Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[candycorn]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?
Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

Liberalism=one helps out where she/he can because she/he can do it. The best metaphor was from FDR..."if your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle about the price of your garden hose".

Conservatives would be more apt to consider why the neighbor's house caught fire in the first place and debate the virtue of putting it out. You saw this with Dennis Hastert and New Orleans after Katrina.

""It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level....It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed."

It is the fundamental difference crystalized for bite-sized consumption. This translates into political policy.

Religiously? I don't see a transferrence.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

 

[Agit8r]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

 

[Mertex]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

 

[Agit8r]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

 

[Mertex]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

Okay....here is my original post where you first claimed you didn't agree with me. I see no reference in my post claiming conservatives are all about no worker safety. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

Okay....here is my original post where you first claimed you didn't agree with me. I see no reference in my post claiming conservatives are all about no worker safety. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

I simply didn't understand all this extraneous information in light of what I posted.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

How did we wind up on credit cards or food safety ?

 

[Agit8r]

The reference was specifically to the claim conservatives are all about no worker safety.

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No regulation means no safety.

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

You'll pardon my skepticism, but so did I.

And you were making projection about what would happen in the future. That is speculation...no way around it.

Which is ironic, given your first statement.

But this is about conservatives and liberals.

Are you saying you can correlate abuses by credit card companies to who is in office ?

And this is to prove what ?

 

[Mertex]

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

You'll pardon my skepticism, but so did I.

And you were making projection about what would happen in the future. That is speculation...no way around it.

Which is ironic, given your first statement.

But this is about conservatives and liberals.

Are you saying you can correlate abuses by credit card companies to who is in office ?

And this is to prove what ?

So, you're saying that the conservative's attitude on government not regulating/overseeing companies/corporations is okay because Credit Card companies are honest and won't do anything dishonest even if the government isn't watching?

The fact that you had credit cards during the Bush years doesn't mean that some consumers didn't get screwed by the credit card companies. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been any reason for the President and Congress to pass more stringent rules in 2010. Just because you might not have minded their raising interest rates right after you opened your account, doesn't mean there were many who did.


Regulations for credit card companies became much more restrictive because of new rules imposed by the Federal Reserve early last year. Those who follow the news probably remember all the benefits of the new rules as promised by Congress and the President. The regulations were aimed at forcing credit card companies to disclose more information and reduce the amount of money they collected from consumers over and above traditional debt.

The 2010 regulatory changes were the most sweeping in recent history, affecting everything from how credit card companies earn money to how they prepare statements for customers. The rules were tweaked slightly through amendments added to the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010. Yet even though Congress considered the adjustments minor, credit card companies claimed the total result of those adjustments, plus the original rules, would be extremely costly.

Reducing Fees and Other Charges
One of the most significant things the new regulations did was to prevent credit card companies from raising interest rates within the first 12 months of a new account being opened.

Regulations for Credit Card Companies

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe...maybe not.

I would say that no oversight means limited or "convenient" safety.

However, oversight by the government only guarantees nothing.

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

You'll pardon my skepticism, but so did I.

And you were making projection about what would happen in the future. That is speculation...no way around it.

Which is ironic, given your first statement.

But this is about conservatives and liberals.

Are you saying you can correlate abuses by credit card companies to who is in office ?

And this is to prove what ?

Not precisely. In 2009 democratic lawmakers passed reforms that banned those practices. But those practices only happened in the first place because of the 2004 changes to the bankruptcy code, and the hands-off approach that Bush's SEC took with all credit markets.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

You'll pardon my skepticism, but so did I.

And you were making projection about what would happen in the future. That is speculation...no way around it.

Which is ironic, given your first statement.

But this is about conservatives and liberals.

Are you saying you can correlate abuses by credit card companies to who is in office ?

And this is to prove what ?

So, you're saying that the conservative's attitude on government not regulating/overseeing companies/corporations is okay because Credit Card companies are honest and won't do anything dishonest even if the government isn't watching?

The fact that you had credit cards during the Bush years doesn't mean that some consumers didn't get screwed by the credit card companies. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been any reason for the President and Congress to pass more stringent rules in 2010. Just because you might not have minded their raising interest rates right after you opened your account, doesn't mean there were many who did.


Regulations for credit card companies became much more restrictive because of new rules imposed by the Federal Reserve early last year. Those who follow the news probably remember all the benefits of the new rules as promised by Congress and the President. The regulations were aimed at forcing credit card companies to disclose more information and reduce the amount of money they collected from consumers over and above traditional debt.

The 2010 regulatory changes were the most sweeping in recent history, affecting everything from how credit card companies earn money to how they prepare statements for customers. The rules were tweaked slightly through amendments added to the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010. Yet even though Congress considered the adjustments minor, credit card companies claimed the total result of those adjustments, plus the original rules, would be extremely costly.

Reducing Fees and Other Charges
One of the most significant things the new regulations did was to prevent credit card companies from raising interest rates within the first 12 months of a new account being opened.

Regulations for Credit Card Companies

I am sorry you had to spend so much time arguing against something you made up to begin with.

I didn't say one way or the other.

But I thank you for the following three paragraphs of information.

I only wonder why congress feels it is their duty to regulate and industry at such a detailed level ?

I've had cards my whole life, have manged them well, and have never had an issue with a credit card company.

Now, if you are defending someone who says "no need to speculate"....and then proceeds to speculate.....you've not done anything on his behalf.

For the record: I detest credit card companies. Simply because they make credit so available. If there is one thing that seems consistent in humans....it is the ability to lose control when it comes to having buying power now that you pay for later. I've seen it screw up peoples lives.

Do I think congress should regulate them ? I've never given it much thought.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If it wasn't for government intervention, credit card companies would screw consumers anyway they wanted. The recent changes give us some protection, but I can't imagine what these companies would be coming up with if they weren't accountable to someone.

In 2010, the Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure) Act went into effect. The act was designed to limit the amount of credit card abuse customers faced, but some companies are accused of continuing with abusive practices.
Under the Credit CARD Act, companies cannot automatically allow a card to go overlimit and cannot raise interest rates for one year after an account is opened. Once the year is up, lenders must give the cardholder 45 days' notice before issuing a rate hike.
Credit Card Company Abuse

In regards to "safety" - I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about the food that is being sold knowing the government has a say on what gets to market. If you don't think it is working properly, then it is your responsibility as a citizen to do something about it. Not having anyone looking out for us would mean that we would have to rely on the honesty of the companies that are making money off the food sold to us, and I trust them as far as I can throw a piano.


The foods we eat today come from a global marketplace comprising over 170 countries. Find out how government agencies ensure that these foods are safe.
Improving the Safety of Imported Food and Medical Products (FDA)
Expanding the FDA's overseas presence provides increased oversight for food imports.
Food Safety in a Global Marketplace (USDA)
How the USDA ensures that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, regardless of origin.

Import Export FoodSafety.gov

We don't need to speculate. They'd be doing all the crooked stuff they did before.

Arbitrarily changing due dates, charging late fees, exceeding credit limits with the crooked fees, and then charging over-limit fees. All the fraudulent stuff.

That is pure speculation on your part.

No. I had credit cards during the Bush years.

You'll pardon my skepticism, but so did I.

And you were making projection about what would happen in the future. That is speculation...no way around it.

Which is ironic, given your first statement.

But this is about conservatives and liberals.

Are you saying you can correlate abuses by credit card companies to who is in office ?

And this is to prove what ?

Not precisely. In 2009 democratic lawmakers passed reforms that banned those practices. But those practices only happened in the first place because of the 2004 changes to the bankruptcy code, and the hands-off approach that Bush's SEC took with all credit markets.

It looks to me like you are saying you can correlate it....and...at least with one data point....you look like you have a case.

I have no good feelings toward credit card companies. I have never had an issue with them, but I manage my credit. I know many who just can't keep from ramming up against the max. I also know lots of kids in college who just keep getting cards and just keep spending on them.....then go to mom and dad and have to get help.

Credit Cards College Students Know Little About Their Own Credit Cards TIME.com

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

So it is a bit of a quandary. I certainly don't think credit card companies should be allowed to run amok amidst a society that has far to many who are addicted. And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

 

[Mertex]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

 

[Mertex]

I am sorry you had to spend so much time arguing against something you made up to begin with.

I didn't say one way or the other.

Sometimes one doesn't have to spell out what one means....you may not have said it but your comments sure allude to it.

But I thank you for the following three paragraphs of information.

You're welcome.

I only wonder why congress feels it is their duty to regulate and industry at such a detailed level ?

Well, if after I pointed out a few things you are still wondering, then the problem may be that you are unable to connect the dots.

I've had cards my whole life, have manged them well, and have never had an issue with a credit card company.

You say you have not had an issue, but the fact is, that others have. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, their payment gets lost in the mail, etc., and the credit card companies take advantage of such situations. And, you never know when it is going to happen to you, just because it never has doesn't mean it never will. You have the typical conservative mentality, "if it isn't affecting me, then I don't give a damn". Except when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion, then even if it doesn't affect them, they feel they need to control.

Now, if you are defending someone who says "no need to speculate"....and then proceeds to speculate.....you've not done anything on his behalf.

There's a difference between speculating and deducing.

Speculation is reaching a conclusion or opinion by contemplating.
Deducing is reaching a conclusion by "reasoning".

For the record: I detest credit card companies. Simply because they make credit so available. If there is one thing that seems consistent in humans....it is the ability to lose control when it comes to having buying power now that you pay for later. I've seen it screw up peoples lives.

That is neither here nor there. Credit card use is a service that most Americans make use of, and there is no reason for credit card companies to take advantage of people just because they can.

Do I think congress should regulate them ? I've never given it much thought.

Well, it's not all about "you".

 

[Foxfyre]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Obamacare has not made anything better for my husband and myself. We are paying 37% more in healthcare premiums coupled with double and triple the amount in copays and deductibles, we both lost our primary care doctors and he lost his cancer doctor because of Obamacare, and our prescription costs are higher. It takes much longer to get a doctor's appointment and when we call for a minor medical emergency we are told to go to the emergency room--we used to get an appointment the same day. That has been pretty much the story for everybody we know and, for reasons unnecessary to go into here, we know a lot of healthcare professionals who are not liking what is happening. The urgent care centers and emergency rooms are much more crowded than before.

And the nation, our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond are saddled with an 18 trillion dollar debt that has not slowed down but is speeding up.

The fact is, as Benjamin Franklin once said, the more government does for us, the less the people do for themselves. And the long range results of that have almost always contained more negatives than positive.

 

[Mertex]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Obamacare has not made anything better for my husband and myself. We are paying 37% more in healthcare premiums coupled with double and triple the amount in copays and deductibles, we both lost our primary care doctors and he lost his cancer doctor because of Obamacare, and our prescription costs are higher. It takes much longer to get a doctor's appointment and when we call for a minor medical emergency we are told to go to the emergency room. That has been pretty much the story for everybody we know and, for reasons unnecessary to go into here, we know a lot of healthcare professionals who are not liking what is happening. The urgent care centers and emergency rooms are much more crowded than before.

And the nation, our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond are saddled with an 18 trillion dollar debt that has not slowed down but is speeding up.

The fact is, as Benjamin Franklin once said, the more government does for us, the less the people do for themselves. And the long range results of that have almost always contained more negatives than positive.

I don't know what kind of policy you had before and what kind you have now. I know that some thought they had a good policy and when they lost them due to Obamacare, it turned out their policies were crap to begin with and didn't meet the requirements set up by Obamacare.

I know there are more insured people now than there were before, and that we as taxpayers were picking up the tab these uninsured were accumulating at the ER. I also know that Republican/conservatives will never agree that something initiated by a Democrat is good, even if they themselves like it.....like Medicare.

The only thing that could make Obamacare really bad is for Republicans in Congress to be able to mess with it instead of fixing whatever needs fixing.



The results of the first year are positive. There are increases in people with insurance coverage, increases in access to medical services, and increase filling of prescriptions. There was also a decrease in consumer stress about being able to pay for medical care.

One year in and the sky has not fallen. A report by the Commonwealth Fund has found a 5% decrease in uninsured adults (ages 19-64). In young adults (ages 19-34), the uninsured rate is now 18% compared to 28 percent a year before. And among Latinos, the uninsured rate is 23%, down from 36%. In regards to individuals under 138 percent of the poverty line, the uninsured rate dropped to 24 percent from 35 percent. And of people who visit the insurance marketplaces, a full 51% enroll in a plan.

Of those who bought insurance through the marketplaces, 60% found it easy to pay their premium, 60% used their new plan to visit a doctor or hospital, or to fill a prescription. A full 64% of people said that without their insurance, they could not have afforded the care they received.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for 2015 have not skyrocketed as ACA opponents predicted. On average, silver level plan premiums have decreased 0.8% and bronze plans increased by an average of 3.3%. These are low increases for modern history. In fact, health care spending as a proportion of the U.S. economy grew at its lowest rate in 53 years.

Does this mean that the ACA was successful? It appears to have been so, at least for 2014. However, pundits are already saying that despite their wrong predictions of huge increases in 2015, those increases are really going to hit in 2016. Obviously, it’s difficult to trust soothsayers who have been wrong so far.

ACA Report Card One Year of Obamacare and the Individual Insurance Mandate Bioethics.net