Alright, I Don't Understand, What Is It That Conservatives Want?

[oreo]

is it enough to take care of all the needy...? IF NOT, who helps the rest?

Who besides the needy needs help?

is your helping and your family and friends and church helping the needy, enough to take care of all of the needy in your state deserving of help?

IF you, the churches, and others can not help everyone deserving because there are so many, and there are still many people in need of a helping hand in your state, who comes in to help them? The government? Or no one?

In my small community--Yes. I don't know which state you live in but you still haven't answered my question.

You stated why is it that conservative "native" states gets the most welfare? What do you mean by that?

The problem we have in this country is that way too many "underserving" people get hand-outs they do not deserve. They estimate that there is 85 BILLION dollars of fraud each year in our medicade program.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Who besides the needy needs help?

is your helping and your family and friends and church helping the needy, enough to take care of all of the needy in your state deserving of help?

IF you, the churches, and others can not help everyone deserving because there are so many, and there are still many people in need of a helping hand in your state, who comes in to help them? The government? Or no one?

It's a complicated thing to try to discuss on a message board. I think that the truly needy will be taken care of under most circumstances. That said, people learn from adversity. Someone can suffer and that can lead them to learn a lesson they needed to learn. I don't think the elimination of suffering is possible or necessarily a desirable goal. Yes, much suffering is difficult to witness, but it's often what we need to experience.

This is long forgotten truth. For the first 170 or so years of our country's history, in times of great need, our local charities the good will of our people were always enough to care for the truely needy. WE, the individuals in our local communities, were always the best to judge who REALLY needed our help vs. the hucksters, and we did a great job of it. Even in the Great Depression, MOST of the food, and care-giving were done by local charity, NOT by FDR and his New Deal.

The true slackers were left to DESERVEDLY die in a ditch throughout most our history. Today, the government takes care of them using our money. In the end, it is us, the American people, the individuals in our communities that know how to run this country, not any idiots in Washington. And yes, anyone in elected office in Washington, is , by definition, an IDIOT. We have made it a national pastime to elect IDIOTS to national office.

 

[oreo]

oreo. for the love of God, look in your mirror....your partisan hackery is holding you back from learning about what REALLY happened in this crisis. please take your blinders off, stop taking your talking points from your masters via email and do some research and reading and thinking of your own, search for the truth, the truth will set you free.

the article is not a bomb of any sort....it was not what caused the crisis we are in...

it specifically states it was a test program first....before they would spread it out

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the article states the way they would put these low income people in to mortgages they qualified for would be through CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGES for 30 years, at 1% point higher interest rate than a better credit standing conventional mortgage, but if they paid their monthly mortgage payment on time for the first 2 years, their mortgage rate would go down by that 1%.

This whole Fannie program from this article did not in any way cause this mess, these were not the high risk Subprime ARM loans, these loans required qualifying with proof of income and were fixed rate conventional mortgages etc...

care

The article specifically states:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"note that sub-prime loans went to sub-prime borrowers." "People who could qualify for a fixed 30-year loan got those."

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

I don't think it's me that has the reading comprehension problem.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, in fact collapsed under these policies. They took the rest of the economy with them. Our entire mortgage & banking system went down with them. Bill Clinton even stated that he tried to reign in his own party on these very loose lending practices. FACT. Any & every single time someone warned of the on-coming train wreck--politicians fought tooth & nail to not impose higher lending standards. Mostly coming from democrats on the hill.

subprime borrowers are NOT SUBPRIME LOANS, they were put in to conventional loans, with no need to refinance when their adjustable rate mortgage went up etc....these loans ARE NOT the type of loony loans that are the main mortgages that lead to this crisis...

It does NOT SAY THAT! The article specifically states that people with poor credit only had one option. To go to "finance companies" which of course charges 3 or 4 points "HIGHER" than a conventional 30 year fixed mortgage rate at a banking institution. Finance institutions always charge more than banking institutions--they are geared for people who cannot qualify for typical banking institution loans. These people could not qualify for a 30 year fixed rate conventional mortage, that's why they ended up at the finance company. Noteworthy--I doubt any finance company loaned these people hundreds of
thousands of dollars to buy a home with. That's why sub-prime borrowers had to go with sub-prime mortgages! That's what this article is about. Lowering the standards so these loosers could buy something they could not afford in the first place, which was guaranteed by the American taxpayer.

1. When a person has a crappy credit rating they are always charged a higher interest rate, than a person with good credit.
2. If a person has no down payment--they are not able to buy down points to get the cheaper mortgage interest rate.
3. If they do not qualify (income wise) they have to go to an ARM aka sub-prime mortgage to get the home.

Finance companies are not backed by the American taxpayer--Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

It gets confusing because there are multiple definitions for conservatives. Libertarians are conservative in a traditional sense, but more commonly conservatism is used to mean less fiscal government intervention and more government control over social issues. Banning immoral things is usually considered conservative. I’ve also seen conservatism described as trying to keep things the way they are or were in the past, while liberalism is trying to change things. Therefore Constitutionalists, including their desire for a return to federalism, are conservative in that sense.

In any case, the 1-dimensional labelling system of liberal-moderate-conservative is insufficient. Fiscal and social policy need to be considered separately. This reveals the very real difference between libertarians and modern conservatives. On a 1-D scale libertarians look moderate as fiscal and social issues cancel out when they are anything but moderate. When I was a libertarian I identified more with liberals because I cared more about social issues. Many libertarians identify more with conservatives because they emphasize fiscal issues, often for personal reasons.

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

WRONG--Conservatives want everyone to be successful & happy. We view liberals as wanting to take the money of the successful & redistribute it to others who did not work has hard as the successful in order to attain success.

"While a liberal is concerned about distributing the golden eggs that the Golden Goose produces, a conservative is more concerned about the health of the Golden Goose."

That's not my impression. Conservatives believe people have equal opportunity but there won't be equal outcomes because people are of different quality of character. Some people are inferior and will fail, they seem to believe, but churches and their families are expected to prevent them from actually dying. Though poverty being painful is not seen as bad, because it will motivate people to work harder. They have a (false in my opinion) belief that charity can handle poverty better than the government. This is seen as doubly good as it will bring the degenerate to faith and then, presumably, to prosperity. It's a lasting legacy of the Protestant Ethic and a convenient way for those who are doing well to believe.

It is true that conservatives prioritize the average wealth of a nation and absolute outcomes rather than an equal distribution. For whatever reason, they believe a fair distribution will follow when the government does not intervene, or they don't care because a bigger pie is more important than how it's sliced, from their point of view.

By any definition of conservatism, the Republicans have drifted away from it. They have become whores of special interests just like their donkey counterparts.

 

[Zoomie1980]

It gets confusing because there are multiple definitions for conservatives. Libertarians are conservative in a traditional sense, but more commonly conservatism is used to mean less fiscal government intervention and more government control over social issues. Banning immoral things is usually considered conservative. I’ve also seen conservatism described as trying to keep things the way they are or were in the past, while liberalism is trying to change things. Therefore Constitutionalists, including their desire for a return to federalism, are conservative in that sense.

In any case, the 1-dimensional labelling system of liberal-moderate-conservative is insufficient. Fiscal and social policy need to be considered separately. This reveals the very real difference between libertarians and modern conservatives. On a 1-D scale libertarians look moderate as fiscal and social issues cancel out when they are anything but moderate. When I was a libertarian I identified more with liberals because I cared more about social issues. Many libertarians identify more with conservatives because they emphasize fiscal issues, often for personal reasons.

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

WRONG--Conservatives want everyone to be successful & happy. We view liberals as wanting to take the money of the successful & redistribute it to others who did not work has hard as the successful in order to attain success.

"While a liberal is concerned about distributing the golden eggs that the Golden Goose produces, a conservative is more concerned about the health of the Golden Goose."

That's not my impression. Conservatives believe people have equal opportunity but there won't be equal outcomes because people are of different quality of character. Some people are inferior and will fail, they seem to believe, but churches and their families are expected to prevent them from actually dying. Though poverty being painful is not seen as bad, because it will motivate people to work harder. They have a (false in my opinion) belief that charity can handle poverty better than the government. This is seen as doubly good as it will bring the degenerate to faith and then, presumably, to prosperity. It's a lasting legacy of the Protestant Ethic and a convenient way for those who are doing well to believe.

It is true that conservatives prioritize the average wealth of a nation and absolute outcomes rather than an equal distribution. For whatever reason, they believe a fair distribution will follow when the government does not intervene, or they don't care because a bigger pie is more important than how it's sliced, from their point of view.

By any definition of conservatism, the Republicans have drifted away from it. They have become whores of special interests just like their donkey counterparts.

Very good. In general, however, i do believe private charity is far better than government in determining who is worthy of help. Private charity does not operate under the notion it has unlimited potential to income due to taxation, so it has to prioritize, realizing it must draw a line. The result is generally a very accurate determination of who is truly worthy. The rest just have to suck it up and figure it out on their own.

 

[Care4all]

oreo, correct that fannie and freddie did NOT guarantee any purchase of these ARM subprime loans that caused our problems.

these companies decided all by themselves to venture in to this area of risky loan business, they didn't even have customers qualify by any means to get many of these loans....but banks and institutions like BOA, wells fargo, bear sterns were buying these mortgages from these fly by night lenders not requiring them to raise their standards and masking their riskiness by putting them in to MBS, securities, and selling them off to our mutual funds, pension funds and retirement funds and foreign investors....by giving them the lowest risk rating of tripple A.....

 

[auditor0007]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

That's horse hockey, and you know it. If that were the case, why is it that Conservatives contribute much more to charity than Liberals? See, I can turn that around and just say it's because liberals don't give a shit about anyone, but they just want the government to make everything equal for everyone so we all can be happy little drones.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

That's horse hockey, and you know it. If that were the case, why is it that Conservatives contribute much more to charity than Liberals? See, I can turn that around and just say it's because liberals don't give a shit about anyone, but they just want the government to make everything equal for everyone so we all can be happy little drones.

Perhaps because they believe charity should be done instead of government aid, so they're putting their money where their mouth is and I applaud that lack of hypocrisy. However, if liberals believe that the government is better for aiding people, then wouldn't a rich liberal who votes to increase taxes on the rich be on a similar moral level?

 

[auditor0007]

I realized the other day

The current brand of Conservatism should be thought of as a New Deal for the wealthy.

Random thoughts.

1) Reagan was incredibly protectionist. People who associate his name with the "Free Market" have been fooled by his speeches and the Norquist driven legacy project.

2) The Cold War & War on Terrorism grew government & the budget more than all Lefty social programs combined. [How do you think the Soviets did it? Fear of domestic and foreign enemies]

3) In the absence of Government Regulations, there grows not a free market, but a centralized cabal of mega-monopolies which wrap their tentacles around the political and doctrinal systems.

3.1) By destroying the Sherman Act, Reagan cleared the way for 30 years of merger-mania, creating an immovable, unaccountable, bureaucratic, corporate monolith that became too big to fail, i.e., big enough to sink the ENTIRE global financial system. [Lifting boats?] If you want to know who paved the way for Socialism -- i.e., a state sponsored business sector -- go back to 1980: the point of the Reagan Revolution was to let Business take over government (this is why he kicked Labor out of Washington and brought in the lobbyists). DeLay's K Street project was nothing more than the creation of a centralized business state. Money for legislation and protection (i.e., bailout insurance). Free Market? Are you kidding me?

4) The New Right is incredibly intrusive. They believe in Big Moral Government and Big Surveillance Government. From Pat Robertson to the Patriot Act, these folks are dangerous: they want government in your bedroom, on your computer, phone calls, and all over your electronic movements/transactions. You can't go phishing for Democratic governors, war protestors, and policy detractors unless you create a larger net. If your policies increase poverty and unrest (by an upward redistribution of wealth), you better grow a Big Law Enforcement State.

5) Welcome to the Dark Ages: Christianity and Big Business unite against Science. Let's face it, if you don't want Government Regulators dredging the Hudson for your PCBs or sniffing around your smoke stack, you better wage war against Science. Why do you think they want a citizenry who believes in the Bible, not the periodic chart. [Study your Leo Strauss. You must drug the masses with fear, religion, and patriotism. You must talk about "evil-doers" not oil geopolitics]

During the hey-day of postwar liberalism (when the economy grew steadily for two and half decades), business was under fire. The words of one of our greatest presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, still resonated: ''the malefactors of great wealth''. We use to keep the cigar smoking fat cat in check. We regulated the flow of capital. Reagan Changed that. He ushered in the era of Gordon Gekko: "Greed is Good". He told us to "trust business". We naively believed that the unregulated profit motive, driven only by "rational" self-interest, would lead to utopia (-you think Karl Marx had some crazy economic theories?) Ronnie, very cynically, created a substitute demon: drugs & sin. This is why he got in bed with the Moral Majority. [Study his personal life: he never went to Church. He let homosexuals sleep together at the white House. Nancy Reagan was a notoriously, anti-Religious astrology buff. Reagan's current loyalists know none of this] Please recall: he was a moderate (Socially) liberal, pro-Abortion Governor of California until he realized the utility of demonology.

While America was worried about homosexuals & Terrorists, Wall Street created a speculative black hole that will destroy generations.

Ronnie's voice can still be heard.

"Trust business. Get government out of the way. Let Wall Street regulate their own risk. They don't need some government bureaucrat looking over their shoulders. Let them innovate! We must, instead, worry about pot smokers & Janet Jackson's breast". We got punk'd.

FYI: the profit motive is the single most common source of criminal activity. Brilliantly, Reagan propogandized it into a Utopian Reflex -- a bastion of Freedom.

We bought it. We took our eyes off the real crooks.

Okay, let's begin and end with number 2. You state the following:

2) The Cold War & War on Terrorism grew government & the budget more than all Lefty social programs combined. [How do you think the Soviets did it? Fear of domestic and foreign enemies]

Please show us some proof of this. Rather I will show you proof that refutes this.

Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average » The Foundry

 

[auditor0007]

Welfare is in EVERY state. Just as lazy people are in EVERY state. Why not come up with some way of weeding out the USELESS BUMS and making sure that the real needs are met. Hey, if he wants to bring about change I can believe in, then he could start with that instead of throwing more money at the ever growing problem. Last week, there was a job expo in my "conservative" state. There were over 200 different companies represented there. Some were national companies, others local and then some small businesses too. The place was packed with job offers...and amazingly, at 2 PM on a sunny afternoon, there was a slim crowd of attendees. You'd never know that unemployment is at an all time low. There were a few college kids there and I leaned in and did a little eaves dropping on their conversation. One student commented that they had to have at least 35K to start or it wasn't worth their time. OMG!!!! No wonder unemployment is rampant!

So guess who we'll be helping out next year??? That poor little piss ant! I hope daddy's money doesn't run out before he's able to retire! This country will never be able to pick itself up if we don't FORCE our future workforce and leaders to grow up and LEARN TO EARN!!!

These kids think a college education earns them the right to a great starting paycheck. I have to tell you, there are an awful lot of college grads who aren't very bright, and they sure as hell don't have a clue what it means to work. Parents need to quit enabling these kids for their own good.

 

[auditor0007]

PFreedom to be a servant to those in need, but of my own choosing, so that I can decide who is the most deserving of my help.

You made a lot of good points but I wanted to focus on this one because I think a lot of liberals misunderstand how conservative charity works.

If I come across a mother and her hungry children I will take them to the store and buy them food (actually I would probably take them to my church where we have a food bank, but if I didn't have that source I would pay for it myself).

If I come to a highway exit ramp and you're standing there with your hand out you can suck exhaust fumes. If you can stand there all day you can wear a silly costume and twirl a sign for a muffler shop and EARN an honest dollar.

I have no charity for the lazy or greedy. I will give my last dollar to someone in honest need. I don't want the government to take my money away and give it to people that could work but refuse to work. Where I'm from you know your neighbors and if they are in need everyone will pitch in and help if you deserve it. If you piss your money away drinking and gambling then sorry you're going to lose the house before you get help. Personal responsibility will take you most places in life, good friends and family will give you a boost if you really need it.

You let charity work any other way and people will abuse whatever system you can make.

I bet you can't find a conservative on here that doesn't agree.

if you "take care of your own", that is, if they are not lazy or if they don't get drunk...then how come the most conservative in nature states receive the most government welfare and earmarks?

It all sounds wonderful Amanda, and this might be the case with you, which i do not doubt, but it sure doesn't seem like conservatives really take care of the needy with their own money as you imply...we wouldn't need the government welfare to help all of these conservative leaning states if this were truly the case.....logic and the numbers show such.

But is it an 'ideal' for it to be that way for republicans or conservatives....sure....

Care, when you look at federal money going to states, you need to remember a couple of things. First of all, it's not that Red states receive more money than blue states; they receive more per capita than blue states. This money isn't all going to welfare either. The vast majority goes to military bases, roads, and a whole slew of other things.

Let me give you an example. In a state like Iowa, I-80 is damaged much more by trucks driving through carrying goods between blue states, than by the people living in that state. They get federal funds for repairs to I-80, and since not many people live there, it makes the per capita spending greater than in a state like New York or Califorinia. That's just an example, but it goes to show that it's not welfare recipients receiving this money.

 

[auditor0007]

The article specifically states:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"note that sub-prime loans went to sub-prime borrowers." "People who could qualify for a fixed 30-year loan got those."

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

I don't think it's me that has the reading comprehension problem.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, in fact collapsed under these policies. They took the rest of the economy with them. Our entire mortgage & banking system went down with them. Bill Clinton even stated that he tried to reign in his own party on these very loose lending practices. FACT. Any & every single time someone warned of the on-coming train wreck--politicians fought tooth & nail to not impose higher lending standards. Mostly coming from democrats on the hill.

subprime borrowers are NOT SUBPRIME LOANS, they were put in to conventional loans, with no need to refinance when their adjustable rate mortgage went up etc....these loans ARE NOT the type of loony loans that are the main mortgages that lead to this crisis...

Was it Freddie and Fannie that backed all those house-flipping loans? There were not low-income people social legislation was forcing lending to that led to this. The asset bubble was create by all the real-estate "gurus" who in their infomercials trumpeted how to make money with other's money and a willing Wall St backed infusion of money derived through derivatives on these loans all fueled by a maniacal Greenspan effort to keep interest rate artificially low.

The real villains? The HOUSE FLIPPERS!!!! And the investment banks that sold their paper over and over again!!! And the investors who bought that crap!!!

In otherwords, WE, the American people, caused this and now we are paying the price. Too bad....time to pay up people. It's the national price for living beyond our collective means. Quite normal, quite expected, and quite NEEDED!!!

The house flippers really were the main cause of all this, but you can't blame them entirely. They lost their asses in all of this too. Here's what happened; because it was so easy to get loans, these speculators were buying homes like there was no tomorrow. Over the last five years prior to the bubble bursting, nearly 25% of all homes sold were sold to speculators. This basically amounted to the entire total of new homes built during this period.

Here's the real problem; we didn't have enough people to live in all these homes. We overbuilt, and it was driven by the investors. Even had the money been there, we would have had a major bust, because there wasn't anyone to buy these homes anymore. As the bubble burst and things got worse, the glut of homes on the market increased even more.

This is why we are seeing rental vacancy rates increasing at the same time the glut of "for sale" homes continues to increase. This is also why this downturn isn't going to end anytime soon.

 

[auditor0007]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

That's horse hockey, and you know it. If that were the case, why is it that Conservatives contribute much more to charity than Liberals? See, I can turn that around and just say it's because liberals don't give a shit about anyone, but they just want the government to make everything equal for everyone so we all can be happy little drones.

Perhaps because they believe charity should be done instead of government aid, so they're putting their money where their mouth is and I applaud that lack of hypocrisy. However, if liberals believe that the government is better for aiding people, then wouldn't a rich liberal who votes to increase taxes on the rich be on a similar moral level?

You can make that as a valid argument. The argument against that is that government wastes more money than they put to use. In the end, let's be honest; federal spending for welfare isn't our greatest concern because we just don't spend that much on welfare, unless you consider SS, Medicare, and Medicaid welfare, which I do not.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

That's horse hockey, and you know it. If that were the case, why is it that Conservatives contribute much more to charity than Liberals? See, I can turn that around and just say it's because liberals don't give a shit about anyone, but they just want the government to make everything equal for everyone so we all can be happy little drones.

Perhaps because they believe charity should be done instead of government aid, so they're putting their money where their mouth is and I applaud that lack of hypocrisy. However, if liberals believe that the government is better for aiding people, then wouldn't a rich liberal who votes to increase taxes on the rich be on a similar moral level?

You can make that as a valid argument. The argument against that is that government wastes more money than they put to use. In the end, let's be honest; federal spending for welfare isn't our greatest concern because we just don't spend that much on welfare, unless you consider SS, Medicare, and Medicaid welfare, which I do not.

Yeah it seems to come down to inefficient government versus insufficient charity. There will be no perfect world either way.

 

[raceright]

I think we should Liberalize all sports and entertainment industries.
Talent should be taken from the more gifted and given to the less gifted..Only fair way.
While were at it how about some drug testing.The more drugs you do the more entitlements the goverment should give you...Oh wait a minute we already do that.

 

[editec]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

WRONG--Conservatives want everyone to be successful & happy. We view liberals as wanting to take the money of the successful & redistribute it to others who did not work has hard as the successful in order to attain success.

"While a liberal is concerned about distributing the golden eggs that the Golden Goose produces, a conservative is more concerned about the health of the Golden Goose."

The golden goose is the middle class, methinks.

It's fairly apparent to me that of late, neither the party claiming to be conservative, nor the party claiming to be liberal, has given the middle class a whole lot of concern.

They both give it a whole lotta lip service, of course, but their real concerns manifest in the policies.

Their real concern appears to have been greasing the skids for the superwealthy to make more money, to pay less taxes on it, and to help them get that wealth off shore.

Many of you self proclaiming conservatives object to creeping Federalism, and I understand that concern.

Meanwhile our leadership, of both parties, appears to me to be developing a system of internationalism which is far more threatening than Federalism.

Most of you conservatives thinks that the operative word in the phrase "Free trade" is the word free.

I think you're being mislead.

The only thing that free trade is freeing...is the power of capital to evade national responsibilities.

Look at how our "free trade" laws already are superceding our national laws.

If you're a nationalist at heart, this ought to be of concern you.

But most of you have the instincts to understand that big national governmenthas the potential to be is bad, and I would not disagree with you.

But while you are working to keep that national government from being oppressive, you are being duped into supporting the stage for a SINGLE world government operating behind the body of international agreements like NAFTA and GATT.

Now in the long run, these may be the path to world peace, but in the short run they have become the means by which the USA is being bnakrupted.

Is that really what you guys thought was the plan that your conservative heros (the super wealthy) were working toward?

I don't think that's what most of you self proclaiming conservatives (or for that matter liberals) really had in mind, was it?

Do you guys really hate the US federal government so much, that you'd prefer an international government controlling this nation and every other?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I realized the other day that I have been debating with conservatives on the USMB and else where, and yet, I only think I know what conservatives want, but I have never had it actually laid out for me. I'll list what I think Conservatism stands for and why, and you conservatives correct me and add anything I might've left out. Please be prepared to answer questions and defend your points.

And I would welcome if a conservative did this for liberals. It could be a great way to have an open dialogue and gain a greater understanding of the other side's perspective and motives.

Please refrain from angry posts, name-calling, and other unhelpful communication techniques (or lack thereof).

Let me commend you for realizing the importance of finding out what your opponents are truly about, rather than making assumptions, and for realizing the importance of asking sincerely and with genuine curiosity and courtesy. Too few people manage that, which is why they so rarely get a non-hostile explanation from me.

*****************************************************************

Fiscal Conservatism:

1. Lower taxes, because you should keep what you earn and there are many lazy people who simply want or live off of government hand-outs; and, to keep the economy strong.

To this, I would like to add that most conservatives also believe that the government is bloated and wasteful, is already taking far more in taxes than it needs or deserves, and is spending the money on things it has no business doing, anyway.

2. Less government intrusion in our personal lives, because you know how to live your life and the government should have nothing to do with it.

And letting the government try to micromanage people's lives - or micromanage anything - is the equivalent of playing the piano while wearing boxing gloves. The federal government is a blunt instrument, not a precision tool.

3. Less governmental regulations on business practices, because that's the foundation of free market capitalism.

Also, excessive government intervention and regulation, and the subsequent red tape, massively complicates the ability of businesses to operate effectively, leading to increases in prices and the failure of more businesses.

4. Abolishment of Welfare and Medicaid, see #1.

Most conservatives are in favor of the community helping the neediest and most helpless among us. We just think there are much better and more effective ways of doing it than through massive federal programs. Also, it greatly concerns us when the federal government takes on powers and jobs that are not actually allotted to it in the Constitution.

5. Privatized Social Security or its abolishment, because you know better how to spend and save your money.

And it's a huge, teetering Ponzi scheme that's eventually going to topple over and crush a lot of people.

6. Broadened opportunity to attain wealth, see #3.

It's the American dream, you know. And the more people who achieve it legitimately, the better off we all are, in terms of an increased tax base, more available jobs, greater economic circulation of money, and fewer poor people needing help.

7. The Federal government should have nothing to do with education, it requires more taxes, see #1.

Not just that, but remember what I said about playing the piano in boxing gloves? If one assumes that education is a public concern of the community at large and should be undertaken through government means, then it would be much better accomplished through state and local governments, which are more designed for smaller, more precise functions.

Social Conservatism

1. Abortion criminalized, because its murder (per the Bible).

Nope. Totally wrong there. First of all, not all conservatives are Christians. Second, not all objections to abortion are based on the Bible (I don't think Muslims approve of abortion, either, and I'm pretty sure they're not referring to the Bible). Third, conservatives do not necessarily want abortion criminalized. As a group, what we want is for Roe v. Wade and its accompanying decision, Doe v. Bolton, to be rescinded, which would NOT criminalize abortion. What it would do is throw the issue back to the states and their respective voters, allowing the people to decide for themselves how they want to handle the issue, rather than imposing the will of a minority on everyone else and fraudulently calling it "Constitutional law".

2. A government based on Christian Values, because the founding fathers were Christians and that's the morality on which they founded the nation.

Wrong again. As I just said, not all conservatives are Christians. It is true that the majority of our Founding Fathers - and indeed, the people who lived at that time in general - were Christian, and those who were not were still steeped in that culture and its values. Those Judeo-Christian values which were applied to the founding of our nation are echoed in other cultures and religions, by the way, and there are worse things on which to base a society.

3. Homosexuality banned, because the Bible says so.

Okay, now you've moved from courtesy, sincerity, and open curiosity into snottiness. As such, I have no intention of answering this unwarranted rudeness with a serious reply. I was patient with the last two implications that all conservatives are just a bunch of religous zealot wackos, but you're now officially over the line.

4. Affirmative action discontinued, because black people are playing the race card and not really suffering as badly as they project. And, ultimately, affirmative action hurts all of the races.

Nope. We want affirmative action discontinued because NO institutionalized discrimination against ANY group due to race, color, creed, nationality, or religion is acceptable. It is just as wrong for the government to give preference to people who are black as it would be for them to give it to people because they're white.

We object to people playing the race card, but that isn't why we think AA should be discontinued. Whether or not anyone is suffering as badly as they say is immaterial, because even if they were, it still wouldn't justify institutionalized racism.

5. Stricter legal sentences for criminals and drug users, to deter and lower the crime rate.

Depends on the criminals. Many conservatives don't want stricter sentencing for drug users, as it happens. In fact, there are many conservatives who favor legalization of drugs, or at least marijuana, because they believe the government is interfering unnecessarily in people's lives and doing a piss-poor job of it into the bargain.

Conservative positions on crime are a whole entire other volume.

Other:

1. Strong Defense, because otherwise we would be invaded or destroyed, or our allies would.

The one job that can unequivocally be said to belong to the federal government is national defense. So yes, they should be expected to do so effectively.

2. To Maintain the US's role as the world economic and military superpower, see Fiscal Conservatism #6 and Other #1.

Maintaining a powerful economy and high standard of living for its people makes us an economic superpower in the world by default. As it happens, though, this helps other countries by giving them a ready source of income through trade with us, and also by making us able to give aid and assistance, both officially and privately, when needed. Likewise, maintaining a strong national defense in keeping with our stature makes us a superpower by default. This also helps other nations, because we are a nation that is inclined to offer aid and protection to those less able to provide it themselves.

3. Right to bear arms, to defend yourself against criminals and to have the opportunity to revolt against the government if you thought it was necessary.

Yup. Got it in one.

4. Conservatives would mostly agree that: The way things are in American government are mostly good, except for over-spending, activist judges, over taxation of the wealthy and of business, and lenient jail terms.

Yeah, well, when you factor in those exceptions - and there are others - it adds up to things in American government are NOT mostly good.

5. Conservatives would mostly agree that: The way things are in American society are mostly wrong, because of teaching wrong things about Christianity in public schools, liberal media bias, liberal immorality, and widespread crime and drug use.

Nope. Actually, the biggest problem with society right now is way too much interference in it from the federal government at the behest of special interest groups who want to remake the whole shebang in their own image, and render the majority of people powerless to do anything to stop them. Conservatives believe that the American people are, by and large, good and decent folks who will mostly do the right thing if allowed to. And either way, people with the freedom to vote get the government and society they deserve, and that's all you can realistically expect.

I know there's more but I can't think of'em. Alright, have at!

Not bad, except for the place where you digressed into anti-religious snarkiness.

 

[Sinatra]

Man is not free unless government is limited

-Reagan

 

[Cecilie1200]

Conservatives want to be happy. They think happiness is all about themselves.

That's horse hockey, and you know it. If that were the case, why is it that Conservatives contribute much more to charity than Liberals? See, I can turn that around and just say it's because liberals don't give a shit about anyone, but they just want the government to make everything equal for everyone so we all can be happy little drones.

Perhaps because they believe charity should be done instead of government aid, so they're putting their money where their mouth is and I applaud that lack of hypocrisy. However, if liberals believe that the government is better for aiding people, then wouldn't a rich liberal who votes to increase taxes on the rich be on a similar moral level?

No, because there is nothing moral about pawning one's concern off onto another entity to handle, or taking money from others to redistribute. It may not be hypocritical to say, "I think the government should do everything, so I'm going to vote for the government to do everything", but lack of hypocrisy is not the only criteria for morality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it fascinating to note that the conservatives here responded with serious, thoughtful analyses of the OP, and/or statements about their own personal take on conservatism, while the majority of liberals shot straight out of the box to the ad hominem attacks and rudeness. Very enlightening.