Seizing Freddie and Fannie
Published on September 8, 2008 By Larry Kuperman In Current Events

One of my long-time contentions is that, despite the posturing otherwise, when it comes to actual implemenation, Republicans and Democrats are not that different. It is just the public face that is put on the actions. Today, the Federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing our nations two largest mortgage lenders, a move that, if we had a Democratic President, would certainly be decried as Socialism:

******************************************

CNN- Federal officials on Sunday unveiled an extraordinary takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting the government in charge of the twin mortgage giants and the $5 trillion in home loans they back.

The move, which extends as much as $200 billion in Treasury support to the two companies (LK Note- "support" meaning "bailout" in this context), marks Washington's most dramatic attempt yet to shore up the nation's housing market, which is suffering from record foreclosures and falling prices.

President Bush called the move "critical" to the housing market recovery. "Americans should be confident that the actions taken today will strengthen our ability to weather the housing correction and are critical to returning the economy to stronger sustained growth in the future," he said. (LK Note 2- Meaning "John McCain would have no chance of winning the election if Americans knew how bad our economy really was as a result of 8 years of mismanagement that McCain voted to support.")

******************************************

The good news is that as long as we have a Republican in office, we can pretend that we don't still need to raise taxes. We can raise money the old-fashioned way- borrow it from the Chinese. There is a small peice of Mid-West that they don't own yet. (Of course that is sarcasm.)

Imagine if the Federal government under Bill Clinton or worse yet Barach Obama had done this. The hue and cry that come come from the Grand Ole Party!

Before anyone says "Well, George Bush is not a REAL Republican" the answer is that yes he is. He was nominated and elected twice. And he carried the Conservative electorate, perhaps reluctantly, but nonetheless. You can't wait and see what someone does and then decide if you want to accept responsibility for voting for them. I know that good old Ronald Reagan's administration coined the term "plausible deniability" and President Bush is certainly well positioned to offer that he didn't know what he was doing, but at the end of the day, you voted for him.


Comments
on Sep 08, 2008

Oh, since McCain is clearly not the candidate for change (90% agreement rate with George Bush) lets see how his running mate has historically handled things:

************************************

Bloomberg, September 6th, 2008- Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.

The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.

****************************************

Geez, its like the whole state is on welfare! Hope you haven't minded paying for it!

 

on Sep 08, 2008

Before anyone says "Well, George Bush is not a REAL Republican"

The proper quote is "George Bush is not a real conservative".  He is not.

I dont care if he is Episcopalian or 3rd day Adventurist, but he is not a true conservative.  He does have some conservative policies, and some liberal ones as well.

And Freddie and Fannie are socialism.  And great examples of failure of same.

Oh, and that $1.75 - includes defense.  It is not all welfare.  Best to get your facts straight before shooting yourself in the foot.

on Sep 08, 2008

Oh, and that $1.75 - includes defense.

Heh, defense.   I thought Alaska was a pretty quiet place.

Defense from what?  Rogue moose?  Angry caribou?  Outlaws on snowmobiles?

Oh wait, is Russia canoeing over the Bering Strait? Or perhaps there are Canadian illegals crossing the border?

~Zoo

on Sep 08, 2008

Zoologist03

Oh, and that $1.75 - includes defense.


Heh, defense.   I thought Alaska was a pretty quiet place.

Defense from what?  Rogue moose?  Angry caribou?  Outlaws on snowmobiles?

Oh wait, is Russia canoeing over the Bering Strait? Or perhaps there are Canadian illegals crossing the border?

~Zoo

All of the above Zoo.

(But more specifically, the advanced part of Norad is up there).

on Sep 08, 2008

(But more specifically, the advanced part of Norad is up there).

What, and it's funded through the Alaskan budget? That sounds unlikely.

on Sep 08, 2008

What, and it's funded through the Alaskan budget? That sounds unlikely.

No, the issue was that Alaska is a debtor state since the residents receive $1.75 from the feds for each $1 they pay in taxes.  But that $1.75 includes defense (as well as Coast Guard) which Alaska has a disproportional number of defense installations in relation to its population size.

Meta
Views
» 111
Comments
» 6
Category
Sponsored Links