McCain abandoned GOP principles?

I never looked at it that way before. But as far as being fiscally liberal, I don't think we appreciate our government doubling the debt.

And no one appreciated Bush turning the surplus into a deficit.

But they sure didn't mind enough to make it stop. As long as Bush wasn't raising taxes to pay for Iraq, the American people didn't mind how much it was costing or how much we were borrowing from China.

And gay's are the last people to be picked on. We went through this shit in the 1960's with blacks and people have come a long way since then. Now a days it is not a big deal to bring a black date home if you are white. My parents are in their 60's and they freaked out when I went out with a black girl. So society is becoming more and more acceptable of gays too. They just need to know some gays to realize they deserve equal rights. Same with race. Most of my white racist friends didn't even know any black people.

It is a lot harder to discriminate against a group of people when you know them.

It's why I have said in all my posts that education is the key to understanding. When people understand one another then your correct it is harder to discriminate. While I won't turn this into a thread based on gay rights, I will say this, that for anyone that advocates rights that they perceive to be not available to them and then by way of protest take rights from others is not a very good way to win people to your cause. Some examples would be invading churches, *Freedom of Religion*, knocking crosses out of the hands of elderly women *the right to peacefully assemble*, and protesting a legitimate vote, *the right to vote*. Why I express this sealy is that it's very clear that some in the gay community wish to supplant the same rights from others they are claiming to be denied and in the end this is not how you educate people and win them over.
 
Regulation is an interesting topic. I've been thinking about starting a poll about it.

Even if, as you say, regulating business is a liberal ideal (and you may be correct on this) it is certainly not a Bush ideal.

Regulation takes a LOT of liberty away.

If I've ever called Bush a liberal around here, it is mostly in jest. He has no ideological positions. His positions are whatever they needed to be to get elected. It's quite obvious the man does not, and probably has never, thought for himself. The same can be said for most presidents, though. In fact, most politicians.

Regulation in and of itself is authorized by the constitution. So from there, you can either take a liberal position on it and regulate as much as you possibly can, or you take a conservative position on it and regulate as little as you possibly can. I understand why there is some regulation that isn't all that bad, but for the most part I see it as insulation from personal responsibility. I don't agree with making a specific type of loan illegal. Not even an ARM. All an ARM was, was a clever financing proposal meant to stack the advantage in the house's favor. Consumers should have been smarter, banks should have been as well. But you can't tell me the board rooms didn't already know that the worst case scenario would be a bailout that would at least protect THEM. So rather than regulate them now, which probably doesn't harm one hair on their greedy asses anyway, they should have been left for dead like they deserved.

Anyway though, what would your poll consist of?
 
Last edited:
Regulation takes a LOT of liberty away.

If I've ever called Bush a liberal around here, it is mostly in jest. He has no ideological positions. His positions are whatever they needed to be to get elected. It's quite obvious the man does not, and probably has never, thought for himself. The same can be said for most presidents, though. In fact, most politicians.

Regulation in and of itself is authorized by the constitution. So from there, you can either take a liberal position on it and regulate as much as you possibly can, or you take a conservative position on it and regulate as little as you possibly can. I understand why there is some regulation that isn't all that bad, but for the most part I see it as insulation from personal responsibility. I don't agree with making a specific type of loan illegal. Not even an ARM. All an ARM was, was a clever financing proposal meant to stack the advantage in the house's favor. Consumers should have been smarter, banks should have been as well. But you can't tell me the board rooms didn't already know that the worst case scenario would be a bailout that would at least protect THEM. So rather than regulate them now, which probably doesn't harm one hair on their greedy asses anyway, they should have been left for dead like they deserved.

Anyway though, what would your poll consist of?
Ah, but I've never been for doing away with ARMs. I've been for not allowing banks to sell mortgages the day they make them. That is one of two or three reasons we are in this economic crisis. They (the banks) should be responsible for the potential loss for at least a couple of years. That way stupid peoples mortgage decisions wouldn't affect the entire financial system.

Not sure about the poll. Something to figure out how much regulation everyone feels comfortable with.
 
Ah, but I've never been for doing away with ARMs. I've been for not allowing banks to sell mortgages the day they make them. That is one of two or three reasons we are in this economic crisis. They (the banks) should be responsible for the potential loss for at least a couple of years. That way stupid peoples mortgage decisions wouldn't affect the entire financial system.

Not sure about the poll. Something to figure out how much regulation everyone feels comfortable with.

You're missing the worst parts of the mess, though. Selling mortgages wouldn't normally have caused much of a problem if it hadn't been so many BAD mortgages. If you offer a responsible loan to someone who clearly qualifies, you probably aren't selling much of a risk anyway.

But, of course, if credit hadn't been so artificially cheap, there wouldn't have been so many ARMs, and so many bad mortgages being sold.

It's a chicken/egg scenario. It was the collective attitude of entitlement. Like somehow because you are an American, you automatically deserve to own a home. That feeling was acted upon, when credit was cheap enough for even the least financially secure people to feel comfortable diving in. That, and the lack of understanding of asset valuation.

My guess on the poll would be that we would learn nothing new about anyone. The responses would probably be typical down ideological lines that we already know about the posters here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top