What term do you call people like me who never buy the fixed ideological package from either side but prefer to exercise their own judgment in determining what's best for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Printable View
What term do you call people like me who never buy the fixed ideological package from either side but prefer to exercise their own judgment in determining what's best for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Nor do I, but I would still describe myself as left-leaning, at least. I don't think the terminology really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
But is it? In the UK you have die hard Labour and die hard Conservative (die hard LibDem's don't exist :laugh: ). Same as you have staunch Democrats and Republicans in the USA. However there must be a significant number who are prepared to switch from one the other, otherwise the government would never change.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It also explains why US politics doesn't work. Such a thing might have functioned when views were less polarised, but today — and I consider this largely to be the fault of the right — I don't hold out much hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Of course there are the diehards, but look at the nature of debate in the two countries, and you'll see why I feel we can look at our political system with a small degree of satisfaction at least. I don't think we would ever have a discussion about 'death panels', for a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I would describe myself as right-leaning in conventional terms but it means I am pigeonholing myself within a simplistic and narrow stereotype. For instance, I'm all for economic competition but I don't think losers should be stomped into the ground and left to die in the cold. They should get some help in whatever shape, but that help should not let them live a care free life and discourage them from trying again and again. The help should not be excessive, but for the reasons of humanity I'd better err on the generous side when I determine the extent of help. I can go on indefinitely. There are plenty of fine lines to be observed and overtones to be heard. With this in mind calling myself a right winger might be adequate in certain circumstance, in some cases it might not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
In the early 90's, I was a daily G. Gordon Liddy listener... and it wasn't just for laughs. :eek: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Imagine a typical $200K, 30 year fixed rate mortgage at say, 4%. A prime might have 0 points and 1% origination. What many bankers did was tell that qualified borrower that they were actually marginal, give them a subprime rate and the rate might have been 4.5% with 2 points and 1% origination. On the prime loan, the banker would make $2K gross off the origination. But off the subprime, he'd make the same $2K for the origination + $4K for the 2 points + $8K for jacking the rate (rule of thumb: 1% on the rate equals approximately 8 discount points - so an added half percent on the rate equals approximately 4 discount points). For doing roughly the same amount of work, would you rather make $2K or $14K? How could people afford to pay those outrageous fees? Easy. The banker works with a "friendly" appraiser, jacks up the value of the house and fully finances the closing costs. Everybody happy! Everybody feelin' good!
It was a huge, complex problem... much more complex than I may have suggested above. I just wanted to give one, fairly simple example. Congress did play a part though. While no one actually forced banks to lend money at above market rates and fees (that would be like forcing me to remove Salma Hayek's clothes :o ), by not keeping a watchful eye on and properly regulating FNMA, FHMLC and HUD, Congress allowed a largely unregulated/poorly regulated market for mortgage backed securities to develop - prime, subprime and mixed. These mortgages (the good, the bad and the ugliest) were packaged and resold by investment banks as MBS's to whomever would gobble them up (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.). The ratings agencies (S&P, Fitch, Moody's, etc.) would then place whatever fake rating that the banks (clients paying the bills) wanted, so as to inflate the value of the securities.
Crooked mortgage bankers, crooked appraisers, crooked real estate agents, crooked/stupid/ignorant borrowers, crooked investment bankers, crooks at FNMA and FHLMC, idiots at the Fed, idiots in Congress and the White House... lots of idiots and crooks.
And I would agree with pretty much all of that, but still would never call myself 'right-leaning' under any circumstances. I don't believe there is any terminology able to explain accurately what you describe, so sticking with the existing terms is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I have to question the sanity of dyed in the wool party supporters who'd vote for a party no matter what. At the next general election I'm most likely to be voting Labour or Green, however that doesn't mean that I won't acknowledge their faults and consider what other points of view has to say. At the same time, however, my mind would be broadly made up long before the election, once the manifestos and candidates had been confirmed. I would agree with Bill Maher that voters still undecided close to the election are idiots:
[youtube]Lv0ryYJY-UM[/youtube]
(skip to 2:10)
Sorry about spamming this topic with Bill Maher videos, however this just had to be shown :D
[youtube]9kKiCvWdbxE[/youtube]
Remind you of any forum members?