Democrats and Republicans are one

[Bleipriester]

They have to because there is no other way for a candidate to get elected but to have big money supporting them, but I don't agree that the parties are the same.

That is - in fact - the evidence for that the wealthy supporters decide, who gets a job in politics and who don´t. The election campaigns are based on symphaty, not on political plans and views.

In my country the big companies support most of the parties. A bank like "Deutsche Bank" donates 4 out of the 5 relevant parties during the election campaigns and most companies do so. They don´t care too much, of what the next government will consist of.

True that the parties switched, and some racist Democrats became Republicans when the Democratic party started supporting Civil Rights. Republicans claim they are the ones that started civil rights, but the legislation they called civil rights was nothing, but watered down policies that didn't amount to much. It wasn't until Kennedy/Johnson that some "real" Civil Rights were passed.

Today, it is evident that the Republican Party supports policies that benefit the wealthy while Democrats support policies that benefit the poor and underprivileged. Republicans (many of them) want to base our laws on Christianity when our nation is comprised of many religions and our own Constitution protects that freedom.

So no, even though we have crooked people in both parties, and we accuse each other of doing the same evil deeds, there is still some differences, and I could never vote Republican.

That are the well known differences, which do not take effect so much. 5 years of Obama and the situation for the poors hasn´t improved. It´s because you have to change the rich people in order to change the poor.

 

[Bleipriester]

Using current events and facts to blame or defend one of the parties is really a naively shortsighted activity. Both are one, the differences are limited to the details. Republicans blame what they call "Obama care" ignoring that this simple compulsory insurance was introduced before by the Republicans in an US state. This example should be enough to demonstrate the madness of this pseudo-competitive tandem.

ahoy Bleipriester,

well said matey.

i mean, i certainly credit conservatives fer the creation 'o the Affordable Care Act.

i do think thar be differences between the parties, mostly in which swabbies they'd pick fer SCOTUS and which projects the prefer to spend taxpayer monies on, but aye, they're pretty similar.

thats how Americans like it, though.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Both did good and bad. But the good things took place mostly somewhere in History. I quitted voting so far and I wouldn´t vote as American, too.

ps - i've also found, at least from the forum i hailed from, that folks like to say "a pox on both parties!", but then busily launch mighty salvos at only the Democratic Party.

Yes, they have little space for different opinions at current time. That´s really sad, some confuse a lack of criticism with patriotism. Maybe its also the geographic development in the US, what shrinks the the chances of the Repulicans generation by generation, what makes them more aggressive and cautious - though they play the ultra tolerant friends of migration.

 

[editec]

WE currently live in a Kleptocractic democratic republic.

The masters are not JUST ripping off the working class.

They are ALSO ripping off the investor class.

The battle is presented as a battle between the working class poor and investment class rich, but that narrative is a smokescreen DESIGNED to pit american CLASSES against each other.

Meanwhile the masters are systematically taking control of the money supply, and the corporations.

I'm NOT talking about the 1%, I'm talking about the Banksters with REAL power. (were talking perhaps a couple thousand people on the entire planet here, kiddies)

They're not DEMS, they're not REPs, they're not socialists, communists OR capitalists, either.

They are kleptocrats with control over the economy through mcontrol over the cost of debt and the amount of cash that exists

If you control DEBT and the currency, you have effective control over the entire economy. You decide the winners, you decide the losers, too.

If you have insider information about where the economy is going?

You will always win regardless of what the economy is doing because you know how to position yourself to take advantage of the changing conditions.

This does not take brilliance, this merely takes having insider information BEFORE the economy turns.

 

[FA_Q2]

Over the past two generations, both major parties have migrated right-ward as Democrats became increasingly dependent on the richest 1% of US voters to fund their campaigns. There seems little choice between the two parties when it comes to Wall Street and Pentagon criminality that's ultimately funded by US taxpayers.

No, and sentiments like this are part of the problem. They have not moved right, they have moved to state power – not an ideal on the right.

What you are stating is essentially the core of the problem, as both parties merge the members just insult the other side. That does not help the problem but exacerbates it. Those on the right will tell you the same thing, that the right has moved left. Bush certainly was not what you would call right. That is because both parties are moving but not to the left or right, they are moving in another direction entirely and we sit here bickering that the new direction is somehow ‘the other side’ when it is not.

 

[georgephillip]

Class based how? I would say it's a constitutional issue.

Are they mutually exclusive?
My limited understanding of US History has led me to believe class played a prominent part in the creation of the US Constitution?

Of course it did.

The US Constitution was a series of compromises mostly involving the needs of the ARISTO CLASS that made up the majorority of signers.

In fact including the BILL OF RIGHTS was one of those compromises.

But George, you probably also know that one of the most cherished myths of the States is that we have no CLASSES in this nation.

You and I could spend the next ten years citing examples of class and classism in US history and society and STILL those who choose to cling to that cherished myth could not be convinced.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, mate.

Wouldn't you think that even willful (ideological)? ignorance has its limits?
It is very difficult to dispute the increased economic inequality over the last two generations in this country or the way such wealth disparity warps the US political process. Maybe some of us are under the impression the government needs to be strong enough to charter corporations but not strong enough to regulate them?

 

[georgephillip]

There are millions of middle class jobs in the US dependent on "defense" spending.

Sorry, the middle class is not getting to share in the fruits of war loot. They haven't had a raise in years. Trickle down was a cruel joke on American workers.

I didn't mean to imply middle class jobs in the defense industry have received their fair share of productivity gains over the past four decades, only that, in some congressional districts today about 20% of the local economy depends on either a major US military installation or defense contractor.

 

[whitehall]

Anybody who claims that both political parties are the same can never criticize the Tea Party for trying to change the republican party and the communists trying to change the democrat party.

 

[georgephillip]

Over the past two generations, both major parties have migrated right-ward as Democrats became increasingly dependent on the richest 1% of US voters to fund their campaigns. There seems little choice between the two parties when it comes to Wall Street and Pentagon criminality that's ultimately funded by US taxpayers.

No, and sentiments like this are part of the problem. They have not moved right, they have moved to state power – not an ideal on the right.

What you are stating is essentially the core of the problem, as both parties merge the members just insult the other side. That does not help the problem but exacerbates it. Those on the right will tell you the same thing, that the right has moved left. Bush certainly was not what you would call right. That is because both parties are moving but not to the left or right, they are moving in another direction entirely and we sit here bickering that the new direction is somehow ‘the other side’ when it is not.

When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall he moved right.
When Obama refused to prosecute Wall Street for their role in the Great Recession, he moved right.
When Obama refused to back a public option in his health care "reform", he moved right.
I've often heard conservatives claim a leftward drift over the past two generations, but I've never seen an example of it.

 

[georgephillip]

WE currently live in a Kleptocractic democratic republic.

The masters are not JUST ripping off the working class.

They are ALSO ripping off the investor class.

The battle is presented as a battle between the working class poor and investment class rich, but that narrative is a smokescreen DESIGNED to pit american CLASSES against each other.

Meanwhile the masters are systematically taking control of the money supply, and the corporations.

I'm NOT talking about the 1%, I'm talking about the Banksters with REAL power. (were talking perhaps a couple thousand people on the entire planet here, kiddies)

They're not DEMS, they're not REPs, they're not socialists, communists OR capitalists, either.

They are kleptocrats with control over the economy through mcontrol over the cost of debt and the amount of cash that exists

If you control DEBT and the currency, you have effective control over the entire economy. You decide the winners, you decide the losers, too.

If you have insider information about where the economy is going?

You will always win regardless of what the economy is doing because you know how to position yourself to take advantage of the changing conditions.

This does not take brilliance, this merely takes having insider information BEFORE the economy turns.

Which famous central banker proclaimed he didn't care who ruled his country as long as he controlled the money supply? The private creation of money from debt for the last four hundred years would seem to be leading to a global jubilee (with interest, of course)

"'This fiftieth year is sacred—it is a time of freedom and of celebration when everyone will receive back their original property, and slaves will return home to their families.'

—Leviticus 25:10"

 

[FA_Q2]

Over the past two generations, both major parties have migrated right-ward as Democrats became increasingly dependent on the richest 1% of US voters to fund their campaigns. There seems little choice between the two parties when it comes to Wall Street and Pentagon criminality that's ultimately funded by US taxpayers.

No, and sentiments like this are part of the problem. They have not moved right, they have moved to state power – not an ideal on the right.

What you are stating is essentially the core of the problem, as both parties merge the members just insult the other side. That does not help the problem but exacerbates it. Those on the right will tell you the same thing, that the right has moved left. Bush certainly was not what you would call right. That is because both parties are moving but not to the left or right, they are moving in another direction entirely and we sit here bickering that the new direction is somehow ‘the other side’ when it is not.

When Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall he moved right.
When Obama refused to prosecute Wall Street for their role in the Great Recession, he moved right.
When Obama refused to back a public option in his health care "reform", he moved right.
I've often heard conservatives claim a leftward drift over the past two generations, but I've never seen an example of it.

Mostly because you don’t know what moving right is. BTW, the examples that you gave are not ‘moving right’ save for possibly Clinton.

You have set up a straw man for the right. I could as easily demand that Obama Care was a massive shift to the left. It would be false though. The difference here is that realize that bullshit the government is pushing is not really what the left embodies. You seem to not realize that though.

You are part of the problem. As long as we are knocking down straw men on the other side rather than engaging each other on the ACTUAL positions, the two parties will continue to grow in power. This is because those astray men are always nuts and evil. The right gets to point and say ‘elect us because ANYTHING is better than Obama’ with all the straw men of the left. All the while, the left is saying ‘elect Obama, ANYTHING is better than Romney’ with straw men of the right. Then Obama/Romney/Bush/whoever the fuck gets in office can pass whatever corporate bullshit they want to because there is always that other ‘evil’ side making them look good.

It was OBAMA that married you to the insurance companies, not the right. Do you really thing that he is on the left? Of course not, you are demanding that he moved right. Well I have to let you know, Obama does not represent ANYTHING that the right does. I guess that means he did NOT move right. He moved somewhere else…

 

[PaulS1950]

There are some major differences between the two leading political parties in the US but they are both guilty of spending more money than has been supplied by the work of the citizens of this country.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are some major differences between the two leading political parties in the US but they are both guilty of spending more money than has been supplied by the work of the citizens of this country.

Like?

Their PLATFORMS are completely different. Their actions are damn near identical.

 

[Mertex]

That is - in fact - the evidence for that the wealthy supporters decide, who gets a job in politics and who don´t. The election campaigns are based on symphaty, not on political plans and views.

Well, not so much. Mitt Romney had a lot of money backing him and he still didn't win. In the end the "people" decide.

In my country the big companies support most of the parties. A bank like "Deutsche Bank" donates 4 out of the 5 relevant parties during the election campaigns and most companies do so. They don´t care too much, of what the next government will consist of.

Our system of Democracy is supposed to preclude that, but the more candidates that corporations can get in to do their bidding the less control the people have.

That are the well known differences, which do not take effect so much. 5 years of Obama and the situation for the poors hasn´t improved. It´s because you have to change the rich people in order to change the poor.

It's going to take way more than 5 years of enforcing policies that help the poor do better, and every time a Republican takes over, we have to start back on square one. We have to change the mind set of people that just being greedy and concerned with one's self doesn't benefit the country. We're all in it together, when the poor are doing well, the rich will be doing better.

 

[AmazonTania]

It's going to take way more than 5 years of enforcing policies that help the poor do better, and every time a Republican takes over, we have to start back on square one. We have to change the mind set of people that just being greedy and concerned with one's self doesn't benefit the country. We're all in it together, when the poor are doing well, the rich will be doing better.

You must think an economy is nothing but a chess board where you can move chess pieces at your whim. An economy is nothing my free individuals just doing what is in their own self interests, and no one else's.

 

[Mertex]

It's going to take way more than 5 years of enforcing policies that help the poor do better, and every time a Republican takes over, we have to start back on square one. We have to change the mind set of people that just being greedy and concerned with one's self doesn't benefit the country. We're all in it together, when the poor are doing well, the rich will be doing better.

You must think an economy is nothing but a chess board where you can move chess pieces at your whim. An economy is nothing my free individuals just doing what is in their own self interests, and no one else's.

I don't know where you get such wild-ass ideas, and your second comment (bolded) doesn't even make sense.

Why don't you enlighten us with your definition of an "economy" - since you seem to think you have a better handle on it? Unless that comment, which doesn't make sense, is your definition of "economy"?

 

[AmazonTania]

I don't know where you get such wild-ass ideas, and your second comment (bolded) doesn't even make sense.

From your, "we're in this together" rhetoric. No, we aren't. We are not a collective. There is no 'we.' I am pursuing what is in my own separate interest and others are pursuing what is in theirs.

Why don't you enlighten us with your definition of an "economy" - since you seem to think you have a better handle on it? Unless that comment, which doesn't make sense, is your definition of "economy"?

As I have said before, an economy is nothing more than free people doing what is in their own interest. Everyone has their own self interest, pursue their own goals, respond to their own incentives and take their own trade-offs. This is what makes everyone autonomous. The way free people benefit in an economy is to corporate for ones own mutual benefit, through voluntary transactions.

How does anyone obtain wealth in America (or in any market economy)? They find out what people want and they give it to them. Both parties satisfy another person's needs, via voluntary exchange and both parties are better off, without ever having a common goal at all.

 

[Mertex]

I don't know where you get such wild-ass ideas, and your second comment (bolded) doesn't even make sense.

From your, "we're in this together" rhetoric. No, we aren't. We are not a collective. There is no 'we.' I am pursuing what is in my own separate interest and others are pursuing what is in theirs.

That is obvious, most Republicans seem to think that way. And, if you're not a Republican, well, you're expressing their feelings. But, if you don't agree that "we're in this together" why the hell do Republicans whine so much about jobs, jobs, jobs? They insist on cutting taxes on the wealthy because they create jobs. With your logic, we shouldn't be concerned about who has and who doesn't have a job, right? Also, why do you care if Susie has an abortion, if you're doing your own thing? She's pursuing her own interests, you pursue your own.

But whether you like it or not, the welfare of others affects our own welfare in some way, whether it means higher prices, more crime, more benefits, etc.,

As I have said before, an economy is nothing more than free people doing what is in their own interest. Everyone has their own self interest, pursue their own goals, respond to their own incentives and take their own trade-offs. This is what makes everyone autonomous. The way free people benefit in an economy is to corporate for ones own mutual benefit, through voluntary transactions.

Maybe that is why the economy is so messed up - everyone is just concerned about their own interests and mucking it up for everyone else. No wonder the economy seems to do worse under Republican leadership.

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes

How does anyone obtain wealth in America (or in any market economy)? They find out what people want and they give it to them. Both parties satisfy another person's needs, via voluntary exchange and both parties are better off, without ever having a common goal at all.

Of course, and if everyone is doing well, your business will do well, but try and peddle your services/goods when 1/2 of the population are barely making enough to keep themselves alive and the bare necessities. You depend on the ability of others to buy your product and they can only do so if they can afford it.

Don't expect you to understand any of this, though.

 

[AmazonTania]

That is obvious, most Republicans seem to think that way. And, if you're not a Republican, well, you're expressing their feelings.

I'm not a Republican. All I care about is making money.

But, if you don't agree that "we're in this together" why the hell do Republicans whine so much about jobs, jobs, jobs? They insist on cutting taxes on the wealthy because they create jobs. With your logic, we shouldn't be concerned about who has and who doesn't have a job, right?

No, we shouldn't. The Government is keeping employees in a job market they shouldn't be in. As long as Government is busy misallocating resources, these people will continue to be in these types of jobs (which are generally low paying, no skill, low growth jobs). While the rest will choose to leave the labour force because it's just more lucrative to be on unemployment or on disability than to work a minimum wage job.

What is worse is that lose of people will have to lose their jobs in this economy in order for these people to be employed in the right type of jobs.

Also, why do you care if Susie has an abortion, if you're doing your own thing? She's pursuing her own interests, you pursue your own.

I don't. Please stay on topic here.

But whether you like it or not, the welfare of others affects our own welfare in some way, whether it means higher prices, more crime, more benefits, etc.,

Free people in an economy do things about crime and prices because it's more beneficial for them to do so. People invent alternatives to your favorite brand of food or drug because the original brand is more expensive. Stores give out bulletins on shoplifters because they have decided that it is mutually in their best interests to help protect property rather than to get even in the form of cut throat competition.

The fact that you have to force individuals to provide welfare via Government means that these things are no longer in the interests of people, as the Government no longer inventivizes people to do these things on their own.

Maybe that is why the economy is so messed up - everyone is just concerned about their own interests and mucking it up for everyone else. No wonder the economy seems to do worse under Republican leadership.

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes

That's not accurate. I'm not sure if you know, but the only economic period of genuine economic growth (without the help of an asset bubble) was during the 1950s under Eisenhower. I think he was a Democract, right? If you'd rather live for the collective (where none of your own goals and desires are your own, but what is good for the 'collective') then more power to you. It would be are to see where America or any free society would be today if they still operated like this.

Of course, and if everyone is doing well, your business will do well, but try and peddle your services/goods when 1/2 of the population are barely making enough to keep themselves alive and the bare necessities. You depend on the ability of others to buy your product and they can only do so if they can afford it.

Don't expect you to understand any of this, though.

Your scenario applies even to what I am talking about. Sam Walton made a fortune selling things to low income people. Henry Ford made living off making sure everyone could buy his goods. John D. Rockefeller established a empire off making sure his product was cheap any available for the common man. There is no demographic to selling things to only wealthy people. Never has been. Never will be.

What did these people do? All they did was discover something needed in an economy, and met that demand. They found out what people wanted, and they gave it to them. That's all an economy is: People pursuing their interests and meeting the interests of others through voluntary exchange.

 

[georgephillip]

Anybody who claims that both political parties are the same can never criticize the Tea Party for trying to change the republican party and the communists trying to change the democrat party.

Doesn't it seem like Wall Street has made bigger changes on the Democrats than the communists have?

 

[Mertex]

That is obvious, most Republicans seem to think that way. And, if you're not a Republican, well, you're expressing their feelings.

I'm not a Republican. All I care about is making money.

Well, if you notice I said, "if you're not a Republican, you're expressing their feelings". Also, I hate to make you aware of it, but it isn't just about you.

But, if you don't agree that "we're in this together" why the hell do Republicans whine so much about jobs, jobs, jobs? They insist on cutting taxes on the wealthy because they create jobs. With your logic, we shouldn't be concerned about who has and who doesn't have a job, right?

No, we shouldn't. The Government is keeping employees in a job market they shouldn't be in. As long as Government is busy misallocating resources, these people will continue to be in these types of jobs (which are generally low paying, no skill, low growth jobs). While the rest will choose to leave the labour force because it's just more lucrative to be on unemployment or on disability than to work a minimum wage job.

And how exactly is the government doing that? As long as Republicans continue defunding education, we will always have some people in the low paying jobs, they are in a rut and most will never get out of it. And you are delusional if you think it is "lucrative" to be on unemployment or disability. Geez, for not being Republican, your conservative rhetoric sure is thick.

What is worse is that lose of people will have to lose their jobs in this economy in order for these people to be employed in the right type of jobs.

Links? Don't really know what you are talking about.

I don't. Please stay on topic here.

You claim you don't but your type of mentality (conservative) suggests that. And I am on topic, the topic being that Democrats and Repubicans are one, and that fact alone suggests we are not.

Free people in an economy do things about crime and prices because it's more beneficial for them to do so. People invent alternatives to your favorite brand of food or drug because the original brand is more expensive. Stores give out bulletins on shoplifters because they have decided that it is mutually in their best interests to help protect property rather than to get even in the form of cut throat competition.

Not sure how your mumbo jumbo fits in. If we reduce our police force (more people out of jobs) and less police to catch criminals, our property insurance goes up, also, crime goes up and that affects most of us.

The fact that you have to force individuals to provide welfare via Government means that these things are no longer in the interests of people, as the Government no longer inventivizes people to do these things on their own.

Since when is the government responsible for motivating people to help each other? Sounds like you are really not making much sense. Churches still provide help to underprivileged families, but there are so many, the churches are not equipped to handle all the need.

Maybe that is why the economy is so messed up - everyone is just concerned about their own interests and mucking it up for everyone else. No wonder the economy seems to do worse under Republican leadership.

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes

That's not accurate. I'm not sure if you know, but the only economic period of genuine economic growth (without the help of an asset bubble) was during the 1950s under Eisenhower. I think he was a Democract, right? If you'd rather live for the collective (where none of your own goals and desires are your own, but what is good for the 'collective') then more power to you. It would be are to see where America or any free society would be today if they still operated like this.

Oh I don't know about it not being accurate. It was published by Forbes, a mostly right-leaning source. As for Eisenhower being democrat, you are trying to be facetious, but did you know that the wealthy were paying the highest rate in taxes ever? That sure as hell doesn't fit in with the Republican agenda, so in a sense, Eisenhower was behaving like a Democrat.

Of course, and if everyone is doing well, your business will do well, but try and peddle your services/goods when 1/2 of the population are barely making enough to keep themselves alive and the bare necessities. You depend on the ability of others to buy your product and they can only do so if they can afford it.

Don't expect you to understand any of this, though.

Your scenario applies even to what I am talking about. Sam Walton made a fortune selling things to low income people. Henry Ford made living off making sure everyone could buy his goods. John D. Rockefeller established a empire off making sure his product was cheap any available for the common man. There is no demographic to selling things to only wealthy people. Never has been. Never will be.

There will always be such, that doesn't mean that the disparity in earnings hasn't shifted tremendously to favor the rich. And I never said our demographic was to sell things only to wealthy people, now you are just blowing smoke.

What did these people do? All they did was discover something needed in an economy, and met that demand. They found out what people wanted, and they gave it to them. That's all an economy is: People pursuing their interests and meeting the interests of others through voluntary exchange.

Correct, and we have good economies and bad economies, all the while people are doing the same thing as you suggest, but something sure is different, otherwise the economy would always be the same.