My compliments to the SDMB’s Republicans and conservatives who have contributed to this thread thus far. I think you have done a great job of explaining where we’re coming from philosophically (for those non-Republicans who actually care to listen).
I would just like to add this point: A few blocks from my house, a home has this ENORMOUS Gore-Lieberman campaign sign. After driving by it many times prior to the election, I noticed and began to think about the slogan at the bottom:
“For the People; Not the Powerful.”
This is the Gore campaign’s main sign slogan. This is the message they want to get out there to everybody, first and foremost.
This is the party of inclusion?
Question: Aren’t “the powerful” people, too?
The more economic success our society gains and builds, the more it helps everybody. That’s just the fact. I’m not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But I and most other people are a lot more comfortable economically across the spectrum over the past several years.
Democrats may say, “See? That’s all from Clinton/Gore!”
Republicans may say, “Oh, no. It’s all from the Republican-led Congress!”
The real truth, however, is that it’s because of entrepreneurship, and the technology explosion of the 1990s.
Entrepreneurship is a good thing. Rich people are a good thing. They create companies. They create jobs. They pay the lion’s share of taxes (and would under Bush’s tax plan, too).
It is fair to say Republicans are more supportive of allowing this kind of entrepreneurship to thrive than are Democrats. (Lower taxes, less cumbersome regulation, etc.)
One of the main reasons I dislike Gore and his campaign was its divisiveness. He’s all about pitting sides, and his two favorite sides to play are rich versus poor. I thought he was very disingenuous with his harping on “the richest 1 percent.” Do you know how much the richest 1 percent pay in taxes? That’s why Gore was able to say things like, “Governor Bush proposes more in tax breaks to the richest 1,000 families in this country than all of his expenditures on education.”
Well, A) Education is largely handled by states; and B) That’s because those 1,000 families probably pay more in taxes than millions and millions of the rest of us, put together. Their savings are large because their expenditures are large.
And then Gore’s whole “targeted tax breaks” thing. Did anyone else notice that they seemed to be mostly targeted at people who would stereotypically be Democratic supporters?
If we have a big surplus, and enough to give some tax breaks, why not give everybody who pays taxes some of that break? It strikes me as wholly un-American and divisive to do otherwise. Gore’s message, however? “You deserve more of the money you earned back; you, however, do not.”
Democrats can fire back with, “See? All Republicans think about is money and themselves.”
Think about what the technology explosion has meant. It’s meant more people have more money, across the spectrum. A little better life. Better health care, day care. Safer transportation. Maybe it’s meant more people don’t have to work two jobs anymore, so they can spend more time with their kids.
Democrats shouldn’t proclaim that they have the market cornered on compassion and helping the less fortunate. They don’t.
Democrats seem to believe the best way to accomplish the positive quality of life things I’ve mentioned above are through more, bigger and better social programs. They seem to miss the irony that it takes tax dollars to pay for these programs, and those tax dollars come from everybody – including these struggling, less-fortunate Americans (well, some don’t pay taxes, I know).
And why should I trust a social program to take care of me, as opposed to me and the company I work for taking care of me? Particularly when the people running the bureaucracy in question make no qualms about their divisiveness and their belief that some qualify for their benefaction and some don’t.
Redistribution of wealth doesn’t work. Never has.
