A day after Bush said that Iran with nuclear weapons would start WWIII when asked about Putin in Iran, and increasin confrontational Putin smacks Bush upside the head calling Iraq War pointless.

U.S. in ‘pointless’ campaign in Iraq, Putin says
Russian president suggests oil was a key factor in American invasion

Updated: 6:16 a.m. ET Oct 18, 2007
MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that the U.S. war in Iraq was a “pointless” battle against the Iraqi people, the latest jab at Washington from the increasingly confrontational Russian leader.

Speaking during an annual televised question-and-answer session, Putin was asked by a mechanic from the Siberian city of Novosibirsk for his thoughts on comments made several years ago by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who suggested that Siberia had too many natural resources to belong to one country.

“I know that some politicians play with such ideas in their heads. This, in my view, is the sort of political erotica that might satisfy a person but hardly leads to a positive result,” Putin responded.

“The best example of that are the events in Iraq — a small country that can hardly defend itself and which possesses huge oil reserves. And we see what’s going on there. They’ve learned to shoot there but they are not managing to bring order.

“One can wipe off a political map some tyrannical regime ... but it’s absolutely pointless to fight with a people,” he said. “Russia, thank God, isn’t Iraq. It has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world.”

Praises economic gains
Putin opened the session by reeling off a string of statistics showing the improvement of Russia’s economy in the seven years he has been in office. Much of the economic growth has been due to high world oil prices.

He also said the country’s birth rate was the highest it has been in 16 years and the death rate the lowest since 1999.

Thursday’s session — the sixth Putin has participated in since coming to office in 2000, was broadcast live on state-controlled TV and radio stations. In past years, it has lasted several hours and consists of people from around the vast country asking the president selected questions mainly on bread-and-butter issues.

A sampling of questions listed on a Web site set up by the broadcasters ranged from concerns about salaries for public sector workers to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi and environmental worries.

Putin, who is widely popular among Russians for the stability and relative prosperity he has brought to the country, has sought to use phone-ins along with tightly choreographed, lavish television coverage to project the image of a leader responding directly to voters’ concerns.

Last year Putin answered more than 50 questions in a three-hour session. Correspondents from the state-run networks chose questioners from among small crowds in towns and cities around the vast country; it was impossible to tell whether most questions were arranged in advance or if questioners were coached.

Others phoned in, submitted questions by e-mail or sent text messages.

Army to keep forcibly re-enlisting soldiers
'Stop loss' program still needed, general says in response to Gates

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Oct 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite repeated pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually eliminate the practice.

Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has actually increased in recent months as a result of President Bush's orders to increase troop levels in Iraq this year to help quell the violence.

The number of those being kept on beyond their commitment — through a program known as "stop loss" — is about 9,000 now, compared to about 7,000 before the troop buildup began in late January, he said.

"Until there is some reduction in the demand, we're going to have to rely, unfortunately ... on stop loss," Rochelle told reporters. "Until the demand comes down a bit, we can't do it without it."

As recently as last month, Gates sent a memo to Army Secretary Pete Geren asking for quarterly progress reports on "reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of stop-loss as soon as feasible."

Rochelle added that when the expected withdrawal of troops from Iraq begins, the Army's reliance on the program will eventually decline.

In other remarks, Rochelle also suggested that the Army will only be able to increase its numbers by about 4,000 in the next year — a fraction of the 35,000 boost that Pentagon and Army leaders have set as a goal by 2010.

He said the Army will rely largely on two relatively new recruitment programs that would reward current active duty soldiers and National Guard soldiers who successfully bring in new people.

Other than those new efforts, the basic recruitment and retention goals for 2008 will stay the same as 2007, at 80,000 and 65,000 respectively, he said.

That, he said, reflects the "realistic view on how challenging it is at this point in time" to increase the size of the Army.

The Guard program, which only just began, has already garnered 25 recruits and there are 100 in the pipeline, Rochelle said, adding that the effort could bring in as many as 3,000 in 2008.

He said the Army is likely to continue increasing the financial, educational and other incentives to keep soldiers in the service. He declined to detail the costs of the incentives, or how much that might increase next year.

Army to keep forcibly re-enlisting soldiers
'Stop loss' program still needed, general says in response to Gates
Related Stories | What's this?
Pentagon to Alert 8 Guard Units for Duty
Gates denies "broken" Army but acknowledges stress
Thousands of Hoosier Soldiers Prepare for Deployment

Most Popular
• Most Viewed • Top Rated • Most E-mailed

House fails to override Bush child health veto
Judge suspends Britney’s visitation rights
‘King and I’ star Deborah Kerr dies at 86
Maine middle school to offer birth control
Funnyman Joey Bishop dies at age 89
Most viewed on MSNBC.com
Threats to bumblebees fly under radar
A wife's battle
Bills’ Everett standing with help of walker
Silly String care packages sent to troops in Iraq
A boss and soldier's journey to Iraq and back
Most viewed on MSNBC.com
Maine middle school to offer birth control
Meteor shower could exceed expectations
Race remarks get Nobel winner in trouble
House fails to override Bush child health veto
Funnyman Joey Bishop dies at age 89
Most viewed on MSNBC.com


Your photos of soldiers who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pictures and messages from U.S. troops overseas and their friends, family at home.


Laid to rest at Arlington

Reuters
Each week in ‘The Daily Nightly,’ NBC's John Rutherford pays tribute to the men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Fact file

How big’s a division? What’s a battalion?

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Oct 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite repeated pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually eliminate the practice.

Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has actually increased in recent months as a result of President Bush's orders to increase troop levels in Iraq this year to help quell the violence.

The number of those being kept on beyond their commitment — through a program known as "stop loss" — is about 9,000 now, compared to about 7,000 before the troop buildup began in late January, he said.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Until there is some reduction in the demand, we're going to have to rely, unfortunately ... on stop loss," Rochelle told reporters. "Until the demand comes down a bit, we can't do it without it."

As recently as last month, Gates sent a memo to Army Secretary Pete Geren asking for quarterly progress reports on "reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of stop-loss as soon as feasible."

Rochelle added that when the expected withdrawal of troops from Iraq begins, the Army's reliance on the program will eventually decline.

In other remarks, Rochelle also suggested that the Army will only be able to increase its numbers by about 4,000 in the next year — a fraction of the 35,000 boost that Pentagon and Army leaders have set as a goal by 2010.

He said the Army will rely largely on two relatively new recruitment programs that would reward current active duty soldiers and National Guard soldiers who successfully bring in new people.

Other than those new efforts, the basic recruitment and retention goals for 2008 will stay the same as 2007, at 80,000 and 65,000 respectively, he said.

That, he said, reflects the "realistic view on how challenging it is at this point in time" to increase the size of the Army.

The Guard program, which only just began, has already garnered 25 recruits and there are 100 in the pipeline, Rochelle said, adding that the effort could bring in as many as 3,000 in 2008.

He said the Army is likely to continue increasing the financial, educational and other incentives to keep soldiers in the service. He declined to detail the costs of the incentives, or how much that might increase next year.

Wed 10/17/07 10:31 PM
Fitnessfanatic,

If all my kids were homosexual, it wouldn't change my mind about homosexuality. My beliefs don't change with the wind, I don't go with the flow. But I would bet you have no idea how I would treat a homosexual, do you?

Hmm let me repeat what you wrote:
"If my neighbors house was on fire at 2:00 AM, how loving would it be for me to allow it to burn down with them in it, because I didn't want to wake them?"

Why did you use the extreme word "fire" in this post about homosexuality? Most people's problem with homosexuality is their own perception of gays and lesbians. It is far from the dire image of a house burning down at 2:00 am. Maybe you think it's because they're damn for God making them gay and your concern is to save them from the "fires" of hell. If that's the the case then you have some sort of superiority complex.

Honestly Spider in the Bible it says that only Jesus can save people. "Judge not least be judge yourself."

Spider "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


Honestly Spider I pray to God that He gives you gay children so that that the love of your children will conquer your hate.

Stephen Colbert tosses satirical hat into ring

Colbert for President
Oct. 17: Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert announces he is running for the White House. Msnbc.com's Dara Brown reports.
MSNBC.com


Updated: 12:01 p.m. ET Oct 17, 2007
NEW YORK - Stephen Colbert has announced his candidacy for president on "The Colbert Report," tossing his satirical hat into the ring of an already crowded race.

"I shall seek the office of the president of the United States," Colbert said Tuesday on his Comedy Central show as red, white and blue balloons fell around him.

Colbert, 43, had recently satirized the coyness of would-be presidential candidates by refusing to disclose whether he would seek the country's highest office — a refusal that often came without any prompting.

Shortly before making the announcement, Colbert appeared on "The Daily Show" (the show that spawned Colbert's spin-off) and played cagey, claiming he was only ready to consider a White House bid. He entered the studio set pulled by a bicycle pedaled by Uncle Sam and quickly pulled out a bale of hay and a bottle of beer to show that he was "an Average Joe."

Colbert said his final decision would be announced on a "more prestigious show," which turned out to be his own.

"After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call," said Colbert.

His recent best-seller, "I Am America (And So Can You!)," allowed him to mock the now-standard approach to a White House run, complete with a high-profile book tour.

Colbert said he planned to run in South Carolina, "and South Carolina alone." The state, one of the key early primaries, is also Colbert's native state. Earlier this week, South Carolina public television station ETV invited Colbert to announce his candidacy on its air.

Exactly how far the mock conservative pundit planned to stretch his impression of a presidential candidate wasn't clear. Colbert rarely breaks character on camera, including at his memorable speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner last year.

The Comedy Central host has often mobilized his fans ("Colbert Nation"), encouraging them to vote to have a Hungarian bridge named after him, for example, or to vandalize Web site Wikipedia.com with his version of "truthiness" and "wikiality."

Colbert said he would run as both a Democrat and Republican. He earlier explained the strategy: "I can lose twice." He claimed three running mate possibilities: Colbert-Huckabee, Colbert-Putin or Colbert-Colbert.

Minutes after announcing his presidential pursuit, Colbert welcomed CBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield to ask how he had changed the race.

"This is going to be one for the books," said Greenfield.

A spokesman for Colbert said he would be unavailable for further comment Tuesday evening.

In a guest column for Maureen Dowd in Sunday's New York Times, Colbert wrote: "I am not ready to announce yet _ even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."

Turkish lawmakers approve incursion into Iraq
Parliament approves possible cross-border move to chase Kurdish rebels

Updated: 11:47 a.m. ET Oct 17, 2007
ANKARA, Turkey - Parliament on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a possible cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, although the government appears willing to give diplomatic pressure on the U.S.-backed Iraqi administration more time to work.

Lawmakers voted 507-19 in favor of empowering the government to order the military to cross into Iraq during a one-year period, Parliament Speaker Koksal Toptan said. They then burst into applause.

Turkish leaders have stressed that an offensive against the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, would not immediately follow the expected authorization.

In Washington, President Bush said the United States was making clear to Turkey it should not send a massive number of troops into Iraq.

Bush said Turkey has had troops stationed in Iraq “for quite a while.”

“We don’t think it’s in their interest to send more troops in.”

Bush also noted that Tariq al-Hashimi, one of Iraq’s vice presidents, was in Istanbul expressing that Iraq shares Turkey’s concerns about terrorist activities, but that there’s a better way to deal with the issue than sending more troops into Iraq.

'A lot of dialogue'
“What I’m telling you is that there’s a lot of dialogue going on and that’s positive,” he said.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared to dismiss Bush’s comments.

“What’s important is the parliament’s decision, not what people say,” private NTV television quoted him as saying.

Wednesday’s motion — authorizing an attack into Iraq sometime in the next year — had the backing from all of Turkey’s parliamentary parties except a small Kurdish party.

Hours before the vote, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called his Turkish counterpart to say that his government was determined to halt the “terrorist activities” of the PKK on Iraqi territory, and he emphasized the need for the two nations to continue to talk, his office said.

In Paris, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, called on PKK rebels to stop fighting in Turkey, while also urging the Turkish government not to launch an incursion.

“We consider activities of PKK against the interests of the Kurdish people first, and then against the interests of Turkey,” Talabani told reporters during an official visit to the French capital. “We have asked the PKK to stop fighting, to end the so-called military activity.”

Lack of U.S. support?
Turkey has complained about what it considers a lack of U.S. support in the fight against the PKK. It also is frustrated with Washington, after U.S. Congress last week approved a resolution labeling the World War 1-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians a genocide.

A resolution is an affront to Turks, who deny there was any systematic campaign to eliminate Armenians.

At a White House news conference, Bush also repeated calls for the Democratic-controlled Congress to drop plans for a resolution labeling as genocide the World War I-era killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.

Noting the number of domestic bills pending before Congress, he said: “One thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire.”

The House vote to label the century-old deaths of Armenians as genocide was in jeopardy Tuesday after several Democrats withdrew their support and sounded alarms it could cripple U.S. relations with Turkey.

Poll: A fourth of Germans see good in Nazi rule
Finding comes shortly after popular talk show host fired for similar view

Updated: 7:54 p.m. ET Oct 17, 2007

BERLIN - A quarter of Germans believe there were some positive aspects to Nazi rule, according to a poll published Wednesday — a finding that comes after a popular talk show host was fired for praising Nazi Germany’s attitude toward motherhood.

Pollsters for the Forsa agency, commissioned by the weekly magazine Stern, asked whether National Socialism also had some “good sides (such as) the construction of the highway system, the elimination of unemployment, the low criminality rate (and) the encouragement of the family.”

Forsa said 25 percent responded “yes” — but 70 percent said “no.”

Stern commissioned the survey, conducted Oct. 11-12, after Germany’s NDR public broadcaster last month fired talk show host Eva Herman over comments she made about the Third Reich.

News reports quoted Herman as saying there was “much that was very bad — for example, Adolf Hitler,” but there were good things under the Nazis, “for example, the high regard for the mother.”

Herman, 48, who has written books urging a return to more traditional gender roles, has stood by her comments.

“What I wanted to express was that values which also existed before the Third Reich, such as family, children and motherhood, which were supported in the Third Reich, were subsequently done away with by the 68ers,” she later said, referring to 1960s-era leftists.

Praising the 1933-45 Nazi dictatorship is taboo in Germany. The Nazis were responsible for the murder of some 6 million Jews and for starting World War II — a conflict in which at least 60 million people died, including more than 7 million Germans.

The poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, showed that people 60 or older had the highest regard for aspects of the era, with 37 percent answering “yes.”

Those who grew up directly after the war, now aged 45 to 59, were the least enthusiastic about the Nazi era, with only 15 percent responding “yes.”

Wed 10/17/07 03:18 PM
Spider quoted and commented:

"Redykeulous,

"You have this deeply ingrained religious notion that homosexuality is a choice. "

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have said this before. You guys don't like attacking what I really believe, so you set up strawman arguments and attack them instead. Next time, actually discuss what I believe or leave me the hell out of your silly discussion. "

I afraid you don't see the Redykeulous side; Spider you believe homosexuality is sin solely based on verse in the Bible. You base a personal belief not by a personal interaction with a homosexual but instead judge them based on what you read. By action of automatically judging people is not what Jesus preaches: "Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."

Catlady wrote: "And the trinity means God, Son, and Holy Spirit"

Interesting that you mentioned trinity because Sigmund Freud made a similar explaination of the human psyche in Ego, Super Ego and Id. The sum of the three parts equal the human mind. Sigmund wasn't Christian but Jewish but he attended many of Christian masses while growning up and his theories reflexed those early beliefs.

Though Freud was brilliant in developing Psycho analyist therapy he had a flaw that many people religiosos here have in that they always think their right or better wording would be self-rightous.

LOL! Oh Abra how I like you putting religiosos in there place. LOL!

LOL Abra!

I believe in God just not religion.

Oh by the way spider how old is the universe? If you played the lottery once a day for a 4 billion years do you think you eventually win?

Hey Spider are you a physics professor because I thought your area of expertise was defending Christianity?

Science is man's wanting to understand the universe.

Religion is just man's way of living in ignorance of universe by inventing stories to find moral truth.

Life is harder now, some experts say
Generation gap: After paying the bills, middle-class pockets are emptier

The sight of shoppers pounding the pavement leads some to think the middle-class squeeze is a myth. But government data show today's consumers spend much less of their income on items like clothes, food, and appliances than their parents -- leading some experts to call accusations of hyper-consumption a myth.

Shopping malls are packed every weekend. Restaurants can't open fast enough. Everyone seems to be wearing designer shoes, jackets and jeans and sipping $4 lattes. Credit card commercials constantly advocate splurging and, it seems, U.S. consumers are all too ready to comply.

So what's the problem? Why do so many middle class Americans with so much stuff say they feel so squeezed? If they are dogged by debt, isn’t it their own fault?

Perhaps, some experts say, things are not as they appear.

Bankruptcy law expert and Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Warren spent a lot of time crunching consumer spending numbers for her popular books, "The Fragile Middle Class” and “The Two-Income Trap.” In both, she makes this point: Despite all those $200 sneakers you hear about and the long lines at Starbucks, consumers are actually spending less of their income — much less — on discretionary items like clothing, entertainment and food than their parents did. In fact, after taking care of essentials like housing and health care, today’s middle class has about half as much spending money as their parents did in the early 1970s, Warren says.

The basics, according to Warren, now take up close to three-fourths of every family's spending power (it was about 50 percent in 1973), leaving precious little left over at the end of the month — and leaving many families with no cushion in case of a job loss or health crisis.

Generational shift

Comparing budgets for two typical, four-member families
"Tom and Susan," single-income family, mid-1970s (adjusted to 2004 dollars) "Kimberly and Justin," dual-income family, 2004 Percentage change
Husband's income $42,450 $41,670 -2 percent
Wife's income $0 $32,100 +1,000 percent
Total family income $42,450 $73,770 +74 percent
Tax rate (% of income: local, state & federal) 24 percent 30 percent +25 percent
Taxes $10,300 $22,280 +116 percent
After-tax income $32,150 $51,490 +60 percent
Major fixed expenses
Home mortgage $5,820 $10,250 +76 percent
Day care (7-year-old) $0 $5,660 +1,000 percent
Preschool (3-year-old) $0 $6,920 +1,000 percent
Health insurance $1,130 $1,970 +74 percent
Automobile #1 (purchase, upkeep, insurance) $5,640 $4,275 -24 percent
Automobile #2 $0 $4,275 +1,000 percent
Total fixed expenses $12,590 $33,350 +165 percent


Source: Elizabeth Warren, co-author with Amelia Warren Tyagi of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" • Print this



Warren's theories fly in the face of conventional wisdom and those crowded malls. But the premise is simple: Even though household incomes have risen about 75 percent from 1970, most of that is the result of a second earner — generally a woman — joining the work force. And that added income has been swallowed by rising fixed expenses, such as child care and housing costs, Warren argues. The average family pays at least twice as much for housing compared to its counterpart in the 1970s, Warren says, and in some competitive areas with good schools, housing costs have risen by as much as 600 percent.

Without savings, at risk of job loss
Now consider these factors: Four in 10 Americans don't have even one month's worth of savings for use in case of an emergency, according to a survey by HSBC Bank published in 2006. And with two incomes built into the family budget, the odds of a household getting hit by a layoff have doubled in the last generation. This combination — high housing debt, rising health care costs, lack of savings and greater exposure to unemployment — leaves many families in a precarious financial position.

Yet before Warren can get policymakers to talk about the middle-class squeeze, or at least middle-class worry, she often finds she has to beat back the notion that overconsumption is to blame for the rise in consumer debt — and in middle-class anxiety.

"A growing number of families are in terrible financial trouble, but no matter how many times the accusation is hurled, Prada and HBO are not the reason," Warren says in her book “The Two-Income Trap.”

There is no arguing that most Americans have more gadgets in their living rooms and more clothes in their closets than ever before. Consider the explosion of the closet-organizer business.

But government spending data paint a different picture. Take the often-cited evidence of culinary extravagance. While it's true that Americans are eating out much more than ever — nearly half of all dollars spent on food now go to dining out — overall food costs have plunged in recent decades. Americans now spent only about 10 percent of their money on food each year, compared to nearly 20 percent in the 1970s, according to data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And despite the designer brands they buy, the average family of four spends about 20 percent less on clothes today, according to Warren's analysis. Think about your last trip to Target: Thanks in part to the entry of inexpensive imported textiles from China and other trading partners, it's possible to buy a Friday night outfit for under $40. This shows up in BLS data too: On average, Americans spent nearly 7 percent of their money on clothes in 1973, compared to about 4 percent in 2005.

Two weeks work for a fridge?
In fact, many consumer goods are much cheaper than they were in the 1970s. A look at 1971 Sears catalog offers a glimpse of some plummeting prices. In 1971, a basic Sears refrigerator cost $399. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $2,000 in 2005 dollars, or nearly 10 times the $297 price of a basic fridge in today’s Sears catalog. Put another way, a fridge costs more than two week’s work for an average earner in 1971, but less than two day’s labor today.

Other household items were similarly expensive in 1971 — an 18-inch TV cost $429 (the equivalent of $2,150 today) and a 24-inch dishwasher cost $249 ($1,200 today).

Lower prices are, of course, a boon for the middle class, which now enjoys many conveniences and luxuries that were formerly reserved for the well-to-do. This is the cornerstone point for those who argue that the middle-class squeeze is a myth.

“I can’t hazard a guess as to why there is such a malaise in this country about current living conditions, but ... we have never had it better,” economist Arthur B. Laffer wrote in response to a question from a Gut Check America reader. Laffer is one of a large group of economists and policy-makers who point to crowded malls and high stock market returns as evidence that middle class America has little to complain about.

But Amelia Warren Tyagi, co-author of “The Two-Income Trap,” and also Warren’s daughter, said weekend shopping trip receipts aren’t the best way to examine the state of the middle class.

"Yes, people are spending more on home electronics, but the dollars just aren't that big," Tyagi said. "Maybe they spend a couple of hundred dollars more on stereo equipment. But they are spending less on tobacco. This is not to say that there's no frivolous spending going on, but as you add it all up, there's no more frivolous spending than there was a generation ago."

The source of the anxiety
With government data showing that Americans are spending much less than they did 35 years ago on clothes, food, and even entertainment, Tyagi says the anxiety they are feeling comes from somewhere else: the exploding costs of housing, health care and education.

Where the money goes

Average annual expenditures per household
1984 % 1995 % 2005 %
TOTAL $22,546 $33,597 $46,409
Food $3,376 14.97% $4,691 13.96% $5,931 12.78%
Housing $6,728 29.84% $10,571 31.46% $15,167 32.68%
Transport $4,393 19.48% $6,121 18.22% $8,344 17.98%
HealthCare $1,061 4.71% $1,747 5.20% $2,664 5.74%
Clothing $1,376 6.10% $1,771 5.27% $1,886 4.06%
Entertainm $1,089 4.83% $1,687 5.02% $2,388 5.15%
LifeInsur $2,062 9.15% $3,517 10.47% $5,304 11.43%


U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. • Print this



In housing, recent data is most striking. Household incomes have largely stagnated in recent years, even shrinking 2.8 percent from 2000 to 2006. Housing costs skyrocketed 32 percent in that time.

Even more striking is the amount of income most families are paying to stay in their homes. Banks have long had a standard that said mortgages should not be approved unless the monthly payment was 25 percent or less of the buyer’s income. That limitation clearly is long gone. The U.S. Census Bureau defines “house poor” as spending more than 30 percent of income on housing expenses. In 1999, 26.7 percent of U.S. households were considered house poor. By 2006, the number had jumped to 34.5 percent.

Because of difference in government data collection methods, it's hard to reach back to the 1970s for a precise comparison point. But the rise in house-poor mortgage holders is striking by any measure. A 1975 Census report showed that only 8.9 percent of mortgage holders spent 35 percent or more of their income — including insurance, property taxes, and utilities — on housing.

The number of households spending half their income on housing — an amount that for most would be fiscal suicide — also has dramatically increased, from 10 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 2006.

The cost of education has similarly spiked. Pre-school was largely non-existent in the 1970s, but today many families pencil in $1,000 a month for child care and early childhood education. On the other end, college costs have easily outpaced the cost of inflation. For example, the average bill for attending a four-year public college rose 52 percent from 2001 to 2007.

Health care costs have climbed steadily as well. According to the BLS, the average household spent 4.7 percent of its income on health care in 1984, and 5.7 percent in 2005.

In the end, the portion of an average family’s budget spent on fixed costs like housing has risen much faster than wages and inflation, while spending on discretionary items has declined. [attribution?] That means mortgages, more than lattes, are the source of middle-class anxiety, says economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute, a generally liberal think tank that focuses on the interests of low- and middle-income Americans.

‘They feel squeezed because they are squeezed’
"Consumers are asking, ‘If the economy is doing so well why am I feeling so squeezed?’” he said. “Well, they feel squeezed because they are squeezed."

Identifying the source of the squeeze requires more than simply comparing overall inflation to overall wage growth, Bernstein said.

"You have to look at a basket of key goods,” he said, like housing and college costs. “If you compare income growth to growth in prices of key goods, that stuff is growing 10 percent faster than income. ... Perhaps (consumers) are beating overall inflation but are they beating inflation in key components of their market basket? No."

More to the point, Bernstein said, rising housing costs have quietly broken a social contract with consumers that promised that a good job with a good income would guarantee a good place to live. While that may have been true in the 1970s, it is often not true today, he said.

"Lodged in the minds of those who come from the middle class is the idea that the middle class is a safe haven. It's not," he said.

That notion is changing. People no longer feel certain they will be better off than their parents, for example. "What really messes with your economic mind is when your expectations and aspirations are violated, Bernstein said. “You think, my parents died in a much better home than they grew up in. Will I?"

Generational trade-offs
Bernstein is not as pessimistic as Tyagi in his interpretation of the data. A comparison of then vs. now needs to be a little more subtle, he said. Clearly, middle class Americans are better off in some ways: larger homes and availability of what were once luxury items, like air conditioning, for instance.

“If a person is arguing that middle class families are worse off in every way, that person hasn't spent enough time at the mall,” he said. “But these are things you don't see at the mall: housing, health care, child care, saving and saving for college. The price of those (are) rising more quickly than inflation in general, rising more quickly than family income. And they are largely responsible for the squeeze that families report feeling."

Middle-class squeeze skeptics often point to rising credit card debt as evidence that consumers have themselves, and their spending habits, to blame for any economic anxiety. But there’s a problem with that theory too — it’s an exaggeration, says Liz Pulliam Weston, author of “Deal With Your Debt” and an MSN Money columnist. The majority of American consumers carry no credit card debt from month to month and very few carry large balances, she notes.

Last year, Americans held about $900 billion in credit card debt, leaving the average household with a bill of about $9,300, according to Federal Reserve data. That sounds like a lot, but a few consumers with very large debts can skew the average. The median balance is — the point at which half of consumers have more debt, and half have less — is a better indicator. The median credit card balance is $2,200, a fairly manageable amount. Only 8.3 percent of households owe more than $9,000 on their credit cards. Meanwhile, one-quarter of all Americans don’t even have credit cards, and another 30 percent pay them off in full every month.

Notion of heavy credit card debt called overblown
“Our national discussions about consumer indebtedness and bankruptcy are being distorted by the idea that we're waddling around with four- and five-figure credit card debts,” Weston wrote recently. “That makes us sound like spendthrifts, when that's not the norm."

Nevertheless, overconsumption and excessive credit card spending persist as explanations for middle-class debt angst. Tyagi has a theory why.

“Frivolous spending is visible, and it’s easy to pass judgment on, she said. “There is a comforting notion that if you are not spending wildly you are safe. If you are deeply invested in the belief that if everyone can solve their problems on their own, then there's no systematic problem, it would be important to think that if anyone is in trouble financially it’s because they did something stupid.”

It might be something their parents would never have done, such as taking out a negative-amortization mortgage or taking out a $100,000 home equity loan to pay for a child’s college, or spend as much money on child care as food.

But you can’t blame that on extravagant living, Warren said.

“Perhaps the most important thing we can do is persuade people that it's not about the lattes,” she said. “I think the "latte factor" is a way to distract people from real changes in the economy. Those who shake their fingers over lattes can feel good about themselves, both for their own economic prosperity and for the fact that those who are in trouble are there because of their own personal failings.”

Gay brothers may hold genetic clues
Study seeks scientific explanation for roots of homosexuality
Julio Cabrera, a student at DePaul University in Chicago, is participating in a study of 1,000 pairs of gay brothers. Researchers are looking for genetic clues to the origin of homosexuality.

Updated: 3:59 p.m. ET Oct 15, 2007
CHICAGO - Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry.

They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay. The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio, a student at DePaul University in Chicago.

Adds his brother, “I think it would help a lot of folks understand us better.”

The federally funded study, led by Chicago area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.

While initial results aren’t expected until next year — and won’t provide a final answer — skeptics are already attacking the methods and disputing the presumed results.

Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn’t prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation.

Research involving identical twins, often used to study genetics since they share the same DNA, has had mixed results.

One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.

No single 'gay gene'
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”

It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.

Still, he said, “If there’s one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance” of finding it.

Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

However, he added, “If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination.”
Orlin Wagner / AP file
Mauricio Cabrera, photographed at his home in Olathe, Kan., is, along with his brother, Julio, participating in the study. Both are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican heritage, and they hope new research will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

There is less research on lesbians, Sanders said, although some studies suggest that male and female sexual orientation may have different genetic influences.

His new research is an attempt to duplicate and expand on a study published in 1993 involving 40 pairs of gay brothers. That hotly debated study, wrongly touted as locating “the gay gene,” found that gay brothers shared genetic markers in a region on the X chromosome, which men inherit from their mothers.

That implies that any genes influencing sexual orientation lie somewhere in that region.

Previous attempts to duplicate those results failed. But Sanders said that with so many participants, his study has a better chance of finding the same markers and perhaps others on different chromosomes.

If these markers appear in gay brothers but not their straight brothers or parents, that would suggest a link to sexual orientation. The study is designed to find genetic markers, not to explain any genetic role in behavior.

And Sanders said even if he finds no evidence, that won’t mean genetics play no role; it may simply mean that individual genes have a smaller effect.

Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it’s possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.

Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.

Sanders disputed that criticism.

“We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove,” he said. “We are trying to pry some of nature’s secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait.”

Jones acknowledged that he’s not a neutral observer. His study involved 98 gays “seeking help” from Exodus International, a Christian group that believes homosexuals can become straight through prayer and counseling. Exodus International funded Jones’ study.

The group’s president, Alan Chambers, said he is a former homosexual who went straight and believes homosexuality is morally wrong.

Critics espouse 'freedom to choose'
Even if research ultimately shows that genetics play a bigger role, it “will never be something that forces people to behave in a certain way,” Chambers said. “We all have the freedom to choose.”

The Cabrera brothers grew up in Mexico in a culture where “being gay was an embarrassment,” especially for their father, said Mauricio, 41, a car dealership employee from Olathe, Kan.

They had cousins who were gay, but Mauricio said he still felt he had to hide his sexual orientation and he struggled with his “double life.” Julio said having an older brother who was gay made it easier for him to accept his sexuality.

Jim Larkin, 54, a gay journalist in Flint, Mich., said the genetics study is a move in the right direction.

Given the difficulties of being gay in a predominantly straight society, homosexuality “is not a choice someone would make in life,” said Larkin, who is not a study participant.

He had two brothers who were gay. One died from AIDS; the other committed suicide. Larkin said he didn’t come out until he was 26.

“I fought and I prayed and I went to Mass and I said the rosary,” Larkin said. “I moved away from everybody I knew ... thinking maybe this will cause the feelings to subside. It doesn’t.”

correction "goes to west bubble f*ck and does NOT find it's way back here."

Buying cheaper products from overseas is not the way to go. China has the cheapest labor force by far but that's because they don't follow health and safety standards, environmental standards, and union rules, and human rights standards. China is a corporation profit paradise only the corporation is the government. Uprisings in the rurals areas of China are put down that nearly noone out side of China hears about the blood shed.
Air polution there has cut the life expectency of the average citizen. The smog also gets jet streamed to the the west coast of the US.

Free trade work best if the money exchanged is balance. Meaning that what ever we buy from them, they inturn buy from us. But if they placed an embargo on US goods and we buy from them we lose money and dollar value goes down (inflation). And that what we have now we import more than we export. Why buy foreign products if it means that the money go to west bubble f*ck and does find it's way back here.

Bush is trying to get get free trade agreement passed but in during his 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. We as a nation import more than than we export creating a trade deficit and also weakening the dollar. Because of that The Canandian dollar has the same value as the US dollar. More over the countries that he seeks to have free trade agreements such as South Korea won't allow US beef or Auto into their country but they can send their good to us. The pact with Columbia has human rights issues that could mirror China's record on human rights violations.


Bush warns protectionism will cost U.S. jobs
President ramps up free trade blitz amid flagging support for new pacts
Updated: 6:59 p.m. ET Oct 13, 2007
WASHINGTON - Alarmed by slipping support for free trade even among Republicans, President Bush is arguing that protectionism will cut Americans out of chances for more — and better — jobs.

Bush has launched a blitz on behalf of pending free trade pacts with four nations. He continued the push Saturday in his weekly radio address.

"More exports support better and higher-paying jobs," the president said. "And to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."

His radio address followed a speech on trade he delivered Friday in Miami. Bush also granted interviews this week to business-oriented news organizations.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, it has not approved any free trade agreements that the administration has negotiated, and it has allowed Bush's authority to negotiate future deals under expedited procedures to expire.

Before lawmakers now are agreements with Peru and Panama, considered likely to pass, and with Colombia and South Korea, both seen as precarious. The deal with Colombia is in trouble over human rights issues and there is strong opposition to the South Korea agreement because of barriers erected by Seoul to keep out U.S. autos and beef.

Bush pledges funds to retrain workers
The administration already has reached agreement with Democrats to include tougher language on protecting worker rights and the environment. But critics say five consecutive years of record U.S. trade deficits have played a major role in the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

"I know many Americans feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost jobs," Bush said. "So the federal government is providing substantial funding for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next. We are working to improve federal job-training programs. And we are providing strong support for America's community colleges, where people of any age can go to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career."

‘Get these agreements to my desk’
He said the deals would level the playing field for American businesses and farmers, many of which now face high tariffs on exported products while other countries enjoy relatively open access to U.S. markets. And he argued that freer trade with allies serves "America's security and moral interests" around the globe.

"Expanding trade will help our economy grow," Bush said. "So I call on Congress to act quickly and get these agreements to my desk."

After spending Friday in Florida talking trade and raising money for the Republican Party, Bush flew to Texas for a weekend stay at his ranch. He travels Monday to Rogers, Ark., for a speech on the budget and to Memphis to raise money to help Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., in his re-election bid. The president returns to Washington Monday evening.