The workers themselves, basically. The politicians really don't care about the people until election time rolls around; any other time, it's all about how they can expand their own power.
2007-04-30 09:52:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Richard S 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I am not saying the Libertarian party is right by any means. However, the minimum wage is nothing but a poor attempt to shift the supply and demand curves. Just because the government mandates higher wages, it doesn't mean more money for the people as a whole, just the ones that keep their jobs. I'm not sure how old you are, but take a look around you. What has happened over the years as wages have gotten higher and technology has gotten cheaper? You remember the "fry technician" that used to be employed at every fast-food place? They got replaced by a motorized vat. How about the dude who used to fill the sodas? They got replaced by a conveyor belt. Luggage sorters? Automotive line workers? Bank Tellers? If you still don't believe me, then do some of your own research. Look into what happened to the textile industry in Puerto Rico after minimum wage laws were implemented. Can people live on lower minimum wage? My argument is they can (you ever stop to think why people flock to the United States. In some countries I've been to, people would give everything they have to live the minimum wage life in the US), but that isn't the American way. If you let wages slide too low, then you are exploiting the workforce. Keep increasing the minimum wage and wages are artificially inflated and the jobs go elsewhere or you are placed by a machine. A happy medium needs to be found between the Libertarians and the rejects we have in office now.
2016-05-17 11:35:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No party supports the common man. Is a myth to get the majority of people's votes and the Democratic party for a while suceeded at this. However, their position on immigration or welfare has proven that they're not. The Republicans have never been for the common man with their rabid anti-union policies and refusal to put any type of social programs. I'm neither a right-winger or a left-winger just a tired person who has realized the two-party system is outdated and undemocratic.
2007-04-30 10:05:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by cynical 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Niether of them are for the common or the poor. ANy money that is so called given away is given mostly to the adminstrators overseeing the programs which are usually friends of the party in office. Those people in tern hire a bunch of lower level managers so when the sh11 hits the fan they can point the finger down the chain of command.
So actually even moneys that are slated for the lower income never reach the lower income.
2007-04-30 10:11:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Both claim to support the average worker, but the extremes of either the Republican or Democratic party are what you are comparing, and are NOT best for the average worker.
The Democrats want to support the average worker by helping the middle class, as well as the poor and needy (not all of whom are too lazy to work), with guaranteed health care, educational programs, social security, etc., financed by taxes which are proportional based on how much one earns.
Republicans, at least for the past few decades and particularly for the past 6 years, believe that the best way to help the average worker (and the poor) is to give more and more money to wealthy Americans, with the belief that they will then invest that money into companies and create more jobs. They have initiated programs that claim to be helpful socially, such as "No Child Left Behind," but have consistently underfunded them and continually cut that funding to pay for their tax cuts.
If you are an average worker, you probably are receiving less than a few hundred dollars in tax cuts, certainly less than a thousand or two if you have a good paying job. Compare that to CEO's and other wealthy Americans who have gotten tax cuts in the millions of dollars - per year! Chances are they're not using that tax cut for buying enough new cars to create jobs for auto-workers, or new houses to create new home-construction jobs. They're using it to invest, often in tax-free investments overseas or otherwise protected from taxes.
So is it better for most of the gross national product to belong to the wealthy, and trust them to take care of all the rest of us, or to distribute it more evenly and trust us all to take care of ourselves and help others when they need it? That is your choice.
2007-04-30 10:09:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Don P 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, the Republicans want to tax the average worker to pay for wars; and the Democrats want to tax the average worker to transfer his income to non-workers. Both also engage in policies that routinely lose US jobs to foreign competition.
So, neither. The various 'third' parties don't seem to do a lot better, either. Green or Peace & Freedom are like the Democrats, but more so. Libertarians think no one needs the government's support.
And people wonder why communism hasn't disapeared?
2007-04-30 10:01:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both parties are fundamentally capitalist. While (until somewhat recently) the Democrats were in favour of a sort of "managed capitalism" to combat its worst effects, they still did not challenge capitalism itself; despite what some people on these boards may think, the Democrats are by no means socialist.
There are third parties which give alternatives and want to support working people (like the Socialist Party USA, or the Labor Party in South Carolina, and to some extent the Greens), but unfortunately they're left out in the cold by how the government is structured.
2007-04-30 09:56:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Peter M 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Libertarians, unfortunately they are a 3rd party and unlikely to change the things to a large degree. The closest we can get right now is the conservative republicans, they want more tax breaks so we can put more money into the economy. Taxing us and businesses to much, slows the economy and the businesses just pass on the tax hike to the consumer! Liberal democrats want to tax us up the @ss so we can give more money to government social programs like welfare and public housing. Don't let them fool you by saying only republicans only support large corporations. Democrats give tons of money to extremist environmentalist groups and the teachers unions, which doesn't necessarily mean it's going towards our children's education,a lot of that money goes into the pockets of the people in charge of the teachers union!
Henry, democrats are all about big government, with government making more decisions in our lives. They take away personal responsibility and accountability, and replaces it with government rules on how to think and act! They are not for the people, they are for the elitists that run the democratic party! I seem to remember the democrats opposing the civil rights movement and the republicans supporting it! Hell one of your democrat congressman was a KKK member!
2007-04-30 09:58:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bunz 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
WHY THE UNITED STATES NEEDS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
1. The Democratic Party since the turn of the century has always been on the side of the people.
2. The Democratic Party holds American Values. We are the party that believes in serving the least of these, opening our hearts to all. We may not all agree on each issue; we do agree on the basic principle of the people.
3. Historically speaking, those within the Democratic Party have caused enormous change for our country such as Labor Rights, Women’s Rights, LGBT Rights, Social Justice, Medicare, Social Security, and the list just keeps growing.
4. The Democratic Party stands for you; it stands for us; it stands for America.
2007-04-30 09:57:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Your car insurance will pay for your medical. Most work medical plans wont touch car accidents. Its not the republicans fault that health care is so high. You need to blame the insurance companies and the lawyers and the runaway litigation that is driving it up. If you went to a socialist plan you would have extremely less money that you have now, and your health care would be worse, so I think people should focus on fixing the problem and not creating more problems.
2007-04-30 10:01:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋