Professor and "Irrational Exuberance" author nevertheless says he’s a fan of Henry Paulson, just not of his proposal:
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. —John Kenneth Galbraith
Asian currencies continue to sell off vs the $ on the heels of the news yesterday that South Korea said they will look into hot money inflows stemming from the $ carry trade and the Bank of Indonesia said they are looking into the foreign buying of bills. This follows the news a few weeks ago that Taiwan was limiting foreign deposit holdings and Brazil was taxing foreign inflow transactions. As I mentioned yesterday, we may have reached a short term pain threshold in terms of $ weakness and foreign countries are fighting back as they certainly won't wait for...
read more »
September 26th, 2008 at 4:12 am
If you’re one of these “conservative” ideologues who hates the Paulson plan, try getting a loan today.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:18 am
Shiller is clueless. I saw him in Seattle tonight and I’ve never heard an economist spout so much nonsense in a talk before. He said the bubble was a “social phenomenon”. He didn’t assign ANY blame to the Fed, the ratings agencies, or Fannie and Freddie.
Terrible. Shameful.
You should only use the appellation “economist” in reference to Shiller with a tongue firmly in cheek.
~~~
BR: I totally disagree . . .
September 26th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Barringo,
Of note:
Shiller says the index is about half way back to pre-bubble times. I’m not that well informed on the mechanics of the index but I suppose it ought to have gained, what?… at least 10% during that time, absent the bubble?… and thus if it’s down halfway to where it was, it may be well over halfway to where it ought to have been, ex-bubble.
On Shiller on Paulson/Treasury:
He’s not admantly against the Pauson/Anke plan. Of course he’s doubtful about the pricing model. However, as I’ve said in another topic, I really don’t think either Anke or Paulson intend to throw money at toxic waste, but rather to induce the market participants to act to price the assets themselves.
Paulson and Anke intend to force liquidity, not arbitrarily fix prices. They want to force markets to liquidate securities at held-to-maturity prices, not fire sale prices. I don’t agree with Buffet. Ordinarily I would, but Buffet’s thesis would precipitate the lock-up of the commercial paper market, not avoid it. Anything right now that triggered the unwinding of massive amounts of CDS derivatives would lock it up for sure.
That’s why Shiller is actually more supportive of Pauson’s “decisiveness” than his doubtfulness of the plan might lead you to believe.
Finally, I don’t have as high an opinion of Warren Buffet as most do. He’s a fabulous investor but you’ll have to show me any way in which he’s contributed to the creation of wealth. He’ll beat you at Monopoly and he’ll reach up from the grave with a cold dead hand to put a hotel on Park Place… but what’s he contributed to wealth creation?… Show me?
Too, getting bounced on the knee of some GS patriarch when his daddy took him to NY isn’t the reason he’s carved out a piece of GS’s flesh… He’s got them in a 10 and 10 box of Dilution Nation. Solomon apparently wasn’t one of his finer plays, and I figure he’s trying to improve his batting average in the investment banking business. I’m also figuring he will.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:58 am
AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE!
In the Austin Powers movie, Dr. Evil holds the world hostage for a ransom of $100 billion dollars. In the real world we have Hank Paulson holding America hostage for a trillion dollar ransom. All we are missing is Mini-me and the hairless dog Mr. Bigglesworth.
AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE!
September 26th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Vic,
You are correct. This is the largest financial disaster ever in history and NOBODY DID ANYTHING WRONG!!
This notion that no one did anything wrong is the biggest lie of all being played on the American Public.
They should be prosecuting some of these bastards. It scares me to think that no one in the free world “knew” what was going on. I am not that naive and I’m not buying it. There were some people at the very top of the financial institutions that knew exactly what was going on. They just collected their hansom salaries and waited for the thing to blow-up.
I’m not buying it! A lot of people were colluded in this and knew exactly what would eventually happen and THEY DID NOTHING. When making the kind of money these people were making, pleading ignorance does not wash!
September 26th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Wow. The comments to this post are a little scary. Schiller spoke of the “group think” of the bubble on the way up. Now we see the converse group think on the way down. Reading comments on a lot of blogs I find the same emphasis on finding the requisite villains, as if lining them up against the wall and shooting them is going to solve this crisis. It ain’t. Grow up, people.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Its interesting that they call it “group” think.It is a matter of what ‘group’ you belong to. Being a Mises/Hayek Austrian/Marc Faber/Jim Rogers fan,me and my ‘group’ always felt that this was senseless and bound to end in pain. We were the lunatic kooks then.Now,we can only say -we told you so.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Dsylexicus, Amen Brother!
September 26th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Now I am shocked by this video, I would have imagined that such a reknown economist would have more to say, than that it’s not good to buy above market price and give treasury a blank check BUT since there isn’t any alternative to acting quickly upon this paln (is there really???) .. it should be done, since no one knows what will happen, if they do it and no one knows what will happen if they don’t
This is the same nonsense we’ve been hearing on the news for days.
Anyways, I can’t share the other critisism towards Shiller here in the comments:
“He didn’t assign ANY blame to the Fed, the ratings agencies, or Fannie and Freddie.”
So what? he doen’t need to. Of course you can blame the Fed, and that’s already being done a lot of people. But the Fed usually does, what the U.S. public wants them to. They want the bubble to continue.
Ans we definately have to blame the rating agencies, that has already been done to some effect and will continue to happen with all this regulation talk. But we also have to blame those, who relied upon the ratings even though they should have known better.
And the politicians who should have also known better … they are just a subgroup of the people of the United States who, as a nation should have known better.
It IS social psychology that is a root problem here. And he’s the first expert I’ve heard say that.
The politicians won’t admit, that is was also wrong to hope that everyone could afford a house and that deficit spending works and that the U.S. can spend money that isn’t theirs and flourish on economic growth forever and not ever have to worry about interest again.
Now what’s happening in this bailout is, that those people who didn’t overload their house or 20 credit cards with debt, are paying for the madness of the housing/ credit bubble, because everyone is paying for it.
It that fair?
This isn’t just about bailing out wall street, it’s about bailing out everyone who was iresponisble with credit, and therefore implicitely punishing those, who didn’t use the opportunity to quickly spend some cheap money not thinking about the future.
And when inflation gets higher and the doller even lower, those who actually were responsible enough to save some money will be even more screwed!!!
The mentality of this unsustainable American Way of Life is a real problem!
And as we can can see (I don’t know what Shiller was thinking) this bailout plan dosn’t necessarily restore confidence. I don’t see a lot of people applauding it!
September 26th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Vic, have you ever read Shiller? I have to admit, he is a terrible speaker, but he is an amazing and prescient author. Holy crap has he saved me a ton of money with his calls. Shiller is great because he not only points out important bubbles in advance of them popping, but he clearly demonstrates why they are bubbles from a historical perspective. You would be wise to at least pay attention to his calls.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:37 am
“Group Think” – an incredible euphemism.
A bunch of savvy insiders at the top, middle, and bottom create an opportunity to get rich using OPM. These players in the middle of the scam have their off shore accounts to soothe their minimal end of scam losses. (Actually, i bet they’re making money on the short side now.)
This is the heart of corrupted Chicago School ‘free’ enterprise. Savvy jerks are free to create and further a dangerous shell game and dance till the music ends. Then they get the hell out of the hall as the US Taxpayer puts out the fire.
This is a case for regulation of free markets – taxpayers don’t want to be given the bill (again again again again) for putting out the fire and rebuilding the dance hall.
Meanwhile, the jerks count their bonuses and wait to start the next profitable dance.
Paul Volcker understood this. Why didn’t the great Alan Greenspan? The guy should have all his wealth confiscated and used to recapitalize the mess he created.
Sounds vindictive, but if we do this, don’t you think the Fed Chairman and Board would think twice before creating the next bubble?
September 26th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Goldman’s top alumni wield White House clout
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Ben White in New York
Published: December 4 2006 00:42 | Last updated: December 4 2006 00:42
America’s corporate elite has long upheld a tradition of joining Washington’s corridors of power for a new career. JPMorgan executives gave counsel to President Woodrow Wilson during the first world war. President John F. Kennedy asked Robert McNamara, a war veteran who had risen to the top ranks of Ford, to become secretary of defence in 1960.
But the appointment last week of Goldman Sachs’s William Dudley to head the Federal Reserve Bank of New York market’s group raised to an unprecedented level the number of top positions in public service that former executives from any one company have held during a White House administration.
Today, former Goldman Sachs executives control or influence the oversight of key aspects of the US financial system and hold prominent positions throughout the Bush White House.
They include: Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary and former Goldman chief executive; Reuben Jeffrey, a former Goldman managing partner who is the chief regulator of commodity futures and options trading; Joshua Bolten, White House chief of staff who served as a Goldman executive director; Robert Steel, the former Goldman vice-chairman who advises Mr Paulson on domestic finance; and Randall Fort, the ex-Goldman director of global security who advises Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state.
The composition of President George W. Bush’s working group on financial markets demonstrates the clout of the company’s former executives on policy.
The panel – which is composed of Mr Paulson, Mr Jeffrey, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission – would be Mr Bush’s first port of call in the event of a financial crisis.
Mr Dudley would also play a crucial role in stabilising the markets in the event of a meltdown, as one of his predecessors, Peter Fisher, did following the near collapse of Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund. The former executives will also be influential in issues ranging from the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing giants, to tax policy, to how heavily the energy markets should be regulated; all issues that Goldman Sachs lobbies heavily on in Washington.
“I don’t think anybody else even comes close [to holding the number of top positions in Washington],” says Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian and professor at Manhattan College, who points out that Goldman’s reach is even more impressive because it comes at a time when there is no single dominant bank or brokerage in the US.
Unlike other companies that are targeted for being too cozy with the White House, neither Mr Bush nor Goldman have been criticised by Democrats for holding too many powerful jobs, in part because the investment bank also has deep ties to Democrats.
Goldman represented the biggest single donor base to the Democratic party ahead of this year’s mid-term elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and at least two Democratic political heavyweights Jon Corzine, the New Jersey governor, and Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, are Goldman alumni.
Goldman says it is proud of its long record of public service, but does the company yield too much power in Washington?
Alex Knott, political editor at the Center for Public Integrity, says that while there is no doubt that former Goldman executives have the experience to hold their posts, they also have close ties to a company that benefits from their public policy decisions.
“It does create a potential conflict of interest because so much regulation is doled out by administrators who could be looking out for their former employees and co-workers,” he says.
Whatever potential conflict of interest may exist, however, neither Mr Knott nor executives at competing banks have substantive complaints about the influx of former Goldman leaders.
“I’d love to point out a smoking gun in their direction but I can’t,” said one senior executive at a rival bank. “They’ve created this tradition of public service and it does accrue benefit to the Goldman brand. That’s not a conflict. It’s just what it is. It’s something people are envious of.”
Orin Kramer, chairman of the New Jersey State Investment Council and a close friend of Mr Corzine, says life can sometimes be made more difficult for Goldman because of its ties to public life. Mr Paulson, for example, has vowed to recuse himself from any matter that pertains specifically to Goldman over his tenure. Last month, he removed himself from the national security review of Lucent’s merger with Alcatel, which was being advised by Goldman
Uh-Huh
September 26th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Huge fan of Shiller here, probably the only academic whom I follow as related to the markets, given that I now consider EMT as just a theoretical construct for CAPM. If you follow Shiller, you know that the market is still significantly overpriced on a historical basis:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm
This is partly where I draw my Dow 5000 forecast from, and Shiller has not even considered how much CPI has been cooked.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:37 am
PureGuesswork writes:
“Reading comments on a lot of blogs I find the same emphasis on finding the requisite villains, as if lining them up against the wall and shooting them is going to solve this crisis.”
FINALLY!! Somebody talking some sense here. Where’s the lineup? I’ll be right over with my favorite gun and ammo.
(I knew we would eventually reach the right conclusion if we just gave it some time. Thanks for restoring my confidence in right and wrong. If we put a little fear back in these bastards then maybe (suddenly) they won’t be nearly as clueless in the future. They may (actually) even do something constructive for the benefit of this Nation for a change.)
Don’t give me this I just didn’t know crap. That is total Bullshit!!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Barry, he sounds like he is supporting the plan in the absence of another one.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
SO RIGHT BG!
They didn’t do this unknowingly. They had to string it out until the last minute in order to try and ramrod this theft through at the last minute.
Does anyone think for a second that the former CEO of GS didn’t see this coming? He just realized last week that he was in trouble????? My ass! This is their endgame. I’ve watched this madness go on for years thinking to myself, how do they think they’re gonna get out of this? Now we know, they’re going to get us taxpayers to buy their toilet paper.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Nice article in Bloomberg today on how much the Big5 IBs paid out at the peak of the bubble.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a96vQtgKS3BM&refer=hom
Recalling those funds would make a nice downpayment on the $700B bailout.
Unfortunately, we got the government we permitted, and the “faith-based” community — all of us, who willingly suspended our disbelief and collectively failed to stop the bubble engineers — is now forced to deal with reality again.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Great interview, thanks Barry. BTW, if you want to see something else really great from Shiller, take a look at the interview that he did on June 20, 2005 with Barron’s. He really called the real estate cold, back then, both the valuation being ridiculous and the sloppy mortgage practices and bubble pscyhology. One quote from that ‘05 article: ” ‘The home-price bubble feels like the stock-market mania in the fall of 1999, just before the stock bubble burse in early 2000, with all the hype, herd inesting and absolute confidence int the inevitability of continuing price appreciation,” Shiller observes….” Another passage from the same Barron’s piece: “In Shiller’s view, a real price decline of as much as 50% in U.S. home prices over the next decade isn’t beyond the realm of possibility….However, today’s speculative real-estate bubble is so extreme that it wouldn’t take an ‘exogenous’ event like surging interest rates or a recession to prick it, warns Shiller.”
September 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
We need to keep the pressure on Congress to stop this Socialist takeover of what’s left of our financial system. It’s too late for this to work, even if this were a good plan (which it isn’t). The banking system has ALREADY failed.
Here’s my follow-up letter to Congress this morning (in case any of you need a template):
HAVE COURAGE! The left-wing media is out in full force this morning telling us that conservative Republicans are obstructionists. To which I say, YES! Continue to obstruct this Paulson bailout plan (a.k.a., Socialist power grab). They say that we should dismantle our free market infrastructure to preserve it?! That we should willingly and with urgency surrender these freedoms and worry about details later, this time in the name of “financial security”?! Where have I heard this before?!
This whole plan is insane and must be stopped if we are ever to recover economically. Yes, unfortunately there is going to be a severe recession. That cannot be stopped by federal intervention (in fact, in my view, it has been created largely BECAUSE OF previous government manipulations of markets). Let’s return government to its proper (i.e., reduced) role, and let our economy shrink, which it needs to do in order to have a chance at healthy, productive growth down the road. Do not give in to the political manipulators and the ignorant enablers that use scare tactics to attempt to ram this legislation through Congress. You will be judged by history and those that know you did the right thing when you continue to stand fast against this storm, and PREVENT THIS BAILOUT PLAN FROM PASSING. Thank you for your service to our country.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
He says that if we have to choose between Paulson’s bailout, and doing nothing, we’re better off with the bailout.
That is quite obviously a false dichotomy. And that’s exactly the mentality that pervades Congress.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Bob -
This isn’t socialism. A socialist solution would be to nationalize the failing banks, seize all their assets, and sell off good parts.
This is a corporatist solution. If you don’t know what corporatism is, I suggest you look it up. It’s what the Republicans have really stood for for 30 years, now. So this isn’t really a surprise to those who were paying attention.
Incidentally, the interventionist capitalist solution, where we buy preferred shares of failing banks, is the one proposed by Democrats.
So, we’ve got three proposals: the libertarian proposal from some Repug Congressmen, the interventionist proposal by Democrats, and the corporatist solution proposed by the Executive.
So far, the ‘Crats and the Exec’ have come together to get a deal done. The libertarians don’t really think we should do anything (a la Hoover), so it’s unlikely they’ll ever come along.
Me, I think we should do a *real* socialist solution – seize any undercapitalized bank, and sell off the parts that still work. Then imprison anyone who abused the public trust. It’d get things solved more quickly than other ways. But I don’t expect us to actually do that, so I’ll settle for the interventionist capitalism.
The libertarian way’s been tried already, the last time, in 1929 – it didn’t work out so well. Unless you can explain why this time is different, it’s a non-starter.
The corporatist way was tried already the last time as well, by the National Socialists in Germany. That didn’t work out too well either.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Jim D, this is socialism, as this proposal (with its warrants to the Treasury from participating institutions) puts the market decisions for the banking system in the hands of an appointed bureaucrat. You, Bernanke and every other Keynesian apologist I hear keeps talking about how the “hands-off approach” caused the Great Depression. You’re clueless. The Depression was caused by too much debt. You can’t rehabilitate a junkie by continuing to pump him full of the good stuff. The recession’s coming whether we flush $700 billion down the toilet or not.
And by the way, consider that maybe, just maybe, the financial system shouldn’t survive in its current form. After all, keeping our tower of debt propped-up all these years is what has led us to this.
September 26th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
The adults in the room realize that without harsh punitive action this will occur again. I am sure that ‘let’s concentrate on solving the problem, not assigning blame’ has been the stated mantra during each bailout. Quite banal, really.
Hey Venny,
Some of us live within our salaries. I will continue living within my means and badgering my Congressman to reject any bailout.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Vic,
Barry, Adam, “Shiller Fan”, and “CNBC Sucks” (I love that…) already beat me to the punch, but in a nutshell, Shiller is absolutely awesome. I doubt there are 5 other people in the world who accurately called the tops of the last two major bubbles (Nasdaq, housing), let alone who published the call in a book! Shiller’s “problem”, in my observation, is that he is an unassuming academic who isn’t into running around and pounding his chest about his calls. He’s EXTREMELY low-key and understated, which comes out in his interviews. His book, “Irrational Exuberance” was the first book I read that started me questioning EVERYTHING (and consequently saved me money, as well). In an extremely academic way, he simply presents facts, rather than spews out blames (as true as they may be…). However, he does more than hint in his writing whom he believes are the usual suspects:
From Irrational Exuberance (2nd Ed, 2005):
p 40 “Supportive Monetary Policy and the Greenspan Put”
p 41 “Ultimately the Fed cut interest rates as the stock market fell, to a low of 1% by 2003. This aggressive rate cut, which put real (inflation-corrected) interest rates well into negative territory, was probably a significant contributing factor to the housing boom after 2001.”
same page: “…the generally supportive stance of Alan Greenspan and other central bankers was a contributing factor to the millennium stock market boom and to the real estate price boom that came on its heels.”
September 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Bob – you do realize that supply-side means the supply side of Keynesian economics, right? There are Keynesians on both sides of the aisle, and the question is on what side of the rail tracks you drop money from a helicopter on. You do also know that most neocons came from socialism, right?
I suggest (half seriously) we either go all the way to 1850s style New Mexico Territory rules libertarianism with guns in our holsters or the other extreme and embrace Marx. This middle stuff is confusing too many Americans.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“this is socialism, as this proposal (with its warrants to the Treasury from participating institutions) puts the market decisions for the banking system in the hands of an appointed bureaucrat.”
First, the Paulson plan didn’t have warrents – which is what made it corporatism. I notice you ignored that completely.
Second, there’s no such thing as an unregulated market. Absolutist thinking is the bane of sensible policies. Think of it this way: at a minimum, you need regulations that require the enforcement of contracts and prevent the murder of competitors. So, we’re talking about degree. Or, at least, I am.
Intervention *can* do good in markets, if it’s intelligently done, just as deregulation can do much good, if it’s intelligently done.
Don’t like intervention? Instead prefer to “liquidate the bankers, liquidate the farmers” and so on? Good luck with that.
“You, Bernanke and every other Keynesian apologist I hear keeps talking about how the “hands-off approach” caused the Great Depression. You’re clueless. The Depression was caused by too much debt.”
And how did there get to be too much debt? By not having proper regulations to stop greedy people from immolating themselves, and catching fire to the rest of the economy. You’ve made my point for me.
Now, I firmly believe that the Depression became the Great Depression because of Roosevelt’s “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” economic policy, but you can’t say that we got too much debt, and then in the same breathe say that you’d like to see the markets free to get too much debt, and expect anyone to think you’re not… inconsistent, to be kind.
I’m arguing that we need to do something to keep the wheels on the car so we can slow to a stop. You’re arguing to just let the wheels fall off, so we stop faster.
I’m not really enamored of your proposal. Why should I be?
Again, we’ve tried hard libertarian approaches (and not just in 1929). We’ve tried hard interventionist approaches, (and not just in 1931).
They’ve NEVER worked. Once. There’s always a severe reaction to either. Or can you find a counter example? If you’ve got one, I’d like to hear it.
We DO have examples of soft interventionist approaches working, such as in the Mexican and Scanidinavian banking crises.
So, if you’re so right, how come there’s no examples of you being right? Why aren’t there people using examples like Scandinavia for your side?
Seriously, put up or expect mockery.
September 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
First off, this is my last post, so mock all you want Jim D. I don’t have time to keep checking back on this. Second, I have no problem with laws and sensible rules that permit contracts to be enforced and markets to function properly. When did I ever say I did? The Paulson plan (whether it’s the original one or the one he is acquiescing to doesn’t matter to me) goes way beyond simple regulation of the marketplace. It is the actual cornering of the entire buy-side of the market for MBS by the Treasury.
And you ask me for an example of where market forces “worked” to solve our economic maladjustments. What exactly do you mean by “worked”? If you mean that the market approach has to solve the problem with no pain, suffering, dislocations, etc., then you again are missing the point. The Depression “worked.” It was longer than it needed to be (because of excessive intervention), and painful, but it cleared the excesses. You cannot correct for the serious maladjustments in our system without significant pain. I’m not suggesting that we eliminate welfare and let people die in the streets, but I do believe we have to accept the facts. The world is changed, and we will have to adjust. Most will, some won’t. Freedom requires not only the opportunity to succeed (notice I didn’t say guarantee), but also requires the possibility of failure. Such is life. Politicians and those that believe in Utopia fight this tooth and nail, in order to preserve their view of the world and their position in it, to the detriment of the rest of us.
And Sucks, yes I know where supply-side economics comes from. When did I ever say I was a neocon? I hate those bastards. They’ve taken a party that once stood for freedom and personal responsibility and turned it upside down. Or did you not notice it is the neocons in league with the Democratic majority that is trying to cram this brick turd through Congress??
September 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“First off, this is my last post, so mock all you want Jim D.”
Nah, I’ll let the fact that you ask questions after saying you won’t read the answers do the talking for me.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Bob – I hear you, I agree on the brick turd, and I would only argue that neocons have more or less been running the show called the USA for all but two years (1992-1994) since Reagan left office.
As a former Republican, I consider neocons worse than liberals. At least, with the liberals, I might bet some better roads and bridges. Given their alliance with the Evangelists, you cannot beat the neocons from within the Republican Party. Your best bet is to switch to the Democratic Party and help guide its shift to the center.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
OK, this really is my last post, but I just have one thing I have got to say to you, Jim D. Read what I say, not what you think I said. I never said I wouldn’t read your responses, only that I wouldn’t respond again. Damn, it’s frustrating when the people that think they know all the answers don’t even speak the same language.
Sucks, I agree that the neocons are worse than Democrats (but because they are basically just Democrats and either lie about it or are too stupid to know the difference). However, I will not join the Democrats. Better to stay independent and work for the Truth.