use your brilliance to correct the problem before it hit, rather than after?

And you lawyers, since you draw up, or at least approve each and every document and activity of a financial institution, why didn’t you say stop.

Since the economists know how to cure a recession, they must know how to stop one. Since the lawyers know they are creating documents and situations that will cause the recession, why not just stop doing it sometime.

Of course we know the economist gets paid a lot of money to make his claims, and the lawyer is only interested in the legal system, and his wallet and his ego.


David #52
I'll leave rewriting history to President Bush's biographers.

"But until the Socialist-Democrats took back control of the US Congress, we had a pretty darn good economy."

So the economy was doing pretty good until 2007?

And it has only been in the last two years that everything went to-hell-in-a-handbasket?

Since 2001-2002, the Federal Reserve has had the interbank loan rate at
1%-2%. Historically the lowest it has ever been.

And it stayed there for 6-7 years. That's a lot of cheap money flowing through the economy.

That is the main contributor to the growth of the economy. That and the increase in home buying that was subsidized by buying and selling unknown securities in the market. The securities were insurered by the appreciation of the housing market. When that dropped the interlinking of investment houses and Wall St. started a collapse of their house of cards.

Take a look at the videos at this link.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/episodes/show_rundown.p hp?show_id=15

Crisis Explainer Videos.

The tax cuts removed money from the income stream into the treasury at the same time debt was mounting.

The tax cuts and the increase in military spending contributed about 80% to the debt. The rest was scheduled increases.

Senior Cheif #59
You are aware that the first 6 years of the Bush administration Republicans had the White House, Congress and the Senate?

And the Democrats could not and did not fillibuster or stop any bill the Republicans wanted to push through?

Are you also aware that Bush never vetoed one single bill until the Democrats came in 2007?

And the national debt rose from a post Clinton debt of $5.6 trillion dollars to a nice round $9 triilion dollars under the Republicans?

Pablo
I learned long ago that if you understand an issue - then maybe you can find a path to resolve it.

But, sometimes not.

Hoover tried the same scheme that Paulson is trying right now - but it didn't work well. How quickly we forget.

Investing in banks and securing their loans for 3 years sounds fine, but it also ensures that they will not be subject to the discipline of the market, with the result likely being that we'll be salvaging a lot of bad with whatever good there is. And, of course, I've never seen anything cost what the government originally says it will cost. And a GOP administration, supported by both candidates and a majority or more of both parties in the Congress- signed off on it. And now both have their version of a "stimulant package" they hope to enact.

A case can be made to get rid of Freddie and Fannie, but the silence in Congress on both sides of the aisle on this one is deafening.

And, one would think that the Greenspan initiative of manipulating interest rates to pump up the money supply to offset normal market corrections called recessions might be revisited - but I doubt it, given again the silence from both parties.

Today I read an article that projects deficits next year of $1 trillion - dependent only on how government values these various "loans" that we are giving. And, after bailing out banking, insurance and hedge funds (all accepted by Paulson), both sides of the aisle seem to also agree that we will 1) buy up mortgages from homeowners whose home value is less than the mortgage; 2) buy up foreclosures; 3) bail out state and local governments whose property tax revenues have plummeted; and 4) provide more funding to the auto industry.

And, by the way, both candidates have a health care plan. Obama's appears that it will cost $160 billion a year, and McCains will be $130 billion.

Now, perhaps, you can understand if my posts often seem non partisan.


There is a silver lining in this cloud.
Hanson makes some good points here as do most of the folks posting - even Jack. Yes..this is a big mess and trying to fix blame is just a worthless pissing contest. However, with discipline and common sense we can work our way out it. Farmers can't receive $300 billion in payments. We can no longer persue an Uncle Sucker foreign policy that hands free military protection to Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Europe.
The U.S. Navy can no longer patrol the world's shipping lanes - gratis. Medicaid and Medicare have to be straightened out. The tax collection process has to be simplified and assessed across the entire population. Lower income tax rates but phase out ALL deductions - the mortgage interest tax deduction has helped contribute to this mess. There are numerous other ways to get spending back in line. If we don't, look forward to a weaker dollar, higher prices for imported goods, continued erosion of our social standards.

Lulu
I was not suggesting that individual debt was irrelevant to the economy. I was just noting that it is a distinct thing from federal debt, and that it is a mistake to run the two together as Hanson does. I have my share of debt, but none of it was borrowed from the Chinese (at least not directly). Now that the federal government is taking part ownership of the banks while borrowing from the chinese that could fudge things up a bit.

There is no value to these discussions in not being able to distinguish distinct things.

It's not the debt
It's the tax system, which holds the economy back. If the tax system were changed, then it would be easier to save to buy a house, for retirement, and for a college education.

It's not the debt, but lack of productivity and the flight of jobs and companies away from the tax system that is the issue.

Victor, you need to think bigger. You are still thinking within the box of the present, antiquated, and productivity-crushing tax system.

Never Mind Who & When...
It doesn't matter at this stage of the game, who caused the problems, we ALL did!
Government, local, state and federal and individuals, we were all living way beyond our means with a motto of "we can have a free lunch...and desert too"!

America has only a small handfull of industries actually producing tangible wealth.
Selling hamburgers to each other, promoting healthcare and financial services do not produce real wealth.

Real wealth tangibles, like autos, steel, appliances, clothing, shoes, machinery, TV sets, computers, cables etc.etc.,

Currently our major industry would be agriculture and it's trending in a scary downward spiral with excessive regulations and taxes.
Civil construction is dead in the water and might take 20 years to start functioning again.
Healthcare, (Not tangible wealth) is in dire straights with excessive legal domination by trial lawyers who have caused premiums to be out of reach both for business and individuals.
Financial Services - New York has lost credibility for many decades to come, these services, once entrusted to NY are no more, they are being diluted to multiple financial centers like London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Zurich and even Sao Paulo.
The only way out of this mess is to eliminate capital gains taxes altogether, decrease business taxes by 50% or more (better yet, a flat tax on individuals only) and try to lure back the thousands of productive industries back to the USA, of course regulations would also have to be limited to essentials, not for the justification of ever growing bureaucracies.
A tax code of 16000+ pages is madness!

Excellent Point on Energy
"Yet so far, none of our public officials have warned us that the energy crisis is largely a money matter: We're borrowing too much to buy what we won't or can't produce at home."

Good point
Thank you for common sense and plain talk. It astounds me that we seem to believe that buying what we cannot pay for and then defaulting when the spirit moves us is the "American way".

WHat Do You Think
Obama made a proposal a few days ago that strikes me as very sensible, but I would like to know what others think.

He proposed that individuals be able to withdraw ten grand a year for two years from their 401K type plans.

This seems to have a lot of advantages.

It infuses a lot of cash into the system.

It allows individuals to either pay off debt or circulate the money as spending.

The funds do NOT come from teh government

The funds have already been taken out of the tax system, so there is no loss in tax revenue.

WHat am I missing?

Solution
I have the perfect solution to all our problems. The planet is indeed overheating due to our lifestyles. There are too many people.

The solution is contained within a story I read a while back. We must abandon the planet. We need to pour our resources into constructing a spaceship big enough to hold all the democrats(explanation to follow). The spaceship will travel to a planet that I know about just 50 light years from here. It is absolute paradise.

The first ship will contain democrats because they are the ones to settle this paradise. They know everything about everything and exactly how the new society should be ordered, thus they will go first to colonize this new planet setting up green sustainable agriculture etc. The rest of us will follow shortly, resources permitting.

For conservative eyes only:

Don't argue about whether this planet actually exists because we don't care. Once they launch into deep space, our problems are solved and where they end up is no concern of ours.

"A Very Simple Solution"
First identify the basic Problem. The average American is tapped out. We spend approximately 45% of our net household income towards housing. Purchases not so long ago are now impossible for the average American family never mind the basics like oil and food!

Job creation alone will only keep our economic situation from getting worse as fast. The global economy and competition from developing countries will continue to push our standard of living down.

Sure we can stop some of the bleeding by controlling spending and reducing taxes for everyone, but this alone does not address the basic problem. American businesses will continue to collapse as elements of a service economy if Americans can not afford thier services. Housing is a need and therefore must remain affordable otherwise Americans will not have the remaining resources to spend on these service businesses.

So the real problem is mostly in housing because if housing gos down then our financial markets suffer and this trickles down to Main Street. If Housing prices were to rise this too could have and has had a negative affect on peoples excess spending which again in turn affects Main Street.

Stabilizing house prices may work for the short term but inorder to have a booming economy house prices must increase as this is tied to a huge portion of investment that flows into the US economy.

Due to the nature of this unique paradox there may be only one answer that satisfies not having a negative reprocussion from one end or the other in the market. The fifty year mortgage. If lenders Kept qualifying ratios down around 35% this would in turn reduce foreclosure rates. The fifty year mortgage would jump start the economy because it would free up consumer spending and increase demand for housing. Increase in demand would also lead to increases in foreign investment in the US. Our financial institutions would also benefit because they are making more money on longer term loans.

Good Article
An economy is simply a term for the processes for taking the natural wealth from farms, mines, and oceans, then turning them into desirable goods and services, then distributing these goods and services to those who will use, or consume, them.

In a controlled economy, a few people, such as those in government, decide what will be made, what its price will be, and who will get it.

In a free economy, each individual decides what he can make, what price he will ask, and who will buy it.

A controlled economy is the economic counterpart of a political oligarchy (or aristocracy), and is the socialist vision promoted by the Democratic party.

A free economy is the economic counterpart of a political democracy (or republic), and is the capitalist vision promoted by at least some Republicans.

Individual responsibility bolsters a free economy, and so Victor Hanson is just right in his recommendations. Some teachers such as Dave Ramsey are helping people to implement such practices, and are really helping individuals take responsibility to participate in a free economy.

One Candidate Said All That
One candidate said all that & then some. One candidate predicted this entire mess. But since he didn't support continuing the war, Townhall was dead set against him.

I'll bet they wish Ron Paul was their nominee now.

Damn Right Democrats Caused This
Who knew mortgages don't pay themselves?
Who knew people that don't have skin in the game leave the game when they start to lose?
Who knew people with poor or zero credit dont make their payments?
Who knew that 120% mortgages were a bad idea?
People need furniture don't they?
Who knew requiring banks to make these bad loans
was a bad idea?
Fed sponsered enterprises buy up these lousey loans so the banks can make more of them.
Fed sponsered enterprises were run by democrats and became democrat slush funds.
When the pile of toxic mortgages got deep, package them and sell them to investment banks here and around the world. Never been significant mortgage default rate in the USA so rate them AAA.
When they start to default, insure them but don't call it insurance because that would be regulated. Sell these Credit/Default Swaps all over the world.
The good part is all these poor, deserving people that got homes, furniture, cars if they refinanced for a gain before the decline will vote democrat.
The bad part is the house of cards has fallen down and we will all pay for it.
Your 401K or IRA is likely down 40%
Thank a democrat.


Ignorant, and simplistic

The amount of debt you can "afford" is related to your income. US income is $14 trillion, national debt is $10 trillion. Let's translate that. Your income is $150,000; you can afford a mortgage of $107,142, Make a 20% down payment and buy yourself a house for $133,900. Call your realtor and ask how many houses she has in that price range in a neighborhood in which you want to live.

Ignorant and simplistic
Try borrowing money without the collateral of the house. Try telling the bank you have no intention of paying back the loan -- you won't even contribute to the principal -- but your grandchildren are good for it.

Mod_Mark ...Ahhh but what if NO...
Deault? :)

Mod_Mark ..Its even 401k times worse!...
Some retirees are forced to take out a Required Minimum distribution that is calculated on the value of the 401K on the last day of the previous year. Congress should changed the RMD...Its just stupid! If retirees don't need the money they should not have to take it out and realize their paper loss. The death tax is surely enough for the Gov :)

Donjindra..Mod Marks reply...
While cynical...and involves several layers of fraudulent (Pirate like) collaboration, is technically possible. The lender of the 500K would have to be in cohorts with the insurer and the borrower for the scam to work...and be willing to go out of business. Hmmmmm :)

We?
"But so far no one seems willing to tell the American people the truth: It is not just "they," but we, the people, who have recklessly borrowed to spend what we haven't yet earned."

"They" is, in fact, precise. There's no we to it. They being the politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, that spent recklessly, starting wars, expanding the welfare state and the state in general, and, as well, permitted this whole business of lobbying to more than double in terms of numbers of lobbyists, hence the dramatic increase in earmarks. All this spending was financed by inflation, which is entirely the reason for the higher prices we have had to bear for gas and other things, making it harder for many to make ends meet, which in turn led to these failing banks and businesses shedding jobs. Government remains the problem. You want to return to a sound economy? Take a hatchet to government.

McCain can win with the economy issue!
The Economy is what most people are concerned about. McCain can win on the economy if we promote a grass roots effort that will get the country angry at the real culprits. If Republicans send out emails like I did to everyone on my email address list, then McCain could win! Elected public officials will only accept emails from their constituents.
Therefore I have access to only a few Republican politicians. If enough people who receive this email will email their friends, Republican representatives at every level from local to the president and every conservative talk show host then America will get the message.



This was the message;

------------------------------------------------

I apologize for sending this unsolicited email, but I feel every American would like to know who caused our financial collapse which is causing your 401k and your home value to sink in value. We have been betrayed, not by the obvious greed of the banks, but by our congressmen who caused this to happen.

Let’s not put the fox in charge of the hen house. Please view all six sections of the very clearly produced video at the following link.



http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/2008/10/fnc-fbn-inves- 6.html

The site can also be googled by the phrase, telelprompter saving our economy.

See what clinton thinks!

http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/2008/10/shocking-vide- 1.html or you can google the phase "Teleprompter Covering Up The Fannie Mae".

------------------------------------------------

Bob Email- netc@comcast.net

America is suffering
America is suffering unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
Group u$urp$ power on January 20th—the constitution violated.
The United States Supreme Court alone can relieve this outrage.

example: Bogus Selective Service System FOIA Registration?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_d id_n.html

Describe the Dems
Alinsky Group. Good name for the current regime.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.