[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36944884]I was under the impression that not wanting progressive taxes and allowing the free market to reign and being against welfare and other government programs = conservative.[/QUOTE]
Those are [b]fiscally[/b] conservative policies. They do not hold the [b]socially[/b] conservative ideals that say, the Tea Party has. When someone asks if someone is conservative in American politics, they are usually asking if someone is socially conservative, which is what I thought you meant.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;36944951]Those are [b]fiscally[/b] conservative policies. They do not hold the [b]socially[/b] conservative ideals that say, the Tea Party has. When someone asks if someone is conservative in American politics, they are usually asking if someone is socially conservative, which is what I thought you meant.[/QUOTE]
Not very conservative using the government to ban things now is it?
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36944967]Not very conservative using the government to ban things now is it?[/QUOTE]
What are you referring to?
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;36944994]What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
Social conservatism is very contradictory and makes no sense and Libertarians are proud conservatives. I'm saying a Libertarian isn't a leftist because they give no regards if two dudes kiss. I think I'm taking things too literal though. I don't see anything moderate about them. They seem very idealistic.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36945005]Social conservatism is very contradictory and makes no sense and Libertarians are proud conservatives.[/QUOTE]
It's not a very contradictory term at all. U.S. social conservatives want to preserve what they see as 'traditional, family values'. U.S. fiscal conservatives want to preserve what they believe are the financial systems that built up America.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36944695]Honestly what the hell is Libertarian left? The party is based off conservatism. The only difference I can see is a right Libertarian is one that hijacks it with religion or something and left is one that doesn't. But that doesn't make the party left in any sense.[/QUOTE]
All libertarianism means is that you want the government to be involved with you less than you are involved with it. Just because a party is called the "libertarian party" doesn't mean that the party is the definition of libertarianism.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;36946095]All libertarianism means is that you want the government to be involved with you less than you are involved with it. Just because a party is called the "libertarian party" doesn't mean that the party is the definition of libertarianism.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's where I dropped the ball hard.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36944725]Okay hows about you explain because I'm not looking for a pissing match[/QUOTE]
Left wing tends to deal with common ownership of property and natural resources, while right wing deals with private ownership.
[QUOTE=Noble;36946329]Left wing tends to deal with common ownership of property and natural resources, while right wing deals with private ownership.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely. It would be more apt to say that the left wing deal with common obligations while the right wing deals more with private obligations.
Ownership is merely a segment of this.
so the republicans get another powerful tool in gridlocking government for their shallow political gains.
they paralyzed congress for nearly three years now in an attempt to make the current administration less popular. if you think they're going to play these audits for the "good of the people" then you're delusional. it's just going to become another piece of the game, functioning in whatever way will make political progress for the controlling side instead of safeguarding financial stability.
It doesn't matter, a federal entity should have oversight from the federal entity that gave it it's power, period.
yeah screw efficient government
all that matters is the BIG GAME. get your ball to the other side of the field! we can try to improve the welfare of the people after we WIN WIN WIN
[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36947714]so the republicans get another powerful tool in gridlocking government for their shallow political gains.
they paralyzed congress for nearly three years now in an attempt to make the current administration less popular. if you think they're going to play these audits for the "good of the people" then you're delusional. it's just going to become another piece of the game, functioning in whatever way will make political progress for the controlling side instead of safeguarding financial stability.[/QUOTE]
please explain how it's only one party's fault if this bill was passed with overwhelming bipartisanship
something tells me you'd be all for it if it were started by a democrat
bias. it would be bias telling you that.
I dislike the idea of a contentious body like congress, whether controlled by democrats (the crypto arm of the Business Party) or republicans (the overt arm of the Business Party). the fed's purpose is to take action to protect the economy. politicians on one side or the other will always have incentive to tank the economy to make their enemies less electable, and now they'll have more opportunity.
[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36948582]bias. it would be bias telling you that.
I dislike the idea of a contentious body like congress, whether controlled by democrats (the crypto arm of the Business Party) or republicans (the overt arm of the Business Party). the fed's purpose is to take action to protect the economy. politicians on one side or the other will always have incentive to tank the economy to make their enemies less electable, and now they'll have more opportunity.[/QUOTE]
And they'll do this by adding transparency? Wouldn't they want the opposite in order to do so?
transparency will turn the actions of the fed into politicized talking points. suddenly either side could come out in a huge huff about the latest measure and the fed will be forced, from the top, to act in a way that placates congressional politicians
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36944695]Honestly what the hell is Libertarian left?[/QUOTE]Anarcho-Syndicalism
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
If we are talking about Classical Liberalism, then no. But if we are talking about Modern Liberalism, then possibly yes. Some elements of the Democratic Party are Social-Liberal (or Modern Liberal).
I recommend the [URL="http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm"]Rational Spectrum[/URL] instead. It's TLDR but it's worth it if you want to learn about this entire Left/Right Liberal/Conservative drama.
The Federal Reserve is run by people with PhDs in economics. Honestly, they're probably more trustworthy than Congress.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
I'd have a beer with Ben Bernanke
I'd like the idea of a regulatory body for the fed that [i]itself[/i] is transparent. thus the fed can act without political gridlock but the people will still have a view of the actions taken to ensure the fed is working correctly
but good luck getting our government to establish a regulatory body with any balls
[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36950349]I'd like the idea of a regulatory body for the fed that [i]itself[/i] is transparent. thus the fed can act without political gridlock but the people will still have a view of the actions taken to ensure the fed is working correctly
but good luck getting our government to establish a regulatory body with any balls[/QUOTE]
That would be better, yes. A country's central bank should be able to take necessary action without worrying about the political implications - their main goal should be improving and sustaining the economy.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36950285]The Federal Reserve is run by people with PhDs in economics. Honestly, they're probably more trustworthy than Congress.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
I'd have a beer with Ben Bernanke[/QUOTE]
"House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals..." - [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=SleoGwrhHH4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22House+prices+have+risen+by+nearly+25+percent+over+the+past+two+years.+Although+speculative+activity+has+increased+in+some+areas,+at+a+national+level+these+price+increases+largely+reflect+strong+economic+fundamentals.%22&source=bl&ots=fcPUAZBxZ4&sig=M6sJIjhwpZq4rscHIaX1IoVldjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lxASUOP9HabY6wGAsIGQCQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22House%20prices%20have%20risen%20by%20nearly%2025%20percent%20over%20the%20past%20two%20years.%20Although%20speculative%20activity%20has%20increased%20in%20some%20areas%2C%20at%20a%20national%20level%20these%20price%20increases%20largely%20reflect%20strong%20economic%20fundamentals.%22&f=false"]Ben Bernanke, October 2005[/url]
"The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession." - [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22592939/"]Ben Bernanke, January 2008[/url]
"The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so." - [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aH6u3wsqwMFM&refer=home"]Ben Bernanke, June 2008[/url]
I guess those economics degrees didn't do a whole lot of good
As much as I consider Ron Paul to be a complete wingnut, I'm totally on board with this idea. They are a private, nongovernmental organization that exercises more direct control over the banking system than the actual government, and we as a country deserve to know exactly what they've been up to.
[QUOTE=Noble;36954734]"House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals..." - [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=SleoGwrhHH4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22House+prices+have+risen+by+nearly+25+percent+over+the+past+two+years.+Although+speculative+activity+has+increased+in+some+areas,+at+a+national+level+these+price+increases+largely+reflect+strong+economic+fundamentals.%22&source=bl&ots=fcPUAZBxZ4&sig=M6sJIjhwpZq4rscHIaX1IoVldjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lxASUOP9HabY6wGAsIGQCQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22House%20prices%20have%20risen%20by%20nearly%2025%20percent%20over%20the%20past%20two%20years.%20Although%20speculative%20activity%20has%20increased%20in%20some%20areas%2C%20at%20a%20national%20level%20these%20price%20increases%20largely%20reflect%20strong%20economic%20fundamentals.%22&f=false"]Ben Bernanke, October 2005[/url]
"The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession." - [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22592939/"]Ben Bernanke, January 2008[/url]
"The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so." - [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aH6u3wsqwMFM&refer=home"]Ben Bernanke, June 2008[/url]
I guess those economics degrees didn't do a whole lot of good[/QUOTE]
lmao ok Mr. Austrian Economics
[QUOTE=Noble;36954734]"House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals..." - [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=SleoGwrhHH4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=%22House+prices+have+risen+by+nearly+25+percent+over+the+past+two+years.+Although+speculative+activity+has+increased+in+some+areas,+at+a+national+level+these+price+increases+largely+reflect+strong+economic+fundamentals.%22&source=bl&ots=fcPUAZBxZ4&sig=M6sJIjhwpZq4rscHIaX1IoVldjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lxASUOP9HabY6wGAsIGQCQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22House%20prices%20have%20risen%20by%20nearly%2025%20percent%20over%20the%20past%20two%20years.%20Although%20speculative%20activity%20has%20increased%20in%20some%20areas%2C%20at%20a%20national%20level%20these%20price%20increases%20largely%20reflect%20strong%20economic%20fundamentals.%22&f=false"]Ben Bernanke, October 2005[/url]
"The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession." - [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22592939/"]Ben Bernanke, January 2008[/url]
"The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so." - [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aH6u3wsqwMFM&refer=home"]Ben Bernanke, June 2008[/url]
I guess those economics degrees didn't do a whole lot of good[/QUOTE]
In all fairness, I've never met a person that considered Ben Bernanke particularly intelligent.
[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36950023]transparency will turn the actions of the fed into politicized talking points. suddenly either side could come out in a huge huff about the latest measure and the fed will be forced, from the top, to act in a way that placates congressional politicians[/QUOTE]
The Fed's actions are already political.
Besides, are you really so naive to think that people weilding such huge power without accountability wouldn't end up abusing it?
The legislators and citizens had a petition to the Congress to audit the Fed. But, why is an audit of the Federal Reserve so important? Many are not aware how it works. It is the nation’s central bank, and controls the nation’s money supply, inflation rates and, through that, the costs of lending money. A proposed bill to audit the Federal Reserve was already approved by the House of Representatives. Here is the article: [URL="https://personalmoneynetwork.com/"]Federal Reserve[/URL].
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spam" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
It's always a trip reading a thread you think is new and seeing you already responded to it.
snip
I love reading the post of the idiot that bumps a two year-old thread.
WISE FWOM YO GWAVE
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.