jackson33

amanda; I hope your not thinking if the Stock Market did crash (it won't), that being insured through FDIC would protect your original investment from the lost value, which it won't. Depending on where your account is held and if FDIC secured, that bank/saving & loan of whatever fails, your account will probably first be bought or assumed by another financial institution, or if their are no buyers (highly unlikely) then the FDIC would assume your account. Many people are cashing in their 401's, taking some substantial losses and I really feel making a serious mistake. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by moving to an FDIC insured company, since no program would ever be set up otherwise. There were some changes, actually for the better, more value insured and if your over the new limits, highly unlikely, their are other remedies your financial adviser can advise yo on.

amanda;Here is another link, with an actual accounting of spending of US/State Governments back to the beginning (1875)....scroll down a little, on the right hand side are all current budget proposals. Keep in mind the House, responsible for making US Budgets, did not produce one for 2010 or 2011 and Ryan's House Budget for 2012, was tabled by the Senate. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_pie_gs.php?span=usgs302&year=1875&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy11&local=s&state=US#usgs302 As the dollar goes down in value, what you buy will cost more, but Bonds are contracts, with established interest rates. What might happen is current US Bonds to be transfer could requires a higher interest, the yield price having increased. As for all this talk of your loans increasing, unless your under some kind of adjustable or have credit cards, those loan won't change rates. Yes, those that sold short Friday, probably quite a few since talk of a Rate Cut was all over the place, could profit, but as you said, "history will tell". iNow, nice to see you posting in Politics...at least at the moment.

Today everybody is setting on whatever cash they can, including business or more to the point the larger Corporations. Traditionally publicly traded business, either pay's a dividend, reserves funds for growth or both. Apple Computer (holding largest reserves) for instance pay's no dividend but the value of Apple has increased from around 18.00 in the late 90's to 374.00 last Friday. The reasons they don't spend, a said 78B$ for growth is not demand, they can't produce all they could sell now, but the uncertainties of what in general is going on with the US Government. They ARE building factories overseas, much as GM, Ford, GE and many others, because that uncertainty is perceived more economically sound elsewhere, than in the US.

swansont, doG may have not been clear, to YOUR satisfaction, but the offered link WAS. You and your darn word games are getting a little tiring, IN MY OPINION. Read the chart, it's really very clear. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnapgraph.pdf

I just read the "extension for comment", to August 1st, which in passing, heard something earlier on Fox Business today, validating the Blaze article. The emphasize portion below, indicates to me State MVD's (most States, the State Police), will do the enforcement for the ICC, much as State weight stations currently operate, but the regulation would be the same for all States.

And simply children living in most any US City is safer??? I don't think so and I did work on a farm when 12 and 13 and learned a lot. Yes I drove a tractor and the truck as hay was being loaded. Work ethics are established at younger ages IMO, but the underlying the point is, does the US Federal Government have any right telling any farmer in any of the 50 States, what they can or can't do.

CR; Very Good, I should have read the proposal, as well. Your saying the article and proposal do not blend, but are you using the "Legal Authority" section to determine? If so it's the extensions of that authority could lead to what the article suggest. I read through the Article Comments and they apparently do not read it as you, however I didn't see any references, other than the proposal. Anyway, I see no reason the DOT has for regulating Farmers within any State, for any reason and IMO the obligation of the Congress if authorized by the Constitution, it is not IMO.

swansont; Smaller banks for the most part have been making loans for Fannie/Freddie, under their requirements and Congress has been setting those standards since privatization (late 70's) and after the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980's, as qualifications by reputable banks had increased, those regulations for F/F were being decreased, to buy notes. Said another way F/F via regulation were allowing loan contracts, NO BANK would have ever accepted. Here is one example on illegal's but other regulations regarding qualification to obtain a home loan were destined to create the problems, later realized. The second link one of maybe 10 major regulatory changes that eventually caused the so called "crisis"...

Heins; Out of curiosity, did you know iNow has recently spent time in Singapore and was pleased with your Political/Governing system? For myself, you being a student and one with a couple years in economics, presumably knowledgeable in your own system, I will be looking forward to your contributions.... As for what's happening in the US, I do have a different take on our problems, to those of iNow, but would like your viewpoints for Authoritarian Capitalism, which is probably what your being taught. In the US, Capitalism is practiced from the individuals right to ownership and success and that would be my first question. I know China is in the top three for new Millionaires or as some say around here Billionaires but can the average person without the proper support or heritage, make out under your system? Think your economy is still growing at near 10% and we could surely use a few years of that....

swansont; I don't know for how long but budgets have been based on the previous years spending, without regards to the economy. While the economy of the US has been near stagnant since 2008. while budgets have nearly doubled, the excess spending, then being borrowed. All known estimated future budget, including 2012 are far over expected GDP and/or revenue, any reduction then into the future are revisions of those projections, not cuts. If interested check out "Zero Baseline Budgeting" or when the effort to go that route failed...

swansont, I think your saying if a future budget is projected at 100T$ (to exaggerate) and sometime before that project year begins, we cut those expectation to 4T$, we then have an actual cut of 96T$. From your link... The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, were never intended to go on forever, Obama even campaigning to shut Iraq off when he got into office. Even here from 2010 to 2015 the actual defense budget cost was around 895 to 900B$, when in 2007 it was 653B$ and in 2008, 730B$. Sun setting the Bush Tax cuts, arguable could increase future revenue, but it's simply not going to happen in the before the 2012 Elections, I don't care what the proposed committee comes up with. Short of Privatizing Fannie and Freddie or ALL the programs designed to artificially set a bottom for Housing, those problems in my mind would have exhausted themselves 2 years ago. Again the economic downturn, may have been enhanced by this administration, we've been arguing this possibility for years. All of these items however are artificial, designed to exonerate the current leaders from any quilt and purely subjective. What they neglect to mention is what caused each or gave a longer life to each problem. Anyway the long and short of cutting expenses is to cut current expense, maybe the next budget (by the way has not been produced) or at least inevitable expense into the future and somehow make it law, which means a "Balanced Budget Amendment" that spells out emergencies, taking a National Census, not being one...

Probably a mis-understanding but this was meant, although I could have cited it for clarification to Amanda, whom figured it at 50%....

Well we now have a second Cut/Cap/Balance bill passing the House, requiring Congress to successfully vote for a Balanced Budget amendment and as said, this will not require executive approval or is it subject to a veto. Even though the Senate is *likely* to table this new bill, because it requires a passage of an amendment to gain the second "debt increase" (only reason), I really hope Reid or Obama explain what would be wrong if 38 States actually ratify the proposed amendment. The possible reason might be if ratified, it then become Constitutional law above that of Congress and subject to legal action if violated. An example is Paygo, which does virtually the same thing, but Ms. Polosi's has managed to by-pass the act 32 times, since re-enacted and Congress has the judgement call privilege to bypass their own act.