The Republicans vote in laws to support rich people and large corporations. They don't like any type of government assisted programs that help the needy, but they do like government assisted programs to help the rich, but they call them "subsidies". Farmers look forward to their subsidies because they get government money for NOT putting out crops.
Now when we are talking about "rich", Repbs want to benefit people who earn $300,000 + per year. Their favorites of course are billionaires and they help them a lot. From these rich people, they get their campaign funding.
Democrats on the other hand work to help all classes of society; and their agenda is to help the neediest people in America. They try to support programs that feed, clothe, educate, etc. the poorest Americans. They also support plans to help the middle to upper class citizens. The Republicans call this "too much government" and want to cut these programs out and have cut a lot over these last few years. I think Democrats are more into the "heart" of the population, helping a much larger number of Americans than the Republicans.
Both parties have some good and some bad about them. However, this administration is one that has been so "in your face" hostile and of ill judgment, ignoring the wishes of the people for whom they are employed, that they have absolutely lost the faith of the people and caused such suspicion and mistrust in our society, they have damaged the GOP forever.
2006-10-09 06:32:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by nobluffzone 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's more of a Conservative V. Liberal thing today. when i was growing up both Republicans and Democrats were both conservative. And the difference was where the money should be controlled. Republicans wanted the lowest level possible. Democrats wanted everything controlled from DC.
Then there developed a liberal faction within both parties. but the liberal faction in the Democrats got big enough to take control from the conservative Democrats. Slowly the old Democratic base started voting for Republicans more and more.
Once the Democrats lost control of Congress they found out they don't play well from a minority position. And the Republicans had played from the minority position they didn't have a good plan for when they were in power.
The whole thing escalated and no one wanted to play nice. It's really not rich v poor like some would tell you. It's a matter of a total failure to communicate and compromise. Not to mention that both parties are more interested in party power than what is right for the country as a whole.
I think the founding fathers screwed up when they DIDN'T ban political parties all together.
2006-10-09 13:29:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, one must become well informed and choose which they feel is the best direction for the country, and themselves. The principle party platforms which giude the directions our country take have changed back and fourth over the last 50 years. So its quite possible to be a Democrat one time, and Republican another. The arguments we currently see are kinda thrown upon us by the FAR left wing liberals, and the far right republican conservatives. II won't say which I am in this question as those that have seen my answers know good and well. But, most people fall in between the two extremes. i just encourage anyone to be informed about the issues and don't believe everything on the news or in the papers. its ones own responsibility to do alittle research, and be informed enoughto make an intelligent decision.
2006-10-09 13:20:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both parties have members that fall in all earning categories. They may not like to admit but both are very interested in corporate money also. The main issue right now is the division between conservatives and liberals. The fringes are at each others throats and they have convinced citizens and elected leaders that they must support the fringes in order to get what they want. Another reason is incumbent politicians seem willing for the most part to back whatever policy or philosophy will enable them to stay in office.
As a nation we can only move forward as one people. Hopefully in time these fringe groups and incumbents will get the message that we as a people demand loyalty to the country not to the party.
2006-10-09 13:18:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by toff 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Close Mindedness on both sides. The emotions is a failure of an intelligent exchange of ideals. They fail to see that the truth is neither party really gives a crap about them and the divide is what allows them to continue to act in the way they have. It's sort of the same as why Yankee and redsox fans hate each other.
My girlfriend is a right winger and I am not, we debate a lot. Truth is we will never agree on health care or the war. But she is an intelligent person who I love. (I blame her parents, lol) Most people forget that someone who doesn't agree with you may be intelligent, just has different priorities. (Except Dick Cheany he is evil, lmao)
sorry she was in the room.
2006-10-09 13:17:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by cosmiccastaway 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
They dislike one another for a number of reasons, and it's not about what you seem to think that it's about (other than in a very tangential way).
They are political opponents.
Politics is about power.
And power is ultimately about control...and MONEY.
If someone is in direct opposition to you (or the people on the same "side" as you) in a contest for that power (and an election, is a contest--just like a sports game or any other sort of a competition), then you'll tend to not like that person. It's as simple as that.
2006-10-09 13:25:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cyn 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sometimes, it's easier to pick a "side" than it is to spend a lot of time debating issue after issue. If a person says they are "one" or the "other", it saves a lot of time, but it prevents them from discussing the real issues.
I don't think its fair to say that "The Rich" don't like poor people so much as that they don't have much in common with them and they don't understand them.
2006-10-09 13:17:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The basic conflict between the two is whether the group owes the individual or the individual owes the group.
Dems tend to think in terms of how the government can provide for the needs of people, while repubs tend to think of how those people who can make money should be left alone and those who can't should also have to fend for themselves.
The unspoken irritant to repubs is that Dems are full of ideas that would require Repubs to pay for.
2006-10-09 13:16:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by All hat 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Because the leaders build up the hatred among grassroots, to ensure the number of votes
2006-10-09 14:12:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because Republicrats dislike to be called One Party on Power.
2006-10-09 14:03:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋