That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That’s part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years. His conduct before and after the Keating 5 scandal says a lot about his character.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post This is depressing… http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/...us/tent_cities Return of Hoovervilles? |
Sounds like they could use some change.
(you’re damned if you never saw that episode, it was classic!)
Quote:
| That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That’s part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years. |
I don’t understand, so you mean he’s kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on? **‘Always for Less Regulation’?**John McCain’s record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html
Quote:
| However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain’s record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. “I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,” he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. “But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor – and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years – can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work.” Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he “seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government’s demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well.” In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – while Mr. Obama was notably silent. “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” Mr. McCain warned at the time. |
I’m not one to agree with the regulators, but this is a bit much.
I would rather have my government regulating businesses more than they have than bailing them out when THEY fuck up.
I’m curious, what companies have we bailed out? In your opinion.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post I don’t understand, so you mean he’s kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on? **‘Always for Less Regulation’?**John McCain’s record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html |
No. John McCain is a partisan politician first and foremost. He does occasionally take a “good” position on an issue, but the motivation is almost always partisan politics, not out any genuine sense of doing good. This is borne out by the fact that he rarely sees an issue to its end.
The only times he’s called for more regulation, seemingly, is when Democrats were the ones who were pushing for deregulating more vociferously. (Fannie and Freddie) Or when something’s obviously gone fubar and he needs to do a mea culpa. (Energy dereg and Enron) Otherwise he’s been doctrinaire conservative/deregulator in his economic policies, espousing a philosophy that has directly lead to many of these crises.
But ultimately, what’s more important than John McCain occasionally taking on “corruption” within the Democratic ranks is his utter inability to take on the corruption within his own ranks. In fact, he was often a cheerleader for terrible policy that originated from his side. This goes to the heart of what kind of politician McCain is. He might say the right things about an issue, but his motivation is really to make the other side look bad, not necessarily to do right because otherwise, he’d have more follow-through and just be more consistent.
So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad.
Also, any bi-partisan legislation he’s ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats.
Did I get it right?
I’d like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he “didn’t see it coming.”
But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad. Also, any bi-partisan legislation he’s ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats. Did I get it right? |
Sorta. You’re obviously free to make your own determination as to why McCain only supported regulation on these 2 issues throughout his entire 26 year career of deregulation.
I’m not saying there isn’t a hint of honesty in what he’s saying. I’m saying that the John McCain who voted correctly on these issues and the John McCain who as voted incorrectly dozens of times do not make any sense when placed together. Why that is the case is certainly up for debate.
My ultimate point here is that the John McCain that has been running this campaign, the craven opportunist and, yeah, partisan that has bubbled up to the surface, is perhaps the real John McCain. Its just more obvious and splayed out there for all to see now that he is running a national general election campaign.
You like McCain. I get that. (I kinda sorta did too at one point.) But at this moment before we’re asked to vote for him, can anyone really say with any confidence that they know what he stands for? Its a genuinely troubling situation that is entirely of his own making. All I’m saying is that the clues to the McCain we’re seeing today are there in his past, if you want to see them.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by yt View Post I’d like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he “didn’t see it coming.” But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation? |
I didn’t say anything. I only asked Muharulz what companies he thought we bailed out.
Here’s the catch YT. Everyone SAW it coming the real question was when the music would stop and who would be left without chairs and no one knew that answer.
McCain isn’t an economic dynomo but he’s been on the ball this week, we do need some regulations and Cox should have been fired and he took the bullet and said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. It doesn’t matter if the fundamentals of our economy are sound when there is a disaster on Wall Street. What matters is leaders SAYING the fundamentals are sound so Johnny the teacher doesn’t take his money out of the bank in a panic and turn his 401k from funds to CASH. That was why I was so very disappointed in the partisan politics Obama was playing on Monday..then Tuesday… then Wednesday.. You don’t come out and say the fundamentals are bad when we’re in a financial crisis.. that’s to be said later on after it is over.
Apparently, Obama got the memo.
Ah. The Bush Dichotomy. Is McCain ignorant, or lying?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post McCain isn’t an economic dynomo but he’s been on the ball this week, we do need some regulations and Cox should have been fired and he took the bullet and said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. |
Oxy + moron = oxymoron
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke That was why I was so very disappointed in the partisan politics Obama was playing on Monday..then Tuesday… then Wednesday.. You don’t come out and say the fundamentals are bad when we’re in a financial crisis.. that’s to be said later on after it is over. |
Come on dude, give me a break. Really? McCain calls the fundamentals of our economy strong on our worst economic day in years and you expect the Obama campaign to play nice after weeks of being charged with teaching kindergarten kids about sex, sexism, and someone who’s going to raise taxes for all Americans (which are all lies, I might add). I bet you wouldn’t be pissed at Hoover either. We’re headed towards a great depression, but the important thing is that he just say that everything’s fine and do nothing. Nice thinking…
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Parker View Post Oxy + moron = oxymoron Come on dude, give me a break. Really? McCain calls the fundamentals of our economy strong on our worst economic day in years and you expect the Obama campaign to play nice after weeks of being charged with teaching kindergarten kids about sex, sexism, and someone who’s going to raise taxes for all Americans (which are all lies, I might add). I bet you wouldn’t be pissed at Hoover either. We’re headed towards a great depression, but the important thing is that he just say that everything’s fine and do nothing. Nice thinking… |
I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we’re in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time.
Look what happened wtih Chuck Schumer and IndyMac.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time. |
Yeah, but Snaieke, they’ve tried that lame shit before.
Stank then. Stinks now. Nobody buys it, so why bother even pretending.
If I know that’s dogshit on the sidewalk. And Obama knows it’s dogshit. And McCain knows it’s dogshit. And Obama says “It sucks but that there is dog fuckin shit.” And McCain says “I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. What about dogshit what?” Whom should I respect more?
Almost every bad thing that has happened in our history can be traced to “that’s not something we can talk about now!”
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we’re in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time. Look what happened wtih Chuck Schumer and IndyMac. |
I fail to see the connection between observing the severe problems with the economy and partisan politics. If anything, presidents that have been successful during economics downturns HAVE recognized it (See FDR and Reagan). It would be dishonest to say anything other than our economy is faltering and it is certainly not an attempt to “take down the economy”. What’s needed is a President who is strong enough to recognize the problems, address them, and present the populace with reasonable solutions that provide confidence that the economy can be repaired. (Again, see FDR and Reagan)
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we’re in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time. |
You expect our leading politicians to be ignorant while the nation watches the walls come down? I’m serious, what kind of thinking is that? What happened to the John McCain that was full of “straight talk,” telling people in Michigan that their jobs weren’t coming back? This is a tremendously serious problem and everybody with two working eyes and a working brain knows it. They’re not getting this information straight from Obama…it’s in the news, it’s in their bank accounts, it’s effecting their lives every moment. Simply staying positive is not the solution. Being honest and coming up with a game plan is. And I’m not talking about playing the blame game either (which is the only thing McCain has been able to do since trying to amend his “strong” stance…fire the head of the SEC, come up with a 9/11 type commission report, and blame the democrats). So don’t give me that “rise above” bullshit.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by The LD View Post I fail to see the connection between observing the severe problems with the economy and partisan politics. If anything, presidents that have been successful during economics downturns HAVE recognized it (See FDR and Reagan). It would be dishonest to say anything other than our economy is faltering and it is certainly not an attempt to “take down the economy”. What’s needed is a President who is strong enough to recognize the problems, address them, and present the populace with reasonable solutions that provide confidence that the economy can be repaired. (Again, see FDR and Reagan) |
You’re making this out to be political, when it is all about economics and how they work. You’re also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words? The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn’t offer suggestions, other then vote for me.
I honestly don’t care what you think we need. The election isn’t until November 4th and whomever wins this isn’t in charge until January 29th and it’s a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don’t need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that’s fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn’t helpful and it certainly isn’t called leadership.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post You’re also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words? |
Are you here suggesting that neither Reagan nor Roosevelt campaigned on the poor condition of the economy? That is absolutely false.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn’t offer suggestions, other then vote for me. |
I also take issue with this. If we have to wait for Bush to make a substantive address, neither candidate could comment yet. To suggest that Obama offered no suggestions is also patently false. He cut a two minute long speech, widely available on the internet, that offered suggestions regarding his ideas for the economy. If you disagree with his ideas, that’s one thing. To suggest he offered none is another, and not grounded in reality.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post The election isn’t until November 4th and whomever wins this isn’t in charge until January 29th and it’s a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don’t need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that’s fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn’t helpful and it certainly isn’t called leadership. |
Snaieke, you have yet to connect the dots between observing the state of the economy and partisan politics. You wouldn’t suggest that the economy is in good shape, correct? Unless observing the condition of the economy is now partisan, I don’t think you’re on the right track here.
I also think you may be picking the wrong battle. Could Obama’s statement have eroded some confidence? I suppose so. Could McCain’s statement have boosted confidence? I doubt it. The reason is because people will base their responses on the reality with which they are presented. If AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren’t clearly in trouble, people would laugh at Obama for saying the economy was weak, and rightly so. When he says it and it agrees with what they see, they may well appreciate that a politician understands the problems that they’re observing.
[Image, link, or media — original content no longer available]
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post You’re making this out to be political, when it is all about economics and how they work. You’re also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words? The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn’t offer suggestions, other then vote for me. I honestly don’t care what you think we need. The election isn’t until November 4th and whomever wins this isn’t in charge until January 29th and it’s a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don’t need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that’s fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn’t helpful and it certainly isn’t called leadership. |
And John McCain isn’t trying to score some political points with the whole guilt by association game with Obama and execs from Fannie May? Come on…
As far as solutions go, Obama seems to be more serious about this crisis than McCain seems to be. All McCain seems to want to do is kick it over to a commision to study. Not smart when the economy is in meltdown mode.