It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It just seems recently that every time one of these conservative movements disagree with constitutional law, they propose amending it to fit their beliefs.
Even though Freddie & Fannie had problems, they had much more stringent standards in place for approving home loans than did the private sector.
Originally posted by jdub297
These are not "Constitutional" issues, although some liberal judges believe they are; creating "Rights" where none exist.
As for the "balanced budget," we already have a "Pay as you go" law that the democrats have virtually mocked if not outright ignored.
Like I said before, it was the repeal of the Glass/Steagall act by the republican party that allowed for the fraudulent lending.
Prior to that, the private banking industry was much more reluctant to enter into the home loan market because of the very regulation that insured the safety of the loans.
The Coming Fannie and Freddie Bailout
Paul McMorrow, Boston Globe
Fannie and Freddie were once the most powerful forces in the US housing industry. They pumped liquidity into the sector by buying up mortgages written by banks and mortgage companies. That kept the cost of capital low and increased the volume of mortgages. Government backing allowed the two to borrow money at lower rates than anyone else in the housing financing market.
Their business was making money ... by buying, securitizing, and reselling subprime mortgages that never should have been written in the first place.
While Fannie and Freddie operated under some form of congressional oversight, they ultimately answered to their stockholders.
In September 2008, the two firms received a bottomless line of credit. So far, their tab stands around $148 billion — more than AIG, the company that insured all of Wall Street’s worst housing bets, is in hock for.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office said the total cost to taxpayers could reach $373 billion.
Both companies were recently taken off the New York Stock Exchange.
That leaves nationalization.
If my memory serves me correct, judge Vaughn Walker who recently reversed Prop 8 in CA. was originally a Reagan nominee ... only to be later nominated and approved under the administration of George Bush Sr.. Maybe you can explain to me how this makes him a liberal activist judge.
With regards to "balanced budget" issues, I believe that we did indeed have a balanced budget under Clinton and a budget surplus to boot.
Democrats don't mind "pay as you go," but every time they try to pay for something the republicans object.
Like the 26 billion recently approved for state aid being paid for by eliminating loopholes for corporations that outsource jobs overseas.
For the life of me, I can't understand how the republican party can object to this, but they do.
EDIT; By the way, I believe that the "troubled asset relief program" or TARP was orchestrated and approved under the Bush administration while republicans controlled congress. Remember McCain suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and work on it? Remember the first 700 billion being let out without any accountability and zero oversight?