Fox News' Varney, on-air graphics misrepresented the projected cost of housing bill
SUMMARY: Fox News' Stuart Varney misrepresented the cost of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, falsely asserting that the "House, right now, [is] voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill." During the segment, on-air captions read "$300B Bailout Bill," and "House Voting On $300B Housing Bailout Bill." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill "would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by about $24.9 billion over the 2008-2018 period."
During the July 23 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Stuart Varney misrepresented the cost of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, falsely asserting that the "House, right now, [is] voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill." During the segment, on-air captions read "$300B Bailout Bill," and "House Voting On $300B Housing Bailout Bill." In fact, while the legislation authorizes the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, among several other provisions in the bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, in total, the bill "would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by about $24.9 billion over the 2008-2018 period."
As Media Matters for America documented, Your World has previously falsely asserted that a separate housing bill, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act, which also authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in loans, would cost $300 billion. On the May 7 edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto said of that bill: "[Congress is] about to spend a lot of capital -- try 300 billion bucks of capital, the price tag of a housing rescue package virtually assured a thumbs up in Congress, and equally assured a thumbs down by President Bush." During the segment, an on-air graphic read, "House lawmakers set to pass $300B housing bill; bailout?" In fact, while the legislation would also have authorized the FHA to insure up to $300 billion in homeownership retention loans for qualified homeowners, the CBO estimated that loans that would be insured under the new program would total about $85 billion, at an estimated cost to the government of $1.7 billion over the 2008-2013 period.
From the July 23 broadcast of Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto:
VARNEY: And a live look at Capitol Hill. The House, right now, voting on that $300 billion housing bailout bill. The president just saying he is gonna sign it. [Rep.] Ron Paul [R-TX] is furious and he's here.
[...]
VARNEY: A live look at Capitol Hill, House members inside right now voting on that $300 billion bailout bill. The president saying today will sign it even though Democrats tacked billions on to it. My next guest voting against it. Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Congressman, good to have you with us, thanks for being here.
He will go down in History as one of 4 or 5 worst Presidents.
Almost correct. He is already regarded as the WORST president by many historians (and a large % of the public as well).
Now THERE'S the attitude partisan Americans have come to know and love: "Lies are GOOD, when they're in your favor."
Our country eradicated witchcraft with that way of thinking. And aren't you glad there aren't any more witches around? Just think how much progress can be made if we'll only deny reality when it doesn't conform to our preconceptions. We might in the near future have more people in houses with normally unaffordable mortgages than at any point in history, with a rising real estate market, a Dow at 20k, and a dollar that's once again the admiration of the world!
The rules around here aren't mine. Of course I would like ALL misinformation to be shown here, but this site is for conservative misinformation only.
MMFA is the partisan of which you speak, not me.
The rules around here aren't mine. Of course I would like ALL misinformation to be shown here, but this site is for conservative misinformation only.
That's because there IS no such thing as "liberal misinformation" We speak the truth.
Yes, that's a defensible position, while "we speak the truth" isn't.
I think the MRC provides some of the best evidence of this, since they don't focus on "misinformation" but "bias" instead. And "bias" can be proven by the mere citation of a poll that doesn't reflect very well on Republican policies (which I've seen there). If there was a comparable amount of "liberal misinformation", I would think they would focus on those more legitimate complaints.
"...but this site is for conservative misinformation only."
My fault. I read you as "what are you all whining about?". The only thing that might dispute what you wrote is that it's misinformation coming from supposed conservatives. Whether or not they're smart enough to produce EFFECTIVE misinformation is a separate matter.
Other than that, I'm with you in preferring a non-partisan misinformation watchdog, but this is fun too.
Let me take a stab at it. Normally the liberal default position is to always underestimate the cost of anything related to government expenditures, err on the most conservative (ironic, huh?) estimate available to soften any "ouch" reaction it may have for us, the taxpayers.
:)
Normally the liberal default position is to always underestimate the cost of anything related to government expenditures, err on the most conservative (ironic, huh?) estimate available to soften any "ouch" reaction it may have for us, the taxpayers. - tommy
So liberals don't pay taxes now?
Ahh yes..
to soften any "ouch" reaction it may have for us, the taxpayers. - tommy.
You differentiated between "us the taxpayers" and liberals ("Normally the liberal default position") which would indicate the "liberals" are not part of "us the taxpayers".
For someone who purports to hold special knowledge about the meaning of words, you really don't understand their meaning and use very well.
Wow - still don't get it.
Words have meanings. What you posted is not what you think you posted.
Nice to have your nonsense back though.
"Normally the liberal default position is to always underestimate the cost of anything related to government expenditures"
Your twisted fantasy version of liberalism was rampant in the Bush Administration, yet few if any conservatives saw fit to call B.S.
Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
You're right, I should have been more specific - while Bush and Co. underestimated Iraq from day 1, and I am more than happy to hold their feet to the fire on that mess, as I have stated here often.......nonetheless, I should narrowed the liberal default position to domestic spending.
Thanks for the call for accuracy.
Therefore, we can conclude that the conservative default position is to always defer the cost of anything related to overseas conflict to future generations.
From my understanding, the bill does not only contain a bail-out for Fannie May/Freddie Mac, but also many homeowners directly. Pres. Bush has threatened to veto any help for individual homeowners, so this bailing out of the FM's is an attempt by Democrats to addend such help to something that will get Republican support. I've heard that the 300 billion dollar bail out may not cost us a cent since it's a confidence thing (NPR), although it could also cost us 300 billion. I've heard a reasonable estimate is actually in the single digit billions, though. Time would tell. The homeowner thing would cost tens of billions in addition to the couple billions for FM's. In this way, framing the issue as a scary financial investment undermines the democrats position. This is why it is considered conservative misinformation.
Hmmm, maybe fox is too scared to answer. No wonder, they didn't even have the courage to accept a petition with 600,000 signatures asking them to stop airing racist, devisive commentary...
One of their live shots had a reporter on the beach, describing how rough the seas were and how really, really windy it was.
Then an old shirtless man walks into the shot, looking ready to wade into the surf. Priceless.
We should be so lucky if every Spending Bill passed only cost us 8-10% of the "face value" of the bill instead of the 2, 3, 4 x "face value" as is normal.
VARNEY IS DEAD ON WITH THE NUMBERS! People in the know understand that this is similar to the S&L Bailout, we were told then that the cost would be $25 bil. ended up being just over $125 bil. The problem now is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have about $54 bil in reserves against a total of $8.2 trillion in loans. Many of the loans are subprme ($300 bil+) and there is no way that they will lose only about 10% ($25 bil) on those loans. Just on subprime, they will probably lose about $100 bill, based on how Countrywide's portfolio is performing. Fannie and Freddie took part in "Alternative A Lending", which means they bought into the "no income verification" and "stated income" loans, just like everyone else in trouble now. I bet they wish now they did not compete with Indymac Bank and Countrywide for those loans!
We have been sold a bill of goods by congress if this is law. I would rather they (Freddie and Fannie) take their medicine now and get it over with.