Why I prefer the Democratic Party over The Republican Party?
By sirnose
@sirnose (2436)
United States
November 10, 2011 4:55pm CST
Why I prefer the Democratic Party over The Republican Party Is because:
1. The Democratic Party is more idealistic and is for more government to meet the people’s needs and concerns. Whereas, the republican Party are pseudo-realists touting the same old failed economic policies, flawed social programs, and bad foreign policies.
2. The Democratic Party is for the working class, they believe workers have a right to have say in their work situations by having a choice of joining a union organization. Equal employment opportunities, access to healthcare, making the riches one percent pay their fair share of taxes, and not burden the middle and poor working classes with taxes the rich should pay.
But, the Republican Party prefers tax cuts for the rich, right to work states so that the employers have an unfair advantage of their workers and work environment. Lax financial regulations, little to no environmental laws.
These are some of the reasons I’m for the Democratic Party, they are for “Progress not Regress.”...

2 people like this
6 responses
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
11 Nov 11
I used to be a dem, so I understand what you are talking about. In fact, I was a dem until I was in my 30’s and had children. Then things got very real and very harsh, especially when the kids began to ask questions.
I learned that big corporations and wealthy people are the ones that create jobs. Before you say gov’t creates jobs, think about this—everyone in the public sector is paid with taxes. The public pays the taxes. The more people employed by the gov’t, the more the public must be taxed and eventually we’ll have no money to pay all the people in gov’t jobs. It’s a pyramid scheme.
The bigger gov’t gets, the more money it sucks up. Free health care? Not possible unless everyone works for free and then where will we get housing, food and clothing—or send our kids to college? We’ll all be healthy—maybe—but there will be no incentive to be anything but a worker bee, no ambition. And look at Canada where people have to wait 3 months or more for a CAT scan and up to 2 years for a hip replacement.
Taxes—47% of all wage earners pay nothing at all. Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary simply because his income consists of capital gains, which consists of dividends on investments (those things that provide capital to companies so they can expand, grow and hire people).
Briefly, that’s why I’m a registered republican. They are closest to how I think. I want gov’t out of my life and much smaller than it is. If someone on my block is in trouble I will—and have—help them out with food, transportation, whatever till they get on their feet. Churches help, private charities help, most funded privately. I believe in being free.
I know this won’t change your mind but I hope it gives you food for thought. We’re all working for the same goal no matter what our party affiliation—making the country the best it can be.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
12 Nov 11
Taskr, I thought about that as I wrote out my reply. I was a late bloomer, about 35 when I switched. Having children changed everything for me because I was forced to think what kind of future they would have based on the kind of people I helped put into office, the levies I voted on and how much fiscal responsibility and personal freedom I demanded from my government. Many of us make drastic changes when we become responsible for those dear little lives. We grow up.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Nov 11
I never had to change because I was already pretty heartless. My father was pretty big on making me work for EVERYTHING. I wasn't one of those kids who got an allowance for doing my chores. When I was old enough to drive I had to pay for my first car, a crappy old Ford Tempo that cost me $800. We weren't poor either, my dad just knew that I would value my money and property much more if I worked for it versus it being given to me. My dad sure seemed heartless at the time, but I later realized it was just tough love and I'm a more responsible person because of it.
2 people like this

@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
12 Nov 11
This thread should be more accurately titled "Why I prefer having a 25 pound sledge hammer dropped on my left foot instead of my right foot".
Yes there are subtle differences between the two parties, but you didn't hit a single one of them in your post. Nothing to be ashamed of, many people don't really get it. The only real differences are the parts of your life they want government sticking it's nose in to and the enemies they create/elevate to offer you "protection" from.
You managed to sound like the stereotypical democrat though, congrats on that. You hit every empty, meaningless catchphrase and buzzword used to describe each party in full and proper accordance with an MSNBC script. You seem to have your head firmly lodged between the left and right cheeks of the left v right paradigm (it's an illusion).
2 people like this

@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Nov 11
So what you're saying is, since you buy into stereotypes and rhetoric of the left, you'll mindlessly go with them.
2 people like this
@sirnose (2436)
• United States
12 Nov 11
You know what I say is all true about the Republicans. I go with whoever is going to enhance my life situation.
So far the Democrats gets my vote, at least they try to put something new on the debate table to discussion the pros and cons. Where by the Republicans just keep putting the same tire rhetoric on the table. ...

@stealthy (8181)
• United States
13 Nov 11
Your reason 1 is totally wrong. The Democrat Party has for a long time tried to keep a large portion of the population poor so the the government will have to take care of them and the Democrats can get elected. If they are so much for the people why don't they donate their salaries and other large incomes to help them rather than take money from from all kinds of sources including labor unions to get elected. Your reason 2 is also flawed for the same reason. The Democrats want a poor class because that is their electoral base.
The Democrats have also encouraged people to spend just like they have the government spend and that way both are in debt and thus in trouble when something like a recession happens.
I have been unemployed for over 20 years and have never taken a penny of unemployment from any government. Because I lived within my means and saved over 20% of my income every year, when I got laid off, I was and have been able to live off of my investments and to keep saving at that 20% rate. This is what everyone could and should do so that when a recession or illness or something happens, they will be in a position to make it through. The Democrats do not want that, they want people to be dependent on the government so they can stay in power.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
11 Nov 11
The Democratic party is more idealistic. Well Socialist as in the USSR brand of Socialist thought where idealist too. They killed more people than Hitler. Just saying idealists are far more dangerous than some one who is a realist. The real problem is that you have the Republicans and Democrats who say they support something but once they gain a majority in congress do little of their platform. Because to keep power they need to keep the same issues.
Democrats are for subsiding the rich. Warren Buffet pays $15,000 in taxes every year taking every single tax credit he can get his greedy little hands on you want the rich and corporations to pay more in taxes two things will happen prices will go up on products and services and people will be let go who aren't productive. The rich can afford more taxes but at what point is their fair share. I for one am for the ending of the 16th Amendment and returning to how the founders originally wanted our tax system to work. Also ending NAFTA.
The Democrats are for having the Government control you through your wallet. They want to force you to join a Union which is wrong on the principle of a Free Society for you to be forced to associate with a group. Also the tax cuts went to everyone. This is why a majority of people get money back from the Government this is because while they didn't change payroll taxes they changed what you are suppose to be taxed and so when you fill out your tax return most people have overpaid and get money back. Now tax cutting in the case of the Last President was beyond stupid for a multitude of reasons one being we where in two Wars.
Both parties are two sides of the same exact coin. They don't care as long as they stay in power. This is why I am not a member of either party (I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and then I will be back to being Libertarian.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
11 Nov 11
"tax cutting in the case of the Last President was beyond stupid for a multitude of reasons one being we where in two Wars."
That's why I only supported the original Bush tax cuts, done before the wars, during the Clinton recession, and while we had a budget surplus. I hated Obama's stimulus because it both created MORE tax cuts, and more spending.
On NAFTA I agree with Ron Paul's issue that what the government calls "free trade" is really managed trade. Real free trade wouldn't be picking winners and losers among trade partners.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
12 Nov 11
"he's to radical."
What is radical about constitutionally adherent government, sound monetary policy and not going to war every other year?
"He's for less government...."
Since you seem to rely on government for your existence so much I can see where you might see this as a problem. Poor helpless you.
"..and isolationism "
Try listening to what he says instead of what the TV people tell you he says. non-interventionism is NOT isolationism.
"He's out of touch with reality this is a global economy"
You have clearly not listened to him and once again, rely on the TV people to tell you what he says.
1 person likes this
@sirnose (2436)
• United States
12 Nov 11
Ron Paul can never be president of these United States he's to radical. He's for less government and isolationism which won't work in this world today. He's out of touch with reality this is a global economy and political system whether we like it or not.








