MyFox
 

shadows's Blog

by shadows

Last Post 18 hours Ago


It seemed inevitable when the government decided to provide unlimited loan to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they were headed toward a complete government take-over of the two mortgage firms.

A new article by Alan Zibel, an AP business writer,  reveals that indeed the take-over or "conservatorship" is about to happen and is expected to cost taxpayers about $25 billion.

What is surprising is that the CEOs of each of the troubled firms have been allowed to remain in their positions drawing at least $7 million each in total annual compensation since the unlimited loans were provided by the government.  Only now are they expected to depart. 

Should your tax money  be used to bail out troubled businesses while allowing the CEOs and other executives to continue to draw such high compensation packages?


Who, besides the taxpayers are being held accountable for these business failures?


Aren't these the kinds of issues that our presidential candidates should be addressing in detail?

14 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 14
Page 1 of 1
RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:39 AM

This one act is going the fix the whole economy , didn't you see the discussions of it yesterday on the “networks” ....but the single most important thing to remember is that if you hate this waste of money its all Bush , if you like this idea its all because of the democrats in congress.

FloridaBrit read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:49 AM

25 billions ??? Im not in favor of government bailing out businesses-its certainly not the republican way- and 25 Bil ??
well we could I guess- thats only 2 months cost of the Iraq war?

shadows read my blog
Sep 7, 2008 | 12:36 PM

If this would solve all of our economic/financial problems I could support it even though I don't favor intervention of any kind in private businesses, either as support or regulation. Unfortunately, there are more financial institutions in the wings that are headed toward failure and the FDIC is reportedly getting quite low on funds.

Where are the Chinese when you need them? Why not let them operate Fannie and Freddie? After all it will probably be their money that is used to bail them out. Better yet, sell them to an Arabic-----oil rich country like Iraq......they have plenty of money now.

CynPro read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 1:06 PM

NO WAY !!!!!!!! Stop bailing out the rich guys.
It's not working. You can't help the working class by giving more to the rich. It doesn't work.

Republicans have had control of the presidency and congress far too long. It will be great to have a democrat for president and controlling the House for a change. Bush - McCain economics don't work.

CynPro read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 1:10 PM

RE: "House" (Didn't proof read.)
Started to say White House, but meant senate.

shadows read my blog
Sep 7, 2008 | 6:13 PM

CynPro, I wouldn't count out McCain and the "hockey mom" just yet. For some reason the "hockey mom" seems to garner support of women, even though she hasn't put forth any details of her political intentions yet. I guess supporting her just because she is a woman is the "thing" to do in some circles.

I'm not sure of what McCain's economic plan is. He talks vaguely about tax cuts, but the details are not there yet. Most of his time seems to be spent criticizing Obama. I guess that the McCain head campaign man doesn't think that this campaign is about issues.

shadows read my blog
Sep 7, 2008 | 6:21 PM

It sure would be refreshing to have supporters of candidates do something besides engage in name calling. I have noticed that when a blog is about the candidates, certain bloggers are certain to respond, but when the blog is about a particular issue such as this or other aspects of our economy, illegal immigration, etc. those same bloggers are noticeably absent. Perhaps they don't care about issues.

CynPro read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:07 PM

"Perhaps they don't care about issues."
I believe you may be correct. It's hard to wrap my mind around that.

davidpatrick344 read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:27 PM

well lets see send the ilegals home and make them pay for their own ticket that would free up enough money to take care of our seniors next we dont need the world proverty tax that will free up billions and we will have more people working because there wont be any cheep ilegals hows that for a startand repeal that bankruptcy act makew the banks behave like their supose to or go broke

shadows read my blog
Sep 8, 2008 | 7:58 AM

davidpatrick344, every little bit would certainly help. But the estimated cost of $25 billion is a drop in the bucket when you consider the risk to taxpayers with the government takeover.

Conservative estimates place the risk at $3-$5 trillion. That is more that the annual budget of the U.S. not counting what the national debt, new Social Security recipients, etc.

This is a HUGE mess and the rest of the world knows it. That is why many of the investors have pulled away from Fannie and Freddie and stopped investing in their packages.

It is unbelievable that the treasury allowed the CEOs to retain their positions after allowing them to borrow from the gov.

FloridaBrit read my blog view my photos
Sep 8, 2008 | 8:14 AM

So the government DOES bail out the two giants Fannie and Freddie !!

How very socialist of this capitalist government !

:-)

shadows read my blog
Sep 8, 2008 | 8:27 AM

Well, the "bail out" was when they opened the government coffers to Fannie and Freddie borrowing. (that's when the CEOs should have been removed as a condition for borrowing)

The recent announcement is not really a bail out, but an actual government take-over, where the taxpayers will assume the debt of the organizations. In other words, the taxpayers will take over the firms and their debt, but have not profited from them when things were good.

Sounds like business as usual for the rich and famous who have stopped investing in Fannie and Freddie, because of hard times. Profit and drain an organization of assets, and then pull out and watch them fail.

Nightmare read my blog view my photos
Sep 8, 2008 | 12:14 PM

Yes, our presidental candidate should address this issure, but shadows, you're forgetting something. For some reason, every election, the candidates seem to use small words and touch issues that are more...popular. This is an important issue, but it doesn't seem to be "popular" yet. Once it becomes or if it ever becomes popular, than something will be addressed...hopefully.

shadows read my blog
Sep 8, 2008 | 4:12 PM

Nightmare, you certainly have a way with words. You concisely stated one of the saddest characteristics of our society. Small words and touch issues are apparently the way to go.

But let me pick your brain if you don't mind. Is is due primarily to the average individual intelligence of our society.....or the quality of our public education system?

Whichever candidate wins, they will have insurmountable obstacles to overcome. And just think, the public has been so quick to accept or condemn any potential candidate for "moral" issues

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




shadows

I'm a new user who hasn’t written a bio yet.

Member Since: 8/27/2006