U.S. government takes over mortgage giants

Monday 08th September, 06:02 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 36 Total Comments Show All

ColAmerica at 04:55 PM JST - 8th September

SushiSake3- Obama is a socialist/communist sympathiser. He has many social plans hidden up his sleeve, whcih will be to the detriment to the hard working folk who create Americas wealth.

Freddie and Fannie would be Obama`s piggy bank, to indulge his dreams.

These ntionalisations will be safe under the prudent Republicans , but Obama would destroy them, we would all be in peril.
Sarge at 05:09 PM JST - 8th September

So, Sushi, is sdmsec wrong?
skipthesong at 05:12 PM JST - 8th September

sushi: how many times are you going to pain the war is our only problem picture?

The US government has gotten its hands into many things.. have you heard of HUD? have you seen the costs of public education (yup, the government controls that too.. which is probably why we now have one of the worse), the cost of our penal system, the cost of illegal immigration, social security payouts, and the list goes on forever and yes, I agree the war seems not to be worth but do you really think the money not used in the war will be saved? I don't and don't give us that Obama speech what he will do, because he sure as heck didn't do it for Illinois.

Fannie and Freddie were created by the US government. During the Clinton years and then re-introduced with GWB, so many lending institutions were forced by the government (or risk losing quite a bit in bennies) to provide loans to people who knowingly couldn't afford them.. These banks even gave out millions in home loans to illegals, which even you must raise an eyebrow to.

more coming.. gotta go right now.
SuperLib at 05:21 PM JST - 8th September

Glad to see you can engage in some healthy self-criticism :-)

It probably wouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what they do, and how the current situation was caused. I urge you to do it so you can contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.
Nippon5 at 05:48 PM JST - 8th September

why do you Sushisake always go off subject when someone says hey your wrong so and so had nothing to do with this current problem....

Sushisake response is always BUSH did this and that and this and that.... Please for once in your life look at the real facts and figure this out (even if your not an American you should understand) that if those two bodies went under most of the world stock markets would crash... and it was going to happen no matter who was president as the mortgage companies gave loans (for 20 years or so) to people who had no way to maintain those loans...and fannie mae covered those loans, allot like Japanese goverment who borrowed money to people for starting companies that never became companies....

Being one sided in politics makes you respond to a normal problem in a political way, when the problem had nothing to do with just one party, its been a problem for years and years and no one in either party has solved it nor tried... It was a problem brought on by the greed of mortgage companies and the goverments desire to make housing available to all.. It was a failure to start with, but maybe we can blame it on the next person we dont like in politics..
SushiSake3 at 06:00 PM JST - 8th September

ColAmerica - "Obama is a socialist/communist sympathiser. He has many social plans hidden up his sleeve, whcih will be to the detriment to the hard working folk who create Americas wealth.

Freddie and Fannie would be Obama`s piggy bank, to indulge his dreams.

These ntionalisations will be safe under the prudent Republicans , but Obama would destroy them, we would all be in peril."

I know you can't put up a shred of proof to back these claims up :-)
skipthesong at 07:27 PM JST - 8th September

Fannie/Freddie lent more than they realistically could recover." Correction, you should have written "were forced to lend out more than could recover"

Techall: thanks for clarifying that. And yes, you are correct but I still think the majority of people are mis-reading that. It is, for the most part and when translated into laymen's terms, being sold as a national health care which most think is national medicine.
adaydream at 11:21 PM JST - 8th September

techall - Speak for yourself.

Nobody in America is looking at socialized medicine anymore.

Speak for yourself. < :-)
adaydream at 12:58 AM JST - 9th September

techall - There has never, NEVER been a Social Security a slush fund.

You are wrong!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialSecurityTrust_Fund

george bush stole from Society Security Trust Fund to continue his trumped up war in Iraq. < :-)
sdmsec at 01:28 AM JST - 9th September

America: you guys really need to raise some taxes. I know it's politically unpopular but the time has come. It's not going to be long before the government itself is bankrupt and unable to raise more capital due to its weakening financial status.

No Sir!

I prefer to eliminate about 85% of the federal budget. No need to raise taxes.

Let's start by eliminating all forms of foreign and corporate welfare followed soon after by eliminating individual welfare.
adaydream at 01:31 AM JST - 9th September

sdmsec - Let's start by eliminating all forms of foreign and corporate welfare

I agree with this portion of your post. That includes Isreal's welfare. < :-)
sdmsec at 01:49 AM JST - 9th September

These ntionalisations will be safe under the prudent Republicans , but Obama would destroy them, we would all be in peril.

That's some spooky thinking right there.

Supposing you're right (which I don't), don't you realize that any power claimed by Republican leadership now will also be wielded by Democratic leadership when they're in control.

What I see are two major parties that want more and more power centralized in Washington D.C. They only differ in who they want to advantage and who they want to penalize. At one time I was taught that the federal governments job was primarily to provide for the common defense of the states and to regulate commerce (provide a level playing field). Now we see all the industries turning to the federal government seeking advantages. We see politicians pandering to the ignorant masses in order to buy their votes.
adaydream at 02:39 AM JST - 9th September

sdmsec - This is the first time we have agreed on anything.

Have a good day. < :-)
taikan at 06:45 AM JST - 9th September

The irony of the government taking over FNMA is that originally it was a government agency. It worked extremely well after its initial creation as part of FDR's New Deal. However, in 1968 it was privatized. Nevertheless, it still continued to work quite well so long as it purchased mortgages that met certain qualification standards as a way of freeing up funds to enable lenders to make new mortgages. However, because of its private ownership, management decided to take more risks in order to obtain greater short-term profits. As a result, the managers got rich but the taxpayers are having to pay for the managers' incompetence as exemplified by their excessive risk-taking.
Nippon5 at 09:38 AM JST - 9th September

And where did it say in your link adaydream that Bush spent the money in the trust fund? All presidents use the extra money taken in from overpayment and put an I O U in the box including Clinton, Bush, Carter, Reagon... and on and on... telling half the truth is still lying..