Palin’s public lie about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s private status

Room for subjective, indirect meaning - +0 Lies

From a speech Sarah Palin gave in Colorado Springs:

[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have] gotten too big and too expensive to taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private enterprises publicly traded on the NYSE. Though chartered by the government, since going fully private decades ago they have held no direct costs to taxpayers.

From Fannie Mae’s website:

In 1968, Fannie Mae was re-chartered by Congress as a shareholder-owned company, funded solely with private capital raised from investors on Wall Street and around the world.

From Freddie Mac’s website:

In fact, Freddie Mac is one of the nation’s largest federal taxpayers. Freddie Mac is owned by its shareholders and, like other corporations, is accountable to its shareholders and a board of directors.

There you have it. About the only thing public here is the setting for Palin’s lie.

Editor’s note: it could be argued that this was a misspeak on her part. If she comes out and corrects it, we will reconsider this as a lie.

Update: It has been pointed out that though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies, therefore bearing no direct financial costs to taxpayers, Palin’s statement could be a reference to indirect costs. In that sense, you could reasonably infer any private enterprise or citizen is “too expensive to taxpayers”. We’ve removed the point and adjusted the score according.

Tags:

4 Responses to “Palin’s public lie about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s private status”

  1. CJJScout Says:

    Roh roe! Who owns them now, bitch!

  2. Greg Luce Says:

    The Fed took them over ~ September 6, but it was publicly accepted that this was coming AFAIK in June of this year. Some reports estimate the government’s cash injection ultimately could be between $15 billion and $20 billion to save these 2.

    To improve your legitimacy perhaps you should take this one off the board. It makes no sense.

  3. Nathan Clark Says:

    Hey Greg - we actually pulled this one off the count a couple days ago because of the possibility of inference of an indirect cost. It’s worth noting that while I agree with your point about possible (and even likely) government costs, at the time of her statement the direct cost to the government was $0.

  4. eric Says:

    Yeah, this wasn’t a lie as much as Palin having no idea what she’s talking about.

Leave a Reply

Help evaluate and research "lie leads"

All lie leads >