Sugar Daddy Government

[kerrin]

Can I get me some?

The United States Sugar Daddy Government

Republicans: Home ownership is a right
Democrats: Health care is a right

[m42]

Can I get me some?

The United States Sugar Daddy Government

Republicans: Home ownership is a right
Democrats: Health care is a right

Life. Liberty. Property.

As skewed as it is, I can see how they'd believe home ownership is a right. Perhaps within the sphere of individual rights....

[kerrin]

...skewed...
'nuf said.

Perhaps within the sphere of individual rights
On the expense of the collective.

[m42]

'nuf said.


On the expense of the collective.

That depends on how you interpret it. I own a home. I paid for it. It is rightfully mine.

Conservatives aren't typically collectivists. ;)

[kerrin]

That depends on how you interpret it. I own a home. I paid for it. It is rightfully mine.
As do I. I'm not a hypie.

Conservatives aren't typically collectivists.
The policies of "conservatives" encouraged almost forced subprime loans at the expense of the individual taxpayer.

Redemption of 'conservative' is necessary.

[m42]

As do I. I'm not a hypie.

I'm not saying you are. :D

I'm merely attempting to convey that the statement could be interpreted several ways. It isn't entirely fallacious.


The policies of "conservatives" encouraged almost forced subprime loans at the expense of the individual taxpayer.

Redemption of 'conservative' is necessary.

I've yet to fathom your criteria for the "conservative" label. Liberal policies also encouraged subprime loans at the expense of the individual taxpayer.

One of the major culprits for this blowup was Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act was revised in the mid-nineties by the Clinton Administration to include a "new subprime authorization" clause.

Under this clause, the government allowed for the securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans that were deemed subprime.

The major financial institutions were all over it, and so on and so forth....

So I guess my question is, which errors define a Conservative and which ones make a Liberal? ;)

How would you redeem either?

[kerrin]

One of the major culprits for this blowup was Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act ... revised in the mid-nineties by the Clinton Administration...
Yes. They are on my sh*t list also. And the Republicrats have done nothing to correct this mess since. They have justified continuing these policies by in essence saying "home ownership is a right and you should own one even if you can't afford it."

I've yet to fathom your criteria for the "conservative" label.
My criteria would probably be a long list, but as a start less borrowing and spending will do. Second might be protecting/defending instead of aggressive nation building (interventionism). Third might be less government control and authoritarianism. Basically I don't like the neocon political philosophies. I don't think they are true conservatives. Make sense?

Liberal policies also encouraged subprime loans at the expense of the individual taxpayer.
Hence my "lumping" them together. Republicrats or Demoblicans they are all to blame for the collectivism and the economic mess.

...which errors define a Conservative and which ones make a Liberal? How would you redeem either?
I will qualify this by saying not all but most current politicians claiming to be under one of these labels have the following errors. Redeeming the terms would mean correcting these errors.

Economic Errors:
Conservative: borrow & spend
Liberal: tax, borrow & spend

Liberty Errors:
Conservative: Patriot Act, "War on Drugs", Homeland security, etc.
Liberal: Political Correctness, "War on Religion", Fairness Doctrine, Well fair, etc.

I could go on if you would like.

[kerrin]

Missed this point in my last comment.

I'm merely attempting to convey that the statement could be interpreted several ways. It isn't entirely fallacious.
I see what you are saying and you're right. Both statements are not completely fallacious. My point is that as 'right' is being used by Republicans and Democrats in those statements, its being used to advance an entitlement provided by the Government at the expense of others instead of a protected right of an individual.

[m42]

“Now, the U.S. Treasury is considering buying banks. Buying banks. That is to say that if Bob’s Bank in Godknowswhere, West Wiscarolina is going under, the U.S. Department of the Treasury is considering bailing out Bob’s Bank by buying it. Here’s the Washington Post’s take on this excellent new obligation you and I are about to take on: ‘The Bush administration is hammering out the final details of a plan that would allow the government to inject cash into banks in exchange for ownership stakes in an effort to shore up confidence in the faltering financial system, according to officials and sources who have been in contact with the Treasury Department.’ I do not want to own Bob’s Bank. Or any other bank. Especially if the geniuses who have been running the bank have run the bank into the ground. What am I missing here? If you read the WashPost’s report on what the Administration is now proposing, you and I are going to be on the hook for the banks’ bad loans. But, because our money is not THEIR money, the Post reports ‘What is less clear is what strings would be attached, particularly regarding the compensation of top executives at participating banks.’ Here’s my plan for compensation of top execs at participating banks: Nothing. Nada. Zero. Bubkis. Not a farthing. If those executives don’t like my compensation plan? They can quit. They can leave in a huff. If they don’t like that, they can leave—in the words of the Marx Brothers—they can leave in a minute in a huff. We’ll get someone else. How about the guy who slices the bagels at the breakfast place on Pennsylvania Avenue? He cannot possibly do any worse than the slug with an MBA from Harvard. Am I wrong? I want the people who got us into this mess drawn and quartered. I do not want them to go to the Spa at some five star hotel in California on my dime. Or yours.” —Rich Galen

Props to Jerry.

[kerrin]

the U.S. Treasury is considering buying banks. Buying banks.
Argh. :mad:

I started a post about that very topic here: http://www.individualism.com/community/showthread.php?t=96

What's worse is that conservatives are defending this garbage. Not only that but noble prize winner, Paul Krugman, is blaming the current situation on free-markets and the Bush administration. However, William L. Anderson said, "Krugman believes the problem is that the Bush administration is not socialist enough, which makes it ideologically 'free market.'" http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_wla_1013anderson.html

[John Scott]

Argh. :mad:

I started a post about that very topic here: http://www.individualism.com/community/showthread.php?t=96

What's worse is that conservatives are defending this garbage. Not only that but noble prize winner, Paul Krugman, is blaming the current situation on free-markets and the Bush administration. However, William L. Anderson said, "Krugman believes the problem is that the Bush administration is not socialist enough, which makes it ideologically 'free market.'" http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_wla_1013anderson.html

Oddly enough, Paul Krugman denies being a socialist. The guy is a dweeb. I have his book, Conscience of a Liberal, and his arguments are sad. Basically, his argument is that we need government control and mass welfare because American power is vested in White racists who don't know they are racist, and the minorities are powerless victims.

[kerrin]

Oddly enough, Paul Krugman denies being a socialist. The guy is a dweeb. I have his book, Conscience of a Liberal, and his arguments are sad. Basically, his argument is that we need government control and mass welfare because American power is vested in White racists who don't know they are racist, and the minorities are powerless victims.
Weak! What a poor argument. Sounds like President Obama would negate his argument. He amounts to an elitist "dweeb," no doubt. And proves The Nobel Peace prize is a joke.