What is a Democrat/Republican

[Deagonx]

Could someone explain to me the basic beliefs of a Republican/Democrat?

No Bias please. Nothing in the form of "Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich" or "Democrats want to kill babies" or something ignorant like that.

[ArtDrake]

Actually, tax increase isn't, by itself, a bad thing. It helps pay for roads, public health, education, and nearly all of the basic functions that our government provides; saying that one group wants a tax increase would not necessarily be ignorant if it were correct. However, you seem not to like the idea from your comparison of the two possibilities.

Actually, when you think about it, neither is killing babies such a bad thing, as long as you cook them correctly. If you don't eat them afterwards, it's just barbaric and a waste.  :-*

[Deagonx]

Actually, tax increase isn't, by itself, a bad thing. It helps pay for roads, public health, education, and nearly all of the basic functions that our government provides; saying that one group wants a tax increase would not necessarily be ignorant if it were correct. However, you seem not to like the idea from your comparison of the two possibilities.

Actually, when you think about it, neither is killing babies such a bad thing, as long as you cook them correctly. If you don't eat them afterwards, it's just barbaric and a waste.  :-*

Well, I know that tax raising is not a bad thing. I just used examples of hate speech I hear a lot.

I agree that tax raising is a good thing. Why are people so reluctant to help their country? Lower taxes? Why not just sell us to China.

Second, thats awful.

[SmartyPants]

Duckling, you ignored his question and went on spewing your political opinion.  Next time, try to stay on topic.

Could someone explain to me the basic beliefs of a Republican/Democrat?

This is a complex question, because not all Republicans and Democrats share the same beliefs as the rest of their party.  For example, some Democrats (Blue Dog) are more Pro-life and Pro-gun then many Republicans.  The main differences between the parties are what they believe the size and the role the government should be.  Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems, while Republicans see big government as inefficient, expensive, and limiting to individuals' choices.

I agree that tax raising is a good thing. Why are people so reluctant to help their country? Lower taxes? Why not just sell us to China.

One of the issues is that no one want thier own taxes raised.  They want to take someone else's money.  Because of our flawed tax code, 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes and many of those people collect checks from the government due to numerous write offs and tax deductions.  It seems wrong to me to take the money someone else earns.

[ArtDrake]

Pardon me, sir, but it seems that you have accused me of "spewing." I shall have to address that in due course, and the topic will have to wait.

I merely was responding to an inferred mistake that took precedence over the question. It appears that Deagonx had not, in fact, made the mistake, and my inference was incorrect. I did not ignore his question. If you are curious as to why my adressal of the mistake I thought he had made took precedence over the question, I should be happy to explain.
Operating under the assumption that tax increases are purely bad would be a foolhardy one, indeed. If the entire discussion were to have continued using this premise, it might have had some more serious errors later on, requiring the challenging of an established premise. This, I have found to be quite difficult, whether the premise is true or false. Instead, I decided to correct the percieved error as it was stated.

My own political opinion came into the post at no point, and it has not in this post, either. I solely expressed a desire to correct a possible mistake. It is obviously a position held by all of us that taxation is necessary, and that, at times, it must be increased. Certainly, if it is decreased often, it must be increased equally regularly, or in greater increments. That stated, I bid you good day, and hope not to see further complaint from you.

Unfortunately, there also seem to be a number of subtly biased statements in your post. For the sake of the discussion at large, and such that this subtle bias is not mistakenly taken to be a part of the truths your sentences entail within them, I will point them out presently.

The first is your use of the term "Pro-life." The position "pro-life" is exclusively expressed as a negative position, encouraging greater regulation on abortion. If laws and regulation were removed, abortion would be a choice. Given an enactment of the views those who are "pro-life" suggest, there would be no such choice. Thus, "pro-life" is actually a "contra-" or "anti-" position. Also, the term contains the obvious engrained stigma against those who reject the idea. Those who are not "pro-life" are, by a simple reasoning, against life, a position which is surely an evil. This subtle wordplay can result in crowds shouting "Baby-killer!" when rational discussion should be taking place.

Since I understand that you hold a position in this delicate issue, I wish to assure you (like as not to no avail) that my concerns are not political in nature, but merely point out possible perceived bias, and I seek to eliminate such a bias when the purpose of this thread is that of seeking unbiased knowledge of the platforms of the two parties.

The second is your statement pertaining to the Democrats. It is an exaggeration phrased in such a way that the logical process of reductio ad absurdum is utilized as follows:
Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems.
Termites are a problem.
Therefore, Democrats believe that the government is the answer to termites.

I do not suggest that this is the intent, but merely would prefer that you used a more neutral phrasing as you did with the Republicans.

The third and final issue I wish to take with a section of your post is one pertaining to taxes. Tax evasion is highly illegal and since less than ten percent of the country is unemployed, the logical implication of your statement is that 40% of working Americans have willfully chosen not to report their income and not pay taxes. Homeownership in the United States is about two-thirds, meaning that if your statement is true, at least sixteen percent of Americans also don't pay property tax, meaning that our educational system (funded by property taxes) is only operating at five-sixths efficiency.

Forty percent is a very high prevalence rate, higher than ten percent. However, ten percent is approximately the prevalence rate of homosexuality (for example; it's a common trait that one sees and notices), and I can say that I know at least five people that are homosexual. Forty percent being four times ten percent, one should know nearly four times as many people who do not pay taxes. That said, it would appear to be a severe statistical anomaly that I know not one person that does not pay taxes. Do you? If so, I would advise you to report these people to the proper authorities for a crime that undermines the effectiveness and efficiency of our country.

However, I suggest an alternative possibility. Perhaps my observations are not statistical anomaly, and perhaps significantly more than one-half of Americans pay taxes. Perhaps some better sources for you are in order.

[Deagonx]

This is going downhill fast.

Locked.

[bugfartboy]

Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

[SmartyPants]

First I like to say that "spewing" was a bad choice of words.  I was just pointing out that your view on taxes was off topic.

Also, I showed no bais due to me saying "Pro-life".  That is what they name their political position and not my personal opinion.  I see merit on both sides of the "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice" debate.  Until a condom breaks on me, I will probably won't have a strong opinion either way.  Since this is a women's issue, I don't feel, as a man, like I have the right to say what women can or can not do.  If I was put in a position where I had to choose a side, then I choose the side where the women in my life agree with it which would be "Pro-choice".

Maybe my statement, "Democrats believe that the government is the answer to all problems," does sounds exaggerated, but that that wasn't not because of bais.  I had made poor word choices in trying to define a complex topic into a few words.  Democrats usually believe that government is the solution to most major issues.  Is that better?

I never said anything about tax evasion, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.  Here is my source about how half of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes.

Your comments about homosexuality seem to come out of no where.

[ArtDrake]

Well, it's good that we have several issues cleared up, and that many of my inferences were mistaken.

First, I'll insist that my intent in my remark pertaining to taxes was merely to be informative, and I see no expression of view.

My remarks about homosexuality were not, indeed about homosexuality, and I was merely using a convenient statistic that correlates quite a bit with observed rate.

However, it was directed at your remark about income taxes. I apologize; I did not believe the statistic, as it sounded very much like those false statistics quoted by people who wish to simply play upon the fear of the general populace. That suspicion having been in error, I rescind my earlier comparison.

I could not tell what variety of tax you were referring to, so I thank you for eliminating that uncertainty. However, it seems that the taxpaying rate in America has been low for a while, without any major backlash that can be directly traced to said low taxpaying rate.

As such, it seems we are at an agreement for now, and inclarities have been resolved. Finally, I thank you, and bid you good day.

[Ertxiem]

Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

I believe that the topic starter can lock his own thread. (Of course that the other people that can lock threads are the mods and the admins.)
Just to be clear, I didn't change any lock status of this thread.

I was also thinking that things were going downhill and I was thinking about what I should do. At the same time, gladly, things started to go uphill again.

So, I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion. From what I know, discussing the differences between moderate "left wing" and moderate "right wing" is common in many countries.

[Deagonx]

Uh. Does Ert want to? I think DeagonX forgot. :/

I believe that the topic starter can lock his own thread. (Of course that the other people that can lock threads are the mods and the admins.)
Just to be clear, I didn't change any lock status of this thread.

I had locked it, then subsequently unlocked it by request.

[CraigStern]

A Democrat is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Democratic Party.
A Republican is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Republican Party.

Beyond that, I think you're going to have a hell of a time trying to define consistent core beliefs for the two parties without engaging in broad generalizations.

[Duskling]

A Democrat is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Democratic Party.
A Republican is someone who chooses to affiliate him or herself with the Republican Party.

Beyond that, I think you're going to have a hell of a time trying to define consistent core beliefs for the two parties without engaging in broad generalizations.

Heh, heh, heh, well said.

[SmartyPants]

I think the "Cash for Clunkers" program is a good example to how Democrats and Republicans approach the economy.  Since the car industry was hurting the Dempcrats wanted to intervene by offering between $3,500 to $4,500 to people who are will to trade an old car in for a new car.  By making cars artificially cheaper, Democrats hoped to help to save the car industry.  Replublicans didn't agree with Cash for Clunkers because they believe that the government shouldn't tax everyone and then funnel money to industries they like.   Replublicans also believe artificially messing with supply and demand has bad consequences.

[CraigStern]

Let's stay on topic: this is thread about differences in core political beliefs between America's two major political parties, not about the effectiveness of particular legislative acts.

Here is a more neutral way of (very broadly) phrasing the differences in philosophy between the parties: Democrats believe that society's problems can and should be managed through smart use of laws and government programs; Republicans are skeptical of this premise, believing that government programs generally tend to produce unintended, undesirable results.

Of course, as much as some people hate to talk about it, there are very real class considerations tangled up in this. Democrats have traditionally championed programs to assist the poor and working classes, while Republicans have traditionally opposed those programs as fostering dependence on the government. Republicans tend to believe that the best thing the government can do to assist those struggling in our society is to reduce taxes on wealthy individuals so that companies will have more resources to hire workers. Democrats respond to this argument by citing studies which show that there is zero correlation between lower taxes and increased hiring by corporations.

Because of this ideological rift, you end up with one party fighting for programs that would have the government provide more resources to low and middle-income Americans, and the other party fighting to destroy those programs in the belief that they are useless, inefficient, or unintentionally harmful, and in their place--yes, as much as you probably didn't want to hear it, here it is--cut taxes on the wealthy.