1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What Do Social Conservatives Want?

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Dan82

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-do-social-conservatives-want/

     
  2. Leon481

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southeast of Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    They don't want to solve the problems they campaign against. If they do that, they lose their main platform. They just put up a good front so that "morality based voters" and religious groups will rally behind them.

    It's not a hard concept to understand. They simply don't care about the nonsense they spout.

    At this point, I love the idea of a nationwide recall of all members of congress and banning them from running again. I know it's never been done before, but there has to be some way to make it happen.
     
  3. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    Well...i mean that's a broad question. They want a more traditional setting for the government. Does that mean they want to revert back to the dark ages? No.

    Why not ask what Social Liberals want? Do all social liberals believe in complete wealth redistribution? Do they believe that we should form a tax policy on the basis that "oh the rich can afford to pay high taxes so we should go after them"? I certainly hope not...but it appears to be mind set of this administration.

    Of course I find it very entertaining that Congressional Democrats are running as fast as they can from the policies of this Administration....many policies they voted for but are now back tracking....just beautiful. Warms my heart.
     
  4. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    wealth redistribution is a buzzword.

    why should the wealthy get huge tax cuts? they technically did not create jobs when they got 700billion dollars in tax cuts with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. only 13% of that 700billion in the end found its way back into the american econamy. most of the rest was tied up in bank accounts, and the rest left over stimulated the econamies of other countries.

    why dont they equalize the tax code so that everyone pays the same percentage on thier income, and then we can work on useing tax payers money to create jobs *like we did with the bush TARP funds, yes, he created and pushed for them in the first place, obama merely agreed to continue them*.

    Republicans do not want anything more than to win elections. If they cared so much about the econamy, then why did, when they controlled all three branches of goverment, ruin it?
     
  5. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference

    Ahhh...I thought that would wake up up, lol.

    The same could be said of the current government. After spending close to a trillion, real unemployment is still close to 15%...when they said the passage of it would not result it unemployment going beyond 9%. Debt versus GDP is the highest it has been since WWII.
    The question is when is The President going to finally stop blaming other people for his failed policies? When is he going to finally realize that HE is President and start taking responsibility for his own actions and policies.

    To hear him say that, "oh yes, we are recovering...everything is fine" is like me watching my house burn to the ground and the Fire Chief saying "Oh it's just a little smoke". That's why he is suffering so much in the polls.

    To blame our current situation on one single Administration is like blaming a plane crash on gravity. Sure it's a huge factor, but there are other things that contribute to it as well.

    There are many variables that led us to this point....dating back to George Herbert Walker Bush, followed by Clinton...then by GW Bush...and anyone who served in Congress from 1990 till present.

    First was the thought that EVERYONE should have the right to buy a home. Sorry, home ownership is not a right in this country. Some people just simply can't afford it. That line of thinking first came about during the last days of Bush Sr.'s term. Then Clinton ran with it. Expanding the role of GSE's even more (Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac).

    The second is the banks. Who gave loans, with 100% financing, to people that clearly could not afford what they were getting into.

    The third is the brokers. Now, we have had mortgage back securities for over 30 years, however the new invention of sub-prime loans was a quick money maker....very similar to Michael Milken and his Junk Bond craze in the 1980's. A lot of people at the top made a ton of money selling these loans.

    Fourth...Wall Street. I love Wall Street, but at times it acts like a spoiled child. If it doesn't get its way...or sees something they do not like...then they will throw a tantrum and go down 500 points.

    Fifth is the consumer themselves....for being dumb enough to take a loan on a $500,000 home when they are only making $60,000 a year...sure when you take a loan with a flexible interest rate, instead of a 30 year fixed...it could come as a shock when your mortgage payment goes from 400 a month to 2,200 a month.

    Well...duh.

    Sixth is anyone who had any involvement with the government at all (R's and D's) from 1990 to present..who didn't reign in the expanding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    In GW Bush's defense, in his Executive Budget of 2001, he did state that the expansion of Fannie and Freddie (yes I know that sounds funny) is reaching dangerous levels and something needed to be done. Congress, led by Republicans, took the attitude that "we'll worry about that later"....and the Dems went right along with them.

    After all, it was Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who said on the House Floor that if those 2 GSE's went under it would not have any effect on the economy.

    He has been proven wrong.
     
    #5 RedState, Sep 25, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  6. Leon481

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southeast of Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    bamaboy, I've been thinking about these same points lately. The reason the economy is in trouble is largely because everyone's in debt.

    I was talking with someone about all this not too long ago, and we came to the consensus that so much can be resolved by a firmer stance on who can take out loans, making adjustable rate mortages illegal, and putting a firm cap on how much interest banks and other lenders can charge over time.

    Why is it that lawmakers refuse to see obvious answers like this? I know something like this wouldn't fix everything immediately, maybe cause a little chaos in the transition, but in the long run, things probably would end up more stable.