[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]


You make the common mistake of conflating goals with policies.

You identify with the Democrats on certain things not becuase of HOW they are proposing to solve something, but because of WHAT they propose to solve.

For example, ending poverty for the elderly is a wonderful goal, noone is opposed to such a thing. The solution promoted by Democrats is absurdly bad. If you tried to design the worst possible way to accomplish the goal of ending poverty for the elderly, you might not be able to top Social Security as we have it today.

The goals are great. It's the policies that matter.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Social Security is the one thing I listed where I was just listing an historical achievement. Solving the current problem of Social Security requires a very common-sense approach that neither party is willing to commit to because it will lose them votes.....raising the retirement age. When FDR envisioned Social Security and set the retirement age, average lifespan was ~ 55...now it's ~ 75. People are now living off the system for 10+ years, and that (combined with the Baby Boom) is what's draining money out of the coffers. But Republicans are no better than Democrats on this issue.

Nevertheless, if you want to criticize me for only agreeing with goals instead of policies, why not tell me what you (or the Republicans) are doing better? Why hit and run?

Also, what other issue in my post do you see as my doing the same thing? I believe the education problem in this country is best solved by hiring more teachers at higher wages, the health care crisis in this country is best solved by providing government coverage for those under a certain income level, and that we pay for those things by not giving tax breaks to corporations that are already profitting off our country like banchees. It's an ideological difference...I (and Dems) think education and health care are more important than giving rich people more help on their taxes. Republicans do not.

I believe that environmental policy in this country is important and needs to be dealt with by serious people, not people who used to run the companies that harmed the environment the most. It's incestuous -- it'd be like picking Howard Stern to run the FCC. I believe we need serious men and women of science to set the environmental policy in this country. Republicans do not.

I believe who a person decides to marry is none of your damned business, and that anyone who votes for a candidate who believes it's okay to amend the Constitution of this country to reflect a bigoted policy towards homosexuals...is a bigot themselves. Republicans do not.

I believe that international prudence, focusing on (and capturing) our primary enemies, and fully protecting our homeland are more important than waging war against Iraq was. Republicans do not.

I believe in putting an end to racist laws, like mandatory minimums, which blatantly put "black" drugs in a legal category far more serious than predominantly white drugs. Republicans do not, or they wouldn't fight for such legislation in every session.

These are not things where I just identify with the stated goals and everyone agrees with them. These are things where my party stands for one thing and the Republicans stand for the opposite.

It's your right to disagree with the ideological perspectives and policies of the Democratic Party, but I won't let you mischaracterize what I'm saying based on one historical example (still one where Democrats created the system in the first place against Republican opposition) that neither party is doing the proper thing to fix. I identify with Democrats because their ideology is more fair and their solutions more pragmatic.