Ron Paul on the bailout

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess it depends if you think learning a lesson is worth the price of a recession - and the inevitable job losses that it will entail.

Want to take a wild guess what my reply is?

Well the school of tough love doesn't really apply to elected officials whose job it is to ensure the country's continued well-being.

Taking a backseat during a major economic crisis just to make some vague point about how we "deserve this" would be a tad irresponsible.

[IAMX 3,055]

The school of tough love isn't necessary either when you already know the consequences and they're just ignored for interests. Screw tough luck, get me the guillotine.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I guess it depends if you think learning a lesson is worth the price of a recession - and the inevitable job losses that it will entail.

Want to take a wild guess what my reply is?

Well the school of tough love doesn't really apply to elected officials whose job it is to ensure the country's continued well-being.

Taking a backseat during a major economic crisis just to make some vague point about how we "deserve this" would be a tad irresponsible.

No. Taking a backseat because the Constitution never allowed the government to interfere with the economy in the first place

Never said that taking a backseat was gonna happen. I expected that the collapse of these companies would mean they would go into bankruptsy and then anhy healthy vultures will come and pick the carcass clean. The companies will cease to exist more than likely. The economhy will stumble and possibly a recession will happen. I said possible will happen not that it will. If one happens then we have gone through them before and we somehow survived. The rest of the world wioll probably have a real stumble and hurt really bad. I don't care a wit about them. They will learn to not rely on the U.S. so much and maybe to rely on themselves next time.

Instead we are gonna reward bad actions and maybe give a slap on the wrist. Congress is gonna add so much stuff that some of it we will never know about.

The school of tough love isn't necessary either when you already know the consequences and they're just ignored for interests. Screw tough luck, get me the guillotine.

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

I doubt that any charges will be placed on anyone.

P.S. I better go read the constitution again. Maybe it does say the government can interfere with the economy.

Edited September 24, 2008 by luckytxn

[dalegg 143]

I'm starting to ask myself really what exactly would happen if we said "screw you, shouldn't have made those loans". What would happen anyway?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I'm starting to ask myself really what exactly would happen if we said "screw you, shouldn't have made those loans". What would happen anyway?

The same thing that would happen when any business goes bankrupt. These companies are big and all but still does not deserve corporate welfare.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Could this be possibly go under regulating commerce?

[IAMX 3,055]

I'm starting to ask myself really what exactly would happen if we said "screw you, shouldn't have made those loans". What would happen anyway?

A more reasonable growth, less people in financial trouble, less dipshits who are richer while screwing the system.

This "screwing" was something necessary regarding oversight and financial stability.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Forgot to add. No accountability. Future corporations can now act recklessly and if get into trouble knowing the Congress will bail them out.

At least huge corporations anyway.

[IAMX 3,055]

They got away with it because Congress deregulated it in the first place.

So before Congress could get into needing to bail them out, they needed to make the stupid move of deregulation first.

Edited September 24, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,264]

So they needed to be regulated to run a business in a responsible way?

From what I remember about the deregulation was they were to be allowed to open banks and buy other banks in other states. Not regulated on how to run the business itself. They always had rules on and oversight placed on them to be allowed to borrow money from a central bank.

[IAMX 3,055]

So they needed to be regulated to run a business in a responsible way?

From what I remember about the deregulation was they were to be allowed to open banks and buy other banks in other states. Not regulated on how to run the business itself. They always had rules on and oversight placed on them to be allowed to borrow money from a central bank.

They were less and less regulated from the two laws made in the 30s and 50s regarding bank security and insurance. There was much greater oversight of this which meant banks had to make better deals, and people couldn't wildly borrow, and their incomes were better verified. Because of deregulation, these assurances left, and the result was loans given to people who didn't deserve them, nor could obviously pay them off.

Now you have banks going down as their insurance runs out. It took a while because the domino effect went international. However, deregulation is most certainly to blame here.

Edited September 24, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,264]

Then I fail to see how any deregulation from the 30's or 50's mean a thing now. the only deregulation I saw was when Clinton was in office and it deregulated the banks to be allowed to open and/or buy banks in other states. To be allowed to do this they did have to make sure a certain percentage of their loans had to go to minorities. They still had the same oversight in place.The republicans tried to make the oversight longer but could not see that it was done.

Now where does this deregulation of allowing banks to open banks in other states or buy them cause this mess? Is it that because you are allowed to open banks in other states mean that you are allowed to now make bad loans with impunity? Not sure where deregulating banks caused this.

Edited September 24, 2008 by luckytxn

[IAMX 3,055]

What? Those laws provided more oversight, not deregulation.

Here is what you're missing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mort...vents_to_crisis

The reasons for this crisis are varied and complex. The crisis can be attributed to a number of factors pervasive in both the housing and credit markets. Some of these include: the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments; poor judgment by the borrower and/or the lender; speculation and overbuilding during the boom period; risky mortgage products; high personal and corporate debt levels; financial innovation that distributed and perhaps concealed default risks; central bank policies; and regulation (or lack thereof).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_credi...subprime_crisis

Credit rating agencies played an important role at various stages in the subprime crisis. They have been highly criticized for understating the risk involved with mortgage backed securities (MBS).

Impact on the crisis

Credit rating agencies are now under scrutiny for giving investment-grade ratings to securitization transactions (CDOs and MBSs) based on subprime mortgage loans. Higher ratings were justified by various credit enhancements including overcollateralization (pledging collateral in excess of debt issued), credit default insurance, and equity investors willing to bear the first losses. Critics claim that conflicts of interest were involved, as rating agencies are paid by the firms that organize and sell the debt to investors, such as investment banks. On 11 June 2008 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed far-reaching rules designed to address perceived conflicts of interest between rating agencies and issuers of structured securities. The proposal would, among other things, prohibit a credit rating agency from issuing a rating on a structured product unless information on assets underlying the product was available, prohibit credit rating agencies from structuring the same products that they rate, and require the public disclosure of the information a credit rating agency uses to determine a rating on a structured product, including information on the underlying assets. The last proposed requirement is designed to facilitate "unsolicited" ratings of structured securities by rating agencies not compensated by issuers.

Edited September 25, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have to agree with him too that the government should not be regulating the economy.

Like watching an NFL game with no referees. Yeah, that'll do it.

[kaydee457 13]

Wow, we have the finest VJ minds cobbling a strategy for corporate America.....Please continue for there's nothing on TV tonight and I need a laugh!

Oh, and Ron Paul never saw a spending bill he didn't like!