Srdjan, people with ARMS had their house payments jump from 600.00/mth to 1600.00/mth. Only then did it become a question of what their money would go for. They thought they would be ok because by the time the payment went up, they thought they could sell their house for more than they owed and make money on it. That was not surprising because it had been done for years and years. Many people made their income buying and selling homes. It was the housing crash that killed that idea and folks were left with house payments they couldn't afford and no way out of them. They were in houses that were too big and too expensive. The price of food did not rice exorbantly nor is it in short supply. We did have some large increases in prices on some items (blamed on the manufacture of ethanol and the cost of transporting those goods due to the price of oil), but nothing that made food too expensive for the people of this country. Food has never been that expensive.



>>It's more like a final line being crossed.
>>
>>For many years now I've watched the Republicans preach smaller government and then grow it and look the other way while businesses pursued unethical policies. I've watched Democrats promote class and race war to create divisions for political advantage while putting money in their back pockets through cozy deals with 527 groups and untraceable PACs.
>>
>>This year, I've seen a good man and genuine hero get slimed while a shadowy, unvetted newcomer gets a bye because he's black and the press either loves him or is afraid of being accused of racism. The press has run off the rails and become again the yellow journalists of the Hearst era.
>>
>>Pink Floyd had a song called "Sheep" and it reminds me of the current political realm in the USA.
>>
>>CNN had a poll yesterday asking who was to blame for the current fiscal crisis. The poll "winner" was Bush, with 42% of the vote. It points up to the general ignorance of the American people that this number could be that high. Something I can't understand is the idiocy of our voting public when they blame a President for the economy. The President chooses a Treasury Secretary and sometimes a Chairman of the Federal Reserve, both with Congressional approval, and then decides which bills to sign into law or to veto. Besides that, he has very little direct interaction with the economy.
>>
>>Congress has direct oversight over the economy, sponsors bills, and is supposed to manage governmental agencies and legislative compliance. Congress! Not the President. But our dumb-ass, ill-informed electorate reads the media bites without ever being serious about being well-informed and it's suddenly the Boss's fault.
>>
>>The American electorate does not take their responsibilities as citizens seriously and are lazy. Politicians know this and throw out deceitful soundbites to get elected. So we end up with a bunch of ambitious, lying scumbags in Washington.
>>
>>We need a second Revolution so bad it's painful. It's not a problem isolated to Dems or a problem with the GOP - it's a problem with the system and it's too broke to fix.
>
>
>Hi John,
>
>While root of these crisis migh go way back, before Bush administration even got into white hose
>last 8 years did not help situation at all. Perhaps they just helped this glass break way sooner then it normally would.
>They pushed things realy to the limits
>
>IMO It is not bad housing loans that brought deep systematic problems out as huge crisis - but actually FOOD!
>Via OIL. When people are pushed towds basics in life then food gets priority of over luxury or ownership of the *shelter* .
>Average Joe decided to stop paying loans simply because filling up belly on a daily bases comes first.
>
>So is it Bush to blame ? Yes for bringing out deep problems to a visible surface. If there was not for last 8 years of
>his goverment, those WallStreet types of bandits would probably get away with everything for another 20 years.
>
>I don't know why are you so angry with Obama. I got actually enthusiastic over him exactly because he talked about
>making fundamental changes to underlying political/economical system which IS culprit for what is happening today.
>
>Why do you think McCain would be better at changing things in Washington ? He only lately started promoting himself as
>'agent of change'. If none of crises happened he would be still pounding at (invisible) terrorists, promoting more wars etc.
>
>Now, only problem is that even if BOTH of them are ellected together in historic bi-partisan mandate {g} they would not be able
>to do almost anything to fight fundamental causes of *perpetual crises*.
>Unless of course they are ready to start big big mess in Washington (And perhaps some of 'surgery' that you are proposing in this thread {g}. )
>
>But that of course ain't going to happen.
>Who ever get ellected, will be forced to first try 'traditional' medicine for big economical crises applied many times in the past ;
>It is called 'Big War'
>
>That is what I am afraid of :(
>
>* * *