Political Trends - Republican and Democrat

[NguyenKimPhat]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

 

[TedDC]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

No, I don’t see those trends at all. You’re drawing unfounded conclusions in both cases.

 

[Cat]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

I think you’re making huge incorrect generalizations and that you should stop listening to such silly talk and do some actual research.

Many Republicans care very much for the “little guy,” but they do not believe in handing out free money. We believe in helping the little guy become bigger by giving him/her the tools he needs to get an education, find work, and pay his/her own bills. We believe that charity needs to come through private organizations like churches and civic organizations, NOT the government. We believe in teaching the “little guy” to fish rather than just giving him/her a fish. We believe in creating an environment in which small businesses aren’t hobbled by a myriad of regulations and taxes, so that they have the freedom to develop and grow and provide more jobs in their community. We believe that the tax monies are best distributed at the LOCAL level, because it is there that people actually know what is going on with their own neighbors and can hold their local governments responsible.

Many Democrats are extremely wealthy and they do whatever they can to hold onto their wealth. One example is John Edwards, the adulterer from North Carolina whose mansion is apparently quite a showplace. Another example is the hypocrite Al Gore, who talks carbon credits while living in a huge wasteland of a mansion and flies his own private jet to various speaking engagements in which he urges all the rest of us to give up modern conveniences and return to a primitive lifestyle. Many of the Democrats vote for policies that actually keep people and entire races mired down in poverty; e.g., job relief bills that provide temporary jobs, but once those jobs end, that’s it, no more job. Many of the Democrats vote for policies in which there is no accountability; people keep receiving handouts for decades and are never required to improve their state in life by finishing school or getting a job. This lack of accountability happens because many of the Democrats prefer to see tax monies distributed at the federal level, by massive bureaucracies that have no idea who actually needs these monies in small towns and cities across the U.S.

Keep in mind that the Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln, a man who fought for the rights of the poorest of the poor, the slaves. I often wonder how different things would have been had he lived.

 

[mary_bobo]

Thank you, Cat. Very well done.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

What makes you think that the wealthy do not care about the poor?

How do you define ‘wealthy?’

Do you know about economy of scale?

Lastly, and most egregious of all, how is the Democrat position of taxation without representation and abortion-on-demand (which is in their party platform) ‘helping the poor?’ By making sure that taxpaying citizens can not keep any of their hard-earned money or by aborting them into oblivion?

 

[Corki]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

Actually, except for the moral issues, I have noticed the exact opposite trend. A trend is a movement and the movement has been for Republicans to be more involved in social issues, more involved in issues such as poverty and health care and more compassionate.
The Democrats have been trending in the opposite direction supporting divisive racial policies, leaving large groups of the population more vulnerable than ever before.

The Republicans, in my lifetime have always “handled money well” and that isn’t really trending although the Republicans have supported big spending more recently. The Democrats have always supported big spending and have not been as concerned about the means to pay for the spending. That characteristic is the same as it was and isn’t really trending either.

Rich, “high class” men run both parties. No particular difference and no trend either.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I have never understood why so many Catholics fail to see the evil in socialism, which the Church has spoken out against (the Church supports private ownership).

I have never understood why so many fail to see the difference between charity and rendering unto Caesar at gunpoint.

Today’s crop of Republicans are little different from Democrats, who so closely resemble communists that even FDR would not recognize them.

The term “useful idiots” supposedly was coined by Soviet dictator Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to describe Western intellectual idealists persuaded to adopt communism.

 

[Black_Rose]

Actually, except for the moral issues, I have noticed the exact opposite trend. A trend is a movement and the movement has been for Republicans to be more involved in social issues, more involved in issues such as poverty and health care and more compassionate.
The Democrats have been trending in the opposite direction supporting divisive racial policies, leaving large groups of the population more vulnerable than ever before.

The Republicans, in my lifetime have always “handled money well” and that isn’t really trending although the Republicans have supported big spending more recently. The Democrats have always supported big spending and have not been as concerned about the means to pay for the spending. That characteristic is the same as it was and isn’t really trending either.

Rich, “high class” men run both parties. No particular difference and no trend either.

You mean the Reagan cuts in social programs and massive defense spending and George Bush’s tax cuts and an expensive ill-conceived war are examples of handling money well and prudent fiscal policy? I am not justifying the Democrats policies, but I just wanted to point out how the Republican Administrations are not fiscally prudent.

BTW, I do not see any good from Reagan’s Defense spending assuming that it was a catalyst for the “inevitable” collapse of world socialism? If communism is an inherently flawed political philosophy in practice, why not just let the Soviet Union collapse on its own?

 

[Belle777]

Honestly, I don’t like either very much.

Most politicians I hear about are corrupt in power or ignorant of somebody’s suffering.

But, for the most part, I’m not informed enough for a debate…

The most I can say is that I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I believe some sort of health care that can assist those who can’t afford insurance would be wonderful.

Call that what you want, there is rarely if ever a good reason for war, and everybody should have the right to health care. nods

 

[Ridgerunner]

Honestly, I don’t like either very much.

Most politicians I hear about are corrupt in power or ignorant of somebody’s suffering.

But, for the most part, I’m not informed enough for a debate…

The most I can say is that I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I believe some sort of health care that can assist those who can’t afford insurance would be wonderful.

Call that what you want, there is rarely if ever a good reason for war, and everybody should have the right to health care. nods

Like you, I am not informed enough for a debate. However, as a “born and raised” Democrat who once held party office, but who can no longer support Democrat candidates, I would observe the following:

1. Most people in the U.S. had health insurance before the healthcare bill. It is likely that fewer will now have employer-paid health care than before. Medicaid is there for the truly poor, but it is now being extended to the part of the working class that once had pretty good employer-paid coverage. I don’t think the jury is in on healthcare.
2. Regarding Iraq; I don’t agree with you, but it may be observed that there is no difference between the Bush and Obama conduct of that war. On the other hand, there has been significant escalation in Afghanistan.
3. Neither party has done anything for the poorest of all…the disabled poor who somehow are expected to eke out an existence on about $600/month (SSI), and neither has done anything for decades regarding them.

So, it seems to me the big issues are government spending on programs other than support of the most needy, and support of abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. When it comes to those issues, there really is only one choice. And that’s why, despite my background, I vote Republican.

I have remarked on CAF before, and will do it again, that as an older person who was deeply involved in politics at one time, it seems to me the Democrat party now most resembles the “Rockefeller Republicans” of years ago. Elitist, big-spending, given to social engineering, dominated by the wealthy, in bed with corporate America. The Republican party today more closely resembles the Democrat party of my youth.

Strange how things change. That’s why ancient characterizations of political parties should not be resorted to in today’s world.

 

[Belle777]

I do agree that the Iraq war isn’t getting any better with Obama in charge.
I was hoping he’d bring troops home, but then again, that wouldn’t really work out either, because the ideal thing to do is to bring stability to the Iraq government first THEN end the war.
My family says that’s how the Pope directed Bush, that if he HAS to go to war, then at least don’t leave until the place is fixed.

 

[Black_Rose]

Like you, I am not informed enough for a debate. However, as a “born and raised” Democrat who once held party office, but who can no longer support Democrat candidates, I would observe the following:

1. Most people in the U.S. had health insurance before the healthcare bill. It is likely that fewer will now have employer-paid health care than before. Medicaid is there for the truly poor, but it is now being extended to the part of the working class that once had pretty good employer-paid coverage. I don’t think the jury is in on healthcare.
2. Regarding Iraq; I don’t agree with you, but it may be observed that there is no difference between the Bush and Obama conduct of that war. On the other hand, there has been significant escalation in Afghanistan.
3. Neither party has done anything for the poorest of all…the disabled poor who somehow are expected to eke out an existence on about $600/month (SSI), and neither has done anything for decades regarding them.

So, it seems to me the big issues are government spending on programs other than support of the most needy, and support of abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. When it comes to those issues, there really is only one choice. And that’s why, despite my background, I vote Republican.

I have remarked on CAF before, and will do it again, that as an older person who was deeply involved in politics at one time, it seems to me the Democrat party now most resembles the “Rockefeller Republicans” of years ago. Elitist, big-spending, given to social engineering, dominated by the wealthy, in bed with corporate America. The Republican party today more closely resembles the Democrat party of my youth.

Strange how things change. That’s why ancient characterizations of political parties should not be resorted to in today’s world.

I am sure stereotypical country club Republicans exist too. But I would say the current Republican Party is only similar to the old Democratic Party in its constituency only, not ideology.

 

[bibleguy180]

I think you’re making huge incorrect generalizations and that you should stop listening to such silly talk and do some actual research.

Many Republicans care very much for the “little guy,” but they do not believe in handing out free money. We believe in helping the little guy become bigger by giving him/her the tools he needs to get an education, find work, and pay his/her own bills. We believe that charity needs to come through private organizations like churches and civic organizations, NOT the government. We believe in teaching the “little guy” to fish rather than just giving him/her a fish. We believe in creating an environment in which small businesses aren’t hobbled by a myriad of regulations and taxes, so that they have the freedom to develop and grow and provide more jobs in their community. We believe that the tax monies are best distributed at the LOCAL level, because it is there that people actually know what is going on with their own neighbors and can hold their local governments responsible.

Many Democrats are extremely wealthy and they do whatever they can to hold onto their wealth. One example is John Edwards, the adulterer from North Carolina whose mansion is apparently quite a showplace. Another example is the hypocrite Al Gore, who talks carbon credits while living in a huge wasteland of a mansion and flies his own private jet to various speaking engagements in which he urges all the rest of us to give up modern conveniences and return to a primitive lifestyle. Many of the Democrats vote for policies that actually keep people and entire races mired down in poverty; e.g., job relief bills that provide temporary jobs, but once those jobs end, that’s it, no more job. Many of the Democrats vote for policies in which there is no accountability; people keep receiving handouts for decades and are never required to improve their state in life by finishing school or getting a job. This lack of accountability happens because many of the Democrats prefer to see tax monies distributed at the federal level, by massive bureaucracies that have no idea who actually needs these monies in small towns and cities across the U.S.

Keep in mind that the Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln, a man who fought for the rights of the poorest of the poor, the slaves. I often wonder how different things would have been had he lived.

This seems extremely biased. I’m sure one could come up with immoral and moral politicians, good and bad decisions, and find that they are equal among both parties.

 

[Corki]

You mean the Reagan cuts in social programs and massive defense spending and George Bush’s tax cuts and an expensive ill-conceived war are examples of handling money well and prudent fiscal policy? I am not justifying the Democrats policies, but I just wanted to point out how the Republican Administrations are not fiscally prudent.

BTW, I do not see any good from Reagan’s Defense spending assuming that it was a catalyst for the “inevitable” collapse of world socialism? If communism is an inherently flawed political philosophy in practice, why not just let the Soviet Union collapse on its own?

I think you are looking at the discussion primarily from the Presidential level while I included local and state politics. I agree that some of the activities of Bush and even Reagan were almost as financially irresponsible as those of Carter and Clinton.

The higher up you go on the political ladder, the easier it is to be reckless with ohter people’s money and the less difference there is whether one is Republican or Democrat.

 

[Cat]

This seems extremely biased. I’m sure one could come up with immoral and moral politicians, good and bad decisions, and find that they are equal among both parties.

Of course. You’re absolutely right. There are awful Republicans–pro-choice and with no balls to say “No!” to yet another spending bill.

And there are saintly Democrats who are pro-life and fiscally responsible with our (taxpayer) money.

We must never forget about the Party Platforms. People tend to discredit these are mere words, but in reality, those Party members who adhere to their Party Platforms generally receive funding from their party to use for campaigning and PR. They also receive visibility from their Party, receiving invitations to speak at Party activities, fundraisers, and conventions.

Meanwhile, those who oppose their Party Platform often end up with no financial help from their Party, no visibility, and sometimes even open contempt and condemnation from their fellow Party members.

And of course, there are exceptions. There always are. Sometimes a Party will go ahead and publicize/fund a “maverick” because they realize that the person is actually giving the Party some good PR.

But one reason I would have a very hard time voting for a Democrat “pro-life” politician is that Party Platform. I can never be certain that the candidate won’t revert to a “pro-choice” POV out of loyalty to their Party. Look at Stupak.

 

[Cat]

I would like to point out that at the Federal level, the line between Democrats and Republicans seems to be a chasm at this point. We are seeing politicians from both sides oppose legislation that is actually quite reasonable, but if it did not originate with their party, poliicians oppose it on priniciple. It’s ridiculous, like little children who insist on having their way even over things that they really don’t want–they just don’t want the other child to have them!

But at the local levels, there is often a great deal of reasonableness between politicians from the different parties. It is very important at the local levels to not be so quick to judge a politician by his/her political party. At the local levels, we, the constituents, can more easily ascertain what actually happens to our tax monies, and so it’s easier to hold our politicians accountable. For this reason, often local politicians are not so much concerned about voting “party line,” but honestly want to vote for what’s best for their neighborhood, town, or city.

Finally, in regards to the OP questions about wealth and party, the local politicians are more often than not just “one of us.” Many of us know our local politicians–our aldermen or city fathers, our town treasurer, etc. If we don’t know them, we can get to know them. Many of them are very willing to be invited over for dinner!

And even though local politicians are usually fairly well-off, they are generally not the millionaires that we see at the Federal level. My alderman, a Republican, is an accountant and sells Christian books on the side. I’ve known him since I was a child; he and his family lived in back of us in a small apartment. He was my youth sponsor at my church when I was growing up. Now he lives in a modest home right smack in the middle of his ward, not too far from my house. Hardly a “rich fat cat” oppressing the poor.

BUT…he does have definite philosophies about how the poor should be helped; like most Republicans, he does not vote for handouts for the poor in our city, but for programs that help them to pull themselves out of poverty and take their place as successful citizens.

I would suggest that the OP do some legwork, phonecalling, and emailing, and get to know his/her local politicians of both parties. Find out which candidates that his diocese supports (they can’t endorse anyone, but there are definite preferences.) Find out if any of the politicians attend his/her parish or another Catholic parish, or a Christian church (non-Catholic). Spend some time with these politicians and truly get to KNOW whether they are oppressing the poor or honestly trying to help the poor.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am sure stereotypical country club Republicans exist too. But I would say the current Republican Party is only similar to the old Democratic Party in its constituency only, not ideology.

Oh, I think there are definite ideological similarities. Like the Repubs today, the old Democratic party was not pro-abortion. It was strong on defense. It was family oriented. It was reasonably responsible fiscally. With the exception of black civil rights (and then only at times) It had no manifest interest in changing the moral or social fabric of the country. It actually believed in American exceptionalism. (remember JFK?) Strange as it may seem to some nowadays, Sarah Palin would have fit into the old Democrat party a lot better than Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi would have.

 

[manualman]

I think there is SOME validity to the OP statement, but what is missed is the cynical PR job that has been done on the American people.

I tend to share the criticism that the Republican Party excessively favors the wealthy, but have a more specific criticism. I think they most especially cater to the “neavue rich” who are still actively in control of their businesses and trying to grow them from smaller into larger organizations.

The Democrats have done an amazing job of disguising the fact that a HUGE percentage of their support comes from the “old money” class and those who actually run the largest corporations and investment funds. These are the guys that actually benefit from government regulations and stipulations that make it highly difficult for an entrepenuer to hang his shingle out and start a business. From their perspective, the harder it is for little guys to start up and compete with them, the better. No surprise that Democrats create nearly insurmountable paperwork obstacles for entrepenuers and small businessmen. Also no surprise why nearly every small businessman you will meet despises the Democrats (at least at the national level).

You watch what happens with banks. The huge ones will gain market share and small community banks will vanish at an accelerating rate. The Dem philosophy leads to huge organizations and puts serious hurt on individual initiative and small enterprise.

 

[timotheos]

I was always wondering, have you guys ever noticed these weird trends regarding political parties?

~Although the Republicans have strong morals (anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life), the Republicans tend to be really rich high class men who do not care for the needs of the poor guy who needs help (i.e. the undocumented immigrants) . Although the Republicans have strong morals, the Republicans don’t handle money well. For example, it was Andrew Mellon, a republican economist, who came up with the “trickle down policy” which plummeted America into the great depression. The Republicans tend to be so rich that they only care about money for themselves.

~Although the Democrats have little morals (pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion), it seems as if it is the Democrats who look out for the little guy, the poor guy in society (i.e. the undocumented immigrants)/ It seems as if the Democrats care about minority rights and the Democrats watch out for people who are really poor in society. It seems as if the Democrats care for the poor, little guy in society. The democrats seem to be able to handle money really well: it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who saved America from the great depression. It is Obama who is taking us out of the recession.

~Do you guys notice these trends ? What do you think?

My honest opinion? I think many liberals suffer greatly from “class envy” and only care about the little guy to the extent that they can be used to tear down the rich guy. Beyond forcing redistributionism, many have little interest in helping the little guy themselves. Many demonize conservatives in general, imagining them all to be selfish, heartless, wealthy caviar-eaters. In reality, it is many liberals who are blinded by their own selfishness, which keeps them from seeing the truth – that the average conservative is a person who simply wants the freedom to do what he or she ought to do, such as love God, work hard, obey the rules and commandments, and take responsibility for one’s self and family, and help neighbor as they can. They are average hard-working folks who don’t accept the liberal doctrine that all their stresses and challenges in life were caused by some selfish wealthy person, racial bigot or personified “big business”; they accept that life is just hard on its own. These Republicans make up about half of our society; how on earth can this roughly 50% all be “really rich high class men”? They can’t, of course. It’s nothing but an illusion caused by the mortal sin of envy.

And, I would be careful courting this particular mortal sin in the process of coveting the life of another person who may also be in a state of mortal sin (avarice, greed, accumulation of wealth for selfish purposes). Somehow I think this is not the path to heaven.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

We also do not look to the nanny state to solve our problems, but to God first, then our own sweat.

Why aren’t leftists singing for joy? The USA as we knew it is about to become another socialist ‘paradise.’