What do liberals want the US to be?

[Dad2three]

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

One example of where this article is completely wrong is the case of AIG. If AIG hadn't been allowed to insure financial derivative products, using the triple A rating of AIG, thorugh ending Glass Steagall, it wouldn't have been in the position where our entire insurance system was at risk where we needed to bail it out to keep it afloat. With Glass Steagall, AIG would have been forced to set up a separate financial corporation that wouldn't have carried the triple A rating their insurance company had, and they wouldn't have been able to insure these products in mass, and these financial products wouldn't have been tied to their regular policies.
7 Reasons To Support Glass-Steagall a List of Those Who Do Too Big Has Failed

GAWD YOU ARE DUMB

SHOW ME HOW G/S RESTRICTED AIG? LOL


YOUR LINKS PREMISE, IS THAT AIG WOULDN'T HAD BEEN TOUCHED, AND THAT'S JUST BULLSHIT. GO TO MY LINK

Listen, I've got MY thread here, I've SHOWN this was a DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. You want to argue anything else? Go HERE


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


'WHY did it take OVER 4 years for G/S to start the subprime bubble? lol

Wow, what a rebuttal. Just saying my AIG example is bullshit isn't an argument. You need to articulate why it is so. That graphic in no way contradicts my point.

I'm tired of spanking you MORON. YOUR LINK was using THEIR IMAGINATION that IF G/S hadn't been 'repealed', AIG would NOT had been able to do what they did, when the FACT is ALL standards went out the gawdddam door! SERIOUSLY? 60% OF LOANS IN CALIFORNIA IN 2006 WERE NO DOC LOANS!!!!!!!


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


IF you want to TRY to REFUTE this, do better than the garbage you are spewing Bubba!

THIS WAS A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST (LIKE 1920'S) AND WAS CHEERED ON BY DUBYA WHO DIDN'T 'BELIEVE IN' GOV'T INTRUDING INTO THE 'FREE MARKETS' DUMBASS!

 

[SAYIT]

No I am not.

Liberalism is a destructive utopian ideology that fails to recognize the social aspect of mankind, reducing man to a purely material being(economics uber alles) and supporting a blind drive towards "liberty" and "equality" regardless of the consequences.

Posting a blogger's thoughts in large font does not add any cred to them. Bartlett is a disgruntled Repub who just this October tried to make the case that Obama is a Republican. Yeah ... OK.

No I am not.

Liberalism is a destructive utopian ideology that fails to recognize the social aspect of mankind, reducing man to a purely material being(economics uber alles) and supporting a blind drive towards "liberty" and "equality" regardless of the consequences.

It also has an arrogance associated with it that assumes the elite know what's best for everyone. Like all 310,000,000 people in the U.S. are cut from the same cloth.

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing since the heady days of the overt Progressive Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

Stop projecting

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

Can you clarify your question?

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?

pol·i·cy1
ˈpäləsē/
noun
noun: policy; plural noun: policies
a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

Let me tell you about policies ... Obama's policies. They are so onerous that millions of Dem Sheeple sat out November's election.

 

[Dad2three]

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Dad2three]

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

Bubba, EVERY bullshit premise you TRY to make, I'll smash with REAL FACTS!

CRA? LOL


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy
>
These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.
Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture


However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations.


Fannie Freddie and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News



Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


I LOVE HOW YOU JUST THROW UP SHIT BUBBA, EVERYTHING WAS THERE, DUBYA JUST 'HELPED' LOWER STANDARDS ALREADY IN PLACE? PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GRAPHIC FOR ME? LOL

CLINTON???

Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

REALLY?

NOW IT'S THE FED RESERVE TOO? LOL

 

[Steinlight]

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

 

[Dad2three]

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right. Swiftly and repeatedly many conservatives blamed affordable housing policies—particularly the affordable housing goals in place for the two government sponsored mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that applies to regulated lenders such as banks and thrifts—for the massive financial crisis that occurred. This despite the fact that as recently as 2006 prominent conservatives, including FCIC Republican member and American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Peter Wallison, were arguing that Fannie and Freddie needed to do more lending to low-income communities and minorities.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

YOU GIVING UP ON WALLISON??? LOL

FED RESERVE HUH?

id the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist s View Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEI


WANT TO KEEP TRYING BUBBA? lol

 

[Steinlight]

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

 

[Dad2three]

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

 

[Dad2three]

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

 

[Dad2three]

It also has an arrogance associated with it that assumes the elite know what's best for everyone. Like all 310,000,000 people in the U.S. are cut from the same cloth.

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing since the heady days of the overt Progressive Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

Stop projecting

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

Can you clarify your question?

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?

pol·i·cy1
ˈpäləsē/
noun
noun: policy; plural noun: policies
a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

Let me tell you about policies ... Obama's policies. They are so onerous that millions of Dem Sheeple sat out November's election.

Sure, like EVERY midterm. Weird the GOP STILL went to GREAT lengths to suppress the vote, lol

 

[Steinlight]

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

Economic excess through programs like the American system, making sure the economy serves the nation,as opposed to global capital taking priority over the national interest. Curbing social excess and promoting the growth of social capital by promoting procreation, marriage, drug laws, strict immigration laws etc.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Got it, YOU throw out a FALSE premise that YOU want me to support, when SHOWN it wasn't a Clinton policy to begin with, but one supported by right wing Heritage and brought to US by Ronnie, you get your panties twisted up. Sorry, you are wrong on US being isolationists in WW1 just like Dubya was before 9/11.


It's called OPINION. I believe YOUR opinion is wrong, and the VAST majority of people in polls have proven me correct.

As for Dubyas's cheering on the Banksters as he did (ignoring regulator warnings, fighting all 50 states on 'predatory lending, FORCING F/F to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's, increasing F/F 'goals, allowing subprime loans (unlike Clinton) to be used to meet those goals, etc PROVE you are on the wrong side of history on this also, AND like most right wing extremists, have a tendency to blame the poor or minority for things caused by the 'job creators'. Shocking really! lol

I'm going to bed!

 

[Dad2three]

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

Economic excess through programs like the American system, making sure the economy serves the nation,as opposed to global capital taking priority over the national interest. Curbing social excess and promoting the growth of social capital by promoting procreation, marriage, drug laws, strict immigration laws etc.

Oh a fukking social conservative who wants to have Gov't small enough to get in everyones bed. Sweet, lol

Wing nutters *shaking head*

Weird how you ignore things I ask or point out to you, time and time again. Alex?

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

Economic excess through programs like the American system, making sure the economy serves the nation,as opposed to global capital taking priority over the national interest. Curbing social excess and promoting the growth of social capital by promoting procreation, marriage, drug laws, strict immigration laws etc.

You Klowns overthrew the American system dummy. Tell me you aren't a Reagan supporter? GOP 'believes in' free trade'. YOUR premise of party over self huh? lol

EVERYTHING you said means bullshit. It was nothing. Try to do better Bubba. Seriously!

 

[Steinlight]

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

John Keynes, it was a typo, it is interesting how you attack a typo considering your freakish post format with several typos and random caps. Anyways, the point stands,trying to connect criticism of American organized labor in the latter half of the 20th century to Keynes or Libertarianism is absurd. Union membership has been on the decline since the late 50s because workers have recognize their inherent corruption and inability to address their needs.
http://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/union-density1.jpg

Your defense of union corruption shows that you have no sense of history and have never held a job in an industry with union trades. I could refer you to anecdotal examples from myself in my friends in the construction trade, where union construction workers for example wouldn't move dry wall or wire upstairs because that was the movers job, so they would sit their all day and nothing would get done while we would wait for the mover. For example, with auto manufacturers, UAW didn't even allow companies to build different carlines in the same plant. That doesn't show up in salaries, but it does in higher costs. So it wasn't just about high union wages, it was about inefficiency and costs.

 

[Steinlight]

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

 

[Dad2three]

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

John Keynes, it was a typo, it is interesting how you attack a typo considering your freakish post format with several typos and random caps. Anyways, the point stands,trying to connect criticism of American organized labor in the latter half of the 20th century to Keynes or Libertarianism is absurd. Union membership has been on the decline since the late 50s because workers have recognize their inherent corruption and inability to address their needs.
http://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/union-density1.jpg

Your defense of union corruption shows that you have no sense of history and have never held a job in an industry with union trades. I could refer you to anecdotal examples from myself in my friends in the construction trade, where union construction workers for example wouldn't move dry wall or wire upstairs because that was the movers job, so they would sit their all day and nothing would get done while we would wait for the mover. For example, with auto manufacturers, UAW didn't even allow companies to build different carlines in the same plant. That doesn't show up in salaries, but it does in higher costs. So it wasn't just about high union wages, it was about inefficiency and costs.

MORE right wing bullshit. Shocking

The guy attacking unions, who like ANYTHING has good and bad, is fine will Mittens paying 14% taxes on $20 million income right? But it's the guy making $50-$60 grand that's the problem, NOT the CEO's who BARGAINED with the unions, lol

UNIONS created the conditions for jobs to go overseas right? Those construction jobs? Bet you have them in China today right? lol

Instead of being envious of union benefits, more people should organize or join one. The waning of the middle class coincides with corporate and right-wing attacks on unions.

 

[Steinlight]

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

Economic excess through programs like the American system, making sure the economy serves the nation,as opposed to global capital taking priority over the national interest. Curbing social excess and promoting the growth of social capital by promoting procreation, marriage, drug laws, strict immigration laws etc.

You Klowns overthrew the American system dummy. Tell me you aren't a Reagan supporter? GOP 'believes in' free trade'. YOUR premise of party over self huh? lol

EVERYTHING you said means bullshit. It was nothing. Try to do better Bubba. Seriously!

I am not obsessed with Reagan like you seem to be, no, I don't blindly support Reagan and disagree with things he did.

Reagan had nothing to do with the American System, the American System was America's economic plan in the first half of the 19th Century. From 1833 onward, tariffs fell from their highest rate in 1828 with the Tariff of Abominations and the program was phased out over time.

You don't know what you are talking about, and are mentally ill.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?