February 18, 2004
Why I'm not a Republican
You know, I've been told recently, that my decision to vote Democrat is unwise. I was told, they're not really all that pro-gay (lie) and that they're tax-raising, Crazy spending, Hooligans. Well, that's my interpretation of what I was being told.
So, let me dive a little bit into areas of US taxes/budgets, even though I admit it's not my forte. Before I get into the gory details, let me point out that I know the Budget is a crazy thing nobody understands. I also know that I am not covering everything, or even getting into that much detail. I know that part of the budget relies on how much rain falls in Iowa - so I accept all those criticism right now.
So don't bother even leaving them.
Anyway, I thought first of all, I'd look at issues of spending. Since the anti-democrat advice came about the presidential election, I thought I would start there. So, based on the numbers I got from the Congressional Budget Office, I thought I would look at spending under the president's watch for each party since 1980. Certainly, when the Dems were in the control, spending would skyrocket.
Hmmm, not really. Seems pretty consistent. Well, we all know that the President, while having influence, is not responsible for the budget. Congress does that. So, I'm sure when the congress was Democratically controlled, spending skyrocketed. (By the way, I know that 2001, briefly, was split - but not long enough to matter).
Nope, again, doesn't seem to be any major spending spikes when the Democrats were in office. Well, I'm sure that the 'Tax Crazy' Democrats were increasing taxes like wild. Let's looks at that (I'm using the 'revenue' numbers, the majority of which comes from taxes - but not all). Lets look at Income tax amounts.
Well, it doesn't look too good for Republicans overall. They seemed to keep income taxes raising while they were in power. But wait - there is definitely a dip those lat too years. I guess I was wrong - they have cut taxes. Hmmm...something seems out of place....
Oh, yea. They cut taxes, but didn't cut spending. At all. See how, in the last chart, the space between the two lines is increasing? That's basically the money that we're spending, which we don't have.
See, Republicans cut your taxes but don't cut spending, making you think they've saved you money. But they haven't. It's a big lie. The bill will come due, eventually, and not only will we have to pay it, we'll have to pay the interest on the amount borrowed, so you can think Bush cut your taxes.
Interesting. This was fun - I wonder if I can do the same for income tax RATES for the upper and lower brackets. Maybe tomorrow...
Comments:Brett said (at February 19, 2004 06:22 AM):
Well, that's my interpretation of what I was being told.
You misinterpreted. Badly.
See, Republicans cut your taxes but don't cut spending, making you think they've saved you money. But they haven't. It's a big lie. The bill will come due, eventually, and not only will we have to pay it, we'll have to pay the interest on the amount borrowed
This is a fair point. I carry no brief for free-spending Republicans.
So why won't I vote for Democrats?
Because rather than slash irresponsible Republican spending and forego additional spending of their own, they promise instead to raise my taxes.
To put it another way:
I think I'm taxed too heavily. I also think that government spending is out of control.
George W. Bush appears to agree with me on the first point, but not the second.
John Kerry appears to agree with me on neither point.
QED.
Brett said (at February 20, 2004 04:09 AM):
Okay. I misunderstood you; I thought, when you said, "I won't vote Republican," you were speaking generally.
Henry said (at February 20, 2004 07:49 AM):
As I said, I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. Vote Republican - I could care less.
I won't vote republican though.
But - FYi: Yes, Kerry wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. I don't think people in your income range are who he's aiming at, though. (I know I'm not).
From Kerry's Website:
Specifically, he wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts because it would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2,000.
In fact, John Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class with new tax credits on health care and college tuition.
I know this is a 'talking point' - I'll find more details on it.
Brett said (at February 20, 2004 09:47 AM):
I'm curious:
Suppose a hypothetical Republican candidate supported civil unions or gay marriage unequivocably. And even though I know economic issues aren't first-order important to you, suppose this same hypothetical candidate adamantly opposed the irresponsible spending habits of both parties.
Suppose this hypothetical R is opposed, in the general election, by a typical D: a person who's also supportive of gay marriage/civil unions, but who isn't willing to cut spending.
Would you vote for that hypothetical Republican? If not, what would it take?
I ask this because I can easily envision a Democrat that I'd vote for: one who (a) promises to be responsible with the pursestrings and cut, or at least not grow, government spending, (b) doesn't want to increase my taxes, and maybe even wants to lower them, (c) doesn't "yes, but" the Second Amendment, and (d) is serious about national security and foreign policy.
Henry said (at February 20, 2004 10:08 AM):
My ' I won't vote republican' comment was in regards to the Presidential Election.
In the SF recall, I voted against the recall but I voted for Arnold as the replacement. Why? because, I thought Bustmante was useless, and while I didn't agree with everything he said, he was the best alternative. If the Dems had offered a real choice against him, I may not have voted that way - but they didn't.
I also voted for GHB in the 88 election - because Dukakis was....not an option.
GWB is no GHB, though.