IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New In a nutshell!
Democrats generally favor the working class, the poor, the minorities, and are not afraid of taxing the wealthy and corporations. Democrats are very pro-Union.
Economically Democrats generally follow the Keynesian theory of economics. Which means they try to affect the demand side, feel that a little inflation is good, deficits are bad, tax cuts to the poor and middle-class, that due to the POT (Potential Of Thrift) that giving the wealthy money would not make them spend it or create new jobs, but instead save it. They believe in full employment and feel that unemployment is underrated. Keynesian economics helped get the country out of the depression, and created social programs. Democrats want a bigger government with more control.

Republcans generally favor the corporations, the wealthy (top 10%), they are afraid of taxing the wealthy and corporations. Republicans are anti-Union.
Economically Republicans generally follow the Classical theory of economics. Which means they try to affect the supply side, feel that inflation is bad, deficits are good, tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations, that saving is good and savings can be invested to create growth and fix unemployment. They feel that unemployment is overrated. Classical (or Supply Side aka Reaganomics) economics helped improve the economy in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan was in office. Some claim that part of Reaganomics are not true Classical economics, but Reagan did what he could to get congress to agree to his ideas. Republicans want a smaller government, and less government control, by removing regulations and let the economy or markets fix the problems. More of a hands off or lazie faire policy.

Notice I said generally, some politicians have a mix of ideas from both sides, or differ from these definitions in a nutshell.

Some Americans are in the middle like they could become a Moderate Centralist party member, but the Centralist party never quite took off, last I heard it was a Yahoo Group, and no offical web site was created. [link|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/centralistpartyofamerica/|http://groups.yahoo....stpartyofamerica/]



"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
New The offical party line
Orion gave a fairly good summary of the parties offical posistion on economic issues.

But the reality does wander a bit from the offical posistion. The Democrats have not been very pro-union in recent years. And the Republicans have not done anything to reduce government in a long time. Now that the Republicans are in power, they don't talk about states rights much, and Democrats have moved to bringing the issue up at times.

Jay
New That's really good
What Orion wrote is really good, and similar to what I finally wrote my friend.

I agree though, the Republicans seem to favor more government controls on social issues, (i.e. Bush wanting to amend the constitution on gay marriage), and the Democrats have been a little less behind the unions. But that's the basic concepts, and she said she got it, so I think we're fine. :)

Thanks, guys.

Nightowl >8#



"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
New Agree. And book recommendation.
I heard the author on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago. I've not read this book, but judging by what he said on the show I watched, it's on my list.

[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805073396/qid=1091721047/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4481909-1062526|http://www.amazon.co...2-4481909-1062526]
bcnu,
Mikem

If you can read this, you are not the President.
New Hey! Nice Job, Norm!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

     Was asked a question out of my league - (Nightowl) - (20)
         It would require a book - will try later -NT - (deSitter)
         The party morphs depending on who's running. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             Not sure she wants Bush/Kerry - (Nightowl) - (5)
                 Yes. GIYF. ;-) - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Okay, but - (Nightowl) - (3)
                         Click and Read is the best way. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Thanks, that helps.. - (Nightowl) - (1)
                                 There Is No Such Thing! as "unbiased". {sheesh} -NT - (Ashton)
         what you need is the party platform of both parties - (boxley) - (2)
             Yeah, that's what I tried to tell her - (Nightowl) - (1)
                 Don't bother becoming unconfused on that one - (ben_tilly)
         In a nutshell! - (orion) - (4)
             The offical party line - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
                 That's really good - (Nightowl)
                 Agree. And book recommendation. - (mmoffitt)
             Hey! Nice Job, Norm! -NT - (jb4)
         Re: Was asked a question out of my league - (andread) - (3)
             so the dems are the disagreeable party? -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                 some things are worth disagreeing with - (andread) - (1)
                     well according to this insitght directly from John Kerry - (boxley)

Even the hydrocoptic marzelvane came up with a null...
85 ms