Log In | Register
32 Comments
Printadvertisement
WASHINGTON — What is $1.42 trillion? It's more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada's, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
It's the federal budget deficit for 2009, more than three times the most red ink ever amassed in a single year.
And, some economists warn, unless the government makes hard decisions to cut spending or raise taxes, it could be the seeds of another economic crisis.
Treasury figures released Friday showed that the government spent $46.6 billion more in September than it took in, a month that normally records a surplus. That boosted the shortfall for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to $1.42 trillion. The previous year's deficit was $459 billion.
As a percentage of U.S. economic output, it's the biggest deficit since World War II.
"The rudderless U.S. fiscal policy is the biggest long-term risk to the U.S. economy," says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. "As we accumulate more and more debt, we leave ourselves very vulnerable."
Forecasts of more red ink mean the federal government is heading toward spending 15 percent of its money by 2019 just to pay interest on the debt, up from 5 percent this fiscal year.
President Barack Obama has pledged to reduce the deficit once the Great Recession ends and the unemployment rate starts falling, but economists worry that the government lacks the will to make the hard political choices to get control of the imbalances.
Friday's report showed that the government paid $190 billion in interest over the last 12 months on Treasury securities sold to finance the federal debt. Experts say this tab could quadruple in a decade as the size of the government's total debt rises to $17.1 trillion by 2019.
Without significant budget cuts, that would crowd out government spending in such areas as transportation, law enforcement and education. Already, interest on the debt is the third-largest category of government spending, after the government's popular entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and the military.
As the biggest borrower in the world, the government has been the prime beneficiary of today's record low interest rates. The new budget report showed that interest payments fell by $62 billion this year even as the debt was soaring. Yields on three-month Treasury bills, sold every week by the Treasury to raise fresh cash to pay for maturing government debt, are now at 0.065 percent while six-month bills have fallen to 0.150 percent, the lowest ever in a half-century of selling these bills on a weekly basis.
The risk is that any significant increase in the rates at Treasury auctions could send the government's interest expenses soaring. That could happen several ways — higher inflation could push the Federal Reserve to increase the short-term interest rates it controls, or the dollar could slump in value, or a combination of both.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the nation's debt held by investors both at home and abroad will increase by $9.1 trillion over the next decade, pushing the total to $17.1 trillion decade under Obama's spending plans.
The biggest factor behind this increase is the anticipated surge in government spending when the baby boomers retire and start receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. Also contributing will be Obama's plans to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy.
The $1.42 trillion deficit for 2009 — which was less than the $1.75 trillion that Obama had projected in February — includes the cost of the government's financial sector bailout and the economic stimulus program passed in February. Individual and corporate income taxes dwindled as a result of the recession. Coupled with the impact of the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade, tax revenues fell 16.6 percent, the biggest decline since 1932.
Immense as it was, many economists say the 2009 deficit was necessary to fight the financial crisis. But analysts worry about the long-term trajectory.
The administration estimates that government debt will reach 76.5 percent of gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced in the United States — in 2019. It stood at 41 percent of GDP last year. The record was 113 percent of GDP in 1945.
Much of that debt is in foreign hands. China holds the most — more than $800 billion. In all, investors — domestic and foreign — hold close to $8 trillion in what is called publicly held debt. There is another $4.4 trillion in government debt that is not held by investors but owed by the government to itself in the Social Security and other trust funds.
The CBO's 10-year deficit projections already have raised alarms among big investors such as the Chinese. If those investors started dumping their holdings, or even buying fewer U.S. Treasurys, the dollar's value could drop. The government would have to start paying higher interest rates to try to attract investors and bolster the dollar.
A lower dollar would cause prices of imported goods to rise. Inflation would surge. And higher interest rates would force consumers and companies to pay more to borrow to buy a house or a car or expand their business.
"We should be desperately worried about deficits of this size," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The economic pain will be felt much sooner than people think, in the form of much higher interest rates and much higher rates of inflation."
If all that happened rapidly, it could send stock prices crashing and the economy tipping into recession. It could revive the pain of the 1970s, when the country battled stagflation — a toxic mix of inflation and economic stagnation.
Paul Volcker, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve, responded by raising interest rates to the highest levels since the Civil War in a determined effort to combat a decade-long bout of inflation. His campaign pushed banks' prime lending rate above 20 percent in 1981 and sent the country into what would be the longest post-World War II downturn before the current slump. Unemployment jumped to a postwar high of 10.8 percent in December 1982.
The battle against inflation, though, was won.
Most economists say we have time before any crisis hits. In part, that's because the recession erased worries about inflation for now. In its effort to stimulate the economy, the Fed cut a key interest rate to a record low last December and is expected to keep it there possibly through all of next year. Demand for loans by businesses and consumers is so weak that low rates are not seen as a recipe for inflation.
Some hold out hope that Congress and the administration will act before another crisis erupts.
Robert Reischauer, a former head of CBO, said that in an optimum scenario, Congress will tackle the deficits next year. A package of tax increases and spending cuts could be phased in starting in 2013 and gradually grow over the next decade.
The administration has pledged to include a deficit-reduction plan in its 2011 budget, which will go to Congress in February.
Stanley Collender, a budget expert at Qorvis Communications and a former staff aide to House and Senate budget committees, cautions that unless investors show nervousness about the debt, the budget debate next year could feature more posturing between the two parties than any real action to fix the problems.
But Alan Greenspan, who led the 1983 commission that made changes to avert a crisis in Social Security, said in an interview that he was optimistic that politicians will eventually work out a solution.
"I have always been a great supporter of Winston Churchill's statement about the United States," Greenspan said. "The United States can be counted on to do the right thing, after having tried all other conceivable alternatives."
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
5 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Martin Crutsinger's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: Washington DC
 | Meltdown 101: Budget gap huge, but has been worse | Associated Press | Fri Oct 16 | 0 |
 | According the CBO, Obama has NOT tripled the deficit | Blearc | Fri Oct 16 | 76 |
 | U.S. Budget Deficit Widened to Record $1.42 Trillion in 2009 - Bloomberg.com | Bloomberg.com | Fri Oct 16 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (32)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
10
5.1
1.5
{"commentId":10129099,"authorDomain":"presobama"}
You can't have chocalate chip donuts w/o dough.....
{"commentId":10129099,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"presobama"}
#1 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:57 PM EDT{"commentId":10129798,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
The real question is where is all this "stimulus" going .... My bet is lining the pockets of the same scumbags who caused it in the first place ..... but certainly not mine!
{"commentId":10129798,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10129208,"authorDomain":"J-Mac"}
Don't worry its Bush's fault.
{"commentId":10129208,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"J-Mac"}
#2 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:05 PM EDT{"commentId":10129512,"authorDomain":"presobama"}
Bush did ass up our economy. He even took full blame for it. However, both Dems and Cons are at fault. DC has been giving us the shaft for too long. They live the lavish life and fight us for the crumbs.
{"commentId":10129512,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"presobama"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10136290,"authorDomain":"redsfan"}
Did you notice the little chart on the right of the article above that shows what happens to the deficit if the Bush tax cuts are extended? Off the charts....
{"commentId":10136290,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"redsfan"}
{"commentId":10129363,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
It is both BUSH/OBAMA/DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN/LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGISTS FAULT. Stop the damn imperial wars, endless wars and Stop financing Wall street bail outs which are the primary reasons this class and imperial order and Empire are going bust. But then if it stops Empire and Wall street cold.....so much the better.
{"commentId":10129363,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 2 votes
#3 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:15 PM EDT{"commentId":10144258,"authorDomain":"CAengineer"}
Has there even been one single presidency where we were not involved in some sort of military conflict directly or indirectly?
I have not heard of one,maybe there is, but can't be many.
In the end, what I'm trying to say is a tiger can not change its stripes. It may simply just be "who we are as a nation".
{"commentId":10144258,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"CAengineer"}
{"commentId":10149555,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
Real-
We are almost always at war, and like it or not, it is the reason we are the best military in the world. We keep our troops and tactics sharp, and battle tested. It's no accident, it's what we do.
Don't expect it to change anytime soon.
{"commentId":10149555,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
{"commentId":10151745,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
Mike we are always at war because thats what keeps our economy going. Read what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex and the banking industry.
Secondly, its highly doubtful that our military is the "best" anymore .... facing a number of adversaries with whom we have no chance of defeating we are now relegated to waring with our former allies like Iraq, Afghnistan, etc ....
You need to understand that the business of war is the key part of the business model for virtually all of the top 50 US corporations and as such is little more than corporate welfare.
{"commentId":10151745,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
{"commentId":10154665,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
econ-
its highly doubtful that our military is the "best" anymore
Really? Then who is the best?
Look, I won't argue against the military industrial complex part, because everyone knows it's true, but never confuse this with our military not being the best in the world. Name a country who has conquered as many people, won as many wars, fought so often?
We are the best, hands down.
{"commentId":10154665,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
{"commentId":10162105,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
How do you define the best? Why is it that since Vietnam, we have taken on who exactly? Iraq, Niragua, Afghanistan, Grenada? How do you think we would fare in a real war against say PRC, Russia, or even Iran? Sure we have great technology, we have the "best" weapons (the ones the Chinese haven't made ofr us - but what use is it if we have to go around picking on former CIA backed dictators?
The era of a strong military being useful is over .... it is now about (and likely always was) generating gov't contracts for corporations .... if a few civilians and servicemen have to die - so what? GE, BofA, Oracle, IBM, Boeing have made money for their shareholders right? Thats what this is really about.
Are we going to invade Iran? North Korea? even Pakistan? Not a chnace! So what good is the "best" army when you have to pick fights with wimps like the Taliban and Saddam?
{"commentId":10162105,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
{"commentId":10174270,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
Then tell me who is better!
Nobody, period. You can't even try, so, we are still the best. We don't have to conquer every army on the planet to hold that distinction. I can't believe you are even trying to debate it, everyone in the world knows the US military is number one.
Next time you want to list all the countries we have defeated, try to ask yourself exactly which other nation has had anywhere near that many successful wars, or even failed ones. Answer, nobody.
I think the most revealing statement in your post was...
The era of a strong military being useful is over
Stick with that, it's your opinion, and it demonstrates why you choose to disparage the US military. At least you can justify your opinion, but to extend that to a pseudo factual statement of "the US military is not the world's best" is a failure to see the reality of the war-making world.
{"commentId":10174270,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10174319,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
also, I would remind you that prior to the bloodbath that was Desert Storm (a minor war that I was happy to be a part of) Iraq had the 6th largest army in the world. Of course, we utterly decimated them, not once, but twice.
{"commentId":10174319,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10190923,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
Hey Mike,
Im not disparaging the US army .... Im stating the fact that it is only really effective against our own creations ... guys like Sadam and Mullah Omar. We are in no position to attack China, Russia, or even Iran Frankly. As for being the most successful army in history?? I think that you would have alot (most of the world) who would disagree with you on that .... I mean we are in the exact same spot as the Russians in Afghanistan 20 years later??
{"commentId":10190923,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
{"commentId":10193697,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
Number one, I never said "best army in history", I would never make that claim, because that opens the door to comparing different nations, from different points in time, and that just gets absurd.
However, we are better suited to invade China or Russia, or Iran, than they are to invade us, so once again, best in the world.
Also, we are nowhere near what the Soviets experienced in Afghanistan. And with that, I am content to consider this conversation pointless and over. You are against military action so you don't like the military, and for you, somehow this all equates to "the US military is not the best in the world" in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
What can I say to challenge such deeply held beliefs, especially when they are extracted from a purely moralistic opposition to war?
{"commentId":10193697,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
{"commentId":10199949,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
I agree, war is an inhernetly destructive activity. Furthermore, the root cause of war has zero benefits for you and me, it actually significantly endangers both service persons and civilians. A basic study of political economy will tell you that since about 1800 the main motivation for war has been 2 things:
annexation of someone else's property
creation of debt
Now sorry, I don't see any benefits whatsover in either of those things .... call me a peace nic or whatever ..... still nothing in it for you and me.
As for a comparative study, I am unclear on how you see our military as superior to these others. Invasion of Russia or China would be suicide. Even if we discount the use of nuclear weapons (since we are the only country crazy enough to use them so far) our military would get decimated if they invaded China. N ow we might be better suited to fight an invasion before it landed, but the Chinese army would be very tough to stop once they landed ..... as we found out in Korea. The Chinese lack of concern of casualties would rapidly outweigh any technological advantage, especially in an invasion. Similarly for Russia. Lets not forget the old adage ..... No one ever wins a land war with Russia.
This is all a waste of time anyway. All of these countries have nuclear weapons which have made conventional armies irrelevant. We are in the same detente we had 20 years ago ..... This is precisely my point - our army is a nice thing to use on former allies who got out of control, generates large profits for a number of dow components and banks, but are otehrwise pretty useless. As for real wars with comparable adversaries .... those days are over.
{"commentId":10199949,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
{"commentId":10129662,"authorDomain":"Ken-1107060"}
The government shouldn't be "funding" anybody, they don't have any money (legally & realistically, and in actuality), so the can't. The federal governments main job is to provide a
The government shouldn't be "funding" anybody, they don't have any money (legally & realistically, and in actuality), so the can't. The federal governments main job is to provide a national defense, ( with the illegal alien problem they're doing a bang up job in that department, aren't they?) Insted they are giving money away to "non-profits", buying house for people that wouldn'twork, if you gave them a job, feeding people on the other side of the world, that I don't know, while i have to scrape to feed my family, pay some corporation to protect and provide, to keep our military safe, while they're trying to keep two sides from killing each otherand us. So from paying for illegals health care to building houses in Iraq, the whole system is meshed up. ACORN is just one piece of the sh@t pie.
national defense, ( with the illegal alien problem they're doing a bang up job in that department, aren't they?) Insted they are giving money away to "non-profits", buying house for people that wouldn'twork, if you gave them a job, feeding people on the other side of the world, that I don't know, while i have to scrape to feed my family, pay some corporation to protect and provide, to keep our military safe, while they're trying to keep two sides from killing each otherand us. So from paying for illegals health care to building houses in Iraq, the whole system is meshed up.
{"commentId":10129662,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"Ken-1107060"}
#4 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:36 PM EDT{"commentId":10133468,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
Ah .... that would be your own personal opinion, not the constitution or any other prevailing view. The US Federal budget has traditionally been divided fairly equally between defense, debt and social programs. Now my personal feeling is that we could do away with most of 1 and 2 and have lots more for 3, something which actually benefits our country ..... but the bankers and corporate types really like their welfare which is 1 and 2.
{"commentId":10133468,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10129770,"authorDomain":"apez54"}
We are paying $400.00 a gallon for gas for troops in Afganistan.Our troops use about 10,000 gallon a day. and you wonder why we have a $1.5 trillion defecit.It the war dummy.We need to end them
{"commentId":10129770,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"apez54"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:44 PM EDT{"commentId":10129810,"authorDomain":"presobama"}
this is why we are using more predators.
{"commentId":10129810,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"presobama"}
{"commentId":10130378,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
So you think using more predators will end the wars?? clueless.
{"commentId":10130378,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10130423,"authorDomain":"incredulous"}
Well, ranting about class struggle sure as hell won't.
{"commentId":10130423,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"incredulous"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10130984,"authorDomain":"presobama"}
Oh, you want the war to end. You didn't make yourself clear. And what about Osama Been Forgotten? You just want to let him walk away? If it were up to me, we'd stay in Afghanistan for the next 100 years if need be.
{"commentId":10130984,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"presobama"}
{"commentId":10133354,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
I find it interesting that we got conned into two wars that are perfect for the defence contractors - the kind you can't win, but you use lots of resources trying (not to mention lots of poor young people). The way to end these kind of wars is not to start them.
And I guess being ok while the rich turn the USA into a 3rd world country is OK with you incredulous? The USA has the worst disparity between the rich and poor of any industrialized country .... this class "warfare" is being fought against you - whether Fox tells you so or not.
{"commentId":10133354,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10131456,"authorDomain":"wildcard473"}
Well I’m shocked, one would think that after printing a few trillion dollars the economy would be right on target now, must have spent some of it in the wrong places.
{"commentId":10131456,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"wildcard473"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:03 PM EDT{"commentId":10131520,"authorDomain":"wildcard473"}
This “war” thing is quite simple, you either fight them over there or you fight them over here, just because we leave Afghanistan does not mean they will leave us alone.
We could leave the middle east and they would not leave us alone, face the fact that they want ALL AMERICAN’S dead, get the picture here, that’s D E A D , not just out of their country, they want you off the planet!
Read their “unholy book” some time and you will see that they are told to kill us at any cost no matter what.
{"commentId":10131520,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"wildcard473"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:09 PM EDT{"commentId":10133421,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
And I guess we never got involved in how other countries did things to cause all of this hatred ....
The CBC sis a survey in Afghanistan. They asked average Afghans in the Taliban who the President was, where the USA was on the map, even what the capital was .... most had no idea. What they did find was that the Taliban had no problem recruiting new soldiers not because they want to attack America or Americans, but because every one they talked to had had direct family killed by "coalition" troops .... Now if someone killed my mother, daughter or wife Id likely want to kill them too!
If you think that we are somehow blameless here cause Bush or Limbaugh told you so be my guest .... The USA is the most dangerous, warlike country on the planet .... not the Arabs, not Afghanistan, North Korea or Cuba. So the end to war is pretty simple, stop killing these people, and maybe they won't try to kill you.
{"commentId":10133421,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10131980,"authorDomain":"freedomforever"}
1) Get rid of the illegal Fed Reserve and their paper Ponzi Pyramid;
2) Buy up all available gold bullion with the rest of the $800 billion bailout money;
3) Tie the dollar back to tangible gold so that it's worth something;
4) Crude oil then becomes gold-based, so we can squeeze the OPEC criminals (Hugo Chavez, darling of Hollywood among them) until we strangle them;
5) Tap in to the unlimited oil/gas resources that we are literally sitting on top of; crank prices down to unsustainable levels, then move in and "rescue" the industry;
6) bring back all the jobs that went overseas and put everybody here back on full employment;
7) torch Afghanistan and burn up all the poppy fields to put the drug cartels on notice; better yet, round 'em up and drop 'em off in Mexico and let the lot of them fight it out;
8) free up Israel to quietly take out Iran's nukes as they did in the 80's with Saddam Insane
9) Serve notice on the UN that they've got 60 days to vacate the premises.
10) Flatten the site and put the job out to tender to build two twin towers exactly like the ones we lost and you've got two years to complete. Reward them with nice bonuses out of the $190 Billion a year interest we're not paying since we got rid of the criminal Fed Reserve
And that's only the beginning. But the Ten Commandments according to the United States of America is a good place to start. Now THAT'S being Presidential.
Peace
{"commentId":10131980,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"freedomforever"}
- 2 votes
#8 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:49 PM EDT{"commentId":10133539,"authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
Freedom,
While I agree with 1., the gold standard is a waste of time. The reason we got conned into creating the FED is because tying your money supply to a physical commodity artificially limits its expansion ..... there is no reason we can't have a fiat money supply without debt to private banks - no need for gold.
Energy is a parallel resource to gold anyway. speculation is an issue on oil price, but that is the nature of capitalism.
As for the Afghan drug issue, there is serious doubt that the US backed interests in the region have any interest in getting rid of opium .... in fact since the Taliban left, opium production is the most its ever been. So it appears our interests are in growing opium, not getting rid of it.
Finally, if we want to get rid of the Iranian nuke program why do we need the israelis?
{"commentId":10133539,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"a-s-n"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10133519,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, you're talking real money!
{"commentId":10133519,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
#9 - Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:12 AM EDT{"commentId":10133597,"authorDomain":"black-spider"}
Unemployment is nearing 17%, including those who gave up. Unemployment is nearing 28% ,including those who are working part time.
If you really need to have a $1.4 trillion deficit, one would think the majority of that borrowed money would be in the terms of direct payments to taxpayers, so that they begin to start consuming again.
The problem is that the Obama administration does not hire businessmen who know what to do in rough times. Instead of using general accepted principles and procedures in business, the communists and lawyers who run the Hussein Obama administration are borrowing money to fund states who have lower tax receipts and the Wall street bankers who caused the mortgage crisis in the first place.
Why are you Mr. Obama, bailing out the people who caused the problem?
{"commentId":10133597,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"black-spider"}
- 3 votes
#10 - Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:20 AM EDT{"commentId":10133744,"authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
dynamic post!
{"commentId":10133744,"threadId":"703404","contentId":"3390561","authorDomain":"michaellonkouski"}
- 1 vote
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"703404","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
