Mortgage Crisis – the Case For Regulations
wpedon id=8560

About the Author

author photo

Ohg Rea Tone is all or nothing. He is educated and opinionated, more clever than smart, sarcastic and forthright. He writes intuitively - often disregarding rules of composition. Comment on his posts - he will likely respond with characteristic humor or genuine empathy. He is the real-deal.

See All Posts by This Author

Mortgage Crisis – the Case For Regulations

This writer is a fiscal conservative who believes THE GOVERNMENT should simply do their job.  Partisan politics shake out like this – The Democrats act like the Government is the mission – and the Republicans think the Government has no mission.  They are both frustratingly wrong.  The Bush Administration’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is leading the charge to seize control of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  There they go again – the Bush Administration is closing the barn door after the cows are already out.

This Government was formed a couple of hundred years ago – before the industrial and technological revolutions.  There was debate among the founding fathers about the role of the centralized Federal government in relation to the individual State governments.  That debate continues today with the Democrats generally favoring strong Central Government and the Republicans generally favoring State’s rights.

By the late 1800’s many folks, including Republicans, recognized that business was no longer just mom and pop operations.  The large trusts and industries swept across state boundaries.  Individual States could not possibly regulate business that operated out of their boundaries.  This is where the logic of the Republicans of 2008 falters.  Even the founding fathers who defended States Rights believed in Government regulation – but they felt the regulation should be left to the State.  The modern era Republicans have take up the mantle of big business, arguing that ‘free markets’ are self regulating.  Fools, absolute fools.

Rich fat white scoundrels, masquerading as businessmen, greedily suck the life out of corporate institutions and leave the tarnished and failed institutions for we taxpayers to bail out.  The seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will cost we taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.  There are regulations in place to prevent this sort of debacle – but the Bush Administration has corralled the Department of Justice, ostensibly to protect free markets.

Is this what the Republicans mean by a ‘free market?’  Does anyone remember Enron, or World Com, or Blackwater, or Haliburton?  Free market businesses who have sucked the life and morality out of this country.  The Christian Conservatives rail about ‘sin.’  “Vote for God Fearing Republicans,” they shout.   Fools, absolute fools.

But there must surely be boundaries to Government intervention.  The Democrats have tried to regulate social justice – is this remotely possible?  Much like regulating business – there are limitations.  Can we and should we regulate education, health care, or labor contracts? The much heralded Pledge of Allegiance, nowhere found in official constitutional law, claims ‘liberty and justice for all.’  Is there justice in allowing a child in Mississippi to have a substandard education while the elite of Massachusetts enjoy premium opportunities? Is there justice in children in Alabama to have no health care while the children of the Connecticut elite enjoy the best care  America has to offer?

We live in a complex world.  The Bush Administration has demonstrated what happens when we loosen the reigns and allow rich white corporate scoundrels to manage the ‘free maket.’

Speaking of Mitt Romney and John McCain ………….

There Are 2 Responses So Far. »

  1. Your piece, sir, while well-written, does not lay out any specifics regarding which “regulations” were in place to prevent the GSE debacle, nor do you suggest any alternatives for the federal government’s GSE takeover. Many of us might argue that the “hybrid” model of the GSE’s (implicit government guarantee confused with private-shareholder ownership) is in fact a contradiction to the concept of “free markets.”

    If I was convinced that more than 2 people actually read this blog, I might provide some details of my own.

  2. @ Larry Wolf,

    Please eleaborate, I am interested in your total take on this.

%d bloggers like this: