« Hillary Spokesperson: Obama Campaign's Attacks Are "Based On Lies" | Home | Obama On 4,000 Troop Deaths: "Each Death Is A Tragedy" »

Hillary: We Need A "Commander-In-Chief" For The Economy

Hillary Clinton gave her big speech on the mortgage crisis today in Philadelphia, laying out various proposals for restructuring debts, an important issue to many blue-collar voters in this key primary — a state where a loss would effectively end her candidacy, and where even no less than a resounding win would be necessary for her to be credible for the nomination.

Beyond that, however, it was in many ways about laying out her establishment credibility with Pennsylvania voters — she was accompanied by such leading Pennsylvania figures as Gov. Ed Rendell and Philly Mayor Michael Nutter — and contrasting herself against Barack Obama on the experience issue, without ever naming him directly.

Key quote:

So we need a president who can restore our confidence, a president who is ready to confront complex economic problems with comprehensive solutions, a president who will act at the first signs of trouble, working with experts to identify the problem, with agencies to adapt regulations, with Congress to pass necessary legislation, working to prevent crises rather than just reacting too little too late. We need a president who is ready on day one to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy.

Hillary also contrasted herself with Obama by depicting herself as the wonk who will get results, and not just give off a flashy image. "I know this kind of policy isn't particularly glamorous and it probably won't make headlines," she said. "But it will make a critical difference in helping families save their homes and getting our economy back on track."

Full speech after the jump.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Solutions for the American Economy

Philadelphia, PA

Monday, March 24, 2008

Thank you. Thank you. It's great to be back here at Penn and in Philadelphia. I remember giving the commencement address here some years ago and I always had that image of the beauty of this campus and, of course, it's extraordinary reputation. And I'm delighted to have a chance to be here with you to talk about an issue that is critical not only to Pennsylvania but to our country.

I want to thank Congresswoman Schwartz, she and I will be together later this afternoon. I'm looking forward to that very much. Mayor Nutter, I have heard the governor say that you could be the second best mayor in Philadelphia history. I know you're aiming for first, so keep it up. You're doing a great job. And Governor Rendell who has been so visionary and strategic in his leadership first to Philadelphia, then of course to Pennsylvania. And what he just said about how he and his administration responded to the first signs of trouble from the mortgage market is just typical of Ed Rendell. He really is someone who is always looking to solve problems and that's why he's been so successful and why I'm so grateful for his support.

I want to take a moment to note yesterday's heartbreaking news that five years after the start of the war there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. Tens of thousands of our brave men and women have also suffered serious wounds, both visible and invisible, to their bodies, their minds, and their hearts. As president, I intend to honor their extraordinary service and the sacrifice of them and their families by ending this war and bringing them home as quickly and responsibly as possible.

As the headlines of the past months have made clear, we are experiencing a crisis of confidence in our country. We have a crisis of confidence in our leadership with respect to Iraq and we have a crisis of confidence in our economy. What started out as a subprime mortgage crisis has now become a national credit crisis, rippling out from banks and boardrooms to businesses and living rooms across America. We've had three straight months of private sector job losses. Consumer confidence is down and falling. The dollar has hit record lows and gas prices, record highs. And last week the Federal Reserve took unprecedented measures to rescue Wall Street, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression. These are not just red flags or warning signs – they are indisputable indicators that our economy is in serious trouble. And now we face an urgent question: how do we keep today's turmoil from spiraling into a long and painful recession? This is no easy task.

The 21st century American economy is more complex and more interconnect with the global economy than ever before. It is shaped each day by billions and billions of individual transactions and interactions on every continent. Subject to crises or even just speculation in one country can move markets in dozens of others with the blink of an eye or a flick of a mouse.

In today's economy, trouble that starts on Wall Street often ends up on Main Street. Sometimes within minutes, sometimes over the course of months or even years. When there's a run on mortgage-backed securities and the bottom falls out for investment banks, the bottom falls out for families who see the value of their homes, their greatest source of wealth, decline. When our credit markets freeze up, that doesn't just cause panic on our trading floors, but in small businesses that can't get the capital they need to survive. And on college campuses like this one, when the student loan for next semester falls through. When we continue to persist in brain dead energy policy as confidence in our currency erodes, that means gas prices so high you feel like it costs more to commute to work than you make when you get there. It means rising food prices that strain household budgets. It means having less left over for savings or ever dipping into savings to make ends meet. It means more challenges for the mayor because property tax revenues drop, businesses don't have the same ability to make that profit that benefits the city. It means more problems for the governor who has to look across a complex state economy trying to figure out how to keep what has been a remarkable string of real budget balances and surpluses. It causes problems for our country.

Ultimately the true currency of today's American economy is confidence. When people lose confidence in the economy and our president's ability to manage it, problems become crises and crises lead to more crises. So we need a president who can restore our confidence, a president who is ready to confront complex economic problems with comprehensive solutions, a president who will act at the first signs of trouble, working with experts to identify the problem, with agencies to adapt regulations, with congress to pass necessary legislation, working to prevent crises rather than just reacting too little too late. We need a president who is ready on day one to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy. If you give me the chance, I will be that president. I will start by facing our economic situation as it is, not as we wish it would be.

That means acknowledging that our economic crisis is, at its core, a housing crisis, a crises caused in part by unscrupulous mortgage lenders and brokers and unregulated transactions in mortgage-backed securities, in part by speculators who were buying multiple houses to sell for a quick buck and other buyers who didn't act responsibly. And in part by a president and administration who failed to anticipate and continue to downplay the problems we face. Unlike what happened here in Pennsylvania, when Governor Rendell started seeing problems – and I remember those articles we had in the newspaper, governor, where the housing supply was being, you know, expanded and people were putting zero money down and they were trying to once again get the American dream, they were commuting sometimes two hours to be able to afford that house. Well, those warning signals went unheeded in Washington. But thankfully, not in Harrisburg. And what we have to do now is to look at our housing crisis in greater detail. And I'd like to outline my plans to address it.

2.2 million foreclosure notices went out last year – up 75% from 2006. Communities of color have been especially hard hit. Subprime loans are five times more common in predominantly African American neighborhoods than predominantly white ones. And 41% of loans to Hispanics are subprime compared to only 22% to whites. But this crisis isn't just about the more than 2 million households at risk of losing their homes and, of course, 2.2 million foreclosure notices means many more people than that because obviously you have homes where anywhere from two to ten people live. It's about the tens of millions of families who have lost value in their homes.

When I talk about the home foreclosure crisis, sometimes people, I can tell, look at me a little skeptically because they, I can tell, they're thinking to themselves, I didn't buy one of those mortgages, I don't have an ARM, I'm not at risk. But, in fact, that is just not the case. Home prices dropped almost 9% last quarter. Home prices for everyone. If you have paid off your home, if you have a fixed rate mortgage with a manageable interest rate, you have suffered the steepest decline on record. That means families have lost at least $1.9 trillion in housing wealth so far, nearly two-thirds of the size of the entire United States government budget. And today, nearly 9 million families are struggling with mortgages that are under water. They actually owe more for their mortgages than their homes are worth. So what was once their biggest financial asset is now a financial liability.

The housing crisis is also a crisis for our cities, our towns and our neighborhoods. At least 41 million homes will lose value because of foreclosures in their neighborhoods, including 1.7 million homes right here in Pennsylvania. Abandoned homes and boarded up neighborhoods mean higher crime rates, lower property values, and plummeting tax receipts for cities and towns across America. Now, a year ago in March 2007 I called for immediate action to address abuses in the subprime market, and I laid out detailed concrete proposals for how to do so. I warned this administration that the problems in subprime mortgages would soon spill over into regular mortgages. The response from our president? Well, his Treasury Secretary told Congress that the problem was, quote, "contained." And president himself assured us there would be a, quote, "soft landing for the housing market." The housing crisis then spread from subprime to traditional mortgages. And in August of last year, I warned the administration that the housing mortgage crisis would soon ripple out throughout the entire economy. Again, I called for immediate action and laid out concrete proposals to prevent foreclosures and help states hard hit by this crisis.

I also called for tighter regulation of the housing market, starting with unscrupulous mortgage brokers who were taking advantage of our families. I would require mortgage brokers to disclose right up front that they're paid based on the size of the mortgage they sell, to put buyers on notice. I would work with states to develop strong, meaningful broker licensing standards to screen brokers and govern their conduct and I would require all brokers to register with the federal government so that home buyers can do their own background checks to ensure they're dealing with someone who will deal fairly with them.

I also called for greater regulation of mortgage lenders. I would eliminate the prepayment penalties that lead to such high rates of default. I would require lenders to take into account the borrower's ability to pay property taxes and insurance fees when deciding whether to make a loan in the first place. Too many loan lenders haven't made that part of the calculation and too many families don't know that they need to budget for these expenses. In October, I proposed legislation, the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act, that imposed new criminal penalties on lenders who were taking advantage of people, offering foreclosure rescue schemes that lure families in, take their money and do nothing to help them.

I've also proposed that we amend the bankruptcy code to give judges the discretion to write down the value of struggling families' homes. Believe it or not, bankruptcy judges can write down the value of many other things to help families pay off their debt, but not their homes. They can write off the value or write down the value of second homes, which seems kind of ironic to me. Making this amendment to the code will help families in bankruptcy pay off their mortgages and stay in their homes.

Now, the response to all of this from the administration? Well, they continued their wait and don't see approach, largely ignoring the mounting problems. By December of last year the mortgage crisis had become a national credit crisis. So I went to New York City and I told Wall Street they needed to do their part to address this crisis. I put forward an aggressive plan for a 90-day moratorium on all subprime foreclosures and a voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages. The response from this administration? A plan that let banks off the hook and left homeowners to fend for themselves. In the words of one expert, the president's plan was the bank lobby's dream. This administration's top economic priority it seems has been to lavish roughly $400 billion in tax cut on the wealthiest 1% of Americans while families have lost nearly five times that in the value of their homes.

Last week when it became clear Wall Street was on the brink of a financial melt down, the Fed and the administration sprang into action. The Fed extended a $30 billion lifeline to prevent Bear Stearns from imploding and took unprecedented action to provide tens of billions of dollars in credit for other struggling investment banks as well. Homeowners, on the other hand, have received next to no assistance. Well, let's be clear. When families are losing their homes, that's also a financial crisis. When people's greatest source of wealth is losing its worth, as college costs and health care costs and food and gas prices shoot up, that's a financial crisis too. When "for sale" signs line streets across our country, when cities and towns are struggling with the costs of foreclosed properties, that is also a financial crisis.

Our families are feeling the anxiety right now. I hear their stories every day, from Florida to Wisconsin, from California and Nevada to Pennsylvania. Last month, a little girl stood up at a town hall I was holding and asked me what I was going to do "about people and children that don't have any food or houses?" I started to commend her on her concern for those less fortunate, when she interrupted me and said, "I'm losing my home." Her mother is a hair dresser whose customers are tightening their belts. They're not coming in as often, they're not having as much done. They had an adjustable rate mortgage they could no longer afford.

We've come together today in the city where the American ideals of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" – of justice and equality – were inscribed into our founding documents. But what does all that mean to a family that's lost its nest egg and the hopes and dreams that went with it? What does it mean to a little girl who goes to sleep at night worried about losing her home?

Our housing crisis is at heart an American Dream crisis. Your home isn't just your greatest asset, your greatest source of wealth – it's your greatest source of security. It's what anchors you to your neighborhood and community. It's the center of your family.

For the past seven years, we've had a president who stands up for the special interests – for the insurance companies and the mortgage companies and Wall Street. Now it's time for a president who stands up for American families, a president who will rein in the special interests and rebuild the American middle class.

Over the past week, we've seen unprecedented action to maintain confidence in our credit markets and head off a crisis for Wall Street banks. It's now time for equally aggressive action to help families avoid foreclosure and to keep communities across our country from spiraling into recession.

Today, I am announcing my four part plan to Protect American Homeowners: A plan to help our families keep their homes and help communities hard hit by the housing crisis.

My plan starts with an aggressive new effort to help millions of at-risk families restructure their mortgages and stay in their homes. Of the tens of millions of Americans who have lost value in their homes, 8.8 million are struggling with these mortgages underwater. That is more than 10 percent of all homeowners -- the highest percentage since the Great Depression. If home prices fall another 15 percent, one third of all homeowners will find themselves in the same boat.

The time for action is now – not a month from now, or a year from now – but now. And the reality is that many of our families need more than just basic refinancing. That's why I support new legislation proposed by my colleagues, Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd that would expand the government's capacity to stand behind mortgages that are reworked on affordable terms.

Currently, families apply to the government, and the government decides on an individual basis whether to work with them to restructure their mortgages. You heard the governor say that maybe there will be 1,000 families that will be helped in Pennsylvania. This is a slow process that helps relatively few families, and it simply isn't enough to revive our housing market.

The Frank-Dodd legislation would move beyond this incremental approach by setting up an auction system for mortgage companies that hold hundreds of thousands of these mortgages. Through this system, these companies could sell mortgages in bulk to banks and other buyers. The buyers would be willing to purchase these mortgages – and restructure them to make them affordable for families – because they know the government will guarantee them once they are refinanced.

This would be good for families, who can keep their homes. It would be good for mortgage lenders, because it's more profitable than foreclosures. It would be good for our economy, helping to unfreeze our credit markets.

But given the severity of today's housing crisis, simply facilitating this auction process might not be enough to get our economy moving again. That's why I believe the Federal Housing Administration should also stand ready to be a temporary buyer – to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.

Just as it has in the past, this kind of temporary measure by the government could give our economy the boost it needs and families the help they certainly need. It would not require a single new federal bureaucracy, it would be designed to be self-financing over time – so it would cost taxpayers nothing in the long run.

It is a sensible way for everyone – lenders, investors, mortgage companies and borrowers – to share responsibility, keep families in their homes, stabilize communities and the economy.

In order to determine whether the approach outlined by Representative Frank and Senator Dodd is sufficient – or whether we need the government to step in as a purchaser – I am calling on President Bush to appoint an emergency working group on foreclosures. That is the second part of my plan.


We simply cannot wait until Congress passes legislation to find the best way to help millions of families.

That's why I'm proposing an Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures. It could be led by a distinguished, non-partisan group of economic leaders like Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker. It's the kind of proactive step that would help re-establish confidence in our economy by showing that the President and the Administration was taking our economic crisis seriously.

I've been calling for several weeks for the President to show some sense of urgency. The group's first order of business would be to determine how the government should implement the solutions proposed in the Frank-Dodd legislation – and whether this legislation goes far enough.

If it's decided additional steps are needed, then we should investigate whether – and how – the Federal Housing Administration or other government entities, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could buy, restructure and resell underwater mortgages. The group would report back to Congress on a very tight timeline – no more than three weeks.

In the meantime, while the Emergency Working Group is being formed, we should implement the moratorium on foreclosures that I first called for in December. Every unnecessary home foreclosure just worsens the credit crisis and further depresses housing prices. Secretary Paulson and others have finally acknowledged the need for this moratorium in certain cases. I hope we will act to implement it as quickly as possible to implement it.

The third part of my plan is a new housing stimulus package to provide $30 billion directly to states and localities, like Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, hard hit by this crisis.

Right now, concentrated clusters of foreclosures are devastating some communities. A recent study of ten states by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that the foreclosure crisis will lead to 6.6 billion dollars in lost tax revenues in just those ten states alone.

Just over a month ago, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, a $168 billion stimulus package. But this package did next to nothing to help homeowners and communities struggling with foreclosures. I said at the time, if we did not address the housing crisis, we would not be able to stem the bleeding. Congress is trying to combat a recession caused by the housing crisis without doing anything to address that crisis.

Well, if the Fed can extend $30 billion to help Bear Stearns address their financial crisis, the federal government should provide at least that much emergency assistance to help families and communities address theirs.

That's why I'm calling for the creation of a one-time emergency $30 billion fund that would go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis.

This money could be used to purchase foreclosed or distressed properties, which cities and states could then resell to low-income families or convert into affordable rental housing.

It could be used to help neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates avoid increased crime and blight by investing in everything from police and fire support to graffiti removal and better lighting.

It could also be used by local agencies to provide counseling and refinancing to help families avoid foreclosure in the first place. Governor Rendell has been leading the way with programs like that here in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program offers small, low-cost loans to families facing foreclosure. It has saved up to 40,000 homes since it started. And this past October, Governor Rendell launched two additional programs to help homeowners refinance and restructure their mortgages.

And we're seeing results here in Pennsylvania: Since the end of 2006, Pennsylvania's foreclosure rate has decreased 11 percent. I look forward to working with governors like Governor Rendell and with mayors like Mayor Nutter, who is already providing such outstanding leadership here in Philadelphia, to replicate this kind of success across America.

The fourth and final part of my plan involves passing new legislation to clarify legal liability for mortgage companies that act to help more borrowers stay in their homes.

Right now, many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they're afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers. Because remember, all of these mortgages were bundled up in these huge packages and sold around the world. So you can't just go down to see your mortgage broker or your bank or your other lender to work out a deal because they no longer own the paper. This is the case even though writing down the value of a mortgage is often more profitable than foreclosing – both for mortgage companies and for most of those who own the mortgages.

That's why I will be proposing legislation when Congress returns to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of such lawsuits. I know this kind of policy isn't particularly glamorous and it probably won't make headlines. But it will make a critical difference in helping families save their homes and getting our economy back on track.

Now, some may claim that the plan I've outlined today is a "bailout." They'll argue that it's not government's role to help. Well, that is the same kind of tired rhetoric we've been hearing for years now. And I think the American people know better. We've had enough of that old ideology. We're ready for solutions here and now.

And to those who object to our government helping middle class families and low income families devastated by the housing crisis, I say this: We've given Bear Stearns a $30 billion lifeline, we've given their creditors, their lenders their customers and those associated with them the same lifeline. We are now lending billions of dollars a day to help Wall Street banks that aren't regulated, that are not held accountable. How can you tell a family about to lose their home that there's nothing we can do to help them? How can you tell them that if they had failed spectacularly we would've helped them but because they are failing quietly, desperately, we are turning our backs? How can you tell them that there is nothing we can do to rebuild the American Dream?

I have been across our country for years. I know how much a home means to all of us.

I remember like it was yesterday when Bill bought our first home. It was back in 1975, and we were living in Arkansas and teaching at the university there in the law school. We weren't yet married – though not for lack of asking on Bill's part. And one day, we drove by this tiny red brick house with a "For Sale" sign in front. All I said was I thought it was a sweet-looking house and never thought about it again.

Several weeks later, Bill said to me, "Do you remember that house you liked? I had never been inside, I had never been outside looking inside, I had just driven by. I said, "What house that I liked?" He said, "You know, that red brick house on California Drive. Well, I bought it, so now you'd better marry me, because I can't live in it by myself."

It wasn't exactly a mansion. The kitchen needed a lot of work. But I did say yes. And that fall, we were married in the living room of that house, surrounded by our closest friends and family.

That first home meant the world to us. It was where we started our life together, celebrated birthdays, anniversaries and holidays with our friends. And families across America feel the same way; whether it is your first house or your tenth house. It is part of who we are as Americans to look at that home ownership as such an important part of the American Dream.

Today, we face unprecedented economic challenges. But we also have within our reach unprecedented economic opportunities. We've got clean energy opportunities that we are not exploiting. Utilities are changing the way they do business, focusing on efficiency, not just producing energy. Renewables like wind and solar are the most exciting prospects for American manufacturing in decades.

I've even proposed that we establish a "Carbon Reduction Mortgage Association" or a "Connie Mae" – an idea that Vice President Gore first came up with. We'd direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide loans to help people build more and retrofit more energy efficient homes. We'd save money over the long run. We'd create millions of "green collar" jobs.

We've got infrastructure opportunities to rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges and highways, like I-95 right here in Philadelphia. Opportunities to revolutionize our public transportation systems; cut down on traffic and pollution. We can do so much that will really build the strong economy we need in the 21st century. But we won't do it by just waiting and watching and losing the opportunity to act. We've got so many great ideas that will give us the tools we need for the 21st century.

Now, turning the economy around won't be easy, but we are gathered in the very city where our founders put to paper the words that have guided our nation – and inspired the world – for more than two-hundred years. Each generation of Americans has faced threats to our ideals. Each generation has met them. We have fought wars, overcome a recession, weathered all kinds of problems, lived through the Great Depression; we've had market crises of all kinds.

Through it all, as President Franklin Roosevelt once said, "We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon." But we have to translate that hope into reality. We have to translate that conviction into solutions, and if we do, we will meet the current challenges with confidence and optimism. We will rebuild our economy – stronger, more vibrant, more resilient than ever before. It is a question of leadership. I hope we don't have to wait until the next president is sworn in, but that we will come together and exercise that leadership in both the public and the private sector as soon as possible. That's why I've set forth this plan and hope that the administration will begin to act with the urgency that the crisis before us demands.

Thank you all very much.


95 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Not much new as far as I can tell. Still, not a bad idea to give a "major policy" speech. Obama should do the same. But would even be better if he actually included some new material in there.

user-pic

Obama DID do the same. Last week. Twice.

But the media, by and large, chose not to cover it.

user-pic

Yep. Obama did.

Bill and Hillary desperately need to spin the 90s. What they don't want is for the general public to learn they were responsible in large part for the housing bubble by 1) keeping Greenspan who inflated both the dot-com and housing bubbles 2) repealing Glass-Steagall, thereby dismantling the firewall between commercial and investment banks, creating the financial monopolies and rampant speculation, which directly created the house of cards now tumbling down.

user-pic

But you can forget hearing substantive discussion of those very valid, eye-opening points even if the Obama campaign did choose to engage Clinton on them. Because, you know, Barack's former pastor said some ugly stuff that people didn't like.

When will this country grow up? Yes, I'm blessed to have an education, but I also grew up in a family of people that wasn't as blessed - but that doesn't mean they're all rubes. I'm sick of the media treating them that way, whether those folks be Black or White. I think they can handle complex issues that have nuance (i.e., race, economy) without having it boiled down to a slogan or bullet point.

You have to be an adult in order to vote, right? Well, we as Americans need to demand that they SPEAK to us as adults, as Senator Obama was gracious enough to do last week and has throughout his campaign.

(And no, I will not give Senator Clinton equal credit in this regard, for she has attempted to profit from enhancing the ignorance of American voters in this race, and for that reason - and many others - I have chosen not to support her.)

As I mentioned above, here's Obama's Iraq/national security speech from last week:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zYBaiXQoI5Q

And the Iraq/economy speech:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ztgD1d4fL8

Fellow PA residents, don't forget to register TODAY!

Hillary's campaign has to be kidding.

Greenspan & Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin? They were the two guys that pushed for the repeal of Glass Steagall along with Sandy Weill (Citigroup).
After they finalized the repeal, Rubin immediately went to work for Citigroup. He's been there for the past 7 years, collecting $150 million, and now Citi is looking for a bailout from the Fed, while Rubin is talking about re-regulating banking!

Maybe Clinton should hire Rumsfeld to put together a plan to get us out of Iraq. These people are insane.

CIC for war, now CIC for economy! Where is McCain in this. On housing what did HRC do that O did a year ago. Yep! CIC is CIC, with or without McCain.
Roosevelt, nice touch! Could Lincoln be next?

It's disgusting to hear a corporatist like Clinton invoke FDR. She's ready on Day One to give in to big business.

user-pic

No kidding. It's depressing people are still falling for the same old act. If voters don't improve economic literacy soon and start voting sensibly, the economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Both the Republicans and Democrats have for the most part sold out to corporate interest decades ago. They've been dismantling and looting the economy ever since.

How are we in a recession AGAIN after just coming out of the dot-bomb? We're the richest nation on earth in terms of raw resources, have some of the best universities, and have attracted the best minds for generations. After WWII we were the worlds largest industrial powerhouse without rival. Christ, we mostly invented the computer, the OS, and the GUI. We invented the Internet.

How the hell did we get into this predicament?

Same as we did in the last Gilded Age. In times of great prosperity the market is consumed by greed and foolish. Politicians can't resist the power, wealth, and frankly the sex appeal of the decadence of their hyper wealthy patrons. They almost invariably sell out. Then it all falls apart. Greed and hubris. All over again.

Hillary lied to the American people about her past support of NAFTA.

Hillary has endorsed War Monger McCain for Commander in Chief ahead of Senator Obama. That makes her a traitor to her own party.

Hillary is the new Lieberman.

liam, you are an embarrassment. you keep posting the same shameful b.s.

you are an embarrassment to your candidate and the good people who support him.

by bashing hillary as a traitor and the new lieberman you discredit yourself in the process.

Hillary has endorsed John McCain of the Republican Party. a proponent of maintaining Bush's Iraq War, for Commander in Chief instead of Peace Candidate and Fellow Democrat, Senator Obama. That makes Hillary a traitor to her own party and a continuing supporter of the Iraq War.

Regardless of if you like it or not, the facts clearly reveal that:

Hillary is the new Lieberman.

she never endorsed mccain, liam...

you have no credibility...

p.s. lieberman is obama's mentor in the senate...

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

user-pic

you're right -- hillary didn't endorse mcCain. she just said that only she and mcCain have "passed the commander-in-chief test"

fine... if that's what she said, then that's what she said... liam, has a problem with the truth. he repeatedly has said that Hillary has "endorsed" mccain. "endorsed" has a very specific meaning in the political world. Hillary has not "endorsed" mccain...

also, liam should point out that obama considers lieberman to be his mentor in the senate. if hillary is the new lieberman (as liam insists), then she must be obama's mentor, right? of course, i don't believe that... but i also don't believe much of liam says either.

We need a president who is ready on day one to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy.

Yes we do. And Senator Clinton, that president is not you. So please go away. Thanks!

user-pic

Ok, this experience thing she's pushing is so stupid it's getting to me. She keeps saying that because she was First Lady, she's ready to be in charge. If that was all it took, Robin Givens would be the heavyweight champion.

(And yes I stole that from Tracy Morgan. It's such a good line.)

user-pic

CIC? When did we stop being a democracy? I guess when we started playing Dynasty. I don't see how that phrase helps her. Conservatives don't want the President running the economy and we lefties don't love the miltaristic imagery.

user-pic

I hate to admit this but I can't listen to an entire Clinton speech. I know she means well by giving us the intricate details but I find them wordy and well, a little boring. I keep expecting her to start verbalizing the punctuation marks.

It's enough to tell me what the goal is and a brief statement of how this can be accomplished. But that's just me.

user-pic

Well, she's ready on Day one to be the CIC.

I don't mean to keep bringing this up, but why isn't the whopper Hillary told about Bosnia getting more attention?

If that had been Obama, it would have been 24/7 coverage. Instead, seems like all I hear is crickets.

Forgive me, but are you actually posting to a thread discussing Hillary's approach to economic policy and the present crisis, just to complain that we're not paying more attention to the really important stuff, like her hyperbolic account of a visit to Bosnia years ago?

And then we complain that the media focuses on minor controversies instead of important policy issues...

She's overstating the role the president plays in the economy. And, as usual, her experience to handle that position.

And, um, doesn't Greenspan bear a significant amount of responsibility for this housing situation?

user-pic

Oh great, now she is going to bomb Wall Street to prove how "tough" she is.

Jeezh, if I wanted a crazy war monger for President I'd vote for McCain.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

!!HILLMENTUM™!!!

user-pic

Thank you!

user-pic

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27wills.html

Enough with all this commander-in-chief nonsense. So far as I know, we live in a constitutional democracy with a national government of enumerated powers, and the president is not the commander-in-chief of anything except the armed forces of the United States. To the best of my recollection, our last leader who claimed the authority to "command" the economy was Gorbachev. No, wait, that wasn't us, that was the Soviet Union. My mistake.

I'm reminded of Alexander Haig claiming "I'm in control here" when President Reagan was shot.

user-pic

bluebell makes a good point. POTUS is CinC of the military, not of the country. civilians don't have a commander in chief, they have a president, a public servant.

If Hillary wants a Comander in Chief for the economy, that person should no when to fire the generals that led you into disaster.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) --Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton called on President Bush on Monday to appoint "an emergency working group on foreclosures" to recommend new ways to confront the nation's housing finance troubles.

The New York senator said the panel should be led by financial experts such as Robert Rubin, who was treasury secretary in her husband's administration, and former Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker.

This proposal does not suggest she is someone ready to "take command" of the economy.

Not to mention the fact that her campaign is in dire financial straights.

Her failure to control campaign spending is not a strong argument... or is it! Next we'll hear how Senator Clinton has been deficit spending in order to stimulate the country! Is there nothing she won't do to, er, I mean for us?

user-pic

I hate all the CIC crap; the "Czar" of this and of that crap, too, for that matter.


Is she running for the Republican nomination now? They're the ones who eat that shit up.

"That's why I'm proposing an Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures. It could be led by a distinguished, non-partisan group of economic leaders like Alan Greenspan..."

This is her big plan! A high school debater would propose this!

In other news, the Yankees are thinking of putting Babe Ruth in the 5 hole, to bat behind A-rod.

Hillary suggesting that Greenspan is a worthy "go to" guy is as ridiculous as Obama having floated Colin Powell as a potential national security adviser in his administration.

user-pic

She could at least have suggested Andrea Mitchell for the job. Surely, Mrs. Greenspan has acquired decades of experience.

user-pic

Good one.

user-pic

Oh, SNAP!

Snark prize winner!!

user-pic

Ouch.

Blah, blah, blah.

A vast majority of the electorate believe rightly that the president can and does have an effect on the economy. But more importantly, rightly or wrongly the president is held accountable at election time when the economy is good or bad. Peole vote their pocketbooks and that includes for the presidency.

Clinton now owns the economy issue. Obama, whatever he does now, is once again playing catchup, being reactive rather than proactive. We've seen this on almost every issue in the campaign except for his one ficticous claim of being firstest and rightest on the Iraq War.

Clinton is showing leadership. Obama is merely following her lead...again.

user-pic

There's one important place where Clinton is trailing Obama: The delegate count.

If this is a sign of leadership, then I say that is one more arrow in Obama's quiver as he proposed this a year ago, and with a more diverse set of participants.

March 22, 2007

The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220


Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBnCJ

March 2007. March 2008. A year late and a few trillion dollars short. Clinton leadership at its finest.

user-pic

yeah, so obama was on this a year ago, but he didn't use a nifty catchphrase like "commander in chief." now that shows leadership.

This is not the first speech from either candidate on the economy. Clinton offers no new proposals. There is nothing to "catch up" to.

user-pic

"Commander-in-Chief of our economy"

So is she claiming that she's going to take military style control of the economy? Perhaps draft the banking system into the military.

Maybe she just means we should be more like Pakistan where the military really does run the economy. That's just gone great over there, right?

That terminology is just an example of the kind of creeping authoritarianism and it's obnoxious.

The Los Angeles Times ran an article on March 21 titled:
"Clinton, Obama are Wall Street Darlings" These two are running neck and neck in terms of contributions from the big Wall St. firms, with John "No Plan" McCain a very, very distant third.
Both the democratic candidates are stained by this.
Both are ultimately tools of the current system.
If you're looking for a leader, try Barney Frank or Henry Waxman.

She's beginning to make Commander-in-Chief sound almost goofy. And will she be Commander-in-Chief of the annual Easter Egg Roll, too?

More to the point, she's beginning to sound like someone who believes that giving herself an important title will make her important. If anyone makes fun of that stuff at work, it's the blue collar folks.

Keep it up, Hillary...

Hillary talks economy.
Hillary talks policies.
Hillary talks issues.
She may be wrong, but at least she works while the other guy chills.

When not vacationing safely away from his church, Obama talks about himself - for the past 10+ days of 'damage control', his campaign has been focusing only on Obama, Obama, and more Obama. And on Hillary bashing. Just like you guys have been doing here.

As if that is going to help the economy. As if that is going to stop the war. As if that is going to create jobs.

In fact, do you really care about this? About the grim milestone in Iraq, about the falling dollar, and the spiraling real-estate crisis?

If you do, it does not show. The only thing that shows is 'how can our guy win' and 'what other Hillary sleaze can we think of now'. What has this site turned into... or has it always been this way?

user-pic

see, a lot of us think going into iraq was a terrible thing, probably the worst thing bush did. as an american, i would like my government to repudiate this disaster and assure the world we won't do something so stupid again. this is why i support obama.

Hillary voted for the Iraq war. She recently voted for the Kyl/Lieberman excuse to attack Iran.

John McCain voted for the Iraq war, and he has declared that he wants to maintain an endless war in Iraq, yet Hillary has endorsed him for Commander in Chief ahead of Senator Obama.

That means that Hillary would prefer to have McCain continuing the War in Iraq, rather than have President Obama ending it. That makes Hillary a continuing War Monger.

Hillary is the new Lieberman.

No that would be Obama. Someones already mentioned that Obama endorsed Lieberman's run against Lamont.

only because liam brought up Kyl-Lieberman, i am going to point out the following that joe wilson posted at HuffPo:

Obama "first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action."

If you were paying attention, Obama gave not one but three speeches last week - on race, Iraq and the economy. Unfortuntely, the latter two received little to no coverage as MSM (and bloggers) continue to obsess over the Wright tapes and Obama's race speech.

user-pic

It does sound authoritarian, and frankly, Obama could probably score some points by dinging her on this. "The economy needs fair rules, fairly enforced -- but not a commander," etc., etc.

user-pic

Sigh. I think it was a good move on her part to give a speech, but I am with the others who think that stacking a committee with Volker and Greenspan just shows that Hillary is as much about talk as she claims Obama is. What are the chances that a committee led by Alan Greenspan would help American families? It is to give with one hand . . . and reminds of one of my nastiest thoughts about the Clintons: they show up at the funerals of Thurgood Marshall and William J. Brennan, implacable foes of the death penalty, but couldn't show courage in the case of Ricky Ray Rector (remember him?) because it was an election year. When it's really needed, political courage is not their strong suit.

And her point about people who didn't take out ARMs being just as much affected as those who did -- is hyperbole at best. Sure, my house might be worth less but who cares if I am not going to sell it and I didn't overextend myself? Saying that we have lost $1.9 trillion in value ignores that much of that value was completely phantom and will never come back and should never have been counted as such. I have much more sympathy for people who will continue to be shut out of home ownership because of inflated housing prices than those who went for mortgages they clearly could not afford. I see no reason to prop up housing prices.

IMHO, the real problem is, for many people, home equity has become a kind of safety net for items that the government should be addressing: Can't pay your medical bills? Need to finance private school because your public schools are so lousy? Get a HELOC!

It's no accident that houses are now financing current needs, when they used to be viewed as a retirement vehicle. It's so emblematic of who we are now: mortgaging our future to meet our current needs. It's a way of privatizing social investment. And that's the sympathetic case, never mind that many are clearly financing pure needs and not demands.

(Parenthetically, I am not sure this plays to PA, where, believe me, housing values have not skyrocketed, and where people by and large have not been seduced by the subprime siren -- my mother lives in PA and that's according to her.)

Some Monsters lie.

And some lies are Monsters.

Hillary's wanting Greenspan, Mr. Bubble, to be in on this robs the proposal of any credibility. He inflated the housing bubble and refused to do anything about the mortgage excesses. Having him as a leader of the panel would be like calling the arsonist to put out the fire.

This just shows, yet again, how much Hillary is a creature of the Beltway establishment.

Maybe Sinbad and Cheryl Crow can help solve the economic crisis.

user-pic

In fact, do you really care about this? About the grim milestone in Iraq, about the falling dollar, and the spiraling real-estate crisis?

If you do, it does not show. The only thing that shows is 'how can our guy win' and 'what other Hillary sleaze can we think of now'. What has this site turned into... or has it always been this way

O chill and look at the top post on this page. Surprise! Obama makes a speech on 4000 dead in Iraq.

Good lord.

Did you go to one of MoveOn's peace vigils for the 5th anniversary of the start of the war? I did and everyone there was an Obama supporter.

Keep it up. All the threats and the whining are coming from the other direction, I'm very sorry to say. I could sure nominate Obama without all the drama.

user-pic

Yeah Maximus, it actually is once again politically tone deaf on clinton's part. Umm, let me see, the soviet union had a commander in chief of the state run economy and look what happened to it.

I don't look at the president as the commander of the economy and really the president isn't. There are too many things out of control of the president that impact on the economy. I can see an analogy of a sea captain trying to stear the ship, but not a C in C.

Also, what glorious experience qualifies HRH clinton to be the steward of the economy.

I was just thinking the same thing. Is she really advocating a State Controlled Economy? That's just not a winner now or in the fall.

Barack gave three major speeches last week--on race, on Iraq, and on the cost of Iraq. Pretty good for someone just playing defense and talking about himself.

We already have a 'commander-in-chief' for the economy: the United States Congress. The President holds the sword, and the Congress holds the purse. Is she running for Senate?

user-pic

Two thoughts.
Hillary sure wants a driver's seat, though she cannot even commandeer a winning primary campaign.
Hillary's poor handling of her own campaign finances and the secrecy around whatever she and Bill did to acquire tens of millions of dollars these past 8 years are two glaring reasons to say no to her abilities/propensities vis a vis our economy.

Just what America needs at this time of economic crisis, Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Supreme Corporate Lobbyists Magnet!!!!........ and some people claim that Hillary does not have a sense of humor.

I'm surprised she didn't suggest Donald Trump. And Ty from Extreme Makeover Home Edition. Oddly, they'd seem more credible.

Clinton is showing not just the leadership that a president should have. She is also appropriately suggest that legislation is the route to righting the economic ship.

Obama is all about platitudes. Clinton is about getting the work done.

Boom.

Shakalaka.

Shakalaka!

"Boom" as an epilogue IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Oh boy, a War on the Economic Crisis, I'm sure it will be successful as the War on Drugs and the War on Global Terrorism and the War on Poverty. If only it could be as successful as the (unnamed) war on the constitution....


But really, anyone who wants to put Mr. Bubbles in charge of fixing what is wrong with the economy is so clueless it leaves me speechless. Who's she going to put in charge of fixing Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz?

user-pic

Senator Clinton needs to read the Constitution - it isn't really that long and it is pretty easy to understand. When she finds the time to do this, I suspect she will notice that the Constitution only gives the President the authority over the military as Commander in Chief, but nothing else. She can no more be Commander in Chief of the economy than she can be commander in chief of the Supreme Court, or Congress, or the ecology.

Nothing reveals more about Senator Clinton than her desire to become Commander in Chief of everything. If ever there is to be a President ready to build on what Bush has constructed - a dictatorship in the making - it seems to be Senator Clinton.

I admit I have not been keeping up with the all the recent revisions the Constitution as well I should, but isn't she required to be hailed as Imperator by the troops before she gets to call herself Empress?

1. We don't need and economic commander. I'm pretty sure we already have an independent Fed, and the Prez has a Treas. Scy, Natl Econ advisor, and a CEA chair.

2. We don't need Greenspan around solving our problems. Not surprising that she is always looking to the past to find quality people.

3. Why if you are so qualified to 'run the economy' (sic) do you need a committee to tell you what to do. Shouldn't you be ready on day one. Qualification by association is no prettier than guilt by association.

4. So Barack had a substantive plan one year ago. there is a column by Austan Goolsbee out today with more substance. let's see a real comparison, rather than sniping.

5. A comparison of economic intuition does not favor Mrs. Clinton.

user-pic

Oh boy, a War on the Economic Crisis, I'm sure it will be successful as the War on Drugs and the War on Global Terrorism and the War on Poverty.

Yes, the senator is just so full of new ideas.

And I am so tired of being dragged backwards.

Hillary is a piece of junk mistaken for art. she cannot even manage a 150M $ campaign- and has been given free license to claim authority in areas she is a no fucking clue.

Stop making bizzare CIC statements and GO AWAY!


Scientific said:

"Obama DID do the same. Last week. Twice.

But the media, by and large, chose not to cover it."

Actually, Sci...that's not entirely fair. CNN was doing a WONDERFUL job of covering a substantive Obama talk on fiscal & environmental policy from Oregon on Saturday - right before they cut away from the LIVE coverage of the town hall...to cover the "patriotism" dustup between Bill & McPeak that had happened earlier in the day...ON TAPE.

Thanks, CNN...thanks for keeping the American voter as woefully uninformed as your corporate overlords would like us all to be...

Talk about delusional. Check this out:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/america/liberal.php

"The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people," he said. "It's true that if I'm presented with a series of votes like that, I'm more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate."

So as president he is going to control the congress?!?! Delusions of Grandeur is his M.O.

I'm not sure he has read the Constitution. But then, he's only been in Washington such a short time who could expect that ?

I might suggest you re-read your copy of the Constitution and explain which part Obama does not understand. Do you have anything other than vacuous assertions?

user-pic

No, fogu2, he's not suggesting he would control Congress. But a president, especially a charismatic and persuasive president with a Congress controlled by his party, has a lot of power to set the agenda and to promote specific legislation. Certainly that's what Bush did for the first six years of his presidency.

fogu2: Obama lectured on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for years. This fact might suggest that he knows something about the Constitution. But you may draw your own conclusion -- maybe his lectures were "just words."

I'm keeping that quote Bionic.

user-pic

Well, it sure beats Bush's "What-me-worry" grin" and McCain's "I don't understand economics". I'll take Obama or Clinton over those two any day.

The Constitution calls for one Commander in Chief. Hillary calls for several of them. Shouldn't she change her name to Sybil!!!!!!!

Commander-in-Chief of our economy.

Very nice. Maybe we can imprison and torture anyone who points out the fact that our economy is nothing but a toy for the super-rich to play with at taxpayer expense.

coleridge78-Obama is referring to Congressional voting and legislation. He then claims that as President he will control their debate. Congress decides what Congress will do, not the President.

He's delusional.

You just jumped from "control their debate" to deciding *what* they will do.

The two are not the same thing. Care to explain how you get from one to the other?

While I appreciate TPM’s decision to post the entire address, I do think Eric overreached when he attempted to argue Clinton was drawing an indirect comparison between “flashy images”(Kleefeld’s word choice) and Obama. Why exactly did Kleefeld decide to interject “flashy images”?

I read the speech and what I think she was attempting to address was that the nuts and bolts behind securing mortgage companies assistance isn’t seen as glamorous: the policy isn’t glamorous. I also think it is odd Eric can draw this conclusion when the following paragraph defends against the conservative argument that the Democrats are writing government policy to bail out people - ie welfare state ad hoc. She argued that was the example of old politics/ideology.

...So you can't just go down to see your mortgage broker or your bank or your other lender to work out a deal because they no longer own the paper. This is the case even though writing down the value of a mortgage is often more profitable than foreclosing – both for mortgage companies and for most of those who own the mortgages.

That's why I will be proposing legislation when Congress returns to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of such lawsuits. I know this kind of policy isn't particularly glamorous and it probably won't make headlines. But it will make a critical difference in helping families save their homes and getting our economy back on track.

Now, some may claim that the plan I've outlined today is a "bailout." They'll argue that it's not government's role to help. Well, that is the same kind of tired rhetoric we've been hearing for years now. And I think the American people know better. We've had enough of that old ideology. We're ready for solutions here and now.
[snip]

I think the real reason she said it wasn’t glamorous was because she was trying to draw attention to the her proposal. Reverse attention, so to speak. “Oh, you guys won’t pick up on this because it isn’t glamorous or news worthy because helping the poor never is, but...”. And the "commander in chief of the economy" is a catchy way to underline the old Truman saying "the buck stops here". She isn't arguing to create CIC of the economy, geesh. Kleefeld picked up on her baiting her points for the intent of drawing attraction to the policy and her willingness to address the economic crisis, but he came away with an unreasonable conclusion.
.
.
.

And a heads up to anyone who is interested in analyzing the three candidate's larger economic policy plans. All three, Goolsbee, Sperling, and Holtz-Eakin layouts are listed over at realclearpolitics.com (left margin; courtesy of WAPO)

a state where a loss would effectively end her candidacy, and where even no less than a resounding win would be necessary for her to be credible for the nomination.

Careful.. it almost sounds like you might not be properly pretending that she can still win.

Clinton can't win? When did Obama get the 2025th delegate and why hasn't it been reported? Oh wait...you're one of the DOFs.

Never mind.

I think we need a Commander-in-Chief of baseball too. And no, Hillary, it can't be Bud Selig.

He didn't say he'd control Congress. He said he'd be setting the agenda.

Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

Oh, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 is pertinent too:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

He studied the Constitution as part of his major in college, again at his rinky-dink second rate law school and taught Con Law to law students at the University of Chicago for seven years. And, of course, he's actually been a Senator in two Congresses. I suspect he's got a pretty grasp of how this stuff works. Have you ever even read it?

We don't need more suits. We just need our current elected officials to do their job.

Bringing back Bill Clinton, Greenspan, Rubin, and Weill would be like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.

This, too, shall pass.

user-pic

For a major economic speech both Obama and Hilary left out to very important things.

1. The effect the weak dollar is having on inflation. If inflation continues to grow it will really hurt are seniors and the middle class. It would also come at the worst possible time when people are losing their jobs.

2. The deleveraging of the economy. The problem with most of the things in the economy is that it is build upon credit. When that credit is withdrawn the prices of hard assets begin to dorp.

I knew the Obamabots were delusional. I just didn't know HOW delusional.

Let's all toast President McCain and get it over with. He's our president now because neither Obama or Clinton can win now.

Unless...

Yeah yeah. I know. You guys make me sick too. But do you want to win?

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address