Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rachel Maddow Takes Conservatives to Task Over Deregulation

Posted by Daniel De Groot, Open Left at 7:50 AM on March 20, 2009.


"Heaven forbid, there would be rules to rein in what happens on Wall Street, right?"

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

18 March:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, ® ARIZONA:  I don't think, frankly, someone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW:  Take it from him.  Heaven forbid, there would be rules to rein in what happens on Wall Street, right?  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The conservative argument against regulation was always that deregulation would create a lot of wealth.  Deregulating Wall Street would allow for all of this great wealth creation that we have experienced as a country.  The problem, as we have found out, is that "A," it allows for all sort of immense criminality, say, Bernie Madoff, say; "B," it puts the country hugely at risk, say, AIG, Citigroup the whole country; and, "C," economically, it really only benefits the people at the top.

While all of those executives walk away with these giant bonuses year after year after year, take a look at what normal families walked away with during the Wall Street fueled deregulation so-called boom.  This is median household income.  In the 1970s, it rose 4.5 percent.  In the 1980s, it rose 6.5 percent.  In the 1990s, it rose 8.3 percent.  In the 2000s-down 0.6 percent.

Deregulation benefits the people at the top.  They get really, really, really rich doing stuff that might otherwise be illegal if there were regulations in place to stop them.  We get all the national risk associated with what they were doing, and they get all the cash.  No one else actually benefits from it except for them.  It doesn't trickle down.  No one pays ultimately except the rest of us.

I still find it a surreal experience to hear a real live prime time television host who reads like any one of dozens of all our favourite liberal bloggers.   I know this is kind of a silly fan-boy post, but I don't want to let this window slide by.  

It it a rare event in US media history that there is a prominent liberal voice, able to calmly lay out the ideological case not just for specific liberal policies, but for broad meta-policy approaches.  This isn't just a case for some specific regulation like Glass/Steagal or food manufacturing inspection, but for the broad rubric of regulation generally.

For those on the right that have actually believed the media was liberal, Maddow shows what an actual liberal media would look like.  It's not just the content of her show, but the unhurried style, the politeness, substantive questions and the pauses between guests to add context with relevant facts and statistics.  If liberals ran the media, it wouldn't look like the clusterfuck out there today.  

I hope it lasts, but as Donahue (and Maher) learned, having good ratings is no insurance against being cancelled.  So in the event it doesn't, and the liberal moment fades, let's at least appreciate it.  

(moment quoted is part of this clip)

Digg!

Tagged as: mccain, msnbc, rachel maddow, deregulation


How Anti-Choice Dems and Mike Huckabee Could Team Up to Screw Over America's Women
Half of America wants to see 'President Huck' in 2012. Because of him and conservative Democrats, women have a tough fight ahead.
Post by Allison Kilkenny. November 11, 2009.
Marine Reservist Chases, Assaults Greek Orthodox Priest Whom He Mistook for an Arab Terrorist
Jasen D. Bruce hit the priest in the head with a tire iron, then chased him three blocks.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 11, 2009.
Idaho Republican Blake Hall Fired for Throwing Used Condoms on the Lawn of a Woman He Was Stalking
"It's unimaginable that a 56-year-old would be so deviant."
Post by Steven D.. November 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Rachael Maddox is exactly Right
Posted by: US Citizen on Mar 20, 2009 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonderful! Rachael Maddox is exactly right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TAKING THE CONSERVATIVES TO TASK, THANKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 20, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One question to all the journalists: Where the hell were you 5-6 years ago? The AIG mess and the rest of the Wall St. debacle is NOT NEW. It was one of the many things that journalists were not allowed to talk about. So was Iraq, which was 6 years ago yesterday and barely a whimper from you people. Please stop behaving like great white knights riding in to save us from the evil doers. Not just Maddow, but to all of the reporters who did what they were told, instead of doing their jobs, thank you. Now your newspapers are dropping like flies and TV audiences are shrinking. Simply put, where were you when we needed you? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone tell AIG.. I'd be more than willing to run their company into the ground for a quarter of the money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imagine conservatives being Financially CONSERVATIVE.
Posted by: GerryAttric on Mar 20, 2009 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a concept. Why does it take a liberal to point out the benfits of a conservative approach.

American hypocrisy at it's best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

root of the problem
Posted by: jstepp590 on Mar 20, 2009 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this shock and awe and noise is covering up one simple fact. All this financial mess was directly caused by the special interests and lobbying of the financial industry. However, this problem doesn't end here.

We have lobbyists for foreign countries shaping our foreign policy. We have lobbyists for the teachers unions blocking progress in our schools. We have lobbyists for the prison industry writing more restrictive laws and legalizing prison labor for Wall Street. We have lobbyists for the insurance companies blocking health care reform.

Basically, the root of most of our political problems can be directly traced back to our campaign system. Politicians say one thing but have to do another to keep the money people happy. We have a president who gets paid $400k per year but spent over $300 million to get the job. Who do you think he's working for?

If we do not solve the huge problem of corruption (it may be legal but that's what it is) it will eventually tear our country apart.

I see one way to fix it without reaching a point where we just shoot them as a Gordian Knot solution, and the link below explains it better than I ever could.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/48405/?page=1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To keep the money people happy Posted by: Sister_Lauren
the aristocratic defense in Victorian England when the City of London was facing some regulation
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 21, 2009 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can be summed up in one word: entitlement.

The response of the aristocrats and quasi-aristocrats is very enlightening: you have no right to inquire into how we got our wealth or what we do with it.

Yes, they cited their charitable works and support for education. But the bottom line was that they (unlike us oiks) were gentlemen.

That's the best they can do, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some people are just weird... Posted by: photon's feather
Governmental Regulatory Agencies
Posted by: jstuv on Mar 21, 2009 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the insistence of the financial and other industry institutions, the Bush/Cheney Administration appointed incompetents to administer the SEC, the FCC, the FDA, the Attorney General, etc.
Oversight and Regulation enforcement was practically non-existent, despite its FDR mandate. Put a child in a Candy Store without oversight and he/she will get a tummy-ache. Bankers are no different.

Once strong, willful, energetic, competent prosecutors head governmental agencies, Consumer Confidence will be restored and our economic calamity will diminish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YOU GO GIRL!
Posted by: ctuck622 on Mar 21, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're always "right on the money," Rachel. You go girl! Kick some Rethuglican ass!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel Maddow Centers on the Topic While Being Amusing
Posted by: jbpazz on Mar 21, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few broadcasters can be intellectually honest and avoid lecturing at the audience. Even fewer can be entertaining while following a logical argument.
As most shows have multiple sponsors, their individual effect has lessened. Still, the right wing message comes through. They use methods similar to the ones used in marketing more sophisticated than the left.
Since everything is 'free' on the Internet, the sponsors will have less influence on what we see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thankfully we have Rachel Maddow and MSNBC
Posted by: c&s mom on Mar 21, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is refreshing to get real news and thoughtful discussion on a major cable outlet. I like how Rachel frames things and how she puts her show together. I agreed with her guest that we should encourage the President to put people like the whistleblower incharge of the SEC. I think Obama is much too embroiled with the Wall Street guys and hated both picks for Treasury which gave Wall Street too much of a voice while we foot the bill.

It is time to break up the huge Companies that are causing this mess and fire everyone in the dirivities (sp?) division at AIG and get rid of that department since we own 80% of that company.

I want Barney Frank who I normally support to take responsibility for saying that we could not tell these bankers and insurance companies what to do with the money and for helping kill the regulation of salary and bonuses while saying you can't push string. That made me increasingly frustrated with everything and now we find out the bonuses are up over $200 million.

Time to clean house and put in people from the watchdog groups who would take care of making the hard points and sticking to them. They have been working for years for peanuts and now they could work for us and get paid and get great health care benefits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel, you're right, as usual
Posted by: willymack on Mar 21, 2009 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But you're not all that good at sarcasim; you're too damn NICE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lack of Corporate Punishment???????? EXECUTIONS ON TV!
Posted by: kanekoa64 on Mar 21, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Carlin, bless his crusty self, had the answer all along.
Fry them on TV.Or at least put them in prison with some regular, low income citizens who might have come fresh from a bankruptcy hearing and allow them a chance to discuss the matter, face to face.
We charge corporations for crimes like we do individuals, as they have similar rights, instead of levying fines for crimes like this, we start imprisoning and executing them based on the seriousness of the violations.
After all, not all of them are completely evil, so maybe you allow those companies to divide the sentences amongst the individuals most involved.
But when faced with a list of crimes and victims so all encompassing that results and reactions to these crimes have varied from mere multiple bankruptcies with families and states left to absorb the losses and deal with the rising cost, to causing so much stress and pain to actually drive some citizens to suicide and mass murder, spreading even more pain and loss and the company and it's CEO's are unrepentant, fry the CEO and his management staff and liquidate their assets for distribution.
The size of the document listing crimes and effects would have to be Biblical to warrant such extreme measure, but look around you and tell me you or yours haven't been ass bitten by this?.

I know it won't happen, besides I don't really have it in me to condone murder for any reason. But I have to admit the level of outrage I feel when faced with a new level of evil everyday, it's hard not to wish the Karma Train would speed up to about 50 mph and run over their greedy little Dogma, who sees the train, but won't pull his head out of the giant, overflowing dog food dish and becomes a greedy brown smear.
With all the stupidity and morally bankrupt behavior by so many who believe themselves to be our best, wouldn't it be a real deterrent to this sickness of greed and ethically disabled criminals if they were threatened with actual DEATH?
Just maybe one or two to make the others panic and scatter, like crows in corn
If they turn themselves in instead of making us go get them, they can receive lower sentences, attend therapy and go home.
AFTER they give back the countries money.
Maybe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow the money
Posted by: abusedbypenguins on Mar 21, 2009 7:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who owns the media? The rich. Do you think they are going to let their reporters criticize them? Of course not. Ronnie "the piece of shit" regan let the big media swallow all of the little ones so they are all the same. Long live the internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The trouble is not with the journalism
Posted by: Wendy Stone on Mar 22, 2009 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people blaming "the journalists."

Yes, there are lots of right wing news organizations and the Fox News operations of the world will tend to promote those types of journalists.

But in this day and age there are LOTS and LOTS of alternative ways of getting information.

The problem isn't that there isn't " good journalism" out there.

The problem is a mass populace that is too LAZY and too self absorbed to even think about issues. The average conversation that you hear on the bus or the subway isn't about what's in the news today ... it's about the "America's Next Top Model" TV show.

I was once picking up my weekend newspapers at a corner store and I had my usual pile of about three different papers, as well as a magazine. The young person behind the counter just looked at me oddly and said to me: "Uggg ... I don't care about any of that stuff. It has nothing to do with me."

Frankly, THAT'S THE ATTITUDE OF THE VAST MAJORITY!!!!!!

They think "government is bad" and so they vote for George W. Bush in the United States, or for Stephen Harper here in Canada because they think it is a good thing that they are going to cut taxes to the bone, even though they are shooting themselves in the foot.

It's BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that voting for the right wingers will result in the signing of free trade deals that will eliminate good factory positions here. It is blatantly obvious that deregulation and speculation on greed is going to be bad for the economy. It is blatantly obvious that what goes up must come down. It is blatantly obvious that cutting taxes will benefit the rich and not the middle class that is more dependent on public schools and other public services.

Frankly, you don't even need a journalist to tell you all those things ... though there have been lots of good, interesting articles in places like the New Yorker, not to mention the alternative press, as well as, at times, in the mainstream press, that served as blaring "WARNING" signs.

Yet the majority of people will not bother to read those types of articles or think about those issues. It's too much like "work" to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism is the problem,
Posted by: lewb on Mar 22, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because with money as a value system corruption is always lurking,waiting for the greedy to utilize it. I would suggest a resource based economy. the technology and the personnel are in
place to accomplish this. Why does someone like a
billionaire need all the money, how much stuff is
enough. Look at Bill Gates, he's now Mr. Help the
people. But he tried to squash the competition by any means. Suppose he took all that energy that it took to protect his cash cow and used it earlier.I suspect the rewards would have had more
meaning in his life than money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the salaries?
Posted by: zrants on Mar 22, 2009 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a lot of talk about bonuses. What about total compensation packages. One must assume there are salaries and benefits as well as bonuses. Let's see the total compensation. How much incentive does anyone need to stay employed? Where else are they going to go? The ones who left, who received retention bonuses, after the left, should be charged with breach of contract if they don't return the money since they didn't carry out their obligations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PROFITABLE IN 3 YEARS? GIVE ME 170,000 MILLION DOLLARS AND I WILL
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Mar 22, 2009 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
show you some profit the first of the month. The continued existence of insurance companies means the continued existence or organized criminal behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]