Forgive my ignorance but what war powers allow the president to set aside the constitution. And what war? The war on terror? If we are prepared to set aside the constitution because of the so called “war on terror” then we must be prepared to null the constitution for ever because there will never be an end to the war on terror.

Of course not. What you said is exactly what I would like to have heard Obama say. My point is that he didn’t explain that, so I hope folks won’t go overboard with the adulation. Being slightly more sane than Hillary on economic issues doesn’t exactly take an honorary degree from the Chicago School.

Ms. Clinton will instruct the Federal Bank to freeze it’s interest rate (on lending money)? Fine. But what if Joe’s bank wants to loan out money for more or less? A Clinton dictatorship can then FORCE restrictions on free trade, free markets?

Welcome to Amerika, Socialism. We’re toast.

A freeze on interest rates means there will be no money for mortgages. Nobody is going to loan money to anyone at an interest rate does not compensate for the risks including the risk that the government will in the future “freeze interest rates”. It is the same as saying you are going to work for the next five years at your current rate of compensation. Would you accept that deal.

1) What’s so evil about protecting banks? They’re a core institution, critical to our prosperity, and I don’t like the idea that their property rights could be abridged if only it were more practical. Are Democrats so full of disdain for “the rich” that Obama has to go specifically out of his way to explain that he doesn’t intend to uphold their rights except when, by coincidence, it happens to be in the interests of someone else?

2) The reason he gives is that a foreclosure moratorium would raise interest rates. Hillary has proposed freezing interest rates. I would like to hear Obama explain why this is an appalling idea, instead of sidestepping it.

However, I live in a modest little subdivision, in a modest little town, and have a modest little mortgage. My children both live in modest little subdivisions, in modest little towns, and have modest little mortgages. Big fancy houses would be great, more value to begin, means more appreciation, BUT. We bought what we could afford to buy. We will take what appreciation we can get on what we can afford. No complaints, TANSTAAFL.

But now I am being told that I should help those who took big risks in the expecation of big rewards out. Hillary (and Obama) want to take my tax dollars and bail out those who took the big risks. Hell, where were they when my 401k took a dive in 2001 and 2002? I lost as much value as some of those jerks who risked their homes, because IT WOULD NOT DESTROY ME if the market tanked. HELLO!?!?!! IS ANYONE LISTENING???!!! NOT MY FAULT!!!! DON’T WANNA PAY!!!!!

I would like to take a few fliers trying for some big returns myself. Is the government going to guarantee I won’t take a bath? Cause if they will, I am going to get into the venture capital business. No downside, lots of potential upside.