Originally posted by sh76Why should people who can't really afford a house be able to buy them? Is renting really so terrible that it is worth the destruction of billions of dollars due to inefficiency caused by the subsidies? I agree that with the collapse of the housing market, right now would be a bad time to abolish the deductions. But on the long term, it would be a massive boost for the US economy.
Well, you can do it in the Netherlands however you like, but mortgage interest deductions are here to stay in the U.S., thankfully. In the US, home ownership is encouraged and is not just for the wealthy. With prices down over 20% nationwide and mortgage rates very low, home ownership is affordable for middle income people and many low income people. Maybe not ...[text shortened]... ould be a disaster and it would almost certainly cost Obama any chance of being re-elected.
I'm always curious about conservative/neoliberal hybrids. Until the late 70s/early 80s 'conservatism' meant something rather different in the UK and US: it was a sort of 'anti-ideology' ideology, which didn't set much store by the theories and programmes of modernism. It was against overt, progressivist policies, but equally understood that an unbridled market was as much a threat to what they wished to 'conserve' as was socialism.
But come the 80s - and then triumphantly in to the 90s and beyond, and possibly as a reaction to the 'defeat of communism' - they became exactly what they had fought against: doctrinaire (rather than pragmatic) and ideological-theoretical (with the Chicago school suddenly revered) in the UK and US.
Historically, conservatives understood that *too rapid change* held dangers: so they disliked what they saw as the disruptive, and intrusive, actions of interventionism (which they also thought bound to fail), but also saw the dangers associated with rapid modernisation and the spread of markets.
Markets always disrupt the socieities they are introduced to - destroying the extended family systems, atomising people - and these effects continue to be exacerbated in societies with markets. That's an observable fact - crime and general insecurity rise under advanced capitalism, and the freer the markets the greater these (and other negative indicators) are.
'Old-fashioned' conservatives would never have got in to bed with the speculative theorists of neo-liberal, laissez-faire capitalism, for many of the same reasons they rejected the speculative philosophies of the left.
What went wrong?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFor the same reason that people who can't "really" afford to go to the best hospitals and public schools should be able to go to them anyway.
Why should people who can't really afford a house be able to buy them?
Renting is an alternative, but it is not the same as buying. People don't want to be forced out at the whim of a landlord then their lease is up. They don't want to be told how and when they can re-decorate, etc. Buying a house is also a long term investment. People want to be able to refinance and hopefully sell at a profit.
In a country as big as the US (geographically), there's no reason to discourage home ownership. There is plenty of open space out there and, buy and large, landlords are not interested in buying up single family homes anyway.
The problem with your thinking is that you're visualizing urban condos in high-rises, not hi-ranches on .5 acres in open suburban areas. That's where the American homeowner buys a house, for the most part. I don't know if you have access to HGTV in Europe, but those on this side of the pond can just watch House Hunters to know what I'm talking about. Landlords and investors don't want these houses.
A mortgage interest deduction is only a "subsidy" in the broadest sense of the word. All sorts of deductions exist for spending money on encouraged activities, like going to school (Hope lifetime learning credit and student loan interest deduction), giving money to charity, etc., etc.
Originally posted by sh76Well, schools and hospitals are a necessity to live a normal life in a modern society, having your own house instead of renting a place isn't.
For the same reason that people who can't "really" afford to go to the best hospitals and public schools should be able to go to them anyway.
Renting is an alternative, but it is not the same as buying. People don't want to be forced out at the whim of a landlord then their lease is up. They don't want to be told how and when they can re-decorate, etc. Buyin ...[text shortened]... ng credit and student loan interest deduction), giving money to charity, etc., etc.
As for being forced out: to prevent unjustified cases there is a nifty little thing called "laws" which can prevent exploitation of tenants.
As for your story about space: I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Having no mortgage deductions is as much a "discouragement" of owning a house as not subsidizing TV ownership is a "discouragement" of TV ownership. There is no reason to subsidize the ownership, so the government shouldn't waste tax dollars on it.
Originally posted by telerionThe word conservative has ONLY been tarnished by Bush and company it seems. Anything associated with "W" is considered dung by the average populice. However, if you assess his policies, is he really a conservative or is he a liberal in conservative garb? Another example might be Clinton. Was he really a liberal or a conservative in liberal garb?
As long as I can remember the word "liberal" has generally been used as a negative. It implies naivete, irresponsibility, and highbrowism. I'm not sure why this is the case. Perhaps it was a result of the failure of the Carter and popularity of the Reagan administrations. Maybe it was the growth on rightwing talk radio that used "liberal" as an insult. ...[text shortened]... negatives of pigheadedness, callousness, and smugness.
Any else seeing this change?
Originally posted by whodeyClinton was a moderate. I'm not sure I'd call his policies liberal or conservative. He had plenty of each. He was a pragmatist. The was negative in some ways because it led to flip flops and indecision (e.g., the Haiti policy, the half-baked Balkan war), but it was positive in others.
The word conservative has ONLY been tarnished by Bush and company it seems. Anything associated with "W" is considered dung by the average populice. However, if you assess his policies, is he really a conservative or is he a liberal in conservative garb? Another example might be Clinton. Was he really a liberal or a conservative in liberal garb?
Bush was the opposite. He had his belief system and he was going to stick to his ideals, come Hell or high water (and both came, in Iraq and Katrina). His principles had little to do with economics, other than that he wanted low taxes. So, no, I wouldn't call Bush a fiscal conservative. I'd call him an ideologue.
What we need, IMHO, is a fiscal conservative who is also a realist. Someone who doesn't believe in growing government beyond what's necessary, but who isn't obsessed with the anti-government philosophy. Someone who believe in balanced budgets, but who also realizes that you can't JUST cut spending to balance the budget; sometimes you have to raise taxes a little too.
Originally posted by sh76Sounds like a "moderate" to me.
Clinton was a moderate. I'm not sure I'd call his policies liberal or conservative. He had plenty of each. He was a pragmatist. The was negative in some ways because it led to flip flops and indecision (e.g., the Haiti policy, the half-baked Balkan war), but it was positive in others.
Bush was the opposite. He had his belief system and he was going to stick ...[text shortened]... JUST cut spending to balance the budget; sometimes you have to raise taxes a little too.
conservatism needs to get back to being what it's name implies -- seeking to "conserve" the old ways and being skeptical of the new ways -- as a counter to those who are too quick to rush into "progressive" (or "reactionary" ) programs that look better on paper than they do in real life
and where changes are needed, conservatism should promote a more cautious, more incremental approach to policy -- ever aware of how lots of things can go wrong if things are rushed.
as such -- conservatives would've been very wary about the whole Iraq plan -- and even if they supported it, they would have been VERY quick to warn against the sort of overconfidence that made it such a big mess.
conservatives would also have been very wary about Bush's large tax cut plan -- especially given the lack of a plan for making up the lost revenues -- they would've insisted on a more modest approach that could have been expanded if the budget had remained balanced
conservatism should avoid being angry, haughty scaremongers -- rather, it should spend a lot of time reminding people that many of our values and institutions work extremely well - and that we risk losing a lot if we abandon them too quickly in a "rush for change" --
Originally posted by sh76Mark my words, the Republican party is dead until conservatives come to the front of the line. Nobody cares about a watered down Democratic party.
Clinton was a moderate. I'm not sure I'd call his policies liberal or conservative. He had plenty of each. He was a pragmatist. The was negative in some ways because it led to flip flops and indecision (e.g., the Haiti policy, the half-baked Balkan war), but it was positive in others.
Bush was the opposite. He had his belief system and he was going to stick ...[text shortened]... JUST cut spending to balance the budget; sometimes you have to raise taxes a little too.
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, whodey, but I have a strong sense that your "conservative" is actually a bit different from say sh76's "conservative." Isn't that the big problem right now with the Republican party?
Mark my words, the Republican party is dead until conservatives come to the front of the line. Nobody cares about a watered down Democratic party.
Originally posted by generalissimoOf the two, Palin and McCain, I would say Palin is more conservative.
who would you define as a "conservative"? sarah palin?
I think it helps if one is a govnerner who runs for President rather than an institutionalized insider of Washington. At least you come in with a less warped sense of reality and the spend culture of Washington. Think about it, the most successful and liked Presidents of our time, Clinton and Reagan, have been governers. On the whole, I think they are appalled by the tax payer burden and waste in Washington. Heck, even Obama said there needs to be something done with earmarks. Too bad he never followed up.
Originally posted by whodeyIn what sense was Reagan successful?
Of the two, Palin and McCain, I would say Palin is more conservative.
I think it helps if one is a govnerner who runs for President rather than an institutionalized insider of Washington. At least you come in with a less warped sense of reality and the spend culture of Washington. Think about it, the most successful and liked Presidents of our time, Clin ...[text shortened]... , even Obama said there needs to be something done with earmarks. Too bad he never followed up.