|Forgive my ignorance but||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 8:13 AM
|I thought that Republicans were for larger government and less taxes, while Dem's are for smaller government and larger taxes. This makes no sense though. Am I ill informed? (Tread lightly friends) ;-)|
|Yes, you are ill informed||PaulCL|
May 16, 2003 8:15 AM
|Repubs are for small gov/low taxes...dems the reverse.|
|To a certain extent ...||sacheson|
May 16, 2003 8:53 AM
|... any Repub will call for more government when government non-intervention impacts his/her financial well-being or quality of life.|
|To a certain extent ...||Captain Morgan|
May 16, 2003 9:45 AM
|Gosh, it sounds so deviant, it must be true. Are you referring to any instance in particular, or were you simply slamming Republicans in general?|
|not slamming at all ...||sacheson|
May 16, 2003 1:02 PM
|... I was more extending on something an old poli-sci PhD and I used to discuss over beers; the political spectrum is not a line with Conservatives on the right and Liberals on the left, it's a circle with the conservatives at 270 degrees and the liberals at 90.
"True" Conservatives want less and less government intervention - until it starts to impact their financial status and/or quality of life. Example - you make widgets. You want the government to monitor your widget making less and less (maybe with environmental controls) until there's so little regulation you can concentrate on the most cost effective production methods. Then person B starts making widgets and somehow undercuts your price to the consumer. Most likely, you'd scream for government intervention to bring person B's price up. In real world situations see: Forestry, Mining, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, utilities, insurance, pharmaceuticals ... I could go on.
Just to be fair, on the other side of things, the "true" Liberals want more and more government interventions until it impacts them negatively, then they want less.
|I think Kristin was ask for a "general" interpretation||PaulCL|
May 16, 2003 5:48 PM
|But I agree with your "round" thinking. It comes down to the fact that we are all closer to the same line of thought than we would like to admit. did I say that???|
|Sometimes, but not always||torquer|
May 16, 2003 12:09 PM
|In general, the GOP espouses lower taxes, but the smaller government part is inconsistently applied.
They are usually portayed as favoring increased military spending, which somebody has to pay for. But even more broadly, they don't seem to worry too much about increased governmental intrusion into citizen's private affairs (The Patriot Act, or Rick Santorum's comments on gays for instance).
In other words, they want to keep government's hands off our pocketbooks, but don't mind government's eyes in our bedrooms. The Democrats can be charactarized as having opposite interests.
BTW, I realize that although my topic line was intended as a response to PaulCL's message, it can also be read as a flippant response to his topic line when viewed on the forum board. Works either way.
|Perhaps bigger STATE government, but not federal (nm)||Captain Morgan|
May 16, 2003 9:46 AM
|re: Forgive my ignorance but||js5280|
May 16, 2003 9:59 AM
|No Republicans are for larger government overall, smaller tax increases, but larger tax revenue overall.
Dems for even larger government and more tax increases.
Libertarians want dramatically less government (only those powers enumerated in the Consitition) and no personal or corporate taxes. Federal services would be paid for by duties, imposts and excises, as originally enumerated in the Constitution. The federal government did not have the carte blanche authority to lay and collect taxes until the 16th Amendment was approved in 1913.
|Minor point: INCOME taxes||Captain Morgan|
May 16, 2003 10:16 AM
|Without looking up and reading the amendment, I believe they did not have the right to tax INCOME. Prior to that, they still collected tax revenue, but based on assets.|
May 19, 2003 8:02 AM
|Actually it was based only on the enumeration of the population of each state, and of course international trade tarrifs. You should know that one by heart.
I don't like the analogy of the political spectrum as a circle, since that would require vector math to illustrate specific issues, and I don't want anybody's head to explode.
I also think it is misleading to describe Liberatarian views separate from Republicans. Republican and Democrat are the two summary catagories that we get to pick from in a defacto two party system. Neither one is a idealogically pure as a "Liberatarian" or a "socialist", or a "Right to Life" candidiate. The current GOP encompasses a large part of the Liberatarian movement, as well as the religious right, and the fiscally conservative (high tax bracket). These groups have very little in common, particularly the religious and the Liberatarians, but they are stuck in the GOP tent due to basic disagreements with the Democrats.
But, Kristen, Republicans (the right, the GOP) support lower federal goverment spending (and generally lower government spending at the state level as well. Municipal politics is a whole 'nother ball game.) and lower personnal and corporate income tax and total tax burden. Democrats favor rationalizing our total tax burden with our global economic partners in Europe (how's that for a sensitive way to say higher taxes?), maintaining or increasing federal wealth transfer programs such as health insurance, Social Security, welfare (AFDC), public works projects, etc.
|Funny how these things change||Alexx|
May 21, 2003 5:08 AM
|Through the years, different political parties have changed focus, and sometimes changed dramatically.
In 1860, the republicans were the advocates of slavery reform, whereas the democrats were the status-quo conservatives.
Until the 1930's, most Blacks, Jews, and eastern/southern europeans were republican.
Until Franklin Roosevelt, the democratic party consisted of 2 distinct parts: the urban machine contingent (nearly all white anglo and irish), and the southern arch-conservative, segregationist contingent.
In the 1920's, the republicans were against free trade and championed high tarrifs on imports. Neither party was very popular with organized labor then (The IWWP and other socialistic parties were much more visible in those days), but republican candidates usually got more of the labor vote than democrats did. Actually, I once met a republican politician that first ran for office in 1930, and he was cross-endorsed by the socialist and liberal parties.
From what we've all seen in the last 20 years, there is a change in the political paradigm happening. Today's republicans are held together more by a social ideology than by an economic one. Today's republicans are more characterized by their reactionary stance to real (or just percieved) instability in american culture, and are willing to try almost anything in response, whether it makes sense or not.