Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac... US Gov't seized...

[gerbick]

Federal officials unveiled an extraordinary takeover on Sunday of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, signaling the most dramatic move to date aimed at shoring up the nation's housing market.

The plan, which was delivered by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise, places the twin mortgage buyers into "conservatorship" to be overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under conservatorship, the government would temporarily run Fannie and Freddie until they are on stronger footing.

I want one more ****ing republican to say that the economy is as strong as it's ever been. I seriously ****ing dare them. Google McCain and Bush if you're that curious or lacking memory.

Anyway, read more right here.

[Frets]

Why does this not surpise me.

They should be either be permanently absorbed by the government totally or go permanently under.

[Loyal Rogue]

Why does this not surpise me.

They should be either be permanently absorbed by the government totally or go permanently under.

Fannie Mae was originally created as a government entity to save the housing market after the first Great Republican Depression.
It worked just fine until Lyndon Johnson decided to try some "creative accounting" to hide the real cost of the Vietnam War, and privatized it in '68.
Freddie Mac was created as a private entity 2 years later.

They are the only two Fortune 500 companies that don't have to disclose their financial troubles to the public.
This led to some seriously messed up accounting "errors" to the tune of almost $5 Billion.

This is another example of what I call corporate welfare.
Privatize the profits, and socialize the losses.

[hanratty21]

They should...go permanently under.

Frets - it's no secret that I frequently disagree with you and find your alarmist views to be a little, well, alarmist, but this quite possibly be the most amazing (in a bad way) thing you've ever posted here.

They go permanently under, as you say, and you better wish it was 1929 again, because everyone's world as they know it will be a mere pimple on the a$$ of what it was the day before this happens. 1929 will be like Senior Prom compared to the colossal disaster this would cause.

[CVO Chris]

Northern Rock was saved in the UK. Thanks to the banks careless use of our money I am now having to pay for their failure through taxes. And I don't think a single executive has resigned.

They're quick to charge us rip off fees for even the slightest bit of financial mismanagement yet they get away scott free. It's a funny old world.

[jAQUAN]

I know this is not entirely proven but there are some eery (scary?) similarities here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZne...6572DA&index=1

[gerbick]

I need to see that movie entirely one day.

[jAQUAN]

You haven't!?
It's free on the main site and google video.
The first part gets kinda stupid as many others. The rest is downright alarming.

[hanratty21]

I want one more ****ing republican to say that the economy is as strong as it's ever been. I seriously ****ing dare them. Google McCain and Bush if you're that curious or lacking memory.

This is an interesting scenario. The bailout/conservatorship situation being experienced here is really not economy-related per se. One really doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. I believe the economy has slowed down, but the FNM/FRE mess is really not repsective of that.

Keep in mind that I say this as a shareholder of BOTH of these companies, so my calm demeanor is being tested by a good amount of impending losses. I knew the risks inherent in the stock, so that's my own deal.

The USD has improved greatly against most other currencies in the last month or two, new housing is starting to see some life, money is flowing back into real estate and losses are being pared.

I would also not necessarily say that this is a Republican or Democratic problem. The Dems scream about the economy being nightmarish, b/c they want the oval office so they can 'fix it.' The initial blame has to go, in some part, to Greenspan and his Fed administration. Some back to the Clinton days and some for 'W.' In my opinion, most of the problem has been exacerbated by the greedy real estate/mortgage market. This includes developers, flippers, mortgage brokers, banks, and yes...even some at FNM and FRE, who relaxed their stringent policies in recent years to be able to address the 'exotic' mortgage market as it came to fruition. In the end, you had people buying real estate who should not have been, and that is a shame...as they are the ones hurting the worst.

FNM and FRE are not the economy, but they are the lynchpins of the US's mortgage debt. This is a good thing peeps. Not for me (shareholder) but certainly for the long term success of the entire banking industry.

[gerbick]

Both parties got it wrong, if it were according to me. McCain finally stated that the US is going through a "rough patch"... letting the USD devalue as much as it has - 41% under Bush alone - is really a problem to me while stating very little and doing very little... the Republicans are running things.

Mind you - per usual - I don't mind stating that I could be wrong. But damn... admit something is wrong, do something about it. And that's not what I see right now from the powers that be.

I'll hold reservations about how good/bad this will be. I have good hopes it'll get straightened out.

It just sickens me that stuff like this went on and people are gushing at the new milf-in-charge when her speech really said nothing. But then again, I'll be in the market for a new house soon-ish anyway.

I might get a deal.

[Loyal Rogue]

I might get a deal.

I might give you a good deal on my house down in Florida.
With all the scary shiznit going on around the world with the glaciers and iceshelfs, I might be looking to move to higher ground real soon...

[hanratty21]

... letting the USD devalue as much as it has - 41% under Bush alone

We should really be using current info to make financial, claims, kids...that article was from early July. Here's a current chart:

Since July, about 15% of those paper losses have been whittled down.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

the Republicans are running things.

the Democrats have congress. But no matter who controls congress, and therefore the economy more than the executive, action against the Federal Reserve Board would probably sink the dollar more than any amount of rate cuts.

[Loyal Rogue]

the Democrats have congress. But no matter who controls congress, and therefore the economy more than the executive, action against the Federal Reserve Board would probably sink the dollar more than any amount of rate cuts.

I'm not disputing the last half of your premise, but you're really too intelligent, and knowledgable about how the congress works to repeat that falsehood about the Dems having congress like they can pass any legislation they want.
You and I both know that right now there are 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, and 2 Inds in the Senate.
It takes 60 Senators (filibuster) to invoke cloture and force a vote to pass any bill.

2 years ago, Trent Lott laid out the Republican strategy to obstruct any and all legislation and then run against the Dems in 2008 as a "do nothing" congress.
So far the Republicans are following thru on that promise and have now filibustered and blocked any votes on legislation more times (90+) than any other congress in history by almost double.
They, not the Dems, are blocking congress from getting any work done and are throwing the entire country under the bus for cheap and shameful politics.
</rant>

[TallGuyLittleCar]

[QUOTE=Loyal Rogue]I'm not disputing the last half of your premise, but you're really too intelligent, and knowledgable about how the congress works to repeat that falsehood about the Dems having congress like they can pass any legislation they want.
[/qutoe]
well that just shows you how much you know.. har har.. ohh wait..

You and I both know that right now there are 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, and 2 Inds in the Senate.
It takes 60 Senators (filibuster) to invoke cloture and force a vote to pass any bill.

So when did republicans have 60 senators in the senate?

2 years ago, Trent Lott laid out the Republican strategy to obstruct any and all legislation and then run against the Dems in 2008 as a "do nothing" congress.
So far the Republicans are following thru on that promise and have now filibustered and blocked any votes on legislation more times (90+) than any other congress in history by almost double.
They, not the Dems, are blocking congress from getting any work done and are throwing the entire country under the bus for cheap and shameful politics.
</rant>

So what is the great dem bill that would strengthen the dollar that the repubs have stalled and blocked?

[Loyal Rogue]

So when did republicans have 60 senators in the senate?

That doesn't have any bearing on my point or what's going on in congress right now.

The dems never abused the filibuster as it is being done now to stall all legislation as a 2 yr long political ploy, and they certainly never came right out and stated that was their intention.
Also if you remember what happened under the last republican controlled congress, they basically took the filibuster power away from the dems by threatening what they termed "the nuclear option".
Meaning if the dems decided to filibuster any republican bills then the repubs would band together and eliminate the filibuster entirely by a simple majority vote of 51, which they had more than enough to do.

So what is the great dem bill that would strengthen the dollar that the repubs have stalled and blocked?

Again, that has no bearing on my point.
I just don't like seeing such a false talking point continuing to be spread, promoting the repubs whole "do nothing congress" ploy without it being debunked by the facts.

[gerbick]

naw. I still have land in Weld County (Colorado). I'm good on the higher ground stuff.

besides... beaches are good for visits. but beaches come and go...

[gerbick]

Start at 2001, and I'll retract my statement.

[hanratty21]

Start at 2001, and I'll retract my statement.

You should say early to mid 2002, as that is when there was real move in those numbers. Incidentally, those numbers were just as reflective of booming growth in the EU as they were of whatever it is you are trying to imply that was happening over here.

[gerbick]

True, stuff like Airbus winning major contracts over Boeing, et al. I wish I could find the article I had read last year that quoted that Bush was not yet going to actively do anything about the falling dollar - despite my searches, I'm coming up with the wrong article, I swore it was either The Economist or Newsweek that had the article - right when it was in a 43 (or so) cent slide.

It smacked of irresponsibility and short-sightedness and pointed out how Greenspan was economically at odds with the Bush cabinet - none of that "it's about oil" bull**** either.

The falling dollar could have been slightly, if not majorly averted imho.