What's the difference between the Republic and Liberal party in US politics?

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Foxxern:
In fact, you are quite far off. During the boom years of the past, racial bounds have begun to break down. The average black American now lives far better than ever before, and there are more blacks in the middle- and upper-classes than at any point in history. The mid- and late- 90s were especially good to most poor minorities, who found new, higher-paying jobs in various sectors.

The Republicans make an effort to help everyone? Well if they do, they fail miserably. During the go-go Reagonomics 80s, when conservative economics were the word, everyone certainly did not succeed. As the upper-classes drove a grossly overvalued stock market, most members of the working-class fell victim to downsizing, mergers, and the rapid transfer of jobs from the US into the Third World. Certainly this created (horrible wage, poor condition) jobs in various developing countries, but the number of jobs lost here in a small amount of time meant that if you weren't rich, you weren't doing so well. In fact, the shameful part is that real income (factoring in inflation) actually fell during the 80s! Imagine that--the average worker could buy less in 1989 than they could in 1980. That hardly seems like helping everyone.

hah.. Then why are the Blacks complaining to no end how 'bad' they got it, How they still claim racism in everything they say, And.. Why then is there still affirmative action.. That's just racism staring us in the face.. And also.. If the blacks were doing better.. then jEssee jackson.. somewhat of a reverend.. or just maybe a slick talker... would not be needed.. Of course, they're better off, but they're still yelling and clamoring about the same things they were back in the day when Malcolm X was killing whites.. That's what i meant.. not as much referring to statistical analysis of an excel spreadsheet.. though It's also because the blacks do not come to meet the republicans and their programs to help get thme into high managing jobs.. high profile positions.. cuz they lik ethe democrats who just 'give' things to them without any work.. welfare..

And I, as well as many an authors and analysts out there, though I don't have the articles on hand.. The reaganonimics started to finally unfold in the early 90's.. It wasn't Bill Clinton's programs who brought all this economic success.. He's a large large factor of why we have such a bad economy now.. Reagan. bush.. they instituted the programs the economy needed to get it out of the recession and brought the high bull market... reagan inherited the recession.. they had to increase interest rates cuz of the inflation carter brought... The economy was coming back during bush's 'running time'.. He was saying it was coming back.. and I remember a newspaper after clinton got elected.. 'Economy is Back'.. making the 'reading' world think that clinton... or thedemocrats brought the economy back.. Look a little deeper into these things, and you'll see that reagan is who actually gave us the high times during the 90's.. sorry to bust your tome of statements.. but it's true

The republicans give the tools, the means for people to become better off.. In this they also give the responsibility to the people to do somehting with themselves.. Not a callous position in the least.. Just a common sensical capitalistic position where people have the opportunities.. and this doesn't mean that help isn't provided it is.. Everyone just cna't be helped to such a same level.. communism.... What many republicans feared if Gore were to be put into office...

[Foxxern]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
But honestly, how far off am I? or the many many people that make the same sort of generalizations.. What have the democrats done for the poor.. Have the Blacks gotten anywhere better than they were twenty years ago.. seriously.. any ground?.. While at the same time, the Republicans make efforts to help everyone.. it just happens that with equaling up tax rates.. the rich will have to pay significantly less.. but everyone is paying the same 'ratio' of their money.. Hence because of this.. teh Republicans become painted as Monsters.. as they have been called here before..

In fact, you are quite far off. During the boom years of the past, racial bounds have begun to break down. The average black American now lives far better than ever before, and there are more blacks in the middle- and upper-classes than at any point in history. The mid- and late- 90s were especially good to most poor minorities, who found new, higher-paying jobs in various sectors.

The Republicans make an effort to help everyone? Well if they do, they fail miserably. During the go-go Reagonomics 80s, when conservative economics were the word, everyone certainly did not succeed. As the upper-classes drove a grossly overvalued stock market, most members of the working-class fell victim to downsizing, mergers, and the rapid transfer of jobs from the US into the Third World. Certainly this created (horrible wage, poor condition) jobs in various developing countries, but the number of jobs lost here in a small amount of time meant that if you weren't rich, you weren't doing so well. In fact, the shameful part is that real income (factoring in inflation) actually fell during the 80s! Imagine that--the average worker could buy less in 1989 than they could in 1980. That hardly seems like helping everyone.



------------------
Change is the only constant

[Lilly]

AHHH!!!! America is a multi-party system. Unfortunately, we have forgotten that multi implies we can have WAY more than 2 parties. I am an independent. Meaning I take from both major parties' ideas and add a few of my own in there and voila! a new party. Unfortunately, in America you have to get 10% of the votes to officially get government funding. Without gov't funding, it is EXTREMELY difficult to compete with the multi-billion dollar having big two parties. So, what ends up happening is that even though people may want to vote for the 3rd party individual, but it may endanger their best interests (i.e the Gore, Bush, Nader election. Everybody knew that it was going to be a tight race. People who would be voting for Gore would be democrats who tend to be more liberal than republicans. Nader was on the green party (basically a democrat, but supports saving the environment over everything else) so people who voted for Nader to try to get him 10% so a 3rd party can have $ took away from Gore, thus the losing. And of course, Nader didn't get 10% of the votes and we ended up with Bush (who is doing a lovely job).) They differ in a few ways (oh yea, my explainations will probably be a bit bias though I'll try hard not to be):
--A traditional republican would say: cheaper taxes, but not in any significant amount. programs such as welfare are good. they also tend to be 45+ year old white male Christians. Republicans tend to be conservatives.
--A traditional democrat would say rograms are good, but let's take the taxes that we could cut and pay for them. religious fundamentalism doesn't seem to run as rampant here. Democrats tend to be more liberal.
--I say: programs are nice, but nobody is using them and I'm sick of paying for them altogether. I want a tax break, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my quality of life to get one, so figure out an acceptable budget and then cut taxes. Government, stay out of my day to day life (get out of our schools damn it!!). Religion is nice, but let's keep it more of a personal thing. We are a non-secular country. I'm a liberal independent.

Hmmm...I hope that hepled you out a bit.

------------------
Taste is the enemy of art.

[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 12-29-2001).]

[Zooman91]

Well, Lemonite, many of the black people who do complain that they don't have equal rights are usually wrong. They are living way better than they ever have, and some of them are stupid enough to make dumb claims like wanting compensation for their ancestors' slavery. Many minorities have been screwed in the past, and they are the only ones who still complain, a lot. Of course, most of them aren't like this, just the dumb ones.

[Miss MacPhisto]

Theyre all a bunch of losers.
I voted for Nader.
Actually i dont like him much either, but he was the lesser of 3 evils. Sigh.
I have a really bad feeling about what is ahppening to this country. It isnt as free as many people think.

------------------
Look...look what you've done to me...You've made me poor and infamous, and I thank you...

My name is MISS MACPHISTO...I'm tired and i want to go HOME...

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...

[devalera1]

Those who say that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same and agree on all major issues have obviously not spent any time reading newspapers, watching debates, or taking the time to learn about issues.

Take, for example, the tax cut. Democrats were strenously opposed to the cut that was pushed through by the Republicans. They were not opposed to a tax cut, just one in which 2% of a 1.4 trillion dollar cut went to working people. The end result is deficit spending, which in terms means cuts in important programs, and little to no money for prescription drug benefits, school construction, and numerous other policy objectives.

Democrats are hardly the"liberal wing of the Republican party" - nothing is worse than people who paint with broad strokes and don't know how to paint.

If you look at the Democratic party, you'll see it runs a wide gamut on the political spectrum. There are conservative Democrats like Zell Miller of Georgia, and liberal Democrats like Paul Wellstone, and everything in between.

And as for danospano's odd numbers - how do you figure that since less than half the people vote, 15% must be D and 15% must be R? Back up your math, kid.

And for those who don't vote because they're too busy working minimum wage jobs, I'd urge them to take a look at who proposes annual minimum wage increases, and who opposes them, and then stop hiding behind excuses, do your civic duty, and vote. It's not a right, it's a responsibility

[Hans Moleman]

I would have to agree with devalera...there are major differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Why people have been decrying them as the same was due to the Clinton-style Democrat, which was more libertarian (deregulate business, deregulate social) than liberal (regulate business, deregulate social). Al Gore, obviously, shared a lot of views with Clinton.

In usual party loyalty, the liberal wing has pretty much been silent, and it hasn't helped that Republicans dominated most of the Clinton-era Legislature. Rather than be obstructionist, the liberal wing was silent again, since they knew the Republicans would never go for an obvious liberal platform.

So, since most of you here are about an average of 20 years old here, you will not remember the liberal aspects of the Democratic Party, because the last twenty years have been dominated by Republicans and Clinton.

Melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Basically, they are scared shitless of someone like Ralph Nader getting up in front of the TV audience on the televised debate and making everyone painfully aware of how corrupt and ineffective both parties are.

damn straight! i'm only a democrat so i can vote in the primaries...since independents can't (another reason politics are fucked).

------------------
kahnarinha "funky-san" taylor, royal chat nutte for both interference and U2OL, as proclaimed by sir rafaroni (the mexico city treat)
U2: 62%
dd: 37%
-------
proof 2001 simon is bangable:
<Rox> I bang 2001 simon every morning
<J-Tree> you think he'd get tired from being hard all the time
virtual insanity
john nude!

[tiny dancer]

benefits, school construction, and numerous her policy objectives.

Democrats are hardly the"liberal wing of the Republican party" - nothing is worse than people who paint with broad strokes and don't know how to paint.

If you look at the Democratic party, you'll see it runs a wide gamut on thespectrum. There are conservative Democrats like Zell Miller of Georgia, and liberal Democrats like Paul Wellstone, and everything in between.

And as for danospano's odd numbers - how do you figure that since less than half the people vote, 15% must be D and 15% must be R? Back up your math, kid.

And for those who don't vote because they're too busy working minimum wage jobs, I'd urge them to take a look at who proposes annual minimum wage increases, and who opposes them, and then stop hiding behind excuses, do your civic duty, and vote. It's not a right, it's a responsibility[/B][/QUOTE]


It's not only a responsibility it's a privilege we have as Americans. There are many in other countries who don't have it.

[tiny dancer]

Sorry devaleral I ment to post all of your message.
td

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by tiny dancer:
And as for danospano's odd numbers - how do you figure that since less than half the people vote, 15% must be D and 15% must be R?

i don't mean to answer for him, but he also said 20% are moderates, thus bringing the total to 50%.

i find it incredibly sad (but true) that so few americans DO vote. people either think it's a waste of time or "my vote doesn't count" stuff. and it is sorta true...not to get all super-political here, but if i were president (haha) the first thing i would do would be to get rid of the friggin electoral college. the only reason it's still here is nostalgia, because our forefathers created it. sure, back in 1800, the average person was someone with maybe a third grade education. you wouldn't ask an them to vote for president, would you? but now the average person has at *least* a high school degree and many are somewhat up to date in politics. i think our vote should count. and i hope one day we'll have a president who will realize this and get rid of the now pointless tradition.

------------------
kahnarinha "funky-san" taylor, royal chat nutte for both interference and U2OL, as proclaimed by sir rafaroni (the mexico city treat)
U2: 62%
dd: 37%
-------
proof 2001 simon is bangable:
<Rox> I bang 2001 simon every morning
<J-Tree> you think he'd get tired from being hard all the time
virtual insanity
john nude!

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes:
[B here, but if i were president (haha) the first thing i would do would be to get rid of the friggin electoral college. the only reason it's still here is nostalgia, because our forefathers created it. sure, back in 1800, the average person was someone with maybe a third grade education. you wouldn't ask an them to vote for president, would you? but now the average person has at *least* a high school degree and many are somewhat up to date in politics. i think our vote should count. and i hope one day we'll have a president who will realize this and get rid of the now pointless tradition.

[/B]

If there were no electoral college, then all someone would have to win would be LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Danville VA.. The rest of the country would.. in all reality.. have no real voice or say, the electoral college gives everyone some portion of say in teh election.. It's not just some nostalgic device, like a glow in the dark dildo, it is a necessity.. And I know you'll come back and ONCE AGAIN.. bring up the last election, but the electoral college is a good thing. And with that genius statement, I bid this thread farewell.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
If there were no electoral college, then all someone would have to win would be LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Danville VA..

although lemonite has decided not to reply to this thread anymore (how convienent) i felt the need to post anyway, just in case they'll be reading this.
anyway, i had no intent to bring the 2000 elections into this. please don't put words in my mouth. perhaps i didn't explain *what* i thought should replace the electoral college. i think something ideal could combine the people's votes AND the electoral college into something giving people more say.
even with the electoral college, some states have more pull over others, so how is it if people's votes actually count for something could be worse than this? it's still like that now: you win states like california and new york, and it's almost a given that you win the whole election.
although it wouldn't be fair to make each state equal to one point, let's say, thus saying if you won every state you'd have 50 points. since there's a lot less people in montana than new york, it wouldn't be fair to say the three people in montana had as much say as three hundred people in new york.
sure, i don't exactly have a great master plan of how to change all this, and i don't think that would really matter anyway, since i'm not a politician or involved in the government. the only reason i replied to this thread in the first place is just because i feel the electoral college is wrong. that's all.

------------------
kahnarinha "funky-san" taylor, royal chat nutte for both interference and U2OL, as proclaimed by sir rafaroni (the mexico city treat)
U2: 62%
dd: 37%
-------
proof 2001 simon is bangable:
<Rox> I bang 2001 simon every morning
<J-Tree> you think he'd get tired from being hard all the time
virtual insanity
john nude!

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

If there were no electoral college, then all someone would have to win would be LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Danville VA.. The rest of the country would.. in all reality.. have no real voice or say, the electoral college gives everyone some portion of say in teh election.. It's not just some nostalgic device, like a glow in the dark dildo, it is a necessity.. And I know you'll come back and ONCE AGAIN.. bring up the last election, but the electoral college is a good thing. And with that genius statement, I bid this thread farewell.

Ummmm...you better check your facts, you just described what the electoral college is. In order to win a presidential election you need to win the "big number" states like NY, CA, TX, IL, FL. Seriously, I did not spend 4 years working on a political science degree not to know the flaws and benefits of the electoral college.

Moreover, the United States is closer to a multiparty system than most think. Interest Groups are far more powerful than anyone will give them credit for.

[This message has been edited by WildHoneyAlways (edited 01-06-2002).]

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by WildHoneyAlways:
Moreover, the United States is closer to a multiparty system than most think. Interest Groups are far more powerful than anyone will give them credit for.

and i can't wait for that day to come. having only two options is so black and white, with no grey areas. although i am a democrat (like i said a couple posts ago), that doesn't mean i agree with everything they stand for. not by a long shot.

------------------
when you stop taking chances, you'll stay where you sit. you won't live any longer, but it'll feel like it.
ME!