YOUR COMMENTS

There is only one way to return America to the greatness we once enjoyed. A totally new Congress. We have to remove the fat cat greedy establishment that now believes they can spend our money recklessly without consequences. They and their cronies have got us into the situation we are in, FOLLOW THE MONEY and you will find the culprets, there are many.
To correct this situation, we must remove all the money from the political process. Campaign and Compensation reform is manadatory. To get the smartest and most honest representation avaivlable I would pay Congress $1.5 million per year (competitive with corporate America) and increase annually at the same rate as military compensation. They could also have a retirment package that graduates up with years of service. The Government (WE) will pay for their campaign, all candidates in a head to head race will receive the same amount of funding. Any candidate or incumbant receiving money from ANYONE will loose his job and retirement benefits. Paying our representatives well and eliminating all the funny money from the system will encourage new talent to enter the political area. We need change...this is REAL CHANGE right where we need it.
- Dick DeCamp, Columbus, Ohio

Term Limits would be a start. Both houses of Congress are filled with reps that perpetuate the "feather my nest' syndrome. If they were limited to 2 terms there would be less of it...in theory. Cut their benefits, limit thier terms and cut their pay back to resonable salaries. Why do you think they call it Public Service. Maybe a page or two from our govt in NH, per diems and mileage. But unfortunately the voters are lemmings and talk is cheap , the majority vote for the same old, same old!
- ken, Merrimack

I did the Googling recommended here and all I found was this sort of thing so I guess you want to waste my time. "Middle-class women would (and were expected to) retire from the workforce to their proper sphere and attend to their primary duties-child rearing and homemaking." Perhaps you might read "Bread and Roses" by Watson but of course you don't read books. You are just plain wrong about the middle class but you are probably rich and that is your right. Henry Ford famously in the 20's wanted to sell his Model T's to his workers so that they could become the middle class consumers we have been living off for the past seven years. Now with retirement funds raided, unfunded education, cutting Pell grants, cutting GI Bill, cutting back on government backing of mortgages like your parents had. It will certainly be fun to see which pot of gold the gold diggers go after next. Tax payers are the ones who get Social Security not the rich who want to cut it who have all the Bush tax cuts. Again I ask, who do you think has supported more regulation?
- Robert Mann, Deerfield

"In 1968, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privatized just like McCain and Bush want to do with Social Securtiy. Unfortunately, left behind was the governmental responsibility and therefore the tax payer is on the hook." Comrade Robert

Social Security and Medicaid have future liabilities of $51 trillion dollars, this is not hyperbole but straight out facts. Who do you think will be stuck with the bill Comrade? T-A-X-P-A-Y-E-R-S.

Who started a pre-emptive war? Republicrats...Who will be stuck with the bill? T-A-X-P-A-Y-E-R-S.

Both parties did this. The one party system is destroying the country. You can play the blue vs red game all you like but the facts tell another story.
- kyle, bedford

Don't let the Facts get in the way Robert. A great deal of this mess can be attributed to Liberal Dems who wanted mortgages for all...including those who couldn't afford them.

From 2003 on Bush's plan to add regulation:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Read the whole article in the NY Times from September 11 2003.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
- Greg Lizotte, Hudson, NH

It’s funny reading how the same politicians now claiming to be the saviors of the mortgage crisis are also the same ones who lowered the lending requirements which caused the crisis.

Robert all anyone has to do is Google "The middle class 1875" and read how there was a middle class in the country long before the government programs you mention to support Mr. Frank. I'm sure the depression would have ended and a middle class emerged again without the programs you mention.

By the way how many jobs has Heinz/Kerry corp. moved to South America under NAFTA? Yes let's talk about evil capitalists Robert. Why is it you never mention the ones with a D stamped in their foreheads?
- Deb, Derry

Mr Mann, if all these socialistic Government programs are so good, why don't government employees have to be in them????? Maybe these programs would be in better standing if their retiremnet monies were in them and they had a vested interest in how these programs are kept sound. These programs are the drugs that keep our citizens slaves to their government. Dependence on government is a road to disaster.
- Mike Pellitier, Raymond

True. Congress has allowed this to happen. Please don't forget that it was a bi-partisan effort. Until very recently McCain was a staunch supporter of no government intervention in financial markets.
- Carlos Agudelo, Francestown, NH

We really must remember that congress and the white house were pretty much controlled by Republicans until 2006. Poor oversight should be blamed on them.
- John, Raymond

Which party would you guess in any given situation is more in favor of government regulation of drugs, food, banks, foreign ownership of ports, air quality, water quality, seat belts, helmets, CAFE standards, wall street, drinking and on and on. Well you are completely correct. Democrats passed a whole bunch of laws for the purpose of protecting the populace from the thoughtless greed of capitalists the last time the economy really went in the tank - the Depression. Since that time, every chance they got, Republicans have attempted to remove those regulations and now we have one example of the result. In 1968, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privatized just like McCain and Bush want to do with Social Securtiy. Unfortunately, left behind was the governmental responsibility and therefore the tax payer is on the hook. Just like the rest of the Republican plan, they take the profits, you take the risk.
From 1930 to 1968, these were government run organizations set up to provide mostly 30 year home mortgages which are essentially unknown in the rest of the world. Americans decided that home ownership was that important. I saw Barney Frank a couple of years ago and he said one of the most memorable things I have heard about Social Security and the Republican attempts to privatize it. He said, "if you want to know what private retirement was like, all you have to do is look before 1930." Government organizations like Social Security, the FDA, FNMA and FHLMC created the middle class by taking the responsibility for supporting your parents off of you which used to keep most in poverty and prevented home ownership. Now they are sending us back into despair.
- Robert Mann, Deerfield

This mortgage debacle is being billed as a BUSH economic failure. Upon further investigation it appears GW Bush tried to get tighter regulation imposed on Frannie & Freddie (F&F) but Congress defeated his bill, that was in 2003. In 2005 McCain sponsered another bill tightening rules for F & F, copngress never voted on it. Now it appears that from 1998 thru 2008 the biggest recivers of contributions from F&F for influence were none other than Hillary, Kerry, Obama and I think I heard Schummer. So much for a republican failure to oversee the mortgages at F&F. No wonder Obama is against a Commission to investigate who and what caused the bailout of F&F by us taxpayers. Pretty interesting stuff once you get more than just the approved sound bite from the press.
- michael king, Epping

Is this the same Barney Frank that the House voted to reprimand in 1990 when it was revealed that a male escort whom he had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement conducted an escort service from his apartment? Is this the same Barney Frank that admitted that he had an affair with a prostitute? I just want to make sure I have my facts straight...because admittedly while some Republican members of Congress have not been perfect angels, the Democrats have lectured us so often about ethics and corruption I would be shocked if they would chose such an individual to headline their Jefferson-Jackson dinner...
- D.J. Bettencourt, Salem, NH