I haven't watch all of the debate last night yet. To be honest, it makes me so mad that I can't watch more than 15 minutes at a time. (Bless you TiVo.) So I've seen the first 15 minutes or so over it, thus far.
What stands out to me? The "going back on your beliefs" and lies that are being thrown at us from the McCain camp. I talked in my previous post about how McCain and Bush have been champions for deregulation of the market under the "Free Market" banner. But now, Palin is try to represent the McCain candidacy as being for governmental regulation of the market. Now, I am all for checks and balances for our economy, and therefore I am happy that the Republicans are apparently conceding that point, but the truth is: this simply wasn't their stance in the past.
Here is an excerpt (full transcript here) that proves my point:
Palin: We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings...
I simply don't know how any Republican, especially one on the McCain ticket, can make that claim after being so staunchly "free market" in the past. McCain has famously been for deregulation.
Oh, and while we are at it, I thought its important to note that McCain's campaign manager was paid millions by Freddie Mac for lobbying.
Novel 4!
-
Desert Divide is live and out in the world! What a great week it has been.
The book was published Monday. Since, I’ve confirmed one book signing in
August,...
4 years ago
4 comments:
Alright, Nole, no doubt you and I have very different political ideologies, but I am not sure I can let you slide on this one. Not when you are talking economics or the markets. Take a look at this video and tell me what you think:
http://www. dailymotion. com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news
It's not about de-regulation or free markets as much as it is about poor regulation and bad policies - specifically: the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). You can do the research and find out whose noble, yet economically unsound, idea that was. I don't like the idea of an enormous tax payer financed bailout bill any more than you do. Mostly, because I AM a firm believer in free market principles. At the end of the day, it really does go back to the cartoon you posted: poor people with bad credit should NOT have been given loans to buy homes they couldn't afford. The question to ask, really, is - "why were they??"
PS: If we want to talk ties to Fannie & Freddie ... according the the FEC, Obama ranks #2 (behind only Chris Dodd-D who serves as CHAIRMAN of the Senate Banking Committee) in top receipts of combined Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 ... Obama's total for the past nine years is $126,349.
You know I love you, buddy. ;-)
Stacy
Stacy-
Wow. I didn't realize that my readership reached so far. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
You are right to point out that this crisis was not solely the fault of Republicans. But to be fair, I never said it was.
I think you have missed the point of this entire post. The point was to highlight the flip-flopping and political pandering that the McCain campaign is doing. For years he has been a champion for deregulation and keeping the government out of the market. But then all the sudden, when he needs to impress the voters, he supports a bill that is the exact opposite of his previous [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPJr7YWmQ ]deregulator stance. As a someone who is "firm believer in free market principles" the stance he and Palin are taking on this should infuriate you. He is completely going back on his word. As a free market backer, doesn't quote that I have highlighted from the VP debate go against your beliefs?
Again, thanks for the comment. I'd love to hear what you think about this.
Have you seen all the SNL skits with Tina Fey as Palin?
They're fairly giggleworthy and worth a watch or two.
Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate... I agree. I was for the bail out before I was against it... j/k. But really though, regulation has artificial results on markets. I'm not a fan of the bail out, but if you're going to give $700 billion to some one they better "regulate" what it's used for, which is what Sarah Palin meant. Don't you agree? So, I too am a regulation flip flopper...
I am Timothy Barrett and I approve this message.
Post a Comment