Term limits will only work, if the House & Senate staffers have term limits too; otherwise you have the inmates running the asylum. Candidates should have strong "party" affiliation if they want to be standard-bearers for that party and run under that party's banner. The Partys platform defines who you are and what you stand for.

AMEN!!

Gayle,

In as far as he didn't realize politics was a game for sissies - yes! But I described the issues with the presidency - which are completely different - in another column.

Considering the GOP alternatives, Mr. Obama will be getting four more years.

Jeff

Great article. I believe the biggest reason we do not get good candidates is because of the personal attacks. 99% of us have something in our background that we would like to forget about. But decide to run for a upper level political office and the world will know about it. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

HELP WANTED: We need a good person to run for political office. The ideal candidate must:

1. Be willing to spend far more than you can earn simply to be considered for this position.

2. Be willing to endure an interview process that can last up to two years in order to reach the actual selection process.

3. Be willing to have every aspect of your life examined and opened to public view and to suffer criticism and blame for every conceivable misstep or error that you have ever committed. If you have never made a mistake some will be created for you by your opponents.

4. Be willing to endure a selection process that is carried out by a committee of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people (depending on the office sought). Many of these people know little or nothing about you or the actual position that they will be selecting you for and will base their judgements on personal prejudices or tribal loyalties that may have nothing to do with the actual position that you seek.

5. If you are selected you will find that you will either become little more than a member of a huge, contentious committee or have to deal with one. Either way you will seldom, if ever be able to accomplish anything.

6. And finally, if selected you must be willing to start this whole process over again every few years.

7. The benefits can be pretty good.

You need not submit a resume. Just get out there and start raising money.

Jeff, what kind of people might be attracted to this?

@Colin - great summation.

1) A RESULT OF THE MEDIA/TECH SOCIETY WE LIVE IN. ALWAYS ASSUMING EVERYONE IS INTERESTED IN EVERY LITTLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE,,,ie twitter and facebook.

2. YOU SAID IT, THE BEST GIG THEY WILL EVER HAVE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY FEED THEIR EGOS. WHO IS GOING TO RUN IF THEIR "REAL LIFE" JOB IS BETTER?

3. HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET TERM LIMITS IF THE GUYS VOTING FOR TERM LIMITS WANT TO KEEP THE "best gig" THEY WILL EVER HAVE?

4. LOBBYING - see AJ'S new gig.

5. Stop voting for “political outsiders.” They never accomplish anything. It might feel good to “throw the rascals out,” but term limits will certainly take care of that. Citizen journalists aren't taking off and neither are citizen politicians.

TERM LIMITS - see answer above. VOTING FOR THE OUTSIDERS IS THE ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE TO MOVE OUT CAREER POLITICIANS. KIND OF A MAKE DO TERM LIMIT THING.

Jeff,

You are absolutely right about the quality of people who run for office these days. Look at Rep. Joe Walsh. He's had a variety of jobs, but it appears that he hasn't had a lot of success in any of them. Then, there's the issue of unpaid child support and taxes. If a person can keep up with legal obligations, should he be an elected official?

On the other hand, you have Jim Oberweis, who can't get elected to anything. This is despite the fact that he and his family run the dairy and ice cream stores, and he oversees management of a group of mutual funds. I used to see Oberweis on CNBC, and he certainly knows a lot about business and economic issues. There's a level of knowledge and personal achievement that, I think, would be helpful for anyone serving in an elected office.

As much as I agree with some of the Tea Party's agenda, you don't see it supporting candidates who run successful businesses or are executives with Fortune 500 companies.

You're also right about personal attacks. I've seen candidates for village and school boards attacking each other. Really? Village board? School board? A person is so desparate for that level of authority that he will say nasty things in an election that is supposedly non-partisan?

An actively involved citizen group combined with elected officials that do what they campaigned for, with the best interests of their constituents is how the process is designed. The fact that there is little negotiation these days is a reflection of the divided views of communities and may not represent a failure of the system. Perhaps we as voters need to ask for less and find common priorities more effectively.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Anyonel legally qualified to run should be equally allowed to do so...you point removes a critical element..voter responsibility to make informed votes. Blaming elected officials and candidates doesn't address how they are elected...the voters have been lazy and now want someone to blame... time to look in the mirror...then after the vote, support the chain of command until the next vote.

If you read the documents and correspondence of the time I think that it's pretty clear that the "Founders" envisioned a government of elected representatives chosen largely from the educated, wealthy landowners and merchants who would agree to serve their constituants for a few years. The idea of professional politicians and political parties were not generally part of the original plan for our government.

Today, however, governing has become so complex that it requires an incredible range of expertise and dedication for an individual to be effective. I think that there are many people with this level of knowledge and skill who take one look at the realities of politics and refuse to subject themselves to the process.

The very idea of term limits is an admission that we, the voters, are incapeable of electing the best qualified candidates so that, regardless of performance, every candidate must leave office after a given time because we simply, automatically assume that they will be or rendered ineffective or corrupted by the system. The implication is that voters cannot make good choices and/or the system is not capable of working to our benefit as it is currently constituted.

The practical drawback of term limits means that we will lose a lot of excellent, experienced representatives due to the fecklessness of the rest. The non-elected staff members will effectively take control of government and those elected will be figureheads who do nothing but campaign.

So, perhaps we need to look at a total revision of our system of governance. Perhaps something along the lines of a "technocracy" similar to the one that governs Singapore might be more suited to the 21st century.

The government itself is run by highly trained civil servants employed on the basis of their expertise in law, engineering, finance, economics, science, and the other areas needed to manage a great country in a global environment. Our elected representatives oversee the process. Their role is to make sure that government actions are in the hest interest of the people, the nation, and the world.

No, I don't know how to design this. Any ideas?

I'd love 4 more years of Obama. Nothing wrong with a European Socialist-style government. Yahooo!!!

Vote Republican and display your elephant proudly!

You know war is not a Republican thing John. I didnt agree with any of Bush's wars. I do agree however, a strong and large military helps to curb unemployment and give people real life job skills they can use to get real life jobs one day.

I would challange anyone out there to name a President that can't be critisized. Do you think a single person runs this country???

I THINK VIOLENCE IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TRY, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS FAILED.

Jeff...you never really passed that journalism class, did you? You spout off on things you actually know nothing about. There are many good people in politics and government at all levels of government. Just because you disagree doesn't make them bad peoiple. Talk about Springfield? Then State Senator Barack O-wow didn't do squat....missed 140 critical votes on the floor in his last term in the Senate.....and has missed everything in Washington. His loyal followers are the ones with their hands out getting freebies because they are too lazy and too stupid to get a job....some families make a career out of working the system for all of the things that other people pay for....and the President can't give it out fast enough. If you liked Karl Mark, you must love Obummer!

Mickey,

First of all, not only did I pass my one journalism class, but I got an A! Second, we've excepted the President here though he's clearly better than any of the GOP choices.

And third, no there aren't! For seven years I've dealt with aldermen to gubernatorial candidates and I can count on one hand the number of politicians that I actually look up to. The way the game is played, the truly talented people can do much better avoiding this quagmire.

Thus, my five points to change the system!

Jeff

Anyone of the Republicans still running would be a vast improvement over our Democrat/Socialist president. The media wants us all to believe we have no choice but to bow down to President Obama. They keep beating that drum into America's head. It almost seems like a conspiracy. Something out of Orwell's acclaimed novel 1984 comes to mind: Thought Police. Hopefully, America will ignore the liberal media and vote for the Republican nominee. I would have even voted for Huntsman over Obama and he was one of the first Republican (rhino) candidates to be shown the door by the voters. This leads me to believe that Romney is now starting to be exposed as a rhino also with major special interests behind him. Remember be it state or national elections, citizens vote. The media, special interest groups and lobbyist only spin.

Hello Stanislaus,

You think they are to whom they refer?

I wonder.

The "K" is not near the "X" on my keyboard and neither is the "H". When I see errors of this type, they are not "typos", they are the substance of the ill-informed.

Just what is a RINO in your opinion? And as for Marx, which policies of Mr Obama are of his teachings?

Parrots are not clever, they are only mimics who leave messes for others to clean up.

I voted for Obama on the first go round. Been extremely disappointed in his performance and leadership to date. That being said, I do not see any of the candidates being offered up from the other side as an improvement in any way, shape or form. Therefore, unless something drastic happens to change the makeup of this presidential campaign, I will be voting for the best of the worst...Obama once again.

Democracy is messy. But, autocracy (dictatorship) is deadly.
So long as we have the ability by removing crooks and fools from public office via the ballot box we have opportunities for improvement.

We will never find the "perfect candidate," because no such person exists.
We can only' choose the one we believe is best from those running for office.

The problem is in our choice of candidates. Until we have smarter voters we will
continue to elect bad politicians.

Hey, don't anybody tell Obama what comes after a trillion!

I would tend to agree with you when you write of the egotistical nature of politicians, I would like you to apply the same logic that brought you to this conclusion to Op-ed writers and talking heads on the TV news shows.

Jeff: You are a little bit off on what you said. The Republican party in DuPage Cty and Will Cty is alive and well and has lots of money. Not so, with the Dems. They dont have as much. So what happens is the GOP will run a park district aerobics instructor with lots of money, against a democratic BA/MSM with tons of experience and the aerobics instructor will win because she is the more popular candidate. I cant stand Naperville politics anymore i think its got to be the worst in the nation.

While I agree with most of what Ward has to say, I'm still planning to vote for a so-called "political outsider"- whoever is nominated as the Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, the fastest-growing third party in the country & the only one that makes any real sense & does not give in to the hypocrisy demonstrated by the other political parties. The Constitution Party's National Convention takes place this April in Nashville, Tennessee. Go to www.constitutionparty.com for more information.

The thing that puzzles me is our continued faith in the idea that if we elect "so and so" our government will somehow "get fixed".

The first president that I was able to vote for and who promised a major turnaround was John F. Kennedy but I remember Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower as well.

And I remember very well those who followed and the problems that they faced (and often created).

In many ways our society has improved over these decades. In many ways I think that we have regressed. The fact is that not one of these Presidents was able to live up to the pre-election promises that he made.

That is the nature of the democratic system; fortunately no one person or party is free to do whatever they want or promise.

So why do we continue to look at these candidates as though electing one or another of them will somehow solve our problems? Are we somehow hoping that "Daddy" will come along and fix everything? Sorry, that's not going to happen.

Of the five currently running for President and anyone else who might appear later I think that it is safe to make one prediction: many of the problems that they promise to address will not be fixed; some things will improve, some will get worse, and we will try, as a nation and as individuals, muddle through as best we can.

Yes, it does make a difference who we elect, I just don't expect to see any miracles.

The saddest thing is that I almost always find myself voting for the least objectionable candidate.

Mr Campbell, Americans are impatient. As Kenneth Rogoff has written (with Carmen Rheinhart) in his book, the financial situation currently ongoing, shall not be cured overnight; Historically, it shall take a duration of between 5 to 10 years. Hence, the US has now entered its third to fifth years (if you consider the recession starting in 2007 and ending in mid 2009). I believe much of what has been done is helping to ensure the process of recovery.
Yet, you are correct about the promises. One need only consider energy independence as one promise that seems to be forgotten year after year, president after president.
There are a plethora of shouting idealogues attempting to influence. In turn, the electorate seemingly wishes to be polarised, shouting insults, unwilling to compromise or come to a workable solution for the good of all.
Indeed, that is where the miracle you seek may lie.

Fatima,
I agree with most of what you said. However, a workable solution that is good for all is really not possible. If we cut budgets to get the 15 trillion in debt under control, then the people who benefit from this spending will be affected, if we keep spending, then it may temporarily help, but will certainly be detrimental in the long run. It's fundamentally unfair to burden our children with this excessive debt. Politicians will attempt to kick the can down the road because it is the easiest thing to do. Any sane person knows this ends badly for everyone if it isn't addressed in a very meaningful way, and soon. Obama never even mentioned the national debt in his state of the union speech so he has no intention of dealing with it. In fact, he really doesn't care as long as he can spend his way to another term. The national debt is the biggest threat to the US ever, it can and will destroy the economy and result in an economic crisis that will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Time to face the facts or suffer the consequences.

I agree with both of you. The problem, I think, is that the terrible divide in political philosophy that has engulfed this country works against us in the end.

A recent article in Scientific American online recounted a study in which researchers interviewed a large number of people who were attending various very conservative political rallies. These were mostly middle or working class Americans and all held strong views about our government. The researchers found, however, that many of them held erroneous views about facts that do matter.

For example, when asked what percentage of their income went to pay all taxes the average answer was about 50%. The fact is closer to 30%. When asked about foreign aid the answer was 20% of national budget. Fact: less than 1%. Answers for welfare and food stamps were equally off the mark.

Perhaps more disturbing, the majority of senior citizens surveyed did not consider Medicare and Social Security to be "government benefit" programs.

The point of the article was to question why so many people seem to vote against their own self interest. The implied answer was simple ignorance.

To paraphrase Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, and that's usually enough to get elected".

Mr O'Neil, I succinctly disagree. As I stated in another blog related to this subject, cutting taxes and the like is similar to the old-fashioned medical practice of "bleeding" the patient as a "so-called cure". In the end, the continued bleedings kill the patient.
And then the "doctors" shall say, "well we tried our best, but the patient was very ill".
It is time for the multi-national businesses and financial institutions to end the practice of shipping jobs overseas and rewarding their top tiered executives with obscene incentives whilst cutting jobs. It is time for them to pay their fair share of taxes for the benefits thay have received.
For if they do not, we shall see the elimination of the middle class, a burgeoning poorer class, and a hegemenious elite.
As many have used the Greek example, I shall use it as the example as to what may happen when the measures of austerity are applied.

Rather than blame all of our problems on politicians, Rick Shenkman, author of the book "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter", suggests that we need to examine the failures of the American public. How are we so easily deceived and misled? Part of the problem, according to Shenkman, is that we continue to believe in myths, the myth of The People being one of the most egregious. We the People believe in our inherent goodness and greatness. "Democracy is rooted in the assumption that we are people of reason", says Shenkman. But evidence is in short supply. Shenkman cites studies in which only 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet over half can name two of the Simpson family members. Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". Yet the general public knows frightfully little about current and historical events. Our willingness to believe lies that reinforce our beliefs about ourselves is perhaps the biggest problem we face. The quote from JFK at the start of the book sums up the problem. "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." We all need to take our duty as informed citizens more seriously.

Well Greece is not using austerity measures because they are popular, they have no other choice but to default on their debt. Think that will solve their problems? If they do default they will descend into total anarchy, and much of Europe will follow. We would not need austerity either, except that there is no other way to address 15 trillion in debt. Think its just going to go away? We better get real about our situation, sure it's nice to blame the corporations and the wealthy, but that won't get it done. We can either cut spending and entitlements now, or we will lose them in there entirety. Every government agency, state, local and federal has overspent and over promised. Democrats and Republicans both share the blame, and yes the middle class will bear the lions share of the pain. I don't like it either, but it is where we are and it needs to be addressed. I know Obama is not going to do it and I have my doubts that a Republican will be much better. You can not spend your way to prosperity.

Mr O'Neil, with regard to Greece, I also agree, the austerity measures are not being used for the public's requests. It is by the request of those to whom hold their government hostage via loans.
I am endeavouring not to be biased. However, does it not seem queer that only the Greeks (those asking for the loans to repay older loans) are being pushed to further austerity measures which have resulted in higher unemployment? Indeed, it is a form of punishment for not being like us (read Germaany, Belgium, France, etc).
Why, are not those who granted the initial loans in the first place not being asked to become more austere or for thaat matter, accountable. The Greeks did not become spendthrifts overnight, their financial backers were well aware of the risks of loaning to them.
But, they did and they are not being asked to do anything so calculating and in a "scorch the earth" manner as has been demanded of them.

We can take this theme back a bit further. Reagan and the neo-conservative movement of the last part of the 20th century pushed deregulation which eventually included eliminating a good many banking rules that were put into place in the late 30ies and intended to prevent another depression. They championed "supply side economics" which basically means that business should be free to do as it wishes, thus making lots of money which will eventually trickle down to the middle classes through jobs etc.

This theory is based on the idea that the markets are "wise" and will self correct for any flaws or mistakes without government oversight. Alan Greenspan was a great proponent of this theory right up until 2009 when he finally admitted that he had been wrong.

At the end of the Clinton presidency we were a prosperous nation with a stable economy and a budget surplus. Eight years later we were deeply in debt and had entered what could have become the worst depression in our history.

Now many people are complaining that the current administration has not repaired all of this damage in less than half the time that it took to create it, and they want to elect people who espouse these same old economic theories that have already caused so much disaster for this Country.

We have serious political, social, and economic problems in the US. I seriously doubt that they can be solved by applying remedies that have already disproved themselves.

There is no future in the past.

Mr Campbell, I agree.
The Supply Side Theory has been a disaster. Supposedly the wealthy who were to gain the most by its practices would reinvest their gains into the country's businesses.
Whilst, I believe some did do just that, many more invested in building factories overseas where they subsequently shipped the jobs that employed a majority of america's middle and lower classes. The result was a shrinking of the middle class, an enlarging of the poor and a complete dismantlement of the inner city middle class.

The deregulation of the banking industry has resulted in elimination of interstate banking - we now have mortgages held by faceless entities who care not a whit about the communities in which their loan resides. We have extremely large banks building grandiose structures on various corners whilst cutting services and local employment in the name of redundancy. I'll agree that computerised services has also shrunk the employment roles at banks as well. However, the local banker who once cared about his community is gone (other than local independents) replaced by an uncaring lot.

Meanwhile, the smaller, local banks have been gobbled up by the larger, monied banks, rewarding their upper management types with obscene rewards whilst they played with their depositours hard-earned monies with extremely risky investment ventures. They repackaged their held mortgages, selling them off, invested in Credit Swap Defaults and high yield but extreme risk ventures. All this, without so much as any oversight.
If there are those who claim much money was made over the past 30 years, they need to see where it went: Into the pockets of the wealthy and to those who need bailing out of their questionable practices.

Lastly, with regard to mortgages, under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatour, Ed DeMarco's guidance, $12.79 million in bonuses for 10 executives of those two entities.
The 2 entities have made $5 billion worth of investments that benefit when homeowners are blocked from refinancing their current mortgages to take advantage of today's lower rates.

How is that not a conflict of interest? How is that helpful to struggling homeowners wishing to get out from under their homes that are no longer worth their current mortgages?
Do any of us not wonder what this causes locally? As homeowners default or are foreclosed upon, their homes become empty and then rundown as the large faceless mortgage holders seize the property whilst forgetting about the community. The neighbourhood becomes lessened by the empty homes and the scarcity of mortgages, the homeowners in the vicinity see their home value diminish when and if the bank sells off the home at a much lower value. Result: more homes fail, local government sees its service unpaid, dismisses more employees, local businesses suffur due to more unemployed.

Skip O'Neil once said, "all politics is local".

Is that local enough to understand what has happened to you personally?

"When George Bush made people take loans they couldn't AFFORD". Not that I would try to defend Bush, but how do you MAKE someone take a loan? Was it at gunpoint? Just curious.

Gerald? Did George Bush make you sign your mortgage? Yes, lets not expect individuals to take any responsibility whatsoever for what they signed up for. Its all Bush's fault. Lets punish all those people who made sound financial decisions by draining the treasury and destroying the economy permanently. You and Fatima should get a job with the Obama administration as economic advisors, you'd fit right in. Bush might have been the 2nd worst president in history, but the absolute worst currently occupies the position. Luckily, blaming Bush won't get him re-elected.

Jeff-
I'd add a number 5 to your list - redistricting reform. Our political maps are a big reason why we're presented with the kind of candidates you describe in your column. Every ten years, the very people we elect have the opportunity to pick and choose their voters. When legislative districts become safer and safer, it means candidates become more and more partisan. In turn, that makes it very difficult to get anything done, because legislators are so dug in to what pleases their very partisan electorate...and the last thing a sitting elected official wants is a primary opponents who is more extreme than they are.

Redistricting as it stands creates a huge mess.

Let us be honest about this, Mr O'Neil, there were regulations in place to prevent the sub-prime mortgages from happening. However, those regulations were set aside by the Congress and Mr Bush in the endeavour to allow everyone a chance of becoming a homeowner.
When those regulations were set aside, then the unscrupulous lenders arrived, making profit off of every mortgage they could scrape together.
I am not saying that the mortgagee is completely at fault, the borrower shares in the responsibility, as well.
It is the predatory practices that resulted and the way mortgages were bundled together, sold off and gambled.
By allowing interstate banking via deregulation, the larger banks took over the smaller locals, became faceless entities, disregarded the community in which they lent, allowed risky ventures in investments and then began to fail. The American taxpayer bailed them out. There was no accountability in their management. Their top executives became enriched by bonuses that they did not deserve.
Lastly, we now see struggling homeowners unable to refinance their homes even though there have been governmental aids to do so. The banks were supposed to be aiding in this venture; they did not.
In short they were given a huge favour, they in turn, have chosen not to do so with those who aided them in their time of need.
Can I make this any clearer?

Fatima is correct in this.

Regulations requiring that borrowers show evidence of financial solvency or even current employment were scrapped. It became illegal to ask for proof of ability to pay. Untrained, unlicensed "mortgagee brokers" worked out of fly-by -night storefront operations selling low or deferred interest mortgages to totally unqualified people on the promise that they could resell the property for a huge profit before the adjustable interest rate kicked in.

These salesmen got a straight commission on each mortgage sold, the mortgages were bundled and sold up the line, re-bundled and sold again until no one had the slightest idea what the bundles contained or what their actual value was.

When the bubble began to burst and interest rates kicked in the properties went under water, the home owners could not pay, and the house of cards collapsed.

Many of the original mortgage brokers walked away rich.

All of this was predictable and avoidable.

Me and Colin and Fatima know the score!!!! Faceless bankers and BUsh friends TRICKING the public!!!!!!! Now Obama has to fix it all - you guys need to GET INFROMED!!!!!!!

Just FYI, the affordable Housing Act was last re-visited in the Clinton administration. This is where you sub-prime mortgages and the regulations that relaxed the standards originated. Banks were threatened that they had to issue a certain percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolio or face the wrath of the justice department for discriminatory lending practices. That said I do agree that the bailout of the banks was a mistake. Bankruptcy was intended to clean out the weak players and bring in more competent managers. That did not happen and the fox is still in charge of the hen house. George Bush screwed up a lot of things, but this was not one of them. Google Barney Frank or Chris Dodd if you want more information on the architects of this disaster.

Partially true.r O'Neil. Mr Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act that added to the already sloppy practices.
I'm not certain if the bailout of the banks was a mistake as it was allowing them to remain the large entities they had become.
Much like "Trustbusting" of years ago, it would seem clear to me that there should have been a measure of control exerted over these financial institutions as there with the trusts.
It really comes down to this: An extremely large amount of money was lent to cover losses. Someone or an amount of people made a fortune during this period whilst the treasuries of various countries were emptied in keeping the institutions solvent.

It is not not public knowledge. Have you an idea just where the money went?

IS IT SO BAD THAT BILL CLINTON THOUGHT EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A HOUSE!!!!??? People in the ghettos were practiclly FORCED to sign papers they didn't understand - so the RICH BANKERS could make bad loans that could never be paid up! Then what happens???? You know the REST of the story.
Like Fatima said, we don't know who got the money - but a good start is to start making the RICH BANKERS give money backto the poor prople who got TRICKED!!!

What fantasy world are you living in.......people were practically FORCED to sign! No one held a gun to their heads to borrow money. If they believed the "too good to be true" stories about these loans, they got exactly what they deserved, a bad deal. NO ONE should sign legal documents they don't understand.

I'll agree that there are a myriad of reasons that caused the sub-prime bubble. how many remember the televisions programs about "Flipping This House"? Many were purchasing homes with no intent on inhabiting them - they were taking advantage of low interest rates and questionable lending practices to make a quick profit. Albeit, there is nothing wrong in making money - it was the method that was used without any worry of the risk involved. Defaults could simply be assuaged by reselling the property.
The collapse of the internet, or dot com bubble pushed then President Bush and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to institute tax cuts that only seemed to benefit the wealthy, but did not end the resultant recession. Greenspan decided then to cut interest rates as a method of continuing growth and employment. He further encouraged homeowners to take out equity loans by refinancing. Many did so. It was rampant. Do you remember?
As the mortgages were repackaged over and over, they were purchased by all differnt types of investours without regard to what exactly was being purchased and the risks involved if default occurred.
But as I have stated, a terrific amount of money was made and the banks were loaned a terrific amount of money to cover their losses.
But just who is holding all that lost cash? Where did it go?

Fatima, in general I am a supporter of Obama and I know that when he took office he was overwhelmed by the enormity of the financial crash and the need to stop a precipitous slide into another "Great Depression".

He and his economic team remembered all too well what happened between the stock market crash of 1929, relative inaction by the Hoover administration for nearly three years, and then the collapse of the banking industry in 1933 that actually led to the depression itself.

They did not want a repeat of that but openly admitted that no one really knew exactly what to do to prevent it.

So, they were pretty busy trying to figure it out. The fact that, as yet we have not slid into a major depression and have even seen some signs of recovery seems to indicate some success on their part.

I am very disappointed, however, that our government has not yet vigorously pursued those who may have violated the law in the run-up to the collapse. I know that they have been busy trying to save our economy but I do hope that at some point they can shift their focus and punish those responsible for this mess.

I think that the gamblers in the financial markets need to know that they can be held responsible for illegal actions.

I disagree with your assessment that Hoover took relatively little action following the stock market crash of 1929. He advocated a temporary moratorium on countries repaying war debts (sounds familiar to our cure for the foreclosure and housing market solutions), he increased federal spending on infrastructures (sound familiar) and he levied import tariffs.

Justin, I could not agree more. I guess my question would be: how can we get a slate of excellent candidates? How can we get voters to make truly intelligent choices, or to even vote in the first place? And, once in office how can we get our elected representatives to put the good of our Nation above their own personal, parochial, and party interests?

Jay,

I know that economists argue constantly over the value of government intervention vs. a laissez faire approach to economic recession. At present I think that it is safe to say that there is no general agreement on the best response. However, given the complexity of the world economy today i tend to lean toward intervention. Personal preference.

I would much prefer that we try to develop a system of rational and reasonable regulation that might prevent or at least mitigate or warn of unsustainable market bubbles that lead to the kind of instability and collapse that we have seen so often in the capitalist system.

I would gladly trade some growth potential for a bit more stability and predictability.

Do you think that's possible to achieve?

Does anyone know if the requirements and qualifications for Kane county board chairman have changed. In 2005 BOTH the chairman and the Kane board members made $15,500 a year. Now the chairman makes about $92,000+ So did the qualifications change or was the pay raise just to compete with neighboring counties.

Colin
If your going to blame the Republican majority during the Clinton Administration that's fine. When the democrats took control of the house and senate in 2006, when Bush was still president, the country was at around 4% unemployment rates and real estate values and GDP were great. Since the Dems got control, things have gotten worse and worse. What have they done besides tank the economy? Health insurance reform that didn't fix anything and costs continue to soar, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, cash for Solyndra, more cash for food stamps, cash for 99 weeks of unemployment, cash for bankers, cash for bankrupt blue states, cash for underwater mortgages, cash for green energy (having produced nothing) pretty much cash for any liberal cause you can think of, and what do we have to show for it, pretty much nothing. Oh I forgot, cash for 14 vacations for the Obama's, must need a break from handing out all the cash!!!

Greg listen, me and Colin and Fatima are just saying the ONLY way Obama can fix whta BUSH wrecked is to spend HIS mony where ke knows it will bring good jobs and help poor people to live better. If he has to spend cash for windmills and to take bad acrs off the road (WICH MEANS MORE CARS GET BUILT AND MORE JOBS!!!!)
He is sharing the wealth to make the USA BETTER FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!

Well stated Pete!

Www.dggab.com

Peteee, Milton was wrong. The recent recession, which was the result of market failure, should show that as much as anything. Friedman will always predict the the market has perfect information. So where did the meltdown come from? The market didn't see it and yet it supposedly should have.

As for wealth redistribution and "theft" You don't believe that people in the market can redistribute wealth to themselves? So the fact that wages have lagged way behind all the productivity advances we have seen these thirty years is because it is the rich who have improved their productivity and no one else?

The government didn't force the banks to sell houses who could not afford them. The banks and mortgage companies tripped over themselves to sell those mortgages. Remember, it was a housing bubble and the banks felt that the loans were not risky because values would keep rising. On top of that, the whole financial system was (claiming to be) hedging its exposure by using unregulated over the counter exotic financial instruments. Note - unregulated financial instruments. It was THAT market that collapsed and pulled down everything else.

Milton's theory might work IF risk was properly distributed. But it isn't. And since the advent of joint stock companies, it never will be. People risk money that isn't theirs. Milton's theory cannot survive in that environment. He was simply wrong and recent events prove it. But then again, he didn't win his Nobel Prize on the basis of his free market theories.

Petered, regarding risk, think of it this way. You don't know who is really at risk in Florida until the hurricane comes and you see whose house actually got blown down. Same thing with the recession. Millions of people lost their jobs, homes, and savings who weren't speculating in any way. The speculators, on the other hand, mostly cleaned up. The tragedy of the recession is that the wrong people got screwed. Should the people that took the risk have been allowed to fail? You're talking about every large bank in the world. Do you keep your money in a bank? You would have lost it all. Did you know that?

Lord save us from a bunch of phoney democrats who claim they care about our health.......................while their fearless leader puffs his cigarette :(

It's ambiguous, Tonto. Are you saying that real democrats care about health (as opposed to phony ones)? Or that democrats don't really care about your health because one of them smokes? If you're going to play the snark game, try showing a little wit or at least a little coherence.

I don't think it is useful to say that politicians are doing things because they want your vote. You want them to want your vote, don't you?

Regarding health care (if we can get serious for a moment) health care reform is about costs and financing and not so much about who is smoking. Our health care system is a joke in the civilized world, mostly because it is so screwed up it makes us uncompetitive. We spend 17.9 percent of our GPA on health (compared to an average of 9 percent by everyone else) and we spend 2.5 times more per capita on doctors and hospitals than the average industrialized country, yet we come in 35th in the WHO world health rankings. This with 50 million people uninsured. Whether one cares about the uninsured or not, we're spending too much and not getting enough and it is costing us a lot of money that we need to put to other more productive uses. There is already enough money (as you can see) flowing through the system to cover the whole population. It's just that the system is warped so that this does not happen. And yet costs (as you know) are rising twice the rate of inflation (or more) each year.

I could give you a technical explanation about why this is. But health care reform is about a failure in the market, not about some socialist plot. We can argue about whether we should care about the un and under insured or not. But the facts about how much we spend and how much we get are not controversial.

With regard to the housing bubble that had burst and resulted in the financial meltdown, I had wanted to add that with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, the financial institutions began a full-blown campaign in taking risky ventures and behaviour.
The repeal removed the distinction that had been between investment banking. and commercial banks. Previously, the investment banks that had issued securities and the commercial banks which made profit through deposits became one and the same. It removed conflict-of-interest rules that had kept investment bankers from serving as officers of commercial banks. The repeal of this act allowed depositors' money to flow into risky investments.
The repeal occurred during a Republican majority and the bill that was introduced into Congress was submitted by Republicans.
Currently, the "too big to fail" banks have not been broken up. The GS Act should be reinstituted and there should be limit to the size a bank can become. I fear that there is a very good chance of another meltdown.

Mr Eggar, initially the vote was 54 - 44 along party lines. it went into committee and then was passed 90 - 8. President Clinton signed it afterwards.
Hence, i feel your comment is correct.
As it is ever so important that the electorate be a knowledgeable lot. However, when has this ever been true?
Yet, there are those who feel the desire to name-call the president, shouting liar amdist the Congress as well as here.

How sad for those who feel the need to indulge in this practice. it does not aid progress.

Fatima - it shouldn't be the case... But it is typical. Which is too bad. Looking back a few years, the situation was no different with George Bush. We as Americans need to tone the rhetoric down a little bit.

The way our political system goes the parties demonize each other to such an extent that by the time somebody steps into office at least half of the public dislikes and perhaps despises them.

It's unfortunate... Hopefully at some point in time we begin to reward politicians for taking the high road (and do so ourselves).

Has the economy improved since Barack Obama became the president of the United States? Of course not. Despite what you may be hearing in the mainstream media, the truth is that when you compare the U.S. economy on the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated to the U.S. economy today, there is really no comparison. The unemployment crisis is worse than it was then, home values have fallen, the cost of health insurance is up, the cost of gas is way up, the number of Americans living in poverty has soared and the size of our national debt has absolutely exploded. Anyone that believes that things are better than they were when Barack Obama was elected is simply being delusional. Yes, things have stabilized somewhat and our economy is not in free fall mode at this point. But don’t be fooled. This bubble of false hope will be short-lived. The problems we are seeing develop in Europe will erupt into another full-fledged global financial crisis and economic conditions in the United States will get even worse. When that happens, what possible ” economic solutions” will Barack Obama have for us? We never even came close to recovering from the last great financial crisis, and now something potentially even worse is staring us in the face. This is not a great time to have a total lack of leadership in Washington.

The following are 18 statistics that prove that the economy has not improved since Barack Obama became the president of the United States….

#1 Today there are 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.

#2 When Barack Obama was elected, the percentage of unemployed Americans that had been out of work for more than 52 weeks was less than 15%. Today, it is above 30%.

#3 There are 1.2 million fewer jobs in America today than there were when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

#4 When Barack Obama first took office, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

#5 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is hovering close to an all-time record high.

#6 During the Obama administration, worker health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent.

#7 Since Barack Obama has been president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by 90 percent.

#8 Since Barack Obama has been president, home values in the United States have declined by another 13 percent.

#9 Under Barack Obama, new home sales in the U.S. set a brand new all-time record low in 2009, they set a brand new all-time record low again in 2010, and they set a brand new all-time record low once again during 2011.

#10 Since Barack Obama took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by more than 6 million.

#11 Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million.

#12 The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#13 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in “extreme poverty” is now sitting at an all-time high.

#14 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce.

#15 Since Barack Obama became president, the size of the U.S. national debt has increased by 44 percent.

#16 During Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.

#17 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#18 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Oh, but Barack Obama is promising that things will be much better very soon. Barack Obama is pledging that 2 million more jobs will be added to the economy in 2012.

Paul, which person are you referring to regarding the plagiarism.

Gregoir, I'll take the gas number, since gas prices briefly plunged at about the time Obama took office from much higher than they are now the year before. As for the deficit, Bush contributed about $6 trillion and Obama about $3 trillion as far as I can see. Do you have different numbers?

Paul Bryant, I wouldn't mind the plagiarism if the writer checked the numbers out and put the numbers in some kind of context. It would also be interesting to hear what he thinks should have been done instead.

Gregoir, I think your article bears out my numbers. One thing we should remember is that Obama had to do stimulus spending; Bush didn't (until the end, but still after he ran up a massive deficit, which you will remember reversed the course charted by Clinton.) There are many who think that Obama (and Bush) should have let the banks fail. If they had everyone with a bank account would have lost their savings and deposits.