What are the differences in fiscal policy between replublicans and democrats?

To make this even less confusing for me, let's just stick with U.S. republicanism (R) vs democratic principles (D) (although, if you want to expand on your country's politics you are more than welcome)

I am a little unsure about what primal elements of fiscal policies of R vs D that manifest to what the GOP wants vs DP (Democratic Party) such as business and civilian taxes.

5 Questions: (Answer any or all)

1) Am I correct by saying that republicans generally want less taxes on business and more taxes on workers? 2) If yes, is this because republicans have a different "fiscal philosophy" than democrats such as trickle down economics?

3) Are democrats typical more interested in economic equality? 4) If yes, is this a necessary intrinsic "left" element to keep there from being a present day French-type revolution?

I bring up the French Revolution because the king's councel to his left seemed to be in a little more support for equality after the revolution. 5) Was this left counsel installed mostly due to a lesson learnt from the revolution?

Please help, any details or good references that you want to add will be greatly appreciated.

 

Is it that nobody understands these questions?

Or is it that nobody cares?

 

No disrespect intended, your questions are insignificant in regards to the bigger picture.

The differences in fiscal policy are part and parcel to how the R's and D's divide the people to ensure they stay in power. As long as they keep folks focused on the differences they are free to expand government and consolidate power. They have played the people so well that we either dont notice how they expand or we thank them when they do.

 

Interesting!

So the past is not as relevant as this new "problem" of power that has evolved or emerged from this relatively new democratic system.

This is interesting but frustrating because we/they/Founding Fathers tried to solve the problems of the past, but I guess like all other new hopeful governments, new problems emerged.

So if I were to try to relate this problem as close as possible to any problem in the past, what do you think it would be, if there are even any other examples at all? Or is this solely its own unique problem?

 

All you are adding is a thick layer of cynicism.

In the end, the R's do see success coming from hosing down the wealthy with money. The more money one can give the wealthy, the better off all citizens will be. This is trickle down.

On the other hand, D's note that our most significant systems are designed for the wealthy, NOT for wage earners. Also, they note that trickle down has been proven to fail for 50 years now. In the end, D's see more justice in working toward compensation that is more equal than we have at present, noting that the spread in income has been widening dramatically over the last few decades.

D's also see ensuring citizens have the human requirements of life (food, shelter, health care) as a responsibility of government. That is, if someone can not earn enough to buy food, stay indoors, or purchase required health care, that is a problem that government must resolve.

D's also note that "corporation" was a creation driven by the desire to exempt owners from responsibility for damage they do. We did not create corporations to be entities that have human rights.

 

It isn't unique. All empires are crushed by their own weight at some point. They rise to a level to where in order to sustain themselves they must only serve themselves. The people become a means to an end. Or rather a resource to use to sustain the empire. Its is a matter of self preservation. There are limits and collapse is inevitable.

the founding fathers had the right idea in the 3 branches. We now have those 3 branches each trying to overstep the other. The executive runs around the legislative, the judicial is now setting policy, and the legislative, well ... they just want to be re-elected.

It comes down to human nature. Power begets power. The further away from the people, the less accountability the government will have. Our smaller local governments run better because they are closer and more accountable. Thing is most folks take state and local government for granted so they don't get involved. We are tribal by nature. Perhaps if we got back to a small central government and left domestic policy to the states we would do better. I have my doubts on that as well. Bigger more powerful states will dominate over the small. Mergers or conquest will become the new norm. We are stuck between a rock and hard place.

The only way out i see is if we stop electing political parties and start electing leaders with integrity. Still, the empire will fall at some point.

 

Would you say that this kind of fiscal policy by the D's is a fundamental element of democratic principles or are there more fundamental principles that these fiscal policies result From?

 

Absolutely answers the OPs questions.

 

I am not sure, but I thought that the constitution was a form of centralized power and the federal government had interprets the constitution and thus has the ultimate say in any state.

 

Perhaps a smidge.
Of course there are differences, the game wouldn't work otherwise.
There are differences and you have outlined them status quo according to your own bias.

The D's AND the R's love folks that play along.

 

I think Republican politicians cut taxes for the extremely rich so that they can get kickbacks after they leave office. Or in the case of Trump, the hope to benefit himself after he leaves office.

You have to understand there isn't going to be a French Revolution. The people have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that hard work pays off and they will reap the rewards of fiscally conservative economic policy. Even though conservative economic policy is dedicated only to the richest of the rich.

 

The purpose of the constitution was to tell the government what it cannot do. Not for the government to tell the people what they can do. The rest is left to the states.

 

On the contrary, the Constitution is designed to limit the concentration of power, thereby decentralizing power. Hence the reason behind having three branches of government, leaving to the states those things not expressly called out as federal functions within the Constitution, etc. Given the recent tendencies towards having the feds sticking their nose in just about everything, I can understand your confusion. However, that's simply not what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

I didn't mention a fiscal policy for the D's.

I did suggest some problems D's see as requiring the coordinated participation of the population as a whole - government.

 

Wouldn't they get elected on a basis that they will cut taxes? They get their reward by getting the job don't they? Of course I don't doubt that there would be many tacitly understood dealings.

 

But they can jump in anytime and "correct" the state or municipal to their liking, can't they?

 

If they could the Republicans would raise taxes on the working class and small business and cut taxes on the ultra rich.

Look at the 29% tax on health exchange plans Trump put into place, and the money goes to insurance companies.

 

Same thing as I asked the last poster, can't the Federal government jump in anytime and "correct" the state or municipal to their liking? For example, the states that have legalized marijuana can be shut down at anytime by the Feds, so I thought.

 

So basically I have heard people say things like what you say here about the D's, "In the end, D's see more justice in working toward compensation that is more equal than we have at present".

So I am hoping to know if people think that this is absolutely an inherent aspect of the D political philosophy or if it is just an outcome of an even more fundamental aspect of the D's?

It seems like it has to be a fundamental element of the D's, but what do you think?

 

Now why would they, presuming we are naively thinking that they believe in republicanism before their own pockets?

Is the ultimate fundamental aspect of republicanism based on trickle down economics? Or is there something more fundamental that guides the R's towards trickle down economies? For example, is it just a natural human trait from evolution to keep a working system from changing too much which would explain why even some poor people are republicans?

 

No, for those things that are left to the states to handle, they should be able to act autonomously. However, because the feds like to butt in, you run into goofy legal situations. For instance, Colorado has legalized marijuana, which should be fine, but because the federal government has laws on the books which prevent banks from accepting deposits of funds derived from illegal activities, federal drug laws prevented Colorado dealers from being able to make use of their bank accounts. I'm not sure how that all got ironed out, but honestly, the federal government should just keep its nose out of things like marijuana. You'd think they'd have learned with the whole prohibition fiasco in the 1920s. The states that have legalized marijuana can not be "shut down" by the feds, but the feds can make life unpleasant, that's for sure.

 

I'm done talking about Republicans for now.

Let's talk about Democrats and how they often have to raise taxes to cover budget shortfalls even though that makes them the fall guy or gal.

And how Democrats once they reach budget equilibrium will squander it all on pet projects. Either new social programs, or on the environment and green spaces, or whatever else.

And how Democrats are social justice warriors and do things that cut down on security just for the feels of a minority who is, incidentally, their voter base. Like police vs BLM. Safe spaces for all except whites, where it's getting harder and harder to find good places like colleges where people can get an education without crap like no white people day on campus.

 

Yes they "can". They can declare martial law if they see fit.

 

There are an awful lot of well worn talking points put forth in this short stanza. That is quite a feat, and it is hard to know where to begin.

For starters, the notion of Trickle Down isn't rooted in the notion of "hosing down the wealthy with money." It is rooted in the notion that what is good for business, is good for the economy as a whole. GDP per capita is an ENORMOUSLY important indicator for the standard of living within a country, and trickle down is specifically aimed at increasing GDP by encouraging/incentivizing investment in speculative business ventures. Obviously GDP per capita doesn't tell the entire story, because income distribution within that society is the final piece of that puzzle to determine the lot in life of Joe Sixpack. There are probably at least a thousand different variables within an economy that impacts income distribution, and you are disingenuously blaming a slight change in effective tax rates for the increasing spread in income distribution.

When trying to assess the cause of the disappearing middle class, one would logically look to the loss of our manufacturing base that has occurred in the last 50 years, and the accompanying loss of relatively high paying low skilled work that went along with that manufacturing base. A slight change in effective tax rates couldn't possibly have ANYTHING to do with this equation. If anything, lower tax rates would serve to slow the offshoring of our manufacturing base, rather than the opposite. If the rich were taxed at 100%, this would not decrease the income disparity, because government handouts are NOT included in income figures for the recipient. In fact, income figures are reported as gross income, NOT net after taxes. Not only are effective tax rates NOT the cause of income disparity, they in fact have no bearing whatsoever on that figure.

Addtionally, the notion of Trickle Down has NOT "been proven to fail for 50 years now". I realize that leftists repeat this mantra to themselves so often that they actually believe this nonsense, but that assertion is ENTIRELY bereft of reality. This can be proven wrong on many levels. First of all, when you talk about Trickle Down, you are really talking about tax policy. Over that 50 year period, we have had many changes to that tax policy, both from Democrat and Republican administrations. It is inaccurate to pretend like one sides tax policy has reigned during the last 50 years. Secondly, Trickle Down is aimed at increasing GDP, and GDP has done quite well during that 50 year time span. We can all wring our hands over the growing income disparity which is legitimately a problem, but we can NOT legitimately identify tax policy as the driver behind that income disparity.

 

To answer the central question in the title.....Generically speaking from a fiscal perspective, Republicans believe in a smaller government with the NOTABLE exception of the military. Democrats believe in a larger government, with the notable exception of the military.