Fannie/Freddie nationalization: "Socialism for the rich"

[Heracles 417]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[rebeccajo 14]

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.

On a bad-news day in the bond markets, it's typical for stocks to rise.

Wall Streets 'reaction' was just the normal lemming mentality.

Edited September 9, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

[symbiosis 0]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

I think the talking is over as of Sunday!

[Heracles 417]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a hardcore socialist government. The first first few ignorant anti Bush are claiming that this is a socialist move and need to wither co back to school if they studied economies are actually study economics before opening their mouths.

Socialist governments and political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

#######, my previous post jumbled up.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a completely socialist government. Socialist governments and socialist political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.The first first few ignorant anti Bush posts are claiming that this is a socialist move.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a hardcore socialist government. The first first few ignorant anti Bush are claiming that this is a socialist move and need to wither co back to school if they studied economies are actually study economics before opening their mouths.

Socialist governments and political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Had we protected the free market - from itself by instituting the needed regulations that the market failed to institute - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as countless other organizations wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. But mention regulation to the "free" market crowd and they'll put a communist stamp on your forehead. It's all a bunch of BS. The market self regulation won't work if you don't let it work. And since we can't afford to let it work - i.e. let the mortgage giants fail - we may as well make sure that these businesses are properly regulated to ensure the taxpayer isn't on the hook when these companies fail. What's happening here is the bail-out of big money (who do you think buys these repackaged mortgages) by the average Joe. These are handouts for the rich even though we all benefit from preventing a failure of these companies as long as we learn the lesson and make sure that no such thing will ever be allowed to occur again. The financial industry needs tighter and tougher regulations. An FDA equivalent for the financial sector. Nothing less.

[Heracles 417]

Had we protected the free market - from itself by instituting the needed regulations that the market failed to institute - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as countless other organizations wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. But mention regulation to the "free" market crowd and they'll put a communist stamp on your forehead. It's all a bunch of BS. The market self regulation won't work if you don't let it work. And since we can't afford to let it work - i.e. let the mortgage giants fail - we may as well make sure that these businesses are properly regulated to ensure the taxpayer isn't on the hook when these companies fail. What's happening here is the bail-out of big money (who do you think buys these repackaged mortgages) by the average Joe. These are handouts for the rich even though we all benefit from preventing a failure of these companies as long as we learn the lesson and make sure that no such thing will ever be allowed to occur again. The financial industry needs tighter and tougher regulations. An FDA equivalent for the financial sector. Nothing less.

Hey, I support that myself. The free market never literally meant allowing any and every company to do as they please. Regulation is a must in any developed country and their crucial industries. Over regulation though becomes a burden. Regulations in terms of basically setting a fair set of rules for consumers is a must. People doing dodgy deals made millions at the expense of ordinary Americans who are losing their homes and destroying their lives. That is not acceptable at all..

Anyone who is against any regulation needs to look at websites like www.mythreecents.com, which is littered with consumer complaints. In most cases an individual consumer has little to now recourse for their dispute. This is totally unacceptable and goes against the principal of the free market. Companies are obviously able to work around the free market by locking people into contracts and agreements they cannot get out. The federal governments job should be to provide a fair an equitable outcome for all. No company should be allowed to walk all over a consumer by abusing their market power and flexing their muscle.

This is why the Australian government set up organizations like the ACCC (Australian competition & Consumer Commission) ther. The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, businesses and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[aidan80 9]

Please don't dirty the good name of socialism by saying what bush is doing is even anything close to socialist... more like the greedy protecting the greedy and ensuring everyone else caught in the trap will pay up or be hunted down like dogs. It's sick is what it is... capitalism, every man for himself?

[IAMX 3,055]

I've said it several times as it is further evident that despite the rants and praises for free market, this economic system is a mix free market, mix corporate socialism. Kinda ironic that Reagan was paranoid of corporate socialism and here, Bush strays from his protege to embrace it. Significant changes in recent years on how we view corporations, free market, and the like.

[Heracles 417]

I've said it several times as it is further evident that despite the rants and praises for free market, this economic system is a mix free market, mix corporate socialism. Kinda ironic that Reagan was paranoid of corporate socialism and here, Bush strays from his protege to embrace it. Significant changes in recent years on how we view corporations, free market, and the like.

Too much of anything, let alone anything unrestricted, is never good. Get what I am saying..

[IAMX 3,055]

I've said it several times as it is further evident that despite the rants and praises for free market, this economic system is a mix free market, mix corporate socialism. Kinda ironic that Reagan was paranoid of corporate socialism and here, Bush strays from his protege to embrace it. Significant changes in recent years on how we view corporations, free market, and the like.

Too much of anything, let alone anything unrestricted, is never good. Get what I am saying..

Problem is the inconsistency of free market vs. corporate socialism. For instance, save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government, but privatize Social Security. Give no-bid contracts to specific companies with pro-administration slant who surcharge the taxpayers for shoddy service (by ridiculous amounts, not merely a theme park / concert style rip-off), de-regulate ISPs and push against Muni and CLECs. Not to mention the all-around corporate socialism aspect between AT&T/Verizon, both companies, formerly the Bells, and the NSA. Ranges from inconsistent to downright scary.

[rebeccajo 14]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a hardcore socialist government. The first first few ignorant anti Bush are claiming that this is a socialist move and need to wither co back to school if they studied economies are actually study economics before opening their mouths.

Socialist governments and political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Had we protected the free market - from itself by instituting the needed regulations that the market failed to institute - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as countless other organizations wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. But mention regulation to the "free" market crowd and they'll put a communist stamp on your forehead. It's all a bunch of BS. The market self regulation won't work if you don't let it work. And since we can't afford to let it work - i.e. let the mortgage giants fail - we may as well make sure that these businesses are properly regulated to ensure the taxpayer isn't on the hook when these companies fail. What's happening here is the bail-out of big money (who do you think buys these repackaged mortgages) by the average Joe. These are handouts for the rich even though we all benefit from preventing a failure of these companies as long as we learn the lesson and make sure that no such thing will ever be allowed to occur again. The financial industry needs tighter and tougher regulations. An FDA equivalent for the financial sector. Nothing less.

Who buys these repackaged mortgages? The Average Joe.

Because it's Joe's pension funds that get invested in the bonds backing the mortgage pools.

So it ain't all about protecting the rich.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a hardcore socialist government. The first first few ignorant anti Bush are claiming that this is a socialist move and need to wither co back to school if they studied economies are actually study economics before opening their mouths.

Socialist governments and political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Had we protected the free market - from itself by instituting the needed regulations that the market failed to institute - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as countless other organizations wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. But mention regulation to the "free" market crowd and they'll put a communist stamp on your forehead. It's all a bunch of BS. The market self regulation won't work if you don't let it work. And since we can't afford to let it work - i.e. let the mortgage giants fail - we may as well make sure that these businesses are properly regulated to ensure the taxpayer isn't on the hook when these companies fail. What's happening here is the bail-out of big money (who do you think buys these repackaged mortgages) by the average Joe. These are handouts for the rich even though we all benefit from preventing a failure of these companies as long as we learn the lesson and make sure that no such thing will ever be allowed to occur again. The financial industry needs tighter and tougher regulations. An FDA equivalent for the financial sector. Nothing less.

Who buys these repackaged mortgages? The Average Joe.

Because it's Joe's pension funds that get invested in the bonds backing the mortgage pools.

So it ain't all about protecting the rich.

Funny thing is that the average Joe doesn't get to make that decision. The funds do. And they make money whether you win or lose.

[rebeccajo 14]

What a display of utter ignorance.

A democratic government talking control of a company is not socialism. If the US government took control of all organizations that would be socialism.

IE EG Venezuela.

Just a post or two ago you claimed it was all about government handouts. Now it is about total government control of all organizations. Which is it? Enlighten us. Or rather amuse us some more.

It depends on whether we are talking about a social democracy or a hardcore socialist government. The first first few ignorant anti Bush are claiming that this is a socialist move and need to wither co back to school if they studied economies are actually study economics before opening their mouths.

Socialist governments and political parties are renowned for their welfare state approach. Hence, why communism is basically a branch of socialism.

What the US government is doing with these two companies is totally within the realm of capitalism. It is called protecting the free market. If these two companies collapsed, no loans for anyone for a long time. As well as an inevitable depression for Americans.

Had we protected the free market - from itself by instituting the needed regulations that the market failed to institute - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as countless other organizations wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. But mention regulation to the "free" market crowd and they'll put a communist stamp on your forehead. It's all a bunch of BS. The market self regulation won't work if you don't let it work. And since we can't afford to let it work - i.e. let the mortgage giants fail - we may as well make sure that these businesses are properly regulated to ensure the taxpayer isn't on the hook when these companies fail. What's happening here is the bail-out of big money (who do you think buys these repackaged mortgages) by the average Joe. These are handouts for the rich even though we all benefit from preventing a failure of these companies as long as we learn the lesson and make sure that no such thing will ever be allowed to occur again. The financial industry needs tighter and tougher regulations. An FDA equivalent for the financial sector. Nothing less.

Who buys these repackaged mortgages? The Average Joe.

Because it's Joe's pension funds that get invested in the bonds backing the mortgage pools.

So it ain't all about protecting the rich.

Funny thing is that the average Joe doesn't get to make that decision. The funds do. And they make money whether you win or lose.

Not if the whole thing goes down the toilet.

Remember brokers jumping from windows during the Great Depression?

History repeats itself.