and the market will continue to fall, IMO
I’m talking about the real-estate market.

FloatingRock on September 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM

They’re interconnected. The financial markets nowadays are ALL INTERCONNECTED…real estate, banking, insurance, stocks, bonds, futures, derivatives, etc. And not just here…internationally…US, Europe, Middle East, Asia. Pull out the bottom of a house of cards, and what happens? It all tumbles down.

That’s the cliff we’re on the precipice of.

When a huge tree falls in the forest, lots of little ones get killed by its fall. When WTC 1 and 2 fell, lots of other buildings were destroyed nearby also.

The degree of market sector and global interconnection, is what will make this a global depression.

Shirotayama on September 24, 2008 at 10:49 PM

One of Paulson’s proposals in the Blueprint that W referred to tonight is to establish a National Mortgage Original Oversight Commission whose job it would be to publicy evaluate state mortagage origination regulatory practices, their licensing and pre-licensing training and experience credentialing practices to credential mortgage lenders.

In essence, force the states to crack down on the industry to avoid embarrassment.

Shirotayama on September 24, 2008 at 10:54 PM

OHHHHH Zappppppp … fu(#!n ay.

Benjamin9 on September 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Dittoes.

Shirotayama on September 24, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Need to log off, folks.

MAY OUR GOVERNMENT DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL AMERICANS.

Shirotayama on September 24, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Sorry, accidentally hit the “enter button” and sent too soon.

Meant to say “ALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY INCLUDING WHATEVER JOBS YOU AND YOUR KIDDIE’S FATHER HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM, FEED THEM, CLOTHE THEM, HOUSE THEM.”

The dollar would be WORTHLESS…no confidence in it since cash accounts (money market mutual funds) would have collapsed and broken the buck. Short-term loans that businesses use everyday to make payroll, send deliveries to satisfy customers (or the short term loans those customers make to buy stuff from you), just operate, would be GONE.

Great Depression II.

DO YOU WANT THAT FOR YOUR CHILDREN? If not, support this plan. It’s FAR less painful than what we’d otherwise face.

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 5:47 AM

One of Paulson’s proposals in the Blueprint that W referred to tonight is to establish a National Mortgage Original Oversight Commission whose job it would be to publicy evaluate state mortagage origination regulatory practices, their licensing and pre-licensing training and experience credentialing practices to credential mortgage lenders.

In essence, force the states to crack down on the industry to avoid embarrassment.

Shirotayama on September 24, 2008 at 10:54 PM
That is a good idea. The mortgage industry is so full of cheats and liars.

petunia on September 25, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Petunia, Paulson had other ideas in the “Blueprint”. I’ll try to summarize them.

They’re broken out into short-term/immediate, mid-term, and long term recommendations. These are, in a nutshell:

Short-term:
#1: Currently, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets includes the Treasury Secretary, the Fed Chairman, the chairmen of the SEC and CFTC (commodity & futures trading commission), but not the chairmen of FDIC, OCC, or OTS. First recommendation: Add them to the Working Group for better coordination across regulators
-Improve Oversight over Mortgage Origination by setting up a Federal Mortgage Origination Commission. We all know that we’ve seen dramatically increased mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures by subprime and even prime mortgage borrowers from 2007 – 2008. Reason: Serious regulatory gaps in U.S. oversight over mortgage origination. In recent years mortgage brokers and lenders with no federal supervision at all originated a substantial portion of all mortgages and more than 50% of subprime mortgages in the U.S. Mortgage originators are subject to uneven degrees of state-level oversight, and in some cases, limited or no oversight at all. In response, Paulson proposes:

#2: The President should appoint the MOC Director to a 4 to 6 year term and the MOC Director would chair a 7-person board including heads of the Federal Reserve, OCC, OTS, FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and a representative from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors
•Congressional legislation should give MOC authority to develop licensing qualification standards for state mortgage market participants, and that MOC would evaluate mortgage originators based on personal conduct and disciplinary history, and for meeting minimum educational requirements and testing criteria
•MOC would establish appropriate license revocation standards, and evaluate and report on the adequacy of each state’s system of licensing and regulation of mortgage originators. By MOC publicly grading state licensing systems and reporting on their strengths and weaknesses would enable better public assessment of whether mortgages originating in a state should be viewed cautiously by consumers and investors. The public nature of these evaluations would also provide strong incentives for states to address weaknesses and strengthen their own systems.
•Paulson also proposes allowing the Federal Reserve to retain sole responsibility and authority to draft regulations for national mortgage lending laws.

#3: Federal Reserve to use its discount window authority (e.g., liquidity provisioning) to non-depository institutions for the first time since the 1930’s. Due to significantly increased importance of non-depository institutions in recent years to overall market stability, Treasury proposes that appropriate conditions be attached to Federal Reserve discount window lending and that access to information about discount window borrowers’ liquidity and funding be made more available to the Federal Reserve (and thus to PWG) through on-site examinations, audits, and other means.

(Translation of #3: The current crisis largely happened in institutions outside FDIC and Fed and OCC/OTS control. To help keep markets from collapsing, the Fed for the first time in history gave non-banks access to its discount window for cash to keep themselves solvent. The rules around this are weak to nonexistent so they need to be set up, and these rules need to include audits of the institutions borrowing from the Fed to make sure they’re handling the money right.)

Mid-term Recommendations:
#1: Currently bank/thrift regulation is divvied up between OCC (national bank regulation) and OTS (thrift & savings and loan and credit union regulation). The latter category has become less important over time. Paulson proposes folding OTS into OCC and having all these depository institutions under just one regulator (a good idea…by all accounts I’ve heard, OCC is a much better-run organization.) Why do this? The regulatory rules are different. The latter category’s regulation rules aren’t as strict as the former’s. This would help “beef up” regulation of business behavior and bank/thrift solvency and would also establish a “level playing field” regulations-wise for banks across the board. They wouldn’t have the choice to pick which regulator.

#2: Currently bank instititution regulation is further divvied up between being regulated by the Fed if the bank is a member of the Federal Reserve system, or by FDIC. Paulson proposes making it one or the other, so that there will be a level playing field. This also would also establish a “level playing field” regulations-wise for banks across the board. They wouldn’t have the choice to pick which regulator.

In other words, fixing a bank regulation system that’s broken.

#4: Insurance Regulation: Currently ALL insurance companies (Including AIG) are regulated at STATE level not federal. This has been the case for over 135 years!!!! This may have been appropriate earlier in U.S. history but changes in the insurance marketplace have strained the existing system. Industry has moved from a local focus to a national focus, and the state-based regulation system makes development of national products cumbersome and costly, damaging insurance companies’ competitiveness. Nowadays the industry also operates globally, with many foreign participants. A state-based regulation system obstructs competition by making it harder for U.S.-based firms to compete abroad and for foreign firms to participate in the U.S. market. In response, Paulson proposed Congress set up:
•An Office of National Insurance (ONI) within the Department of the Treasury to regulate insurers’ incorporation, organization, and operation, and
•An Office of Insurance Oversight (OIO) within the Department of the Treasury to lead international regulatory negotiations and serve as an advisor to the Secretary on major insurance-related policy issues.

Paulson’s goal: to ensure safety and soundness (removing the need for another AIG-like rescue), enhance competition in national and international markets, increase efficiency by reducing regulatory costs (by having to deal with 2 federal regulators at Treasury instead of different rules by 50 states), providing federal consumer protections, eliminating price controls, promoting faster technological change, and encouraging product innovation

#5: Merge the SEC and the CFTC. Currently futures and securities markets are respectively regulated separately by the CTFC and SEC. These markets were totally separate and distinct in the 1930’s when the Commodity Exchange Act and the federal securities laws were enacted, but market convergence, globalization, and interconnection have since rendered such separate regulation inefficient and even potentially harmful. Paulson is recommending that that CFTC and SEC be merged into a new agency that would handle unified oversight and regulation of the futures and securities markets focused on investor protections, market integrity, and overall financial system risk reduction.

Long-term Recommendations:
#1: Set up a regulator for Overall Financial Market Stability. Paulson proposes this be the Federal Reserve since it’s been acting as the country’s central bank and trying to preserve market stability since its founding anyway…its scope would simply be expanded to cover all kinds of financial markets, not just only banks

#2: Set up a “Prudential Financial Regulator” to regulate all kinds of financial institutions that have federal insurance backing them up, such as banks, thrifts, credit unions, and…if this rescue plan passes, money market (cash) mutual funds.

#3: Set up an Overall “Business Conduct Regulator” to standardize the oversight of business conduct across all sectors of the finance industry including those currently regulated separately. This would take the place of business conduct regulation by the Federal Reserve and other insured depository institution regulators, such as OCC and OTS, state insurance regulators, as well as most aspects of business conduct regulation by SEC and CFTC, and some aspects of the Federal Trade Commission’s role. CBRA would monitor business conduct regulation across all types of financial firms, including depository institutions (banks and thrifts), insurance companies, investment companies, futures companies, and mortgage originators.

#4: Set up a Federal Insurance Guarantor: Paulson proposes that FDIC should be reconstituted as the Federal Insurance Guarantee Corporation (FIGC) to administer deposit insurance and a federally established guarantee structure, the Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund (FIGF). Like today’s FDIC, FIGC would have authority to set risk-based premiums, act as a receiver for failed depository institutions and insurers, while also maintaining some back-up examination authority over those institutions. FIGC would function primarily as an insurer, and not possess any additional direct regulatory authority

#5: Set up a federal Corporate Finance Regulator that should have responsibility for corporate finance oversight in public securities markets. These responsibilities would include the SEC’s current responsibilities over corporate disclosures, corporate governance, accounting oversight, and other similar issues.

If you want to know more details about the “Blueprint” W spoke about, go here:

/www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/regulatory-blueprint/

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 6:16 AM

onlineanalyst: You say

“What concerns me is that too many in Congress are clueless about economic matters—unless they can find a way to line their own pockets or push a personal power grab politically. Thanks for posting the details of the Blueprint and the followup comments.”

It’s because I’m actually WORKING this issue directly at work…I had to read the Blueprint (and a bunch of other stuff Treasury has released via it’s press releases) and actually have contacts over there I’m in fairly regular communication with. I “hear stuff”.

I want to say something to all the people who think this is Paulson trying to get control of billions: What I’m hearing is that Paulson really wants to leave the Secretary of Treasury role when the new administration takes office. He doesn’t WANT to stay and “get these billions”. The guy’ a multimillionaire if not billionaire already from his years as Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. However, there are political forces from both parties, given what I hear, who are asking him to stay on to help see this crisis through. No word on what his answer has been so far. Suffice it to say, having to deal with this was NOT in his original personal plans, the way I hear it.

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Here’s some more on Paulson’s “Blueprint” I’ve seen written as a synopsis of why Paulson thinks it’s important. These are not Paulson’s words, instead these are a “boiling down” from the Blueprint that a colleague of mine wrote:

“Much of the existing U.S. framework for regulation of the financial industry has been in place for approximately 70 years. Significant financial industry and capital market evolutionary changes over these years led Treasury to conclude that modernization of financial industry regulation has become necessary. Examples of these market changes include:

•Convergence – Changes in financial products and financial service providers have outdated existing U.S. financial regulatory structures based on financial institution and financial product segments. A financial institution, such as a bank or an investment firm, can also offer insurance, securities, and futures in addition to traditional banking products. One packaged financial product can contain components such as banking, insurance, securities, and futures within it.
•Globalization – Capital markets in the U.S. and elsewhere now operate in an extremely tightly interconnected way on a global basis. Overseas capital markets in maturing market-based economies now provide a deep and liquid source of capital outside the United States, forcing U.S. capital markets to compete harder for investment.
•Interconnectivity (Degree of being Interconnected)-Events related to one financial institution can trigger broad capital dislocations or a series of defaults affecting the entire U.S. financial system, adversely affecting the real economy
•Technology – Information technology has enabled globalized capital markets to operate on a 24/7 basis. Improvements in information flow have made for highly information-efficient capital markets that enable innovation developing more sophisticated financial products (like Mortgage Backed Securities) and trading strategies – - products and strategies which can also be so complex, that it may be difficult to truly assess their risk despite the markets’ improved information efficiency.

Overseas capital markets benefit from regulatory structures that are newer, and thus more adaptive to increasing innovation in product complexity, sector convergence. This has exposed gaps and redundancies in the existing system of U.S. financial regulation, such as:

•No single regulator has all information and authority needed to monitor systemic risk
•Inability by any one regulator to take coordinated action across the entire financial system makes solving problems related to overall financial market stability much more difficult
•Redundant regulation adds unnecessary regulatory burden (e.g., increased overhead costs to institutions due to redundant compliance requirements). This obstructs the ability of firms to remain nimble, harming the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets and companies participating in those markets – - potentially driving away capital investment to other markets

In response to these developments, in March 2008 the U.S. Department of The Treasury published the results of a year-long research study on how the U.S. financial regulation framework should be modernized.

The study covers regulation of all types of financial institutions: Commercial banks and other insured depository institutions, insurance companies, securities firms, futures firms, finance companies, and other types of financial intermediaries including those involved in mortgage origination and lending.

The Blueprint proposes sweeping changes in U.S. regulation of the above financial industries, and is designed to improve capital market oversight, improve regulatory efficiency and adaptability, reduce regulatory overlap and redundancy, break down traditional regulatory silos that obstruct communication and coordination, strengthen consumer and investor protections, and ensure that financial institutions have the ability to keep pace with evolving markets to stay competitive.

One final point about MORTGAGES versus MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (MBS) for commenting public here:

-MBS values are based on the underlying ASSETS – the unsold homes and defaulted/foreclosed homes whose mortgages are all packaged and rolled into ONE in a securitized asset – - kind of like a share of a mutual fund, only based on mortgages and their underlying home values. This is why when the real estate market collapsed, and home prices plummeted, the MBS went BAD. This was the faulty assumption about home prices always going up that W mentioned last night.

-A MORTGAGE is only partially based on the home’s value. Once the mortgage is written and you’ve taken out your home loan, the mortgage is MORE based on your ABILITY TO PAY – - your income, your personal assets, the stability of your credit history. It’s more based on the stability of your income than your home’s value.

This is why MBS were so dangerous.

Gotta run to a meeting and then offline. I hope I educated some folks this morning and last night.

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 9:07 AM

we could also try less regulation, drop the capital gains tax, and elminate business taxes….no way I know…but instead of more government, maybe less would work…for once…

right4life on September 25, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Right4life:

-Drop the capital gains tax: I LOVE that idea
-Eliminate business taxes: I LOVE that idea even more
(Basically if I had my druthers we’d have a Fair, FLAT TAX for EVERYONE at a low, low rate)
-Drop regulation? Then it’d be bedlam. This problem times a million. It was antiquated, silo’ed, poorly coordinated regulation that allowed us into this mess.

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I wish people would READ what W actually freakin’ SAID.
Pasted in below. He nailed ALL the salient points. I hope folks will actually ABSORB them and not just “gut react”.

One of the points Rush Limbaugh likes to make about us conservatives vs. the liberals is that we THINK and they FEEL. I sure hope he’s right and folks will READ this and THINK about whether W’s lyin’ to us or not.

Think about it: The guy’s only in office for a mere 4 freakin’ months. He could sit on his fanny and not do a danged thing if he wanted to…Nero fiddling as Rome burned.

But he CHOSE not to do that. Because he recognizes the seriousness of the threat (the guy DOES have a Harvard MBA) and doesn’t want his legacy to become the same legacy Herbert Hoover was left with. Which suggests to me Paulson’s and Bernanke’s logic and arguments and presented data have PERSUADED him to care.

Read what the man actually said. I saw too many people last night totally misinterpreting what he was trying to convey. Maybe if you actually READ it instead of going from memory, some puzzle pieces will fall into place.

Geez, having to keep making this argument’s getting old:

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America’s economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We’ve boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.

Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I’ve proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry — it is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America’s financial system is back on track.

I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I’ve proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.

First, how did our economy reach this point?

Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions — along with low interest rates — made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition — some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.

Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit — combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise — led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected — along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.

These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today’s mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called “mortgage-backed securities.” These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.

The government’s top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:

More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem — and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.

I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.

Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?

After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets — including mortgage-backed securities — now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.

In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.

Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?

The primary steps — purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit — and this will not change.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we’ve seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy’s ability to grow.

In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.

Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we’ve overcome tough challenges before — and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is — a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.

Thank you for listening. May God bless you.

END 9:14 P.M. EDT

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM

yes they are. whenever the government wants more power, a ‘crisis’ is manufactured…with cries of doomsday unless the beneficent all powerful government saves us….hallelujah…I see the same psychology at work with this ‘crisis’, as with the environmental ‘crisis’

right4life on September 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM

OH, BULLSH*T!!

“whenever the government wants more power, they “manufacture” a crisis.”

Heheheheh…I’m just too stunned at the lack of careful analysis here. This EXACTLY points out the difference between conservatives supposedly thinking versus liberals just “feeling” and gut-reacting.

I can’t take this anymore…you’re not willing to understand.

I’m done…logging out. Too damned much for me.

Shirotayama on September 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM