Would Like Some Help with Understanding Politics....
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Would Like Some Help with Understanding Politics....
I am posting under the Kitchen Table board "just in case" LOL
I have never been too in tune with politics, but within the past few months I find myself watching a lot of Fox News and would like to understand more the differences between the following:
Democrats vs Republicans: What does each party stand for typically?
Conservative vs Liberal...and also, can there be both conserv and lib democrats, or both conserv and lib republicans?
right wing and left wing...I'm clueless on this
I am asking for very general descriptions and explanations. I understand some biases may slip in. I just would ask that we keep things respectful in this thread.
Right wing is conservative, left wing is liberal. Yes, there can be conservative democrats and liberal republicans (though very few of those).
I would not watch Fox news if I wanted to understand what is going on - in fact, I would not watch any of the network news if I wanted more than sound bites. If you want to get a better understanding, watch some of the PBS hour long talk programs on Sundays, like Frontline, NOW with Bill Moyers, and similar programs. Network news is mostly sound bites and they are not particularly interested in educating viewers, just in headline stuff. Better yet, newspapers, or online magazine articles. One of the things I appreciate about the internet is the ability to surf a wide range of newspaper columnists. Since I am a died in the wool lefty liberal, my favorites are Molly Ivins at the Sacramento Bee (sacbee.com), Ellen Goodman at the Boston Globe, and William Raspberry at the Washington Post. Each of those papers has a month or more of the columns by these writers available on their web sites so you can see what they are saying about a wide range of topics. I particularly like Molly Ivins (who is also a lefty liberal) because she has been commenting on politics for decades, because she knows Texas politics inside and out and knew Dubyah long before he became President, and because she always provides sources for any facts she gives so you can check out what she is saying.
As to what each party stands for, that is not so simple. The Republicans who are in power right now stand for lower taxes, less government, "family values" (i.e., promoting marriage by encouraging women on welfare to get married by financial incentives, passing a bill for funding international AIDS programs but promoting abstinence as a preventer of AIDS (which it is, of course) but not condom use; withholding funding from international programs that work with pregnant women unless they say nothing about abortion in any parts of their programs, not just the parts that are funded by U.S. dollars, decrying homosexuality as being against family values; relaxing federal rules that affect environmental issues, job safety, discrimination (racial, gender, age). Oh, and "homeland security", which is mostly promoted by relaxing the rules about who can be arrested and held in detention and why, but doesn't provide funding for "homeland security" costs to local communities who have to comply with federal homeland security regulations (which increases local taxes or bites into local budgets for other services); privatizing as many heretofore federal programs as possible (i.e., making prescripton assistance to senior citizens available through profit-making HMOs and other insurance programs rather than through Medicare); privatizing Social Security by giving you the right to invest some of your SS taxes in the stock market (right, like that would provide for a safe retirement), and so on. Basically reducing government, cutting taxes (which will force the reduction of goverment), promoting private investment and private businesses as "good for the economy", relying on our own international policy instead of working within the U.N., NATO, etc.
As an example, the present administration is promoting a "family friendly" change in the rules regarding overtime, so that people can choose between being paid for overtime or getting comp time. They say it is "family friendly" because families want more time off to meet with teachers, have more time with kids, etc. The problems the Democrats see with this proposal is that (1) overtime is usually mandatory, not voluntarily - in other words, if you don't work overtime any time we tell you to, you will lose your job (and overtime saves the employer money, because while the employer has to pay time-and-a-half and increased employer share of social security, his fixed costs for health insurance, unemployement and workers comp, plus the hard costs of buildings, equipment, etc. don't increase - where they would increase if the employer hired more people instead of requiring overtime) (2) the employer gets to decide whether you can take the comp time when you want to take it, and can force you to keep it accrued for up to a year (which means, in essence, you are loaning the employer the dollar value of the overtime you worked, as a no-interest loan, for up to a year, and (3) there is no mechanism to make certain that the choice between overtime pay and acccruing comp time is really a choice. In addition, these proposed new rules would take a lot of people out of the pool of people who must be paid overtime for extra work and puts them in the "exempt" pool of people who can be required to work additional hours without additional pay.
The Democrats by and large want tax dollars to fund federal programs for low income families, welfare, schools, and health care; tighter environmental rules and job safety rules; more federal oversight to prevent or punish discrimination; making prescription assistance part of Medicare; working with international progams such as the U.N., NATO, etc. and coordinating our foreign policy with those bodies. The Democrats, by and large, prefer tax programs which place a larger tax burden on those "best able to afford it", that is, a graduated income tax (which is what we have now) where the percentage of income paid in taxes increases as your income increases, in other words, the rich pay more taxes to help out the poor.
My bias certainly shows, but this is how I see it.
Thanks tons Ginny, I've always been confused about this. I wonder if it's okay that I am not sure as to whether I am Republican or Democrat. I just don't feel educated enough about this yet to call myself one or the other.
Amy, I'm with you! I don't know much about politics at all.
What I've always *thought* is that Democrats are more for the hard working lower end of the scale familes, schools, health care etc., and that the republicans are more for the upper class citizens, which I'm not (upper class) so I've always voted for the Democratic candidate for president.
I really should do some research and find out where my opinions belong.
You could always be independent and not pledge yourself to either side. Look at the issues that are important to you, get information from a variety of sources, but remember that a lot of news sources are slanted one way or another (and not just in their editorial pages), and form your own opinions on the subject.
I have found that when I was younger I was extremely liberal, but I also was not getting information from both sides. In the world we now live in I find my opinions changing from my prior liberal views, on a lot of issues.
I tend to lean more Republican, but am really independent. I truly do vote for the candidate not the party. Because of the candidates we have had since I became a legal voted I have always voted repub for President, but I have voted Dem at times for senators, gov, reps, etc. The family values part is very important to me as I am opposed to abortion, legalization of homosexual marriages and "spouse" health insurance and other benefits for homosexuals, and other issues.I also care very much for a candidate's spiritual and moral standing, so even if I agreed with everything in Bill Clinton's platform (which I didn't) I could personally have never voted for him. However, in opposition to most republican thought I am very much opposed to the death penalty for any reason...even for our recent serial killer in LA. I favor life imprisonment in all cases when the death penalty is an option. I used to not feel this way, but reading the fiction book "A Lesson Before Dying" totally changed my thinking, so in some ways I have "liberal Repub." leanings. I also think we need serious overhaul of Medicaid/Medicare, welfare, and the like and I may start a separate post on that issue later when I have more time. I do think the Demoncrats want to bleed the middle-class dry. Ever notice how so many wealthy celebraties are in-your-face Democrats? They have all that extra money to throw around to federal programs...I do not. And I also think it alleviates a little of their guilt for making such ridiculous salaries. There's a little of my bias :-)Sometimes I do agree a little more with Dem on educational issues but that depends on the particular issue at hand.
I have to disagree about the Fox news channel. I think it is one of the stations which is NOT biased. Most of the other sources mentioned here are on the liberal side. Focusing on their words will not leave you impartial, but biased. I like to hear from all sides. Not just the side of an issue I support.
They debate very frequently with a panel which will consist of a liberal democrat and a conservative
republican. Take the show Hannity and Colmes for example.
Read newspapers, articles, and other television stations, but I would not stop watching the Fox channel. Thurday evening I watched the Great Von Sustaran (sp) regarding the Peterson murder case. I did not agree with her, but I enjoyed the healthy debate by her panel of guests.
Sorry, not Great but Greta LOL
Thanks so much you all for posting. Regarding Fox News...I enjoy watching Hannity and Colmes, but really like watching The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced" news. I hope they are because it is the only channel (LITERALLY) that comes through on my television. I don't have cable or an antenna right now, but for some odd reason Fox News comes through...wierd, I know. I will definitely start reading more online though.
It is very frustrating to me not being able to say I am Republican or Democrat. There are a few select issues that I feel strongly about, based on my own gut feelings. However, with other issues I find that both Democrats and Republicans can present valid points depending on who you are talking to. Maybe I just need more time to research and listen.
Amy, that is why many people register as independent and then vote on the person, not the party. The only reason it matters is in preliminary elections, apparently you can only vote for your party's preliminary. (I am not really sure about this because in the 3 years I have been a registered voter, I have not actually PHYSICALLY lived in my county for an election. That's kind of odd!!!)
I am republican. I do agree with less government. I think that Democrats want to fund all these social programs to keep people depended on their government check every month and therefore keep teh democrats in office. No one is going to oust the party that keeps them supplied with money they don't earn. I do think that certain programs should be there, but people should be encouraged with incentive to work, have businesses, and therefore make more jobs, and give people dignity for earning their dollar. I am tired of working with pepole who get $600 a month for nothing and pay for groceries with food stamps and then go and get $50 - $100 hair dos a week and all these other things while I pay with money I earned and live within a reasonable means and then when they don't recieve as much money they complain. One lady was complaining that the government wasn't going to pay for her rent anymore and how stupid it was like some how the government owed her while in actuality the taxpayers were paying her rent. Programs help in many cases but far too many it only creates dependent people who think they are entitled for us to pay for everything and therefore while we are paying their bills they have no real incentive to better themselves or their communities they live in. I am for smaller government and I would also like to see Congress live by the same laws as we do. If you do your research you will find that congress is not bound by a lot of laws they pass especially tax laws. THink about it. People are making laws they don't live by so no incentive to be fair is there. Family values are very important to me and the chipping away at our families foundations have only proven to increase crime. Families are our foundation and we should protect our families and keep them intact and together. Although I don't think republicans are saints I agree with many of their ideas. I don't see democrats as people for the working class I see them as people who think that we are all too dumb to take care of ourselves and that if it weren't for them we would not be able to function. They rely on the idea that the american people are dumb. The government is not our big father that needs to take care of us. What happened to working people taking care of themselves and their families. Democrats don't even think we can raise our own children. Ever hear of Hilary's ideas about child raising. Have you ever heard of her healthcare ideas. Basically that government will take care of all healthcare and ration it out wich means higher taxes, slower and worse health care, and other various problems. And by the way what is wron with profit making insurance companies. When did making money become wrong.
Amy, I think that everyone provided valid points. I consider myself to be a conservative reupblican. It is okay if you do not know what party you "belong" to. Actually, I think that sometimes that can be better because then you actually look at the platforms of the candidates, and not just vote for who you are loyal to. As a republican I enjoy watching Fox news. It is true that all media is biased, Fox is more biased to the right (even though they say they are balanced), and most of the other networks are biased to the left. Do you know what your feelings are on most of the major issues? Try to decide what you think is important to you and then compare it with the platforms of your candidates. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Do you favor gun control? Do you favor the death penalty? Do you favor the gov. allowing us to put our S.S. withholdings into our own accts? These are some of the issuse you want to thnk about when you are looking at candidates. The reason I call myself a republican is because I agree with most of the major issues that Republicans stand for. It is traditionally thought that Rep. stands for rich and Dem is for average. I don't really think this is true anymore. My parents always voted Dem, because my dad was a union sheet metal worker, but 6 out of 7 of us have turned out to be conservative republicans. Even my brothers, who are now union sheet metal workers. What does that tell you about how times have changed? I think that if you really want to know who you should vote for, or what side you are on you shuld think about the issues and then study up on the candidates who are running, and see which on most closely matches your views. I hope that helps. Like I said if you don't know right now, that's okay. I voted for Clinton in 96, Jesse Ventura for Gov. in 98 (Can you believe that?) and Bush for pres in 00. See how I've changed?
Julie and Jeannie, thanks for your replies. I watch Fox news EVERY night for about an hour or two, and have been studying up on republican vs democrat, etc. I am still staying neutral (not claiming one or the other) because I cannot fully agree with either side right now. I find myself leaning more Republican every day.
Julie, while I do realize that there are huge exceptions to every rule, I tend to agree with your line of thinking in your above post. I think that INCENTIVE is the most important aspect of our economy, the workforce, education, etc. I do believe in less government when it comes to the economy; the "invisible hand" should guide the economy, meaning the independent actions of individual consumers and suppliers, with the least government involvement as possible.
However, that is not to say that government does not have its place in certain areas. There are some individuals/families that honestly do need help, and that is where government should come into play. It's just that I think government has its hand in too deep currently.
Anyway, I have a lot to learn. So I will be open-minded when it comes to the issues and political parties. Thanks again!
Well, Juli and Jeannie and Amy, you agree with less government. So, which parts of government would you like to do without? Say, the federal gas-tax supported highway building and maintenance program? Or air traffic controllers? Or, maybe, the EPA (which is pretty well gutted now anyhow), which tries to keep big businesses from putting mercury, arsenic and cyanide into the water your children drink, or major pollutants into the air your children breathe? Or, maybe the whole anti-terrorism program (oh, by the way, there was an effort recently to cut back on funding for air marshalls - seems it was a bit too expensive to pay for hotels for them if they were riding on long flights - after all, terrorists only take short hops). Maybe education (though federal funding for student loans and tuition assistance for low income people has been cut back drastically). Or the Food & Drug Administration oversight of drug development and manufacturing and safety? Maybe less money for prisons (a huge governmental expense)?
Or maybe less government by spending less on the military? Well, actually, I'd like to see us spend more on the military - that is, increase the pay scales and benefits for the people serving in the military. Where I'd like to see less spending on the military is less money for huge high-tech boondoggle weapons which don't seem to work very well but do provide a lot of pork barrell support to members of Congressional committees which are supposed to oversee military spending. Did you know, for example, that the rifle supplied to our forces in Vietnam had a horribly high failure rate, and that Colt, the manufacturer, told the government that it would have a high failure rate. Seems the ammunition often jammed. What fun, in the jungles of Vietnam. But hey, Colt's stockholders and executives made out OK.
Less government - let's see. Well, we deregulated the utilities (which previously had been able to only make a level of profit governed by regulation) - and we had a major energy crisis in California, and Enron - with thousands of people losing their jobs and their retirement programs. We deregulated savings and loans, and wound up a few years later having to pay huge amounts in tax dollars to reimburse, minimally, those people whose savings accounts were wiped out by the savings and loan scandals and frauds.
Maybe the government programs you'd like to cut are those programs which provide medical care, food stamps and WIC, and some money to poor families with children? Those are the programs most people mean when they say they'd like to see less government - that, and public education. I agree, the welfare system doesn't work very well in many instances. But, what would you do? Take the children away from their mothers and put them in foster care (but there aren't enough foster parents) or in orphanages? What's the alternative? Jobs that pay a real living wage - in this time of increasing unemployment? Or, as a French philospher said a couple of centuries ago - the poor are as free to live under bridges as the rest of us. And certainly public education doesn't do a great job. There are those who say that you can't improve the schools just by throwing money at them. But every study shows that reducing class size (i.e., hiring more teachers) always produces improvements in test scores and educational ability.
Families - keeping them intact. One way to do that would be to work to be sure there are jobs available, paying a living wage, for the heads of families. Given the present employment picture, that isn't happening. And every study shows that when the head of the household in an intact family (i.e., the father/husband) is out of work and can't support his family, the incidence of spousal and child abuse increases drastically. Poverty has drastic social effects, and affects more than just the poor person or family. We, as a society, pay in many ways, and pay a lot more for prisons than we do for welfare (high prison populations and higher crime rates being one of the consequences of increased unemployment and poverty).
Social Security into our own accounts? You mean, maybe, the stock market? - where my 401(k) lost over half of its value in the past 18 months - and I am in very conservative investments. And now CDs and Money Markets and Treasury bills are paying - what - 2%, 3.5% if you're lucky?
Healthcare rationing? Healthcare is rationed. By the insurance companies. I recently read an article saying that some insurance companies are telling allergists that they won't approve prescription medications for the patient until the patient has first failed to improve with over the counter medications (no insurance coverage for over the counter medications, of course). If you are in an HMO you can't see a specialist without a referral from your primary care doc, and if the doc won't give you the referral or the specialist you need to see isn't covered, you are stuck unless you can win on appeal. My employer recently changed health insurance companies, and I can no longer go to my local hospital for blood tests - I have to go to a private company the insurance company contracts with, and none of my doctors trust the results from that company. And if you don't have health insurance and don't qualify for Medicare, the only way you get healthcare is to pay for it out of pocket entirely or do without. The whole battle about prescription coverage in Medicare is because too many of our elderly are having to choose between food or rent and medicines, and medicines are "easier" to do without. Read some of the posts here from mothers who have no health insurance, or only minimal coverage, or who have had to battle with doctors and insurance companies to get specialist care for their children - and then tell me health care isn't already rationed.
I agree, I'd like to see members of Congress live like the rest of us - like not having free health care (for the rest of us it would be called socialized medicine, but members of Congress get almost totally free health care, and no premiums to pay), like not getting such lavish retirement benefits, not getting free trips from corporations and so on.
As for the invisible hand Amy refers to - that idea of letting consumers and manufacturers work it out for themselves was the same idea Adam Smith had back in the 1800s in England. But Mr. Smith, first, had no notion of monopolies or near-monopoly situations. And, Mr. Smith believed that market pressures would force manufacturers and sellers to act in an ethical manner because if they didn't they wouldn't find any buyers. Which is fine, until you get small numbers of corporations controlling essential items. And Mr. Smith certainly didn't envision major corporations outsourcing their manufacturing to other countries with lower pay scales and getting tax breaks in the process. One of the biggest exports from this country, imo, is jobs.
Less government involvement is fine as long as corporations voluntarily act ethically. But the corporations have proven, time and again, that while most will, unless there is strict oversight, many won't - and the essentially unsupervised unethical behavior of several corporations in recent years has take a great toll of their employees, their suppliers, and the stock market and taxpayers in general. I have no gripe with profit, but profit at the expense of customers, employees and the rest of us is immoral.
As for not liking for profit health insurance companies - that's because when health insurance companies were non-profit and had to pay out most of what they got in premiums for health care, they paid more to health care providers and charged less to their insureds. Now they have added profit to the equation, and that profit has to come out of either the monies they pay to providers, or the premiums they charge the insureds. It doesn't come out of nowhere, that's for sure. So when it is something as critical as health care, I think there should not be for-profit corporations involved, in insurance, hospitals, or nursing homes.
Now, here's the biggie - taxes. Everyone wants to pay less taxes and get bigger refunds. Taxes, dear friends, are the way we pay for things we need collectively and cannot manage individually. Like highways and schools. Overall the U.S. pays less in taxes (a lower percentage of national income) than any other country in the Western/technologized world. But, out of self-interest, we vote for lower taxes. Personally, I was persuaded to what some call "enlightened self-interest". For example, I pay in county and school taxes an amount that is equivalent to about 55% or 60% of my mortgage payment. Which gets me police and fire protection, trash removal, street repairs, and a whole lot of other services. I don't have children in school, so why am I paying school taxes. Well, personally I think it is to my benefit to have every child as well educated as possible - the children whose education I am paying for are the future doctors, pharmacists, bus drivers, police and fire personnel, inventors, and so on, and I will need them. So I want them well educated, and I am willing to pay taxes for that purpose. When you talk about lower taxes, stop and think about what governmental services you'd like to see cut or cut back, and whether you really want to do without them.
Yes, I am biased, and my bias is clear. And since I am now into the third page in my word processing program, I will wind down. But, a final comment. Amy, for goodness sake, try CNN instead of Fox News. This is the company that hired Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North (a convicted felon) to report on the War in Iraq, for heaven's sake.
Ginny, thanks for responding, and thanks for all the time and effort you put into your response. Since I am basically a politics virgin, I haven't developed firm stances on hardly any major issue. That is, I just don't feel fully informed yet. I do have a few responses or maybe questions on certain areas of your post.
Regarding military expenditures, I definitely agree that the military should receive higher salaries. Not because my dh is active duty army, but because the military defends our whole American way of life in its entirety. Soldiers risk their lives, and the emotional well-being of their families, to defend our nation, and should be heavily compensated, IMO. I also agree with you that the military needs serious improvement in their budgeting. They pay outrageous prices for light bulbs and pens (my husband is supply), so I know they are paying ridiculous amounts on equipment.
After reading what you wrote about for-profit insurance companies, I agree with you.
Regarding the benefits that Congress receives, I think this is a prime example of why incentive is so vital. If they are receiving near-free health care, etc., why push for improvements for ordinary citizens?
I still believe in the "invisible hand" approach to the economy, but like I said before, the government should not be totally excluded. And this is because of the same reasons you mentioned above, i.e. monopolies. To add another, the minimum wage.
Taxes...I completely understand that taxes go to pay for services that we cannot perform individually. My only problem is the allocation of this tax money. For example, more should be spent on education, and less on making health care so inexpensive for Congress, lol.
And from what I've heard, CNN is very much liberally-biased. I am also aware that Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced" but has a slight conservative bias. To be honest, I don't have cable, and can only get Fox News because of a really good antennae I have, LOL. And for the record, I despise Geraldo Rivera, and very rarely watch "War Stories" with Ollie North, though I did watch his reports when he was inbedded in Iraq. I prefer Hannity and Colmes (lib vs. cons) and I just love Bill O'Reilly...hope I don't get my head bitten off for that one. LOL
I don't know much about the other topics you touched on, so I can't comment on them. You make wonderful, valid points. That's why I love reading your posts on politics. Thanks so much for responding. It means a lot.
If Fox is all you can get, by all means watch Fox. And, read newspapers, and news magazines (at the library). Can you get your local public television station? They have good hour-long programs on Sundays that dissect the week's top stories, and try to present all sides. (Yes, I know many think public television is liberally biased, but they had Buckley, for heaven's sake!)
I think that all news is biased in one way or another and that is fine. They should be allowed to be adn it would almost be impossible not to be, but for heavens sake admit to it. I wish they would stop claiming to be fair and balanced when they are not.
About less government. I think there should be les government mostly in teh economay wich for all that has happened is doing good right now. From what I see we are starting to see the benefits of the tax cuts.
also about healthcare. It would help greatly if certain lawyers were not allowed to sue for stupid things adn get enomous amounts of money. I do agree that you should be able to sue, but within reason. Doctors pay so much in insurance a lone. I know we think "well they're doctors they can afford it but if you saw the numbers you would realize that it is ridiculous. Also if the governemnt didn't subsidize so many peoples healthcare and we didn't have to rely on insurance as much as we do because of the high costs we would actually get better prices. When doctors know they are going to charge the government or a big insurance comapny then their prices are very high. But if they were charging the individual then you wouldn't pay $450 for an x-ray. THey would be forced to compete more and give better prices. Am I making any sense? Like wal-mart. They are competing with other stores and give good prices in order to get you to come to them. Doctors would do teh same, but instead they are charging the insurance companies adn government and know they can get more money and then the costs are passed down to us. So I do think government should withdraw some when it comes to healthcare and so should the insurance companies.
About taxes I want the tax money to actually go to schools and highways and such. They need to cut social programs and help people become independent. Not that certain people don't need it forcertain amounts of time, but come on. THis is America. The land of oppurtunity. THere is no reason not to be educated or working except that when you are getting money for being "poor" you don't have proper incentive to not be poor. I know from experience. The goverment payed for our rent all growing up adn my parents had no incentive to move out of the apartments, to own property, to better themselves. I mean rent adn utitlities and food stamps were given to them for years. ALl my growing up. So we should limit the amount of time they give welfare away and to who they give it to. Social entitlements comprise of more than 50% of the goverment budget. That is what we are paying taxes for. I am fine with paying taxes but not to support people who refuse to support themselves.
I hope I made some sense
Julie
|
Members
