Rep vs. Dem Differences

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No
limits
to gov't control.

to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out
in the constitution.


Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

And "maximize wealth at top" trickle down


[snip]

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats



Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out in the
constitution.

Our connection to the Constitution is now tenuous at best. I wish your
statement, in practice, was correct though. The present Republican Justice
Department is leaning very strongly toward removing Consitutional
protections. This is not so much judgement on merits but observation.

Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans want
people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

The present administration has been spending like a drunken sailor.
Deficits are way up. A tiny tax cut does not show they want people to
retain more of their earnings, the ONLY way to do that is to cut government
and spending, not increase it! This administration puts the Republicans at
the top of the list of expansion of government.

Or you could be saying that this administration, although Republican by
name, are not acting as such? I am unclear as to your meaning.

And "maximize wealth at top" trickle down

Not exactly, but pretty darn close. What do you see as the difference?

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats

I think you are saying the Democrats speak more "liberal" than they are.
Perhaps, you may be right, thinking about it I can think of some examples of
that.

Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?

No, not exactly. I am more thinking about opportunity. To say "take from
haves and give to have-nots" is both assuming that one group rightfully owns
something, which is a separate debate, and that the advocates want a forced
redistribution, which I do not believe. What I meant to get across is that
this group endeavors to spread opportunity to others than the biggest
players.

How about the other areas? Any comments on those?

In article , Bob Noel
writes:

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats


This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?


Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?


More accurate would be "Plunder the productive to buy the votes of the
dependent."

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Noel
writes:

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats


This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?


I was trying to present a snapshot of the present situation. With all the
changes (in both parties) it would be nearly impossible to have this be
applicable for a period of years, much less decades.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government


This is a good thing...
.... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use to
distribute their goods and services?

Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants...or the stacks of chemical and biological WMD still remaining
on American soil? Or the health costs of the respiratory patients due to
pollution?

Are we reaping the benefits and "retaining more earnings" because all these
infrastructures were installed and are maintained by "somebody else" (or
will be paid for by somebody way in the future)???? When Exxon destroyed
the livelihood of a few tens of thousands in Prince William Sound, and was
told that it owed them $5billion, how much did it actually pay?


It IS the job of Governments to ensure that these costs are borne equitably
by all its citizens.

If you say that they are doing a terrible job of it, you will get no
arguement from me.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

In article
le.rogers.com,
"Icebound" wrote:

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

This is a good thing...
... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
to
distribute their goods and services?

By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?


Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?


.....

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
le.rogers.com,
"Icebound" wrote:

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

This is a good thing...
... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of
the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use
to
distribute their goods and services?

By the above, I must conclude that you are more in favor of
a user fee basis for taxation rather than a tax on income. Yes?




I am in favor of fairness, simplicity, and in favor of acknowledgement of
the complete costs.

The current mish-mash of taxes by municipal, state, federal
jurisdictions...taxes on property, income, sales, and "other".... AND
user-fees.... has evolved only because stuff keeps getting through the
cracks...industries who pollute but don't clean up... tax-law that favors
one group or industry over another...individuals and corporations with
creative accountants... businesses who fail and are bailed out from
bankruptcy (along with their creditors) ..... and so governments have been
forced to make up the difference through this mish-mash.

I sort of favor a totally transaction-based system. A penny out of every
hundred dollar transaction (or whatever) no matter whether it is a deposit
of income, a payment of your mortage, or a purchase of an ice-cream cone.

It should be reasonably fair.... at least as fair as what you have now....
because the biggest payers to the taxation coffers would be those that
receive the most and buy the most.... and those are probably the ones that
use the infrastructure the most. And it could probably be applied to
offshore transactions that come into or out of the country.

And all the book-keeping is done by the banks and retailers. No forms to
fill out for you and me!


Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?



That would be nice. But then, that would be the taxpayers and the taxpayers
don't want to pay more taxes. It would be the biggest industries, but then
they have bulk contracts that allow them power for cheap. etc., etc.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?


Not a bad idea, so long as those users are informed of that issue beforehand
and have a choice as to whether to "use" power from that plant or not. The
problem with must "regulated monopoly" utilities is that they are guaranteed
a certain ROI and this does not factor in a lot of externalities.

The initial promise of nuclear power was that it would be so cheap there
would be no need for meters. Unfortunately it turned out to be much more
complex than that and the designs went astray, with bigger and bigger single
reactor generators. There are other technologies that promise less
difficult to deal with waste and better resistance to thermal runaway but
they haven't yet gained wide usage. I still believe in the idea of nuclear
power, but somewhat differently executed than the present systems.

What I don't like is the immunity from damage claims the power companies
have in the case of radioactive release enough to destroy habitability. I
have zero control of whether the local company has a thermal fission turbine
a few miles away from me yet they and my homeowner's insurance company won't
cover me if something goes wrong. I know I can evacuate my family and
myself even under the worse of scenarios, in a non-panic way, but my bank
will still want mortgage payments even though my home might be worth zilch.

In article , Bob Noel
writes:


Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants

how about having the users of the power plants pay for that?

From their money tree?

Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax, ultimately
all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost of
goods and services.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Their customers have to pay for it. No business really pays a tax,
ultimately
all taxes (including FICA and Personal income) wind up buried in the cost
of
goods and services.

It is fascinating to me how few people truly understand this basic law of
economics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"