Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Conservative Vs Liberals      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Conservative Vs LiberalsPage 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

My point was that very often government intervention (whether well intentioned or not), is a contributing factor in hurting small businesses. So.... what we are often told from the left will decrease the gap between rich and poor ends up having the total opposite effect. I'm not saying that the liberal politicians who had asked for these regulations had intended for that outcome, but oftentimes I see it happening.


What part did deregulation play in the present current economic condition of our country?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:21:14 PM


What part did deregulation play in the present current economic condition of our country?


That would be: What caused the worst economic crash since the great depression?
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 7:55:07 PM

Liberals see the Constitution as an archaic document that has little relevance in the world today. After all it was written by some old white guys whose views don't represent the people of color, minorities. Liberals feel they know better than the founders what is best for the country.

They view it as an ever changeable document to suit the "needs" of our time without following the requirement to pass amendments.

Conservatives view the Constitution as the highest law in the land, that is timeless in it's wisdom. It was, is and will be relevant for all generations of Americans. They view the founding fathers as perhaps the most fortuitous gathering of wise men in the history of the world.

They view it as a sacred document whose ideas and ideals need to be preserved and only changed carefully using due diligence utilizing the constitutionally prescribed amendment process.


Where in this post do you take into account that while conservatives were defending Bush when he was ignoring the constitution, the liberals were protesting his actions?
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:19:17 PM

Distortion. The people who seek to inject religious dogma and doctrine into the political sphere are considered extremists-- or, rather, reactionaries.

Labelling a group of people as "reactionaries" for wanting to maintain the staus quo doesn't feel accurate to me.

What part did deregulation play in the present current economic condition of our country?

I'm by no means an expert on what has happened in your country. I can, however, give you a layman's point of view on what government policies have done to my little community in northern Alberta.

For 15 years my area has enjoyed an extremely strong economy.... mostly due to the conservative nature of our provincial government (and, of course, our reserves of oil and natural gas). With people moving here from out of province, my city doubled in population (25,000 to 50,000) in less than ten years.

Our federal government sponsors a program for first time home-owners that has been around for as long as I remember. At some time during the last ten years the restrictions on these government guaranteed loans have been severely lowered (presumably with the intention of making it easier for people with lower incomes to buy). Downpayments were sometimes non-existant (the government has raised it again, but it occurs to me like it's shutting the barn after the horses have fled), and now second, third or even fifth time homeowners are given the same deal.

In less than two years the appraised value of my home went from 100k to 240k. I know 25 yr old kids who are making payments for the next 40 yrs on 400k mortgages.
When the bank is lending it's own money, much stricter criteria has to be met. With government gauranteed (and structured) loans everybody gets a chance to go in debt big time.

A couple of years ago our Premier, in all his wisdom, caved to liberal demands and raised the royalties on oil. It seems that some of the whiz kids had realized that Alberta has low royalties in comparison to the rest of the world. What these people had failed to realize is that due to higher labour costs, more stringent enviromental and safety standards, and harsh climate and terain, it is very expensive to drill a well in Canada. The oil companies responded, for the most part, by pulling their dollars out and choosing to do business elsewhere.

Now the big crunch hasn't come yet (just a little crunch so far), and hopefully with any luck the guys running things in our capital will get their heads straight and possibly fix this situation. But.... if the crunch does come....

I shudder to think of what my home that I paid 100k for will be worth if 10,000 easterners decide to leave my town like rats fleeing from a sinking ship. Of course the people who lose their homes are going to be in worse shape (of course if things get real bad they can go on federal assistance). The taxpayers of my country could be on the hook for a billion dollars (easily) just for the defaulted loans in my little community. Even the enviroment will take a hit. Gasoline is still going to be burned.... the oil companies will just be drilling for it and producing it in countries with less strict enviromental policies.

But... on the bright side..... the oil companies will still be making money.... just not in Alberta. The banks will be doing okay too... it was government guaranteed money.

Now.... if the above scenario does indeed play out.... who should I be most dissapointed with? The oil companies? The banks? Or... just maybe... my government?
 bliss serendipity
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:23:25 AM

Now.... if the above scenario does indeed play out.... who should I be most dissapointed with? The oil companies? The banks? Or... just maybe... my government?
your conservative government of course. They are the ones who made the rule changes. And yes, many are going to lose their homes. The housing bubble will burst here in Canada in about 2 years and what is Harper going to do then?

Bliss
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:25:15 AM

your conservative government of course.

Congratulations. Recognizing that oftentimes it is our gvernment who screws us and not the corporations is one of the first steps to becoming a member of the Conservative Thinkers Club.

They are the ones who made the rule changes. And yes, many are going to lose their homes. The housing bubble will burst here in Canada in about 2 years and what is Harper going to do then?

Of course, before you can become a full fledged member and we teach you the secret handshake you're going to need to brush up on your history. While I'm sure, given time, Harper will have ample oppurtunities to make a mess of things, this one lands squarely on the preceeding government's doorstep. The housing bubble in my area had pretty much topped out four months after Harper took office. Twice in the last three years the federal conservatives have actually raised requirements for CHMC loans (like I said... it's kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have left).

^^^^^ There's something about defending a politician that just doesn't sit right with me..... I apologize.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 7:20:02 AM

My definition of a Liberal has always been: "someone who does not believe in the law of cause and effect".

My definition of a Conservative is: "someone with morals , common sense and business sense."

But that's just my opinion.


I found a definition of a liberal so it's not just my opinion, but it makes me feel proud to be called a liberal


Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
 bliss serendipity
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:08:46 AM
427cammer,

Take a read of this and say what? I remember the recession in early 80's and how many in Alberta and BC lost their homes and the shirts off their backs. I lived in Calgary at that time and it was horrible. The oil companies were raking in huge profits all the while saying they were in the hole. The bubble hasn't burst yet but it will.


Canada's sub-prime mortgage time bomb
By Murray Dobbin
| October 22, 2009

What do the mid-recession housing boom and the Harper Conservatives’ rise in the polls have in common? Answer: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s massive sub-prime mortgage scheme that is keeping up the appearance of an economic recovery.

Reading the newspapers these days you have to wonder whether Canada was on another planet when the global credit crisis hit. House prices have actually increased in some provinces and now there is a shortage of houses for sale in southern Ontario. Credit is flowing everywhere.

Ottawa: The biggest sub-prime lender in the world

But what few Canadians realize is that the housing market has avoided collapse (prices are down 32 per cent in the U.S.) because the Harper Conservatives directed the CMHC to change the mortgage rules to effectively make the Canadian government the biggest sub-prime lender in the world. What’s almost as alarming as this reckless policy is that no one in the financial media is talking about it, even though everyone knows the facts. I was alerted to the scandal by David Lepoidevin, a financial advisor with National Bank Financial, in a warning letter to his clients. (Blogger Jonathon Tonge has all the CMHC charts and graphs on his blog.)

The facts are that over 90 per cent of existing mortgages in Canada are “securitized” -- that’s the practice of pooling mortgages (or other assets) and then issuing new securities backed by the pool -- MBSs, or Mortgage Backed Securities. That’s what happened with the sub-prime mortgages in the U.S. which (because the whole pool was so diversified) received triple A ratings by the rating agencies. Losses around the world amounted to hundred of billions of dollars.

Credit is still tight in the U.S. because no private investor has the stomach for such risky MBSs. That’s because those losses were private and not back-stopped by any government. In Canada, mortgages have been securitized for years. The Canadian-issued securitizations are called National Housing Act, Mortgage-Backed Securities. Unlike the failed U.S. pools, says Lepoidevin, “In order to find buyers for securitized mortgage pools, the Government of Canada has put guarantees on them” by directing CMHC to guarantee all Canadian mortgages.

So long as borrowing requirements were tight, the percentage of loans that were securitized remained modest. But in 2007 the Harper government allowed the CMHC to dramatically change its rules: it dropped the down payment requirement to zero percent and extended the amortization period to 40 years. In light of the mortgage meltdown in the US, Finance Minister Flaherty moderated those rules in August 2008 (it’s now 5 per cent down and 35 years). But these are still relatively very loose requirements and securitization has taken off.

By the end of 2007 there were $138 billion in NHA securitized pools outstanding and guaranteed by CMHC -- 17.8 per cent of all outstanding mortgages. By June 30, 2009, that figure was $290 billion, a figure Lepoidevin says “…exceeds the total value of mortgages offered by CMHC in its 57 years of existence!” CMHC’s stated goal was to guarantee $340 billion by the end of this year and is on track to reach $500 billion by the end of 2010. Total mortgage credit in Canada will grow by 12-14 per cent of GDP in 2009.
Advertising

Keeping credit flowing: At what cost?

In an effort to prop up the real estate market in 2008 (when affordability nosedived) the Harper government directed the CMHC to approve as many high-risk borrowers as possible and to keep credit flowing. CMHC described these risky loans as “…high ratio homeowner units approved to address less-served markets and/or to serve specific government priorities.” The approval rate for these risky loans went from 33 per cent in 2007 to 42 per cent in 2008. By mid-2007 average equity as a share of home value was down to 6 per cent -- from 48 per cent in 2003. At the peak of the U.S. housing bubble, just before it burst, house prices were five times the average American income; in Canada today that ratio is 7.4:1 almost 50 per cent higher.

This high-risk policy actually prevents the natural playing out of the recession -- that is, the purging of the excesses of the previous boom period. CMHC’s easy-money resulted in a 9.3 per cent increase in Canadian household debt between June 2008 and June 2009.

Even bank economists admit to being concerned about a housing bubble. In a September research note, Scotiabank economists Derek Holt and Karen Cordes said, “…lenders have been scrambling to get enough product to put into the federal government’s Insured Mortgage Purchase Program over the months, and that may have translated into excessively generous financing terms.” Holt suggested that in two or three years -- or whenever the Bank of Canada increases interest rates -- many of these mortgages would be at risk.

The banks themselves have taken on virtually no new risk. According to CMHC numbers in the two years from the beginning of 2007 to January 2009 Canadian banks increased their total mortgage credit outstanding by only 0.01 per cent. Fully 90.5 per cent of all growth in total Canadian mortgage credit outstanding since 2007 has been accounted for by Mortgage Backed Securities. Of course, the banks have no interest in saying no if you have qualified for a securitized CMHC loan -- because they bear no risk if you default.

If that sounds like sub-prime mortgages, it should. Sub prime is any loan below prime. If a bank refuses you a loan, and CMHC gives you one, the loan is sub-prime. As Lepoidevin says in his warning letter, “Every single U.S. lender specializing in sub-prime has gone bankrupt. The largest sub-prime lender in the world is now the Canadian government.”

The high price of political cowardice

This is the ticking time bomb Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tossed at the Canadian taxpayer. Why? So that he can maintain the fiction that he is a good economic manager and win a majority in the next election.

The problem is no opposition political party wants to expose the looming disaster and risk being responsible for a dramatic fall in house prices. As Liberal finance critic John McCallum told the Globe and Mail: “I don't think we want the government to be rationing Canadian home-buying.”

The price of political cowardice will be very high. And in the end the housing bubble will burst anyway, putting taxpayers on the hook for tens of billions of dollars in defaulted mortgages.


Bliss
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:45:39 PM
Since we are throwing out old sayings funny how this one contrasts with yours.




"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,but most stupid people are conservatives."
John Stuart Mill
(1806 - 1873)


 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:50:12 PM

427cammer,

Take a read of this and say what?

I guess I mispoke. Harper has contributed to the problem (I had read previously in another thread how the conservatives had raised CMHC reqirements twice in two years... I hadn't realized they were fixing their own mistakes). I should have trusted my instincts.... never defend a politician.

In my town home prices had already reached more than 90% of their peak value as early as the spring of 1996 (I remember because my brother sold his house at that time and moved to BC... everyone felt he had timed it perfectly). At this time CMHC was still operating under guidlines set while the liberals were in office. I will say that 35 yr amortization terms and allowing people to borrow their downpayment from another source were not fiscally responsible moves for CMHC.

Of course when the liberals did this in 2005 it was seen as an act of compassion to help low income people realize their dreams of buying a home. A year later when the conservatives made the same type of moves (and screwed it up even worse) the author of your article is able to recognize it as self-serving BS.

When the two major political parties in Canada are competing to see who can be the most liberal things can get pretty screwed up.

The bubble hasn't burst yet but it will.

I recognized that this was going to cause us problems several years ago. I posted my concerns back in March of this year after seeing several Canadian posters being smug about how much smarter our government had handled the situation compared to the US (Why can't we let banks fail?) .

I remember the recession in early 80's and how many in Alberta and BC lost their homes and the shirts off their backs. I lived in Calgary at that time and it was horrible. The oil companies were raking in huge profits all the while saying they were in the hole.

Just curious....

If oil companies are claiming to lose money, or are claiming that their profit margins are too low to justify drilling here, do you suggest our government should step in and force them to drill? Other than lowering royalties to make ourselves more competitive with the rest of the world (I know the liberals would hate this), would there be an effective liberal way of dealing with this problem? Maybe we could lay a heavy guilt trip on them in the hopes they won't move to more competitive markets? Maybe ask nicely of the people who are competing against us to raise their royalties?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 26
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:08:03 PM

If you look at the historical writings of the founders the general welfare clause pertained to national defense, not health care. That is a fact.


You know, stating things emphatically doesn't make them so. The provision is for the Common Defence AND the General Welfare. If it was all about the common defence, the second part wouldn't really be in there now would it?
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:58:26 AM

My definition of a Liberal has always been: "someone who does not believe in the law of cause and effect".

My definition of a Conservative is: "someone with morals , common sense and business sense."

But that's just my opinion


Which amounts to little more than "go team!" Check out the cause and effect of 30 years of Reaganesque deregulation. The rest is too subjective to argue.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/21/2010 7:02:04 PM

Its the liberal media that cons most no minds into generic labels like "free health care"
Another one of those "liberal" media posts?

Soooooo ... Faux News is the channel to watch ... right? LMAO ... be there or be square?

Oh dear ... this is one of those threads where people are supposed to come in and trash whatever political party they don't like ... sort of like little children do when they accuse someone of having cooties.

That's hilarious ...
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 31
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 11:07:16 AM
Lets not pretend that this is somehow a matter of the Democrats shutting the Republicans out. The GOP made a tactical decision to become the party of "No, We Can't." Obama made countless efforts to bring Republican lawmakers into the process. The Republican Whip even bragged that he used the consultation to stall progress on the Bill.

They have voted against measures they themselves proposed earlier. Obama still has 200 appointees held up by the Republicans. After the Christmas bomber, one Republican put a hold on the FAA Security appointee because he is pro-union. Think about that for a second - this guy thinks it's more important to be anti-union than to protect American lives.

You can't decry the partisanship in Washington and blame both parties equally. The Republicans have already filibustered more since Obama's inauguration than the total number in the two decades of the 50's and 60's combined.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 32
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 2:30:54 PM
The left sees co-operation from the Right as bending over and taking what they want to give.

Actually, at least with today's "new" Right, that's exactly what it is... except you have the "giving" and "taking" reversed...

It hasn't always been that way and that's why I referenced the "new" right... The entire character of American conservatism changed beginning in the '80's and it is primarily due to an almost complete abdication of the conservative agenda to the interests of the extreme Christian right over the more thoughtful conservatism that once set the agenda...

What initially began as mere pandering (in order to secure Southern votes) became a wholesale "hand-over"... This element got a taste of power, and a 'leg up' in their dream of a "truly Christian America" (as in governance primarily for Christians, by Christians, in accordance with biblical principles) during the Reagan presidency and have been addicted to it ever since (remember, this is the same group that was unhappy with Bush Sr, a conservative and Republican, because he wasn't seen as both conservative AND Christian enough for them, were almost apoplectic over Clinton and even McCain's candidacy wasn't truly good enough for them).... They had a truly held belief that they were finally within grasping distance of their "Christian America" during Baby Bush's presidency, a dream and goal which they saw as being snatched away from them by Obama's election... This is the group that is ultimately driving conservative politics in the US today and is the single biggest reason for the current state of affairs today... Compromise in any form, for any reason, is simply not on the table for them... It's all the marbles for them... They have set the bar for conservative politics in America, a bar that even Jesus couldn't, and wouldn't even attempt to, limbo under... Until the traditional, old-school conservatives in the US see this AND moves to take back the lead the state of affairs will only become worse...
 cupani67
Joined: 12/29/2009
Msg: 33
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 9:15:25 PM
I guarantee the so-called "liberals" would not have organized a brick-throwing just because a bill was about to pass in Congress, but as for the "Conservatives .................

Check out what Mike Vanderboegh has to do with throwing bricks through windows and was so proud of it, he called in and took credit for it. A militia man from Alabama. An obvious Conservative encouraging people to arm themselves.

But then what should we expect when the former "Conservative" VP candidate is doing her own form of instigating by encouraging people to "load up" and get the Democrats in the cross hairs.

Wow, talk about a sore loser. I'd hate to think what she might be capable of if she had not won her pageant. LMAO, trip the winner off the stage so they break their neck so she can take over the position?
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 10:40:50 PM

I guarantee the so-called "liberals" would not have organized a brick-throwing just because a bill was about to pass in Congress, but as for the "Conservatives .................


By any chance did you see the DNC videos from last year where libs destroyed several city blocks as Chris Matthews sat and ate his lunch with a smirk on his face? Maybe heard about Obama's buddy Bill Ayers little group of dissenters and the fun little pranks they pulled?

I'm not saying the republicans are any better for doing it, but if you want to find out about protest with property destruction the libs pretty much wrote the playbook for it. Republicans just got ahold of it and are now playing the same game. Sucks doesn't it?


An obvious Conservative encouraging people to arm themselves.


And how does one arrive at that conclusion? If a person throws a brick they are suddenly putting out a call to arms? Wow, that's a stretch.


encouraging people to "load up" and get the Democrats in the cross hairs.


It wouldn't by any chance mean to get out and vote in November and get these idiots presently in office out, would it? Because some guy in Alabama threw bricks the whole Republican party is suddenly one step away from civil disobedience, up to and including assassination? Very doubtful. The vote speaks much louder.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 35
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 10:49:45 PM
There is a pastor who ran as VP candidate with Alan Keyes (the guy the GOP ran against Obama for the Senate seat).

He has called for the murder of Obama. He's now calling for the deaths of every legislator who voted for the Reform Bill. He also gloated when Harry Reid's wife and daughter were in a life threatening car accident last summer.

That's one example.

The fanatical, extremist Taliban is fully integrated into the Republican Party now. When a terrorist flew a plane into a federal building seeking to commit mass murder more than one Republican legislator expressed sympathy for his cause. This isn't fringe youthful radicals pretending to be revolutionaries because they're young and naive. This is a dangerous terrorist network growing in your country.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 3/23/2010 11:34:25 PM

The fanatical, extremist Taliban is fully integrated into the Republican Party now.





When a terrorist flew a plane into a federal building seeking to commit mass murder more than one Republican legislator expressed sympathy for his cause.


How come this guy is a terrorist but the muslim who opened fire on his follow soliders on a military base was just a troubled guy who needed help? Care to name names on those expressing sympathy? For both?


This is a dangerous terrorist network growing in your country.


Yeah, except it's headed by BHO & Eric Holder who want all terrorists to have miranda rights and a fair civilian trial so slick leftist attorneys (like those representing Bill Ayers) can get them off on technicalities and they can do so again . I think you may possibly have your parties mixed up there dad.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 4/9/2010 12:46:20 PM

seems to be united on every front to block ANY progress anywhere, and to ensure a presidency that gets nothing accomplished.


Because it's not about accomplishing anything anymore. Politics and how government is run has become a popular American sport where it's just about winning and employing strategies to prevent the other side from winning.

For Obama to achieve any measure of success, it would be a touchdown that puts the Democrats in the lead thus making the next election more favorable to their party. So the Republicans have to play defense. Possibly look for a steal to take the ball the other way and put go ahead points on their side of the scoreboard.

Then when the buzzer sounds at the end of the term. It's someone's turn to kick off and start it all over again.

And all of us sit on the stands cheering them on unconcerned if our guys are really right or wrong... they're just our team and we support them unconditionally based on no other fact than that. They're our guys right or wrong.

Every sport has a final buzzer. Game over. As long as we continue this mindless government as a sport mentality, there will be a final buzzer and the clock is ticking down right under our noses.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 4/24/2010 8:24:14 PM
Conservatives believe it when they see it. Liberals see it when they believe it.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Conservative Vs Liberals