Who's fiscal policies work more for average Americans, Republican's or Democrat's and how?

Question

Going by Red vs Blue states, I'd say Dem policies. I could be wrong... Your thoughts please.

How_Would_I_Know (below) No matter how you slice it, Blue States, which DO exist according to electorial votes, seem to be economically better for their residents.

Not attacking you or your statement.

Jimmy J (below) Detroit lives and dies by the auto industry. As soon as the Bush crew made it easy for US companies to pack up and go, they got up and went, at least a great percentage of their positions.

Answer 1

Going by the site you refered us to in a former question, although red states have a larger number of people on welfare & such, because of the larger population in most red states, you need to look at percentages, not number.

And you end up with the fact that Blue states have a larger percentage of its citizens on wlefare.

The percentages of citizens recieving public assistance or welfare
Northeast------ 1.9%
Midwest-------- 1.7%
South----------- 1.3%
West------------ 2.0%
The "blue-state" areas (the West) have the largest percentage and the "red-state areas (South) has the smallest percentage.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/rdcall/7_001.htm

Answer 2

If that question was so easy to answer, Americans wouldn't be so divide over it. And to be frank, I don't think the average American is an economist...otherwise they would have demanded good changes economically in the late 70's (if not earlier). Instead they dealt with the 'restraint polity' ie a desire to halt new spending policies or atleast some.

Throughout modern America, when the people thought the economy was going forward, it was usually about to go in recession; and when they thought it was bad, it was usually going good. As established by a good book....

Art of Contrary Thinking--Humphrey B. Neill

So what's establish economic thought. Most good economic calls for a large private sector, with mindful regulations on work standards, contracts, credit, etc. I wouldn't say the Democrats or Republicans dominates this,.. in fact I think the right could do better if it was more or less prudent upon it's actions and more principled.

But to say either one has a monopoly on economics, is to say the people whom elected them were infallible. The average American knows how to flip channels and perform one skill to work....not how to run an economy. We rely on experience, those of moderate intelligience, and the business enviroment. These elected individuals hardly make the market. They can set a tune at best, but they can't make it...it makes itself.

Answer 3

What is the basis for you observation? If I used Detroit as an example, I can make a pretty decent argument to the contrary.

Edit: You've obviously never been to Detroit. The cities problems are more closely related to a series of inept Democratic mayors than the auto industry. Just look at the state of the public school system in Detroit to see what I mean.

Sageandscholar: Source for your observation? I believe it exists only in your mind. Revenues have went up under President Bush to the highest level ever. I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but your statement is full of crap. As for the statement that President Clinton's tax increases caused economic prosperty, nonsense. Ross Perot was pointing out that a surplus was projected to begin in 1996 or 1997 and would last until 2002 or 2003. He showed those charts during the 1992 election. As Winston Churchill said, "No country ever taxed inself into prosperty." I predict that the United States will not prove to be the exception.

Answer 4

Conservatives who believe in small government and low taxes have never had their theory even attempted. The Federal government has grown substantially over the last century, and States keep expanding their governments. Entitlements are at an all time high, and the U.S. Comptroller was recently on 60 Minutes warning of imminent collapse. I live in NY State, and we have the highest taxes, most levels of government, and every imaginable social program. We also have the highest unemployment, highest poverty rates, and substantial population flight. Democrats rule this state, and the only Republicans who get elected here have to lean to the Left. The unions run the show, and you judge the results. It's appalling how Liberals refuse to admit that socialism leads to dependence and poverty. Elliott Spitzer wants MORE social programs, MORE union support, and it's all about political power. Buying votes and crushing your political opponent. They are using the poor, not helping them. Disgraceful. Meanwhile, I run a business, work 60-70 hours a week and have to give half my income to the various levels of government. The Liberals point out these stats on Federal Welfare, but ignore the fact that NY State and local County governments provide never ending welfare payments along with wasteful programs that create zero jobs for the poor, but many jobs for the politician's friends.

Answer 5

I'm not sure, because they seem to both appeal to the extreme left or right. Republicans want to help out the rich because the idea is that they will provide jobs and services either by hiring people, invest, or consume goods and services.

Democrats tend to want to socialize more things. They would not mind increasing taxes to provide universal health care, tax breaks for the middle class and poor, more socialized services.

Honestly, in my particular situation, I would prefer the Republicans fiscal strategy because it would benefit ME the most. Which is better for the country? I am not sure. Me and my wife make a good income, have 2 seperate health care plans covering us where people are lucky to have one, and I am able to invest. I know most people in the US is not as fortunate as I am. For the average working joe, the Democratic vision would probably benefit a greater number of people.

Answer 6

Sageandscholar, you are niether one. The link you give is lib biased as are you. The least you could do is find supporting info from an objective report. The Heritage Foundation has reported that the federal deficit has been cut in half since the tax breaks were put in effect. They have also reported that more Americans, not just democrats or Republicans have more disposable income than they did in clintons terms. Why? Because he taxed us near to death to get that surplus. Any time the government is making so much money from taxes that they cannot find some way to waste it, you know taxes were too high.
Last year, a majority of states reported surpluses in their budgets, many for the first time in their history.
Look at the mantra of each party and apply some common sense. democrats - tax and spend.
Republicans - cut taxes reduce government.
Tax and spend does not work because it stops revenue. If you spend money on something that will not provide a source of revenue, then it is wasting money.
I have lived and worked in "red" and "blue" states all over the country in the last 20 years of my adult life. My money always went further in states where taxes were lower and the representation was more conservative.

Answer 7

If we admit the truth Id say neither Dems policy are tax tax tax and the Republicans are me too us too so if I have to chose a party id say Liberatarian

however id say screw the parties look at individual candidates

Dems open borders socialized medicine

Reps open borders (except a few like Tancredo and Hunter)
healt care savings accounts

between the two republicans but not by much

Answer 8

First, there is no such thing as a "red" or a "blue" state. The difference in election results is a few percentage points.

The claim that there are "red" and "blue" counties holds a bit more meaning. There are some very clear voting trends in these counties.

Counties with high average income and education overwhelming vote Republican.

Counties with low average income, a low level of education and high crime vote Democrat.

Assuming that the policies are meant to improve the lives of their voting block.. it's clear the Democrats aren't doing so well.

Answer 9

well the republican tax policies work better because they take care of the rich and by doing this, the rich can keep more average americans employed. when the rich get hit with higher taxes, the layoffs happen and the government has to pick up the tab. lower taxes for the rich means more people are working, more people are working means more taxes to collect. this is why after bush lowered taxes, irs took in more money than ever.
now we can fight a war based solely on lies and only have to borrow 3 billion dollars a day from china to pay for it. see how smart it all is?

Answer 10

Common Sense - the last time tax cuts actually increased revenue was under Kennedy (and just in case I need to remind you - he was not a Republican).
Reagan's cuts saw revenues fall and not catch up in real terms for 6 years.
Bush's cuts are now still showing zero real revenue growth.
You are wrong yet again but I know I will be showing you this again.