Fannie/Freddie nationalization: "Socialism for the rich"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is "more communist than China right now" but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday.

"America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich… it's just bailing out financial institutions," Rogers said.

...

"This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this," Rogers told "Squawk Box Europe."

...

From 2010, Fannie and Freddie will have to shrink their portfolios by 10 percent a year until they reach $250 billion, to reduce the risk to the taxpayer, according to the Treasury plan. But this may put additional pressure on the housing market, Rogers said.

"That's going to also ensure that house prices continue to go down. It's going to be harder and harder to get a mortgage."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26603489

[almaty 19]

The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows that the U.S. is "more communist than China right now" but its brand of socialism is meant only for the rich, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Mond

amen

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a classic example of what happens when there's too little government regulation and oversight. Where are the free market capitalists to condemn this move by the Federal Gov't?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

At a press conference Saturday, Obama renewed his call for lawmakers to approve a second economic stimulus package and argued that any government bailout of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — widely reported to be imminent — must put the interests of taxpayers first.

"Any action we take must be focused not on the whims of lobbyists and special interests worried about their bonuses and hourly fees, but on whether it will strengthen our economy and help struggling homeowners," Obama told reporters after the forum here.

Once dominant in political debate, the Iraq war is practically a footnote on the campaign trail, raised near the end of Obama's speech and linked to his economic message: If the government wasn't spending so much money in Iraq, more would be available for veterans' care and other domestic needs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13212.html

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[symbiosis 0]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

[desert_fox 32]

It's a classic example of what happens when there's too little government regulation and oversight. Where are the free market capitalists to condemn this move by the Federal Gov't?

Now we will have govt oversight.

It was a great move...just look at what happened in the NY Exchange today.

You better hope that it suceeds if you ever want to buy a house at a good interest rate.

[Heracles 417]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

[almaty 19]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

bullshit...look at the former soviet union....they ran all essential business .......so does cuba, etc..

[HAL 9000 96]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

Socialism is what it is. Its label, however, is akin to the term liberal when used in a frivolous context.

[HAL 9000 96]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

bullshit...look at the former soviet union....they ran all essential business .......so does cuba, etc..

Smart, perhaps. Broke, definitely.

Happens when you get people saying they're one thing and yet acting quite like the Bourgeoisie.

[symbiosis 0]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

Edited September 8, 2008 by symbiosis

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

bullshit...look at the former soviet union....they ran all essential business .......so does cuba, etc..

including health care.........

[Heracles 417]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

Socialism is what it is. Its label, however, is akin to the term liberal when used in a frivolous context.

Wrong. That is the bastardized US definition. Socialism is about government handouts.

[Heracles 417]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

bullshit...look at the former soviet union....they ran all essential business .......so does cuba, etc..

Australia is a hybrid of socialism / capitalism. The AUS government has a $50 billion dollar surplus. Seems to be working well for them hey.

If the government had not taken them over your house values would be worth less than that of Afghanistan. Plus the chance of getting a loan at a decent rate for most would almost be zero.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's ironic. I think there was no choice but to backstop Freddie and Fannie, but it (along with the Fed's line of credit to troubled financial institutions) reeks of socialism. But you won't hear the Republicans using that term. Especially since most of them were on the receiving end of Freddie and Fannie's largess when it came to campaign contributions.

Socialism is more about a welfare state. The government running essential businesses and industries is not socialism. It is called being smart.

Socialism is what it is. Its label, however, is akin to the term liberal when used in a frivolous context.

Wrong. That is the bastardized US definition. Socialism is about government handouts.

What a display of utter ignorance.