Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWhich US political party is best to handle the economy: Republican or Democratic?
Results so far:
| Democratic | 63% | 84 votes | Total: 134 votes | |
| Republican | 37% | 50 votes |
Democratic
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesMatters of politics in the United States are severely restrained when it comes to candidate choices by the fact that we are bound by a two party political system. Given the continued inability for neither Republicans nor Democrats to adequately address the issues the American people face on so many fronts a third option is preferable when it comes time to go to the polls. Unfortunately "none of the above" is not a viable option in elections and there are no other significant third party candidates that stand a chance of holding major office let alone making much of a difference in the election.
We therefore are forced to judge the candidates that the major political parties have forced upon us. It is our job as voting Americans to essentially choose the lesser of two evils. This is by no means an enviable or easy task. Sifting through the volumes of rhetoric that both parties spew in favor of their candidate and against of thee opposing candidate we must decide who is telling more truth than the other and who poses less of a threat to the country. It is a sad fact that the days of true public servants have long past, we are now faced with a choice of who will serve themselves and their interest less than the other. Even voting in political elections turns many average people's stomachs, knowing that they are contributing to the flawed system by putting forth the effort to choose one corrupt candidate over another.
A brief look at economic conditions under the different administrations is a step in the right direction to making your decision. Given the past eight years of near tyrannical rule under the guidance of a Republic administration we can see how well our economy is faring. Gas prices prior to the 2000 Presidential election were hovering around $1.50 per gallon. After eight years of Republican rule by a president who is heavily invested in oil we are now paying an oppressive nationwide average approaching $4.00 per gallon. Oil giants like Exxon-Mobile are gleefully reporting record quarterly profits in the billions of dollars while the trickle down effect has left the American economy in one of the worst recessions and credit crisis's in the history of the country. Businesses that survived the Great Depression of the early 1900's are going out of business under the current economic hardships. Shipping companies, manufacturing companies, technology and pharmaceutical companies are all feeling the effects of a faltering economy. Food prices have climbed at rates never before seen in the country, all the while President Bush and others like him rake in record gains from the oil and other war induced investments.
The United States under the Bush administration has already hemorrhaged over $535 billion on the war in Iraq. That's $535 billion that could have been better spent on improving economic conditions in our country. The war has also claimed over 4080 American soldier's lives and over 1,213,700 Iraqi lives. That's a cost of $131,332,272.05 dollars spent by the United States for every American soldier killed. These numbers are simply staggering, is there any wonder why our economy is in ruins, gas prices are passing the $4.00 per gallon mark, banks are foreclosing on homeowners in record numbers and business are going under in numbers not seen since the Great Depression. All of this damage has occurred in the short span of less than eight years of Republican governing.
Given the catastrophic damage the Republicans have done to our country under the Bush administration, can we really afford to allow it to continue under another Republic candidate in the likes of John McCain, who thinks the war is not only justified but winnable by 2013? Assuming Senator McCain's overly optimistic appraisal of the war effort is even remotely accurate, can the country really afford another five years of a war that has already bled our armed forces and our economy dry? Republicans have an infamous history of profligate military spending starting with the Eisenhower administration through the Reagan and both Bush administrations. While some of that spending could conceivably be justified during the cold war, today it is hard to see the return on the incredible investment the Republicans have unjustly thrust on the backs of the American people.
Conversely the Democrats seem far more intent on mudslinging and rumor mongering against their own two chosen candidates which is only helping the Republicans gain a measure of stability in what is sure to be a hotly contested presidential race. Neither democratic candidate seems to have a clear agenda on how to deal with the war in Iraq or any other major issue plaqueing the American public. Both candidates seem content to simply throw around slogans and catch phrases while sparring with each other for the democratic nomination; all the while, avoiding any kind of real debate with their Republican counter parts. This results in the Democrats hurting their position by allowing the Republicans to steadily siphon off supporters due to their own infighting.
Regardles s of who survives the laughable effort the democrats are putting forth it's clear that there will not be a candidate that is "good" for the country. Given the deplorable track record of the recent Republican effort at running the country, combined with the controversial statements of how another Republic administration will be run with much the same war mongering mentality makes us lean away from a pattern of continued incompetence, economic ruin and failed foreign policy. While the Democrats fail to make a good argument in their own favor thus far, they are fortunate in that the Republicans make such a compelling argument against themselves. In the end we are forced to choose not who is best for the country, but who we expect will be the least damaging to it. In this case it appears to be the Democrats. Once in power they may very well prove to be as destabilizing as the Republicans, but they do appear to be the lesser of two evils in this case.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Whalen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Republican
We all have opinions on who is best equipped to handle the economy, but most of us are not people who are highly educated in economics and knowledgeable about the economy. In questions of who is best able to handle the economy, we turn to the experts hoping for a good assessment.
Here is what James F. Smith, of Western Carolina University says: "His (John McCain's) are the least horrible. That is a rather dim view of our three remaining candidates.
McCain got 21 votes, Obama 6, and Hillary Clinton got only one vote of who had the best economic policy. On a WSJ economic blog, 75 percent of those polled answered in McCain's favor. It appears that none of our candidates have a lock on economics, but that doesn't seem to impact the voter's choice in candidates.
The spending habits of our three candidates may tell you something on how they view the value of money. In pork barreling, McCain has never asked for pork for his state. Hillary Clinton has received for the state of New York, and Barack Obama has received $740 million for the state of Illinois in the past three years.
As Ronald Reagan once remarked, "Republicans believe everyday is the fourth of July and Democrats believe everyday is April 15 th."
PORK BARRELING
House Republicans brought the House of Representatives to a standstill when they forced them to make good their promise on earmark transparency. Clinton and Obama both have earmarks with Clinton being in the top ten highest. John McCain has none.
2007 earmarks total 17.2 billion dollars. http://www.heritage. org/Research/Budget/ wm1517.cfm
COST OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
Conservative estimates are $34 to $69 billion dollars per year will be needed according to the Institute of medicine. They argue that UHC is a moral issue and not an economic issue. The money is divvied up in this manner, currently $26 billion dollars is spent in out of pocket expense and $34.5 billion is consumed in uncompensated or discounted costs.
These are estimated costs per year and are dependent on the specific design of the UHC package. The Democrats would like to expand coverage for SS Disability, Medicaid and the criminal justice system. This sounds great except for a couple of little details.
*Will Congress finally stop the fraud and ongoing money laundering in Medicaid?
*Who pays for catastrophic health problems like cancer and AIDs?
*Will congressmen and women take on the same health care system as everyone else instead of their own special insurance?
*Who will police the pharmaceutical companies who charge 1000 percent for certain medicines and who will fund research for pharmaceuticals if cost controls are put in place?
*Who will police physicians who are too willing to dispense pills?
Republican John McCain wants to leave the choice in the hands of the citizens with a health fund that can be used to pay out of pocket or large expenses. But the Medicaid fraud and price gouging by pharmaceuticals must be addressed.
SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS
It was President Bill Clinton who in 1998 began dialogging with various groups about the cost of Social Security and the crisis that was just ahead as 77 million baby boomers began to retire. That day has arrived as many baby boomers take early retirement. He spoke about investments and savings in addition to older people receiving SS benefits.
Bill Clinton broached the subject of privatization of SS investments, as did George W. Bush in his administration.
Obama 's solution is to raise the cap on payroll taxes and if he does, the US will take on the highest tax rate in history. It will amount to 1.3 trillion dollars and will only provide a stopgap giving about 8 more years of Social Security solvency.
"It would give the United States," Tanner says, "one of the highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, with the potential for seriously disrupting economic growth." http://www.ibdeditor ials.com/IBDArticles .aspx?id=29617617985 5210
In 1997 there were 3.3 people working for every Social Security recipient. In the year 2030, there will be 2 people working for every Social Security recipient. Social Security reform is needed now and even now, we'd be getting a late start. Politics has no benefit in this crisis situation.
ENERGY COST:
No one has a good handle on how much the energy programs will cost. But look at one small and simple change in energy. Windmills are a great idea. Who is going to fund them? You are through your taxes. Congressmen and women don't know the estimated cost of the energy program!
FOREIGN AID
In addition to all domestic costs of running the country, we are committed to ending global poverty. The UN, who is intent on investigating the US for racial discrimination, is in control of the funds and recently an $846 billion dollars was appropriated for the UN. What a set-up for the UN and their main backers, the liberal Democrats.
It's your money, you are the taxpayer Senators Obama and Clinton think they can spend your money better than you can. McCain thinks you ought to have a say in the matter.
I'd rather trust McCain to trust me to handle my money.
Recently Senator Obama told a crowd, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we wantand then just expect that other countries are going to say, OK."
If Obama becomes the next President of the United States, are we to understand that we have to OK our food consumption with other countries? He supports ethanol as our prices soar and food sources shrink.
The taxman cometh if you want the Democrats in office.
Learn more about this author, Mona Gallagher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Party Politics & Ideology
- Will Obama achieve any of his "changes" in the next four years?
- Should broadcast media be subject to a "Fairness Doctrine"?
- Is the Republican Party broken?
- Are young Americans in their 20s more likely to favor the political left or right?
- Is the Republican party racist?
- Is Michael Mukasey a good choice for US Attorney General?
