Unicorns and Pixie Dust

2011 February 9
by drdog09

If I didn’t rub my eyes twice and read the article over closely I would come away with the feeling that Obama has become a conservative. Pinch me I know its not true —

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The Obama administration will issue a proposal later this week recommending the gradual elimination of government-sponsored mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a White House official said Wednesday.

The highly-anticipated “white paper,” which is expected to be released Friday, will include three different options for reducing the role government plays in the mortgage market, the official said.

While the paper would mark an important development in the debate over what to do with Fannie and Freddie, a final decision by Congress is not expected any time soon.


Yes it is only a paper. No legislation is considered as an outcome. But for the Administration to even be letting something like this get out the front door is untypical of them. (Always the flare drop factor too.)

Nor have they thought this through. If F&F go bye bye in the wrong manner, so will a bunch of banks, then so goes the economy. So if this is to be acted on (yes please) let be sure that it is so structured to be as least disruptive as possible to the overall economy as a whole.

Those banks that do fail over the long term were probably destined to fail anyway. But both the borrowers and the depositors need to be buffered so as not to upset main street commerce.

19 Responses leave one →
  1. 2011 February 9 3:57 pm
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    Yet more evidenced that government printing of money and running away spending is running up commodity prices – and in the processing killing whatever may be left of our economy:


    “The run up in prices, by the way, is not caused by shortages (the world is rather awash in oil at the moment), nor is it really caused by troubles in the oil producing areas (it does push speculative price rises, but not as much as we’ve seen); it is caused by the massive printing of fiat money by the United States and other major world economy (little noticed in the West – because China’s boosters prefer we not know it – is that China printed more, in relation to their economy, than we did). When you increase the supply of money out of relation to the growth of the underlying economy, then the money becomes worth less – but the producers of tangible assets will not and cannot accept less than actual value for the products they sell – prices rise as a result…and as money has been printed, speculators have started to buy up hard assets in anticipation of yet more printing. It is quite the vicious circle.

    This rise in prices could be catastrophic for our economy. Over the years, you can track steep increases in unemployment with steep rises in oil prices. Each time it has happened, after a short lag time, unemployment has shot up. And this time it could be much worse, as prices of everything else are shooting up right alongside oil. If we don’t get this swiftly under control, we may return to the “stagflation” of 1979-80 where we had the horrible event of stagnation and inflation.”

  2. 2011 February 9 4:20 pm
    brucefdb permalink

    I heard something about this from a different source Doc, and it didn’t sound like anything to get excited about. But since I can’t find it I’ll wait to see the actual paper. No way Democrats let go of this slush fund without a fight.

  3. 2011 February 9 4:26 pm
    justrand permalink

    this smells…don’t eat it! 🙂

  4. 2011 February 9 4:29 pm
    mulletover permalink

    So, in the end, all those corrupt democrats from Clinton’s administration, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, et al, get to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.

    And a side note, taxpayers continue to pick up the legal tab for proceedings against them.


  5. 2011 February 9 5:37 pm
    bc3b permalink

    Unfortunately, it’s not just Democrats that are trying to screw us. Both Bill Frist and Bob Dole are pushing government health care for personal gain.

  6. 2011 February 9 5:51 pm
    drdog09 permalink

    Oh trust me, I read over and over. I can’t figure what the angle is but I have to figure there is one, its just not apparent yet. F&F are usually where one party or the other stuffs some of their minions so they can be sure of campaign cash later. So I don’t why they would let it go unless there was something bigger to gain and that’s what’s got me puzzled.

  7. 2011 February 9 6:18 pm
    mulletover permalink

  8. 2011 February 9 6:23 pm
    janzam permalink

    So I don’t why they would let it go unless there was something bigger to gain and that’s what’s got me puzzled.

    This is where I’m at too –> too conservative-thinking to be true. So, where is the catch?

  9. 2011 February 9 7:40 pm
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    #7 that isn’t off topic at all……thats what Statism is all about: Using government force to enrich a small group of elites while controling or empoverishing the average citizen….

    Thats ALWAYS the undercurrent of any specific topic on here!

  10. 2011 February 9 7:57 pm
    justrand permalink

    it’s smoke & mirrors…but disguising what? doesn’t matter…if Obama is really gonna push it, then there’s an angle to it that pays somebody off, and screws America in the process. It’ll become clear soon enough.

  11. 2011 February 9 8:13 pm
    justrand permalink

    Sarah Palin responding (indirectly) to Rick Santorum who had implied she had no business attending a conference when she had children back home to raise:
    I will not call him a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. I’ll let his wife call him that instead.


  12. 2011 February 9 8:20 pm
    drdog09 permalink

    Wow! Now that is what I call a put down. No subtlety there. I like it.

  13. 2011 February 9 8:29 pm
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    “But here is an important piece of information that one can use to rebut this underhanded effort to discredit human liberty and to empower the statists: the American political system has a very clear doctrine of the public good (or interest).

    It is stated in the Declaration of Independence and it consists of a system of laws that secure the natural rights of the citizenry.

    That’s the American version of the public interest, namely, protecting everyone’s liberty to live his or her life by his or her own judgment. That is why a legal system is instituted, not to serve other ends, the bulk of which are, of course, on the agendas of the statists.

    What the Founders did so brilliantly is discern the public good or interest correctly, based on what in fact all members of the public will benefit from.

    And this is their being free from aggression by other people even when such aggression would be deployed for high sounding objectives.

    Now it is very tempting to designate everything someone badly desires as being in the public interest.

    Just listen to all those lobbyists who march to centers of power peddle their special interests as in need of being pursued for the public good.

    But this is a ruse and it is precisely in the proper public interest to unmask and resist it, which is everyone’s basic right to life, liberty and property.

    That is what everyone benefits from without any cost to anyone else. That is a bona fide public good, not some trumped up version which always amounts to ripping some people off so that the goals of some others get served.

    ………these statists only stress the relatively rare misconduct that men and women engage in when they are free. So they will not permit anyone to say otherwise in those forums they dominate (which, by the ways, they could not do without the right to private property being well protected).

    Libertarianism is a sound political idea but it faces an uphill fight given how its embrace means the demotion of all sorts of tyrants, Draconian or petty, who are very reluctant to give up their well entrenched power.”


  14. 2011 February 9 8:32 pm
    drdog09 permalink

  15. 2011 February 9 8:37 pm
    drdog09 permalink

    Sorry had to pull that last commnet. It was an AP feed and I missed it….

  16. 2011 February 9 9:01 pm
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    This guy is capturing ole Wylie’s life story:

    “Conservatives are often upset at my claim that they are not all that different from liberals, especially the “moderate” conservatives, who espouse a “common sense” approach ignoring a consistent theoretical approach in favor of a “pragmatic” use of “what works”.

    Then again, I have hardly made friends among the “traditionalist”, or the “paleocons” or any of the hundreds of other versions of conservatism which fail to adhere to a consistent vision of individual rights.

    Normally, when I criticize conservatives for failing to consistently ask for the elimination of government, when I ask why they allow the government to remain involved in schooling, or in road building, or the management of public parks, when I question how they can allow the government to protect us from ourselves by regulating broadcast content, or by licensing radio and television at all, by banning “harmful” drugs, or any drugs, by defining our money, or controlling the banks, by determining what is safe for workers, and so on, they tell me my consistency is “too extreme”, that “someone” must provide these “services”, that without the state doing it, we would not have it, and so on.

    (Basically the same argument the left provides, though they don’t want to hear that.)


    Once we accept that we can make laws based on nothing more than the fact that someone can show how it imposes some nebulous “costs” on society, we have come to a point where we allow any laws.

    But that may even be more than I need to say. Over and over I have shown how a specific error allows the creation of arbitrary laws.

    But really, when I look back over all of those essays, I find I could make the same argument in much more simple terms. So long as laws are based on any justification other than the violation of rights — by which I mean the rights to life, liberty and property only — we will have a situation where eventually any law will be permissible.

    And so, unless we want to grant the government unlimited power, we must inisst that laws remain limited to the protection of rights, and nothing else.”


    This is why I argue for ideological consisentcy, a proper understanding of the purpose of government, and understanding that ultimately our inconsistency aids those who want to use the power of the state to destroy or enslave us.

  17. 2011 February 9 9:49 pm
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    “The government’s War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.”

    – Harry Browne

  18. 2011 February 10 3:46 am

    6 – Maybe it’s not what they have to gain, but what they may have to lose. ?

  19. 2011 February 10 3:52 am

    BTW GOP lost a house seat in NY (26th I think), or at least a vote for awhile. Guy just resigned after getting caught in what appeared to be him trying to cheat, and then lying to cover it up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.