READ this! Freddie and Fannie fiasco

United States
October 19, 2008 2:57pm CST
This is what is wrong with "spreading the wealth". The Democrats, including Obama, will opt for spreading the wealth over the majority of Americans' needs, anytime. They voted against the bill that would have PREVENTED the Fannie and Freddie fiasco, on the basis that it would preclude more low and moderate income people from buying a house. Hey, I'm a low income person, but I'd MUCH prefer to not have to suffer this financial meltdown and resulting lack of jobs than buy a house. Enough of the blame being put on the Republicans! Yes, some Republicans have done things that hurt us, including the ones that went along with the Democrats and did not vote for this bill. McCain is NOT one of them. Read it for yourself. Obama is NOT the man who is going to lead us to prosperity or help poor people. It does us no good to be able to buy houses now, with Fannie and Freddie in the hole, and the economy losing jobs every day because of the resulting financial meltdown.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
20 Oct 08
Everyone seems to think 0bama has a better plan for the economy than McCain. The fact is McCain and Bush both tried to prevent this mess, and everytime their efforts where thwarted by the democrats. Meawhile, 0bama was suing banks that where redlining unworthy loan applicants on behalf of ACORN.... thus contributing to the problem. 0bama is part of the problem... not the solution.
2 people like this
@4magoo (396)
19 Oct 08
Am I missing something here? Did you read the same article I read? This was a seering inditement of the Republican party .... ???? They gave 2 million to a Republican lobbist to do all this. After 2005, these places became Republican controled? I don't know... maybe I am misreading this? I know it was a very long article and gave plenty of blame but I think the congress was still controled by Republicans at the time.
• United States
20 Oct 08
The Republican lobbyist makes no difference -- it just means they were targeting Republicans, because the Democrats (did you read it all?) were already against the bill. They spent the 2 mil to try to change the minds of the Republicans, who were more for the bill. The bill they were FOR, that McCain co sponsored and was FOR, would have likely prevented, or at least lessened the impact of the whole mortgage fiasco, which would have prevented or at least lessened the impact of the economic crisis we have now, thus probably avoiding the bailout. McCain was one of those who was warning about the possible downfall of our entire economic system, and trying to get the bill passed. Obama and the rest of the Dems were the ones who were against it and wanted to leave Fannie and Freddie unregulated. I know the article was written in a very confusing way, but read it carefully and slowly and you'll see. If you are interested, let me know, and I'll try to find some more clear articles for you to look at. McCain is in a very difficult situation, honestly, running against the first black candidate ever, and with that candidate being popular. IT seems everything he says or does they claim he is racist. Obama SHOULD be called out to explain his friendship with a known terrorist, hater of America, and instead McCain and Palin are called racist for pointing that very legitimate point out. SO a lot is getting twisted around. They are saying the Republicans caused the financial crisis. I think there is blame to go around, it goes back very far, and I don't think they could foresee all that was to come back then. But the facts are VERY clear that when they DID start to foresee what was about to happen, the Dems are the ones that refused to stop it. The Republicans tried to stop it. Except for the ones noted in that article. But this fact is being ignored and swept under the rug by almost everyone. McCain also drills in over and over on the need to balance the budget, but no one is listening, and when he points out that Obama has all these big plans for bigger government and spending more money, not balancing the budget, then again, he is racist, and he has no clear economic plan. But he does have one, and it is better than Obama's. Let me know if you see where you missed something or not. It's in there.
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
20 Oct 08
Four years ago in the world of make belief there was no problem with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Democrats emphasized. They were sound institutions as Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank repeated. Apparently to some Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was the only thing on earth government should never touch. Think about that, a party at lives to regulate, did not want to touch Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Democrats say regulators should be worshiped, except when regulating a politically popular government-allied institution then forget about it. This opinion of mine might not be popular but I think the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is a good thing. These two companies should not exist. No private companies should have lines of credit to the U.S. Treasury, that is, U.S. taxpayers. No private companies should be linked to a government mandate that they facilitate affordable housing by buying up mortgages. No private companies should issue debts that investors believe may have an implicit guarantee provided by taxpayers. This is a golden opportunity to end these enterprises once and for all. And doing that is incredibly simple! Any Wall Street investment bank could produce a plan to restructure these companies and charge the appropriate fees for carrying out that plan. The possible ways to restructure include sales of the assets, creating subsidiaries and selling them, spinning off subsidiary companies, and breaking up the company into several companies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could also put their entire companies up for sale.