Irony Stalks Republicans

[240 is Back]

GOP should have run Ron Paul in 08.  He predicted the economic collapse in Fall 07 when every other repub was talking about how awesome things were.  he could have completely removed the 'bush factor' from the 2008 election.   

[Straw Man]

GOP should have run Ron Paul in 08.  He predicted the economic collapse in Fall 07 when every other repub was talking about how awesome things were.  he could have completely removed the 'bush factor' from the 2008 election.   

the economic collapse was already happening in the fall of 1997 so at that point it wasn't too hard to predict as long as you were paying attention and not beholden to tow the party line.

Ron Pauls "solutions" would have brougt a world of pain upon the US economy and I doubt the military would have been too keen on his ideas either. 

[Skip8282]

Strawman,

Why aren't we hearing about more insurance companies going belly up (AIG aside)?  Did these risky mortgages require PMI?  If not, what were the banks doing to try and protect themselves?  I'm just guessing, but I would think that they would want some type of coverage to offset potential losses.

Also, would you happen to know what the purpose of deregulation was to begin with?  Political favortism?  Trying to increase competition?  Maybe something else.

[headhuntersix]

the economic collapse was already happening in the fall of 1997 so at that point it wasn't too hard to predict as long as you were paying attention and not beholden to tow the party line.

Ron Pauls "solutions" would have brougt a world of pain upon the US economy and I doubt the military would have been too keen on his ideas either. 

Half of RP's idea's were ok. The other half were a disaster and while they might have gotten him elected, would have proved impossible to execute. Kinda like Barry...
Plus RP would not have had Congress....

[Straw Man]

Strawman,

Why aren't we hearing about more insurance companies going belly up (AIG aside)?  Did these risky mortgages require PMI?  If not, what were the banks doing to try and protect themselves?  I'm just guessing, but I would think that they would want some type of coverage to offset potential losses.

Also, would you happen to know what the purpose of deregulation was to begin with?  Political favortism?  Trying to increase competition?  Maybe something else.

I gotta run but if you google credit defualt swaps you can find lots of info.
I don't know the details/motivation behind the specific deregulation but my guess would be the usual suspect - desire for profit and the argument that "thing are different this time"

[bears]

I read the article and the author make quite a stretch (IMO) by claiming that the fact of the very existence of Fannie/Freddie and the subsequent secondary market created to sell/trade mortgage backed securities lended an implicit guarantee of government support to the entire mortage backed securities and derivative market i.e. quality and guarantee by association.   That's kind of like saying when the government built the federal highway system it lended an implicit guarantee of safety that I could drive 100 miles an hour, drunk and in the rain without getting hurt.   
Look at it this way.  The whole subprime "meltdown" hit the public conciousness with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in August 2007.   The cause of those failures were DEFAULTS on........Sub Prime and Alt A mortgage.   

my only argument against what you said right there is that the giovernment gave them $900 billion dollars after they collapsed.  you don't see that as the government supporting those practices?  i see that as straight up insuring those loans.  behind closed doors those fannie and freddie execs were told that the government would cover whatever they lost.....and they did.