55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:00 pm
@parados,
MY CORRECTION HERE WAS MADE TO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY FALSELY CLAIMED I POSTED:
... THE TOTAL WAGES OF more than 50% of wage earners can be in the top 50% of TOTAL wageS earneD ...

NOW YOU ADMIT I ACTUALLY POSTED THIS:
Quote:
THE MORE PEOPLE WHO EARN SALARIES IN THE TOP 50% OF INCOMES, THE MERRIER!


This does not require correction.

My statement was not about what is currently true. It is about what I would like to be true. It makes sense to me!

YOUR EXPLANATION OF YOUR DISAGREEMENT IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED NOR IS IT RELEVANT TO WHAT I LABELED: CORRECTION!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:11 pm
@ican711nm,
Your statement is meaningless; there's always 50% making less.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 12:34 am
@parados,
President Obama is the President of the United States. He knows that thousands of innocent men, women and children have died and American Soldiers have died, are dying and will die, in Afghanistan. It makes no difference if someone else has started this atrocious war in Afghanistan. It is up to the President of the United States to take all of our troops out of Afghanistan, as well as Iraq BEFORE ANY MORE ARE KILLED.

I await the President's quick action on this and I do hope that political considerations do not get in his way of saving lives. He can withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of this summer.

I await his decision!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 08:25 am
@genoves,
Quote:
President Obama is the President of the United States. He knows that thousands of innocent men, women and children have died and American Soldiers have died, are dying and will die, in Afghanistan. It makes no difference if someone else has started this atrocious war in Afghanistan. It is up to the President of the United States to take all of our troops out of Afghanistan, as well as Iraq BEFORE ANY MORE ARE KILLED.

I await the President's quick action on this and I do hope that political considerations do not get in his way of saving lives. He can withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before the end of this summer.


Does this hold even if his best military advisors tell him that a precipitous withdrawal might result in more deaths than a more moderated, less hurried one????
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:16 am
@ican711nm,
Both your statements are mathematically impossible ican.

If you would like it to be true doesn't mean it ever will be true. It only means you are making an argument based on nothing more than believing the impossible will some day be true.

I suppose that is as good a definition of the MAC as anything.
They believe in something even if it can't and won't ever be true.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 09:18 am
@genoves,
So... Again we see the perfect example of a MAC believing something that isn't true.

Your statement was pretty specific genoves. It wasn't some vague statement that could fit into your new attempt to make it true.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:28 am
How about Michael Steele, the guy that made the truly inspirational speech at a political convention, the Republican convention, instead of the trumped up and ballyhooed Obama a few years ago. I still remember that, listening and watching Steele give the speech and I was impressed, then watching Obama, and duh, nothing inspiring. Steele comes across as genuine, honest, and realistic, a man that loves America and believes in what we have here, what a breath of fresh air, as contrasted with Obama.

So can this man re-invigorate the party? I hope so.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/31/steele-focused-critical-races-rebuilding-gop/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/story/Steele.jpg
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:33 am
On another front, I receive the daily newsletter from Newsmax.com. Chris Ruddy's editorial today was especially pertinent given the current debate in the Senate re the stimulus package. I hunted up the online link. Ruddy is the head guy at Newsmax:

Quote:
Obama’s Wrong: Wall Street Not to Blame

Monday, February 2, 2009 1:00 PM
By: Christopher Ruddy

Within days of becoming president, Obama was quick to find a scapegoat for the economic crisis.

He has railed against Wall Street’s “arrogance and greed.” Drawing attention to “shameful” Wall Street bonuses of $18 billion, he described them as “the height of irresponsibility.”

I am not going to defend Wall Street excesses. It is unclear to me if these bonuses are excessive. But let’s put all of this into perspective.

America’s economy is the engine of the global economy. We represent less than 5 percent of the world’s population and a disproportionate 25 percent of the world’s GDP. We remain the reserve currency of the world.

Wall Street has played a major role in American capitalism. Its executives should be well compensated.

I am not angry at Wall Street because the current economic crisis was not caused by Wall Street. And Wall Street is not prolonging the pain.

Our economic problems have emanated from Washington and from the Federal Reserve.

If any one needs to be shamed, how about starting with Congress? Congress has offered so little oversight of Wall Street " not to mention the executive branch and the Federal Reserve.

And yes, both Republicans and Democrats have played a role in the current mess.

What is abundantly clear in just the first two weeks of the Obama administration is that the Democrats have the wrong approach in fixing our problems.

We have seen that in the massive $800 billion-plus “stimulus” program, which largely goes to directly helping the unions that backed Obama and which benefits a massive laundry list of social welfare and pork barrel spending.

A careful examination shows the stimulus is nothing more than payback to many of the special interests that supported his campaign and the Democrats in 2008.

Commentator Ben Stein estimates that almost half of the stimulus will directly benefit the private and public unions that backed Obama and the Democrats in the recent election.

Then, other hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on federal and state welfare programs. Even illegal aliens can collect checks of up to $1,000.

When I hear Obama wag his finger at bankers on Wall Street, I wonder if he really is serious about fixing our economy or simply replaying Franklin Roosevelt and the 1930s.

Unsuccessful at solving the country’s economic woes, some argue FDR’s policies actually prolonged the Depression for almost a decade and shifted the public’s focus on “evil” Wall Street.

During the ‘30s, FDR demonized corporate America in a skilful public relations effort that pitted Main Street against the wealthy elites.

Sound familiar?

Today, we need to place blame where it belongs. Where was Washington when the Fed and our regulatory agencies allowed zero percent loans to mortgage recipients who weren’t qualified?

Where were they as the financial institutions began collateralizing these loans and then leveraging them 10 to 1 or more?

Where were they when Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan slammed the monetary gas, dropping interest rates to a record low of 1 percent?

Where were they when, in 2004, the Fed reversed course and slammed the brakes on the U.S. economy, raising rates over 400 percent from 1 percent to over 5 percent in less than two years?

Housing Is the Key to Recovery

I am amazed that with trillions in spending and all the smoke about Wall Street, the Democrats in Congress and Obama in the White House are failing to do the No. 1 thing to save the economy: help the housing market.

Don’t forget what precipitated the domino effect " the housing crash, which began in 2005 (after the Fed dramatically raised rates) as ARMs readjusted astronomically for new homeowners.

This set off the liquidity crisis, the first jolts of which were felt in the U.S. economy in the summer of 2008.

Since then, Congress and the Fed have done almost nothing to save the housing market. In fact, housing prices continue to fall, inventories continue to rise, and foreclosures rates are breaking records.

Instead of aiding the housing market, Washington is bent on giving trillions in bailouts to banks, the auto industry, state and local governments and millions of suffering Americans " morphine to a dying patient.

But imagine if Congress gave tax credits now to home buyers. If it increased deductibility of mortgages for homebuyers. If it guaranteed new mortgages as long as the applicants were qualified.

If it did, it would stimulate home buying. Prices would stabilize. Inventories would fall.

Banks would begin to find that the “toxic” mortgage paper they won actually has some value. Homeowners would again be finding equity in their property and would be able to refinance expensive debt at low rates. Consumer spending would increase.

Yet almost two years into this crisis, the Obama administration and Congress refuse to take the most basic step to fix the U.S. economy.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell hit the nail on the head when he said housing is the primary step to restoring the economy.

“Most economists agree that falling home values are the underlying cause of the recent downturn,” he said. “Republicans think we need to fix this problem before we do anything else.”

He’s absolutely right. McConnell wants to offer government-guaranteed mortgages at a low 4 percent to any credit-worthy borrower who wants one.

It’s a simple solution, but one that will work.

There are sensible Democrats too who know housing is key. North Dakota’s Sen. Kent Conrad is calling for a $10,000 tax credit for any primary home buyer.

Obama and his administration should stop playing the blame game and begin implementing common-sense solutions to make America work again.

That’s real change we can sign up for.
http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/obama_wall_street/2009/02/02/177566.html


Ruddy's credentials:
Ruddy grew up on Long Island, New York, where his father was a police officer in Nassau County. He graduated summa cum laude in history from St. John's University in New York City[ in 1987. He then earned a master's degree in public policy from the London School of Economics and also studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He worked briefly as a high school teacher.

Ruddy serves on the Board of Directors of the Financial Publishers Association, an industry trade group representing the nation's financial media.

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
@okie,
Okie, I am thrilled that Michael Steele has agreed to head up the GOP. He's classy, brilliant, and has his head on straight. He has as good a chance as anybody to get the train back on the track. For years I thought Michael was related to one of my all time heroes, Shelby Steele, but Shelby recently said he has looked for a link but so far as he knows, he and Michael are not related.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:41 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

On another front, I receive the daily newsletter from Newsmax.com.


So we are assured that you got the right information which guided you to protect and grow your wealth. Wink
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:46 am
@Foxfyre,
Good, I'm glad you feel the same way. In this modern world of political correctness, I keep hoping a person of color could somehow convince the minorities in this country to believe in themselves and the American dream instead of the nanny state, the government, and more socialism, would that be one great accomplishment! The Democrats have fooled and used the minorities so long that it is just expected they get 90% of their vote and it is hard to overcome that polarization, all unjustified in my opinion, totally due to a snow job. It is no small challenge to strengthen what made this country great instead of continuing to slide down into the abyss of liberalism and the nanny state.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And your point is what, Walter?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:50 am
@okie,
Well you would think the examples of Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, William Raspberry, J C Watts, Armstrong Williams, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas et al, would have had some significant influence. In fact they have as many young black Americans do hold them up as heroes and role models.

But among the masses, it's very difficult to overcome the double whammy of constantly being told how oppressed and angry you are supposed to be coupled with the promise of ice cream.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:56 am
@Foxfyre,
Ruddy is an idiot and an apologist for wealthy crooks.

Quote:

I am not angry at Wall Street because the current economic crisis was not caused by Wall Street. And Wall Street is not prolonging the pain.

Our economic problems have emanated from Washington and from the Federal Reserve.


No sir, the problem started when rich Wall Street money managers 'invented' the CDO and started massively leveraging their businesses to make money off of their sale and purchase. This is why the housing crash - which is cyclical and unavoidable - spread out to areas of the market which have nothing to do with housing at all.

Quote:

Don’t forget what precipitated the domino effect " the housing crash, which began in 2005 (after the Fed dramatically raised rates) as ARMs readjusted astronomically for new homeowners.

This set off the liquidity crisis, the first jolts of which were felt in the U.S. economy in the summer of 2008.


How did it set off the liquidity crisis? Ruddy doesn't explain this, but that's the part where the fat cat bankers are to blame.

If Ruddy's the head guy at Newsmax, that's pretty sad, b/c he doesn't know a damn thing about finance or how this crisis was started at all.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:58 am
Foxfyre first posted here the following quote obtained from a cicerone imposter thread. This quote alleges that the listed positions are what contemporary American liberals or progressives (CALOPs) support. Until at least one CALOP here tells me otherwise, the listed positions are in fact what CALOPs support. I will subsequently critique some of these CALOPs by explaining why I support or do not support them, and why I think they are or are not actually supported by CALOPs.
Quote:
Some positions associated with modern liberalism

The following are some ideas that many contemporary American liberals or progressives support:

The Constitution of the United States, unalienable rights, human rights, civil liberties, equal justice, equality of opportunity, and liberty under law;

Public leadership in guaranteeing a strong social safety net, including support for Medicare, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and the preservation of Social Security as well as programs to assist low-income working American families, such as food stamps;

Non-interference in private matters of conscience and belief, by the strong support of the fundamental American principle of separation of church and state;

A progressive tax system;

The right to health care; public leadership in the creation of a health care system of universal coverage supported by taxes;

Civil rights, including laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;

A spirit of international cooperation and strong alliances, including through NATO and the United Nations; a reluctance to use military force before other alternatives are exhausted;

Public leadership in protecting the environment from pollution and ensuring the conservation of resources;

Public leadership in guaranteeing free and high-quality public education and free or low-cost public transportation;

Public leadership in the prevention, suppression, and punishment of abusive business practices, including through OSHA, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and minimum wage laws;

Strong support of workers' rights to organize labor unions, and to bargain collectively with their employer, over their wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment;

Strong support for women's rights, reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education, free or low-cost contraception, and free or low-cost reproductive health care; many liberals also include a woman's right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, though not all liberals share consensus on abortion, which is an issue of conscience. Those who do, believe that, in the words of Bill Clinton, "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

The following are some ideas that have some support among liberals, but on which there is no clear liberal consensus.

Government role in alternative energy development

Government responsibility to supervise ports and infrastructure in the public interest

Support for same-sex marriage

The elimination of the death penalty

The belief in the guarantee of abortion rights by Roe v. Wade standards

Advocacy of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and support of scientific study

Affirmative action

Transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English

Gun control

Marijuana and hemp legalization for medical or industrial purposes

The right of the terminally ill to end their life

Animal welfare

On globalization, American liberals stand largely divided. Liberal members of the intelligentsia and the professional class tend to favor globalization, due to their cosmopolitan ideals. Members of organized labor, on the other hand, tend to be opposed to increased globalization:

"[Globalization] invites two responses from the Left. The first is to insist that the inequalities between nations need to be mitigated.... The second is to insist that the primary responsibility of each democratic nation-state is to its own least advantaged citizens... the first response suggests that the old democracies should open their borders, whereas the second suggests that they should close them. The first response comes naturally to academic leftists, who have always been internationally minded. The second comes naturally to members of trade unions, and to marginally employed people who can most easily be recruited into right-wing populist movements."[25]
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 10:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Gee, Foxie, how come you aren't blaming wall street? It's the fault of main street, right?
We the citizens...earned those million dollar bonus', purchased mansions and jet airplanes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 11:04 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well of course you are entitled to your unwavering partisan and unsupportable opinion, Cyclop. But to support Ruddy's take on it:

Quote:
Just call it a record year for U.S. homeowners -- a distinction they don't want to repeat.

U.S. homeowners lost an astounding $3.3 trillion in home value in 2008, as the worst slump in the residential real estate segment intensified amid the U.S. recession, Zillow.com announced Tuesday. Further, homeowners lost $1.4 trillion in value in Q4 2008. In 2007, homeowners lost $1.3 trillion in value.

Further, the median home price based on data collected by Zillow.com plummeted 11.6% to $192,119 in 2008. Meanwhile, the percent of homeowners with negative equity -- home values less than their amount owed -- jumped to 17.6% in Q4 2008 from 14.3% in Q3 2008.


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/03/u-s-homeowners-lost-3-3-trillion-in-home-value-in-2008/
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 11:14 am
@ican711nm,
Okay....just to clarify the terms:

MAC = Modern American Conservative (to differentiate from European or old guard conservatism; i.e. closer to Classical Liberalism.).

CALOP = Contemporary American Liberal or Progressive (to differentiate from European liberalism and also as distinct from Classical Liberalism.)

This works for me. Does anybody else have any objection to going forward with these terms to cut down on band width waste and time necessary to type it all out each time?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 11:15 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well of course you are entitled to your unwavering partisan and unsupportable opinion, Cyclop. But to support Ruddy's take on it:

Quote:
Just call it a record year for U.S. homeowners -- a distinction they don't want to repeat.

U.S. homeowners lost an astounding $3.3 trillion in home value in 2008, as the worst slump in the residential real estate segment intensified amid the U.S. recession, Zillow.com announced Tuesday. Further, homeowners lost $1.4 trillion in value in Q4 2008. In 2007, homeowners lost $1.3 trillion in value.

Further, the median home price based on data collected by Zillow.com plummeted 11.6% to $192,119 in 2008. Meanwhile, the percent of homeowners with negative equity -- home values less than their amount owed -- jumped to 17.6% in Q4 2008 from 14.3% in Q3 2008.


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/03/u-s-homeowners-lost-3-3-trillion-in-home-value-in-2008/


Sure, Fox. But do you realize why what you posted here has very little to do with the liquidity crisis?

Imagine you had a business; and in order to make higher profits, you were leveraging gold, by borrowing 29 dollars for every dollar of gold you purchased, and selling when the prices went up. For a while your business made scads of cash off of this, and attracted new investors because of it.

Then, the price of gold plummets for various reasons; the reasons don't really matter, b/c commodity markets always go up and down, it's inevitable.

Suddenly your company is stuck holding the bag, with lots of over-leveraged gold that you paid too much for. And the investors want to know what the hell happened, b/c you weren't exactly transparent with your business.

Do you honestly think you could go to them and say 'Sorry guys, it's the fault of the gold market that I've lost all your investments, if only they hadn't discovered that giant new mine...' ?

You'd be lynched. B/c what really is at the heart of your problems are poor business decisions, not the fluctuations of the market.

What the hell were all these companies doing with such over-leveraged CDOs? That's the fault of the CEO's. And many knew the crash was coming, and simply got out with their millions.

Ruddy is a fool, and if you support his view that those who made poor decisions are not to blame for the consequences of those decisions, you are as well.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2009 11:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well ya know what, Cyclop? I prefer to discuss concepts, ideas, and explore what really happened and the probable effects of proposed remedies instead of engaging in trash talk. If that makes me the fool, then so be it.

I have a very difficult time thinking anybody who graduated Magna Cum Laude from anywhere to be a fool especially when that person went on to acquire some impressive additional credentials and even more especially when his/her take on something is supportable with real evidence. I would more likely think somebody to be foolish who would draw that conclusion that he is a fool based on no more evidence than you have so far presented and/or based on the fact that a person might take a MAC perspective.

I agree with Ruddy and numerous other responsible educated people that the President and Congress are not focusing on the right causes of the current economic crisis, and they are serving us poorly in how they are addressing it and they are being either ignorant or dishonest in where they are placing the blame.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/24/2025 at 04:23:20