McCain and Republicans as Fox, Financial Markets as Chicken Coop
Electing John McCain and the Republican Party to reform failing U.S. financial markets would be like leaving a fox to guard a chicken coop with the gate open... and expecting the fox to not devour the chickens: it's illogical and wholly unrealistic.
And as we're currently experiencing, it's always messy cleaning up the scattered feathers and all those dead carcasses.
As MSNBC's Chris Matthews accurately observed today on Hardball, if McCain won the '08 presidential election, his inaugural party would be filled with the same old Bush insiders. And add to that party list the myriad of big-business lobbyists who comprise McCain's campaign staff.
Also add to McCain's inaugural party list former Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain chief economic policy advisor, who called Americans "a nation of whiners" and quipped that we're merely going through a "mental recession."
These are the very same Republican folks who brought us the economic philosophy that's now failing disastrously. In the smart, very well-received red-meat words of Barack Obama on September 16, 2008 in Golden, Colorado:
- "It's the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down.
- It's the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise.
- It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people."
This horrific U.S. economic crisis perfectly illustrates why Obama is running for, and should be elected to, the presidency: to change these policies!
Exhorted Obama, "I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both."
In his September 16th speech, which was long on specifics and blessedly short on banalities, Obama clearly described both his and McCain's actions over the past few years... and it's quite informative. I urge you to read Obama's words carefully, and honestly consider which direction is best in 2008 for the United States. To me, it's obvious.
I believe the 2008 presidential election tilted strongly toward Barack Obama this week, in large part because Republican John McCain dumbly proclaimed, as U.S. financial markets were falling like a fragile house of cards, "that he believed the fundamentals of the economy were 'strong.'"
At a January '08 meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, John McCain admitted that he "doesn’t really understand economics."
Indeed, Sen. McCain, we see that clearly more now than ever before.
In the words of Sen. Obama, "Enough is enough!"
(Photo taken on September 16, 2008: John Moore/Getty Images)
- Related Reading
- Obama 101: The Economy for Middle-Class Americans
- Obama 101: Energy & the Environment
- From DailyKos: Obama's Golden Speech Video Blog
Comments
“Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right.
The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?”
What a FABULOUS statement! I’ve been waiting to hear someone say that for a while now. There are a few quibbles I have with his plan, though:
1) Obama seems determined to heavily tax the rich, which sounds nice, but the tax revenues would be unreliable since the income of the wealthy is mainly based on the market, unlike middle-class income. If the economy is doing well, then the government is that much richer. If the economy doesn’t do well, then the federal tax revenues are much lower, which screws up the federal budget. A good example of this can be found in California’s tax system.
2. He wants to increase the penalties for investors who make stupid descisions, which is fine, but he doesn’t extend those penalties or increased regulations for the homeowners who made stupid descisions. In fact, he sounds like he’s going to reward them for buying houses they couldn’t afford. I’m a little disappointed that he doesn’t say something bold, like, say, outlawing the use of stated income loans, since those loans were the only way many of these homeowners could get loans for their houses, and why they can’t afford them now.
3. There’s still that tiny issue of cost, how’s he going to pay for all this if he plans to offer lower tax rates than Ronald Reagan with a 9.5 trillion deficit?
Other than that, this is one of the more impressive Obama speeches that I have heard.
Obama: “The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?”
I FULLY agree with you, Robert. Why, oh why, should taypayers foot the bill for failed businesses? And like you, I frankly don’t understand why taxpayers should bail out homebuyers who bought more than they could afford. Why insure bad decision-making and inordinate risk-taking?
The rest of us who acted more prudently, more rationally, then end up paying for those who didn’t? That’s just wrong and unfair. That’s hardly democratic.
One of my fears about the purported $1 trillion bailout is that it will cause the taxpayers to take on all the bad investments of the failing financial sector, and then the financial services industry goes along its merry way, free once again to make rich profits and feed those rich profits/commission to a chosen few.
In essence, that’s taking the losses private, and privatizing the profits.
People talk and talk about the virtues of U.S.-style capitalism. But THAT’S not capitalism… that’s highly manipulated, risk-free capitalism. In other words, cheating at the game. And guess who loses?