Posted on 04/21/2009 6:17:36 AM PDT by dangus
Next time someone asserts that what the Republican Party needs to do is get back to its fiscally conservative roots, as if that's an alternative to being socially conservative, understand that such people will never be useful in undoing the damage on American freedom and prosperity wrought by the Obama administration. We don't need Chinese fascism; we need freedom. Such fiscal conservatives got us into the mess that Obama is exploiting to take our freedoms away... because they were the very people who created the financial collapse that brought Obama to power, and resolutely refuse to abandon their schemes.
In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration decided that the fact that blacks were more likely to get rejected for housing loans was prima facie evidence that the banking industry perpetuated racism. Blaming higher unemployment rates, lower job stability and lower incomes was akin to opposing affirmative action; Blacks would benefit from home ownership, therefore government was morally obliged to reverse racism by ensuring equal access to home ownership. Banks were so profitable, that they could afford to pay the cost for society's institutional racism, so thought the administration.
Naturally, banks weren't pleased with this notion. So, the "fiscal conservatives" forged a win-win deal with the left that would enable the banks to increase their profits while reversing the "racism" of the banks. True conservatives, who are conservative on social and economic matters would not have struck such a deal, because they would regard "banking affirmative action" as having graver ills that just costing banks money. But so-called "fiscal conservatives" are, by the definition I'm using to distinguish them from conservatives in general, always willing to sell out morality and justice for big profits to big business.
Banks would be insured for making loans to people with bad credit. These risky loans would be packaged with good loans into credit objects, which were designed with legal artifices to make sure no-one buying them could know exactly what it was they had bought.
In the following years, the Clinton and Bush administrations flooded the housing market with tens of millions of immigrants. They also vigorously supported local governments passing zoning and environmental regulations which removed housing supply. The supply of real estate crashed, while the demand soared, causing home values in many American cities to quadruple. Housing remained affordable only because interest rates were made artificially low by the Bush administration, at the cost of further inflating prices.
Owning a home is a unique investment because most of the investors invest not merely out of wanting to make a profit, but because they need the use of what they are investing in. Normally, if the value of an investment rises from $100,000 to $200,000, people become fearful to invest because the price may fall back towards $100,000. In the case of real estate, would-be investors became fearful that if they didn't invest at $200,000, they would someday have to invest at $400,000. And they were right.
And so houses went from $100,000 to $200,000 to $400,000 and sometimes even to $800,000. Yet still the banks made the loans that helped drive up the prices, even though these were becoming risky investments. Why? because the loans were being insured. But why were the insurers taking such risks?
The answer is quite simple: Since the values of the homes were increasing, mortgage defaults were profitable. If someone defaults on a $100,000 mortgage, but the house can be sold for $200,000, the insurer turns a fast profit. The higher the risk, the more likely profits were. So no-one noticed the outrageous obscenity that the Bush administration concocted.
Let me explain:
Big business long ago discovered that regulations are good for protecting market share. One advantage mom and pops stores have is that they know their customers, and can provide better service. But what if big business could make it illegal to provide better service in English than they provide in Spanish, Haitian Creole, Swahili or Farsi? Mom and Pops couldn't afford the translator expenses (or, more likely, the IT expenses) and would go out of business. Thus, the Bush administration began a policy of brutally attacking small mom and pop stores for failure to provide services in foreign languages.
Once legal precedents had been set, the raging leftists took over at the justice department. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to become champions of ensuring that non-English speakers were granted loans at the same rates that English speakers were... even though most non-English speakers in America are illegal aliens.
Talk about your credit risks! If I owe $300,000 on a house I can only sell for $250,000, I'm $50,000 in the hole. But my college education, work history, social security, retirement plans, etc., all have value exceeding that $50,000. But if I have no such intangible assets because I'm an illegal alien, why owe the $50,000? Now, the programs which were arguably created to help black Americans were being perverted and expanded to help illegal aliens. Want to know why banks still aren't lending money? It's because if they lend money to American citizens with steady, good-paying jobs, they have to find illegal aliens to lend money to. A lot of those people aren't even in the country any more, let alone applying for new mortgages!
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the population of illegal aliens declined in 2007 by 12% to under 11 million. How much do you think it fell in 2008? President Bush's immigration policies has made the demand for housing economically sensitive! All the counties with the greatest decline in housing values are all the same counties who had the greatest proportion of illegal aliens in 2007: The "Pat Buchanan" regions of Florida, the growth counties of Los Angeles, the suburbs of Las Vegas and the southwest, Prince William County, Virginia.
The next time some politician pretends to be conservative, find out if they really are. As a social conservative, I'd like to tell people to make sure the candidate is pro-life, but a lot of fake conservatives also fake being pro-life (like Bob and Elizabeth Dole, John McCain, and others). Some may even be pro-life, but only out of religious obligation (George Bush), not understanding at all how conservatism is a necessary underpinning for a moral, just and prosperous society; they'll remain pro-life, but will sell out conservatism on every other issue.
Look for people who will stick to conservative issues that aren't politically safe. Even if you're not a social conservative, there are plenty of fiscal issues you can inquire about: Does the candidate I support believe Al Gore's global warming nonsense? Have they taken a tough stand against illegal immigration? Have they made it clear that preventing discrimination on the basis of national origins does not mean making small businesses, non-profits and local government adopt dozens of languages? Do they clearly and consistently oppose affirmative action? When they talk about fiscal conservatism, do they talk more about "free markets," like Reagan, or "capitalism," like the Chinese government? Are the solutions they proposed to the banking crisis based on allowing the free market to correct the situation, or financing the very problems that got us where we are today?
By no means have I written her off! I'm just wanting to hear her start picking up on conservative issues a little bit as she starts making moves for 2012. And if anyone has any information on such things as Bobby Jindal's stance on immigration, I'd love to hear it.
I hope it’s plain that I am not attacking fiscal conservatism, but those who treat “fiscal conservatism” as if it’s something opposed to conservatism in general, or specifically social conservatives. Such “fiscal conservatives,” like Christine Todd Whitman, Bob and Elizabeth Dole, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Arlen Specter, etc., all turn out to be fiscally liberal too.
Are you describing a fictional Sarah Palin? I have never heard her buy into the idea of man-made global warming, massive illegal immigration or heard her endorse the bail-out. In fact she spoke out against it. If she doesn’t pass your “real conservative” litmus test I don’t think many will.
We need a real multi-party system instead of what we have today which is one party, “The Big Government Party”, with two branches, Republicans and Democrats, quibbling with each other to see who gets their hands on the taxpayers money.
They may fight amongst themselves but join forces to fight any threat of real change against Big Government.
The only difference between the Republican and Democrat parties has been who they want to pander to, and even that line is disappearing as Republicans strive to out-pander Democrats.
We haven’t had a FisCon in office since Reagan. Most social issues can be addressed through economic means. Defund programs that are offensive to SoCons and everyone can be happy.
Fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism is an oxymoron. You can't be socially irresponsible without becoming fiscally irresponsible...
It is the DNA of RINO and simply results in Democrat lite syndrome...
"Some would have you delay exploration and development in the federal offshore of Alaska over concerns related to global warming and its effects in the Arctic. First of all let me make it clear that the State of Alaska understands the effects of climate change in the cryosphere. We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington. The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us. Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios."Notice she not only endorses man-made global warming now, she also endorses the outrageous exaggerations and falsifications of the IPCC.
Sarah Palin on immigration:
Univision: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?Note that she justifies "a pathway to citizenship" (the language Bush, McCain and Kennedy use for their amnesty, since they hate that word) by citing the economic necessity of millions of illegal aliens. With 17 million unemployed Americans, we need illegal aliens to take all those jobs? Can we agree that she needs to be educated on such issues, and hope to press her to come around on this issue, instead of burying our heads in the sand because she is so likeable? Bush was very likeable in 2000, and also promised there would be no amnesty.Sarah Palin: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant - there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants - not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.
Univision: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Sarah Palin: I do.
Exactly, this whole fiscal conservative vs. social conservative is a false dichotomy invented by RINOs and liberaltarians (a neologism, not a misspelling) to confuse the issue with regards to their liberal voting records.
The Republicans participation in the fiscal disaster that confronts us is only a matter of degree when compared to the Democrats. This is why the Tea Parties attract people from all political persuasions. We desperately need a strong conservative third party that cannot be co-opted by the Rino’s and McCain moderates of the world. As long as conservatives are working through the Republican party we will be marginalized,dismissed and undermined!
It’s really starting to sound like we need the conservative military in charge
The military retains a form of conservatism because novel, bone-headed ideas get people killed. Put the military in an area where their own survival doesn’t depend on their correctness, and you’ll be amazed at how bone-headed the military can be. The military leadership isn’t exactly that big on letting people innovate to discover their own ways of doing things, either... which is great when you’re trying to avoid being killed, but not exactly conservative when applied to economic policies, small government, and subsidiarity in general.
There is a group within the Louisiana Republican Party strongly opposed to Jindal, who like GWB “reaches out” to Democrats in his state.
‘The conservative military in charge...’
Are you insane?
Go form your own party. Good luck!
No RINOS! No Liberal Lounge Lizard Republicans! No Moderates! No Sunshine Patriots, No Pinko Democrats! True Conservatives Only. We must clean out the House and Senate and the state houses too. Elect Citizen-Politicians who will not make a life time career out of the pork and corruption (Think Barney Franks). We need all true Americans to look beyond the bumper stickers and 30 second TV ads and look to what people believe. There is Hope.
1. Look at the following of plain speaking Ron Paul.
2. Look at the following of Glen Beck.
3. Look to the Tea Parties.
4. Look to the following of Sarah Palin.
5. Look to the disgust at the “bailouts”
6. Look at the awful treatment of GM.
7. Look to a new spirit in the land.
ON TO WASHINGTON!
>> Go form your own party. Good luck! <<
Wow. I write an article urging people to make sure they pick a true conservative for Republican nominees, and you tell me to form my own party? Are you that liberal, or that bone-headed? Do you want liberals running the conservative party? Or do you want the Republican party to splinter into factions?
>> There is a group within the Louisiana Republican Party strongly opposed to Jindal, <<
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee drones who will mindlessly attack anyone who might rival their candidate, or do they have real problems with Jindal? Seriously, I want to know whether Jindal has done anything that shows he favors liberal solutions over conservative ones. If he has, please tell me.
>> who like GWB “reaches out” to Democrats in his state. <<
Reagan reached out to Democrats. He did it by explaining conservative solutions to liberal problems and fears. Most people from Louisiana are Democrats or recently were Democrats. He has to reach out to them to win elections. Does he do so by championing conservative solutions to their legitimate concerns, or by letting every liberal in Louisiana screw his constituents up the ass?
>> 1. Look at the following of plain speaking Ron Paul. <<
I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, anymore. He seems to concoct libertarian reasons to vote against conservatives far too often. He’s voted for allowing monopoly cable companies to force their users to receive unscrambled porn, on the grounds he opposes monopolies. He’s for allowing people to transport other people’s kids across state lines to receive abortions. He sided with the Islamofascists in Iraq. And he opposes the border fence, the SAVE Act, the Real ID, and just about any other attempt to enforce our immigration laws. Whenever there’s one Republican voting with Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank and the raging leftists, I don’t even have to look at who it is.
Would I like a nation of 300-400 Ron Paul-like legislators? Yes. Would I like Ron Paul to represent the Republican fraction of those legislators?
I’m really afraid of what bizarre ideas he’d come up with when he had to push legislation through a Congress that includes a majority, or even a sizeable plurality of Democrats and RINOs.
But I’d vote for him over Juan McCain, Barry the Obamanation or Jorge Bush any day of the week. He was right about the banking bailout. I just hope it doesn’t come down to that.
>> But I’d vote for him over Juan McCain, Barry the Obamanation or Jorge Bush any day of the week. <<
I should even be clear about that. I’d vote for him as the Republican nominee, or as a candidate for the Republican nomination over Bush or McCain. I am very hesitant to ever vote for third parties, when one of the other two major candidates is vastly superior to the other (as anyone running against Obama is), the race between the major parties is at all tight, and that third party stands no chance of winning.
If I still lived in New York, I could find it much easier to vote third party. A vote for a third-party gains better ballot access; candidates can run on multiple lines, so it does well to strengthen third parties even if they don’t win outright*; and my vote for a Republican isn’t going to count anyway.
(* For instance, the Conservative Party endorses many, but not all, Republican candidates. Therefore, voting for the Conservative Party candidate helps force the Republican candidate to court conservative votes. I always used to vote for the Republican on the Conservative Party line.)
I usually hate vanities, but yours is well thought out and well written. Congrats !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.