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?
BTT!
Wilkie, Dewey, Esienhower, Nixon, Rockefeller, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II. The GOP assisted in the swing American swing left, except when Reagan got contol of the party.
The best way to get rid of RINOs is to donate directly to truly conservative potential candidates for 2012, like Palin and Sanford etc.
That’ll change the establishments attitude. The worst thing is to donate to the RNC...its full of ‘em.
Basically the GOP just wants your money first, then your vote, then they always screw you. Stop it at the start - contribute generously to true conservatives NOW.
With the new figures released for RNC fundraising, it looks like they’re getting the money anyway.
DangerZone:”With the new figures released for RNC fundraising, it looks like they’re getting the money anyway.”
Yeah, its a worry. And its a waste of money.
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.