Problems with McCain/Palin

[Anonymous]

Here are some columns outlining problems with McCain/Palin. I'd love to hear what those considering McCain, but on the fence, think. I think it's interesting that David Brooks, who I think is a conservative columnist, finds fault with the choice of Palin, and mentions other conservative columnists who have similar concerns. But the unsigned editorial about McCain is probably more damning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/opinion/17wed1.html?em

[Anonymous]

McCain's comment about the economy being fundamentally sound (or whatever it was) is definitely troubling. I can't begin to think what he meant by that. But I agree with him on this part (cited from the McCain article): "As for Wall Street, Mr. McCain blamed the meltdown on “unbridled corruption and greed.” He called for a commission to find out what happened and propose solutions. His diagnosis and his cure are misguided. The crisis on Wall Street is fundamentally a failure to do the things that temper, detect and punish corruption and greed. It was a failure to police the markets, to enforce rules, to heed and sound warnings and expose questionable products and practices."

So, let's recap: McCain says markets failed because of corruption and greed. Article says essentially the same thing: markets failed because of a failure in government to detect and punish corruption and greed. Couple that with the following from the other article cited: "Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman" Sounds like a good team to me.

[Anonymous]

Mmm, I think by "corrupt establishment," he was referring to shaking up party bosses, re Alaska. That's not the same as prudent governance and wise use of a regulatory structure.

[Anonymous]

McCain has been one of the strongest advocates AGAINST regulating financial markets and doing anything to stem unbridled greed. His proposal to create a committee to investigate is simply a way to deflect any action. There are some valid economic reasons as to why you might not support any regulation and continue to fuel bubbles (though you have to be willing to experience the bursts) but he is being incredibly dishonest by not standing by his principals and trying to appear that he takes the other position.

My favorite comment was when he said that he would be a stop to outrageous CEO salaries on a stump. How exactly would he plan to do that? I know of no executive authority to control private sector salaries. If he has fought against any oversight or regulation of the financial markets, how on earth does he plan to control at that level? He doesn't and he is just lying again to try to foll voters. He doesn't support taxes on businesses or corporation let alone the wealthy who make the outrageous salaries.

I would respect McCain more if he could be honest for one day. He has lost all trust IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: "As for Wall Street, Mr. McCain blamed the meltdown on “unbridled corruption and greed.” He called for a commission to find out what happened and propose solutions. His diagnosis and his cure are misguided.

I don't see the point of having another commission tell us what we already know. How much did that last commission's study on WMD, Iraq cost? $30 mm+? It seems like he wants to go thru the steps to say he made an attempt to find solutions. He himself admitted that he didn't understand economics.

[Anonymous]

How does McCain plan on eradicating corporate greed? is he going to create a new human race that isn't greedy???

[Anonymous]

Phil Gramm was one of McCain's chief economic advisors until his unfortunate comment that we were all a bunch of whiners.

Gramm was one of three senators responsible for passing banking regulation reform laws.

From wikipedia:

"Later in his Senate career, Gramm spearheaded efforts to pass banking reform laws, including the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which modernized Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities."

"This act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had "prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services."

You can read more about what people think about this act and the effect it had on the current mortgage crisis here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

[Anonymous]

I hope some of the undecided people on this board read that article from above - and I hope they see what a mess these greedy congressmen turned wall street executives have made for the entire nation, but yet McCain still "consults" with them to guide his economic policy. makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

McCain guru linked to subprime crisis

The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

[Anonymous]

It was a good article. The sad thing about this is that there are corporate execs that made millions before the subprime loans imploded and probably have at least one luxury home in Florida right about now. Meanwhile we are having joint press conferences with FDIC, SEC, Treasury, Fed Reserve and the President etc. to keep us from having a full-blown panic in the market. I mean, when I heard analysts on the news talking about money market funds losing money (the nearest thing you can get to cash) I said oh h%ll, am I going to have to put cash under the mattress? I can't remember the line about capitalizing the profit and subsidizing the losses - but it's true. You can say - oh the market will work it out - let's not put limits on companies - let them be able to make as much profit as possible AND let's cut the tax rate so they can keep more of those profits and reinvest it in the country etc. but the problem is when things go south - they can go way south. I don't think anyone - especially in an election year - is prepared to use tough love and say let the market work it out and potentially spiral into a depression without any government intervention.