Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[questor]

Pyro. excuse me, I did not know the modern American liberal '' gave us Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, Capitalism, Democracy, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Equality of Women and People of Color''. I always thought these were a culmination of ideas from ancient Greek civilization, English common law and our founding fathers.

If you choose to do so, you may re-read what I wrote in my first thread on this subject. i.e. ''This gives an idea of one conservatives view of the dichotomy of ideas.

My own view may differ in some respects, I always try to ascertain which course of action is best for society. Shouldn't everyone?''

 

 

Peace to you and reading comprehension.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro. excuse me, I did not know the modern American liberal '' gave us Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, Capitalism, Democracy, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Equality of Women and People of Color''. I always thought these were a culmination of ideas from ancient Greek civilization, English common law and our founding fathers....

"Liberals" of each generation, of each civilization, were those who declared that the status quo was not good enough and who were willing to lay their lives down for the possibility that a NEW idea, a NEW form of governance, a NEW form of justice, a NEW form of economic system, a NEW concept of "right", a NEW Social Order -- was worth creating, even if it meant the destruction of centuries-old traditions.

 

Jesus, George Washington, Socrates, Demosthenes, Teddy Roosevelt -- they are considered "conservatives" by some today, because they founded the traditions that today's conservatives prize so highly.

 

But in their own times and in their own cultures, they were the "liberals" -- the radicals, the fanatics, the rabble rousers who threatened to crash the status quo down upon everyone's head for the sake of some theoretical concept that all right-thinking people of the day scorned.

[questor]

You are correct in saying that liberals are never satisfied with the way things are, this is why they constantly try to ''re-invent the wheel''. Social experimentation can carry great cost..witness the Great Society, and the current economic breakdown caused by trying to get unqualified buyers into

a property they can't afford. Many Liberal ideas just don't work, especially when they go against common sense. For instance our educational system. The liberals have been in charge for years and have been unable to deliver

a product to compete with most of the world's advanced societies. They can't get a handle on why our schools fail.

link: U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries | The Kapio

This shows an inability to understand the problem and confusion about cause and effect. The world is constantly evolving, but human nature and market laws stay fairly constant. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

[Moontanman]

You are correct in saying that liberals are never satisfied with the way things are, this is why they constantly try to ''re-invent the wheel''. Social experimentation can carry great cost..witness the Great Society, and the current economic breakdown caused by trying to get unqualified buyers into

a property they can't afford. Many Liberal ideas just don't work, especially when they go against common sense. For instance our educational system. The liberals have been in charge for years and have been unable to deliver

a product to compete with most of the world's advanced societies. They can't get a handle on why our schools fail.

link: U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries | The Kapio

This shows an inability to understand the problem and confusion about cause and effect. The world is constantly evolving, but human nature and market laws stay fairly constant. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

Questor, how do you manage to walk around? It must take tremendous cojones to lay all those things at the feet of liberals. If not for liberals we would all still be living in a feudal society with no freedoms, no education, a state religion you could be put to death for questioning. If it ain't broke don't fix it? Who are you to say it isn't broke? It wasn't broke during medieval times either but we went ahead and pushed for change. change is a good thing questor, with out change the list of horrific conservative values that would still be the laws of the land is too big to even imagine, I guess you assume you would have been part of the ruling class? . North America wouldn't have been discovered or for that matter homosapiens wouldn't have left Africa. The Neanderthals were conservative and look where it got them.

[Essay]

Social experimentation can carry great cost..witness the Great Society.... ?

. . . .

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate about agreement on when something is broke.

:)

===

 

"This shows an inability to understand the problem and confusion about cause and effect." -Questor

 

...for instance, you think:

"...and the current economic breakdown [was] caused by trying to get unqualified buyers into a property they can't afford." -Q

 

...so you think it was liberals? "trying to get unqualified buyers into a property" so that they could create those "creative" financial instruments, securitized mortgage backed bonds, to have something to sell to big investors (inflating them) to make them also look attractive as an actual investment. Most of the problem comes from those investments in other investments (and even tertiary and 4th degree investments) leveraged more than 20 or 30 times on the originally lousy mortgages, and not from the sub-prime mortgages themselves.

 

McCain picked Senator (and crook) Phil Graham as his campaign's co-chairman and campaign economic advisor. Phil Graham ...a 10,000 page Omnibus bill, a 260 page bill of his own which allowed deregulation of the banks and finance institutions. What you saw last week -- economic collapse on Wall Street due to pure corruption and greed -- was the direct result of Graham's deregulation bill.

McCain: Deregulation Helpful to Economy | Drudge Retort

...maybe we just have different definitions of "liberals."

===

 

"Many Liberal ideas just don't work, especially when they go against common sense." -Questor

 

What is your common sense based on? (see also: the fallacy of "common sense")

Why are we so stupid?

 

But aside from that, I use history to guide my common sense. What does history show us about the end results of that octopus of free-enterprise fundamentalism? Something along the lines of the most un-Christian exploitation of resources and labor, from slavery, child labor, and neo-slavery, perhaps?

The Untold History of Post-Civil War ‘Neoslavery’ HighBoldtage

 

Yes, the market would self correct if left alone; but that is analogous to a population crash in a changing ecosystems.

Market correction is just another name for survival of the fittest.

 

Does civilization allow us no benefit in leaving the jungle; or are we still bound by the law of the jungle?

 

~

[questor]

Moon, you are correct....''North America wouldn't have been discovered ''

Columbus and his crowd were indeed among the first liberals:

1. They didn't know where they were going

2. When they got there they didn't know where they were

3. And they did it all with other people's money

[questor]

Essay, you got one thing correct..'' Market correction is just another name for survival of the fittest.'' This is correct, the market doesn't care what color you are, your gender, religion, age or political affiliation, it cares about balance and efficiency. When this is put out of balance by lending money to unqualified people, or unbalancing prices against true value a correction ensues.

As far as I'm concerned ,this sub-prime disaster started with the laws eliminating redlining in the real estate markets.

 

'' [edit] Redlining

Redlining is related to steering because it is denying financial support and services to neighborhoods based on race, ethnicity, or economic status[7]. Rather than subtly steering individual families towards certain areas or only giving them information on certain racial areas, redlining was a blatantly and legally tolerated criteria for financial institutions to decide where to put their money. Originating in the New Deal, this procedure was a protocol for deciding where federal, state and city funds would go to for financial services. Affluent middle and upper middle class white areas where outlined in green on a map, meaning that financial services were clear to be rendered and these areas were desirable for investment. Racial areas, specifically African-American neighborhoods were outlined in red, meaning they were undesirable and poor, not to mention racially heterogeneous. These maps were used by banking institutions to construct guidelines for lending money. As a consequence, many of these redlined areas, which were also typically located in urban environments as whites tended to move out to the suburbs of America, experienced deterioration on a rapid scale. Since these areas have been neglected and redlined and cannot receive funds from banks to revitalize, they cannot attract businesses, which perpetuates the cycle of poverty. The poverty often leads to crime and neighborhoods become further neglected because they continue to be unattractive to outside investment, and continue to be redlined by banks. Thus, private banks and financial institutions as well as the U.S. government are accused of being responsible for these practices in several instances, which before the Fair Housing Act were widespread and blatant throughout the U.S. Redlining is still practiced today on a more subtle setting. Instead of having official maps circulated to institutions, which is illegal, the public domain tends to ignore poor and non-white neighborhoods by denying basic public services''

Link..Civil Rights Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although this was noble in concept, this law almost REQUIRED lenders to lend to poorly qualified buyers. As money and credit became more plentiful

and regulations on lenders were softened, the so-called predatory lenders devised packages such as no-doc loans allowing ever more unqualified buyers to purchase homes. Seeing all this money flowing, some real crooks disguised as helpers of the poor showed up.

 

ANOTHER ACORN SCANDAL

Posted: 3:43 am

July 13, 2008

 

The folks at the far-left radical activist group ACORN are embroiled in a financial corruption and cover-up scandal that they managed to keep hidden from their donors and political partners for eight years.

 

Now their deception has been uncovered for all to see.

 

But is ACORN's leadership apologetic? Not in the slightest. "We did what we thought was right," said the group's president, Maude Hurd.

 

ACORN's founder - whose brother perpetrated the fraud - also defended the cover-up, saying publicity would have given the group's critics a "weapon."

 

As if there wasn't enough ammunition already to discredit ACORN.

 

The New York Times reports that Dale Rathke - whose brother started the group back in 1970 as a vehicle to help low-income people "take back what's rightfully theirs" - embezzled nearly $1 million from ACORN back in 1999 and 2000.

 

How did ACORN handle the crime? By disguising it on the books as a loan from one of its contractors and letting Rathke's family make restitution at the rate of $30,000 a year. (An anonymous donor reportedly has agreed to pick up the remaining $800,000 tab.)

 

Incredibly, ACORN kept Rathke on the payroll as a $38,000-a-year employee until as recently as last month - and only let him go when word of his fraud leaked to donors.

 

And, the Times reports, most of the people who covered up the embezzlement are still working for ACORN.

 

Actually, none of this really should surprise. After all, "fraud" has practically been ACORN's middle name.

 

As Michelle Malkin wrote on these pages last month, the group recently settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington state history - having submitted thousands of bogus voter-registration forms.

 

ACORN has been implicated in similar schemes in 14 other states - including Ohio, where a worker traded crack cocaine for fraudulent registrations.

 

Back in the '80s and '90s, ACORN's tactics included trespassing, illegal seizure of private property, physical harassment, intimidation and outright extortion.

 

For example, in 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents. A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings - proving that crime can pay.

 

Amazingly, a large chunk of ACORN's budget is provided by taxpayers.

 

Much of the rest comes from gullible foundations and groups like the United Federation of Teachers - which has partnered up with ACORN in efforts to kill Mayor Bloomberg's school reform.

 

The Times reports that many of ACORN's philanthropic benefactors have begun taking a close look at the group's finances.

 

It's long overdue.

 

 

These people are not conservatives, and it would be difficult for me to believe that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank don't know them very, very well.

These crooks were inserted into the bailout package by whom?, and this is one of the main reasons the package has not been approved. The Dems just can't resist feathering their nest by scurrilous tactics like these.

Anyway, the market is correcting for excess as it always does, but the libs are trying to skew the process.

[Moontanman]

Moon, you are correct....''North America wouldn't have been discovered ''

Columbus and his crowd were indeed among the first liberals:

1. They didn't know where they were going

2. When they got there they didn't know where they were

3. And they did it all with other people's money

 

You are such a comedian, you should be on TV, maybe Rush needs a replacement.....

[freeztar]

questor, are you seriously asserting that the current economic situation is the result of the civil rights act of 1968?

[questor]

No, I am saying that this was the early beginning of an attempt to tweak the market dictum that only those who could truly afford to own or repay should use leveraged money.

 

''Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Subprime mortgage lending and mitigating foreclosures

Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives

September 20, 2007

Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the origins of the problems in the subprime-mortgage market and the response of the Federal Reserve to these developments. I will also discuss some possible legislative options for addressing these concerns.

 

Recent Developments in the Subprime-Mortgage Sector

Let me begin with some background on the subprime-mortgage sector. Subprime mortgages are loans intended for borrowers who are perceived to have high credit risk. Although these mortgages emerged on the financial landscape more than two decades ago, they did not begin to expand significantly until the mid-1990s. The expansion was fueled by innovations--including the development of credit scoring--that made it easier for lenders to assess and price risks. In addition, regulatory changes and the ongoing growth of the secondary mortgage market increased the ability of lenders, who once typically held mortgages on their books until the loans were repaid, to sell many mortgages to various intermediaries, or "securitizers." The securitizers in turn pooled large numbers of mortgages and sold the rights to the resulting cash flows to investors, often as components of structured securities. This "originate-to-distribute" model gave lenders (and, thus, mortgage borrowers) greater access to capital markets, lowered transaction costs, and allowed risk to be shared more widely. The resulting increase in the supply of mortgage credit likely contributed to the rise in the homeownership rate from 64 percent in 1994 to about 68 percent now--with minority households and households from lower-income census tracts recording some of the largest gains in percentage terms.''

Link:FRB: Testimony--Bernanke, Subprime mortgage lending and mitigating foreclosures--September 20, 2007

 

The appearance of lenders not subject to strict federal auditing and the attempt to get more Americans into their own homes created laxity concerning qualifications and gave rise to loan packaging by predatory lenders. Since this problem has been with us for sometime, why didn't the Senate Committee on Banking chaired by Chris Dodd do anything about it?

They let it fester and took the usual course...blame George Bush.

Chales Schumer, also a member bears a large part of the blame...

 

''Schumer Caused Banking Crisis, Not O.T.S.

Posted by Hans Bader

Senator Charles Schumer recently triggered a massive bank failure by publicizing a letter claiming IndyMac Bank was on the verge of collapse. That caused a run on the bank by its panic-stricken depositors. (Taxpayers may end up paying up to $8 billion to bail out the bank). He’s been criticized for that by many, including the Wall Street Journal.

 

Schumer is a legendary loudmouth with an ego to match. But what he really deserves criticism for is for undermining America’s banking system as a whole. He has long blocked reform at the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae, a fraud-ridden institution that is now being bailed out at a cost of billions of dollars (and which purchased (and thus created a market for) risky mortgages issued by subprime lenders) .

 

Equally importantly, he and his liberal colleagues have long pressured banks into making risky loans, leaving them financially unstable when the mortgage crisis arose. In the name of “affordable housing” and “diversity,” banks have long been pressured by legislators and regulators to make risky loans to minority applicants with low credit scores who cannot afford a substantial downpayment. (Fannie Mae thoroughly adopted this mantra in its own risky business practices, boasting that it was a “leader in diversity” and “affordable housing“).

 

Banks that refuse to make such risky loans can end up facing sanctions under laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, a regulatory nightmare dreamed up by liberal lawmakers. They also end up being accused of racism and discrimination. (To avoid being subject to such charges, they sometimes pay off corrupt left-wing groups like ACORN, which promoted practices that helped spawn the mortgage crisis, like “liar loans”).

 

During the housing bubble, liberal lawmakers and activists trumpeted a ridiculous Boston study that claimed that borrowers won’t default, even if they lack the savings for a downpayment and have low credit scores, as long as they receive “credit counseling” before receiving the loan. (That same study faulted lenders that adhere to traditional, responsible lending criteria like requiring high credit scores and substantial downpayments, claiming that masked racial discrimination).

 

Now, after the housing bubble has collapsed, we see the results of this nonsense, as borrowers with no equity in their homes simply walk away from their mortgages, leaving the lender (and, ultimately, the taxpayer) holding the bag.

 

Schumer refuses to accept his responsibility for this. Instead, he blames the Office of Thrift Supervision (O.T.S.), which enforces federal regulations designed to maintain banks’ solvency, for the bank’s collapse. But the fault lies with Schumer, not O.T.S.''

Link:OpenMarket.org Archive Schumer Caused Banking Crisis, Not O.T.S.

 

So we have disturbed the market's equilibrium by a well-meaning liberal attempt to help the underprivileged and now the market demands payment.

[Essay]

In addition, regulatory changes and the ongoing growth of the secondary mortgage market increased the ability of lenders, who once typically held mortgages on their books until the loans were repaid, to sell many mortgages to various intermediaries, or "securitizers." The securitizers in turn pooled large numbers of mortgages and sold the rights to the resulting cash flows to investors, often as components of structured securities.

 

Thanks for the more technical description of that vague "creative financial... investments in other investments... leveraged more than 20 or 30 times on the... sub-prime mortgages...." that I came up with (post #39).

 

"So we have disturbed the market's equilibrium by a well-meaning liberal attempt to help the underprivileged and now the market demands payment." -Questor

 

Are you assigning blame to the decades old practice of helping the poor, and not to the recent Phil Graham sponsored deregulation of those old practices?

 

Schumer?

...and more blame. Do you really see one person 'telling the truth' as more pertinant than a Federal agency not doing its job?

...if he'd only kept his mouth shut; kept the shell game going.... What an idiot he was!

 

Thanks for setting me straight.

 

~ :)

 

p.s. Acorn? OMG, another liberal conspiracy?

Just days ago they came into the public's consciousness. Now conservatives are talking about them everywhere. I just heard a caller on CSPAN blaming the nuts, Acorn....

[Pyrotex]

... The Dems just can't resist feathering their nest by scurrilous tactics like these.

Partisanship is defined as ALWAYS believing that the OTHER SIDE is always engaging in scurrilous actions, even if they haven't been caught yet, and YOUR side is always operating with the best and noblest of intentions, even when they get caught in the very same kind of scurrilous actions.

 

This is what makes a serious, intelligent conversation on politics so difficult these days.

 

What if the Reps feather their nest just like the Dems?

What if the correct statement is: "The Congress feathers its nests."

 

I admit I have seen a lot of Dem foobars and scurrilousness over the last 30 years, but I have to be honest about it, I can't say I've seen the Reps do any better. But what I have seen over and over again is that my friends and co-workers over the last 30 years, almost always "forget" about the sins of their own party, and NEVER forget the sins of the other party.

 

And a final note. Question to the Thread (for extra credit):

 

What if this contentious rivalry between the Reps and Dems (with all the skull-duggery on BOTH sides) is EXACTLY what we should want and expect from a successful Democracy? :confused:

[pgrmdave]

It's like I've said before - our government is not set up to do the most good, but the least evil. Because of that, the petty squabbling is precisely what is needed and wanted. It keeps our government from really screwing things up just as much (if not much more often) than it prevents them from doing something really good.

[Pyrotex]

It's like I've said before - our government is not set up to do the most good, but the least evil. Because of that, the petty squabbling is precisely what is needed and wanted. It keeps our government from really screwing things up just as much (if not much more often) than it prevents them from doing something really good.

BINGO!!! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen!!!

 

First prize in the Pyro Essay Contest is won by pgrmdave. :confused:

 

The Constitution set up three (actually four when you count Senate & House as separate--which they are) competing bureacracies, to allow all the bitterly contending factions to hammer away at each other -- and leave the rest of us the hell alone! The purpose of a well running government is to slow down legislation, executive orders, and judicial judgements, and provide a safe "forum" for anger, hatred, vengeance, blame, acrimony, and other inevitable forms of human stupidity to burn themselves out--without setting OUR homes on fire!

 

Congratulations, Dave!!!

[Moontanman]

It's like I've said before - our government is not set up to do the most good, but the least evil. Because of that, the petty squabbling is precisely what is needed and wanted. It keeps our government from really screwing things up just as much (if not much more often) than it prevents them from doing something really good.

 

No truer words have ever been spoken, I am a long time advocate of the importance of neither party getting what they want. It's keeps either extreme of right and left from getting too much control. Any one who seriously thinks the right or the left is perfect and should be in control for the good of everyone is either deluded or dangerous or both.

Nothing really pisses me off more than to be accused of being a liberal or a conservative. I like to argue and to argue you have to take a side and most of the time I agree with the liberal position on things the Conservatives want to argue about. But ask me about guns or small government or welfare mothers or welfare cheating or a host of other Conservative values and you see a the real me. I take the values I believe in from both sides to try and make a middle ground we can all live with, anything else is being a fanatic and will eventually lead to drinking the koolaide.

[REASON]

This is exactly why I became an Independent. I refuse to align myself with any political party, and I will support the benefits and reject failures of all as I see them.

 

 

I believe there is a disconnect as to what it actually means to have a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint in our society.

 

Let's explore it.

 

Question:

 

Is the desire to drill for oil in ANWR conservative or liberal ideology?

 

Or how about the desire to protect our National Parks and National Forests, conservative or liberal?

[Moontanman]

This is exactly why I became an Independent. I refuse to align myself with any political party, and I will support the benefits and reject failures of all as I see them.

 

 

I believe there is a disconnect as to what it actually means to have a Liberal or Conservative viewpoint in our society.

 

Let's explore it.

 

Question:

 

Is the desire to drill for oil in ANWR conservative or liberal ideology?

 

Or how about the desire to protect our National Parks and National Forrests, conservative or liberal?

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this, i truly think we need to drill in ANWR but only if we can do it with a reasonable expectation of no oil spills or damage to wild life. I think the preservation of national forests should be the ideal of all political parties. Short term profits by destroying long term resources is stupid. This would seem to indicate a Conservative issue at least to me but these days it seems the Conservatives are all about short term profits at any cost. Both sides are about gaining power, basically power to tell others what to do. Personally I think both these issues are too important to allow either side to have power over them.