Whoops, first public mistake for Sarah.

[rn79870]

Okay, it's true that being thrust into the national spotlight has it's drawbacks. Yo'd think an experienced leader would know a little about the housing market...

Sept 8, 2008Gov. Sarah Palin made her first significant gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, as McClatchy reported, “aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.”

Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.

“You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country’s mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn’t speak well for her, I’d say.”

http://mnpublius.com/2008/09/p...risis/

[Jimefam]

Wow. As a lender and finance major its scary that that is what would be in charge of overseeing this current crisis. I like Mccain but the more I see of sarah the more I lean toward Obama. This takeover of those two private companies could cost the taxpayers upwards of a hundred billion dollars according to our internal bond market assessment. Talk about expensive to the taxpayer

[smockers83]

From Wikipedia, but a sourced quote:

In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office wrote "there have been no federal appropriations for cash payments or guarantee subsidies. But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises... Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers... the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually."[14].

The outlinked source is the CBO report, found here:http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?ind...nce=0

You can find that 6.5 billion dollar subsidy in Summary Table 1 of that report.

[AZhitman]

Hmmmm.

Seems the "pouncers" have pounced prematurely.

Maybe Gov. Palin gets it better than some politically-motivated analysts and staffers.

[smockers83]

Not all economists can be trusted or know what they're talking about all the time...I've had my fair share of experience with them up close and personal. Just because they're an economist doesn't automatically give them instant and absolute credibility in anything financially related. Economists can be heavily influenced by the political spectrum.

[Jimefam]

Well that 6.5 billion that you state is actually unearned income rather than an actual expense. Still I agree it is a costly benefit but realize that in that same report you quoted they have 4.4 billion of those UNEARNED dollars being actually spent to lower the mortgage rates for the taxpayers at comparable levels to what these institutions have them. That is still a difference of 2.1 billion a year which is not peanuts I agree but having the government insure roughly 50% of mortgage securities in this country(that is the current percentage I believe) allows for investment by foriegn countries and large multi-national corporations into our markets which we then work those funds. That is why our housing market is so stable compared to other countries. Even now when loans are failing everywhere and home prices are plummeting nationwide are mortgage rates hover in the 6% range. That is very low compared to some other countries. Why do you think that No one be they republican or democrats are complaining about this bail out? These are important cornerstones for the stablility of our economy. The man who came up with this plan is the sec of tres which is a republican appointed by bush. True these companies were run into the ground by poor management and true they overpaid stockholders and didn't pass enough of that government cheese to the public but make no mistake they did not "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” They simply got too sloppy and to greedy but if they would have been a fully private company today announcing they were insolvent our markets would have crashed pretty drastically as like I said they hold 50% of our mortgage securities.

[smockers83]

Greenspan and Bernanke have both spoken about the need for more regulation of them due to their sheer size. They are responsible/guarantee half of the mortgages, but this year that will be up to 80% from reports out there.

They were made GSEs back in the 60s because the government wanted to get them off the books.

Palin is partially right, but I wish I could see what she said in context to everything else. That usually helps in understanding the quote and how it came about.

[Jesda]

Greenspan and Bernanke are arsehats.

They perpetuate a monetary system that contributes greatly to high inflation, high energy costs, and lending irresponsibility. More on that later. Too perturbed to see straight.

[HashiriyaS14]

Palin is partially right, but I wish I could see what she said in context to everything else. That usually helps in understanding the quote and how it came about.

Agreed.

Additionally, there will be no posting any out of context sound/text bites on this board to incite violent reactions. It's f**king silly and it's a waste of everyone's time, no matter which side is doing it.

Not necessarily claiming that it happened here, but just generally.

[wingFeather]

Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers...

OWNED x3!!!

These lame attacks on Palin are getting old. Instead of coming up with bogus cheap shots, why not post up why we should vote for Obama/sidekick? I mean, if he's the better ticket... it should be easier to sway us all to his side, rather than sling mud at the other guys.

I wish I could see what she said in context to everything else.

+1 Obamanites don't appreciate when his rants are taken out of context, so commit the very sins that they claim to abhore? Two-faced Democrats...

[Jesda]

The political spectrum is not a square. There are dimensions, not sides, and Obama being a god-awful socialist candidate doesn't mean McCain is the best alternative choice.

[smockers83]

They perpetuate a monetary system that contributes greatly to high inflation, high energy costs, and lending irresponsibility. More on that later. Too perturbed to see straight.

I dunno about all that, but I'd be interested to see what you have to say.

In its simplest and most understood form, the political spectrum can be expressed with just a line.

[wingFeather]

The political spectrum is not a square. There are dimensions, not sides, and Obama being a god-awful socialist candidate doesn't mean McCain is the best alternative choice.

Bravo! I am glad that you can think on this level. We have too many narrow minds on this forum.

For the sake of argument: Obama is obviously not suited to be President. So who does that leave?

[The Wicker Man]

Obama is obviously not suited to be President.

How is he 'obviously' not suited to be President?

[Jesda]

I dunno about all that, but I'd be interested to see what you have to say.

In its simplest and most understood form, the political spectrum can be expressed with just a line.

The modern American interpretations of liberal and conservative are vastly different from their classical definitions, and when you try to apply that to a number-type line you end up with two sides that aren't tremendously different but are still strongly opposed.

If -5 is the opposite of 5 on a number line, then socialism should be the opposite of fascism. But as we've seen throughout history, there are too many similarities and unexpected differences that keep these two ideologies from being actual opposites.

Where do you put a fiscally conservative social liberal? A socially conservative fiscal liberal? A libertarian?

You end up having to use a circle or square to the explain American political views.

This explains it well:http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html

Quote »Fifteen years ago the standard view of politics -- the mental "map" almost everyone used when thinking of political positions -- was the old "left-right" line. It is still widely used today.

You've probably seen it in textbooks and newspapers. It looks something like this:

<-------------- left ------------ center ------------- right -------------->

Or, when expanded a bit:

<--- crazies -- communist/socialist -- far left -- liberal -- centrist -- conservative -- far right -- fascist -- crazies --->

This model is misleading and fatally flawed. It doesn't have a place for many millions of people who don't fit neatly into some variant of liberal or conservative. In effect, it disenfranchises the millions of Americans who don't feel that "left," "right," "liberal," "conservative" etc. accurately describe their views. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wouldn't fit comfortably on that chart under any of those labels. Neither would Jesse Ventura or Huey Long or Pat Buchanan. America's real political spectrum is more complex than this simplistic Crossfire model allows.

Nor does the "left-right" line give any useful insight into the differences between the various political categories. It doesn't tell us what the important differences are between liberals, conservatives, fascists, and so on. It tells us nothing of the views of these and other groups.

Furthermore, the left-right model is inherently illogical. The model implies that if you "go too far" (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some weird and unexplained way, at totalitarianism or anarchism (or maybe both!). Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism (which is national socialism), or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and ignores gigantic philosophical differences between, say, liberalism and communism, or conservatism and fascism.

To see another major reason why this model is irredeemably flawed, try to fit libertarians on that line. Libertarians believe that people should be free to live as they choose, in both the economic and personal realms, as long as they don't harm others. So libertarians believe in a free market -- which should put them on the "right," right? But they also oppose censorship, the drug war and other attempts by government to control the personal lives of peaceful individuals. Does that put them on the left? Well, no. Does it put them in the "middle"? No. There's just no place for libertarians on that map.[/quote]

[AZhitman]

Good stuff, Jes. People forget that the political landscape is much more complicated than just "right and left".

If the political spectrum is simply a "line", I myself certainly can't find a spot for my position on it.

Now that we've established that Ms. Palin's supposed "gaffe" was not necessarily an incorrect statement after all.... Stay tuned for the next premature ejaculation from the anti-Palin brigade.

[wingFeather]

This explains it well:http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html

+1 That is a good explanation. Life is not linear, and cannot always be compartmentalized. I do not seem to fit with every stereotypical issue of the people I will be voting for.