Democrats please explain something for me.

[cyrus]

Ok I have heard about: Iraq, Michael Moron's movie, oil, Bush stinks , blah blah, and whatever else can be bitterly argue about. Now I want to talk about basic underlying Democrat goal.

 

Republican want to have a strong economy by helping businesses, cutting taxes and making government smaller and such, this helps us by having good jobs etc.

 

But I have have never heard a Democrat explain how raising mimimum wage, increasing taxes, requiring more stringent eviromental regulations, empowering unions, and expand the government to a more socialist government that will take you craddle to grave will help the country as a whole.

 

No lame bashing but I just want some Democrat to actually explain this.

[Tim240z]

A political party that believes in more government involvement in spending and the advancement of social wellfare.

 

http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/hancock/pol204/definitions.htm

[jeromio]

I think your summary of the Democrats is close. But your summary of Republicans is (IMO) way off.

 

They both want large government spending huge sums of $$$. Under the current setup of Republican controlled legistative and executive branches, we have one of the biggest budget deficits ever.

 

Plus, you leave out the tremendous influence of the christian fundies on the republican party. They want the government involved in deciding and enforcing morality. Talk about cradle to grave. And "helping business" is a logical conundrum. Yes, you can have intnat'l policies that help business and fiscal policies that make our economy stronger (reducing deficits, paying down debt, etc.), but actually helping business means you are hurting another one. I view business subsidies and special treatments as just another attempt at socialism that makes us weaker.

 

My one issue with your Dem summary (keep in mind, I am not a Dem), is the environment. Taking care of the environment is a good thing for the economy and life in general. It's all about short term vs. long term. In the short term, it may make business easier to allow the dry cleaner to dump chloroform into the water supply. In the long term, permanently polluted aquafers and diseased children will cost everyone A LOT more, and not just in purely economic terms. Sound, enforced env. policy levels the playing field, making businesses easier to run and securing the future of the country.

 

But yes, most (if not all) Dem supported social programs including housing and minimum wage can be shown over and over again by even rudimentary studies to actually have the OPPOSITE effect. Rent control does what? Drives up rent. Minimum wage does what? Makes people poorer (by eliminating jobs and increasing inflation).

 

Health insurance is a whole other very complicated issue. Sum it to say that larger pools of subscribers make for lower costs for all, balanced against the reverse economies of bureacracy.

[BillZ260]

I don't really think over simplifying is fair.

 

I am not a democrat and I certainly am not a Republican. These party lines need to be desolved and people need to make a movement that demans more choices. Each party line tries to paint the other as extremeists, which hurts us all by blurring the truth. I am probably a bit more to the left than right in the middle but I absolutly do not agree with ALL party line decisions. There is a happy medium somewhere. We need candidates that are specific about what they are going to do instead of making vauge promised that try to encompass all. There is no majority because the TWO parties break up the boundries between the different sectors in such a way that almost no one gets what they want.

 

It seems that everyone is so hellbent on their one special issue that they loose focus on things that are REALLY important. I know we are all different, which is good, but I think we all need to step back and take a look at the BIG PICTURE and then start making decisions that make our country better for EVERYONE.

 

I think I just realized something....I'm ramblin

 

"DEMOCRATS" are people who think.."You honestly can't tell me that there are people out there that don't need help and others that can't afford to help."

 

Yep, another oversimplification...

[JMortensen]

They both want large government spending huge sums of $$$. Under the current setup of Republican controlled legistative and executive branches, we have one of the biggest budget deficits ever.

This is my #1 issue with the current administration.

 

Let me be the fourth non-democrat to answer this question that has been posed to democrats.

 

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or socialism.

 

My take on democrats is that they believe it is government's responsibility to provide services for the people, and the way they do that is by taxing the people. Since rich people put a hell of a lot more dollars into the govt coffers, and these dollars are used to provide services to EVERYONE, this is a way of redistributing wealth. The higher the taxes the greater the theoretical benefit to the poor or disadvantaged.

 

The democratic ideal is GREAT. No homeless, no hungry, no jobless, no poor. The reality is not so good IMO.

[Guest Phil1934]

Minimum wage didn't move at all under Reagan and Bush the 1st. Clinton raised it and several thousand people moved out of the poverty ranks. Good thing. If you were an employer, would you grouse that you had to pay someone $1 an hour more? If they stink, get rid of them. Environment and taxes both require looking beyond the next re-election. We are in a monumental mess. Should we pay as we go or let our children and grandchildren subsidize our standard of living? If they have to, hope they get an increase in wages. But what about those at min. wage? And once you destroy the environment, it's never going to be the same. With all the pines in GA very few have seen an unmolested forest with a canopy 100' overhead. I don't worry about endangered species for the most part. The list is largely salamanders and frogs. And if a certain field mouse dies out, who cares? But I tell everyone you must go to Alaska once. If we destroy exclusive areas like that, what's left for our children to see? I guess they'll be too busy working at low wage jobs to pay for our extravagances.

[auxilary]

I'm not a democrat (nor republican), but seeing as how Bush's patriot act infringes on a lot of freedoms, fact that he wants to dictate who can and cannot get married, unnecessary invasion of Iraq, etc. point me to believe he's not a good president.

 

to top it off, as a leader of our country, he's not very charismatic.

 

Kerry could probably sell me a corvette though based on lots of empty promises.

[johnc]

Always remember, Republicans opposed slavery while Democrats supported it and Democrats supported the civil rights initiatives while Republicans opposed them.

 

Both parties are easily capable of switching sides on an issue when it will help them remain in office (or enter an office).

[BillZ260]

Always remember, Republicans opposed slavery while Democrats supported it and Democrats supported the civil rights initiatives while Republicans opposed them.

 

Thats the is exactly what should make people realize that that partys and the paryt system is straight dung!

 

ARGH!

[blueovalz]

What bothers me about this issue is the labeling. I consider myself an independent, but am labeled a liberal or Democrat if I don't back the current administration. Now, with that said, from a strictly unbiased point of view, any incumbent that must struggle this hard to be re-elected must not have done a decent job in the first place. To be neck and neck with an opponent like Kerry, well...obviously Bush didn't do the job right. Even a fair job would have garnered Bush a 10 point advantage over even a good opponent (which Kerry is not), and I contend that the only reason Bush won't be booted out of office is not because of his stellar performance, but rather the lack of any options aside from him, which is indeed a sad situation for this country.

 

Yeah, Bush likes guns, but if all the woods are paved with parking lots, then it won't matter, will it? Does this make me a Democrat? No, but it makes me re-consider what unrestrained business does if not regulated. When Ethics had it's proper place in business decisions, big business was great, and hence, I was for it (Yes I voted for Reagan and for Bush Sr). But ethics has no place in business decisions anymore, and a President (or Congress) that does not realize this fact is one that has his (its) head in the sand.

 

I know that 20 years ago, any President in office would have called our current pharmaceutical stranglehold a national disgrace, that forces Americans to cross the border to buy affordable medicine. But now, we call these same Americans outlaws, and for the sake of big business our President looks the other way. 20 years ago, health care was largely "not for profit" in its aim to cure disease. Now days, a cure for a disease requires the group of "diseased" to be able to afford the drugs it needs, otherwise the research is dropped for a more profitable drug, like Viagra (give me a break!). Am I Democrat for feeling this way? No, instead I'm compassionate, something that Bush says he is, but has yet to provide even one single example of extraordinary compassion (and don't insult my intelligence by bringing up the Iraq fiasco as an example of compassion).

[cyrus]

I do not want to get the off subject. I am still waiting for explaination of the underlying socialist bent of Democrates.

[blueovalz]

I get it, you're riding the fence and need just enough justification to "go for it and vote Democrat." I also commend you on your unbiased, unwavering, and eager desire to see the other side's point of view.

[Heavy Z]

I'd like to chime in on a couple statements above:

 

In pure form the right end of the polital spectrum ends in anarchy, and the left end winds up as communism or socialism.

 

Far right is not anarchy but dictatorship, communism is left of socialism.

 

Always remember, Republicans opposed slavery while Democrats supported it and Democrats supported the civil rights initiatives while Republicans opposed them.

 

This should read -

 

Always remember, Republicans opposed slavery on economic grounds, also opposed blacks moving into their states for fear it would drive down wages while Southern Democrats supported it and Democrats supported the civil rights initiatives while Republicans opposed them.

 

Speaking of conservation, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt bitterly fought his own party to became the undisputed heavyweight of all time, setting aside 230 million acres in total. I'm sure he'd be pissed to see the cavalier attitude many have these days.

 

As for your question, it sounds a little loaded. I'll differ to something Vonnegut said a while back as sounds like the angle you're looking for:

 

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.

 

If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal.

 

If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative.

 

What could be simpler?"

 

 

Cyrus,

If you're serious about your query, read some T. Jefferson. He's the one who got that school of thought rolling.

 

Good luck.

[JMortensen]

Far right is not anarchy but dictatorship, communism is left of socialism.

 

Depends on who you ask I guess. I tried to back up my statement with some political websites and found both arguments supported. Some think that it is a circle with communism and totalitarianism coming together as a bridge between the extreme right and left, and some view it as a line with totalitarianism and communism on one end and anarchy on the other. Some also use 2 axes and have anarchy and totalitarianism at the ends of one axis and liberal and conservative at the ends of the other.

 

I was always taught the line theory, and it just plain makes more sense to me. Pure liberals want more taxes and more redistribution, pure conservatives want less government and more self-regulation.

 

That Vonnegut thing is unfortunately the truest measure of left and right today...

[Pop N Wood]

20 years ago, health care was largely "not for profit" in its aim to cure disease. Now days, a cure for a disease requires the group of "diseased" to be able to afford the drugs it needs, otherwise the research is dropped for a more profitable drug, like Viagra (give me a break!).

 

Actually Viagra was originally developed to treat heart disease. It was only through the clinical trials as a heart medication that the other beneficial side effects were noted.

 

So yes, some current medical research is still based on altruistic motives. It also points out how it is sometimes hard to assign motives.

 

I think most liberals don't see why we can't have healthy trees and a viable economy. At least that is what I gather from observing their curious habits. Most of them, the ones with jobs anyway, aren't really against corporations or personal wealth. They are just very critical of the greed motive and don’t view the “bottom line†in the same pseudo religious sense as most business school weenies. Just a question of where you draw the line and how much is enough.

 

And just like two parallel lines meet at infinity, political science courses make a pretty good argument that the “left†and the “right†also meet at the extreme. In communist Russia the “liberal left†were the individuals for market reform and personal wealth while the “conservative right†wanted more state control.

 

As far as everybody only looking out for their own special motives, I use to take a “think globally†look at government. But as a middle class white male who pays his own bills I have finally come to the conclusion that if I don't look out for my interests it seems like no one else will. Not to belittle what ever hardships other groups have had to endure, but I no longer feel guilty about asking for a break now and then.

[Heavy Z]

Quote:

Far right is not anarchy but dictatorship, communism is left of socialism.

 

 

Depends on who you ask I guess...I was always taught the line theory, and it just plain makes more sense to me.

 

 

Yes, I thought you meant the line theory in your last post. I'd love a link to a political line spectrum with anarchy at the far right, as I've never seen one without autocracy/dictatorship/fascism at the right.

 

Anarchy can occur in any form of government, provided there is enough stress. Anarchy evokes the absence of government, therefore doesn't fit into the political equation. It advocates nothing except that there shouldn't be a government. In conrast, everything within the political spectrum, left or right, deal with differing forms of governance.

[Guest MistressMotorsports]

Well, my take is this: Republicans are always bitching that Democrats want to take freedom away, but really they are only talking about taking away financial freedom, to which they have a point. But Republicans (and I'm generalizing and talking about the relatively far right) are really the ones who want to take true freedom away, religious freedom by saying it's ok to offend others by keeping religious references around in government institutions, presonal freedom by telling women what to do with their bodies, family freedom by trying to define what a family is or should be, etc. Some of them even want Constitutional ammendments to absolutley restrict the freedom of others. Yes, the Republicans sometimes (not always, witness the current administration) have better fiscal policy, but I would rather give up a little money (shouldn't have to, but that's the cost in today's politcal world) to guarantee that people can be other than Christian, married with 2.5 kids and a dog, (pretending on Sundays only) God-fearing folks who are happy to let everone do what they want AS LONG AS IT FITS ONE CERTAIN MOLD of one sector of the population (even if that's a large sector.) Far right Republicans are the biggest hypocrits of all, and far more dangerous than far left tree huggers. Yes, I am religious, happily married with two kids, I work for a big corporation, and I am also anti-abortion. But the difference is that I recognize that other people aren't the same as I am, therefore, I respect their inalienable right to be free and worship/marry/etc, who or how they want. If the price of keeping true freedom is another 5% of my salary lost to taxes, so be it. Of course, this topic is about as charged as religion itself, one side will never convince the other to change.

 

Mike

[blueovalz]

Great lead-in to getting back to the original question, which I feel was not answered, and most likely, cannot be answered to any degree of satisfaction. My assumption here is that being left or right is not solely a matter of logical thinking on a broad spectrum of issues because what's one man's meat, is another man's poison. Being left or right may be more a factor of personal preference rather than anything that can be logically argued. Much like trying to explain to a purist the reason that a HybridZ is better than the OEM product. So do I feel any animosity for the purist? No, and I let it go. So with that said, I feel the same result of this string will mimic the purist/Hybridz argument string as well.

[A. G. Olphart]

Well Cyrus, I guess I'll take a shot at giving you an answer... I voted Democratic for longer than a lot of our members have been alive, but sadly went for Bush last time around due to the Demo's position on abortion and 2nd amendment.

 

Republican want to have a strong economy by helping businesses, cutting taxes and making government smaller and such, this helps us by having good jobs etc.

 

First, I don't feel that this is totally accurate. In my observation, the Republicans are for corporate welfare- I guess that's helping business, but against welfare for individuals, and for cutting taxes esp. on corporations and the wealthy. Don't worry about the tax cut's effect on the national debt: We rich folk can hold the paper and make money on that too!!

However, your characterization seems to fall down a bit on the assertion concerning jobs: All those good jobs being created lately seem to be at Walmart and McDonalds, as corporate America ships everything else off shore.

 

(I see the Republicans as a party in favor of short term business profit at any cost, human or environmental. It's all OK as long as the market goes up).

 

.

But I have have never heard a Democrat explain how raising mimimum wage, increasing taxes, requiring more stringent eviromental regulations, empowering unions, and expand the government to a more socialist government that will take you craddle to grave will help the country as a whole.

 

Again, not wholly accurate from my perspective... One at a time:

 

1)raising the minimum wage helps the working poor feed themselves.

 

October 17, 2004 DOL Home > Find It! By Topic > Wages > Minimum Wage ...

The federal minimum wage for covered, nonexempt employees is $5.15 per hour.

 

So--- $5.15 X 40hours/week X 4.3333 weeks/month= $892.66.

It is pretty obvious that this fully employed individual will not be able to afford both food and housing in any metropolitan area, let alone drive a car or buy health insurance (the poor employer can't afford to provide health insurance either , and of the developed nations, the US stands almost alone in sharing that problem).

 

2) Raising taxes is like making deposits in the national checkbook. Take a look at the growth of the national debt under the recent Republican administrations. That is what happens when you don't make the needed deposits. (But again, that's OK, we rich folk can buy the notes and make money, and use that money to build toll roads and other infrastructure privately... SOAK THE BUGGERS TWICE: taxes to fund the debt, and tolls on the roads which those taxes should have built). It is called privatization... ever heard of it?

 

3) Environmental regulations-- Acid rain, a product primarily of coal fired power plants is the easiest example... Corporations are slaves to the bottom line; have you noticed any of them doing the right thing and updating their emissions equipment? If I recollect properly, they recently fought for and got rules enacted which even allow them to expand old plants without upgrading.

 

4) I do believe the unions need help; they essentially have died since Reagan broke the air traffic controllers. If you don't believe that unions are necessary, read a little history... company towns, company stores, child labor, workers at Ford's plant going up in flames on a fairly regular basis (SEE ABOVE: It's all OK as long as the monied class is making more money and the market goes up).

We have big problems because whistleblowers are still routinely screwed. A law or regulation is no good if it has no teeth, and/or those who demonstrate that the law is being flouted are not protected.

Finally, unions give workers a collective voice in plant safety and working conditions.

 

5)

expand the government to a more socialist government that will take you craddle to grave will help the country as a whole.

 

Sorry, but this is a Democratic dream seen through conservative glasses. I don't belive this has ever been a Democratic objective..

 

Well Cyrus, I do hope that this is kind of what you were looking for.

[JMortensen]

Heavy asked for a link showing anarchy on the right and communism or totalitarianism on the left. Here you go this one shows both your version and mine:

 

http://academic.bellevue.edu/~jpatton/direction.html

 

This idea came to me from my dad who is a lawyer from the time I was very young, and it was reinforced by my first real history teacher in college, who had a phD in history. But it has been reinforced many other times along the way. On the web seems to be reinforced by the libertarian party, and it also seems to spring from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers according to this website. My dad continually reads Constitutional law and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (even though that was never his specialty) and I'm sure he's read the related books at least 10 times each.

 

Looks to me like the terms right and left wing come historically from the French Revolution, but they have since been perverted and adapted into a bunch of different theories.

 

Bottom line for me is I don't understand how the idea of wanting LESS govt eventually turns into totalitarianism. That don't make no sense. Would be a good way to scare people into fearing the right...