Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Proposed Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Supervision In Sept 2003
New York ^ | Sept 11, 2003 | STEPHEN LABATON

Posted on 09/17/2008 10:01:15 PM PDT by tallyhoe

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 last
To: tallyhoe

thanks for posting ! Mccain needs to use this

141 posted on 09/19/2008 1:42:46 AM PDT by TinaJeannes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

That would explain why Chaldean Christians are less free to worship now than they were before our intervention. Explain to me how “Now law that contradicts Islam” will fare against “Now law that contradicts democracy?” The supremacy of Islam as a governing principle in this constitution is clear, else there would have been a balancing clause “no law that contradicts Christianity” would have been included. This Constitutions was, and is, an insult to the west.

142 posted on 09/19/2008 7:20:23 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th
of the way and let Palin be the man.

Sexism from a Republican?

I had tried to stay away, but you are not a nice person.

McCain is a man because of anatomy.

Sarah is a woman because of anatomy.


Interpretation's outside anatomy; scream prejudice.

143 posted on 09/19/2008 10:39:22 PM PDT by highpockets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dianna
State of the Union addresses and I remember, at least once, Bush touting the ever growing number of minority homeowners. I have been ticked off for a year and I've been saying that either Bush knew this was coming or he should have known this was coming.

The President was right to be proud of seeing this happen. And what he said has really nothing directly to do with the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

Basic economics: As businesses grow, so does the economy. This means people have newer availability of jobs to seek. This can also mean they have more income. When they have more income, this increases their opportunities for home ownership. There are many people all across the "race/ethnicity/gender/orientation-pinwheel" of humanity with great credit, who are responsible, and would like to own a home. As the Bush economic plan was successful, these people were able to find either higher paying jobs, or simply more constant, full-time work in their locations. This, then, increased homeownership.

Redlining, OTOH, is a pure creation by Democrats. Redlining means loaning to a broad category of people (of "color" or of low income levels, bad credit history, etc,) and giving them a "preferential" loan. This latter is what has wrought this current economic mortgage crisis.

When the President said this thing in his SOU address, I and my household were on our feet applauding. Not because he said "minorities were owning homes" but rather because when good people are of solid character and buying their homes, this brings about the boon, if not birth, of a microeconomy in their location. And if the city/town fathers of that area invest revenues properly, this means that even newer jobs are created. In small towns across America, this also means that those with disabilities can work too!

If those on various welfarian rolls are able to work, to actually have a paying job, this decreases the monies used up in transportation, health, food, housing, etc., and alleviates the burden on the American Taxpayer. I include also those who are retired, but barely eking it out on their social security. They too can have part-time jobs which supplement their incomes, which of course reduces the taxpayer burdens for various supplemental programs.

Homeownership is a GOOD thing. When people have an investment in their home, care about their neighborhoods, the opportunities for slime to enter is vastly reduced.

One of the greatest ways to cut down crime in an area is truly, home ownership.

What the dems did with Redlining - giving loans to people who'd never be able to repay, had bad money histories, etc., was a ripoff of anyone who'd invested in the companies MAKING those loans.

Usually, businesses making a profit tend to reinvest, either in their own companies or in other companies. And in so doing, grow micro-economies. This is how wealth and prosperity grows.

What the CEOs of Fran/Fred did was steal the profits and invest it principally in themselves, and their candidate of "choice", Barack Obama. And now, they plan Scam II, and why they are desperate for Obama to win.

I've already, many years ago, in San Francisco, early 90s, seen what happens, now.

Those properties foreclosed on, either get declared this that or the other, and auctioned off for mere dollars.

I cannot immediately recall the Dem's name in SF; but SF had a "housing crisis" similar to the one we have now, brought on by the same damned regulations. Sure enough, this Dem bought these "slums" for a mere dollar, had them declared "federal disasters, and used Federal dollars to repair these homes. Once these edifices were totally fixed up? The Dem put these houses on the market for sale at top dollar. He got all the profits, which ran to about 90% of total value, when he'd only paid mere dollars for the property to begin with.

And he wasn't the only Dem who did this.

144 posted on 09/20/2008 5:47:20 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alia
...Addendum to my post...

And at this point, we can now talk about the hows and why RE in San Francisco Area grew so outrageously high. And the beginnings of "how the RE bubble got built" and by whom.

Why... if we were of a mind to, we could also talk about Your Black Muslim Bakery, across the Bay from SF in Oakland, and their Real Estate Growth Adventures, and all that happened as a result. ahem.

145 posted on 09/20/2008 5:52:19 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Chaguito

First of all you did not lose retirement “income”. Your retirement account lost some of its value. And if you (or your advisor) has you invested properly you will not be affected. Why? Because the money you need to withdraw from your portfolio for the next 3-4 years should not be in stocks (or stock mutual funds) anyway. It should be in bonds or other fixed investments and the most immediate of this 3-4 year amount ought to be in (i.e. the next twelve months withdrawal) should be in cash or money market. The market has never been down more than four consecutive years (and that only once, from ‘29-’32). This cushion will provide you the time needed for the market to recover its losses. Then, when the market recovers (and it will!!!) simply replenish the cushion and enjoy a relaxing cup of hot tea and a good book.

146 posted on 09/30/2008 9:12:33 PM PDT by uncommoncents (To all those worried about their retirement income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: uncommoncents

I was talking of “potential” retirement income, and I don’t have that many years to make up the losses. But fortunately, since my post, or actually a few days before it, i went 100% cash. Now hoping MM funds don’t break the buck.

147 posted on 09/30/2008 9:28:44 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson