25 comments

  1. bluedogdem says:

    Finally someone to stand up and tell the truth about Johnny. Watch out GOP here comes……CHUCK DONOVAN!!!!

  2. Chris says:

    wow. Released on youtube. Let us know if he finds enough suckers to give him money so it can run on the TV. That would be news.

  3. bluedogdem says:

    Chris

    Maybe Chuck will not be bought off like Johnny 2 pack. GA would be better off with Thurmond and Donovan in the run off. They both are more conservative than Johnny

  4. John Konop says:

    I have a couple simple questions for all the people against the bailout. Since most of the lending was guaranteed by the taxpayers if all the banks failed who do you think would have paid the guarantees on the loans and the deposits? And with your let it burn strategy what do you think would of happened to the economy and most jobs? If you want to argue would should of cut a better deal I am with you, but any rational person who understands the situation knows we had no choice.

    • John Konop says:

      For all of you REAL so called Libertarians why not pull your money out of the federally insured bank, refinance your home privately with the 20 or 40 percent down to end your government backed loan and privately refinance your government backed student loan with another 20 to 40 percent down.

      What do you think would happen to the economy if we suddenly forced everyone to do the above? I was the one of the first to point out we needed a much more rational lending policy or it would hurt the economy. With that said any rational person will tell you if we suddenly ended everything overnight like you want it would be a fincial Armageddon.

          • Three Jack says:

            so if i understand you john, taxpayers were on the hook for all home loans (bs) so might as well support a taxpayer funded bailout of the mortgage companies. in your own words, either way taxpayers get screwed…am i correct?

            unfortunately johnny (like saxby) faced no primary opposition from a fiscally conservative goper. thus the gop has an extremely vulnerable ticket with deal, isakson and cagle leading the way. libertarians would be wise to combine forces and challenge this pitiful bunch with vigor.

            • John Konop says:

              Three Jack,

              The problem is the liability fell back on tax payers and the government did not have the capital and or management knowledge to take all the liabilities over. As you know I warned about this when I ran for office. You cannot compare this to baling-out a company because of the liability issue. And the scary part is both parties have done nothing nor proposed anything to put controls on this.

              I have made this point many times. I am all for deregulation as long as it is not fraud and it is fully disclosed and not an government backed product. Clinton/Bush deregulating government backed loans was not conservative it was irresponsible. And when they lifted real requirements on credit swaps with government backed liabilities it was government gone wild.

              • Three Jack says:

                i’m not comparing it to anything. my point is that taxpayers were screwed with or without a bailout if one accepts your premise that all home loans are government backed.

                in reality, the government backed around 30% of loans if i remember correctly and should have only covered those loans. the rest should have been left alone. anybody who supported this bailout did so either out of ignorance or with full knowledge that it was a band-aid on a festering head wound that would eventually saddle future generations with tremendous debt.

                • John Konop says:

                  It was not just home loans, deposits, student loans SBA loans……….No way we had the money to cover the guarantees and the management. The loans would have been sold off at 20 to 30 cents on the dollar. We are talking write downs in the trillions with no way to get our money back.

                  • Three Jack says:

                    so you say “no way we had the money to cover the guarantees…”….”write downs in the trillions…”

                    tell me how the outcome was different with government bailouts.

                    also, where is the “money to cover the guarantees” in entitlements? will your boy isakson support an overhaul of ss and medixxxx? will he oppose the senior ga senator the next time he introduces a multi-billion dollar ag bill with millions in food stamp handouts?

                    face it john, there is no defense for either ga senator. chuck donovan is going to get more votes than any previous libertarian candidate.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Three Jack,

                      Your idea was to stop paying Social Security and Medicare to pay-off the trillions in liabilities? Do you really think a majority of people would support this concept ie bread lines for seniors to pay for bad loans? What do you think would happen to the unemployment rate if suddenly all that spending left the economy?

                      In all due respect I am very mad as you about the situation, yet as someone who makes money running and investing in businesses you learn not to make emotional decisions. My job is to make sure I give the best return for investors and protect their investment. The same applies here, Sen. Isakson had to vote for a bill he did not 100% agree with to avoid a fincial Armageddon. At the end your solution would of wipe-out the majority of people in the state of Georgia. And that is irresponsible. I would argue Donavan lacks the mature adult decision making ability to be a Senator.

                      I will give Seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. credit, because he is at least honest about that he and Donovan is calling for a complete cleansing of the system like you and they know that would of wipe-out our economy.

                      And they are putting the debate in perspective.The real question is it worth wiping out the economy to recreate the system?

          • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

            I would answer your questions, but, respectfully as I can say this: they’re so nearsighted I don’t know where to begin.

            Yes, Mr. Konop. The results of government not doing anything would have been catastrophic beyond discription. Every false sense of economic might that our government as well as society has perpetuated for decades would have come tumbling down on top of us. An economic asteroid the size of Alaska would have crashed into the heartbeat of America’s economy and caused a massive hemorrhaging of ‘wealth’ that many folks had worked their entire lives for.

            And that doesn’t even scratch the surface.

            But, I’d rather have gotten it over with, and started the rebuilding by now, than to put off onto the next generation what the previous generations had created. The bailout was created by misguided ‘economists’, to reward incompetent corporate managers, and implemented by politicians who were only looking to stay afloat until November 2, 2008. Throw into the mix the panicked cries of “do something, ANYTHING! WHATEVER IT TAKES!”, and it was a recipe for disaster.

            We’re “all on the hook.”

            So stop reeling and cut the line.

              • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

                I’m not “calling for it”, but it will happen. It’s the only way to reset this wacky economic wonderland we’ve created which is based on fraudulent money, easy credit, rewards for failure, punishment for success, etc. Essentially, a world where up is down, and outside-in turned inside-out.

    • John,

      I believe everyone has pretty much made up their minds on this one and rehashing the circular arguments are not going to change that.

      I will say, I disagree with your premise, somewhat.

      Bottom line for most of us that know that the bailouts should not have been done is, bad investments and poorly run companies must be allowed to fail, then we deal with the consequences. Assets should have been sold off, insured funds should have been paid until those companies failed and so on… the dominos should have been allowed to fall (whatever funds were federally insured to individuals should be paid… I’d had rather seen the individuals “bailed out” than what we witnessed, even though I actually believe these insured funds are capped). The fear tactic of “too big to fail” should never be a deterrent for letting the natural market pressures work as designed.

      You keep using the scorched earth analogy… what I see is eventually we would have had a freshly plowed field, cleared of weeds, dead trees and stumps, ready for new planting and growth. Bailouts don’t fix problems… it only delays the inevitable and piles up debt.

      Until you develop a trust(faith) in letting markets be free, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

      • John Konop says:

        DA,

        In all due respect the problem is the government was on the hook for loans, insurance and deposits and who would of got stuck with the bill if we did not bailout the banks? You can argue all day how we got into this mess, but the reality the government did not have the money to cover the guarantees. I warned many of you about this issue years ago and was called “chicken little” and told no way we had that much liability! But I also realize that letting it all burn would have created a bigger mess.

  5. Hank Reardan says:

    We will be doing a media buy next week. Johhny needs to get ready because the Libertarian have uped the game. I believe this is the first time a Libertartian US Senate candidate has come out with a tv ad.
    If you want to see this ad ran over and over then give Chuck some love and donate to his campaign. 100 % of the money this week will go to running this ad and or our radio ad that we have
    http://www.donovanforsenate.com/be-involved/contribute/

Comments are closed.