Does the democratic party cause a majority of the nation's ills?

[Gangularis]

As I've posted on about two occasions in the past, I debate with my father on politics, on a pretty regular basis. He and I are pretty much opposites, with regards to the political spectrum..

He's an economic developer in a small city, in the U.S., and as such, he's developed some rather libertarian ideals..

Anyway, he recently sent me an email I'm not sure how to respond to, or where to begin.. In the email, he's essentially blaming the democratic party for causing all sorts of problems - more so than the republican party can be pegged to in the past century..

I'm not a historian, and I have been trying to google and gather information on this, but I don't even know where to begin.. I'm wondering what others, who are likely more knowledgeable than myself, might have to say in response to this. Do you think his views are correct?

Anyway, here is his email, with his beliefs about the democratic party, and all of the damage it has wrought:

Quote:

"I know both parties have their share of this, but I think the democratic party philosophies lead the way many times over to creating problems, and then inventing costly programs to overcome them that are not sustainable.



There are principles that make the universe work and if you go against them, you pay or someone does.



e.g. Lets create a welfare system that encourages people not to work, gives them free housing, food, and healthcare, for 30 years, and a judicial system and moral philosophy that encourages them to not be married or have a husband in the home, otherwise they would have to pay more, etc……



three decades later……….Prison population is in the millions, over 50% of inner city children raised in this kind of system, have been sexually abused by a boyfriend, or other adult or step parent, drug wars are worse than ever leading to increased crime, and deaths, more children born out of wedlock and in wedlock, social security system is being depleted through lack of a work force that pays into it….. I could go on and on, decreased property values, in the inner city reducing tax income for school



The solutions: Expand the prison system, and expand its rehabilitation programs at a cost of billions per year, provide more money for policeman to increase police force strength, increase drug warfare money, etc., create a program for children coming from these wrecked homes called head start,



I could go on about this in countless number of ways…….



Even the current recession, lands hugely on the backs of democratic programs, in particular the housing crisis…….



And now we want to hand over 20% of the US Economy to the government! The healthcare system!"

[quixotecoyote]

Assuming he's got an open enough mind to consider the evidence, show him how the welfare system actually works and then ask him for evidence that anyone in government is willing to take a 'soft-on-crime' pro-drug stance.

That said, my guess is that he's too far gone. Welfare just doesn't work that way, and since he's willing to go on about it "in countless number of ways" without having a clue, it suggests he's not about he facts.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

We'll as quixotecoyote said he seems pretty far gone but if you feel like beating a dead horse I'd start with :

Quote:

three decades later……….Prison population is in the millions

What did his original (bogus) statement have to do with the prison system?

Quote:

over 50% of inner city children raised in this kind of system have been sexually abused by a boyfriend, or other adult or step parent

According to his logic hasen't everyone been raised under this "system"? Furthermore I'd ask him to either supply the source for that statistic or demand he withdraw it.

Quote:

drug wars are worse than ever leading to increased crime, and deaths

What did his original statement have to do with the drug situation in this country? Also ask for the source of this statistic.

Quote:

more children born out of wedlock and in wedlock

again I'd like to see that statistic

Quote:

social security system is being depleted through lack of a work force that pays into it…..

The social security system has been running at a profit for a long, long time. So much so it has been robbed over and over again to pay for other government spending (I would suggest the largest area of government spending has been what is called "defense" spending).

Quote:

I could go on and on, decreased property values, in the inner city reducing tax income for school

What is his fascination with the "inner-city"?

I would suggest, given the standards of his arguments you could blame any problem (real or imagined) on just about anything. Perhaps a parody of his arguments are in order. I suggest slightly altering his arguments to blame it on the military industrial complex, fat kids, and the "Jews" (how can you do a good scapegoat job without including them?).

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

I suggest slightly altering his arguments to blame it on the military industrial complex, fat kids, and the "Jews" (how can you do a good scapegoat job without including them?).

You got to the right place here. Doctrinaires of any kind usually end up working with a scapegoat approach to explaining political ills.

[Gangularis]

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

We'll as quixotecoyote said he seems pretty far gone but if you feel like beating a dead horse I'd start with :


What did his original (bogus) statement have to do with the prison system?

Well, he believes that the liberal philosophy created a judicial system that makes divorce an easier option, thus divorces = broken homes, thus expounding on the crime rate.

Quote:

What did his original statement have to do with the drug situation in this country? Also ask for the source of this statistic.

Like I said, he believes the liberal philosophies of the democratic party have encouraged crime rates to rise.. mainly through the break up of the home.

Quote:

The social security system has been running at a profit for a long, long time.

Is this true?? All I ever hear about is how much SS is in debt and headed down the drain... and it's all because it's a bad idea.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

Is this true?? All I ever hear about is how much SS is in debt and headed down the drain... and it's all because it's a bad idea.

Well we are in danger of derailing your topic as this is a consteverasial topic with many different interpretations. The fact is the SSA has 2.4 trillion dollars in assets. What that means exactly is up for debate. (source:http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us). You'll notice the source was originally the SSA website, but I can't seem to find it on their site anymore, (this is a goggle archive the page).

[maddog]

Politicians (of any party) in elected office ignoring the Constitution cause a majority of the nation's ills.

[T.A.M.]

I had a long winded answer to the OP, but what is the point.

The email you received is tainted full of disgust for a "perceived" corruption of morality.

I think the truth behind the comments in the email would come out if you simply asked him for his suggestions as to how to solve the problems he discusses.

TAM

[Taarkin]

Originally Posted by maddog

Politicians (of any party) in elected office ignoring the Constitution cause a majority of the nation's ills.

So are those who strictly follow the constitution.

[sugarb]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

As I've posted on about two occasions in the past, I debate with my father on politics, on a pretty regular basis. He and I are pretty much opposites, with regards to the political spectrum..

He's an economic developer in a small city, in the U.S., and as such, he's developed some rather libertarian ideals..

Anyway, he recently sent me an email I'm not sure how to respond to, or where to begin.. In the email, he's essentially blaming the democratic party for causing all sorts of problems - more so than the republican party can be pegged to in the past century..

I'm not a historian, and I have been trying to google and gather information on this, but I don't even know where to begin.. I'm wondering what others, who are likely more knowledgeable than myself, might have to say in response to this. Do you think his views are correct?

Anyway, here is his email, with his beliefs about the democratic party, and all of the damage it has wrought:

Hello, Gangularis. Ack! I'm not sure I'd bother arguing too much with someone having that attitude.

However, I suppose one could present a counter-argument that, if the democrats are to blame for the reasons he cited, then surely the churches must be, too, since they have become more inclusive as well (particularly regarding divorces and support of single mothers).

One thing I always tend to suggest, when people make arguments about "inner cities", is that the blame lies in trying to keep poor people hidden away in apartment/housing complexes so that "good" people don't have to see them. I mean, you don't see "government housing" next to the major shopping centers or financial districts. Maybe the blame lies in all the better off people who started moving away from cities to live in insulated groups of "like" people.

Reagan was the king of the "war on drugs", right? So...if it failed, it is a bi-partisan failure for sure (though it wasn't a great concept to begin with). The "three strikes" policy disproportionately targets the poor (who can't afford Rush Limbaugh's attorneys or can't influence the local police and are more often than not targeted as suspect simply for living in public housing or "bad" neighborhoods to begin with), and leads of COURSE to a greater need for prison space.

"Inner cities", "encourages people to not be married"...I'm sorry, but some of this sounds sexist and racist. Blame the poor, and if we blame the poor, then we must blame the Democrats?

Eh, who knows how to respond to that? What strikes me, though, is that, if he really believes it is mostly the fault of democrats, why not blame the republicans for not correcting such horrific programs/policies the many times they have had the power to do so???

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by maddog

Politicians (of any party) in elected office ignoring the Constitution cause a majority of the nation's ills.

Technically speaking, the problem is people who elect politicians who they know are ignoring the constitution.

[parky76]

lets say, what ills the nation today?

health care costs. the Republicans killed reform in the 1990s.

huge deficits. the Republicans pushed through huge tax cuts.

[Juniversal]

Quote:

three decades later……….Prison population is in the millions, over 50% of inner city children raised in this kind of system, have been sexually abused by a boyfriend, or other adult or step parent, drug wars are worse than ever leading to increased crime, and deaths, more children born out of wedlock and in wedlock, social security system is being depleted through lack of a work force that pays into it….. I could go on and on, decreased property values, in the inner city reducing tax income for school

This clearly has a racial tinge imo. Growing up, I went to schools in the inner city (and being relatively poor myself) I can tell you most of these "social ills" are a direct result of financial instability. NOT simply "Democratic policies". Policies didn't create the financial instability. Generational impedences to wealth accumulation did (and these programs are a utlitarian attempt to remedy). And I have no clue where he gets the idea that "50% of inner city children have been sexually abused".

Also about the welfare (which seems to be right wing kryptonite) issue I don't know many people who simply don't want to work or don't work because they're welfare recipients. And I can tell you now the last thing we should do is expand the prison system. On the other hand I do agree we should expand rehabilitation programs. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and prison population in the world and part of the problem is the prison system doesn't attempt to rehabilitate and lends itself to being the revolving door that it is.

Quote:

The solutions: Expand the prison system, and expand its rehabilitation programs at a cost of billions per year, provide more money for policeman to increase police force strength, increase drug warfare money, etc., create a program for children coming from these wrecked homes called head start,

Increasing the police force will only lead to a higher prison population. It's that mentatility that leads to the high prison population we have now. Simply attacking the symptoms (drug dealing, high crime, children born out of wedlock) ultimately will prove a fruitless cycle. Attacking the disease (poverty, lack of opportunity) will prove to be a more fruitful approach.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

That said, my guess is that he's too far gone. Welfare just doesn't work that way, and since he's willing to go on about it "in countless number of ways" without having a clue, it suggests he's not about he facts.

That people would be content to "live on the dole", if not worse (see shanty towns around the various world's supercities) should probably have had more consideration, and given more consideration, akin to jail-as-punishment vs. jail-as-correctional-facility, intended to correct the thug and send him on his way as a productive member of society (success rates aside.)


There is some of that in the welfare as of recent decades. Tons of required work-and-or-train programs required to continue welfare, and so on. IIRC, Engler in Michigan 20 years ago basically said that if you were young, able-bodied, single, and had no dependents, there was no such thing as welfare for you.

[oldhat]

"Inner city" is a euphemism for "black people."

Funny how "economic developers," rapacious mortgage companies and banks didn't do anything, it's the black people from the inner city who are responsible for the economic crisis.

[Darth Rotor]

Quote:

Does the democratic party cause a majority of the nation's ills?

They are not competent enough.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

again I'd like to see that statistic

The claim isn't accurate, but it's not far off.
An HHS page with statistics at bottom.

Quote:

Out-of-Wedlock Births Among the General Population

NCHS at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in HHS is responsible for collecting and analyzing vital statistics data. Based on the final numbers of births for 2002, NCHS data show that the birth rate for unmarried women aged 15-44 years declined slightly in 2002 to 43.7 births per 1,000 women, compared with 43.8 in 2001. The 2002 birth rate is still five percent below the 1994 peak of 46.2. The proportion of all births that were out-of-wedlock rose to 34 percent in 2002, compared with 33.5 in 2001. Since 1994, the proportion has changed very little, ranging from 32.2 to 34 percent (Appendix Tables 8:2 through 8:4). After several decades of sharp increases, non-marital childbearing leveled off during the second half of the 1990s and 2000-2001.

[Gangularis]

In my father's defense, I can assure you he's not a racist. We had a black family from Africa, that lived with us for six months in our home, while they made the transition from Ghana to the United States. He also runs a non-profit, economic development, missionary program based in Africa, helping Africans start their own businesses with small business loans..

If anything, my father loathes welfare.. He thinks it's a horrible thing that has encouraged laziness, and he believes it just drags down society. Also, I can testify that he raised me to be anything but racist. So be assured, when he says inner city, or anything of the sort, it's not some kind of "code word" for "black people"..

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

In my father's defense, I can assure you he's not a racist. We had a black family from Africa, that lived with us for six months in our home, while they made the transition from Ghana to the United States. He also runs a non-profit, economic development, missionary program based in Africa, helping Africans start their own businesses with small business loans..

If anything, my father loathes welfare.. He thinks it's a horrible thing that has encouraged laziness, and he believes it just drags down society. Also, I can testify that he raised me to be anything but racist. So be assured, when he says inner city, or anything of the sort, it's not some kind of "code word" for "black people"..

I really didn't imagine your father was racist by any means. But the e-mail subject matter definately has a racial slant simply because the issues raised are ones typically associated with "inner city blacks". After all the word inner city does conjor up images of...."inner city blacks" lol. I simply don't feel welfare is to blame for society's ills OR believe it promotes laziness to the degree anti-welfarians would have you believe.

Though i'm not saying it's a perfect solution or that it doesn't have its down sides or negative societal implications.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

In my father's defense, I can assure you he's not a racist. We had a black family from Africa, that lived with us for six months in our home, while they made the transition from Ghana to the United States. He also runs a non-profit, economic development, missionary program based in Africa, helping Africans start their own businesses with small business loans..

If anything, my father loathes welfare.. He thinks it's a horrible thing that has encouraged laziness, and he believes it just drags down society. Also, I can testify that he raised me to be anything but racist. So be assured, when he says inner city, or anything of the sort, it's not some kind of "code word" for "black people"..

Ask him how he thinks expanding prisons will work, if the total prison population is rising faster than the actual population in the US? The US has 2.3 million people in prison at a rate of 760 per 100,000, compared to china's 1.5 million prisoners and russia's 626 per 100k. It has 4% of the world's population, and 1/4 of the world's prison population. As if this wasn't bad enough, these numbers are actually rising. From 2000 to 2007, the country's population rose by 6.4%, and the prison population rose by 15%.

ETA: Also given the fact how hilariously effective (ie, not) private prisons have been.

On the very tip of the "comical limits" sundae is this statistic. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International did a study into people sentenced to life in prison without parole for crimes committed as juveniles. These are early teenagers that end up living their life, from age 13-17 to death, in prison, for something stupid that they did. They surveyed every country to see how many people were in each country that fit this criteria, and found interesting results. Tanzania has one such case, South Africa has four, and Israel has between four and seven. The US has two thousand, two hundred and twenty five such cases. Every other country in the world has zero. In fact, there are only a handful of countries that even have the legal allowance of such a sentence, but they rarely if ever use it.

[SezMe]

Regarding the exploding prison population, ask him which party pushes the tough-on-crime attitude more. Which one initiated and sustained efforts for three strike laws. Most importantly, which has a history of tough drug laws.

Regarding broken marriages, point out to him that the states with the highest divorce rates are generally Republican states and conversely the states with the lowest divorce rates generally have the lowest divorce rates. Then ask him for an explanation.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Regarding the exploding prison population, ask him which party pushes the tough-on-crime attitude more. Which one initiated and sustained efforts for three strike laws. Most importantly, which has a history of tough drug laws.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to favor legalization of drugs.

Quote:

Regarding broken marriages, point out to him that the states with the highest divorce rates are generally Republican states and conversely the states with the lowest divorce rates generally have the lowest divorce rates. Then ask him for an explanation.

Perhaps you have to be married before you need a divorce?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to favor legalization of drugs.

Point remains, Republicans are - generally speaking - more inclined towards enforcement/punishment models of dealing with drug use. This is not to say that the Dems are not on board with many of these "tough on crime" attitudes, just that the Republicans are moreso.

Unfortunately its created an environment where many are forced to go along with tough on crime measures for fear of losing the next election when their opponent trots out the inevitable "soft on drugs" meme.

What's most curious about it is polling reveals the American public to be a few decades ahead of their elected leaders on these issues - yet that same public responds so well to the soft on crime memes.

What explains this?

[sugarb]

Originally Posted by Gangularis

In my father's defense, I can assure you he's not a racist. We had a black family from Africa, that lived with us for six months in our home, while they made the transition from Ghana to the United States. He also runs a non-profit, economic development, missionary program based in Africa, helping Africans start their own businesses with small business loans..

If anything, my father loathes welfare.. He thinks it's a horrible thing that has encouraged laziness, and he believes it just drags down society. Also, I can testify that he raised me to be anything but racist. So be assured, when he says inner city, or anything of the sort, it's not some kind of "code word" for "black people"..

Hello, Gangularis. I apologize, then, for reacting like the trained dog I'm trying not to be For some reason, when I hear "inner cities", I tend to think people are referring to blacks. Probably because, though I hate to admit it, I do have some racists in my family and they do tend to use those "code words". So I do apologize. I'm trying to lose that knee jerk reaction. Really, I am. Though I'm beginning to realize that it'll take a long time to lose what "the media" worked for so many years training me to think.

Again, though, with regards to welfare--in ways I really do agree with your father, in that the system does seem to drag more people down than it lifts up. However, I think the same thing can be said about just about any charity. There are, unfortunately, always going to be people with no motivation to provide for themselves or their children, and those people are always "working" every system or organization in place to help those in need.

I've listened to many stories from my grandmother and great aunt, and my great grandmother when she was still alive, about people doing just that throughout the Depression. Families with parents who, instead of joining everyone else to provide food or milk, would spend more time drinking or doing nothing, knowing that the conscience of their neighbors would never allow their children to go hungry. I, myself, during my church going days, have witnessed people who preferred standing up in church "testifying" sob story after sob story, to get more charity from the church, rather than attempting to do anything about their lack of initiative. Charity that really could have gone to people with more serious needs.

I don't really think it is a political party issue. I think it is more just an issue of the nature of some people--and those people who take advantage of the good will of others will always be around. Where politics comes in is in determining how best to provide for those really in need while dealing with those who do that. If anything, that is what gives Democrats a bad name in terms of social programs. The Republican solutions tend to be a little more hard-line, focusing more on those who abuse the system than those who NEED the system. The Democrats tend to focus more on those who need than those who abuse. Both of those, unfortunately, cause harm--just in different places. Republican solutions hurt mainly those in real need. Democrats solutions tend to harm the entire system in that, the more easily a system can be taken advantage of, the more inclined people who do those types of things will be to TAKE advantage, which costs the rest of us a lot of money, and also takes away resources for those truly in need and unable to provide for themselves.

If anything, both parties are to blame, because there is a lack of compromise, there is a lack of being willing to come together to eliminate as much fraud and abuse as possible. There is too much playing politics, in other words. Again, on both sides. And...I can't claim to know the solutions. Odds are in favor of all of us knowing at least one person (I personally know several) that will find a way to take advantage of others in ways that take so much thought and creativity, one wonders why these folks aren't working in fantastic paying jobs or starring in movies. The people who abuse the good will of others are the most difficult to deal with, because, unfortunately, they usually have innocent children or spouses that they use to work on our sense of guilt and obligation. It is, seemingly, a no win situation. I'm sure, if your father were to think about it, he can think of a few people who do those things that he's had to deal with during his life. Perhaps ask him what he, then, thinks is the best solution for people like that. It really isn't as easy as a lot of folks seem to expect it to be. Sure, if it is a single woman or man with no children, it might be easy to say "eh, cut them off, don't give them anything", but...what if they're dragging some kids along with them? It isn't so easy then.

[kellyb]

I'd be curious to hear what he thinks about Finland.
http://www.finland.or.jp/public/defa...&culture=en-US

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'd be curious to hear what he thinks about Finland.
http://www.finland.or.jp/public/defa...&culture=en-US

I doubt him or most Americans spend any time thinking about inconsequential countries.

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by New Ager

I doubt him or most Americans spend any time thinking about inconsequential countries.

Well the idea is that unlike you, his father might be interesting in not retaining a narrowminded view . Damn liberals, right?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by New Ager

I doubt him or most Americans spend any time thinking about inconsequential countries.

More's the pity. All cultures have some lessons for us - good or bad.

[Gangularis]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'd be curious to hear what he thinks about Finland.
http://www.finland.or.jp/public/defa...&culture=en-US

I checked out the link. I'm curious, though.. how long has this "welfare state" system been in place in the Finnish government?