For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?

1. 82

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare.   Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle classes.  In the 1980s, many middle class people started to vote Republican or become Republican because of Democratic socioeconomic policies.   Now, Biden is continuing in this Democratic tradition.  He is letting semi-literate, even illiterate illegals into the country, further taxing American infrastructures & taxpayers.   Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?  Is the Democratic Party DAMAGING America?  Is America become a WELFARE STATE because of the Democratic Party?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Vote them all, they are all the same.The same I would say about Jesus, except he would never get elected
      
      Think and lead for yourselves, first.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct Castlepaloma.  Far too many people give their power away.  People have been inculcated to be slaves instead of being owners of their lives.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Most now live like their on an indain reservation.

            replyreport
         2. 83

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Well, damn Valeant, you read my mind. We can always argue Right vs. Left issues, but on this thought, we are in complete agreement.
            
            Maybe we should start a thread on the "why" of this thruth.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The Democratic party has a long history of being harmful to the country --- one example  NAFTA. In my view, no the Democrats are not good for America.
      
      Yes, the new Administration is well on their way(and quickly) making America worse due to Biden's unrealistic agenda, he is already putting millions out of work promoting an agenda of The New Green Deal. An unrealistic plan that is sure to cause more to become reliant on the Government for financial support.
      
        "For the United States has a social welfare system that is not small by comparison with the size of the economy. And when looked at in total, per capita it's the second-largest such social welfare state in the world.  Oct 8, 2015

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Sharlee, the Democratic Party has created a culture of victimology.   The Democratic Party inculcates its adherents to be.....victims.   I am Black & the Democratic Party imbues Blacks in the victimology psychology.   I see the poison that the Democratic Party has become.   Many Blacks are beginning to see the Democratic Party for encouraging & condoning Black victimology.

         replyreport
      2. 75

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Those pesky democrats Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush...
         
         The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA.
         
         The agreement's supporters in the House included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.  Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, it was Billy that actually that tweaked and signed the agreement --- On this day in 1993, Bill Clinton, the first Democratic president in 12 years, signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law. The pact, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, created the world’s largest free-trade zone. At the time, Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward an even broader world-trade pact.
            
            The deal approved by the United States, Canada and Mexico 24 years ago eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions among the three nations. Its passage marked one of Clinton’s first major legislative victories — although in both the Senate and the House more Republicans than Democrats voted for passage.  Yes, both sides loved the agreement. But we all know how flawed NAFTA was --- IMO
            
            Thank God Trump canned it to provide a free fair trade system between Mexico, Canada, and America.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yup, Billy signed it, after insisting on some environmental protections.  But sorry, the majority of the treaty originated with Ronnie and Georgie.

               replyreport
            2. 83

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Hold on a minute Sharlee. What major beneficial improvements do you think Pres. Trump made to Bill Clinton's NAFTA agreement?
               
               Even as I disagree with some components of the original NAFTA, I still agree with the concept. I don't recall Pres. Trump's changes being anything that could be called major improvements.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Here are a few of what I see the USMC  offers in improvements over NAFTA. Keep in mind this trade agreement is in its infancy.  And I don't see the bill as earthshaking, only an improvement over NAFTA. And I too liked the concept of NAFTA when it was ratified.  IMO Trump just tweaked the agreement for the better.
                  
                  House ratified the USMCA  in December  2019  with bipartisan support.
                  The Trump administration worked a deal that reduced incentives for companies to move to Mexico, and stay in the US.  Trump was determined to continues to allow the free flow of trade across North American borders of the three countries, but with a fairer playing field. He wanted an updated version of NAFTA, that would reflect the rise of e-commerce and other aspects of the digital economy that didn’t exist in the NAFTA agreement.
                  
                  For instance,  the new USMCA prohibits tariffs on digital products. It lets companies transfer data across borders without encountering discriminatory barriers.  Plus it stops countries from requiring firms to store data within their borders, thereby allowing companies to do so wherever it makes the most business sense.
                  
                  USMCA offers U.S. farmers more access to the Canadian dairy market. It forces the Canadian province of British Columbia to drop measures that prevented American wines from being sold on grocery shelves along with local vintages.
                  
                  USMCA works to protect U.S.manufacturing jobs  In order to qualify for USMCA’s duty-free benefits, 75% of a car and its parts must come from within North America, up from 62.5% under NAFTA. That gives way to more content that would have to be homegrown in higher-wage North America, not imported more cheaply from China and elsewhere.
                  
                  Trade is a relatively small part of the U.S. economy. And trade with Mexico and Canada is smaller still. But Trump has offered a better and more fair trading deal.   In an analysis done last year, the independent International Trade Commission calculated that USMCA would add 0.35% or $68 billion, to economic growth and generate 176,000 jobs over six years
                  
                  One must consider it is too soon to determine or judge what the new trade bill will offer America. However, right out of the gate, it has been profitable.

                  replyreport
         2. 71

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            This is true and the total truth is that there is little difference between Republican and Democrat where our Federal Government is concerned.
            
            With the exception of Trump, there is little difference in leadership or direction the country moved in from Bush Sr. to Clinton to Bush Jr. to Obama.
            
            There has been a march towards "Globalism" there has been an "Establishment" in control... whether Democrats or Republicans it is the Corporations and Financial Institutions that are served... not the people.
            
            The people are given things like 'unisex bathrooms' to squabble over while the real important issues are decided without their input, and if possible, without them being informed at all.
            
            And if they are informed... be it NAFTA or the ACA... they are told it is in their best interests and will make their lives better.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Ken, "Globalism" is a frequent boogeyman in your comments. But, my opinion is that "Globalism" is an inevitable result of our technological advances.
               
               Globalism need not be a bad thing, (it better not be because it is the future). It is how we deal with that reality that is most important. I believe that we can accept and live within the realities of globalism without giving up our national sovereignties. All of us, all nations, will participate. The days of geographical determination are long gone. Globalism doesn't have to mean a loss of sovereign identity.
               
               Globalism doesn't have to be a bad thing, it is our future reality. How we deal with it is the most important thing.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Its about how it is achieved and by whom.
                  
                  I believe you know about Bretton Woods and SDRs.
                  
                  Currently the SDR basket is funded by over 40% by America.
                  
                  There is an effort to increase the SDR (International reserve created by the IMF) from the few hundred billion it currently doles out per year, to a few trillion.
                  
                  This effort is being led by George Soros, the Chinese Communist Party, and many left-leaning politicians and think tanks, which happen to be supported by donations by Soros' Open Society Foundations and billionaire Chinese businessmen.
                  
                  Whether this, or the Paris Accord, or the Global Compact on Migration, the cost is to be carried primarily by the US of A.
                  
                  America will exhaust its remaining "wealth" and be spent in short order, while our magnanimous efforts to spread the wealth compound from billions to trillions of dollars, China pools its wealth, its resources and its control... ultimately it is China that will end up driving the direction our Global world goes in as well as what values it reflects.
                  
                  You can be sure, China sees no value in Western ideals of Freedom, Liberty or Individuality.

                  replyreport
      3. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Curious on what country was the first per capita welfare state?
         
         As for most social spending countries, US was 10th, Canada was even below them with France 1st.
         https://www.statista.com/chart/24050/so … y-country/

         replyreport
   3. 83

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I like to think of the democratic party the same way liberalism has been viewed since time immemorial:
      
      It's cute for a time, and it provides the basis for revolution; eventually, however, it becomes off-putting, and even pitiable. It inevitably shreds itself apart from the inside only to die a self-inflicted death, or it returns to the comfortable traditionalism of the right. We need the democratic party for pushing those revolutionary ideas that carry us into the future, and we need the republican party to make sure they don't do things like legally require parents to chemically transition and mutilate their children into different genders.
      
      Two sides of the same coin, and both equally important for one another.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         With this I would agree: for the most part the liberals pave the road into the future and the conservatives hold it to something reasonable and useful.
         
         It's not 100% either way of course, but that is the way it goes for the most part.

         replyreport
2. 95

   wildernessposted 3 years ago

   It has long appeared to me that the Democrat party has put their emphasis on "helping" the individual rather than the country, and usually at the expense of the country when they do so.
   
   Whether it is providing for the needs of the poor or for providing for the needs of other countries (and the individuals there), it comes before the needs of the country.  Whether massive welfare programs or inviting the poor from other countries to share in the bounty, it takes priority over the needs of our country as a whole.
   
   It is difficult to understand the "why's" of this concept, for it is obvious that so many of their programs are harmful to the country and, in the long run, are harmful to those they wish to help as well.  The old adage of "give a fish and a man can eat today, teach him to fish and he can eat for many tomorrows" is all too true, but the Democrat programs seldom, if ever, take this into account.  Instead it is always about simply giving the fish needed today, and while this dries the tears over the plight of the poor today those tears will be right back, doubled, tomorrow.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, keep the poor, poor. Keep the poor dependent on Government and keep the poor's vote. That's their motto is it not? LOL   
      
      Systemic poverty is cheap to prop up, a cheap price to pay to keep power.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         That's all I can see as a reasonable objective.  On the other hand it could be that the tears shed over the plight of the poor override reason. 
         
         I prefer to believe that rather than assign evil motives to the Democrat party in general.  Certainly I believe that (and think I'm right) for the vast majority of people in the country - they just don't think beyond today.  The legislators creating the mess I not so sanguine about - without the poor (and the just plain greedy) votes they wouldn't have a job and that puts a different light on the subject.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            At this point in our history in my view, the Democrats know the game in regard to the long failures of their social programs to put a bit of money out as a bandaid to keep votes, and I have come to think they could care less about solving the problems of systemic poverty and work to keep it status quo.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Buggers, I can't find anything in your response to argue with. ;-0
               
               I agree that even though the Left cloaks their actions in the name of compassion and equality they just can't be excused for denying the historical results of their programs.
               
               Consider; how has their War on Poverty turned out? What are the stats that support their efforts? My opinion is that their efforts should be ranked with Nancy Reagan's War on Drugs. A failure.
               
               Many have quoted the biblical `. . . give a man a fish . . . ' thought, but I don't think any of the Left recognize the real truth of that adage, even though historical stats prove its wisdom.
               
               GA

               replyreport
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   "The Democratic party has a long history of being harmful to the country --- one example  NAFTA. " The GOP harms: The Great Depression, Watergate, Iran/Contra and subsequent pardons, ignoring 9/11 warnings, lies about WMD, the Iraq War, the economic crash of 2008, then Trump and susequent pardons, oh yeah, and the assault on the Capitol. NAFTA? Seriously?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "For Conservatives Only." In my view, the author of the thread was uninterested in views that were not conservative in nature. It would seem a Democrat's opinion would be obvious.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         In my view the author of the thread was looking for a choir room. I hope HP forums never become such.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I agree. What fun would it be if we all sang the same tune?

            replyreport
      2. 75

         Kathleen Cochranposted 18 months agoin reply to this

         Funny the questioner specifically only wanted to hear from those who would agree with her/him. That's hardly a discussion.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

            The question --- For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
            
            It was in my view to be a discussion between Conservatives only. The question is pretty straightforward.  Do you feel many conservatives could not present their views, and come up answering that question differently?
            
            At any rate, the conversation did draw in many users, all with varying views.

            replyreport
         2. 71

            Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Well, it was a dead one, until you revived a 24 month old thread.
            
            Or did your post get lost in the Cloud somewhere and only reach its destination now?

            replyreport
4. 95

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   Well, I would have to say you can't say all Democrats are NOT the same.
   
   I know some Democrats and there is a real battle within the party.  There are conservative Democrats and then there are the liberal Democrats.  I've never met a liberal of any party or of any persuasion that appeared to me to be intellectually astute or articulate.  These are people that ignore common sense and logic and control through emotion.  I give you Maxine Waters, Shirley Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, AOC,  Eric Swalwell, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.  They are people skilled at deception and putting on a show.  Those are their only real skills.  They have no substance, only a quest for power, money and control over people's lives.
   
   I think conservative Democrats are good for the United States.  I believe other political parties are also important to a representative republic.  I hope conservative Democrats regain control of their party.  I would NOT want a one party system.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I keep waiting for a fiscally conservative Democrat to emerge, one who believes in smaller government, I just haven't seen one yet.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         It doesn't seem like it was that long ago that the Blue Dog Democrats controlled the party.  Things have changed.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Are there truly any "fiscally conservative" Republicans that believe in smaller government?  On Capital Hill, that is, not running the grocery store on the corner?  I wonder anymore.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Double damn! That is twice, tonight, that you have stolen my thunder. Your point about Capitol Hill vs, Main street is one I would have made.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Damn, I am feeling like a pariah. I don't have such a diverse circle of acquaintances to refer to. My circle is limited to pool sharks, card sharks, and bar sharks looking for a free drink.
      
      What's wrong with me, I don't have a political circle of friends that meet weekly to argue with each other, and every time I accost a fellow grocery shopper with a political question they scurry away like I had the plague.
      
      When I think of my friends that I might start a conversation with, I come up at a loss. Bob is more concerned about his lawn than he is about his taxes. Cliff is a fitness addict that can't spare a breath that isn't directed at one more "rep," and Susie just shrugs and says that her husband takes care of things like that.
      
      Hell, even the tire store guy shrugged me off when I asked what he thought about Pres. Biden's new immigration policy.
      
      I am jealous of your circle of friends.
      
      GA

      replyreport
5. 82

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Mike, you are edifying the extreme liberals, even some radical liberals known as leftist.   I classify myself as a Liberal Democrats; however, I would be what would be classified as a classic or traditional Liberal.  Many Liberals today aren't that in the classical sense- they would be called leftists, even radicals & communists.

   replyreport