The "Debate" about putting Fannie and Freddie on the books

Sometimes a scene is such a cluster**** all you can do is kind of stare back, slack-jawed, maybe even grinning because its either laugh or cry and go barking, raving mad.

The topic of today's little jaunt into the surreal, boys and girls, is whether or not to "officially" put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "on the books" of the US government. In other words, whether or not to officially gaurantee their debt and then bail them out. These two companies have about $5 trillion in outstanding liabilities -- almost as much as uncle sam! Thus, by "officially" folding their debt into the US debt, we would almost double the official US government debt. Think about that for a moment. Savor it. Let it linger...picture how bad the US gov't debt is now, and then picture almost...doubling it. With the stroke of a pen. That pen would make one nifty eBay heirloom!

Understandably, our august and almighty governement masters are not too thrilled about this. The US public, if it could put down the iPhone and the Krispy Kreme for a moment and just CONCENTRATE, would be much less happy if they grocked the implications of this, but unfortunately they seem to lack the necessary mental wattage. But eventually they will find out because even the dimmist of bulbs understands what getting the living **** beat out of you feels like.

But you can't...just...let them fail, now, can you? I mean, that much debt tipping over would certainly have a profound effect on the US economy and especially its standing and dignity in the eyes of the foreign lenders who keep it on life support. Right?

So, as a politician, what to do, what to do...I know! We'll dodge the real meat of the matter with some fancy verbal footwork!

Rep. Barney Frank sure can do some fast talkin' when its needed!

[Rep.] Frank said it's a fair debate but he opposes putting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt on the federal books because he doesn't want to treat their debt as official U.S. government debt. "I don't think we should tell [investors] it's legally safe," he said. Frank said, however, the government might decide to pay back investors 100 cents on the dollar even if it has the legal right to make them suffer losses. "The fact is they have to do some of this to avoid loss of foreign investment," Frank said. "We may now decide to bail you out. . . . But that's different from being legally obligated."

Source: Here

So, um what he's saying here is that, like, were not rilly gonna bail them out n' stuff, except we might if we kinda feel like it, right? But its not the same as debt. We'll call it something else...we got all these bright kids around here who can whip up a good verbal bandage for this sucking chest wound. So it will be, like, we do it if we want to but not because we have to, right? Or not? Maybe something else? Or, um...ohh my, how time does fly. Closing time, let's all go home and come back tomorrow and put it off for another day, right?


[edit on 3/8/10 by silent thunder]

Oh a saying comes to mind, let me ponder for a moment......

Oh yeah, I know what I was thinking was relevant to this matter.

Off with their frelling assets. Yeah, that was it, well almost.

It took our country 200 years to get where we are and it took only 30-40 years to destroy it.

Here is my solution. Seize all assets of all major banks and everyone of their controllers assets. Next, seize all assets of TPTB and all government employees in the Federal Government. ALL OF THEM.

Oh yeah, this kind of stuff is really beginning to make my blood boil.

We must be systematic with it. Maybe only leave anyone that did not ever vote for bailing out these thieves in the first place. I bet maybe 10 people at the most are on that list.

I am sick of people blaming the average people. People have been screaming to stop this crap, we did not have the power to stop it.

Rant over.