Paul Krugman provides data on why GOP's Fannie/Freddie narrative is false...

[Wetzelbill]

This is from his blog, the if you go to the link you can click on the info he provides. -WB

Fannie Freddie data

Some readers have asked for data showing that Fannie and Freddie did not play a key role in the housing bubble. Mark Thoma has a good picture, link here.

The two lines to track are the ones at the top. One shows the share of mortgages accounted for by S&Ls, the other the share accounted for by agency-backed pools — i.e., Fannie/Freddie mortgages. Fannie and Freddie did get very big in the 90s, basically filling the hole left by the S&Ls. But they pulled back sharply after 2003, just when housing really got crazy.

So who drove the bubble? The blue line, “asset-backed securities issuers.” Notice, by the way, that these were not depository institutions — and therefore not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

Once again, the whole Fannie/Freddie/liberal mandates story is phony.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/fannie-freddie-data/

[blueclown]

1. I really wish the Dems did a better job of fighting back against this narrative.

The right wing slime machine does a good job of pushing fiction as fact with the help of conservative hate radio. We let these untrue lies fester. There were very few Democrats who were willing to defend Fannie and Freddie and set the record straight. Meanwhile, you had a chorus of right wing smear merchants on television all day parading this narrative and nobody called them out on it.

[Wetzelbill]

4. Republicans have cultivated for decades

a network that allows them to frame the debate in their favor. That and they state outright lies with such unblinking certainty that it makes almost anybody naturally sit back and wonder for a second if it's true. Also, they spread fictions that take more than a soundbite to debunk and if you try to do it they end up making a whole argument about something that isn't even relevent to the real issue. It's partly why Republicans are good when they don't have control of one of the branches of government, because they can hold certain powers to the fire by framing the debate a certain way and railing against them. Like with Bill Clinton for example. Or the catch-all "government."

Bush and the GOP ran into trouble because you can't exactly blame government or a branch of it when you're the one in charge and creating a wholly awful mess out of it. When they get in charge they simply cannot govern properly, they don't know how, all they really know how to do is rail against an enemy. That enemy might be the Soviets, it might be Liberals, it might be Bill Clinton, it might be terrorists, but they always need something to fight against otherwise they are lost, because they have no real governing philosophy. They do have narrative though, and they can still push it and not get called on it, but few people actually believe them nowadays. When Republicans open their mouths, most people call bullshit on it. That's why we have a Dem Congress and President-Elect. Still you're right, I'd like to see them called on it more often.

[blueclown]

5. They have an excellent and well-coordinated surrogate system.

And by excellent, I meant well-executed.

The Dems could learn a few things about surrogate work from the GOP.

[Fla Dem]

2. Unfortunately, if you can't explain it in a sound bite, most American wouldn't get it.

Your average American probably does not understand "asset-backed securities". What they heard and think they know is that the Dems pushed for substandard loansto people who could not aford them and "Fannie and Freddie" went crazy issuing them. When in reality, Freddie and Fannie don't issue mortgages.

[Wetzelbill]

3. exactly right on all counts

They don't issue them! It drives me nuts when I hear that.