Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sarah Palin apparently is dumber than rocks; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Topic Started: Sep 8 2008, 01:36 PM (3,425 Views)
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html


Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."



Wow. I am proud to be an American where at least I know I am free. Blah blah blah blah blahhh blahh blahh dum dum dum dum dum dum.

In all seriousness I don't know what to think about that. I've never actually considered moving to another country because I thought the crooks here had their intelligence attached to them. If we have a dumb president and vice president then we can be looking forward to a lot of great legislation in the future.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skunkrider
Member Avatar

Is that double-irony you're using?

Because that's what it'll be in the end... the two biggest real estate owners paid for by the people, but eventually privately owned again, if at all.

Whenever you hear/read 'the state will pay for it' you can be sure that part of your salary is deducted soon for that special purpose.

Guess why the stock exchange markets reacted positively...

...and still nobody holds the US government accountable for the uber-huge gap in its household euphemisticially described as 'debt' ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam

You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

The only institution we have become hostage to is the Federal Reserve. :|
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Quit insulting rocks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

I'm very well aware that the tax payers are going to get screwed. That is future tense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
radicalmom
Member Avatar
radicalmom
t[he]y picked her cause she is a cheer-leader and do-gooder. but not!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam

Andoo Inc.
Sep 8 2008, 11:40 PM
Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

I'm very well aware that the tax payers are going to get screwed. That is future tense.
But maybe one of the reasons it will cost the taxpayers is because they became so large they can not be allowed to fail, and that is what she said and what the man quoted from the middle of July said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flippy

Sam
Sep 9 2008, 05:25 PM
Andoo Inc.
Sep 8 2008, 11:40 PM
Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

I'm very well aware that the tax payers are going to get screwed. That is future tense.
But maybe one of the reasons it will cost the taxpayers is because they became so large they can not be allowed to fail, and that is what she said and what the man quoted from the middle of July said.
The government makes profits private and losses public.

That is why the taxpayers will eat these losses.

All the while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEO's are cashing in the fat bonus checks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
Sam
Sep 9 2008, 05:25 PM
Andoo Inc.
Sep 8 2008, 11:40 PM
Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

I'm very well aware that the tax payers are going to get screwed. That is future tense.
But maybe one of the reasons it will cost the taxpayers is because they became so large they can not be allowed to fail, and that is what she said and what the man quoted from the middle of July said.
You keep talking about the future. She made a direct reference to the tax payers of today.

When she says

"gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

she either misquoted herself (aka her speech writer) or was so vague on the issue it would make you wonder anywho. That really is scary considering come November this country is going to vote on its leaders to make decisions about FNMA and foreign policy.

I'm not a big Obama fan, but Sam as you can clearly see in this video he got it right by saying we can't bail out the shareholders.


There shouldn't be such a distinct difference in clarity. Whether or not you believe this country is corrupt as it is, it won't change the fact that you should want a coherent leader talking to the world and especially on domestic issues that have gone sour.


Edited by Andoo Inc., Sep 9 2008, 10:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mumin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsKI77iaF8k
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/091008a.html

and apparently she's okay with destroying constitutional rights. Can anyone look this bad this fast,,,,,oh wait she's John McCain's VP and somehow people want to talk about her glasses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk&feature=user

Matt Damon rips into Palin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

The Matt Damon rip from above is amazing! "According to actuary tables, there's a 1-in-3 chance of McCain not lasting out his first term, then we have VP Hockey-Mom facing down Putin!" :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam

Andoo Inc.
Sep 9 2008, 10:39 PM
Sam
Sep 9 2008, 05:25 PM
Andoo Inc.
Sep 8 2008, 11:40 PM
Sam
Sep 8 2008, 09:10 PM
You don't think there is a good chance they are going to cost the taxpayers lots of money?
To me her comment in no way indicates she is unintelligent. How well do you understand what they may cost the taxpayers?

Here is an article from long before the takeover. July 14

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080714/mortgage_giants_crisis.html

Quote:
 
Now that the federal government has thrown a lifeline to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers could be on the hook for billions more if the crisis of confidence spreads
.

Quote:
 
Critics have warned for years that Fannie and Freddie had grown too large, with not enough of a financial cushion.

"They have been allowed to grow out of control to the point where they must be backed by the U.S. government," said Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic. "We have just ... allowed ourselves to become hostage to these two institutions."

I'm very well aware that the tax payers are going to get screwed. That is future tense.
But maybe one of the reasons it will cost the taxpayers is because they became so large they can not be allowed to fail, and that is what she said and what the man quoted from the middle of July said.
You keep talking about the future. She made a direct reference to the tax payers of today.

When she says

"gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

she either misquoted herself (aka her speech writer) or was so vague on the issue it would make you wonder anywho. That really is scary considering come November this country is going to vote on its leaders to make decisions about FNMA and foreign policy.

I'm not a big Obama fan, but Sam as you can clearly see in this video he got it right by saying we can't bail out the shareholders.


There shouldn't be such a distinct difference in clarity. Whether or not you believe this country is corrupt as it is, it won't change the fact that you should want a coherent leader talking to the world and especially on domestic issues that have gone sour.


Did the shareholders get bailed out. I did not think so but the current taxpayers are going to foot most of the bills if the mortgages start failing.
I know little about her but she is not dumb and her statement there do not indicate she is. I do agree with her stance on abortion and probably disagree on most other points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
what part of to expensive to the taxpayers seems like a statement in regards to the future.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1


look at the comments, there are people who were not decided on the McCain vote, but after this interview people are sold on the McCain/Palin vote. What kind of questions are those. Can't we discuss the serious matters in a more detailed limelight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hiphopopotamus
Member Avatar

Fannie and Freddie being picked up by the government is for both the shareholders and the people who have debts with them. I guarantee that the people who are against it would be singing a different tune if it meant them being forclosed on or losing a ton of retirement money in their 401k. Even if don't directly benefit from it, there will be a net gain for the economy by it being picked up over the foreseeable long term.

Oh.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews?

I'm just gonna sit back and wait for her to talk again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Ready to Lead?: Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is
By: SilentPatriot @ 8:11 PM - PDT

To his credit, Charlie Gibson actually did a pretty good job of grilling Sarah Palin in her first interview since accepting the Republican nomination. When asked whether or not she agrees with the Bush Doctrine — the idea that the United States should be able to reserve the right to launch unprovoked attacks on nations deemed a threat to us — a visibly confused Palin simply doesn’t know how to respond coherently.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Cernig wonders: The Most Dangerous Woman In The World?

For more on the Bush Doctrine, see Jon Perr’s great series of posts:

The Death of the Bush Doctrine

This Just In From Afghanistan: Bush Doctrine Still Dead

The Myth of the Bush Doctrine

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/11/ready-to-lead-palin-doesnt-know-what-the-bush-doctrine-is/



McCain Voted Against Biden Law Requiring Free Rape Exams. Sarah Palin, When Mayor of Wasilla, Charged Rape Victims for Exams to Prove That They Were Raped. This is a Ticket That Isn't Even Compassionate to Rape Victims, But Sarah Palin Pays Guys Who Shoot Wolves From Airplanes $150 in Taxpayer Money for Each Front Left Paw. Perverse.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/165456/985/717/595263



Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam
By George Bryson | Anchorage Daily News

Two state leaders lashed out at the public record of Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday as witnesses in a new "Alaska Mythbusters" forum coordinated by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Speaking to a teleconference audience of reporters around the nation, former Gov. Tony Knowles and current Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein -- both Democrats -- accused Palin of misleading the public in her new role as the vice presidential running mate of Arizona Sen. John McCain.

While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter's question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor.

True, Knowles said.

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

An effort to reach Fannon by phone Wednesday was not successful.

Knowles and Weinstein also went after the Republican ticket on several statements now airing in campaign ads around the nation, including Palin's claim that she opposed federal money for the "bridge to nowhere."

The governor has refused to acknowledge her explicit support for the $230 million Gravina Island Access Project in her effort to sound more like an anti-earmark reformer to a national audience, Weinstein said.

And she still supports spending $400 million to $600 million on "the other Bridge to Nowhere," the Knik Arm Crossing, which would provide residents in Palin's hometown of Wasilla faster access to Anchorage, Knowles added.

"That project is moving right ahead," said Knowles, who served as governor of Alaska from 1994 to 2002. "The money for that project was not diverted anywhere else. ... So (for her) to say she said, 'Thanks, but no thanks....' I would say she said, 'Thanks!'"

A phone call to Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the Alaska office of the McCain-Palin campaign, was not returned Wednesday.

However, the Republican side lost little time in organizing a national truth squad of its own to battle what it considers "smears" of Palin by Democrats. A list of the names of more than 50 members of a Palin truth team, posted Monday on the Atlantic Monthly magazine Web site, included three Alaskans: Stapleton (a former Palin aide); Kristan Cole, a longtime friend; and Republican Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

As a former governor, Knowles said, he's reluctant to criticize an active governor. But he decided to make an exception with Palin.

"In this situation it's not just a sitting governor," he said. "Our current governor is a candidate for the vice presidency and a heartbeat away from the presidency."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html
Edited by mynameis, Sep 12 2008, 02:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reggie_perrin

Yep she as dumb as Bush alright, in a interview yesterday she said that she wouldn't rule out WAR WITH RUSSIA>......RUSSIA FFS, This is a country armed to the teeth with HYDROGEN BOMBS capable of destroying the planet many times over, and she say we "may have to go to war" with them :O I'm actually speechless, the stupidity is of levels I have not witnessed, and I've just witness 8 years of insane neo-con rule, she thinks "we may" have to go to war with Russia because of a boarder dispute with Georgia ??????

This is insanity .

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=342187
Edited by Reggie_perrin, Sep 12 2008, 08:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Friends shouldn't let friends vote wrong. Make it an Independent Map.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skunkrider
Member Avatar

I have a question about the US-American voting system.

Do you have only 2 options on the actual ballot, or are those two only the most probable and therefore attractive ones?

My point is that if there are only 2 options, don't vote.
If there are more than 2 option, vote what's coming closest to your conviction or just something, but not
the two big ones.

If the election machinery won't fake a result anyhow..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-pali.html

I can't keep up with her. She's just too fast at this
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply