Bob Barr regarding Fannie and Freddie [mod title change]

Thrashertm

Thrashertm

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,608
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/14/video-barr-on-cavuto/#comment-2753

You just lost my vote Bob. Probably going to vote for Chuck Baldwin now - someone with principles.

[Mod-edit - Inaccurate title has been changed, please read thread, as the allegations made on the "forum post:rolleyes:" used as a "source" have been refuted. - thanks]

I'll leave the admin comment in. Watch the video on the blog post. Bob makes it clear that he supports government guarantees to prop up Fannie and Freddie. Make up your own mind if you support that, and vote accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Good to know.

I will wait patiently for those who can DEFEND themselves in their vote/support for Bob Barr.
 
With Ventura not running for Senate and now hearing this come out of Barr. I have no reason to go to the polls now.
 
Hmmm, well, I wasn't going to vote for him to begin with (most likely), but this is the nail in the coffin....I can't vote for someone who wants to monetize someone else's mistakes.
 
Bob Barr understands that you have to be pragmatic about it, cutting off the valve overnight will lead to a mortgage catastrophe like noone's ever seen. The naive and the dimwitted can waste their vote on protectionist Baldwin, that's fine.

I'm sticking with Bob Barr and the LP! I guess I see the worth in helping the LP win over 5% this year, instead of following the usual lack of foresight from many people here, which is something that I've grown accustomed to ever since Ron Paul dropped out.
 
Last edited:
TheBagman said:
As a Barr supporter, shut up.
Click to expand...

Why? because I'm calling your candidate what he is? A worthless, theocratic protectonist? Hey, if you support him, you have to accept his beliefs. There's no weaseling out of it. Maybe you should tell the OP to shut up, he's the one trying to provoke "civil war."
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Why? because I'm calling your candidate what he is? A worthless, theocratic protectonist? Hey, if you support him, you have to accept his beliefs. There's no weaseling out of it. Maybe you should tell the OP to shut up, he's the one trying to provoke "civil war."
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to get the wax out of your ears (... er eyes?) because in the text you just quoted I said I'm a Barr supporter.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
I never signed kludge's "treaty" ;)

I'm defending Bob Barr, I don't see how you're helping any.
Click to expand...

You're hardly defending Barr by calling someone else's candidate a "worthless theocratic protectionist". To me it seems like you're just throwing a label on someone else's candidate in some kind of attempt at "defending" Barr. Right.

And calling people who doesn't support the bail out "dimwitted and naive" is hardly productive either.
 
Last edited:
I didn't sign the treaty either because I knew I would have to come to the defense of Bob Barr. I have begun wondering if those who are calling to allow the 2 entities to crash are waiting with baited breath to grab them up for pennies on the dollar. tones
 
It's definitely a fine line to cross. Because the idea of "too big to fail" might actually apply here. If there is any way the government could come in and secure the mortgages only AFTER the company has failed, that would be what I consider a good compromise.

In that case the company would be bankrupt so the stock would be worthless and the bond holders probably wouldn't get most of their money back. Now in this case some of the people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford would get bailed out, which is bad, because that's their fault. But there would be major consequences as a result of all of their houses foreclosing at once (our economy would go into a deep recession, maybe depression) so they kind of have to be saved. But all people involved with this company, whether they are the stock owners, or the lenders, get screwed. That will send a clear message to businesses that the government won't help you, and therefore you shouldn't make decisions assuming the government will bail you out with credit of the US government.

They need to let enough mortgages fail so that Freddie and Fannie get hid hard as do the most irresponsible borrowers. But not enough such that the economy collapses into a depression which it would if you let these two companies which represent over $5 TRILLION dollars in mortgages go under. Get realistic for a second common. You want to minimize the risk that something like this doesn't happen again by teaching people strong lessons by hitting their pocket, but you can't let the economy tumble into a depression. A lot of people in this situation are innocent (such as everyone who didn't buy a house they couldn't afford), and there is no reason to make them live through a depression as a result of the irresponsibility of others. After all, isn't that what the government is there for, protecting third parties? Make those that are guilty pay, but protect the rest.
 
Last edited:
I understand what Barr is saying. We are in a real mess due to mistakes since 1913..the onset of the fed. Perhaps we have to prop things up so the economy doesn't completely crash...but it does no good if there are not long term changes made to the system. Look at that run on the bank today...there may be more. I'd rather see them stabalize the economy...and find solutions..so we can start getting out of this cycle. Makes sense to me. tones
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thrashertm
Hold my nose and vote for Barr, or vote on principle?
Replies
11
Views
213
JosephTheLibertarian
JosephTheLibertarian
Bradley in DC
Bob Barr on the Bailouts
Replies
1
Views
431
georgiaboy
georgiaboy
Back
Top