Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (146513)	11/8/2008 3:09:47 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Banning lobbyist would be unconstitutional, " Would banning bribery be unconstitutional?

To: TimF who wrote (146513)	11/8/2008 6:47:42 PM
From: geode00	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

They were private companies with shareholders and publicly traded stock. "The precedent that the Treasury is trying to avoid is having the Treasury secretary say that the Federal government, the taxpayers of the United States stand behind the debt of a private company, so that's why they are very reluctant to provide the clarification that the market wants." Fannie Mae was established as a federal agency in 1938, and in 1968 we were chartered by Congress as a private shareholder-owned company. On September 6, 2008, Director James Lockhart of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) appointed FHFA as conservator of Fannie Mae. In addition, the U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to provide up to $100 billion of capital as needed to ensure the company continues to provide liquidity to the housing and mortgage markets. ========== Why in the world would banning lobbyists be unconstitutional. Why in the world would public funding of campaigns be problematic and not effective. You keep flogging your opinions with zero supporting evidence as if whatever you say is fact. It isn't.