A Comparison of the Republican and Democratic Parties

Two political entities exist in the United States, the Republican party and the Democratic party. Each supports different ideologies. Politicians from both parties urge voters not to be apathetic-to get out and vote for the party of their choice; otherwise voters have no right to complain about how the country is run.

One of the main differences in the ideology of Republicans and Democrats is who they serve.

Republicans fight against higher taxes on Big Business saying this would hinder expansion and job creation. This belief, known as "the trickle down theory," states that giving big tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society, will enable them to use that additional wealth to create new factories, new businesses, and therefore new jobs.

However, as Business Week points out, these won't necessarily be in the United States: "As cross-border trade and investment flows reach new heights, big global companies are effectively making decisions with little regard to national boundaries. Though few companies are totally untethered from their home countries, the trend toward a form of 'stateless' corporation is unmistakable." (http://www.answers.com/topic/globalization)

President George W. Bush extended tax cuts to benefit those with income of more than $1 million or so. These taxpayers get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid. The alternative minimum tax, the successor to one enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthiest Americans could not use legal loopholes to live tax-free, has never been adjusted for inflation. This will result in the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year losing 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.

About a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income, would pay less tax because of dividends and investment gains, which are not subject to the tax. Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better than those in the $75,000 to $500,000 range is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.

During President Bush's administration, total private employment was actually lower in January 2005 than in January 2001, the first time since the Great Depression that employment had fallen during a president's term of office. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/business/07scene.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)

Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)

Some of the very wealthy, Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators. Moving from one income group to another over a lifetime has actually stopped rising in the United States, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation. (Source: Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind. By David Cay Johnston, New York Times, June 5, 2005)

After George W. Bush took office, the cost of a barrel of oil went from around $30 to over $120 a barrel. Many thought that the Bush family's involvement with oil companies was a key factor in the rise of oil costs. A significant percentage of taxes paid by oil companies are passed on to consumers in the form of gas taxes at the pump. (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/bush-oil.html); (http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1034)

Republicans oppose government involvement in citizens' lives believing that private organizations and charities should care for those unable to care for themselves.

For middle-class Americans who have drawn all of their unemployment benefits, and have not found work, possible options for surviving, depending on their financial condition, include: 1) move in with family and friends and be supported by them 2) assistance from community organizations or church 3) declare bankruptcy and go on public aid, 4) take a minimum wage job or jobs and work as many hours as possible 5) live in shelters 6) live on the street or in vehicle.

Democrats favor lots of social programs to assist those in society unable to care for themselves. These programs include Social Security, Welfare, and Unemployment. In recent years, Democrats have expanded this to include massive funding for education. The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation.

The Democratic Party tends to be humanistic, rather than religion-oriented, which is why George Bush won for two straight terms-voted in by what many refer to as "the moral majority,"who were pro-life and anti-gay marriage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).

But, the Republican party did not change abortion laws significantly, even with Republicans as the majority in the House of Representatives and on the Supreme Court. Six of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by Republican Presidents. The current court is considered conservative in composition, although Kennedy tends to be the "swing vote" and sometimes favors a more liberal view of the issues. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_US_Supreme_Court_Justices_in_order_from_most_liberal_to_most_conservative)

What Bush did accomplish, cutting off aid to health groups that promoted abortion, was reversed by Barack Obama a few days after being sworn in as President. Abortion clinics were among those begging for bail-out money from the Federal government. (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=356962)

Both parties claim to represent the middle class, which makes up 45% of the vote according to a 2005 report by the Washington Post. No matter who is in power, the burden of taxes falls on the middle class. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/01/20050601- 121835-9374r/)

Although President George Bush had worked to "fast track" the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) prior to the end of his term, he ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement)

President Clinton, after overcoming resistance from organized labor, signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3], linking the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to create the world's largest trade bloc. Clinton was able to convince the majority of the public on an aggressive free-trade agenda. Clinton also gave away much of our nuclear technology to the Chinese. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/10/29/china.summit/)

What do Americans think about NAFTA? According to a Fortune poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would be willing to pay higher prices to keep down foreign competition. Economists are convinced that globalization - in its current form - is costing the middle class and enriching an elite. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/18/news/economy/worldgoaway.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008012515

Princeton's Alan Blinder, a free-trader, predicted that as many as 40 million U.S. jobs could be eliminated, thanks to modern technology and more than one billion eligible foreign workers. Speaking at a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago conference, he declared, "It's not the British that are coming. It's the electrons that are coming, and it's going to cost jobs."

Although unemployment rates remain high, President Obama and his administration's quick actions to stimulate the economy, received high marks from economists, among them Senior fellow, Brookings Institution, and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin: "I don't think we will know ever exactly how much difference the stimulus made because we don't know what would've happened without it. But it certainly mitigated the immediate damage and the precipitous fall of consumption and everything else that was going on."

Although Republicans criticize Obama's stimulus plan for failing to create jobs, it did keep many major companies from bankruptcy, thus saving many jobs.

It remains to be seen if President Obama's budget plans will create jobs for the millions of unemployed. Unemployment is a key concern for voters who will elect all 435 members in the House of Representatives and more than a third of the 100 Senate members in November. To boost jobs, Obama is setting aside $100 billion in 2010 in tax credits aimed at small businesses as well as investments in clean energy and infrastructure, before starting to tighten the country's fiscal belt the following year. Economists say withdrawing policies aimed at boosting growth too soon helped prolong the Great Depression in the 1930s, a mistake Obama is determined to avoid repeating. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U00220100201)