55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 10:09 am
@genoves,
I didn't see where anything I said was contradicted. Do some research and you will see how terrible that chapter in our history was. Moreover, David was in the thick of it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 11:54 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I guess you are unaware that Harvey Pitt took over the SEC for Bush, promising to have a kinder and gentler SEC. Cox rejected calls to tighten up on banks and other corporations. Greenspan, a Rep, refused to crack down on subprime mortgages, later saying that he thought the free market, sans regulations, would take care of things. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause anything.


Your statement above is remarkable for its unreality.

The head of the Federal Reserve has no authority over mortgage lending: none at all. The Federal reserve can adjust bank reserve requirements and the interest rate it charges banks. However those tools are designed to enable them to tweak the money supply to sustain growth and limit inflation.

Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac were directly involved in mortgage lending; the mass securitization of mortgages to attract more and more capital to the growing bubble; and the ill-conceived attempts by the Congress (led by Barney Frank and the esteemed Maxine Waters) to grant ever more non-conforming loans to "economically disadvantaged" people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:31 pm
@okie,
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk0210d20090210083059.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk0218d20090218081528.jpg
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
See, now those are funny political cartoons, thanks Fox!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 08:10 pm
@Advocate,
I guess you do not know how to read, Advocate--Huac was created by an American Communist---the ostensible purpose was to go after American FASCISTS. Why don't you look up the history of Dickstein?
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 08:14 pm
George ob1- wrote in response to Advocate-

Your statement above is remarkable for its unreality.

The head of the Federal Reserve has no authority over mortgage lending: none at all. The Federal reserve can adjust bank reserve requirements and the interest rate it charges banks. However those tools are designed to enable them to tweak the money supply to sustain growth and limit inflation.

Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac were directly involved in mortgage lending; the mass securitization of mortgages to attract more and more capital to the growing bubble; and the ill-conceived attempts by the Congress (led by Barney Frank and the esteemed Maxine Waters) to grant ever more non-conforming loans to "economically disadvantaged" people.
**********************************
Right on target- George Ob1


I would suggest that if Advocate wished to maintain some sort of credibility, he find evidence or documentation to rebut your statement, He won't because it doesn't exist. Anyway, Advocate appears to revel in the hit and run post--giving no evidence and just posting blah-blah-blah.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:07 pm
@Advocate,
advocate wrote:
I guess you are unaware that Harvey Pitt took over the SEC for Bush, promising to have a kinder and gentler SEC. Cox rejected calls to tighten up on banks and other corporations. Greenspan, a Rep, refused to crack down on subprime mortgages, later saying that he thought the free market, sans regulations, would take care of things. Fannie and Freddie didn't cause anything.
Advocate, I am completely aware of all these errors and then some perpetrated by leaders of the Republican party. I don't give a damn what party the perpetrators of the violation of the USA Constitution claim to be members. I am opposed to all such violators regardless of party. Both George Bush and Barack Obama are such violators. I want all such violators to be lawfully removed from our government. I'm fed up with having to vote only for the least worse candidates for office.

Yes, the creation and establishment of Fanny&Freddy were the catalysts for causing what led to the current USA recession/depression. And, Fanny&Freddy are violations of the USA Constitution. What's worse, Fanny&Freddy are being expanded further under President Obama.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:32 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
I don't give a damn what party the perpetrators of the violation of the USA Constitution claim to be members.


Perhaps, if all A2K members write to Prez Obama, he'll see fit to nominating you to the USSC. Then finally, we can rest easy knowing that there is a real constitutional expert there to guide all.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:58 am
@JTT,
Well, Obama can nominate but the Congress still has to approve the nomination.
In the past( and I hope that you are not so stupid that you don't know this) some nominations have not been accepted by Congress.

Now, Obama had better hurry and hope that there will be at least one vacancy by the time the 2010 elections are held. The way the Stock Market is going along with the Unemployment Statistics, people will be very angry by November 2010.

JTT may not have read, or does not remember how Clinton got blindsided by the election of 1994. By 1994, the US voters had had enough of the Clinton absurdities and voted in a Republican Majority.

We shall see.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 08:42 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, it is sort of a myth that conservatives are inflexible or are unable to change.
I have a few examples. Conservatives would love to bring drastic reform to education, perhaps to the tax system

That means that thay r not conservative as to THOSE paradigms.

If thay were, then thay 'd want to CONSERVE them.
Thay may well be conservative as to OTHER THINGS
e.g., constitutional, statutory or contractual interpretation.
David

I understand your point, but I don't think I agree with you altogether.

Let me cite an example. My parents were very conservative, they lived through the depression, and consequently their fiscal conservatism led them to never own a credit card, nor did they ever go into debt on much of anything. If they had the money, they bought it, if they didn't, they did without and found another way to get by.

Fast forward from the 30's, 40's......through the 60's to present day, they observed a change in government and society, such that people and government operated on a philosophy of buy it now, pay later. If they had run for office, they would have advocated drastic change from the "buy now, pay later" philosophy, thus advocating drastic change in government. I argue that they were always conservative, and they would have simply advocated bringing conservatism to how government operates.

The reason conservatives can and do advocate drastic change, david, is because government is not operating and governing conservatively now, they are operating and governing with liberal policy. Therefore, going back to conservative policies require change, not conserving liberalism. And, using conservative fiscal policy is to play it safe, close to the vest, pay as you go, do not borrow, spend only what you have. That is conservative, always, whether it is being practiced or not, and if it requires drastic change to return to that policy, it is conservative to advocate change back to that sound policy.

I fail to detect any inconsistency
between what either of us posted about this.

"Conservative" means orthodox or non-deviant from something.
"Liberal" means deviating from something.


Thay r both RELATIVE words, neither of which means anything,
unless the subject matter of the deviation or absence thereof
has been designated; e.g., when Boris Yeltsin was liberal
(or even radical) about communism: that was a GOOD thing.


If a man wears red sneakers
with black tie n tails to a formal banquet,
he is being liberal as to that paradigm.

If a man claims to have a flush when he has 4 spades and a club,
he is taking a liberal vu of the rules of poker. If he claims to have
a flush with 3 spades and 2 hearts, he is being MORE liberal,
in that there is a FURTHER deviation from the rules
( of course, he will probably be killed [most will agree, in justifiable homicide] ).

The question is WHAT is to be conserved
or to be veered away from. A more direct way
to vu what u said is that conservatism is REJECTION
of liberal changes that have been illicitly inflicted.
The leftists have called this "reaction" to their successful efforts
(meaning an endeavor to rectify their misdeeds)
such as if your parents ran for office, advocating restoration
of the status quo ante.

I have posted that if a conservative mathematician alleges that 5 = 5
and a liberal demands to negotiate a change so that 5 will equal 5.2
because he claims that will help the poor n minority groups, demanding that he "have a heart"
the conservative mathematician will reject this lie, INFLEXIBLY n RIGIDLY unwilling to bend.

Leftists will condemn conservatives for this shortsightedness and insensitivity.





David
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 09:40 am
Recession? What recession?

Pundits are getting their first look at the most recent appropriations bill passed by Pelosi and company. Something over $400 billion includes provisions to fund various functions of government--some necessary and certainly some not--and also more than 900 earmarks totaling more than $5 billion including such gems as $200,000 for California to use for tattoo removal.

Going back to Ican's recent post that he is sick and tired of having to vote for the least worst in order to vote for anybody, I am reminded that President Obama expounded over and over again on the campaign trail that he would go through the budget, line by line, and remove everything that didn't need to be there. He promised us fiscal responsibility, a truly MACean principle and concept.

What do you think the odds are that he will think $200,000 for tattoo removal is an unnecessary expense especially in the midst of an economic meltdown and crisis?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb090225_cmyk20090225023720.jpg
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:32 am
@Foxfyre,
But there are no "earmarks" in the bill, Foxfyre. If you have any questions about this, ask cyclops.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Recession? What recession?

Pundits are getting their first look at the most recent appropriations bill passed by Pelosi and company. Something over $400 billion includes provisions to fund various functions of government--some necessary and certainly some not--and also more than 900 earmarks totaling more than $5 billion including such gems as $200,000 for California to use for tattoo removal.

Going back to Ican's recent post that he is sick and tired of having to vote for the least worst in order to vote for anybody, I am reminded that President Obama expounded over and over again on the campaign trail that he would go through the budget, line by line, and remove everything that didn't need to be there. He promised us fiscal responsibility, a truly MACean principle and concept.

What do you think the odds are that he will think $200,000 for tattoo removal is an unnecessary expense especially in the midst of an economic meltdown and crisis?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb090225_cmyk20090225023720.jpg


Can you link to those earmarks, or tell us what page of the bill they are on?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:43 am
@okie,
Yeah. Help me watch for something earmarked for those wetlands where Pelosi's marsh mouse resides. It might not be in this most recent bill, but I sorta put my prognosticator reputation on the line in my belief that she would get what she has lobbied for sooner or later.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Nope. I'm picking up what I know so far based on television and radio reports this morning. There will probably be something in print later on today though.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:46 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. I'm picking up what I know so far based on television and radio reports this morning. There will probably be something in print later on today though.


Please provide some attribution when you find it, otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain skeptical. The entire bill is searchable online, it would be a trivial matter to provide documentation of these things people claim.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:05 am
@okie,
okie, Please, please, list all the earmarks in the stimulus plan? Please?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Please post the link to the bill on line. Thanks. If you get a minute and have a lot of patience, you might see if you can explain to C.I. the difference between the stimulus bill and the appropriations bill that the House passed this week.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:37 pm
Meanwhile HUGE kudos to the Associated Press for finally doing some actual research and significant reporting for a change and for providing great illustrations for why great rhetoric does not always translate into great truths or great leadership:

Quote:
FACT CHECK: Obama's words on home aid ring hollow

Feb 25, 3:15 AM (ET)
By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress - and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

---

OBAMA:
"And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

---

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

---

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

---

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS:
This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

---

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

---

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

---

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

---

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Exactly what are you trying to say? You don't need Cyclo to explain something you seem to know; or do you?
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 01:44:18