As for twit, I started using that when you defended your use of "Democrat Party" If you want to be addressed in a respectful manner, you need to extend that courtesy to others. Your constant use of "leftist" also falls under that unbrella.

Nope. No Sale.
Welcome to "Words Mean Things".

The last few nomination processes have lbeled that party as anythng BUT democratic, and as such I will not use their self-chosen title thereby giving them credit they do not deserve.... in much the same way I wouldn't call a quadraplegic a 'Fireman", regardless what he wanted to be called. Doing so is not a coutesy, it's a lie, and those are two distinctly different things.

If you can't deal with that, it's your problem not mine. Have a word with the dictionary folks about changing the meaning of the word, if it's that much an issue for you. Let me know how long it goes between the time they start laughing and the time they hang up, OK?

As for twit, I started using that when you defended your use of "Democrat Party" If you want to be addressed in a respectful manner, you need to extend that courtesy to others. Your constant use of "leftist" also falls under that unbrella.

Fact remains, you did not back up your argument with any facts, thus failing your own litmus test.

As for your continuing to converse with me, I suspect that you, like me, just enjoy arguing about politics. So we at least have one thing in common. Don't suppose you are in to high end audio...

Not all conservatives are small-minded twits

Meaning I am, thank you very much!
If I'm so small minded, why is it I continue to converse with you? Get that worked out and get back to me.

The professor made his opinion clear as to what caused the crisis.

Yep. And I questioned the basis of his opinion.

Did you present any facts? Nope

I find that when leftists start in with "Small minded twit", "Rushie" "Fox News" and so on, that facts aren't accepted anyway. Go ahead, shock me by giving me a reason to think you're otherwise.

Well, let's test this; Is the prof you're pointing to, a vocal conservative?

No?

Not all conservatives are small-minded twits. The professor made his opinion clear as to what caused the crisis. My suggestion is that you look beyond fox and red state. In other words, do your homework. I have no problem citing the work of conservative scholars (actually I am reading some Buckley at the moment). Perhaps you should try observing the world beyond your nose sometime.

And what you've just done is to try, without any facts, to avoid those negatives. Sorry, no sale

Did you present any facts? Nope. So by your own standard, your argument is invalid. Which kind of proves my point about your lack of sophistication. Sale closed.

Only if your thought processes did not extend further than "Liberals are to blame for everything bad that happens".

Well, let's test this; Is the prof you're pointing to, a vocal conservative?

No?

Figure this one out for yourself.

The attempt the make "leftist" and "Democrat" interchangeable is something the Rushites have done to try and take advantage of the negative connotations that still hang on "leftist" as a result of the cold war.

And what you've just done is to try, without any facts, to avoid those negatives. Sorry, no sale. Pretty transparent, and not something that sophisticated people fall for.. or educated... Like, anything above 7th grade, for example.

I would think the answer to that one to be rather obvios.

Only if your thought processes did not extend further than "Liberals are to blame for everything bad that happens".

Did you go to college? If it was you writing a paper, and you told the professor that you omitted a crucial fact because "I would think the answer to that one to be rather obvios", you would fail.

It is pretty certain that a professor with expertise at this level does not commit freshman mistakes, even if you do.

And Anjin, look, for the most part and at least historically, "liberal" "Leftist" and "democrat" have been pretty much interchangeable.

Really? Can you document that? (no Red State or Rush or Coulter, please).

The attempt the make "leftist" and "Democrat" interchangeable is something the Rushites have done to try and take advantage of the negative connotations that still hang on "leftist" as a result of the cold war. Pretty transparent, and not something that educated, sophisticated people fall for...

Well the economics professor from Carnagie Mellon seemed to think it was the fault of greedy folks in the lending industry. He did not mention liberals.

I would think the answer to that one to be rather obvios.

And Anjin, look, for the most part and at least historically, "liberal" "Leftist" and "democrat" have been pretty much interchangeable.

In the case you cite...(and in many such) they're simply leading the parade, since they have control of Congress. Liberal republicans helped, of course, but I doubt they'd do it on their own, if the Republicans were still in command, don't you?

I should point out that the article by the CMU professor does not exclude the possibility that Democrats in Congress thwarted attempts to more tightly regulate Fannie and Freddie.

Thats true, but since the topic of the article was what caused the crisis, I would think he would include Democrats in Congress if that was part of the problem as he saw it. He did not exclude the influence of tidal forces either.

As for blame, I think think there is blame on both parties, however, the party that had complete control of the government for 6 years is probably more culpable.

As for greed, well that is not going anywhere. How do we mitigate its effects? Back in the 80s, I was all for deregulation. Then, as it actually started to be implemented, I saw how it could have a damaging effect in sectors vital to our economy. Its a tricky balance. How do we not regulate industries until they are non-competive, yet now allow folks like GW's good friend Ken Lay to screw millions of people and do harm to our country?

Of course people in the lending industry are going to be greedy. I think that's to be expected from just about any industry. It's the role of government to constrain and direct greed so that it harms are minimized, and its benefits are maximized. There are published articles in NYTimes and the Post that suggest that Democrats were resistant to efforts to more tightly regulate that greed. I don't know how accurate they are, just pointing them out.

Furthermore, the article by Meltzer actually argues for reduced regulation, rather than more. What he's actually suggesting seems to be more along the lines of privatization, and regulating only as much as necessary to align incentives correctly. If asked, I guess he would probably say something along the lines of, "Yes, the Democrats did thwart more regulation, but the regulation was misguided anyway." The author is a visiting scholar at AEI after all.

Personally, privatization would be more my first instinct also. I'm open to explanations as to why that's a bad idea, though. And, as a moderate liberal with libertarian leanings, I'm also sympathetic to government efforts to help the underprivileged.

Not exactly. I've been saying it's the fault of liberals. Democrats, by virtue of having been over-run by the far left, are merely the largest part of that.

Well the economics professor from Carnagie Mellon seemed to think it was the fault of greedy folks in the lending industry. He did not mention liberals.
Of course, you think the extinction of dinosaurs is the fault of liberals...

Not exactly. I've been saying it's the fault of liberals.

Here is EXACTLY what you said...

To blame this on deregulation, 2 years after the Democrats take over again, and begin shifting direction toward greater regulation, is thereby questionable at least.

What you have been saying, over and over and over, is that its all the Democrats fault

Not exactly. I've been saying it's the fault of liberals. Democrats, by virtue of having been over-run by the far left, are merely the largest part of that.

So tell again us how the Democratic congress caused the subprime crisis. Be specific please. Cite legislation

Go back up the rope, here, and look again, at what I said the basic cause for the failure of IndyMac was, the bit with Schumer aside, and you'll have your answer.

Then again, Bush isn't a conservative, as I've been saying since 1999.

What you have been saying, over and over and over, is that its all the Democrats fault. To think, it only took a tap of the sledge to get you to change your tune.

do you think he'd be doing that absent pressure from the left?

The left has put pressure on Bush to do all sorts of things. End the Iraq war. No retroactive FISA immunity, higher mileage standards. He has told the left to go take a flying f__K over and over.

Funny how the lefts mind control rays only worked on an issue that is helping his buddies the Saudis rake in untold billions.

So tell again us how the Democratic congress caused the subprime crisis. Be specific please. Cite legislation.

Interesting, because the Bush administration is hard at work on a regulation plan for the banking industry. Quite far reaching too.

Also...

Why did GHW Bush ban drilling with an executive order?

True.
Then again, Bush isn't a conservative, as I've been saying since 1999. And as to the the drilling ban in particular, do you think he'd be doing that absent pressure from the left? Bush has always been about go-along/Get-along politics, and what you cite is simply more of the same. It's the main reason I've never been excited about him. Again, we come to Anon's comment:

tightly regulated industries (usually) work okay, and also correctly de-regulated industries also (usually) work okay. It's where you have these bastardized hybrids where things go completely to pot.

What we end up with, in the case of Bush, and I fear in the case of McCain, is in trying to accomidate both ends, we end up with the situation Anon describes.

(Well, so much for Bit being a big Bush defender, huh? Guess you need to come up with another meme)