posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by nyk537
Literally overnight he suddenly became a supporter of regulation.
The only way you can judge if a person will hold true to their word is based on their past behavior. McCain has supported deregulation for over 20
years of his career. We're supposed to just assume that he will follow through with his promise?
Just 6 months ago he said we need to FURTHER deregulate the industry even as Bear Sterns was failing.
Following the Bear Stearns collapse in March, McCain was very Gramm-like in calling for the further deregulation of Wall Street.
"Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax
impediments to raising capital," said McCain in March of this year.
In an interview he said "I'm always for less regulation" and "I am fundamentally a deregulator"
WSJ: “In 1995, when the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, you proposed a regulatory moratorium, but couldn't get it passed.
Would you declare such a moratorium if you were president?”
McCain: “I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in
the subprime lending crisis — that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical
conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight.
“As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depends on the legislative agenda and what the Congress does to some
degree, but I am fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a
moratorium. I've thought more on the area of deregulation rather than a moratorium.”
What has he done in the last 10 years in regards to deregulation legislation?
In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with
market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark
legislation sponsored by then-senator Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed
to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped
pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
To his credit in the same year, 2002:
In 2002, for example, he pushed for tougher corporate-accounting standards after the scandals at Enron and other corporations. "I have long
opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation. But in the current climate,
only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor, and that has seriously deteriorated over the past
10 years, can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work," McCain said.
Also to his credit:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE
regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
Apparently, Obama did nothing about this. I wouldn't doubt because Freddie Mac was paying him off.
So I'll admit that maybe the situation wasn't as bad as I thought **picking pride up off the floor**.
But the fact remains that he thinks of himself as a "deregulator" and now he is protraying himself to America as an advocate for reform. And no one
has called him on this.
Sure we can point out the times he DID support regulation but in comaprison to his support for deregulation? Well, there is none. He has supported
deregulation FAR MORE in the past and ONLY when he's seen when deregulation can do and then he slaps himself on the forehead and says "didn't see
that coming! Guess I was wrong about that one" and then he's right back on the deregulation train. This is bothersome.