it depends on your definition of what is good.
republicans claim to be for small government, but have always been more concerned about keeping business happy, than about caring for the people.
democrats have always considered the effect on people when enacting legislation.
a great example was the bailout of chrysler corp in the mid-seventies. the company needed a five billion dollar bailout to survive.
rthe republiucans were all for it, but the dems weren't. however, when the total economic impact on the people was factored in by the dems, thhey ewent along with the bailout and provided the five billion dollar funding guarantee. the alternative would have cost 25-30 billion dollars in unemployment, healthcare, and welfare for the displaced workers. additionally, the loss of all the jobs, not only from chrysler, but from their suppliers was not going to be cheap ovcer the next ten years. thusly, the bailout was the right move for all concerned, and finally cost the government almost nothing since chrysler paid off the loans, and became profitable in just a few years.
would the republicans have done the same? probably, but not to save the people, but to gain political capitol amongst the business world.
they would have expected political campaign contributions for their actions, but the dems would expect the people to support them at the voting booth.
i respect anyone's personal idea about whether to be republican, democrat, or independent. i just expect them to have some knowledge about what each party stands for, and who they act on behalf of.
republicans are for business, democrats are for the people. both are needed, but both are not working for me, but on my behalf. i choose democrats for what they do for me, not what they do for business.
2007-01-06 08:10:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by de bossy one 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yeah, there is the possibility that you could be wrong about democrats. I have no use for republicans, but I would vote for one if he represented what I was looking for. Since republicans tend to be pompous and arrogant, I tend to disagree with them. But once in a while, you find one that may do something good.
2007-01-06 15:49:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by David L 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
100 hours is four hours over four days. I think the clock is running out and the "bipartisanship" is nowhere to be found. Did Mrs. Pelosi forget she needs her bills to pass in the Senate, where there are not 60 votes on her side to pass the legislation.
2007-01-06 16:58:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by taxidriver 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remember the Gingrich 100 hour coup. What did he call it War on America??
Go big Red Go
2007-01-06 15:48:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wonder if it's gonna take this congress as many weeks to get in 100 hours as it took the last bunch....
2007-01-06 15:49:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democrats are as evil as Republicans.
2007-01-06 15:45:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by chatxleau 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Get excited about that list when it accomplished. You ain't gonna see it. The only thing they are gonna do is tax and spend.
2007-01-06 15:47:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There trying to work extra hard today, to vote in a extra long summer recess this year.
2007-01-06 15:46:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THE HUNDRED HOUR LIST and I kinda hate democrats! Could we be wrong? DOUBTFUL!
2007-01-06 15:45:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by ×ithurtsogoodØ 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
This is a wait and see.... You will see what I mean....
2007-01-06 15:48:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by billy j 1
·
0⤊
0⤋