It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where is the White House outrage over bonuses at Fannie, Freddie?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

A nice catch from our friends at Investors Business Daily today paints a portrait at the selectiveness of class-warrior outrage in the Obama administration. When AIG and other bailout recipients started to pay their remaining executives the bonuses for which they were contractually obligated, Barack Obama led a chorus of outrage against the private-sector firms:


hotair.com...


Public Sector: When bailed-out private Wall Street banks handed out bonuses last year, the president threw a fit. So why is he ignoring the huge executive bonuses at government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?


news.investors.com...

Where is that outrage indeed? Nothing but silence from that "fat cat" millioniare Potus. Nothing from that nouveax movement either. I'm confused i sat there and watched the current Commander in ###SNIPPED### scream bloody murder and his party about Wall Street Bonuses so much they set forth the law and dictated to them how much they can make.

But nope nothing,nada,zilch about Fanny and Freddy who received numerous bailouts of which they and Government manipulation created the housing bubble and subsequent bust I agree the typical do as i say not as i do craploa from the holier than thou left and set the standards for other to live by but never living up to them.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Meh this rates a five thumbs down on my worthless meter

edit on 3-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Meh this rates a five thumbs down on my worthless meter


What a coincidence, that's the number I gave to this thread. FM/FM have been around for a long time and were in deep doodoo under another POTUS. Dredging that up and blaming the current POTUS is not only partisan, it's untrue.

I'll be here all week. Please, tip your waitress.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by neo96
Meh this rates a five thumbs down on my worthless meter


What a coincidence, that's the number I gave to this thread. FM/FM have been around for a long time and were in deep doodoo under another POTUS. Dredging that up and blaming the current POTUS is not only partisan, it's untrue.

I'll be here all week. Please, tip your waitress.


The current President always complains about Wall Street execs getting big bonuses even though their companies get bailouts, shouldn't Fannie and Freddie execs get the same kind of treatment?

It's not untrue that Fannie and Freddie are money losers, it's not untrue that they are getting taxpayer support (bailouts), and it's not untrue that the execs at Fannie and Freddie are getting millions. It also kind of makes me wonder what Jon Corzine (big liberal and ex Goldman Sachs) at MF Global will get as a golden parachute reward for running that company into the ground.

Obama is the one that made this a political issue by bringing up Wall Street executive bonuses to incite his base. It is only fair that one points out the hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


WASHINGTON (AP) — Government-controlled mortgage giant Freddie Mac has requested $6 billion in additional aid after posting a wider loss in the third quarter.


Just the phrase "government controlled" makes me sick to my stomach.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



Shortly after taking office, President Obama reacted to Wall Street bonuses handed out in January 2009 with incredibly harsh language, calling them "shameful" and "the height of irresponsibility."



"Folks on Wall Street who are asking for help need to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility," he said. A few months later, Obama pledged that there would be "no more bonuses for companies that taxpayers are helping out," calling them a violation of "our fundamental values."


Straight from the Potus mouth what's so untrue about it?

As to "were" you live in Canada.

Partisan holding the Obama to his own words? No.
edit on 3-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Shhhhhh!!! You're not suppose to notice that. Now turn around and pay attention to the news man on the television. He'll tell you everything you need to know.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Vikus
 


Under the title: The mortgage crisis from late 2007


The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[32] that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.


en.wikipedia.org...

Was Obama president in 2007?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
While it is true that Bush started this bailout, it is akin to blaming Bush for Obama's efforts in pouring gas on a raging fire.

Nice work, Neo.




posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Was Obama president in 2007?


It doesn't matter what Bush did so long as Obama is doing the same thing.

What does matter is how Obama complains about large bonuses given to execs at bailed out companies. Did Bush do that? Obama wants to pander but then looks the other way when his friends are making the big bucks for failing.

Lastly....

IS BUSH THE CURRENT PRESIDENT?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
While it is true that Bush started this bailout...


There you go.


...it is akin to blaming Bush for Obama's efforts in pouring gas on a raging fire.


He doesn't have to react to what's happened before? What is that? The "Pontius Pilate" defense? Wash ones hands after the fact?


Nice work, Neo.


For what? I'm curious?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





While it is true that Bush started this bailout, it is akin to blaming Bush for Obama's efforts in pouring gas on a raging fire.


Wait. I must have read that wrong, because surely you aren't tell us that:

We can't blame Bush for starting something he started, but we can blame Obama for continuing what Bush started?

you sir have lost any credibility you might have had. That level was zero with me, but hopefully some of your sheeple followers will see clearly where you stand, and that you won't let reason, facts or anything silly like that get in your way of hating the crap out of Obama.

You can't lay blame for this on the president that inherited the problem. Yes, you sure can blame him for continuing the problem, but you seriously can't try to blame Nobama for policies Bush enacted.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Bush didn't bailout GM and Chrysler nor wasted billions of Solyndra,Beacon,Sunpower but spent TARP which has 99% paid back blame Bush and Obama get's a pass on his spending spree.

Yeah i see how that works.


Six banks repaid nearly half a billion dollars in funds they received from the government bailout of Wall Street, the Treasury Department said, bringing the total bank repayment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to 99%.


online.wsj.com...
edit on 3-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Oh no. Blame Bush for starting.

But, blame Obama for continuing.

Both are loosers.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Bush didn't bailout GM and Chrysler nor wasted billions of Solyndra,Beacon,Sunpower...


You're right but what has that got to do with FM/FM? Your topic remember.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
While it is true that Bush started this bailout...


There you go.


...it is akin to blaming Bush for Obama's efforts in pouring gas on a raging fire.


He doesn't have to react to what's happened before? What is that? The "Pontius Pilate" defense? Wash ones hands after the fact?


Nice work, Neo.


For what? I'm curious?


Neo brings to light the aspects of this administration that the MSM and much of the alternate media try to downplay.

And, um, Obama is POTUS. Your comments on Bush may well be better suited on a thread titled, "It's still Bush's fault."



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Yes, you sure can blame him for continuing the problem, but you seriously can't try to blame Nobama for policies Bush enacted.


Yes I can. Obama is POTUS. He's actually the boss now. He has been able to change any bloody policy he's wanted to for the past three years.

Start a thread called, "It's still Bush's fault"

I'm sure you'll get alot of traffic.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by neo96
Bush didn't bailout GM and Chrysler nor wasted billions of Solyndra,Beacon,Sunpower...


You're right but what has that got to do with FM/FM? Your topic remember.


You blame Bush for everything, that's fine. And yes it was under Bush that Fannie and Freddie started getting their bailouts.

But what does it say that Obama does the same thing? Is that Bush's fault too?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Outrage? At the White House? Is this sarcasm?

Obama loves his Wall Street buddies. They've been giving him lots of money in campaign contributions in exchange for his unlimited bailouts.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Because that is the money the current Potus is spending at the moment that is what it has to do with the topic but then agian the topic wasn't tarp or Bush.

It was about Obama settting the standards for others to live by wait except when the Government owns them which Fanny and Freddy are Government owned.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Neo brings to light the aspects of this administration that the MSM and much of the alternate media try to downplay.


That chestnut is getting old. We're ATS, not MSNBC, Fox, CNN. We delve into the issues not spew partisan crap like them. Well, yeah we do but then there's those out there that won't let us get into that abyss. You can thank me later.


And, um, Obama is POTUS. Your comments on Bush may well be better suited on a thread titled, "It's still Bush's fault."


That sounded precariously like, "I want my mommy." Not saying it is but that's what it sounds like to me. Every leader should be accountable for the actions that they put into place. Looking around this place though Clinton, Bush, Obama never made a bad move depending on who you talk to. Time to pull your heads out of the sand people. Hold the bastards accountable despite what political leaning they hyave. Anything less is counter to productive political discourse. Closer to political masturbation imo.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join