Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[REASON]

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.

 

My goal with the questions is to initiate a discussion on what it actually means to have a liberal or conservative viewpoint because I believe the labels are misused to create a false sense of segregation in our society.

 

I would argue that the desire to drill in ANWR would represent a liberal approach because it represents a significant change in policy, and the desire to protect National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges is conservative because it resists a change in policy and attempts to maintain an established tradition or approach.

 

I don't believe this is consistent with our perceptions because on this issue, the so called conservatives are the ones pressing for change and the so called liberals are resisting change.

 

I know this is a general perspective, but upon consideration, there are actually many instances like this one in the world of politics. The labels have become a way to classify and demonize those with differing positions or values. But I find that they are often misapplied.

[questor]

This is a true statement..

 

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

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

I believe an even more descriptive statement is... Whenever people gather as an interest group, they eventually learn to game the system to line their pockets/resumes, etc.

[questor]

The compromises reached between the Dems and Repubs allow the congress to continue doing business, but they also compromise someone's true beliefs.

No one is correct all the time, but all too often bipartisanship means the Repub loses the battle. Examples: no drilling in ANWR FOR YEARS. Now we will drill over two years down the road. Failing education system. Headed by National Education Association, a group oof liberals seemingly acting as a PAC for the Dems. They fight merit pay and support tenure for incompetants. The USA ranks 18!!! in developed nations. They don't seem to have a clue how to run a school. The US government. A giant welfare system where one can be totally incompetent with no fear of being fired. Oversight always occurs after the crime, never before or during. Big government is not a conservative idea, and please don't mention Bush, he follows liberal principles more than conservative ones. more later..

[Pyrotex]

The most consistent set of definitions for Conservative & Liberal--definitions that have remained mostly consistent for a century or so--are these:

 

Conservatives honor tradition and the past. They hold to principles of personal and financial responsibility, loyalty and honor. To them, a promise is a promise. They are proud proponents of a strong defense, and protectionism of hearth, home and personal freedom. They have a strong tendency to resist change, and often accompanied by an inability to see that the World around them is changing. Conservatives make excellent business leaders, and expect their children to follow in their footsteps. They are frequently uncomfortable around people who do not share their viewpoiints.

 

Liberals honor progress, justice, equality and tolerance. Liberals are often those who have suffered or witnessed oppression, intolerance, injustice or poverty at first hand. They have little problem with changing a tradition if they see that this might improve the future. They value many of the core personal liberties that Conservatives do, but feel strongly that these liberties should be available to everyone if possible. Liberals are usually quite adaptive and able to deal with change creatively and confidently. They tend to be comfortable around a wide diversity of people and personalities. Liberals tend to have excellent educations and make good teachers. But they are frequently too optimistic about their abilities to improve the future, underestimate the cost of their changes, and often have a rose-colored view of human nature.

 

These definitions do not reflect our current separation of Republican and Democrat. As far back as we have detailed written histories, we see that humanity has almost always split into these two great stereotypes--those who want to continue the past into the future, and those who want to experiment with a new kind of future.

 

Who should rule? Both. Absolutely and unequivocally BOTH.

But NOT at the same time. :eek:

 

Conservatives rule best (typically--but no guarantee) when changes in the World are small or at least constant. They can also be good at managing wars, though they are greatly tempted to conquest. When the economy is smooth, they can be relied on to keep the wheels humming, though they are greatly tempted to greed.

 

Liberals rule best (typically--no guarantee) when great changes, especially great social and economic changes are shaking the World to its foundation. When the peasants rise in revolt. They are the ones who institute the sharp-angled bends in History, using the pen rather than the sword. Sometimes, however, their experiments with the future carry heavy costs and consequences.

 

The only REAL point of arguement (IMHO) is simply this: Is this a time in History when we need to hold fast to the traditions of our grandfathers? Or is this a time when great shifts are afoot and we need to jump in order to adapt and thrive?

 

My personal opinion is that our economic "sins" of the last decade have altered the financial landscape so badly that we must change with them, adapt to a new landscape--or face an unbearable future. The Earth has shifted and we must shift with it. Therefore, THIS is a good time to put a Liberal in charge. Liberals know how to handle change.

 

And when the dust settles in a decade or so, it will be a good time to vote the Conservatives back in. I hope. If they're real Conservatives. :D

[questor]

Since the business of business has been around for thousands of years, certain practices have proved to work in all societies and in all circumstances. For a few examples consider; educating yourself in your work, offering a good product, being honest in your dealings, showing up for work on time, standing behind your work, dealing fairly with your employees, and exhibiting personal responsibility These are just a few customs that lead to success. These customs do not need to be re-invented every year. They have worked for centuries and still work today. I think one problem certain people have is the inability to understand cause and effect, therefore they are constantly looking for a better (different) way to solve problems. This leads to social experimentation such as The Great Society. political correctness, and our current financial meltdown, which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

[Pyrotex]

Since the business of business has been around for thousands of years, certain practices have proved to work in all societies and in all circumstances. ... which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

questor, questor, questor...

 

as usual, you start off so good, so intelligent, and then you descend into tiresome twaddle.

 

You are absolutely CORRECT in your listing of good business practices. Amen and rat own! But...

 

But nobody is trying to change those business practices. Hello? They are still in force today. People still have to show up for work on time. If you disagree with this, then by all means, show me any evidence that those bad ol' Liberals have ever tried to pass a law making it an acceptable business practice to show up late for work, or lie on their time card. :)

 

There are any number of excellent sources of "timelines" for our current economic crisis. Please take a look at a few of them. CNN has a good one, there are others. Try to understand the following facts:

 

Congress was not trying to get the poor and the shiftless into homes they couldn't afford. It was folks in the commercial sector, like Ameriquest (may they be chained in hell :confused:) and others who saw they could make a lotta fast bucks. And it was financial brokers, who deluded themselves into thinking that they could make a lotta fast bucks without risk. (Because everyone else was doing it, too). And it was some big investment banks like Lehman Brothers, who were under pressure to turn big profits and had nowhere else to invest their capital except personal real estate! Nowhere! Because interest rates were so low, that other potential investments weren't paying big enough returns.

 

This problem is way, way, waaaaay bigger and more complex than you describe. And what irks me, is that you, questor, are obviously smart enough to see this.

 

My second point begins with this question: how were these great investment banks able to sink so much of their capital, leveraged up to as much as 30-to-1, in obviously risky "paper", without [metaphor] the bartender telling them, "sorry buddy, but you've had enough. Go home and sober up."??? [/metaphor]

 

The answer to this question is: because back in the Clinton administration, Phil Gramm (and others) passed legislation deregulating the investment banks. Deregulation has traditionally been a Conservative keystone policy. You know, "smaller government"??? And yes, Clinton signed it, so there's egg on everyone's face.

 

I know you mean well, but your simplistic, jingoistic explanations for this financial crisis are not helping anyone. Me thinks you've been listening to too many conspiracy theories. Really, the world of politics and finance is very complex, but certainly within your ability to understand.

 

Best of luck.

[Buffy]

...and our current financial meltdown, which was an attempt to let unqualified people enjoy home ownership.

Isn't Michele Bachmann just *brilliant*? Yep, the *only* reason that those banks made all those loans to unqualified people was because they're a bunch of bleeding-hearts who just couldn't help themselves, and wanted to do good!

 

Seriously, can you do more than just regurgitate *FALSE* talking points from the Republican Party?

 

From Michele's HOME PAPER, the Minnesota Independent:

“This is the height of chutzpah,” said Rep. Keith Ellison in a scathing statement on Tuesday. “To suggest that the greatest financial crisis we face since the Great Depression was caused by legislation that was created to help PREVENT low-income individuals from assuming high-cost, subprime loans that have caused the crisis today is absurd.”

 

“To suggest that struggling families trying to keep their homes brought down the ‘Titans of Commerce,’ ‘The Masters of the Universe’ on Wall Street, is ludicrous. To suggest someone who is raising three children while holding down two minimum-wage jobs on a high school education was able to stall one of the greatest economic engines on earth needs their head examined,” Ellison said.

 

And empirical data back Ellison’s assertion. A number of studies show that CRA has in fact decreased predatory lending in minority neighborhoods and that banks subject to CRA regulations were less likely to offer subprime loans.

 

Its fine to argue a conservative viewpoint, but you'll honestly be taken more seriously if your proof points aren't so easily laid waste....

 

Quoth Hudibras, I smell a rat; Ralpho, thou dost prevaricate, :phones:

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, your own credibility could be enhanced if you didn't accept everything you read from liberal sources. Do you have a reason to reject all conservative input? This latest problem was initially started by an attempt to increase home ownership among the disadvantaged. It has civil rights roots starting back to 1968.

There were victories in civil rights in 1968. Protests about fair housing led to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 that allowed open housing for people of all races. President Johnson's answer to King's assassination was the Civil Rights Act of 1968, an amendment to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. It focused on one of the most important aspects of a free society: It prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing.

This led to elimination of any type discrimination for almost any reason. It started to increase the demands to provide low cost housing for the underprivileged. Builders were forced to set aside certain sections of communities for low cost housing in order to get zoning permits. With congress deregulating certain banking activities and congress pushing to have more low cost housing, the unregulated lenders devised ways to package loans to take advantage of this laxity. There is blame here for everyone and the hands of congress are not clean. The underprivileged did not have houses before this, and they won't have houses now. If they put down 0%, which many did, they could walk away and it's the lender who loses. They can go back to renting as they were before. Don't try to put this on the Repubs, when the whole structure of this debacle was caused by trying to subvert normal market forces. The underlying theme of this was to transfer assets to underprivileged people who were also unqualified to afford the payment. While this may be an altruistic goal, it just didn't work.

[Essay]

Questor, in post #45 I asked:

 

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?

 

I realize it was Dem & Rep legislation that allowed the financial wizards to get so incredibly creative with that basic asset, but c'mon.... I think blaming this on the poor (or attempts to help them) is fairly lame.

 

Speculation, leveraging, bubbles, slashing regulations and hampering regulators....

 

Is this the 6th or 7th time that we've repeated this in our economy's history (mortgage-based speculation)?

 

Thanks,

~ :)

[Thunderbird]

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?

 

I had a conversation recently with a man from California that complained about the tree huggers that were always complaining about logging the red woods. He stated that he put “people first not trees” and this was his view on why they were wrong . I asked him what future generation that could only look at videos and read descriptions about what it was like to walk in a forest of giant trees thousands of years old.

 

This wildlife refuge is the last untouched wilderness in north America. The only reason it is still pristine in complete the lack of roads. Once you build the roads no more wilderness. Future generations will look back at Conservatism as the great oxymorons of the 21st century.

 

 

 

 

Arctic Refuge Oil Is a Distraction, Not a Solution

What would America gain by allowing heavy industry into the refuge? Very little. Oil from the refuge would hardly make a dent in our dependence on foreign imports -- leaving our economy and way of life just as exposed to wild swings in worldwide oil prices and supply as it is today. The truth is, we simply can't drill our way to energy independence.

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.

It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of Americans' daily consumption. The U.S. government's own Energy Information Agency recently reported that drilling in the Arctic would save less than 4 cents per gallon in 20 years. Whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America's future energy needs.

 

NRDC: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?

[questor]

To understand this subject, you can't rely on things you read in liberal blogs. You must at least take a look at reliable information from other sources.

 

Chris Dodd, Barney Frank & The Subprime Crisis

 

There is a wealth of information, video and audio on the left's responsibility for the subprime crisis. Two at the center of it all are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, two men who insured that nothing was done about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the name of "affordable housing" - that's code for a massive redistribution of funds on the basis of identity politics. Yet there is a total news blackout amongst all but a few media outlets on this. Fox News covers at least a portion of it today.

Link: Wolf Howling: Chris Dodd, Barney Frank & The Subprime Crisis

Read this about Franklin Raines:

Link: Business & Technology | Franklin Raines to pay $24.7 million to settle Fannie Mae lawsuit | Seattle Times Newspaper

Raines was CEO of FNMA.. with congressional aquiescence fannie mae and freddie mac were major players in the subprime debacle. They were determined to finance ''affordable housing''. This was NOT a conservative undertaking as it can be viewed as a redistribution of wealth.

[REASON]

questor,

 

Please identify where it states in any law that private lending institutions are REQUIRED to provide loans with unacceptable risks to disadvantaged borrowers. Or how about a law that REQUIRED these institutions to bundle these loans up and sell them to larger banks and lenders several times, which in the process, was contributing to their devaluation.

 

I keep hearing that the majority of forclosures are due to people getting into far more house than they can afford. Can you provide any demographics that show that most of the forclosures are with low-income housing?

 

I don't know about you, but I was getting around four calls or mailings a week from about 2001 to 2005 asking if I wanted to refinance my home mortgage, and that the current ARM loans were providing some of the lowest interest rates in history. They were offering to let me borrow up to 125% of the value of my home so I could roll any credit card debt I had into my mortgage payment and they would give me charts that would show how many hundreds of dollars a month in savings I could reap by doing so.

 

Were the Democrats forcing them to do this?

 

Big surprise, I'm not getting those calls anymore.

[questor]

Since you are Reason, I'm sure you understand cause and effect and the law

of unintended consequences.

This was the start: On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as CRA '68), which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Civil Rights Act of 1866[1] prohibited discrimination in housing, there were no federal enforcement provisions. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and as of 1974, sex; as of 1988, the act protects the handicapped and families with children. It also provided protection for civil rights workers. The Act is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act (of 1968) .

 

Victims of discrimination may use both the 1968 act and the 1866 act (via section 1982) to seek redress. The 1968 act provides for federal solutions while the 1866 act provides for private solutions (i.e., civil suits).

 

 

 

Types of banned discrimination

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:

 

1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

 

2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.

 

3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)

 

4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

 

This on the surface was a good law in that it allowed everyone Equal

Rights with no discrimination, but it also engendered a feeling of entitilement

in some people without just cause.

 

This was another factor:

The New Focus Group: Low-Income Home Buyers

by Blanche Evans

There has been a lot of media attention on the first time buyer, moveup buyer, and luxury buyer driving the current record-setting market. But another type of buyer, overlooked until now, is starting to gain the spotlight - those with low incomes.

 

Low-income buyers are being viewed by the government and the private sector as the possible solution for several social problems. When people rent, or live in low income or federal housing, they don't tend to take ownership of their surroundings, nor do they participate as much in their communities.

 

Low-income buyers could be the key to turning troubled neighborhoods around. With an economic stake in their homes, they are more likely to maintain their homes with care and pride, take more interest in social issues that affect their neighbors and themselves, and earn equity as a means of savings.

 

For most low-income families, the immediate barrier to home ownership is perception. There is a myth that pervades - buying a home requires cash for a down payment and good credit, two things most low-income families don't have. Many low-income families have no idea that there are numerous programs, from the private sector, the non-profit sector, and the government to help them achieve the dream of home ownership, and often with little or no money down...

Link: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/19990122_newgroup.htm

[freeztar]

Let's be clear Q. There's a big difference between anti-discrimination and predatory lending. The CRA merely forbid lenders from declining a loan based on race/etc. Some of the groups listed in the article probably extended loans to some people that were unqualified (whether minority or white). They are certainly part of the blame, but there's lots more blame to throw around, and it lands on both sides of the aisle, both conservatives vs. liberals.

[freeztar]

questor,

 

I keep hearing that the majority of forclosures are due to people getting into far more house than they can afford. Can you provide any demographics that show that most of the forclosures are with low-income housing?

I'd like to see this data as well.

[questor]

The more you read, the more you learn. Here is some more info. I assume everyone here has access to Google. If you have info to counter this, let's share it. I have said before there is plenty of blame here for everyone.

 

Obama-ACORN Root Causes of Mortgage Crisis?

 

FBI Investigates U.S. Financial Crisis - Where Did $1 Trillion Go?

 

The high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN and Obama has created the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression. The full reach of the corruption and scandal may never be known but those who created it must not be rewarded. The architects, primarily left-wing Democrats, created laws, took donations, looked the other way and instead were too busy overseeing donations to their own presidential campaigns and robbing main street blind. Now these same left-wing Democrats blame everyone else and get up on their high horses and say, "we are here to save you" from the crises they created.

 

Yes, Mr. Obama knows a great deal about the mess. He is a central figure in the left-wing ACORN exploitation of financial institutions and pressuring them to make high risk loans. The very same left-wing ACORN was guilty of voter fraud in the last presidential election.

 

Now these same Democrats want to do another high risk "community service," social engineering experiment. They want to elect a high-risk, low experience, socialist one of the same community organizers that created the mess to be our next president. We cannot experiment with the office of president and learn as we go. Barack Obama is not qualified and has no history of success as a leader in government or business.

 

The FBI investigation

 

An FBI investigation is under way at Lehman Brothers and three other contributors to America's financial crisis to determine whether they put pressure on ratings agencies to award top ratings to securities they issued.

 

Concerns that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG or Lehman may have sought to encourage agencies to inflate their ratings - by offering higher fees or the promise of more work - form part of a broad inquiry by the bureau.

 

The agencies are widely regarded as having failed debt holders by attributing the top ratings to many securities that turned out to be extremely risky and have lost investors hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

The FBI, which is also investigating whether any of the four institutions deliberately misled investors about the true health of their assets, is expected to demand that they "hold all papers and e-mails under lock and key" as it sifts through the evidence, a source said.

 

How did we get here?

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION! A Lending Policy created by democrats for democrats run by democrats monitored by democrats enforced by community organizer democrats and profited from by democrats.

 

The following information is condensed from an article by Stanley Kurtz. O's Dangerous Pals.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

 

Obama Trains ACORN Staff in Shakedown Tactics

 

It would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

 

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

 

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

 

Obama Funds ACORN

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

 

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

 

More, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

 

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

 

Obama Aware of Intimidation Tactics

 

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

 

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

 

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

In short, to understand the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Link: HumanEventsOnline.com

[questor]

A simple but succinct story explaining the difference between a conservative and a liberal....

 

''I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

 

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

 

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

 

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."

 

She thought that over for a few seconds 'cause she's only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

 

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." ''

 

From the internet.