So, what's up with the Democrats?

[Rapscallion]

Basing this off my other thread in the approach to the US election, I have to ask what the issues are with the Democrats.

I'm genuinely curious here, but I'm more interested in things other than policy.

Looking at the other thread it's apparent that very few complaints have been levelled at the Republicans on grounds of their economic policies, but things have mostly concentrated on the apparent racism and religious fervour behind their more extreme activities.

What are the flaws in the Democrats? I'm getting the impression that they just need to sit back and watch the Republicans implode instead of resorting to low-blows.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

A lot of people dislike the Democrats when it comes to money and spending. The Democrats are known for spending more. And when we spend more, the government needs a bigger income so taxes would go up. Republicans tend to want to be taxed as little as possible so they can spend money their way and anyone who doesn't make enough money to survive should die off because that's their fault. The Democrats also don't support big business enough which hurt a lot of big business owners who tend to be Republican.

Also, the Democrats believe in more gun control and the Republicans believe that is a human right to defend oneself with whatever means necessary.

Really, I can go on and on. It's about the stereotypes of each party and what they want. I tend to agree with the Republicans on a couple things then agree with the Democrats on the majority.

Summary: Democrats want to take your money and guns.

[Rapscallion]

Gun control has been covered here ad nauseum. Taking more money is for me a more interesting aspect.

What would they do with it?

What exactly are they spending that on?

Government spending is usually something that concentrates on things that the citizens need - defence of the nation, building infrastructure, and so forth. Those things directly improve the lives of those who get to vote, and whilst many of the direct beneficiaries are the major corporations and their shareholders, they have to hire Joe and Jane American to get the job done. Also, Joe and Jane American are able to buy shares and benefit from that. The alternative seems to be 'trickledown', and that seems to work as well as 'care in the community' worked over here.

Governments don't actually keep the money for themselves. What matters is where it ends up.

However, I'm more interested in things like those the Republicans are being (rightfully in my opinion) attacked for - basic shitty attitudes and tribalism. Are there any such aspects about the Democrats?

Of note, I'm not going to cry a river if this goes down into a basic policy discussion, but the above is the area I'm interested in.

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

The Democrats say they want to take our money so they can turn around and put it into things like Education, roads, national health care, jobs, and other things related to the infrastructure of our nation.

The way I see it, they're no different than a company investing money back into itself to make it better. Unfortunately, most of that money either never makes it to its intended destination, or it's spent poorly.

The Democrats also tend to be pro-regulation, where the Republicans are against it. Minimum wage, environmental impact, price control, etc. They encourage businesses to grow, just not at the expense of the workers or the livelihood of our citizens.

The Democrats believe in providing basic services related to our inalienable rights. The Republicans would prefer we let the free market system handle that.
Democrats want to educate you. Republicans want your education to be based off of what you can afford.
Democrats want to provide you with police and fire protection. Republicans want to pay a "subscription fee" for it
Democrats want to keep you healthy. Republicans want to get rich off of the illusion of keeping you healthy and then decide whether or not they're going to cover you.

[Jaden]

The Democrats believe in providing basic services related to our inalienable rights. The Republicans would prefer we let the free market system handle that.
Democrats want to educate you. Republicans want your education to be based off of what you can afford.
Democrats want to provide you with police and fire protection. Republicans want to pay a "subscription fee" for it
Democrats want to keep you healthy. Republicans want to get rich off of the illusion of keeping you healthy and then decide whether or not they're going to cover you.

This is a gross oversimplification.

For one thing, the vast majority of Republicans are certainly not in favor of having subscription fees for police and fire protections. There's, like, a couple of cities in the entire country that have that, and I think you can easily put that down to crazy people rather than partisan politics.

For another, Republicans do want things like welfare to be around, just less easily exploitable. And a lot of Republicans also think the health care system needs to be reformed in a way that's more affordable to the average person, just not in the ways Obama tried to do it.

[crashhelmet]

This is a gross oversimplification.

For one thing, the vast majority of Republicans are certainly not in favor of having subscription fees for police and fire protections. There's, like, a couple of cities in the entire country that have that, and I think you can easily put that down to crazy people rather than partisan politics.

They have it now because they were ballsy enough to implement it. That doesn't mean that it's not on the agenda. The GOP in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida, and California are just a few among the many where privatization of government services is in the agenda.

For another, Republicans do want things like welfare to be around, just less easily exploitable. And a lot of Republicans also think the health care system needs to be reformed in a way that's more affordable to the average person, just not in the ways Obama tried to do it.

But they don't use the word "reform" for these things. They use the words "abolish," "stop," "end," & "dismantle." They don't want the government to provide it. They want the Free Market System to provide it to those that can pay for it.

[Andara Bledin]

Gun control has been covered here ad nauseum. Taking more money is for me a more interesting aspect.

What would they do with it?

What exactly are they spending that on?

The types of things most campaigned for on the Democractic side tend to be socialist in nature (you know, like our highway system [nobody ever complains about that when they're bitching about how socialist the country is]).

Health care is one of the current banner topics. As are programs to keep people from living near or below the poverty line.

What a lot of people who complain about Democratic spending measures don't seem to grasp is that by spending that money now, you won't have to spend some multiple of that amount later on. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it carries through in economics.

Also, the Democrats recognize that "trickle down economics" is a fraud. In the free market, money trickles up, not down, accumulating and then being hoarded rather than recirculated. To that end, the upper end is taxed, the money given to the lowest end, and then sent back through the system until it ends up back in the pockets of the top end with a net improvement over the majority of the citizens at a negligible to non-existent cost to the very few it was taken from.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

*snip*

However, I'm more interested in things like those the Republicans are being (rightfully in my opinion) attacked for - basic shitty attitudes and tribalism. Are there any such aspects about the Democrats?

Of note, I'm not going to cry a river if this goes down into a basic policy discussion, but the above is the area I'm interested in.

Rapscallion

Honestly at this point, it's hard to say. Its very easy to point at Republicans and explain all the faults of the party, to the point that Dems just look fuckin sane compared to Reps.

The only real attacks against Dems I can think of is those leveled by Reps--socialist, communist, wimps, godless, blah de blah de blah. All untrue, if you take those words at their definition.

[Rapscallion]

Is there any substance to those accusations?

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

Is there any substance to those accusations?

Rapscallion

I'm far from an expert, but from what I know...no.

Admittedly, most of that has to do with Dems not so much being "left" as "Moderate" whereas Reps have gone so far right it's a wonder they don't cut off their left hands.

Most of those accusations are either exaggerations or outright lies hoping to prey on stupidity. (Obamacare is SOCIALISM! Which is the DEVIL! And COMMUNIST! And Communism is GODLESS!)

I think the only one that has any meat is the "Dems are wimps" accusation....mostly because Dems have been beaten down and villified so much over the past ten years or so.

Again, tho, not an expert. Just from what I've seen since I started paying attention to politics.

[crashhelmet]

Is there any substance to those accusations?

Rapscallion

Which accusations would those be? Who are you asking?

Here are the platforms for the GOP of:
Iowa
California
Arizona

[Andara Bledin]

If you're referring to the "socialist, communist, wimps, godless" bits, yes and no.

The US is a socialist republic, but "socialist" and "communist" are common dog whistle tactics to incite fear and distrust just by their very use, regardless of validity or the fact that both sides are just as "guilty."

The "wimps" bit likely has to do with the difference in interest in throwing a massive percentage of our GDP into the military-industrial complex and play world cop with our forces. The funny part is that there are an awful lot of chickenhawks (formerly called war wimps) on the GOP side, so it's more than a little silly that they tend to level claims of wimpiness at the other side of the aisle.

As for the "godless" bit, whether it's true or not, it's completely irrelevant and is just more dog whistle pandering.

^-.-^

[Andara Bledin]

Which accusations would those be? Who are you asking?

Here are the platforms for the GOP of:
Iowa
California
Arizona

Wow. That California document is just riddled with sloppy typos all through it. What a mess.

I love this line from CA: The Republican Party championed racial and gender equality against strong opposition.
And this line from the AZ one: Supports only essential government regulation



^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

As for the "godless" bit, whether it's true or not, it's completely irrelevant and is just more dog whistle pandering.

It's more "keep your religious beliefs out of the laws", Dems understand and accept that not everyone is the same religion. So because of that it's the "if you're not with me you're against me.

[HYHYBT]

It's not that Republicans want to take/spend less money, though that's how they try to paint it. They just want to spend it differently. For example (and now I wish I'd saved the address) I was reading the other day about how, in the military funding Congress is currently working on, the Pentagon has said they want to close some unneeded bases, drop some projects such as a new aircraft that doesn't work as well as what it would replace, etc. The house basically said "no way" and added all that funding back in again.

At least when the Democrats spend money that's not there, the recipients want it. (and no matter how much costs overrun, I've never yet hear someone complain that our bridges and dams are too new and in too good a condition. But much of that particular problem is poor planning: you design things to last 50 years, you need to make provisions to save so that, half a century later, there's money to replace them. Nobody *does* that because nobody is elected for more than six years at a time.)