A friend serving in the Bush administration called Sunday to try to talk me out of my doubts about the $700 billion financial bailout the administration was asking Congress to approve. I picked up the phone, and made the mistake of good-naturedly remarking, in my best imitation of Oliver Hardy, “Well, this is a fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”
People who’ve been working 18-hour days trying to avert a meltdown are entitled to bristle at jocular comments from those of us not in public office. So he bristled. He then tried to persuade me that the only responsible course of action was to support the administration’s request.
I’m not convinced.
I think William Kristol is one of the most insightful called upon for his opinion. He’s also calm in the storm. I listen to him carefully.
Interesting how Paul Krugman came to the same viewpoint. Albert Hunt of Bloomberg compared McCain’s and Obama’s response very succinctly.
As another conservative noted – how can we defend this bailout while not bailing out others?
If anyone reading this is inclined to play the lottery, I’d pick the numbers 9, 22 and 8. I’m in agreement with John and COLUMCIL. I see too many pigs pushing their snouts into this emergency trough already, from all corners. Time is of the essence, but that doesn’t mean discernment is tossed out the window.
Are we helping or enabling?
It might be pointed out, too, John, that the muted, measured response of Obama’s cheered by Al Hunt might well be due to the fact that he and his party are up to their eyeballs in Fannie and Freddie, protecting the GSEs’ piracy and taking their plunder while those rapacious and regulation-hating guys like John McCain were trying to get them to take in a reef or six.
Jefferson, I’m not sure what your point is. You’re accusing Obama of going along with Democrats? Of raising money? You think Democrats didn’t, or weren’t supposed to drink the koolaid? You must have me mistaken for another dewey-eyed idealist. Obama is a pragmatist, as the Hunt article notes. He works within the system. Pretty experienced and reliable. Obama is the conservative, responsible candidate here, not the impusive one.
Are you seeking to whitewash the years of Republican … “oversight?” Congress was essentially Republican from 1994-2006. There are a couple laws I’d introduce you to.
After Greenspan said that investment in the US would only give a 1% return, investors chose Freddie and Fannie because they thought they would be as sound as securities.
We’re looking at greed all around, Jefferson. Let’s just say that those who cry loudest for deregulation, seem to be the ones crying to the government for a bailout. They guys now asking for taxpayer money were the ones who didn’t want their own bonuses taxed.
Taxes are one way to ensure that the wealthy pay for their own bailout. It would hit both rich Democrats and Republicans. Unless you expect them to reinvest it in the economy again. Easier than a cap on compensation. A good way to recover the money that was made fraudulently.
You know what my point is, John. Greed isn’t a vice reserved for Wall Street, nor even for those seeking monetary gain. The alarm was being sounded for years on F/F, yet those who were making the most money from the scam were the ones standing at the gates making sure nothing happened to derail the gravy train.
“Yet those who were making the most money from the scam were the ones standing at the gates making sure nothing happened to derail the gravy train.”
And those were, in large part, Democrats. They were, and they still are, trying to make sure that lending institutions approve loans for those who cannot afford them. Have you listened to Nancy Pelosi the past few days? She keeps repeating the phrase “the Bush plan lacks ‘necessary safeguards’ in several areas.” Among those safeguards, she wants to make sure people keep their houses….even when they cannot afford them. It’s socialism, which Pelosi and Obama are all about.
#6 Obama received some $ 111,849 from Freddie and Fannie and blocked the bill that would have regulated those entities, and saved us a large part of this mess. That’s way more than anybody else.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html
Obama’s wife received a $ 200,000 dollar pay raise at her job at a Chicago hospital, going from a $ 150,000 “diversity coordinator” (whatever that means) to “vice president of external affairs at $ 350,000. Immediately afterwards, Obama put in his list of earmarks prominantly giving the hospital a million bucks.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/05/michelle-obama-america-just-downright-mean
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/michelle_obamas_hospital.html
Yeah, the O sounds “pragmatic” to me.
Nice work if you can get it.
I’m amused by the attempt to excuse Republicans. I’m fine with blaming Democrats. I don’t think I’ve have to work to hard to trace deregulation to Republicans, so I’m not. I’m no partisan hack.
enjoy blaming Democrats. You’ve had a Republican president for 8 years who’s had authoritarian power in lots of things. Its his administration doing this. He doesn’t have to.
[blockquote] I’m no partisan hack.[/blockquote]
11 and 10 were silly.
John W. has a problem with the War Powers Act, so he extrapolates to banking regulation. Jeffersonian resorts to ad hominems. Come on kids…
Obama (as do other Democrats in other amounts) has a big problem as the #3 recipient of F&F;lobby funds. The GOP has a big problem with its custody of Congress from 1994-2006. The [b]real issue[/b] for the US is that the trough is so huge that the pigs cannot be told from the farmers.
#11 tu quoque.
#12, I admire your levelheadedness but I’m unclear about your reference. The pigs and farmers note is true.
The head of Lehman Brothers took home $449,000,000 each year for the past 5 years? The “gravy train” was real….and now we are supposed to pay for it? Why???
#10 John Wilkens,
12 different times the Bush Administration and Republicans tried to warn congress of the coming crisis and made recommendations to fix the problem. Each time Democrats blocked it. Blame Bush. After all he caused hurricane Katrina which targeted blacks too. For a man who is reputed to be an ignorant dummy, it is amazing that Bush has often accomplished feats normally attributed to God and nature.
The Bush Administration has a mixed record on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
From 2001 to 2003, the administration did virtually nothing.
In the summer of 2003, accounting scandals at Fannie and Freddie shook the administration out of its torpor. For the next three years the administration compiled an excellent record.
That ended with the arrival of Secretary Paulson, who took office with a deregulatory agenda (e.g., bolstering New York City’s international standing as a financial center) and did not regard Fannie and Freddie as serious problems.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Fannie and Freddie were, in any event, a thoroughly corrupting influence on government policy. They were also throughly bipartisan in their largesse. The roster of people in their pay reads like a Washington Who’s Who. Anyone who speaks as though Fannie and Freddie had roped themselves to a single political party is lying or uninformed.