Friday, September 19, 2008

Without a doubt, Obama has a conflict of interest when the subject is Fannie Mae

Once it was revealed that in his short tenure in the Senate, Senator Obama has moved into the second highest postion of recieving money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- right after Chris Dodd , (D)of Connect-a-dot, who has had a greater number of years to amass a larger take from the quasi-Government entities... It became apparent to me (but obviously not him) that he should probably shut up while he was ahead.("ahead" is such a hard place to define, but in this instance, be very sure that if the alternative has jail time or a dive in the polls, then...he's ahead)

Even worse is the Obama Campaign pointing at former lobbyists in the McCAin Camp, all the while sitting on top of the two former executives that cause large portions of the Fannie and Fred failures. Creative bookkeeping just doesn't begin to describe what these folks did.

I can see Obama getting down on his knees and praying "Not yet...PLEASE don't let it fail, YET!!! Not until January 2009!!!

So , excuse me if I just have to shake my head when he walks out onto a stage with a straight face. The man has NO economic experience, so he takes his direction directly from two men who together ruined the foundation that holds the rest of the house up. How is this "change"??

Update: Ace of Spades throws gasoline on this one!
"If the federal government were guaranteeing a trillion new dollars for no-money down car purchases with no credit checks or proof of employment or income, what do you think would happen to the price of cars?
They'd triple. For a while.
Housing market turns into dangerously overinflated bubble. Which is what always happens when a trillion fresh, cheap, easy dollars flow into a sector and begin chasing the same limited pool of goods."
Regarding Barney Frank...Obama , and Dodd
"They have no idea how money is made or how services and goods are exchanged. All they know is they want to distribute those services and goods more "fairly."
He doesn't agree with the basic idea that People who don't have enough money to afford a house shouldn't have one. He honestly believes that idea is "unfair."
Everyone should have a house. People who can't afford them most of all.
And if you tell him doing so will cost the government another 1-2 trillion in ten years, and will put the economy in crisis again, he'd say, "Fine." It's a fair trade as far as he's concerned.
Because who's paying that 1-2 trillion? People who have money. If provoking a crisis is the only manner to get the wealth distribution he craves, that's fine by him. "

No comments: