Lonin, You say most of the bad loans were made by the least regulated part of the mortgage market but that is not true. The vast amount of loans had the meet FNMA guidelines so they could be resold. When Carter became pres, to get a loan on a principle residence, you needed 20% down, very good credit and very good cash flow. When he passed the CRA, the standards started to fall and by the time Clinton became pres, an illegal alien with no credit history, no down payment and no verifyable income could not only get a house, but get cash out at closing. Bush made several attempts to put a stop to this but Barney had a hissy fit. Lonin which party would prefer that credit decisions were based upon business criteria instead of "fairness"

Adam, I basically agree with you but I wish I knew what specific acts this guy is charged with. As you said, its his company to do with what he wants. Is there some sort of fraud or something else going on?

Olive, it is true that there was a surplus at the end of Clinton's presidency, but it had little to do Clinton. Please remember that he was restrained by a Gingrich led Republican house and that govt revenues exploded due to the dot com bubble. My question to you is what did Clinton do to acheive his surplus?

And Japan. That is my point. We should not be in endless wars. It is time for our troops to come home. Japan and Germany are eating our lunch because they have no defense spending. It is time to let the kids be on their own.

They really didn't repay their tarp money. It is true that the direct loans were paid back but the govt also bought all of their "toxic assets", which really means worthless. There was no forcing. If Goldman, B of A, and their ilk did not go with the plan, they were dust.

I think she is doing a service to conservatives by pointing out our hypocrisy. The bridge to nowhere, Bush's prescription drug bill, endless wars, the idiotic ethanol subsidies. We have a harder narative. Libs can say," Vote for me, I will give you endless stuff". We have to be the adults in the room and explain that money does not grow on trees.

I don't think she is an "Obot". Both parties realize that the best way to get re-elected is to bring home the pork. I think that once we realize that both parties are driving us over the cliff, albeit the Dems are doing it twice as fast, then we can agree that somehow we need some sort of structual change in our system. If not, I believe our country will not see 2040.

Where in the constitution does it say the federal govt should be involved in R&D?

Come on Ray. She makes some valid points- no need for the personal attacks. And we are coming to the end of the line; not so much for the railroads but for the US running the world. WE ARE BROKE. All aspects of what our government does, at all levels, will have to be drastically scaled back - including defense/nation building. What is wrong with a 5 year plan - term limits, balanced budget amendment, energy independence, coupled with a withdrawal from being the world's policeman. A long time ago a smart guy said, "beware of foreign entanglements."

I had the pleasure to see his speach this AM on CSPAN. He is a great speaker. He had me cheering and clapping; I'm sure a silly sight. I am afraid that the majority of the electorate would have no idea of what he is saying. When they hear a candidate speak, they want to hear what the politician will give to them - more unemployment benifits, free food, housing, medical, education, everything. We all know the supply of money is endless. I think we have reached the tipping point where the takers exceed the makers. I am re-reading Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand calls them leaches. My only hope is that we have pulled back from the brink in the past but I am afraid that we are past the point of no return.