Republican vs Conservative vs Democrat

[Sibirsky]

Yeah it sucks. Not really crying about it because I have the right to fail. I have the right to pick my self back up and try again. I am just too afraid right now to buy a house.

Now maybe a good time actually. Case/Schiller is up x number of months in a row now. I think it's 4. Keyword MAYBE. I am not confidant in the real estate market at all.

Well, at the moment I dont have a steady job. I just have random contracts. As it has been for about 10 years, all my extra savings goes into medical bills and prescriptions. I have one kid getting ready to go to college and another 18 months from graduating HS. After the graduation, I am open to move anywhere in the US. I am thinking about Missouri. Land is cheap there (200K for like 60-100 acres) and I can put a mobile home on it.

It about killed me (literally) to go through losing my house. I dont hardly even mow the lawn in my rental place now, because I jsut dont want to put any work into a house that's not mine.

I am working on some things that could get me a steady 4-6K/month income working a few hours a day from home. If that takes off, then it doesnt matter where I live as long as I have internet.

Anyways, back on topic. Conservative values are the only values which will pull this great country out of the mire.

It hurts me to read this. I wish you luck and success.

PS if your work from home thing works out let me know

Thanks, I will. If you have a bit of deductive reasoning, you can probably deduce what I am doing from my posts of the last few days. You, if you are passionate enough, may be able to do the same thing.

Can't say that I can put my finger on it. My reading of these threads is spotty at best. I mean the healthcare mega thread is at almost 130 pages.

[The Tofu Islands]

Because individual freedom is the greatest good available on this planet. The idea that you can make your own decisions rather than some government doing it for you in the name of 'the common good' or whatever the hell they call it today.

You act as if individual freedom and collectivism are mutually exclusive. Hint: they aren’t.

And they take that money so they can give it to others who didn't do anything in school, didn't put in any effort and are now poor because of that.

Because the majority of people on welfare are just lazy assholes.

[Goath]

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame. The banks were forced to make bad loans. Not only that, they were led to believe they could sell the loans (and they could) to Fannie and Freddie. The government, essentially backed it. Republican congress? Housing is a social issue. And we know which party is up in arms about social issues. Jimmy Carter (D) signed the CRA into law. Bill Clinton (D) expanded it. Also, Clinton (with the help of Greenspan) decided to keep Credit Default Swaps of exchanges and completely OTC. That makes them less transparent. That also allows scum like AIG to write an unlimited number of them based on their AAA (at the time) rating. With no collateral to back them. Damn I was mean to the Democrats. Ok, Paulson (appointed by a Republican) and a former Goldman Sachs CEO engineered the AIG bailout. A damn good chunk of it went to Goldman Sachs. No corruption there, no siree. $10 billion if I remember correctly. Bush also expanded the housing mess with some bill my memory fails to remember the ridiculously long name off. To be fair, Bush did suggest tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie (only to be blocked by a Democratic congress) early in the bubble. As well as John McCain a few years later (again blocked).

You're confused, I'm afraid. CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans"- in fact, banks were directed to only make loans that made good business sense to them. That's exactly what the banks did...to their misfortune.

The banking industry was deregulated by Republican Congresses (with lots of help from Democrats, too) and because of that we're in a place today that we should never, ever have been. No one is free of blame...though the new right wing straw man ACRON is obviously at blame ;-)

Oh, also- the bailouts as proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Democratic Congress weren't good enough- the Bush Admin hamstrung oversight and far, far too many of the folks voting on the bill had too much vested interest in seeing the banks (their fundraising organs) propped up. They did, however, act generally in the correct direction.

As to the topic of this post...the newest poll out just today says Owens is in the lead, followed by the Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) with the Republican Party candidate in third.

So you are saying things like LIAR LOANS make business sense? That is just ridiculous.

How did I say that? The banks that played in "Liar Loans" made a massive error. Any lender that issued a loan without checking the financial records of the person looking for the loan was a fool. But the banks made that mistake all by themselves, not because the government made them or anything as silly as that.

The problem was caused by the government. Interest rates too low. Loans being packaged into mortgage backed securities and sold off. All of that made too much money available for lending. The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash. There simply wasn't enough credit worthy borrowers. On top of that, Fannie and Freddie bought the loans. The majority of subprime loans were not originated by banks.

OK. Wow.

First off, the banks/ financial institutions should have NEVER been allowed to create mortgage backed securities. Just asking for a disaster, but the government didn't make them do that...the government let them.

You said: "The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash." Seriously. The banks lowered their lending standards because they wanted to make more money, not because they were being forced to lend all this money that was being pushed at them. They gave to people they should have never given to because they were unethical and for absolutely no other reason save perhaps greed.

Know how we prevent this from happening again? Re-regulate the financial system.

[Behaved]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

-snip-

The person who wrote the above has more beliefs about economics than knowledge.

Attack the argument not the person making it.

They made you a mod LG?

[Goath]

That we're at "greed is good" makes me giggle just a little bit- particularly since this thread is supposed to be about an election in upstate New York.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

That we're at "greed is good" makes me giggle just a little bit- particularly since this thread is supposed to be about an election in upstate New York.

Are you inferring that greed has no place in a politican discussion?

[Sibirsky]

OK. Wow.

First off, the banks/ financial institutions should have NEVER been allowed to create mortgage backed securities. Just asking for a disaster, but the government didn't make them do that...the government let them.

You said: "The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash." Seriously. The banks lowered their lending standards because they wanted to make more money, not because they were being forced to lend all this money that was being pushed at them. They gave to people they should have never given to because they were unethical and for absolutely no other reason save perhaps greed.

Know how we prevent this from happening again? Re-regulate the financial system.

Again, mortgages originated were sold. Investment banks packaged them together into (thanks to AIG) AAA securities and sold off. Yes, the banks had more money than they could lend to credit worthy borrowers. No bank, in their right mind, would offer to lend somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because that person said I make $X. Investors all over the world bought these mortgage backed securities. In turn money from all over the world poured into our real estate market. Yeah I can see how a bubble would form.

[Behaved]

In this American context, Conservative and Liberal, are vague ideologies that are constantly redifined by people with agendas.
Republican and Democrat are political parties.
Your definition of Conservative is obviously based on the talk radio "Conservatives"

He's talking about the Conservative Party. Actually read please.

This is my district we're discussing here (and I had a feeling that's what this was about). I'll be voting for Michael Paestella as a write-in.

I live in the 23rd Congressional District too. Remember my Jolt location of Lewis County?

[Capitalistliberals]

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame. The banks were forced to make bad loans. Not only that, they were led to believe they could sell the loans (and they could) to Fannie and Freddie. The government, essentially backed it. Republican congress? Housing is a social issue. And we know which party is up in arms about social issues. Jimmy Carter (D) signed the CRA into law. Bill Clinton (D) expanded it. Also, Clinton (with the help of Greenspan) decided to keep Credit Default Swaps of exchanges and completely OTC. That makes them less transparent. That also allows scum like AIG to write an unlimited number of them based on their AAA (at the time) rating. With no collateral to back them. Damn I was mean to the Democrats. Ok, Paulson (appointed by a Republican) and a former Goldman Sachs CEO engineered the AIG bailout. A damn good chunk of it went to Goldman Sachs. No corruption there, no siree. $10 billion if I remember correctly. Bush also expanded the housing mess with some bill my memory fails to remember the ridiculously long name off. To be fair, Bush did suggest tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie (only to be blocked by a Democratic congress) early in the bubble. As well as John McCain a few years later (again blocked).

You're confused, I'm afraid. CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans"- in fact, banks were directed to only make loans that made good business sense to them. That's exactly what the banks did...to their misfortune.

The banking industry was deregulated by Republican Congresses (with lots of help from Democrats, too) and because of that we're in a place today that we should never, ever have been. No one is free of blame...though the new right wing straw man ACRON is obviously at blame ;-)

Oh, also- the bailouts as proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Democratic Congress weren't good enough- the Bush Admin hamstrung oversight and far, far too many of the folks voting on the bill had too much vested interest in seeing the banks (their fundraising organs) propped up. They did, however, act generally in the correct direction.

As to the topic of this post...the newest poll out just today says Owens is in the lead, followed by the Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) with the Republican Party candidate in third.

So you are saying things like LIAR LOANS make business sense? That is just ridiculous.

How did I say that? The banks that played in "Liar Loans" made a massive error. Any lender that issued a loan without checking the financial records of the person looking for the loan was a fool. But the banks made that mistake all by themselves, not because the government made them or anything as silly as that.

The problem was caused by the government. Interest rates too low. Loans being packaged into mortgage backed securities and sold off. All of that made too much money available for lending. The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash. There simply wasn't enough credit worthy borrowers. On top of that, Fannie and Freddie bought the loans. The majority of subprime loans were not originated by banks.

OK. Wow.

First off, the banks/ financial institutions should have NEVER been allowed to create mortgage backed securities. Just asking for a disaster, but the government didn't make them do that...the government let them.

You said: "The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash." Seriously. The banks lowered their lending standards because they wanted to make more money, not because they were being forced to lend all this money that was being pushed at them. They gave to people they should have never given to because they were unethical and for absolutely no other reason save perhaps greed.

Know how we prevent this from happening again? Re-regulate the financial system.

Before you post I suggest you do some research on the housing industry and the regulation banks went through from the mid 90s until 2008. Clinton wanted more home ownership and gave incentives to big banks to allow many people to buy houses they couldnt afford

[Goath]

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame. The banks were forced to make bad loans. Not only that, they were led to believe they could sell the loans (and they could) to Fannie and Freddie. The government, essentially backed it. Republican congress? Housing is a social issue. And we know which party is up in arms about social issues. Jimmy Carter (D) signed the CRA into law. Bill Clinton (D) expanded it. Also, Clinton (with the help of Greenspan) decided to keep Credit Default Swaps of exchanges and completely OTC. That makes them less transparent. That also allows scum like AIG to write an unlimited number of them based on their AAA (at the time) rating. With no collateral to back them. Damn I was mean to the Democrats. Ok, Paulson (appointed by a Republican) and a former Goldman Sachs CEO engineered the AIG bailout. A damn good chunk of it went to Goldman Sachs. No corruption there, no siree. $10 billion if I remember correctly. Bush also expanded the housing mess with some bill my memory fails to remember the ridiculously long name off. To be fair, Bush did suggest tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie (only to be blocked by a Democratic congress) early in the bubble. As well as John McCain a few years later (again blocked).

You're confused, I'm afraid. CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans"- in fact, banks were directed to only make loans that made good business sense to them. That's exactly what the banks did...to their misfortune.

The banking industry was deregulated by Republican Congresses (with lots of help from Democrats, too) and because of that we're in a place today that we should never, ever have been. No one is free of blame...though the new right wing straw man ACRON is obviously at blame ;-)

Oh, also- the bailouts as proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Democratic Congress weren't good enough- the Bush Admin hamstrung oversight and far, far too many of the folks voting on the bill had too much vested interest in seeing the banks (their fundraising organs) propped up. They did, however, act generally in the correct direction.

As to the topic of this post...the newest poll out just today says Owens is in the lead, followed by the Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) with the Republican Party candidate in third.

So you are saying things like LIAR LOANS make business sense? That is just ridiculous.

How did I say that? The banks that played in "Liar Loans" made a massive error. Any lender that issued a loan without checking the financial records of the person looking for the loan was a fool. But the banks made that mistake all by themselves, not because the government made them or anything as silly as that.

The problem was caused by the government. Interest rates too low. Loans being packaged into mortgage backed securities and sold off. All of that made too much money available for lending. The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash. There simply wasn't enough credit worthy borrowers. On top of that, Fannie and Freddie bought the loans. The majority of subprime loans were not originated by banks.

OK. Wow.

First off, the banks/ financial institutions should have NEVER been allowed to create mortgage backed securities. Just asking for a disaster, but the government didn't make them do that...the government let them.

You said: "The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash." Seriously. The banks lowered their lending standards because they wanted to make more money, not because they were being forced to lend all this money that was being pushed at them. They gave to people they should have never given to because they were unethical and for absolutely no other reason save perhaps greed.

Know how we prevent this from happening again? Re-regulate the financial system.

Before you post I suggest you do some research on the housing industry and the regulation banks went through from the mid 90s until 2008. Clinton wanted more home ownership and gave incentives to big banks to allow many people to buy houses they couldnt afford

Thanks for the suggestion.

The CRA encouraged banks to lend so people could buy homes, but was explicit in saying no bank should lend to anyone they saw as a bad risk. You know what? Some banks were smart and only issued loans to people they felt could repay loans. Other banks didn't. The banks that were responsible are still fine. Those that weren't, well, aren't.

The banking industry has been systematically deregulated over the last 30 years- Democrats and Republicans are responsible. Now, however, we have to fix the mess.

[Goath]

OK. Wow.

First off, the banks/ financial institutions should have NEVER been allowed to create mortgage backed securities. Just asking for a disaster, but the government didn't make them do that...the government let them.

You said: "The banks had to lower lending standards to lend all the cash." Seriously. The banks lowered their lending standards because they wanted to make more money, not because they were being forced to lend all this money that was being pushed at them. They gave to people they should have never given to because they were unethical and for absolutely no other reason save perhaps greed.

Know how we prevent this from happening again? Re-regulate the financial system.

Again, mortgages originated were sold. Investment banks packaged them together into (thanks to AIG) AAA securities and sold off. Yes, the banks had more money than they could lend to credit worthy borrowers. No bank, in their right mind, would offer to lend somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because that person said I make $X. Investors all over the world bought these mortgage backed securities. In turn money from all over the world poured into our real estate market. Yeah I can see how a bubble would form.

You're right, no bank in their right mind would offer to lend someone hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because that person said they made $X. But banks did exactly that. Because they were being irresponsible.

I can see how a bubble would form. Again, to prevent it from happening again, the banking industry needs to come under tighter federal regulation.

(And banks don't HAVE to lend the money they have...are you seriously saying banks gave out loans that they wouldn't have otherwise because they just had too much money laying around?)

[Sibirsky]

You're right, no bank in their right mind would offer to lend someone hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because that person said they made $X. But banks did exactly that. Because they were being irresponsible.

They did it because there was an implied risk aversion. Fannie and Freddie would buy the loans. Freddie and Freddie CDS traded at 10 basis points above Treasury CDSs. In other words, very, very safe.

I can see how a bubble would form. Again, to prevent it from happening again, the banking industry needs to come under tighter federal regulation.

Regulation caused this

(And banks don't HAVE to lend the money they have...are you seriously saying banks gave out loans that they wouldn't have otherwise because they just had too much money laying around?)

No they don't have to lend it. But when their investment bank clients give them money and say give us more mortgages what do they have to lose? And the investment banks did it because they get AIG to cover them with CDSs. And because of AIG's AAA rating S&P and Moody's rated the MBSs AAA as well. And that allowed pension funds to buy them (who cannot buy "junk bonds") and a bunch of foreigners, and god knows who else. A town in Norway perhaps?

[Goath]

You're right, no bank in their right mind would offer to lend someone hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because that person said they made $X. But banks did exactly that. Because they were being irresponsible.

They did it because there was an implied risk aversion. Fannie and Freddie would buy the loans. Freddie and Freddie CDS traded at 10 basis points above Treasury CDSs. In other words, very, very safe.

I can see how a bubble would form. Again, to prevent it from happening again, the banking industry needs to come under tighter federal regulation.

Regulation caused this

(And banks don't HAVE to lend the money they have...are you seriously saying banks gave out loans that they wouldn't have otherwise because they just had too much money laying around?)

No they don't have to lend it. But when their investment bank clients give them money and say give us more mortgages what do they have to lose? And the investment banks did it because they get AIG to cover them with CDSs. And because of AIG's AAA rating S&P and Moody's rated the MBSs AAA as well. And that allowed pension funds to buy them (who cannot buy "junk bonds") and a bunch of foreigners, and god knows who else. A town in Norway perhaps?

The actions of the banks come back to, and always come back to, irresponsible lending practices that were allowed by a lack of common sense regulation of the industry. You didn't have to be a genius- or even very smart at all, to see the mortgage backed securities were dangerous- or at least could become dangerous. There's a reason some banks didn't get burned- only irresponsible banks played the game.

Regulation didn't cause this problem, a lack of regulation caused this problem.

[Conservative Alliances]

No, there's also economic conservatism, which has taken different forms like feudalism and mercantilism, or my favorite (and I'm being honest), the American system, designed by Hamilton and Clay. Libertarians don't like Hamilton and Clay, who were conservatives. They like Jefferson, the liberal, the market guy. Market economics are not a conservative thing. They're a liberal thing. Libertarians are not conservatives.

Could you explain this? I am a conservative and I identify more with Jefferson than any other of the early American leaders. Keep in mind I am going by the modern American definitions of liberal and conservative, not the textbook or archaic terms.

Modern economic conservatism mainly involves deregulating the economy and maintaining low taxes (basically). Jefferson opposed a strong federal government, so he was not really in favor of high taxes. Hamilton was the one who started the whole Whiskey Rebellion with excise taxes, which seems to be a liberal policy in my experience. My example is the recent "sin" taxes put on tobacco and the proposed taxes on "unhealthy foods". Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton were especially in favor of a free market from what I can see. Jefferson opposed northern industry because he wanted an agrarian nation. Hamilton favored high tariffs and government power over the economy. Neither of these are necessarily free market ideas.

The American system was not developed by Hamilton. He was already dead, his ideas were simply used by Clay. It mainly favored using the power of government to affect the economy, such as tariffs, high land prices, and the use of a national bank. These are not really conservative economic ideals.

Neither Hamilton or Jefferson seem to fit in with either liberals or conservatives. If I had to decide I would say Jefferson leaned right because of his minarchist beliefs (state's rights) and Hamilton leaned left because of his support of a strong centralised government. I would classify libertarians as centrist. They are socially liberal and economically conservative.

[Goath]

No, there's also economic conservatism, which has taken different forms like feudalism and mercantilism, or my favorite (and I'm being honest), the American system, designed by Hamilton and Clay. Libertarians don't like Hamilton and Clay, who were conservatives. They like Jefferson, the liberal, the market guy. Market economics are not a conservative thing. They're a liberal thing. Libertarians are not conservatives.

Could you explain this? I am a conservative and I identify more with Jefferson than any other of the early American leaders. Keep in mind I am going by the modern American definitions of liberal and conservative, not the textbook or archaic terms.

Modern economic conservatism mainly involves deregulating the economy and maintaining low taxes (basically). Jefferson opposed a strong federal government, so he was not really in favor of high taxes. Hamilton was the one who started the whole Whiskey Rebellion with excise taxes, which seems to be a liberal policy in my experience. My example is the recent "sin" taxes put on tobacco and the proposed taxes on "unhealthy foods". Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton were especially in favor of a free market from what I can see. Jefferson opposed northern industry because he wanted an agrarian nation. Hamilton favored high tariffs and government power over the economy. Neither of these are necessarily free market ideas.

The American system was not developed by Hamilton. He was already dead, his ideas were simply used by Clay. It mainly favored using the power of government to affect the economy, such as tariffs, high land prices, and the use of a national bank. These are not really conservative economic ideals.

Neither Hamilton or Jefferson seem to fit in with either liberals or conservatives. If I had to decide I would say Jefferson leaned right because of his minarchist beliefs (state's rights) and Hamilton leaned left because of his support of a strong centralised government. I would classify libertarians as centrist. They are socially liberal and economically conservative.

Libertarians are radically socially liberal and radically economically conservative. They're radical centrists.

You're absolutely right in considering Jefferson's economic policies as closer to modern American conservatives than Hamilton's. But, but Jefferson was a classical liberal- much like many modern American conservatives.

[Ashmoria]

Dede Scozzafava is the most liberal candidate in the race for the NY-23 seat- so much better on gay rights particularly that the founder of DailyKos "endorsed" her (I can't tell you if he was 100% serious). She was nominated in a primary by the Republicans of her district who obviously thought she was the strongest candidate. The conservative Republicans in the district, p-o'ed their brand of Republicanism was ignored in the race, have rallied around the Conservative Party of New York's nominee, Doug Hoffman.

Now, in the end, Scozzafava isn't a Republican like most Americans (or people from other countries who pay attention to US politics) are used to. She's pro-gay, she's pro-choice, and she's pro-union (specifically pro card check). That makes he something of a traditional New England Republican, but not at all the kind of Republican that is currently being embraced by rank-and-file conservatives these days, but she is being embraced by liberal-leaning independents who prefer her over the Democrat, Bill Owens.

With that said- with the divide caused among Republicans the Democrat in this race will almost certainly win. It's going to be close- tremendously close. Had Hoffman not been on the ball, Scozzafava would have won in a landslide. Had Scozzafava not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won in a slightly smaller landslide. With both of them on the ballot...well...

All this tells national political observers is that the Republican Party will lose miserably, everywhere nationwide, if they allow conservatives (or moderates) to run as a third party.

'Course, I might be totally wrong. :-)

im not a republican but the democrat winning such a solidly republican district would be the best thing for the republican party at this time.

they dont need asshole carpetbaggers coming in to endorse the non-republican candidate and having that candidate win. that is disaster. all those idiots who think that having a grasp of local issues is parochial need a good hard smack upside the head. republicans need to support republicans, not any fool who comes in from out of the district to run as an ultraconservative.

[Whiskey Hill]

No, there's also economic conservatism, which has taken different forms like feudalism and mercantilism, or my favorite (and I'm being honest), the American system, designed by Hamilton and Clay. Libertarians don't like Hamilton and Clay, who were conservatives. They like Jefferson, the liberal, the market guy. Market economics are not a conservative thing. They're a liberal thing. Libertarians are not conservatives.

Could you explain this? I am a conservative and I identify more with Jefferson than any other of the early American leaders. Keep in mind I am going by the modern American definitions of liberal and conservative, not the textbook or archaic terms.

Modern economic conservatism mainly involves deregulating the economy and maintaining low taxes (basically). Jefferson opposed a strong federal government, so he was not really in favor of high taxes. Hamilton was the one who started the whole Whiskey Rebellion with excise taxes, which seems to be a liberal policy in my experience. My example is the recent "sin" taxes put on tobacco and the proposed taxes on "unhealthy foods". Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton were especially in favor of a free market from what I can see. Jefferson opposed northern industry because he wanted an agrarian nation. Hamilton favored high tariffs and government power over the economy. Neither of these are necessarily free market ideas.

The American system was not developed by Hamilton. He was already dead, his ideas were simply used by Clay. It mainly favored using the power of government to affect the economy, such as tariffs, high land prices, and the use of a national bank. These are not really conservative economic ideals.

Neither Hamilton or Jefferson seem to fit in with either liberals or conservatives. If I had to decide I would say Jefferson leaned right because of his minarchist beliefs (state's rights) and Hamilton leaned left because of his support of a strong centralised government. I would classify libertarians as centrist. They are socially liberal and economically conservative.

Because I'm not using the common American definitions, I'm using the international and academic definitions, because they are actually accurate.

Hamilton was a conservative, and was on the Right (he supported a monarchy, for god's sake). Today, his economic views are shared by many people on the American center-left, but the world was very different in Hamilton's day, it doesn't map the same. Jefferson was then a liberal and on the left. Remember, Jefferson supported the French Revolution. We get our terms "left wing" and "right wing" from just before the French Revolution. The Right supported the traditional order, the Left was filled with revolutionaries. Jefferson was not a right-wing guy, or a conservative, by any means.

[Xsyne]

No, there's also economic conservatism, which has taken different forms like feudalism and mercantilism, or my favorite (and I'm being honest), the American system, designed by Hamilton and Clay. Libertarians don't like Hamilton and Clay, who were conservatives. They like Jefferson, the liberal, the market guy. Market economics are not a conservative thing. They're a liberal thing. Libertarians are not conservatives.

Could you explain this? I am a conservative and I identify more with Jefferson than any other of the early American leaders. Keep in mind I am going by the modern American definitions of liberal and conservative, not the textbook or archaic terms.

Modern economic conservatism mainly involves deregulating the economy and maintaining low taxes (basically). Jefferson opposed a strong federal government, so he was not really in favor of high taxes. Hamilton was the one who started the whole Whiskey Rebellion with excise taxes, which seems to be a liberal policy in my experience. My example is the recent "sin" taxes put on tobacco and the proposed taxes on "unhealthy foods". Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton were especially in favor of a free market from what I can see. Jefferson opposed northern industry because he wanted an agrarian nation. Hamilton favored high tariffs and government power over the economy. Neither of these are necessarily free market ideas.

The American system was not developed by Hamilton. He was already dead, his ideas were simply used by Clay. It mainly favored using the power of government to affect the economy, such as tariffs, high land prices, and the use of a national bank. These are not really conservative economic ideals.

Neither Hamilton or Jefferson seem to fit in with either liberals or conservatives. If I had to decide I would say Jefferson leaned right because of his minarchist beliefs (state's rights) and Hamilton leaned left because of his support of a strong centralised government. I would classify libertarians as centrist. They are socially liberal and economically conservative.

Libertarians are radically socially liberal and radically economically conservative. They're radical centrists.

You're absolutely right in considering Jefferson's economic policies as closer to modern American conservatives than Hamilton's. But, but Jefferson was a classical liberal- much like many modern American conservatives.

Classic liberals support the existence of social programs, modern American conservatives tend to oppose them. The idea that classic liberals and libertarians have the same positions is common, but incorrect.

[Sibirsky]

I did not see that anywhere

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

[The_pantless_hero]

Neither Hamilton or Jefferson seem to fit in with either liberals or conservatives.

Which is probably why our current two party system isn't Federalists vs Democratic Republicans.

[Greenyville]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

he is a socialist moron. im not even american and i can see hes undermining the core values america was built on.
giant step in the wrong direction.

[Xsyne]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

he is a socialist moron. im not even american and i can see hes undermining the core values america was built on.

Rich people not wanting to pay taxes, and successfully manipulating the discourse to make it look like the majority of the population shared that view?

[Greed and Death]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

he is a socialist moron. im not even american and i can see hes undermining the core values america was built on.

Rich people not wanting to pay taxes, and successfully manipulating the discourse to make it look like the majority of the population shared that view?

don't forget the guns.

[Greenyville]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

he is a socialist moron. im not even american and i can see hes undermining the core values america was built on.

Rich people not wanting to pay taxes, and successfully manipulating the discourse to make it look like the majority of the population shared that view?

what exactly is your question?

[Sibirsky]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

he is a socialist moron. im not even american and i can see hes undermining the core values america was built on.
giant step in the wrong direction.

Correct. Nothing Obama has done to change America has anything to do with the way America was designed to be. Giant step in the wrong direction indeed.