Why McCain's Financial Regulatory Plan is Ignored

[waterboy]

I thought I posted this earlier but couldn't find it in the archives. A poster in California makes a very astute observation about who is best equipped to handle any financial market problems. He made this remark early in the week before Mc's new MF plan and his angry outburst suggesting the POTUS should fire the president of the SEC whom he has no authority over, erupted like a pimple on Bush's butt.

He writes:

"The Republicans stand for real business investment, that is the new investments by which labor productivity is increased and new products offered. They are to be praised for that; the Democrats sometimes suggest that maximum growth via real productive investment should not be pursued at the expense of the environment, labor standards, explosive inequality, and social cohesion.
But there is no denying the importance of what the Republicans stand for.

Yet at present the financial sector is not unraveling due to the lack of real business investment; rather the financial sector is undermining real business investment. And the financial sector can't be fixed by free market fundamentalists. Those allergic to the government and those who scapegoat the government are not well suited to work out the new relations we already do have between the government and the financial sector as a result of the astounding recent interventions. People don't want to hear that we need less government or that the government is the cause of the problem; [/b]they want someone who can successfully regulate the financial sector and bail it on terms that don't panic the markets and produce even more problems in the long term.
Obama has the temperament for such non ideological and pragmatic intervention.

McCain and Gramm are simply free market ideologues who are so hateful of government regulation that they can't be trusted to do their job."

No wonder that in California McCain lags far behind in every poll.

[Conan71]

A blogger said it, so it must be true...

[waterboy]

No Conan, it wasn't a blogger. It was a respondent to a newspaper article that had just noted Palin had cancelled her engagement in front of 15000 rabid fans in Orange County probably because of the impending financial news. He was just doing what we're doing here.

The questions are begging then, even if he makes a good, insightful response- he may be waved off because you think he's just a blogger? Are the only real good responses coming from the news shows and the campaign headquarters?

I sense he's either that independent slice of the demographic that is so important in this election or a disenchanted republican businessman who knows something about the parties.

Either way, his logic is hard to disagree with.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

No Conan, it wasn't a blogger. It was a respondent to a newspaper article that had just noted Palin had cancelled her engagement in front of 15000 rabid fans in Orange County probably because of the impending financial news. He was just doing what we're doing here.

The questions are begging then, even if he makes a good, insightful response- he may be waved off because you think he's just a blogger? Are the only real good responses coming from the news shows and the campaign headquarters?

I sense he's either that independent slice of the demographic that is so important in this election or a disenchanted republican businessman who knows something about the parties.

Either way, his logic is hard to disagree with.

You are forgetting Conan's first rule of politics:

"His logic doesn't fit my paradigm, therefore it is incorrect."

Conan's 154th rule of politics is:

"'Posters' whether it's on radio, TV, or newspaper commment sections are essentially bloggers and their commentary carries the same weight as people who actually take the time to maintain their own blogs instead of posting on other's sites."

When all else fails, refer to rule #1 stated above.