Bob Barr regarding Fannie and Freddie [mod title change]

Knightskye said:
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?
Click to expand...

Doing nothing sounds good to me. :)
 
Knightskye said:
So, should I agree with this:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/709846.html

or do you think something else will happen if we do nothing?
Click to expand...

Well, we can either have a 1 year depression starting today, or a 5 year depression starting tomorrow.

Obviously we have to do SOMETHING to delay the onset of the depression, no matter how bad it makes it. Hell, if we can manage to push it back to next week, then we clearly need to do that, even if it means the depression will last 15 years!

:rolleyes:
 
Knightskye said:
So, should I agree with this:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/709846.html

or do you think something else will happen if we do nothing?
Click to expand...

You should agree with the recession part. Yet, recessions are part of a healthy economy. They are a way of "cleansing the system." The market always finds a way to fix them, without government interference (see Rothbard's The Panic of 1819). It usually doesn't take that long either (although it may seem like an eternity if you are the one suffering). There are winners and losers in life. There are the haves and the have nots. It's simply a part of living in world with scarce resources and a population of almost 7 billion.

I think we can both agree that a large-scale long-term bailout is not the answer. It's dangerous. I'm not the best at financial and economic stuff, so could you explain to me the wisdom of a "short-term" bailout like Barr wants? We bail them out, then what?
 
I can certainly understand Bob Barr...short term stabalization so PEOPLE DON"T BOTTOM OUT..this is about PEOPLE..and people will suffer MORE if everything crashes immediately..so you stabalize temporarily and CREATE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. Do you really believe Ron Paul would end the Federal reserve immediately? NO he would not. He even SAID so. He said he would offer..or try to get a competing currency out there that IS backed by something. Even Ron Paul knows that to abolish the fed IMMEDIATELY would kill the economy. Common sense. Ron Paul says these things..and he is right, but he also knows it ain't gonna happen...He goes to the EXTREME to try to pull the government back to center. YES in the long term, it is better to abolish the Fed. In the short term...stabalize the economy as best as it can be..and WEAN US OFF the STUPID system. (smh) TONES
 
tonesforjonesbones said:
I can certainly understand Bob Barr...short term stabalization so PEOPLE DON"T BOTTOM OUT..this is about PEOPLE..and people will suffer MORE if everything crashes immediately..so you stabalize temporarily and CREATE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. Do you really believe Ron Paul would end the Federal reserve immediately? NO he would not. He even SAID so. He said he would offer..or try to get a competing currency out there that IS backed by something. Even Ron Paul knows that to abolish the fed IMMEDIATELY would kill the economy. Common sense. Ron Paul says these things..and he is right, but he also knows it ain't gonna happen...He goes to the EXTREME to try to pull the government back to center. YES in the long term, it is better to abolish the Fed. In the short term...stabalize the economy as best as it can be..and WEAN US OFF the STUPID system. (smh) TONES
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is against bailing out Fannie and Freddie. Barr repudiates his Libertarian credentials by making an exception for Frannie. This is Bear Sterns' "too big to fail" mentality all over again, and we've seen it too many times. I expected better from Barr.
 
tonesforjonesbones said:
I can certainly understand Bob Barr...short term stabalization so PEOPLE DON"T BOTTOM OUT..this is about PEOPLE..and people will suffer MORE if everything crashes immediately..so you stabalize temporarily and CREATE LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. Do you really believe Ron Paul would end the Federal reserve immediately? NO he would not. He even SAID so. He said he would offer..or try to get a competing currency out there that IS backed by something. Even Ron Paul knows that to abolish the fed IMMEDIATELY would kill the economy. Common sense. Ron Paul says these things..and he is right, but he also knows it ain't gonna happen...He goes to the EXTREME to try to pull the government back to center. YES in the long term, it is better to abolish the Fed. In the short term...stabalize the economy as best as it can be..and WEAN US OFF the STUPID system. (smh) TONES
Click to expand...

Where has Paul said he doesn't want to abolish the fed as immediately? He has said that about most executive branch departments. He said that about the IRS. I don't see the difference for the fed. Technically the president couldn't get rid of the fed by her/himself anyway, as approval from Congress would be needed first.

You raise fair points, but I don't agree with your conclusions. Going by your "can't do anything right away" mentality, we shouln't pull our troops out from around the world right away, including Iraq. We ought to just support Obama on Iraq. He has said he will pull a lot of troops out, but not all because it would de-stabalize the region and cause chaos and genocide. Genocide will happen. There is a good chance that millions will lose their lives and the region will become unstablized. Not our problem right? I would agree with that. Yet, going by your standard we should go with Obama's plan and do things in steps. To ween IOraq off our protective teet so they can fend for themselves.

I find this whole sitatuon ironic. In some crazy attempt to defend Bob Barr, rather than just admit he isn't perfect and can be wrong sometimes, so many people here have done a complete 180 on their positions. We now have people defending government bailouts, the CIA, now the need for the fed to save us.

Maybe it is a good thing Ron Paul isn't going to win. We wouldn't want him putting us all in danger with his extreme positions. Yet, if he didn't mean everything he campaigned on and got elected anyway, there would be a lot of ticked off Americans at yet another president who promised one thing and did another.

You know I love ya tones :)
 
Seriously. Let FM-FM fail, and in their bankruptcy proceedings they will sell off their mortgage holdings. The Gov sould only be involved enough to help "augment" the auctions of high risk mortgages AFTER THEY GO BANKRUPT to prevent people from losing their homes behind this. And the country will go on.

If a bank buys an uber-high-risk mortgage valued at $100,000 for a paltry $10,000 then that $10,000 goes towards FM-FM's bills, a new bank now holds the mortgage in question, and the homeowner keeps their home. What's so bad about that?

What's BAD, is even a SHORT term bailout of FM-FM which will make the coming crash EVEN WORSE.
 
Knightskye said:
$5 trillion...

Have you ever heard of a $5 trillion company that failed?
Click to expand...

So does that mean if I start a company, and get it big enough, that I can start mismanaging it badly, taking all kinds of money out to make myself rich, and because it's so big, it will just get propped up instead of failing? I mean really, what's the threshhold?

And does that $5 Trillion figure account for liabilities as well as assets, or is it $5 Trillion in assets, but $6 Trillion in liabilities? Maybe it's REALLY a NEGATIVE $1 Trillion company, after all.

Besides, a $5 trillion company failing today, would be like $150 Million company failing in 1913, adjusted for inflation, right? Is it really all that uncommon?

Problem is, FM-FM is going to fail. No matter WHAT we do or do not do. By propping it up we inflate the bubble and make the eventual crash worse.

So we can let it fail today and suffer a 1 year housing market depression. Or we can prop it up for another 6 months, and suffer a 3 year housing depression when it crashes. Or, we can prop it up for another 18 months and then suffer an 8 year housing depression when it crashes.

I'm not saying that I WANT a depression, but I'd sure as hell rather deal with a 1 year depression than a 3 year depression!
 
Paul says he would like to abolish a lot of thing very quickly, the retarding factor is Congress. Some things like Social Security would be phased out over decades or even not at all if not everyone opts out.

The Fed and such he would dump overnight. Messing with depressions just drags them out.
 
I recollect Ron Paul saying we couldn;t get of the Federal Reserve system immediately...but he would encourage offering a competing currency backed by gold/silver. Tones
 
Jeez. I have a lot of homework to do before the election. No way I'm voting straight-anything now.
 
Knightskye said:
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!?
Click to expand...

People CHOOSE to invest in Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae.

People are FORCED to pay Social Security.

You can not compare the two!
 
familydog said:
I guess you missed this speech by Ron Paul.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

Sounds to me like he wants it abolished right away.
Click to expand...

How about we look at one of the bills he introduced to abolish the Federal Reserve, and not a statement he wrote about it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110A67l6D::

(a) In General- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.

(b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.
Click to expand...

One year from the date of enactment of the Act.

But it doesn't stop there. Paul gives a little leeway in accomplishing this task:
(d) Report- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.
Click to expand...

After 18 months, the Treasury Secretary and the Director of the OMB have to write a joint report, including things that aren't yet done at the end of the 18-month period.

So it's not immediately. It could be one year, it could be a year and a half - or longer if things have not been completed yet.
 
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
214
JosephTheLibertarian
JosephTheLibertarian
Bradley in DC
Bob Barr on the Bailouts
Replies
1
Views
431
georgiaboy
georgiaboy
Back
Top