Posted on 09/25/2008 2:57:37 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Is Freddie Mac a government agency?
No.
Right, they're a government sponsored entity (GSE), but we've been over that.
It's funny that you use the lying, cheating bastards own website for information.
I haven’t seen republicans explain why Bernanke is wrong.
In wartime there can only be one general.
You have a way with words. Straight to the very heart of the matter once again.
I think the key that the balkers are missing is what President Bush said: "These are not normal times." IOW, the balkers seem to be approaching this like it's some kind of "normal" spending bill, rather than coalescing around the principles of action demanded by a particular, huge crisis. Jack Welch was on H&C the other night. He said if a plan isn't in place by Monday or Tuesday, it's possible the fourth quarter could completely tank. If the country goes into rapid and steep deflation, wow, that is very, very difficult to pull out of. Look at Japan. After it's "lost decade," home prices there have still not regained their levels of 20 years ago. The number one home appliance is the safe! Decades later, the Japanese still keep their money stashed at home because they don't trust the banks. If we lose our position as an economic superpower (as Germany and France have both said would happen; there was a run on banks in Hong Kong yesterday because the bailout plan was stalling), not only might we face a long and harsh period of deflation, but our military might also would be compromised. Throughout history, economic issues correlate highly with war. IOW, this possibly is jeopardizing not only our economic security, but our national security, as well as the extent of peaceful coexistence in the world today.
Let me try again.
Alot of arrows are being slung around, but no one is addressing the main issue as to why Bernanke is freaking in the first place.
I haven’t seen republicans explain why Bernanke is wrong.
In wartime there can only be one general.
You have a way with words. Straight to the very heart of the matter once again.
I think the key that the balkers are missing is what President Bush said: "These are not normal times." IOW, the balkers seem to be approaching this like it's some kind of "normal" spending bill, rather than coalescing around the principles of action demanded by a particular, huge crisis.
Jack Welch was on H&C the other night. He said if a plan isn't in place by Monday or Tuesday, it's possible the fourth quarter could completely tank.
If the country goes into rapid and steep deflation, wow, that is very, very difficult to pull out of. Look at Japan. After it's "lost decade," home prices there have still not regained their levels of 20 years ago. The number one home appliance is the safe! Decades later, the Japanese still keep their money stashed at home because they don't trust the banks.
If we lose our position as an economic superpower (as Germany and France have both said would happen; there was a run on banks in Hong Kong yesterday because the bailout plan was stalling), not only might we face a long and harsh period of deflation, but our military might also would be compromised.
Throughout history, economic issues correlate highly with war. IOW, this possibly is jeopardizing not only our economic security, but our national security, as well as the extent of peaceful coexistence in the world today.
“It’s funny that you use the lying, cheating bastards own website for information.”
That’s an excellent defensive effort, although a losing one. Arguing the source is the genetic fallacy.
“Right, they’re a government sponsored entity (GSE), but we’ve been over that.”
You forgot to post the part where they receive no federal funds. Your taxes are safe.
Right, they receive federal subsidies.
CBO TESTIMONY
The housing GSEs receive a substantial federal subsidy as a result of their special status, estimated to be $13.6 billion in 2000.
Yeah, they're real sly like that. I mean, you wouldn't go out and publicly announce with a sign that says "I'm a pickpocket and thief!" if you were one, would you?
Assessing the Public Costs and Benefits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac May 1996
The GSEs claim that the cost of using sponsored enterprise status to improve access to mortgage finance is zero. By this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mean that, as of yet, 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. The subsidy to the GSEs is the free use of the government's power to raise money.
I guess yet has arrived 'cause they're fixing to get a whole bunch of "federal funds", aren't they.
BTW, something that has a cash value placed upon it, like subsidies, is the same as funds. If subsidies weren’t the same as funds then how could they have a cash value?
“BTW, something that has a cash value placed upon it, like subsidies, is the same as funds. If subsidies weren’t the same as funds then how could they have a cash value?”
You’re assuming that what you have been reading regarding Fannie and Freddy accurately describes them.
Let me give you an example of a “subsidy” with “cash value”. Some tax experts claim that when you own your own home you are receiving income from your own house in the form of “imputed income”. The amount of that imputed income is equivalent to what your house would rent for. And there are people who would like to tax you on that imputed income. I’m sure that you would find this “subsidy” to be preposterous since no money is being received by you.
The “subsidies” you have been reading about for Fanny and Freddy are just as empty as the imputed income you get from your house. If Fannie and Freddy had been receiving money from the Treasury it would show up on their income statement. I couldn’t see any, and I assume you didn’t find any such entry either. It would be very hard for Fannie and Freddy to steal money from us when they weren’t receiving any taxpayer money to begin with. There is plenty wrong with Fannie and Freddy without being distracted by a lot of ideological nonsense coming from analysts who appear to simply dislike GSEs.
And that is the end of this conversation for me. You can say whatever you want all week and miss the next weekend as well as far as I'm concerned. It's been nice chatting, except over the weekend when you were not here.
“They had “equity” if you will, a real “cash value”, in the subsidy of the implied government backing that they received.”
It must be a great mystery to you why the Senate had to pass a bill on July 26 to bail out Fannie and Freddy, since you persist in claiming that the government already guaranteed them.
Of course, there was never any such guarantee, despite what is believed by those who prefer illusion over fact. The government bailed them out by choice, just as they once chose to bail out Chrysler.
Perhaps there are people who also believe that Chrysler had an implicit government guarantee. They would just as incorrect in that assumption as they are in believing Fannie and Freddy received taxpayer funds or had taxpayer backing for their debts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.