Bob Barr regarding Fannie and Freddie [mod title change]

Bob Barr Says Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, End Government Subsidies

Bob Barr Says Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, End Government Subsidies

July 15, 2008 3:35 pm EST

Oklahoma City, OK -- The latest financial crisis involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee home mortgages, demonstrates yet again how government intervention in private markets almost always comes to grief. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are nominally private, but were created by Congress and enjoy significant advantages over truly private companies, including cheaper borrowing, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee.

As a result, the two organizations behaved irresponsibly, confident that they were “too big to fail.” They own $5.1 trillion in mortgage debt, almost half of the nation’s total. With the sub-prime lending crisis in full swing, their losses are up, their capital is down, and their ability to borrow is falling. Immediate privatization is difficult because the markets doubt the organizations can survive without government support. Insolvency and a forced asset sale would roil both the housing and financial markets.

These problems are almost entirely the fault of the federal government. Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and with access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent.

Finally, we must learn the lesson that government subsidy programs almost always end up running out of control, causing financial disaster for taxpayers. A Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse could cost most than $1 trillion. The U.S. already has a $14 trillion national debt. Far worse, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare top $100 trillion. American taxpayers cannot afford additional special interest subsidies and bail-outs.

Moreover, the entire economy suffers from the sort of market manipulation practiced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the multitude of direct housing subsidy programs. Indeed, the impact of the sub-prime lending crisis has gone far beyond the housing market. The largely unaccountable Federal Reserve has made many of these problems worse, by extending further bail-outs and creating additional taxpayer liabilities. Congress must limit the Fed’s activities as well, and force it to act with greater transparency and oversight.
 
Ok, I scanned the thread. Did Barr say this, or did he not? I noticed the mod note in the 1st post, which led me to believe it was all a big lie.

Did I miss where someone showed that the blog was wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWWklYqMgEE&eurl

“I think right now, doing nothing would not be advisable,” said Bob Barr when asked about whether the federal government should bail out the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “As much as a libertarian, I don’t like to see the government get further involved, with yet another sector of the economy, I think that because the government has caused this problem, similar to the savings & loan problem the government caused a generation ago, it has to do something. The question is: Can it do enough by providing some temporary security, some temporary back-up, as long as it’s done with the thought in mind that there has to be long-term congressional action here to restructure and reformulate the very way Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae operate, I think that would be an advisable solution. But not doing nothing.”

Personally I don't agree with the notion that we can rely on the same people who got us into this mess to get us out. This is a bailout of investors at the expense of the rest of the American people. I lost thousands in the market last year...where's my check?
 
So he does favor government intervention? Just maybe not in the same way that is going to happen?

"I think that because the government has caused this problem, similar to the savings & loan problem the government caused a generation ago, it has to do something."

"I think right now, doing nothing would not be advisable"
 
So he does favor government intervention? Just maybe not in the same way that is going to happen?

"I think that because the government has caused this problem, similar to the savings & loan problem the government caused a generation ago, it has to do something."

"I think right now, doing nothing would not be advisable"


Saying they should do "something" doesn't mean he favors bailouts. It could mean he favors privatizing FM and FM which is certainly doing something.
 
Saying they should do "something" doesn't mean he favors bailouts. It could mean he favors privatizing FM and FM which is certainly doing something.

*shrug* he needs to clarify then. A previous poster pointed out that he does indeed want to privatize. Yet he also is in favor of a short-term government loan guarantee. Is that a bailout?
 
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.

That's what they said about Bear Sterns. Every company the oligarchy wants to bail out is "too big to fail". They are really bailing out their investors.
 

I based my comments on the video posted on the blog.

Your article just validates my belief that Bob Barr is not the right choice for me.

From the article:

"In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and with access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent."

A limited loan guarantee means a bailout, because we all know that housing prices are going straight down the toilet and we will be left holding the bill.
 
Ok, I scanned the thread. Did Barr say this, or did he not? I noticed the mod note in the 1st post, which led me to believe it was all a big lie.

Did I miss where someone showed that the blog was wrong?

Watch the video, that is what I was responding to.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618

Also, look at Barr's official press release and draw your own conclusion.

"In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and with access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent."
 
To all the people who are claiming that Barr has lost their vote on this one little issue probably did not read this entire post boy Barr: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/pr...mae-and-freddie-mac-end-government-subsidies/

It seems that we're always anxious and waiting for that "one" item to jump all over on.

Bob Barr said:
"These problems are almost entirely the fault of the federal government. Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and with access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent."

Bob Barr said:
"The Federal Reserve is a secretive and unaccountable organization which dominates monetary policy, regulates financial institutions, and increasingly intervenes in economic markets. Congress must insist on accountability and transparency in the Federal Reserve’s operation, while reconsidering the Fed’s almost total control over the money supply."
 
Last edited:
So he does favor government intervention? Just maybe not in the same way that is going to happen?

"I think that because the government has caused this problem, similar to the savings & loan problem the government caused a generation ago, it has to do something."

"I think right now, doing nothing would not be advisable"

Good Lord. This whole thread dedicated to whether or not Bob Barr wants to bail out the FMs. The length of this thread, the controversy, general movement, on top of title changing should speak for itself. ;)
I can only IMAGINE how many pms the mods received over this "most important issue"
DEAR BOB BARR, BRADLEY IN DC, ETC...
YES OR NO?
 
Last edited:
Well, I didn't like what he said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I don't like his questionable past or his VP but I am still voting for him, sending him small donations and I hope that his polls numbers go up....someone needs to go to the debates and talk about liberty and Ron Paul's principles...I can't understand why those who are criticizing Barr want the millions who will be watching the debates to be brainwashed with Obama and McCain's big government talk....and after the debates someone needs to keep making media appearances to talk about liberty and Ron Paul's principles.
 
Last edited:
Alright, this has to be said. People need to stop looking at the party platform of a candidate and instead look at and research the candidate him/herself.

No one can be 100% in line with a party platform, because it's constantly changing! No one even knows what a 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Liberal,' 'Conservative', and 'Libertarian,' is anymore, and it's difficult to define.

Well, in a perfect world and I guess Ron Paul would agree with me....there shouldn't be any party platform other than the Constitution....which rarely changes except through amendments.
 
Gotta love how all those Baldwin supporters jumped in - "You lost my vote, Bob," etc. Especially when he didn't have their vote in the first place.

Did you guys even watch the video? Or did you turn some idiot's (no offense) comment on a blog into a thread, without backing it up by anything factual?
 
Gotta love how all those Baldwin supporters jumped in - "You lost my vote, Bob," etc. Especially when he didn't have their vote in the first place.

Did you guys even watch the video? Or did you turn some idiot's (no offense) comment on a blog into a thread, without backing it up by anything factual?

I really did intend to vote for Barr. I base my decision not to vote for him on his comments in the video, in which he wants us to guarantee Frannie.
 
LOL @ Bobs web page:

In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, ....

....Finally, we must learn the lesson that government subsidy programs almost always end up running out of control, causing financial disaster for taxpayers.

We need to temporarily patch F&F in the full expectation that we will continue to patch them into the future.

By the way has anyone read the Republican platform lately?
 
That's what they said about Bear Sterns. Every company the oligarchy wants to bail out is "too big to fail". They are really bailing out their investors.

I never was in favor of bailing them out :p but I had to defend my man. Turns out that he doesn't favor bailing them out after all! *whew*
 
I really did intend to vote for Barr. I base my decision not to vote for him on his comments in the video, in which he wants us to guarantee Frannie.
idiom said:
We need to temporarily patch F&F in the full expectation that we will continue to patch them into the future.

Why don't you guys watch Ron Paul talk about Social Security. He wants to get rid of it in the long run, but until that can happen, he'll try to stabilize it and keep it going.

Does this sound familiar!?
 
Why don't you guys watch Ron Paul talk about Social Security. He wants to get rid of it in the long run, but until that can happen, he'll try to stabilize it and keep it going.

Does this sound familiar!?

How many Americans are dependent on Social Security in order to live?

How many Americans are dependent on F&F in order to live?

Besides, I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't want to help them out at all. Not even a "short-term" bailout like Barr supports.
 
How many Americans are dependent on Social Security in order to live?

How many Americans are dependent on F&F in order to live?

It's the same principle. People need F&F to stay in their homes.

Two questions for you, since you don't favor Barr's plan:

1. What's your plan?

2. What would your plan cause, assuming you haven't answered that in your first question?
 
Back
Top