Different Voices on the Financial Crisis

I've been trying to educate myself on the financial mess lately, but the more I read and listen the more questions I have. How soon and how intense does the government need to act? Should the bail out be smaller than 700B? How can the people be protected, while allowing the responsible parties to reap the deserved consequences? Should we have a bail out at all? Is the government to blame? What I think everyone agrees on is that it all boils down to greed. But here's what I've been reading lately.

From Ron Paul:
"The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.
It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.
The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector."

-There's probably much truth to this, but I strongly disagree with the idea of just letting the market do it's thing.

From Fareed Zarkaria:
"The first task remains to bolster confidence. The next is to devise a workable and flexible plan to dispose of the mountains of assets that the government is taking over. Then, after some thought and analysis, should come the fixes needed to better structure America's massive and complex financial markets.
Some problems require more regulations. Firms that are deemed too large to fail should also be deemed too large to be leveraged at 35 to 1. Some problems require better regulations. For instance, the rule forcing financial institutions to mark their assets down to "market prices"—even when these are distressed prices and firms do not intend to sell the assets any time soon—created a crazy downward spiral. Still other problems require less state intervention. Why should the government insure Fannie Mae's risky profit-seeking behavior?
This crisis should put an end to false debates about government versus markets. Governments create markets, and markets can exist only with regulation. If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia. The real trick is to craft good regulations that allow markets to work well. No regulatory structure will be perfect, none will eliminate risk, nor should they. At best they can tame the wildest gyrations of the market economy while maintaining its efficiency."
-I especially like his point: "If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia."

From Robert Samuelson:
"Greed and fear, which routinely govern financial markets, have seeded this global crisis. Just when it will end isn't clear. What is clear is that its origins lie in the ways that Wall Street -- the giant investment houses, brokerage firms, hedge funds and "private equity" firms -- has changed since 1980."
-This is a great and informative column.

From Paul Krugman:
"I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:
1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.
2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.
3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.
4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”...
The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.
That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)
But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal."

Brilliant

Calling all rednecks
To put down their sluggers
And turn their attention
From beating the buggers
Pick up machine guns
And kill camel-fuckers

Backwoods nation

Calling all doctors
Of spin and the smokescreen
To whip the new hate-triots
Into a frenzy
Of good versus evil
Ignoring the history
Of the backwoods nation

Ain't it a shame?
When due process
Stands in the way
Of swift justice

Calling all frat boys
To trade in their hazing
Their keggers and cocaine
And casual date-raping
For cabinet appointments
And rose garden tapings

Backwoods...
Backwoods...
Backwoods nation.

-David Bazan

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pitbull, But it's Still a Pitbull

I want to be Bi-Partisan. I really do!! But Republicans are making it just so hard. Sure Obama is using this whole lipstick non-sense to scold the McCain campaign and score political points, but at the same time Obama is right to scold them. It's just idiotic! Anybody who does just a little bit of research knows that Obama was not calling Palin a pig. It's a figure of speech John McCain has used numerous times. Even Bill O'Reilly has got Obama's back on this! But, who knows, after that interview, maybe he's now smitten with Barry as well.

Anyways, Obama is calling this Swiftboat politics. How ironic Palin supporter, Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift had this to say: "She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick."

Shameless. Thank God, they're taking a break for 9-11.

Source

The O'bama Factor

I used to love Bill O'Reilly. I watched his show every night; I read his first two books; and I did a book report for my political science class on his second book. I was a huge fan, and without going into the reasons why I no longer am, I was still very excited to see his interview with Barack Obama. Like a child running to the Christmas tree on Christmas morning, I have, since we recently down-graded our cable, been running to the computer every morning and checking O'Reilly's Fox News site to see the latest installment of this interview. And I've been pleased with what I've seen thus far. This has been a good interview for a few reasons: O'Reilly is hostile territory and if Obama does well with Bill, then he can do well with anyone; O'Reilly has been extremely tough and will argue his own opinion and analysis against Obama; and Obama has responded well and argued right back.

The third installment was what I was most eager and anxious to see, as it was to cover Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger. Obama, like the other installments, handled the questions masterfully and remained civil but firm with O'Reilly. He successfully argued that Ayers, Wright and Pfleger were doing work in the community when he was doing work in the community, and that was how the associations were formed. He argued that all of their views are not his views, and linking him to them is nothing but classic GBA, which it most certainly is.

What drove me crazy the most in this interview was O'Reilly's yelling when there was absolutely no reason to yell. O'Reilly is incapable of having a reasoned and calm discussion over hot-button issues. However, I must say that in the second installment Bill made a good point that I do not believe Obama successfully answered. He argued that poverty has increased because immigration has increased. Robert Samuelson, who has an excellent column, argues this as well.

So, overall, I've got to give it up for O'Reilly. He has conducted a, sometimes unnecessarily hostile, but good interview and put the heat on Obama. And Obama has performed well himself coming right back with reasoned and solid answers. O'Reilly's interview far outshines Keith Olbermann's which was a complete joke. I can only stomach so much ass-kissing whether or not I agree with said individuals. We'll see if Republican starlet Sarah Palin comes on the factor, and if Bill is just as intense. And hopefully this interview has some O'Reilly fans thinking twice about Obama.

Bias and Propaganda: MSNBC and Olbermann Do the Right Thing

While I love Harball, and I think that Chris Matthews-- despite it being obvious he supports the Democrats-- runs a fair show where issues are debated in a balanced and civilized way, I completely agree with MSNBC's decision to remove Matthews and Keith Olbermann from the election coverage. Olbermann, of course, is the liberal version of O'Reilly. And although I think he's much more articulate and intelligent than Bill, because he is so blatantly one-sided, I have hardly ever watched Countdown. Having those two cover the election would be like having O'Reilly and Sean Hannity cover the election on Fox News. There would be absolutely no objectivity. So MSNBC is right to remove them and put in Gregory.

That said, I think that the 9-11 video in question that Olbermann apologized for was exploitative and pure propaganda. What it did was to, once again, conjure up these primal, visceral emotions; emotions that one should never act, nor make decisions upon. It also, once again, painted America as the holy, sacred beacon of freedom, and the terrorists as the enemy of that freedom. These raw emotions that are elicited from the graphic footage from 9-11 that the video portrayed, coupled with manichean language, is a dangerous concoction that neoconservatives use time and time again to rally people in support of their militaristic and imperial foreign policy. We do not need more leaders who say "bring 'em on" in response to attacks on America. We cannot have another Yosemite Sam occupying the White house. That prospect scares me more than the possibility of another attack.

Olbermann was right to apologize, but he should have waited to do it on his own show.

And Just to be Fair...

Yahoo also posted this AP article fact-checking speeches made at the DNC.

Fact-Checking the RNC

Yahoo just posted this AP article on their home page analyzing speeches made at the RNC.

The RNC Thus Far

So I got to listen to Senator Lieberman's speech last night. In '04 I longed for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, so it was kind of surreal watching him give a speech at the RNC. There were so many times in his speech that just seemed so awkward. Like the time he brought up McCain courageously reaching across the isle for campaign finance reform... Uh, didn't like 99.9% of Republicans despise him for that? But, I guess that would go for every time he talked about McCain "reaching across the isle." They hate him for that! There was talk of him being Kerry's running mate just four years ago, and unfortunately I was listening to it on the radio so I couldn't see the audience reaction. But I got some laughs, even though McCains's centrism and willingness to work with the other side is what I use to love about him.

I read an article tonight about Guiliani's speech, which just seemed to be a bunch of fear-mongering, and just now I suffered through my first Sarah Palin speech. I say suffered in all seriousness because I struggled to keep my dinner down as she went on and on about her down-home, folksy, leave-it to beaver, little house on the frozen prairie, life wrestling grizzly bears and exploiting her perfect, beautiful son with Downs Syndrome. Oh... do I sound a little angry and negative? Sorry, I'm just still in the moment I guess. How could one not be after listening to childish attack after childish attack? I heard some people thought Obama's speech was negative; I guess McCain's found his attack dog. And you gotta love how she trashed community organizers; apparently they don't have any responsibilities. Like I said, childish...

And I guess Mike -Fox Noise Channel- Huckabee spoke about how the media is being unfair to Republicans..... I'm just gonna stop now... I'm hoping the best for McCain's speech.