Where do your politics lie?

About five notches to the right and three libertarian from center on that other test - I don't like that one much better, though, as some of the questions can be misinterpreted in the same ways as the Nolan chart.

of course there is the obvious answer.. my politics ALWAYS lie

Pretty much the dead opposite of Bush (I only mention it because I thought it was an interesting result), though I didn't think I'd fall quite so far to the left. In a nutshell I'm anti-corporate, anti-religion, and I think everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don't cause other people harm.

I am for true personal freedom, which I find some (some!) people on the right want to take away by forcing their views on me in one way or another - usually by supporting laws that have their basis in religion.

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Curious how you know how Bush fared on the test. And was the result based on pre or post-9/11 testing.

Just askin..........

It shows a chart that has dots for where famous people would be on the chart--Gandhi, Bush, Robert Mugabe, the Pope, etc...

I agree, this test needed a neutral option to the questions.

That test definitely needs a neutral option. I've taken it in numerous classes, and every time I come out a little different because I'll change from agree to disagree... All depends on how I feel that day. Today I came out one block right and two blocks down. Not two months ago it was three steps right, one step down, and about 6 months before that, it was one left, one down. I bet if I were to take it again right now, I'd come out slightly different.

interesting that on this test, not one person here was on the authoritative side, whereas nearly every elected official is - goes to show you, left vs right, it doesn't really matter, we are all more libertarian than them. I'd rather vote for a libertarian left winger these days, heck, I've done it.

This one says I'm more centrist but lean libertarian. Or almost halfway between Gandhi and Friedman.

Economic Left/Right: 1.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

As others have noted, some questions on this test can't really have a yes/no answer; they are of the 'are you still beating your wife' variety. I think that the government should stay the hell out of our personal lives and take a mostly hands off approach to business but provide for punishment where needed, such as the recent Wall Street subprime mortgage fiasco. The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting (there's government interference in business practices) and then when that was abused has so far not done much of anything to punish those responsible.

Jensenman wrote: The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting (there's government interference in business practices) and then when that was abused has so far not done much of anything to punish those responsible.

Not following this. Are you saying that the government some how forced business to make bad loans (through regulation) and is now responsible for punishing the people who were forced by the government to make these bad loans by throwing them in jail or taking their property. Even though they havent done anything illegal?

I would have characterized the whole situation as lack of regulation and government oversight allowed extremely greedy people to knowingly make bad loans for a huge short term gain. This caused a massive bubble in the economy that the government was unwilling to do anything to pop because it was the one thing the current guys in charge could point to and go "Look the economy is doing fine, housing values continue to rise causing modest economic growth"

"The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting"

Are you sure it was "the government" who wanted to lift restrictions and not lobbyists?

GlennS wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting (there's government interference in business practices) and then when that was abused has so far not done much of anything to punish those responsible.

Not following this. Are you saying that the government some how forced business to make bad loans (through regulation) and is now responsible for punishing the people who were forced by the government to make these bad loans by throwing them in jail or taking their property. Even though they havent done anything illegal? I would have characterized the whole situation as lack of regulation and government oversight allowed extremely greedy people to knowingly make bad loans for a huge short term gain. This caused a massive bubble in the economy that the government was unwilling to do anything to pop because it was the one thing the current guys in charge could point to and go "Look the economy is doing fine, housing values continue to rise causing modest economic growth" "The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting" Are you sure it was "the government" who wanted to lift restrictions and not lobbyists?

Glenn, I am fairly certain this is started through fannie and freddie being made into pseudo government entities which were then controlled and forced to give "bad" loans to people in need through government objectives to have more people in housing, BUT

Let's not let this thread get into actual politics, just where you stand, no arguments. Otherwise it will quickly dissolve.

I'm more Left and more Libertarian than Ghandi.

Guess I'm a Centrist. Maybe I need to change my voter registration to "Independant."

Yeah, I'm OK with that.

tuna55 wrote:

GlennS wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting (there's government interference in business practices) and then when that was abused has so far not done much of anything to punish those responsible.

Not following this. Are you saying that the government some how forced business to make bad loans (through regulation) and is now responsible for punishing the people who were forced by the government to make these bad loans by throwing them in jail or taking their property. Even though they havent done anything illegal? I would have characterized the whole situation as lack of regulation and government oversight allowed extremely greedy people to knowingly make bad loans for a huge short term gain. This caused a massive bubble in the economy that the government was unwilling to do anything to pop because it was the one thing the current guys in charge could point to and go "Look the economy is doing fine, housing values continue to rise causing modest economic growth" "The government wanted common sense restrictions lifted on mortgage underwriting" Are you sure it was "the government" who wanted to lift restrictions and not lobbyists?

Glenn, I am fairly certain this is started through fannie and freddie being made into pseudo government entities which were then controlled and forced to give "bad" loans to people in need through government objectives to have more people in housing, BUT Let's not let this thread get into actual politics, just where you stand, no arguments. Otherwise it will quickly dissolve.

I thought fannie may and freddie mac dont give loans. They buy them, wrap them into bundles called securities, and sell them on the secondary market.

The problems in the financial industry were far more systemic then just fannie and freddie. There is a reason most of the big finance companies on wallstreet were going to go down without government intervention. They were part of the problem and got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans when people stopped buying them.

GlennS wrote: I thought fannie may and freddie mac dont give loans. They buy them, wrap them into bundles called securities, and sell them on the secondary market. The problems in the financial industry were far more systemic then just fannie and freddie. There is a reason most of the big finance companies on wallstreet were going to go down without government intervention. They were part of the problem and got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans when people stopped buying them.

Fannie and Freddie do not provide loans; they guarantee them and sell them.

The Federal Comuunity Re-Investment Act essentially forced local banks to lower lending standards, thus approving loans (to undeserving applicants) that were purchased by Fannie/Freddie (and guaranteed by the government).

Wall Street is only part of the problem. They got stuck holding bad loans not because people weren't buying them, but because people stopped paying on them.

http://www.mtgprofessor.com/A%20-%20Secondary%20Markets/what_do_fannie_and_freddie_do.htm

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

/thread hi-jack..............

Libertarian here. How are you guys getting images of the chart? Normally I'd just click save image, but Chrome is givin me grief here.

captainzib wrote: Libertarian here. How are you guys getting images of the chart? Normally I'd just click save image, but Chrome is givin me grief here.

Right-click on your chart result; highlight the image source info then C&P it into your response on the thread.

Here's mine for example:

For whatever reason Chrome wasn't giving my my usual list of right click options. But no matter, print screen + ms paint to the rescue.

oldsaw wrote:

GlennS wrote: I thought fannie may and freddie mac dont give loans. They buy them, wrap them into bundles called securities, and sell them on the secondary market. The problems in the financial industry were far more systemic then just fannie and freddie. There is a reason most of the big finance companies on wallstreet were going to go down without government intervention. They were part of the problem and got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans when people stopped buying them.

Fannie and Freddie do not provide loans; they guarantee them and sell them. The Federal Comuunity Re-Investment Act essentially forced local banks to lower lending standards, thus approving loans (to undeserving applicants) that were purchased by Fannie/Freddie (and guaranteed by the government). Wall Street is only part of the problem. They got stuck holding bad loans not because people weren't buying them, but because people stopped paying on them. http://www.mtgprofessor.com/A%20-%20Secondary%20Markets/what_do_fannie_and_freddie_do.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act /thread hi-jack..............

Oldsaw, your first link is broken.

I never heard about any financial institutions crying for mercy about being forced to give out unprofitable loans. The housing bubble took years to develop and Wallstreet was more than willing to throw fuel into the fire. They were making out like bandits for a number of years.

Its my understanding that they stopped caring about the quality of their loans because they were all being bundled up and sold to people that didnt realize the true value of what they were buying.

Wallstreet didn't get stuck with bad loans because borrowers stopped paying for them. They got stuck with bad loans because people stopped buying them on the secondary market.

Why would you care about the quality of your loans if your just going to bundle them into securities and sell them tomorrow for an overnight profit to someone that has no idea if its good or bad money.

GlennS wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

GlennS wrote: I thought fannie may and freddie mac dont give loans. They buy them, wrap them into bundles called securities, and sell them on the secondary market. The problems in the financial industry were far more systemic then just fannie and freddie. There is a reason most of the big finance companies on wallstreet were going to go down without government intervention. They were part of the problem and got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans when people stopped buying them.

Fannie and Freddie do not provide loans; they guarantee them and sell them. The Federal Comuunity Re-Investment Act essentially forced local banks to lower lending standards, thus approving loans (to undeserving applicants) that were purchased by Fannie/Freddie (and guaranteed by the government). Wall Street is only part of the problem. They got stuck holding bad loans not because people weren't buying them, but because people stopped paying on them. http://www.mtgprofessor.com/A%20-%20Secondary%20Markets/what_do_fannie_and_freddie_do.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act /thread hi-jack..............

Oldsaw, your first link is broken. I never heard about any financial institutions crying for mercy about being forced to give out unprofitable loans. The housing bubble took years to develop and Wallstreet was more than willing to throw fuel into the fire. They were making out like bandits for a number of years. Its my understanding that they stopped caring about the quality of their loans because they were all being bundled up and sold to people that didnt realize the true value of what they were buying. Wallstreet didn't get stuck with bad loans because borrowers stopped paying for them. They got stuck with bad loans because people stopped buying them on the secondary market. Why would you care about the quality of your loans if your just going to bundle them into securities and sell them tomorrow for an overnight profit to someone that has no idea if its good or bad money.

No more guys - no more. Thread hijacking ends now.

Second that, guys. I had no intention of starting a threadjack. We can certainly start a separate thread to discuss that.

This test was better, but still not great. A bunch of the questions needed a none of the above answer. The questions were a lot like voting. You had to pick the lesser of the evils.

Here's me. Not surprised.

bleeding heart left wing liberal libertarian terrorist...