Would America Be Different Under The Democratic Party?

[virtually dead]

I was wondering whether people think that American would be considerably different under Democratic rule, or whether they are simply the lesser of two evils?

Are the Big Buisness funders pulling the strings of the Democrats, and therefore can it have the interests of the poor and working class Americans at heart? Are they simply a caplitalist party acting on the interests on the American Ruling Class?

But of course I'm British and don't know anything....

 

[hatfull]

I was wondering whether people think that American would be considerably different under Democratic rule, or whether they are simply the lesser of two evils?

Are the Big Buisness funders pulling the strings of the Democrats, and therefore can it have the interests of the poor and working class Americans at heart?

But of course I'm British and don't know anything....

*looks at thread*
*realises she doesn't understand*
*runs back to the pants thread*


ummmmmmmmmmm........my husband might know, I'll ask him

 

[virtually dead]

Hi Hatfull
come on you can contribute to a serious thread, I believe in you

 

[hatfull]

Hi Hatfull
come on you can contribute to a serious thread, I believe in you

Hello vertie! Ireally have no idea how American politics work I try to join in with some serious threads, but this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head! sorry!

 

[Buzzetta]

Oh how quickly people forget the negatives of the Clinton Administration. The Republican Party did not tarnish the Republican Party. Bush has tarnished the Republican Party.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I was wondering whether people think that American would be considerably different under Democratic rule, or whether they are simply the lesser of two evils?

Are the Big Buisness funders pulling the strings of the Democrats, and therefore can it have the interests of the poor and working class Americans at heart? Are they simply a caplitalist party acting on the interests on the American Ruling Class?

But of course I'm British and don't know anything....

No, it won't be especially different. We're still embroiled in the Middle East Oil Wars... and now we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to help them rebuild everything we blasted to bits.

Some people feel that Hillary is just a corporate tool, and that Obama, being fresher to the system, might be able to act ethically--that he hasn't yet been bought. But anyone who actually ends up in the White House owes many debts to the people who put him or her there. At best, Obama will be a 4-year lame duck if he refuses to play the game.

But, no it's never significantly different. Do you prefer Coke, or Pepsi? Republican, or Democrat? The Democrats line their pockets just as the Republicans do, with pork projects and special tax breaks, and cushy appointed jobs. It never really varies.

Sorry to be such a cynic. I do vote, and vote for the best candidate offered me, but I don't believe the system ever really changes.

In fact, I live in such a thoroughly Democratic state that there is no point ever voting Republican, because the electoral college always goes Dem. And that's pretty funny, because Chicago politics is alive and well, and let no one tell you different. It's every bit as corrupt as it was in the 20's, there is just slightly less blood shed nowadays.

 

[bogdana]

Oh how quickly people forget the negatives of the Clinton Administration. The Republican Party did not tarnish the Republican Party. Bush has tarnished the Republican Party.

This is the truth. I don't like to call myself democrat or republican because those labels just don't matter anymore. Would it be different? yeh, but not necessarily better. I mostly want special interests out and pork barrelling as well. That's one of the topics I know three republicans have touted that they want to end, Huckabee, Ron Paul and McCain.

As I have gotten older I've realised that the dem party is full of promises and hopes, dreams and aspirations, but they rarely step up and do what they say they will, and often waste just as much money as republicans, if not more.

 

[Codreanu]

Health Care

Family Values

Immigration

Race Relations

Patriotism​

In short, not much different than America under the Stupid Party (Republicans).

 

[chica]

Aww Cod, you're so conservative

 

[bogdana]

hey now, third trimester abortions are to my knowledge illegal! not that i'm backing the democrats. hey if repubs are the stupid party what are the dems? the 'im gonna promise you the world and then shit in your hand" party?

 

[Busy Clippers]

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican because I think both major parties have ceased to function in any meaningful way. They're two different tennis teams from the same country club lobbing the government back and forth from one to the other. The differences between them are little more than stage business, a clever veneer. You expect that from Republicans, but the Democrats still pretend they're the party of FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson. Hah! But although the US economy is the worst it's been in years do not be fooled for a minute into believing that the Democrats would do squat about it. I don't see Obama out there pursuing the working poor vote ...that's just not sexy. And The Clintons (for they are a team) did more harm than good last time, have a look at this:

From The Nation:

posted August 30, 2006 (web only)
Clinton's Blindness on Welfare Reform
Robert Scheer

Robert Scheer is editor of TruthDig, where this essay originally was published.

To hear Bill Clinton tell it, his presidency won the war on poverty three decades after President Lyndon B. Johnson launched it, having changed only the name. Unfortunately, however, for the mothers and their children pushed off the rolls but still struggling mightily to make ends meet even when the women are employed, the war on welfare was not the same battle at all.

Clinton masterfully blurred the two in a recent New York Times opinion column, as did most others on the 10th anniversary of the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, writing as if getting mothers and their children off the welfare rolls is the same as getting them out of poverty. In the absence of any evidence that poverty is tamed, he celebrates a "bipartisan" victory, which was good for his image but not necessarily for those it claimed to help.

The ex-president gloats over the large decrease in the number of welfare recipients as if he is unaware of the five-year limit and other new restrictions which made it inevitable. Nor does he seem bothered that nobody seems to have thought it important to assess how the families on Aid to Families with Dependent Children fared after they left welfare. The truth is we know very little about the fate of those moved off welfare, 70% of whom are children, because there is no systematic monitoring program, thanks to "welfare reform" severing the federal government's responsibility to help the nation's poor.

The best estimates from the Census Bureau and other data, however, indicate that at least a million welfare recipients have neither jobs nor benefits and have sunk deeper into poverty. For those who found jobs, a great many became mired in minimum-wage jobs -- sometimes more than one -- that barely cover the child-care and other costs they incurred by working outside the home.

Yet, in rather the same way that President Bush likes to follow sentences about Sept. 11 with the words "Saddam Hussein" to imply a connection unsupported by facts, Clinton follows his boasts about welfare "reform" by announcing that "child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979" as if that proves a causal relationship.

But if crushing welfare is such a boon to poor children, the effects should be snowballing the further we get from the bad old days, right? Well, no: The same census data Clinton cites for 2000 also records a 12% increase in childhood poverty over the four subsequent years.

Of course, Republican funding cuts to various poverty-related programs have no doubt played a role in this sad stat, as has a bitter resistance to raising the federal minimum wage, which, in real dollars, is now at its lowest point in a half-century. But it is ridiculous to imply, without evidence, that welfare reform is responsible for declines in poverty but is unrelated to increases in poverty.

What we do know unequivocally is that real wages have been declining for workers, both lower- and middle-class, despite increases in productivity. As the New York Times reported on Monday, "wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s." These numbers are even more depressing when we realize that the top 1% of wage earners, beneficiaries of Bush's feed-the-rich tax breaks, now earn an outsized 11.2% of the nation's total wages.

Now, Clinton knows full well that the playing field is neither level nor fair, so it is unconscionable to have singled out the minuscule welfare program for a big propaganda campaign to improve government efficiency. The overly examined welfare program costs $10 billion a year while the $300 billion already spent on the Iraq war is rarely raised in discussions of taxpayer burden and fiscal responsibility.

The sad reality is that "ending welfare as we know it" was championed by Clinton because it made him appear to be a "new Democrat" and not because it would improve the lives of poor kids. Otherwise, he would not dare boast in his column that "as a governor, I oversaw a workfare experiment in Arkansas in 1980," because that program was a failure.

In Arkansas today, fully half the children are described in Census Bureau data as "low income," while 1 out of 10 live in a situation that researchers call "extreme child poverty," meaning that a family of four survives on less than $9,675 per year. Yes, Clinton all but ended welfare. Unfortunately, child poverty is again on the rise in Arkansas and throughout the nation.

And the war? Both Clinton and Obama repeatedly voted to fund the war, so anything they say about being against it is malarkey. After the cockup in 2000 there should have been some radical restructuring in that party, but they failed to do even that. The party is so anemic because the major figures stand for nothing except themselves.

 

[Dave]

Off with their heads! The lot of them. Bush deserves whatever punishment can be legally lethally applied. But Clinton gave us Waco, Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, and probably Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma Federal Building.

The last president that seemed halfway decent was Jimmy Carter and he sprayed paraquat on marijuana to poison his own citizens over a minor indulgence, certainly no worse than alcohol.

All of them are traitors to the Constitution and the people they supposedly represent.

So the answer is, yes, it would be different, but that difference would only be in the way they spin their story and who they pretend to be.

 

[Buzzetta]

Off with their heads! The lot of them. Bush deserves whatever punishment can be legally lethally applied. But Clinton gave us Waco, Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, and probably Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma Federal Building.

The last president that seemed halfway decent was Jimmy Carter and he sprayed paraquat on marijuana to poison his own citizens over a minor indulgence, certainly no worse than alcohol.

All of them are traitors to the Constitution and the people they supposedly represent.

So the answer is, yes, it would be different, but that difference would only be in the way they spin their story and who they pretend to be.

Elian Gonzalez was a case of paternal rights. If the anti-castro miami cubans want to bitch and moan about democracy and freedom let them. For once it was nice to see paternal rights recognized by a US court over anything else.

 

[Codreanu]

hey now, third trimester abortions are to my knowledge illegal!

No, third trimester abortions are still legal in most states of the union. It was only the D&X procedure that was banned.

hey if repubs are the stupid party what are the dems?

The Evil Party. Those cute phrases were coined by the late Dr. Samuel Francis, who used them rather consistently in his articles and editorials.

 

[Dave]

This is wrong. It has nothing to do with anyone's rights. Elian escaped from Cuba and had a home here and his rights should have been respected.

Do they have pinatas in Cuba? If so, Clinton and Janet Reno should have been beaten like Cuban pinatas for allowing this to occur.

 

[Dave]

Elian back in Cuba five years later, being used as a political pawn, and obviously enjoying himself.

 

[bogdana]

Elian Gonzalez was a case of paternal rights. If the anti-castro miami cubans want to bitch and moan about democracy and freedom let them. For once it was nice to see paternal rights recognized by a US court over anything else.

I lived in FL still during all that. If I was Elian's father and that was my kid, I'd probably want to let him live in a free country that I knew he was floating to, especially since I wasn't all that involved with the child in the first place.

No, third trimester abortions are still legal in most states of the union. It was only the D&X procedure that was banned.

The Evil Party. Those cute phrases were coined by the late Dr. Samuel Francis, who used them rather consistently in his articles and editorials.

3rd tri abortion: ah, nice. if people want to kill their formed child, that's their nightmare they have to live with forever.
and evil party! nice! lol

Elian back in Cuba five years later, being used as a political pawn, and obviously enjoying himself.

I am concerned about Elian, actually. He was wanted by Castro and he will be used and brainwashed for his politics.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

No, third trimester abortions are still legal in most states of the union. It was only the D&X procedure that was banned.

3rd tri abortion: ah, nice. if people want to kill their formed child, that's their nightmare they have to live with forever.
and evil party! nice! lol

Before we get too deep into this, here are some stats on abortions in the US. Yes, it's on Wikipedia, but the relevant data is attributed to the CDC and other figures that only a tin-foil hat wearer would accuse of bias.

Ever wonder what's in an abortion clinic's dumpster? Or do they have some industrial-strength garbage disposal?

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Health Care[/SIZE]

Family Values[/SIZE]

Immigration[/SIZE]

Race Relations[/SIZE]

Patriotism[/SIZE][/CENTER]

In short, not much different than America under the Stupid Party (Republicans).

I hope to don't mind I didn't reproduce you're interesting little images. Ok, now, for the first one, "Taking things away from you for the common good"? You're comparison to communism is laughable, but telling, it's only socialism if it helps poor people. In the case of Bush Jr. (Or Bush Sr., or Reagan, etc.) it should be "Taking things away from you for the good of the obscenely wealthy." This administration in particular has been relentless in it's efforts to support the obscenely wealthy with subsidies (over 6 billion) and tax breaks. Bush saved the Walton family alone (Billionaire Wal-Mart owners) 30 million dollars. I'm sure our taxes are well spent on handouts to Donald Trump and bill gates because, obviously, they haven't got enough. Oh, and theres' the 9 BILLION they just plain LOST in Iraq, not SPENT, mind, but LOST. As for healthcare, state healthcare is the norm overseas, not just socialist countries, but most if not all of western Europe, England, Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, etc., etc. Healthcare is the third biggest source of debt, and one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country. This is SHAMEFUL. Our retardedly huge defense budget is about equivalent to the top 18 countries below us in spending COMBINED, but we can't provide adequate affordable healthcare? Give me a f***ing break.


Family Values? Oh, thats' rich. Republicans outnumber democrats in sex scandals 3 to 1 or more. A partial list of republican sex scandals from Bush's inauguration onward: Phillip Giordano, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Dave Almond, Ted Klaudt, David Vitter, Jeff Gannon, Bob Allen, Larry Craig, and at least two others who's names don't spring to mind. Or how about how Dick Cheney would love to deny his daughter, and all other homosexuals, the legal right to marry? Is THAT family values? Oh, you're charming little abortion picture. I'm no feminist, but the pro-life argument requires that women's primary function is childbearing. Far from talking incubators, I happen to believe that women are (occasionally) intelligent, human beings, with goals and dreams, and rights, ESPECIALLY over they're own body. As a man it's easy for you to sit on you're high horse, if you were a woman, and actually had to face this you might feel differently. And according to the information linked above, most abortions are performed BEFORE the third trimester.

While clearly there should be some kind of procedure, you can't characterize immigration in such gross extremes. Besides, it's not that simple. After all, what about "Give me you're poor you're huddled masses yearning to be free?" I'd also bet you've got immigrants in you're family tree. Moreover, America has a RESPONSIBILITY to immigrants who flock here. Not because we have malls, and mcdonalds, and higher standards of living, although these are enticing to foreigners. Rather, because America has been the direct cause of much suffering, and poverty in the third world. The US govt. has supported the most brutal dictatorships on earth. Indonesia being the worse, but you seem to be indicating south america. Our government has supported despots in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, and El Salvador. (In the first 3 we overthrew democtacially elected governments.) These regimes tortured and slaughtered hundreds of thousands. Republicans have also been the most vehement advocates of "neoliberal" trade policies which drastically increase poverty and unemployment in other countries, Mexico is a perfect example, and as they are slowly doing inside our country. We owe those people something.

As for the race relations I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, I'd imagine you oppose affirmative action, maybe hate crime laws, I'll leave that be for now.

Patriotism. This is a laugh. What is patriotism, mind? Those dickheads one sees counter-protesting at anti-war rallies waving flags and chanting "USA! USA!"? Such blind devotion is in total opposition to the views of the founding fathers, who viewed government as a necessary evil, requiring strict controls and public scrutiny. Whats' you're beef with the un? They want to prevent nuclear holocaust? They want to protect the planet? They think that invading and bombing and overthrowing governments is wrong? We are the only member to be called out for state terrorism, I believe. Surely you can't be so blind as to be an isolationist? In a post internet, post nuclear, post globalization world we live in a global village, all intimately connected and interdependent. I'm proud to be an American, but I AM A HUMAN BEING FIRST. You were right about one thing, though... Republicans certainly ARE the "stupid party."

 

[Buzzetta]

This is wrong. It has nothing to do with anyone's rights. Elian escaped from Cuba and had a home here and his rights should have been respected.

Do they have pinatas in Cuba? If so, Clinton and Janet Reno should have been beaten like Cuban pinatas for allowing this to occur.

You could not be further off base. If you are referring to the manner that he was seized from his aunts and uncles one can obviously argue that the manner was unnecessary. However you are discounting certain aspects of this case.

1 - Tinker and the current "bong hits for Jesus" case have clearly set the statute that children under a certain age do not enjoy the same rights as what the law defines as an adult. While that certainly does not mean that children's rights are abandoned the courts do uphold parental interests so long as it is in accordance to basic principles outlined by the Constitution. Gonzalez had a surviving father to whom he was taken from by the mother and for all intents and purposes "kidnapped" to the United States and not "escaped." The father wanted him back. Elian was in no danger in going back to his father. He was not abused or neglected. Legal procedure was followed.

2 - The relatives tried to turn this into a communist regime vs republican democracy issue where in reality it was a family issue. Ask yourself. If this was a matter where your son or daughter was taken by your wife or girlfriend to another country that you were denied passage to would you not claim that it was your right to your child? Are you kidding in the fact that you wouldn't? The boy's father was alive and well and wanted his son back in his home country. End of story. It is his son and not the son of the United States.

Clinton's government did not just make the right decision it made the only decision... this coming from a registered Republican.

Do not politicize a family matter.