FNM/FRE Bailout Worst Screwup Of Bush Administration

[AAAintheBeltway]

Richard Nixon, nominally a conservative, imposed wage and price controls, among other policy screwups. Bush's screwups would fill a book, and have, but this has to rank at the top. After fighting the good fight for years to rein in these companies, both creations of FDR and the New Deal, now the adminsitration is bailing them out instead. If this bailout was part of an orderly winding up process, I could see it. I would have problems with it, since I see no reason people who lent money to them should get bailed out, but the complexity and effect on the system could jsutify govenrment invovlement.

Despite the adminstration's spin, that does not seem to be what is happening. I just heard Chuckie Schumer on CNBC carefully make the point that "what to do" about these entities in the future had been left undetermined. Clearly the democrats want to preserve them, both as a continuing slush fund and a way to pretend to help the housing market. In effect, the administration grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. Depsite failing miserably in their efforts to get these companies under control, they could have used the leverage of a bailout to force their ultimate and quick demise. Instead, they just pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars, with no guarantee the problem will be dealt with.

Pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars. The one thing this administration is good at.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Richard Nixon, nominally a conservative, imposed wage and price controls, among other policy screwups. Bush's screwups would fill a book, and have, but this has to rank at the top. After fighting the good fight for years to rein in these companies, both creations of FDR and the New Deal, now the adminsitration is bailing them out instead. If this bailout was part of an orderly winding up process, I could see it. I would have problems with it, since I see no reason people who lent money to them should get bailed out, but the complexity and effect on the system could jsutify govenrment invovlement.

Despite the adminstration's spin, that does not seem to be what is happening. I just heard Chuckie Schumer on CNBC carefully make the point that "what to do" about these entities in the future had been left undetermined. Clearly the democrats want to preserve them, both as a continuing slush fund and a way to pretend to help the housing market. In effect, the administration grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. Depsite failing miserably in their efforts to get these companies under control, they could have used the leverage of a bailout to force their ultimate and quick demise. Instead, they just pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars, with no guarantee the problem will be dealt with.

Pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars. The one thing this administration is good at.

republicans like to privitize profits and socalize losses. they talk a free market anti regulation game until they start to lose money they they cry for help. hypocrits.

 

[gnome]

Just think of all the bad which has happened on Bush's watch... hard to pick out what was "worst"...

Unfortunately, we sheeple will probably elect Obama... and we'll learn of new ways for the Gummint to hose those of us who are financially responsible and disciplined...

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from gnome:

Just think of all the bad which has happened on Bush's watch... hard to pick out what was "worst"...

Unfortunately, we sheeple will probably elect Obama... and we'll learn of new ways for the Gummint to hose those of us who are financially responsible and disciplined...

so do we keep the same party in power who led us where we are with a new leader whos intellect is no better than bush or do we take a chance on a well educated thoughtful person? in either case the country will have a solid democrat majority in the senate and congress with control of all the committees that make law.
if mccain is elected best case will be gridlock because he will have a hostile congress. if obama is elected change can happen even though some might not like the direction.

 

[gnome]

Quote from vhehn:

so do we keep the same party in power who led us where we are with a new leader whos intellect is no better than bush or do we take a chance on a well educated thoughtful person? in either case the country will have a solid democrat majority in the senate and congress with control of all the committees that make law.
if mccain is elected best case will be gridlock because he will have a hostile congress. if obama is elected change can happen even though some might not like the direction.

I'll vote for gridlock, any day. Neither party has demonstrated fiscal restraint nor responsibility.

Both choices are horrid... and a choice between horrific outcomes is no choice at all.

 

[Gringinho]

gnome,

choosing grid-lock/continuation is a conservative choice for the status quo, and serves the originators.

 

[gnome]

Quote from Gringinho:

gnome,

choosing grid-lock/continuation is a conservative choice for the status quo, and serves the originators.

What is meant by "originators"?

 

[robbie380]

Quote from gnome:

Just think of all the bad which has happened on Bush's watch... hard to pick out what was "worst"...

Unfortunately, we sheeple will probably elect Obama... and we'll learn of new ways for the Gummint to hose those of us who are financially responsible and disciplined...

so the govt should have just let fannie and freddie collapse?

 

[gnome]

Quote from robbie380:

so the govt should have just let fannie and freddie collapse?

Well, I don't know.... some say that's exactly what should happen... and letting Fannie and Freddie collapse would be the lesser of evils...

There is a principle here....

1. In a capitalistic economy, we should let the failures fail and pay the consequences. In that way, the "non-failures" maintain their resources and become the seed and resource for the future recovery.

2. In a Socialistic (or Economic Facist) economy, the impact of the failed is mitigated by consuming all available resources.... and in such cases, there is little substance remaining after all the bail-outs from which to fund a recovery.... much like the hollowing-out of a structure... once it's "hollowed-out enough", there is nothing left but inevitable collapse.

Our Gummint has chosen the latter... politically more palatable, postpones the obvious consequences, but may ultimately be more destructive...

So...if you "have nothing" and have resigned your destiny to "never having anything... always hoping for a bigger Gummint hand out", #2 seems preferable.

If you believe your assets should not be confiscated by the Gummint to "cushion the blow" from the irresponsible, greedy, and criminally larcenous... all for the "good of the economy", of course.. then you're a fan of Door #1.

 

[peilthetraveler]

What is with all you people???? You know usually I only hear a few remarks that are wrong and a few marks that are right, but you guys have this bailout DEAD wrong. You think if FRE FNM just collapsed thats the end of it? two stocks off the exchange? No...they collapse and then all the banks start to collapse and then our Dollar gets trashed and nobody wants it. You wanna see 35 dollars to 1 euro? You wanna see 5 dollar to the Yaun? Imagine what that would do to walmart and every other business in america that gets their cheap goods from walmart. Not to mention the food we import from cheap places... This bailout is not for investors, its to stop a domino effect and as much as we dont like the bush administration, this was actually the best thing they could do.

This is why stopping them from collapsing is so important.