Ford's U.S. sales plummeted 21 percent in September as the automaker saw a steep drop-off in car sales, while Toyota reported a 4 percent decline, according to results released Tuesday. . . .  

Ford's overall sales fell 13 percent for the first nine months of the year. Ford hasn't seen a month when sales rose since October 2006, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.

An index that forecasts near-term home sales fell in August to a record low as would-be homebuyers had difficulty getting mortgages. Economists said the housing market's woes show no sign of improving soon.  

The National Association of Realtors said Tuesday its seasonally adjusted index of pending sales for existing homes fell 6.5 percent from July and 21.5 percent from a year ago.

The fate of the world economy hinges on what happens to house prices in America and that may not be a good thing, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said on Monday.  

Speaking at the Reuters headquarters in London, the former Fed chair delivered a gloomy prognosis on the state of the global economy -- U.S. house prices are likely to fall further and they could drag the rest of the world with them.

Thanks to the golden Greenspan, the assertion that Republicans represent the party of fiscal constraint is now laid bare for the fallacy it is: as empty as a Rudy Giuliani marriage vow.    

What is more to the nub of things is that Republicans don't spend less than Democrats. Rather, they spend money on different things, pre-emptive war for example, as opposed to giving students a better interest rate on college loans - one of the Democrats' first legislative initiatives since taking over Congress.    

Bush has already spent $450 billion to fund the war in Iraq and he is now asking Congress to raise that total to nearly $600 billion to sustain operations through 2008. Bush has squandered the nation's wealth to secure more oil, as Greenspan bluntly asserts. Contrast that to what might have happened during an Al Gore administration. More likely than not, it would not have attacked Saddam Hussein but would have invested in finding a way off the oil that sustained the tyrant.    

Take your pick. National security, of course, is another arena where Republicans claim supremacy over Democrats. But Bush's disastrous war suggests that any alleged prowess is overblown. Bush ignored CIA intelligence estimates circulated in January 2003, that said that a post-Saddam Iraq would fracture and devolve into ''violent conflict,'' and that regime change in Iraq could boost sympathy for Muslim terrorism. Instead Bush went to war with too few troops to prevent those dire predictions.    

A real commander in chief wouldn't have put his military in that impossible predicament, and wouldn't continue to impose the sacrifices of war exclusively on an exhausted volunteer fighting force.    

If going to war is necessary, then a real leader institutes a draft and raises the revenue needed to do the job. But Bush, who thinks that government doesn't work and proves it at every turn, thought he could do a war in Iraq on the cheap. Now, nearly 4,000 American lives and innumerable newly hatched terrorists later, Bush intends to hand off his mess to the next decider.    

I would call this immoral. But morality and values is another Republican-claimed piece of rhetorical turf.    

Personally, I believe that morality has more to do with honesty, integrity and compassion than whether Heather has two mommies, but that is not the way it has been defined in today's political vernacular.    

In those terms, sexual purity and marital fidelity are the pre-eminent values. So when Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig got caught ostensibly signaling for gay sex at a Minnesota airport, his colleagues called for his resignation faster than one can say Brokeback Bathroom. What I don't understand is why Sen. David Vitter, the married Louisiana Republican who was on a Washington madam's call list and admits past ''sins,'' didn't suffer the same consequences. Could it be that Louisiana's governor is a Democrat and would appoint a Democrat to replace Vitter, while Idaho's governor is Republican? Is politics trumping morality? 

Of the three policy areas that often motivate voters to cast their ballots for Republicans - fiscal discipline, national security and moral rectitude - the party's elected leaders have bollixed them all. Bush may be the most glaring of the GOP's liabilities (as The Donald declares), but Republicans in general have a Greenspan problem, and that's going to be a hard one to shake.            

The dollar fell to a record low against the euro for the seventh consecutive session while the Canadian dollar hit a 31-year high as inflation data raised expectations that the Federal Reserve Bank would again lower interest rates. . . .  

The dollar has been sliding since the Fed cut interest rates last week by a larger-than-expected half percentage point. Since then, a week of mostly disappointing U.S. economic data have stoked expectations that another rate cut could follow.  

"With the market expecting lower rates, this continues to undermine the U.S. dollar, especially with the European Central Bank perhaps set to raise interest rates," said Woolfolk. . . .  

The lower U.S. interest rates, used to jump-start the economy, can weaken its currency as investors transfer funds to countries where their deposits and fixed-income investments bring higher returns. 

Longer term, the U.S. has been running large trade and budget deficits for years -- factors that tend to undermine a country's currency in the long term, unless they are offset by foreigners willingness to invest their money in the United States. 

Consequences of the dollar's fall include upward pressure on inflation from higher prices for imported food and goods, and less purchasing power for Americans traveling or living abroad.

International oil companies sell their crude in US dollars while they operate around the world using local currencies to pay for wages, benefits, taxes, and various costs. Consumers in countries with non-dollar appreciating currencies enjoy cheap oil, while people in dollar-pegged countries pay a higher price for the same barrel of oil.

U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday.

Heating fuel expenses this winter will be highest for heating oil, with the average family paying $1,834 for the season, up 28 percent or $402 from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.

``Energy is one of those things that is holding back global growth,'' Treasury Secretary John Snow [has] said . . . . ``It acts as a tax on everyone because you have less disposable income available.'' – Bloomberg

In a flurry of business to close out the fiscal year, Congress raised the debt limit by $850 billion to $9.815 trillion. Without this move, the federal government's credit card would have maxed out on October 1 with an outstanding balance of $9 trillion. This staggering amount, also known as the national debt, is equal to $29,700 per American or $78,680 per household. Because the government must fund existing programs and make interest payments on existing debt, Congress had no choice but to raise the debt limit to prevent America's credit card from being cut in two.

Eventually, however, America will have to either pay its bills or raise the debt limit to catastrophic levels.

President Bush assured the rest of the world Friday that he takes climate change seriously and vowed that the United States "will do its part" in crafting "a new international approach" to reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. However, he proposed no initiatives to do so.

Addressing a Washington conference of major economic powers, Bush said "the moment is now" to find a broad consensus on how to confront the challenge of climate change. "I want to get the job done," he told hundreds of envoys, lobbyists and activists. "We have identified a problem; let's go solve it together." 

His much-anticipated address, though, was more a defense of his own record on the issue than a concrete road.  

John Ashton, a special representative on climate change for the British foreign secretary, said: "One of the striking features of this meeting is how isolated this administration has become. There is absolutely no support that I can see in the international community that we can drive this effort on the basis of voluntary efforts."

President George Bush was yesterday criticised by diplomats for attempting to derail a UN initiative on climate change by pressing ahead with his own conference, which starts in Washington today. 

One European diplomat described the US meeting as a spoiler for a UN conference planned for Bali in December. Another, who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity, claimed that the US conference was merely a way of deflecting pressure from other world leaders who had asked at the G8 summit this year for the US to make concessions on global warming.. . .  

The British government shares the frustration of other European governments with the lack of urgency on the part of the Bush administration. The British assessment of Mr Bush's conference is reflected in the level of representation - Phil Woolas, a junior environment minister. 

Mr Bush invited 15 countries, plus all EU members.  

The highest-ranking representative from outside the US is the German environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel. He said yesterday he did not expect the US or other nations attending the conference to budge. "One cannot expect concrete results." 

One of those attending said the conference reflected "political hardball" on the part of the Bush administration, aimed at undermining the UN, for which it holds long-term suspicion. Another said the conference was aimed at domestic politics, with Mr Bush seeking headlines and television coverage implying that he was doing something about climate change while, in fact, doing almost nothing. 

There was criticism too from within the US. Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, described the conference as "a sidelight, not a process that leads to anything". He accused the White House of seeking "an alternative to a binding treaty ... you're seeing the Bush administration make this up as they go along." . . .  

Connie Hedegard, the Danish environment minister, who is attending the conference, told members of Congress that she and other European leaders "are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf, but on behalf of the planet".

She added: "We need the support of the US. China, India and the other industrialising countries, they will not do anything unless the US is moving."