The Argument Of Which Ideology Is Better For American Society

When it comes to the argument of which ideology is “better” for American society, there is a lot of toxicity. Ranging from defense, economy, citizens well being, and environmental qualities. There is no party that will be the “better” at all of these different aspects. There are however, certain examples from the ideologies that have created overall beneficial societal change. There are as well, examples not in the United States that have demonstrated certain policies create a “better” society. Through the demonstration of examples, predictions, and historical incidents, the idea that both ideologies are necessary creates the most beneficial society. When it comes to defending our country, the general rule for the ideologies is that Conservatives

The American Welfare program started in 1935 created by President Franklin Roosevelt. His main goal was to help those who were unemployed find work. In 1964, our Democratic 36th President, Lyndon B. Johnson, started what he called ‘Great Society’. The main goal of the Great Society was to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. Great Society was roughly 200 pieces of legislation combined. With Great Society, many social programs were created, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Urban Renewal, and a slew of other policies to help improve race relations and the economy. While the Great Society had a great start, it got out of control in Johnson’s later years. The costs were astronomical, and the war in Vietnam was cutting into its funds. In 1981, our 40th president Ronald Reagan’s budget changed the way Medicare is funded. It shifted the cost off the government and on to the medicare beneficiaries themselves. This put more of a cost on the consumers, and less on the government. It is a general Conservative value to cut government spending, and lower taxes. While the Liberal values are the exact opposite. Neither of the ideologies has a “correct” way of doing things. The Great Society created many programs that help Americans to this day. Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts for the government and tightened money supply helped keep inflation under

Well, science says yes. Even if they still believe climate change is “fake” however, they still are not wrong about keeping jobs and saving money. A 2014 report from the International Energy Agency states that switching to low-carbon sources would cost $44 trillion (from 2014) to 2050. That is an understandably huge amount of time, resources, and money spent to change. The report's conclusion though makes the investment sound worth it. The report anticipates with switching to other natural resources such as solar power, and their claimed efficiency improvements by the time we reach 2050, we would actually be out ahead of that $44 trillion. The cost of switching could be paid for in fuel savings from now to