Phil Gramm, retired Senator from Texas and advisor to the McCain campaign, put his foot in it this week in an interview with the Washington Times:
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline," said the former Texas senator. "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." Gramm also said the media was responsible for fostering unnecessary anxiety over the state of the economy. "Misery sells newspapers," he said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."
McCain strongly disagreed with the statements after he heard them. "I don't agree with Sen. Gramm," he said. "I believe that the person here in Michigan that just lost his job isn't suffering a mental recession. I believe the mother here in Michigan and around America who is trying to get enough money to educate their children isn't whining."
McCain has been bedeviled by advisors throughout his campaign, and has been forced to constantly shake things up, firing a lobbyist here and demoting someone who mis-speaks there. It is noteworthy that the smug and self-righteous Gramm actually helped to create our current Mortgage mess while in the Senate, by virtue of his zeal to deregulate financial markets. You might wish to note that Ben Bernanke is eager to roll back those mistakes with a wave of regulations to prevent future mortgage meltdowns and future Bear Stearns collapses.
How about it, do you feel like a whiner? Have you been foreclosed yet? Suck it up, baby, when somebody gives you lemons, make lemonade! Politically speaking there is a wing of the Republican party trying to pretend that we are not entering a recession. Okay, unemployment is only 5.5%, granted. But the point is that the unemployment rate is clearly headed up, not down.
Gramm had previously been mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary for a McCain administration. McCain joked yesterday that "I think Sen. Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that." No kidding, Gramm is a hard guy to love sometimes. But my guess is that Gramm and McCain will be buddies again in a week or two, because Gramm represents a wing of the Republican party that McCain must cultivate, the wing that believes that unfettered and unregulated capitalism can do no wrong.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 46
I guess this means McCain is back to the drawing board on Treasury Secretary, as I heard Gramm was a strong contender for that position. As he's been advising on economic issues, lets look forward to more changes in economic policy my the McCain campaign.
I realize Mr. Gramm has a job and certainly makes enough money to keep his gas tank filled, but some in this country are not so fortunate.
To call us a nation of whiners is quite insulting considering it's because of former Senator Gramm and his ilk in Washington that has gotten us into this mess.
Neigther the republican nor demorcartic candidate is worthy of the office they seek.
Care to reconsider that position, Mr. Gramm?
It's no differant than the outcry over the Wesley Clarke statement.
But what is to stop them from panicking again on Monday?
On the topic of everything being fine, stop worrying, Glen Beck's latest bit chooses "to celebrate the fact that America is still closer to perfect than any other country in the history of the world." Glass half full, yeay.
The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing furor was mostly due to rumors. These rumors were unsubstantiated, but mainstream press organizations continued to spread them anyway. In fact, Rueters retracted a statement, but by that time the market had already takes a wild swing up and down.
After the market closed, the head guy at Fannie said they are well capitalized, do not have a cash crunch, and do not need a bailout. I'm afraid he is spitting into the wind here. No one wants to believe that there is not a crisis.
It used to be that mainstream press organizations did fact checking before pyblishing rumors. It used to be that responsible organizations did not make announcements while the markets were open. That sort of civilized behavior seems quaint these days.
Of course mcCain is supposedly a maverick. What that means in practice is basically nothing because he has to dance with the man with the money.
yes I'm whining , please deal with it quantitatively or war... ... ... is to be the answer.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After months of debate on Capitol Hill, the Senate on Friday passed a comprehensive housing and foreclosure prevention bill.
But lawmakers' quest to help cure the ailing housing market is not over yet.
The Senate measure would create a new $300 billion government-backed foreclosure prevention program and strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two mortgage finance giants, which play a central role in the U.S. housing market, took a thrashing this week on Wall Street as investors worried about their financial health.
Next week, the bill will go back to the House, which is expected to make technical changes and possibly some substantive ones as well.
The House passed a version of the bill in May and may try to amend some Senate provisions to bring them closer in line with its bill. Any changes will then need to be considered by the Senate.
That likely back-and-forth makes it uncertain when lawmakers will be able to send final legislation to President Bush for his consideration. Final passage of a package has been delayed for close to two months due to substantive disagreements as well as countless procedural delays.
Meanwhile, the latest foreclosure data shows 250,000 new foreclosure filings in June, up 53% from a year earlier.
SO- Bernanke tends to act quickly and decisively, but Congress is not made that way. Maybe truth lies with those who argue that the 2 mortgage giants are in great shape and the panic is nonsensical. But maybe not. And fear is a normal motivator of financial markets. We have been pretending that ARMS and leveraged investments have no down side.
The problem is, that the democrats and the media are focusing on the losers of the economy and not the winners. They are applying there "If it bleeds, it leads" philosophy to the economy now. Have there been bad decisions on parts of the consumers, who thought they were getting something for nothing? YES. Have there been unethical lenders? YEP. Both are equally to blame. And now we are poised for a new crop of millionaires being created from buying the foreclosed properties. I am sure they will villafied as scavangers, instead of geniuses who watched market trends and were there to invest at the low end, and didn't lose out on the high end. That is how the market works, buy low, sell high.
Therefore, stop whining and start working. If you look back at your life; at every failure, mistake, accident, breakup, or any other problem, there was one person present at each of those events. YOU!!!!! It is time people started taking responsibility for there actions, inactions and mistakes.
When I look at the issue of regulating or de-regulating financial markets, I usually have to come down on the side of regulating. I do not consider myself a crazy liberal on that, because Ben Bernanke is with me. Was the mortage mess and the billions of dollars lost by investors in Freddie mac and Fannie Mae due to too much regulation? Of course not, it was due to too little regulation. If you permit investors to put too little money into their investment or their home mortgage, it is no longer an investment, it is mere market speculation. It warps the market and it actually messes things up for people who are behaving responsibly with their money- like the person here on gather yesterday who mentioned that her retirement funds have lost a great deal of value because of the meltdown of the two mortgage giants.
I have another phrase that describes the market philosophy of feverish de-regulation. let's call it "pennies back on the dollar".
I still stay with the old adage: "if your neighbor lost his job it is a recession and if you have lost your job it is a depression".
Living in Michigan, I full well understand the financial realities of the current economy. Using that old adage, let's consider that the current unemployment rate is 8.3% (state and my town). That means 9 out of every 10 that want to work are. One other tidbit during the last data I saw 85,000 jobs went unfilled in Michigan.
From a personal stand point (not scientific) my neighbors are all employed (even some that could retire), when we periodically go out to dinner (during the week to avoid the crowds) we still have to wait in line, and it has been months since there has been an auction in our town. The city high school graduation rate is 46%.
In Michigan over 20 years ago the politicians and the auto companies and unions were actively, at best Iwill call it, shunning the Japanese auto companies. Guess what the Japanese built their plants everywhere but Michigan. Michigan was "fat, dumb, and happy." Now our politicians whine and go hat in hand around the world trying to create an image of changed attitude.
Back to those 85,000 jobs going unfilled, the reason is the employers can't find local people with the knowledge and skills to get the jobs applying. Sure the person that has just lost his/her job is experiencing a recession/depression. But why does it have to drag down those that are working at working.
The jobs have changed, the time when a person could walk in off the street with no (high school) education, a willingness to work is gone. We don't hire a person to dig a ditch by hand, the backhoe with driver comes in to dig it. The auto assemble line is no longer men manhandling parts, it is conveyors and robots moving the parts.
If you are complaining about the wages, tell me how much more you are willing to pay for a car using the 50s or 60s building technology and labor intensity?
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners." When was the last time the media was raving about the 46% that graduated, or in Michigan the 92% that are employed? We like to whine it is easy.
We SORT of are a nation of whiners.
Chris, you don't have to be a Republican to get tired of the whining.
In a perfect world, none of us would whine and we would all be more eager to help our neighbors and less eager to grab an extra slice of the pie.
I think part of the answer to whining is to take a long view. We need to build our future rather than grab today's goodies at the expense of future prospects.
I am too thick. Aside from recognizing that Denmark is the most idyllic political country, what are you trying to say?
Was it better when the feudalism ("the more easy-to-identify lords, land barons, and 19th century industrialists...") controlled society including the markets, or was it better under the Soviet Union's version of Communism? I am still trying to grasp how deregulation destroyed the free market place? As I recall in the 1970s the entry into the market place by airlines was totally controlled by the government, the pricing was totally controlled by the government. Is that your version of free market and how the consumer controls the market place? Government regulates every aspect of the market, the consumer only can purchase what the government allows, and no one can offer an alternative, that is your free choice? But I am forgetting it was a Democrat that signed off on the dismantling of those regulations so that isn't what you're talking about.
Now I recall Reagan fired the air traffic controllers when they en mass broke the law. That must have been the death knell for the free market.
"we do not have a "free market" would be going to your doctor and being given a prescription because of the kickback to the doctor from the pharmaceuticals." You must mean that every doctor that writes a prescription in the US is on the take, because I actually choose who I have as a family doctor. Oh, the other point is that I do pay for health insurance, and submit all of my prescriptions to them for payment (they must be on the same take), except they will pay for generic prescription, if I want to get the branded ones I pay the difference. I am still struggling with how my doctor is on the take and influencing the medication I use.
"And how often have you gone into a WalMart, and bought something cheap you had not intended on buying. Or been lured into signing your name on a tantalizing, pre-approved credit card application because you have a home." This also confuses me. You say a person while shopping bought something they didn't intend to when entering Wal-Mart ( I must admit I have done this at many others since I don't use Wal-Mart), and that we are lured into signing up for credit cards. Lured suggests that the person signing up had a choice, unless lured means they were physically forced. Or are you suggesting that people in the US aren't smart enough to decide for themselves whether to sign up and then use a credit card, or is that once a person has a credit card they are on the path financial ruin because they are forced to buy with the credit card?
"A "free market" implies that the demand side (the consumers) of the marketplace is not manipulated by the supply side... or any other "hidden" interests." Using your definition then if either side of the supply-demand have motives other than supply and demand such as accruing personal wealth by enticing the consumer to buy more or the supplier to sell for less than they need, then it isn't a free market. I look at the word free, to mean the consumer has a choice of what to buy at a price he/she is willing to pay, and the supplier has the choice of whether to sell at the buyer's price and even decide what they are willing to supply.
You may be the exception and are willing (have the expertise and time) to investigate to see what the cost to the supplier is and decide whether they are asking a fair price. And if they aren't charging enough then you feel they should be paid more.
I am willing to look at what the supplier is offering, decide whether that provides fair value to me at the price being asked. If a person wants to buy a cigarette, or a SUV, or an apple or a Prius, it is the buyer choice whether to pay the asking price.
I readily admit to the "ass" part, I like the company. Though the donkeys may take offense.
The pompous part I question. My vocabulary is to limited, and my atire is surely not new enough. I am open to recommendations.
...and an appearance by the Lovely Lois Lane!!! (your disguise IS effective, Lois, but I Love your eau de toilette, and would recognise that scent ANYWHERE!)
Well, for me, this article is complete. NEXT!
The definition of a recession is six months of negative GDP-- we haven't even experienced one month yet, our economy continues to expand, even if not at a rate YOU might like it to be.
Nothing more need be said.
*chuckle* can I have a look in your crystal ball too ???
This is the longest running "expansion" in which the vast majority have had flat or negative benefit. The "expansion" touted by you RWNs don't mean squat to John Q. They've not seen it. All they have is a failing housing market and the value of their chief asset tanking, fuel prices impacting everything from the gas tank to the grocery bill and our chief financial organizations leveraged to the breaking point or in hock to Middle East oil interest or the Chinese.
I'm sure Gramm is fat on oil stocks and all those little people sucking air are whiners.
We've also had rising inequality even during the recent economic "good times." And let's not forget that many of those who lose their jobs are illegal aliens--not counted in the statistics but clearly part of the economy.
I told you I was thick, the thing about Denmark was the only thing I thought I understood.
I couldn;t figure out what constitues a "free market", it seemed if soome choose to buy something because of an ad or sale it was threi free will?
Charles M.,
Rather then actually do the Phoenix thing, I just prefer that people have the proverbial "severe emotional" experieicne and change how they look at how they do things and look at things. I am one of those that thinks the are the best of times. That could because I made it veritical again today.
My understanding is that both Hoover and FDR believe that the individual was not important and that the governement should control economy for the good of the many. They regualted the country into the Depresson. See the book "The Forgotten Man".
I will take CHarles comoments about complaining a step farther. THe more we have and the easier it is to get (earn) the more we whine. When our parents were scramling to sufvive the were much more appraicative of their success, then today when we are more comcerned with the luxuries.
CHris W.,
Do youe really believe that the consumer spending just begain after 9/11? It really took hold in the late 50s when with the INstate highways ad everything became more available.
I like tax cuts because I haven;t yet found a person in governemnt that is smarter about spending my money than me. For al Warren Buffet says about he anothers should e taxed more he gives his money to the Gates foundation because he feels they can spend it smarter than the governement.
AS far as spend ing on the credit card and getting into debt, that is a personal choice. No one made me spend any of it or to go into debt.
We can trust those bankers and hedge fund managers, why would they screw up with our money?
and no, the debt spree was not just something we did as individuals. Our government coaxed us to do it, and gave the lenders whatever they wanted. sell a mortgage sure to fail? Fine. Name your rate for credit cards? We are sure that you will do a great job of serving the american consumer.
Bernanke is struggling to change our course on that. When Bush is gone he will succeed.
I don;t believe that any spree begins in an instant, it builds. Consumers moved from survival to luxury spending in the 50s when things became available, leisure time started to happen. Credit wasn;t wide spread, but spending on more than necesisties began (TV set, color, HiFi, kids, TV dinners, etc.). Until that time for the vast majority of the US was simple survival. Whether coaxed, lured, or cajoled the consumers individually still had/have a choice of how they spend their money. WHether people spend it to keep up with the Jones back in th 50s, or the self indulgance of the 60s & 70s, or the overwhleming afluence of the 80s & 90s, or the easy creidt of the 90s & 00s, it is by choice. As long as more than an isolated few are able to save and become millionaires read the "Millionaire Next Door) then anyone could make similar choices.
I still believe tat we have freedom of choice and that means that those people getting a morgage they couldn;t afford was a personal choice and they weren;t required to take it. The last time I had to sign a morage there were over half a dozen forms to sign (required by the government) to show I understood what I was signing, how much it would cost and the loan requirements. Do you feel people in general are to dense to make their own decssions and need someone (goverenment) to make each and everyone for them or at least thos that will cost them money?
A point of information, in the late 70s and early 80s one years ARMs were the most common form of new home morgages.
"Uh huh. And who blew the trumpets for consumer overconsumption over the past 7 years? the Republican Party." I must admit misread this and over looked the inclusion of the Democrats.
You may have money with the Hedgefunds, not I. THe only money I have with the banks is well within the FDIC insurance level. You can seem my limits and who I don;t trust.
Ethan,
I has been just over 20 years, but the Savings & Laon crisis was much more severe, they counted the failures in the hundreds, I think it was over a couple of thousand. They were were the morgage centers, not the banks.