[ETWolverine]

That sounds like a political rant… and it is. But it is also supported by facts.

For instance, let’s take the current financial crisis. It was caused by the collapse of the mortgage market, which in turn was caused by the government forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn’t pay them back and couldn’t afford the interest payments. This government mandate, called the Community Reinvestment Act, forced banks to make loans to poor people under threat of monetary penalty and loss of their charter. The intent was to make sure that everyone who wanted a home could get one, whether they could actually afford it or not. After all, it is “unfair” if only some people own homes. This liberal concept of “fairness” is the direct cause of the collapse of the economy.

Let’s take the Social Security system next. Here is a concept that is pure liberalism. Someone somewhere decided that it is the government’s job to force people to save money for their retirements, and decided to Do Something About It. That alone qualifies as liberalism… the idea that it is the government’s job to interfere in the decision making of individuals. Not content with mandating that people save for their retirements, whether they want to or not, the government also decided that they and they alone should be the entity that controls those retirement monies. After all, it isn’t enough to tell people to save money and invest it. They have to do the investing for us. The idea that people are too stupid to do their own investing and therefore the government has to do it is also a liberal attitude. Never mind that any bureaucracy is by its very nature less capable of decision-making than individuals and less efficient at implementing those decisions once they are made. The government believed that they were the sole party capable of handling our money. Not content with simply having that money in their control, they then decided to use that money for purposes other than paying benefits for people’s retirement. They made Social Security money part of the government’s general fund, and used those funds for any program that needed funding. As a result the Social Security system is broke. This idea that the government is the sole caretaker of our retirements is pure big-government liberalism, and the result is a broken retirement system.

Here’s another issue of great importance to many Americans… the loss of jobs to foreign workers. In some cases these foreign workers are in foreign countries. In other cases the foreign workers are here in the USA illegally. How did this come to be? Well, in the case of jobs that have been shipped overseas, it is most often due to the high costs of operations in the USA compared to overseas. The costs of running a business in the USA have been driven up by government interventions in the markets. Taxes, regulations and minimum wage requirements all drive up our costs of operations, and the only way for businesses to remain profitable (forget competitive) is to ship jobs overseas where the costs of labor, taxes and regulation are much lower. And in the cases where the jobs have been taken by illegal immigrants, labor costs have forced some businesses, where jobs cannot be shipped overseas, to use unskilled illegal labor, which is cheaper than the minimum wage requirements. Government intervention, albeit for the best of intentions (safety regulations, making sure workers get paid a fair wage, and making sure that government has enough money to operate) has conspired yet again to accomplish exactly the opposite of what was intended. Liberal intervention in the markets at work again.

Worried about gas prices? It is the liberal environ-mentalists who are keeping us from digging for more oil which would lower oil prices. The liberals also want government to fund research intro alternative fuels instead of letting the free market system work on the problem. Here’s a hint: government has never, ever invented any piece of technology, much less developed it into a working system that the people could use on a day-to-day basis. All such technological breakthroughs come from corporate America, not the government. They happen when someone in the private sector sees an unfilled need and provides a solution to that need to be sold for a profit. Alternative fuels should be no different. Government places so many regulations, caveats and requirements on anyone who does any work for them that they can never accomplish the task required. Letting the government solve technological problems is naïve liberalism.

How about foreign affairs? Don’t like the war in Iraq? It only happened because the UN, that bastion of Liberalism, allowed Saddam Hussein to break every agreement he signed after the cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War in 1992. Leaving aside the oil-for-food scam, in which the UN was involved up to it’s neck, the UN also allowed Saddam to acquire the components of WMDs, including biological agents, chemical agents, and nuclear weapons materials… including 500 TONS of weapons-grade yellowcake uranium, now sitting in US storage facilities. (Bet most of you missed that little bit of information. The liberal media kept it pretty quiet.) The UN allowed Saddam to abuse his own nationals with rape, torture, mass murders and “disappearances” of “political dissidents”. All of the reasons that we went to war with Iraq were direct results of the workings (or non-workings) of the UN. Liberalism at its worst.

How about Darfur? Another problem we can chalk up to UN mismanagement. Heck, half of the UN officials who have worked on Darfur have been involved in the rapes and abuses they were supposed to prevent.

China’s human-rights abuses? This is caused by a mixture of China’s communist leanings and the UN’s mismanagement. China’s environmental abuses? The liberal idea of the Kyoto Treaty actually pays China for not meeting its requirements under the accord. Another case of liberal naiveté.

Problem after problem throughout the world can be traced directly back to liberal ideas, positions and activities as the direct causes. Either because the liberal solution to the problem was ineffective and/or counterproductive, or because someone who wasn't inclined toward peace took advantage of liberal naiveté.

So why in the world would anyone vote for the most liberal Senator to ever run for the office of President when the policies he advocates are the direct causes of all the biggest problems we are trying to deal with as a society?

Elliot

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

I agree. The liberals who call themselves Republicans have bankrupted us. What?? They're the good guys?? Dude!! That label, does NOT a conservative, make. At least the Dems are straightforward about their liberalism.

excon

[NeedKarma]

excon,
Did they really edit the title of your thread that was closed?

[excon]

Hello NK:

Yup. But, we're cool now.

excon

[CaptainRich]

This sums it all up pretty well...

[Choux]

I won't even read your propaganda, Elliot.

It is just a crock of (______).

[spyderglass]

What caused poverty in the first place? Anyway loans for the poor were sub-prime. I'm sick of this Rep. idea of the Ownership system.

[Choux]

A total Fox News LIE, SPY...

[Galveston1]

I won't even read your propaganda, Elliot.

It is just a crock of (______).

Why do you bother to post? Eyes closed, fingers in ears, mouth wide open. Wow!!

[spyderglass]

I don't watch the news, I used to collect credit card debts for a company who preyed on people with bad credit. And believe me those interest rates were HIIIIGH!

[spyderglass]

Don't attack Cho- she's entitled to her say Galvy.

[tomder55]

She doesn't contribute a thing to the dialogue when she premises her comments with the admission that what she calls a lie and a crock ,she has not even bothered to read.

[spyderglass]

She gave her opinion- let's redirect shall we? :)

[excon]

The liberals who call themselves Republicans have bankrupted us.

Hello again, El:

To emphasize my point, just yesterday, YOUR "fiscally conservative" REPUBLICAN dufus and his gang, acted in a MOST liberal manner - socialistic in fact.

Your dufus' man, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. outlined the plan to nine of the nation’s leading bankers at an afternoon meeting. He essentially told the participants that they would have to accept government investment for the good of the American financial system.

So, if the PROBLEM is liberalism, and BOTH major parties are LIBERAL, what do you suggest? Ron Paul?

excon

[inthebox]

Agree EX:


Bunch of RINOs



Maybe another middle American physician ? Tom Coburn? ;)

[tomder55]

Thaddeus McCotter ;Paul Ryan there is a future for a conservative Republican party some day. Perhaps then I will become one.

[BABRAM]

It's a good post and I agree with about half of what Elliot stated.

Problem after problem throughout the world can be traced directly back to liberal ideas, positions and activities as the direct causes. Either because the liberal solution to the problem was ineffective and/or counterproductive, or because someone who wasn't inclined toward peace took advantage of liberal naiveté.

So why in the world would anyone vote for the most liberal Senator to ever run for the office of President when the policies he advocates are the direct causes of all the biggest problems we are trying to deal with as a society?

Ironically I know what hasn't worked with the current Pub White House. For myself, it's mainly economical, and how went about that Iraqi war.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2...596/693/460010



*As a social conservative I do back programs that provide an opportunity for housing. What I didn't like is that the Community Reinvestment Act in around about way deregulated making those loans easier by criteria. However financial institutions scapegoating the public for their own predatory lending practices, was equally wrong.

*As for Social Society it simply has been abused. However the 401K's are a risk investment, not much better, in poorer economic times. Personally I liked it better when company showed the employees respect for longevity loyalty with pensions.

*I completely disagree with the way Dubya went about the Iraqi War, not the prosecution of their dictator.

*The UN has been little useful in most cases.

*No politician, perhaps with the exception of Nixon opening up trade, has a clue about China. For all the bluster of Republican G. Herbert Walker Bush, the Tienanmen Square bravery incident, fizzled into a footnote.

[ETWolverine]

It's a good post and I agree with about half of what Elliot stated.

Good. Then my job is half done. :rolleyes:

*As a social conservative I do back programs that provide an opportunity for housing. What I didn't like is that the Community Reinvestment Act in around about way deregulated making those loans easier by criteria.

I think we have a disagreement of terminology here. It wasn't DEREGULATION that caused the standards to be lowered. It was the new CRA regulations that forced banks to lower their standards. In other words it was a case of REGULATION causing the problem, not DEREGULATION. Banks never wanted to lower their standards. We were forced to make loans we really didn't want to make because the law required it.

However financial institutions scapegoating the public for their own predatory lending practices, was equally wrong.

First of all, the borrowers generally applied for loans. Banks didn't just grant credit where there was no application. Nobody forced borrowers to take money they didn't want. Don't the borrowers bear some responsibility for applying for loans they couldn't afford? Which part of sub-prime lending was predatory?

I'll admit that there have indeed been predatory lending practices performed by financial institutions, especially credit card companies and student loan companies. But even there, don't the consumers bear some responsibility for their actions? Nobody forced anyone to borrow.

By contrast, the CRA regulations DID force banks to lend.

*As for Social Society it simply has been abused. However the 401K's are a risk investment, not much better, in poorer economic times. Personally I liked it better when company showed the employees respect for longevity loyalty with pensions.

Pensions are too expensive in the current environment. Too many companies can't afford to pay for the retirements of longer-lived retirees.

As for 401Ks or for that matter personal retirement investments in general: the fact is that over any decade in history, mutual funds have produced an average of a 6% per annum return on investment... even in decades with significant bear markets. That is significantly better than the less-than-1% per annum that the US government pays on Social Security. Furthermore, the money never leaves my possession, and the government doesn't use it to fund its pet projects and wellfare programs. Given the choice, I'll take the personal investment option over forced government savings any time, even in lean times.

*I completely disagree with the way Dubya went about the Iraqi War, not the prosecution of their dictator.

There's room for discussion on the subject of how the war was run. There were definitely mistakes. But the biggest mistake of all would have been an early withdrawal, which was favored by the liberals in Congress.

*The UN has been little useful in most cases.

No argument there.

*No politician, perhaps with the exception of Nixon opening up trade, has a clue about China. For all the bluster of Republican G. Herbert Walker Bush, the Tienanmen Square bravery incident, fizzled into a footnote.

Yes it did.

The idea of paying the Chinese government for ecological reform at the same time that they are opening one new dirty coal plant every day and strip mining their lands is ridiculous. Yet that is exactly what the Kyoto agreement does. And then again the idea of talking nicely to the Chinese and telling them to stop their human rights abuses... or else we'll tell them to stop again... is a waste of time and human lives. Liberalism has completely failed in our relations with China.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

I agree. The liberals who call themselves Republicans have bankrupted us. What??? They're the good guys???? Dude!!! That label, does NOT a conservative, make. At least the Dems are straightforward about their liberalism.

excon

I agree that many, if not most, of the Republicans currently in Congress in both houses have abandoned conservative principals.

And yes, I agree that at least the Dems are telling the truth about their liberalism.

That is exactly why I posted this rant. Did you think that I was lambasting only Democrats? I never mentioned any political party in my post. It was the philosophy of liberalism, whether held by Dems or Reps, that I am in stark disagreement with.

Elliot

[progunr]

Great post ET!

Socialism vs Capitalism.

A never ending war, now that the roots of socialism have established themselves so deeply into American Society.

I like to put it as plainly as possible.

If you want everyone to be the same, no one better than the other, regardless of effort, then socialism is your answer.

I prefer to have some control of my own destiny. The harder I work, the better off I can be. Capitalism is my answer.

I believe that achievement should be rewarded, not punished.

Yes, that would make me a true conservative.