USA - US Politics

[Darksanity]

Hi there,

SWIM is from Canada and was wondering about how the US republicains and democrats were different from each others.

As we all know, US is extremely over-regulated. Is it because of the Republicains or George Bush? If the Democrats would win, would it change anything?

[Nature Boy]

Is it because of Republicans or Bush? The Republicans moreso, they're the machine that's driving America down shit creek, Bush is just the puppet figurehead although having a religious fanatic as President is not a good thing. That being said, anyone the Republicans put up for election will likely be partialized by Christian morals.

If the Dems won, would things change? In some regards yes, in other regards absolutely not. Think of the Republicans and the Dems as an old married couple. They are set in their ways but have no idea what they essentially want. One is daddy, one is mammy. Both have their flaws but the Dems are the lesser of two evils in the two-party system in a lot of peoples' eyes. The Republicans are more trigger happy in terms of international policy and they can't keep up with the modern world. The Dems are so divided and confused by how to actually gain power, they are forgetting what is important. Whatever birdbrain America chooses as President, there will always be flaws.

[El Calico Loco]

I like to think of them as the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.

I'll leave which is which as an exercise for the reader.

Neither is interested in altering the Drug War. You'd have to look to the LIbertarians, Greens, and possibly other third parties for that. They never win anything more than local elections, and rarely at that.


ECL

[Riconoen {UGC}]

I'm a registered libertarian and I like to think of the reps and the dems like this: "Democrats want to be your mother and republicans want to be your father".

[Darksanity]

That's all funny.

America is strange.

Atleast in Canada we heave the NDP wich is for marijuana legalization. I know marijuana legalization is no big-deal but it's a first step!

But for now the Conservatives "represents" us, much like a "Bush-like copy-cat". The only thing the North American leaders really care of is oil in our "modern" wicked humanity.

[Nature Boy]

Canadian politics are a lot different from US politics however. Canada seems to be applying a more secular approach and certainly appears to be more progressive in terms of the rights of the individual. The US political scene is a two-party system of bureaucratic chaos with an over-emphasis on political correctness.

[GForce]

Democrats - Idealists
Republicans - If it works on paper...

That is, Democrats take the more liberal side of things. Their main problem is they seem to argue for what would be perfect without considering the implications of their decisions at a large scale. That is, many of their ideas would be "nice" in practice but would probably cause more problems than they led you to believe. They feel more about the "feelings" of people than the health of the economy. For example, they would favor increasing welfare benefits even though welfare encourages workers to remain frictionally unemployed or work low-paying jobs longer. In the short run it is "nice" to give people money when they need help, but in the long run it is quite damaging to the economy because it is a very inefficient use of resources.

Republicans, on the other hand, are the conservative party. Most of their views are based on economic arguments that work out nicely on paper, but probably wouldn't work out so perfectly if applied to the real world. People who use the Bible as justification for law also fall into this category. Republicans hold very conservative stances on the economy, based on classical economic theory (which isn't necessarily wrong, but very simplified that it shouldn't always be directly applied to the economy). For example, conservatives believe in supply-side economics and thus believe tax cuts are best given to the rich because it will encourage them to invest more and create more jobs. This is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that giving tax cuts to the poor and middle class won't have positive effects on society.

I'm on the middleground, as is a growing number of Americans. I'm Libertarian to some extent, but I really don't like identifying with any group since I tend to form my own opinions about each issue. Take the two extreme examples I used for the two parties. I definitely think there should be some type of welfare for people who are less fortunate, but I also believe that welfare will keep frictionally unemployed people (people who have skills but can't find jobs) and people with low incomes in the same situation forever, because there is less of an economic consequence for them in doing so. Effective welfare could be a stipend (as it is now) that is for a limited amount of time and training/opportunities to learn skills so that they can become part of the labor force (or find a better job than flipping burgers). Welfare should help people out when in need, but not give them something they know they can rely on forever. A person who is strongly republican will probably disagree with me and say welfare provides no benefit to society. As for tax cutes, generally speaking, democrats think they should be given to the poor and middle class and republicans think they should be given to the rich. I say tax cuts for everyone. Supply side economics generally works, but that doesn't mean that poor/middle class people won't see the results of the income effect and spend more money.

Kinda went pretty in depth on that one. Just had my Econ final so its all fresh in my mind.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good points, all.