wow.

I knew there were Democrats like that out there, lots of them. But they seem to be getting buried under the snowdrifts these days.

Honest Democrats are the best thing that could happen to both parties.

Simon

Just because a gay-obsessed hack like Orson Scott says the housing crisis was the "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" doesn't make it so.

You should post something from Hank Williams Jr. next. He's another prominent economist and intellectual who has carefully analyzed the sub-prime mortgage crisis and concluded that it isn't actually the fault of unrestrained greed on the part of multi-billion dollar institutions, an unsustainable credit default market, or investors' insatiable hunger for mortgage-backed securities. Nope. It's all Clinton's fault.

You're in some fine company on this one, Simon.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

That would assume the editors and managers had integrity which they obviously don't. The only remotely accurate or reasonable thing they could do is change their jod titles from reporter to campaigner.

I believe OSC is also an atheist, or has written science-fiction with an anti-religious sub-text. Good to see, unlike many atheists, he can also go after the Cult of the State, too.

"gay-obsessed hack" - my, but we're catty today.

By the way, Card is merely repeating what everybody knows. Everybody but you, apparently. Watch this and weep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Short story: back on 2004, Republicans wanted to have more oversight on FNMA and Freddy Mac. Democrats cried "foul", insisted that nothing was wrong, that the system was working just fine, and "we don't need no stinkin' investigation".

One Democrat after another got up and repeated the party line.

Result: no oversight.

Result: too many bad loans. (What good does it do to give a loan to someone who cannot repay it?)

Result: meltdown.

Cause: Democrats.

Shame McCain never bothered to make that case and instead let everyone assume it's all the Republican's fault because the Republicans were the party in power during most of this period. (It's a fair assumption, I think, but not the entire truth.)

Ad hominem attack? Check.

Illegitimate appeal to authority? Check.

Tu qouque? Check.

Must have been written by a Leftie.

Are you a Leftie, Dr. Dynamite? Or, perhaps a member of the media?
.

ZZMike

I believe you'll find that Mssr. Card is in fact, both (a) obsessed with homosexuality and (b) a hack. Which brings me no joy to say, by the way, having loved Ender's Game as a child.

I'll repeat for your benefit what Orson, M.Simon, and a bunch of other less than intellectually honest folks are apparently having a hard time coming to grips with: the number of bad loans that were a result of government mandate is minute compared to the number of bad loans that were a result of unregulated greed.

I'm certain there are instances in which a government anti-discrimination policy resulted in a lender giving a mortgage to someone who should not have received a loan. Those instances, however, do not even come close to explaining the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

And, for the record, I believe both parties share responsibility for the ridiculously short-sighted economic regulation that led to this catastrophe. It may not be an equal share, but I recognize Democrats are far from blameless in the deregulation that that allowed the sub-prime mess to cripple our economy.

OregonGuy

You're right, I did make an ad hominem attack which demonstrated that Simon was using a gay-obsessed hack science fiction author to bolster an utterly specious argument. I'll cop to that.

Appeal to authority? Huh? Where did I do that?

Tu qouque? Double huh?

Did you assemble this post with Mad Libs?

No Bell,

Are you saying that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, B. Obama, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Daniel Mudd had nothing to do with the housing crisis?

That Bush hasn't been trying to do something since 2001 and McCain since 2003? All shot down by the Democrats with the help of a few Republicans?

I suppose categorical denials are all you have left. It may not be much but under the circumstances it will have to do.

Unregulated greed is limited by the odds of profit and loss.

If you regulate such that loss is not possible (GSE's) then of course there is no limit.

M. Simon

Perhaps you missed my post where I made clear that I believe both parties share responsibility for the ridiculously short-sighted economic regulation that led to this catastrophe.

Simon, at this point I question your basic understanding of the financial crisis in which we find ourselves. Frankly, I don't think the comments section of a blog is the place to explain to you how credit default swaps function, how investors' thirst for mortgage-backed securities drove sub-prime lending, or how deregulation allowed for our financial system to become a house of cards. I don't want to sound like an elite here, god forbid, but you really need to lay off the Limbaugh/McCain/Hannity/FoxNews talking points and look at some analysis by people who actually know about the economy.

If you want a good starting point, I suggest listening to

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242 and http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365

A little knowledge about this subject might do you some good.

Have a lovely evening.

bandit - actually, OSC is a Mormon (if you'd actually read a few of his columns, you'd know that).

Dr Nobel Dynamite - care to actually give an example of his supposed gay obsession, or his hacky qualities? I'm assuming you won't cite his review of "School of Rock", which he criticized for having a STEREOTYPED gay boy.

Calling Card a "gay obsessed hack" does not rebut his position on housing -- any more than calling Barney Frank a "gay obsessed hack" would rebut his.

Whatever Card's thoughts about gays may be, and however wrong he may be on that issue, it is an abuse of logic to suggest that has any bearing on something else.

This is an old issue here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/11/post_144.html

I liked what Eric R. Ashley said at the time:

If your favorite color is not blue, then I'm not going to listen to you. See how that works? Sounds silly when I say it.

Don't get sidetracked by this Orson fellow.

The real issue is that the MSM no longer pretends to be any more balanced than the blogosphere or congress.

And this is good for who?

where was the implication of being " gay - obsessed " ever present ? if it was, I sure missed it - and how does THAT have ANY possible bearing on this subject ? too bad the wielder of that particular pen doesn't realize how UNcredible he sounds, using that as an opening remark.....makes it easy to dismiss.....

"... if it was, I sure missed it - and how does THAT have ANY possible bearing on this subject ?"

It's a favorite old rhetorical trick of the Left. I call it the "shape-shifting argument". Others may call it a non sequitur. It's usually used when there's no substance to work with, so they throw in something completely irrelevant. Of course, attacking the messenger is a tactic older than Moses. But we eventually got wise to it.

Long about the Middle Ages.

I'd say that the youtube video speaks for itself.