How Obama Can Demonstrate Real Leadership on the Economic Crisis

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Watching John McCain thundering against Wall Street greed is like tuning into to the old Lawrence Welk show to find him doing a polka version of a hard-core rap song ("A-one and a-two, motherfucker!").

Speaking yesterday outside an auto plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan, McCain read his populist rhetoric -- "These workers here are the best in the world. They are the backbone and foundation of our economy." -- with a robotic cadence dripping with inauthenticity.

Wall Street is melting down, and McCain and the GOP have no credible response. When your erstwhile economic guru, Phil Gramm -- a man whose 1996 run for the presidency McCain chaired, and who appears to remain influential behind-the-McCain-campaign-scenes -- is Patient Zero of this killer economic epidemic, it's pretty hard to suddenly start channeling Upton Sinclair.

McCain is so clearly clueless on this issue, the current battle over who is best suited to deal with the financial crisis should be a rout. And, so far, Obama has shown not just an incomparably greater grasp of the situation and substantive policies to deal with it, but a real fire in the belly in going after McCain's vulnerable flank.

But for Obama to show the kind of transformational leadership the crisis demands, he needs to do what so many of his critics have chided him for not doing: take a stand that puts him at odds with the establishment of his own party. He did it in 2002 with the war in Iraq. He can do it in 2008 with the economy.

He needs to start by making sure that the economic advisers he turns to extend beyond those he had on a conference call on Monday -- Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Laura Tyson, and Paul Volcker. It's great to include graybeards who have been through crises before, but he needs to go beyond the two Treasury Secretaries who were complicit in the 1990s deregulation orgy that has led to so many of the problems we are now seeing. And he needs to make it clear that the Clinton-era Democrats who put the interests of Wall Street ahead of the interests of Main Street are not going to be the primary voices he listens to.

Rubin and Summers played a pivotal role in dismantling banking regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, FDR's pivotal banking legislation designed to constrain the power of Wall Street, and make the activities of the banking industry more transparent. It specifically kept commercial banks separate from their investment banking cousins -- and had long been the Moby Dick of the banking industry, the elusive prey the financial industry Captain Ahabs were determined to harpoon. Consequences be damned.

Phil Gramm, then chairman of the Senate banking committee, did the heavy lifting, and John McCain was an ardent supporter of the deregulation, but Rubin and the Clintonites were certainly up to their eyeballs in pushing legislation gutting so many of the regulations designed to bring accountability to our complex free market system. These bills included the the Financial Modernization Act, which obliterated Glass-Steagall; and the Commodity Futures Modernization act, which gave us unregulated trading of derivatives and the kind of credit default swaps that threaten our economy -- both signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Speaking at a large rally in Las Vegas on Wednesday, Obama declared: "we can't steer ourselves out of this crisis if we're heading in the same disastrous direction. We can't steer ourselves out of this crisis using the same old map, we can't steer ourselves out of the crisis if the new driver is getting directions from the old driver, and that's what this election is all about."

Bull's-eye. Now he needs to make sure the old drivers in his own party don't have their hands on the wheel -- or are the loudest of his backseat drivers -- as the nation navigates this rocky financial road and charts a new direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/how-obama-can-demonstrate_b_127575.html

I totally agree
 
Funny when people whine about "deregulation orgies" when after we degregulated, starting with Jimmy Carter and enhanced by Reagan we had the greatest boom in the history of mankind. This problem here was really shitty regulation, not a lack of.
 
It's an opportunity for him to get back on message .. the one that got him the nomination.

I really hope he does. He can do without Obfuscate and RS's votes. The fringe loon vote, as I call it...still in denial and singing "IT wasn't me" as loudly as they can.

He should cut loose the Clinton DLC'ers, I do agree with that.
 
LOL, I'm sure Stringy and I are both much more likley to vote Obama than McCain. Whether either of us do I don't know. I know neither of us would hold the Mortgage industry under Freddie and Fannie and backed loans ect up as an example of the free market.
 
LOL, I'm sure Stringy and I are both much more likley to vote Obama than McCain. Whether either of us do I don't know. I know neither of us would hold the Mortgage industry under Freddie and Fannie and backed loans ect up as an example of the free market.

There has never been, nor will there ever be a completely free lassiez-fare market. Regulation is and always will be necessary to control corporations.
 
There has never been, nor will there ever be a completely free lassiez-fare market. Regulation is and always will be necessary to control corporations.

The complaints that what we have is not capitalism are somewhat valid. But it is also necessary to regulate the capitalism. Otherwise the biggest get to do whatever they want in order to make sure they stay bigger.

The old adage "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind.


The problem is not whether we have regulation or not. The problems come in when the regulation is worthless. When there are signs of problems and these signs are ignored or covered-up, the regulation is worthless.
 
The complaints that what we have is not capitalism are somewhat valid. But it is also necessary to regulate the capitalism. Otherwise the biggest get to do whatever they want in order to make sure they stay bigger.

The old adage "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind.


The problem is not whether we have regulation or not. The problems come in when the regulation is worthless. When there are signs of problems and these signs are ignored or covered-up, the regulation is worthless.

The giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy is money. Because America never recognized that truth, we've now morphed into a plutocracy.

Regulation designed by plutocrats will always be worthless.

Obama also needs to put some distance between his policies and Wall Street .. which is going to be difficult given that Wall Street is his biggest contributer.
 
The giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy is money. Because America never recognized that truth, we've now morphed into a plutocracy.

Regulation designed by plutocrats will always be worthless.

Obama also needs to put some distance between his policies and Wall Street .. which is going to be difficult given that Wall Street is his biggest contributer.

The biggest problem is that our government is reactionary instead of being pro-active with the problems.

All the finger pointing ignores the fact that the problems were known for quite some time and no one seemed willing to address them until it became front page news.

This only shows that the politicians we have in DC are more about knee-jerk reactions than about actual solutions.
 
The biggest problem is that our government is reactionary instead of being pro-active with the problems.

All the finger pointing ignores the fact that the problems were known for quite some time and no one seemed willing to address them until it became front page news.

This only shows that the politicians we have in DC are more about knee-jerk reactions than about actual solutions.

I agree with you .. but what has been known since Thomas Jefferson is that corporations have to be regulated and their power and influence within the government must be controlled.

Even now, expect some stop-gap hit and miss psuedo regulations to be proposed, but the power of lobbyists and corporations will remain just as strong.
 
Adam Smith was for some regulation like Anti Trust, copyrights, enforce contracts, punish fraud ect. It's a strawman to compare anarchy to free market supporters. Regulating who banks have to loan to and backing shitty loans ect only breeds corruption like we have here. The best regulater is risk. I'm OK with a Federal Reserve having a discount window and financial institutions that borrow from them can be regulated, especially their leverage, the insane 66/1 leverage is why we bailed out Freddie and Fannie. But that would be voluntary between the Fed and the Banks.
 
Back
Top