• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When will the spending stop??

justbehappy

justbehappy

Active Member
Fannie Mae narrows loss, but asks for more aid

Fannie Mae says that its financial condition has vastly improved over previous quarters, but the mortgage finance company still requested more government assistance.
The government-run company said Thursday it lost $1.2 billion in the second quarter, down significantly from an $11.5 billion loss in the prior quarter. Last quarter’s loss was the smallest since the government took Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September 2008.
Fannie said it continues to suffer credit losses from home loans issued between 2005 and 2008. Although those losses will continue in the future, the company said it believes it has reserved enough “for the substantial majority of these losses.“
That didn’t stop Fannie from asking for another $1.5 billion in government aid. The Treasury Department has given the company a total of $85 billion over the past two years. But those loans are expensive, carrying a hefty interest rate that forced Fannie to pay $1.9 billion back to the Treasury last quarter.
The company said the loans it is currently purchasing are subject to much higher underwriting standards than the ones of the past several years, carrying the lowest early “serious“ delinquency rates in a decade.
“We are focused on sustainable homeownership, and our higher underwriting and eligibility standards reflect that,“ said Mike Williams, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, in a statement. “Across our industry, we are seeing a more realistic approach to housing and lending that bodes well for the future.“
Click to expand...
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Not with this administration :D

michelle-spain.jpg

Yet the bigger public furor concerns the cost and appearance of the trip. In a scathing editorial published Thursday, New York Daily News writer Andrea Tantaros trashed Michelle Obama as a "modern day Marie Antoinette" for taking such a glitzy vacation while most of the country is struggling to make ends meet.The Obama entourage is staying at the luxury Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton property often described as one of the world's top 10 hotels. Rates range between $500 and $2,500 a night. It's not clear that the Obama delegation picked this hotel specifically, or if the Secret Service — which often gets final say over where a protectee stays — made the accommodations call.
Click to expand...
Source:
First lady under fire for her glitzy Spanish vacation
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Spending money is the only thing that politicians know how to do.

But I think that it's more than a little smug to say that Mrs. Obama "is modern day Marie Antoinette."

This little fiaso is nothing. It's likely that Palin spent more on her clothing than Michelle spent on this trip.
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Spending money is the only thing that politicians know how to do.

But I think that it's more than a little smug to say that Mrs. Obama "is modern day Marie Antoinette."

This little fiaso is nothing. It's likely that Palin spent more on her clothing than Michelle spent on this trip.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree in part with you. However when you consider the cost beyond the hotel stay, you have to consider, the chartered Air Force flight over, her entourage, and all the secret service will cost the tax payers THOUSANDS, so at this time in our economy it is a bit insensitive.

But, truly I don't give a ****, they're all a bit crooked, so this is no surprise to me.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just_me_Mike said:
Oh I agree in part with you. However when you consider the cost beyond the hotel stay, you have to consider, the chartered Air Force flight over, her entourage, and all the secret service will cost the tax payers THOUSANDS, so at this time in our economy it is a bit insensitive.

But, truly I don't give a ****, they're all a bit crooked, so this is no surprise to me.
Click to expand...

There's just no comparison. I'd rather see thousands spent on Michele than billions spent in illegal wars.
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
There's just no comparison. I'd rather see thousands spent on Michele than billions spent in illegal wars.
Click to expand...
Funny thing... I thought excess was excess :shrug:

The individual knows when they are doing something wrong, but only the trained conscious can continue to do that act even when they know it is wrong. Lawyers are perfect at that, so are politicians. Double whammy for our Lady in the house and her hubby.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just_me_Mike said:
Funny thing... I thought excess was excess :shrug:

The individual knows when they are doing something wrong, but only the trained conscious can continue to do that act even when they know it is wrong. Lawyers are perfect at that, so are politicians. Double whammy for our Lady in the house and her hubby.
Click to expand...

haha

Well, the report doesn't say that she spent state money to shop. She was invited to a meeting with Spain's head of state, which she did while down there.

I don't think that she did anything wrong - it's not proven in the article. So if we draw drastic conclusions, we're falling into the trap that the media sets for us.
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
haha

Well, the report doesn't say that she spent state money to shop. She was invited to a meeting with Spain's head of state, which she did while down there.

I don't think that she did anything wrong - it's not proven in the article. So if we draw drastic conclusions, we're falling into the trap that the media sets for us.
Click to expand...
We don't need the article to know the tax payers pay for the entourage, secret service, and chartered air force flight. I am sure she uses her personal money for shopping, but like I said, it doesn't really matter other than pointing out the truth. There all a bit scummy. So be it :shrug:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just_me_Mike said:
We don't need the article to know the tax payers pay for the entourage, secret service, and chartered air force flight. I am sure she uses her personal money for shopping, but like I said, it doesn't really matter other than pointing out the truth. There all a bit scummy. So be it :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, she was invited to spend some time with the Spainish head of state, and the only way she could get there was in this manner.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just_me_Mike said:
No sarcasm... Just missed that part. If that was the reason for the visit, I am sure it is justified. If however, it was just a vacation, I think it is a bit tacky, while it is on our dime.
Click to expand...

IMHO, we should be more concerned with dollars.

If we're talking about piddly things like this that draw our attention away from real issues, our children are going to be speaking Farsi or Chinese. I bet that this entire visit wouldn't pay for one smart bomb.
 
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
IMHO, we should be more concerned with dollars.

If we're talking about piddly things like this that draw our attention away from real issues, our children are going to be speaking Farsi or Chinese. I bet that this entire visit wouldn't pay for one smart bomb.
Click to expand...
Geez, I dunno AE, I mean I agree in theory with you, but to me the underlining attitude is quite possibly the same, whether we are talking smart bombs or trips to Spain. To address what you are talking about still would involve the attitude present in a trip to Spain, if it was just a vacation.

But you may be right...
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just_me_Mike said:
Geez, I dunno AE, I mean I agree in theory with you, but to me the underlining attitude is quite possibly the same, whether we are talking smart bombs or trips to Spain. To address what you are talking about still would involve the attitude present in a trip to Spain, if it was just a vacation.

But you may be right...
Click to expand...

Well, one is excess that does no harm, other than offend a few people.

The other excess does great harm and has the potential of completely destroying our country while taking down a few others with us.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball.
 
justbehappy

justbehappy

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Spending money is the only thing that politicians know how to do.

But I think that it's more than a little smug to say that Mrs. Obama "is modern day Marie Antoinette."

This little fiaso is nothing. It's likely that Palin spent more on her clothing than Michelle spent on this trip.
Click to expand...
Just want to say, Palin said her outfits were all pretty much rented out to her and returned, she didn't keep them.
Also, isn't it true that Marie Antionette wasn't as stuck up as people thought she was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top