Posted by Tina
Sure it made me giggle, but might this research be truthful too?
The headline comes from actual research done by the American Journal of Political Science, PEW, going back to 1972, and Brown University. Stephen Hayward of Powerline reports:
A 2006 report from the Pew Research Center showed that 45% of conservative Republicans reported being very happy, as compared to 30% of liberal Democrats. According to the report, this “partisan happiness gap” had shown up in surveys every year since 1972.
What explains the happiness gap? Some scientists have argued that it can be attributed to personality differences between the two groups or different thinking styles-that conservatives are more likely to rationalize inequality. Others have suggested a link with marriage rates and religious identification-pointing out that conservatives are more likely to be married and to identify as religious, both of which have been linked with higher levels of happiness.
Other differences “are more psychological” in which conservatives were “more likely to keep an organized dorm room” and were “more generally conscientious.” Works for me!
It’s a light reading article with links to the various studies but most interesting are the studies that suggest conservatives and liberals smell differently! Noting the mess left behind after liberal gathering Mr. Hayward points to the obvious, “There’s a reason left-wing gatherings slather around so much patchouli oil.”
Yep, I agree, “The science is settled!”
This is completely true, but only because my desk is so cluttered with gay marriage certificates and illegal immigrants, and it is bumming me out.
Also, showers are tools of the patriarchy.
Dewey: “95% all all new income goes to the top 1% FACT and that makes an Oligarchy”
No, Dewey, it doesn’t! It means that the Obama economy is serving the rich and powerful well and severely harming middle and poor classes. It is also evident that Obama is serving special interest groups over the interest of the people: environmental groups, minorities, unions, wealthy car maker
An oligharcy is, according to Websters:
1 government by the few
2 a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
Our government is still a republic, although with a weak middle class the influence of wealthy special interest groups has a lot of influence with corrupt leaders.
Mexico is/was an oligarchy. Five families had all of the wealth and all of the control. That is slowly changing. We are far from being under total control of a wealthy few.
Greed is one of the seven deadly sins under which any person can become a slave. A poor person is just as likely to be greedy as a wealthy person and wealth is not necessarily a sign of a greedy person.
I do agree that greed is among the symptoms of a sick society and that our sense of morality as a nation has slipped dramatically over several decades. I do not believe that the wealthy…or married people must shoulder the blame.
Marriage has been a religious contract for centuries. Marriage has also been a civil contract for centuries and it has been observed to be a stabilizing and civilizing force for good. It is NOT a Pledge to a religion.
“Would love to see the numbers on adultery. According to the Bible we should behead them.”
I couldn’t find such a passage. Certainly traditions were much different centuries ago then they are now. We also no longer crucify people, for instance. But I could not find a passage that recommends beheading. I did find:
John 8:4-11 ESV They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.
Maybe beheading is in your “special” Bible? You never did tell us what Bible that was.
Bomb tossing again?
Let the record show that I tried to turn this into a joke thread about us stinky liberals.
Tina, what percentage of subprime loans in the lead-up to the financial crisis were CRA loans?
“… that conservatives are more likely to rationalize inequality.”
You do understand what this phrase means, don’t you?
Oh dear, oh dear …
I can’t face any long screed … just know … you’ve had your collective character denigrated.
Chris: “Tina, what percentage of subprime loans in the lead-up to the financial crisis were CRA loans?”
Even if an accurate number could be determined it would be an irrelevant question.
Loans are made and then sold, sometimes more than once. Risky loans are sold right away and bundled with others (Making them less “toxic” and impossible to track). This happened over more than a decade.
An article in American is somewhat helpful.
Our government under Obama with the help of Dodd/Frank hasn’t stopped the craziness in lending either, and the shifty shift could create another situation where taxpayers will foot the bill:
Chris I don’t want to respond to this question again. Had the standards that bankers used for decades been kept the exuberance and bundling would never have happened. I am not blaming poor people or people who were buying and flipping houses because rates and qualifying standards allowed them to. I am saying the regulations that set the sage for all of it were not very smart. You have to believe that making loans without qualifying standards such as down payment, a job, or having established good credit was a smart way to do business.
The truth is these lax rules, stimulated, encouraged and fomented by the CRA, invited disaster. And as I have written many times it invited disaster in many ways…exuberance at the money to be made flipping houses, exuberance at the money to e made securitizing bundled loans,regulators without the tools to track bad loans and regulators that didn’t try very hard, are several of them.
Now, get off my back.
Libby: “you’ve had your collective character denigrated.”
Is that so?
The words, “…are more likely to rationalize inequality,” are heard by someone of your persuasion as insensitive and thoughtless.
From my perspective “equality” is a word you lefties use to pit people against each other, to fund raise, to secure votes, to stimulate resentment and envy, and to act as a foundation for all kinds of sob story causes.
Conservatives celebrate equality in the context of freedom and realize that a persons place at birth does not consign him to a fate one way or another. The rich lose fortunes and the poor climb the ladder of success. Color or gender are only in the way to the degree that a person lets it get in the way. Most of the barriers people face are self inflicted and attitudinal.
So you see my character is in no way denigrated by the statement.
If anything, yours is.
Come on, you two. If you’re going to answer his posts … you have to post his posts.
Banning people … I am disappointed. You’ve taken another step down the road to “Juanitaville”. It is a shame.
“The truth is these lax rules, stimulated, encouraged and fomented by the CRA, invited disaster.”
And we have told you, over and over and over again, that it was NOT the bad loans, but the packaging of bad loans into worthless securities, and resold countless times, that inflated the bubble that burst.
You will not be permitted to blame the poor people, or those who tried to help the poor people. The blame rests squarely, and as always, on the rich people.
Tina: “Even if an accurate number could be determined it would be an irrelevant question.”
Uh huh. So you believe–with all your heart–that the CRA caused the financial crisis, but you also believe that we don’t need to concern ourselves with asking how many CRA loans were actually involved in the crisis.
And this makes complete sense to you.
Facts? Who needs ’em? They just get in the way of you believing whatever you want.
Libby: ” we have told you, over and over and over again, that it was NOT the bad loans, but the packaging of bad loans into worthless securities, and resold countless times, that inflated the bubble that burst.”
And I have told you countless times that the bad loans created the necessity of bundled securities. It was the opportunity to make money and the easy lending rules that created the buying frenzy that created the bubble. Democrat policy and hands are all over every aspect of it. The CRA laid the foundation and Clinton’s expansion meant the collapsing tower, when it fell, would create a huge mess. Your trying to tell me the although the foundation for the building was laid in DC the tower fell in New York…sorry not possible.
“You will not be permitted to blame the poor people, or those who tried to help the poor people”
I haven;t blamed the poor people or the people who wanted to help. I do blame the policy. I also think it was exploited by many people, some of whom made huge money, like Raines and Gorelick and that dude at Countrywide, at least before the tower fell. The policy…the policy was DUMB and destined to create a big mess.
Come on Libs…loans for people with no money down, no job, no credit history? Who would suggest such insanity?
“The blame rests squarely, and as always, on the rich people.”
Please explain to me how and exactly what they did.
Chris: “So you believe–with all your heart–that the CRA caused the financial crisis ”
I believe with all my heart that the CRA laid the foundation for the crisis and is a direct cause, yes.
” you also believe that we don’t need to concern ourselves with asking how many CRA loans were actually involved in the crisis.”
Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what I say?
I did not say “we don’t need to concern ourselves.”
I said there was no mechanism in place to trace (or count) them (which, by the way makes your liberal talking points about the low numbers a great deception) You guys are good at that.
“Facts? Who needs ‘em? They just get in the way of you believing whatever you want.”
Showing, once again, your true mission in posting here. It apparently doesn’t bother you at all to ignore completely most of what I have written and posted regarding this monumental scandal, brought to us by Democrat notions of fairness. The information about Gorelick and Raines made by cooking the books and buying up those bundled loans to inflate their bottom lines to boost their bonuses…Raines was convicted…it means nothing. The video of Barney Frank…the multiple warnings made by Bush and others. The sheer common sense of it…that you cannot create low standards in lending without also creating bad loans, a buying frenzy, and toxic securities. You can;t really think all will be peachy because the government backs it without also recognizing you will cause an unsustainable situation.
Sound business practices are required in any endeavor. The only reason it didn’t fall apart sooner is because the government has the power to print money, ignore debt, and adopt the nonchalance that would lay such an ignorant foundation.
Chris: “Let the record show that I tried to turn this into a joke thread about us stinky liberals.”
Duly noted!
“And I have told you countless times that the bad loans created the necessity of bundled securities.”
Tina, darling … this scenario, aside from being false, would amount to flagrant fraud … but very few fraudsters have been sent to prison.
Read, girl … read.
Et tu Libby? You’re really going to take that superior tone?
How about you do some reading beyond the cheer leading for democrats media:
Ed Driscoll at PJ Media has a few choice words.
You can view the PJ Media video in a larger format on You Tube, here
I’ve posted the video of Jamie Gorelick soliciting these bundled loans for Fannie…you saw it. We’ve posted a lot of information. It’s there for anyone who is willing to admit the mess was a huge mistake.
You read…girl!
Tina: “I said there was no mechanism in place to trace (or count) them”
That’s just not true.
http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/pdf/2010_CRA_Guide.pdf