McCain to Homeowners: Drop Dead

John McCain, unlike his Democratic rivals, seems indifferent to the problems of struggling Americans. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich captured McCain's stance when --on ABC's "This Week" roundtable--he called the Republican nominee the "let them eat cake" candidate.

In these days, when as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman points out, " even free-market enthusiasts are talking about increased regulation of securities firms now that the fed has shown that it will rush to their rescue if they get in trouble...Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills."

It's hard to remember that even Herbert Hoover had more compassion when it came to preventing mass foreclosures of homes and farms. As Susan Dunn, the co-author with James MacGregor Burns of "The Three Roosevelts," reminds us in a smart (March 27) letter to the New York Times: "...in November 1931, even President Herbert Hoover proposed--and Congress later passed--the Home Loan Discount Bank System to reduce foreclosures and encourage home construction. Hoover also established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to provide liquidity to banks and restore confidence in the banking system. It is a remarkable feat for a politician running for president to be even more out of touch and indifferent to the economic distress of Americans than President Hoover."

Yes it is.

Comments (78)

1. KAT, A little quick on the draw, aren't you? After all, the situation is still unfolding, no need in making things any worse with half baked proposals that will only encourage people to wait for a government bail-out......In fact, the fallacy of doing so conjures up memories of Katrina (Hurricane, that is)

   Posted by TransitDave at 03/30/2008 @ 6:43pm

2. "Eat cake, because prosperity is just around the corner."

   Your friend,

   100-year McCain

   Posted by Egalitare at 03/30/2008 @ 8:35pm

3. Wow. I'm speechless.

   Transitdave, you must be remembering a very different Hurricane Katrina from one the rest of us saw, if you think that the lesson of that event was that the government should just sit on its hands for as long as possible, and keep hoping that things will take care of themselves.

   That sure isn't what I concluded, as I watched New Orleans get destroyed, while Bush and his friends kept suggesting that they had everything under control.

   Posted by maddox at 03/30/2008 @ 8:37pm

4. Hmm, yes, McCain's disagreement about the method by which a crisis should be solved DOES totally indicate that he just doesn't care...oh wait, no, that's a bad argument because it implies that anyone who disagrees with you on remedies to a problem is just a bad person. Even if McCain is incorrect on how the problem should be solved, skepticism towards government solutions does not even remotely indicate vicious or apathetic motives.

   Posted by Thrawn at 03/30/2008 @ 8:48pm

5. That was an exciting move by ABC to have both of the most cogent and articulate economists on the same show. I think old George deserves a little pat on the back for this one. I was even impressed by r. Wills, but then i usually am, I just don't often agree with him. I though I was the only one in the world that knew that old Alan had suggested the variable rate mortgage as viable remember when old George Bush Jr. met with Alan at the beginning of his administration and shortly thereafter the super low mortgages interests were released. Mortgages were at lower interest than what banks were paying on savings. Now old Alan is saying that it was a absolute train wreck waiting to happen. I suspect that Alan allowed the federal reserve to be politicized and now that people can't pay for food transportation heating and loans ah well sorry. McCain did admit he didn't know much about economics.

   Posted by julien38 at 03/30/2008 @ 8:49pm

6. ZERO, Just trying to clarify: the bulk of current financial problems (2008) stem from:

   1- 1995–1999 (Clinton/Rubin years)? and 2- Rubin's recent CEO chairmanship

   You don't believe current financial problems in USA (2008) also result from Bush / Greenspan? Or some other factor(s)?

   Posted by winyahn at 03/30/2008 @ 9:22pm

7. Ninety four percent of all mortgages in this country are sound. The vast majority of the six percent that are now unable to pay their mortgage purchased variable rate loans. Many of those were people who were trying to flip homes. It is not the responsibilty of the federal government to come and bail our butts out everytime we make a poor financial decision. I have a novel idea---people should take responsibility for their own actions and decisions---wow what a concept.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 03/30/2008 @ 9:59pm

8. "even President Herbert Hoover proposed--and Congress later passed--the Home Loan Discount Bank System to reduce foreclosures and encourage home construction. Hoover also established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation..."

   And yet many of our historically illiterate friends here, still think of poor Herbert as an un-caring bastard...hell, a good chunk of them think he CAUSED the Depression, despite the fact he had barely been in office 7 months before the Crash hit.

   On-topic, I don't the the "housing crunch" will be McCain's biggest economic problem...but the stagnant economy in general this summer. He'll do his "Read my lips" speech at the Convention, of course. But if he should win, watch him to do an about-face on many of his conservative supporters...to try and stave off a veto-proof Congress in 2010 and his own ouster in 2012.

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2008 @ 10:05pm

9. Wow. I'm speechless.

   Transitdave, you must be remembering a very different Hurricane Katrina from one the rest of us saw, if you think that the lesson of that event was that the government should just sit on its hands for as long as possible, and keep hoping that things will take care of themselves

   Posted by MADDOX 03/30/2008

   I'm sure you know what you saw on TV and read in the newspaper, but actually, I saw the very same Katrina...First hand. Most people forget that she did 100 MIl of damage in Miami before destroying New Orleans. Or I should say destroyed the New Orleans Levees; the floods caused the real damage, as everyone knows. The levees failed because the state and local governments failed to maintain and improve them for 50 years.

   But, I digress.

   When Hurricane Wilma Hit us later that same summer, most Floridians had the good sense to know that the Federal Government response is no substitute for state and local planning and preperation, and keeping at least 3 days of supplies and a full tank of gas in the car.

   In New Orleans, it also meant keeping city and school buses on high ground, among other things; The failure of local officials to take even basic common sense measures is well documented, and as bad as it was in the superdome, there were in fact more urgent rescues to conduct. Coast Guard and National Guard copters were plucking literally thousands off rooftops, and that took priority in the first days after the storm.

   I wouldn't call that sitting on their hands, and neither would the people of the Gulf Coast.

   Posted by TransitDave at 03/30/2008 @ 11:10pm

10. The blue collar guy and the lower income people of this country don`t matter to guys like McLame.He already said he is going to sit on his hands and let the chips fall.It is a sad commentary on the state of the neoconservative party today. As a union man I can see his point in kicking people to the curb but he will bail out Wall Street just like Bushco. He will keep this war going for 100 years, just as Bushco is doing now.He will cut taxes for the wealthy, just like BUSHCO. He will give us another 4 years , just like BUSHCO. He will surely put this country in the $hitter even farther than BUSHCO. Obama in November.

    Posted by ams@50 at 03/31/2008 @ 12:53am

11. Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/30/2008 @ 9:59pm

    Funny considering the same thing you are arguing against is what is being used to save companies. Shouldn't we let all these companies that are failing now sink too? Let Bear-Stearn go under.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 01:39am

12. Posted by JOMAMMA 03/30/2008 @ 10:38pm

    His point that government whether Fed or state was the reason there were problems. He was responding to another accusation.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 01:41am

13. CheneyBush be damned, yes, but as accurately noted above, damn ClintonRubin as well.

    McCain promises, hand on heart, to do precisely more of same. Trust him. (And both Clintons publicly support him over Obama.)

    And what indications do we have that HRC will be substantively better than the administration that gave her all that touted experience?

    Which leaves us with Obama. So we've little choice but hope.

    Posted by sloper at 03/31/2008 @ 01:51am

14. What will be funny is. If Hillary or Obama got into office. Fixed the economy, balanced the budget, lowered taxrs and brought peace to Iraq. All the conservatives on this site would still find something to complain. It doesn't matter who the person is in charge the only thing they don't like is that they are a Democrat. Even if they managed to fix the healthcare crisis and bring universal healthcare without having to raise taxes, to them they are still just a Democrat. Somehow being a Democrat makes you a lesser human being than them. It means you are less intelligent than them, you have no moral guideline (because there can't be morals without religion, at least that's what those morons think) and you are just generally a bad human being. Anything they do wrong can be explained away while anything we do wrong should be used as a reason to see that Democrats are lesser human beings.

    For instance. If you ask a Republican how Bush had a hand in the current destruction of the economy they will say that no President can destroy the economy. That it is just the natural ebb and flow. That a recession was inevitable. If you ask those same Republicans about Clintons economic policy they will say that he is responsible for the current recession. They can't deny it because I have seen it typed on this site. Most of these people will lie, bull shit and back pedal on everything just to say that they are right. What's the point in arguing with them. They already think that by the light of their Republicanism they are better human beings than you so your not going to change their way of thinking. They will never admit you are right even if you are. They will find a way to twist the facts to them being right. This is why I like non-radical Republicans. They don't think they are better than you somehow they just have the realization that we all have different sets of beliefs. Your political choices don't make you a better person.

    Any idiot should be able to see that politics has a balance. There is a reason for liberal and conservative. There is a push and pull. Without one the other would fail. If there were no Republicans business would be over regulated. There would no room for growth. If there were no Democrats business would be under-regulated, Employers would abuse their employees and there would be no solid consumer protection. However most of the ones on this site refuse to see that. They think all liberals are lesser human beings than them.

    Oh well. Se la vie.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 01:54am

15. Posted by AMS@50 03/31/2008 @ 12:53am

    No no you don't understand. Corporations and the millionaires are the life blood of our economy. Without them we wold all die in a ditch. They are the only people in our society that matter. The rest of us are just moochers. We should all be licking their boots and letting them shoot us for sport and their own entertainment. It's fine to bail out billionaire corporations. It's NOT ok to help your average person that makes up about 97% of the society. All of those people should be giving all of their money to the corporations in order to make sure they survive. No universal healthcare, no social security, no welfare however when it comes to making sure that rich people stay rich we should do everything we can and give as much money as possible to it.

    Is my sarcasm too subtle do I need to make it a little more obvious?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 02:01am

16. DAVE, you are correct that the local guvts failed, But isn't it the job of the feds to protect it's citizens, especially when local authorities are unable to? Or, should New York have invaded Afghanistan?

    ----

    "We" have not been attacked in five years":

    BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A mortar barrage hit Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses Iraq's government and the U.S. embassy, police said, a day after Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his fighters to stand down.

    ...The embassy has ordered staff in the zone to stay under cover where possible and wear body amour and helmets when in the open.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/31/2008 @ 07:53am

17. Then their was the Missourians that didn't need the feds after the floods of 2003, where FEMA, under Blow-job, performed quite well. They learned from ANdrew, because people were without water and food for lengthy periods, including mile long food lines. I guess those people in line must not have been from Florida. Of course Dave also fails to mention that many of the Floridians had deep pockets, while many New Orleans residents were living in poverty. Normally a "Christian nation" would help the poor, not blame them.

    Fast forward one year to the summer of 1993: Weeks of unrelenting rainfall had driven the level of the Mississippi River and its tributaries far beyond the previous records. Every county in the state of Iowa was declared a federal disaster area, as were portions of eight other states in the river basin. But this time, FEMA's response earned nothing but praise. The agency met the needs of the flood victims quickly and with few of its trademark bureaucratic tangles. Said Congressman Norman Mineta, then chair of the committee that oversees the agency, "FEMA has delivered finally on its promise to stand with the American people when floods or hurricanes or earthquakes devastate their communities."

    How FEMA transformed itself from what many considered to be the worst federal agency (no small distinction) to among the best is the most dramatic success story of the federal government in recent years. Not only does it provide further evidence that the government can work, it offers a blueprint for what it takes: strong leadership, energetic oversight, and, most importantly, a total reevaluation of its mission.

    then we got the Arabian Horseman's Assoc president to run FEMA. Heckuva job chimpy!

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/31/2008 @ 07:58am

18. then there...

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/31/2008 @ 07:59am

19. The levees failed because the state and local governments failed to maintain and improve them for 50 years.

    Posted by TRANSITDAVE 03/30/2008 @ 11:10pm | ignore this person

    Wrong, that responsibility lies with the Army Corp of Engineers. Who, by the way, begged and begged for more funds to repair and maintain the levees. Unfortunately, Bush and Co. (Clinton, Bush I and Reagan too!!) did not feel that the country's infrastructure was a funding priority.

    Posted by BizarroRio at 03/31/2008 @ 08:18am

20. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/31/2008 @ 01:54am

    Actually, CCC, I think Obama or Hillary...we're going to hear a lot of complaining HERE at "The Natin" as well.

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 08:51am

21. No, JOHN NICHOLS McCain did not say Drop Dead. I heard the speech the other night. He merely railed against irresponsible decisions on the part of buyers as well as lenders. Why is it that expecting people to be responsible for their own actions, to do for themselves, is always regarded as mean spirited by Libs? Bail outs and handouts are the only kindnesses they understand it seems.

    By these comments I am in no way condoning those lenders who tricked their clients into homes with mythical low rates that would never be maintained. But thats hardly the whole story.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/31/2008 @ 09:48am

22. Zero, while I agree with everything you've said about Robert Rubin, if you check the article again, it was former Labor Secretary Robert REICH that was quoted criticizing McCain.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/31/2008 @ 09:58am

23. So, Dave, time for a nap for you till you get a grip on history. The feds pumped BILLIONS of dollars into Florida following Andrew, backed insurance companies to keep them solvent and basically bailed out people that lived on the coasts.

    Posted by CRABWALK

    Once again, someone talks with tv knowledge about something I experienced first hand. Guess you forgot that Hurricane Andrew was until Katrina the worst disaster to hit the US, with insured lossed of 30 Bil in 1992 dollars. You also forget, or more likely never knew at all, that literally hundreds of thousands of South Floridians had heavily damaged homes and no power for MONTHS, not weeks, in August, no less. The federal response, and the rebuilding effort took YEARS. Come to South Dade County, and I'll show you the scars that are still there 16 years later.

    Cities don't get rebuilt overnight, but of course, liberals always expect the federal government to work miracles. Never seems to happen, though, when everyone puts their faith in the feds, and sits on their asses waiting for a check, which was my point about Katrina.

    Posted by TransitDave at 03/31/2008 @ 10:13am

24. Wow! So McCain is know pandering to the libertarian wing of the GOP. This begs one question: When are the Democratic candidates going to start pandering to the socialist/progressive wing? Do we even have a candidate? Oh yeah!! Ralph Nader.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 03/31/2008 @ 10:27am

25. Wow! So, McCain is now pandering to the libertarian wing of the GOP. This begs one question: When are the Democratic candidates going to start pandering to the socialist/progressive wing? Do we even have a candidate? Oh yeah!! Ralph Nader.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 03/31/2008 @ 10:27am

26. Marx was right!!! The bourgeoisie are being reduced to the proletarian and have no one else to blame but themselves.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 03/31/2008 @ 10:31am

27. Posted by PIOUSVIRUS 03/31/2008 @ 10:27am

    So why doesn't Ralph ever run in the Democratic primaries? And only pops up 6 months before an election?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 10:33am

28. Posted by MASK 03/31/2008 @ 10:33am | ignore this person

    It might have something to do with the fact that he isn't a Democrat. Only pops up 6 mos before an election? What does it matter? He is running as an independent.

    Posted by PiousVirus at 03/31/2008 @ 10:38am

29. Let the taxpayers and the dispossessed eat grass, save the cake for the corps.

    I've noticed that one of the reasons cited for J.P. Morgan's increase in the bid for Bear Stearns is to prevent a slew of wealthy investors and stake-holders from becoming what George Ball, chairman of the brokerage firm Sanders Morris Harris, described to the Washington Post as "outright riotous." Now there's a charming image, a pin-striped riot. I have a feeling the Nov. crowd here in Minneapolis/St. Paul will look a little different, perhaps a little more real. An appropriate response to the GOP's (especially this administration's) pampering of war profiteers and the most pernicious of private corporations like Halliburton, J.P. Morgan, and Citigroup (here's looking at you Happy2). What I mean by "pampering" is the appropriation of public funds to further private interests. The recent buyout/bailout of Bear Stearns is a textbook example of what Naomi Kline calls Disaster Capitalism. The initial March 16th Fed. agreement was to back the J.P. Morgan purchase-with public funds of course- of $3 a share. This would effectively eliminate the overemphasized risk of the feared market-domino effect. Taking advantage of the shock & awe of a recession (real or otherwise) and of course the possibility of a pin-striped riot, the bid was raised to a comparably massive (after all, the company did go under)$10 per share, paid for with our money. It isn't enough to save Bear Stearns, we need to line their pockets too? Why is it then that the taxpayers don't get a share of company they just bought? (Cue anti-communist rhetoric). Such a shock-and-awe opportunity to divert public funds to private hands would be wasted on just one set of private hands, so the Fed hired another private company, BlackRock Financial Management, to hand the securities over gradually. This typical debauchery would be comedic if the real-life implications weren't so dire. See you in the Nov. crowd.

    Posted by the/passenger at 03/31/2008 @ 12:21pm

30. Posted by PIOUSVIRUS 03/31/2008 @ 10:38am

    No, the answer is....(A) because he LIKES being a spoiler and calling a pox on both houses.... and (B) 90% of Democrats wouldn't vote for him and it would prove he's not a real candidate!

    and the reason he only pops up 6 months before the election...is because that's the only time he'd get press coverage. Whereas if he were actually WORKING the other 3 years 6 months on building up a third party (you know the ACTUAL hard work that would get a 3rd party candidate elected), he'd be old news by the time he made his announcement.

    Ralph is about Ralph...and hard grassroots work or operating in the system doesn't help that.

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 12:27pm

31. Posted by TRANSITDAVE 03/31/2008 @ 10:13am

    You still didn't disprove his point. He didn't say the Fed rebuilt every house overnight. He is saying that the Fed had a HEAVY hand in helping South Florida. That they didn't just sit back and watch as you claimed before. That it wasn't just the preparedness of the South Floridians. That it was the fact that the government was there quickly and did what they could to help spending billions to repair damage. Learn to ascertain meaning from what you read. Don't just read it with eyes glazed over.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 12:36pm

32. That they didn't just sit back and watch as you claimed before.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/31/2008

    You obviously drew the same, inaccurate conclusion as maddox, and I must assume it is you who read with your eyes glazed over.

    My point is that the Feds can't do it all, not that they shouldn't do what they can. But they're no substitute for state, local and personal preparedness, especially in the immediate aftermath of the storm.

    This is my personal experience living in South Florida for the past 20 years, with more Hurricane scares than I can remember, and 3 direct hits, from Andrew, Katrina and Wilma.

    Next?

    Posted by TransitDave at 03/31/2008 @ 2:27pm

33. Posted by TRANSITDAVE 03/31/2008 @ 2:27pm

    And his point was that they did everything they could and should do in Florida while in New Orleans they did the bare minimum. That was his point which you once again missed .

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2008 @ 3:15pm

34. Hey People,

    I can't beleive that responsible Americans would be in favor of helping out GREEDY people !! 96% fo the homeowners are paying there bills on time, it is only the 4% or less who are having trouble. Don't you think that it might Piss off the 96% of people if you start giving handouts to the 4% who thought they could buy a $600,000 home on $1,500 a month mortgage..? Most of the people in trouble were greedy, who thought that the home values were going to keep going up and up, and they just made a BAD investment. IT WENT DOWN.!!! They should pay the price, like anyone else who makes a bad investment, they need to deal with it, and move on..!!! Not STEAL my tax dollars and get saved so they can keep living beyond there means.

    Bill

    Posted by tidbit100 at 03/31/2008 @ 4:16pm

35. WASHINGTON -- Housing secretary Alphonso R. Jackson resigned on Monday, saying that he needed to devote more time to his family. The announcement came as federal authorities were investigating whether he had given lucrative housing contracts in the Virgin Islands and New Orleans to friends.

    His resignation, effective April 18, also comes as the Bush administration is increasingly relying on the department's Federal Housing Administration to help stanch the widening foreclosures.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/washington/31cnd-jackson.html?_r=1&hp& oref=slogin

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2008 @ 5:00pm

36. Leave it to the republicans to bail out 'big money' and turn their backs on the little people. They only time they care about the 'little people' is when it is election time.

    Wake up America!!

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 03/31/2008 @ 5:47pm

37. Transitdave,

    You think maybe some people cannot afford to buy reserves of fuel and food? Plenty of people live day to day because they don't have the money to buy in large quantities. I know because in the past I have been in such a situation (and just to forestall the normal conservative tactic, no I did not own a washing machine, TV, have cable or even internet access at the time. I was actually poor. But I was young and on my own for the first time, so it was to be expected and not unfair in anyway.)

    To all those who are trying to claim that the housing crisis is a result of speculators and irresponsible homeowners,

    Please cite a source. 94% of mortgages being safe sounds plausible (if you mean safe in the short term, or not currently past due). When you move into 'many of those mortgages are from speculators' or 'people are lying on their mortgage applications' you need to give us some reason to believe it. After all the people who made the initial loan knew they wouldn't be hurt by foreclosures, because they quickly sell those loans to large banks. So did the banks that bought bundles of such loans, because they knew they would get bailed out if there was a general problem. The only people who actually faced an important cost in the transaction were the buyers, so it would make sense to look at them last as the source of the risky irresponsible behavior.

    Thrawn,

    I don't think you get the argument. Anyone who cares about the issue does a little research. All it takes is a little research to tell that deregulation is not going to help any of the low income homeowners currently in danger of losing their house. That is not to say that only an idiot could want deregulation. It is just that to suggest deregulation as a solution to the current crisis shows that you cannot have done any real research. The people who propose more deregulation are also (if they informed and honest with themselves) people who suggest simply letting the people who made bad loans take their lumps. These are people for whom imposing a certain incentive structure is more important than what happens to real people right now. And you can make an argument (though, I think, a bad one) that imposing such an incentive structure is better in the long run. But that amounts to sacrificing people now for the sake of a better future where people are more wary of entering into 30 year variable rate loans. So unless you are an idiot (which when it comes to McCain is an open possibility. I don't think he doesn't care, I think he genuinely doesn't understand what deregulation would do or why conservative economists suggest doing it) if you suggest deregulation you don't care to help the people currently in trouble.

    -DP (I am trying to rationalize the name changes

    Posted by Poppolphil at 03/31/2008 @ 6:47pm

38. I tend to hit the wrong button, I meant, at the end, to say that I changed my name so that I have one name on every site.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 03/31/2008 @ 6:47pm

39. Don`t forget those of us that are old enough to remember the S&L scandal that we the tax payers of this country had to bail out to a tune of 125+ billion$$$$.Neocons love deregulation so they can play their shady games and tricks on people who do not have alot of money and are not fortunate enough to be as greedy and christian as those on the REICH.Oldman Johnnny McMoron will keep doing what the CHIMP will continue to do for the next 10months, heaven help us in the middle class.

    Posted by ams@50 at 03/31/2008 @ 7:51pm

40. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/31/2008 @ 5:00pm

    Wish for once they'd be honest and say "I am resigning to spend more time with my lawyers."

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 8:20pm

41. Obama has proposed a 50% tax increase on the poor, raising the Bush tax cut on them back up from 10% to 15%.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/31/2008 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person

    You are being intellectually dishonest, as usual. BO said he would roll back the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthiest tax payers. BO Tax Policy [barackobama.com] How does the wealthy, top 1-2%, translate into a tax increase on the poor? What's next, will Obama also bring a fiery end to Zion?

    Try your hardest to do a little research before you spread lies. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor", or did you miss that part in theology class?

    Posted by BizarroRio at 03/31/2008 @ 10:26pm

42. with my lawyers."

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 03/31/2008 @ 8:20pm

    heheheheh

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2008 @ 10:43pm

43. Thrawn,

    I don't think you get the argument. Anyone who cares about the issue does a little research. All it takes is a little research to tell that deregulation is not going to help any of the low income homeowners currently in danger of losing their house. That is not to say that only an idiot could want deregulation. It is just that to suggest deregulation as a solution to the current crisis shows that you cannot have done any real research. The people who propose more deregulation are also (if they informed and honest with themselves) people who suggest simply letting the people who made bad loans take their lumps. These are people for whom imposing a certain incentive structure is more important than what happens to real people right now. And you can make an argument (though, I think, a bad one) that imposing such an incentive structure is better in the long run. But that amounts to sacrificing people now for the sake of a better future where people are more wary of entering into 30 year variable rate loans. So unless you are an idiot (which when it comes to McCain is an open possibility. I don't think he doesn't care, I think he genuinely doesn't understand what deregulation would do or why conservative economists suggest doing it) if you suggest deregulation you don't care to help the people currently in trouble.

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 03/31/2008 @ 6:47pm

    Right, I think you're missing mine. Look, there are substantial (and very legitimate) philosophical disagreements at the most basic level as to the effects and legitimacy of deregulating as opposed to increasing regulation. Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure that kind of basic disagreement isn't the kind of thing that "just a little bit of research" can solve. In fact, I'm pretty sure that by your argument, all economic questions should be that way, and the fact that there is (and will likely continue to be) sustained disagreement on this stuff means that you can't equate one particular answer with an unambiguous motive. Given that, I still don't believe that McCain's perspective can be dismissed as either idiocy or malice. Granted, I guess it's possible that this could be one of few areas in which the answer WAS really clear, but I doubt it.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/31/2008 @ 11:06pm

44. You think maybe some people cannot afford to buy reserves of fuel and food? Plenty of people live day to day because they don't have the money to buy in large quantities

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 03/31/2008

    Sorry, Poppy, 3 days worth of groceries and a full tank of gas is not a large quantity, especially when a cat 4 Hurricane is heading your way.

    Posted by TransitDave at 03/31/2008 @ 11:20pm

45. And his point was that they did everything they could and should do in Florida while in New Orleans they did the bare minimum. That was his point which you once again missed .

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/31/2008

    And my point is, that in New Orleans, If the Federal response was lacking, it's only because the state and local response was non- existant. And, that would be Democrat state and local officials, in both cases. Coincidence? I think not......

    Posted by TransitDave at 03/31/2008 @ 11:36pm

46. Thrawn,

    Some economic questions are hard. I mentioned one. Whether a free market is going to produce the proper level of risk aversion in borrowers is an open question. So whether there is a long term good attached to letting current homeowners who are in trouble get their houses taken away is an open question. I know where I stand, but I don't think that my answer is obviously correct. Just correct.

    But the thought that deregulation is going to help the people currently in danger of losing their house is a sign of economic illiteracy. Analogously, thinking that throwing magnesium into a fire will make it burn lower is a sign of chemical illiteracy. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate disputes in chemistry. Deregulation efforts take time to make themselves felt. They also won't increase the options that at risk homeowners have to choose from. It isn't some regulatory body that has put their home at risk, it is rising interest rates (and lots of other things like decreased income, catastrophic medical bills, etc.) Deregulation of the mortgage market is not going to lower interest rates.

    As I was perfectly clear about in my original post, there is an argument for deregulation which is not silly. There are probably several such arguments. Not found among them is that deregulation is going to help people who either have or will likely default on their mortgage.

    Now I actually think the writer is wrong to think that McCain doesn't care about these people. McCain has said enough stupid things about the economy that it is safe to assume he is just economically illiterate. Plenty of academic economists don't care to help these people, but the reason they give is that it is better in the long run not too.

    So I stick to my contention that you don't understand the argument at hand. Though that is not really your fault, as the article we are commenting on is pretty thin on argument. There is however an argument for the claim that McCain doesn't care. We both agree it is wrong, but you, I think, for the wrong reasons.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 03/31/2008 @ 11:37pm

47. transitdave,

    Sorry, you don't understand how bad poverty can be. People live day to day. Meaning they don't have food in the house to feed themselves and their families for more than a day. And they don't have the food because they cannot afford it. Now I never really got that bad about food (couldn't fill my gas tank up the whole way on several occasions though), but plenty of people do. And I am betting (though of course I cannot know) that when we are talking about one of the poorest cities in the country, we are dealing with lots of people like that.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 03/31/2008 @ 11:40pm

48. Transitdave,

    You are quite wrong in your response to CCC. The most striking inadequacy of the federal response was in not knowing where people had taken shelter (the debacle of the Sec. of Homeland Security finding out that people were at the convention center from NPR) and not having the resources at hand to do anything about it. If they hadn't know that the levees were going to break (which I will agree for the sake of argument was becuase of poor governance from democrats) then they might have had some excuse. But they did know. Given that, not bringing the proper resources to bear was a failure on their part, not the state officials. Nothing in the world could excuse not knowing there were thousands of people in and around the convention center.

    Posted by Poppolphil at 03/31/2008 @ 11:46pm

49. Posted by TRANSITDAVE 03/31/2008 @ 11:36pm And my point is, that in New Orleans, If the Federal response was lacking, it's only because the state and local response was non- existant. And, that would be Democrat state and local officials, in both cases. Coincidence? I think not......

    | transdav, would it have made any difference if it was republicans in office at all 3 levels of gov`t? I think not ! Whatever party affiliation, means nothing, all 3 gov`ts dropped the BALL! these people had not enough means of transportation to get out of the city. I was not there but news media from around the world covered it and I don`t get spin from those sources.

    Posted by ams@50 at 04/01/2008 @ 12:14am

50. That slick talkin' Lexus dealer talked me into buying more car than I can afford!!

    Hep me Obama ..... Hep me !!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 04/01/2008 @ 12:29am

51. Posted by BLEEDINGHEART 04/01/2008 @ 12:29am

    Just be glad you're not losing your family's home.

    Has the car lot repo-ed the 92 escort? Do you need a ride to work?

    Posted by Malcontent at 04/01/2008 @ 12:54am

52. Posted by TRANSITDAVE 03/31/2008 @ 11:36pm

    Funny the quote he is giving for South Florida was during a Democratic presidency. He said that in south Florida the Fed did everything they could to help and were successful. So your point is worthless. In one Democrats failed in another they succeeded. I can give you plenty of incidents of Republican failure. However you won't listen because you are so blinded by your ego you think your side is ALWAYS right.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/01/2008 @ 02:35am

53. osted by POPPOLPHIL 03/31/2008 @ 11:46pm

    If NPR knew how did the government not know? It astounds me that people like Transit can work so hard to just dismiss the fact that NPR knew where these people were but FEMA the group that is supposed to protect us in these types of emergencies didn't.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/01/2008 @ 02:37am

54. He was reading children a children's story...

    Posted by winyahn at 04/01/2008 @ 09:58am

55. Sorry, you don't understand how bad poverty can be.

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 03/31/2008

    Poppy, you don't know me, so you'll just have to take my word for the fact that I know poverty pretty well. Just not lately. But, things were pretty lean when Andrew hit, and I managed to fill up the car's tank, (for which I was very grateful) and buy some cookies, and other food which didn't require refrigeration. I also learned that you can live without food for a few days, but you can't live without water. Hence the need for hoarding water when a storm approaches. One thing is for sure, complaining about lack of help is of limited use before a storm, and almost no use immediately after. Ask anyone who's ever been thru a real disaster.

    Posted by TransitDave at 04/01/2008 @ 5:08pm

56. | transdav, would it have made any difference if it was republicans in office at all 3 levels of gov`t?

    Posted by AMS@50 04/01/2008

    That was indeed the case in Mississippi, and in Florida and the Gov of Mississippi didn't decline to run for re-election, and get replaced by a Dem, as was the case with former LA gove Blanco...

    I certainly agree that repubs are capable of incompetance, Dubya didn't appear engaged in the relief effort and paid a heavy price in approval ratings, and rightfully so. But even FEMA director Brown did OK when Florida got hit by 4 hurricanes the summer before Katrina, with a lot of Help from Jeb Bush, of course.....

    Posted by TransitDave at 04/01/2008 @ 5:16pm

57. Nothing in the world could excuse not knowing there were thousands of people in and around the convention center.

    Posted by POPPOLPHIL 03/31/2008

    As I recall, the most immediate demand was rescuing people from rooftops in the flooded areas the first few days after the storm. The people in the Superdome and convention center might have been hot and miserable, but for the most part they were not as desperate as those stranded in the flooded areas, whose rescue and relief were the top priority with the limited resources available.

    Remember, bridges were down, access was limited and everyone, including the rescuers, was hungry and thirsty. That type of situation was a prescription for anarchy. the same type I saw (on a much smaller scale) after Hurricane Andrew in South Miami.

    Posted by TransitDave at 04/01/2008 @ 5:29pm

58. If NPR knew how did the government not know? It astounds me that people like Transit can work so hard to just dismiss the fact that NPR knew where these people were but FEMA the group that is supposed to protect us in these types of emergencies didn't.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1

    Would you like some cheese with that Whine? Government cheese, of course..(heh,heh)

    Posted by TransitDave at 04/01/2008 @ 6:39pm

59. Posted by TRANSITDAVE 04/01/2008 @ 6:39pm

    It's whining to point out the massive incompetence of a government who's news sources are more informed than it when it comes to saving peoples lives. Yeah that's whining. I'm sure NPR can save those people while the great and mighty American government can't even figure out where they are. Jesus you're an idiot.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/01/2008 @ 7:17pm

60. We claim to be the greatest nation in the world yet our government can't figure out where thousands of people are being housed. But oh, wait wait, NPR can. How can you even claim that we are the best in the world when there is THAT level of incompetence in our government.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/01/2008 @ 7:19pm

61. RE: Obama's Adviser ...

    That's over the board. Well, in this country you could swiftboat anyone you want, even if you are a pile of dung yourself. You could cheat to get into the office, even WH -most people are naive. You don't need to cheat all the peope all the times. Just once, get there and wreck havoc.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 04/02/2008 @ 12:09am

62. Just once, get there and wreck havoc.

    Posted by HELENDAO 04/02/2008 @ 12:09am

    but wouldn't wrecking the havoc make everything sweet'n'lovely?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 12:27am

63. egad!

    Vandals wreck havoc on Greeks, Police say incident is the worst of its kind in several years.

    www.dailylobo.com/news/2003/11/ 18/News/Vandals.Wreck.Havoc.On.Greeks-560843.shtml

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 12:28am

64. What the hell happened to this country!?!?! Is personal responsibility a thing of the past?

    Posted by abell12ct at 04/02/2008 @ 11:46am

65. is it personal responsibility to know if there is lead paint covering one's toys?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 1:32pm

66. KATRINA: Personal responsibility in all its glory.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/02/2008 @ 2:37pm

67. KATRINA: Personal responsibility in all its glory.

    Posted by WINYAHN 04/02/2008 @ 2:37pm

    she seems to be able to hold this job down.

    and she can be mask, too.

    and mask is personably responsible for annoying half of the denizens of the tubes!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 3:04pm

68. seriously, great example.

    why help your brother when you can help yourself to their soon to be vacated land?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 3:24pm

69. you do not WRECK havoc, you WREAK havoc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/02/2008 @ 6:38pm

70. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

    obviously.

    that's why i said if the havoc were wrecked everything would be havocless.

    ms. dao reeks of racism.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/02/2008 @ 9:45pm

71. Just once, get there and wreck havoc.

    Posted by HELENDAO 04/02/2008 @ 12:09am | ignore this person

    it was this I corrected. it's not ALL about you Froz.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2008 @ 09:24am

72. YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2008 @ 09:33am

73. ALL!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2008 @ 09:33am

74. THESE ELECTRONS ARE MINE!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2008 @ 09:33am

75. hey jr:

    what the phoque is this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ui_iULxNdo

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2008 @ 10:50am

76. Not all about frosty?!?

    Well! That's it! I'm outta here.

    ;o)

    Posted by Malcontent at 04/03/2008 @ 2:27pm

77. I can't beleive that responsible Americans would be in favor of helping out GREEDY people !!

    Bill

    Posted by TIDBIT100 03/31/2008 @ 4:16pm

    Does that go for Bear Sterns too?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/03/2008 @ 6:32pm

78. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49fgzVqwk20&feature=related

    for you Froz

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/04/2008 @ 10:16am