Lawmakers aim to block bonus pay at Fannie and Freddie

reply to post by cetaphobic

Good. This is exactly what needs to be done. Because these companies are NOT going to police themselves or show any restraint. That has been made quite clear by the fact that they spent years not policing themselves or showing any damn restraint.

Its a perfect plan for destruction. No organism or body polices itself; it relies on laws of nature or laws of man. With noregulation, self-consuming burnout occurs.

Angelicdefender2012,

you should check in with pause4thought, a few posts up. He told me about drinking the Koolaid, too. But he used the word "shill" and you didn't, so he wins.

A question. What happens if I come up with three examples? Do you sign up for the Tea Party? Write a public apology that your politics have been wrong all these years and you're going to vote Republican for the rest of your life? I didn't think so.

Oh well, I would maintain that any Representative or Senator who gets caught doing something unethical (not illegal) and resigns is accepting accountability. And the list is lengthy.

Charles1952

reply to post by Rockpuck

Erm .. they were Government Sponsored Enterprises .. now they are simply Government Corporations.

This... is really where things get fun.

They have been placed into a conservatorship.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, in the U.S. at the federal level, in September 2008, the chief executive officers, and board of directors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were dismissed, and the companies were placed into the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) via the determination of its director James B. Lockhart III, with the support and financial backing of U.S. Treasury via Treasury secretary Hank Paulson's commitment to keep the corporations solvent.[4]

Exactly what this means for a corporation seems to be rather loosely defined:

In the United States, in some states, corporations can be placed under conservatorship, as a less extreme alternative to receivership. Whereas a receiver is expected to terminate the rights of shareholders and managers, a conservator is expected merely to assume those rights, with the prospect that they will be relinquished.[2]

With the common example of how this works in the interpersonal world being people mentally or physically disabled/unstable being placed in a conservatorship overseen by an individual deemed to be responsible for them.

The US Government, with each bailout, took a portion of ownership as collateral .. the US Government owns roughly 80% of the companies

en.wikipedia.org...

Sort of. But who actually holds the stocks and gets to vote at the share holder meetings?

This is why it's a bad idea for the government to get involved in business.

they are no longer "Private" they have been nationalized. We can do what ever we want to them now.

They are still private. It doesn't matter who owns the stock, they are still a private company (under a conservatorship).

The whole thing is whacked. However - My main point with the mention of ex-post-facto still stands.

For example, let's say you have managers who approve a $500 holiday bonus to be paid the 15th of November (and it is still in October). This is all done in accordance with the policy of that company at the time - those managers were in their proper authority and channels. The government (now in control of this company) says that's hogwash and doesn't want it to happen, so they come in and change the funding approval process and rebuke the bonuses.

Do you see where I'm going with that? We can't write laws that are then applied to something after the fact.

_______________

All of this aside - my main analysis is that it's all a horse and pony show.

"We are tough on irresponsible businesses and block bonuses to senior management of troubled institutions."

That is, essentially, the message we are getting. It's a very strategic message, and one that plays to the sentiment of class warfare currently plaguing this country. So long as people see the rich as being persecuted by the government - it's all hunky dory.

Which is exactly what this is trying to say.

The problem is that the type of relationship GSEs and government have is inherently toxic - and will only benefit governments that seek more power and corrupt the free market. It is bad for all citizens and should never be supported.

But it's not easy to communicate that to people. They just simply don't like how someone behind a desk gets a hundred fold their wages while the business is suffering from poor management - and are content to see "justice" done.

First of all, once their bailout reached 1 trillion dollars (total of the morgage backed 5 Trillions) of tax payer bailout money with 96.5% of government backed morgages since 2009 its nothing in those two companies that are private anymore but the fat rats CEOs in their board.

Until this day, no a single penny has been repaid to the tax payer and the talks are that they will not start to repay back the bailout until 2014.

All the people involved in the scandal should have been burn and hang, ir hand and burn but that is not so.

When corruption runs so deep in our nations politics and whores in congress are bought by entities like Freddy and Fanny what else can you expect.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Could Beging Paying Back Bailout Money By 2014

www.huffingtonpost.com...

In case capitalist appologist do not like my link to the Huffingtonpost I got another link here

usgovernmentbenefits.org...

Fannie/Freddie Bailout May Reach $1 Trillion

www.thenewamerican.com...

Taking into cosideration that that the total cost of the backed morgages are up in the 5 trillion dollars this is very much believable

fanny mae and freddie mac -
the best politicians money can buy?
Top ten recipients of Fannie Mae ‘contributions’


What is the best collateral a corrupted company can have? a corrupted government full of corporate whores

www.abelard.org...

This is yet another example of the folly that is "quasi-governmental" enterprises launched by the "businessmen" in politics ....

It is a prime example of "business" leadership by our glorious political celebrities...

Did anyone actually believe that these bankers weren't going to take advantage of their position? When has that ever happened?

This is of course our own fault. We blithely accepted several things as "given" that only ignorant naivete (or partisan zealotry) can account for....

We chose to believe:

1) The object of creating more home ownership for less affluent Americans could be accomplished by increasing access to lower-income families and redistributing the debt burden of the country as a whole

- Banks pencil in, or type in, the amount of your home into a ledger or spreadsheet - and viola! Suddenly, that money exists..... if you can't pay later on, the home (as collateral) becomes their property ... all without ever paying a dime for it. If you DO pay, the bank retains it's profits in higher interest, and of course, the legislated fiscal benefits of participating in this "special" initiative... but since the rollover real-estate market is so high among lower income groups, you really can't lose.

2) The appointees responsible for executing this gargantuan redistribution of debt (not wealth) could be entrusted not to capitalize on the practice, nor allow their commercial institutions to feed opportunistically on the revenue stream

- Every action taken by these "quasi-governmental' agencies (Freddie,.Fannie, and Sally and the Fed for that matter) are revenue generating (they are all billed to the US government.... in other words, the taxpayer. Did you think these people have an incentive to operate with efficiency when they get a percentage cut of every penny spent on the process of spending every penny they get?

3) That Senators and Congressmen would not line their own pockets with wealth and political relevance by peddling access to the revenue stream for political expedience.

- Lacking insider trading restrictions, guess who became obscenely more wealthy in the market over the housing bubble? Did you guess our elected officials? I hope so... because they did. ((Why do you think they all had to be warned in a special 'secret' congressional meeting which no one could speak about on Tuesday March 25, 2008.... My theory is it was the "get out now" warning... and an opportunity to secure oaths of silence from those who suddenly became part of the "little robber baron" club.))

4) That bankers would not seize this opportunity to secure marketable properties without actually having to pay for them.

- As we see today the silent acceptance of the fact that the American dream of owning "real" estate, actual property, has evaporated into nothingness while the vast majority of the recently displaced will forever represent the increased consumer "renters" market.... the old story of how "banks don't want your property" begins to slowly turn into another bubble they can feed off... the renters bubble. You don't get to own property... let's just hope int he future that doesn't make you less of a citizen... but I wouldn't say it's out of the question.

5) That this had something to do with equality.

- As usual, Americans love the idea of painless altruism that requires no sacrifice. We knew that it had been the underprivileged youths and communities that grew into the class of folks who just can't seem to "get a break" and since most grew up believing the American dream (own a house, some cars, some stuff, and actually get to stop having to trade your time for money eventually) was actually real.

But the reality was without explicitly courting "debt" none of that is achievable. Without engaging in the "banker's" reality, you can't have any of that.... so rather than make that a clear reality... which would have exposed the farce for what it was, they "hid the bank in government clothing" creating new "quasi-governmental" constructs so people thought the nice words of the politicans had something to do with reality - as opposed to actually being another profit opportunity for banks in which they have deep ties.

"Quasi-governmental" is a pseudonym for "legislated monopoly." Interestingly, the heavy hitting banking moguls were so intimidating that even their smaller competition (who no longer exist) wouldn't dare challenge them - lest the government find some reason to 'investigate' their practices.



Sorry... feeling a little conspiratorial today... I'm sure it's all hyperbole and rhetoric to them..... as they count the wealth which used to be ours.... you know, the wealth they replace with debt... by fiat.

Should they get bonuses? No! They say if they dont give bonuses then there best employess will go elsewhere?

Idk where to start with this. First off there should never be bail outs. Since there was, you cant give bonuses. What company wants your employees who screwed up. Heck they can set salary of your employees and make the guy at the top work for free. To much govt control? yeah it would be, but it was to much govt control from the moment they issued bailouts.

The only check the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deserve is one for mental disability on welfare!

No one in their right mind would ask for a bonus after royally screwing up and asking for a bailout. The stupidity is so grand that it defies logic on many levels. "Hey can I get a bonus for punching you in the face?" asks some bulley in the middle school playground.........

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I believe Newt ended up with 1.3 mil for lobbying for F&F.

reply to post by Corruptedstructure


ha, that is not all 60 minute exposed how Walls street inside trading is making the whores in Washington filthy rich beyond our dreams, while the rest of the middle class lie in decay and economic chaos our corrupted and bought out government gambling on our economy get the rewards from Walls street for crewing the nation in favor of bankers.