YouTube: Hope Don’t pay my Bills

By Reuters Staff
December 31, 2007

I disagree completely with this video’s conclusions. I will explain why in my next post. Still, it’s pretty darn creative and worthy of posting here.

6 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Some of the GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are privately owned but publicly chartered; others, such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, are owned by the corporations that use their services. Their lenders grant them favorable interest rates, and the buyers of their securities offer them high prices, as the implicit involvement of the Federal government gives them a sense of financial security.In fact, GSE securities carry no explicit government guarantee.

Posted by pengbert | Report as abusive

That’s a good thread for discussion: what WOULD happen if Fan/Fred become insolvent and the government DOESN’T bail out their debtholders?In my mind, the “implicit” guarantee is enough to put taxpayers in danger. Can you imagine the financial carnage if FNM/FRE go bust and the government backed off its implicit guarantee? You’d have a run on Fannie/Freddie bonds and the whole mortgage-backed securities market, and by extension mortgage finance in general, would be in serious jeopardy.

Posted by RW | Report as abusive

I think that FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)is the same. It is only has implicit government backing. This statement:“full faith and credit of the United States Government stands behind the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its deposit insurance fund.” is a political statement not a legally binding statement.- Arlen

Posted by Arlen | Report as abusive

God forbid that you would actively support a Ron Paul candidacy just because he has been right on every issue facing the American public this election year!

Posted by Dennis | Report as abusive

Ron Paul. As far back as 2002, Mr. Paul – whose candidacy I’m not actively supporting ……….Why the negative? The article was very good other than that!So everytime you quote a politician you make sure you note I supported this guy or I don’t support this guy?Well not by the other articles I have read of yours! You just quote them or mention them! So why the Ron Paul snide remark? Rolfe Winkler I have read a few of his articles he seems to hit the nail on the head — but he is a writer that I don’t actively read! Seems kinda weird don’t it?

Posted by so-n-so | Report as abusive

we have long followed been aware of the subjects we hear from Dr. Paul…In this diffcult time of sorting truth from fiction and of re-assessing previously held positions, it is curious to us that you hold Dr. Paul to such a strict standard when he supposed previous positions are all contained in ‘newsletters’. Why not look to his ‘talk the talk and walk the walk’ congressional votes and submitted legislation – no other candidate in either party has such an illustrious committment to the constituion, smaller goverment and personal responsibility – they only know about ‘pandering’! Marie White, Arkansas

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

[...] to see the NYT jumping on board the argument I made in January on the op-ed page of the Baltimore Sun (hat tip JJW) (update: the CS Monitor is joining [...]

[...] the housing market may be a fait accompli…..but done correctly it probably doesn’t have to be a huge burden for taxpayers. [...]