Democrat, Republican, Other?

Community reinvestement act

Ptolemy wrote:Community reinvestement act

Purple...

what does Community Reinvestment Act mean

yeah...I consider myself liberal leaning and here are a couple reasons why

-Reaganomics was good for injecting short term growth but as soon as services and taxes were cut, the deficit rose since not so many were paying
-canadian conservative bugs the hell out of me by worshipping reaganomics, he hasn't even lived in the 80's, when my parents lived in New York, the poverty was rising even higher and giving rise to yuppies.

Reason #2
-Ann Coulter, she is insane in her attacks on anything even remotely liberal in nature. Although I'm liberal, I do try and see the other sides arguments and do believe in free enterprise
-Ann Coulter has stated that Harry Truman has done nothing except get us into Korean war. (I guess the Marshall Plan didn't cross her mind)
-Ann Coulter has stated that Reagan "single-handedly ended the Cold War". Really, then I guess the other Presidents did not do anything. Oh and Soviet Russia's economy was already collapsing on its own by perestroika and glasnost. Reagan maybe had agressively attacked Communism, but he shouldn't be given sole credit for ending the Cold War

Reason 3: I don't hate Republicans, I do agree with a free enterprise with minimal government control, but to be honest, one economic plan does not fit all the situations. We're imperfect creatures so the economies going to be imperfect. Pure Free enterprise is not a good thing, it leads to Robber Barons, Trusts, and obscenely wealthy with little concern for the lower class.

That's why the gov't stepped in. Theodore Roosevelt (a republican) was a trust buster. Pure control of the economy is also not a good thing since no competition between industries and lying about 5 year plans under Stalin have shown.

So that's why the economy should be both uncontrolled and guided. There should also be changes in order to cope with different situations since the economy is always going to be in flux.

^One of the rare moments when Span is sober. ^^

i pretty much agree with what he said.

exactly span, however, plans with the correct amount of input by the government, like the Whitte plan, have shown that government influence in the economy can lead to drastic improvements

for instance, I support government measures to influence industries to go green, and let capitalism take care of the rest, if that doesn't work, then just more active investment in green tech

also, canada is one of my fav countries because its banking system is obviously the best^^

and reagan's offensive against the communist regime is not needed, he didn't single handedly bring down the wall, though he played a part in it. I believe, in the case of countries like Iran, that steady economic relations, which lead to improvements in the peoples' lives, will cause them to revolt against the oppressive regime, and if it doesn't help, then they will know that the U.S form is helping them, and that they should not have to put up with the obscenely wealthy.

we had no financial crisis till reagan, when he deregulated all the banks, then we had the east asian financial crisis and now this, thats like 50 or so years without collapses because of FDR's regulations

Reaganomics is right in the aspect that it wants a free markets, but like span said, we are imperfect beings, and so pure capitalism is so too. I believe that the reagan year growth was started by clinton, like showed by my graphs back there aways, XD, and that he had a 200billion dollar surplus

if republicans are so worried by the deficit, then why complain about high taxes? it doesn't work both ways, and that is the problem with some of america right now, that the happy-go-lucky years of reagan can come back, which it can, if we have enough growth, but, the problems with reagan's presidency was that it didn't deal with any of the issues that come up now in the economy.

The government should only step in as it has when things go really down hill, and honestly, i think we have diverted a disaster because of historical experience, and if we follow these trends, then we see a liberal leaning nation prospering all throughout the years, however, too liberal governments can sometimes become dictatorships, just as too conservative governments, case and point, France, and, after the inflation crisis, Germany.

This is why i'm taking AP World History, so that I know the trends of history and act as a better citizen as a part of it.

but ya, i basically agree with span!^^

how sad that this thread died, did liberals win then with span?

did Keynesian economics prevail?

did social liberalism win?

what happened??

cause i feel like getting a debate started again, and using my history knowledge^^

Don't know, don't care, but it is funny that we call them liberals when they want to control everything...

YAY DEBATE!

and republicans want to control...what?

a women's right to choose?

medicinal marijuana?

a gay person's right to marry?

labor unions?

lol, republicans want to keep workers down and let big business reign free, thats sorta what keeps lobbyists in washington, which we all hate.

liberals are called such because they believe in the social advancement of society, and the control of some functions, such as subways, under state control, just look at European countries like that, and they look to keep society on the move, rather than having a static set of principles.

in other words, their ideals change with the time, what is socially more acceptable is supported by them, no democrat would have supported gay marriage in the 1930s, but they do now.

No Republicans are called conservatives because they don't want to pass legislation often, they want to let events sort themselves. Democrats are called liberals because they believe in change by legislation and want to fix things themselves without giving the system time to adjust. So by natural a liberal policy wants to control all values while a conservative policy wants to leave the system alone as much as it can.

i was defining liberals, not republicans

i think republicans are called conservative because they don't believe in social advancement, such as gay marriage, and don't believe in passing legislation that might change the system, like you said,

Liberals believe that passing legislation can help in advancing society according to the needs and the times.

Conservatives fight against change, liberals fight for change. Without both sides you have a corrupt government. I believe in the conservative policy because it makes no changes without double and triple checking itself while the liberal policy makes legislation that tries everything and selects only what works. Conservatism maintains a working status, Liberalism tries to legislate and do more good then bad.

Remember the Mandalorian Wars Aard?

Yes. The Conservative Jedi faction advised non-involvement. The Liberal Jedi faction went in anyway. Then the Liberal Jedi faction started a war that sent the Galaxy into a chaos the Conservative Jedi faction had to rebuild.

Depending on which moment you pick one is always going to seem evil and the other is always going to seem good, but they change places. The difference is one becomes corrupt through inactivity and the other through rash decisions. I'd rather be inactive then rash.

and be under a totalitarian government? cause you know that without Revan, the Galaxy would be Mandalorian. And unlike the Empire, wich stagnated into defeat, the Mandalorians never stagnate, they always seek to be strong in battle. Thus why, even thou the rash decision plummeted into another war, there was at least some sort of hope. The Galaxy was going to suffer either way, question is, one way leaded to defeat and the other to victory.

Yes and if the Conservative faction hadn't come back to beat them the Galaxy would have been under a totalitarian Sith regime.

sorry, but what someone writes isnt necessarily history, and besides, its the force there, the force should be pretty conservative don't you think?

and aard how do liberals act rashly, passing legislation to provide children with healthcare coverage for free? how does that seem rash? medicare?

these things are great.

the health care bill, due to moderate democrats, is not great, but is a stepping stone, no matter how poor, to a better healthcare system that does not treat a person's life like it is a good to be bought and sold.

Keynesian economics, the ire of Communism, holds that some factors of production should be owned by the government, again i invoke mass transit in europe, which saves consumers money and facilitates the process.

I'm a republicrat. Mostly democrat, just disagree on some points.

If you're mostly democratic, wouldn't it be Democan?

republicrat is a word...AWESOME!

Yes rash, the liberal way is to try legislation, toss out what doesn't work and keep what does. If you don't carefully weigh the choices then you are rash. As far as the health care goes, I have seen absolutely no change, and I was pissed off that they held the vote on Christmas Eve, at 2 a.m. while it was snowing so that people wouldn't protest it. If it's so great then what are they so concerned about hiding?

healthcare has no change, and is, fundamentally, not the best bill, but it provides a framework to put more upon when in the future we have more chances like this to reform healthcare.

toss out what doesn't work and keep what does... what seems wrong about that to you?

they make decisions passed on the non-partisan committee in congress that churns out the numbers, and when some of the stuff that they both thought would work doesn't they throw it out and keep whats good making the whole better.

I didn't say it's wrong, I said I don't like doing things that way because the odds for something to go horribly wrong is much higher.