• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Top Ten Charts of 2010

    As 2010 draws to a close, The Foundry will be posting a series of Top Ten lists highlighting some of The Heritage Foundation’s most influential work. The Top Ten Heritage Charts are below, sorted by pageviews with the 10th most popular chart on top, and the most popular chart at the bottom. Turns out the most popular chart of 2010 is the same as the 2009 (with updated info) most popular chart. If we left out your favorite, let us know in the comments.

    10. Recent Spending Hikes Are Not Limited to Temporary Emergencies

    9. Federal Revenues by Source

    8. Federal Government Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

    7. Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2052

    6. Taxes per Household Have Risen Dramatically

    5. Obama’s Budget Would Create Unprecedented Deficits

    4. National Debt Set to Skyrocket

    3. Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

    2. Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

    1. The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    78 Responses to Top Ten Charts of 2010

    1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Top Ten Charts of 2010 -- Topsy.com

    2. Pingback: Scary Graphs: Washington Out of Control | motorcitytimes.com

    3. HawkWatcher, Mi. says:

      These charts indicate that the tea-party movement cannot stop, cannot slow down, cannot let up for one second, until we have responsible government in place. Amen.

    4. Jan Madeley, College says:

      The number 1 chart of 2010 is definitely my number 1 choice; however, I wish that you would augment that chart and also show the percent of income earned by each group. That would provide the other piece of the argument. Many people argue that they earn more, therefore, they should pay more. Putting the income percent earned would truly show the progressive nature of our tax system.

    5. George Colgrove, VA says:

      It is already recognized that this greedy federal government has stolen the futures of our great grandchildren by their excessive spending within the rank and file of every government position and office. No one in the federal government is innocent in this. The greed and corruption is running rampant and it is our children’s children who are going to have to clean the mess up – if that is even possible. This mess, created by a well-to-do ignorant pompous buffoons is running this country into the ground. There is little desire for the ignoramus heading and working in every federal office and the ignoramus in congress to see that a single dollar of debt spending in addition to the stupidity that has piled up thus far is only going to make things worse for our children’s future. There is no more justifications for spending another dollar of debt – none!

      The tax revenue chart is very optimistic. Anyone who knows how to project trends will see that the snippet between 1999 and 2010 is on a downward trend. That has been reflected in the actual numbers from the Treasury’s office. Last year revenue was 11% lower than 2009 and that included several new taxes and fees. The Tax law just passed – though on the surface looks like the tax rates stayed the same, many credits went away meaning families will be paying upwards of 2000 more in taxes. However, as any tax increase will show, tax revenue will continue to go down. 28 out of 50 states household incomes went down in 2010. I do not agree that tax revenue will be as "rosy" to the federal government to the tune of 18.2%GDP. I suspect it will be as low as or lower than the 15% for 2010. But then again, if the stagnate GDP starts to go down as well, then perhaps.

      The charts HF produced are based on government data. The federal government lies. If anything, 2010 can be reflected back upon as the year the federal government has been caught in one lie after the next. Every month we see employment numbers always being “corrected” in the negative direction for example. The federal workers who are masters at obfuscations will take advantage of a holiday to report the unemployment numbers as being not so bad in one week, only to “quietly” report in the next week that the numbers took a massive hit because they had to include the holiday then. The President and his federal workers along with congress have been proven have lied and obfuscated the facts with the American people.

      With a new budget of $3.8 Trillion and tax revenues barely hovering at $2 trillion, the federal government is poised to add upwards of $2 trillion to the national debt in 2011 if nothing changes. That will bring the national debt to over $15 trillion. Currently we are being lied to about the impact of this. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed NOW!

      Let us put the $15 trillion in terms of a normal home mortgage we people must pay over 30 years at 6%. To pay off the 2012 debt in 30 years we would need to pay upwards of $90 Billion each month or $1.08 trillion each year. Over the 30 years, we as nation would lose a total of $17.4 trillion in interest payments. The self-described wizards-of-smart federal workforce has put us into debt by $15 trillion and assuming they wake up and begin to diligently pay that back within 30 years we will end up paying back an additional $17.4 trillion in interest, totaling over $32 trillion!!!!! Is this making anyone angry????

      Thus far, it seems that the cap in tax revenue for the foreseeable future is hovering slightly above $2 trillion. We need to set aside $1 trillion each year to pay back the debt. This means – like it or leave it – the federal government needs to keep its spending to just above $1 trillion. In short, this means the federal government needs to cut 2/3 of the federal workforce and 2/3 of the costs of the 2010 budget (nearly 3/4 of the 2011 budget). They did this to themselves and they must make up the difference.

      All of this is assuming the corrupted self-serving federal government sees the light and decides to be smart at the close of September 2011. I have no hopes they will do so this year, nor do I feel they will ever. Moreover, why should they. This country was attack by terrorist just 10 years prior and congress members and every federal worker profited greatly from it. Since the terrorist attacks, American household incomes went down by 5% as a sacrifice to their nation in a time of need. However, the flagrant and unashamed greed of the federal workforce and the congress created an environment where the household incomes in the greater DC area went up an alarming 32%! It is no wonder why government officials are just drooling over the next crisis. One would wonder how many of the recent so-called terror reports were not just some desperate means to keep them in business.

      At the current rate of the greedy grab of hard-earned American’s incomes by the federal government (for themselves), why would the DHS and the DoD want Osama taken out. It is big business for them to keep him alive. Under Obama Poverty went up such that 1 in 6 Americans are now on public assistance – higher ratio ever. Just means good business for the feds. Meanwhile they are using these crises to justify more deficit spending.

      It is good business for the greedy federal workforce and congress to have America in a state of failure. A massive debt is also beneficial to the federal workforce. They know there is no more money for them to grab so instead of doing the right thing and cutting costs to meet revenue, they need to con us into agreeing to extreme debt spending. This way they keep their lavish lifestyles going on. It is clear we are getting nothing else from the near three million federal workers (including congress).

    6. N. E. Threat says:

      A chart should be included in the packet showing the numbers of high earners and corporation who are moving out of the country due to increases in taxes.

    7. Jason Rushton, Fairf says:

      Seems that tax rate vs. GDP growth might be useful. Statists believe that wealth growth is independent of tax policy, and government must adjudicate wealth distribution. Advocates of individual liberty believe that wealth is created much more rapidly when neither political monopoly or corporate monopoly removes the incentive for innovation.

      - Obamacare is a classic example of an attempt to regulate and allocate health care as a finite resource

      - Bush's prescription drug benefit is an example of how even a federal entitlement can be turned into a free market program that increases the quantity and quality of service.

    8. Adam says:


      your charts are about as credible as my 5 year old nephew giving advice on nuclear physics. I could literally destroy each graph you have ever made with facts backed my numerical evidence and sources but it wouldn't matter. Nothing will change your minds. The ignorance is impossible to correct. Conservatives can stare at a red wall all day in front of a million people and still tell you its blue. It's beyond comical that people take this website for credibility. It's a good thing that the majority of the people in this great country know that you and websites like this are a sham. Moderators like yourself not posting this comment just proves my point even more. Bring on the personal attacks and unwarranted hatred for opposing viewpoints! Come on, lets go!

    9. Dan R, MO says:

      Funny, a lot of people see calamity in temperature charts that have minute motions of warped Y axis' – that are below the noise floor. Yet, these anvil-on-the-head Heritage charts won't even register with them.

      For what it's worth, my masters (my reps) are going on the speed-dial.

    10. Adam says:

      The Top Ten Flawed Charts of 2010!

    11. Brad, Austin says:

      Chart number 5 could be more informative then it is. I often hear democrats speak of Bill Clinton's fantastic record on deficits. What is not shown in the chart is that this was due in large part to republican control of congress, which had at the time a fiscal conservative focus. It would be a better chart if you included a metric showing which party was in control of the House and Senate as well as a strength of control metric (evenly divided, strong democrat control weak control etc.)

    12. Tin Kicker, AZ says:

      The problem is that we now have a very large block of people who pay no federal income tax. Any adjustment to the tax tables that would require them to pay taxes could be looked upon as harsh and draconian.

      A question to be asked is, how we adjust the current tax schedule without coming out looking the Grinch and Scrooge !!!, oh yes, and at the same time, shafting or screwing (take your choice) the little people, and giving a tax break to the rich.

      If there is a solution out there to this problem, I am certain a lot of people would be willing to listen.

    13. Political Math, SLC says:

      Jan Madeley,

      I actually did a rough approximation of the #1 chart about a year ago with the % made compared to the % of taxes paid here:


    14. Bill Bartley, Bloomi says:

      Who is John Galt?

    15. JimmyNashville... TN says:

      One thing that is not illustrated very well is that Obama's $3+ Trillion dollar deficit is net of all of the TARP repayments. I'd like to see a chart that illustrates the fact that Obama RESPENT all of the one time TARP money that was repaid and that should have gone back against the debt; in addition to him winding up another $3+ Trillion in added debt. Throw in the fact that the down-turn persisted as a result of his economic policy… both in promise, for fear of what he was trying to do… and in practice, as a result of him getting Obamacare and his huge and ineffective pork stimulus package… and further, in promise, still, for fear of what this nut might do next with executive and regulatory authority. This is a complete FAIL so bad it makes Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.

    16. Barbara Jo, Ph. D., says:

      What I wouldlike to see is a chart of the cost of ALL the Federal Programs contrasted by service providers in relation to the Federal Administration . Example, How much of the Medicare Money is paid for the service given, such as paid to the Providers versus the Amount of Cost for the Administration of Medicare. MY guess of this example is that providers such as Doctors, Hospitals etc. receive less than the costs for the Administration thereof.

    17. Pingback: Top Ten Charts of 2010 | The Foundry | Cogito Ergo Blog

    18. Tom, South Texas says:

      It would be very interesting to see the next two levels on the "Who pays what amount of tax by income level": total income of the groups (NOT taxable income) and the percentage of each groups total income paid in taxes.

    19. CR, Utah says:

      Notice on #5 that 4 of the top 5 deficits as a percentage of GDP were rung up by Republican presidents.

      I am plenty fed up with big-spending Democrats, but I am also fed up with Republicans slashing taxes on the rich and driving up deficits (and spending; see: Bush, George W. and McConnell, Mitch).

      #1 notes that the top 10% of earners paid 71% of income taxes, but look to #9 to realize that payroll taxes, which above $106,800 become regressive, raised almost as much revenue for the government as income taxes did. For at least the last 3 decades, the surplus from those payroll taxes have been used to finance operating costs of the federal government.

    20. Daniel says:


      you stated-

      "Throw in the fact that the down-turn persisted as a result of his economic policy…"

      -please explain in detail which policies President Obama passed that continued the "down-turn"? waiting…

      Here is a fact-

      over 65% of the current National Debt was added directly under Republican/Conservative Administrations and Congressional Control(both House and Senate) go ahead, look it up- http://www.treasurydirect.gov

      -no personal attacks please, if you can dispute that fact(which you can't) then do it. Let the spin begin! waiting…

      Happy Holidays!

    21. Dan R, MO says:

      Bill Bartley, I think a lot of us know who, but are more discouraged by "where [oh where] is John Galt?" Hey, if you want a no-strings-attached ATLAS SHRUGGED sticker for your car window (cling type), drop a line to atlasshruggedonmywindow@gmail.com

    22. Pingback: Top 10 budget charts of 2010

    23. Daniel says:

      -just a fun chart to make your heads spin.

      -Look, I can understand Obama has huge deficits and a huge increase to the National Debt but lets not pretend Conservatives/Republicans are any better, excluding the fact that over 50% of the CURRNET deficits and increase to the National Debt are directy due to both Bush Tax Cuts and the Defense Budget.

      spin, spin, spin away!!!

    24. TJS, FL says:

      Handcuff the federal government by constitutional amendments. Requires 34 states to call a constitutional convention, then 38 states to ratify the amendments. A new bill of rights – Bill of Limits.

      1. Limit federal spending to 10% of GDP, plus Defense

      2. Prohibit borrowing, require payoff of $200 billion per year of national debt

      3. Restrict taxing power – set minimum income tax to 8%, max tax to 25%, prohibit corporate taxes. Or use Flat Tax.

      4. Limit cost of federal regulations to 4% of GDP (currently 9% and rising)

      5. Prohibit federal insurance, subsidies, guarantees, bailouts

      6. Make all pensions defined contribution only, fully funded by current revenues

      7. Require private accounts for social security, goal of making all workers millionaires by retirement. Stop all social security and Medicare payments to millionaires (evaluate all savings, investments, pensions, homes, etc.)

      8. Term limits 12 years – Senators, House, judges, and federal bureaucrats. President one term of 6 years.

      9. Repeal 19th amendment – Senators appointed by states, not popular election.

      10. All federal judges 6 year terms, confirmed by retention votes, by federal court districts. Two term limit. Supreme Court judges' retention in national elections.

      The Founding Fathers would foment another revolution if they could see what has become of their beautiful, brilliant creation.

    25. Daniel says:

      Oh and George from VIrginia,

      I've read your comments before. Yes, blame everything on Obama, Democrats and the Government…but not when Conservatives are in charge right? All this anti-Government talk, yet nothing of private sector failures, monoplies drowning out small business, unregulated markets. etc.

      Your so one-sided its not even worth debating.

      But if you want, care to dance?

    26. MrShorty, Cave Creek says:

      Adam, your chastisement of the charts is so predicable from a progressive. You fail to recognize that the charts are prepared by the federal government, controlled by Obama and the Dems. Your ignorance is only compounded by your inability to understand what you are talking about.

    27. Derrin, D.C. says:

      What we need is TRULY "progressive" tax reform… an "Alternative Maximum Tax" to balance the budget. We can never hope for complete tax reform, because the accountants, lobbyists, special interests and tax lawyers seek to keep our complex IRS code intact. OK. SOOooo…

      Let's keep all that bunk unchanged for the "players" but create the "Alternative Maximum Tax" for those of us seeking to opt out of the IRS chaos: Opt to pay a flat tax of 20% on all earned income (this definition will be an interesting battle for the politicos and lawyers) and "opt out" of the deduction, itemization, special interest system. Government revenues will increase on simplified tax compliance, the rest of us get peace of mind with simplified federal tax… and the complex, crazy, absurd tax code for the manipulators and players stays in play for them.

      ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM TAX… good for America. And with concommitant cuts in federal SPENDING… just might save our Republic.

    28. WardMD, CA says:

      I LOVE Chart #1, but I WISH it was "taught" in our failing Public Schools (the evils [unfairness] of the progressive tax system).

      Something like: 100 people go together to but a soda (for simplicity, $1.00) per soda.

      The ONE guy (top 1% income earner) not only has to put up $40.00 of the $100.00 bill, BUT he's told he's not paying his "fair share".

      TEN people (the top 10%), combined put up $71.00 (including the $40.00 from the same 1 guy), and THEY are not paying their "fair share".

      The remaining 90 people (combinded) are only contributing $29.00 of the $100.00 bill.

      75 of those 90, are contributing a combined $14.00, and the BEST…

      50 of these people are contributing a COMBINED $3.00 (or, $0.06 each) for their $1.00 sodas – and THESE are the loudest complainers that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share"!

      AND, this assumes that EVERYONE is buying "a soda" of equal cost – when "the rich" are, typically, NOT using the Government Services at the same rate as those paying little to NOTHING in taxes. I'd expect a chart showing the USE of Government Services is probably INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the amount of taxes PAID.

    29. George Colgrove, VA says:


      To start: your comment:

      "-Look, I can understand Obama has huge deficits and a huge increase to the National Debt but lets not pretend Conservatives/Republicans are any better, excluding the fact that over 50% of the CURRNET deficits and increase to the National Debt are directy due to both Bush Tax Cuts and the Defense Budget."

      I absolutely agree!

      You said you read my comments. I do not think you have. I never blamed Obama or Bush. They are small fry in the federal government. I do not think they are in control to be honest. The murkiness of the federal government is too thick for any President to get their arms around. We cannot even count on the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to get their arms around the intelligence community. They actually admitted that! The federal government is so big, no one has a grasp on what it does anymore. It is a beast unto itself.

      I do not see a distinction between republicans and democrats – they are one in the same. I see government in its entirety as a great evil facing this country. The debt they authored has made America very weak – permanently. No matter who or what party is occupying the White House or Congress, it is the same group of federal employees who failed during Waco Texas, Katrina, and the Oil Spill. I am offended by any federal employees who say they are doing a patriotic work at the same time taking nearly double the income they should to benefit their rich lives while the people they take that money from (i.e. taxpayers) struggle to make meager means.

      My comments are directed to the sloth that makes up each and every federal worker’s and congress member's seat. If you want to say there are “some” who work hard – yes, I believe that. I know a "few". Nevertheless, the rest – the majority do not. All of what the feds do, can be done with far greater efficiency, cost effectiveness, and transparency in the private sector or at the local government level. If the new Tea Party candidates fail at their promises, believe me I will be the first in line to scorn them as well as working to get them out of office.

      My comments are directed towards a failed federal government that has long overstepped it mission. We live in a quasi-dictatorship. That is not what the founders wanted when drafting the Constitution. Your deflection by making my arguments Obama vs Bush is the type of Obfuscations federal workers do to draw attention away from them. My focus is on where I believe the problem exists – the federal government in its entirety. Government does not work.

      “2012 – Let’s be Fed-Free!”

      “2012 – Let’s go on a Fed-Free Diet!”

      “2012 – Fed-Free!”

    30. Adam says:


      We have a winner! The first person to use "talking points" and name calling for debate, so predictable! :)

      First off, who said I was progessive? That's the problem with people like you, dealing in absolutism and premeditated judgement. Your instant acceptance of fact from the Heritage Foundation blog charts is predicable at the least. Infact, I "predicted" a response exactly like this one in my first comment on this blog. Thank you for reassuring my knowledge of Heritage followers and defenders!

      I recognize the "Heritage estimates" when it comes to numbers that have not happened yet, so humorously exaggerated! No, these are not prepared by the Federal Government. These are charts skewed by Heritage Foundation bloggers like Conn Carroll, that show sources yet provide no links. I bet these Bloggers know they are stretching the truth by far, but who cares, they get payed right? The "projected" numbers by Heritage are truly the worst, yet comical!

      Another interesting thing you mentioned was "controlled by Obama and the Dems". "Obama and the Dems" had Executive and Congressional control since 1965? Your ingnorance is the pure fact that you take Heritage Foundation blog charts for credible information and your inability to understand anything that you had just mentioned in your comment.

      Do you really not see that the Heritage Foundation can spin anything they want and get away with it? This is a Conservative website, nothing else, and you follow it for credible information, and that is something to be concerned about! More "talking points" or actual debates with substance?

      Oh and MrShorty,

      dispute this-

      over 65% of the current National Debt was added directly under Republican/Conservative Administrations and Congressional Control(both House and Senate) http://www.treasurydirect.gov :)

      Heritage Moderators,

      If you choose to not post this comment like you have many, many, many times before, it just proves my point even more. Waiting…


    31. Adam says:


      Your not buying into that whole "barstool economics" theory are you?

      It's the same with "trickle down", "vodoo" and "supply side"- none of them worked! It's all theories brought to you by the only President to more then double the National Debt- Reagan! :)

      you guys are too much fun!

    32. Daniel says:


      Pardon my judgement, but you have included Obama and Democrats for blame alot more then Conservatives while in power and you didn't answer my questions.

      you stated-

      "Your deflection by making my arguments Obama vs Bush is the type of Obfuscations federal workers do to draw attention away from them. My focus is on where I believe the problem exists – the federal government in its entirety. Government does not work"

      I think the true deflection is you not answering for this-

      "All this anti-Government talk, yet nothing of private sector failures, monoplies drowning out small business, unregulated markets. etc"???

      What about the private lending market that was the bulk of the recession?

      Do you wish to abolish the Federal Reserve?

      Default on the debt ceiling?

      Get rid of Government all together?

      I respect your opinions but comments like yours deal in absolutism and that is rather scary. Nevertheless, we both agree that BOTH parties(including Conservatives) are at fault for our countries economic and social failures.

    33. Adam says:


      I assume you are referring to the theory of "bar stool economics". It's the same with "trickle down", "vodoo" and "supplyside" They are all theories and they didn't work, brought to you by the infamous President Ronald Reagan, the only president to more then double the national debt, account for the highest unemployment percentage in history and the highest deficit percentage increase in history, even higher then President Obama!

      The misinformation must stop!

    34. Daniel says:

      Facts, facts, facts…

      everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, unemployment goes up. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has raised unemployment by an average of 1.6%. Democrat power has lowered unemployment by an average of 2.3%. Just recently Bush increased the unemployment rate by 3.5% during his two terms. Obama has increased the rate by 1.9%. You can find unemployment rate history at http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp. See it for yourself! These unemployment figures line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history that you can find again, at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15….

      -everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, job creation is lower, every single time. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has created a total of 39.58 million jobs with an average annual increase of 1.4%. Democrat power has created 69.50 million jobs with an average annual increase of 3.1%. Bush is accountable for over 700,000 jobs losses a month at the end of his second term. Obama has had continued job loss up until this summer. Infact October and Novemer combined accounts for around 275,000 jobs created, partially due to the stimulus. You can find job creation history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_…. These job creation figures also line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15….

      opps, more facts to come…

    35. Pingback: Top Ten Heritage Papers of 2010 | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    36. Bobbie says:

      HawkWatcher you are absolutely right! George your comment is informative and honest and appreciated. Jimmy excellent comment and TJS, another absolute!

      What we consistently deal with are people who will not put the responsibility on he who's actions are accountable or a man who is president that has tone to his skin color.

      Obama INCREASED the spending. OBAMA INCREASED the debt. OBAMA INCREASED the deficit. OBAMA is ignoring all REASON OF HIS constitutional duties and really ripping it up as his intelligence is limited and not in accordance to the American way and her founding documents.

      According to some, the actions of the president should be made exception to because he isn't white?? I have read comments made by Daniel and he'll protect the wrong if it's not white. He has low standards of people who aren't white and high expectations and standards of those who are. Terrible, terrible racist mindset.

    37. Bruce, VA says:

      The charts are interesting but inadequate without significant explanation and analysis. Clinton's budget numbers look good. But he was the recipient of the peace dividend thanks to Reagan's defense and foreign policies, done with a Dem controlled Congress. The interplay from one administration to the next must be understood in the larger context. An understanding of the facts will not make a 10 second nightly news sound bite. And it takes an attention span longer than 30 seconds to comprehend.

      Both the left and the right (Red an Blue if you will) have some 'splainin' to do. And factual explanations will not score 'political points' so they are usually absent from most of the comments given by the politicians.

      And the lazy media refuses to do their job and grill the politicians. I would venture that most of the media are too dumb and ideologically blinded (both left [that dominate the major media] and right) to grasp the truth.

    38. Humphrey C says:


      What a strange post. Almost surreal to read. I had to check twice to make sure it wasn't performance art. You seem serious, so I will assume such.

      Near as I can tell, the name McShorty called you was…ahem..a progressive, which isn't exactly what I would deem "name calling". More like a position descriptor.

      I'm also leery of people who don't want to be labeled…who then proceed to predict what others are going to say. I hope you are bright enough to sense the obvious contradiction there…

      Talking points? Not sure what you mean there either. One talking point I see often is to accuse others of using talking points. It is a nice way of discounting what someone says without ever bothering to refute it.

      McShorty was pointing out, correctly I believe, that statistics in disagreement with what the Heritage Foundation has presented in these graphs are being promulgated by the Democrats in the White House and Congress. As has been so frequently illustrated by the healthcare debate, revenue and spending projections from the government cannot be relied upon, since manipulation of such statistics has become increasingly politicized. Ergo your dispute of the Heritage Foundation graphs is reliant on potentially manipulated governmental projections.

      That said, perhaps the government is right and the Heritage Foundation is wrong. Either way there is no dispute that government spending is increasing at a prodigious rate, faster than inflation, and faster than any conceivable increase in government income. In fact, the only difference between projections from the government, and the Heritage Foundation is the scope of the problem. The government contends the problem is simply cataclysmic, while the Heritage Foundation leans toward apocalyptic.

      Who is at fault? Who really cares? The only relevant question is what to do about it. As with all such problems, a little pain now would avoid massive pain latter. At least Republicans talk about doing something. Democrats are in denial the problem exists.

      As to the last rant of yours…I assume you have both narcissistic tendencies and martyrdom dreams. Poor lad. You should consider that there are many reasons why your comments might not be posted by the moderators. Perhaps they are off-topic, silly, repetitive, incoherent, or just plain boring? Perhaps your comments engage in name calling, mindless talking points, and swearing? Not having the pleasure of reading your unposted comments, I can only speculate. While I cannot preclude the possibility that your unposted comments contain information or arguments so persuasive, so revolutionary, that the Heritage Foundation had to delete them lest we all become converted to your way of thinking, it seems very doubtful.

      You should consider that the reluctance of individuals to debate you may not be due to their cowardice, or your brilliance, but because you fail to advance any argument worthy of refutation.

    39. Spiritof76, NH says:

      Why aren't those charts in giant sizes posted at the Capitol Bldgs. everywhere with a bold lettering of failed policies, irresponsible Congress and socilaistic president? All are guaranteed to fail. Do you want your children to live in a thrid world America?

    40. Ritchie The Riveter says:

      These are charts skewed by Heritage Foundation bloggers like Conn Carroll, that show sources yet provide no links.

      So they don't make it easy for you to cross-check them.

      Doesn't mean that they aren't true.

      You have an opportunity to prove them wrong here … and discredit Heritage. Why don't you take on the challenge, instead of issuing statements without the facts to back them up?

      Methinks that Heritage has vetted these charts quite well, knowing that (unlike with Progressive or other anti-conservative data sources) the MSM would just LOVE to find, then broadcast far and wide, evidence of an error.

      Here's your chance to become famous, like the bloggers who took Dan Rather to task for those "fake but accurate" memos.

      BTW, regarding skewing future numbers … wasn't it Administration experts who said that, if we passed the Porkulus, unemployment would rise no higher than 8%? This Heritage chart shows the real, easily-verifiable numbers:


    41. Craig Rogers, Mounta says:

      Think of how much larger the deficits will become once interest rates move up from their current historically low levels. Although the national debt is financed by debt with a variety of maturities, about half the debt has maturities under 1 year. Yields on 3 month treasuries have been less than 0.25%, versus rates from 1960 to 1990 that never went below 2.5% (10 times as high) and hit 16% during the early 80's. Should they trend to longer term averages, our national debt carry costs (about $500 billion/year at these low rates) could easily double, triple or more, even without factoring in additional runaway (non-interest) spending. Then factor in the interest rate effects of a potential (eventually likely) U.S. sovereign debt downgrade. Wake up America!

    42. George Colgrove, VA says:


      You say: “I think the true deflection is you not answering for this-

      “All this anti-Government talk, yet nothing of private sector failures, monopolies drowning out small business, unregulated markets. etc”???”

      >Let list some failures I have previously mentioned:

      >Madoff – mostly democratic federal politician and celebrity investors were hit. Madoff had significant political connections.

      >Worldcom – at the time of their exposure, they were the sole federal phone service and had significant federal connections.

      >Enron was a big buddy to both Bush I and Clinton administrations. It had significant connections to the federal energy departments.

      > Microsoft is my biggest example of a federally created monopoly. Every step small Operating System companies went up against Microsoft, they used the federal government against their accusers. Every suit was lost and Microsoft (a major campaign contributor to federal elected officials) got bigger.>BP – gave Obama nearly a million dollars (the most any presidential candidate got from an oil company) and I believe in the end they will get off the hook for the oil spill.

      >2007-2008 banking collapse – all caused by Bernie Frank and Chris Dodd with the Community Reinvestment Act modifications. (See below)

      >I contend that nearly every private company that was caught in major corruption had significant federal connections – but after being caught were thrown under the bus by the federal government. Any corporation that enjoys tremendous unfair advantage over others got it from the federal government. Just look at the recipients of the Bush/Obama tarp fund for examples!

      >I personally believe significant contributions by defense contractors is an example of federal/corporate corruption that is causing the defense budgets to soar out of control.

      You Say: “What about the private lending market that was the bulk of the recession?”

      >Bernie Frank and Cris Dodd – get yourself educated. More and more people (average citizens) know about the federal authoring of the housing market banking collapse and you federal government sympathizers are starting to look foolish blaming wall street. There were big banks (goldman sachs for example) but if you look at the Bush and Obama administrations, it would be hard to distinguish thier employment roster to that of goldman sachs. There is more than enough information avaible on the leftist YouTube.

      You Say: “Do you wish to abolish the Federal Reserve?”


      You Say: “Default on the debt ceiling?”

      > Let’s make this clear: CUT SPENDING TO PAY OFF THE ENTIRE DEBT – THEN AFTER – NO DEBT SPENDING! This means we have a much smaller federal government. Therefore a zero dollar debt ceiling!

      You Say: “Get rid of Government all together?”:

      >Only the non-constitutional parts which is the lion’s share – yes! What to keep:

      - A defense department at a much lower cost

      - Minimal commerce regulatory body to make sure an inch is an inch, a gallon is a gallon a dollar is a dollar which is what their initial purpose was supposed to be.

      - Treasury

      - State Department

      >If it is not listed the function should return to the states or be performed in the private sector.

      >There is no reason why the federal government cannot get its constitutional duties done by less than 100,000 people – and I am being very generous!

      You Say: “I respect your opinions but comments like yours deal in absolutism and that is rather scary.”

      >The country being drowned in a $14 Trillion debt is scary – wake up! Spending and federal worker behavior is out of control! We cannot even count on the federal governement to keep our national secrets! They are molesting airline customers at airports! What is not scary about the federal government?

      You Say: “Nevertheless, we both agree that BOTH parties(including Conservatives) are at fault for our countries economic and social failures.”

      >YES – Both are responsible but more importantly, the sloth that makes up the entire federal government is more responsible.

    43. Adam says:

      Ritchie, Humphrey,

      If you can't get past the fact that Heritage is a Conservative website that skews information for Conservative favor then your hopeless. They have been stretching the truth since their creation and I find it amusing that none of you realize this. And nothing I asked was answered. Where are the true sources, evidence, actual numbers? This has been on Heritage and its followers to answer. It's the same with Fox News. They lie to you 24/7 day in and day out and you suck it up like gold. Its embarrasing. More "talking points"?

    44. Daniel says:


      -your not even worth the mention. No one knows what you are talking about.


      you stated-

      "Bernie Frank and Cris Dodd – get yourself educated. More and more people (average citizens) know about the federal authoring of the housing market banking collapse and you federal government sympathizers are starting to look foolish blaming wall street."

      -hmmm, where to start… So much misinformation I don't know where to begin. You provided no facts, no sources, nothing. All "talking points"

      -let me offer some real facts. It's a shame that you spent so much time creating a comment with nothing but "talking points". No offense but it seems to be you who needs to get educated and stop buying into Convservative Media like the Heritage Foundation. People like you blame both parties but you go after Government only, nothing else, as if the Free Market is perfect.

      Let me offer some economic and legislative history backed by numerical evidence.

    45. Daniel says:

      Federal Reserve Board data show that:

      More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages were issued by private lending institutions.

      Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

      Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders were directly subject to the housing law.

      Do you understand Market Share and loss? The private sector dominates losses for Lenders, Banks and all other companies.

      1.264 TRILLION against 93.6 Billiom
      Private companies that took losses are listed below.

      These (private companies) below have estimate losses of 1.264 TRILLION combined.

      Wells Fargo – $138.6B

      Goldman Sachs – $129.0B

      Morgan Stanley – $121.0B

      JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $221.7B

      Citigroup – $309.7B

      UBS – $228.6B

      Merrill Lynch – $115.4B

      We are talking about Lenders and the housing market were 85% of the Private companies held

      total market share and G.S.E.’s and any Lenders subject to C.R.A. were only 15%

      And as far as banks and other private companies, their losses destroy and

      government regulated companies, even fannie and freddie.

      Here is a list and link to other (private Lenders) that took losses…
      290 of these Lenders were not subject to C.R.A. or any other Government Regulation.

      290 were NOT G.S.E.’s. 95% of all lenders listed were completely free market based.

      16 were under G.S.E.’S and C.R.A. which is around 5% of the Lenders listed

      A complete list of Lenders shows that 85% were not subject to C.R.A nor were they

      “Governement Sponsored Entities”

    46. Daniel says:

      85% of all lenders subject to the (community reinvestment act) had no corresponding rise in bank failures up until 2006/2007 or the fact that any G.S.E’s, including C.R.A. made up for less then 25.5% of the entire subprime market share in the U.S. Also, have you read the the C.R.A. bill at all, the ammendments given, the timeline statistics of C.R.A. or the percentage of market share, the periodic reports? Its discriminatory lending that brings the government in, mostly due to corruption within private lenders. If the free market was so great it would have understood that spreading the market to low-income borrowers makes profitable since, but they didn’t. It was nothing but the good old fashioned american dream which is take the money, screw everyone else and run! I’m not saying government is the solution but when successful programs like C.R.A. that worked for 30 years along with G.S.E.’S that had absolutely no regulatory refrom what else would you expect to happen? G.S.E’s and C.R.A were neccessary And I will blame the conservative/republican majority in congress and the last administration, how could I not? They passed nothing to combat reform, nothing. No offense, but come on man, broad statements are a dime a dozen on this website. I want substance, substance, Substance!

      This blame only Fannie and Freddie battle was lost long ago.

      I love this conservative idea that all the lenders (not subject to government in any way, shape or form) get a free pass? I just can’t seem to wrap my head around people refusing numerical evidence.

      Even if every single loan under C.R.A. or any other G.S.E’s failed it is still dwarfed by the private sector in lending.

      GSE(Government Sponsored) share of subprime originations by year:

      2002 – 18%

      2003 – 24%

      2004 – 33%

      2005 – 27%

      PRIVATE COMPANIES(free market) subprime originations by year do the math.

      2002 – 82%

      2003 – 76%

      2004 – 67%

      2005 – 73%

      subprime lending was the problem and GSE’s were dwarfed by the remaining percentage share. again, the free market does not get a free pass.


      85% of all lenders subject to the (community reinvestment act) had no corresponding rise in bank failures up until 2006/2007. Worked just fine since 1977, for 30 years.

      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and CRA was not the problem. Having no regulatory reform was the problem. The conservative/republican majority in the lesiglative and executive branch while all of this happend was the problem.

    47. Daniel says:

      Subprime lending increased from 6% of the total market share in 2002, to 20% in 2006.

      So about that other 80%-94%(completely free market based) housing market share for ten years that the government never ever ever touched…?

      The bottom line is that when Fannie and Freddie were at ends to fall apart, conservatives and republicans had the house, senate and presidency and did absolutely nothing to fix the problem. “Sponsored bills out of sub-committee’s” hold no water.

      This housing crisis was pure capitalism locked by conservative policy in it’s most disastrous form. Pathetic and beyond pardon.

      All of you that choose to blame Government, Carter, Clinton and somehow Obama have a great deal of research to do.

      As much as I want to believe in free market, sometimes this is the kind of mess that free market creates. Corporate American greed will not get a free pass. Government is not always the answer either. The government has and will continue to make mistakes but the housing crisis aint one of them.

      This is the typical american (take what profit you can, screw everyone else and run) idea that happened here, nothing else. Government programs regulating lenders to make small loans available to lenders that would otherwise not reach out to them is the least of the problem. Drop Heritage and do some real research.

      -The housing market controlled by the free market including the (top 7 private sector losses in 2008/2009 including the remaining 290 private sector lenders that show losses in 2007/2008/ (all listed below), that controlled 85% of the entire market share in the U.S.(confirmed, not “estimated” by Federal Reserve Board data and F.D.I.C reports) accounted for an average 83% net bottom line loss in 2008/2009.

    48. Daniel says:

      Wells Fargo – $138.6B

      Goldman Sachs – $129.0B

      Morgan Stanley – $121.0B

      JP Morgan Chase & Co. – $221.7B

      Citigroup – $309.7B

      UBS – $228.6B

      Merrill Lynch – $115.4B

      -those top 7 private sector losses 2008/2009 can be found at- http://bankimplode.com/blog/category/writedowns-a
      -the remaining 290 private sector losses 2007-2008 can be found at-
      -so lets do a comparrison between government regulated lenders and private sector lenders…

      -2008/2009 net losses for fannie, freddie(primary G.S.E.’s) and the remaining

      smaller 16 lenders under C.R.A.from 2007/2008/2009 side note:(12 out of 16 were not listed under or subject to C.R.A in 2007)

      -Freddie Mac: $71.7 billion

      +Fannie Mae: $130.7 billion

      +other 16 lenders: 21.9 billion

      Total losses in 2008/2009 from all government regulated lenders was

      =***$224.3 billion*** bottom line losses for Fannie and Freddie were actually ***88%*** not 90% and for the other 16 lenders an average of ***64%*** concluding an estimated average of ***76%*** in bottom line losses

      -2008/2009 losses for private companie in the private sector that had absolutlely no government regulation

      -1.264 trillion from top 7 private sector losses (listed above)

      +435.6 billion from the remaining 290 private sector losses (listed above)

      Total losses in 2008/2009 from all private sector lenders was

      =***1.699 trillion***bottom line losses for all private sector lenders were an estimated average of ***83%*** in bottom line losses

      to summarize..



    49. Daniel says:

      -infact, the private sector lenders had 19% higher losses then the other 16 smaller lenders under government regulation(C.R.A.)

      -though, Fannie and Freddie(primary G.S.E.’s had 5% higher losses then the private sector lenders.

      -so basically if you want to compare a higher loss with fannie and freddie at 5% to the private sector having $1.444 trillion more in actual losses then go right ahead!

      -or if you want to compare percentages…please, lets!

      - government losses make up for 13.5% while private sector losses make up for about 86.5% of total losses. wow, its funny how every single number comes close to that magic 85% of total private sector control in the entire housing market share!

      -again, so since fannie and freddie had 5% higher bottom line losses then the private sector lenders that means we should only trust free market lending?…

      -and the private sector lender losses that dwarfed the government regulated lender losses accounts for…..?

      -I also assume you intentionally forgot to mention the fact that Fannie and Freddie needed regulatory reform years ago. They had full warning about the problem years ago. Who was in charge? not a single regulatory refrom bill passed from the republican/conservative led 103rd-109th congress(for 12 years) or the republican/conservative Bush administration(for 8 years) or the republican/conservative banking and finance committee chairs(for 10 years) or the republican/conservative treasury secretary(for 10 years). nothing passed, not a single bill. Which party passed specific regulatory reform for fannie and freddie in 2007…..oh yeah, Democrats in congress. hmmmmm. well, no suprise, the right-wing hates government so why would they be for regulatory reform for the largest market in the United States even after being warned about it over and over and over?

      Also, Bush and Republicans/Conservatives in congress pushing for 5.5 million more homeowners during the warnings. Or grahm-leachy which almost eliminated any and all regulation for this market. Who to blame, Republicans in congress for voting for that bill and Clinton for signing it. Wait, did I just blame someone in my own party for something! wow, I would pay money to see a republican/conservative blame someone in their own party for just one thing…I can only dream.

      -The bottom line is that Fannie and Freddie and These private companies would have been alot better with more attention and at best, some kind of regulatory reform, but thanks to republicans/conservatives in congress and the Bush Administration nothing happened. That is not opinion, that is legislative and economic history.

      Government regulated lenders are no better or worse then the private sector lenders but the total loss is much much worse for the private sector. Again, not an opinion, numerical evidence.

    50. Daniel says:

      -I think the real problem with your debate is to only single out fannie and freddie.

      #1-the other lenders under c.r.a. did better then the private sector.

      #2-fannie and freddie alone had 5% higher losses then the private sector which is not that signifigant.

      #3-the private sector losses dominate the total market share

      #4 the private sector owns 85% of the total market share

      #5 not a single regulatory reform bill was passed through congress for 12 years.

      A majority of the loans taken in by Fannie and Freddie from 2005-2009 were already bad. Horrible data systems, no regulation of any form, no oversight, nothing. So basically, loans that originated in the private sectors, outside of Fannie and Freddie, taken in by Fannie and Freddie makes it Fannie and Freddie’s fault that the bad loans originated completely outside of Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Man, I just love conservative thinking! So much spinning it makes you dizzy!

      Again, Fannie and Freddie were and are no worse then the private sector lending. Infact, total “bottom line losses” in the private sector destroy Fannie and Freddie or any other G.S.E.’s or Lenders under C.R.A.

      Any single person on this website who thinks otherwise bring evidence, not talking points.

    51. Daniel says:

      you stated-

      "The country being drowned in a $14 Trillion debt is scary – wake up!"

      -sure, and over 65% of that National Debt the was under Conservative Presidents and Congressional Control, who's entire purpose is to drown government and let the Free Market run wild with no accountability. Numbers are fun!

      George, you wanna play with the big dogs you gotta play hard. No more "talking points"

      Your information is wrong. You are wrong. Your facts are wrong. You have bought into this Conservative fairy tale that has been brought to you by Conservative Media. It's so dissapointing to see so many people this misinformed.

      Who's next?

    52. Adam says:


      -I just couldn't let you go. That was a very labored comment for you, Nowhere in your incoherent babbling did you even come close to a spec of substance. Let me break this down for you. I can cleary see the misinformation brought by The Heritage Foundation, that's all I was exposing. You say it's "strange and almost surreal"? Really Humphrey? I'm calling out Heritage for what it really is and that is "strange and surreal" to you? What is truly "strange" is that you take Heritage for credibility, infact you suck it right up. I have so much fun with people like you. You go after government numbers and statistics, yet believe in Conservative Media?

      you stated-

      "revenue and spending projections from the government cannot be relied upon"

      -which ones? examples? But, Heritage can be relied upon right? Really Humphrey?

      -The mere fact that Heritage and Conservatives say that tax cuts created jobs is in itself comical. Where is the evidence?

      -Your trying way too hard to use big words. Humphrey, your labored comment had nothing of substance. It was truly "talking points" as are mine but you disagree that Heritage spins information anyway it wants? I dare you to disagree with that. Go ahread, please tell me that Heritage is the most credible media outlet for facts, im begging you!

      -You are a dime a dozen.

    53. Brian M, IL says:

      George C

      Bravo! You are right on about everything you said. The Federal Gov't has been ignoring the Constitution for years. They grab this power under the "common good " clause and screw the states out of the powers that are rightfully theirs.

      This drift towards Socialism has to end now!

    54. Bobbie says:

      thanks for the mention. you do Daniel. and if anyone would care to waste their time tracking your past comments of your worded accusations of someone elses opinion that does not reflect racism and it is so disgustingly irrelevant, they will.

      redeem yourself, as this is the way you obviously think. your insulting, as you don't think people who aren't white should be accountable to their actions of their personal responsibilities. especially when they're in leadership. It's in your past comments. redeem yourself and tell us you believe we are all equally human.

      now, grow up and see things the way they are and accept ALL who took and take part in designing the problems beyond our reach but intentionally within government control. empathize and see where the corruption lyes. put yourself in a person's shoes who lives in a country of freedom, then put yourself in today's government's shoes. It's plain and simple if you're an honest person born free, who respects and expects truth. You're standards are way too low protecting corruption and deceit.

      Oh, and by the way Daniel, the free market is ALWAYS held accountable or your unaccountable government proves themselves to be unaccountable/irresponsible.

    55. Daniel says:


      It's funny that you blame Barney Frank(one finance commitee chair) and Chris Dodd(one banking commitee chair) when congess was controlled for 12 years by around 300 conservative/republicans both in the House and Senate. As if those two could get anything through Congress or even to President Bush for a signature anyways. Blaming them is impossible both by legislative, historical and numerical means. It's one of the worst spins in history. It's really not that hard to figure out, aside from the mountains of evidence I just presented. Think about what you are saying, you are blaming two congressman and a piece of Legislation that was passed in 1977 that makes up for less then 4% of total housing market share from 1999-2009. If CRA loans were so bad, why did they work just fine for over 30 years while regulatory reform was in place? Conservatives in congress who are against regulatory reform in everyway had legislative power, along with President Bush. Have you even read the C.R.A act of 1977? I have. Its is sitting in my desk(pdf format). Have you even read the periodic reports, federal reserve board date, F.D.I.C. reports? Have you even studied and researched housing market share, bottom line losses, etc? Did you even realize that G.S.E's(Fannie and Freddie) make up for less then 11% of Total Market Share from 1999-2009? This (demonize and blame government for everything) logic is so drastically flawed I can't believe people buy into it. I already admitted that both Government and Private controlled lending was at fault but one way more then the other. Only so much information can sink in, otherwise providing everything I have is a waste if people simpy choose to ignore factual evidence. Oh well…

    56. Hans Moleman, FL says:

      To me, the most startling (and unremarked) chart was #7. If I am reading that right, it is Medicare – not SS or even Medicaid – that is the mushrooming consumer of GDP. While SS now equals Medicaid + Medicare, by 2083, Medicare alone will cost more than the other 2 combined. This suggests that SS reform may not be that useful if Medicare continues its current path.

    57. George Colgrove, VA says:


      You Say: :George, you wanna play with the big dogs you gotta play hard. No more “talking points”

      Your information is wrong. You are wrong. Your facts are wrong. You have bought into this Conservative fairy tale that has been brought to you by Conservative Media. It’s so dissapointing to see so many people this misinformed"

      I gave you facts – you told me I'm wrong. The ball is bouncing in your court – how am I wrong?

    58. George Colgrove, VA says:


      What I mean about you providing facts is I need you to go back prior to the sub prime loan debolicle began. I ask only one question why did these banks take these loans? Answer that question honestly. All your facts you listed above are likely correct as they are in print somewhere. But the question you failed to answer is why did it all begin to start with.

      You have only done what you accused me of doing – just giving talking points that blame conservatives. OK now provide the proof behind your agrument. You wont find it.

    59. Tom Knepper, Georget says:

      As the two right-hand columns of Graph 1 clearly reflect, the bottom 75% of wage earners pay a paltry 14% of all federal income taxes. Yet the liberals and progressives continue to chant their decades-long mantra that "we" must do something to "help middle-class families". As former Chicago Bears' coach Mike Ditka said, "Who you crappin'?" We are fast approaching the point of becoming a nation of moochers, in which the majority of wage earners will pay zero percent of collected federal income taxes. I dearly love my country, but if this Obama-inspired class warfare continues, I will be left no choice but to vote with my feet and take up residence in, say, Panama. If I get fleeced, conned, defrauded, robbed, kidnapped or shot,there, at least I'll have no one to blame but myself.

    60. Gail, OR says:

      To those above who are running Heritage Organization into the ground. Why the heck are you even in here if you don't believe in what Heritage is saying or doing? You are as two faced, as is the CURRENT (so called) president, and the rest of the Democrat Party. I have never read such drivel in my life. You need to wake up and smell the O "BOMBS" headed in OUR/YOUR direction.

    61. Sharon Higgins, cali says:

      I agree with Daniel as to term limits, etc. I would add one more item; anyone

      on public assistance would be ineligible to vote while on assistance. They

      should not be able to vote themselves more benefits. This might inhivit pandering

      to that sector for votes by some politicians and would free up true conservatives

      to vote on what's right, not what will get them re-elected!

    62. Daniel says:


      you stated-

      "I gave you facts – you told me I’m wrong. The ball is bouncing in your court – how am I wrong?"

      -No, you didn't give any facts. You are blaming Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the housing crisis, yet didn't provide anything to prove your accusation. No, the ball is in your court, along with every other Conservative(whether you are or not), blaming two congressman and the government for the Housing Crisis without offering legislative and economic history backed by numerical evidence as to how that accusation is actually true, it's all "talking points". I provided facts, you didn't.

      you stated-

      "What I mean about you providing facts is I need you to go back prior to the sub prime loan debolicle began. I ask only one question why did these banks take these loans? Answer that question honestly. All your facts you listed above are likely correct as they are in print somewhere. But the question you failed to answer is why did it all begin to start with."

      - If you go back prior to when subprime mortgages origninated, you will find that private lending Institutions had responsible lending laws. Credit was checked, debt to income was checked, applications were processes carefully, regulation was not needed. I'm aware of lending prior to the late 90's and the Housing Market was in good shape, not sure what you are looking for? If it is the Government you are trying to blame for any loans given prior to 1999, I can tell you that any Lenders subject to C.R.A. worked just fine. The lowest foreclosure percentage happened from 1977-1999, espically with Government controlled lending, that again mage up for even less then 4% of Total Market share up until 1999 when it stayed at 4%. Even so, over 85% of subprime mortgages were under private lenders since the creation of subprime mortgages.

      -Which banks took which loans? Are you referring to Fannie and Freddie? Whether the government stepped in or not these homes were bound to go into foreclosure. G.S.E.'s were provided as a safety net, and that safety net failed, just as private institutions failed. When deregulation occured under the Reagan Administration, and even more under the Clinton Administration, the possibility of a Housing Collapse was inevitable. Also, not a single bill for regulatory reform passed through 12 years of complete Conservative/Republican congressional control, therein lies the problem. Conservatives for over 36 years have been documented by legislation for neglected regulatory reform, blocking regulatory reform or having regulation all together.

      -Why did what all begin to start with? Subprime mortgages or Government controlled lending all together? You must be more specific with your questions.

      you stated-

      "You have only done what you accused me of doing – just giving talking points that blame conservatives. OK now provide the proof behind your agrument. You wont find it."

      -When did legislative and economic history, federal reserve board data, F.D.I.C. reports, periodic reports with sources provided become "talking points"?

      Proof? The proof has already been given. "I wont find it"? Yea, im pretty sure i've found it. I've studied housing market share and lending for the last 7 years, have you? What knowledge do you have regarding the housing collapse, aside from the typical (blame the government) "talking point"? What have you provided?

      -Look, I blame both parties and both private and government institutions for the housing collapse but the private lenders were in no doubt the bulk of the housing collapse which caused the recession in the first place.

      - I find it astounding that Conservatives blame government, when government made up for less then 15% of the entire Market Share. Also, they complained about bailing out private companies(banks) that failed because of neglected regulatory reform or reform all together because of their legislation that blocked any measure to combat the problem for over 30 years now, espically from 1994-2006. Would you like legislative history from the 103rd-109th congress. I would love to provide it.

      -All this (blame the government for everthing) midset has been brought by Conservative media and pure ignorance. Government has made many mistakes, but the housing collpase aint one of them.

      -The most confusing Conservative mindset is this-what motivation do private lenders have to offer homes to low-income buyers? what prevents lenders from becoming monopolies? what prevents private lenders from discriminatory lending? what prevents free market lending from causing problems? The anwer is none, nothing, nothing and nothing. Greed and corruption dominate the free market these days, espically within the history of the private lenders under the housing market. This housing collapse was the result of no oversight, regulation and not having proper reform, that's all it ever was. Everything else you hear is conservative "talking points" who's entire objective is to get conservatives back in power, to do what?

      -im all for free market principles but people are liars, they are greedy, corrupt and damaging. Conservative tend to look at things one way and thats the entire problem.

    63. Daniel says:


      with all this "racism" talk in your comments, i'm wondering if race is something you have an issue with? not sure where you are going with this but it's fun reading your comments :)

    64. Daniel says:


      you stated-

      "To those above who are running Heritage Organization into the ground. Why the heck are you even in here if you don’t believe in what Heritage is saying or doing?"

      -Why are you here sucking up everything Heritage provides for factual and credible information? I'm here to find entertainment in Heritage bloggers and the comments that follow. Most if not everything they post is false and innacurate. I'm not allowed to share an opposing viewpoint? Should I just choose to look away, while people get misinformed day in and day out?

      you stated-

      "You are as two faced, as is the CURRENT (so called) president, and the rest of the Democrat Party. I have never read such drivel in my life. You need to wake up and smell the O “BOMBS” headed in OUR/YOUR direction."

      -what's with all the Conservative anger and hostility when someone provides a different opinion? So factual evidence is now considered "drivel" I can understand it's much easier to just accept what you hear online, on tv and on the radio by conservative media outlets but is it not much more satisfying to educate yourself and call out websites like this one for what it really is?

      - the worst part is I know im beating a dead horse. It's seems Conservatism these days is riddled with past failures, poor losers and emotion, nothing more, nothing less. Ive never seen so many people ignorant to our countries economic history.

    65. George Colgrove, VA says:


      I posted quite a bit of info for you that the HF did not post. It was a lot. Suffice it to say just look up MyMouthPeace on YouTube. He has simplified the corruption so that anyone can understand it all. All you discuss for the most part is the debris of the hovenmenta action. What you have yet to addess is the roots.

      People, learn all you can on this. This is the libs skeleton in full light. Just look at this guys energy spent on obfuscatong this.

    66. Bobbie says:

      Still haven't redeemed yourself, Daniel.

      Good one, George. You represent real men! Daniel represents less than.

    67. AMA in Minnesota says:


      Democrats buy votes by offering more programs and benefits, but raise taxes to pay for those benefits.

      Republicans buy votes by offering to cut taxes, but then do not cut expenses, so you see, on the charts above, that republicans have given us the majority of the debt.

      Obama bashers never mention that he inherited 2 unfunded wars, and a collapsing economy (and so collapsing revenues) the day he took office.

      If you do not think BOTH parties are equally culpable for our problems, you are simply not being honest. If you think we can solve the probem only with cuts, or only with more taxes, you have not done your homework.

      What we need are thoughtful, non-partisan solutions that will work for our kids in the long term. And given the mess we are in, it will required shared sacrifice.

      I encourage and challenge all of you to go to the website http://www.iousathemovie.com , and watch the free video, by former comptroller of the Treasury, David Walker. There are no simple solutions. We are going to have to significalntly cut SS & Medicare benefits, and defense, AND raise some taxes, if we hope to give our kids a sustainable economy & govt. for the future.

      Civil discussion with real data, and no namecallling, is the only positive way forward.

    68. Daniel says:

      George, Bobbie and whoever else,

      It's funny that i'm looked down upon for presenting legislative and economic history with sources and numerical evidence to back it up. Why would you choose to accept what you hear from Heritage? Why do you refuse to do your personal research? It's really weird when people get mad at you for presenting facts. What interest do you have in protecting the Heritage Foundation? This is one of the last places to get credible information and I say that with full clarity and knowledge of what this site and others like it are all about. Oh well, I guess this is what is has come down to. Nobody seems to care about our countries true problems, only to keep committing the same very actions that put our economy where it is today. It's disappointing and hopeless. I've already blamed both the government and the free market for our current state, yet all of you are dealing in absolutism by blaming the government only as if every other economic structure controlled by the private sector is perfect and without flaw. It's simply not true.

    69. Pingback: Top Ten Charts of 2010 «

    70. Daniel says:

      AMA stated-

      "Civil discussion with real data, and no namecallling, is the only positive way forward"

      -pretty sure I provided "real data" with sources to back it up, unless you can find something to dispute, please feel free.

      -Anyways, good luck trying to explain that to any single person on this website. For example, this comment from George…

      "This is the libs skeleton in full light. Just look at this guys energy spent on obfuscatong this."

      -I provide actual economic history and legislative actions that brought us here and that is his response. It's disappointing. He actually believes it is some vast conspiracy to hide some liberal agenda to destroy the the country and our way of life. It's strange and amusing at the same time. By the way, little energy was spent on my response. I have studied economic and legislative history for over 12 years and have data and information stacked 3 feet high. A lot of it is Democrat policy failures too.

      -And then Bobbie accused me of being "racist" for offering an opposing viewpoint. This response is just akward and borderline insane.

      -My entire purpose was to expose the constant lies from Heritage, yet these people defend it and protect as much as they can. I'm not trying to defend or protect government. Government is part of the problem, just not the only problem.

      -Everything I posted above is true and correct and George, if you have any problem with the "roots" of government, then please site exactly which programs, legislation, executive order, amendments or whatever it is that you have a problem with. I provided information for the last 33 years regarding the housing collapse which is the entire reason we had a recession. Government alone did not cause the problem. Private sector lenders protected by Conservatives for over 30 years was the "root" of the problem.

      -This websites entire purpose, including it's followers is to demonize and promote pure hatred for President Obama, Democrats and Liberals to get Conservatives back in power. That is truly the full extent of anything Heritage does. The huge problem is their information, most if not all of the time it is wrong. Their sources link back to other Heritage blogs, their numbers are pulled out of thin air, their projections are one-sided, their blogs never, ever contain Conservative policy failures or mistakes, they never, ever give the slightest spec of credit to President Obama for any single thing he had done. All of this leads to absolutism, and absolutism kills credibility.

      More "talking points" guys? I'm all ears.

    71. Pingback: Top Ten Foundry Posts of 2010 | The Conservative Papers

    72. Gaylen Stockdale, Ca says:

      Charts are just charts, control the people with number that reflex your own thinking. The charts number is right on the nose, but what has cause the numbers to go up in the last few years. A GOP control Congress and income tax cut! Next thing is most top end income earners pay no or very little taxes, most of my income is thru Capital Gains and then I have all of my tax write off. Zero taxes last year, maybe with TEA PARTIERS in Congress I can get back some of their of your taxes too!

    73. Pingback: Top Ten Foundry Posts of 2010 | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    74. TJ says:


      Do you not agree that it would be far simpler to regulate the inflated F&F and BofA toxic debt market than to regulate literally millions of individual players in the mortgage game?

      The lending standards and mortgage acquisitions of F&F have been and continue to be FAR lazier than the private sector, driving down the cost of loans to dangerous levels and creating a toxic asset acquisition market driven entirely by F&F proportionally.

      Of any firm, F&F owns and has continued to own the largest proportion of toxic assets per individual firm, and at taxpayer expense. If you cut this source of origination and funding, you evaporate the toxic asset market in the US and immediately balance loan cost and quality.

      Simple problem, simple solution, no?

    75. Daniel says:


      you stated-

      "Do you not agree that it would be far simpler to regulate the inflated F&F and BofA toxic debt market than to regulate literally millions of individual players in the mortgage game?"

      -who is regulating millions of individual players in the mortgage game? specifically which lenders? I'm just asking because you mentioned it. So should we let the private lenders in the "mortgage game" practice without regulation, just as they have for over 33 years now? The private sector lending market failed miserably. I'm not against dropping regulation once these private lenders can practice fairly and appropriately, but for now they haven't shown us they can. I provided the bottom line losses and market share percentage. Do you see any reason to let these lenders practice without at least some form of regulation?

      you stated-

      "The lending standards and mortgage acquisitions of F&F have been and continue to be FAR lazier than the private sector, driving down the cost of loans to dangerous levels and creating a toxic asset acquisition market driven entirely by F&F proportionally."

      -you see, that's the entire problem. Cite specific examples regarding lending practices between Fannie and Freddie, Lenders subject to C.R.A. and all other Private Lenders. Everything you just stated in that paragraph had been refuted within the evidence I provided above. DId you read a single thing? 'Far lazier"?What incentive do private sector lenders have to be any less corrupt then government regulated lenders?

      you stated-

      "Of any firm, F&F owns and has continued to own the largest proportion of toxic assets per individual firm, and at taxpayer expense. If you cut this source of origination and funding, you evaporate the toxic asset market in the US and immediately balance loan cost and quality."

      -Fannie and Freddie make up for less then 11% of total market share. Lenders subject to C.R.A. make up for around 4% of total market share. Private lenders from 1999-2009, including 2010 and 2011 will make up for around 85% of total market share. Around 40% of all loans are currently under Fannie and Freddie, yet it only makes up for 11% of total market share. It's simple if you see which loans were under Fannie and Freddie, small homes between 200-400k, town homes under 400k and rental communities. Private(unregulated) lenders provide massive loans and that's what caused the housing crisis.

      -Fannie and Freddie in 2008/2009 had bottom line losses at $224.3 billion. Private sector in 2008/2009 had bottom line losses at $1.699 trillion. Please explain to me how that accounts for Fannie and Freddie having the "largest proportion of toxic assets per individual firm?" And yes, both government and private losses got bailed out, but private was at 700% greater cost for the "tax payer" then Fannie and Freddie. The largest proportion of toxic assets comes from the private sector lending market, hands down. 85% of the entire market share for the last 11 years was never touched by the governmnet.

      -your solution to free up lenders would put us in the same mess all over again. I have already stated that government controlled lending was bad, but not near what private sector lending did to the market.

      -Are you suggesting that sub-prime mortgages or lending all together will do better without government regulation and regulatory reform? If so, then that contradicts economic history for the last 33 years, specifically the last 11.

      -If you plan to offer a debate you must provide specifics, legislative and economic history, numerical evidence, all backed with sources, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.

    76. Daniel says:


      you never responded to my question. do you have a problem with race? you seem to keep bringing it up?

    77. Daniel says:

      one more thing Bobbie,

      dispute one single fact that I presented. waiting to see what your response would be. most likely, more talking points. It's fun to read your comments :)

    78. Hans Moleman, FL says:

      I am looking at a Heritage Foundation chart entitled “Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2052”. It is, as one might expect from the Heritage Foundation, persuasive and thought-provoking. It shows the extent to which entitlement growth (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) will engulf and devour all current revenues in 40 years. Persuasive.

      But the chart shows something else that the Heritagers did not note. Medicare, not Social Security or Medicaid, is the really exploding entitlement.

      (Continued at http://mistermoleman.com/2011/02/13/obamacare-med

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.