Main difference between Republicans and Democrats? (security, ethical, drug, Reed)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have read so many books, watched so many documentaries, watched so many speeches on the subject of political ideologies and have been trying to simplify the agenda of both the Republican and Democratic parties. I think I found the answer. I am avoding social issues for now. Here goes...
Democrats believe in more government to solve problems faced by the nation and its citizens. They believe that government can make life easier for people, if we all agree to pay our taxes toward a common cause, whether it be retirement (Social Security) or healthcare (e.g., universal healthcare, Medicare, etc.). They generally believe that, as a society, we need to help each other out, essentially by redistributing some wealth in order to take care of other people's problems. A robust safety net is essential, and everyone should be entitled to a quality living. So, in short, Democratic leaders will respond to societal problems and sell the idea that government can solve it and make things better for everyone, even if it means raising taxes and redistributing wealth.
Republicans, on the other hand believe in less government to solve problems faced by the people, and that problems are best solved when the people are in control. They believe it is more efficient, and that by giving more power to the people, more incentives to solve problems will be created, and someone will find a way to profit from it. They believe that people are fully responsible for their own lives and that people must face the consequences of their actions -- good or bad. It is basically an ideology of social Darwinism; that is, survival of the fittest.
I feel like I understand both ideologies very thoroughly, but still am on the fence with regard to which one truly works better and makes more sense.
I'd say dem's still believe in social Darwinism, but they are more of an advocate for a safety net and more conscious of flaws in the system. I've talked to many Democrats and most of them seem genuinely interested in finding solutions...be it more government or less. I guess they take the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" more literally. Most are educated and pragmatic, but tend to get emotional when it comes to things like social inequality, greed, violence, ect...
Republicans I've spoken to are all over the place. Some believe in extreme federal government downsize, try point to the government as the problem, as the solution (2008 financial crisis)...
Generally there are two classes of Republicans, the smart, wealthy business people who want to keep their hard earned money and personal freedoms, and the uneducated, angry, right that the powerful republicans convince would be a lot better off if there wasn't a government safety net (this puzzles me too). In rare instances, these groups of republicans have had opposite interests: like when the government lent Wall Street money. The wealthy ones secretly needed it, but the other class of Reps resented it.
Bottom line: The Dems believe in a democratic republic system when deciding national economic and social issues. Republicans, from what I've gathered, would prefer if the government were all but replaced by corporations that follow "market signals" as sort of a democratic process.
I feel like I understand both ideologies very thoroughly, but still am on the fence with regard to which one truly works better and makes more sense.
What do you think?
I am a Democrat, but I acknowledge a problem we face is government is often inefficient and can be corrupt. And too much government interference can stifle an economy.
I am a former Republican, and I can see that the private sector often does not pick up the slack if the government did not help out. Churches do a lot to help the poor through food drives, etc, but they are woefully insufficient to meet all of the need that food stamps meet. Rich tycoons used to build public libraries, etc, like the Carnegie libraries, but the rich have become awfully greedy with their riches. Trickle down economics absolutely does not work; the wealth does not trickle down but collects at the top.
I don't think we would really want the rich owning police departments or militias as they would inevitably use them for their own selfish interests. We don't want the wealthy to become so powerful that they can buy elections and politicians who write laws that serve only the wealthy and disadvantage the rest of us, as is being done right now. Democracy can't survive in an environment like that. We would be returning to the days of lords and feudal serfs.
As much as I am for people keeping the fruits of their labors, I think a democracy needs a little wealth distribution to work. People can still have incentives to work hard as they would still keep some percentage of every dollar they earned, but the disparity between the richest and the poorest would not be as great as it is now. When the disparity gets too great, it doesn't take a genius to see that the poor with revolt and overturn the society as they did in the French Revolution.
As a nation of great wealth, ethically, we need to have some safety nets below which no human being should fall no matter what bad choices they make.
I could say a lot more, but bottom line is we need a balance of power, as we have to expect that governments, companies, and individuals, if any of them become too powerful, they may become corrupt, act selfishly, and may become too powerful for the rest of us to rein in. So, yes, we need to fear government getting too powerful (as in Communist USSR), we need to fear companies getting too powerful (as in the major players in the financial sector that were too big to fail as in if they failed they'd bring down the whole economy with them), we need to fear individuals getting too powerful (think of the drug lords in Mexico who are more powerful that the local governments).
So, we need a government strong enough to regulate the companies and police the individuals. We needs individuals strong enough to not let companies have a monopoly on all of the resources or mistreat their employees, and strong enough to keep the government in check from abusing human rights. We need companies strong enough to drive the economy and employ the populace.
I am against the libertarian and Tea Party view to weaken government and reduce regulations on companies. Although I do feel some current regulations are harmful and should be done away with, and I believe the federal government does need to drop the intrusive, general surveillance of American citizens.
But, I am most against the Republican view of benefiting the wealthiest Americans at all cost. We do need to reduce the deficit by closing the loopholes rich people and rich companies use, we need to raise the tax rate on the wealthy modestly and have the same tax rate for investment earnings as for paychecks. We also need to get rid of some inefficiencies and failed programs in the federal government, And we need to make Social Security and Medicare more sustainable by probably raising the retirement age and stop spending enormous amounts of money in heroic medical procedures to save people over the age of 80 who are dying.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-19-2012 at 07:25 PM..
I am a Democrat, but I acknowledge a problem that we face is government is often inefficient and can be corrupt. And too much government interference can stifle an economy.
I am a former Republican, and I can see that the private sector often does not pick up the slack if the government did not help out. Churches do a lot to help the poor through food drives, etc, but they are woefully insufficient to meet all of the need that food stamps meet. Rich tycoons used to build public libraries, etc, like the Carnegie libraries, but the rich have become awfully greedy with their riches. Trickle down economics absolutely does not work; the wealth does not trickle down but collects at the top.
I don't think we would really want the rich owning police departments or militias as they would inevitably use them for their own selfish interests. We don't want the wealthy to become so powerful that they can buy elections and politicians who write laws that serve only the wealthy and disadvantage the rest of us, as is being done write now. Democracy can't survive in an environment like that. We would be returning to the days of lords and feudal serfs.
As much as I am for people keeping the fruits of their labors, I think a democracy needs a little wealth distribution to work. People can still have incentives to work hard as they would still keep some percentage of every dollar they earned, but the disparity between the richest and the poorest would not be as great as it is now. When the disparity gets too great, it doesn't take a genius to see that the poor with revolt and overturn the society as they did in the French Revolution.
As a nation of great wealth, ethically, we need to have some safety nets below which no human being should fall no matter what bad choices they make.
I could say a lot more, but bottom line is we need a balance of power, as we have to expect that governments, companies, and individuals, if any of them become too powerful, they may become corrupt, act selfishly, and may become too powerful for the rest of us to rein in. So, yes, we need to fear government getting too powerful (as in Communist USSR), we need to fear companies getting too powerful (as in the major players in the financial sector that were too big to fail as in if they failed they'd bring down the whole economy with them), we need to fear individuals getting too powerful (think of the drug lords in Mexico who are more powerful that the local governments).
So, we need a government strong enough to regulate the companies and police the individuals. We needs individuals strong enough to not let companies have a monopoly on all of the resources or mistreat their employees, and strong enough to keep the government in check from abusing human rights. We need companies strong enough to drive the economy and employ the populace.
I am against the libertarian and Tea Party view to weaken government and reduce regulations on companies. Although I do feel some current regulations are harmful and should be done away with, and I believe the federal government does need to drop the intrusive, general surveillance of American citizens.
But, I am most against the Republican view of benefiting the wealthiest Americans at all cost. We do need to reduce the deficit by closing the loopholes rich people and rich companies use, we need to raise the tax rate on the wealthy modestly and have the same tax rate for investment earnings as for paychecks. We also need to get rid of some inefficiencies and failed programs in the federal government, And we need to make Social Security and Medicare more sustainable by probably raising the retirement age and stop spending enormous amounts of money in heroic medical procedures to save people over the age of 80 who are dying.
You have said it all and all that you have said is my view exactly, except raising the retirement age for social security, although, we may have to if those STUPID A$$ republicans somehow swindle their way back in charge come this November. God i pray people wake up before then. You are right on point in your thinking. i wonder how old you are? Keep being smart and knowing how to read people for what they really are. Don't get suck into the republicans bull sh#t. THANK YOU!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
