This past year has shown just how different the the two major parties are.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Sometimes a few people will argue that both Republicans and Democrats are almost identical in terms of ideology/policy,but this past year has shown just how different the two are. Democrats not only passed Health Care reform, but they did it with almost every conservative breathing down their throat. Meanwhile This Democratic Administration continues to respect the UN, and the International community while continuing to pursue the war on terror. Republicans on the other hand most likely support the war on terror,but they have a long history of ignoring the international community and the sovereignty of other countries.

Perhaps the biggest difference though can be found from the current battle over wall street reform. Republicans have not only argued against regulation,but at times they have even tried to place the blame on this current economic crisis by pointing at things like the CRA, Fannie Mae, and overregulation. In short Republicans admit that there are problems,but they only suggest that the problem is government. what a narrow and dogmatic approach.

Finally the current illegal immigration bill is something that Barack Obama clearly opposes while Senator John McCain is more supportive of the legislation. Furthermore McCain also opposes Dont ask dont tell, and if he changes his stance than it just shows how behind he really is.

[Free Palestine]

Both parties typically support big government and foreign interventionism.  The only difference is that the GOP pulls the "small government" card when one of their own isn't in the White House.  Except for a few key issues, the parties are pretty much the same.

[Franzl]

What a neutral and unbiased explanation!

[Bo]

Republicans have historically been more isolationist than the Democrats. Bush Jr. made it the other way around.

[Free Palestine]

Republicans have historically been more isolationist than the Democrats. Bush Jr. made it the other way around.

9/11 changed everything.

[Lief 🗽]

Republicans have historically been more isolationist than the Democrats. Bush Jr. made it the other way around.

No, that's not true. The party out of power has historically been more isolationist than the party in power.

[© tweed]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

[The Mikado]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Al's going to hate that I'm posting this while masquerading as him. 

[Lief 🗽]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Al's going to hate that I'm posting this while masquerading as him. 

There are a handful of exceptions sure, but they generally all have the same interests.

[The Mikado]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Al's going to hate that I'm posting this while masquerading as him. 

There are a handful of exceptions sure, but they generally all have the same interests.

It's definitely one of my pet peeves when people talk about corporate power and influence on government as if it's an automatically bad thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Al's going to hate that I'm posting this while masquerading as him. 

There are a handful of exceptions sure, but they generally all have the same interests.

It's definitely one of my pet peeves when people talk about corporate power and influence on government as if it's an automatically bad thing.

For the most part it is.

You are however correct that not all "capital" and businesses have the same interests in mind. It's much like referring to "the media" as one consistent entity, which is a big pet peeve of mine.

[Lief 🗽]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Al's going to hate that I'm posting this while masquerading as him. 

There are a handful of exceptions sure, but they generally all have the same interests.

It's definitely one of my pet peeves when people talk about corporate power and influence on government as if it's an automatically bad thing.

It is because the interests and goals of the government (the general welfare) are radically different from those of the corporations (profit maximization).

[Franzl]

Since when is the goal of the government the "general welfare"?

Mind you, it can and does sometimes promote policy that promotes the general welfare...but I find it rather dishonest to claim that that is its only goal.

[fezzyfestoon]

I was thinking the exact opposite.  It's interesting to see just how similar the rhetoric coming from Republicans right now is to what the Democrats were saying prior to 2006.  The issues have taken a back seat and almost never change when the power switches sides.  There may be a couple of minute changes, but they're like getting new rims for your car.  It's the same junk-heap.  The attitude and approach to solving issues always takes the same tone.  If you told someone what the minority party was doing throughout the last 10-20 years without telling them which party it was, they'd think it was always the same party in the minority.  Same goes for the all too often "holier-than-thou" majority.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Republicans have historically been more isolationist than the Democrats. Bush Jr. made it the other way around.

No, that's not true. The party out of power has historically been more isolationist than the party in power.

can you name so examples?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

When someone says "Both parties are similar, and there are know real/true differences" it is really just a tactic to persuade others that things cant get better,or that voting is pointless. "both parties are the same" kind of statements are mainly subjective.

[fezzyfestoon]

When someone says "Both parties are similar, and there are know real/true differences" it is really just a tactic to persuade others that things cant get better,or that voting is pointless. "both parties are the same" kind of statements are mainly subjective.

Correct.  And the opposite is true as well.  So overall, pointless statement.

But besides that, I'm very optimistic that things can and will get better.  I'm just certain that it won't have anything to do with one political party over the other.  Neither will be responsible for things getting better as the government has little to do with how good things are.  There are plenty of things they could do to make things better, but there's a lot more we can do.  And when you look at the accomplishments made by parties in power compared to the other there is not that much different.  Almost no change occurs between administrations.  Like I said, the changes made amount to cosmetic changes on a car or new clothes on a person.  It's still the same car with new rims and it's still the same person with new clothes.

[Vepres]

For the most part, since the New Deal, whichever party is in power supports larger Government.

[Mint]

Sometimes a few people will argue that both Republicans and Democrats are almost identical in terms of ideology/policy,but this past year has shown just how different the two are. Democrats not only passed Health Care reform, but they did it with almost every conservative breathing down their throat.

You mean the same HCR bill that scrapped the public option and instituted many Republican ideas, including Mitt Romney's 'individual mandate' that his side now pretends to be against? The same bill that Republicans like Cornyn are now saying they won't bother to repeal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see examples. From where I'm standing the similarities are pretty glaring. Bush agreed to what was effectively a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq in July of 2008, even as we built more bases. Obama like Bush has continued that, while escalating involvement in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan and Yemen. Both sides agree we need to extend the Patriot Act and now Obama has backed off of even closing Guantanamo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No this only shows again, there really isn't much practical difference. The Republicans are obstructionist for political purposes, sure. But Obama and the DLC-types ties to Goldman-Sachs are obvious and even plenty of progressive outlets like Huffington Post have called them out on how much of a farce any talk of 'financial reform' is given the enormous conflicts of interest involved, loopholes, and continued guarantees of future bail outs in bills like the 2009 WS Reform & Consumer Protection Act. For the most part neither side has much interest in doing anything substantive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If McCain has shown any change at all on these issues it's obviously because of Hayworth. Yes the Republicans certainly have a conservative wing on the issue of immigration and occasionally that group actually does something, but let's just face facts - when it matters that group is not able to do anything because the WSJ establishment is solidly pro-amnesty/'guest workers.' And if you need to see evidence of that look at the records of all our Republican Presidents the last 30 years as well as people like Boehner.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Sometimes a few people will argue that both Republicans and Democrats are almost identical in terms of ideology/policy,but this past year has shown just how different the two are. Democrats not only passed Health Care reform, but they did it with almost every conservative breathing down their throat.

You mean the same HCR bill that scrapped the public option and instituted many Republican ideas, including Mitt Romney's 'individual mandate' that his side now pretends to be against? The same bill that Republicans like Cornyn are now saying they won't bother to repeal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see examples. From where I'm standing the similarities are pretty glaring. Bush agreed to what was effectively a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq in July of 2008, even as we built more bases. Obama like Bush has continued that, while escalating involvement in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan and Yemen. Both sides agree we need to extend the Patriot Act and now Obama has backed off of even closing Guantanamo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No this only shows again, there really isn't much practical difference. The Republicans are obstructionist for political purposes, sure. But Obama and the DLC-types ties to Goldman-Sachs are obvious and even plenty of progressive outlets like Huffington Post have called them out on how much of a farce any talk of 'financial reform' is given the enormous conflicts of interest involved, loopholes, and continued guarantees of future bail outs in bills like the 2009 WS Reform & Consumer Protection Act. For the most part neither side has much interest in doing anything substantive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If McCain has shown any change at all on these issues it's obviously because of Hayworth. Yes the Republicans certainly have a conservative wing on the issue of immigration and occasionally that group actually does something, but let's just face facts - when it matters that group is not able to do anything because the WSJ establishment is solidly pro-amnesty/'guest workers.' And if you need to see evidence of that look at the records of all our Republican Presidents the last 30 years as well as people like Boehner.

The health care bill may have been similar to the mitt Romney plan,but republicans operate much differently on a national level. Notice how Mitt Romney had to change several of his positions while he was running for president? Secondly the Republicans had plenty of time to get a national healthcare bill passed that would expand coverage,but they never did. I would also like to point out that the Republicans party tried to repeal,or raise issues in the court about the health care law. So, sure they may have stopped trying to repeal the law but it doesn't mean they didn't try. Secondly Mitt Romney is one of the most liberal members of the GOP. But thats how government works - the end result is always compromise, which means the end result is always moderate. That doesn't mean that the parties themselves are similar. John Dingle introduced single-payer health insurance every year for decades. But he voted for this health care reform because representatives know they have to compromise to actually get anything passed.

// loopholes, and continued guarantees of future bail outs in bills like the 2009 WS Reform & Consumer Protection Act.//
when you make a claim like this you need to provide some supporting details, and furthermore you would also need to explain what each party should be doing based upon their ideology. After all would it have made economic sense to have no bailouts and let capitalism fall? Finally the bill touches on issues besides "too big to fail and the bailouts". Thus one could potentially conclude that the argument "the parties are too similar" distracts from the greater argument of "did our government do the right thing?". one must also ask themselves "what other options did government have at the TIME, and what if the bailouts were the only thing that government could have realistically done in that situation?". This question is important because some people say we should have broke up the banks,but such a solution may be only more viable further down the road. thus if there is only one potential solution at a given time than it would be completely logical if both parties used that option for the sake of being practical.

//I'd like to see examples. From where I'm standing the similarities are pretty glaring. Bush agreed to what was effectively a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq in July of 2008, even as we built more bases. Obama like Bush has continued that, while escalating involvement in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan and Yemen. Both sides agree we need to extend the Patriot Act and now Obama has backed off of even closing Guantanamo.
//
George bush didn't respect the UN or the International community. This has been a consistent conservative position for some time. your statements failed to address this issue.

[Lief 🗽]

Republicans have historically been more isolationist than the Democrats. Bush Jr. made it the other way around.

No, that's not true. The party out of power has historically been more isolationist than the party in power.

can you name so examples?

Every single administration since FDR at least. Might be some exceptions during the 19th century, but the rule worked even then as well.

[Хahar 🤔]

For the most part, since the New Deal, whichever party is in power supports larger Government.

That statement is entirely meaningless.

[opebo]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Ha ha, that's like taking comfort as you're being eaten alive by crocodiles that they may occasionally eat one another.

[minionofmidas]

both parties are capital controlled wake up

Has it occurred to you that "capital" is not a unified entity and that different corporations have clashing interests?  The Net Neutrality battle, which is fundamentally a clash between Comcast and Google, is a great example.  I hate it when people put "corporations" or "Corporate America" like it's one vast entity.

Ha ha, that's like taking comfort as you're being eaten alive by crocodiles that they may occasionally eat one another.

More like, taking comfort that their squabbling for pieces of you prolongs your suffering - and your life - for several minutes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since when is the goal of the government the "general welfare"?

Huh ? So, if the general welfare is not the State's goal, what would it serve to ? I already hear the Libertarians "NOTHING !"