The American Politics thread

[silentstriker]

Lol that's what everyone says. And they said that last times too. Hillary supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama. Romney supporters said they wouldn't vote for a moderate like McCain.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Spark

for some reason i just got this image of ron paul's head photoshopped onto a picture of jesus when reading ikki's last post.

Originally Posted by Ikki

I don't believe in religion. Dawkins instead of Jesus

Ron Paul's head photoshopped on a picture of Warne tbh

[Anil]

used to like some of paul's libertarian views but after he started expressing some really conservative social views, don't think much of him now...now that his ratings are going up, he is constructing an image of himself which he believes will generate mass appeal, in fact acting like any other garden-variety politician...

[Quaggas]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

Like the Basel accords and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Isn't there regulations forcing banks to lend to the poor also?

In the UK banks are still being told to lend to the poor. That's just the kind of things rich bankers use as an escuse to say 'I don't give a ****' if it fails as it's not my fault I was told to lend sub-prime.

Affordable housing is part of F&F's charter (e.g.). The CRA applies to all banks and S&Ls, though F&F have indicated that pressure from OFHEO (now FHFA) was part of the reason they started to invest in SP and Alt-A starting about 2005. (see the FCIC report)

Essentially, they (Edit: FNM; Freddie is likely similar) stuck to their conservative guns on the way up (2000-2005), worrying from about 2003-2005 that they were becoming irrelevant in light of the growth of the PL market, and then got in near the top. Their credit book of business was about 2,400 billion in Sep 2007. Their own portfolio was 840bln, of which SP accounted for 56 and Alt-A 360, all with a core capital requirement of 2.5%. Currently they owe the gummint about 150 (at 10% dividend) over and above the value of their assets, which, if you add their pre 2008 equity of 40, means they burned through about half of the non-conforming portfolio. TBF, the gummint used them in the months after 9/08 to dump more SP in an effort to clear the logjam in the PL market.

Cisneros and his handlers get some of the blame.

[Redbacks]

Review & Outlook: What Fannie and Freddie Knew - WSJ.com

The SEC says the companies defrauded investors because they "knew and approved of misleading statements" about Fan and Fred's exposure to subprime loans, and it chronicles their push to expand the business.

I think ikki is right in that when everything was boom time people dismissed R Paul as a nut calling for Fannie and Freddie to be closed down (rational expectations FTW!) Now that reality has come to bat last, he has the benefit of being backed by economic science not built on a Keynsian fraud, being the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which has made testable claims and been verified.

[Quaggas]

Here and go to the 2007 Investor Summary Credit Supplement, p 3. AFAIK these supplements were not added later. Dunno about the SEC case, but it seems like political gimmickry.

Of course, their NC preferred issuance EOY 2007/BOY 2008 was quite a joke, but only 5%ers were clobbered by the underwriters.

Restructuring FF has been discussed as far back as 2000 iirc, but the. discussion never centered on credit risk (which they were supposed to absorb), rather the retained portfolio (growth) and the attendant interest rate risk. Of course, privatizing them would have just created another 2 Citis, splitting them up is just kicking the can down the road.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Jono

Ron Paul's head photoshopped on a picture of Warne tbh

Bradman. Unparalleled consistency

Originally Posted by Anil

used to like some of paul's libertarian views but after he started expressing some really conservative social views, don't think much of him now...now that his ratings are going up, he is constructing an image of himself which he believes will generate mass appeal, in fact acting like any other garden-variety politician...

Really? What gave you that impression? He's not changed at all IMO. There was a piece in TIME I think recently which stated: Paul is not a politician. He really isn't. He is more an intellectual and a rights fighter.

[Sanz]

What has been Paul's position on Capital Punishment Historically ?

[Ikki]

Per Wiki:

Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[221]
In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."[222]
According to longtime Paul associate and former chief of staff Lew Rockwell, writing in December 2010, Paul opposes capital punishment as part of his "consistent pro-life ethic".[223]

[Sanz]

So your statement "He has not changed at all" does not hold true. He did change his stance on Capital Punishment.

[Uppercut]

/pedantry

Haven't much time for his politics but I'm definitely warming to Paul as a person, he's so, so much more genuine than almost every other politician.

[silentstriker]

An honest nutcase is something to be admired. Preferably from a distance.

[Uppercut]

And exactly the type of person you want to run an election against.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

/pedantry

Haven't much time for his politics but I'm definitely warming to Paul as a person, he's so, so much more genuine than almost every other politician.

He is someone who doesn't offer any solutions the problems modern day America is facing. When he is faced with a tough question, he either panders to the Republican base (e.g. his stance on Evolution, Guns, Civil rights,taxes, immigration) or refers to the state (Gay Rights, Abortion, Healthcare,education, etc.).

Government is bad is all he preaches yet has spent a good portion of his life in government. We should elect him if we want America to go back to the days when people have right to reject you a service or job because they do not like your race and color. That alone is a reason to not like him and he offers plenty.

For all the fault and problems America has, It is still the best to be and by quite a distance.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Sanz

He is someone who doesn't offer any solutions the problems modern day America is facing. When he is faced with a tough question, he either panders to the Republican base (e.g. his stance on Evolution, Guns, Civil rights,taxes, immigration) or refers to the state (Gay Rights, Abortion, Healthcare,education, etc.).

Government is bad is all he preaches yet has spent a good portion of his life in government. We should elect him if we want America to go back to the days when people have right to reject you a service or job because they do not like your race and color. That alone is a reason to not like him and he offers plenty.

For all the fault and problems America has, It is still the best to be and by quite a distance.

i actually used to think he was fairly sane and logical and that his son was unfortunately far nuttier than him but no he is the same rigid, social conservative ideologue and nut case...and the fact that he actually seems to genuinely believe most of what he says makes him even more dangerous...although recently with his new-found popularity, i get the feeling that he is starting to play the same political games as others of his ilk...