Marconius wrote:
The Democratic Party consists of members who believe in a democratic system of government, is for a stronger central government and is for social expansion/social programs. They tend to lean towards the Left of the political spectrum.
The Republican Party consists of members who favor a republic system of government, looser/smaller governments with a trend of Conservativism, and tend to fall to the Right of the political spectrum.
The Democrats share the Republican desire for a Republic, and the Republicans share the Democratic desire for our system to be democratic. Neither idea is exclusive of the other, and the names of the parties in no way mirror their agenda. The remainder of Marconius's explanations are broadly correct in theory, but in practice the parties are not so dedicated to their ideals.
LordMelkor666 wrote:
...seeing how our country was based off of a christian based religion. this seems very stupid and unconstitutional, seeing as how God is the reason for the constition, they used his rules as guidelines...
God may be
mentioned in the Constitution, but he is not the basis or the reason for it. How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?
LordMelkor666 wrote:
The Republican Party.
well we like to lower the taxes...
If only it were true. In fact, GWB has spent more than any President than Johnson (including Clinton). That is an impressive growth of government. In truth, there is little debate in this country about the size of government any longer. No Republican since Reagan has made any serious effort to reduce government. The simple fact is that the Keynesian ideal has taken firm hold of both parties: Large government with largely unrestricted spending. The conservative ideal of small, limited government is dead, and on fiscal matters the only controversy is over how the loot should be spent.
LordMelkor666 wrote:
we go to war.. republicans often go to war much more the democrats
Also not true. Read your history books. Democrats were in charge during wartime much more often than Republicans. This is quite probably a historical accident, but Democrats don't like to admit it anyway, because it makes it harder for them to paint Republicans as warmongers.
LordMelkor666 wrote:
our current president is a republican.. but hes a complete dumbass.. (i honestly think its not our business to be in Iraq fighting their civil war.. we should have left after we got Sadam) but what can i say?? at least he is better then Kerry or Gore (the oposing canidates)
In conclusion on the republican party.. we are also complete idiots.. but we arent as stupid as the democratcs we also do alot of retarded things. but we do some good things as well.
It's hard to argue with that. Remember, however, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally; both parties do something right once in a while, but for the most part both are monsters designed and dedicated to obtaining and holding power. Pity the poor souls who actually believe either stands for any real principles, as both parties have rarely failed to compromise their platforms when a question of money or power is in question.
Marconius wrote:
ALL of the tax breaks made by Republican leaders have favored the wealthiest sector of our society.
This is a misleading statement characteristic of Democrats. Any tax cut, which in absolute terms, allows the upper strata of society to retain more of their money than is retained, in absolute terms, by the lower strata, is branded as 'favoring the wealthy.' Of course, because the 'wealthy' pay so much more in taxes than the 'poor', it is impossible to have any tax cut which does not do this. Thus, the Democrats essentially reject any tax plan which allows people anyone to retain more of their money.
Marconius wrote:
I'm for more taxation as that will bring more money into the government, which in the long run will advance the prosperity of the nation. If the government has enough money to fund education, healthcare, social security, and has money left over to invest back into the society, then it will spawn a sustainable growth cycle. This is an example of thinking ahead.
Here's the thing: Government isn't any good at providing services - those who are good at providing services are usually so because they are in competition with others. If another entity provides better service, a company will lose business, so it is in a company's best interests to provide the best service it can. When government provides a service (generally paid for through compulsory taxation collected under threat of force; whether a citizen wants the service or not), it usually eliminates the competition in whole or in part, either directly or through a huge regulatory or tax burden, and therefore has no incentive to improve the service. There isn't much more to say than that.
The Federal budget is the largest budget of any entity of any kind on the planet, and is growing. Nevertheless, it does not appear, even with all that cash, to be getting better at any of the things it does. I have no confidence that it will be any good at doing the things it doesn't currently do, and hope it never gets the opportunity to do so. If it tries, I suspect it will bankrupt its citizens, and fail miserably in any case. I would much rather retain my own cash, and make my own way. Except for three things, all essential government services could be paid for through user fees. The three are: Police/Justice, Fire, Military.
Marconius wrote:
Dropping taxes and forcing those with less money/capital to pay more to the government satisfies the powerful 1% of the nation's wealth for the time being, plus gives investment security to whatever controlling party initiates said cuts.
A little simplistic, and not entirely true. Have you noticed that a disproportionate number of wealthy people favor large government policies? The reason why is simple. Corporations, many of which are not very competitive, are as much a drain (or possibly more so) on taxpayers as some drunk getting welfare. Non-competitive business depends on huge regulatory burdens and exclusionary trade practices of government to stay in business. If fat-cat American businesses truly had to compete on the world stage, many of them would fail dramatically. Free trade is not desirable to many large corporations, as it would expose them to lean and trim foreign competition. Because of this, they will endorse the inefficient policies of the tax and spend government, either in plain sight or behind the scenes. Make no mistake, the Dems might not get as much as the GOP from business, but they almost make up for it with contributions by those who OWN business.
One last point on this: A tax cut is worthless without a spending cut. Your statement implies that services stay the same when taxes go down. If this is the case, there is no point in reducing taxes, as they will simply have to be raised later to accommodate the spending. You may be afraid of Bush's tax cuts, but you shouldn't be. His out-of-control spending will eventually have to be paid for, which means the tax cuts are purely smoke and mirrors for the rubes.
Marconius wrote:
The Right/Republicans tend to favor less government control, spreading the power out to the States which eventually can turn into power to the most wealthy of the society, namely corporations holding oligopolistic control over certain markets.
As already noted, the Republicans, in reality, do not favor any less government control than the Democrats, and corporations love big government.