we r getting there
sorry I cannot paste here a screen shot from AT. When you click FNMA it still shows the numbers I mentioned.
"Government" has 3 separate and independent branches so the Judicial branch can rule against the Executive branch. Jury members would need to be highly competent in financial matters to understand the case. You can't just bring people from the street to decide on something like that. Certain judges have competencies in financial matters but they also can call experts to testify.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
if you are not competent in highly specialized financial and constitutional matters you will simply be unable tot understand the myriad of technicalities and you'll have no clue. Lawyers are experts in manipulating jurors through smoke and mirrors especially the uneducated, incompetent ones. Is this what you want to happen ?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
As a conservator, FHFA, despite comments from officials, had a statutory obligation to shareholders. Concerns for taxpayers are important, yes, but breeches of contractual responsibilities are frowned upon, and can lead to future distrust. Beirne writes:
“As conservator under HERA, it is precisely the FHFA’s responsibility to work for the benefit of the shareholders. Under standard corporate law principles, that conservator is bound, by a strong fiduciary duty to protect the corporate assets for the benefit of both common and preferred shareholders. By working for the benefit of third party taxpayers – and to the detriment of private shareholders – the FHFA is in breach of its duties under HERA.”
The three plaintiffs in the Iowa case – Thomas Saxton, Ida Saxton and Bradly Paynter – have alleged that FHFA and the U.S. Treasury “systemically exceeded their limited authority under HERA” and “acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” Anyone who’s familiar with the history here should certainly agree with that. Beirne rightly concludes that while the “political winds of the moment” make the seizure of private property from shareholder seem popular, the long-term consequences of allowing this violation of the rule of law to go unchecked would have very costly consequences on the housing market.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
then why don't you call to order your republican buddies that tacitly allow thousands of businesses to pay cash under the table - no insurance no benefits no nothing - to the tune of $3/hour or less and line their own pockets to the tune of $$ millions and millions each year by exploiting shamelessly the poor illegals who do not dare to say anything. They just keep working almost like slaves and almost for food while keeping their mouth shut. In my little town there are 7 (seven) restaurants within a 500 feet radius from the city hall and police station and they ALL employ illegals (at least 50 of them altogether) and every city official knows and everybody turns a blind eye because the restaurant owners have connections - to say the least. And companies and individuals use illegals all over the place from landscaping to constructions to Wal MArt to Home Depot and there are Americans that get really really rich because of illegals. And when an illegal needs hospitalization or his kid goes to school all those that got rich because of illegals do not pay a dime for them but start complaining about them instead. HYPOCRISY, your name is THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Last time I checked the law DOES NOT allow businesses to hire illegals.
How many business owners - including those of large corporations like Walmart or HomeDepot (to name just a few) - have you seen imprisoned because they broke the law ????
Make those who get rich from hiring illegals pay huge fines to cover for what you call the "hefty price" we pay. I was laid off a number of years ago because my job (and 200 others) were outsourced to China ( a communist country, BTW). I then went on unemployment for a number of months and used all other "entitlements" I could during that time. I assume my former employer got very rich by doing business with China instead of using local IT force. He did not pay a dime for all the resources and "entitlments" I and my former colleagues (some of them on welfare now) used while being unemployed. You paid for that, stockgremlins.