Winston-Salem, NC

I have been listening to the talking heads on TV recently talk about the economic crisis and many of them are proposing the need for the government to embark on a huge spending program somewhat like the new deal of yesteryear. The spending would be for many things and in essence would provide jobs and jumpstart the economy.

But part of my confusion is that the average American family did exactly that, spending its way into debt. Of course, the result is the problem we are now facing.

The citizens of America have seen a reduction in real ages over the past 20 years and have had to us credit and debt to keep up with the modern lifestyle. Millions have used real estate as a means to create wealth just like the millions who invested in the dot.com bubble. And the result was the same.

So why is it logical for the government to do it and not the average consumer? By creating debt the government is pushing off the day when it has to pay up and the pain is going to be greater. Why can't the government save money in good times to have it in bad?

We have to balance our checkbooks or we will face penalties. The government needs to stop spending money until it can write only good checks.

The housing market in America has fallen to such a point were in many areas, the number of foreclosures on the market, literally make up the local market. These foreclosures have destroyed the values in the areas affected and have caused millions of Americans to live in homes that have lost tremendous value and may even be underwater as to the mortgage.

The simplest way to stop the carnage would be for all lien holders to reduce the principal and interest rates on all distressed properties. This would allow homeowners the option of staying in homes that are underwater and would help stop new foreclosures.

But banks have been reluctant to handle their problems this way. They would rather foreclose, then sell the property at a reduced price, take the loss and move on. Regardless of the banks philosophy, they do not care about their customers and with the government bail out money, they don't have to help their customers.

I hope that the nation's citizens rejects the banks efforts to take their money in the future and that we are given a chance to vote out the politicians that gave away the financial future of America

The buzz on the financial and news channels is the 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme that has caught up many rich people, charities, and endowments. The government agencies that are tasked to keep these things from happening have vowed to investigate. But what if the ones investigating are part of a Ponzi scheme themselves?

The government is always looking for new investors (taxpayers) to help provide the capitol required to pay the returns demanded by the earlier investors. The new investors are promised all sorts of returns from social security payments, healthcare, etc. As the pay outs continue, it gets harder to meet them unless the number of new investors increases, hence our governments lack of desire to halt illegal immigration. And if the number of new investors can't contribute the amount of capital necessary to keep up the returns, the schemes begins to unravel.

With 75 million Americans getting close to retirement, the government has to either keep them from retiring or increase the number of taxpayers. The end of the scheme may be near.

As we see more banks fail, the concern by the media and talking heads is misguided in that they focus on the deposits of the citizens in the failed banks. Of course the deposits are protected by the FDIC and most Americans do not have more than $250,000 in liquid deposits.

The long term concern should be the lack of competition for financial products and the costs to Americans for those products going forward. With less competition prices will go up for us further padding the banks profits. Also the relationships between the remaining banks and financial services companies will cause pain to consumers.

The Federal Reserve will ultimately be controlled by just a few mega size members and this will also cause problems for Americans in the future.

All last week the buzz was about the auto makers and their proposed bailout. in the end, the Senate refused to give them money based on an incomplete business plan. Most Americans are against the bailout thinking that the unions are making too much money and costing the companies their ability to survive. The big argument is that thousands in not millions of jobs would be lost. But any plan that makes sense for the companies surviving involves cut backs in production so the jobs would be lost anyway. The real losses will come from suppliers, they have no voice and the union does. So, in the end the entire bailout is about union jobs.

But why is the job in Detroit more important than the suppliers job in another state. Or how about the dealerships across the country? We cannot accept that our politicans are picking and choosing the companies to bailout at the expense of small businesses everywhere. The bailouts are just going to special interests. We deserve better. Remember this when the next election cycle comes around.