Questions for Conservatives (prompted by recent remarks by various G.O.P. pols)

[Lucky]

In this cycle of talking points, one thing I have been hearing over and over from Republican pols and pundits is that we need a President who will "restore the American Dream". I have these questions:

1. What is the "American Dream" which needs to be restored?
2. How did our current President create the need for it to be restored?
3. To whom does it need to be restored? (By this, I mean which group or groups of Americans, ostensibly those being denied the American Dream by the current President.)

An example of this talking point could be found in the comments of the Governor of Virginia on one of the morning talk shows today.

These are serious and honest questions, and I would like serious and honest answers. I don't want platitudes and more talking points, but an explanation of what is meant. It is clear from the context this is not intended just as a vague criticism, but is instead a specific policy point. For example, the Virginia Governor said the election was about three things...creating jobs, reducing spending and the deficit, and restoring the American Dream. I understand the first two, although I'm sure the Governor and I would disagree on how to accomplish those goals. But I have no idea whether we agree on the third issue.

I don't think this is like the mindless chatter about "taking back our country". This American Dream thing seems to be more substantial.

So, people who can give me serious and honest answers, please chime in. Others need not apply.

[onejayhawk]

Serious answer a much as I understand it.

A conservative would define the American dream to include security in the military sense, minimal interference by the government in family life and none in local education, freedom to use or dispose of real property, reduced regulation of small business, and above all lower taxes. The President is seen to stand for increased taxes, increased regulation of all business, including small and familiy owned business, central control of education, and invasive influence in family affairs.

One thing, that has been particularly galling to moderates, about President Obama is that he is seen to be in bed with big business, particularly Wall Street. He is viewed as ineffective with respect to the economy. His promise of change has been a cruel lie, since he has been the worst of pork barrel, vote buying, politicians.

Not all that is where I stand, but this is what I hear at work.

J

[Lucky]

Serious answer a much as I understand it.

A conservative would define the American dream to include security in the military sense, minimal interference by the government in family life and none in local education, freedom to use or dispose of real property, reduced regulation of small business, and above all lower taxes. The President is seen to stand for increased taxes, increased regulation of all business, including small and familiy owned business, central control of education, and invasive influence in family affairs.

One thing, that has been particularly galling to moderates, about President Obama is that he is seen to be in bed with big business, particularly Wall Street. He is viewed as ineffective with respect to the economy. His promise of change has been a cruel lie, since he has been the worst of pork barrel, vote buying, politicians.

Not all that is where I stand, but this is what I hear at work.

J

Thanks, that's a start. There are some areas I need to have explained, but let's start with "invasive influence in family affairs". I have a fairly normal family...husband, wife, 24-year old daughter who just moved out and is a school teacher, and a 14-year old son in public school. I can't think off the top of my head how the Obama administration has attempted to exert invasive influence on my family's affairs. The only thing I can think of is that I have been able to get my daughter back under my health insurance policy. Can you give me some examples here?

[onejayhawk]

This gets into area I dont agree with, so bear in mind that I am not advocating anything.

Three areas come to mind.

Freedom of religion, as apply to public schools, is often interpreted freedom from religion. This is taken to mean that religous expression in any form is prohibited.
Another are is protective services. Some think that the state has too much freedom to remove a child from a home, and that too little effort goes into placement of children with extended family.
The third is emphasis on the traditional nuclear family. This gets into into a lot of areas I flatly disagree, apposing gay parentage for example. However, the ideal is of one father, married to one mother, raising their biological children.

It is odd that Democrats talk of a village raising children. Some hard core conservatives believe the same thing, but define the villiage as their family and its close associations, often religious associations. They take great exception when the state intervenes in what is considered a private family or community matter. The only religious bigotry that is openly tolerated is against fundamentalist christians.

J

[B-Fly]

My sense has always been that the "American Dream" in those GOP talking points is the idea of America as an entrepreneurial meritocracy, where success beyond your wildest dreams is just a great idea and a bit of elbow grease away. And the sense is that government regulation, taxation, and entitlements erode that dream.

[onejayhawk]

My sense has always been that the "American Dream" in those GOP talking points is the idea of America as an entrepreneurial meritocracy, where success beyond your wildest dreams is just a great idea and a bit of elbow grease away. And the sense is that government regulation, taxation, and entitlements erode that dream.

There is this as well. The freedom to start and/or run a business is fundamental. Democrats are seen as the enemy of small business, through suffocating regulation. Property rights enter into this as well, particularly in the west.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Just curious Jay-- you are against any kind of regulation..so....where do you stand on those businesses who disregard public saftey and create products that are unsafe or those who price gouge or those who put their employees at risk in order to increase profit?

[onejayhawk]

Just curious Jay-- you are against any kind of regulation..so....where do you stand on those businesses who disregard public saftey and create products that are unsafe or those who price gouge or those who put their employees at risk in order to increase profit?

First, I was asked what was being said, not my personal opinion. These are some of the reason why I dont consider my self a conservative. I just know a lot of them. In addition to disagreeing on regulations, I promote free trade, open borders, legal weed, abortion as legal and amnesty for illegals.

If you examine that list, you will see a bit of a libertarian bent. I am not libertarian. Some regulation is necessary. Public safety, police powers, protection from fraudulent practices have to be considered. Uniformity and continuity are valid considerations. Simplicity and practicality are unfortunately the victims.

Where I depart from regulation is when they bend things out of shape. The willingness of anti-nuclear advocates to spawn regulations is proverbial. If you close your doors and windows, set the AC on recycle, you will have higher radiation levels, from the radon in water, than are allowed at nuclear plant. Coal power plants have a MUCH higher radiation signature than nuclear. Swaths of California burn because cutting for fire breaks is prohibited. California had a major power shortage a few years ago, directly tracable to over regulation. A principle cause of the mortgage meltdown is that banks were forced to make unsound loans.

The point of reulations is to get things to work, with relative safety. Leaning to far in either direction causes problems.

J

[senorsheep]

The Libertarian Who Believes In No Regulation Whatsoever... LMAO. I think he shares a flat with The Welfare Queen Who Has Three Cadillacs, The Guy Who Exploited Gay Marriage Laws To Marry His Sister And His Golden Retriever, and The Easter Bunny. :mistert:

[OaklandA's]

California had a major power shortage a few years ago, directly tracable to over regulation. A principle cause of the mortgage meltdown is that banks were forced to make unsound loans.

These two statements are just blatantly false.
1) Power Crisis - It was caused by market manipulations and illegal shutdowns, primarily in Texas (see Enron, etc.) Under-regulation was the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

2) Do people really still believe the mortgage meltdown was because banks were "forced" to make loans? There may have been some initial nudging, but these mortgage companies were making these loans for one reason only - they could make tons of money by re-selling the mortgages to various CDOs. They couldn't find enough customers to satisfy the demand.

[onejayhawk]

These two statements are just blatantly false.
1) Power Crisis - It was caused by market manipulations and illegal shutdowns, primarily in Texas (see Enron, etc.) Under-regulation was the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

2) Do people really still believe the mortgage meltdown was because banks were "forced" to make loans? There may have been some initial nudging, but these mortgage companies were making these loans for one reason only - they could make tons of money by re-selling the mortgages to various CDOs. They couldn't find enough customers to satisfy the demand.

I love it. You quoted Wiki.

Factual questions.
How many power plants have been built, or significantly expanded, in California since 1960?
What is the poopulation change in California since 1960?

Answer zero and more than doubled. I would ask for per person consumption, but I dont have a good source. It is a simple fact that power generation has not kept up with consumption. The reason for this is that it has been functionally impossible to build, expand, or modernize powerplants in California. Regulations do not permit it. Even your source acknowledges that new power plants are not getting approved. You can talk all you want about manipulation of the out of state sources, but the dependance on out of state sources is the problem. That dependance was created, and is perpetuated, by regulatory roadblocks.

Why would you not believe, "mortgage meltdown was because banks were 'forced" to make loans?'" The brokers were making a lot of money. The banks were left holding the stick. Regulations created a situation where the bank had to make loans when certain criteria were met. These criteria were not sufficient to ensure a good loan, but that did not prevent brokers from writing and presenting the loans.

Your questions are straight off a talking point sheet. What's with that? You are usually more informed.

J

[onejayhawk]

The Libertarian Who Believes In No Regulation Whatsoever... LMAO. I think he shares a flat with The Welfare Queen Who Has Three Cadillacs, The Guy Who Exploited Gay Marriage Laws To Marry His Sister And His Golden Retriever, and The Easter Bunny.

Maybe so, but Ron Paul comes very close.

J

[OaklandA's]

I love it. You quoted Wiki.

My article has 30 reputable references. What are you bringing to the table?

Why would you not believe, "mortgage meltdown was because banks were 'forced" to make loans?'" The brokers were making a lot of money. The banks were left holding the stick. Regulations created a situation where the bank had to make loans when certain criteria were met. These criteria were not sufficient to ensure a good loan, but that did not prevent brokers from writing and presenting the loans.

Talk about coming off a talking points sheet. There is absolutely no evidence that banks "had to make these loans". They made them because they made tons of short-term profit. They never even considered the possibility that the entire system could collapse. The facts are that there were not enough "high-risk" loan candidates to even create the crisis. That's why they invented the CDOs, allowing them to leverage each loan multiple times.

Also, the post-crisis analysis showed that a good 28% of the sampled loans did not even meet the minimum standards of any mortgage issuer^. Yet they were still given loans. Why? Because they didn't care if the loans went bad, because they assumed they could package these bad loans and be off the hook.

^ Morgenson, Gretchen (September 26, 2010). "Raters Ignored Proof of Unsafe Loans, Panel Is Told". The New York Times.

The Wikipedia article on this has 250 useful references. I would suggest you read those, rather than stupidly making fun of Wikipedia. You might learn that while the GSE certainly made mistakes, blaming them for the mortgage meltdown shows a total misunderstanding of the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Sub-prime_lending

[OaklandA's]

You can talk all you want about manipulation of the out of state sources, but the dependance on out of state sources is the problem. That dependance was created, and is perpetuated, by regulatory roadblocks.

California does not need to be self-sufficient to meet its energy needs. There are plenty of other states who would be happy to sell energy to California. That system can work fine, as long as you keep the cheaters and crooks away.

[Wonderboy]

I Why would you not believe, "mortgage meltdown was because banks were 'forced" to make loans?'" The brokers were making a lot of money. The banks were left holding the stick. Regulations created a situation where the bank had to make loans when certain criteria were met. These criteria were not sufficient to ensure a good loan, but that did not prevent brokers from writing and presenting the loans.

Look, I'm in that business. Banks and lenders were not forced to make those loans. The brokers were using false and misleading information and the lenders damn well knew it. Trust me, the higher-ups were not just placidly going with the flow. Their hands were not tied. They established and nurtured an atmosphere for fraud and fully participated every step of the way. They were pushing the brokers to do these loans just as much, if not more, than the brokers were pushing them to accept them. The inside name for these loans was a "liars loan" and everybody - everybody - in the system had heard and used that term.

To say the banks and lenders were forced to accept these loans is ludicrous. Everybody from the lender to the broker to the appraiser to the borrower participated in a system that is the main reason we are in this mess today.