Dear Mr. President

Anyone who is not willing to live in the streets because of their mistakes is a mistake! The wage earners of this country are becoming the slaves of Rome to those unworthy of a handout.

YOU GUYS CAN EASILY REDUCE YOUR HEALTH SPENDINGS JUST BY FEEDING YOUR NATION (AT LEAST THE YOUNGER GENERATION) WITH RIGHT FOOD, AKA GREEN/ORGANIC. LOOK AT YOURSELF, HALF OF AMERICANS ARE OBESE DESPITE THE DAILY TOURS TO GYMS FOR WORK OUTS AND EXERCISES. IN KYRGYZSTAR FOR EXAMPLE, FARMERS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO USE CHEMICALS/PESTICIDES SO THEY USE ORGANIC/NATURAL FERTILIZERS AND THERE ARE VERY FEW OBESE PEOPLE IN OUR NATION AND NO GYMS REQUIRED TO BE FIT. IN THIS REGARD WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO IMPORT FOOD PRODUCTS AND FEEL THE DIFFERENCE. AS FAR AS I KNOW AMERICANS WHO LIVE AND WORK IN KYRGYZSTAN JUST ADMIRE OUR FOODSTUFF. SO EATING WELL AND RIGHT PRODUCTS COULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF YOUR NATION. P.S. YOU MIGHT ASK WHY THEN THE LIFE EXPECTANCY IS LOWER IN KYRGYZSTAN THAN IN U.S. IT'S JUST THE GREASY MEAT THAT'S IN TRADITION OF OUR NATION, BUT IT'S SO TASTY UNLIKE THE MEAT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, BUT WE ADMIT THAT WE NEED TO REDUCE IT'S CONSUMPTION, COS UNLIKE OUR ANCESTORS WE DON'T NEED TO EAT GREASY AND STRONG MEAT ANYMORE TO SURVIVE THE SEVERE WEATHER.

I agree wholeheartedly Dr. Pete. What about making financial education a staple in schools. Our economy is driven on credit, but the majority of people are clueless to how it actually works. We are not teaching kids to manage their money. Reason being, many of their parents have no idea how to manage their money. They need to learn about saving, investing, budgeting, and making your money work for you as hard as it possibly can. It's beyond me why this isn't a core subject. Sometimes I wonder if our government wants us in debt.

Wait a second esq 1991... Everyone refers to the " Subprime Mortgage Meltdown", but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the definition of " Prime" mortgages. They bought the bulk of the mortgages that were originated in this country. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines are about as stringent as they come. What about Wachovia? Again, about as conservative as it gets. Everyone wants to paint the picture of vultures circling around someone dying in the desert, but if you look at the numbers, there are just as many (if not more) of these prime loans that have gone bad. Its all about people that think they can outsmart the system. Adjustable rate mortgages are the culprit. Granted, there are a lot of people out there who were getting loans that should not have been getting loans, but that was in prime, as well as subprime.

I am Dr. Pete Andersen. I just retired as a school supt. Our problem is the creation of more and more social programs so that now everyone feels that Big Brother owes them some kind of entitlement. If they can't get one, they cheat on their taxes. If we would only teach personal accountability for learning and meeting individual needs for learning, food, clothing, and shelter, then students would be personally motivated to do their part. As it is now the welfare system is a train wreck with more people gaining access than there are people willing to go to work to support those who have not or choose not to meet their own needs. My book Purposeful Intent: Motivating Your Mind From Within will come out in mid-December to address how we can motivate people to help themselves. Shouldn't we teach men how to fish to feed themselves?

Is it just me, or do some of these economic geniuses seem totally enthralled with centralization of power? The idea that the government can just "inject enough money to restore the system" is preposterous. If you injected enough money to cover all the bad debts, you would completely destroy the value of the currency. If they want to give people information, they should debate how the Federal Reserve's policies, combined with fractional reserve lending created this pile of fake money that investment houses thought they could grow forever.

It is not a free market when 1 guy at a private central bank (the Federal Reserve) can set interest rates. The Treasury secretary and the Federal Reserve chairman would not have to (or be able to) make announcements on Sundays about which investments they are going to bail out with taxpayer dollars, in order to keep Asian investors from dumping their "investments".

Here's a crazy proposal from a non-Nobel prize winner

1) Currency that is worth something, and that is not controlled by a banking cartel, but instead is controlled by the people???s duly elected representatives and / or tied to a limited commodity.

2) Lending and interest rates are set by the market. Not the policies of a private banking institution

3) Pay for government as you go. Want a war? Hike up the tax rate 50% for the next few years. I'm sure if it is truly necessary, people will support it. There will probably be far fewer military quagmires, which turn out to be black holes for lives and money.

4) Decouple the people's dependency on government. It is the only logical and ethical course of action. The government can't possibly take care of everyone's financial, educational, and health-related needs. If anyone doubts this, please repeat the words "Katrina", "Iraq", and "department of motor vehicles" as many times as is necessary to wake yourself up from your communist dreams.

5) Restore all powers not delegated to the Federal government back to the states. Why put all the tax money in one pot, just to have investment banks lobby congress to steal it? This way, people can discuss use of taxes locally, rather than lobby the federal government on what type of sex-ed should be taught in schools.

6) Stop listening to people who are wrong all the time. Bernanke and Paulson have been wrong for the past two years, and these economists are suggesting that with unlimited money and power they can fix everything. Would you buy a used car from someone who gave you bad advice for two years? Would you empty your bank account for them if one of their friends or co-workers from the Federal Reserve said that THIS TIME they're right?

Just a thought. Maybe if I pretend that I believe in the virtues of socialism and Keynesian economics long enough I will win a Nobel Prize and Newsweek will print this.

Don't blame Alan Greenspan as he only pandered to the average person's dream - to arrive having slogged it out for ages. The Americans fell for it like all of mankind since time immemorial - slog to enjoy the goodies! Unfortunately, life's not a sprint but rather a marathon and so, generation is a new beginning with its own end and therefore the notion of reaping what you've not sown is a myth. Sadly that myth has been the tale of the last twenty five years, the results of which are amply evident in these "wild times".

The solution? Shirts off, back to the grinding stone and all pulling together!

Verdict on Greenspan - regretfully, he abdicated his responsibility when he prostituted his integrity in playing to an audience!

Remember that age old adage, "your chickens will come home to roost" - so populists beware!

Kouros Pappadopoulous

lol ... we expect to much ...

One of these men said we expect too mucy of our leaders. Well, in this race one of the possible leaders has created the high expectation himself: Obama, by promising to fix the coutry's ills, to save the world, to convince despots of their bad ways. He and his followers have made him out to be the Messiah. And I am not imagining things. If you saw that creepy video of the little kids singing about Obama's going to save the world and do all these other things, you would have to agree. Was that statement nothing more than another Obama supporter giving his chosen candidate a way to save face when he disappoints everyone who is expecting big things: "I didn't give you all you were promised, but gee, you were just expecting too much out of me."

"For example, a ban on lending to uncreditworthy customers might well make sense." I know I am not a Nobel-prize winner but the aforementioned quote is only common-snse. They want to cut spending on the military; they want to bail out the homeowners a second time; they want to bail out state and local govts whose spending is outside the budget. Again, common sense tells me we are going to be faced with the same problems down the road - having to bail them out again. I am sorry, but if you lost your house because you maybe shouldn't have had it in the first place, why bail them out? I read an article about two sisters who bought homes next door to each other and had lost their homes when their husbands (house painters) had a slow down in business. But the more glaring issue in that article was that these people were given loans where the mortgage was over 60% (yes, $2,000 out of $3,200 net pay) of their pay. When they got their house, they thought they could do it. How do you support 2 kids and 2 adults on $1,200 a month after your mortgage? I am sorry but that is plain stupidity. And these kinds of mortgages wer made because of the elephant in the room no one mentioned (and no, I don't mean Republs): the policies of the CRA, democrats and Bill Clinton who thought everyone should buy a house and the biggest house possible. In some respects there was not enough regulation over Fannie and others, but yet there was too much regulation pressuring banks to make those loans (and pressure from groups like ACORN). I don't know of anything the govt. provides that private sector cannot provide more efficiently and cheaper; govt. health care is going to be a mess. Didn't Mass.'s program end up costing two or three times the estimate? And the care is not going to be what people think it is going to be. I also saw something where the unemployment rates of countries was paired against their tax rates; higher taxes, higher unemployment. So, do we really need more taxes? Tell state and local govts. to balance their budgets; we cannot keep bailing them out for irresponsibility. Tell our govt. to stop spending. We just have to face that we cannot give everyone everything.

commonone,
Someone's 'need' cannot become a licence to put a gun on someone else's head and demand that the need should be fulfilled. If your criteria of need is universally applied, it should apply equally to anything a person would ever need. Yes, you cannot choose the illness you genetically aquire or the injuries you accidentally suffer. But just because you have been unfortunate enough, it doesn't mean the misfortune should be equally shared. Health care is a value, like any other and it takes years of dedicated effort to train oneeself in a medical speciality. It is as unfair to demand that someone just gift you years of his sweat and blood because you need the help as it would be to demand that Nike give you a pair of shoes because you have none and really 'need' them because your feet are bloody and sore from walking barefoot

"For example, a ban on lending to uncreditworthy customers might well make sense." I know I am not a Nobel-prize winner but the aforementioned quote is only common-snse. They6 want to cut spending on the military; they want to bail out the homeowners a second time; they want to bail out state and local govts whose spending is outside the budget. Again, common sense tells me we are going to be faced with the same problems down the road. I read an article about two sisters who bought homes next door to each other and had lost their homes when their husbands (house painters) had a slow down in business. But the more glaring issue in that article was that these people were given loans where the mortgage was over 60% (yes, $2,000 out of $3,200 net pay) of their pay. When they got their house, they thought they could do it. How do you support 2 kids and 2 adults on $1,200 a month after your mortgage? And these kinds of mortgages wer made because of the elephant in the room no one mentioned (and no, I don't mean Republs): the policies of the CRA, democrats and Bill Clinton who thought everyone should buy a house and the biggest house possible. In some respects there was no enough regulation over Fannie and others, but yet there was too much regulation pressuring banks to make those loans (and pressure from groups like ACORN).. I don't know of anything the govt. provides that private sector cannot provide more efficiently and cheaper; govt. health care is going to be a mess. Didn't Mass.'s program end up costing two or three times the estimate? And the care is not going to be what people think it is going to be. I also saw something where the unemployment rates of countries was paired against their tax rates; higher taxes, higher unemployment. So, do we really need more taxes? Tell state and local govts. to balance their budgets; we cannot keep bailing them out for irresponsibility. And we just have to face that we cannot give everyone everything. One of these men said we expect too mucy of our leaders. Well, in this race one of the possible leaders has created high expectations himself: Obama, by promising to fix the coutry's ills, to save the world, to convince despots of their bad ways. He and his followers have made him out to be the Messiah. I have a feeling your staement was a way to give Obama a way to save face: "I didn't give you all you were promised, but gee, you were just expecting too much out of me."

"CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT"! Set in motion a series of governmental agency and Program cuts to REDUCE the SIZE of this goverment that is "SMOTHERING" all Americans.....reduce the Captial Gains Tax (thus allowing for Billions upon Billions of Captial dollars) to flood into the investment side, step up Tax Credits to Auto & Energy incentives, start building nucular power plants........AND....."turn loose" the American Enterpirse system to go after domistic oil.....and simply say......."DRILL"!

These 5 items would further excite the American public that "GOVERNMENT"...."gets it".....and the world would see that "America Get's it"! DO NOT RAISE TAXES ON ANYONE!!

Dan McGough
Henderson, NV