55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 10:21 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
We the people have spoken and we do not want our new President to embrace the failed ideology of the bastards who allowed their
unbridled greed to destroy our nation's economic welfare.


Greed makes the world go 'round.
That has been true since before the first dinosaur hatched.

Inexorably, the law of Supply n Demand is the Supreme Law of the Land;
its just NATURAL.
If u r against greed, then u r against basic human nature.
David
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 11:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
And freedom, capitalism, and free markets keep greed in check. Otherwise greedy bureaucrats have no competition to bridle their unchecked greed for power and money.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 11:25 pm
@okie,
One thing is for sure, the way to encourage unbridled greed, whether lust for money or power or both, is to protect folks from the consequences of it and/or perhaps reward them for it.

Quote:
Jewish World Review
March 10, 2009 14 Adar 5769
Subsidizing bad decisions
By Thomas Sowell

Now that the federal government has decided to bail out homeowners in trouble, with mortgage loans up to $729,000, that raises some questions that ought to be asked, but are seldom being asked.

Since the average American never took out a mortgage loan as big as seven hundred grand" for the very good reason that he could not afford it" why should he be forced as a taxpayer to subsidize someone else who apparently couldn't afford it either, but who got in over his head anyway?

Why should taxpayers who live in apartments, perhaps because they did not feel that they could afford to buy a house, be forced to subsidize other people who could not afford to buy a house, but who went ahead and bought one anyway?

We hear a lot of talk in some quarters about how any one of us could be in the same financial trouble that many homeowners are in if we lost our job or had some other misfortune. The pat phrase is that we are all just a few paydays away from being in the same predicament.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Another way of saying the same thing is that some people live high enough on the hog that any of the common misfortunes of life can ruin them.

Who hasn't been out of work at some time or other, or had an illness or accident that created unexpected expenses? The old and trite notion of "saving for a rainy day" is old and trite precisely because this has been a common experience for a very long time.

What is new is the current notion of indulging people who refused to save for a rainy day or to live within their means. In politics, it is called "compassion"" which comes in both the standard liberal version and "compassionate conservatism."

The one person toward whom there is no compassion is the taxpayer.

The current political stampede to stop mortgage foreclosures proceeds as if foreclosures are just something that strikes people like a bolt of lightning from the blue" and as if the people facing foreclosures are the only people that matter.

What if the foreclosures are not stopped?

Will millions of homes just sit empty? Or will new people move into those homes, now selling for lower prices" prices perhaps more within the means of the new occupants?

The same politicians who have been talking about a need for "affordable housing" for years are now suddenly alarmed that home prices are falling. How can housing become more affordable unless prices fall?

The political meaning of "affordable housing" is housing that is made more affordable by politicians intervening to create government subsidies, rent control or other gimmicks for which politicians can take credit.

Affordable housing produced by market forces provides no benefit to politicians and has no attraction for them.

Study after study, not only here but in other countries, show that the most affordable housing is where there has been the least government interference with the market" contrary to rhetoric.

When new occupants of foreclosed housing find it more affordable, will the previous occupants all become homeless? Or are they more likely to move into homes or apartments that they can afford? They will of course be sadder" but perhaps wiser as well.

The old and trite phrase "sadder but wiser" is old and trite for the same reason that "saving for a rainy day" is old and trite. It reflects an all too common human experience.

Even in an era of much-ballyhooed "change," the government cannot eliminate sadness. What it can do is transfer that sadness from those who made risky and unwise decisions to the taxpayers who had nothing to do with their decisions.

Worse, the subsidizing of bad decisions destroys one of the most effective sources of better decisions" namely, paying the consequences of bad decisions.

In the wake of the housing debacle in California, more people are buying less expensive homes, making bigger down payments, and staying away from "creative" and risky financing. It is amazing how fast people learn when they are not insulated from the consequences of their decisions.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell031009.php3
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 11:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
Speaking of greed, Foxfyre, just what did Michelle Obama do for her lavish salary at the Chicago hospital, that her salary went up so drastically right after Obama was elected to the Senate? Just curious, here, if anyone knows the answer? And what was the 1 million dollar earmark Obama requested, what was that about? Surely there was no greed involved here, was there?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SXCI12zq5DI/AAAAAAAAPJA/MzNwODsoKMg/s400/090115-michelle-salary3s.jpg

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/chart-michelle-obamas-salary.html
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 03:15 am
Commentary: GOP becoming a cartoon
By Jack Cafferty
CNN

Excerpts:

Quote:
* * *

Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, down on his knees apologizing to the helium-filled poster boy of the conservative right? Pathetic.

If the Republicans are ever to emerge from the long dark night they have created for themselves it will have to be without pandering to the right wing nuts that comprise Rush Limbaugh's radio audience. Didn't they learn anything in the last election?

* * *

The Republican Party is marching double-time down the road to irrelevance and they don't even know it.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/cafferty.republicans/index.html



okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 08:54 am
@Debra Law,
Is Cafferty talking about all those right wing extremists that make up about 30% of the country that have a favorable approval rating of Limbaugh, according to one poll? And although Limbaugh is a bit bombastic, his promises seem a little more solid than Obama's these days, Debra. At least, Limbaugh is not threatening to confiscate everything people have worked for to give it to somebody else, okay, Debra?

http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1437968.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 09:33 am
From yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

Note: I am reading avidly these days and am not picking up on a wide degree of personal disapproval or dislike for President Obama. Certainly there is not the biting and hateful enmity directed at him that I saw from the opposition early on for George W. Bush.

So in the following article I do not see polling results re impressions of the President as much as I see polling results reflecting basic value judgments held by the American people. It was much the same kind of thing we saw when Bill Clinton attempted to foist a socialist healthcare plan on the people. He remained popular even as his agenda was thoroughly discredited and rejected.

Likewise the people love Obama. But those who are paying attention are liking his agenda less and less as reflected here by an independent pollster and a Democratic pollster teaming up:

Quote:
OPINION
MARCH 12, 2009, 11:49 P.M. ET
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.

While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.

And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.

There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.

While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.

Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.

Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
JamesMorrison
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 09:49 am
@okie,
okie wrote
Quote:
:"Be honest, Obama is proposing to punish greenhouse gas emissions. I haven't heard him mention cows yet, but he most certainly is energy companies, and both are just as bad in terms of policy. Throw in the fact that global warming is not in any way shape or form a settled science, no way, so the policy is based upon pop science, not sound science."


But now that President Obama has canceled Bush's stem cell restrictions on governmental research grants under the aegis of a more "scientifically based" policy we surely can expect him to review the science that allegedly supports the contention that humans are the evil gremlins behind all of the global warming hub bub (which apparently has been on hold for the last decade).

Oh, tell me a tale of Cars and Buses, of belching Llamas and farting Cows and I shall reveal to those of great faith a religion like no other. A religion that will make us all whole and benefit the few ‘cognoscenti’ but regressively subsidized by all. And the Lion shall lie down with the Lamb when the almighty second coming of the Gore is upon us, verily I say unto you.

JM
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 09:59 am
@Foxfyre,
How do you square this with the Gallup polling, which consistently puts Obama above 60% approval and with a more than 30-point gap between his approve and disapprove numbers?

It's no secret that Rasmussen is a Republican and designs his polls in order to affect the best result for the Republican side as possible. So I take this with a grain of salt.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:05 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't know that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. How do you know that he is a Republican? His polling data for years now has been near the top in accuracy and the article cites quite a bit of information re Gallup polling. You didn't read the article did you.

Plus you are ignoring that the first name on the article is a Democratic Pollster.

If you're interested in knowing a bit about Scott R, this piece gives quite a bit of insight:
http://www.wmassociation.com/proceedings/18wmf/srasmussen.html

If you have data that disputes that in the article, post it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:07 am
@Foxfyre,
The article mentioned Gallup polling on specific issues but failed to mention that the Gallup poll shows a MUCH higher approval rating spread than the Rasmussen poll, which is the money stat of the article. Gallup has him today at 63-27 App-dis, which is a hell of a lot higher than Rasmussen. Why the big difference?

Ras consistently shows/showed the Republican candidate a few points higher than other polling did in every campaign I can remember them polling. They weight their grouping with a much different partisan ID breakdown than other pollsters do...

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
If you have data as timely as the Rasmussen daily rolling polls that disputes his data, post it. You're making all these claims but so far are not showing that you are doing anything but talking through your hat. Again, show me that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. I've been trying to find out his party affiliation for years and haven't been able to determine that information.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:12 am
@Foxfyre,
I edited it in. But to recap, the Gallup approval ratings are at 63-27, a 36 point spread, a full 30 points better than Ras. That seems unlikely unless one is doing some funny business with their sampling.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:13 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Gallup approval ratings related to what? In what time frame? When was the poll conducted? Show us the money.

And are you suggesting that Douglas Shoen is a partisan hack and his opinion is unreliable?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:15 am
@Foxfyre,
Sigh, here -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Look for yourself. Can't cut-and-paste the graph. But it's the same three-day rolling averages they used during the elections.

Do you honestly need me to tell you how to find this info?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:16 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Bush's mismanagement of the economy began in 2007. It did not begin in 2001. Prior to 2008, Bush tried several times to get the 2FMs (i.e., Fanny&Freddy) fixed. He failed each time because he was not outspoken and agressive enough to get around the opposition to his efforts by the Congress--both Republicans and Democrats. Our current economic problems began with the 2FMs long before Bush was elected president. They began when the 2FMs began increasingly supporting mortgages of mortgagers that the mortgagees could not pay for.

But that is old business! The new business is that the OILs (i.e., Obama Invidious Liberals) are supporting through the 2FMs the rapid increase in the mortgages of mortgagers that the mortgagees will not be able to pay for. The OILs have been doing this since January 20, 2009. Until that is stopped, the fall of our economy will continue and not be turned around.



I would count the failure to achieve something of critical importance, even if his heart was in the right place, as failure and mismanagement. Bush made the same mistake in 2001 that I believe Obama is making now - a failure to tame the zealots and special interests of his own party at the critical moment when he was strong enough to do so. The Republicans in Congress then indulged themselves in the same useless self-serving earmarks and inadvisable funding of favored programs that the Democrats are doing today -- not much real difference between Tom Delay and Nancy Pelosi.

Bush did indeed recognize the dangers in Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and attempt to restrain them. However, he didn't make a sufficient priority of it and he didn't persduade the public of the seriousness of the underlying problem - the issue became lost in the partisan politics of the Congress in its normal activity of dishing out money to favored supporters. In addition Bush didn't extend regulatory oversight into the fast-growing new markets for derivatives, the mass securitization of debt and the various insurance schemes used to create the illusion that they were secure - in effect, creating new capital in an already overheating market.

Given Obama's repitition of Bush's failure to tame his own party zealots and the so far slow and inept handling of the banking liquidity crisis, the evidence is Obama will do no better. We are merely adding burdensome government debt to private sector debt without addressing the underlying issues.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:20 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who was responsible for the Bush SEC deciding that the Credit Default Swap market did not merit regulation?

Answer your own question! Was it Bush? Was it the SEC? Was it some members of Congress?



Well, it certainly wasn't Congress. The Exec branch has, to the best of my knowledge, the responsibility to oversee the SEC. So you should realize that Bush's mis-management of the economy began far before 2007. As George says above, their decision not to regulate the Credit Default Swap market directly led to our financial crisis, more than ANY other factor.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:26 am
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

But now that President Obama has canceled Bush's stem cell restrictions on governmental research grants under the aegis of a more "scientifically based" policy we surely can expect him to review the science that allegedly supports the contention that humans are the evil gremlins behind all of the global warming hub bub (which apparently has been on hold for the last decade).

Oh, tell me a tale of Cars and Buses, of belching Llamas and farting Cows and I shall reveal to those of great faith a religion like no other. A religion that will make us all whole and benefit the few ‘cognoscenti’ but regressively subsidized by all. And the Lion shall lie down with the Lamb when the almighty second coming of the Gore is upon us, verily I say unto you.

JM



Nicely done ! (I wish I wrote it.)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:26 am
The Reps, who have no credible plan for stimulating the economy, continue to nitpick Obama on petty things (e.g., earmarks, Michele, etc.). The latest mantra is that O is doing too much beside addressing the economy. O is making it clear that he can chew gum and walk at the same time. He is also making it clear that things like energy, healthcare, education, etc., are integral parts of any effort to improve the economy.


The Case For Walking and Chewing Gum
In September, after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) famously suspended his presidential campaign to focus on the financial crisis, then-candidate Barack Obama said, "I think that it is going to be part of the President's job to deal with more than one thing at once." Now that President Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda aimed at economic recovery and reforming the nation's health care, energy, and education systems, conservatives are claiming that he is doing too many things at once and should put aside his other plans in order to "fix the economy first." Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that Obama "should be focusing on the 'economic crisis,' as opposed to holding four-hour meetings on health care." Meanwhile, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that Americans "want the administration to fix the economy first. That's the first priority." The media has piled on, with cable outlets lending "credence to the accusation that the president has loaded his agenda with unrelated items when he should be focusing on the economy." But as Obama said yesterday while addressing the Business Roundtable, "we must not use the need to confront [financial problems] as an excuse to keep ignoring the long-term threats to our prosperity: the cost of our healthcare and our oil addiction; our education deficit, and our fiscal deficit." Indeed, it is only by addressing all of these areas that the economy can be set on the path toward long-term sustainability.

PRODUCTIVE AND HEALTHY WORKERS: First, the notion that Obama is not focusing on the economy is simply untrue. In the first two months of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion economic stimulus package, proposed a fix for the housing crisis, and laid the groundwork for rescuing the banking system and restoring lending. That said, as Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag pointed out, "the single most important thing we can do to improve the long-term fiscal health of our nation is slow the growth rate in health care costs." Health care spending makes up one out of every six dollars in the economy, and $700 billion per year is wasted on unnecessary or ineffective care. Furthermore, "as the unemployment rate grew by 0.8 points in December and January, nearly 100,000 people a week or 14,000 people a day lost their health coverage," while the percentage of people who reported having trouble paying for needed health care or medicines rose from 18 percent in January 2008 to 21 percent in December. Even the Business Roundtable pointed out that "Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country." As National Institutes of Health bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel said, "everything is affected by health policy, and every decision should be examined for its impact on health care reform." Both America's short- and long-term fiscal state depend on getting the outlandish costs of health care under control.

--americanprogressaction.org

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:38 am
@JamesMorrison,
When you speak of the coming of a religion that will be our salvation, I can only assume you are referring to atheism. I thank God that atheism is a growth movement that will drive out the supernatural beliefs that have been so pernicious to mankind.
 

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 0.19 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:28:03