A look at some of Palin's executive decisions

[Frame57]

Being a hunter IMO aerial hunting would not be sporting in my view. There is just something about being in the sticks and stalking prey that is fun. You are more in the environment and have to know something about the game rather than spooking them and getting them to run and then shoot them. Not sporting IMO.

[August]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Being a hunter IMO aerial hunting would not be sporting in my view. There is just something about being in the sticks and stalking prey that is fun. You are more in the environment and have to know something about the game rather than spooking them and getting them to run and then shoot them. Not sporting IMO.

I don't think aerial hunting has anything to do with sport hunting. From what i read it was something being done by wildlife management.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think aerial hunting has anything to do with sport hunting. From what i read it was something being done by wildlife management.

I think you are right. I do not recall seeing this done other than by Fish and game to tranq. an animal.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Excuse the naïve question but : When Fannie and Freddie made profit, did they redistribute it to taxpayers ?

No but they redistributed the profits to the stockholders. Fannie and Freddie Mae are not government entities they are for profit corporations operating under a government charter.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Internet hates/ate my sarcasm
Privatization of profits and globalization of the losses at its best. I've read the government is ready to put 100 billions in each of the 2 companies which basically got bankrupt because of their greed. Now how much was the ludicrous amount of money asked in the thread the other day about rebuilding New Orleans ?

Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.

It would probably be helpful if you could tell Sarah Palin all this with regards to Fannie and Freddie.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

It would probably be helpful if you could tell Sarah Palin all this with regards to Fannie and Freddie.

I am afraid I don't have the time to explain all that Ms Palin needs to know about the United States and the world.

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.

Seems almost like a pyramid scheme to me...

[Wolfehunter]

Banks always have money... and One bank rules them all lol.:rotfl: Hint hint the ring hehehe

[August]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Hint hint the ring hehehe

Ring? What ring?

Did you mean:

A ring of Shteel!?


or

A ring of fire?


or maybe


Ring around the Rosy?




Bathtub ring?




Ringworm?




Bill Ring?




Too. Many. Choices! Aaaaarrrrggggg!

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

So, basically, she's a conservative. She must be so ashamed

I don't know why you would attempt to make that argument. It is far deeper than that and the issues go much further than her positions related to the environment, global warming or whether to just "drill baby drill." This must surely go beyond these issues and the answers will be important to all of us- red or blue, or any other color.

I don't believe the issue is a conservative or a liberal one. I believe the issue with Sarah Palin is that what little we have learned of her with absolutely no help or "transparency" from her- is that she is not to be trusted to even be honest with America.

During her acceptance speech she made several material misrepresentations concerning her "stated" positions and/or "accomplishments" which were designed to paint a picture of her as somebody who was a "straight talker" and reformer. And yet since that speech- she has "refused" to make herself available to the media in order to answer questions. A reasonable expectation that most Americans, Republican and Democratic alike certainly and justly expect of a candidate for the second highest office in America.

Instead of being "transparent" and a "reformer" she has done everything possible to avoid transparency. What we have been left with to date are lies and avoiidance. Her latest self inflicted wound has been her refusal to turn over hundreds of emails concerning the so called "trooper gate" investigation. She cites... "executive privilege" in denying the release.

The fact is that while it has already been proven that Husband Todd made several contacts with Alaska's highest law enforcement official in order to advocate for the troopers dismissal the Palin Camp denied that he did so as an official representative of the Governors office. Problem is that Husband Todd was carbon copied on these emails. If her claim is "executive privilege" then the admission must be that Todd DID bring inappropriate pressure to have the trooper fired in an "official" capacity. If the claim is that Todd was NOT acting on behalf of the Governor then the admission is that the emails were never covered under "executive privilege" since they had already been released to the public... ie: Mr. Todd Palin- private citizen.

Either way- Mrs. Palin is doing herself no good and the longer this continues, and the more we learn, the more it appears that Sarah Palin is herself a political creature prone to abuses of power and cover up on a much grander scale that we have learned in just these 10 short days despite her every effort to pretend otherwise.

John McCain made a bad selection and it is being compounded by his failure to conduct and real vetting. And THAT poor decision was the first real example of what we can expect from his administration were he to be elected. Off the hip decisions not grounded in fact, not supported by a careful and realistic examination of the action to be taken, with no real thought given to the final outcomes, and based soley upon his "instincts" and "gut" feeling.

Hey- isn't THAT the same BUSH process that landed us in Iraq??

Apologies for going further afield than this thread perhaps warranted- but we are talking same person, same issue with the sense of discovering just who this lady really is and where she would take us if John McCain for any reason were unable to complete a full term if elected.

The fact that she plans on giving her first ever interview on 9-11 does not impress me much either. I believe 9-11 should be a day free of politics and her decision is one that screams "Me first, country second."

Shame on Sarah Palin for that alone.

[Enigma]

Joe,
All very well said, mate. Couldn't agree more.....

[Platapus]

Rule 1 for the country - get rid of the "executive privilege" crap.

I can understand that there may be some information that should not be released to the public, but in that case it can be released to appropriately cleared people. There has to be some form of checks and balances.

We can not have government officials (local, state, or federal) saying that they have super secret information that no one else can see.

This is what dictators do.