The REAL difference between the Democrats and the Republicans

@speakeasy (4215)
United States
October 23, 2008 8:38pm CST
If you have been following the current campaign for the 2008 election it can be very confusing at times to tell the two candidates apart. They both have started out saying and or supporting one thing and then have headed for a middle ground so that it is difficult to really tell the difference between the two parties. They both want to accomplish identical goals they are just planning to achieve these goals in different ways. It is easy to grab hold of stereotypical generalizations about the two parties; but when you look closely they don't hold water. All Democrats are not liberal and all Republican are not conservative. The Democratic party is not the "minority" party and the Republicans are not all "WASPs" (white anglo saxon protestants). All Democrats are not "pro-choice" and all Republicans are not "pro-life". There actually are homophobic Democrats and there are gay Republicans. Even when a party openly states that they are for or against something - they will sponsor bills to "prove" that is what they support; but, the bills are so weak and full of "junk" that they know they will never get passed. But, it sure does LOOK good to their constituents. After all, they TRIED. This lack of true distinction between the parties is not something new either. Way back in the "dark ages" when I was in high school; this "sameness" existed. When it was time to register to vote; you had to actually select a party. Of course, you could claim to be "independent"; but, you had fewer opportunities in primaries, etc. So, I started examining voting records, party platforms, campaign speeches, past presidents, etc. Both parties had started and ended wars/armed conflicts. Both had been responsible for economic downturns and upturns. Both party's candidates said one thing and then did another. How to choose? I did finally find ONE REAL difference between the two parties. The Democrats had a record and a basic platform of policies to (as Obama said VERY clearly) "redistribute the wealth". In simple terms, take money from those who were successful and give it to those who had less, whether they deserve it or not. Penalize people who worked hard for their success and reward people who did little or nothing to earn it. So, if you work hard and succeed the government will just take it away from you and your family. Why even try then? The Republicans had a record and a basic platform of policies to care for the people who through NO fault of their own needed assistance and reward people who worked hard and were successful. In simple terms, help people who are too old or sick to work and small children; help people who lose everything in a disaster; help low income people increase their income through small business loans and educatiuonal programs; and reward sucessful individuals and businesses so that they can create more jobs for workers. In other words, it gives you hope for a reward for yourself and your family, if you suceed and it gives you more opportunites to try to succeed. I think you know which party I chose; even though there have been times when I have voted for the opposing party, when I really believed they were the better candidate for the job.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@ZephyrSun (7385)
• United States
24 Oct 08
"In simple terms, help people who are too old or sick to work and small children; help people who lose everything in a disaster; help low income people increase their income through small business loans and educatiuonal programs (...)" Could you please explain how Republicans do this?
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Oct 08
"In simple terms, help people who are too old or sick to work and small children; help people who lose everything in a disaster; help low income people increase their income through small business loans and educatiuonal programs (...)" If indeed this was the effect of the democratic programs that would be great. Republicans would not oppose such efforts. The actual effect of most government programs are to make the problem worse and accelerate inflation while destroying the economy. That is exactly what is happening now and why. In practice all these government programs increase the problems they are supposed to help. Too much that should help people is mis-spent. Too much goes for administration & etc. while creating devastating inflation. People, if allowed to keep their own money, can help themselves and their families much more efficiently than the government can even imagine. What business is it of anyone in the government to mis-spend funds while pretending and claiming to help people? Local and state goverment can do this with their self taxed, mandated balanced budgets. The federal government should have no part in any of this, unless you want to destroy the country, which is what is happening and why. The federal government has a few jobs to which it is mandated by the constitution. Let the state and local governments fund the other programs such as you mention with money those people are willing to tax themselves for. The federal government just deficit spends to do these things which is and will destroy the whole economy.
@ZephyrSun (7385)
• United States
25 Oct 08
"Democrats believe the government should provide that care for every child regardless of the parents income - irresponsibility." Huh? Bill Clinton (even though I dislike him terribly) reformed welfare to 36 months for cash benefits for the lifetime of the social security number. Last time I checked Bill Clinton was a Democrat. I was actually an Independent until I came to mylot. Now, I am a Democrat. There are so things that I agree with on the Republican side but the intolerance and judgemental issues with Republicans has thrown me into that direction.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
26 Oct 08
"Bill Clinton (even though I dislike him terribly) reformed welfare to 36 months for cash benefits for the lifetime of the social security number. Last time I checked Bill Clinton was a Democrat." 1. Bill Clinton did NOT do this. He was the President at the time this took place; but, this was not done by an Executive Order; it was done by Congress and he did not veto it. Many Presidents take credit for and receive the blame for a lot of the things that Congress does. 2. Who says that he 36 month limit is a good thing? Can all problems which lead to welfare be solved in 36 months? What if something bad happens later in life to a person who has already used up their 36 months? Yes, welfare needed reform; but, this was not the best way to handle the problem - no matter WHICH party was responsible for the change in this program. Also, even though I am a registered Republican; I HAVE voted for Democrats and will do so in the future IF I believe they are the BEST person for the job. I voted for President Bush for his first term; but, last time I voted for Kerry becasue I knew a second term for Bush would be disasterous for our country (and, I am still telling my husband who voted for Bush both times "I TOLD YOU SO!")
• United States
24 Oct 08
I think you have pretty well explained the situation. Soon someone will in effect insinuate you are a cold hearted Republican for wanting to be fiscally responsible and not destroy the economy and thus the whole country. Of course, lately a whole bunch of Republicans have forgotten about that fiscally responsible thing. This is the voters fault. To get re-elected, Republicans have had to behave like Democrats in many cases.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
25 Oct 08
"lately a whole bunch of Republicans have forgotten about that fiscally responsible thing. This is the voters fault. To get re-elected, Republicans have had to behave like Democrats in many cases." Actually, this was the case in the Roman empire also. For senators and other officials to get elected the rule was simple - "bread and games". Since every free citizen of Rome had a vote, to get in office their politicians would make sure that there was plenty of free bread for the poor being given out in their names with the understanding that more would come if they were elected; AND, they publicly sponsored the gladiatorial games giving these same people a free source of entertainment. Unfortunately, many people only want to know "what is in it for me right now" and they do not care that the same policies that give them things today will cause worse problems in the future for them and their children. So, they vote for the person they think will give them more right now of whatever it is they think they want. Then, we end up with layoffs, high fuel prices, foreclosures, etc.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Oct 08
The lessons of history seem clear enough. When a new republic is built on the North American continent sometime in the next 100 years, hopefully they'll include in their constitution that citizenship and the right to vote must be earned.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
26 Oct 08
If that "Republic" is not the "United Socialist Republic of America" brought about my Obama and his cronies. Then the requirement to earn the right to vote would be to kiss his a** and agree with everything HE says.
@ishralene09 (2260)
• Philippines
24 Oct 08
Well, whatever happens the whole world is always affected by decisions Americans face in the elections. Please make your vote for the world. Heehee.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
25 Oct 08
Considering the fact that the countries which are NOT our friends are all coming out and openly endorsing one of our candidates; I do not believe that candidate would be either a wise or safe choice for the world. Of course, the American public has made stupid choices in the past and they probably will in the future too. We can only hope we make the correct choice this time.