“Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible. Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.” –Peter J. Wallison, writing in Bloomberg
Update: More can be found here.
Just admit you’re a liberal, dude. Just so long as it is Republicans acting like liberals you support it. “More regulation. More oversight.” That sounds terrible coming from Democrats. From Republicans though, suddenly you’re a big fan. “Let’s bring in huge government and fix problems.” Sounds terrible from Democrats. From pro-war Republicans that think they can change the world with a trillion dollars a year in overseas military expenditures, well then it’s fine. You’re a liberal man.
In contrast, liberterians have a different mindset. Stossel explains at the link below why more regulation is not the answer.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/what-happened-to-market-discipline.html
I agree more regulations is not the answer generally but there are cases where it is. Fannie and Freddie were government entities with special privileges that other private financial institutions did not have. So because of that and because they were shielded to a large extent by competition, they do need regulation.
In addition, I don’t want regulations because it stifles innovation and limits growth - but in the case of a government entity, alot of times, that can be a good thing.
Btw, what do you think of this? Makes sense to me.
HP, it makes sense. However, I don’t think your going to get Jon to admit it. Let’s face it, conservatives advocate “limited regulation”. I haven’t seen anywhere where we’ve advocate “no regulation”. You know Fannie and Freddie were in real bad shape if you have Republicans actually advocating more regulation. And all Jon can add to the conversation is to say ridiculous comments that doesn’t really add to the conversation. He should just admit that Democrats are principally involved in this financial crisis. If not, he should prove it.
I can agree that the regulations Obama opposed and McCain supported may have provided some short term benefits. But this does not address the underlying problem, and is not something I’m going to make a bid deal out of. That’s my point. Talking about who supported what regulation and who didn’t is like polishing the rails of a sinking ship. Who cares? As a liberterian I would rather focus my energies on fixing the problem rather than battling side issues.
Jon and I and just about everyone else will agree with what you’re saying HP, but Jon’s point is that you seem to (very conveniently) be strongly in favor of regulation only in cases where 20-20 hindsight shows that regulation would have been good, and only in cases where Democrats can be (selectively) held accountable for not having done it.
To put it more succinctly:
Do you see any cases today, where Republicans are opposing regulations of a particular industry, and you feel they are mistaken - that more regulation (contrary to the Republican view) is needed? If so, what industry do you feel needs more regulation?
There are regulations and then there are regulations.
These “regulations” the Republicans were seeking were not private sector regulations - the type Republicans are generally against. These were “regulations” with the purpose of limiting the scope of a semi-government program - the kind of “regulations” Republicans are usually in favor of.
This is why Democrats reacted instinctively defensive against the proposal. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Democrat inventions and one that goes well with their political philosophy - limiting their scope is like trying to limit medicare, or welfare, or any other government program. That is probably why, IMHO, they didn’t much entertain the idea that Republicans might be right on this specific regulation - they probably assumed it was yet another Republican attempt to limit the scope of government and an attack on one of their cherished government programs, so by way of habit, they resisted.
SO in this context, I am for many “regulations” that limit the scope of government programs. For example, I’d be strongly in favor of severe
“regulations” in the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Environment, Agriculture, and yes, even welfare, medicare and social-security, just to name a few.
Why not just oppose the existence of Freddie and Fannie, which basically has as it’s charter interference in free market economies? Rather than support a further layer of bureaucracy to run another bureaucracy, I’d sooner reduce the size of government and get government out of the way, since it is the source of the problems we have in the housing market to begin with.
Of course I think I know why. This is a recent piece of McCain talking points which makes McCain look good and Obama bad. I’m getting hit with it on all fronts from my Republican friends. One day HP, I’m hoping you’ll spend time justifying freedom as opposed to just justifying Republicanism.
Most Republicans probably do. But as is the case with politics, you work at the margins…not in ideals.
“He should just admit that Democrats are principally involved in this financial crisis. If not, he should prove it.”
Of course the Party that has only had control of legislature last 2 years of a dozen is the pricipal one at fault…………………..
Nobody is arguing that it is the principle one at fault (I don’t think neither party is) only that it too has significant fault in all of this. After all, the GOP didn’t have filibuster proof control.
Neither party is innocent.