The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Exclusive: Obama Illegally Robbed Fannie, Freddie to Fund Obamacare

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Sandrocksonic On November 05, 2020




Randallstown, Maryland
#1New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 18:44:52
Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive
Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com - February 27, 2017



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare?”

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.

In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell , (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

READ MORE HERE
LuckyCharms On July 31, 2021
Magically Delicious





,
#2New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 19:34:46
Well at least it's in politics.

psycoskunk On December 24, 2020
Funky-Footed Skunk





A fort made of stinky socks, C
#3New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 20:59:00
Haven't both Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac stolen from low-income housing/funding before in the past? Why should we feel bad for two multi-billion dollar corporations who have screwed over the people who they are supposed to be helping?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#4New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 22:55:52
@Sandrocksonic Said

Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive
Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com - February 27, 2017



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare?”

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.

In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell , (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

READ MORE HERE


Except that your own link to the court hearing states that there was an injunction to "enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402", so Obama shouldn't have needed the money to begin with. At that point, however, it would have been Congress' job to facilitate reimbursement. Congress, who throughout this entire thing, has been defunding everything having to do with ACA. Then, the article posits, Obama decided to take the money appropriated to Congress to pay for the reimbursement from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because otherwise Congress could have been found in contempt of court.

The article posits that this 'unappropriated money' was used to pay for mandatory government spending, you know like court orders for reimbursement, which Obama has no direct control over. It's a court order, Congress had to do it, and the only way they could get out of not doing it is if EVERYTHING was deemed appropriated money. It's the same strategy "non-profits" use in order to keep saying they're non profit even though they have huge amounts of cash flow.

At this point then, the only floating issue is whether or not Obama had the right to seize 100% of the dividends for stockholders. Apparently, that answer is yes . Apparently, one of the conditions of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008 was that, "The Treasury will buy preferred shares as needed, whenever the agencies' net worth dips below zero, and this paper will be repaid ahead of their existing preferred and common stock (whose dividends are being eliminated). Lowly shareholders could yet lose everything." What this basically means is that the government and both GSE's agreed, as part of the overall bailout plan for these two entities, to prioritize paying back the government for buying shares over every other type of shareholder. If you wish to argue that the economist article is wrong, than please find for me where exactly in this document it proves that.

So, to recap, Congress was ordered to pay money it didn't want to pay, and to avoid being held in contempt of court, the administration used money that it was entitled to anyway in order to cover that cost and uphold said order.
LuckyCharms On July 31, 2021
Magically Delicious





,
#5New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 23:11:14
@nooneinparticular Said

Except that your own link to the court hearing states that there was an injunction to "enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402", so Obama shouldn't have needed the money to begin with. At that point, however, it would have been Congress' job to facilitate reimbursement. Congress, who throughout this entire thing, has been defunding everything having to do with ACA. Then, the article posits, Obama decided to take the money appropriated to Congress to pay for the reimbursement from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because otherwise Congress could have been found in contempt of court.

The article posits that this 'unappropriated money' was used to pay for mandatory government spending, you know like court orders for reimbursement, which Obama has no direct control over. It's a court order, Congress had to do it, and the only way they could get out of not doing it is if EVERYTHING was deemed appropriated money. It's the same strategy "non-profits" use in order to keep saying they're non profit even though they have huge amounts of cash flow.

At this point then, the only floating issue is whether or not Obama had the right to seize 100% of the dividends for stockholders. Apparently, that answer is yes . Apparently, one of the conditions of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008 was that, "The Treasury will buy preferred shares as needed, whenever the agencies' net worth dips below zero, and this paper will be repaid ahead of their existing preferred and common stock (whose dividends are being eliminated). Lowly shareholders could yet lose everything." What this basically means is that the government and both GSE's agreed, as part of the overall bailout plan for these two entities, to prioritize paying back the government for buying shares over every other type of shareholder. If you wish to argue that the economist article is wrong, than please find for me where exactly in this document it proves that.

So, to recap, Congress was ordered to pay money it didn't want to pay, and to avoid being held in contempt of court, the administration used money that it was entitled to anyway in order to cover that cost and uphold said order.



Killjoy.

I kinda like Stephen Colbert's take on InfoWars. It's a war... on info.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#6New Post! Feb 27, 2017 @ 23:19:48
@LuckyCharms Said

Killjoy.

I kinda like Stephen Colbert's take on InfoWars. It's a war... on info.


Ain't I a stinker.
chaski On about 6 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7New Post! Feb 28, 2017 @ 01:50:09
All right everyone one, let's get this straight.

Sandrocksonic hasn't been posting Fake News for years.

He has been posting stories that use ALTERNATIVE FACTS.

shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#8New Post! Feb 28, 2017 @ 03:52:07
Notice nowhere did "diverting money from low income housing" ever get mentioned........
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Sun May 29, 2016 @ 06:04
4 686
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Feb 01, 2011 @ 22:01
22 1879
New posts   US Election 2012
Sun Aug 05, 2012 @ 23:55
53 5086
New posts   News & Current Events
Fri Aug 01, 2014 @ 07:34
45 3180
New posts   Politics
Thu Apr 04, 2013 @ 03:53
3 627