Palinomics: no conservative she

[sylvar]

This article from Time Magazine is a pretty good outline of how Alaska is the ultimate welfare state: it receives more federal tax dollars than any other state in the union. It gives its residents handouts, thanks to a windfall profits tax on oil (a tax supported by Obama and opposed by McCain

Comments

[lovelypsyche]

Oh, you forgot the one where she allows the police department to charge rape victims for the medical exams that collect rape evidence.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txta

[sylvar]

While repugnant, that seems at least to be in line with fiscal conservatism: pay for government services only when you use them.

[lovelypsyche]

I know, I just don't like the woman. It's just disgusting that she has the lax spending of a Democrat and the social conservatism of a Republican. It's the worst of both worlds.

[magnoliafly]

Yep. She scares the shit out of me.

I passed this on to a few co-workers.

[mariness]

And, in the midst of a housing crisis, she was under the impression that Fannie and Freddie Mae were government entities.

Receiving a freakishly huge federal bailout, sure. Actual government entities, not so much.

Mind you, I have no issues with most people not knowing this -- but a governor should be vaguely aware of the difference.

[danasdream]

Actually, it's Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC), and both were governmentally created entities. FNMA stands for Federal National Mortgage Association, and FHLMC for Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. They are both GSEs (government supported enterprises) who would never have been created without government action and are backed by the US Government, implicitly. That's why they are getting a bailout. Their products have always gotten higher yields because of the perception that they are backed by the government. Fannie and Freddie have also spent millions on lobbying and have received strong support from Democrats.

So, she may know more about that than you think.

[mariness]

I was aware that they were governmentally created entities. But there's a difference between "governmentally created" and "actual government entity." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae are private organizations with private stock and stockholders, which is not true, by definition, of government entities. Banks and savings and loans are also backed by the federal government to a certain degree. Perhaps you forgot the federal bailouts of savings and loans, or the federal money heading over to Bear Stearn, and probably heading over to Washington Mutual soon? And banks and savings and loans have also spent millions on lobbying and have received strong support from Democrats and Republicans, or did you miss that very pro-bank anti consumer bankruptcy bill passed not so long ago

[danasdream]

The thing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that many people don't understand, though, is that they were created by the government and the government feels they were created for a useful purpose. As such, from the time of their creation, they have been seen as government-backed, and it has been assumed (rightly, as it turns out) that if they failed or were in dire straits they would be "saved" by the government. So while it is a government-created private enterprise, it has always been assumed that the government was behind those entities. This is a different situation than the FDIC which is a depositor protection agency (similar to SIPC which protects securities investors). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both had serious accounting irregulaties in the last decade, and were fiercely defended by leading Democrats. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12923225/... )