Steve G.

George Phillies Blasts Debt Takeover

In Libertarian, Nanny State, Politics, Protest, US Government on September 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The following was written by George Phillies.

Phillies Blasts Fed Debt Takeover

“It’s the biggest rip-off in the history of the world,” said Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies. Phillies is on the November ballot in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. “Treasury Secretary Paulsen wants prudent Americans to be billed trillions of dollars to pay debts of their spendthrift neighbors. Trillions? Yes, trillions. Nine hundred billion to date. Far more in the future.

“Do you want to stop with paying your own bills?” Phillies asked. “Or do you want to be stuck paying the bills of every neighborhood wastrel who took a HELOC loan they couldn’t afford? Do you want to save the Lexus SUV of the billionaire banker dimwit who approved that HELOC loan? If you want to keep the money you worked so hard to earn, you have only one choice: Vote Libertarian! Throw Republican rascals and their Democratic toadies out on their ears.

“The Republicans?” Phillies wondered. “You don’t have to ask if Republicans choose competent candidates. Republicans nominated George Bush, whose gave us trillions in debt, secret wiretaps of your phone, a pointless War in Iraq, and the worst financial crisis since 1932. Democrats are no better. Senators Biden and Obama rolled over on Republican issue after Republican issue. For real change, vote Libertarian.”


George Phillies is on the ballot in New Hampshire and Massachusetts as the Libertarian Party candidate for President.

Paulsen says

Trillions? 900 billion so far, as totaled by CNBC

Another 1.2 trillion, give or take?

  1. I wonder if this will be akin to a dropping-the-gold-standard moment for some folks and create a new generation of libertarians. Every time a bailout rings, a Ron Paul gets his wings.

  2. Don’t mention the gold standard. Phillies will call you a racist.

    Phillies and the Outright crowd do not get it. The Fed is the cause of this crisis. They want to act like you can have a fiat-money issuing central bank to monetize the government’s debt and this won’t happen.

  3. Will the Fed bail out my tropical igloo business that is sinking?

  4. Non-fiat-money is for me principally a wonk issue, not yet ready for prime time. RP is the high water mark for this one, and he — bless him — does have a following, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s STILL tiny.

    Gold itself may or may not be the basis for a new monetary system. Why not silver? Why not land? Why not oil? It’s not obvious.

    Heck, even RP advocates free banking as a first step.

    My take is the Fed didn’t CAUSE the current “crisis.” It may well be the underlying institutional enabler, however.

    It ain’t 1913.

  5. Who says any one thing has to be decreed the foundation of a new monetary system?

    Who has their has to be one currency and that the government has to be in charge of it.

    Let a thousand alternative currencies flourish. Just get the government out of the way.

  6. Mr. Phillies seems to misunderstand the fundamentals of the so-called mortgage crisis.

    The only “crisis” exists within the securitization of mortgage debt. The reason for this problem amounts to fraud on the part of those involved resulting in a difficulty in determining the value of the mortgage backed securities.

    Mortgage default rates hover around 1% – this is hardly a crisis requiring taxpayers to bail out borrowers and this is not what is happening.

    The problem is not a lack of regulation. The mortgage and securities industries are already heavily regulated. Nor is the problem simply the Fed, although they have played a major role in keeping interest rates artificially low – below the actual rate of inflation – which is a huge part of the problem.

    The bailouts are immoral and unnecessary. They will only lead to the further debasement of the dollar which is another problem created by the Fed and Congress.

    Fraud is already illegal and to fudge bond ratings and real estate appraisals is fraud.

    But, the reality is that every note that is bundled into securities is essentially worth the face value of that note minus payments made to reduce principle. If the borrower is in default to the extent foreclosure is warranted, the noteholder auctions the property. If the noteholder does not get back the balance due on the loan, the noteholder collects mortgage insurance to make him whole, whether it is private mortgage insurance or FHA insurance.

    The real winners in this bailout will be the corporatist cronies who end up buying these notes from government conservators for pennies on the dollar. I submit that no money has been lost by noteholders of loans made by existing regulations and standard loan practices. So, where’s the crisis?

    The crisis is on Wall Street where brokers can’t offload mortgage backed securities because of their own underhanded practices.

    Back in the time when mortgage origination was made by local savings & loans and the notes were held by them or sold to other lenders, there were no mortgage backed securities. Problems tended to be localized and there were no firms that were “too big to fail”. Perhaps there was a reason that the banking cartel used the government to wipe out the savings and loan industry with the RTC nearly 20 years ago.

    In Mr. Phillies’ world, credit line or equity line mortgages are called HELOC loans, but regardless of what you call them, they are risky by nature because they are usually 2nd mortgages which mean they could be wiped out by the foreclosure of the borrower’s first mortgage. People who invest in high risk investments deserve to lose their investments when things go sour – just as they deserve to reap handsome dividends when things go sweet.

    But the borrower in default won’t be bailed out under the proposed bailout. His loan may be renegotiated, but I doubt if any of the principle will be forgiven. Most likely, a well-connected Republicrat will buy the note for 10% of what it is worth and he will later sell it back at face value to be rebundled into mortgage backed securities 2.0

  7. Capozi = Clueless.

  8. GE,

    Can you be more specific? I’m ever in search of clues 😉

  9. I would simply say to Mr. Capozzi that one should advocate for what is right, not merely for what is popular.

    It was unpopular to be anti-war just prior to the illegal aggressive war being waged in Iraq, but it turns out that was the right thing to do. The LP and a number of libertarians missed the boat on this revealing a lack of principles. By the time the LPHQ issued their little Iraq Exit Strategy, scores of libertarians were dropping out of the LP in disgust.

    The freedom movement needs to stay in front of issues and attempt to bring attention to important issues rather than wait until issues become popular.

  10. Thanks, Tom. I certainly agree that advocating the “right” is always called for. I personally was against the Iraq War from the get-go.

    And yes taking non-majority positions is also called for.

    We seem to agree that the current credit “crisis” is a complex situation. Laying it all on the Fed seems strained to me, and apparently you as well.

    Some might say it’s not just the Fed, it’s the State itself. That would seem to be the nonarchist position. Why stop at the Fed?

    It might be that that’s “right” as well, but I personally believe there’s enough statism to undo in the short term to keep us all busy for a lifetime or two.

  11. G.E,

    I think that Phillies and Outright believe that the cause of the current economic crisis is due to the ban on gay marriage. 😛

  12. I have heard the argument forwarded that gay marriage would be a boost to the economy. It seems plausible enough. I should add that, since Rob Power has accused me of being homophobic, my wife donated some of her art to benefit efforts to stop Proposal 5 in California. I think fighting to keep “marriage equality” where it is enacted is just; because if state marriage is to be abolished (which it should be), it should not be maintained for heterosexuals. But so long as you’re fighting to change the status quo, it is not acceptable to change it to more government, even if “equality” is achieved through the additional government.

  13. Is anyone aware of how many States in which it is possible to vote for Wayne Root, without voting for Barr? Are there any? I can’t really vote for someone who wants to put me in a cage for advocating jury rights, when even Sarah Palin is fairly libertarian on that issue (She signed off on medical marijuana and jury rights activist Frank Turney’s “jury rights day proclamation” in Alaska).

    At the LP National Convention in Denver, Barr stated his continued opposition to “jury nullification of law” in murder cases (a la the Yates Jury) to Roger Roots, a fellow FIJA member. He answered Roots’ question with another question: “Do you really support jury nullification in murder cases?”

    For the record, Wayne Root fully understands and supports the concept of jury nullification of law, and advocates spreading knowledge of it as a way to end the drug war, IRS, “gun control”, and other tyrannies.

  14. Jake, dunno if you can write in a split ticket.

    Barr, as a member of the bar, may be duty bound on this one. Personally, I’m somewhat ambivalent on jury nullification on murder cases. I guess everyone has a litmust test, but yours is a first that I’ve seen.

    Seems to me any jury can nullify any application of law, they just shouldn’t tell the judge what their motive is.

  15. “…said Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies.”


    Good one, George!

  16. Andrea Yates is not an example of jury nullification.

    She was charged with capital murder, and plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

    The first jury decided she had not met the criteria for insanity under M’Naughton, and found her guilty of capital murder.

    However, the conviction was overturned on appeal due to false testimony by a prosecution psychiatric expert witness, Dr. Park Dietz, who had stated that a Law and Order episode, aired shortly before the Yates children were murdered, was where she got the idea. In truth, there was no such episode at that time.

    The appellate court correctly ordered a new trial.

    Upon retrial, a second jury found her to be not guilty by reason of insanity – a legitimate legal argument made by the defense, not involving jury nullification – and she has since been housed in psychiatric facilities.

  17. Jury nullification in murder cases is basic. Anyone against it is opening the door to political executions.

    Surprised by Phillies’ article after his glorification of the Fed. Or maybe not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: