General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere do Democrats and Republicans disagree on economic issues?
They both seem to support international trade treaties?
They both seem to support huge tax cuts for the very top and small taxcuts for the bottom?
They both seem to be content with the growing inequality amongst our people?
They both seem to be happy with the huge spending on defense budgets and cuts in people programs?
They both vote in the interests of big banks.
What economic issues is either side willing to fight for that the other side will not compromise?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You really don't expect an answer ... you only wish to promote that tired old "both parties are the same" narrative.
And why not? It's been a whole 8 hours since the last proclamation.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)Democrats have proven they are different from the Republicans on social issues. But where are the differences economically? Democrats say they want a minimum wage increase and usually, in the past, Republicans voted with them on that issue. However, talk is cheap. Where is the legislation?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Your 2nd and 4th point are fallacious. Democrats do generally want higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the working class, and while they don't really want to cut military spending, they do support a strong safety net. Look at the fight over Obamacare - yes Obamacare was not what I wanted it to be, but it's a long way from what Republicans wanted it to be.
They also favor more regulation than Republicans - less regulation than I would like, but more than the laissez-faire attitude the Republicanoids would argue for.
Bryant
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)So it doesn't matter that the Dems lost the Senate.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
A bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
The bill was passed in the House with 223 Democrats and 0 Republicans voting for it.
The bill was passed in the Senate with 57 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for it.
Talk amongst yourselves. No matter what you think of the bill (which is said to have "brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry" , you should determine whether there is a DIFFERENCE between Democrats and Republicans on approaching financial and/or economic issues.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)Wasn't that what a lot of the controversy was about ??
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Dodd Frank was an extensive bill, and only the push-out provision was what was at stake in the recent budget contretemps. The provision had made banks push certain derivative trading out into affiliates that weren't FDIC insured by the government.
Some, including Paul Volcker himself, supported the change in this provision:
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/11/370156241/controversial-budget-bill-would-roll-back-dodd-frank-provision
Enrique
(27,461 posts)i agree with the poster above that says these are rhetorical questions, but imho they are good ones.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)I guess it could be argued either way?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I wrote this in another post the other day, stating that I no longer accept politicians' claims to being "socially liberal" but "economically/fiscally conservative." The most important social policy is embedded within fiscal and economic policy.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)is it really more an economic issue to be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-education, pro-free speech, pro-4th Amendment, pro-union, pro-healthcare, etc? Although most of them might cost "money" to someone, are they really more economic than social issues?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Pro-choice: forcing women to bring pregnancies to term greatly affects their economic situation, even if they put the baby up for adoption.
Gay rights: discrimination in jobs and housing has a huge economic impact. The marriage equality movement had a major economic component: equality with regard to inheritance and estate taxes was at the heart of the Supreme Court decision; the ability to file joint returns as a married couple was a big part of the argument for marriage equality.
Education: huge, huge economic issue. The more educated you are, the more money you make (and thus pour into the nation's economy). That's an undisputed fact.
Even free speech is an economic issue, as we've seen with recent SCOTUS rulings calling money speech.
But I, of course, was thinking of the opposite direction: the fact that fiscal policies that cut heating assistance and other social programs have huge economic repercussions, etc.
world wide wally
(21,718 posts)Republicans are totally evil through and through.
Now do you get it?
kentuck
(110,947 posts)We will concede that there is a world of difference in the way the two Parties approach social issues.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You think other people's issues are not economic because the money involved is other people's money.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)Such as public education. I believe paying taxes are also part of this social contract. Obviously some people do not believe in such a thing as a social contract, or if they do, they don't want to pay for it.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)If we're talking voters, then yes, there's a huge chasm. Democratic voters want there to be more egalitarian economics (like raising taxes on the wealthy and strengthening the social safety net) while Republican voters want to keep all the wealthy's perks in place because they all hilariously think they're going to BE that 1%er someday.
Politicians . . . Yyyyyyyep, sorry, it'd probably be easier to find one that DOESN'T worship at the Temple of Teh Blessed Free Market, Bishop Milton Friedman VI Presiding . . . .
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Both need, and endeavor to get, enough money to be elected. Once they have done so they have to pay the "ones who brung 'em".
Both claim they wish to protect the middle class. The Republicans by promising to make the middle class millionaires the Democrats by promising protect the middle class from falling into the lower class.
For the most part, they both work to keep the upper class in power so they can reward and enable the politicians to keep their seats.
The Republican promise heaven the Democrats promise avoidance of hell.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)Good one!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Perhaps one of HRC is inevitable fans can answer them.