What is the difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties?

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
In my opinion, Republicans appear particularly interested in suggesting that there are no differences between them and Democrats now. However, I think they generally like to shape the idea that there is little difference between the two in order to increase the shrug factor, and then sell voters on specific wedge issues.
[/quote]

I don’t know. Any time I hang out with Republicans they are quite vocal that there are huge differences between the Democrats and Republicans.

It’s the only way I can really understand so many people voting against their interests, or answer questions like “What’s the matter with Kansas?”.

Yes, because it’s against most people’s interests to have lower taxes, a better economy, and more freedom to make money. :rolleyes:

There are clear differences in outcomes over decades of data between the two parties.

Not really, since we’ve had divided government for most of the past thirty years. It’s hard to quantify exactly what party produced what policy outcome during this time.

For example, the economy was great under both Reagan and Clinton. And yet, under Reagan we had a Democratic party in control of the House and under Clinton we had a Republican party in control of Congress. How do you give credit to one party or the other?

Don’t listen to people who want to minimize the difference between the two parties.

Then please tell us how the parties differ on fundamental policy issues.

[Elsie]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
This from someone who said: :rolleyes:

I’m asking you, if you don’t see them as differing on “domestically” oriented matters, how would you categorize all of the issues that I listed (that people would normally consider domestic issues), on which there are clearly demonstrable differences in practice between the two parties?
[/QUOTE]

Gotcha! Think we’re at cross-purposes.

By “not convinced practice would see quite the same scale of distinction” you thought I was talking about separating the issues differently, I was talking about the distinction between the policies of the parties i.e. how they would both act if/when elected

In other words, I’m saying they ‘talk up’ the gap between their respective positions on many issues.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=Elsie]
In terms of foreign policy and Imperial projection in particular, the same corporations fund the same goals. Just different suits.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like how Bill Clinton sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq!

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Yeah, like how Bill Clinton sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq!
[/QUOTE]

No, but to say, as another poster did, that Democrats think of war “as a last resort,” is also wrong. Clinton used the military extensively during his term in office, from Haiti to Bosnia to the Middle East.

Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq had support of most of the Democrats in Congress at the time. There is also no move by Democrats to withdraw troops from Iraq.

[Elsie]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Yeah, like how Bill Clinton sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq!
[/QUOTE]

Clinton had different goals and different means in a different climate.

For example, many were curious about the timing of Operation Desert Fox, starting as it did the day before his Impeachment hearing, and concluding the day after.

Clinton, like those before him, were content to use Saddam for a range of issues/problems; Saddam was a great, all-purpose policy enabler.

But sure, no President that I know of - other than this Bush - would have been stupid enough to commit land forces in the way they have been.

[BobLibDem]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Yes, because it’s against most people’s interests to have lower taxes, a better economy, and more freedom to make money. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Lowering taxes on millionaires is not a benefit to most people and creating massive deficits to give tax breaks to millionaires is most definitely not a benefit for anybody, nor is it the sign of a better economy. “More freedom” is not consistent with the party that stands against reproductive freedom, advocates discrimination against homosexuals, and spies on American citizens.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Yes, because it’s against most people’s interests to have lower taxes, a better economy, and more freedom to make money. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
It certainly is more in the interests of those who do not have multimillion dollar estates to have a progressive tax structure. As to the economy doing better, I’ll say here again, the data on a large number of indicators of economic performance is better under Democrats. The data broken down by socioeconomic status shows that nearly everyone from the poor to the pretty darn wealthy do better under Democratic governments, and even the super-duper wealthy do as well under Democratic governments as they do under Republican ones.

Not really, since we’ve had divided government for most of the past thirty years. It’s hard to quantify exactly what party produced what policy outcome during this time.

But the fact that different configurations have existed over time does not change the fact that things have been economically better under Democratic presidencies. There is no evidence that I know of that things have gone better for specific configurations of Republican control House or Senate.

For example, the economy was great under both Reagan and Clinton. And yet, under Reagan we had a Democratic party in control of the House and under Clinton we had a Republican party in control of Congress. How do you give credit to one party or the other?

You look over time at all the available data, not just two periods of time.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Lowering taxes on millionaires is not a benefit to most people and creating massive deficits to give tax breaks to millionaires is most definitely not a benefit for anybody, nor is it the sign of a better economy. “More freedom” is not consistent with the party that stands against reproductive freedom, advocates discrimination against homosexuals, and spies on American citizens.
[/QUOTE]

I’d disagree. Evidence shows after we lowered tax rates on millionaires from somewhere around 90% in the 1960s, the share of the Federal tax burden shouldered by the wealthiest 1% and the wealthiest 10% of Americans increased. It also created a real increase in tax revenue.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Lowering taxes on millionaires is not a benefit to most people
[/quote]

Actually, it is. Millionaires create the jobs in this country. By taxing people who are productive, you get less productivity.

and creating massive deficits to give tax breaks to millionaires is most definitely not a benefit for anybody, nor is it the sign of a better economy.

I agree that we shouldn’t have a deficit. However, the deficit is basically due to both parties’ inability to control spending. Millionaires pay much more than their share in terms of taxes. They are taxed too much, in my opinion. How about instead of taxing them more, we just spend a little less every year?

“More freedom” is not consistent with the party that stands against reproductive freedom, advocates discrimination against homosexuals, and spies on American citizens.

True, I don’t think the GOP has a good record on the freedom issue when it comes to personal freedom. Of course, it’s not like the Democratic party is doing a whole lot on this issue, either. I’ll give you the abortion issue, although there are a good number of pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. On the homosexual issue, Democrats haven’t exactly tried to champion the rights of gays to marry. As far as spying goes, there was plenty of that going on under Clinton, too. Bush has intensified it, sure, but to think that it just started since Jan. 20, 2001, is to ignore the massive federal surveillance state that has existed for decades.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It certainly is more in the interests of those who do not have multimillion dollar estates to have a progressive tax structure. As to the economy doing better, I’ll say here again, the data on a large number of indicators of economic performance is better under Democrats.
[/quote]

Again, what do you mean by Democrats? Democratic presidents or Democratic Congresses? Both Congress and the President must work together to shape policy.

The data broken down by socioeconomic status shows that nearly everyone from the poor to the pretty darn wealthy do better under Democratic governments, and even the super-duper wealthy do as well under Democratic governments as they do under Republican ones.But the fact that different configurations have existed over time does not change the fact that things have been economically better under Democratic presidencies. There is no evidence that I know of that things have gone better for specific configurations of Republican control House or Senate.You look over time at all the available data, not just two periods of time.

Again, the data is worthless if it just looks at who is sitting in the Oval Office. Since we’ve had divided government for much of the past thirty years, it’s hard to say that Democratic presidents have done well as opposed to Republican Presidents. We’ve only had two Democratic presidents during that time, anyway, and while we certainly did well under Clinton (and a Republican Congress) we did pretty badly under Carter (and a Democratic Congress).

What I’m trying to say is that the data you reference proves absolutely nothing because we haven’t had long enough periods of one-party control in DC to prove that a certain party is better or worse for the economy.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Renob]
No, but to say, as another poster did, that Democrats think of war “as a last resort,” is also wrong. Clinton used the military extensively during his term in office, from Haiti to Bosnia to the Middle East.
[/quote]

1. There is no contradiction between these two sentences.

2. ‘Extensively’ by comparison with what? Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo were all fairly small interventions.

There is also no move by Democrats to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Maybe you haven’t noticed what’s going on in Congress right now wrt Iraq, and the series of hissy fits Bush is throwing about it.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Renob]
I agree that we shouldn’t have a deficit. However, the deficit is basically due to both parties’ inability to control spending. Millionaires pay much more than their share in terms of taxes. They are taxed too much, in my opinion. How about instead of taxing them more, we just spend a little less every year?
[/QUOTE]

It’s definitely arguable they are overtaxed.

The top 1% of tax payers (in 2004 this was persons with adjusted gross income over $328,049) earned 19% of the nation’s income in 2004 but paid 36.9 % of its taxes.

In 1980, before Reagan’s tax cuts (bringing the marginal tax rates down from 70% to 50% for the top income bracket), the top 1% paid 19% of the nation’s taxes.

Ten years later in 1990 they were paying 25% of the nation’s taxes, and by 2000 they were paying 37%, and their tax rates were nowhere near as high as the 70% they were before Reagan’s cuts, and were in fact even lower than the 50% they were initially paying after the Reagan tax cuts.

Also of interesting note is the top 5% (people earning over $137,000 in 2004) earn 33% of the country’s income and pay 57% of its taxes (meaning 95% of taxpayers combined pay less to the government than the top 5%.)

The top 25% pay 84% of the country’s income while earning 66% of it, and the bottom 50% pay only 3.3% of the country’s taxes while earning 13% of its income.

One thing is quite obvious, without the top 1-5% our country would have about half as much tax revenue, if you think the current deficits are bad…

Of course, just pointing out the numbers doesn’t say they are overtaxed, I’m in the top 5% and I don’t think I’m overtaxed. The top 1% and the top 5% also experience greater % increases in income based on a strong economy. I think the top 5% are probably paying what is their fair share, but it is worth noting that their share is quite significant, which is why it’s annoying when people talk derisively of the top income brackets (by the way, you don’t have to be close to a millionaire to pay the top tax rate in this country.)

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Renob]
There is really only a marginal difference between the parties. Take taxes, for instance. Both parties are now fairly firmly wedded to the notion that taxes should be lowered when they can.
[/quote]
Neither party’s in the “let’s keep taxes high just for the fun of it” camp.

The Dems would prefer, all other things being equal, to keep taxes high enough to fund a more reliable economic safety net, and to on average balance the budget. But if they can balance the budget, have a good suite of social programs, and cut taxes, they’ll do it.

The GOP wants to cut taxes in all weather, in all circumstances, whether the government’s spending more or less, whether we’re in a boom or a recession.

That’s a pretty nontrivial difference.

Republicans, on the on the other hand, want to give tax breaks to everyone who pays taxes. Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they would get most of the tax breaks.

Republicans have frequently targeted tax breaks towards the rich - e.g. the capital gains tax cut of 2003, and the accompanying law ensuring that the Alternative Minimum Tax didn’t apply to cap gains.

Clinton pushed through a capital gains tax cut during his term).

Cite, please.

On the environment, same thing. Most of the disputes are about exactly how far certain environmental proection should go. It’s not as if Republicans are opposed to environmental protection. They just want it to be done in a way that doesn’t impose as much harm to the economy.

Which usually translates into, they’re against it. I mean, they’ve had free rein, the past six years, to pass laws further protecting the environment, but not imposing “as much harm to the economy.” What’s their track record?

Similarly with the war in Iraq. Anyone who says the Democrats oppose the war is simply misinformed. The war in Iraq had strong bipartisan support in the beginning and it still does.

‘Bipartisan support’ means ‘almost all Republicans voted for it, and some but not most Dems did.’

Counting both houses of Congress, the Pubbies voted for the AUMF by 264-6. The Dems voted 109-148 against.

No difference at all. :rolleyes:

Very few Democrats are advocating a complete withdrawal. There is a dispute between the parties about how to prosecute the war, but no real debate about ending the war.

The debate over “how to prosecute the war” is in fact a debate over getting out by sometime in 2008, versus an open-ended commitment to the war.

That’s a fundamental difference in war aims. One party wants to head for the exits, the other doesn’t.

You are not credible.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=Renob]
What I’m trying to say is that the data you reference proves absolutely nothing because we haven’t had long enough periods of one-party control in DC to prove that a certain party is better or worse for the economy.
[/QUOTE]
It’s certainly true that it would be nice to have the data broken down by more specific conditions, but it isn’t true to say that this tells us nothing. It tells us what it tells us, which is regardless of other factors, the economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republicans. And if you don’t think the presidency matters in terms of economics, I’d suggest that you tell all your voting friends the same come next election.

Here’s the sources I’ve pointed to repeatedly on this matter -

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
Here’s another, with a quote that does break one indicator out by congressional control:

The stock market prefers Democratic presidents.

Nor does having a Republican Congress help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans.

It should be possible to conduct the other analyses in a similar fashion. I’d like to see someone do just that.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
The top 1% of tax payers (in 2004 this was persons with adjusted gross income over $328,049) earned 19% of the nation’s income in 2004 but paid 36.9 % of its taxes.
[/quote]

I believe this is a misrepresentation.

I believe you are using “Federal income taxes” interchangeably with “taxes.”

In the absence of a link, I can’t say for sure, but that’s sure what it looks like.

And while most Federal, state, and local taxes are flat or regressive, the Federal income tax is one tax that has a progressive structure. (The only other one I can think of is the Federal estate tax, whose total impact is much smaller.) Most taxes, including state sales taxes, Federal payroll taxes, and the like, are flat or regressive. So the Federal income tax is not representative of the American tax structure as a whole.

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq had support of most of the Democrats in Congress at the time. There is also no move by Democrats to withdraw troops from Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
The OP is saying (I think) that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats voted for the war, yes, and some now advocate immediate withdrawal, but virtually all oppose Bush’s plan for Iraq. See the recent votes in the House and the Senate. If Democrats oppose Bush’s Iraq policy, there is a difference. Some may not be satisfied that the difference is big enough, but it is clearly false to say there is no difference.

@Elsie

But sure, no President that I know of - other than this Bush - would have been stupid enough to commit land forces in the way they have been.

Well, there’s a difference right there. Republicans support the decision to go to war and the surge of more troops; Democrats may have supported the war at the beginning, but have turned against it because they think Bush screwed it up, and virtually all Democrats oppose the surge.

[Lamar_Mundane]

[QUOTE=zeno]
and we’d be in Iraq no matter who might be in power.
[/QUOTE]

While your other statements are defensible, this one just throws me for a loop. What is the thought behind this assertion? I seriously doubt if Gore were president during the 9/11 aftermath that the subject of invading Iraq would have even been discussed. As mentioned above, this was a neocon project all the way.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Neither party’s in the “let’s keep taxes high just for the fun of it” camp.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what I said.

The Dems would prefer, all other things being equal, to keep taxes high enough to fund a more reliable economic safety net, and to on average balance the budget. But if they can balance the budget, have a good suite of social programs, and cut taxes, they’ll do it.

That’s what they say they are for. Let’s see how they govern. Both their budget proposal and their handling of the supplemental appropriations bill indicate that they aren’t really in favor of controlling spending or cutting taxes.

Republicans have frequently targeted tax breaks towards the rich - e.g. the capital gains tax cut of 2003, and the accompanying law ensuring that the Alternative Minimum Tax didn’t apply to cap gains.

So what? As mentioned above, the “rich” are the ones who pay the most taxes and who produce the jobs in this nation. It makes good sense to make the tax code more fair and stimulate economic growth by lowering taxes on those who make more money.

Cite, please.

In 1997, Clinton signed a bill that lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. It was all over the news. This is like asking for a cite that George H.W. Bush raised taxes in the early 90’s.

Which usually translates into, they’re against it. I mean, they’ve had free rein, the past six years, to pass laws further protecting the environment, but not imposing “as much harm to the economy.” What’s their track record?

I can’t think of any major environmental laws that are really needed.

‘Bipartisan support’ means ‘almost all Republicans voted for it, and some but not most Dems did.’

Counting both houses of Congress, the Pubbies voted for the AUMF by 264-6. The Dems voted 109-148 against.

No difference at all. :rolleyes:

The Democratic nominee for President in 2004 voted for it and the likely nominee in 2008 voted for it. So did a large number of Democrats in both chambers. That seems pretty bipartisan to me.

The debate over “how to prosecute the war” is in fact a debate over getting out by sometime in 2008, versus an open-ended commitment to the war.

That’s a fundamental difference in war aims. One party wants to head for the exits, the other doesn’t.

Yes, setting meaningless goals is real useful. :rolleyes: If the Democrats really wanted out, they could simply refuse to fund the war.

@Hentor

It’s certainly true that it would be nice to have the data broken down by more specific conditions, but it isn’t true to say that this tells us nothing. It tells us what it tells us, which is regardless of other factors, the economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republicans.

Again, under most Republicans we’ve had a Democratic Congress. Under Clinton, we had a Republican Congress. The data tells us very little of use.

And if you don’t think the presidency matters in terms of economics, I’d suggest that you tell all your voting friends the same come next election.

I’ve been telling them that for years.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It should be possible to conduct the other analyses in a similar fashion. I’d like to see someone do just that.
[/QUOTE]

Democrats took us into WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War.

Are Democrats more violent than Republicans? More warlike?

The problem with Slate’s analysis of the stock market is it doesn’t do anything to establish causation, just like stating “Democrats have lead us into most of the major wars of the 20th century” doesn’t establish that Democrats are more warlike anymore than saying “since 1900 Democratic administrations have had marginally better stock markets than Republican administrations” establishes that Democrats are good for the economy and Republicans bad for it.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The OP is saying (I think) that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats voted for the war, yes, and some now advocate immediate withdrawal, but virtually all oppose Bush’s plan for Iraq. See the recent votes in the House and the Senate. If Democrats oppose Bush’s Iraq policy, there is a difference. Some may not be satisfied that the difference is big enough, but it is clearly false to say there is no difference.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, that’s why I said there are differences on the margin. Democrats support the war but want to prosecute it differently than Bush. So what? On the whole, though, both parties agreed that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They now merely differ on the way to do that. On the fundmanetals they agree, on the margins they disagree. That’s the way it is for most policy. I don’t claim there are no differences between the parties; I simply say the differences aren’t as large as some here seem to think.