Will The Last Honest Reporter Turn Out The Lights - A very good read!!

[btfoom]

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.....

The rest can be found at: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html (http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html)

[hokie4redskins]

Truth? And ruin the chances of an Obama presidency by exposing Democrat incompetence?

It's amazing how ignorant the left is. Cue the apologists in 3....2....1.

[Burgold]

Interesting that they label him a democrat and newspaper collumnist. To me, Orson Scott Card will always be a very fine author of fantasy and science fiction. Speaker for the Dead and Ender's Game are two major classics. I've read about a dozen of his novels and met him at a signing once. Nice guy.

Lives in Utah, I think and is a Mormon.

[The Evil Genius]

Truth? - You mean like the one where Freddie Mac paid off a GOP consulting firm to squash legislation on Fannie Mae?

Seems like both sides had their idiots to me.

Of course, what I really want the press to talk about is whose party led CIA trained and funded OBL back in the mid 80's.

;)

[JohnLockesGhost]

Well, someone on this board posted an editorial from the Washington Post a few days ago that nailed the issue. I was struck by its honesty and forthrightness. No hedging or obfuscation, just the facts.

[mjah]

No apologist here. But after watching the press lap up Bush/Cheney's case for war in Iraq, let's not insult each other's intelligence by pretending that the press only gets lazy when covering Democrat screwups.

The press lets us down no matter who causes the big problems. It's not a matter of being biased; it's a matter of being incompetent/incurious.

[USS Redskins]

Bill OReilly laid into Barney Frank about this a few weeks back and the left called him a jerk and a nutjob. Frank was sleeping with the guy in charge of one of the companies, for Gods sake!
I still dont understand how this is swept under the carpet... The Republicans should get a share of the blame too but it is pretty obvious the democrats were catering to their core and now we have to pay for it.
The press has already annointed his Barackness God and to a lesser extent, 44th President - so I imagine we will see the most beautiful Presidential/Press relationship in history.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Bill OReilly laid into Barney Frank about this a few weeks back and the left called him a jerk and a nutjob. Frank was sleeping with the guy in charge of one of the companies, for Gods sake!
I still dont understand how this is swept under the carpet... The Republicans should get a share of the blame too but it is pretty obvious the democrats were catering to their core and now we have to pay for it.
The press has already annointed his Barackness God and to a lesser extent, 44th President - so I imagine we will see the most beautiful Presidential/Press relationship in history.

I saw that interview here: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884590/

I thought O'Reilly's questioning was really juvenille.

[Larry]

Bill OReilly laid into Barney Frank about this a few weeks back and the left called him a jerk and a nutjob.

The fact that he is a jerk and a nutjob may have had something to do with that.

:)

[Mad Mike]

This was posted in another thread but it is the smoking gun that backs up what Card is saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

BTW. Card has long been a pundit. To read more of his insightful commentary go here...

The Ornery American
http://ornery.org/

[Larry]

But meanwhile, back to the OT:

There's a few holes in this often-repeated blame:

1) One Party has been in full control of the government for many years, recently. It isn't the Democrats. Yes I'm well aware that Congressmen do not always vote in Party lockstep, and it's certainly possible for a slim minority to successfully block a slim majority, if only a few members of the majority go along with it.

But it's a tough sell.

2) Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these bad loans were written by lenders who are exempt from the laws that the GOP wants to blame.

3) Many people (including myself) have trouble believing that laws passed in 92 led to the creation of millions of loans which now people can't pay. Is this problem being caused by millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16?

[Mad Mike]

But meanwhile, back to the OT:

There's a few holes in this often-repeated blame:

1) One Party has been in full control of the government for many years, recently. It isn't the Democrats. Yes I'm well aware that Congressmen do not always vote in Party lockstep, and it's certainly possible for a slim minority to successfully block a slim majority, if only a few members of the majority go along with it.

But it's a tough sell.

2) Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these bad loans were written by lenders who are exempt from the laws that the GOP wants to blame.

3) Many people (including myself) have trouble believing that laws passed in 92 led to the creation of millions of loans which now people can't pay. Is this problem being caused by millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16?

Translation: "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" :rolleyes:

[Larry]

My post:


But meanwhile, back to the OT:

There's a few holes in this often-repeated blame:

1) One Party has been in full control of the government for many years, recently. It isn't the Democrats. Yes I'm well aware that Congressmen do not always vote in Party lockstep, and it's certainly possible for a slim minority to successfully block a slim majority, if only a few members of the majority go along with it.

But it's a tough sell.

2) Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these bad loans were written by lenders who are exempt from the laws that the GOP wants to blame.

3) Many people (including myself) have trouble believing that laws passed in 92 led to the creation of millions of loans which now people can't pay. Is this problem being caused by millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16?

Your post:


Translation: "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" :rolleyes:

Which one of these people is covering up his ears, acting like a three year old, and ignoring facts?

[MurrayH81]

I agree with some of Card's points. It is clear that the Democratic Party made significant mistakes with Fannie/Freddie and the policies that they put forth. No argument there.

It is also true that during the 6 years of Republican control, the situation was not rectified.

It is also true that many of these financial companies were deregulated and a blind eye was turned towards their derivatives, securites and swaps, during the 6 years of Republican control and afterwards.

We can (I hope) all agree that the mess the Democratic Party started snowballed into a bi-Partisan mess.

This may be the real reason that the press isn't handling it. Because the American people, reviewing the complete facts, would toss all these partisan criminals under the bus (leaving -most likely- Ron Paul as the only congressional Rep that didnt vote for any of this stuff). What would they write about then?

[Larry]

Actually, I'd say that the main reason the press isn't covering this deeper is because the situation can't be explained in two sentences or less.

[Predicto]

Orson Scott Card is only a Democrat in his own fantasy world. The only "Democratic" position he ever takes is that he supports gun control. He heartily endorsed Bush/Cheney in 04, and McCain/Palin in 08.

I don't find this polemic any more persuasive than any of his other polemics. He wants to take a complicated problem, simplify it to the point of stupidity, and then blame it on the other guys based on his own simplistic analysis.

[Mad Mike]

That's not translation. That's your self description.

Wow. You sure crushed me. :D

Maybe you should spend more time forming logical arguments if you think the argument is that "millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16" Do you really think that anyone saying that this mess was caused by people suddenly unable to pay loans "now"? Are you unable to process the facts of this issue?

Really. How blind do you have to be not to be able to see how the problem was slow to develop? How blind do you have to be not to understand that all Card is asking for an REAL investigation? How DUMB do you have to be not to want one?

But hey. You keep telling yourself what an ass I am and sticking your head in the sand. I seems to work well for you.
:cheers:

[Predicto]

Really. How blind do you have to be not to be able to see how the problem was slow to develop? How blind do you have to be not to understand that all Card is asking for an REAL investigation? How DUMB do you have to be not to want one?



Read it again. Card is not asking for a "real investigation."

He is asking for the press to blame the Democrats, and only the Democrats.


Because he himself is, you know, a Democrat and all that. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Orson Scott Card is only a Democrat in his own fantasy world. The only "Democratic" position he ever takes is that he supports gun control. He heartily endorsed Bush/Cheney in 04, and McCain/Palin in 08.

I don't find this polemic any more persuasive than any of his other polemics. He wants to take a complicated problem, simplify it to the point of stupidity, and then blame it on the other guys based on his own simplistic analysis.

That's right. And I'm a republican because I support the war, even though I'm going to vote for Obama.

And as for him simplifying the problem, I don't hear you complaining about democrats blaming republicans now do I? And I ask you the same question I asked Larry.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM WITH ASKING REPORTERS TO INVESTIGATE? :doh:

[Predicto]

That's right. And I'm a republican because I support the war, even though I'm going to vote for Obama.

And as for him simplifying the problem, I don't hear you complaining about democrats blaming republicans now do I? And I ask you the same question I asked Larry.

WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM WITH ASKING REPORTERS TO INVESTIGATE? :doh:

NOTHING! (allcaps! whoo!)

But that is not what he is saying.


This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them....

He is saying: "Tell the story the way I, Orson Scott Card, want you to tell it. And do it QUICKLY, before the election!"

[Mad Mike]

Read it again. Card is not asking for a "real investigation."

He is asking for the press to blame the Democrats, and only the Democrats.


Because he himself is, you know, a Democrat and all that. :laugh:

Yeah because true democrats support their party over principles and never disagree. :rolleyes:

"I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know."

"Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper."

Watch that video and tell me that there should be no investigation. Go ahead and tell me how it was all because of the evil republicans as people have been allowed to believe. PLEASE.

[Mad Mike]

He is saying: "Tell the story the way I, Orson Scott Card, want you to tell it. And do it QUICKLY, before the election!"

Yet you have no problem with people saying it's all the republicans fault do you?

How predictable. :rolleyes:

[Predicto]

Watch that video and tell me that there should be no investigation. Go ahead and tell me how it was all because of the evil republicans as people have been allowed to believe. PLEASE.

For the 333rd time - of course there should be an investigation, and no, it was not all the fault of the evil Republicans.

[Predicto]

Yet you have no problem with people saying it's all the republicans fault do you?

How predictable. :rolleyes:

Link me to some Tailgate post where I ever said that - or eat a big bowl of STFU.

The causes of this crisis are multiple, and culpable parties can be found all over the place. Orson Scott Card wants it to be about the eveevul Democrats only. That is all that I have taken objection to here.

[alexey]

Considering the kind of stuff the media has been letting Republicans get away with, I'd say they are either seriously biased against Dems or simply unable to do any quality investigative reporting.

[alexey]

Mike,

Larry laid out several valid points, which he numbered for your convenience. Your response to him was disrespectful. Clearly you are not capable of meaningfully engaging him in a civil discussion. Please try to refrain from posting here and disrespecting fellow ES members.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

This is almost as ironic as Sean Hannity saying "2008 will go down as the year journalism died"

[Mad Mike]

Mike,

Larry laid out several valid points, which he numbered for your convenience. Your response to him was disrespectful. Clearly you are not capable of meaningfully engaging him in a civil discussion. Please try to refrain from posting here and disrespecting fellow ES members.

OK Mom. :silly:

[aREDSKIN]

Considering the kind of stuff the media has been letting Republicans get away with, I'd say they are either seriously biased against Dems or simply unable to do any quality investigative reporting.



You just don't haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. :rolleyes:



FYI for all the partisians.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

[MurrayH81]

You just don't haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

Perhaps their perspective is just different.

[Hubbs]

The points made in the OP generally make sense to me; the one thing that doesn't is the time lapse. What other factors made this thing last for 16 years?

[mjah]

Really. How blind do you have to be not to be able to see how the problem was slow to develop? How blind do you have to be not to understand that all Card is asking for an REAL investigation? How DUMB do you have to be not to want one?

That was uncalled for. Larry deserves far better than that, even from those who don't.

Even my sig is in better taste.

Deep breath. This is just the Internet. We all do it sometimes, but personal attacks very rarely make the other guy look bad.

[Predicto]

And what makes anyone think that no reporters are out there investigating this, right now?

Mr. Card is assuming all of the following:

1) The Democrats were at fault

2) No one is out there investigating

3) the only reason the reporters are not investigating is because they are in the bag for the Democrats

4) since the reporters already must know that it was the Democrats fault.


That is a laughably weak argument, bordering on paranoia.

[Mad Mike]

I'm going to say this before I sign off of this thread.

Journalism. REAL journalism is dead. Attack Card all you want. Attack me all you want. All you are doing is evading the issue. Democracy cannot survive if the press does not inform the public. Allowing people like Pelosi to blame Republicans without challenge is criminal negligence.

The bulk of the blame DOES fall on the dems. They (with good intentions - to be fair) pushed for things like zero down mortgages to under qualified borrowers. and when problems started showing up with the system, they fought the effort to fix things. It's a clear path that isn't hard to follow IF you are willing to look and it SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

If you have a different take on it; if you have video showing Democrats saying we are heading for a crash years before it happened with republicans telling them everything was OK, why don't you share it with us.

If not, all I hear are partizan attacks on someone calling for an investigation and making a clear logical case for it. In my book, that makes you part of the problem.

[Larry]

Maybe you should spend more time forming logical arguments. . .

You mean like


Translation: "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" :rolleyes:


if you think the argument is that "millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16" Do you really think that anyone saying that this mess was caused by people suddenly unable to pay loans "now"?

Then why is it a crisis now?

I have no trouble at all believing that foreclosures don't happen instantly. If you were to say that this problem, today, is due to loans written 2 years ago, and their low introductory payments are up, now, then I'd have no trouble believing you.

But as I said. If you want to claim that the problem is solely due to a law that was passed 15 years ago, then you're going to have a tough sell. You're going to have to come up with a reason why that law caused a problem 15 years later. (Not just an op-ed piece that lists every bad thing they can think of that involves Democrats, while carefully ignoring any fact that doesn't fit the template.)

For example, you could start by explaining why, if this law is supposedly the sole villain, why the bad loans are coming from people who are exempt from the law.


Are you unable to process the facts of this issue?

Obviously not, since I've mentioned some. Unlike, I'll point out, yourself.


How blind do you have to be not to understand that all Card is asking for an REAL investigation?

Could you point to me the place where he asks for an investigation?

What I see is a list of unconnected talking points, with no attempt whatsoever to construct an underlying theory, and which seems to pretend that other facts that don't fit the agenda don't exist.


But hey. You keep telling yourself what an ass I am and sticking your head in the sand. I seems to work well for you.
:cheers:

My post:


But meanwhile, back to the OT:

There's a few holes in this often-repeated blame:

1) One Party has been in full control of the government for many years, recently. It isn't the Democrats. Yes I'm well aware that Congressmen do not always vote in Party lockstep, and it's certainly possible for a slim minority to successfully block a slim majority, if only a few members of the majority go along with it.

But it's a tough sell.

2) Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these bad loans were written by lenders who are exempt from the laws that the GOP wants to blame.

3) Many people (including myself) have trouble believing that laws passed in 92 led to the creation of millions of loans which now people can't pay. Is this problem being caused by millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16?

Your post:


Translation: "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" :rolleyes:

Which one of these people is covering up his ears, acting like a three year old, and ignoring facts?

[brandymac27]

Even Card said this whole thing started back in the 90's. Take a look at Congress. Wasn't it a republican majority back then (correct me if I'm wrong b/c I don't really remember), but if it was, then EVERYONE is at fault.

[Predicto]

I'm going to say this before I sign off of this thread.

Journalism. REAL journalism is dead. Attack Card all you want. Attack me all you want. All you are doing is evading the issue. Democracy cannot survive if the press does not inform the public. Allowing people like Pelosi to blame Republicans without challenge is criminal negligence.

The bulk of the blame DOES fall on the dems. They (with good intentions - to be fair) pushed for things like zero down mortgages to under qualified borrowers. and when problems started showing up with the system, they fought the effort to fix things. It's a clear path that isn't hard to follow IF you are willing to look and it SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

If you have a different take on it; if you have video showing Democrats saying we are heading for a crash years before it happened with republicans telling them everything was OK, why don't you share it with us.

If not, all I hear are partizan attacks on someone calling for an investigation and making a clear logical case for it. In my book, that makes you part of the problem.



Here's how I read your post.

"I, MadMike, believe that the Democrats are at fault. I also believe that no one is investigating this, because no one is blaming at the Democrats enough. I have little basis for my belief, but I think it is up to the rest of you to prove me wrong, to my satisfaction."

:whoknows: Not very compelling.

[Mad Mike]

That was uncalled for. Larry deserves far better than that, even from those who don't.

Even my sig is in better taste.

Deep breath. This is just the Internet. We all do it sometimes, but personal attacks very rarely make the other guy look bad.

Really? He deserves better but I don't? Nice. I'll refrain from the response I'm thinking.

[Larry]

I'm going to say this before I sign off of this thread.

Journalism. REAL journalism is dead. Attack Card all you want. Attack me all you want. All you are doing is evading the issue.

And yet, here you've made, what, a dozen posts in this thread? And the scoreboard, under "facts brought to the discussion" shows "Larry: 3 Mike:0".

Who's evading the issue?


The bulk of the blame DOES fall on the dems.

Then post some facts to support that conclusion.


They (with good intentions - to be fair) pushed for things like zero down mortgages to under qualified borrowers.

Utter BS. They passed laws preventing lenders from refusing to make loans to qualified borrowers in minority neighborhoods.

As at least one ES poster who has worked as a loan officer for 20 years has stated. Repeatedly. (And been ignored, by you. Because it can't easily be twisted into blaming one political party.)


If not, all I hear are partizan attacks

Perhaps if you'd take your fingers out of your ears, and quit shouting partisan attacks at the top of your lungs, then you'd hear something different.

"Pointing out that there are facts which don't fit your theory" is not "partisan attacks". "Refusing to discuss any fact which doesn't fit the agenda" is partisan.


on someone calling for an investigation and making a clear logical case for it.

You have done neither. You've provided a carefully selected list of talking points, and then stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted insults when people attempted to show you other information.

"Investigation" implies willingness to look at the facts. You continue to demonstrate that you have none.

[Mad Mike]

Here's how I read your post.

"I, MadMike, believe that the Democrats are at fault. I also believe that no one is investigating this, because no one is blaming at the Democrats enough. I have little basis for my belief, but I think it is up to the rest of you to prove me wrong, to my satisfaction."

:whoknows: Not very compelling.

WATCH THE VIDEO. Democrats saying nothing is wrong. Republicans saying that it could become a crisis. But no. That's not compelling. :rolleyes: Do you even listen to yourself?

And when and how did this start?....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

I'm outa here.

[TuckahoeSkin]

MadMike,

I agree with you.

While I seldom give up a fight, because I believe to leave a lie to stand unchecked is to allow it to be accepted as fact, you need to walk away from this one. The guys who are arguing against you are immune to facts. They will obscure details and muddy the arguments until nothing is ever settled. It does no good entering into a debate with those who ignore facts. To them, truth is relative -- based on perspective and "life experience." Gobbledigook. Taking the time to lay out a detailed, compelling argument and expecting them to comprehend and understand an opposing viewpoint is futile.

Be happy. Leave them alone to their echo chamber.

[Larry]

MadMike,

I agree with you.

While I seldom give up a fight, because I believe to leave a lie to stand unchecked is to allow it to be accepted as fact, you need to walk away from this one. The guys who are arguing against you are immune to facts.

Listen, you blithering idiot. "The people arguing with [Mike]" are the only people in this discussion who've brought any facts.

Frankly, I'm getting really effing tired of being accused of ignoring facts by people who are ignoring facts.

You want to accuse people of ignoring your facts? Bring some. And while you're at it, read the ones that are already here.

Explain to me how a law passed in '92 is causing the collapse of the world's economy, 15 years later. Are people who got mortgages 15 years ago, and who've been paying on them for 15 years, suddenly no longer able to pay their mortgages, today, because of a law that was passed 15 years ago?

Explain how a Party that hasn't been in control of Congress for 15 years forced the majority party to pass legislation that the majority didn't want.

Explain the observations from the ES poster (wish I could find his posts) who's been a loan approval officer for 20 years, who points out that

a) The law that was passed in '92 mandated loans to qualified buyers. Buyers with verified income, who had to put 20% down. And those loans aren't going bad. And

b) The vast majority of the loans that are going bad, were written by lenders who are exempt from the law that people are trying to blame.

[brandymac27]

Larry,

I wouldn't bother wasting any more time trying to explain yourself. They're not gonna get it b/c they don't want to get it.

[Burgundy Burner]

Even Card said this whole thing started back in the 90's. Take a look at Congress. Wasn't it a republican majority back then (correct me if I'm wrong b/c I don't really remember), but if it was, then EVERYONE is at fault.

Inacted in 1993. Dem congress and dem president. Consider yourself corrected.

[Burgundy Burner]

When the law was enacted in 1993, some of you are assuming that many people went out and purchased homes the next day. During the next year or so, there were some home buyers who used the law and got a home. Some of these people did not qualify under the old rules.

In the late '90s, ARMs (7/23 loans) became much more popular as interest rates contiuned to fall. Doing a quick re-fi saved many people from losing what they had. Also, this was at the height of the dot-com movement and many were using large stock options to purchase large homes - others were using their new dot-com jobs to get a first home. Again, a large number of them were purchased with an ARM.

By 2005 to 2007, these loans came due - in full. The dot-com went bust in 2000 and many of these people were merely hanging on, including those who took out sub-prime loans to survive. It finally went "kaboom" when these ARMs came due and very few people had the means to cover it.

Blame whoever you wish, but this is basically how it happened.

[brandymac27]

When the law was enacted in 1993, some of you are assuming that many people went out and purchased homes the next day. During the next year or so, there were some home buyers who used the law and got a home. Some of these people did not qualify under the old rules.

In the late '90s, ARMs (7/23 loans) became much more popular as interest rates contiuned to fall. Doing a quick re-fi saved many people from losing what they had. Also, this was at the height of the dot-com movement and many were using large stock options to purchase large homes - others were using their new dot-com jobs to get a first home. Again, a large number of them were purchased with an ARM.

By 2005 to 2007, these loans came due - in full. The dot-com went bust in 2000 and many of these people were merely hanging on, including those who took out sub-prime loans to survive. It finally went "kaboom" when these ARMs came due and very few people had the means to cover it.

Blame whoever you wish, but this is basically how it happened.
IMO, this is everybody's fault. The government, the banks, republican, democrat, and the home buyer. To think that only group of people is at fault here is ludicrous.

[Larry]

When the law was enacted in 1993, some of you are assuming that many people went out and purchased homes the next day. During the next year or so, there were some home buyers who used the law and got a home. Some of these people did not qualify under the old rules.

In the late '90s, ARMs (7/23 loans) became much more popular as interest rates contiuned to fall. Doing a quick re-fi saved many people from losing what they had. Also, this was at the height of the dot-com movement and many were using large stock options to purchase large homes - others were using their new dot-com jobs to get a first home. Again, a large number of them were purchased with an ARM.

By 2005 to 2007, these loans came due - in full. The dot-com went bust in 2000 and many of these people were merely hanging on, including those who took out sub-prime loans to survive. It finally went "kaboom" when these ARMs came due and very few people had the means to cover it.

Blame whoever you wish, but this is basically how it happened.

So your causal chain is that the Democrat Congress, in '93, passed a law that encouraged lending to poor, minority home buyers. And this law caused lots of dot com yuppies to buy houses five years later. And these loans, written to encourage poor, minority people to buy homes, required that the home be paid off in full, 10 years after purchase, and therefore those dot com yuppies are defaulting now?

[Larry]

IMO, this is everybody's fault. The government, the banks, republican, democrat, and the home buyer. To think that only group of people is at fault here is ludicrous.

Oh, I think it's a given that there isn't a simple way to assign blame.

Frankly, I doubt that there's single, complex explanation. I'd assume that, like most human things, how we got here is a chain of events, many of them unrelated to each other.

(Although I'd really like to have more information about it.)

[DjTj]

When the law was enacted in 1993, some of you are assuming that many people went out and purchased homes the next day. During the next year or so, there were some home buyers who used the law and got a home. Some of these people did not qualify under the old rules.

In the late '90s, ARMs (7/23 loans) became much more popular as interest rates contiuned to fall. Doing a quick re-fi saved many people from losing what they had. Also, this was at the height of the dot-com movement and many were using large stock options to purchase large homes - others were using their new dot-com jobs to get a first home. Again, a large number of them were purchased with an ARM.

By 2005 to 2007, these loans came due - in full. The dot-com went bust in 2000 and many of these people were merely hanging on, including those who took out sub-prime loans to survive. It finally went "kaboom" when these ARMs came due and very few people had the means to cover it.

Blame whoever you wish, but this is basically how it happened.If the victims of the dot-com bubble were "merely hanging on" between 2000 and 2005, why wouldn't they just sell their homes for massive profit? Why didn't they refinance when interest rates dropped significantly? It wouldn't make any sense to stick with a 10/1 ARM or even a 7/23 ARM through the early 2000's ... anyone that did so deserves to lose their home.

...I think there are is a very small number of people who got ARM's in the 90's, stayed in the same home without refinancing, and then defaulted during during the mortgage crisis last year. You would have to be an idiot to allow that to happen.

Now many of those people with 10/1 or 7/23 ARM's may have refinanced into shorter ARM's, and that could have caused big problems. I think that's the biggest culprit - it's the people with 2/1 or 3/1 ARM's or other balloon payment schemes on much shorter timeframes. Banks (and homeowners) can plan ahead on 10-year or 7-year timescales. It's much harder to budget for two years or three years, and banks were caught with too much debt when things changed too quickly.

Going back to 1993 doesn't make any sense ... you might as well go back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 or the creation of Fannie Mae in 1938.

[Mad Mike]

Listen, you blithering idiot.

Yeah; now there is someone deserving respect. :rolleyes:

[Mad Mike]

Let's simplify this. We can all agree that everyone helped to start this problem. Some more than others but let's let that drop. Leadership often means you make mistakes that need to be corrected.

In 2004 when the warning bells were sounding, when there was at least SOME chance of mitigating the damage, who was it that was raising the alarm? Who was it that fought a correction? Hmmmmm?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

[Burgold]

Or who was incapable of rallying the troops or getting enough bi-partisan action to get anything done?

Repubs have ruled the Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. The White House for 8 of the last 12 years. Were they impotent? Was McCain the great crosser and uniter of parties. My friends he knows how to do this. He's done this before. Was Senator McCain complicit or incapable of creating unity as he was incapable of creating unity when he halted his campaign to forge a bailout agreement between the parties.

[Larry]

What percentage of the bad loans that are causing this problem were written by Fannie/Freddie? In fact, what role do these entities play in this whole picture, at all?

How does this relate to that law, passed in '92, that people now want to blame for the whole thing?

What effect did the Republican Party's deregulation of banking, when Bush took office, have on this crisis? The laws allowing other corporations (who were not subject to banking regulations) to enter the banking business?

Which Party was in unchallenged control of the entire US Government in '04? Which Party was it that made encouraging home ownership a fundamental part of their campaign? And these hearing were being held for the purpose of changing Fannie and Freddie, but not any of the other players in the entire financial landscape, because . . . ?

-----

Has anybody, anywhere, actually compiled some numbers to explain where the typical loan got written and how it got to where it is now? Some kind of a "Joe the Plumber" icon that can (no matter how abstractly) represent this problem?

Maybe it would be easier to factually discuss this problem if there were a symbol that people (like me) could use to simplify the discussion.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Larry,

Read the article that began this thread. Look at the youtube video. They provide two pretty good answers to your question.


Burgold,

To your point of why weren't the Republicans in charge able to gather support and make the necessary changes, I would expect the fear of being portayed as racists dampened any attemps to do so. That youtube video showed Democratic legislators hinting or even accusing racisim when more regulation was called for. With the media stacked against them, and Democratic legislators grandstanding, how were the Republicans expected to take the issue further than they had? Especially on a complex issue that, at the time, hadn't reached a boiling point. Often in Washington, issues need to be elevated to crises before they are taken seriously. This is a point we shouldn't ignore in this.

Sincerely,
Your evil nemesis.

[Thiebear]

Or who was incapable of rallying the troops or getting enough bi-partisan action to get anything done?

Repubs have ruled the Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. The White House for 8 of the last 12 years. Were they impotent? Was McCain the great crosser and uniter of parties. My friends he knows how to do this. He's done this before. Was Senator McCain complicit or incapable of creating unity as he was incapable of creating unity when he halted his campaign to forge a bailout agreement between the parties.


Yes, Its McCains fault.. the guy that has stood up many times to say this is coming years ahead of time, and was told to sit your old ass down...



Dateline 2003 - New York Times:

. . .Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190 never made to the floor after a party line vote in committee indicated that Democratic opposition to it (mostly over amendments which would have stripped the GSEs of the ability to donate to politically-motivated "affordable housing" groups like ACORN) would have resulted in a filibuster.

[Larry]

Larry,

Read the article that began this thread. Look at the youtube video. They provide two pretty good answers to your question.

I have read the editorial that began this piece.

What it [says is: If you go through every event of the last 20 years, and ignore every event that can't be blamed on the Democratic Party, and then list what's left over on one page, without any attempt whatsoever to provide any linkage between the remaining event, then what's left is a list of unrelated things that all have the word "Democrat" in them.

What it doesn't say is "A caused B, which caused C, which caused D".

It says "If you ignore everything that doesn't say Democrat, then what's left is a bunch of things that say Democrat".

[Hubbs]

Well thank God we're fixing the problem instead of endlessly spinning in circles in desperate attempts to blame the other guy.

[Larry]

Yes, Its McCains fault.. the guy that has stood up many times to say this is coming years ahead of time, and was told to sit your old ass down...

And John McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong".

If I make a youtube video that contains that one clip, and ignores everything else in the world, then will that prove that the crisis is the Republican Party's fault? After all, the entire video contains Republicans saying good things about the economy, and doesn't include a single Democrat doing so.

That's proof, right? "If I simply ignore everything that doesn't point in a certain direction, then everything that's left points in a particular direction. I don't even need to attempt to connect the dots that are left."

-----

When George Bush took office, he appointed a man to head FDIC who's qualification consisted of the fact that he owned a bank that was constantly getting caught violating banking regulations, and the fact that he donated a lot of money to Bush. This person's stated agenda upon assuming control of the FDIC was to eliminate all banking regulations. Several ES posters, who work in banking and are responsible for maintaining compliance with regulators have agreed with this assessment.

Does that mean that this guy is responsible for this crisis? I haven't seen one person advance a theory that says so. Nobody's created a theory that I've seen that says that this guy's intentional, stated goal of eliminating regulations whose purpose is to protect the safety of the banking system so much as contributed to the current problem.

Could somebody who wanted to construct an editorial which states that


a) Bush appointed a man to head FDIC who stated that his objective was to eliminate all banking oversight.

b) The banking system is near collapse 7 years later

Yes they could. Would this editorial be factually accurate? Yes.

Would such an editorial prove that A caused B? Or that it was the primary cause? Not without some explanation of how A led to B. Especially when facts C, D, and E are also on the table, which argue against that conclusion.

[Larry]

Well thank God we're fixing the problem instead of endlessly spinning in circles in desperate attempts to blame the other guy.

Heck with solving the problem. Right now, I'd settle for someone who can coherently describe the problem. We're so busy blaming people, we can't even explain what the problem is. (Other than it somehow involves mortgages.)

[Burgold]

Nope, not all McCain's fault, but he is included in this failure. Especially as a maverick who is good at crossing aisles and getting things done. Obama has dirty hands as well. So does Bush. The guy with the cleanest hands are probably Bill Clinton because these actions provided a short term good and there were more than eight years of opportunities to modify them and obvious signs that were ignored. There's a very good reason that our laws aren't written in stone. They were designed to be modified or gotten rid of as they prove ineffectual or damaging.

[TuckahoeSkin]

I have read the editorial that began this piece.

What it [says is: If you go through every event of the last 20 years, and ignore every event that can't be blamed on the Democratic Party, and then list what's left over on one page, without any attempt whatsoever to provide any linkage between the remaining event, then what's left is a list of unrelated things that all have the word "Democrat" in them.

What it doesn't say is "A caused B, which caused C, which caused D".

It says "If you ignore everything that doesn't say Democrat, then what's left is a bunch of things that say Democrat".


Larry,

It's no wonder Moe did most of the thinking in your little trio. :doh:

[Larry]

Larry,

It's no wonder Moe did most of the thinking in your little trio. :doh:

You gonna provide something? A fact? A theory?

Or more personal attacks?

[TuckahoeSkin]

You gonna provide something? A fact? A theory?

Or more personal attacks?


Don't toss out "you blithering idiot" and then complain about personal attacks Larry. Get a hold of yourself.

[Thiebear]

Nope, not all McCain's fault, but he is included in this failure. Especially as a maverick who is good at crossing aisles and getting things done. Obama has dirty hands as well. So does Bush. The guy with the cleanest hands are probably Bill Clinton because these actions provided a short term good and there were more than eight years of opportunities to modify them and obvious signs that were ignored. There's a very good reason that our laws aren't written in stone. They were designed to be modified or gotten rid of as they prove ineffectual or damaging.

This is more like it...
The HEAD of the committee dating someone in one of the two agencies is bad...
should have been at MINIMUM: removed.
Ethics committee to the rescue?: NO.

[Larry]

Don't toss out "you blithering idiot" and then complain about personal attacks Larry. Get a hold of yourself.

Then respond to the facts.

I presented three, on page 2. Not one response.

Don't want to get called names? Don't spend three pages ignoring facts and then announce that everybody who doesn't agree with you is ignoring facts.

I would love a fact based discussion of this issue. Frankly, I'm grossly uninformed on this issue, and I don't want to be.

But as near as I can tell from reading everything else in this thread, I appear to be the genius in the room.

[TuckahoeSkin]

Then respond to the facts.

I presented three, on page 2. Not one response.

Don't want to get called names? Don't spend three pages ignoring facts and then announce that everybody who doesn't agree with you is ignoring facts.

I would love a fact based discussion of this issue. Frankly, I'm grossly uninformed on this issue, and I don't want to be.

But as near as I can tell from reading everything else in this thread, I appear to be the genius in the room.


Larry, you're never the genius in an empty room.

Edit:
To follow up. That was a cheap shot on my part, Larry. I think there have been valid points made in the original article and in the youtube video posted as well. Many of your posts have made it seem as though you are completely unwilling to acknowledge those points. Most of the fault for this mess came from the dem's, with some Rep's not doing enough to stop it as well. For Pelosi and Reid to try and hang this on the Republicans is wrong. I wish folks on your side would acknowledge that. If they can't acknowledge that fact, how can they be a part of avoiding the same mistakes down the road?

[The Evil Genius]

Larry, you're never the genius in an empty room.

What's your problem?

[btfoom]

Many of you have posted that Card is just blaming everything on the Dems. The way I read it is that he already sees the press has blamed Bush/Repubs/McCain/Palin for the current crisis (among other things) without doing the same type of investigation and reporting on the Dem side. He asks journalists to put away their political feelings and investigate.

This is the reason I posted the article. Just my :2cents:.

[Popeman38]

But meanwhile, back to the OT:

There's a few holes in this often-repeated blame:

1) One Party has been in full control of the government for many years, recently. It isn't the Democrats. Yes I'm well aware that Congressmen do not always vote in Party lockstep, and it's certainly possible for a slim minority to successfully block a slim majority, if only a few members of the majority go along with it.

But it's a tough sell.

2) Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these bad loans were written by lenders who are exempt from the laws that the GOP wants to blame.

3) Many people (including myself) have trouble believing that laws passed in 92 led to the creation of millions of loans which now people can't pay. Is this problem being caused by millions of people who paid their mortgages for 15 years, but can't pay them for 16?1) Yet we here this true "Do nothing Congress" blame the Rep minority for causing all the heartburn. They could always reach out, right?

2) If this is a problem for both sides, that affects people of both sides, why the shot at the GOP?

3) No, but laws rarely have immediately dire consequences. Usually it takes a few years. And the problem can be compounded by legislation passed after the original rules.



As a side note to all the partisan hackery, how can McCain be blamed for this crisis while Obama gets off free? Weren't they both Senators when this crisis started? Haven't they both profited from it? Blame both, or blame neither.

[Mad Mike]

Nope, not all McCain's fault, but he is included in this failure. Especially as a maverick who is good at crossing aisles and getting things done. Obama has dirty hands as well. So does Bush. The guy with the cleanest hands are probably Bill Clinton because these actions provided a short term good and there were more than eight years of opportunities to modify them and obvious signs that were ignored. There's a very good reason that our laws aren't written in stone. They were designed to be modified or gotten rid of as they prove ineffectual or damaging.

Which is why I pointed to 04 when the signs of the crash were there and the Dems fought any attempt to fix it. Honestly I don't know how anyone can watch that video and not be enraged.

Maybe that's just me though. I have no party loyalty. When the republicans called Clintons attempt to get binLaden "wagging the dog" I was furious. I wanted every last one of them fired as traitors.

Now I ask you. After watching that video. How is THIS guy still in office#? And how is it that the press has not investigated his roll?

http://financialservices.house.gov/

[Larry]

Larry, you're never the genius in an empty room.

Edit:
To follow up. That was a cheap shot on my part, Larry. I think there have been valid points made in the original article and in the youtube video posted as well. Many of your posts have made it seem as though you are completely unwilling to acknowledge those points. Most of the fault for this mess came from the dem's, with some Rep's not doing enough to stop it as well. For Pelosi and Reid to try and hang this on the Republicans is wrong. I wish folks on your side would acknowledge that. If they can't acknowledge that fact, how can they be a part of avoiding the same mistakes down the road?

And yet what's been shown here is:

The Democrats passed a law in '92. No explanation of what relation that law has to a financial crisis 15 years later. No attempt to explain it. "Dems pass law" + "crisis 15 years later" = "Dems fault", no further information needed. (And information that disputes that conclusion not wanted.)

And supposedly, Dems blocked Republicans from regulating (no explanation at all of what they wanted to regulate) two lenders out of all the financial institutions in the world. But again, not even an attempt to try to claim that these two lenders had anything to do with the problem.

And again, facts that argue against the theory that nobody will even state, (like the ES poster who works in the mortgage industry who's claimed, from his personal experience, that the majority of the bad loans were written by small-time loan originators who are exempt from virtually all banking regulations) are not desired and will not be even acknowledged to exist.

[Larry]

1) Yet we here this true "Do nothing Congress" blame the Rep minority for causing all the heartburn. They could always reach out, right?

I've already stated that it's certainly possible for a slim minority to black a slim majority, if only a few of the majority go along. I said it's a tough sell, not it's impossible.


2) If this is a problem for both sides, that affects people of both sides, why the shot at the GOP?

I haven't seen any shots at the GOP. (I did use them in an example of a partisan attack that I haven't seen but which would appear to be as factually accurate as this one.)


3) No, but laws rarely have immediately dire consequences. Usually it takes a few years. And the problem can be compounded by legislation passed after the original rules.

I think everybody acknowledges that. Which is why the original attempt to claim that this problem is obviously due to Democrats, (the "This happened because the Dems took over Congress a year ago!" attempt), didn't fly.

(Which, frankly, is how we got to the current spin: "Well, if this problem can't be blamed on Democrats from a year ago, then it must be because of Democrats 15 years ago. Because it's completely inconceivable that this problem could be due to something that happened 5 or 10 years ago. It's completely impossible that anything that happened between '94 and '07 could have led to this.")


As a side note to all the partisan hackery, how can McCain be blamed for this crisis while Obama gets off free? Weren't they both Senators when this crisis started? Haven't they both profited from it? Blame both, or blame neither.

Haven't seen anybody blame McCain. Or Republicans in general. Haven't even seen any plausible theories blaming Democrats. Closest I've seen so far is some selective listing of historical events, without even an attempt at connecting the dots.

[mjah]

Really? He deserves better but I don't? Nice. I'll refrain from the response I'm thinking.

So you think everyone deserves to be treated exactly the same way no matter what they contribute, be it positive or negative?

Why, you must be some kind of big Commie or Anarchist to think that.

Some potential responses you must have "refrained from" posting:

- "I'm a big Commie."
- "I'm a big Anarchist."

You could have just come out and told us. :whoknows: