Since CNN won't do it, I suppose I'll have to counter the absurd statements made by Joe Biden today on the campaign trail. Most of them don't make any sense - which I'll be sure to point out - and though I can make sense of the rest, they reflect how out of touch Joe Biden and Barack Obama are. All the quoted blocks of text below belong to Joe Biden...
"All of a sudden it's, 'My goodness, there's greed on Wall Street. My goodness, we need common sense regulation. My goodness.'"All of a sudden? A few pointers for Joe Biden on politics here: everyone talks about a crisis when there is a crisis. This would be like someone talking about the need for FEMA restructuring after Hurricane Katrina and another person saying, "you didn't address these issues before Katrina". When did we start requiring that politicians anticipate every problem and have a position on it? I'm quite sure that in the mid-90's when we needed quick capital to take advantage of the tech boom, very few people would have argued against "greed" or deregulation. Why? Because these policies were working. Things happen and sometimes positions need to change.
So the question is really how prescient has a candidate's wisdom been? In John McCain's case, when were these positions revised? Certainly not, "all of a sudden." John McCain was among the few leaders who called for more oversight of public lending institutions nearly two years ago.
This said, the change needs to be measured. I agree with Joe Biden in that we need regulation of institutions that are backed by public guarantees (in other words: lending institutions). However, what is "common sense" regulation? To what extent do we regulate? Everyone is currently shouting "regulation!" from the rafters. Let's slow down and figure out what we mean. At the end of the day, I'm betting that Joe Biden and Barack Obama mean regulation of a far larger scope than many Americans would really wish for. Regarding McCain's plan to for a commission on regulation, why not consult experts in the field?
"So let's take a look at John's conversion here... Something happened on the road to Damascus; John fell off his horse, but he got back up on the same horse."A conversion is necessarily a change... getting back up on the same horse wouldn't really be a change, now would it? The point being: this conflation of analogies (Paul on the road to Damascus and Horses) doesn't make any sense what so ever. If you're going to say John McCain has revised his position (which as I say above, I think he reasonably has), you can't say that he didn't revise his position. This is just Joe Biden fumbling around with a thought that he thinks he might have.
"So John, you got back on the same horse, you continue to push a plan that's designed to deregulate the health insurance industry..."What does a policy towards the healthcare industry have to do with financial markets at all!?! A comparison between the two industries is completely non-sensical. It reminds me of a fifth grader constructing an argument for the first time....
Teacher: Joe, what is your argument?
Joe: Common sense regulation would be good for the financial markets.
Teacher: ...and?
Joe: Therefore, further regulation would be good for the healthcare industry?
Teacher: Don't you think you need another premise?
Joe: Why?
Teacher: Well are there differences between financial markets and healthcare markets?
Joe: Maybe...
Teacher: So don't you need to prove they're the same?
Joe: Can't I just conclude that?
Teacher: Well you can, but that wouldn't be logical... and that's the point of the argument right?
Joe: I guess...
The bottom line: This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense at all, unless Joe can provide us with a reason that the industries are anywhere near the same. He certainly hasn't so far and, in my opinion, he can't because the industries are incredibly dissimilar.
Joe then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they trusted the insurance companies... "I got one person [who] raised their hand. I got also a bridge I got to sell you and guess what? It's in Alaska, and it goes to nowhere."This shows how out of touch the Obama/Biden campaign is. It's not about trusting insurance companies, it's about do you trust yourself!!! Consumers, not regulators, should make decisions. What Joe is giving people here is a false choice. Let's empower the consumer to actually act, rather than binding up their options through government. The message that Joe Biden is communicating here: you can't take of yourself. You wouldn't be smart enough to stay away from bad investments... so we'll prop up these companies and make decisions for you.
My thoughts? If I wanted to live in France (whose economy is even worse than ours) I'd just move there.
Here's the video from CNN:
What I find interesting... Obama blames McCain.
McCain, he's talking about the actual problems.
What do you want in a leader? Finger pointing or solutions?
UPDATE: In response to a comment, my post on how John McCain's tax policy aids the middle class might help explain why so many of the middle class are attending his rallies.
8 Comments:
Who points fingers more than McCain? Another Democrat getting off the subject, I know that McCain will raise the taxes but he will give the most relief to his wealthy friends. That is about what the American people should be concerned. I see the people who attend the McCain/Palin rallys. They do not look rich to me. I am at a lost as to why they are there. McCain and Palin's crowd should be people dripping in jewels and furs because those are the people they are will represent were they to get into office.
To anonymous; You need to look at the jewels and furs dripping from the Obama supporters before you start yammering. How much did those 'plates' cost at his Hollywood fund raiser? He is so playing both sides of the fence. Obama can't be trusted. If he wins this mess I don't think all you yahoos are going to be any happier with what you get than you are right now.
Lady TX
Folks...
Comments will only be posted if the facts within them are correct... to ensure that your claim is correct, post it with a link. It's that simple.
I don't like rejecting comments, but I won't allow posting things on this blog that simply aren't true.
Only the unwise discuss a crisis after it becomes a crisis. True leaders anticipate. We *should* have been criticizing FEMA before Katrina. We *should* ahve be asking for more regulation of the mortgage securities market.
Politicians are quick to jump on this bandwagon, too and both sides are doing it. But McCain looks more hypocritical because he's continually touted for less regulation.
And give me a break about the largess shown at the Hollywood fund raiser. Look at the number of contributers to the Obama campaign and their average contribution vs. McCain. Big money is on both sides but corporate interest groups sit squarely with the GOP.
It seems to me that politics is politics. Two parties on one beach are gonna be pretty similar. It is in their best interest to seem very close to the people on their end, but really it's just another 3 feet to the other party.
This country isn't doing to well (contrary to McCain saying that the economy if fundamentally sound). And yes, Obama spends money on plates.
But if the majority of Americans think that Bush has done a fairly poor job,
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
and he endorses McCain (McCain voted with him over %90 of the time, blah blah blah) how about we try something new for a few years. Just for the hell of it. Chances are that Obabma will play the game like anyone else would (i.e. Clinton backing Yeltsin), but let's just see what happens. . .
Vijay, I agree with your diagnosis of a two-party problem (at least that's what I think you're getting at)
I disagree with the sake of "change" for the sake of "change". Government simply isn't something we should say "aww... what the hell". It's just too important.
Regarding a contest of who has the most shameful endorsement, I don't think Obama wants to get into that game. (See: Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc.)
I do agree with what you say here. The problem with Democrats is that they base their entire philosophy on faulty premises.
Government doesn't know best; government doesn’t enrich society; government doesn’t provide justice, equality, or freedom. Tax money doesn’t belong to the Congress, and there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Sadly, politicians do have an advantage over “we the people.” They understand that the average voter has the IQ and memory of a gnat – and they use this knowledge against us. I lament that if we had a truly just society, our law would allow us to put politicians out of our misery.
The democrats speak a lot about "good government" the government that works for the people, as if that exists on planet earth.
They feel that if they could just get into power they will be able to turn things around, but once they get into power reality sets in and Government just becomes the same old Government.
Post a Comment