Economy 52,842 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 For me, the party voting block system means you are labeled for some things that you don't necessarily agree with. For example, conservative/republican means I am pro life, racist and favor tax breaks for the wealthy and anti gay..... Being Liberal means I favor taxes and regulations to control the free market, libritarian an means I promote pot smoking i am none of the above. Theres a party in my Province (they are the current opposition, they are not in power) called the "Progressive Conservatives" They are right winged in economic matters such as low taxes and low regulation and economic freedom, but they are progressive/liberal with social issues such as Gay Rights, equality for all in terms of rights etc I favour them a lot but instead we got stuck with a Liberal majority with this lesbian woman leading who probably only won because she won the LGBT sympathy votes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Theres a party in my Province (they are the current opposition, they are not in power) called the "Progressive Conservatives" They are right winged in economic matters such as low taxes and low regulation and economic freedom, but they are progressive/liberal with social issues such as Gay Rights, equality for all in terms of rights etc I favour them a lot but instead we got stuck with a Liberal majority with this lesbian woman leading who probably only won because she won the LGBT sympathy votes Thats an interesting developement in Politic's .. shows me that Canadian Politicians listen to their people.. U.S. politicians listen to the money first... people second. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,842 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Thats an interesting developement in Politic's .. shows me that Canadian Politicians listen to their people.. U.S. politicians listen to the money first... people second. I dont know exactly that they "listen"... Canada has always been pretty liberal... We were always among the first to make social changes like: allowing women in military (and front lines), allowing same-s-x marriage, providing laws to protect minorities and human rights etc... Even some black slaves from the US 100+ years ago would run away to Canada... And Ontario is particularly liberal. No surprise we were the first Province to allow same s-x-marriage in 2003, two years before the Federal Government allowed it in 2005... So a party knows they wont get elected if they are conservative in terms of social values. So for that reason, no party advertises social conservativeness... They just wanna get elected and know they wont if they get conservative so the different parties end up being different more in terms of economic policies (Right Wing vs Centre Wing vs Left Wing) although theres still a slight gap for social stuff... For instance Canadas Federal Liberals support legalizing Marijuana whereas the Conservatives do not. But the gap in social views isnt as big as in the US with Democrats vs Republicans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 My stance on Pot is ...The profit being made is in the wrong hands, so making it legal (like alcohol) would make it easier to regulate.Recreational d--gs are a personal choice, and the government should really stick to public issues.Its my choice to remain sober at all times. I don't need a law or government to force it on me, and the fact that Pot is illegal makes it that much more 'exciting' ... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
socotra 3,357 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 But Democrats go to a worse extreme... I mean high taxes and high regulation do discourage business investment. It also drives business away. Burger King didnt move their headquarters here to Canada for nothing. And all kinds of Corpoations are ditching the US. The US with a Corporate tax rate of 30% (plus whatever States) add is already one of the highest in the Developed world. The Democrats have got to be out of their mind to want to raise it even further Democrat ideology is tax the rich to give the poor assistance. Capitalism is more creating economic growth and actually givig people a job. A person is better off with a job than limited assistance from welfare or food stamps. It also costs the Government less and the economy is more productive... also lets not forget the middle class is the first to suffer when unemployment rises because theres no wage competition along employers. Higher taxes on rich for wealth distribution generally do not make up for the lower wages that result from lower business investment and its effect on the labor market. If higher regulation and taxes on rich worked (which is what the US is getting more of) then why after 6 years of Obama is income inequality STILL rising? and some policies backfire also. Like Obama care. The Republicans warned that it likely would result in costing full time jobs as corporations avoid hiring full time so they dont have to cover their employees. The result???? Despite a recovering economy, this time were not getting as many full-times as usually u get in a refovery... That a coincidence???? of course, Republicans sometimes go to an extreme i dot support. Minimum Wage should be a little higher at the National Level. And u cant get rid of support programs entirally but although both parties tend to go to an extreme, i think Democrats do more damage than Republicans. remember a strong economy with compettion is more effective at preventing exploitation than a weak economy with no competition and u try to help poor people by regulating everything, only theres always things regulation wont help I'm not really looking to get into an economic debate with you considering it's not my forte and I also just said in my previous post that I don't care about a party's economic parties if they're against me on the most fundamental level (marriage equality). However, I will pose this hypothetical situation to you: let's say there's a young woman who becomes pregnant and the father leaves her. She comes from a lower class home, neither of her parents attended college and she can't afford to go. She has to make her own way, and provide for her baby... how is she supposed to do this on her own? Welfare and food stamps are NECESSARY and your "A job is much better than welfare" comment is senseless, because yes, a job is better, but how do you propose someone get a job that pays well enough to support themselves in the situation I described? The trickle-down economic system simply just does not work because people by nature are greedy, people are in it (generally) for themselves. Take for example Walmart - it's been highlighted in the news lately for its low pay, and being the world's largest company BY REVENUE, you'd think their workers would get the whole works as part of working there. As I said, I dislike both parties, but the Democrat philosophy isn't "Let's tax the hell out of the rich just because we're mean like that!" Their main idea is "Hey, those people over there can't afford these taxes and they need some assistance getting food... those people over there are living in mansions and have three luxury cars and they vacation every year in Europe, they can afford to pay a little more." To respond to your question about why the income gap is growing, it again comes down to greed (I believe). It's like a snowball effect; the rich get richer, those in better socioeconomic climates continue to succeed. It's so much harder for someone living off minimum wage to get an education and move up the ladder, even WITH welfare. However, the government can't go in and force companies to compensate SO much for poorer people that it eliminates any gap. There will always be a gap, there always has been a gap, dating back to medieval Europe. There will be rich and there will be poor. The goal, I think, is to strengthen the middle class and I think Obama's policies have been doing just that - but the income gap is not the result of Obama's domestic agenda, it's just always going to be there unless we somehow reach utopia status (which isn't in our foreseeable future, obviously). Obamacare is helping millions of people. I think the most recent number I've seen is 15 million people who've gotten coverage from Obamacare marketplaces? I don't know about you, but our government is taxpayers. We fund the government, and frankly, I'd rather see the money sent there spent on things that matter, like other people's healthcare. I feel like Republicans want to spend it on FURTHER beefing up our military or just let it sit there because that's their conservative nature. Democrats have more morality, honestly. This is a generalization, I realize, but for the most part, I think it's true. Obamacare has actually HUGELY helped out a close family of ours who's enduring economic hardship. It may be fiscally expensive, but it's necessary and ultimately rewarding. Politically, the United States is the foremost leader in the world and universal healthcare sets a fantastic model. In what ways do the Democratic Party's policies hinder competition? They're not communist for crying out loud, they're just trying to prevent corporate greed from running over the little guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,842 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I'm not really looking to get into an economic debate with you considering it's not my forte and I also just said in my previous post that I don't care about a party's economic parties if they're against me on the most fundamental level (marriage equality). However, I will pose this hypothetical situation to you: let's say there's a young woman who becomes pregnant and the father leaves her. She comes from a lower class home, neither of her parents attended college and she can't afford to go. She has to make her own way, and provide for her baby... how is she supposed to do this on her own? Welfare and food stamps are NECESSARY and your "A job is much better than welfare" comment is senseless, because yes, a job is better, but how do you propose someone get a job that pays well enough to support themselves in the situation I described? The trickle-down economic system simply just does not work because people by nature are greedy, people are in it (generally) for themselves. Take for example Walmart - it's been highlighted in the news lately for its low pay, and being the world's largest company BY REVENUE, you'd think their workers would get the whole works as part of working there. As I said, I dislike both parties, but the Democrat philosophy isn't "Let's tax the hell out of the rich just because we're mean like that!" Their main idea is "Hey, those people over there can't afford these taxes and they need some assistance getting food... those people over there are living in mansions and have three luxury cars and they vacation every year in Europe, they can afford to pay a little more." To respond to your question about why the income gap is growing, it again comes down to greed (I believe). It's like a snowball effect; the rich get richer, those in better socioeconomic climates continue to succeed. It's so much harder for someone living off minimum wage to get an education and move up the ladder, even WITH welfare. However, the government can't go in and force companies to compensate SO much for poorer people that it eliminates any gap. There will always be a gap, there always has been a gap, dating back to medieval Europe. There will be rich and there will be poor. The goal, I think, is to strengthen the middle class and I think Obama's policies have been doing just that - but the income gap is not the result of Obama's domestic agenda, it's just always going to be there unless we somehow reach utopia status (which isn't in our foreseeable future, obviously). Obamacare is helping millions of people. I think the most recent number I've seen is 15 million people who've gotten coverage from Obamacare marketplaces? I don't know about you, but our government is taxpayers. We fund the government, and frankly, I'd rather see the money sent there spent on things that matter, like other people's healthcare. I feel like Republicans want to spend it on FURTHER beefing up our military or just let it sit there because that's their conservative nature. Democrats have more morality, honestly. This is a generalization, I realize, but for the most part, I think it's true. Obamacare has actually HUGELY helped out a close family of ours who's enduring economic hardship. It may be fiscally expensive, but it's necessary and ultimately rewarding. Politically, the United States is the foremost leader in the world and universal healthcare sets a fantastic model. In what ways do the Democratic Party's policies hinder competition? They're not communist for crying out loud, they're just trying to prevent corporate greed from running over the little guy.Thats not exactly true Republicans have often asked for cuts in Military, even last year thats one of the cuts they tried to demand by about $55 Billion if im not mistaken. They dont like to spend a lot on anything period that includes military. This article if you read it carefully is actually refering to a spec area in military budget (overseas spending) not the over-all defence budget as a whole. I think the misconception that Republicans are so heavy on military has arisen because Republicans were leading during 9/11 and America went paranoid against defending against terrorism and so even the Republicans that dont like spending decided to raise military spending big time... And since then its been high, But the democrats have wanted to increase it further not cut it And you do make a point there. In a situation like what u described, a person might be better off with democratic policies. But let me ask you, when your leading for millions of people, how can you possibly make decisions that are beneficial to everyone in every circumstance? you just cant. Theres pros and cons to everything. You just gotta weight the pros in relation to the cons and see what benefits the greatest number of people Yeah America may not be "communitst" but when u have a corporate tax rate of 35% (plus whatever States add make it closer to 40%)thats already one of the highest in the world, and you have a party favour of raising them even farther, its not surprising that entrepreneurship rates and business creation in America is at a multi-decade low. Over the long term that will be deadly to the economy and u take away competition as well as fewer companies exist. The less economic output u have, the more you gotta tax to get the same revenue, then u raise taxes further and drive away even more business and that in itself is a neverending cycle. then when u get to the point when u cant raise taxes further cause they are too high, you run bigger and bigger deficits to cover your wrekless spending. Of course in the short term deficits fluctuate because of cyclical economic trends, but im talking over the long term And remember, at the end of the day, both parties want a better America, they just have different strategies for trying to accomplish it. Republicans dont like to see the middle class get destroyed, people just assume that since they dont like taxing the hell out of the rich that it means they only care about the rich The way i see it, Democrats are good if your poor. You cant make less than minimum wage no matter how weak the economy gets, and democrats will probably give u more assistance. However if your a middle class, or even low-middle class, your income matters more than social programs... and when ur incomes take a hit because theres not enough competition in the labor market due to a weak economy, a middle class person is worse off because a few extra programs wont make up for your diminished income. More people are forced into poverty, and u actually get more income inequality Were 6 years into a democratic led America. By now you should of started to see improvements in income inequality problems if Obamas strategies truly worked, but they dont. Of course as i said, Republicans do sometimes go to an extreme also (i just think democrats are worse). Ideally America should have a 3rd party that is somewhere in between Democrats and Republicans and takes a more balanced approach without going to total extremes. PS: i do favour democrats for social issues however, Republicans are too old fashioned and conservative. Although since Democrats leave a lot of that social issue stuff up for individual States to decide, at the end of the day it doesnt make a huge difference. But i do prefer Democrats for stuff like that. Just not on economic matters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.