Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:09AM
"McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
hop
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:13AM
may result???? this is going to be very expensive for the taxpayers
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:17AM
Her first gaffe!
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not SO
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:17AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
> speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie
> and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive
> to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't
> taxpayer funded but operate as private companies.
> The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> during reorganization."
Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though taxpayers have not laid out any money for those benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing it free--the government could sell the right to share its credit standing. With the receipts from such a sale, the government could increase spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes. The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how much the use of the government's credit standing is worth to the GSEs and their potential competitors. That value can be measured in several ways. One is to look at the change in the market value of a GSE caused by the transfer of government equity to (or withdrawal of it from) the GSE each year. Another is to measure the annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have received on their equity if placed with terms of comparable risk.
If sold competitively, the benefits the federal government provides to the housing GSEs would command billions of dollars. That forgone annual income is the cost of the housing GSEs to taxpayers and the government.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
> speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie
> and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive
> to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't
> taxpayer funded but operate as private companies.
> The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> during reorganization."
Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though taxpayers have not laid out any money for those benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing it free--the government could sell the right to share its credit standing. With the receipts from such a sale, the government could increase spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes. The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how much the use of the government's credit standing is worth to the GSEs and their potential competitors. That value can be measured in several ways. One is to look at the change in the market value of a GSE caused by the transfer of government equity to (or withdrawal of it from) the GSE each year. Another is to measure the annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have received on their equity if placed with terms of comparable risk.
If sold competitively, the benefits the federal government provides to the housing GSEs would command billions of dollars. That forgone annual income is the cost of the housing GSEs to taxpayers and the government.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:26AM
I'll give you this--you guys can sure do some mental gymnastics...
Not SO Wrote:
> Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With the receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
Not SO Wrote:
> Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With the receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So.
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:30AM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll give you this--you guys can sure do some
> mental gymnastics...
>
>
> Not SO Wrote:
> > Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> > benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even
> though
> > taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> > benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing
> is
> > costly to taxpayers because--instead of
> providing
> > it free--the government could sell the right to
> > share its credit standing. With the receipts
> from
> > such a sale, the government could increase
> > spending for any public purpose or reduce
> taxes.
> > The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on
> how
> > much the use of the government's credit
> standing
> > is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> > competitors. That value can be measured in
> several
> > ways. One is to look at the change in the
> market
> > value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> > government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> > the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> > annual flow of returns that taxpayers could
> have
> > received on their equity if placed with terms
> of
> > comparable risk.
> >
> >
> > If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> > government provides to the housing GSEs would
> > command billions of dollars. That forgone
> annual
> > income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> > taxpayers and the government.
Mental Gymnastics? Are you saying you disagree? Can you buy a clue?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll give you this--you guys can sure do some
> mental gymnastics...
>
>
> Not SO Wrote:
> > Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> > benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even
> though
> > taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> > benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing
> is
> > costly to taxpayers because--instead of
> providing
> > it free--the government could sell the right to
> > share its credit standing. With the receipts
> from
> > such a sale, the government could increase
> > spending for any public purpose or reduce
> taxes.
> > The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on
> how
> > much the use of the government's credit
> standing
> > is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> > competitors. That value can be measured in
> several
> > ways. One is to look at the change in the
> market
> > value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> > government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> > the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> > annual flow of returns that taxpayers could
> have
> > received on their equity if placed with terms
> of
> > comparable risk.
> >
> >
> > If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> > government provides to the housing GSEs would
> > command billions of dollars. That forgone
> annual
> > income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> > taxpayers and the government.
Mental Gymnastics? Are you saying you disagree? Can you buy a clue?
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:37AM
I'm sure that's exactly what she meant to say!
Not SO Wrote:
> fits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With he receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
Not SO Wrote:
> fits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With he receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Bush's lack of treasury oversight
()
Date: September 08, 2008 11:07AM
Not SO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah
> Palin,
> > speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said
> Fannie
> > and Freddie had "gotten too big and too
> expensive
> > to the taxpayers." The companies, however,
> aren't
> > taxpayer funded but operate as private
> companies.
> > The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> > during reorganization."
>
>
> Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With the receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
That's a reach. Credit ratings are an expenditure of FNM and FRE paid to each S&P, Moody's and Fitch as an operating expense. Taxpayers do not fund the companies; shareholders do. The A- ratings on their Class A securities are as result of perceived oversight by Treasury; something they failed to regulate in the first place. Mind you that this was done on the Bush adminstration's watch. Up next, you'll see a plethora of shareholder class actions that will challenge the dilutive effect of the takeover and failed regulatory oversight.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah
> Palin,
> > speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said
> Fannie
> > and Freddie had "gotten too big and too
> expensive
> > to the taxpayers." The companies, however,
> aren't
> > taxpayer funded but operate as private
> companies.
> > The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> > during reorganization."
>
>
> Each year taxpayers provide the GSEs with the
> benefits of enhanced credit standing. Even though
> taxpayers have not laid out any money for those
> benefits, enhancing the GSEs' credit standing is
> costly to taxpayers because--instead of providing
> it free--the government could sell the right to
> share its credit standing. With the receipts from
> such a sale, the government could increase
> spending for any public purpose or reduce taxes.
> The annual cost to taxpayers thus depends on how
> much the use of the government's credit standing
> is worth to the GSEs and their potential
> competitors. That value can be measured in several
> ways. One is to look at the change in the market
> value of a GSE caused by the transfer of
> government equity to (or withdrawal of it from)
> the GSE each year. Another is to measure the
> annual flow of returns that taxpayers could have
> received on their equity if placed with terms of
> comparable risk.
>
>
> If sold competitively, the benefits the federal
> government provides to the housing GSEs would
> command billions of dollars. That forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government.
That's a reach. Credit ratings are an expenditure of FNM and FRE paid to each S&P, Moody's and Fitch as an operating expense. Taxpayers do not fund the companies; shareholders do. The A- ratings on their Class A securities are as result of perceived oversight by Treasury; something they failed to regulate in the first place. Mind you that this was done on the Bush adminstration's watch. Up next, you'll see a plethora of shareholder class actions that will challenge the dilutive effect of the takeover and failed regulatory oversight.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 11:11AM
Bush's lack of treasury oversight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a reach.
Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a reach.
Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
conVince
()
Date: September 08, 2008 11:34AM
Let's see... what will voters care about most when they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on complex financial issues when it's the Sec of Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or Obama referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 12:21PM
Not So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush's lack of treasury oversight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That's a reach.
>
>
> Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
What budget? Apparently we don't believe in budgets these days.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush's lack of treasury oversight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That's a reach.
>
>
> Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
What budget? Apparently we don't believe in budgets these days.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not so
()
Date: September 08, 2008 12:23PM
Not Not So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not So Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush's lack of treasury oversight Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > That's a reach.
> >
> >
> > Not according to the Congressional Budget
> Office.
>
>
> What budget? Apparently we don't believe in
> budgets these days.
weak, powerful weak
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not So Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush's lack of treasury oversight Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > That's a reach.
> >
> >
> > Not according to the Congressional Budget
> Office.
>
>
> What budget? Apparently we don't believe in
> budgets these days.
weak, powerful weak
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
My money is on Obama
()
Date: September 08, 2008 12:27PM
conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see... what will voters care about most when
> they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or Obama
> referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
>
> Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Well, according to the election markets this morning, Obama has an 11% lead over McCain. So clearly people are investing in this outcome.
Money talks. Incompetence walks.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see... what will voters care about most when
> they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or Obama
> referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
>
> Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Well, according to the election markets this morning, Obama has an 11% lead over McCain. So clearly people are investing in this outcome.
Money talks. Incompetence walks.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Marketeer
()
Date: September 08, 2008 12:32PM
My money is on Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> conVince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see... what will voters care about most
> when
> > they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> > complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> > Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or
> Obama
> > referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
> >
> > Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
>
>
> Well, according to the election markets this
> morning, Obama has an 11% lead over McCain. So
> clearly people are investing in this outcome.
>
> Money talks. Incompetence walks.
Not sure which ones you are looking at, but any of the ones that matter have the lead down to 7 or 8% down from 18% five days ago. Bullshit walks.
-------------------------------------------------------
> conVince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see... what will voters care about most
> when
> > they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> > complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> > Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or
> Obama
> > referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
> >
> > Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
>
>
> Well, according to the election markets this
> morning, Obama has an 11% lead over McCain. So
> clearly people are investing in this outcome.
>
> Money talks. Incompetence walks.
Not sure which ones you are looking at, but any of the ones that matter have the lead down to 7 or 8% down from 18% five days ago. Bullshit walks.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:10PM
I'm saying that argument is a lot like the argument that Palin has national experience because Alaska is just across the Bering Strait. It's total horseshit, you know it's horseshit, but you say it anyway and then go through some pretty elaborate logical twists to justify it.
>
> Mental Gymnastics? Are you saying you disagree?
> Can you buy a clue?
>
> Mental Gymnastics? Are you saying you disagree?
> Can you buy a clue?
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:15PM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm saying that argument is a lot like the
> argument that Palin has national experience
> because Alaska is just across the Bering Strait.
> It's total horseshit, you know it's horseshit, but
> you say it anyway and then go through some pretty
> elaborate logical twists to justify it.
It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and espoused by some of the leading economists in the Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not, it is the simple truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm saying that argument is a lot like the
> argument that Palin has national experience
> because Alaska is just across the Bering Strait.
> It's total horseshit, you know it's horseshit, but
> you say it anyway and then go through some pretty
> elaborate logical twists to justify it.
It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and espoused by some of the leading economists in the Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not, it is the simple truth.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:22PM
So, are you telling me--with a straight face--that you believe that's what Palin meant?
>
> It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and
> espoused by some of the leading economists in the
> Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not, it
> is the simple truth.
>
> It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and
> espoused by some of the leading economists in the
> Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not, it
> is the simple truth.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:25PM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, are you telling me--with a straight face--that
> you believe that's what Palin meant?
>
> >
> > It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and
> > espoused by some of the leading economists in
> the
> > Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not,
> it
> > is the simple truth.
I don't know what the woman meant, neither do you. What I do know however, and something you failed to grasp until it was placed in front of your face, is that Fannie and Freddie are hardly cost neutral to the taxpayer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, are you telling me--with a straight face--that
> you believe that's what Palin meant?
>
> >
> > It is hardly horseshit as it is supported and
> > espoused by some of the leading economists in
> the
> > Congressional Budget Office. Like it or not,
> it
> > is the simple truth.
I don't know what the woman meant, neither do you. What I do know however, and something you failed to grasp until it was placed in front of your face, is that Fannie and Freddie are hardly cost neutral to the taxpayer.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:35PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
> speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie
> and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive
> to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't
> taxpayer funded but operate as private companies.
> The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> during reorganization."
As usual, lets take a quote out of context and place it in a light that makes it sound like that is all she said...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_5llFeSxDas&refer=home
And here is another one...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D931F7P00.htm
Sounds more like she was talking about the fact that most taxpayers were unable to get loans from these guys - in reading the news over the last couple of weeks, one of the issues was that no matter how much they lowered the interest rates, these guys were still unable to offer mortgages at much lower than 6% due to the bond markets and other issues that impacted their ability to get money to lend. Thus the reason they were too expensive to the taxpayers - the homeowners that need help - one of the reasons these organizations were formed in the first place.
But hey, leave it to the fact machine to post something blatantly false in its characterization.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
> speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie
> and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive
> to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't
> taxpayer funded but operate as private companies.
> The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout
> during reorganization."
As usual, lets take a quote out of context and place it in a light that makes it sound like that is all she said...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_5llFeSxDas&refer=home
Quote
McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, said in Colorado Springs today that Fannie and Freddie ``have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.'' McCain, she said, ``will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.''
And here is another one...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D931F7P00.htm
Quote
At a rally in Colorado Springs, Col., Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said, "They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."
Sounds more like she was talking about the fact that most taxpayers were unable to get loans from these guys - in reading the news over the last couple of weeks, one of the issues was that no matter how much they lowered the interest rates, these guys were still unable to offer mortgages at much lower than 6% due to the bond markets and other issues that impacted their ability to get money to lend. Thus the reason they were too expensive to the taxpayers - the homeowners that need help - one of the reasons these organizations were formed in the first place.
But hey, leave it to the fact machine to post something blatantly false in its characterization.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:37PM
That isn't the point. The title of the thread is 'Sarah Palin doesn't understand Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae'. That's what we're discussing. If you want to make the case that Palin was referring to 'the benefits of enhanced credit standing' than you are just a fool and it isn't worth continuing the discussion.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:41PM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That isn't the point. The title of the thread is
> 'Sarah Palin doesn't understand Freddie Mac or
> Fannie Mae'. That's what we're discussing. If
> you want to make the case that Palin was referring
> to 'the benefits of enhanced credit standing' than
> you are just a fool and it isn't worth continuing
> the discussion.
No, the underlying argument that you and Washingtonelocian are making is that she doesn't understand it because Freddie and Fannie are neutral to the taxpayer. That is patently false, as has been pointed out to you. You or Washingtonelocian are hardly in a position to criticise anyone's understanding of Freddie and Fannie when you have no understanding of their impact on the taxpayer. If anything, and at the very least, she understands the impact more than you or Washingtonelocian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That isn't the point. The title of the thread is
> 'Sarah Palin doesn't understand Freddie Mac or
> Fannie Mae'. That's what we're discussing. If
> you want to make the case that Palin was referring
> to 'the benefits of enhanced credit standing' than
> you are just a fool and it isn't worth continuing
> the discussion.
No, the underlying argument that you and Washingtonelocian are making is that she doesn't understand it because Freddie and Fannie are neutral to the taxpayer. That is patently false, as has been pointed out to you. You or Washingtonelocian are hardly in a position to criticise anyone's understanding of Freddie and Fannie when you have no understanding of their impact on the taxpayer. If anything, and at the very least, she understands the impact more than you or Washingtonelocian.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:42PM
Right.... lol
The point was, that people were saying she was stating something she wasn't. So now we post the entire quote and guess what, the fallacy of this thread is revealed.
Sorry to burst your talking point of discussion.
The point was, that people were saying she was stating something she wasn't. So now we post the entire quote and guess what, the fallacy of this thread is revealed.
Sorry to burst your talking point of discussion.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:51PM
I give up. If you can't be intellectually honest there isn't any point.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:53PM
ROFL - pathetic
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not so
()
Date: September 08, 2008 01:58PM
Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I give up. If you can't be intellectually honest
> there isn't any point.
You give up because you can't make an intelligent and valid point.
When all the planks of your argument are pulled from under you, of course you give up. You have no other option.
Speaking of intellectually dishonest, how is it honest to make assumptions about what Gov. palin said, then go on to refute what leading non-partisan economists have said about Freddie and Fannie?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I give up. If you can't be intellectually honest
> there isn't any point.
You give up because you can't make an intelligent and valid point.
When all the planks of your argument are pulled from under you, of course you give up. You have no other option.
Speaking of intellectually dishonest, how is it honest to make assumptions about what Gov. palin said, then go on to refute what leading non-partisan economists have said about Freddie and Fannie?
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Blame Bush and the GOP
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:12PM
Not So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That isn't the point. The title of the thread
> is
> > 'Sarah Palin doesn't understand Freddie Mac or
> > Fannie Mae'. That's what we're discussing. If
> > you want to make the case that Palin was
> referring
> > to 'the benefits of enhanced credit standing'
> than
> > you are just a fool and it isn't worth
> continuing
> > the discussion.
>
> No, the underlying argument that you and
> Washingtonelocian are making is that she doesn't
> understand it because Freddie and Fannie are
> neutral to the taxpayer. That is patently false,
> as has been pointed out to you. You or
> Washingtonelocian are hardly in a position to
> criticise anyone's understanding of Freddie and
> Fannie when you have no understanding of their
> impact on the taxpayer. If anything, and at the
> very least, she understands the impact more than
> you or Washingtonelocian.
If you knew anything about structured finance or the GSE ABS markets, then you would know that FRE and FNM's portfolios are not protected by the government from loan defaults. Their ratings are determined by the creditworthiness of their assets and not so much the umbilical cord attached to the gov't. This is a common misperception in the marketplace. Before the bailout, the cost to taxpayers was diminius since the only fees to the gov't were regulatory oversight (or lack thereof). Now that is not the case and taxpayers will once again pick up the tab and shareholders are left holding the bag.
At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That isn't the point. The title of the thread
> is
> > 'Sarah Palin doesn't understand Freddie Mac or
> > Fannie Mae'. That's what we're discussing. If
> > you want to make the case that Palin was
> referring
> > to 'the benefits of enhanced credit standing'
> than
> > you are just a fool and it isn't worth
> continuing
> > the discussion.
>
> No, the underlying argument that you and
> Washingtonelocian are making is that she doesn't
> understand it because Freddie and Fannie are
> neutral to the taxpayer. That is patently false,
> as has been pointed out to you. You or
> Washingtonelocian are hardly in a position to
> criticise anyone's understanding of Freddie and
> Fannie when you have no understanding of their
> impact on the taxpayer. If anything, and at the
> very least, she understands the impact more than
> you or Washingtonelocian.
If you knew anything about structured finance or the GSE ABS markets, then you would know that FRE and FNM's portfolios are not protected by the government from loan defaults. Their ratings are determined by the creditworthiness of their assets and not so much the umbilical cord attached to the gov't. This is a common misperception in the marketplace. Before the bailout, the cost to taxpayers was diminius since the only fees to the gov't were regulatory oversight (or lack thereof). Now that is not the case and taxpayers will once again pick up the tab and shareholders are left holding the bag.
At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:16PM
Blame Bush and the GOP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you knew anything about structured finance or
> the GSE ABS markets, then you would know that FRE
> and FNM's portfolios are not protected by the
> government from loan defaults. Their ratings are
> determined by the creditworthiness of their assets
> and not so much the umbilical cord attached to the
> gov't. This is a common misperception in the
> marketplace. Before the bailout, the cost to
> taxpayers was diminius since the only fees to the
> gov't were regulatory oversight (or lack thereof).
> Now that is not the case and taxpayers will once
> again pick up the tab and shareholders are left
> holding the bag.
>
> At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of
> the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
The Congressional Budget Office writes, "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."
Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies."
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you knew anything about structured finance or
> the GSE ABS markets, then you would know that FRE
> and FNM's portfolios are not protected by the
> government from loan defaults. Their ratings are
> determined by the creditworthiness of their assets
> and not so much the umbilical cord attached to the
> gov't. This is a common misperception in the
> marketplace. Before the bailout, the cost to
> taxpayers was diminius since the only fees to the
> gov't were regulatory oversight (or lack thereof).
> Now that is not the case and taxpayers will once
> again pick up the tab and shareholders are left
> holding the bag.
>
> At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of
> the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
The Congressional Budget Office writes, "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."
Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies."
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Yes Sir
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:17PM
I agree, but I believe you meant de minimis. It's been awhile since I took latin.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
What?!?
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:20PM
Try again. $6.5B is a drop in the bucket in the federal budget. Take a look at their asset pool you dolt.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:37PM
What?!? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try again. $6.5B is a drop in the bucket in the
> federal budget. Take a look at their asset pool
> you dolt.
You are completely failing to understand what is going on here. You have no frame of reference here. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie....
First, the $6.5B is the number from 1995. It has certainly grown since then, probably by twice as much. Second, even if the number was constant, it would fund the entire FBI. Third, the estimate of funding cost savings excludes the direct savings to the GSEs from the special provisions of law that confer agency status, such as the exemptions from state and local income taxes and from SEC registration fees. The income tax exemption alone provides a net benefit of more than $250 million at current income levels. In addition, the GAO has estimated that the exemption by the Securities and Exchange Commission is worth more than $100 million annually. Thus, the $6.5 billion annual value of the subsidy to the housing GSEs is a significant understatement of the cost to the government and taxpayers.
Ignoring all of the above facts (which seems to be what you are intent on doing), there is still a taxpayer implication. Wheter it is $20K or $13B is inconsequential. The fact is that people who fail to see the implication have no business attacking others who do.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try again. $6.5B is a drop in the bucket in the
> federal budget. Take a look at their asset pool
> you dolt.
You are completely failing to understand what is going on here. You have no frame of reference here. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie....
First, the $6.5B is the number from 1995. It has certainly grown since then, probably by twice as much. Second, even if the number was constant, it would fund the entire FBI. Third, the estimate of funding cost savings excludes the direct savings to the GSEs from the special provisions of law that confer agency status, such as the exemptions from state and local income taxes and from SEC registration fees. The income tax exemption alone provides a net benefit of more than $250 million at current income levels. In addition, the GAO has estimated that the exemption by the Securities and Exchange Commission is worth more than $100 million annually. Thus, the $6.5 billion annual value of the subsidy to the housing GSEs is a significant understatement of the cost to the government and taxpayers.
Ignoring all of the above facts (which seems to be what you are intent on doing), there is still a taxpayer implication. Wheter it is $20K or $13B is inconsequential. The fact is that people who fail to see the implication have no business attacking others who do.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: September 08, 2008 02:59PM
You can spin it anyway you want it. The fact is she doesn't quite grasp the concept of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not so
()
Date: September 08, 2008 03:04PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can spin it anyway you want it. The fact is
> she doesn't quite grasp the concept of Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac.
And it is apparent that you do not grasp the tax implications either. So, you are hardly in a position to judge.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can spin it anyway you want it. The fact is
> she doesn't quite grasp the concept of Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac.
And it is apparent that you do not grasp the tax implications either. So, you are hardly in a position to judge.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 08, 2008 03:18PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can spin it anyway you want it. The fact is
> she doesn't quite grasp the concept of Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac.
This from someone who appears to have no concept of reality...
When you want to frame a discussion as a point of fact instead of just your opinion, you might want to post the supporting link to your quotes so that folks have a proper frame of reference when judging that fact. If you are stating your opinion, which is what appears to be borne out here, you should post links to facts to support your opinion.
Do you really have a grasp on these facts? I doubt it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 03:30PM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can spin it anyway you want it. The fact is
> she doesn't quite grasp the concept of Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac.
This from someone who appears to have no concept of reality...
When you want to frame a discussion as a point of fact instead of just your opinion, you might want to post the supporting link to your quotes so that folks have a proper frame of reference when judging that fact. If you are stating your opinion, which is what appears to be borne out here, you should post links to facts to support your opinion.
Do you really have a grasp on these facts? I doubt it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 03:30PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Reality Check
()
Date: September 08, 2008 04:37PM
Blame Bush and the GOP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of
> the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
No oversight? The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight took Frank Raines (Clinton OMB Director) and two others at Fannie to task for cooking the books. Fannie paid a record $400 million civil fine. Likewise, Freddie was hit in 2003 and 2006 by this administration. It was the crooks from the Clinton administration - Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson - that were at the reigns when this wagon started over the cliff. Oh yeah, those three advisors and supporters of Senator Obama. Even if there wasn't oversight, which there was, it was Clinton's and Obama's associates that caused this mess.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> At the end of the day, it's yet another failure of
> the Bush administration's lack of oversight.
No oversight? The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight took Frank Raines (Clinton OMB Director) and two others at Fannie to task for cooking the books. Fannie paid a record $400 million civil fine. Likewise, Freddie was hit in 2003 and 2006 by this administration. It was the crooks from the Clinton administration - Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson - that were at the reigns when this wagon started over the cliff. Oh yeah, those three advisors and supporters of Senator Obama. Even if there wasn't oversight, which there was, it was Clinton's and Obama's associates that caused this mess.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow.
()
Date: September 08, 2008 05:07PM
Not So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What?!? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Try again. $6.5B is a drop in the bucket in
> the
> > federal budget. Take a look at their asset
> pool
> > you dolt.
>
> You are completely failing to understand what is
> going on here. You have no frame of reference
> here. You're like a child who wanders into the
> middle of a movie....
>
> First, the $6.5B is the number from 1995. It has
> certainly grown since then, probably by twice as
> much. Second, even if the number was constant, it
> would fund the entire FBI. Third, the estimate of
> funding cost savings excludes the direct savings
> to the GSEs from the special provisions of law
> that confer agency status, such as the exemptions
> from state and local income taxes and from SEC
> registration fees. The income tax exemption alone
> provides a net benefit of more than $250 million
> at current income levels. In addition, the GAO has
> estimated that the exemption by the Securities and
> Exchange Commission is worth more than $100
> million annually. Thus, the $6.5 billion annual
> value of the subsidy to the housing GSEs is a
> significant understatement of the cost to the
> government and taxpayers.
>
> Ignoring all of the above facts (which seems to be
> what you are intent on doing), there is still a
> taxpayer implication. Wheter it is $20K or $13B
> is inconsequential. The fact is that people who
> fail to see the implication have no business
> attacking others who do.
(1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted to establish credibility by stating facts, then reference your facts with an accurate scope of time.
(2) Your original reply was in refute of the GSEs (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded. They are not. If you would have read either of their 2Q reports, you would understand this basic concept. The original post is accurate because everyone understands that GSE funding comes from Wall Street and subsidies come from the government. They are two different concepts and sources of liquidity. That is the cost of doing business in an industry that is fundamental to our economic prosperity.
(3) The subsidy is necessary in a typical operating year and, again, nominal compared to other budget earmarks without domestic economic benefit. The FBI does not qualify. The inflation-adjusted amount is the equivalent of only one average mortgage-backed ABS issuance, therefore, taken into context by a reasonably prudent person, would be necessary as is protects investors and lenders alike. This is with consideration of adequate oversight by Treasury -- something that was not present prior to 2008.
Please refer to 3rd grade reading comprehension and an economics course for more detail. I've got clients to bill and I'm done teaching you something you could've Googled. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What?!? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Try again. $6.5B is a drop in the bucket in
> the
> > federal budget. Take a look at their asset
> pool
> > you dolt.
>
> You are completely failing to understand what is
> going on here. You have no frame of reference
> here. You're like a child who wanders into the
> middle of a movie....
>
> First, the $6.5B is the number from 1995. It has
> certainly grown since then, probably by twice as
> much. Second, even if the number was constant, it
> would fund the entire FBI. Third, the estimate of
> funding cost savings excludes the direct savings
> to the GSEs from the special provisions of law
> that confer agency status, such as the exemptions
> from state and local income taxes and from SEC
> registration fees. The income tax exemption alone
> provides a net benefit of more than $250 million
> at current income levels. In addition, the GAO has
> estimated that the exemption by the Securities and
> Exchange Commission is worth more than $100
> million annually. Thus, the $6.5 billion annual
> value of the subsidy to the housing GSEs is a
> significant understatement of the cost to the
> government and taxpayers.
>
> Ignoring all of the above facts (which seems to be
> what you are intent on doing), there is still a
> taxpayer implication. Wheter it is $20K or $13B
> is inconsequential. The fact is that people who
> fail to see the implication have no business
> attacking others who do.
(1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted to establish credibility by stating facts, then reference your facts with an accurate scope of time.
(2) Your original reply was in refute of the GSEs (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded. They are not. If you would have read either of their 2Q reports, you would understand this basic concept. The original post is accurate because everyone understands that GSE funding comes from Wall Street and subsidies come from the government. They are two different concepts and sources of liquidity. That is the cost of doing business in an industry that is fundamental to our economic prosperity.
(3) The subsidy is necessary in a typical operating year and, again, nominal compared to other budget earmarks without domestic economic benefit. The FBI does not qualify. The inflation-adjusted amount is the equivalent of only one average mortgage-backed ABS issuance, therefore, taken into context by a reasonably prudent person, would be necessary as is protects investors and lenders alike. This is with consideration of adequate oversight by Treasury -- something that was not present prior to 2008.
Please refer to 3rd grade reading comprehension and an economics course for more detail. I've got clients to bill and I'm done teaching you something you could've Googled. Thank you.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 08, 2008 05:57PM
Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted to
> establish credibility by stating facts, then
> reference your facts with an accurate scope of
> time.
True, I omitted the year of reference.
> (2) Your original reply was in refute of the GSEs
> (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
Not my original reply. I never contended they were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or learn reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual income is the cost of the housing GSEs to taxpayers and the government."
On another note, I noticed you stopped using the § moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now that the fag is out of the bag?
Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
In other news, lameass unimportant transactional lawyer gets owned again. For complete breakdown and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
Bill that, bitch!
-------------------------------------------------------
> (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted to
> establish credibility by stating facts, then
> reference your facts with an accurate scope of
> time.
True, I omitted the year of reference.
> (2) Your original reply was in refute of the GSEs
> (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
Not my original reply. I never contended they were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or learn reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual income is the cost of the housing GSEs to taxpayers and the government."
On another note, I noticed you stopped using the § moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now that the fag is out of the bag?
Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
In other news, lameass unimportant transactional lawyer gets owned again. For complete breakdown and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
Bill that, bitch!
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: September 08, 2008 10:32PM
conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see... what will voters care about most when
> they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or Obama
> referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
>
> Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Lets see!!! A gaffe of personal nature (who gives a god damn what religion obama is...what i want to know is that he isnt going to let it drive his secular responsibilities as president!!) vice speaking thru her ass on a governemt policy/secular issue that she ought to know about before speaking!!!!!
I want to know how her personnel religious beliefs that have driven her govenment policy/secular positions on birth control....choice...privacy?
I want to know what other government/secular policy issues are driven by her religion? How does she plan to merge her beliefs in the rapture, praying the gay out of people..and that god drives a decison on a pipeline thru Alaska into public policy?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 10:32PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see... what will voters care about most when
> they hit the polls? That Palin is confused on
> complex financial issues when it's the Sec of
> Treasury's job to be the expert on that, or Obama
> referring to his "Muslim faith" this weekend?
>
> Obama: oops, did I say that out loud?
Lets see!!! A gaffe of personal nature (who gives a god damn what religion obama is...what i want to know is that he isnt going to let it drive his secular responsibilities as president!!) vice speaking thru her ass on a governemt policy/secular issue that she ought to know about before speaking!!!!!
I want to know how her personnel religious beliefs that have driven her govenment policy/secular positions on birth control....choice...privacy?
I want to know what other government/secular policy issues are driven by her religion? How does she plan to merge her beliefs in the rapture, praying the gay out of people..and that god drives a decison on a pipeline thru Alaska into public policy?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 10:32PM by Vince(1).
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Guess Again.
()
Date: September 09, 2008 10:57AM
Not So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted
> to
> > establish credibility by stating facts, then
> > reference your facts with an accurate scope of
> > time.
>
> True, I omitted the year of reference.
>
> > (2) Your original reply was in refute of the
> GSEs
> > (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
>
> Not my original reply. I never contended they
> were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or learn
> reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government."
>
> On another note, I noticed you stopped using the §
> moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now that
> the fag is out of the bag?
>
> Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
>
> In other news, lameass unimportant transactional
> lawyer gets owned again. For complete breakdown
> and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
>
> Bill that, bitch!
You implied that GSE subsidies are materially adverse to taxpayers and these benefits actually move the needle. What is material to taxpayers is the bailout due to lack of regulatory oversight. Perhaps this was taken out of context, but so was your reply to the OP's quote, which was accurate. "Voter" already pointed this out to you.
Also, I'm not who you think I am. I am not even a lawyer or the moniker you speak of. I did go back and read a few posts authored by that symbol to see why you confused me with him/her/it. It seems like you are obviously "C'mon" or "Alias", and perhaps, according to posts by others, many names other names on this board given your writing style.
On that note, I will say that your true identity has been compromised. Do not worry. I will not reveal it in a public forum. Here's how I know.
There was something that you stated here in the past two months that I found to be strikingly similar to a communication I recently had received in the workplace. When combined with certain indicators, this positively reveals who you are.
Care to guess what that was?
I'll give you a hint. Certain language you had authored in this thread, along with language you had previously posted on this site in the last 45 days, is almost verbatim to said communication, with the exception of a random phrase here and there. What gave it away was your repetitive use of vernacular and grammar, along with a simple search in my office e-mail. To confirm this assertion, I had IT run a log of web history for anyone at our employer who has used this site, including those who use alternative proxy servers. I am authorized to do this in my position. Guess what? Bingo!
As for my identity, a simple search of your e-mail should point you in the right direction. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. Good luck.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you wanted
> to
> > establish credibility by stating facts, then
> > reference your facts with an accurate scope of
> > time.
>
> True, I omitted the year of reference.
>
> > (2) Your original reply was in refute of the
> GSEs
> > (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
>
> Not my original reply. I never contended they
> were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or learn
> reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual
> income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> taxpayers and the government."
>
> On another note, I noticed you stopped using the §
> moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now that
> the fag is out of the bag?
>
> Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
>
> In other news, lameass unimportant transactional
> lawyer gets owned again. For complete breakdown
> and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
>
> Bill that, bitch!
You implied that GSE subsidies are materially adverse to taxpayers and these benefits actually move the needle. What is material to taxpayers is the bailout due to lack of regulatory oversight. Perhaps this was taken out of context, but so was your reply to the OP's quote, which was accurate. "Voter" already pointed this out to you.
Also, I'm not who you think I am. I am not even a lawyer or the moniker you speak of. I did go back and read a few posts authored by that symbol to see why you confused me with him/her/it. It seems like you are obviously "C'mon" or "Alias", and perhaps, according to posts by others, many names other names on this board given your writing style.
On that note, I will say that your true identity has been compromised. Do not worry. I will not reveal it in a public forum. Here's how I know.
There was something that you stated here in the past two months that I found to be strikingly similar to a communication I recently had received in the workplace. When combined with certain indicators, this positively reveals who you are.
Care to guess what that was?
I'll give you a hint. Certain language you had authored in this thread, along with language you had previously posted on this site in the last 45 days, is almost verbatim to said communication, with the exception of a random phrase here and there. What gave it away was your repetitive use of vernacular and grammar, along with a simple search in my office e-mail. To confirm this assertion, I had IT run a log of web history for anyone at our employer who has used this site, including those who use alternative proxy servers. I am authorized to do this in my position. Guess what? Bingo!
As for my identity, a simple search of your e-mail should point you in the right direction. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. Good luck.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: September 09, 2008 12:26PM
Can you guys take your personal issues elsewhere? If it is someone in your office, then go beat them up if you really believe it.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Guess Again.
()
Date: September 09, 2008 02:07PM
No, thanks. I believe that would be against our code of conduct and possibly, state or local ordinances. That's something that this person should know about.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 09, 2008 02:31PM
Guess Again. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, thanks. I believe that would be against our
> code of conduct and possibly, state or local
> ordinances. That's something that this person
> should know about.
There is no code of conduct where I work. The five of us get along pretty well, so we never had a need to write it down.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, thanks. I believe that would be against our
> code of conduct and possibly, state or local
> ordinances. That's something that this person
> should know about.
There is no code of conduct where I work. The five of us get along pretty well, so we never had a need to write it down.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Guess Again.
()
Date: September 09, 2008 02:42PM
Nice try. I already bumped into you today. I didn't say anything, just smirked. You looked a bit disheveled and preoccupied. Keep working.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 09, 2008 02:47PM
Guess Again. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice try. I already bumped into you today. I
> didn't say anything, just smirked. You looked a
> bit disheveled and preoccupied. Keep working.
I feel bad for the guy you are stalking. Oh well, won't affect me in the least. Although, if you did work for me though, you'd be fired by now for being a complete nutjob. How'd that stint in therapy go?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice try. I already bumped into you today. I
> didn't say anything, just smirked. You looked a
> bit disheveled and preoccupied. Keep working.
I feel bad for the guy you are stalking. Oh well, won't affect me in the least. Although, if you did work for me though, you'd be fired by now for being a complete nutjob. How'd that stint in therapy go?
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Guess Again.
()
Date: September 09, 2008 02:53PM
I've got screenshots matching your posts. Keep checking and maybe you'll find out who I am. Don't let laziness and unrealized potential get in your way.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
honest abe frohman
()
Date: September 11, 2008 10:45AM
That happened to a friend of mine and he was fired. This isn't a good economy for someone to lose their job in.
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Guess Again.
()
Date: September 11, 2008 10:29PM
Guess Again. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not So Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you
> wanted
> > to
> > > establish credibility by stating facts, then
> > > reference your facts with an accurate scope
> of
> > > time.
> >
> > True, I omitted the year of reference.
> >
> > > (2) Your original reply was in refute of the
> > GSEs
> > > (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
> >
> > Not my original reply. I never contended they
> > were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or
> learn
> > reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual
> > income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> > taxpayers and the government."
> >
> > On another note, I noticed you stopped using the
> §
> > moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now
> that
> > the fag is out of the bag?
> >
> > Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
> >
> > In other news, lameass unimportant
> transactional
> > lawyer gets owned again. For complete
> breakdown
> > and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
> >
> > Bill that, bitch!
>
> You implied that GSE subsidies are materially
> adverse to taxpayers and these benefits actually
> move the needle. What is material to taxpayers is
> the bailout due to lack of regulatory oversight.
> Perhaps this was taken out of context, but so was
> your reply to the OP's quote, which was accurate.
> "Voter" already pointed this out to you.
>
> Also, I'm not who you think I am. I am not even a
> lawyer or the moniker you speak of. I did go back
> and read a few posts authored by that symbol to
> see why you confused me with him/her/it. It seems
> like you are obviously "C'mon" or "Alias", and
> perhaps, according to posts by others, many names
> other names on this board given your writing
> style.
>
> On that note, I will say that your true identity
> has been compromised. Do not worry. I will not
> reveal it in a public forum. Here's how I know.
>
> There was something that you stated here in the
> past two months that I found to be strikingly
> similar to a communication I recently had received
> in the workplace. When combined with certain
> indicators, this positively reveals who you are.
>
>
> Care to guess what that was?
>
> I'll give you a hint. Certain language you had
> authored in this thread, along with language you
> had previously posted on this site in the last 45
> days, is almost verbatim to said communication,
> with the exception of a random phrase here and
> there. What gave it away was your repetitive use
> of vernacular and grammar, along with a simple
> search in my office e-mail. To confirm this
> assertion, I had IT run a log of web history for
> anyone at our employer who has used this site,
> including those who use alternative proxy servers.
> I am authorized to do this in my position. Guess
> what? Bingo!
>
> As for my identity, a simple search of your e-mail
> should point you in the right direction. I'm sure
> you'll figure it out eventually. Good luck.
I'm glad to see my hoax worked. Now that Cary has banned you, there's no need to keep searching those emails!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not So Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a Kleenex. Now Blow. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > (1) You posted the $6.5B figure. If you
> wanted
> > to
> > > establish credibility by stating facts, then
> > > reference your facts with an accurate scope
> of
> > > time.
> >
> > True, I omitted the year of reference.
> >
> > > (2) Your original reply was in refute of the
> > GSEs
> > > (now GOEs) having been taxpayer funded.
> >
> > Not my original reply. I never contended they
> > were taxpayer funded. Please reread and/or
> learn
> > reading comp. I contended that "forgone annual
> > income is the cost of the housing GSEs to
> > taxpayers and the government."
> >
> > On another note, I noticed you stopped using the
> §
> > moniker. What's wrong, ashamed to use it now
> that
> > the fag is out of the bag?
> >
> > Something bothering you? Fag got your tongue?
> >
> > In other news, lameass unimportant
> transactional
> > lawyer gets owned again. For complete
> breakdown
> > and lots of tears, tune in at 11.
> >
> > Bill that, bitch!
>
> You implied that GSE subsidies are materially
> adverse to taxpayers and these benefits actually
> move the needle. What is material to taxpayers is
> the bailout due to lack of regulatory oversight.
> Perhaps this was taken out of context, but so was
> your reply to the OP's quote, which was accurate.
> "Voter" already pointed this out to you.
>
> Also, I'm not who you think I am. I am not even a
> lawyer or the moniker you speak of. I did go back
> and read a few posts authored by that symbol to
> see why you confused me with him/her/it. It seems
> like you are obviously "C'mon" or "Alias", and
> perhaps, according to posts by others, many names
> other names on this board given your writing
> style.
>
> On that note, I will say that your true identity
> has been compromised. Do not worry. I will not
> reveal it in a public forum. Here's how I know.
>
> There was something that you stated here in the
> past two months that I found to be strikingly
> similar to a communication I recently had received
> in the workplace. When combined with certain
> indicators, this positively reveals who you are.
>
>
> Care to guess what that was?
>
> I'll give you a hint. Certain language you had
> authored in this thread, along with language you
> had previously posted on this site in the last 45
> days, is almost verbatim to said communication,
> with the exception of a random phrase here and
> there. What gave it away was your repetitive use
> of vernacular and grammar, along with a simple
> search in my office e-mail. To confirm this
> assertion, I had IT run a log of web history for
> anyone at our employer who has used this site,
> including those who use alternative proxy servers.
> I am authorized to do this in my position. Guess
> what? Bingo!
>
> As for my identity, a simple search of your e-mail
> should point you in the right direction. I'm sure
> you'll figure it out eventually. Good luck.
I'm glad to see my hoax worked. Now that Cary has banned you, there's no need to keep searching those emails!
Re: Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Posted by:
Not So
()
Date: September 12, 2008 09:51AM
Guess Again. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm glad to see my hoax worked. Now that Cary has
> banned you, there's no need to keep searching
> those emails!
Your hoax far from worked, and no email was checked. I assume you think I am Alias, you are wrong. Is the basis of your personal attacks the fact that you think I am Alias, or that I simply disagree with you? In any event, the childish nature of the homosexual and anal references indicate that you have no interest in discussing issues, only trolling to get people all worked up. Perhaps a person with thin skin would be phased by your juvenile antics, but I chalk this up to the fact that this is a message board that allows anyone (not banned) to post and you take the good with the bad. True, I have resorted to personal digs at times, but they are usually provoked. You like to take it to the next level though. Whatever makes you feel better.....
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm glad to see my hoax worked. Now that Cary has
> banned you, there's no need to keep searching
> those emails!
Your hoax far from worked, and no email was checked. I assume you think I am Alias, you are wrong. Is the basis of your personal attacks the fact that you think I am Alias, or that I simply disagree with you? In any event, the childish nature of the homosexual and anal references indicate that you have no interest in discussing issues, only trolling to get people all worked up. Perhaps a person with thin skin would be phased by your juvenile antics, but I chalk this up to the fact that this is a message board that allows anyone (not banned) to post and you take the good with the bad. True, I have resorted to personal digs at times, but they are usually provoked. You like to take it to the next level though. Whatever makes you feel better.....