Skip to comments.
Too Big to Fail?[Ron Paul]
House.gov ^
| 20 Oct 2008
| Ron Paul
Posted on 10/20/2008 2:10:39 PM PDT by BGHater
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
1
posted on
10/20/2008 2:10:41 PM PDT
by
BGHater
To: BGHater
Words of wisdom from a giant among pygmies.
To: BGHater
To: Captain Kirk
Too bad he’s a “truther” surrender monkey.
To: BGHater; Jim Robinson; dighton
His campaign wasn’t too big to fail.
To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...
Some banks on Wall Street should fail. Fannie and Freddie should fail. They are perpetrating fraud against the people. Yet, government insists on rewarding behavior which should instead be investigated, prosecuted, and punished.
Libertarian ping! Click
here to get added or
here to be removed or just reply to this post!
6
posted on
10/20/2008 2:26:06 PM PDT
by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: bamahead; traviskicks; djsherin; roamer_1
7
posted on
10/20/2008 2:33:22 PM PDT
by
rabscuttle385
(Baldwin/Castle 2008 - Gilmore for Senator from Virginia - Wolf for Congress)
To: BGHater
Sometimes you have to give up a little freedom in order to be more free. The financial derivatives market is 51 trillion dollars (or at least it was, people don’t know how much its worth now).
To put things into scope, a country’s assets are usually 5 times GDP. The US makes 13 trillion a year in GDP. Its networth is around 65 trillion dollars.
Sometimes in the short-run, market adjustments can be extremely deadly. If credit markets had been allowed to fail, we would’ve probably gone through a major recession if not depression.
That doesn’t make it any less palatable to us true-blue conservatives and we should be hopping mad that this bailout came with no conditions to ever prevent this from happening again. We’re going to see a neutered form of subprime lending in the future with the democrats in control. Count on it.
To: Jim Robinson
I'm just surprised he didn't blame the Iraq war somewhere in this article for the bailout.
9
posted on
10/20/2008 3:12:05 PM PDT
by
april15Bendovr
(Free Republic & Ron Paul Cult = oxymoron)
To: april15Bendovr
I’m sure he does. I’m sure he believes all the Arab/Muslim/Islamic terrorist attacks on Judaism/Christianity all down through the centuries are the fault of America’s foreign policy.
To: BGHater
I am so sick of Paul. He cares more about playing rock star with his little truther buddies than he does about his country.
If not, he would have endorsed McCain and set his manic supporters against the Marxist tyros with the narcissistic personality disorder.
11
posted on
10/20/2008 3:22:42 PM PDT
by
WildcatClan
(The world is full of fatheads; so I invented Diet Shampoo)
To: I see my hands
How long are you going to keep repeating lies?
Paul is not now and never was a ‘truther’.
12
posted on
10/20/2008 3:41:44 PM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
"How long are you going to keep repeating lies" Have you quit stealing tp from highway rest stops yet?
|
|
|
To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
It's the usual spoon-fed propaganda from the RNC.
They're no different from the leftist democrats IMO. It seems both sides want a totalitarian state, but has different means to go about it.
14
posted on
10/20/2008 3:50:23 PM PDT
by
randomhero97
("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
To: DiogenesLaertius
Sometimes in the short-run, market adjustments can be extremely deadly. If credit markets had been allowed to fail, we wouldve probably gone through a major recession if not depression. Mathematically, one of two things (or both) must almost certainly be true:
- Without the intervention, the failure of the credit markets would not have been so severe as Paulson et al. have claimed, or
- Despite the intervention (and any plausible future intervention), the credit markets are still guaranteed to fail; such failure when it occurs will almost certainly be more severe than it would have been absent the intervention.
If a company is sufficiently insolvent that the most optimistic (smallest) estimate of liabilities exceeds the most optimistic estimate of assets (including non-book assets like employee knowledge), the company should be liquidated. Investment in the company will almost certainly result in a net loss of wealth. It will likely give some benefit to existing creditors, but the new investors will lost at least as much as the creditors gain.
Consider Boris' Bank in Pottsylvania (no banking rules there). Boris sells $100 two-year CDs at 41.4% interest; after two years, they're worth $200. Initially, people are skeptical about Boris' offer, so few people invest at first. After people see that Boris is making good on his CDs, increasing number of people invest. What they don't see is that Boris simply pockets any money that won't be needed to pay off claims within the next three months. As long as the number of depositors doubles every couple years, Boris will continue to make good on his CDs. When deposits stop accelerating, and the three-month reserve gets nearly exhausted, Boris goes to the government and asks for a 'loan' to keep him afloat. Should the government grant it? What would be the effect?
15
posted on
10/20/2008 4:03:18 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Barry Soetoro == Barbara Streisand)
To: I see my hands
Have you quit stealing tp from highway rest stops yet?A non answer. About what we expect from RNC stooges.
16
posted on
10/20/2008 4:19:44 PM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
To: randomhero97
They're no different from the leftist democrats IMO. It seems both sides want a totalitarian state, but has different means to go about it.They're just p!ssed that Paul called this one right, and called it during the Primary.
You phrased that correctly by using the word totalitarian.
It seems that The neocons are pretty much fascists, while the Democrats are more Marxists.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
17
posted on
10/20/2008 4:22:22 PM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
To: BGHater
Unfortunately, it seems we are headed into a new era of slavery, however, where all taxpayers will be forced to render to the Fed and big banking interests the bulk of the fruits of their labor, possibly through higher taxes but definitely through the eroding force of inflation.All you Ron Paul haters, don't say he didn't warn you!
18
posted on
10/20/2008 4:33:06 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States. ~ Carlos the Jackal)
To: I see my hands
The truther accusation was debunked long ago. Give it a rest.
And whatever else you have to say, you can rely on this- he’s dead right about the economy, and he’s been dead right for decades.
Adjust your investment strategy accordingly.
19
posted on
10/20/2008 4:36:38 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States. ~ Carlos the Jackal)
To: ovrtaxt
The hypocrisy is hilarious.
They called and still call Ron Paul all kinds of derogative names and bash him constantly. Yet, now they want and believe his endorsement would put McCain over the top.
20
posted on
10/20/2008 4:47:28 PM PDT
by
randomhero97
("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson