Friday, September 19, 2008
Big Gubment redux
Now that the financial meltdown requires massive federal intervention, it will be fun to see how the ideologues on the right play this. How to wriggle out of their standard railing against the government they want to run in times like these. Hopefully, they will just roll over and let the Democrats take over. There really is no argument for the right at this time. None at all.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Big vs Small Government
This is one of the great rhetorical devices in American political history. Always effective, always dishonest. This is the argument that was used by Jefferson against Hamilton in his fight against a National Bank and a strong currency. It was used by slaveholders in the middle of the 19th century to justify states rights and the ownership of human beings. It was used most effectively in my lifetime by Reagan to say that taxes should be smaller and regulation on commerce should be eliminated whenever possible.
Now we see the results of totally free capitalism in the form of a meltdown of our financial system. Freedom given to instituions to write whatever mortgages they want and bundle them into any sort of securities they can market is now resulting in disaster. But the Republicans are caught in a quandry and are using further dishonesty to ensure their victory in the coming election. Because they are still in power, any subsidies (or 'bailouts') must have their stamp of approval. Such ideas go against the central right argument that bailouts = big gubment = evil. That one is easy as they are simply standing their philosophical ground and blaming others for the necessary bailouts.
McCain says lax regulation did not led to bad loans, it was the bad people who made the bad loans. All the Feds need do is crack some heads and get tough on those bad guys. This works because it plays into the tough guy personna that the right loves and the American voters love from them.
Like all Republican arguments, it is a lie. An effective lie. This so very frustrating to see my country walk right into making the same mistake we make over and over again. The mistake of giving the Republican Party continued power.
Now we see the results of totally free capitalism in the form of a meltdown of our financial system. Freedom given to instituions to write whatever mortgages they want and bundle them into any sort of securities they can market is now resulting in disaster. But the Republicans are caught in a quandry and are using further dishonesty to ensure their victory in the coming election. Because they are still in power, any subsidies (or 'bailouts') must have their stamp of approval. Such ideas go against the central right argument that bailouts = big gubment = evil. That one is easy as they are simply standing their philosophical ground and blaming others for the necessary bailouts.
McCain says lax regulation did not led to bad loans, it was the bad people who made the bad loans. All the Feds need do is crack some heads and get tough on those bad guys. This works because it plays into the tough guy personna that the right loves and the American voters love from them.
Like all Republican arguments, it is a lie. An effective lie. This so very frustrating to see my country walk right into making the same mistake we make over and over again. The mistake of giving the Republican Party continued power.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
ABORTION and Sarah Palin
I'm following as much of the 'stark choice' bullshit as I can stomach this election season. I understand from Sarah Palin (as advised by the Republican establishment) that she is a pro-life, pro-family, small town, Washington outsider...or some such nonsense. Since I would do anything in my power to oppose her espoused philosophy in how my country should be run, I suppose that makes me an anti-life, anti-family, big city Washington insider...or some such nonsense.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to bear her children.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to become a Granny at her young age.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to marry the person she wanted to marry.
That's the kind of country I want to live in. But I fear that the American voters do not want a country like that. They prefer a country with a solid rhetorical script. The script offered by the Washington insiders who run the Republican Party.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to bear her children.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to become a Granny at her young age.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to marry the person she wanted to marry.
That's the kind of country I want to live in. But I fear that the American voters do not want a country like that. They prefer a country with a solid rhetorical script. The script offered by the Washington insiders who run the Republican Party.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Right vs Left, Ends vs Means
This is one of the best essays I have every read about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the current USofA. Cheers, Dr Reich. You rule.
From http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
********
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring More About Ends Than Means
We’ve been here before: The Republican attack machine at full throttle, spewing lies in best-selling books, on Fox News, on talk radio. The mainstream media reporting on the controversy, thereby giving it more air time and squeezing out the Democrats’ affirmative message. Followed by accusations by Democrats that Republicans are playing unfairly. Responded to by smiling shrugs and winks from Republicans, who say Democrats can’t take the heat or can’t enjoy a joke or are out of touch with average Americans who are concerned about whatever it is the Republicans are lying about. This ignites a furious debate among Democrats about how negative they should go against the Republican. “If we use their tactics, we’ll lose the moral high ground,” say the Democratic doves. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the war,” say the Democratic hawks. The debate is never fully resolved. The Democrats sort of fight back but don’t have the heart to do to Republicans what Republicans do to them. And so it goes.
The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there. The paradox lies deeper. For most Democrats, the means are part of the ends. We want an electoral process that eschews the lying and cheating we’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks. If we use their tactics, we undermine our own goal, violating one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. Yet if we don’t stoop to their level, how can we prevail in a system that allows – even rewards – such lying and cheating?
It’s the same with governing. Right-wing Republicans detest government, so when they screw it up – failing to protect the citizens of New Orleans or returning veterans in Walter Reed hospital, or wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on non-competitive bids for the military, turning budget surpluses into massive deficits – they’re proving their own subterranean point that the public can’t trust government to do anything right. Democrats, once in power, inherit this legacy of distrust and deficit, and spend much of their time in office working their way out of it. And also inordinate time and energy promoting good governmental processes (recall Al Gore’s “making government work” crusade, which holds the record for the most arduous effort generating the least media attention).
Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends. Anyone trying to chronicle the Bushie’s disregard for the rule of law is quickly overwhelmed with examples, such as violating civil service laws to fill up the executive branch with political hacks; riding roughshod over constitutional laws in firing federal prosecutors; wiretapping Americans in clear violation of law; holding prisoners of war without charge, in violation of international law; using torture. Democrats, once in power, regard laws as serious constraints on that power. (When I was secretary of labor, the department’s lawyers would instruct me about what I could not do because I was unauthorized to do it, rather than how I might reinterpret or bend the laws in order that I could. The lawyers who work in the Bush administration do the opposite.)
Those who are willing to do anything to achieve their ends will always have a tactical advantage over those who regard the means as ends in themselves. The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.
posted by Robert Reich
From http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
********
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring More About Ends Than Means
We’ve been here before: The Republican attack machine at full throttle, spewing lies in best-selling books, on Fox News, on talk radio. The mainstream media reporting on the controversy, thereby giving it more air time and squeezing out the Democrats’ affirmative message. Followed by accusations by Democrats that Republicans are playing unfairly. Responded to by smiling shrugs and winks from Republicans, who say Democrats can’t take the heat or can’t enjoy a joke or are out of touch with average Americans who are concerned about whatever it is the Republicans are lying about. This ignites a furious debate among Democrats about how negative they should go against the Republican. “If we use their tactics, we’ll lose the moral high ground,” say the Democratic doves. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the war,” say the Democratic hawks. The debate is never fully resolved. The Democrats sort of fight back but don’t have the heart to do to Republicans what Republicans do to them. And so it goes.
The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there. The paradox lies deeper. For most Democrats, the means are part of the ends. We want an electoral process that eschews the lying and cheating we’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks. If we use their tactics, we undermine our own goal, violating one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. Yet if we don’t stoop to their level, how can we prevail in a system that allows – even rewards – such lying and cheating?
It’s the same with governing. Right-wing Republicans detest government, so when they screw it up – failing to protect the citizens of New Orleans or returning veterans in Walter Reed hospital, or wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on non-competitive bids for the military, turning budget surpluses into massive deficits – they’re proving their own subterranean point that the public can’t trust government to do anything right. Democrats, once in power, inherit this legacy of distrust and deficit, and spend much of their time in office working their way out of it. And also inordinate time and energy promoting good governmental processes (recall Al Gore’s “making government work” crusade, which holds the record for the most arduous effort generating the least media attention).
Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends. Anyone trying to chronicle the Bushie’s disregard for the rule of law is quickly overwhelmed with examples, such as violating civil service laws to fill up the executive branch with political hacks; riding roughshod over constitutional laws in firing federal prosecutors; wiretapping Americans in clear violation of law; holding prisoners of war without charge, in violation of international law; using torture. Democrats, once in power, regard laws as serious constraints on that power. (When I was secretary of labor, the department’s lawyers would instruct me about what I could not do because I was unauthorized to do it, rather than how I might reinterpret or bend the laws in order that I could. The lawyers who work in the Bush administration do the opposite.)
Those who are willing to do anything to achieve their ends will always have a tactical advantage over those who regard the means as ends in themselves. The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.
posted by Robert Reich
Thursday, July 10, 2008
McCain on Social Security
Senator McCain said this yesterday "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."
Americans should surely understand this about the system because it is the way it was designed to work and it has always been so. It is not a disgrace (absolute or otherwise). It is rational, compassionate and sensible. There is no other way to have Social Security exist. The social part of it is key here. It is socialistic. It is not a savings program. It never was and it never should be.
Americans should surely understand this about the system because it is the way it was designed to work and it has always been so. It is not a disgrace (absolute or otherwise). It is rational, compassionate and sensible. There is no other way to have Social Security exist. The social part of it is key here. It is socialistic. It is not a savings program. It never was and it never should be.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
BS Battle
Now that Obama has made the first of several victory speeches, we have a good dose of the kind of rhetoric the Dems and Repubs will use over the next few weeks. Of course the tone will change as we get closer to November, but it is essentially a battle to see who can lay claim to keywords like change, leadership, judgement, freedom, liberty, patriot, children, love, good, God, happy, fairness, plus, addition, positive, brave, tough, wise, true...you get the picture.
No specifics about policy as McCain tries to paint another Republican Administration as "moving forward" and Obama tries to paint his relatively fresh face as "experienced". The rhetorical gymnastics might be fun for some. I don't find it fun, I find it interesting but a little bit pathetic. Pathetic that we choose the course of the Executive Branch of our government just like we choose our breakfast cereal. What's on the outside of the box and the advertising that pushes it is more important than the stuff we eat.
Speaking of bullshit, I find the morning spin on "the end of the Clintons" to be stupid. Hillary has postioned herself perfectly to be Obama's choice to be on the ticket with him. There is no better spot for any Democrat who wants to run for President after Obama than the spot she is in. She is not an old person. Do the math before you listen to the spin about "the end of the Clintons".
No specifics about policy as McCain tries to paint another Republican Administration as "moving forward" and Obama tries to paint his relatively fresh face as "experienced". The rhetorical gymnastics might be fun for some. I don't find it fun, I find it interesting but a little bit pathetic. Pathetic that we choose the course of the Executive Branch of our government just like we choose our breakfast cereal. What's on the outside of the box and the advertising that pushes it is more important than the stuff we eat.
Speaking of bullshit, I find the morning spin on "the end of the Clintons" to be stupid. Hillary has postioned herself perfectly to be Obama's choice to be on the ticket with him. There is no better spot for any Democrat who wants to run for President after Obama than the spot she is in. She is not an old person. Do the math before you listen to the spin about "the end of the Clintons".
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ted Kennedy's legislative highlights
I don't know what to say about the Senator's prognosis and his life, so I've just copied this dry piece from The Boston Globe:
1965: Immigration
In his first major legislative accomplishment, the 32-year-old Kennedy managed the successful floor battle to pass the Hart-Celler Act, a reform of immigration policy that abolished quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.
1971: Cancer
After rising to the position of majority whip in 1969, which made him the third-ranking Senate Democrat, Kennedy and Representative Paul G. Rogers, a Democrat of Florida, passed legislation establishing a federal cancer research program in 1971 that quadrupled the amount spent fighting cancer.
1972: Women's sports
Kennedy was a key Senate backer of Title IX, a 1972 amendment to federal education law that helped spur the growth of women's college sports by requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men's and women's athletics.
1974: Campaign finance
Joining with Senator Hugh Scott, Republican of Pennsylvania, Kennedy sponsored the sweeping overhaul of ethics rules after Watergate that imposed limits on contributions to political candidates and set up the public financing system for presidential candidates in 1974.
1983: MLK holiday
In the early 1980s, Kennedy teamed with civil rights leaders to urge the creation of the Martin Luther King Day holiday, which was eventually approved by overwhelming margins in both Houses and approved by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.
1986: Anti-apartheid
After Reagan vetoed economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa in 1986, Kennedy spearheaded the bipartisan effort in both Houses to override the veto. The law banned the purchase of gold, coal, iron, and other goods from South Africa.
1990: Family leave
Kennedy and Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, authored the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1990. The law required businesses to provide unpaid leave in the case of family emergencies or after the birth of infants, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
1993: Student loans
In response to concerns that students were getting bad deals from private lenders, Kennedy sponsored a Department of Education program in 1993 that allowed students to borrow directly from the federal government instead.
1996: Healthcare
Kennedy joined with Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of preexisting medical conditions.
1996: Minimum wage
Kennedy was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15. He reprised this role in 2007, after Democrats retook Congress, quarterbacking the effort to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009.
2001: Education
Over the objections of some fellow Democrats, Kennedy helped pass President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a sweeping law that required more rigorous testing of public school students and makes it easier for parents to transfer their children from low-performing schools.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
1965: Immigration
In his first major legislative accomplishment, the 32-year-old Kennedy managed the successful floor battle to pass the Hart-Celler Act, a reform of immigration policy that abolished quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.
1971: Cancer
After rising to the position of majority whip in 1969, which made him the third-ranking Senate Democrat, Kennedy and Representative Paul G. Rogers, a Democrat of Florida, passed legislation establishing a federal cancer research program in 1971 that quadrupled the amount spent fighting cancer.
1972: Women's sports
Kennedy was a key Senate backer of Title IX, a 1972 amendment to federal education law that helped spur the growth of women's college sports by requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men's and women's athletics.
1974: Campaign finance
Joining with Senator Hugh Scott, Republican of Pennsylvania, Kennedy sponsored the sweeping overhaul of ethics rules after Watergate that imposed limits on contributions to political candidates and set up the public financing system for presidential candidates in 1974.
1983: MLK holiday
In the early 1980s, Kennedy teamed with civil rights leaders to urge the creation of the Martin Luther King Day holiday, which was eventually approved by overwhelming margins in both Houses and approved by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.
1986: Anti-apartheid
After Reagan vetoed economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa in 1986, Kennedy spearheaded the bipartisan effort in both Houses to override the veto. The law banned the purchase of gold, coal, iron, and other goods from South Africa.
1990: Family leave
Kennedy and Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, authored the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1990. The law required businesses to provide unpaid leave in the case of family emergencies or after the birth of infants, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
1993: Student loans
In response to concerns that students were getting bad deals from private lenders, Kennedy sponsored a Department of Education program in 1993 that allowed students to borrow directly from the federal government instead.
1996: Healthcare
Kennedy joined with Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of preexisting medical conditions.
1996: Minimum wage
Kennedy was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15. He reprised this role in 2007, after Democrats retook Congress, quarterbacking the effort to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009.
2001: Education
Over the objections of some fellow Democrats, Kennedy helped pass President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a sweeping law that required more rigorous testing of public school students and makes it easier for parents to transfer their children from low-performing schools.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Why is Hillary still running?
This is a response to a thoughtful post from Robert Reich.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-hrc-hanging-in-there.html
I choose option 2
She's not "trying to destroy the party" or grind an axe against Obama. She's giving herself 'fighter' credentials for the next presidential round, be it in 2012 or 2016. Next month she will publicly endorse Obama and then actively campaign on his behalf. This will eliminate most of the chatter that she's out to tear down the party and will go a long way to solidfying the Dem base. It will not help Obama with the ignorant center (see below for what the hell I'm talking about), but it will boost her standing with the hardcore Dems like me.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-hrc-hanging-in-there.html
I choose option 2
2. She wants to establish herself for a 2012 run, if Obama loses to McCain or if Obama proves to be such an unpopular president that the Democrats look for another standard-bearer.
She's not "trying to destroy the party" or grind an axe against Obama. She's giving herself 'fighter' credentials for the next presidential round, be it in 2012 or 2016. Next month she will publicly endorse Obama and then actively campaign on his behalf. This will eliminate most of the chatter that she's out to tear down the party and will go a long way to solidfying the Dem base. It will not help Obama with the ignorant center (see below for what the hell I'm talking about), but it will boost her standing with the hardcore Dems like me.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Left-wing slime machine update
I see that the left is starting their play for the ignorant middle. McCain is crazy and violent. His wife is secretative about her finances. It seems kind of weak to me. Certainly not as bad as being a commie islamist.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Ignorant Middle
I just invented a brilliant new catchphrase. I'm so proud.
These are the people who decide elections in the USofA. The people who don't read, and only watch TV or think about politics in a very short period of time leading up to elections. They don't vote in primaries. They call themselves 'independent' and pundits often call them 'swing voters'. The lying slime machines favored by the US right wing works very well on these people. Just another little pitfall of democracy I suppose. Even idiots have the right to vote no matter how wrong their views.
My prediction: this will work in the upcoming presidential election. President McCain, true american patriot. Barack Obama, muslim-sounding name and communist sympathies. Who will the ignorant middle pick?
These are the people who decide elections in the USofA. The people who don't read, and only watch TV or think about politics in a very short period of time leading up to elections. They don't vote in primaries. They call themselves 'independent' and pundits often call them 'swing voters'. The lying slime machines favored by the US right wing works very well on these people. Just another little pitfall of democracy I suppose. Even idiots have the right to vote no matter how wrong their views.
My prediction: this will work in the upcoming presidential election. President McCain, true american patriot. Barack Obama, muslim-sounding name and communist sympathies. Who will the ignorant middle pick?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
poiliticalization of personal pain
Moral, religious and righteous indignation are the rhetorical tools of both the left and right. Today abortion and gay rights come to mind most often when I think of this societal evil. Agendas and morality get in the way of individual psychological therapy and cause additional pain to people who need help.
Abortion counsellors push their pro-life or leftie feminism on the people they are helping. People who are in pain and facing life and death decisions are pushed to the decision that suits the organization running the counselling service. After the abortion, attempts at psychological healing are similarly run by organizations with a agenda. Unfortunately, helping the patient is secondary to the agenda of the caregiver. This pisses me off. Organizations generally suck, and they especially suck when empathy and compassion are needed. Organizations cannot do this. Only people can.
Abortion counsellors push their pro-life or leftie feminism on the people they are helping. People who are in pain and facing life and death decisions are pushed to the decision that suits the organization running the counselling service. After the abortion, attempts at psychological healing are similarly run by organizations with a agenda. Unfortunately, helping the patient is secondary to the agenda of the caregiver. This pisses me off. Organizations generally suck, and they especially suck when empathy and compassion are needed. Organizations cannot do this. Only people can.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Hard core PRO CHOICE
Forever. That's what I am about today.
There's just no goddamn reason in the world why some self-righteous God lover should EVER take that option out of a woman's hand. Especially when said self-righteous God lover has testicles. She with the uterus is in charge of the contents therein. If there is a Creator, He created us that way. If God were like these men he would surely stick his pointy self in the middle of her business. If God were a woman she would surely leave it up to her sister to decide, as she is a compassionate being. If God were both man and woman, it would be a very confused thing.
I think (and being me, I am the most righteous me I know) that no human being truly knows God. Therefore, the laws and moral preachers should defer to the person that reproduction affects most directly: the person who has the uterus.
There's just no goddamn reason in the world why some self-righteous God lover should EVER take that option out of a woman's hand. Especially when said self-righteous God lover has testicles. She with the uterus is in charge of the contents therein. If there is a Creator, He created us that way. If God were like these men he would surely stick his pointy self in the middle of her business. If God were a woman she would surely leave it up to her sister to decide, as she is a compassionate being. If God were both man and woman, it would be a very confused thing.
I think (and being me, I am the most righteous me I know) that no human being truly knows God. Therefore, the laws and moral preachers should defer to the person that reproduction affects most directly: the person who has the uterus.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
How to fix US financial markets
I agree with Barney.
Frank renews call to regulate financial markets
March 20, 2008 11:06 AM
From The Boston Globe
Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the excesses of the subprime mortgage crisis will result in a new era of regulation, similar to those that broke the monopolistic trusts of the early 20th century and restored the financial system following the Great Depression.
Frank, addressing the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said most problem mortgages, which have led to record foreclosures and infected financial markets where mortgage-backed securities are traded, emerged from lightly regulated or unregulated sectors of the financial system, such as mortgage brokers and investment banks. Commercial and savings banks, subject to much stricter oversight, didn't write the risky loans to people unable to pay them back, Frank said.
"We now see a situation that more damage was done by inadequate regulation," Frank said. "What we have is a systemic problem, and that's what we want to address. Sensible regulation is pro-market because it can instill confidence."
Frank, noting Congress must first address the immediate threat of rising home foreclosure, said he expects to take up legislation next year to put in place new regulations, such requiring investment bank to operate under rules similar to commercial banks. Investment banks buy mortgage loans, bundle them into mortgage-backed securities and buy and sell them for profit.
This system, which relieves lenders of the risk and responsibility of collecting loans, has broken the "discipline of the lender-borrower relationship," and which regulation ultimately must restore, Frank said. In other words, he said, "You don't make loans if you don't think people will pay you back."
(By Robert Gavin, Globe staff)
Frank renews call to regulate financial markets
March 20, 2008 11:06 AM
From The Boston Globe
Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the excesses of the subprime mortgage crisis will result in a new era of regulation, similar to those that broke the monopolistic trusts of the early 20th century and restored the financial system following the Great Depression.
Frank, addressing the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said most problem mortgages, which have led to record foreclosures and infected financial markets where mortgage-backed securities are traded, emerged from lightly regulated or unregulated sectors of the financial system, such as mortgage brokers and investment banks. Commercial and savings banks, subject to much stricter oversight, didn't write the risky loans to people unable to pay them back, Frank said.
"We now see a situation that more damage was done by inadequate regulation," Frank said. "What we have is a systemic problem, and that's what we want to address. Sensible regulation is pro-market because it can instill confidence."
Frank, noting Congress must first address the immediate threat of rising home foreclosure, said he expects to take up legislation next year to put in place new regulations, such requiring investment bank to operate under rules similar to commercial banks. Investment banks buy mortgage loans, bundle them into mortgage-backed securities and buy and sell them for profit.
This system, which relieves lenders of the risk and responsibility of collecting loans, has broken the "discipline of the lender-borrower relationship," and which regulation ultimately must restore, Frank said. In other words, he said, "You don't make loans if you don't think people will pay you back."
(By Robert Gavin, Globe staff)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Great quote from Joseph Stiglitz on McCain
Q: The economic costs have now come back to undermine the whole post-9/11 security effort. When John McCain says he's not interested in and doesn't understand the economic aspect of things, and only knows about how to keep America safe, what does that say about his leadership capability?
Stiglitz: If he doesn't understand the economy, he doesn't understand security. If we had infinite resources, we might be able to have perfect security. But America, like every other country, has resource constraints. That means you need to be smart -- that is, economic -- about the money we spend. If you weaken the American economy, you won't be able to find the resources you need for security. The two cannot be separated.
Stiglitz: If he doesn't understand the economy, he doesn't understand security. If we had infinite resources, we might be able to have perfect security. But America, like every other country, has resource constraints. That means you need to be smart -- that is, economic -- about the money we spend. If you weaken the American economy, you won't be able to find the resources you need for security. The two cannot be separated.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Obama OK
The endorsements swung me his way: John Kerry, Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, Hulk Hogan. An impressive list for sure.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Edwards is out
I'm bummed. He was the most liberal of the three Dems.
I don't have a preference between Clinton and Obama. Both are pretty moderate. I can see the huge differences in the resumes and styles, I just don't really care about that stuff. Maybe I'll participate in Super Tuesday - maybe not.
I don't have a preference between Clinton and Obama. Both are pretty moderate. I can see the huge differences in the resumes and styles, I just don't really care about that stuff. Maybe I'll participate in Super Tuesday - maybe not.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
John McCain - Mr. Honesty
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." - John McCain, November 2007 Wall Street Journal.
I think Sen McCain is cruising for the nomination. Given the state of our economy, the ignorance of the current President, and my fascination with economic policy - I hope this guy loses. Economic education should have been a priority for Sen McCain a long long time ago.
I think Sen McCain is cruising for the nomination. Given the state of our economy, the ignorance of the current President, and my fascination with economic policy - I hope this guy loses. Economic education should have been a priority for Sen McCain a long long time ago.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Stimulate my economy, please
I don't know what our President will propose today, but of the stuff I've heard tossed about I do know what would do me the most good. $1,600 US Treasury cash into my family's hands and increases to Unemployment Insurance benefits would stimulate me. Neither of these things is going to induce me to buy stocks or a home, but it will make me feel marginally more comfortable in my checking account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
