This is what is wrong with our leaders. ALL of THEM! They worry aboout institutions and not the people...

Washington, Wall St. weigh Fannie, Freddie help: Washington, Wall St. weigh Fannie, Freddie help - Yahoo! News


By ALAN ZIBEL and JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writers Sat Jul 12, 7:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Wall Street and Washington wrestled Friday with how to shore up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two troubled pillars of the economy whose failure would deal a devastating blow to the already crippled housing market.


As investors grew more convinced that only some type of government bailout could rescue the firms, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the focus was to support the pair "in their current form" without a takeover.

The government was considering giving Fannie and Freddie access to the Fed's emergency lending program as one option to prop up the firms, said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., citing conversations with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson.

A Fed spokeswoman said the central bank had not talked with Fannie and Freddie about the emergency lending program. The spokeswoman declined to discuss any other options being considered.

Guess this isn't to important for the current news. So if not I will let you discuss Obama and the other clown running. I got more important things to do.

The issue is important but overly complicated and not easily responded to in a single issue post. The examination of this issue is broad and needs lengthy research and analysis.

__________________

I say we input all the data into the super computer they have at M.I.T. They should be able to make sense of it.

__________________
_____

Barack Obama and his Associations - A Question of Judgement & Character

You know what if I use one word (you know what word I mean) you would have been all over this beating it with a big stick. What you describe is true of most news releases and the real stories.

Sad excuse to avoid what isn't your idea of being important.

There are some topics for which I have easy answers. This is not one of them. All of my study and training would tell me that there shouldn't be a bailout of the companies because the loans shouldn't have been made in the first place. There shouldn't be a bailout of the borrowers because they entered into an agreement when they were in no position to take out the loans.

This unfortunately doesn't take into account the massive human costs. Are we to be philanthropic? Are we to expect these individuals to pull themselves up by the boot straps? My heart tells me that we should do what we can to help people out, but there is no guarantee that it will help for the future.

__________________

Furthermore, it is not just a matter of narrowly looking at it as a bailout for corporations, but the big picture in as far as the consequences on the economy of the failure of certain corporations which could bring about a run on the market, and send our economy into a (further) downward and irreparable spiral. From what I am reading on the topic, the government seems more inclined to take steps to support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to impede their fall, instead of waiting until they actually go bankrupt to step in - as was the case with Bear Sterns. This is what they should have done with individuals falling into foreclosure when the whole sub prime mess started, but I do not think it was clear that the situation would be this bad (hindsight is 20/20). Fannie/Freddie fail, banks lose billions, banks fail, stock market crashes, everyone is screwed, These companies took big risks to make big bucks, but in allowing them to flounder, they will take us all down with them. I for one do not look forward to seeing my 401K go to $0.

Here's an illustration for you...

Fears that more banks could follow IndyMac's failure counter relief about the government plan to bolster Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The financial sector tumbled Monday, dragging down the broader market, as the IndyMac bank failure countered relief that the government is helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 0.4% and closed at its lowest point since July 21, 2006. Strength in big consumer names such as Coca-Cola (KO, Fortune 500) and McDonald's (MCD, Fortune 500) tempered the impact of weakness in financials.

The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index slipped 0.9% and ended at its lowest point since June 2006. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite (COMP) shed 1.2% and still held above its March lows.

An early rally dissolved as relief about Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) gave way to concerns that more banks would go the way of IndyMac (IMB) - which was taken over by the federal government late Friday. (funny how this was done oh so quietly this time around)

"Depositors may not be making a run on the banks, but investors sure are," said Jeff Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial Services.

He said that with the whole financial sector down sharply Monday, that sector is largely responsible for the market weakness.

"Banks are getting hurt on concerns that there could be one or more IndyMac's out there," Kleintop said.

Stocks trimmed some losses near the close, before resuming the downward direction. All three major stock gauges are currently in a bear market, defined as a decline of at least 20% off the cyclical highs.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 14, 2008

And this was only a mortgage lender, not a retail lender. Furthermore, I read an article where the Feds are now monitoring credit card and vehicle lease/loan debts so they can identify a similar trend to this subprime mess. It is understood that with this experience, they will step in sooner rather than later to avert another financial disaster of these proportions. They're reacting a little late, but late better than never (or so I'm told):

Fed's war against shady home loans

Fed unveils new rules aimed at curbing shady home loans - Jul. 14, 2008

Now someone please tell me again how this whole is mess is not the government's fault for not stepping in sooner to stop these shady practices? Hey, I get how the average Joe can get sucked into a mortgage he can't afford, with fine print on the contract he didn't read or did not understand, but I thought that we elected politicians because they can spot problems and find solutions. Seems to me they just looked the other way,

Thank you dga, I was to upset to bother informing one who seems to be on the wrong side of about every comment. You have more tolerance than I.
Again thanks for doing the correct thing if it sinks in we won't know for a while.

dga, I see your point and don't disagree with it. I find the analysis to be accurate. I have several concerns beginning with future legislative policy. Isn't the analysis you're reading just a further excuse to regulate market transactions? Not that I have a problem with that, but there are many who do. Is there a slippery slope argument to be made in light of the need for additional regulation?

The American people are paying regardless.

__________________