Ron Paul on the bailout

[luckytxn 2,264]

I bet he has voted no to every spending bill except for the military. I get his votes along with my two Senators sent to my email right after they vote.

He is known as Dr. No for a reason and the reason the Reps always run someone and well fund usually and lose horribly.

[kaydee457 13]

I bet he has voted no to every spending bill except for the military. I get his votes along with my two Senators sent to my email right after they vote.

He is known as Dr. No for a reason and the reason the Reps always run someone and well fund usually and lose horribly.

You know, it's always nice to hear stats...I was making a joke. I noticed that you never back up your assertions with anything other than your own opinion....

In the future, would you please cite sources and stas to make your point?

Thanks...

[luckytxn 2,264]

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.

You are wrond again. The deregulation was to allow banks to open branches and/or buy other banks in other states. There was no lessening of oversight. Clinton wanted the bill and the Republicans went along. Now after the Clintons were out and the dull witted Bush's came into office there was one man who served both as the Fed chairman named of Greenspan who warned Congress that was coming if something wasn't done. If I remember right he even offered solutions to head it off and he was derided for it and even said maybe he should retire. Both major parties was in on it.

This was not due to the deregulation of allowing banks more market access but maybe that it made some banks and financials become very much larger so that when they failed they fell big time.

The Wiki's you posted is true though. There were more than one finger in the pie. There was also a huge finger by loan broker companies who made many and varied exotic loans and then afterwards packaged them in bundles off to the bigger financials. The oversight comittees who should have seen the huge influx of high risk loans and we can go on and on.

This has nothing to do with deregulating but lax oversight and bad business practices. makes me even think they did it knowing that they would get bailed out if it went belly up.

[IAMX 3,055]

Ron Paul votes with Republicans around 75% of the time.

If it were more like 50% or less then I'd believe the "Dr. No" thing.

I was only able to quickly zoom past his vote on the wasteful border fence spending, which Paul voted for.

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.

You are wrond again. The deregulation was to allow banks to open branches and/or buy other banks in other states. There was no lessening of oversight. Clinton wanted the bill and the Republicans went along. Now after the Clintons were out and the dull witted Bush's came into office there was one man who served both as the Fed chairman named of Greenspan who warned Congress that was coming if something wasn't done. If I remember right he even offered solutions to head it off and he was derided for it and even said maybe he should retire. Both major parties was in on it.

This was not due to the deregulation of allowing banks more market access but maybe that it made some banks and financials become very much larger so that when they failed they fell big time.

The Wiki's you posted is true though. There were more than one finger in the pie. There was also a huge finger by loan broker companies who made many and varied exotic loans and then afterwards packaged them in bundles off to the bigger financials. The oversight comittees who should have seen the huge influx of high risk loans and we can go on and on.

This has nothing to do with deregulating but lax oversight and bad business practices. makes me even think they did it knowing that they would get bailed out if it went belly up.

#######, I've been telling you the entire time it's about lack of oversight. You're the only one ranting about states. Deregulation also means lack of oversight which was done by the government, allowing the credit industry to overreport people's credit to loan them money.

Is there something complicated about this?

Edited September 25, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,264]

I bet he has voted no to every spending bill except for the military. I get his votes along with my two Senators sent to my email right after they vote.

He is known as Dr. No for a reason and the reason the Reps always run someone and well fund usually and lose horribly.

You know, it's always nice to hear stats...I was making a joke. I noticed that you never back up your assertions with anything other than your own opinion....

In the future, would you please cite sources and stas to make your point?

Thanks...

Don't know what you want. His stats are in the same place as everyone elses and can be read. Ron Paul has been around a long time and he is very adamant about never voting on any of what he calls illegal budgets. He has been my Congressman for a long time. He is known by every one on the hill as Dr. No. He always votes NO.

Now I was kidding with you before on your thread before. McCain has been absent for a little over two years on almost all votes having to do with budgets. I will find the link in a bit to where every vote for any congressman and senator can be found. They even break it down by categories to make it simple to wade through it.

[luckytxn 2,264]

And again Steven. You said the deregulation was what caused it. There was NO deregulation of oversight at all ever. I was explaining to you what the deregulation was that you have mentioned. In fact in the time this was brewing I belive there should have been sevral madatory opening of the books to look by oversight people. Where were they? They were there but either missed it or ignored it. A Genius at this stuff told them about it and he was derided.

[IAMX 3,055]

And again Steven. You said the deregulation was what caused it. There was NO deregulation of oversight at all ever. I was explaining to you what the deregulation was that you have mentioned. In fact in the time this was brewing I belive there should have been sevral madatory opening of the books to look by oversight people. Where were they? They were there but either missed it or ignored it. A Genius at this stuff told them about it and he was derided.

Deregulation means, directly, a decline in government role. When the government deregulates an industry, it certainly means less oversight.

Wonder why the FDA had problems? Wonder why there was the scare with China delivering shitty products to the USA? Deregulation which included lack of oversight.

In every case of deregulation failing, it's lack.of.oversight. If you don't oversee things, and regulate them, people cut corners. I helped my uncle cut corners as well thanks to little regulation of 1099s. I know first hand how well deregulation works. For ###### things up.

Edited September 25, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,264]

This link is to: congress.org

You can there and find info on any congressman or senator and even sign up and have an email sent to you of your congressman or senators votes. You can also find records and even addresses and bios on any of them.

I use: votesmart.org

Often I use this and one can look at any of their votes and even break it down by categories. One can also see who gives and how much to their campaigns. There are others also.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You are wrong though. You can tell someone they are now allowed to do something but keep oversight in place. By allowing a bank to now open a branch in another state may seem like a dilution but all it means is that the same oversight process is now in place for the new bank and they have to follow the same rules and oversight.

[IAMX 3,055]

Opening banks in another state has nothing at all to do with lending practices and the oversight of them, or lack thereof.

[luckytxn 2,264]

That is what I have been telling you Steven. I am glad we agree finally.

If deregulation is allowed but the oversight is still in place then how is deregulation getting rid of oversight?

[IAMX 3,055]

Posts 37 and 28. Already explained it.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Not really. Still keep saying that deregulation meant that oversight was taken away. It wasn't. More should have been made when someone that knew told congress a problem was coming and none were done.

Here is Ron Pauls voting record. Should see why he is known as Dr. No:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

[IAMX 3,055]

Disagree all you like, facts are the facts:

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheafl...enderForPrint=1

Credit-rating agencies that gave securitized subprime loans triple A ratings are one of the major causes of this debacle. Congress needs to increase the Securities and Exchange Commission's power to regulate these agencies, possibly through an independent body like the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Everyone else seems to be on the ball but you.

Edited September 25, 2008 by SRVT

[IAMX 3,055]

Another well put article:

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheafl...enderForPrint=1

Regulatory Failure Number One: Failure to Manage the U.S. Trade Deficit. The housing bubble (as well as the surge in leveraged buyouts of publicly traded companies ("private equity")) was fueled by cheap credit -- low interest rates. One reason for the cheap credit was an influx of capital into the United States from China. China's capital surplus was the mirror image of the U.S. trade deficit -- U.S. corporations were sending lots of dollars to China in exchange for the cheap stuff sold to U.S. consumers.

Regulatory Failure Number Two: Failure to Intervene to Pop the Housing Bubble. Along with an influx of capital, Federal Reserve policy kept interest rates very low. There were good reasons for the Fed Policy, but that did not mean the Fed was helpless to prevent the housing bubble. As economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research insisted at the time, Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan simply by identifying the bubble -- and adjusting public perception of the future of the housing market -- could have prevented or at least contained the bubble. He declined, and even denied the existence of a bubble.

Regulatory Failure Number Three: Financial Deregulation and Unchecked Financial "Innovation." A key reason that mortgages were made available so widely and with such little review of recipients' qualifications was a shift in which institutions hold the mortgages. Traditionally, banks made mortgages and held them. In the new era, banks and non-bank mortgage lenders made loans, but then sold the loans to others. Investment banks packaged lots of mortgage loans into "Collateralized Debt Obligations" (CDOs) and then sold them on Wall Street, with a promise of a steady stream of revenue from interest payments. These operations were pretty much unregulated. Despite the supposed sophistication of the investors involved, no one took account of how shoddy the loans were or -- more fundamentally -- the certainty that huge numbers would go bad if and when the housing bubble popped.

Regulatory Failure Number Four: Private Regulatory Failure. It was the job of ratings agencies (like Standard and Poor's, and Moody's) to assess the CDOs and give investors guidance on how risky they were. They failed totally, likely in part because they wanted to maintain good relations with the investment banks issuing the CDOs.

Regulatory Failure Number Five: No Controls Over Predatory Lenders. The toxic stew of financial deregulation and the housing bubble created the circumstances in which aggressive lenders were nearly certain to abuse vulnerable borrowers. The terms of your loan don't matter, they effectively purred to borrowers, so long as the value of your house is going up. Lenders duped borrowers into conditions they could not possibly satisfy, making the current rash of foreclosures on subprime loans inevitable. Effective regulation of lending practices could have prevented the abusive loans, but none was to be found.

Edited September 25, 2008 by SRVT