The Problem with the Republican Party

The Republican Party's biggest problem, to me, is that they claim to be the party of freedom and small government and the People, yet their entire philosophy behind everything speaks the opposite. The core of the GOP's philosophy is top-down everything. We see it everywhere from government enforcement of morality to "trickle down" economics. You can't have the stated goals mentioned above when everything must come from the top.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Democratic Party has the same problem. The difference is, top-down philosophy doesn't contradict their goals. On the contrary, it aids them. Not so with the GOP.

Let's take a policy for an example: "trickle down" economics, also known as Reaganomics. The whole point of TD economics is you benefit the top and help them prosper, and that prosperity will "trickle down" to the bottom. Ignore for a moment that the economics are flawed, that's not the point. The expectation here is that you help the bottom best when you help the top.

Another example: abortion, same-sex marriage, drug use, etc. Basically, the social issues. Republicans are opposed to those things. Because their philosophy is top-down, they choose to have the government enforce moral choices against those things (nevermind that it won't actually solve the problem) rather than educating people on a personal level on why they should not do those things.

Granted, not all Republicans necessarily support TD economics or oppose the social issues listed, but it's in the platform so.

Why top-down everything, especially for a party that values grassroots movements (that they agree with, anyway)?

 

What you call "trickle down economics" would be more accurately called "Supply Side" or "Investment Based" Economics.

The reasoning being that you cut tax rates on certain categories of people (and yes this includes upper middle class, wealthy, and businesses) so they have more money to invest in businesses and economic opportunities that ultimately employ lower income people and provide them with opportunities.

For example, a wealthy man saves 50,000 dollars on his tax bll. He wants to make even more money. So he (and others) invest what they had been sending to the government in opening a local store that employees two dozen people at an average pay of 30,000 dollars.

The wealthy people have ended up better off thanks to the tax cut and the return on their investment. The 24 local people have benefit with new jobs. And the govt. has benefited even though they initially lost tax revenue by taxing the new wealth created.

 

Yes, I understand the economics. That's not the point.

 

The Republican party is the party of foreign interventionism, crony capitalism, and authoritarianism.

The problem with our system is, the Democrats are also the party of foreign interventionism, crony capitalism, and authoritarianism....

 

You said the economics were flawed, yet you gave no explanation of why. Is your say-so supposed to be persuasive?

 

Except that "supply side" economics only works if/when people have plenty of money to "purchase those supplies!"

And this is CERTAINLY not the case in the type of economy we have currently. . .and it is not the case either if we consider that, even the rest of the world doesn't have the money to purchase those "supplies!"

It is obviously against good business practices to "increase inventory (or increase supply)" if there is no buyers, and the inventory stays on the shelves.

What it takes is enough people wanting to purchase those supplies (or a DEMAND SIDE ECONOMY) to make a dent in the economy and entice owners to produce more supplies, therefore to hire more people.

This is why Bush tax cuts never worked! The rich got a lot richer (so they COULD have provided more supply by hiring more workers) but since the poor and the middle class got poorer. . . they were not ABLE to purchase those supplies anyway. . .so why produce more supplies?

Obviously, there is also another dimension that needs to be addressed: the "elasticity" of a product! For example, it's pretty logical that things like gas or basic groceries are VERY elastic. . .which means that, no matter what the price is, no matter how bad the economy is, there will be some items (i.e., milk, meat, gazoline) that will be bought, even if the economy is not performing to its fullest.

But a LOT Of other products, (i.e., computers, cars, fridges) would not sell, no matter if the "supply" is huge (and therefore the prices the supply is offered at are down!), if people do not have money to buy it.

So. . . I believe your view of economics is sort of. . .immature. You probably took economics 101. . . but nothing further, and that's where it really gets interesting!

 

My major problem, is simple. I do agree with Real American Thinker on this, that it can be summed up in a trickle down belief. And so those on top deciding what everyone else should do. How is that any differnt then the government telling people what they can and can't do?

 

Economics ain't the point here. In this case, we're making it a "truth".

 

I gave no explanation of why because the topic I was addressing is not the economics, hence the fact that my objection to the economics was noted off-handedly in parentheses.

I suspect you know this, though, and are instead trying to deflect scrutiny on the topic.

 

There are a lot of problems, to be sure, but I see all the ones you listed as being under the umbrella of the top-down approach to governing. Observe.

Foreign Interventionism - The people of a nation cannot handle their own affairs, so we, the most powerful nation on earth, must do it for them.

Crony Capitalism - Those on the top economically collude with those on the top governmentally to run the lives of those on the bottom.

Authoritarianism - Well, this one is bloody obvious

 

My point exactly. Thank you, Kranes.

 

Your welcome. I think this is a real problem with their belief, and I would like them to explain.

 

I would too, but so far only one (Brewskier) has showed up, and rather than address the point he chose a sad attempt at deflection.

 

Give it some time, I bet someone else will come in.

 

Translation, Republicans LIE about their ideals. It's really that simple.
Also, I would add that their policies are both wrong, and not popular with the majority of Americans.

 

The theory is flawed. You forget to include the "Walmart" mentality and reality that business drools to be like. What small investor will go against the Walmarts of the world? The TD doesn't work. Rename it, call it whatever you like. When there is no competition, monopolies take over and we have the "market" mess we have today. It never made much sense in the eighties either but, it especially doesn't apply at all these days. Fattening a CEO's wallet does nothing for society, and that's who dictates everything today, the corporate CEO. Enriching monopolies serves no one except the monopoly.

 

I don't think that's true. The party leadership absolutely lies about it, but I think Republican voters don't even realize that the core of their methods invalidates their stated goals.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There is an incredible force of people that support the Republican Party, though I think it is waning. They just have a hard time winning elections that cover large areas (i.e. U.S. Senate, President) because their support tends to come from small, rural areas, while the Democrats get support from more urban areas.

Mostly though, I think the Dems and Reps only get as much as support as they do because most people see them as the only choices.

 

I think that could be said about all politicans, but lay republicans actually believe in their positions.

 

People ought to know what you're saying above already; still, many more are catching on as we speak. Thank God!