It’s almost so ridiculous it’s not believable. The federal government is suing the same banks that we bailed out. The same banks that were forced by the government – via the Community Reinvestment Act – to make bad loans that customers (who had no business even getting) defaulted on.
So once again, it appears that we will be bailing out Fannie and Freddie, to the tune of over $30 billion. At the same time, they are suing these mega banks which will make the financial sector even more unstable – if that’s even possible.
Fannie and Freddie had other reasons to buy the [bad] securities, Mr. Rood added. For starters, they carried higher yields at a time [before 2007] when the two mortgage giants could buy them using money borrowed at rock-bottom rates, thanks to the implicit federal guarantee they enjoyed.
In addition, by law Fannie and Freddie were required to back loans to low-to-moderate income and minority borrowers, and the private-label securities were counted toward those goals.
“Competitive pressures and onerous housing goals compelled them to operate more like hedge funds than government-sponsored guarantors, ” Mr. Rood said.
In fact, Freddie was warned by regulators in 2006 that its purchases of subprime securities had outpaced its risk management abilities, but the company continued to load up on debt that ultimately soured.
As of June 30, Freddie Mac holds more than $80 billion in mortgage securities backed by more shaky home loans like subprime mortgages, Option ARM and Alt-A loans. Freddie estimates its total gross losses stand at roughly $19 billion. Fannie Mae holds $38 billion of securities backed by Alt-A and subprime loans, with losses standing at nearly $14 billion. NYT
4 Comments | tags: bad loans, Banks, Community Reinvestment Act, defaulting, Fannie Mae, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, lawsuits, loans | posted in america, consequences, Conservative blog network, conservatives, democrats, economics, economy, politics, progressives, republicans, taxes, taxpayers, TEA Party
[I]t’s odd that they [atheists] will condemn politicians like Bachmann for bringing God into a political discussion, yet they throw their support behind leaders like President Barack Obama, a Christian who says that he is opposed to gay marriage because “God is in the mix”. (A weak attempt at making his Christianity sound cool).
Hmm, Michele Bachmann is crazy for thinking that there is a God who backs her political agenda but President Obama is just fine even though he’s against letting consenting adults who love each other marry because the same God says no?
Why is it that so many atheists who feel that anyone who believes in God is delusional and should seek help support leaders like President Obama? If believing in God is a sign of mental illness, would you really want a man who is suffering from this delusion to have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal?
One reason is that, like many Republicans, they don’t really believe that Obama is a Christian. Not surprising, considering that this is the man who said that guns and God were something for bitter, small town Americans to fall back on when he said that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” – Daniel James Hayden IV
18 Comments | tags: Business Insider, campaigns, Christians, elections, Michele Bachmann, Obama, president | posted in america, change, consequences, Conservative blog network, conservatives, democrats, education, elections, hate mongers, Obama, politics, progressives, republicans, socialism, US Constitituon