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
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Conservative Vs LiberalsPage 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I watched BookTv yesterday. The author of "Why Are Jews Liberals?",
Norman Podhoretz, said something that made me think a little bit. In the end I couldn't disagree with him. He stated something to the affect that liberals are driven to solve perceived inequalities and injustices of the past with little regard to what impact their solutions have on the future, where as conservatives are so focused on what impact changes will have on the future they have a difficulties making any changes in the present.

I never thought of either conservatives or liberals in those terms, but after thinking about it for awhile, it made a lot of sense to me. What do you think of his synopsis of either conservative or liberals?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:37:01 PM
I think this is either politics or religion, and in any case, doesn't really belong in science/philosophy.

Hey, you asked.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:48:28 PM
I thought both conservative & liberal thinking is a philosophy, never really thought of it as a religion and although many in politics say they are either conservative or liberal, I always thought they were speaking more of their philosophy of how they approach an issue.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 7:31:16 PM

So the implication here is that Jews... who have a disproportionate share of influence in the banking and finance industries compared to their numbers in the general population... are liberal because they're selfishly trying to give themselves more in order to make up for the prejudice they've experienced in the past...


That is not what Jewish author said AT ALL, in fact how you arrived at your conclusion of what I wrote as the OP is fascinating to me. I never addressed the topic of his book in my post, only his thoughts on the philosophy(or thinking process) of liberals vs conservatives. Since they weren't my thoughts, I thought I should reference where they came from.

BTW, I don't view this topic as religious or political(the forum moderator must think like you do) but more as a philosophical question as to how liberals versus conservative arrive at their solutions to a problem.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:33:38 PM

i always thought it was the difference between a selfish gene or a giving gene that made us predisposed to be either conservative or liberal
I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you mention it, that really does apply to this "Health Care" Situation.

With over 122 people dieing daily just because they don't have health insurance, we have the conservatives who just don't want the health care reform. Ya, that logic makes perfect sense to me.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 6
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:59:28 PM
I'm not sure that this is applicable to the American political scene today. Both parties have moved so far right in the last 30 years, that this just isn't a very good explanation today.

The health reform advocates are the ones looking to the future and recognizing that the US can't stay competitive if increasingly burdonsome costs are carried by US businesses. The right wing in America is just reflexively opposed - there isn't any real concern for the future.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/25/2009 10:16:47 PM


I've known liberals of all religious persuasion and conservatives of all religious persuasions. Religion and race seem to have nothing to do with it. It's utterly unpredictable. My best friend is the most die hard conservative atheist Jew you could ever hope to meet. Another friend is a borderline communist from a staunch Mormon family. Try to make sense of that. I don't even try. I'm just friends with everybody. :D


Don't think I have ever seen anyone post something in these forums I could agree with more than that.

I think the strange need some feel to categorize and over analyze things to the most minute, obsessive, compulsive, anal, detail, and try to use this as a generalization to lump a bunch of individuals into some kind of rule is beyond foolish.

People are quite a bit more like snowflakes. I also have friends of all stripes, and political persuasions. One thing I have noticed from observation is people seldom fit completely into these silly categories on every issue. In fact so often do they spill out of the category intended to confine them into some silly system of thought that the labels become useless.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:03:20 AM

I've known liberals of all religious persuasion and conservatives of all religious persuasions. Religion and race seem to have nothing to do with it.


Again as I said earlier I started this topic not to address the topic of the book, but I did listen to the author's presentation. Last election 78% of Jewish people voted for Obama. Of the demographic groups tracked, only African-American's voted for him in a higher percentage(95%).
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:13:14 AM

I'm not sure that this is applicable to the American political scene today. Both parties have moved so far right in the last 30 years, that this just isn't a very good explanation today.

I've discussed this with you before, and I really hate to appear like I'm doggin' you, but....

From 1970 to 1995 social welfare expenditures in the US have increased from $2,454 (per capita) to $5,622.... that's in adjusted for inflation 1995 dollars. These numbers were supplied by the US census bureau and you can have a better look at all of the figures here:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/598_social_welfare_expenditures_under_public_programs.html

Unless I'm reading these tables wrong (which is possible), it appears that there has been a significant increase in spending for all social programs except veterans assistance (which itself could be explained by the decreased number of WWII veterans). I didn't find any numbers more recent than 1995.... perhaps some help?

While we all hear about how Christian extremists have been given too much influence in today's political world, I find it laughable to think that a movement such as gay rights would have been given more consideration thirty years ago than today (not that I really care one way or the other.... but it is a misrepresentation of how attitudes have changed). I find that in modern times it has become very popular for people with influence (celebrities) to ridicule religous people.... Christians in particular.

The right wing in America is just reflexively opposed

I have to agree that this does happen.... but it happens on both sides of the healthcare debate.... I could give several examples how the left has done the same thing in Canada. And while there are people who will always oppose the other side, that doesn't negate the fact that there are also people with well thought out concerns who may also oppose.

On-topic.... I do agree with the premise suggested in the opening post.

There seems to be two widely held preconceptions about conservatives.... that we are uncompassionate (the selfish gene?!? Really?), or that we are stupid.... blindly following the rhetoric spouted by our leaders.

It isn't that I blindly trust corporations to always do what's in the best interest of society.... it's that I believe that government is run by the same people, and the beuaracracy (and inefficiency) is multiplied. Regulations that are imposed on businesses, supposedly implemented to close the gap between rich and poor, more often increase the difficulty of the small businessman to compete.... therefore increasing the proliferation of big corporations.

My beliefs are mine with the intent of improving society for future generations. I suppose it is possible I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. I'm not selfish either....
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 10
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:41:57 AM

While we all hear about how Christian extremists have been given too much influence in today's political world, I find it laughable to think that a movement such as gay rights would have been given more consideration thirty years ago than today

Christian extremists worked very hard to be "given" that influence, btw. Thirty years ago, gay rights were on the fringe; that is no longer true today. In other words, it was not extremist to be anti-gay rights 30 years ago; it was the mainstream of society.

It isn't that I blindly trust corporations to always do what's in the best interest of society.... it's that I believe that government is run by the same people, and the beuaracracy (and inefficiency) is multiplied. Regulations that are imposed on businesses, supposedly implemented to close the gap between rich and poor, more often increase the difficulty of the small businessman to compete.... therefore increasing the proliferation of big corporations.

See the connection you made in your own argument? Big corporations have way more influence in government than even the Christian extremists or anyone else. It was not meant to be that way.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 11
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 8:55:06 AM
Ya know, 30 years ago isn't as far back as it used to be, lol. That's just 1979, so I have to adjust my earlier statement. I was addressing the mainstream from 50 years ago. Thirty years ago is 1979, which was approximately the genesis of the "Moral Majority"-- the beginning of the current Christian conservative movement in US politics.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 10:37:54 AM

Thirty years ago, gay rights were on the fringe; that is no longer true today. In other words, it was not extremist to be anti-gay rights 30 years ago; it was the mainstream of society.

Whether it be 30 yrs or 50 yrs, it is now considered that the people who are religous should be considered extremists. There has been a shift in society's perceptions.... and not to the right.

As I said, this particular point is of little interest to me, but I think the left has ignored the fact that there are people who are atheists (and agnostics) that are extremely homophopic.... there are also homophobes who are much more likely to agree with liberal spending practices than conservative. Stating that the main source of opposition to gay marriage would be Christian extremists from the right is misleading.


It isn't that I blindly trust corporations to always do what's in the best interest of society.... it's that I believe that government is run by the same people, and the beuaracracy (and inefficiency) is multiplied. Regulations that are imposed on businesses, supposedly implemented to close the gap between rich and poor, more often increase the difficulty of the small businessman to compete.... therefore increasing the proliferation of big corporations.

See the connection you made in your own argument? Big corporations have way more influence in government than even the Christian extremists or anyone else. It was not meant to be that way.

Oh, I see the connection. One thing I should have said differently.... I meant to say the same type of people running government (although sometimes it is, I realize, the same people who run the corperations).

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.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 13
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:04:41 AM

Whether it be 30 yrs or 50 yrs,

The difference is not trivial. 50 years ago was before the social revolution of the 60's; it was before the invention of the pill; it was before Roe v Wade. 30 years ago was not. The extremist influence of 50 years ago was McCarthyism.

it is now considered that the people who are religous should be considered extremists.

Distortion. The people who seek to inject religious dogma and doctrine into the political sphere are considered extremists-- or, rather, reactionaries. Ironically, they tend to be the same people who fear the installation of sharia law the most.

There has been a shift in society's perceptions.... and not to the right.

I pretty much agree as it pertains to social issues. But that is the sort of shift that stirs and emboldens reactionaries (see above).

Stating that the main source of opposition to gay marriage would be Christian extremists from the right is misleading.

Possibly, but not just because you say so.

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.

Yup. But you leave out that this also applies to the right-- they just differ on the more/less regulation part.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Conservative Vs Liberals
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:38:03 PM

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.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Conservative Vs Liberals