Stay with me on this, I know it's long and has a lot of info.
Too big to fail, right? No limit of funds. What gain do they have to give unlimited funds to a company just to keep them afloat? You really believe they have nothing to gain from this or GM or Healthcare? Take the same thing that happened to Fanny/freddy in Oct 2000 and put the top 5 health insurance companies in their place and change the date to Oct 2013
In 2008 alone, the United States government allocated over $900 billion to special loans and rescues related to the US housing bubble, with over half going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both of which are government-sponsored enterprises) as well as the Federal Housing Administration (which is a United States Government agency). On December 24, 2009, the Treasury Department made an unprecedented announcement that it would be providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unlimited financial support for the next three years despite acknowledging losses in excess of $400 billion so far. The Treasury has been criticized for encroaching on spending powers that are enumerated for Congress alone by the US constitution, and for violating limits imposed by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
Read this again and remember they are now a GSE(2008) then read the bottom one from 2000 when they weren't a GSE.
Just to give you some point on this:
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.
Read this from 2000
- Fannie and Freddie Mac are GSEs, 2008 didn't change that. The subprime lending crisis forced the government to put them both into a conservatorship.
- The article you cite is isn't quite the smoking gun you believe it to be. That's what Fannie and Freddie were set out to do, in part, when they were created. Without some digging you should be able to find similar documents, initiatives that stretch all the way back to the founding of both agencies.
-Fannie/Freddie were part of the subprime mortgage crisis but were not the only banks. The banks involved in the crisis were global.
- The US government hasn't, wouldn't, and, didn't, guarantee lending made by foreign banks nor did it require foreign banks to do so.
- The use of the subprime crisis as a token warning against obamacare is not supported by facts. You can't take the top 5 largest banks and then replace then with the top 5 insurance companies and change the year because it doesn't make sense. There is no analogy or comparison to be made that favors your position.
Your specific reasons against obamacare seem to have have shifted over the course of this discussion as each of your initial talking points become untenable.
The only thing that appears consistent is your fear of the government and fear of government intervention and it seems that a large part of your fear is based in emotion rather than fact. I'm not saying the government does everything right nor am I saying the government doesn't do things that should cause us concern.
What I'd suggest is that the thing you should fear more is a disenfranchised and ignorant electorate that don't have the desire or ability to acquire a comprehensive understanding on a particular issue, being led by those with the most strident voices espousing ideas and positions ardently using emotion without facts.