posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:14 PM
I personally do not see much of a difference between the two parties.
After all, both republicans and democrats voted for various controversial issues, such as the patriot act. Members of both parties voted for the use
of force in Iraq, and are present in important committees. Vilifying everything the government does as work of the evil republican party is something
Or we can blame Bush, which ironically, needs almost every action approved by congress (wherein democrats have a vote, and could always filibuster).
Too much spending? Well, congress approves all the budgets. Too much war? Well, the president can only send armed forces to anywhere for a limited
time without congress' approval.
Having Bush push an amendment against homosexual marriages isn't too far off of Clinton's signing of the defense of marriage act. Only one of those
actions actually caused any change in law, but I digress. Along these divisive issues are things such as minimum wage, but in the end it is the same.
So we give the poorest a raise of $10/h (or some other figure), which causes the employers to pay them more. The employers get strained, so to give
the same profitability, they make their goods more expensive. When goods are more expensive, the cost of living increases. We get to the same exact
point - it's a vicious cycle.
I have yet to see any major party come to grips with each other in such a way where any of our problems will be solved. Or if they do come up with a
solution, it is for the short term. Social security? Both parties agree that it will fail sometime in the future. Why would they solve anything for
the long term when it would be out of the collective memory of the voter? I suppose that is a criticism of democracy in general. Immigration? Bush
(a republican) wants relatively open borders and a guest worker program, and there are a lot of democrats that agree with him.
It's my opinion that if you want a change in the system, you will need to vote outside the system.