After watching the debate it strikes me that Obama missed a golden opportunity to really make the case against deregulation in a way that would connect with the American voters.
He probably did well enough to win the election, but he should have destroyed McCain who was sitting there in the midst of this crisis like a fat clay pigeon.
We're in this crisis because conservative Congressmen like John McCain and their corporate lobbyist allies pushed "deregulation, free the markets" as a governing idea.
"With lobbying led by Roger Levy [Citigroup Chairman], the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the [Glass-Steagall] act."
John McCain is now trying to recast himself as a "reformer" and Obama should have destroyed him on this issue!
John McCain has long been a champion of exactly this kind of market "deregulation" that has led to the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression and Obama should have hammered this point home during the debate when he had the national audience.
It's government DE-Regulation, the Enron loophole, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, etc. that have caused the crisis
McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition: A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.
Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.
The argument AGAINST deregulation was that:
- Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
- Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).
Capitalism was supposed to regulate itself. Take the dead hand of government off of business, and watch the economic boom! Well that was always a vast stupidity, and now we see the result. And McCain was a major champion of deregulation, with Phil Graham as his economic adviser -- the corrupt Senator mostly responsible for the current disaster!
That kind of argument would resonate with voters right now. And winning this election while making that kind of populist argument would insulate us in the future from further such attempts by Republicans who really still believe this garbage, to further destroy government regulation.
We could have used government programs to guarantee mortgages and expand home ownership, just as many already do, without allowing banks, insurance companies and financial services companies to make these kinds of wild and shaky investments that are now bringing the entire economy down.
The American people are waiting for a real explanation why THEIR financial future is being threatened.
Angry mobs of peopleare now congregating outside Wall Street to protest the bailout. There's an increasing groundswell of popular ANGER about this.
"As politicians and business leaders struggle to reach a deal on a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, anger is reaching the boiling point on Main Street if readers’ e-mails to msnbc.com are any indication.
Some 300 protesters lashed out against a proposed $700 billion government bailout of the financial sector on Thursday. Demonstrators on on Wall Street in New York chanted: "You broke it, you bought it," and "bail me out, too!"
. . . . the overriding message was one of righteous indignation from those who see the American dream receding.
"I have had to pull from my 401(k) to make ends meet," wrote one reader, Anita Vasquez of Albuquerque, N.M., who was laid off a year ago and ended up taking a job for half the pay. The idea of the massive "payoff" to Wall Street makes the 54-year-old apoplectic, or, as she put it, "pissed off in New Mexico!"
Similar messages came from all corners of the country.
"I am 70 years old and still working because I cannot afford not to," said Patricia Lacroix of Methuen, Mass. "Because of greed and corruption, it has come to this. ... Help the middle class now!"
"My greatest concern is being able to send my 16-year-old son to college," wrote another reader, Angela Cilluffa of Covington, La. "I have started to research scholarships, grants and loans, but I am afraid they will not come through. My son works very hard in school and is doing very well. He deserves every opportunity."
People didn't do anything wrong, and all we hear from Republicans is that somehow PEOPLE caused this by greedily wanting to own their own home, and not understanding the fine print of adjustable rate mortgages and other abusive lending practices.
Obama should have used this opportunity to demand real reform to protect homeowners, for instance. Why shouldn't people squeezed into foreclosure be protected and helped by allowing the bankruptcy courts to modify the terms of their mortgages to keep them in their homes -- because the banking industry is opposed? Screw the Banking industry! Why are we listening to their interests at a time like this as opposed to the people's interest?