.
March 11th, 2009
09:45 PM ET

Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 03/11/09

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/01/02/liveblogfinal.copy.jpg]

Tonight on AC360°, recession news flash: the rich are getting poorer. Just hours ago, Forbes magazine published its 2009 list of the world’s top billionaires. The take-away: there are fewer of them, and their fortunes are shrinking. It’s not a story that will generate much sympathy. We get that. But it’s still an interesting look at the recession’s reach. We’ll tell you who has lost the most and who has fallen the furthest. Tonight we want to keep the live blog on this one topic. So, please share your thoughts with us.

And, don't miss Erica Hill's webcast on billionaires during the commercials. Watch our WEBCAST

Want to know what else we're covering tonight? Read EVENING BUZZ

Keep in mind, you have a better chance of having your comment get past our moderators if you follow our rules.

Here are some of them:

1) Keep it short (we don't have time to read a "book")

2) Don't write in ALL CAPS (there's no need to yell)

3) Use your real name (first name only is fine)

4) No links

5) Watch your language (keep it G-rated; PG at worst - and that includes $#&*)

And take a look at our live web camera from the 360° studio. Watch the WEBCAM


Filed under: Live Blog • T1
soundoff (395 Responses)
  1. Jolene, St. Joseph, MI

    Regarding the topic of the Forbes List of the richest, it would be interesting to know if it was just the wealthy in the US that lost money or did the wealthy in other countries lose out too?

    March 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
  2. Maren in Oregon

    Has anyone evrer heard of wait and see? It seems like our obsession with instant gratification is driving this "stimulus" culture. It's already had childen? Son of Stimulus? What's next, "Dracula Meet Son of Stimulus?"

    March 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
  3. Lesa, TN

    Oh, "What a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. It's very hypocritical of how the Republicans are arguing over the pork pretending to have virtues, when they are the same culprits as the Democrats that's establishing this unnecessary spending.

    If the president didn't sign it, something would've been said just the same from both sides. This too, shall pass.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
  4. WH

    Some earmarks are good. I think President Obama is right not to try to do battle with Congress right now when there are so many other pressing issues we have to deal with. He made it clear that in the future earmarks will be under scrutiny by all so I think with the transparency and the names attached with the purpose of the earmark, we should see less of these so called pet projects in the future.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
  5. Bobby

    I guess President is in big dilemma "to be OR not to be".. If he didn't sign the budget then things will start tumbling but once he signs it then he is blame for earmarks...

    March 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
  6. Caroline, Los Angeles

    I wonder if the Alabama killer was schizophrenic and undiagnosed. That mental illness frequently comes out when someone reaches young adulthood.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
  7. Larry - Vermont

    How can the president not owe anyone an explanation? That came back to bite a country ruled by G.W. Bush; we should never stop demanding explanations from our elected leaders or we become sheep.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
  8. Rikki, Fargo, ND

    Anderson, You're right the sequel is never as good as the first...and given that the first stimulus package from George W. did little to nothing to stimulate economy what is the follow gonna...much of the same!

    March 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
  9. Barbara Pacheco, Gaffney, SC

    I believe the reason we are revisiting the stimulus bill part two so soon is because so much was cut out of the first one due to the GOP opposition.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
  10. Carmella

    If there is a 2nd stimulus, please let his economic team write it please. Don't let the House write it please.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
  11. niwat, Chicago, IL

    @ David Gergen, President Obama's signing spending bill was a bit hypocrite, contradicting what he said he would go thru line on campaigning,though the bill was under Bush's administration, it deserved some sort of scrunity.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  12. Tammy, Berwick, LA

    Erica,

    I'm not sure this deputy had composure as much as he is still in shock at what has happened to his family. That's what I saw-pure shock that allows people to function when they shouldn't be.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  13. vanessa from silver spring, MD

    I agree David G. it is nice to finally see Geithner out there speaking. He needs to show that he is capable and confident.

    "Son of Stimulus"lol

    And Anderson, some sequels are as good or better than the original movies. ie- The Godfather, The Godfather 2.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  14. Esma

    I'm over-Stimulusated, personally.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  15. Glen Up North

    Gary, sounds like you're expecting Santa Claus to have been elected to the Presidential seat, not a human being. Did you really think the war, government reforms, and the economy were going to be solved in less than 100 days? NOT.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
  16. Chris Sosa - Boston, MA

    @Erica – Enjoying eavesdropping on your in-studio convo, but you might wanna turn your mic off. 😉

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  17. Paula, Colorado

    Anderson,
    Hi!
    I think Pres. Obama is trying–successfully–to keep things moving economically. Your discussion on the bill, etc. has been great–thorough and impartial.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  18. Tom from Philly

    Complaining about earmarks is like complaining about peach fuzz, its always been there and making a big deal about it is rediculous, we just never talked about it before, id love to analyze the data for the last 40 years and see how much was spent and on what, then you can set guidelines. We send them to dc to bring us money back and when another rep or senator does that for his/her district we act shocked.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  19. Brandi- bottom of the boot

    @esma, purple is my favorite color too! lmao now im really starting to get scared! u stalking me? or am i stalking u? heehee

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  20. Bridget, TX

    I love the first lady's speech and outfit-she's so classy and gorgeous.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  21. Lori from IL

    David Gerrgen -

    As I understand it, 40 percent of the earmarks are from Repubs. If learned it's more adventageous to fight the fights that are worth fighting. The earmarks, while numerous are not a large money percentage. I feel he has bigger things he wants to get through congress and decided this wasn't a fight worth fighting.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  22. gayle mccauley Malden,Mass.

    Greetings to All! All of AC360and Megan,Esma,Chris.S,Casey,Isabel,Vanessa M., Vanessa G., Brandi,Rikki ,Glen,etc. Now I can only wonder since that bill was signed today if , in fact our president will get a little more support from the republicans on issues. You know sort of "O.K. , I gave you a little of what you wanted,now will you cooperate with me?"And ,yes I do understand that all of the earmarks weren't from republicans.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  23. Sabrina

    The President never said he would allow no earmarks ever, he stated he wanted to limit them. His credibility is in tack in my opinion. If I remember correctly it was John McCain who always went on and on about earmarks.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
  24. Rafael

    So with all these earmarks just signed on its going to make it even harder for Obama to get rid of them now.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  25. Michelle D . Fonthill. Ont

    The forbes billionare list must include Anderson he has his wallet out in front of him so it won't hurt his back! ha!

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  26. Tony, Cambridge, England

    Why all the talk about earmarks, when they account for 1% of the budget. Will this 1% help the economy in every state its spent, why cant Americans focus on the 99% of the budget

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  27. Sharon S

    The President signing this bill then to turn around and yet again lie to the public about how it is going to be different next time?

    Why didn't he make a difference this time? Why not now? Why keep saying next time next time? When exactly is next time?

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  28. sandy

    good evening~~! anderson, your staff and bloggers
    finally i'm writing this comment now.. kk
    as u know, i watch this program almost everyday..^^

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  29. Linda

    @ Fawn

    Well he not only killed his family he did go random, killing the policeman's wife, kid, the other person at the store, at the woman at the gas station and trying to kill the cop, sounds pretty random to me was included in his killing

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  30. Casey Jones - Palm Springs, CA

    Regarding the deputy. Professionally, he's performing as trained. Personally, he's probably in shock and the reality hasn't set in. Sometime the reality of someone's death really takes a long time to "hit home."

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  31. Bridget, TX

    Hi David G, the president has so many major fights ahead of him which means he's going to have to call on favors big time. I believe he should pick his battles carefully. Do I like the bill had earmarks no, but with our country's foundation literally crumbling under our feet, standing firm on something that's not going to save or destroy our country further isn't worth the fight.

    By the way, I saw your clip yesterday on CBS Evening News, where you gave P. O an I for the economy, what do you believe he can do "now" to change the I to at least a passing grade?

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  32. Carol

    The promise on earmarks! Why, oh why, did we believe THIS politician?
    Pres. Obama must do a turn-around quickly, or his 'fans' are going to realized he is just another one of 'them'....politicians who say anything to get elected.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |
  33. Mike Syracuse, NY

    Obama has reveresed several Bush policies. So why is this bill immune? They could have passed a stripped down continuing resolution without earmarks. Isn't there anyone with courage in Washington?

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  34. Gloria, Brooklyn, NY

    Deeper understanding of the marks, too much fat.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  35. EJ (USA)

    I think the deputy is just in shock. This just happened yesterday.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  36. Michelle D . Fonthill. Ont

    The deputy did seem rather quiet and somber i also agree considering his world has been turned upside down in a flash .
    I pray for him and his family as they grief.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  37. Maren in Oregon

    Hi Erica. . .really. that extraordinary young man. I'm so glad he has his faith and his tight community to support him.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  38. Sharon S

    I really believe that the President should have made a stand against the earmarks and if it caused a fight with the top democrats well so be it!

    I think he should have shown us strength he gave in to the pushy ignorance of the Pelosi's on capital hill!

    March 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |
  39. Annamarie

    I am so disappointed in President Obama. When did he stop thinking on his own and who is telling him what to do? Obama the campaigner and Obama the President are two different people. As a Republican I really believed I was voting for the person that would bring about change but now I am not so sure...selective change is more like it.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  40. vanessa from silver spring, MD

    POTUS has more important things to worry about then a bill from last year. He can work on earmark in his administration.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  41. L. Carilo, H.R., CO

    To: Mr. Gergen

    "...last year’s business." President Obama must press on. He is working hard, is ever-present, and proving he has our best interest in mind just by "showing up" for the job. IMO.

    P.S. Tired of dems vs. reps, reps. vs. dems. Will it ever be: reps & dems working to save the USA. ~ L.C.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  42. Esma

    Is it bad I love Michelle's outfit? Purple is my favorite color, and it suits her well too.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  43. Carmella

    If the President keeps 98% of his promises he's good in my book. Give him another chance and he will prove himself credible on this matter. He doesn't have time to battle this one, sometimes you have to give a little to get alot. It's called trades and negotiation.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  44. Caroline, Los Angeles

    Hello all. I know why Obama signed the budget. 'Cause at some point he's going to have to raise taxes. He's picking his battles. Wise man.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  45. Dee F

    not surprised about broken engagement

    March 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  46. Sean, Soldier in IRAQ

    Hello everyone. Sorry I have been MIA busy here in Iraq..

    AC glade to be back

    March 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
  47. Maren in Oregon

    Profanity? In Congress? Owwww! Give Joe Johns a combat bonus!

    March 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
  48. Michelle D . Fonthill. Ont

    The rescsesion is hurting everyone and the corperatiions are getting all the money tax breaks bailouts .

    March 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
  49. Megan Dresslar - Shoreline, WA

    Michelle D . Fonthill. Ont March 11th, 2009 10:15 pm ET

    Hi to Megan !how are you ?

    Helloooo Michelle D.......
    I am doing great! Thanks.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
  50. Casey Jones - Palm Springs, CA

    So, why doesnt the President have the ability to veto by line? I'm not familiar enough with the process.

    March 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8