Republicans Vs. Democrats (1 Viewer)

[selenau837]

See, explanations like that help me tremendously.

Reps: Laissez-faire; let the economy run itself
Dems: The Fed should regulate the economy

I'm not sure I fully understand this. I feel it should be a bit of both. The Fed should step in if it gets out of hand, and lend a helping hand. Other than that let it go. But then again I don't fully understand the effects either has so I am just going on what I am reading here.

Reps: Maximum individual freedom, minimum government, self-regulated society
Dems: Society regulated by laws and courts, individual freedom is limited, increasing government involvement is not a negative

I see nothing wrong with the Reps point of view with this. The government only steps in with laws that keep us safe. Other than that, why have so many regulations.
Yes they are hypocritical when it comes to Gay marriage, if they fully believed that they would before it, not against it. So, on that issue I do not agree.

Reps: Minimum taxes, economic growth through investing
Dems: Whatever taxes are necessary, economic growth through productivity

On this issue I agree with both parties. Investing is good as well as productivity. However the Democrats so far love to tax so the people can gain wages for NO production. Again, that is my jaded view of the system.

 

[Kraj]

I'm not sure I fully understand this. ... But then again I don't fully understand the effects either has so I am just going on what I am reading here.

I don't think anyone does. The one thing I really learned in Economics classes is that no one really understands how the economy as a whole functions.

I see nothing wrong with the Reps point of view with this. The government only steps in with laws that keep us safe. Other than that, why have so many regulations.

The tricky part is where to draw the line. Who determines what is necessary to keep us safe? For example:

Let's say there's a bad neighborhood where retail businesses regularly get robbed. Law enforcement says a security camera system will deter crime and help them catch criminals. The Dems would suggest passing a law to require all businesses to install security cameras. The law would be effective in reducing crime and improve the community for everyone but at the same time it would hurt businesses that couldn't afford to comply with the law, so the Republicans would be against it. Are the Reps right in this case? Maybe, I can't say. Would they always be right in situations like this? I don't think so.

 

[selenau837]

The tricky part is where to draw the line. Who determines what is necessary to keep us safe? For example:

Let's say there's a bad neighborhood where retail businesses regularly get robbed. Law enforcement says a security camera system will deter crime and help them catch criminals. The Dems would suggest passing a law to require all businesses to install security cameras. The law would be effective in reducing crime and improve the community for everyone but at the same time it would hurt businesses that couldn't afford to comply with the law, so the Republicans would be against it. Are the Reps right in this case? Maybe, I can't say. Would they always be right in situations like this? I don't think so.

Well what could be done is the Rep gives those small business a tax break for installing the cams. By doing that, it would reduce the cost of insurance for that business. That in turns saves the business, and the insurance companies at the same time. Because the crime would be down, therefore less money the insurance companies have to pay out, which inturn brings the premiums down for everyone.
Also with a reduced crime rate, it would free the police up to deal with more pressing matters, and not waste money in a area that can be easily remedied with cameras. Do I make sense???

 

[Kraj]

Yep, that would work nicely. All except for the part about bringing insurance premiums down; that wouldn't happen. Of course, everything other than the first sentence applies to passing a law too. So it comes down to whether the lawmakers think the businesses should be required or should be given an incentive. If they give an incentive, that doesn't mean it will be taken advantage of. They might end up going through the legislative process to implement a solution that doesn't actually do anything. Requiring the cameras gaurantees the action. Of course, it doesn't gaurantee they'll be effective, or that the law will be enforced. Each approach has its pros and cons, which is exactly what neither party wants to admit.

 

[Rich]

we in the U.S. know the power of guns and respect that power. Police don't just pull guns and start blazing away (other than in the movies).

Are you serious, don't you guys read your own news?
What about the guy who was surrounded by 18cops and who when he reached into his pocket to produce his id as directed, was promptly blasted to death. The verdict on the police, justifiable homicide
The first thing your cops do is put their hands on their guns

 

[Rich]

We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men...

Well I do so hate to keep pointing this out but unless we're there leading the way, you've a tendancy to get beaten up pretty badly

 

[Rich]

There are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the current admin. has passed nothing pro or con on gun control. So your "your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all" is false. Also we do not have "un-restricted gun ownership" in this country. It is controlled (for good guys). As even in the UK, the "bad guys" can get guns illegally.

God you guys don't even know what's going on in your own country

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0731-03.htm

 

[selenau837]

Yep, that would work nicely. All except for the part about bringing insurance premiums down; that wouldn't happen. Of course, everything other than the first sentence applies to passing a law too. So it comes down to whether the lawmakers think the businesses should be required or should be given an incentive. If they give an incentive, that doesn't mean it will be taken advantage of. They might end up going through the legislative process to implement a solution that doesn't actually do anything. Requiring the cameras gaurantees the action. Of course, it doesn't gaurantee they'll be effective, or that the law will be enforced. Each approach has its pros and cons, which is exactly what neither party wants to admit.

I was trying to think positive. However, that would be a perfect situation and I know we don't live in a perfect world.

That would be an issue that would probably hold up the house and the senate for months..if not years.....

 

[FoFa]

God you guys don't even know what's going on in your own country

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0731-03.htm

Unreliable source, exagerating made up facts

 

[Rich]

Unreliable source, exagerating made up facts

Typical republican reply

 

[FoFa]

Typical republican reply

Well if you had a background in these facts, you would know.
What they did is take something like "Well Kansas is flat, so from thet I can conclude that the whole earth is flat".
Since you do not really know, you choose to beleive any BS that sounds good in the general direction you wish.

 

[ColinEssex]

What they did is take something like "Well Kansas is flat, so from thet I can conclude that the whole earth is flat".

Sounds logical to me - many Americans are unaware of what lies beyond the borders.

Col

 

[Rich]

many Americans are unaware of what lies beyond the borders.

Col

or how old the planet is and how long we've been on it

 

[ColinEssex]

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Brilliant Link

Col

 

[jsanders]

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Brilliant Link

Col

60 minutes aired it first.

 

[ColinEssex]

60 minutes aired it first.

Once again you demonstrate your amazing ability to totally misread the question and answer a question that was not asked

Col

 

[FoFa]

Did anyone see the Panorama programme on BBC about how the Bush administration is "doctoring" environmental and climate change reports so that the US people are misled into thinking things are not as bad as they are?

Doctoring in one opinion, making more accurate and taking personal view points out in another.
There are reliable scientist who say this is normal cycle the planet goes through. As with Huracanes, they are in a normal cycle pattern that has them increasing. Does the extra warmth being induced by what ever means cause more or larger Huracanes, yes if I understand how they work. Is it the work of man, depends, I suspect some people contribute more power to the human race than they really have when it comes to mother nature. Besides, mother nature will level the playing field one way or the other.
This argument is getting boring.

 

[Rich]

There are reliable scientist who say this is normal cycle the planet goes through.

All working for the oil industry
The overwhelming concensus is that the current cycle is man's doing, that twat Bush just won't open his stupid eyes, 'cause he's got to pay back all his supporters
Let's all sit around and do nothing, after all it's only the poor who'll suffer, but then we all know where Bush was on Katrina, don't we!

 

[FoFa]

All working for the oil industry

That would make them unreliable, but good try at switching up

The overwhelming concensus is that the current cycle is man's doing, that twat Bush just won't open his stupid eyes, 'cause he's got to pay back all his supporters

Oh sure, ruin the planet to pay back a few people, I think that wishful thinking on a lot of people part rather than the truth. Lets just destroy the planet, I have a lot of money, I can move to MARS!
Don't think so, and it is not like they don't have grandchildren they have to look out for also. Might be nice to say, but in the deep truth just holds no water.

Let's all sit around and do nothing, after all it's only the poor who'll suffer, but then we all know where Bush was on Katrina, don't we!

Things are being done, just maybe not as extrem as ya liberals think should be, and I don't see where the poor have anything to do with it. And what does mother natures Katerina have to do with anything? We trashed that to death and proved you wrong a number of times.

 

[Rich]

We trashed that to death and proved you wrong a number of times.

Now you are living in cloud cuckoo land

Things are being done

Not enough and not fast enough, in fact anything that costs American industry money is ruled out.
It's a fact that your love of gas guzzlers is destroying the planet, of course when you've finished raping Canada you might wake up

and I don't see where the poor have anything to do with it.

Now why doesn't that suprise me