But it looks like Obama does.

The economics of campaign contributions, at least. Third highest recipient (right behind Kerry and before Hillary) of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yes, Obama is going to reform this financial trainwreck… just as soon as their last check clears.

We were talking about whether or not Gov Palin had characterized the situation appropriately, were we not?

Please stop making every thread about me , lest Oliver blame me for it …

Actually it doesn’t. Try and read it a little more carefully. Read the section entitled Annual Costs of The GSE’s. It’s right there. Sheesh.

Oh, very well Jay:

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.

Like I said. Somebody is stretching the definition of “opportunity cost” to the breaking point. The authors of the report are claiming that Fannie Mae can borrow more cheaply because it’s a government-sponsored institution. Therefore any savings should be considered a “cost” to government.

That’s just absurd. The report even provides a nifty example in a little text box that shows how ridiculous the idea is. If anything, the savings are a cost to investors and lenders. Fannie Mae pays less to investors to borrow money from them.

I didn’t say ‘direct.’ You did. I’m not jcmcann and won’t get caught up in your usual displays of pedantry.

Yes and I did so from the start. You tried to ignore that word as you attempted to defend Ms. Palin’s entirely wrong notion that Fannie Mae provides “help to homeowners who need it.” Failing to defend the point, you have, as usual, turned to insults.

Uhhh… Frank… I hate to break it to you, but all corporations above a certain size have free insurance.

If GM went under tomorrow, the Government would be forced to bail it out.

The only excuse I can think of for you guys is that you’ve had to lie so much during the Bush years that you no longer know when you’re doing it.

Frank, that’s the same kind of corporate mismanagement that’s been going on for at least the last two decades in this country. CEO’s get golden parachutes while the shareholders, employees, and in this case, tax payers, get screwed. It has nothing to do with the fact that Fannie and Freddie were able to offer low interest rates to first-time home buyers.

The chief executive officers of Fannie Mae stand to collect millions of dollars in severance compensation in the wake of the government’s takeover of the mortgage giants, The New York Times reported. Fannie Mae’s Daniel H. Mudd could get $9.3 million … the consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates told the Times. And Freddie Mac’s Richard F. Syron could get a package valued at $14.1 million … after a clause was added to his employment contract in mid-July, the Times reported

“Palin was right: The very existence of a blank check means that Fannie and Freddie are too expensive to taxpayers.”

Stein himself:

“As O’Driscoll noted, both Fannie and Freddie “were hybrid institutions because they had private ownership but… an implicit government guarantee which people thought at the end of the day was explicit.” Meanwhile, as [Dean] Baker [co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research] noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer’s expense.”

I guess if you throw enough manure something is bound to stick…

Thank god for that.

Personally I don’t believe that you can honestly think that. I think you’re too intelligent to think that. In other words, Jay, I think you’re a liar who is trying to distract attention from Palin’s gaffe by floating a clever, but utterly dishonest, justification ex post facto.

Got that Jay? You are a liar. You are lying. We’re done with not calling liars liars when they lie.

If they give away enough free tickets, they’re going to make up those costs elsewhere. They could charge more for concessions, parking, programs, etc.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide direct assistance to homeowners?

I didn’t say ‘direct.’ You did. I’m not jcmcann and won’t get caught up in your usual displays of pedantry.

Yet the report studiously avoids telling us where I take the bite.

Actually it doesn’t. Try and read it a little more carefully. Read the section entitled Annual Costs of The GSE’s. It’s right there. Sheesh.

And while I’m at it… what’s w/ the GOP and family members and banks? Neil Bush/Savings and Loan… McCain’s son/SilverStart

What, is it a hobby w/ these clowns?

I doubt Sarah Palin believes in wikipedia…she probably goes to Conservipedia.

w/o Fannie mae, significant number of Americans would have never been able to buy a house….but then when Conservatives took over governance they wanted it to be modeled like the other failing Savings and Loans, Major Banking and Brokerages like Bear Sterns, etc.

Obama’s correct that the deregulatary disaster wrought by Republicans such as Senator McCain and Gramm needs to be reversed.

There’s only one way to make that case: When the government lends Freddie Mac its standing in the credit markets, debt issued by Freddie Mac increases the amount of interest other institutions–and the federal government in particular–must pay to attract investors, and those higher borrowing costs hit ordinary taxpayers in the pocketbook.

But that’s not the argument the CBO is making in that report. They’re arguing that just because Freddie Mac can borrow at reduced interest rates, the difference must be a cost to the federal government and ultimately, the taxpayers. Yet the report studiously avoids telling us where I take the bite.

They DO provide assistance to homeowners.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide direct assistance to homeowners?

Please explain.

Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers in that they receive a benefit for which others would pay a substantial sum.

Let’s say the New York Giants give you a ticket to a football game. That’s a benefit others would be willing to pay for. That doesn’t mean the other people who attend the game have incurred a “cost” because you got in for free.

The Giants incur a cost only if they could have made money by selling the ticket they gave you to someone else. In the instance of Freddie Mac, the government doesn’t lose anything by conferring its borrowing status on the agency. The feds can still borrow the same amount of money from the same sources at the same rates.

In addition, the GSEs are retaining a substantial share of that benefit for management and shareholders rather than passing it through to home buyers.

So? Suppose I can get you a 5 percent discount on a new car. Suppose also, that my source actually gives me a 6 percent discount, and I keep the difference for myself. How is that a “cost” to you?

Whoever wrote that report is desperately stretching the definition of opportunity cost.