Replies to post #192446 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[chessmaster315]

Exactly. If we expect the government to reimburse us for a $180 prescription on medicare, we will be required to submit a paper trail of documentation. Every single time. No documentation, no money.

However, if the Treasury bails out fannie mae 187 billion dollars, then no documentation is needed, right, because of the small amount of money involved?

The government apparently has vastly underestimated shareholder intelligence.

[chalmer]

Government has no chance in hell. The crooks are out there fully exposed. Remember not 1 big player was prosecuted and they will want to keep it that way. Ha, Ha, Ha, They are crazy. Who do they think they are?

[IL Padrino]

The way I see it in a nutshell is this:

It is glaringly obvious the government is in the wrong, but it is not obvious if the law will be upheld because there's no telling and how far this administration will go to get what it wants, no matter how illegal.

What's really sad is that I'm not sure if the law is good enough in this situation. As Jefferson said, "When the government fears the people you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny."

We need to ask ourselves honestly who fears who. Maybe it's not a black and white answer and more of a scale of percentages, but I can say that I haven't met one person who totally trusts government.

[McInc]

"On April 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held in an employment case that Fannie Mae is not a government entity and therefore the plaintiff could not sustain her Bivens claim. Herron v. Fannie Mae, No. 10-943, 2012 WL 1476051 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2012). The plaintiff, a former Fannie Mae employee and outside contractor to the institution, claimed that Fannie Mae is a government actor and improperly terminated her employment. She asserted a First Amendment claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and, in the alternative, brought claims against Fannie Mae as a private employer. Fannie Mae and its government conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which was granted intervenor status, moved to dismiss the Bivens claim on the grounds that Fannie Mae is not a government actor. The district court dismissed the Bivens claim, holding that the imposition of FHFA conservatorship did not transform Fannie Mae into a government actor. Instead, Fannie Mae was a private entity before conservatorship; FHFA stepped into that private role when it became conservator. "