In a recent article, politics bloggers at The Atlantic hypothesized that, the more the election veers into personality, the better it suits McCain; as a converse, the more the election is about the country’s “direction,” the better for Obama. Thus, on the economy issue (which goes more to “direction”), Obama wins. We concur. Obama has to make this election about direction: if McCain pushes “experience,” Obama should push back by parsing the difference between “experience” and “judgment” to emphasize McCain’s lack of the latter.
That distinction is often subtle. Alternately, Obama could try a blunt approach, and take a cue from Ronald Reagan:
Attack ad lovingly crafted (in about half an hour… does it show?) by yours truly.
The difference between reagan’s comments and the hypothetical comments from Obama are that Reagan was running against an incumbent and Obama isn’t.
Based on what i saw last night, the choice is surprisingly simple: If you think the government should tinker around with our financial markets and give you lots of entitlement perks, vote for Obama. If you think the president should mostly leave economic matters to the free market and Congress and concentrate on his responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as our representative to the rest of the world, vote for McCain.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 27, 2008, 9:45 pmIt’s only simple because that’s a reductionist version of it.
Posted by Oneiroi | September 27, 2008, 10:12 pmUh, PC, in case you hadn’t noticed – what we have now IS what happens when you “leave economic matters to the free market”. Truth is that an unregulated free market economy leads to financial excesses just as lasse faire capitalism leads to great depressions. And a global free market economy leads to disasters for “richer” nations who cannot compete with cheap labor from “poorer” nations.
Posted by Oldfart | September 28, 2008, 8:42 amOF, So your position is that the market functions best when heavily controlled by the government. Is that correct? If that is the case, then would you say that wealth creation is still the primary goal of the market, or would you willing to accept significantly less wealth, so long as it was more equally distributed?
I know I’ve asked this question here and elsewhere at least a dozen times lately, but what the heck, maybe I’ll finally get an answer: If the free market is so bad, and regulation so good, then why did F & F, the two most heavily regulated companies in this country, both fail? And if regulation is so great, then why was Obama opposed to McCain’s request for more oversight of F & F in 2005?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 28, 2008, 11:24 amUh – no – I don’t believe I ever said anything like “heavily-regulated” so don’t put words in my mouth.
I DID mention “unregulated” and “lasse faire” in case you have difficulty reading.
As for F & F, you forget who was regulating them. Or NOT as the case might be. How you can even bring that up as a legitimate question during an Administration which has ignored both the constitution and regulatory laws for the last 8 years is beyond me. Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot?
As for the 2005 bill, as usual, there are many reasons why someone would vote for or against any particular bill. For instance, why did McSame vote against Webb’s Veteran’s Benefits bill?
Posted by Oldfart | September 28, 2008, 12:30 pmSo you prefer a moderately regulated economy? Where is the line?What is the prinmary goal of the market?
As for F&F, I would happy to discuss them ad nauseum. We can discuss how a Democratic Congress required them to make more low to moderate income loans beginning in 1992. We can talk about how their two vice-chairmen accused of the greatest wrongdoing were prominent Clinton officials and a third lead Obama’s VP search. We can talk about how there were two attempts made by Republicans to bring F & F under control (2003 and 2005) and both were heavily resisted by Democrats. We can talk about how the top four beneficiaries of F&F lobbying are all Democrats (Dodd, Obama, Kerry, Clinton).
F&F were heavily regulated for a long time. The problem is that regulation brings closer relationships with politicians. That means more need for lobbying. Then politicians that are dependent on those lobbying dollars. Then politicians willing to ignore abuses.
F&F has been a way for Democrats to fatten their post politics bank accounts for a long time. And they ran the company into the ground.
Honestly, do you really think it benefits any business to have the federal government mandate 40%+ of your loans be made to higher risker borrowers?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 28, 2008, 6:54 pmYou will have to actually LINK to proof that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were FORCED to make bad mortgage loans. I have just this morning read the opposite. That there were controls put in place to avoid that. As for the largess from Fannie and Freddie – they gave freely to both sides. Their goal was deregulation and they didn’t care where it came from. And it came from the right. Just ask the lobbyists who run the McCain campaign many of whom are STILL BEING PAID……
Posted by Oldfart | September 30, 2008, 8:32 amBTW, I would have given a link to what I read concerning protections against bad loans written for Fannie and Freddie but I didn’t know it would be important later so I didn’t keep the link.
Posted by Oldfart | September 30, 2008, 8:34 amFrom the LA Times in 1999:
“The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
Here is some more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Clinton_Administration_Changes_of_1995
http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/clinton-admits-blame-for-subprime-lending-lies-with-his-administration/
These are just three quick examples. I could literally find dozens more if you need me to.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 30, 2008, 9:44 am