With close friends of Obama running Fannie and Freddie, who didn't see MOAB II coming?
From ABCMoney -- WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) on Friday said it would ask for an additional $8.5 billion from taxpayers as it continues to suffer losses on loans made prior to 2009.
The largest U.S. residential mortgage funds provider reported a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $8.7 billion, or $1.52 per diluted share, in the first quarter.
Including the latest request, the firm has taken about $100 billion from the U.S. government since it was seized in 2008.
Can somebody show me in the Constitution where the federal government has any business at all meddling in the private mortgage industry? And don't try to float the "promote the general welfare" balloon. You dumb liberals hide behind that clause as an excuse for every thing you do that is extra-Constitutional.
Even as both companies were collapsing, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were defending them as on solid financial ground...and both were the biggest recipients of bags of cash from them. Coincidence? And why do you cretins in Mass. keep electing Frank? How stupid are you people?
Frank and Dodd should be in prison.
3 comments:
I agree but the problem is what would have happened to us all if they were not bailed out. The whole affair stinks to high heaven but what was done is done. We must fix this problem and the budget deficit problem. The budget deficit and the lack of courage by our leaders is what is the ticking time bomb. When the debt reaches a point somewhere in the future where the U.S. can't service it we will be in a heap of trouble.
@anon, yeah we're in trouble already, but how many times can Fannie and Freddie be allowed to belly up to the taxpayer cash all-you-can-eat bar? Just like the car companies, let them fail. What constitutional right does the federal government have in the mortgage business anyway? Why wasn't F&F dissolved immediately and all the mortgages sold off? It's because too many politicians and friends of politicians were getting rich, that's why.
Can't they slide this one under regulating interstate commerce? That clause is used more than the "general welfare" bit. The houses are in different states? (dripping with sarcasm)
Post a Comment