An Open Letter to the Local Daily Newspaper

The really HOT topics of the day... be careful to not get burned! Please try to remain open minded...

Moderator: The Moderating Team

Post Reply
WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

An Open Letter to the Local Daily Newspaper

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:07 pm

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

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.


Full article
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:44 pm

Too bad Orson Scott Card is stuck in his sci-fi/fantasy world: he should've check up on the "facts" in his opinion, many of which have been rebutted for going on six months now.

I also laughed heartily at his "blame the victim" line, since that is the base conservative/Republican position of the entire financial crisis.

Contrary to standard conservative "thinking," the economy did not collapse because a bunch of poor people took out mortgages that were beyond their means. The economy collapsed because a bunch of bankers and lenders, blinded by greed, ignored THEIR responsibilities and issued FAR, FAR more loans than their companies could cover. Regardless of the qualifications of the borrowers, it is still the financial institutions' responsibility NOT TO LEND MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE.

Something they were allowed to get away with for YEARS thanks to... you got it, Republican-led deregulation efforts of that industry.

Remember, the default rate on sub-prime mortgages peaked at about 10%. The "regular" default rate before the credit crisis was 7%. Thus, these mortgage-lenders over-extended themselves SO SEVERELY that a 3% increase in loss ruined many of these companies completely.

But nah, lets blame the poor people instead.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

WE ARE SPARTACI
All Star
All Star
Posts: 1859
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Contact:

Post by WE ARE SPARTACI » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:41 pm

Kevin, Kevin Kevin...you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE OP ED PIECE!

You can argue your minutia and try to redirect the debate, but the point is that the media in general would have treated all of these issues differently if you simply change the players.

And no, his arguments have NOT been rebutted. They have been disputed to be sure. It is a fact that some Republicans attempted to point out that there was an issue and some leading Democrats did everything they could including playing the Race Card to defend their programs.

You use Obamalogic with your 3% statement. Ok, so 7% of sub-primes defaulted before and now it is "only" 10%.

7% of what vs. 10% of what? Apples and oranges, perhaps? How many sub-prime loans were being made "before" and how many "now". A 3% increase is only accurate if the rate of issuance remained the same. Did it?

Is that the same 3% increase in air in your tires that would offset 100% of any domestic oil production? Or is it the 3% if the world's oil reserves that we supposedly have (which is more than China and they are drilling)?

I don't deny there was a ton of greed out there on both sides. The media has failed to take a neutral stance and that is the point being made.

Like most of your posts, this one had an accuracy rating of about 3%. You should have put it in your tires and saved the gas money...
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...

Post Reply