Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'

[steel88]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-in...10?pagenumber=1

 

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

 

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

 

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.

 

But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?

 

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

 

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:

 

Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

 

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."

 

No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.

 

Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"

 

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."

 

Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

 

And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

 

[calfoxwc]

Stockman was a cracked little teapot, still is. Far too arrogant to be a legit part of the team, and wanting

 

attention on himself at all costs.... he has little cred with me.

 

"What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive"

 

What happens is, Carter made severe cuts to our military spending and readiness, and intelligence services.

 

so, when a Republican who believes in our military comes into office, he has to put it back,

 

which costs a serious amount of bucks, sending the deficit way up.

 

Clinton did some of the same thing with our intelligence and military, and Bush had to build it back up.

 

So, leftist presidents cut the military etc, and spend on buying votes with domestic programs, but the

 

economy goes out of whack. Now, Stockman says NOTHING about Obamao's spending?

 

Hell hath no fury like a Stockman scorned.

 

*************************************************

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

 

President Jimmy Carter's last signed and executed fiscal year budget results ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit, ending within the period of David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, on October 1, 1981, and provided the benchmark of where the national debt stood at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The gross federal national debt had just climbed to the $1.0 trillion level in October 1981 ($998 billion on 30 September, 1981), which was the cumulative fiscal budget results of 205 years as a nation (1776-1981). Four and a half years into the Reagan administration, upon Stockman's resignation at the OMB in August 1985, the gross federal debt level had nearly doubled with the national debt standing at $1.8 trillion on 9 September, 1985. Stockman's OMB work within the administration in 1981 up to August was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House on the next fiscal year's budget, executed later in the fall of 1985, which resulted in the national debt officially doubling to $2.1 trillion on fiscal year end 30 September, 1986, and reached $2.7 trillion when Reagan left office in 1988.

 

 

 

 

[steel88]

Stockman was a cracked little teapot, still is. Far too arrogant to be a legit part of the team, and wanting

 

attention on himself at all costs.... he has little cred with me.

 

"What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive"

 

What happens is, Carter made severe cuts to our military spending and readiness, and intelligence services.

 

so, when a Republican who believes in our military comes into office, he has to put it back,

 

which costs a serious amount of bucks, sending the deficit way up.

 

Clinton did some of the same thing with our intelligence and military, and Bush had to build it back up.

 

So, leftist presidents cut the military etc, and spend on buying votes with domestic programs, but the

 

economy goes out of whack. Now, Stockman says NOTHING about Obamao's spending?

 

Hell hath no fury like a Stockman scorned.

 

*************************************************

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

 

President Jimmy Carter's last signed and executed fiscal year budget results ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit, ending within the period of David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, on October 1, 1981, and provided the benchmark of where the national debt stood at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The gross federal national debt had just climbed to the $1.0 trillion level in October 1981 ($998 billion on 30 September, 1981), which was the cumulative fiscal budget results of 205 years as a nation (1776-1981). Four and a half years into the Reagan administration, upon Stockman's resignation at the OMB in August 1985, the gross federal debt level had nearly doubled with the national debt standing at $1.8 trillion on 9 September, 1985. Stockman's OMB work within the administration in 1981 up to August was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House on the next fiscal year's budget, executed later in the fall of 1985, which resulted in the national debt officially doubling to $2.1 trillion on fiscal year end 30 September, 1986, and reached $2.7 trillion when Reagan left office in 1988.

 

 

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

 

When You Look at that Sky-Rocketing Debt

May 22, 2010. Remember this: unemployment causes people far more pain.

And remember, unemployment (and business being off) make the debt go up -- that's what they call an automatic stabilizer. That has been built in because politicians are too slow to help out (especially Rs).

Economy goes down ==> tax collection goes down automatically ==>

(1) This helps the economy and limits unemployment, but ...

(2) It increases debt.

Then when we get well -- when the economy recovers -- we are supposed to pay for the medicine. Problem is, that after the Reagan and W recessions we didn't. This time we better -- after we get well.

 

 

But What About Hyper Inflation ?? Yikes!!!

May 21, 2010. A popular topic at tea parties, but really, can you get any sillier? Three trillion dollars ago, when Bush shifted the deficit into overdrive (a good thing he did), inflation was about 2.5%. Now it's about 1%. Hyperinflation? No just hyperventilating.

You don't need to be an economist to figure this out. Say you manage a local restaurant, and read about the deficit. So you think OMG inflation! I better raise the price of a steak and fries. So you "explain" this to the owner, who says, What have you been smokin'. Business is down from the recession; our competition is having more specials, and you think our customers will pay more because the national debt went up?

No, believe me. Any business that raises prices because of the national debt, died a long time ago. A booming economy lets them raise price. A recession—yes that's what's going on—makes it hard to sell things, so prices get cut. That's why inflation is down. But, what I can't figure (can you?) is why people stay so mixed up?

 

And what about the fact that the dow is back over 10k again

 

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/conte...1014_842220.htm

 

apparently its all obama's fault right I mean bush never had any kind of stimulus package oh thats right his tarp program wasnt as bad as obama's stimulus package.

 

You should note, also that TARP and the Stimulus Bill are aimed at two very different prongs of the economic collapse. TARP targets the credit crisis. The Stimulus Bill targets job creation.

 

As for the first Bush attempt to solve the problem, the Stimulus Checks, they were much less expensive and went along with the faulty republican ideology of trickle down theory, hence many Republicans supported that bill who did not support TARP or the current Stimulus Bill.

 

 

[steel88]

Reaganomics:

 

A popular term used to refer to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. President (1981–1989), which called for widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets.

 

Investopedia Says:

The term was used by supporters and detractors of Reagan's policies alike. Reaganomics was partially based on the principles of supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory. These theories hold the view that decreases in taxes, especially for corporations, is the best way to stimulate economic growth: the idea is that if the expenses of corporations are reduced, the savings will "trickle down" to the rest of the economy, spurring growth.

 

Prior to becoming Reagan's Vice President, George H. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics" as a proposed synonym for Reaganomics.

 

We all know how well deregulation works.

 

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1416/1/

 

We've all seen the headlines: The government takes over troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch is acquired by the Bank of America, and the government announces an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue insurance giant American International Group (AIG) as stock prices plummet. And that was just the beginning.

 

The government is currently debating a $700 billion bailout of distressed banks under a plan that initially proposed to give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration unprecedented power. We need to "remove the distressed assets from the financial system," suggests Paulson, who resigned as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the Treasury secretary in 2006 after amassing a personal net worth of $700 million during his 32-year tenure at the bank.

 

How did all this happen? The root of the problem can be traced back to the deregulation era that began during the Reagan administration. What George H.W. Bush once called "voodoo economics" fast became the biggest redistribution of wealth since the New Deal. The central article of faith in the "Reagan Revolution" was that money rerouted from the poor to the rich would produce a burst of productivity and economic growth. Give to the corporations and the wealthy, said the "supply side" economists, and they will invest the money in new factories, research and technology, and the country will be restored to greatness.

 

Did the theory work? Hardly. Rather than putting their money into jobs, research or equipment, the country's biggest businesses went on the largest merger binge in history, buying up smaller companies in a trend that spelled less competition, less productivity, and more control of the economy in fewer hands. Multi-billion dollar corporate war chests were assembled to finance takeovers of large oil and coal companies, communications giants, and prestigious financial institutions.

 

After a stock market meltdown in 1987, Wall Street advised the US Treasury not to meddle in financial markets. This paved the way for consolidation around large merchant banks, institutional investors, stock brokerage firms, and large insurance companies. Complex speculative instruments - derivatives, options, futures, and hedge funds - were largely unregulated, becoming vulnerable to manipulation.

 

Then, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act - also known as the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act - removed remaining regulatory restraints on Wall Street's powerful banking institutions. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a New Deal reform put in place in response to corruption that had resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash, commercial banks, brokerage firms, institutional investors and insurance companies were permitted to invest in each others' enterprises and integrate their financial operations.

 

In short, the current financial crisis has been building for a long time. But the alarm bells didn't start ringing until June, 2007, when two hedge funds of the New York investment bank Bear Stearns lurched toward collapse because of their extensive investments in mortgage-backed securities. They were forced to dump assets as the trouble spread to major Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, which had loaned the firm money.

 

Over the summer, German banks with bad investments in the US real-estate market were caught up in the crisis. But the most obvious sign of trouble was the Federal Reserve's decision on August 9 to pump $24 billion into the US banking system through large purchases of securities, while the European Central Bank made a record cash injection of $130 billion into its markets to shake off credit fears. On the same day, Wall Street suffered its second-worst decline of the year as the Dow Jones dropped by nearly 400 points.

 

The next day, the Fed pumped another $38 billion in temporary reserves into the financial system, but the government rejected a request for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on more debt. At the end of the month, President Bush announced a plan to use the Federal Housing Administration, which insures loans for low-income borrowers, to offer government-guaranteed loans to around 80,000 homeowners in default.

 

On Sept. 18, 2007 the Federal Reserve started cutting interest rates, citing the credit crunch on Wall Street and in the broad economy. The nation's central bank made cuts at seven straight meetings. It also agreed to start loaning money directly to Wall Street firms, rather than only to commercial banks, and to accept troubled mortgage-backed securities as collateral. In October, profits at Citigroup dropped sharply. One large financial institution after another reported heavy losses.

 

At the start of 2008, the Bank of America acquired Countrywide Financial in a deal that rescued the country's biggest mortgage lender. Another sign of trouble: Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne lost his job. In February, Congress approved a $150-billion spending package to stimulate the sluggish economy. In March, on the verge of collapse and under pressure by the Federal Reserve, Bear Stears was forced to accept a buyout by investment bank JPMorgan Chase at a fire-sale price. The deal was backed by Fed loans - up to $29 billion in financing to cover potential losses. In July, the California mortgage lender IndyMac collapsed and troubles deepened for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

Which brings us to September 6, 2008, when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, putting the government in charge of firms that own or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages. The Treasury Department agreed to provide up to $200 billion in loans to the cash-starved firms, which are crucial sources of mortgage funding for banks and other lenders. It was a bid to reverse a prolonged housing and credit crisis. By the way, this was the same week when the McCain campaign was pushing the "lipstick on a pig" charge and the candidate himself remained certain that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."

 

Both Fannie and Freddie were placed in a government conservatorship, a move that could end up costing billions. The firms own or guarantee about half the home loans in America. The government implicitly had been guaranteeing their creditworthiness, enabling them to borrow at below-market rates. But private shareholders pocketed the profits they made lending cheap money at higher interest rates.

 

A week later, on Sept, 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers, burdened by $60 billion in soured real-estate holdings, filed for bankruptcy after attempts to rescue the 158-year-old firm failed. Merrill Lynch also agreed to be acquired by the Bank of America, and AIG asked for a bridge loan of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve. The $50 billion Bank of America deal creates a bank that will rival Citigroup, the biggest US bank in terms of assets. Meanwhile, stocks fell, the Dow Jones sliding 504.48 points - the worst drop since the 9/11 attacks. Stocks also posted big losses in markets across much of the globe. The day has been labeled "Black Monday."

 

The next day, Sept. 16, 2008, the government agreed to an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue AIG, saying failure of the company could hurt the already delicate financial markets and the economy. That was Tuesday. On Wednesday, the Dow lost about 450 points, giving it a shortfall of more than 800 for the week. Markets around the world were also having a confidence crisis, and Russia shut down its market for a third day following its worst plunge since 1998.

 

Last Thursday, the Federal Reserve, working with banks in Europe, Canada and Asia, pumped as much as $180 billion into money markets to combat a seizing up of lending. Republicans blasted the Treasury Department and Fed for orchestrating the AIG bailout, and the White House for not informing them of the plan. John McCain said he would fire SEC Chair Chris Cox (which the President can't actually do), and Barack Obama called it evidence of the failure of deregulation and Bush-McCain policies.

 

What's next? Most likely, a $700 billion government bailout, unspecified limitations on executive payouts, a bipartisan board to handle implementation - and, perhaps, changes in regulation of the mortgage market, forcing companies to restructure individual loans rather than foreclose them. It's not surprising that McCain, who proposed this week that his first debate with Barack Obama be postponed because of congressional negotiations on the proposed bailout, would prefer to grandstand in DC than take questions about his changing positions. A joke in Washington these days is that the crisis seems to be turning former deregulators into socialists - at least as far as business risks are concerns.

 

Vermont's junior US Senator, Bernie Sanders, who has never been shy about his socialist leanings, wants to go further. He is proposing a surtax on the very wealthy, stronger oversight of financial institutions, and an end to deregulation policies. He also argues that huge businesses like Bank of America should be broken up so no company in the future could bring the economy down with it. In the meantime, he calls for an immediate economic stimulus package that would put people to work rebuilding infrastructure, and increasing energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

 

"The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout," Sanders says. "It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bail out while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities."

 

Sanders' plan includes:

 

* A five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers to raise more than $300 billion in revenue

 

* Ensuring that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies aren't rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount paid for them

 

* Equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up

 

* A major economic recovery package which puts people to work at decent wages rebuilding infrastructure and moving the country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy

 

* Reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were torn down in 1999, including re-regulating the energy markets and possibly abolishing various financial instruments that have created an enormous shadow banking system at the heart of the financial services meltdown

 

Finally, and most radically, Sanders calls for ending the danger posed by companies that are "too big to fail," breaking them up if necessary. "We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions," he argues.

 

It's not likely that most of this plan will be embraced by Congress. But the crisis is certainly forcing the country to take a serious look at Reagan's old claim that "government is the problem." Even President Bush, in his remarks to the country on Sept. 24, admitted that "democratic capitalism" - which he still considers "the best system ever devised" - needs serious help. With the economy's "fundamentals" clearly in jeopardy and the disaster wrought by deregulation and corporate excess finally exposed, government intervention has become the only way out.

 

So yes in retrospect the GOP has failed the american people.

 

Funny how socialist programs are the most successful right? I mean they should be complete failures.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Reaganomics:

 

A popular term used to refer to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. President (1981–1989), which called for widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets.

 

Investopedia Says:

The term was used by supporters and detractors of Reagan's policies alike. Reaganomics was partially based on the principles of supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory. These theories hold the view that decreases in taxes, especially for corporations, is the best way to stimulate economic growth: the idea is that if the expenses of corporations are reduced, the savings will "trickle down" to the rest of the economy, spurring growth.

 

Prior to becoming Reagan's Vice President, George H. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics" as a proposed synonym for Reaganomics.

 

We all know how well deregulation works.

 

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1416/1/

 

We've all seen the headlines: The government takes over troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch is acquired by the Bank of America, and the government announces an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue insurance giant American International Group (AIG) as stock prices plummet. And that was just the beginning.

 

The government is currently debating a $700 billion bailout of distressed banks under a plan that initially proposed to give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration unprecedented power. We need to "remove the distressed assets from the financial system," suggests Paulson, who resigned as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the Treasury secretary in 2006 after amassing a personal net worth of $700 million during his 32-year tenure at the bank.

 

How did all this happen? The root of the problem can be traced back to the deregulation era that began during the Reagan administration. What George H.W. Bush once called "voodoo economics" fast became the biggest redistribution of wealth since the New Deal. The central article of faith in the "Reagan Revolution" was that money rerouted from the poor to the rich would produce a burst of productivity and economic growth. Give to the corporations and the wealthy, said the "supply side" economists, and they will invest the money in new factories, research and technology, and the country will be restored to greatness.

 

Did the theory work? Hardly. Rather than putting their money into jobs, research or equipment, the country's biggest businesses went on the largest merger binge in history, buying up smaller companies in a trend that spelled less competition, less productivity, and more control of the economy in fewer hands. Multi-billion dollar corporate war chests were assembled to finance takeovers of large oil and coal companies, communications giants, and prestigious financial institutions.

 

After a stock market meltdown in 1987, Wall Street advised the US Treasury not to meddle in financial markets. This paved the way for consolidation around large merchant banks, institutional investors, stock brokerage firms, and large insurance companies. Complex speculative instruments - derivatives, options, futures, and hedge funds - were largely unregulated, becoming vulnerable to manipulation.

 

Then, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act - also known as the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act - removed remaining regulatory restraints on Wall Street's powerful banking institutions. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a New Deal reform put in place in response to corruption that had resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash, commercial banks, brokerage firms, institutional investors and insurance companies were permitted to invest in each others' enterprises and integrate their financial operations.

 

In short, the current financial crisis has been building for a long time. But the alarm bells didn't start ringing until June, 2007, when two hedge funds of the New York investment bank Bear Stearns lurched toward collapse because of their extensive investments in mortgage-backed securities. They were forced to dump assets as the trouble spread to major Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, which had loaned the firm money.

 

Over the summer, German banks with bad investments in the US real-estate market were caught up in the crisis. But the most obvious sign of trouble was the Federal Reserve's decision on August 9 to pump $24 billion into the US banking system through large purchases of securities, while the European Central Bank made a record cash injection of $130 billion into its markets to shake off credit fears. On the same day, Wall Street suffered its second-worst decline of the year as the Dow Jones dropped by nearly 400 points.

 

The next day, the Fed pumped another $38 billion in temporary reserves into the financial system, but the government rejected a request for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on more debt. At the end of the month, President Bush announced a plan to use the Federal Housing Administration, which insures loans for low-income borrowers, to offer government-guaranteed loans to around 80,000 homeowners in default.

 

On Sept. 18, 2007 the Federal Reserve started cutting interest rates, citing the credit crunch on Wall Street and in the broad economy. The nation's central bank made cuts at seven straight meetings. It also agreed to start loaning money directly to Wall Street firms, rather than only to commercial banks, and to accept troubled mortgage-backed securities as collateral. In October, profits at Citigroup dropped sharply. One large financial institution after another reported heavy losses.

 

At the start of 2008, the Bank of America acquired Countrywide Financial in a deal that rescued the country's biggest mortgage lender. Another sign of trouble: Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne lost his job. In February, Congress approved a $150-billion spending package to stimulate the sluggish economy. In March, on the verge of collapse and under pressure by the Federal Reserve, Bear Stears was forced to accept a buyout by investment bank JPMorgan Chase at a fire-sale price. The deal was backed by Fed loans - up to $29 billion in financing to cover potential losses. In July, the California mortgage lender IndyMac collapsed and troubles deepened for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

Which brings us to September 6, 2008, when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, putting the government in charge of firms that own or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages. The Treasury Department agreed to provide up to $200 billion in loans to the cash-starved firms, which are crucial sources of mortgage funding for banks and other lenders. It was a bid to reverse a prolonged housing and credit crisis. By the way, this was the same week when the McCain campaign was pushing the "lipstick on a pig" charge and the candidate himself remained certain that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."

 

Both Fannie and Freddie were placed in a government conservatorship, a move that could end up costing billions. The firms own or guarantee about half the home loans in America. The government implicitly had been guaranteeing their creditworthiness, enabling them to borrow at below-market rates. But private shareholders pocketed the profits they made lending cheap money at higher interest rates.

 

A week later, on Sept, 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers, burdened by $60 billion in soured real-estate holdings, filed for bankruptcy after attempts to rescue the 158-year-old firm failed. Merrill Lynch also agreed to be acquired by the Bank of America, and AIG asked for a bridge loan of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve. The $50 billion Bank of America deal creates a bank that will rival Citigroup, the biggest US bank in terms of assets. Meanwhile, stocks fell, the Dow Jones sliding 504.48 points - the worst drop since the 9/11 attacks. Stocks also posted big losses in markets across much of the globe. The day has been labeled "Black Monday."

 

The next day, Sept. 16, 2008, the government agreed to an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue AIG, saying failure of the company could hurt the already delicate financial markets and the economy. That was Tuesday. On Wednesday, the Dow lost about 450 points, giving it a shortfall of more than 800 for the week. Markets around the world were also having a confidence crisis, and Russia shut down its market for a third day following its worst plunge since 1998.

 

Last Thursday, the Federal Reserve, working with banks in Europe, Canada and Asia, pumped as much as $180 billion into money markets to combat a seizing up of lending. Republicans blasted the Treasury Department and Fed for orchestrating the AIG bailout, and the White House for not informing them of the plan. John McCain said he would fire SEC Chair Chris Cox (which the President can't actually do), and Barack Obama called it evidence of the failure of deregulation and Bush-McCain policies.

 

What's next? Most likely, a $700 billion government bailout, unspecified limitations on executive payouts, a bipartisan board to handle implementation - and, perhaps, changes in regulation of the mortgage market, forcing companies to restructure individual loans rather than foreclose them. It's not surprising that McCain, who proposed this week that his first debate with Barack Obama be postponed because of congressional negotiations on the proposed bailout, would prefer to grandstand in DC than take questions about his changing positions. A joke in Washington these days is that the crisis seems to be turning former deregulators into socialists - at least as far as business risks are concerns.

 

Vermont's junior US Senator, Bernie Sanders, who has never been shy about his socialist leanings, wants to go further. He is proposing a surtax on the very wealthy, stronger oversight of financial institutions, and an end to deregulation policies. He also argues that huge businesses like Bank of America should be broken up so no company in the future could bring the economy down with it. In the meantime, he calls for an immediate economic stimulus package that would put people to work rebuilding infrastructure, and increasing energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

 

"The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout," Sanders says. "It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bail out while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities."

 

Sanders' plan includes:

 

* A five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers to raise more than $300 billion in revenue

 

* Ensuring that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies aren't rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount paid for them

 

* Equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up

 

* A major economic recovery package which puts people to work at decent wages rebuilding infrastructure and moving the country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy

 

* Reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were torn down in 1999, including re-regulating the energy markets and possibly abolishing various financial instruments that have created an enormous shadow banking system at the heart of the financial services meltdown

 

Finally, and most radically, Sanders calls for ending the danger posed by companies that are "too big to fail," breaking them up if necessary. "We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions," he argues.

 

It's not likely that most of this plan will be embraced by Congress. But the crisis is certainly forcing the country to take a serious look at Reagan's old claim that "government is the problem." Even President Bush, in his remarks to the country on Sept. 24, admitted that "democratic capitalism" - which he still considers "the best system ever devised" - needs serious help. With the economy's "fundamentals" clearly in jeopardy and the disaster wrought by deregulation and corporate excess finally exposed, government intervention has become the only way out.

 

So yes in retrospect the GOP has failed the american people.

 

Funny how socialist programs are the most successful right? I mean they should be complete failures.

 

 

Socialist programs most successful? Like Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Those were true "socialist" governments. China is much more capitalist now then Socialist or Communist. This whole article you quote is full of misleading quotes and generalizations.

[Mr. T]

China is the UN's model for socialized capitalism if there is such a thing that can co exist together.

 

Why does the liberals think Big Government needs to take control over every aspect from business to social living and then wonder why their programs dont work, meanwhile China makes a move towards democracy, which in my opinion is a big mistake they should be moving towards being a republic so they will not have mob rule.

 

Will Capitalism Bring Democracy To China? Read it Here

 

 

[Kosar_For_President]

China is the UN's model for socialized capitalism if there is such a thing that can co exist together.

 

Why does the liberals think Big Government needs to take control over every aspect from business to social living and then wonder why their programs dont work, meanwhile China makes a move towards democracy, which in my opinion is a big mistake they should be moving towards being a republic so they will not have mob rule.

 

Will Capitalism Bring Democracy To China? Read it Here

 

I was reading an article recently (I can't find it) about many of China's workers are demanding more in wages. The article said that if these demands are met, many products will be cheaper to produce back in the US. Many of these workers are realizing that the "communist" regime in China are not using profits for the better of the people, but for the better for themselves at the top. Welcome to the reason communism fails (aka Animal Farm).

 

One of the items they specifically mention, printing. With shipping and ship time, the cost and pain of waiting 60 days will hopefully bring some of this production, in house, pun intended.

[calfoxwc]

So, the success of capitalism is now morally equivalent...ed? to "redistribution of wealth" ??? WHAT?

 

I already spoke of liberals twisting words, and now, "presto chango"

 

Nobody ever said other presidents were perfect.

 

The contrast is the economy blew up under weirdo Jimmy "cricket brain" Carter.

 

And now, another nutjob pres is looking like he is going to blow it up worse.

 

Liberals love to say "Oh yah? well we had a deficit under Reagan and Bush too, SO"....

 

they rebuilt our military strength.

 

Carter and Clinton took it down, carter moreso.

 

Carter even slashed retirement for all veterans, including those who were fighting over in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

 

My cousin was just ready to retire in 5 months when Carter did it. So, my cousin struggled for years after

 

becoming a civilian again.

 

The college va benefits program was changed to save $$$$$$$ for domestic giveaway programs that backfired in "intent",

 

in more ways than one.

 

A lot of those veterans didn't know they really wanted to go to college until later on in their enlistment. Then it was too late

 

to accrue the bucks for college.

 

Enter more dependency on social welfare programs. Sound familiar?

 

Liberal politicians have used dependency of poorer Americans across the board as a "carrot and the stick" weapon.

 

They lure those in desperate need, with money to live on, while creating the necessity for those folks to KEEP VOTING FOR THEM.

 

And he brings up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? WHAT? Democrats were running those two orgs under Bush.

 

But libs will never admit to it.

 

And on and on it goes.... "sigh"

[steel88]

Socialist programs most successful? Like Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Those were true "socialist" governments. China is much more capitalist now then Socialist or Communist. This whole article you quote is full of misleading quotes and generalizations.

 

No, Im talking medicare medicaid they are by definition socialist programs, and they have been some of the most succesful enacted in the country

[calfoxwc]

medicare/medicaid are socialist programs? baloney.

 

Has nothing to do with social classes... check.

 

Has nothing to do with capitalism exploiting... check.

 

Has nothing to do with the working class siezing power by overcoming the fetters of private property ownership... check.

 

This "president" advocates class struggles, envy and political angst and activity, has a dim view of private property ownership,

 

and has a dim view of capitalism/free markets...

 

ah, the liberals' willingness to redefine terms to climb the wuthering heights of elitism.

 

**************************************

Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and a view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

 

1. The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind's history fundamentally is a struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.
2. The critique of capitalism — Marx argues that in capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit an economic majority (the proletariat). Marx argues that capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Such commodification of human labor according to Marx, creates an arrangement of transitory serfdom. He argued that while the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.
3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

[steel88]

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

You can't tell me we aren't using capital to fund medicare and medicaid.

 

An important distinction: anybody who wants to nationalize the entire economy is not a socialist. That person is a communist. And there are not many of them left.

 

In recent American discourse, as I say, "socialist" has been thrown at Obama as if it were an insult. The strange thing about that is that the United States government is already socialist. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are each, in the fullest, richest sense of the term, socialist programs. They are very inefficient, unjustifiably expensive socialist programs, but socialist nonetheless. When George Bush expanded Medicare (in the American sense, this time), he was acting as a socialist.

 

 

I think there is huge swath of average Americans who think socialism equates with a military dictatorship; they actually have no, or very little, understanding at all about the meaning of the word, or about the concept in general or how it relates to capitalism. Corporatists have done such an outstanding job of selling this misconception, like so many other misconceptions, to the general public that the mindset perceiving socialism as bad is almost an autonomic response to the environment for many Americans.

 

Anyone with any critical thinking ability should easily be able to recognize that there are some services to which capitalism based on profit motive is antithetical. But, there again, there is that large swath of average Americans who do not possess those critical thinking abilities, so they are led around by their noses by the capitalists/corporatists whose interests are in direct opposition the interests of the people who make up that swath of average Americans.

[Mr. T]

No, Im talking medicare medicaid they are by definition socialist programs, and they have been some of the most succesful enacted in the country

 

 

How do you figure that? When we are printing the money daily/weekly/monthly to cover these 2 programs among others that have followed the same suite. SS funds have been raided time and time again and they are just part of the general fund now.

 

Do you think that those who have worked so hard to accomplish wealth in this country will continue to do business here when the tax rates engulf every dollar earned?

 

Maybe some more critical thinking needs to be done by these commi politicians, so they can nationalize every business and set up a dictatorship, so then they can stand up and say their social system or social model worked.

[steel88]

How do you figure that? When we are printing the money daily/weekly/monthly to cover these 2 programs among others that have followed the same suite. SS funds have been raided time and time again and they are just part of the general fund now.

 

Do you think that those who have worked so hard to accomplish wealth in this country will continue to do business here when the tax rates engulf every dollar earned?

 

Maybe some more critical thinking needs to be done by these commi politicians, so they can nationalize every business and set up a dictatorship, so then they can stand up and say their social system or social model worked.

 

Before Medicare was created in 1965, only about 55% of seniors had health insurance. That number is atrociously low and I know some of you guys are getting up there. What would you do if you needed medical attention and had no insurance or medicare?

[calfoxwc]

You can't tell me we aren't using capital to fund medicare and medicaid.

*********************************

You can't tell me that funding medicare and medicaid has anything to do with

 

undermining private property ownership, or the state taking control of the means of production and wealth distribution.

 

Nothing at all.

 

They are simply federal programs for folks. Just because it's a federal program doesn't equate to socialism in the slightest.

 

Our capitalist FREEDOM is alive and well. Like welfare a safety net. Nothing to do with -socialism-

 

Liberals deliberately? confuse "social" with "socialism".

 

Not workin here.

 

Socialism has all too often been a dictator's freight train to permanent? power.

 

the critically thinking part comes into play, when you need to differentiate between "social" and "socialism"...

 

and the definition of socialism, and what historically can be proven to be a legit concern of oppression occurring in socialist countries.

 

And, socialism/marxism, is simply considered to be a stepping stone toward communism.. and that is from

 

marx himself, I believe it was. don't make me go find the quote again....

[VaporTrail]

Cal, you need to realize that when people talk about socialist policies, we don't mean that we want to be run like Red China. So how about you do some nonlinear thinking and stop using your slippery slope argument. It holds no water.

[calfoxwc]

Never said you thought Red China nothin.

 

but historically, when the government has that much power,

 

all TOO OFTEN the power corrupts, and the people have no power

 

to stop the total loss of their freedoms.

 

Some libs fondly go Utopian and dream of our U.S. being

 

a gigantic Sweden.

 

Well, we are way too big to be a Sweden. There wouldn't BE a

 

Sweden, if it weren't for us nasty capitalists who built a worlds' greatest

 

power country on earth in only two hundred years.

 

Not perfect, no.

 

but neither is Sweden. Sweden exists because the ALLIES won the world wars.

 

BTW, note that Sweden refused to bail out their major auto company.

 

Yep, they let it have growing pains in a burst of capitalist survival.

 

Here's a liberal rule for you, Vapor: (No, I didn't invent this one)

 

"what liberals do always results in the exact opposite of their intent"

 

The "great society" didn't make things right - it created a severe dependent

 

subculture that has a major sloth/entitlement element to it.

 

go listen to what Bill Cosby, among others, say about it.

 

give a person a fish, the person eats for a day. TEACH THEM TO FISH, and they

 

eat for a lifetime.

 

I believe in giving needy folks a fish so they can do well LONG ENOUGH to LEARN TO FISH

 

for THEMSELVES.

 

You libs, and Obamao, believe in taking most of the fish from those who catch the fish,

 

and giving it to those who don't,won't,couldn't care less to fish.

 

So, the catchers suffer, and wonder why they have to do all the catching, and they get tired,

 

can't take a break from catching. And the noncatchers always become more numerous, and there are

 

only so many catchers at that point...

 

The oppressed people of the Ukraine were the Soviet Union's catchers, ... they starved to death by the millions

 

while working themselves to death giving everything to the Soviet Union so they could take care of all their

 

"catchees".

 

It never works. Never has. Quit dreaming the college-induced utopia, and stop

 

"imagining there's no countries, it's easy if you try".

 

Which simply compounds the problem, makes new problems, and results in the opposite of what

 

you liberals intended in the first place. Historically.

[VaporTrail]

Yes, reiterate your slippery slope argument. Maybe if you repeat it long enough you'll end up being right.

 

I'm not saying everyone should be equal. I believe in philanthrocapitalism. And guess what, 38 of the richest people in the country agree with me.

 

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinv...-their-fortunes

 

I don't think that everyone should be equal in every aspect of their life, but I do think there are some necessities that every single person should be entitled to.

[calfoxwc]

I agree with you. I just think that a permanent safety net that creates permanent dependency,

 

and a total lack of initiative to do for one's self, and increases a sub-cultural sense of entitlement

 

is profoundly counter-productive.

 

For people able to fish, teach them to fish.

 

I don't say they are entitled to much of anything forever unless they are unable to do for themselves.

 

I once knew a woman who had three kids. The church folks helped her all the time. Poor kids had no shoes,

 

raggedy clothes....

 

My best friend and I went to her house one day, to work on her car... even though she wasn't very nice or friendly...

her kids were out of control BRATS... and the place smelled like pot...

and some church ladies brought a bunch of boxes of food over, we helped carry them in.

We were shocked ... she had an expensive stereo, and a new big screen tv, with cable and a very nice leather couch.

It turned out that the tv, couch and stereo were bought with funds from the church for the kids clothes and food, electric bill,...

She admitted it when the church wanted to know where the money went....

She had junk food everywhere, and pizza boxes all over the kitchen table. The place was a mess.

 

I knew another woman who had three kids, lived in Section Eight housing, her kids were very well dressed,

her apartment was spotless, her kids were terrific, very polite, she was going to LPN school, working her way through her training by working there at the hospital...

One of her closest girl friends told me one day that this gal was helping paint at the church, and her bra clasp broke.

It was the last of two clasps, the other one was already broken... and she laughed and said she'd have to break down

and "buy another one".

She only had one bra for herself. But her kids had plenty of nice, clean clothes to wear.

she babysat on the side for extra cash, she wouldn't but rarely accept much help from the church - only a few times for the kids,

she bought groceries from a produce market - no junk food, and they had a little donated Sony color tv, 13" screen,

only local channels on an antenna. She worked hard to help others, she was adorable, she and her kids were always

there to help landscape the church grounds, paint the church...

 

The utopian idea that you lay out plenty of entitlements only creates a dependent subculture. That's

college academic philosophy, not meant for real life.

[calfoxwc]

oh, and free medical insurance for all?

 

It can't be done. It's impossible to pay for, that's been proven.

 

And the current hc bill is a disaster.

 

The idea was SUPPOSED to just provide help to be medically insured

 

if you choose that option.

 

Not a pie in the sky "here's everything for you just always vote for us" utopia

 

that will ruin our entire country's finances, and in the end, ruin most of ours.

[steel88]

You can't tell me we aren't using capital to fund medicare and medicaid.

*********************************

You can't tell me that funding medicare and medicaid has anything to do with

 

undermining private property ownership, or the state taking control of the means of production and wealth distribution.

 

Nothing at all.

 

They are simply federal programs for folks. Just because it's a federal program doesn't equate to socialism in the slightest.

 

Our capitalist FREEDOM is alive and well. Like welfare a safety net. Nothing to do with -socialism-

 

Liberals deliberately? confuse "social" with "socialism".

 

Not workin here.

 

Socialism has all too often been a dictator's freight train to permanent? power.

 

the critically thinking part comes into play, when you need to differentiate between "social" and "socialism"...

 

and the definition of socialism, and what historically can be proven to be a legit concern of oppression occurring in socialist countries.

 

And, socialism/marxism, is simply considered to be a stepping stone toward communism.. and that is from

 

marx himself, I believe it was. don't make me go find the quote again....

 

 

cal, the difference between communism and socialism is where you are confused socialism is where the people have control and there is no private ownership communism is where the govt has control, and yes there are a lot of very socialist programs is the united states

 

talk about linear thinking.

[VaporTrail]

Cal, I'm aware that many people abuse social welfare systems that we have in place. There are, however, people that don't. I was born out of wedlock and my mom went on welfare because she was just out of high school and her parents didn't guide her to do anything. Somehow, they managed to raise me into someone that wants to contribute to society.

 

I think letting poor people fend for themselves is just a terrible thing to do morally as well as economically. There is so much untapped potential in the poor community, and I think that the kids that do come out of rough situations have a far better life experience than kids that are given everything. I'm really disgusted every day by most of the people at my school. I'm insanely jealous of what they have. They don't have to worry about finding a loan for school or paying off the debts they come with, they have a car given to them, they're on their parents' phone bill, it's easier to get into a school if your parents make more money.

 

Most of these pricks don't try in school. They laze their way through it and get some slack off degree like economics or communications. Regardless of their gpa, many of them have jobs waiting for them at home where they learn to screw everyone else and make themselves as rich as possible. It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. I'm in debt up to my ass because I have poor parents. I have to work for every single thing that I have, and these people take all that I've ever wanted for granted. I don't get why people spoil kids like this; it just leads to the disgustingly corrupt society that exists now where CEO's can buy 10 mansions across the globe while other people in the same country don't even graduate high school.

 

I'm going to become a doctor. I'm going to pay off my loans. I'm going to make a boatload of money. I want a nice house. I want a nice car. I want to earn everything I can call mine. But not all of this money that I'll be making will be going to me and my family. Hell no, I want to help out the kids from poor areas that do want to make a difference. I want to help the ones that want to contribute to society, but don't have the means to position themselves for further education. I know I have no right to tell others what to do with their money, but to give the finger to everyone that wasn't born into a rich family is just selfish.

[calfoxwc]

Inevitably, to function, socialism must become communism.

 

Marx said,and communists believe, that socialism is just the bridge between capitalism

 

and communism.

 

Look it up. And that is the danger.

 

Marx did, after all, co-author the Communist Manifesto....

 

Utopia has never existed in socialism. Not ever.

 

It has failed again and again. The Soviet Union disintegrated because

 

socialism failed. The Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet empire,

 

millions in the Ukraine starved to death because it was the only way to

 

try to make the Soviet Union's socialism work.

 

Socialism is college psuedo-intellectualist elitism at it's worst.

****************

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

 

Economic differences between socialism and communism

In a Socialist economy, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

 

For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people's deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs, it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone's needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility.

 

[edit] Political differences between socialists and communists

Socialism rejects a class-based society. But socialists believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state. On the other hand, Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

 

 

 

 

[steel88]

Socialism is the idea that the working class, the class that produces the profits, the wealth, the cars, houses, planes, steel, should take over and run things collectively, democratically, for the benefit of the majority (who also "just happen" to be workers too).

 

Communism is the idea that society should not have classes - exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, and so on. "

 

* Socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism refers to both an economic and political system.

* Socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.

* Communism seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness.

* Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

 

[Mr. T]

Funny how socialist programs are the most successful right? I mean they should be complete failures.

 

The answer is, No.

 

What is funny is how progressive democrats create class envy to mandate new laws and regulations, Reagan's plan of reducing taxes and regulations was to stimulate small businesses so they will be able to function.

 

You mention this one million dollar threshold like it is a lot of money, and to the 9-5 working man or woman who make under 6 figures they see it as a punch in the face to the rich, and then the progressive's gain momentum for passing off more Taxes and regulations without anyone rebuking what has happened.

 

When in reality a small business that only turns a million dollars in a year is not really doing a lot of business.

you need to consider the inflation of products and services that have been ramped up, and not to mention that the cost of labor has increased tremendously since Obamao has been in charge.