by Ed Morrissey

Before Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008, Joe Biden was widely acknowledged as the Gaffemaster of his party. And if one defines a gaffe as the accidental disclosure of an embarrassing political truth, then the Vice President managed to maintain his reputation this weekend. When addressing a fundraiser for embattled incumbent Senator Russ Feingold in Milwaukee, Biden told an audience to get used to high unemployment, because the jobs lost in the recession aren’t coming back:

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

“We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.”

That’s certainly true — as long as we follow the policies Democrats insist in putting in place. Their high spending and expansion of regulation has capital sitting on the sidelines, or worse, fleeing for other jurisdictions. As government soaks up more capital, both present and future, less of it gets put to work in creating new and expanded business opportunities. Government spending, as Porkulus has proven, does not create permanent jobs, and only saves the jobs of bureaucrats for a temporary period.

What could work? We could go back to the policies that created wealth, starting at the beginning of the 25-year boom that preceded the Great Recession. Instead of hiking taxes, we could cut them, especially those that discourage risk-taking at high levels, like capital-gains taxes. Instead of having government intervene in markets to conduct populist social engineering — which is what caused the Great Recession in the first place — government could return to its rightful role as a purely regulatory agency. Instead of burdening American firms in the global market with the highest tax rates and threats to tax foreign income, which would put American firms at a tremendous competitive disadvantage in international markets, we could slim down and streamline the tax burden to enhance competitiveness. Finally, instead of looking for ways to make energy more expensive and therefore make a recovery less likely, we could unleash American ingenuity in getting our own energy resources into play and create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs while keeping more of our money here at home.

The US could certainly get those jobs back. Biden is right when he admits that the Obama administration hasn’t got the first clue as to how to do it. Biden and Obama have combined to give Americans the second Malaise Administration.

Notes: Biden is a man who never had a REAL job. He has spent his entire life on the public dole, taking taxpayer's money and making statements and having opinions that have no basis in fact. He is quite frankly a raving "financial moron".

Just think about an economy like that of the USA, which is approximately 20%-25% of all the economic output of the world, this moron thinks that there will never be another 8 million jobs created! He is truly an economic/financial illiterate!

This is not a leader, this is a village idiot!


The entire home ownership concept in America is drastically changed. The push for Americans to own homes( with a good chunk of illegal aliens getting loans as well) has come to a screeching stop!

It has been reported that one out of every three U.S. home sales in the first quarter was a foreclosed property as steep price discounts boosted demand for distressed real estate, RealtyTrac said in a new report on Wednesday.

Foreclosure homes accounted for 31 percent of all residential sales in the first quarter of 2010, with the average sales price of properties that sold while in some stage of foreclosure nearly 27 percent below homes that were not in the process, Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac said.

"In a normal market, only 1 to 2 percent of home sales are foreclosures, so this is certainly a significant level," Rick Sharga, senior vice president at RealtyTrac, said in an interview.

Total U.S. foreclosure sales in 2009 were up more than 1,100 percent from 2006 and more than 2,500 percent from 2005. Foreclosure sales accounted for 29 percent of all sales in 2009, up from 23 percent in 2008 and a mere 6 percent in 2007, the real estate data company said.

Foreclosure activity in the first quarter, however, ebbed from the previous quarter as well as year-over-year.

A total of 232,959 U.S. properties in some stage of foreclosure -- including mortgage default notices, scheduled for auction or bank-owned (REO) -- were sold to third parties in the first quarter, a decrease of 14 percent from the previous quarter and down 33 percent from the peak during the first quarter of 2009, when sales of foreclosure homes accounted for 37 percent of all residential sales.

"The drop from the previous quarter can probably be attribute to seasonality, and while the year-over-year drop is significant, it should be noted that it was down from the peak," Sharga said.

"A combination of an enormous inventory of distressed properties and an unprecedented interest by homebuyers to buy these properties boosted sales," he said.

The average sales prices on properties in some stage of foreclosure decreased 23 percent from 2006-09, while the average discounts on foreclosure purchases increased from 21 percent in 2006 to 27 percent in the first quarter of 2010.

The discounts on REOs are larger than those on pre-foreclosures, although discounts on pre-foreclosures appear to be trending higher as short sales become more common, the company said.

"First time homebuyers and investors continue to buy foreclosure properties in large numbers, and at substantial discounts," James Saccacio, Chief Executive Officer of RealtyTrac, said in a statement.

"As lenders have begun repossessing homes at record levels over the first half of 2010, it will be interesting to watch how they will manage the inventory levels of distressed properties on the market in order to prevent more dramatic price deterioration," he said.

Meanwhile, the Sun Belt continued to lead foreclosures nationally, with Nevada, California and Arizona posting the highest percentage of foreclosure sales in the first quarter.

Foreclosure sales accounted for 64 percent of all sales in Nevada in the first quarter -- the highest percentage of any state. The state's percentage was down from 65 percent of all sales in the previous quarter and 75 percent of overall sales in the first quarter of 2009.

California posted the second highest percentage for U.S. states, with foreclosure sales accounting for 51 percent of all sales there in the first quarter -- up from 50 percent in the previous quarter, but down from 70 percent of all sales in the first quarter of 2009.

Other states where foreclosure sales accounted for at least one-third of total sales were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho and Oregon.

Foreclosures are by far one of the biggest threats to the U.S. housing market. Improvement in the housing market bodes well for the national economy, as it points to better demand in the sector where the first signs of the latest recession took root.

There appears to be no end in sight as unemployed homeowners unable to pay their mortgages can not refinance their homes. reports have shown that for every job posting, there ate 6 to 100 applicants!


PREVAILING WAGE RATES, is an interesting term used by local municipalities and federal agencies to determine the wages that MUST be paid to employees working on such projects.

That term is very misleading, as it tends to purport that these are the wages paid to persons in certain industries in that area, and are real JOB KILLERS!

Just for curiosity, we checked the local PREVAILING WAGES for our county and discovered why costs to build a road or building were so high! For instance, a BUILDING OPERATING ENGINEER, was to be paid $48.10 per hour, plus 2x that rate for overtime, plus $11.70 per hour for heath and welfare, plus $8.05 for pension, plus $1.90 vacation and plus $1.15 for training! That is EXCLUDING THE FICA TAXES and unemployment taxes.

This is a total of $70.90 an hour for this employee, excluding the additional employer costs of workman's compensation, and unemployment insurance which realistically adds another $10 an hour or so.

Therefore the basic annual cost of one employee is $168,272 !

Can this rate be sustainable to build any projects that are built for the government? Now do you know why costs are so high?

can this employee be continued to be employed if he works on any but government projects? No, he can not be hired and actually work at a business that expects to provide an ongoing building business.

The prevailing wages for someone who holds up the STOP and SLOW sign on highways, gets $24.20 an hour, plus $3.78 for health and welfare, plus $1.87 for pension, totaling $29.85 an hour, plus the unemployment taxes for another $5 an hour or so, for a basic annual wage of $72,488!!!!

Can we afford it?

Over 2/3 0f the states will have significant deficits, now you know why.

This is no way to protect jobs, but acts as simply an artificial wage that does not reflect market forces, and provides no incentive for employers to increase the employee counts.


Are you worried that we are passing our debt on to future generations? Well, you need not worry.

Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the government’s long-term commitments would become a problem in a few decades. I believe the government response to the recession has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the crisis much sooner. Our generation — not our grand children’s — will have to deal with the consequences.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, the United States’ structural deficit — the amount of our deficit adjusted for the economic cycle — has increased from 3.1 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 9.2 percent in 2010. This does not take into account the very large liabilities the government has taken on by socializing losses in the housing market. We have not seen the bills for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even more so the Federal Housing Administration, which is issuing government-guaranteed loans to non-creditworthy borrowers on terms easier than anything offered during the housing bubble. Government accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the future — whether Social Security benefits or loan guarantees — do not count in the budget until the money goes out the door.

A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit is because last year’s “stimulus” was not stimulus in the traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand, the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent increase in the base level of government spending — including spending on federal jobs. How different is the government today from what General Motors was a decade ago? Government employees are expensive and difficult to fire. Bloomberg News reported that from the last peak businesses have let go 8.5 million people, or 7.4 percent of the work force, while local governments have cut only 141,000 workers, or less than 1 percent.

Public sector jobs used to offer greater job security but lower pay. Not anymore. In 2008, according to the Cato Institute, the average federal civilian salary with benefits was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector worker; the disparity has grown enormously over the last decade.

The question we need to ask is this: If we don’t change direction, how long can we travel down this path without having a crisis? The answer lies in two critical issues. First, how long will the capital markets continue to finance government borrowings that may be refinanced but never repaid on reasonable terms? And second, to what extent can obligations that are not financed through traditional fiscal means be satisfied through central bank monetization of debts — that is, by the printing of money?

The recent United States credit crisis was attributable in large measure to capital requirements and risk models that incorrectly assumed AAA-rated securities were exempt from default risk. We learned the hard way that when the market ignores credit risk, the behavior of borrowers and lenders becomes distorted.

It was once unthinkable that “risk-free” institutions could fail — so unthinkable that the chief executives of the companies that recently did fail probably didn’t realize when they crossed the line from highly creditworthy to eventually insolvent. Surely, had they seen the line, they would, to a man, have stopped on the solvent side.

Our government leaders are faced with the same risk today. At what level of government debt and future commitments does government default go from being unthinkable to inevitable, and how does our government think about that risk?

I recently posed this question to one of the president’s senior economic advisers. He answered that the government is different from financial institutions because it can print money, and statistically the United States is not as bad off as some other countries. For an investor, these responses do not inspire confidence.

He went on to say that the government needs to focus on jobs now, because without an economic recovery, the rest does not matter. It’s a valid point, but an insufficient excuse for holding off on addressing the long-term structural deficit. If we are going to spend more now, it is imperative that we lay out a credible plan to avoid falling into a debt trap. Even using the administration’s optimistic 10-year forecast, it is clear that we will have problematic deficits for the next decade, which ends just as our commitments to baby boomers accelerate.

Modern Keynesianism works great until it doesn’t. No one really knows where the line is. One obvious lesson from the economic crisis is that we should get rid of the official credit ratings that inspire false confidence and, worse, are pro-cyclical, aggravating slowdowns and inflating booms. Congress has a rare opportunity in the current regulatory reform effort to eliminate the rating system. For now, it does not appear interested in taking sufficiently aggressive action. The big banks and bond buyers have told Congress they want to continue the current system.

As William Gross, the managing director of the bond management company Pimco, put it in his last newsletter, “Firms such as Pimco with large credit staffs of their own can bypass, anticipate and front run all three [rating agencies], benefiting from their timidity and lack of common sense.”

Given how sophisticated bond buyers use the credit rating system to take advantage of more passive market participants, it is no wonder they stress the continued need to preserve the status quo.

It would be better to have each investor individually assess credit-seeking entities. Certainly, the creditworthiness of governments should not be determined by a couple of rating agency committees.

Consider this: When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner promises that the United States will never lose its AAA rating, he chooses to become dependent on the whims of the Standard & Poor’s ratings committee rather than the diverse views of the many participants in the capital markets. It is not hard to imagine a crisis where just as the Treasury secretary seeks buyers of government debt in the face of deteriorating market confidence, a rating agency issues an untimely downgrade, setting off a rush of sales by existing bondholders. This has been the experience of many troubled corporations, where downgrades served as the coup de grĂ¢ce.

The current upset in the European sovereign debt market is a prequel to what might happen here. Banks can hold government debt with a so-called zero-risk weighting, which means zero capital requirements. As a result, European banks stocked up on Greek debt, and sold sovereign credit default swaps, and now need to be bailed out to avoid another banking crisis.

As we saw first in Dubai and now in Greece, it appears that governments’ response to the failure of Lehman Brothers is to use any means necessary to avoid another Lehman-like event. This policy transfers risk from the weak to the strong — or at least the less weak — setting up the possibility of the crisis ultimately spreading from the “too small to fails,” like Greece, to “too big to bails,” like members of the Group of 7 industrialized nations.

We should have learned by now that each credit — no matter how unthinkable its failure would be — has risk and requires capital. Just as trivial capital charges encouraged lenders and borrowers to overdo it with AAA-rated collateral debt obligations, the same flawed structure in the government debt market encourages and therefore practically ensures a repeat of this behavior — leading to an even larger crisis.

I don’t believe a United States debt default is inevitable. On the other hand, I don’t see the political will to steer the country away from crisis. If we wait until the markets force action, as they have in Greece, we might find ourselves negotiating austerity programs with foreign creditors.

Some believe this could be avoided by printing money. Despite the promises by the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, not to print money or “monetize” the debt, when push comes to shove, there is a good chance the Fed will do so, at least to the point where significant inflation shows up even in government statistics.

That the recent round of money printing has not led to headline inflation may give central bankers the confidence that they can pursue this course without inflationary consequences. However, printing money can go only so far without creating inflation.

Government statistics are about the last place one should look to find inflation, as they are designed to not show much. Over the last 35 years the government has changed the way it calculates inflation several times. According to the Web site Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with about 2 percent in the official statistics today.

While the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, this doesn’t even take into account inflation we ignore by using a basket of goods that don’t match the real-world cost of living. (For example, health care costs are one-sixth of G.D.P. but only one-sixteenth of the price index, and rising income and payroll taxes do not count as inflation at all.)

Why does the government understate rising costs? Low official inflation benefits the government by reducing inflation-indexed payments, including Social Security. Lower official inflation means higher reported real G.D.P., higher reported real income and higher reported productivity.

Subdued reported inflation also enables the Fed to rationalize easy money. The Fed wants to have low interest rates to fight unemployment, which, in a new version of the trickle-down theory, it believes can be addressed through higher stock prices. The Fed hopes that by denying savers an adequate return in risk-free assets like savings deposits, it will force them to speculate in stocks and other “risky assets.” This speculation drives stock prices higher, which creates a “wealth effect” when the lucky speculators spend some of their gains on goods and services. The purchases increase aggregate demand and lead to job creation.

Easy money also aids the banks, helping them earn back their still unacknowledged losses. This has the perverse effect of discouraging banks from making new loans. If banks can lend to the government, with no capital charge and no perceived risk and earn an adequate spread, then they have little incentive to lend to small businesses or consumers. (For this reason, higher short-term rates could very well stimulate additional lending to the private sector.)

Easy money also helps the fiscal position of the government. Lower borrowing costs mean lower deficits. In effect, negative real interest rates are indirect debt monetization. Allowing borrowers, including the government, to get addicted to unsustainably low rates creates enormous solvency risks when rates eventually rise.

While one can debate where we are in the recovery, one thing is clear — the worst of the last crisis has passed. Nominal G.D.P. growth is running in the mid-single digits. The emergency has passed and yet the Fed continues with an emergency zero-interest rate policy. Perhaps easy money is still appropriate — but a zero-rate policy creates enormous distortions in incentives and increases the likelihood of a significant crisis later. It was not lost on the market that during this month’s sell-off, with rates around zero, there is no room for further cuts should the economy roll over.

EASY money has negative consequences in addition to the risk of inflation and devaluing the dollar. It can also feed asset bubbles. In recent years, we have gone from one bubble and bailout to the next. Each bailout has rewarded those who acted imprudently. This has encouraged additional risky behavior, feeding the creation of new, larger bubbles.

The Fed bailed out the equity markets after the crash of 1987, which fed a boom ending with the Mexican crisis and bailout. That Treasury-financed bailout started a bubble in emerging market debt, which ended with the Asian currency crisis and Russian default. The resulting organized rescue of Long-Term Capital Management’s counterparties spurred the Internet bubble. After that popped, the rescue led to the housing and credit bubble. The deflationary aspects of that bubble popping created a bubble in sovereign debt, despite the fiscal strains created by the bailouts. The Greek crisis may be the first sign of the sovereign debt bubble bursting.

Though we don’t know what’s going to happen next, the good news for our grandchildren is that we will have to face our own debts. If we realize that our own future is at risk, we might be more serious about changing course. If we don’t, Mr. Geithner and others might regret having never said never about America’s rating.

David Einhorn is the president of Greenlight Capital, a hedge fund, and the author of “Fooling Some of the People All of the Time.”


Foreclosure activity fell in April as lenders repossessed homes at a record pace but started far fewer new actions against struggling homeowners, signaling a plateau in loan failures.

Taking less action does not necessarily mean less foreclosure in the future, they have just leveled off due to the government's pressure on banks not to have a speedy process, that the news media may pick up on.

No meaningful improvement is likely this year, however, with mortgage modifications and high unemployment only delaying the inevitable for most of these borrowers, the Irvine, California-based real estate data company said.

But nationwide April foreclosure filings -- notice of default, scheduled auction and bank repossession -- fell 9 percent from March and 2 percent from a year ago.

This was the first year-over-year drop since RealtyTrac started tracking annual foreclosure rates in January 2006.

"What we're really seeing is the effect of lenders slowing down the initial notices of default while they are processing what's already in the pipeline," said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of RealtyTrac.

Lenders filed default notices on 103,762 properties in April, down 12 percent in the month and 27 from a record 142,000 one year ago.

Banks, meantime, took control of 92,432 properties in the month, a record, up 1 percent from March and 45 percent from a year earlier.

With notices on 333,837 properties, one in every 387 U.S. housing units got a foreclosure filing in April.

"The housing market is still in critical condition but is stable," Sharga said.

Borrowers are increasingly tapping federal programs that encourage lenders to alter loan terms to help owners stay in their homes. Still, the overwhelming majority will wind up in foreclosure, he said.

A record 2.8 million U.S. properties got a foreclosure notice in 2009, according to RealtyTrac.

"We still have over a million properties in foreclosure, we still have about 5 million seriously delinquent loans and we're ultimately going to have to work through all of those, so we're not out of this yet," Sharga added.

Foreclosure auctions were scheduled for the first time on 137,643 properties in April, a 13 percent drop from a record 158,000 in March but a 1 percent rise from a year ago.

RealtyTrac sees "overall numbers staying at a high level and ripples of activity hitting the various stages of the foreclosure process as lenders systematically work through the backlog of distressed properties" most of the year, James J. Saccacio, chief executive, said in a statement.


Foreclosure actions fell in nine of the top 10 metro areas from a year ago.

Cities with populations of at least 200,000 in Nevada, Florida, California and Arizona still dominated the list.

Las Vegas had the highest metro foreclosure rate, with one in every 60 housing units getting a filing, but actions fell 3 percent from April 2009. Modesto, California, was in second place, with activity sinking 32 percent in the year.


Foreclosure activity in fives states -- California, Florida, Michigan, Illinois and Nevada -- accounted for 52 percent of the reduced total foreclosure actions in April.

California led the way, with 69,725 properties getting a filing. That was down 25 percent in the month and almost 28 percent in the year.

Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Ohio and Virginia were the other states with the highest foreclosure activity.

Nevada, Arizona and Florida also posted the top state foreclosure rates last month. These were among states with the most overbuilding and inflated prices during the boom and the most pain during the bust. Unemployment later swept up other states into the foreclosure tidal wave.

Nevada had the highest rate for the 40th straight month, with one in every 69 housing units getting a filing.

Other states with foreclosure rates among the top 10 in April were Idaho, Michigan, Illinois, Georgia and Colorado.

When will it all end? No end in sight until the economy improves, and that will probably mean no earlier than the next president taking office.

The current administration is moving full speed ahead with creating more taxes to stifle job creation, to stifle entrepreneurship, and with the yet to kick-in mandates for health insurance, there will be no recovery possible.


I am really upset seeing the oiled and helpless wildlife struggling and dying due to the GULF OF MEXICO OIL DISASTER. I love animals and admire their ability to exist without the need to buy food at the food store or drink bottled water. How do they do it?

Anyway, now to the subject of government versus business (IN OTHER WORDS THE REAL WORLD THAT THE REST OF US LIVE IN).

The oil disaster is just that, a disaster, and the entire Gulf Coast plus maybe even parts of the Eastern Shore will suffer. The tourist industry as well as health issues will be impacted. But again there is an indirect though of unintended consequences that the government refuses to take responsibility for, and wants to just keep blaming everyone else.

Our federal legislators, most of whom had no idea that the Gulf of Mexico is not just a lake in Mexico, do not want drilling for oil to take place close to shore in shallow water. Instead they make unreasonable edicts allowing drilling to take place in waters so deep, they never expected them to actually drill there as the technology is so complicated and dangerous. But as usual business creates the opportunity to invent etc...

The GULF OF MEXICO has over 4,000 drilling rigs sucking out oil, helping us keep the dollars to buy it in the USA. These rigs however are also increasingly foreign companies doing the drilling, not US companies. But still, the oil is here not in a hostile foreign country supporting terrorism, for instance.

We can safely assume that BP, did its best hiring the best drilling contractors experienced in the business and that they did not EVER intend to cause an accident of this scope.

The government, as usual, did not do its job, ranging from a lack of supervision that was mandated, having oil and fire booms deployed and ready, and even having its personnel surfing porn all day instead of doing inspections.

So what else is new? We all just assume that there is nothing but incompetence in that sector of overpaid and under-worked bureaucracy.

Now after a month of oil pouring out into the Gulf waters, after we all can see the unbelievable job of robots cutting, capping, squeezing the mile deep pipes, the government has teamed up with, not the best oil experts,but with-get this, James Cameron, the special effects movie director to stop the disaster!

Hello, guys, please note that TITANIC was a movie, it was NOT REAL! Repeat, it was NOT REAL! Are we going to contact the STAR WARS director to consult on space travel next, or ask Steven Spielberg on how to make contact with extra terrestrial life forms?

Well, I guess speaking for the government, we probably need to say yes, they do live in a fantasy world so they believe fantasy not reality. Instead of rounding up the best advisers to close up that oil flow, the government has sent a team of lawyers to plan a strategy to sue BP rather than to help BP stop the flow. Nice, suing BP will stop the oil flow. More rules are planned, like rules are going to stop accidents.

We have plenty of rules, nobody can flush a toilet without a federal rule mandating how may times the poop in our toilet can turn and turn before it goes down the sewer! In reality that is a rule that mandates a certain volume of water to be use in our toilets, thus actually mandating the times the poop can turn in our toilet!

Film director James Cameron said BP turned down his offer to help combat the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. he actually said this without laughing, and BP replied to him without chuckling after teams of specialty engineers with 20 and 30 years of specialty experience read his offer of help ( they already have a camera down there, no thanks.).

"Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing," Cameron said at the All Things Digital technology conference. What a genius, he is thinking what I was thinking.

Cameron, the director of "Avatar" and "Titanic," has worked extensively with robot submarines ( yeah, in a pool in his studio-I saw the "making of feature") and is considered an expert ( that is a pert that was) in undersea filming. He did not say explicitly who he meant when he referred to "those morons."

His comments came a day after he participated in a meeting at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington to "brainstorm" solutions to the oil spill, apparently meeting with morons, that he was probably referring to from the meeting he just attended.

Cameron said he has offered to help the government and BP in dealing with the spill. He said he was "graciously" turned away by the British energy giant.

The meeting probably went like this: " Hey guys this is Jim Cameron, I put a bunch of zip lock bags on some cameras in my pool for a movie, using pretend little miniatures of the Titanic, and I think that I can help by putting a zip lock bag on the oil spill, catch it all in a really big zip lock bag, and ....HELLO?, HELLO?, is there anyone there...I want to help..that's all, I just want to help with all the expertise I have....HELLO????

He said he has not spoken with the White House about his offer, and said that the outside experts who took part in the EPA meeting were now "writing it all up and putting in reports to the various agencies." This will make a great "Saturday Night Live" show skit.

The film director has helped develop deep-sea submersible equipment and other underwater ocean technology for the making of documentaries exploring the wrecks of the ocean liner Titanic and the German battleship Bismarck some two miles below the surface.

Hello Mr. Cameron, taking pictures of one thing, using sophisticated technology to fix the oil spill is another.

Cameron suggested the U.S. government needed to take a more active role in monitoring the undersea gusher, which has become the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Like what, sending the hapless-helpless Secretary of the Interior to ask questions and bother the working team?

"I know really, really, really smart people that work typically at depths much greater than what that well is at," Cameron said. yeah all the smart people like to work a mile under the water, especially those who can click a camera...them especially ( hey look at the colors on that fish!).

The BP oil spill off the U.S. Gulf Coast is located a mile below the surface.

While acknowledging that his contacts in the deep-sea industry do not drill for oil, Cameron said that they are accustomed to operating various underwater vehicles and electronic optical fiber systems, in his very large pool in the studio complex.

"Most importantly," he added, "they know the engineering that it requires to get something done at that depth."

Among the key issues that Cameron said he is interested in helping the government with are methods of monitoring the oil leak and investigating it, like taking its photo, and asking " how it's going".

"The government really needs to have its own independent ability to go down there and image the site, survey the site and do its own investigation," he said. They should send a bureaucrat in one of those deep diving suits like in the movies!

"Because if you're not monitoring it independently, you're asking the perpetrator to give you the video of the crime scene," Cameron added. With trick photography no doubt.

Expect to see TITANIC 2, a cruise ship eaten by an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the meantime, my best stock advice is to short the BP stock, it is going opinion, only of course not being a stock analyst.