Republicans and Democrats both want to take your money.

Democrats want to tax you higher, to fund the government, pay down some of the debt, and hopefully get out of deficit spending.

Republicans want to relieve some of your taxes, because they figure the government has its fingers in too many pies. The debts will go unpaid, meaning the government will have to borrow more money, causing inevitable inflation.

Either way, there’s less money in your pocket. So the question for Republican voters is “why would you rather have higher inflation, causing your money to be less valuable, than have higher taxes?” Keeping the particular current candidates’ tax plans out of it (since I don’t want to argue about whether Obama actually WILL raise your taxes or whether McCain actually WILL cut government spending) why, on an abstract level, do you support deficit spending and increased inflation over higher taxes and balanced budgets?

Given your two choices I would vote for the Democrats. But I don’t accept your characterizations of the parties even on an abstract level.

You’ve presented the Democrats as the epitome of fiscal responsibility by neglecting to mention that, generally speaking, the Democrats will also introduce new government programs or widen existing ones. Paying down the debt has not traditionally been a priority, as far as I’ve seen.

A more fair characterization of the Republican position would also mention that (in theory) the tax cuts would be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in government spending.

In practice, I don’t think that either party are particularly fiscally responsible (though I think the GOP pays more lip service to the principle). I wish there was a party running with the platform you present for the Democrats.

Here’s the real difference between the two parties:

Democrats want rich people to pay higher taxes. They want to balance the budget.

Republicans want rich people to pay lower taxes. They don’t care if the budget is balanced or not.

When Republicans say they want to reduce the size of government they’re LYING. And when Republicans say they’re going to cut taxes for everyone, you can be sure the bulk of those cuts will go to multimillionaires.

Great spin on that. Say that Democrats want to tax The Rich (and in practice this means whatever level it ends up going to) at a higher percentage to pay for all the social programs they hold near and dear to their hearts. If they balance the budget then that’s all well and good, but it’s only recently that they have focused on it…and really only since the boom times during Clinton (and a Republican congress oriented that way as well) made it possible to have cake and eat it to.

Again, spin here. Republicans want to lower taxes on the rich and on business because in theory this will drive up investment and industry and grow the economy…which should bring in more tax revenue despite lower taxes over all. Couple that with (in theory) the Republicans philosophy on moving government more towards the states and away from a large and bloated federal government and you shouldn’t run up such big debts. Of course, in practice the Republicans have expanded government as well…and the projected benefits of lower taxes on the economy hasn’t paid off too well lately either.

What is funny (in a sad sort of way) is the fervor 'dopers have toward one party or the other. They see THEIR party as being the be all and end all, and the other party being full of liars or idiots. From MY perspective both parties are essentially clueless and to be honest though they TALK a different game their ACTIONS are pretty similar. And similarly stupid.


The Democrats are the tax & spend party.
The Republicans just want to spend.

Really? Because I still seem to be paying taxes (quite a bit actually) despite 7+ years under Bush and his merry men.

I think a more accurate broad brush would be:

The Democrats are the tax (more) & spend (more) party.

The Republicans tax (less) and spend (less than the Dems but still a lot) party.

Why do they have to be ‘lying’? Why do you have to characterize them as so? The political reality means that you have to compromise. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and do things that you don’t necessarily WANT to do because it’s the only way to get half a loaf of what you actually think is important. Or are Dems ‘lying’ to when they don’t make good on their own planks when they are in office? Are they ‘lying’ when the have to compromise with Republicans to get THEIR half a loaf?


Based on recent years, I don’t see the justification for saying the GOP wants to spend less.

You only need apply your own rationale – examine the only recent time that Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

If their unfettered behavior during that time isn’t indicative of their true intent, I don’t what is.

No, no - they want to spend less. In theory. Just like I want to lose weight. In theory.

Reality has just been a tad different the last several years ( or perhaps ever ). Ah, Republican Party - are we really so different you and I, given our utter lack of willpower and self-discipline :p?

I like the post. A bit of editing here on my part…a bit of cut-and-pasting…

  1. Congresspeople want to take your money

  2. Congresspeople and other government officials want to take your money

  3. Congresspeople and other government officials want to have the authority to impose rules and regulations on you and me - what products we can buy, what price we should pay for them, who we can buy them from, what stuff we can do with our bodies, etc.

  4. Once Congresspeople and other government officials have our money, and have the authority to dial up or down how much they take, and dial up or down how much they want to rule and regulate, they are golden. They are there. They become the bomb-diggity. They rock. They are The Man.

Because then they have a whole bunch of levers at their control, knobs at their disposal, buttons to push, and piggy-banks to play with to horse-trade favors, direct subsidies, distort markets, and God-knows-what-else.

Including keeping themselves in power. Because usually the favor-trading, subsidizing, market distortion and God-knows-what-else is designed to reward their constituencies or special interests with whom there is a mutually beneficial relationship.

And they manage to get re-elected 90+% of the time. I won’t even go the cesspool of unelected, completely unaccountable bureaucrats like those at the various ‘helpful’ agencies, as well as unionized government workers, both of whom would require devastating meteor-strikes from outer space to unseat them from their jobs. Whether they do them well or not.

  1. The only reason they have that power is that we, as an electorate, keep slowly but surely ceding more and more of our personal freedoms and power to them as time progresses.

And it looks like we’re still headed in that direction. Both from McCain and Obama. But reading Obama’s Economic Plan looks like he and Joe aren’t even apologizing, or trying to spin, point number 5 above. They are brazenly trumpeting it as the way forward.

Oooh - a generalisation thread!

Democrats want to tax wealthy people to help Americans without health insurance.
Republicans want to fight expensive wars.

Well, as long as we’re going down this road, let me offer my own two cents:

People suck.

There. That should cover it.

‘Less’ is a relative term of course. What I said was they (want) to spend less than the DEMOCRATS do…i.e. they have a much smaller agenda for social spending or new government programs (though, granted, they want to spend more on defense so perhaps it balances out somewhat).

That said, I agree with the sentiment…one of the reasons I’m not a Republican is that their ACTIONS seem pretty similar to the Democrats…and vice versa.


So what if it’s only recent? You’re admitting that that’s the way they are. Democrats are capable of moderating their positions and moving forward.

More than what? Does anyone really believe that if the Democrats had won in 2000 they would have raised taxes higher than they were in 1980? I don’t think they would have raised taxes at all. The Clinton surplus meant we could have afforded a modest tax cut even as we began paying off the debt and invested in improving education, etc.

Instead, Republicans gave away the store.

Both parties do that, except that Repubs will often expand Government programs just before election times. They often have to expand Government because they must(e.g Resolution Trust, Bailout Programs like we have now, take-over of semi-private Corporations like Freddie Mac and Fanni Mae). Repubs will almost always argue for deregulation, except that because of the deregs, our economy often will suffer down the line…

Well you said it. The Repubs usually talk the talk but never walk the walk.

Remember; “No new taxes.” Yup, I remember a Republican president who said that and of course that was a lie.

**Bingo!! **

Actually, I think it is more like… The Republicans tax (less) and spend (less than the Dems but still a lot) party, and borrow quite a bit from our future, thereby leaving our children with a lot of debt.

Well, some are, to be sure. :slight_smile: Clinton essentially stole the Republicans economic play book and ran with it. Couple that with some other factors and we had one of the most economically prosperous periods in history which will probably be looked at in later times as a golden age.

But I’m unsure if ALL Democrats feel this way…or will continue this trend. Certainly listening to what they say I’m…doubtful. Still…they most likely can’t fuck things up more than the Republicans have (I’ll probably live to regret these words).

‘The Clinton surplus’ rode on an economic boom, pure and simple. It wasn’t HIS doing…the economy goes through boom and bust cycles and he happened to hit one of the high ones. It was already going down before he left office.

So, yes, I believe that if the Dems had won in 2000 they would have HAD to raise taxes…which would have slowed the economy further. And I think that, sans the stupid war in Iraq we’d be in essentially the same straights today even if Gore was in office. YMMV and we’ll probably never know, but this situation wasn’t one that Bush manufactured and I think that, like 9/11, would have bitten us in the bottom regardless of who was at the helm. Assuming we didn’t invade Iraq we’d have had THAT money still in our coffers, and that would certainly be a plus…though on the other hand Gore may have spent that money in other ways, so it could be a wash (though I think on this score Gore would come out ahead of Bush no matter WHAT he spent the money on).


Not bad.

But you’re showing your colors when you throw in the word ‘help’, as if to suggest Democrats running for office in 2008 have a nice, healthy chunk of altrustic motivation in what they do. And Republicans do not.

I don’t have a position on that particular point either way. I just believe it to be false.

OK, let’s look at some reality here, as in past records, instead of throwing fantasy around.

2007 Budget(not including Iraq)
Defense: 20%
Social Security: 21%
Medicare & Medicaid 21%
Other Mandatory (whatever that means - probably nuts & bolts of admin): 11%
Interest: 9%
Other Discretionary: 18%

Looks like the military is a pretty darned big chunk of the pie there.

Federal Debt appears to have gone down from the end of WWII until the beginning of the Reagan administration, where it took the biggest jump in history. It continued to rise quite steeply through Bush 41 and early Clinton, but then it looks as if two years into Clinton, it turned around and headed down and came down to about 1990 level. In 2000 it started heading up again.

It doesn’t look to me as if the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.