Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 8, 2008

HOUSING POLICY TRIPS UP PALIN.... I've seen some suggestion that Sarah Palin's first gaffe as a candidate for national office came in her first public appearance, when she claimed to have opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But that's not really a gaffe, so much as it's a blatant distortion of her record.

This is a gaffe.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs [yesterday], 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."

Added Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analysts for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: "It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven't drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. 'Gotten too big and too expensive' are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The 'too expensive to tax payers,' I don't know where that comes from."

It's a tough one to spin. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't receiving any taxpayer money. So how could they be "too expensive to the taxpayers"? Indeed, Palin seems to have it backwards -- now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be funded by the government and will be expensive to the taxpayers, a policy dynamic both presidential candidates support.

In all likelihood, Palin doesn't know much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and hadn't been briefed properly on her position on housing policy.

How embarrassing is this likely to be? My hunch is, not very. Plenty of reporters noted Palin's quote, but practically all of them omitted any reference to her confusion. For that matter, most Americans probably don't know that much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, either.

But it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her policy expertise, either. If there are voters questioning Palin's readiness for national office, flubbing housing policy in the midst of a foreclosure crisis, at a minimum, doesn't help.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

She doesn't have to understand anything as wonkish as housing and mortgage policy. She's the cheerleader/showgirl/celebrity on the ticket and that's her job. She's doing it.

You democrats. Always talking about policy, like that's what people care about.


Posted by: gkoutnik on September 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Palin could confuse the US with the moon and the traditional media would give her "dereference and respect." I think the press likes to be abused.

Posted by: Chief Angry Cloud on September 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

But that's not really a gaffe, so much as it's a blatant distortion of her record.

But that's not really so much a blatant distortion of her record, so much as it's a flat out lie by Palin.

"Blatant distortion of the record" is actually the most favorable spin one can credibly place on it.

Posted by: Stefan on September 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think the trick here is not coming to the conclusion that it's very embarrassing, but rather, turning it around and MAKING it very embarrassing. If she's going to have any chance of really getting America out of its economic mess, she can't be this abyssmally ignorant. Hit her on it, then lets see how much embarrassment we can extract.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty on September 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Silly liberals. She'll just name her sixth kid Freddie/Frannie, making clear she cares about the pocketbook issues that matter to real Americans. Check and mate.

Posted by: enozinho on September 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

But she has a special need child! There is simply no time to understand economics & stuff.

Posted by: scott on September 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Caribou Barbie: Math and Economics are hard...

Posted by: Mattel on September 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't someone state the obvious? Many of Palin's gaffes are, and will be, due to lack of knowledge. They won't cause her great harm because they won't be caught initially as gaffes by the electorate, being as they are just as ill informed. Do people like having it pointed out they're ignorant of basic facts? No, they don't. So when the press implicity points out Palin is ignorant on an issue the electorate takes it personally, realizing they're just as ignorant and would have made the same mistake. Catching Palin in a gaffe is not a winner for Democrats. Yelling "Stupid!" at Palin just turns a lot of other heads thinking "You talking to me?!"

Posted by: steve duncan on September 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

She knows about as much as a typical hockey/soccer mom.

Posted by: rusrus on September 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately this is not something that the average American understands well enough to care about.

Posted by: Elbows on September 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

She doesn't understand SHIT about SHINOLA, and you know something? Obama the Great Souled One, he of the genteel and cool perspective, will never say that.

Nope. John McCain will continue to be respected. Sarah Palin will continue to be a skilled politician.

She's a fucking moron, and we should say that IN THOSE WORDS. TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE FUCKING 'PUKES, for GOD'S SAKE.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of in response to Chief Angry Cloud:

It's like if you ask Palin which is closer to Alaska--Florida or the moon. And she would respond in matter-of-fact tone: The moon, silly. You can't see Florida!

Posted by: Katie on September 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

What people admire about Palin is her "spunk". By lying and lying in the face of truth, she gains in strength. Hard to believe but true. Every lie makes her stronger.

We need to go right at her with STRENGTH, not like a bunch of GUTLESS PUSSY-WHIPPED DOGS!! When are they gonna go right at her. Get Wes Clark out there, calling her a fucking liar. Or someone like Barbara Boxer. KICK HER BUTT!!!! TAKE NUMBERS


GEZZZZUUUUUUUUSSSSSS these people are IDIOTS>

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

no one will realize this is a gaffe unless Obama or the DNC tell them.

the details are a bit esoteric for the average voters' interest, but the short version is that in a time when people are concerned about the economy, a time when foreclosures are at an all-time high, Sarah Palin doesn't know the basics about housing. How can she help you and me if she doesn't understand economics?

Indeed you could do an ad that starts with McCain saying his "I dont know as much about economics as I should" and then going on with "and neither does his running mate. . ."

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

What POed Lib said. Pound them. Palin is George Bush in lipstick.

Posted by: Fred Flintstone on September 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

In all likelihood, Palin doesn't know much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and hadn't been briefed properly on her position on housing policy.

But that's the whole problem -- this mouth-breather doesn't know anything except attack politics, how to skin a moose and whatever she's briefed on -- and she's being briefed not by policy but political wonks, the original "Mayberry Machiavellis."

And this is the person the GOP proposes be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Riiiight.

Look to see a lot more of these gaffes in the future, unless the McSame campaign succeeds in shielding her from the press.

Posted by: Gregory on September 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Who the HELL said she could talk to reporters?

For fuck sake, she's supposed to be in a secured location precisely to avoid having her say stupid shit like this.

Someone in the Republican campaign is going to get reamed for this.

MEMO to CAMPAIGNERS: DO NOT LIKE SARAH OPEN HER STUPID PIE-HOLE MOUTH UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.

Posted by: jonno on September 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

i think there are three audiences for this sort of gaffe. One, people generally. Not sure if it will matter. Two, the press/pundits. I think it will create a growing layer of insulation to "go after" her because of objective policy issus. Three, power! Those folks may see her as a maleable tool for use in betterment of their interest or they may be frightened. I had thought W was going to frighten the moneyed-class, but i was wrong. W's saving grace was Cheney, a man known well to and trusted by the moneyed class. We have no idea whether they know or trust her or whether her fealty to the "Right" and her lack of knowledge scares them as much as does us.

I really wonder what the folks at AIPAC think about her pick. Were a hard line supporter of Israel, she would make me very very very nervous. They knew that they could control W through Cheney -- and they were right. But she is of a different order and if (when) she becomes President she would be free to choose her own VP without any need to pay homage to anyone.

sleep tight.

orange

eric

Posted by: eric on September 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

I also couldn't make sense of her soundbite that Fannie and Freddie just needed to be "smaller and smarter."

Huh?

Smaller how? Why? Was this clarified at all by the campaign, or ad-libbed once in hopes that nobody would pay attention?

Posted by: Bose on September 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Most Orthodox Jews support McCain / Palin as strong for Israel.

Remember: Obama is a Muslim = bad.

Posted by: jonno on September 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

For that matter, most Americans probably don't know that much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, either.

True dat, and therefore she'll get a pass on it.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone have any insight into what Andrew Sullivan is doing? Last night he linked to a fairly simple NYT piece about Sarah Palin's pregnancy and said "your move, McCain." He hasn't posted anything else since then.

I don't know what sort of chess match he's envisioning, but the article doesn't seem to require any particular response from McCain or anyone else. Am I missing something?

Posted by: Oregonian on September 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone seen the video going around about the church she is a member of? SCARY. These people actually think that demons rule the earth and that people from this and other Apostolistic churches will be give 'super human' powers to defeat the said demons.

I mean, is this really America? the 21st century? WTF?

What I want to know is how the in HELL did these bible thumping nut jobs become such a huge force in deciding elections? Jesus H. Christ, it's like we've gone back in time, circa 1850 or so, to the great religious revival!

Posted by: citizen_pain on September 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Of course we can't expect coverage of this error. That would be sexist. Mothers raise their children in homes. Sarah Palin is raising five children, all of whom live in a home. To bring it up insults mothers of every walk of life. (Also, John McCain was a POW, and he didn't have any federal backing on his prison cell.) Steve Benen, why are you against motherhood?

Posted by: Brian J on September 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's a tough one to spin.
Oh yea, she used a time machine to travel to the past tell Congress no thanks on that bridge. Who says she can't use her time machine to go into the future and see that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

Posted by: Palin Drone on September 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps (as a fundamentalist) she would solve the debt crisis by imposing an American "Jubilee" where all debts (including what we owe China, Japan, the Saudis, and Social Security) would be cancelled.
No more foreclosures, but the Banking system may not appreciate the gesture.

Hey, it's in the Bible!

Posted by: BuzzMon on September 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Please, please, PLEASE, can we stop using the term "gaffe"? A gaffe is forgetting to zip up your fly when you come back from the men's room, putting salt on your dessert by accident, or getting people's names mixed up in conversation, or making an off-color remark in mixed company, that kind of thing.

Not knowing what the hell you're talking about isn't a "gaffe". It's not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: DH Walker on September 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Cliche` by now, but worth repeating:

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Posted by: citizen_pain on September 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

I'm concerned about that Gallup poll. If it is representative of current voter sentiment, I'm afraid this one is over.

At some point most people become emotionally committed to their candidates, and you can't change their minds with facts and logic. It's like rooting for your favorite team. Or belief in God. You resent anyone who attacks your idol.

It's beginning to look as if the people simply prefer comfortable, grandfatherly, war hero John McCain. He'll keep us safe. And they don't go beyond that. And they won't go beyond that.

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe that Gallup poll is a fluke. We'll soon see.

Posted by: hark on September 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Of course we can't expect coverage of this error. That would be sexist. Mothers raise their children in homes. Sarah Palin is raising five children, all of whom live in a home. To bring it up insults mothers of every walk of life. (Also, John McCain was a POW, and he didn't have any federal backing on his prison cell.) Steve Benen, why are you against motherhood?

It's scary but true. I encountered this reaction yesterday from a woman and her husband. My jaw hit the pavement and I was shaken to my core.

Posted by: grinning cat on September 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I also couldn't make sense of her soundbite that Fannie and Freddie just needed to be "smaller and smarter."

Pure magical thinking.

Spells work so long as you say them correctly. You don't actually have to understand them.

"Waste, fraud and mismanagement" has about the same actual content at this point.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Time to hide her again.

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on September 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

The key words here from Palin are "too big" and "too expensive". They emerge from one of the few philosophic and political filters through which Palin will view many of the current economic and domestic policy issues in the next few weeks. In Reagan style she'll attempt to boil down very complex issues into very simple issues. She doesn't know enough about many of these issues to begin with so she will have to fall back on these simple statements. But this will also likely force more of these kinds of gaffs. Reagan could pull it off effectively because he had been the governor of a major state and was well versed in the topics long before he ran for president. But Palin simply will not have the self confidence of Reagan and is very likely to stumble.

Posted by: lou on September 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

But Palin simply will not have the self confidence of Reagan and is very likely to stumble.

She has the self-confidence, which is the problem. Self-confidence plus ignorance equals fiasco.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

She knows about as much as a typical hockey/soccer mom. Posted by: rusrus

Even if this were true, she's not a "hockey mom," she's the governor of Alaska. I think they have mortgages and mortgage banking there, too.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ran this by a Republican colleague whose day job is corporate finance. I asked him if he found her ignorance disturbing. He chuckled and said it wasn't that big of a deal to him, and few would understanding why she was wrong. The Teflon princess lives.

Posted by: Scott F. on September 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

This falls under the verb tense dispensation accorded to republicans. Of course, she meant that they will be very expensive to the taxpayers.

Posted by: Michael7843853 on September 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Most Orthodox Jews support McCain / Palin as strong for Israel. Posted by: jonno

Only insofar as the Rethugs can safely hide Palin's Jews for Jesus connection.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

This is not a gaffe. The public doesn't understand what these companies do either, so any attempt to point to it just fits in the "elitist" frame.

Given what the stock market did today, the investing public doesn't understand this either.

Posted by: John on September 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Considering that McCain called how Social Security has *always* been funded "a disgrace" and no one called him on it, I'm not sure this gets traction. Lots more people understand how Social Security works than Fannie/Freddie. And I have zero belief that the major media would be interested in, or able to, explain it out in a way that people do understand.

Posted by: short fuse on September 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I do not think Sarah Palin needs to know anything, except how to distort things and beat up on the dems. She can say anything and they will cheer. They do not care about anything except abortion and gay marriage and the fact that the reps are the only ones who can "protect us from another 9/11". Sickening.

Posted by: Pattywagn on September 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

The CEO makes 38 million. Now we are going to have to bail them out. Her statement was how the more financial troubles they were having the more expensive it would be to the taxpayers as we have to bail them out now.

Her statement is being taken out of context. By the way she didn't write it. She was speaking off a telepromter.

An economic adviser wrote it. Maybe it was too nuanced and it was easy to take out of context.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they’ve gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers,” Palin said to applause. “The McCain/Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

Steve Benen how dense can you be.


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were failing. The more they were failing the more we were going to have to bail them out.

The takeover had been reported a a day earlier before Palin made those comments.

She didn't make a gaffe. The more they were failing the more expensive it was going to be for the taxpayers when we bailed them out.


You are taking her out of context.


By the way she didn't write that line.

She was reading off a teleprompter. An economic adviser wrote that line. It was too nuanced and too complex for Steve Benen to understand.

So what does Steve Benen do he and Huffington Post take her out of context.


Think for once Steve instead of being so dense.

Posted by: James on September 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Without any context (which Huff didn't give) I would assume she's talking about them being monopolistic and costing taxpayers money because of the bailouts. Am I wrong?

Obama's been dogged by BS like this throughout his campaign. Let's not start indulging in it ourselves. That changes nothing.

We should all be pissed about Bittergate, not emulating the tactics that made it possible.

Posted by: Wesley on September 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's a tough one to spin.

Nah, this is easy. See, shareholders were losing a lot of money in Fannie and Freddie. Most of those shareholders, presumably, pay taxes of some sort, be they income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, employment taxes, etc. So there are taxpayers losing money, meaning those investments were expensive. See, easy! Expensive to taxpayers.

Like, I could say that new BMWs are really expensive for taxpayers. Technically, it's kinda right. Sure, she's dumb as a box of rocks, but so are most of the people she's talking to.

Posted by: Seitz on September 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

"People" may not understand -- or care -- what Freddie and Fannie are about. What "people" *might* understand -- if someone cared to make the numbers more public than the business section of Sunday's NYT -- is who wins and who loses on the bailout deal, with numbers. Some of those CEOs were definitely "rich", even by McCain's standards -- in the "close to 10 million a year" income bracket. How many average families could tat kind of income support?

They lost a wee bit on their stock options but not on anything else, despite piss-poor management skills and downright criminal behaviour. As the institutions were nearing disaster, they very carefully wrote in iron-clad golden parachutes for themselves..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/08scorecard.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: exlibra on September 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Without any context (which Huff didn't give) I would assume she's talking about them being monopolistic and costing taxpayers money because of the bailouts. Am I wrong? Posted by: Wesley

Not only are you wrong, your question, if serious, shows that you are just as dumb as she is. Piss poor attempt at a redirect there.

Better trolls, please.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Alas more eye candy to distract from the fact that Obama's economic team includes two past CEO-s of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, and at least one former member of the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Posted by: Neo on September 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

""This is not a gaffe. The public doesn't understand what these companies do either, so any attempt to point to it just fits in the "elitist" frame.

Given what the stock market did today, the investing public doesn't understand this either.

Posted by: John on September 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK""

John hits the target right on.

Across the spectrum, this Fannie-Freddie stuff is one of the most misunderstood operations in American economy. These elitist want to keep it that way. Dumb down America and keep the electorate as stupid as possible with the media’s help.

For me, some simple Internet cursing tells me that America has a huge, huge mess connected the Federal Reserve Board with its previous mistakes by Allen Greenspan. Worse some of these people, Board of directors, are hand picked by Bush, which is not reported at all. Likely more “Heck of job Brownies”, those mavericks of money management that are Bush’s choice. Here, Bush profiteers that will receive bonuses for a screwed up job. Plus this whole structure is connected the Home Savings and Loan Industry. Here, a huge, huge, loan industry that is totally owned by the elite rich.

Of course fits the Bush family method of operation. Here a saying could be reflected and echoed from a long time ago by Prescott Bush; “It’s easier to steal money by starting a bank business then it is to hold one up”.

Did anyone hear about McCain's brother a leading banker in Nevada, the bank getting taken over by the Federal Reserve? I did. McCain's know how to manage money? Or is his brother a maverick too...

Posted by: Megalomania on September 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Fanny and Freddie have operated for years in a careless fashion with the assurance that John Q Taxpayer would be there to bail them out when the bill came due.

This has been talked about for years and was the reason for her comments.

Look who was right, those that said they weren't a federal institution or those that predicted they would be nationalized at great expense to the taxpayer.

Wage this arguement carefully, because the blow back will be bad.

Posted by: Jeff on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Fanny and Freddie have operated for years in a careless fashion with the assurance that John Q Taxpayer would be there to bail them out when the bill came due. Posted by: Jeff

This isn't true. Mortgage banking, particularly the securitization of loans, operated for over 25-years without problems. When you say that F&F have "operated for years in a careless fashion," that only applies to the housing bubble that just collapsed. Previously, they, as most lenders, had no interest in dealing with what historically have been non-conforming loans.

F&F have been mismanaged, but it's been over the last six years or so.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

This bimbo is dumber than a box of rocks, but as titular (pun intended) head of the Know-Nothing Party, she is tailor-made.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers [to continue to guarantee]"

Posted by: Neo on September 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Neo,

Yeah, former CEOs and board members.

Back in the good old days when the government didn't have to bail them out.

Laying the failures at their feet is a disingenuous cop out similar to Bush blaming all his failures on Clinton.

Posted by: doubtful on September 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are an example of "free market socialism", investors keep the profits, Uncle Sam eats the losses. If they're too big too fail, then yes they are too big. And if Uncle Sam is now explicitly guaranteeing their debt, then yes they are too expensive ($200 billion to a $1 trillion are the numbers I've heard thrown around). So I can't say she's wrong.

Besides that, I thought the criticism of her is she can only read off a teleprompter. She could be wrong, but aren't "gaffes" usually off the cuff remarks that go awry?

Posted by: beowulf on September 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

On the Andrew Sullivan piece: the NYT 's article on Palin's preganancy is bizarre. It makes the whole thing more like a whitewash than ever. I think Sullivan is giving McCain a chance to do something dramatic before he looses some evidence. Palin is just nutty. No other word to describe her. She is using a special needs baby as a prop and I think this is what will bring Sullivan and others forward with more revelations. I still want to see her med records and her husband's "official" emails.

Posted by: Sparko on September 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

I have to agree with those who are saying this isn't a gaffe at all.

"Taxpayers" pay more than just taxes, for one. If you have a loan through one of the FMs and it goes under then it's going to be pretty damned expensive to you.

Second, of course, the Federal Government is standing behind the FMs and in a hell of a pickle: we can act quickly, now, and take a huge loss or wait and see, then likely act later for an even more substantial loss. The General Fund, specifically, IS in jeopardy here, as it is practically inconceivable (and would be a pinnacle of bad governing) for the government to just let the FMs go under and take a huge chunk of the populace with them. The liability precedes the legal acceptance of the liability.

Posted by: Tom Dibble on September 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

It may not be important for voters, but it might be for analysts, and experts in general, who might be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: tomj on September 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I have a degree in theater/journalism, was Miss Brainerd and damn it all, I KNOW WHAT FF ARE AND I READ ABOUT THE BAILOUT SO I UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS.

This means that she didn't even read the stories about the potential bailout and she wants to run the country???? Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Posted by: lilybart on September 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

I have a degree in theater/journalism, was Miss Brainerd and damn it all, I KNOW WHAT FF ARE AND I READ ABOUT THE BAILOUT SO I UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS.

This means that she didn't even read the stories about the potential bailout and she wants to run the country???? Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Posted by: lilybart on September 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The republican spin I'm seeing here is pure bullshit to cover for her ignorance.

No one would expect her to say "American Airlines and Bear Stearns have gotten too big and expensive to taxpayers" and SERIOUSLY expect that she was referencing their cost to bail out.

Pitbulls don't understand econ, with or without lipstick.

Posted by: Gonads on September 8, 2008 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps she meant "...too expensive to the taxpayers [of other countries whose governments have invested heavily in the mortgage companies]."

Posted by: JWK on September 8, 2008 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

If it were biologically possible for Bush and Cheney to have a lovechild, Sarah Palin would surely be it.

Posted by: Bob Wolfe on September 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

Pitbulls don't understand econ, with or without lipstick. Posted by: Gonads

It has been my experience that pit bulls, with or without lipstick, need to be at least muzzled all the time if not put down for the sake of the neighborhood.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

***Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are an example of "free market socialism", investors keep the profits, Uncle Sam eats the losses. If they're too big too fail, then yes they are too big. And if Uncle Sam is now explicitly guaranteeing their debt***

Do you have any idea how many industrial and business loans are guaranteed by Uncle Sam? Any governor or mayor would probably know a little something about this, or at least should. This doesn't make any of hundreds of firms or companies with facilities or operations funded by federally-backed loans taxpayer-funded entities.

Posted by: Ray on September 8, 2008 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Well how much would it have cost the US taxpayer if they were left alone and allowed to collapse? Would it be expensive?

Posted by: DDM on September 8, 2008 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly