Are Democrats and Republicans the same party?
If you look at the facts, you can see many similarities between Republicans and Democrats. One is they both get funding from Goldman Sachs. Why would the same people fund both parties? Both parties agree with The Federal Reserve printing money, going into more debt, taxing, and getting involved in more wars. This is not what the founders intended. George Washington even said in his farewell address, be careful of political parties. They might argue over healthcare, birth control, and gay marriage but these are just distractions from the real issues, these issues need to be left to the state
There are facts, and then there are facts. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams, all who I hope you agree were founding fathers, absolutely believed in a Central Bank; that was one of the main issues on which the Federalists (Alexander Hamilton/John Adams) and the Democratic-Republican (James Madison/Thomas Jefferson) were formed a little bit before the end of Washington's second term. There were other reasons, such as believe in high (Federalists) or low (Republicans) tariffs and support for Enland (Federalists) or France (Republicans) in their current war.
The Federalists, who are todays Democrats and the Republicans, who became Democrats through 1897, are today's conservatives with virtually identical economic, social, and other philosophical views intact from when they were formed in 1797/
You are quite correct about Washington's abhorance of political parties, and we can see why; but even in his administrations, when there were no political parties, there were the pro and anti-administration factions. Washington generally sided with the pro-administration faction who because the Federalists after he left office.
The lack of a Federal Reserve, as Hamilton saw, is critical to a stable economy exactly for the ability to print money and smoothout the money supply. Without the Fed and being stuck on the gold standard and being saddled with the too rigid Autrian economic school led to the wild boom-bust cycles of the 1800s and early 1900s.
No. I disagree with you that "healthcare, birth control, and gay marriage" are "distractions." These issues--and especially health care--affect literally everybody in the nation in vital ways--including budgetary ones.
Moreover, the Republicans are hostage to an anti-science ideology that means they are currently incapable of making rational choices on environmental issues, such as (but not limited to) climate change. That makes them extremely dangerous to the national (and international) health, wealth and welfare, in my opinion.
The kernel of truth in what you say is that both parties are manipulable and manipulated by money. That isn't new, though with the Supreme Court's dismantling of any meaningful control on election spending, we've reached a new low in the US. To that extent, both parties may be depended upon to look out for the 1%. But there remains a choice between bad and much worse. Both parties are venal, perenially, but one is just now in a crisis of irrationality that amounts to functional insanity--and on vital issues, at that.
It should be dealt with by individual states not the federal government
I really think that a 'patchwork' approach to most of these questions will be much less effective than an approach at the Federal level. YMMV.
Decisions like these have to be left up to the states. There is no one answer. You let different states try different things but not federally because that effects every state
"Leaving it up to the states" is the conservative answer to all of societies problems, except intrastate commerce and national defense, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that idea went out with the Continental Congress and the AoC.
There certainly *can* be "one answer." In some cases it may make sense for states to act as a laboratory to find the best approach (should there turn out to be a 'best approach.') In others effective action must be unitary to work.
What was great about our country was that you didn't need just one answer you had the freedom to choose. Things like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the state so it is reflected off that states values. Not some federal thugs values.
Now there's an even-handed assessment! What about *state* thugs? It seems most unlikely that all virtue will be reliably concentrated at the state level--especially given the history on race and civil rights.
It easier to get things changed at the local level then at the federal level. People have more control over their state. Plus it gives more choices then just the federally mandated one.
So, in your view SB, Civil Rights should be a state decision, not a federal one. It would be OK for one state to allow slavery and another not, which is what the Civil War was partly fought over. It is OK to allow one state to segregate its school
No slavery wouldn't be acceptable. You can't harm anyone, and if you do that you get charged with a crime. But with what you want, since gambling is illegal in most places shouldn't it be illegal for Las Vegas to have it.
Thats where the Supreme Court is involved,to determine if the Feds have overstepped its bounds.But, I find it wrong for one state to so underfund its schools in poor districts that it turns out idiots, while another doesn't, it requires fed minimums.
Well schools would have better education if the federal government would get out of the way and promoted competition in schools. Since the federal government runs schools one way how do you know that there isn't a better way?
Good choice for your argument, SB--"No Child Left Behind" has had disastrous effects, and will continue to do so. But there is still a good deal of choice at lower levels, and increasingly so under the Obama administration. GA just opted out of NCL
I don't like NCLB either, but the idea is right, it sets minimum standards, terrible implementation and I don't blame GA. You spoke out of both sides, SB. On 1 hand, feds stay out, on other feds, please promote compitition.
Feds may stay out, but they still create the legislation.
However--getting back to 'big-picture' issues--some things can't be adequately dealt with locally/regionally. Climate change is a great example. States can play a constructive role, but we need China on board, not just the USA--or California.
So the federal government knows how deal with climate control? Is that what they went to school for?
The Feds have the most appropriate jurisdiction. They also have the prestigious National Academy of Sciences as official science advisor, not to mention numerous agencies with staff who did "go to school for that."
Well then talk to Al Gore who has made tons of money of the global warming scam.
Al Gore really has nothing to do with what we're discussing, does he? But, FYI, his money did not come from anything to do with GW. (Mostly computer-related business dealings.) And trust me--GW ain't a scam, no matter what Rush tells you.
I Don't listen to Rush. But just be careful of climate control becoming an excuse for a one world dictatorship. Though we can't seem to agree on all the issues we discussed so far, I can say government can't handle issues without creating new ones.
A binding climate change treaty--I don't say climate "control," as we don't 'control' it, we only know how to screw it up so far--shouldn't hurt national sovereignty any more than any existing treaty. Eg., the Montreal Protocol (ozone layer.)
Well just vote for Obama and he'll make sure the Federal Government handles all the important issues.
Sadly, I feel I don't have a choice but to do so. I'd like it much better if there were competing policies to address climate change (etc.), rather than competing 'narratives' about whether the problem even exists.
I don't follow your reasoning on Doc's climate issue, SB. Climate change is a global issue, not a state one; how would you expect 50 separate solutions, or non-solutions, to have any impact at all, given the disaster that may befall the human race
I really don't have an opinion, I see it get warmer than usual sometimes but it doesn't concern me. I do think government takes advantage of the situation. I think government is exaggerating, to put fear into your mind.
It's mostly not government, which has often been resistant or paid lip service; it's mostly NGOs, climate scientists of all sorts, and concerned individuals (like me.) Warming so far's small, but has cost $ billions. It'll get way worse.
If you look at the issues they "stand" for and their general voting record trends- I would say no, they're not the same party.
If you look at what really needs to be done to improve government, fix our budget, and help the average citizen - then both fail. In this respect, you could view them as one disappointing mega-party. Corruption, greed, secrecy, manipulation, and gibberish run rampant in both Democrat and Republican representatives.
Neither appears capable of pragmatic problem solving or adhering to the founding guidelines laid out by our Constitution.
A "Party" is just a name. The politicians are all controlled by an elite, who allow "parties" to give the illusion of fairness. They will allow each candidate one point of their own, providing that the rest that they do is in accordance with their mandate, not the peoples. In reality, the truth is that the only difference with US politics and a dictatorship, is that with a dictatorship, you get to see the face of the ruler. They do not hide behind orators, bankers or media heads.
I think you are speaking of English politics, not American. If what you said were actually true, you would have two parties marching in lockstep to their leader's command;not just one in the Senate. Even John Boehner isn't doing well in the House.
Of course they are, they answer to the same masters. The bankers. As they say in Ireland “He who pays the fiddler calls the tune”.
Both parties claim to represent the diverse views of their constituents but in truth they are simply fronts for self gratification and financial enrichment of our officials. Elected public service has become a career path which carries benefits of free healthcare, pensions, perks, insider trading info, real estate deals, and thievery. Few politicians leave office without gaining exceptional wealth. Political party differences are equal to those said to exist between "competing" banks. It is time to limit terms, eliminate the electoral college, undo the recent changes in election financing and create an outside investigative committee to oversee Congressional ethics issues. Its hard not to laugh when thinking of Congress looking into its own members questionable activities. "I am shocked to find there is gambling going on in here."
Do you have any real statistics to back up your assertion about how rich politicians become if they start out poor? I don't like the calibre of politicians we have either, so I keep trying to vote for better ones.
I admit painting with a broad stroke brush but my assertion is not that poor politicians become rich but rather political office has become a career, a primary means of personal enrichment, not service to our country and often by unethical means.
As a career, I don't know if that is a bad thing, unless it is in the same office, because the ability to do what politicians must do is not easy. I do support term limits of some sort to get at what bothers you because you make a good point.
When political office becomes a career path, then the motivation to represent the constituency conflicts with the motivation to pander. Public service becomes self service. Statesmanship has become a derogatory term for a politician who compromises.
You really don't have much choice between politicians. They may argue, but that is a front. As soon as someone starts threatening their shrinking pie, without fail, they all come together.
The same people fund both parties because they both want a seat at the table when it comes to lobbying during policy making sessions. In addition to big bankers, oil companies gave a sizable chunk to both Obama and McCain last time.
Y.E.S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up please! Yes...Affirmative.....Yep. Si.... There is no difference between them. They are nothing more than the right and the left hand of the body of the rich, who don't care about any of the issues they feed us.
people fund both parties because the want the opposing side to pick a sure loser. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they know that people shill to be elected.
The problem is that unlike every other election in this country of 1 person, one vote does not hold true for the presidential election. We need to drop the 2-party "Winner take all rule" in the electoral college and then get different results because currently there can be no 3rd party in the USA - and win.
I have thought about that a lot and have come to the conclusion that both are best for America, in the long run. Without the electoral college, then 1/4 of the states shouldn't bother voting; one city has more votes than all of them combined.
Political parties are tricky.It is so hard for a 3rd party to run for president because they are blocked out by the rep and dem. You need a lot of money to run 3rd party. We need competition in political parties, not just left and right.
An all or nothing election almost forces a two party system. Where someone needs at least 1 vote over 50%, there's not much room for multiple opponents.
yes on anything for corporation,bankers, defense contractor, or any group with the money to make money off the people of the Unites States and a bitter fight for anything for the people of the United States.there the same coin with two side, and any bill that pass its either a few republicans or a few democrats cross over to pass a bill to a rip off the people law
It often seems that both major parties are really no different and controlled by the same greed that permeates politics. It has always been, a circus, of sorts and yet,a vital part of the American way of life. It appears to be more steeped in custom, habit, culture, than serving in its true sense. Much of the issues and work of congress is held behind closed doors and we can never be entirely sure that we will be informed and that our input is useful. We can only know that in voting and pulling together as a nation, ground can be made and true democracy can be achieved. I believe that enough of the real spirit and hard work of early fathers of the country is still in place and may never be altered without great national disapproval and descension. Despite much controversy and apparent disapproval by many, our country of America is still the best and with the most freedoms than any other in the world. We can only all strive to make improvements and hope for the best in our part as citizens and take the good, along with the bad, as time moves on.
I agree that the major parties show no difference. I disagree that we still have the most freedoms in the world. They are disappearing, with bills such as NDAA and Obama assassinating Americans, or just the Patriot Act.
I stand strong in my beliefs and although I have investigated, I have found no one country in the world as we now know it, that is safer and has the best future, than the United States.
For now that is whats great about America. Even though your freedom is dwindling, you still have the ability to believe what you want. You can keep your eyes closed, for now.
When I close my eyes, it is to sleep at night and if I never awaken, then it is God's will and I'm quite content that He makes the best judgments for us all.
OK. Name me one other country that tags each child born with an identification number or places a commodity number on each live birth certificate that can be checked on the stock exchange right now. Name me one country. You live in the matrix.
Some live in a doomsday scenario right now...but all were given life, a brain and intellect and the ability to make positive changes. So do it!
I think they like to believe they are not the same party but with the funding recieved on election campaigns and throughout time in office. They may argue about topics that the general public beleive to be of importance but regardless of what party is in power they will still be acting in the best interest of these outside influences. The federal reserve itself is not owned by the government but private investors and any money the government get is from the federal reserve and is charged with interest keeping the counnty in a state of debt. We are now feeling the effect of them calling in that debt.
England pursued having the colonies under the monetary control of the Bank of England was seen by many as the last straw of English oppression and that it led directly to the American Revolutionary War. The Bank of England was very similar to what we know as The Federal Reserve today. Central banks are the best at putting people into poverty, while they enjoy the benefits. Every dollar printed, causes all the previous ones to lose value, and increase prices. When the government directs printed money to healthcare, education, and energy, all it does is raise prices and lower quality. Since these areas are receiving free money it can end up going to the wrong things, such as someone's pocket. If a private business was to earn profits without federal funding, they may choose to use their money wiser than the person who received it for free.
Both parties endorse the central bank. Even though not all the founders were against a central bank, just remember the central bank created in England was a main cause for the Revolutionary War.
As the Democrats become more and more inclusive and the GOP because more and more the party of Angry White Men and fringe wackos, I do see a problem in the future.
The AWM are in decline so basically the GOP is in decline. This is the last major election they can run on this strategy of blaming the worlds troubles on women, minorities and immigrants.
We need balance and opposing views if for no other reason to validate that certain policies are the right way to go. I don't know what is going to happen. The GOP is basically imploding from the weight of the tea party extremists.
Republican moderates are jumping ship - either retiring, switching parties or are being forced out by tea party candidates. The GOP will have to move back toward the center or just die a slow death. Or a new party of conservative Democrats will emerge.
Certainly the 1% can't fool all the people all the time. People will have to wake up to what's been happening at some point and stop arguing about social issues as the 1% sucks up all of the wealth.
A look back to 1812 and the demise of the Federalist Party for a glimpse at what could happen and why might be helpful. Bassically, as you point out, they became the party of arrogant elitists and the wealthy along with being against the war of 1812
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these budget negotiations and in the republican candidates for president!
by FatLibertarian 8 years ago
political parties and the conflict between ALL of them, but mainly the republicans and democrats, is just a distraction from people fixing whats really wrong with america. most things are. maybe one day people will wake up and start paying attention to what matters, it feels like high school never...
by Thomas Byers 4 years ago
Its really sad that we as Americans let the Democrats and Republicans pull games on us and keep our minds off the really important issues that face us as Americans. How can we not demand real solutions to the problems facing us as Americans. You know I set and listened to the Republican...
by movingout 6 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress allocate and approve the money? And all the POTUS can do is ask for it? If that's the case, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for this growing debt not the POTUS? They could say no? But then again looking at the pork in the...
by Origin 8 years ago
I thought about this years back, because it seems like a lot of people vote for whatever their political party is voting for, even though they may not entirely agree with it. What's your thoughts? Do you think if political parties didn't exist that governments would be better off? With that said,...
by Pr0metheus 9 years ago
Democrats can't do crap. They're too busy arguing amongst themselves to actually get anything done, even when they had a "super majority".Republicans won't agree with anything Obama says. They are trying so hard to make it seem like Obama is failing they can't see through the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|