Need Help In Countering Obama Supporter on Regulation

posted here. Let me just ad my $1 worth (aka, 2 cents).

What about buyer responsibility. Wouldn't you think it wise to investigate, ask questions and completely understand your mortgage? I am not an economic guru, but when I bought my houses, I thoroughly understood my mortgage. My second home was a flexible rate and I understood the risk. Shouldn't the buyers have to take some responsibility. Trust me, I am not saying the lenders are justified by any means but our country has moved into this "lack of responsibility" mode and frankly it bothers me. This is the root of more government, more intervention, "help me take care of myself" or "it's not my fault I signed a bad loan."

If you want the gov't to take care of you from cradle to grave...
.

http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/

The best one page on the candidates at a glance for dummies.

Read this great article first,

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumni...

Dr. Paul made the following statements about the current housing market crisis:

“The root of this crisis, as with past financial and economic crises, results from federal government intervention into the economy, not to anything endemic to the market, nor to the actions of market participants.

“The collapse of the housing market has served as a catalyst for the economy's latest bust. Various federal mortgage programs through the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have distorted the normal workings of the housing market.

“The Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and lowering of interest rates were a major spur to the housing boom. Low interest rates influence marginal buyers, those who are sitting on the fence, and encourage them to take on a mortgage that they otherwise would not.

“It is time for the federal government to get out of the housing business.”

Dr. Paul has long been a proponent of rejecting central planning by the Federal Reserve and government bureaucrats. He instead advocates returning to a policy of sound money that encourages fiscal responsibility.

“Ron Paul has long predicted this type of crisis would result from federal interventions into the housing market and excessively low interest rates,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Only Dr. Paul has the background and expertise to explain why we must reject further political intervention into the housing market, such as that advocated by Hillary Clinton.”

LatinsforPaul

If there were no Federal Reserve, interest rates would regulate the mortage market. Interest rates would not have been so low, enticing people to buy expensive homes. It's not the really fault of the mortage industry. It's the the market was not allowed to work and give the correct signals to consumers as well as the mortage companies.

But, we do have a Federal Reserve system. Under a Paul administration, things would not change much as far as that is concerned. Paul would not be able to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Congress would have to be behind it, and that would take several years for enough of them to be pursuaded. A president only has so much power.

But, what kind of regulations does your friend what imposed? Limits on interest rates? That would only induce more bad investments.

I will say that there is a case even from a free market perspective for some help to consumers from the government, because it's the government's fault for causing consumers to get faulty price signals by setting up the Federal Reserve system. So from that perspective, the government ought to help those they have damaged. But that itself is going to harm the economy somewhere else because they have to take wealth from others or print more money. So maybe it's best that consumers are left to suffer the consequences. There is not an easy answer, given the system we have.

What fresh hell is this?

True free market must operate the right way with sound money and sound principles (go to mises and read like hell to catch up on that). That would prevent some of this mortgage nonsense (which is much deeper and complicated than using the word 'mortgage mess'). It would also help prevent the stupidity of investment banking (a seller of securities) merging with regular banking (a maker of loans) which is a conflict of interest amongst all parties concerned (which is one of the real sources of this mess).

Some of that regulation may be needed to prevent fools from messing with sound economic principles, but we cannot regulate properly if we are obeying the wrong monetary and economic policies.

Next, the "jungle" thing. Firstly, lets add transparency (nothing wrong with that), next, lets allow suing into oblivion for violating individuals rights (grinding fingers in my sausage, bye bye company), lets relook corporate law and decide what the best rules are for limited liability vs. accountability for the owners. If there were a way to limit liability to encourage business, but still have enough leeway to hold shareholders and management (which includes executives) accountable, perhaps we can eventually get a situation that would prevent them from doing stupid things...

Either way, when we argue that one correctly, deregulation of everything else would be optimal for a truely free capitalist market.

The way we are heading now is DEAD WRONG. It allows favoritism, subsidies, corporatism, too much power, money going to inferior ideas, hostile environments, unprofitable business ideas, etc.

Think about it rationally. Don't leave one idea unturned just 'cause it has been accepted for so long. Truely free markets weren't decided as the best system for no reason, read up on it and UNDERSTAND it.

Hope this helps.

So he's suggesting we cradle the mortgage lenders because they either suck at their job or basicly have crappy product.

You can't begin to deal with the issue until you address monetary policy. period. If your friend can't address it then it doesn't really matter what he says.

the fact that he does not address the monetary policy of this country and his lack of a pledge to get our troops out by any specific time. Also, HOW THE HECK ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR HIS HEALTHCARE!

Seriously. Ask your friend to name three government programs that
A-work well
B-have come in AT or UNDER budget.

Then ask... How will Barrack Hussein oBOMBa shrink the government?

www.ringsiderevolution.com

What regulations? Phenphen kills people. China has provided lead paint toys and poisonous toothpaste and dog food, yet the US government has a body that is supposed to investigate such things.

The FDA approves a drug that stops a restless legs but the side effect is compulsive gambling and nymphomania.

Artificial sweeteners -regulated and approved- are turning out to carcinogens and making people fat.

People are drinking refined sewage water -including all the digest enzymes people poop out before- that reverse osmosis won't remove. Nobody is really sure what will happen with that, because there is no science behind it -but the government goes along with it.

Yeah, regulation is working out real well for us. It's almost like it doesn't even exist, or is there to allow the corporations with the excess capital to maintain market dominance and ensure that there is less competition to provide cheaper goods.

My position on that argument is that it takes 2 parties to form a contract - certainly the lenders were approving loans that may have been out of reach for many homeowners, but some of these homeowners also need to take responsibility for the piece of paper they are signing their name to. If you don't understand a contract, don't sign it (kinda like "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"). I recently purchased a house, and was surprised that I could get a loan without putting any money down...but I also realized that by putting even a modest amount down I would greatly improve the terms of my loan, so that's what I did.

Just as ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law, it shouldn't be an excuse for trying to get out of a contract (unless the party is being grossly misled). By continuously bailing out lenders (and homeowners) for making poor decisions, all we do is encourage risky behavior. Do you think this subprime mess will stop people from getting into this problem again? Probably not, because now they think the government will bail them out if something goes wrong. The point of a free market is that it appropriately punishes/rewards people based on the amount of risk they are willing to take - government regulation undermines that delicate balance (at the expense of the responsible taxpayer).

defer people's mortgage payments for three months so they could pay off credit card debts, than reinstate mortgage payments. No one loses this way. We do not want the government to own our homes. Do you think the government would need a warrant to go in your home if they owned it? Please tell your friend to rethink their voting decision. Good luck. Keep up the great work.

::::banging her head on her keyboard:::::