what makes?
- Thread starter BuddyLee
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Any number of ways to look at it.
The old saw goes, a Republican is a Democrat who just got mugged. A Democrat is a Republican who just got laid off.
But it more or less revolves around the role of government. Republicans want less of it in their lives. Democrats believe there needs to be more of it.
Republicans believe that individuals have a better handle on how to solve their own problems than government does.
Democrats believe that if some people fall through the cracks, it's the government's responsibility to catch them, and take care of them.
Republicans don't believe in the role of government for social engineering. It's not up to the government to shape society.
Democrats believe the government *IS* society, and social engineering is one of its most important roles.
Republicans are pragmatists to a fault. They go with what works, or what is doable even if it's not always gentle and kind.
Democrats are idealists to a fault. They dream up new ways of doing things, even if they are proven to be impossible by any means.
Republicans trust people to be basically good. Left to themselves, they'll fix their own problems.
Democrats believe people to be more or less bad. Left to themselves, they'll screw up everything.
Republicans value *liberty* more than anything else. They'd rather have a world with a lot of freedom and chaos, than a world with a lot less liberty, but lots of order.
Democrats value *justice* more than anything else. They are willing to sacrifice as much freedom as it takes to have the world they think is fair to everyone.
And there's the traditional stereotypes. Republicans are often cast as heartless, and unwilling to assist in charity, being social Darwinists. Not *really*. They're more like your parents - well maybe, MY parents. They'll help you a *little*, but if you won't help yourself, they'll just as soon kick you in the ass - to make you self-sufficient. Republicans side against the government and on the side of businesses. Aside from applying justice and defending the borders, the role of government is to assist the wheels of commerce, without which, we're all still grunting in caves. Help business, we all have jobs, the economy is great and everyone who busts his butt and works, is happy.
And there's the stereotype of the Democrat. In years past, they were the party of the little guy, but in recent years they've become the party of the fringe. I must admit, there's a lot I don't understand about Democrats. They believe they alone give a crap about the poor, the underprivileged, the disenfranchised, and they depend heavily on selling this image to the masses. The "masses" wield very little actual power, but they produce a lot of votes. From my point of view, it seesm they promise them much, but deliver very little, usually successfully blaming their failures on those heartless Republicans.
Democrats are often cast by Republicans as being weak and soft on any issue where it's probably smart to be a little tough. Weak on defense, weak on crime, weak in confronting adversaries on the world scene. From their point of view, Republicans are incredulous at the kinds of things Democrats will be attached to. They're supposed to be the party of the little guy, but they're against vouchers - because of their connection to *teachers* - not the students. It's baffling sometimes. We're supposed to be guarding our borders from illegals coming across - but Democrats successfully campaigned for water stations to be placed across the deserts of Arizona, so that the illegals entering this country wouldn't die of thirst while illegally crossing the desert. It's compassion, but it's stupid.
Anyway - that's the gist of it.
The old saw goes, a Republican is a Democrat who just got mugged. A Democrat is a Republican who just got laid off.
But it more or less revolves around the role of government. Republicans want less of it in their lives. Democrats believe there needs to be more of it.
Republicans believe that individuals have a better handle on how to solve their own problems than government does.
Democrats believe that if some people fall through the cracks, it's the government's responsibility to catch them, and take care of them.
Republicans don't believe in the role of government for social engineering. It's not up to the government to shape society.
Democrats believe the government *IS* society, and social engineering is one of its most important roles.
Republicans are pragmatists to a fault. They go with what works, or what is doable even if it's not always gentle and kind.
Democrats are idealists to a fault. They dream up new ways of doing things, even if they are proven to be impossible by any means.
Republicans trust people to be basically good. Left to themselves, they'll fix their own problems.
Democrats believe people to be more or less bad. Left to themselves, they'll screw up everything.
Republicans value *liberty* more than anything else. They'd rather have a world with a lot of freedom and chaos, than a world with a lot less liberty, but lots of order.
Democrats value *justice* more than anything else. They are willing to sacrifice as much freedom as it takes to have the world they think is fair to everyone.
And there's the traditional stereotypes. Republicans are often cast as heartless, and unwilling to assist in charity, being social Darwinists. Not *really*. They're more like your parents - well maybe, MY parents. They'll help you a *little*, but if you won't help yourself, they'll just as soon kick you in the ass - to make you self-sufficient. Republicans side against the government and on the side of businesses. Aside from applying justice and defending the borders, the role of government is to assist the wheels of commerce, without which, we're all still grunting in caves. Help business, we all have jobs, the economy is great and everyone who busts his butt and works, is happy.
And there's the stereotype of the Democrat. In years past, they were the party of the little guy, but in recent years they've become the party of the fringe. I must admit, there's a lot I don't understand about Democrats. They believe they alone give a crap about the poor, the underprivileged, the disenfranchised, and they depend heavily on selling this image to the masses. The "masses" wield very little actual power, but they produce a lot of votes. From my point of view, it seesm they promise them much, but deliver very little, usually successfully blaming their failures on those heartless Republicans.
Democrats are often cast by Republicans as being weak and soft on any issue where it's probably smart to be a little tough. Weak on defense, weak on crime, weak in confronting adversaries on the world scene. From their point of view, Republicans are incredulous at the kinds of things Democrats will be attached to. They're supposed to be the party of the little guy, but they're against vouchers - because of their connection to *teachers* - not the students. It's baffling sometimes. We're supposed to be guarding our borders from illegals coming across - but Democrats successfully campaigned for water stations to be placed across the deserts of Arizona, so that the illegals entering this country wouldn't die of thirst while illegally crossing the desert. It's compassion, but it's stupid.
Anyway - that's the gist of it.
K
Kizzy
Guest
When I was a teenager, I asked my mom that question. She told me Democrats likes to spend money and Republicans likes to save it. 
Pete
Repete
reprint form the lobby of the Peoples Republic of Retardistan
Buddy,
Despite your lean to the left, you are smart and have promise. Please always seek proof, the truth, make your own decisions and not rely on CNN, and the rest of the "Let us think for you" media outlets.
One question that you asked had merit. Why are so many of the forum members Republicans, and why do they bash Democrats?
First, not everyone is Rebublican, they might be conservative but not necessarily Republicans. To be a conservative means that you do not like the government meddling in your business very much. Take my fair share of taxes, provide for the common defense, do the things that the Federal government is required, leave the states to do the rest, then leave me alone. SMALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Everyone needs to take care of themselves BUT help those who TRULY cannot, not those who just find it easier to mooch. Allow business to take care of business, make jobs, set prices, pay insurances, and so on.
Liberals feel that the Federal Government should be involved in everything. What happens in your neighborhood should be dictated by those in DC. They feel it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for everybodies every need. They believe that social programs are the main need. They raise the money for these programs by taxing heavily the very institutions that provide jobs. They villify anyone they deem "rich". They want to take your money and pay for a program for a crack addict on welfare with 9 kids can go sit in a class and learn to run a forklift, thinking that they will stop making the choices that made them a crack addict on welfare with 9 kids. When it doesn't work they try again and again spending yet more money.
Taxes:
Conservatives feel that it is the "Peoples money" collected to be used by the government for the common good.
Liberals view taxes as the "Governments money" to be used as they see fit in social programs.
Budget surpluss:
Conservatives see a surplus the same as "change" you get back when you pay for a #2 at McDonalds. We collected more than we needed so we need to give back change, after all it is the peoples money.
Liberals see a surplus and think about what they can spend it on, that wasn't good enough to be funded the first time, after all it is the "Governments money"
Budget deficits:
Conservatives FIRST look at what spending they can cut to meet the budget.
Liberals FIRST look at what tax they can raise to get more money to spend.
In the end both want America to be great and the people taken care of that really need it. Conservatives are often branded heartless or mean because they think that a persons welfare if that persons responsibility and not the governments. If they really need help then so be it, but not every sad case that doesn't want to work because welfare is easy to get.
Buddy,
Despite your lean to the left, you are smart and have promise. Please always seek proof, the truth, make your own decisions and not rely on CNN, and the rest of the "Let us think for you" media outlets.
One question that you asked had merit. Why are so many of the forum members Republicans, and why do they bash Democrats?
First, not everyone is Rebublican, they might be conservative but not necessarily Republicans. To be a conservative means that you do not like the government meddling in your business very much. Take my fair share of taxes, provide for the common defense, do the things that the Federal government is required, leave the states to do the rest, then leave me alone. SMALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Everyone needs to take care of themselves BUT help those who TRULY cannot, not those who just find it easier to mooch. Allow business to take care of business, make jobs, set prices, pay insurances, and so on.
Liberals feel that the Federal Government should be involved in everything. What happens in your neighborhood should be dictated by those in DC. They feel it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for everybodies every need. They believe that social programs are the main need. They raise the money for these programs by taxing heavily the very institutions that provide jobs. They villify anyone they deem "rich". They want to take your money and pay for a program for a crack addict on welfare with 9 kids can go sit in a class and learn to run a forklift, thinking that they will stop making the choices that made them a crack addict on welfare with 9 kids. When it doesn't work they try again and again spending yet more money.
Taxes:
Conservatives feel that it is the "Peoples money" collected to be used by the government for the common good.
Liberals view taxes as the "Governments money" to be used as they see fit in social programs.
Budget surpluss:
Conservatives see a surplus the same as "change" you get back when you pay for a #2 at McDonalds. We collected more than we needed so we need to give back change, after all it is the peoples money.
Liberals see a surplus and think about what they can spend it on, that wasn't good enough to be funded the first time, after all it is the "Governments money"
Budget deficits:
Conservatives FIRST look at what spending they can cut to meet the budget.
Liberals FIRST look at what tax they can raise to get more money to spend.
In the end both want America to be great and the people taken care of that really need it. Conservatives are often branded heartless or mean because they think that a persons welfare if that persons responsibility and not the governments. If they really need help then so be it, but not every sad case that doesn't want to work because welfare is easy to get.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think that there's a bit too much stereotyping going on. The Republican party is based primarily on religion, guns, and personal responsibility. If you're into one or all of these, you're most likely to end up a Republican. The core of the Democrat's belief structure is abortion rights (#1 with a vengence), the environment, and civil rights for any group who feels they aren't getting enough out of society (blacks, gays, hispanics, ugly women, etc.)
I don't think you can still apply the standard of tax and spend as a metric as George Bush has pretty much tossed that sterotype out the window. Crime control is also a less typical differentiator unless you factor in third leg of the Democrats above, i.e., the Dems are all in favor of convicting any white guy of any crime, but they get a bit ticklish when it comes to anyone who might have been a "victim" at one time or another.
I myself am a pro-gun, pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-gay rights, and anti-crime republican. What makes me a lock for the GOP is there stand on personal responsibility.
I don't think you can still apply the standard of tax and spend as a metric as George Bush has pretty much tossed that sterotype out the window. Crime control is also a less typical differentiator unless you factor in third leg of the Democrats above, i.e., the Dems are all in favor of convicting any white guy of any crime, but they get a bit ticklish when it comes to anyone who might have been a "victim" at one time or another.
I myself am a pro-gun, pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-gay rights, and anti-crime republican. What makes me a lock for the GOP is there stand on personal responsibility.
Good posts, guys! 
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by *archimedes*
Yeah I know - another stereotype.
I've never quite figured it out, but it is statistically true that Republicans are more likely to be church-goers and be religious than Democrats. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it works out that way. And the numbers are way too large to be able to chalk it all up to religious right. There just ain't that many of them.
hwyman3
New Member
I once heard it expalained that a Republician will tell you that you can suceed, if you need help, I can help you. A Democrat will tell you there is no way you can suceed without my assistance. I have a government program to help you.
The posts on this thread have pretty much hit the nail on the head. I know one post stated that President Bush has ended the stereotype of Democrats being Tax and Spend. Bush at least lived up to the Spend portion of that. At least he didn't give us a huge tax increase.
The posts on this thread have pretty much hit the nail on the head. I know one post stated that President Bush has ended the stereotype of Democrats being Tax and Spend. Bush at least lived up to the Spend portion of that. At least he didn't give us a huge tax increase.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
I think Republicans historically represent old white rich guys, the religious & the military - Democrats historically represent women, minorities, the working class, the poor & youth. Republicans spent money on the rich, military & business, Democrats spent more for social programs.
They both are leaning toward the middle though, now you see Democrats pushing welfare to work and the Republicans pushing bigger government in the form of military & police programs.
Republicans historically stayed away from personal issues but now they are talking about giving money to churches, public money to private schools (vouchers) and dictating what legal sex & marriage is. Democrats are waving the flag more and saying government has no place doing social engineering.
The problem on this board is that if you say something that isn't in agreeance with the right wing slant you are automatically labeled a "dirty liberal". There are many good and bad politicos on both sides, you just have to vote for the person - not the party!
They both are leaning toward the middle though, now you see Democrats pushing welfare to work and the Republicans pushing bigger government in the form of military & police programs.
Republicans historically stayed away from personal issues but now they are talking about giving money to churches, public money to private schools (vouchers) and dictating what legal sex & marriage is. Democrats are waving the flag more and saying government has no place doing social engineering.
The problem on this board is that if you say something that isn't in agreeance with the right wing slant you are automatically labeled a "dirty liberal". There are many good and bad politicos on both sides, you just have to vote for the person - not the party!
Pete
Repete
Would the distiguished gentleman from Lex Park yeild a moment for me to interject?
Republicans DO NOT spend money on the rich, that is silly. They spend money on the same things Democrats do just not in the same proportions. They do help business because that is where jobs, consumer confidence, housing starts, consumer spending all originate from. If you impeed business, over tax it, or make it less profitable people will lose jobs. There is a time tested method that has worked in that if you cut the taxes on business, the increased sales more than make up for the initial loss of tax revenue. If I tax a widget 50 cents and the supply and demand curves at the price charged balances at 75,000 units sold per year, the tax revenue comes out to $37,500. If we drop the taxes to .40 cents and the cheaper price moves demand up and we sell 100,000 widgets at a lower price instead of the 75,000 before at the higher price we make $40,000 in tax revenue an increase of $2,500. Now take those figures and multiply it by billions for all the transactions that happen everyday in the marketplace and we are talking big moola.
Police programs are simply a result of September 11th. Yes this is an increase in government that could not be avoided.
Vouchers are a method of giving choice to you, and giving poor school systems a concret reason to improve. For years sucky schools had no incentive to improve. Now with vouchers they must improve or close. The main thing about vouchers is that it gives you a CHOICE. You now have control of where YOUR child goes. You have control of that NOT the government. As someone said it is that the Rebublicans trust YOU to make your own decisions, the Democrats FORCE you to live by theirs.
Faith based charities are a fine way of distributing to the needy. WAIT, I thought that Rebuplicans didn't help the needy? Not the case at all. they see established faith based organizations already have the experience, infrastructure, and an extended footprint in local communities. This is a ready made support system for the needy. WHY go and create a new bureauocracy and pay to staff it so that it can become a red tape nightmare where only 60% of the funds reach the needy, when 90% can make it with the faith based charities already in existance? They keep rattling on about seperation of church and state, BAH, hogwash. The government is not MANDATING, ENDORSING or REQUIRING any religion. simply allowing them to do what they do best, take care of people.
It is true that some of the major bases of the Republican party are the religious (except for Zutard), military, and "old rich guys" however the appeal of the republican party goes even deeper and crosses more boundaries. If you total the military and the military infrastructure you have roughly (a SWAG) say 30 million people or slightly less than 11% of the population. This 30 million do not vote in a block. My vote went through Tennesee, the guy who sat next to me went to Michigan. Our votes were dilluted in the votes from the states we were registered. The same with the "old rich white men" and the religious. While white, I am far from rich, former military, and not very religious. This stereotype is false. There simply are many people who want you to take care of yourself and they will take care of themselves. They do not like having their taxes raised so that it can be sent to an inner city to teach some crack addict to run a cash register in a mandatory class they have to take to keep their welfare, only to run back to the hood when the class lets out and still not work. Republicans WILL help those who truly NEED help, not those who just want help because working and being a moral contributor to society is too hard or cramps their style. Rebublicans tend to take the moral high road and suggest things like, marriage, not having children out of wedlock, doing the right thing even when no one is looking. They have little compassion for criminals even if it was the first time you got caught with 2 ounces of crack and the weight of your merchandise put you over the limit and you got a minimum mandatory sentence. These principles are generally NOT popular with the younger generations, UNTIL they of course get older and it is their kids they are laying awake at night worrying about, then it makes sense.
Republicans DO NOT spend money on the rich, that is silly. They spend money on the same things Democrats do just not in the same proportions. They do help business because that is where jobs, consumer confidence, housing starts, consumer spending all originate from. If you impeed business, over tax it, or make it less profitable people will lose jobs. There is a time tested method that has worked in that if you cut the taxes on business, the increased sales more than make up for the initial loss of tax revenue. If I tax a widget 50 cents and the supply and demand curves at the price charged balances at 75,000 units sold per year, the tax revenue comes out to $37,500. If we drop the taxes to .40 cents and the cheaper price moves demand up and we sell 100,000 widgets at a lower price instead of the 75,000 before at the higher price we make $40,000 in tax revenue an increase of $2,500. Now take those figures and multiply it by billions for all the transactions that happen everyday in the marketplace and we are talking big moola.
True, both parties have moved to the center. But I do not agree that the Republicans want a bigger government in the form of a larger military and police programs. The military is smaller than it ever has been and I have not heard anything to suggest that they are planning on increasing troop strength, but instead increasing quality. The total number of troops or the size of the military is NOT what people mean when they say big government. Bureauocracy is what they are talking about. More programs that are staffed, more departments, agencies and infrastructure. The reach of the Federal Government into your house, that is what they are talking about.
Police programs are simply a result of September 11th. Yes this is an increase in government that could not be avoided.
Vouchers are a method of giving choice to you, and giving poor school systems a concret reason to improve. For years sucky schools had no incentive to improve. Now with vouchers they must improve or close. The main thing about vouchers is that it gives you a CHOICE. You now have control of where YOUR child goes. You have control of that NOT the government. As someone said it is that the Rebublicans trust YOU to make your own decisions, the Democrats FORCE you to live by theirs.
Faith based charities are a fine way of distributing to the needy. WAIT, I thought that Rebuplicans didn't help the needy? Not the case at all. they see established faith based organizations already have the experience, infrastructure, and an extended footprint in local communities. This is a ready made support system for the needy. WHY go and create a new bureauocracy and pay to staff it so that it can become a red tape nightmare where only 60% of the funds reach the needy, when 90% can make it with the faith based charities already in existance? They keep rattling on about seperation of church and state, BAH, hogwash. The government is not MANDATING, ENDORSING or REQUIRING any religion. simply allowing them to do what they do best, take care of people.
AGREED
Pete
Repete
Privatization:
This is a big issue with both party's. Republicans like it, the Dem's hate it. the Republicans feel that if there is a service that is availabl in the private sector, why go and create a government entitiy that does the same thing. Everyone who has ever dealt with a government agency knows firsthand how efficient and cost concious they are, THEY ARE NOT. The private sector controls costs and are continuously looking to be more efficient. Effeciency means profits, red tape means losses. Look at the job standpoint. For the cost of a GS11 to the government, a private company can hire 2 workers. 2 employees means more output for the $$.
One of the dems said "Bush was going to have to answer for pushing many of the elderly out of medicare and into HMO's. What is medicare but a government run HMO?
I do not like the privatization of Social Security. I don't know many details but it is one of the few things I disagree with. All else considered privatization is ok with me.
This is a big issue with both party's. Republicans like it, the Dem's hate it. the Republicans feel that if there is a service that is availabl in the private sector, why go and create a government entitiy that does the same thing. Everyone who has ever dealt with a government agency knows firsthand how efficient and cost concious they are, THEY ARE NOT. The private sector controls costs and are continuously looking to be more efficient. Effeciency means profits, red tape means losses. Look at the job standpoint. For the cost of a GS11 to the government, a private company can hire 2 workers. 2 employees means more output for the $$.
One of the dems said "Bush was going to have to answer for pushing many of the elderly out of medicare and into HMO's. What is medicare but a government run HMO?
I do not like the privatization of Social Security. I don't know many details but it is one of the few things I disagree with. All else considered privatization is ok with me.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Well folks, you noticed I stated "historically" as to where the support and representation of the parties come from. I do believe most political scholars will agree on that. Sure it is not always correct - IT'S A GENERALIZATION! You can't tell me soccer moms voted republican in the past, labor doesn't support a republican candidate, minorites didn't vote for Reagan, and those dirty hippies of the '60s didn't support Nixon.
As far as hiring two people for the price of a GS-11?!? How many good people are you gonna get for $25K a year? Try buying a house in St Mary's county on that salary big guy. Could argue more, but I have to earn my salary so's I don't get privatized!
As far as hiring two people for the price of a GS-11?!? How many good people are you gonna get for $25K a year? Try buying a house in St Mary's county on that salary big guy. Could argue more, but I have to earn my salary so's I don't get privatized!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
In my ever so humble opinion...
...answering Buddys question is alot like asking (to use football jargon) what makes one a Panther or a Partiot.
The players: (akin to professional politicians) They are all football players but quarterbacks are way different than defensive linemen in what they do, how they look at things and how they go about it. Is one a traditional liberal, a modern liberal, a moderate, a conservative, a feminist, far left, far right?
Jake Delhome and Tom Brady are both quarterbacks and have much more in common with each other than each does with many of their respective teamates, but when the game starts, they are opponents and their guys are their guys.
Fans: (voters) Will jump up and down like organ grinder monkeys arguing endlessly that THEIR team is so much better than THAT team because of this and this and this. They paint their faces, hold up signs and chant slogans and such.
At the end of the day, though they don't want you to know this, most politicians could play for just about any team. They are pros.
On the other hand, at the end of the day, most voters CANNOT support anyone BUT their guys no matter what. Dallas in the Whitehouse? Somebody shoot me.
The biggest problem with professional politics today is there are only two teams. That means there can only be two answers to a question, or issue, and 1/2 of us lose every time. It doesn't matter if one team uses anothers plays (co-opting an issue) because winning is winning. Besides, where the fans gonna go?
Home is the anwser for 50% of citizens of voting age.
The cool thing about football is that there are 30 allegiances and 30 answers to the question, from coaches to QB's to running backs to defensive schemes. Yes, there are 29 losers every year but come this summer everybody will feel they have a shot again.
Except maybe Detroit. And Ralph Nader.
Republican or Democrat? The differences are both complex and simple.
It's fairly easy to see the point of the 50% who don't vote. There isn't enough difference, in their minds, to be worth getting excited about.
Most of what both parties do, regardless of why we are of one party or the other, is more about the PARTY than about us fans, err, voters.
This makes the very fews things that actually get done very, very significant if you want change and very, very significant if you want things to stay as they are.
Go team!
...answering Buddys question is alot like asking (to use football jargon) what makes one a Panther or a Partiot.
The players: (akin to professional politicians) They are all football players but quarterbacks are way different than defensive linemen in what they do, how they look at things and how they go about it. Is one a traditional liberal, a modern liberal, a moderate, a conservative, a feminist, far left, far right?
Jake Delhome and Tom Brady are both quarterbacks and have much more in common with each other than each does with many of their respective teamates, but when the game starts, they are opponents and their guys are their guys.
Fans: (voters) Will jump up and down like organ grinder monkeys arguing endlessly that THEIR team is so much better than THAT team because of this and this and this. They paint their faces, hold up signs and chant slogans and such.
At the end of the day, though they don't want you to know this, most politicians could play for just about any team. They are pros.
On the other hand, at the end of the day, most voters CANNOT support anyone BUT their guys no matter what. Dallas in the Whitehouse? Somebody shoot me.
The biggest problem with professional politics today is there are only two teams. That means there can only be two answers to a question, or issue, and 1/2 of us lose every time. It doesn't matter if one team uses anothers plays (co-opting an issue) because winning is winning. Besides, where the fans gonna go?
Home is the anwser for 50% of citizens of voting age.
The cool thing about football is that there are 30 allegiances and 30 answers to the question, from coaches to QB's to running backs to defensive schemes. Yes, there are 29 losers every year but come this summer everybody will feel they have a shot again.
Except maybe Detroit. And Ralph Nader.
Republican or Democrat? The differences are both complex and simple.
It's fairly easy to see the point of the 50% who don't vote. There isn't enough difference, in their minds, to be worth getting excited about.
Most of what both parties do, regardless of why we are of one party or the other, is more about the PARTY than about us fans, err, voters.
This makes the very fews things that actually get done very, very significant if you want change and very, very significant if you want things to stay as they are.
Go team!
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I think what interests me is the continual exit polls showing the demographics of voters, and how they voted. Most of the observations show little surprises.
Well, except maybe a *few*. It probably comes as no surprise that men tend to vote slightly more Republican, women tend to vote slightly more Democrat. Religious types tend to vote more Republican, non-religious tend to vote Democrat.
No big surprises there.
But there are a few results which might make you think a little.
And that is that while youth tends to vote Democrat, their older counterparts tend to vote Republican - until they are very old. Then they tend to switch back, but only slightly. Unmarried people - singles - tend to vote Democrat, but marrieds, and especially marrieds with young children, tend to vote Republican. Those without a high school diploma tend to vote Democrat, but as you move up the education ladder, it goes more Republican (until you get to the thin strata of post-docs - then it goes back a little). And to no one's surprise, as you make more money, the tendency to vote Republican increases more and more.
No surprises, right? Well there's a difference in the two sets of statistics. Men don't usually *become* women, and religious types don't usually *become* non-religious. Those things DON'T change.
But youth *always* becomes older. People *usually* make more money with time, and the tendency is still for people to marry and have families. People frequently become MORE educated. What this tells me is, at some point in their lives, people are very likely to *switch* to Republican.
And this confirms what I've always known - people vote or form their opinions based on how politics directly affects them, and not based on some deeply held philosophy.
I'm reminded of the old joke about Communism, where a guy asks if a fellow Communist had two houses or two cars, he'd give him one. His fellow communist says "of course". Then he asks if he has two shirts, would he give him one? "No" is the reply "because I *have* two shirts". When you're a struggling college student (struggling - ha! I never had it so easy) you like the idea of free government money for school. When you're struggling to raise a family, you're not so crazy about the government taking your money and giving it to some frat boy so he can take some classes for *free*.
Ever hear this one? When you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote?
My point is, at some point, people change their votes to reflect their situation. And if you don't think it has any bearing, you tend not to vote at all.
Well, except maybe a *few*. It probably comes as no surprise that men tend to vote slightly more Republican, women tend to vote slightly more Democrat. Religious types tend to vote more Republican, non-religious tend to vote Democrat.
No big surprises there.
But there are a few results which might make you think a little.
And that is that while youth tends to vote Democrat, their older counterparts tend to vote Republican - until they are very old. Then they tend to switch back, but only slightly. Unmarried people - singles - tend to vote Democrat, but marrieds, and especially marrieds with young children, tend to vote Republican. Those without a high school diploma tend to vote Democrat, but as you move up the education ladder, it goes more Republican (until you get to the thin strata of post-docs - then it goes back a little). And to no one's surprise, as you make more money, the tendency to vote Republican increases more and more.
No surprises, right? Well there's a difference in the two sets of statistics. Men don't usually *become* women, and religious types don't usually *become* non-religious. Those things DON'T change.
But youth *always* becomes older. People *usually* make more money with time, and the tendency is still for people to marry and have families. People frequently become MORE educated. What this tells me is, at some point in their lives, people are very likely to *switch* to Republican.
And this confirms what I've always known - people vote or form their opinions based on how politics directly affects them, and not based on some deeply held philosophy.
I'm reminded of the old joke about Communism, where a guy asks if a fellow Communist had two houses or two cars, he'd give him one. His fellow communist says "of course". Then he asks if he has two shirts, would he give him one? "No" is the reply "because I *have* two shirts". When you're a struggling college student (struggling - ha! I never had it so easy) you like the idea of free government money for school. When you're struggling to raise a family, you're not so crazy about the government taking your money and giving it to some frat boy so he can take some classes for *free*.
Ever hear this one? When you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote?
My point is, at some point, people change their votes to reflect their situation. And if you don't think it has any bearing, you tend not to vote at all.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
While conservatives shy away from politics as a force for social engineering, I've come across some groups who have framed their mission as thus: if we do NOTHING, someone else will frame it FOR us. One group that was against pornography described it to me as "if a man came at your kid with a knife, you'd stop him, wouldn't you?", likening many of the changes in schools - and the prevalence of pornography - to someone attacking your child.
I think this is where most of the conservatives I know feel about "social engineering". They feel they have taken a defensive position. Otherwise, they'd stay out of it. A good example would be that court where they removed the Ten Commandments. I freely admit, it's a religious statement, and we're trying to keep the government and religion *apart*, right? Except that this mini monument had stood in its place for better than 70-80 years without the slightest indication of corruption of government. I can readily see the objection for not *adding* it to a new edifice. But it was clear, it wasn't *hurting* anyone. As a conservative, my hackles were raised, because it was clear that THIS statement of religion was clearly *harmless* and has stood for generations.
My sentiment is not that it *belongs* there. It's that its presence there was clearly harmless. It's as ridiculous to remove it, as the current French effort to force Muslim women to remove their headscarves in schools. Do we tell people to remove yarmulkes or crosses, in court? There's a point where addressing religion is absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Republicans historically stayed away from personal issues but now they are talking about giving money to churches, public money to private schools (vouchers) and dictating what legal sex & marriage is. "
I think here, they've framed the issue incorrectly, but in such a way that if I knew NOTHING about the situation, I'd agree with the writer. But Republicans are NOT about giving money to churches, but to charities - run by churches - whose finances are totally in front of the public. There are thousands of these, and they usually have VERY low overhead. Allowing them access is *extremely* efficient. Voucher programs that I have seen are need based - that is, someone who is poor doesn't have to send their kid to a bad public school - the government helps them out. Funny how the government can give money to the poor *endlessly* and it ISN'T subsidizing private industry, but give them money for *school* and it is. I just don't see how it is bad to give someone money for school, but it's ok to give them money for food, shelter, and health care. It's word games, really.
The marriage thing I admit baffles me. Someone pointed out a while back that without a better definition, marriage could mean a lot of really dumb things that would allow polygamy and any number of ridiculous things. I do think that to resolve the current argument over gay marriage, something needs to be resolved at the federal level, or else any state legislature can tell all of the others what it is or isn't. You just can't have New Hampshire dictate to Utah. It's just brewing trouble.
Anyway..........
I think this is where most of the conservatives I know feel about "social engineering". They feel they have taken a defensive position. Otherwise, they'd stay out of it. A good example would be that court where they removed the Ten Commandments. I freely admit, it's a religious statement, and we're trying to keep the government and religion *apart*, right? Except that this mini monument had stood in its place for better than 70-80 years without the slightest indication of corruption of government. I can readily see the objection for not *adding* it to a new edifice. But it was clear, it wasn't *hurting* anyone. As a conservative, my hackles were raised, because it was clear that THIS statement of religion was clearly *harmless* and has stood for generations.
My sentiment is not that it *belongs* there. It's that its presence there was clearly harmless. It's as ridiculous to remove it, as the current French effort to force Muslim women to remove their headscarves in schools. Do we tell people to remove yarmulkes or crosses, in court? There's a point where addressing religion is absurd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Republicans historically stayed away from personal issues but now they are talking about giving money to churches, public money to private schools (vouchers) and dictating what legal sex & marriage is. "
I think here, they've framed the issue incorrectly, but in such a way that if I knew NOTHING about the situation, I'd agree with the writer. But Republicans are NOT about giving money to churches, but to charities - run by churches - whose finances are totally in front of the public. There are thousands of these, and they usually have VERY low overhead. Allowing them access is *extremely* efficient. Voucher programs that I have seen are need based - that is, someone who is poor doesn't have to send their kid to a bad public school - the government helps them out. Funny how the government can give money to the poor *endlessly* and it ISN'T subsidizing private industry, but give them money for *school* and it is. I just don't see how it is bad to give someone money for school, but it's ok to give them money for food, shelter, and health care. It's word games, really.
The marriage thing I admit baffles me. Someone pointed out a while back that without a better definition, marriage could mean a lot of really dumb things that would allow polygamy and any number of ridiculous things. I do think that to resolve the current argument over gay marriage, something needs to be resolved at the federal level, or else any state legislature can tell all of the others what it is or isn't. You just can't have New Hampshire dictate to Utah. It's just brewing trouble.
Anyway..........
And then there are some folks that are just flat not paying attention.
My grandmother is a staunch Democrat - always has been, always will be. Her Dad came over from Scotland and voted for Democrats around the turn of the century and she always figured he was smarter than her and ought to know. She's a Yellow Dog, right alongside Zuchick, and doesn't realize how much the party's changed since the days of Woodrow Wilson. She hated Reagan because she didn't like any of his movies.
My Mom always voted Democrat, like her mother and grandfather before her. When she met my Dad, he told her he wasn't going to marry any damn Democrat so she changed her registration.
She spouts the party line, but it's just regurgitating what my Dad has told her.My buddy, Sean, is a gay black man. Needless to say, he votes for Democrats. I challenged him on this and he said that's because the Democrats are advocates of his ethnicity and lifestyle. I was like, "What benefit have you gotten, as a gay man OR as a black man, under 8 years of Clinton?" After much back and forth, the answer of course was "nothing". But there's still that perception that Democrats are best for gays and non-whites.
I think there are a lot of people out there like that.
Toxick
Splat
What makes a Democrat a Democrat and a Republican a Republican is the manner in which they want to control your life.
I like some of the essay answers, but here's a bullet list of comparisons and contrasts:
Frankly, I think every idealogue party-line-towing non-thinking sheep should be herded up like lame mules, and shot.
I like some of the essay answers, but here's a bullet list of comparisons and contrasts:
- Democrats want all your money so the government - who knows better - can distribute it fairly.
- Republicans want to control what kind of sex you can have. And with whom and if money is involved.
- Democrats want to make sure nobody anywhere is ever offended by anyone else for any reason. (Except Christians, Jews and generic white people). Because "Words Hurt".
- Republicans couldn't care less who's offended or why, or if it's justified or not.
- Democrats believe the First Amendment is most important.
- Republicans believe the Second Amendment is most important.
(Neither speak much of the other amendments.)
- Democrats call "Pro-Life" people "Anti-Choice".
- Republicans call "Pro-Choice" people "Anti-Life"
(Neither is accurate.)
- Republicans believe that all Democrats are naive and stupid.
- Democrats believe that all Republicans are mean and bigotted.
(Neither believe in gray area.)
- Democrats believe the environment should be protected at the expense of industry and progress.
- Republicans believe that industry and progress should be protected at the expense of the environment.
Frankly, I think every idealogue party-line-towing non-thinking sheep should be herded up like lame mules, and shot.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I do, and for this reason:
It's obvious that, while SS wasn't intended to BE a retirement pension, it's become that, for many. But there's no funds invested at ALL with Social Security. You look at your paycheck, you see this little area where they took out your taxes, and there's this illusion that they've spirited it away somewhere where it is making money for you, until you retire. It is NOT.
Uncle Sam takes that money from you, and gets this big pile of money for Social Security recipients. There's currently a lot more coming in than going out (more on that later). So they pay everybody who is entitled to a pension, and what's left over - they hand over to Congress who *spends* it. It never earns a lousy dime. You know, they could just stick it all in a money market account somehow, and make SOME money before it all gets spent. But at the end of the fiscal year, billions of dollars sit in Washington and gets wasted.
Now, imagine for a minute that SS was always invested - for you - personally. You'd pay money INTO it, but until you were old enough to retire, it would MAKE money (right now, if they stick into a "lock box" it technically LOSES money). You actually have a shot at having SOME kind of retirement income. Even if you don't save anything, you'll still have something. Any analysis of the stock market has shown, over a long period of time, it *always* makes money. If it didn't, you'd have a lot MORE things to worry about than SS money.
So you might ask, why change it? Why not leave it the way it is? I'm SO glad you asked!
Because it's going broke. When it was created, a lot more people were paying into it, than were drawing from it. There was always a surplus. And that's because people just didn't live that long. Many never GOT their SS, and some only collected for a few years. NOW, a significant portion of the population is old enough to draw from it, and over the years, SS has expanded to include many OTHER benefits to more recipients. Everyone in Washington KNOWS this - there's going to be a point in the very near future when more money will be going out than coming IN.But they can't just change it overnight. Until people are ready to retire, there's still going to be payouts. You can set up retirement accounts for folks now, but you can't cut off those collecting it now. So the idea is to phase it in.
And the way they plan to do it is similar to the Savings Plan they already have with the federal government. You get to determined which funds a *portion* of your contributions go to. They'll MAKE money, instead of wasting money.
Why is this such a terrible thing? Don't Democrats invest money? I'm sure they do.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Anybody who relies on social security as a retirement fund is not hitting on all cylinders. I look at social security as a possible adjunct to my retirement, something akin to welfare, something that will help my family if I die or become disabled tomorrow, and something for all the poor folks who have jobs without retirement funds or who are too poor to pay into one today.
I personally don't trust the government to plan for my retirement needs and am totally against privatization, because as we know markets go up AND down. What do you do to the people who put all their SS money into a high risk fund in their 50s and lose it all? Somebody will have to take care of them, you can't put old people out onto the cold streets. It can't be totally privatized.
I personally don't trust the government to plan for my retirement needs and am totally against privatization, because as we know markets go up AND down. What do you do to the people who put all their SS money into a high risk fund in their 50s and lose it all? Somebody will have to take care of them, you can't put old people out onto the cold streets. It can't be totally privatized.