Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

CBO projects $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009

Wed Jan 7, 2009 9:19 AM EST
business, politics, capitol-hill, deficit, congressional-budget-office, budget-deficit, congressional-budget
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press

Members of the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress, accompanied by family members and guests, are sworn in in the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit will nearly triple to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.

The eye-popping estimates reflect plummeting tax revenues because of the recession and about $400 billion spent to bail out the financial industry and take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last year's deficit was $455 billion.

The CBO estimate released Wednesday also sees the economy shrinking by 2.2 percent this year and recovering only slightly to grow by 1.5 percent in 2010. It foresees the unemployment rate eclipsing 9 percent early next year unless the Obama administration steps in.

"The recession — which began about a year ago — will last well into 2009," the CBO report says. The agency said that "ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget."

The dismal figures come a day after President-elect Barack Obama warned of "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

CBO's figures don't account for the huge economic stimulus bill Obama is expected to propose soon to try to jolt the economy.

The shrinking economy has led to a sharp drop in estimated tax revenues of $166 billion from 2008 levels, which is largely responsible for the deficit, along with big outlays from the Wall St. bailout.

The agency expects the $700 billion bailout to actually cost taxpayers $189 billion, with the costs reflected in its estimates for this year and next. CBO estimates take into account the net value of the assets the government holds from financial institutions.

Under Treasury Department accounting, the bailout spending is reflected only as the government makes the payments; as of mid-December, those disbursements totaled $238 billion. Exposure to the taxpayer stemming from the Federal Reserve Board's extensive interventions in the financial markets — such as acquiring 80 percent control of insurance and financial giant American International Group Inc. — are not reflected in the estimates.

The CBO report also said the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last year added $240 billion to this year's deficit.

Obama and Congress are promising quick enactment of the economic recovery plan, which will blend up to $300 billion in tax cuts with big new spending programs and could cost up to $775 billion over the next few years.

Obama said the flood of red ink probably won't affect that measure but could crimp other items on his agenda.

"Despite the record deficits facing us, our number one task is an economic recovery package," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C. "With Americans concerned about their jobs, their homes, their retirement and their children's future, our economic situation is so severe that stabilizing the economy must take precedence over short-term deficits."

The $1.19 trillion 2009 figure shatters the previous record of $455 billion, set only last year. It also represents more than 8 percent of the size of the economy, which is higher than the deficits of the 1980s. The 2009 budget year began last Oct. 1.

Just in September, CBO predicted a 2009 deficit of $438 billion, but revenue projections have dropped by $362 billion on top of the approximately $400 billion federal intervention in the financial system.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the budget figures "a stunning and sobering reminder that Congress must strengthen its efforts to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money."

CBO predicts the deficit will come under relative control within a few years, dropping to the $250 billion range by 2012. But such predictions depend on the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts at the end of next year; Obama has promised to renew most of them except for those aimed at people making more than $250,000 a year.

Fully renewing the Bush tax cuts, as well as indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation, would add $380 billion to a deficit otherwise projected at $327 billion for 2012, CBO says.

At the same time, Democrats are expected to increase domestic agency budgets as they complete the leftover 2009 spending bills, and Obama is likely to recommend further increases in next month's budget submission.

While expected, the deficit numbers will give lawmakers second thoughts about creating new spending programs without finding ways to pay for them. And it is likely to prompt a debate about whether tax increases are necessary after the economy recovers from the current recession.

On Wednesday, Obama said, "Unless we take decisive action, even after our economy pulls out of its slide, trillion dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."

"I'm going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a handle on this deficit," Obama said Tuesday.

Economists warn that large and sustained budget deficits put upward pressure on interest rates. In the short term, however, efforts to restrain the deficit could have a contracting effect on the economy.

"As we address our economy, it is vital that we simultaneously take steps to put our budget back on a sound long-term fiscal path," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

___

On the Net:

CBO report: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Andrew Taylor's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (28)
R. Donald Snyder

One more mess left by the incompetent Bush administration for Barack to clean up. It's going to take a generation or more before America can fix his screw ups.

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 10:25 AM EST
gamerk2

The reason to have a surplus, is so when things do go bad, you can spend to fix any problems without worring about going broke. The problem is, every time Repubs see a surplus, they yell either "Tax cut", "Tax credit", or "Rebate", rather then continue to pay off the debt.

You spend to get out of recessions. Both the state of the budget and the state of the economy are left over from Bush, so don't blame Obama about what will happen to the defict. I for one will be shocked if it stays below 25 Trillion dollars when the 2012 elections come up...

I wonder how long other countries will be willing to give us credit as well...

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:03 PM EST
Ryan-

The tax cut were to stimulate the economy after the tech boom and we were facing a recession.  Also, why do you have to spend to get out of a recession, if people felt more comfortable with things they would start investing, a buying stuff, that will stimulate the economy.  We need the government to give us confidence and only that, not hand outs.

    #2.1 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:27 PM EST
    gamerk2

    Because that economic theory doesn't work? People can't buy things because of the "I want" syndrome. No one saves, so the only way to make purchases is with credit. And with the credit markets frozen, the economy will be unable to revive. Its the same thing that happened the first few years of the 30's (with Hoover as president): The credit markets froze, and without credit, people were unable to make purchases. As a result, banks had no spare cash to lend out, and people had no money to spend, freezing the economy in place.

    By having the government give money to banks, and the employee people via infastructure projects, you both give banks the ability to start lending again, as well as putting money into peoples pockets enabling them to spend again, both of which has the net effect of re-starting to economy. This also has the side effect of improving our old and crumbling infastructure.

    Every economist right now will tell you that federal spending is a necessity; most even are advising Obama as much as DOUBLE the ~$800 Billion he currently wants to spend.

    • 2 votes
    #2.2 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 1:12 PM EST
    Reply
    watersportgirl

    15% tax on ALL.

    Problem solved.

    And tax the churches too - on every dime they can't prove was given to the poor.  Mega-churches with operating budgets the size of small countries are in insult to the American taxpayers.  We're talking billions of dollars.

    Think of all the scientific research, much-needed infrastructure and debts those monies would pay for!

    • 2 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:29 PM EST
    gamerk2

    Only the US government would be bankrupt as a result.

    I favor a national sales tax, including on food and cloathing (to recession proof it.

      #3.1 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 1:15 PM EST
      watersportgirl

      I disagree. 

      But elaborate, please.  This is fruitful.

        #3.2 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 1:53 PM EST
        gamerk2

        Simple; our government would not make enough with a 15% income tax rate to keep itself funded. Any potential gain to the economy as a result of people having a few hundred extra dollars to spend would quickly disappear after programs that offer cheaper access to goods/services (medicare/medcade especially) are cut, which would cause the extra cash in peoples pockets to go right to coorporations.

        In short, the only people who would benifit under a flat tax are the coorporations.

        I favor a national sales tax, is you are taxed on what you actually spend. The more expensive to good, the more money government makes as a result. You would make far more money with a national sales tax set to 15% then a national income tax at the same rate, due to income from high priced goods. (I also favor the tax be included in the listed cost for all goods, like is required with gasoline). This also helps the taxpayer, as they are not taxed on what they don't spend, which encourages saving. However, to make the tax recession proof (people stop spending during recessions, which would kill the sales tax), food and cloathing would have to be taxed as well (although a lower rate may work, depending on total governmental income).

        In short, a national sales tax makes far more sense than an income tax.

          #3.3 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 2:25 PM EST
          Sick'N'Tired'Of'It

          The problem with a sales tax however is that it hits the poor the hardest and it's their inability to even surivive in this economy that's one of the main problems.

            #3.4 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:18 PM EST
            gamerk2

            How does it hurt the poor? They don't spend as much money on expensive items, so the amount they would pay with a sales tax would still be far less then what they would pay via income tax. Assuming a 15% sales tax (which is on my high end of the spectrum) a person pays $50 per week on food, the amount raised in Sales tax would be equal to $7.50, times 52 weeks = $390 in total taxes paid on food. So even a 15% sales tax would be minimal, especially once you remove the money taken via Income tax (a 15% income tax on a 33k income would be $4,950 in taxes). Now, while this would be spread across all goods, as the poor are typically the last people to buy luxury goods, they will end up paying the lowest total amount in taxes.

            If you want, we could add a rebate for those who make under 25k a year to help cover the costs; I don't think that would be necessary though. Also, services will not be taxed (although they will probably end up more expensive, as the result of higher costs for their products...). In short: higher up front costs for more money in your pocket.

            And you help the federal budget even more, as you can remove the IRS entirly, as the tax code would be 10 pages long or so...:D

              #3.5 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:59 PM EST
              Reply
              Pamela Drew

              2009 budget deficit is estimated at $1.2 trillion

              Weighed against the surplus Bush started with and factoring the Wall Street, Contractor & Big Oil windfalls, it's been a heck of a job transferring our wealth to the hands of his fellow Bonesmen!

              • 4 votes
              Reply#4 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:39 PM EST
              Jessicaf

              The reason why we are having all of these problems is from Americans, corporations, and gov. taking out way too much credit to buy things we can not afford. So borrowing more money is not going to fix the problem. Prices were so inflated from the 90's until now because of the credit that has been taken out to buy items people can not afford. This has created a false economy and if Americans had lived within their means we would not have the issues that we currently are having. These problems can not just be blamed on 1 person or we can fix nothing. We currently spend 300$ billion a year to our interest on our debt. We would be in much better shape if we were not paying this huge amount every year to interest that does nothing for us. I think the gov. needs to cut back on their spending and live within their means. They waste huge amounts of money on everything and programs should be reviewed and revised. Congress should be trying to use our money more efficiently so that it will go farther and provide more for us rather than borrowing it from China. We are throwing money around unwisely to fix the problems and that is what got us here in the first place. They need to sit back and really think about what they are using the money on rather than rushing to spend.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#5 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 2:19 PM EST
              aelisala

              This situation is horrible. Think about how long it is going to take for the USA to recover from this issue.

              Sad thing is that this defict is not just from this last president, but from administrations before him as well. But everyone is going to  blame Bush for it and pressure Obama to fix the issues of many presidents debts. Given it hasn't every been this big before, but it was still there.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#6 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 2:43 PM EST
              R. Donald Snyder

              Bush has spent more money then every other president before him, combined. The reason people blame him is because it's his fault. And ours for letting him get away with it.

              • 1 vote
              #6.1 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 2:49 PM EST
              Reply
              Chris "HaVoK" Cuzzort

              for god sake, instead of letting these huge companys make outragious amounts of money and not spend a damn dime and let millions of money just sit there, make them give more out to the citizens of the United States, Boost the middle class they are the only ones to populate alot of things they buy the majority of what keeps the enconomy alive, instead of these big money pplz who spend alot of money in our eyes none to them on a car or a house, wtf?>?, i think that obama if he pulls thru and sticks to what he wants to do and doesnt become a puppet could be a great president but for gods sake people in america need to open there eyes, and stop being so f**ki* greedy, dont matter how much money you have if the us falls that doesnt mean anything to anyone. We are a country work together not make one class rich and let the rest suffer, btw im a 17 year old high school student :P sad to think that i have these strong of feelings but yet we are still in this situation

                Reply#7 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:11 PM EST
                mike-243244

                end the federal reserve and abolish fractional reserve lending and the trade deficits will disappear

                  Reply#8 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:21 PM EST
                  Keav

                  Firstly, let's thank the people who voted Fredo Corleone to be president, TWICE!

                  Second, let's thank the rich CEO's for outsourcing the manufacturing jobs overseas and putting thousands (millions?) of Americans out of work over the past 20 years. Also let's thank the Congress, both Rep and Dem for allowing these corporations to do this AND get sweet tax breaks.

                  Lastly, we should look in the mirror. Was the new Ipod or plasma TV worth the extra debt?

                  Maybe we can all build a handbasket large enough to fit the entire country. So we can be united as we go to hell!

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#9 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:40 PM EST
                  Shazam

                  We are talking in figures that none of us comes close to even spending! This is insane!

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#10 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:40 PM EST
                  PrairieWinds

                  CBO projects $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009

                  CBO ??   Congressional Bowel Overfflow?  A real dribble of forthcoming "Change" !

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#11 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:59 PM EST
                  Rixar13

                  As history repeats itself again, when are people going to realize that

                  • Republicans are the party of "austerity" and more liberal with Red ink -1.9%
                  • Democrats are party of "stimulus" and have meant 1.5% improvement in the budget position

                  Thank goodness President Barack Obama and Joe Biden are such good and smart men. Our country is in need of rescue and all Americans are needed to save her. One other priority, Convict Dick&W.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#12 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 4:01 PM EST
                  watersportgirl

                  Income tax relies on people working - so as unemployment goes up, the national budget goes down.

                  Sales tax relies on people buying - people can't buy if they are unemployed.

                  Employment requires thriving business and corporations, otherwise, who is there to work for?

                  We need integral and competent oversight.

                  If banks do not have money to loan, new businesses cannot start, and many of the current ones cannot thrive.

                  Hence unemployment.

                  (Gosh, for a liberal, I sound like I'm advocating trickle-down economics.........ack!)

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#13 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 6:30 PM EST
                  Raymond Max

                  At a dinner party over the holiday I was approached by a relative that had been hit hard by out sourcing of the Semi Conductor industry to Asia.. as we chated and drank..  He stated quite seriously and to the point.. That it was far easier for a person that had no known wealth to be poor... 

                   It is the same mind set that contributed to the comment that the poor would not be as effected by a national sales tax as the wealthy.. BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE DON'T BUY EXPENSIVE STUFF..  Reminiscent of the constant incessant.. PRESERVE the middle class  by the right and the left side during the Election campaign.. 

                  What a twisted logic that would set the poor..outside the scope of our economic debacle.. For THEY are the fastest growing CLASS IN AMERICA...  The U.S. HAS NEVER had the surplus required to off set the financial disaster that presently engulfs our World financial system today.. We are in the proverbial crapper...  No I do not support a Federal Sales tax..

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#14 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 10:19 PM EST
                  Jessicaf

                  The top 50% of Americans pay 96% of the federal income tax. There is not much else we can do for the poor without ruining the middle class. The people who are hurting the most right now are the ones making in between 40,000$ to 60,000$ a year. They pay taxes and qualify for no programs. No fuel assistance, no welfare checks, own homes, no affordable housing, no free daycare, no food stamps, no free healthcare etc. These are the people that have been hurting the most for a long time. They work full time trying to make it but yet have no assistance. I have a family of 5 and have been in all of the brackets from 20,000$ a year to 100,000$ a year and found this to be the hardest one to afford anything they are the ones that have it the hardest.

                  • 3 votes
                  #14.1 - Thu Jan 8, 2009 10:50 AM EST
                  Raymond Max

                  Yes...we are quite screwed at this point.. Hope to see some positive changes soon...

                  • 1 vote
                  #14.2 - Thu Jan 8, 2009 12:19 PM EST
                  Reply
                  watersportgirl

                  Jessicaf, I totally agree.  Well said.

                  The poor need jobs, and when we outsource them to other countries, we are hurting our own.  Who can blame the corporations that do so, when it looks better on their financial ledgers?

                  We need to make it advantageous to keep jobs at home, so ALL tax brackets are contributing to our national budget. 

                  The poor "take" the most out of the budget, compared to other taxpayers (all those medical/social programs, which as a liberal, I support "many" (not all) in theory (perhaps not practice...need help there too). 

                  They need to contribute, and we need to make opportunities available for them to contribute.

                    Reply#15 - Thu Jan 8, 2009 1:46 PM EST
                    jscusmc69

                    Watersportgirl----You and I have run across each other in several vines and SOMETIMES agree on things and some not AND I had started to form a semblance of respect for you BASED on your thoughts--- I have explained MY position several times AND REALLY TAKE OFFENCE AT YOUR STATEMENT--------ABOUT THE POOR--NOT just yours BUT EVERYONE ABOVE--IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT,

                    The poor "take" the most out of the budget, compared to other taxpayers (all those medical/social programs-------ONE of several about the POOR-----

                    I paid into Social Security for 45 years--EVEN when I owned MY OWN BUSINESS---PAID ALL of the associated taxes to OUR govt.Medicare,Income,SS,STATE income tax--very seldom DID I ever get a refund (due to the bracket I was in) EVEN with ALL ALLOWED deductions -Married,children ect--1040 full sheet and add ons. THE last 15 years of my WORKING life I paid taxes on an AVREAGE salery of $165,000.00+

                    Due to HEALTH PROBLEMS caused by an ACCIDENT--not of my doing--HAVING to PAY Medical bills( Insurance would not pick up MOST of the bills) WIPED out what I had SAVED and It was NOT a small 4 digit figure Medical bills COST me in the UPPER 6 digits DESTROYED what I had.   I grossed PER month in 1965 IN the U.S.MARINE CORPS $83.10 YOU live in that-AFTER Vietnam while working a FULL time JOB and SUPPORTING a FAMILY WITHOUT the benefits AS HAVE BEEN STATED above I put myself through 4years of LONG days and longer nights to earn my first degree--BUSINESS MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT. ---I have several additional degrees.

                    Then as NOW the and I quote from many above "POOR" and the associated CRAP that has also been stated--- IN MANY CASES are INFORMED that WE don't "QUALIFY" FOR MANY of your LIBERAL medical/social programs--food stamps health-care(MEDICARE I PAY FOR STILL TODAY $96.00per month OUT of MY SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK) Thats right I DON'T QUALIFY BECAUSE I MAKE TO MUCH MONEY PER MONTH---125% BELOW POVERTY--AS PER SOCIAL SECURITY--I NOW MAKE UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY the LARGE amount of------$1,050.00PER MONTH--really a lot of income TO SPREAD AROUND right!!!

                    AND after having to SUE SOCIAL SECURITY-took 2years--I finally started to receive MY MONEY BACK--AT a RATE that puts ME 125% BELOW POVERTY LEVEL. I HAVE PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY a 6digit figure-I will NEVER LIVE TO COLLECT ALL I HAVE PAID TO THEM.

                     I really wish I COULD GET A GOVERNMENT JOB---I HAVE BEEN TOLD By the same(various agencies) I'm OVER QUALIFIED---nice way to say either your to old or we DO NOT WANT someone disabled.

                    The outsourcing of-JOBS didn't start with Bush they started to a large degree in the Clinton years some were carried over from Reagan years AND NO ONE in govt.has even thought to do anything about them--Tax those companies yes BUT bring them back NEVER HAPPEN--WHY pay someone here-- Example--$ WHEN the same item can be made overseas(multitude of different countries) for INCLUDING SHIP/HAND-.50 to .75cents--do the math--your not dumb--CORP HERE MAKES A HUGE PROFIT!! trace the money and SEE how many in congress have their hands in there in one form or another-stocks ect.----THOSE JOBS ARE GONE never to come back again---

                    AND another thing you might find interesting is the H1b Sponsors  visa program--website is  might find this rip off interesting.I find it hard to believe that there are NO Americans qualified for these jobs.

                    Saying is THE RICH GET RICHER POOR GET POORER.---no sense commenting on anything else AS I have better things to do with my time AFTER ALL US POOR DON"T FIT INTO THE WAY MOST THINK NOW DAYS---and I found many years ago that NAMES,LABELS ect as I already have been referred to HERE on Newsvine-----JUST show the IGNORANCE of those people.  I m NOT including you in this last statement Wsportgirl--Suggestion change your screen name!! could make you open to other nasty statements AND your better than that!!

                    Thanks and have a good day!!

                    THE CAPS ARE FOR EMPHSIS NOT SHOUTING..

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#16 - Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:47 AM EST
                    Jessicaf

                    Your story is not everyone's story. Their are many poor parents mostly younger that abuse the system and hardly put any effort forth to get ahead on their own. I agree that the elders in this society deserve our outmost respect and if you have paid into the system you deserve more benefits than the people that have not. What gets under my skin is that you could work 10 years straight making 100,000$ a year pay 25,000$ a year in taxes, so at the end of 10 years you have paid in 250,000$ but yet if you lose your job and can not afford your home anymore etc. their truly is no help for you. But if you work 25 hours a week making minimum wage you can qualify for all of these programs and you are not paying any taxes and can recieve over 20,000$ a year in benefits. I understand where you are coming from and I think that you should be helped, you have put into society and deserve something back. When we comment on poor I think we are referring to people that put in no effort or hardwork and expect everyone to take care of them and their family. I have been poor in my life as well and know what it feels like to live paycheck to paycheck, by the age of 21 my husband and I had 3 children and worked around the clock to make sure that our kids will have a good life. We made our own life choices and chose to be responsible and work hard to get ahead not sit back and rely on others to take care of us.

                    • 1 vote
                    #16.1 - Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:58 PM EST
                    Reply
                    jscusmc69

                    Jessicaf--Thanks for what you said--AND I do know where you and your husband are coming from--My first wife and I ate pop-corn many a night SO that our kids could have GOOD food to eat,shoes to wear and cloths on their back----I WOULD rather be working THAT trying to exist on what LITTLE I get from MY grateful Govt.--GOT that on a Certificate on the wall--"A GRATEFUL NATION" (cold war service)--2tours Vietnam USMC--I have NO symphaty for those who SIT BACK and now as IN the past LIVE(ED) off of MY TAX DOLLARS--ALL THE FREEBIES---

                    I hope you and your family make it through these screwed up times!!

                    Im neither a Democrat OR a republican---BUT an Independent!!

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#17 - Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:54 PM EST
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com