regulating industry regulating banking political correctness superc4eding the good of the individual for the good of the whole forced unionization war on drugs, alcohol, and smoking government regulated health care keeping a sense of crisis so regular opposition can be superseded (global warming) promising big business that they are "too big to fail" as long as you promote our plans using business as local social agencies (child care, health insurance, etc) using the unemployed to improve infrastructure guaranteed old age pension population control animal rights ?
2009-12-03T00:12:06Z
oh yes, ecology
2009-12-03T18:17:04Z
I'm an animal lover too but there is method in my madness; bear with me.
Anonymous2009-12-03T00:30:09Z
Favorite Answer
the party that wants to control issues far beyond their Constitutional and legal right, so that would be the dems and more accurately the liberal dems
It was during Reagan's reign, a Republican, that deregulating much of industry and banking. Because of that the banks got away with providing loans to people it knew wouldn't be able to pay them once the rates went up. Consequently we have the current economic situation. The Republicans are against regulating industry and banking.
Both parties try to be politically correct. After all, neither one wants to offend any of the voters.
Republicans are more concerned with the rights of employers than the rights of the individual. They believe in the "trickle down" theory which means that if employers are given free rein to up profits (at the consumer's expense) then the employees will benefit from it. We know this doesn't work. Just look at layoffs made so that profits to the boards of directors and upper echelon of a company increases and increases. In addition to permanent layoffs those employees still left work their tushes off. Their health insurance coverage gets reduced with higher premiums and companies do away with their retirement programs for 401ks which are iffy.
Neither party is for forced unionization. Both parties war on drugs, alcohol and smoking in public places. We have an agency which enforces drugs and alcohol. The agency is a result of both parties coming together.
The Democrats are more interested in keeping Social Security - and by the way - Social Security came about during FDRs presidency - a Democrat. The average citizen had nothing to sustain them if disabled or retired. Survivors were guaranteed benefits. Also, Medicare came about during LBJs presidency - also a Democrat. I believe that the Democrats are more interested in the welfare of the individual.
Population control was once a big deal but we haven't heard anything about it in decades. Which I think is a shame. The idea was one child per person to keep the population from exploding.
Democrats are more interested in ecology and global warming.
to date as American politics is going, that is particularly liberal. to date as western politics is going that should additionally be conservative. the united kingdom conservative social gathering stand for all of those issues different than legalizing marijuana - in spite of the incontrovertible fact that there are particularly some MPs who think of this could be a good concept too. you have a lot of social regulations yet no financial ones. Tax and spend or decrease tax and save?
And, as you clearly haven't noticed, or believe the American lunatic fringe, global warming IS a crisis.
Anyway, apart from 'promising big business that they are "too big to fail" as long as you promote our plans' and 'using business as local social agencies (child care, health insurance, etc)', which looks like the Newscorp Labor PLC criminal conspiracy, the rest of these policies look to be a bloody good idea.
Are you suggesting we launch a party with these aims? Bring it on, I say.
PS - Patti, not quite. Your Democrats, by European standards, are a mob of right wing crooks, much like our Newscorp Labor PLC crooks. Hence my reference to the policies that looked like NLPLC's.
'war on drugs, alcohol, and smoking', 'guaranteed old age pension' and 'government regulated health care' are common doctrine for all parties outside your lunatic asylum.
Pity your Democrats don't adopt them all, and bring your soldiers home. Then the rest of the civilised world might have more time for them, and for you and your demented country.
regulating banking--Democrat; yet Republicans attempted to claim this when the banking sector fell apart and they blamed it on Clinton due to his refusal to veto the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act. Of course, the one who came up with that bill in the first place was Republican Senator Phill Gramm and it was passed by a Republican majority Congress...but Clinton was apparently to blame for de-regulating the banking sector because he chose not to veto that bill.
political correctness--neither party stands for this. This is simply a guide, not a requirement. You can be as racist as you want to be; this guide just shows you how to avoid appearing so. You don't actually have to follow it if you don't want to. By all means, hate away.
Superceding the good of the individual for the good of the whole--This one would actually be Republicans, though they don't necessarily supercede the good of the individual for the good of the whole; sometimes they just screw the whole as well. But it is Republicans who want to tell us who we can and cannot marry, what women can do with their bodies, what God we must believe in, and what we must believe about that God. Democrats fight so you can choose those things for yourself.
War on drugs, alcohol, smoking--Both, actually. Though in fairness, Democrats fight to educate Americans so they can protect themselves from these things. Republicans go after these things so they can pretend they are tough on illegal immigration; when in reality they just don't like how Democrat Hispanics have been becoming since Bush screwed them over so badly.
Government-regulated healthcare--Yeah, Democrats are fighting to protect us here. Republicans would rather just leave us at the mercy of insurance companies that take our money and then tell us to screw off when we need them.
Keeping a sense of crisis so regular opposition can be superceded--Republicans, who used terrorism to justify invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with terrorism; while they ignored the ACTUAL terrorists.
Promising big business they are too big to fail--Republicans. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but BUSH was the one who came up with "too big to fail" and then gave them all the money. The stimulus was a combination of tax cuts for middle and lower classes and stimulus money to state governments so they could keep teachers and police officers working, and also private companies that would be working on infrastructure projects. ALL business-saving came from the TARP fund and ONLY the TARP fund, established by Bush with his bailout.
Using the unemployed the improve infrastructure--Democrats; but you do know this is a good thing, right? It provides jobs while simultaneously streamlines the ability of the private sector to make money by not wasting it on repairs for their various truck fleets and so on.
Guaranteed old age pension--Democrats. Though Bush tried to take credit for this by saying he would revamp Social Security. His plan? Take the Social Security trust fund, which he insisted didn't exist, and take it out of Government Treasury Bills. Then take that money, which again Bush insisted didn't exist, and invest it...wait for it...Government Treasury Bills!
And for the record, that trust fund that Bush insisted didn't exist had $1.64 trillion in it at the time. Bush was defeated and forced to leave that trust fund alone, and it has now increased in value to $1.81 trillion.
Population control--Neither party, unless you count those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that Bush had killed. But I don't think his intention was population control so much as it was getting their oil.
Animal rights--What? You don't like animals? You do know God created them, right? I would personally be of the belief that God likes ALL of His creations, including animals. You telling me that God doesn't care about some living things?