Why Don't People Trust Republicans on Domestic Policy?

[12th Doctor]

Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans are pro-tax-cuts, support some sort of school choice program, are against gay marriage (though not civil unions), are opposed to race based affirmative action, pro-free trade and are increasingly pro-life (even now accprding to some polls).  So, my question is, "Why do most Americans continue to support the Democrats when it comes to domestic politcs"?

I think that there is a simple answer and Bush's recent caving on the issue of judges high-lights it.  People simply cannot trust the Republicans when it comes to domestic issues.

What do I mean?  Well simply put, when the going gets tough on domestic policy issues, we cut and run.  Think, inspite of control both houses of conress and the presidency, wehn was the last time Republicans won a major debate on domestic policy?  Does anyone remember?  Republicans always fold on these issues and I for one am angry about it.

Thoughts?  Comments?

[12th Doctor]

Stop being a Republican. Why do you continue if they don't keep their promises?

Mainly because I can see that when the new crop of Republicans come-up that will change.

[12th Doctor]

Plus, it is not a matter of not keeping promises so much as it is a matter of not having any back-bone.

[12th Doctor]

Breaking promises or no backbone. I still have to wonder why you remain a Republican.

Believe me, at times I wonder as well.

[12th Doctor]

But like I said, I think that some of these problems will change as a younger, more dynamic Republican leadership takes over.

[TeePee4Prez]

But like I said, I think that some of these problems will change as a younger, more dynamic Republican leadership takes over.

Like who? Rick Santorum?

Great point!  I found myself as an Indy trending Dem these past 2 years due to Bush's corruptness and the Republicans blindly willing to follow suit.  As far Rick Santorum he's just one of those assinine mother f-ers that thinks he can hide his anti-labor agenda with moral tirades.  He'll be beaten come 2006 given a decent opponent.

[M]

I am going to keep on voting for the party I trust to defend the security of my country, and of freedom worldwide. In that spirit, "We want more! Dubya 04!"

I've just been filling out my W4 for my summer job, does that count as an expression of support to the president?

[© tweed]

People don't trust Republicans with Domestic Policy.  Should they?  Probably.
People don't trust Democrats with Foreign Policy.  Should they?  Probably.

DEAL WITH IT

[emergingDmajority1]

one reason is the religious right, they have far too much influence.

and while people may like tax cuts, I think they trust Democrats more with Jobs.

they also don't trust the GOP with healthcare and social security.

[12th Doctor]

one reason is the religious right, they have far too much influence.

and while people may like tax cuts, I think they trust Democrats more with Jobs.

they also don't trust the GOP with healthcare and social security.

I know all of that.  My point was why?  I think that if my party showed more of a backbone on domestic issues then people may start trusting us.

[Lunar]

Well I suppose the Democrats promise more government support to those in need while Republicans usually advocate less in favor of the free market.  I'm dumbing down the argument of course.

[WMS]

Damned if I know, Supersoulty. I have a quirky personal viewpoint that enjoys the prospect of cycles. I believe that each side needs to rule for about a decade or so with full power in order to flush the toxins from the bad policies of the other side from their last term in power and to implement some good policies of their own. Then the other side needs to come back and repeat the process in order to flush out the other side's toxins and implement their good ideas in turn. From my viewpoint, each side has good and bad ideas, and the cycle is the only way to keep the good ideas.

A little illustration might be helpful: A GOOD Rep policy was welfare reform. Only the hard-core left want to undo it. Hell, I was still an ostensibly center-left Democrat in 1995 and I still supported welfare reform. I highly doubt the Dems will ever undo it (or at least not without paying a huge penalty at the polls). And a bad Rep policy has been the secret attempt to cripple the federal government through starving it of funding through deficit spending - look, if you want to chop the government down some, come out and say so in public, OK? Some parts of it could stand pruning to be sure, but tell us about it.

As for the Dems, a GOOD Dem policy is raising the minimum wage - yes, it may cost jobs, but jobs which still leave you in poverty aren't worth much. That's why the Rep leadership has refused to ever let the minimum wage come to a vote - they know very well a large chunk of the Reps will vote TO raise it, just like in 1995 (or was it 1996?), and they will lose that vote. A bad Dem policy would be, well, the truly dysfunctional left-wing welfare system they set up before 1995. What an utter failure on all levels - but hey, Moynihan warned y'all about it and the left wouldn't listen.

Yes, this does tie in to your point, Super: However, my cycle doesn't work when the Republicans won't challenge the Democratic-liberal policies that really need changing! Quota racism Affirmative action, anyone? The corrupting influence of hard-left professors in public universities? The left-wing social agendas pushed on kids in the public school system? And so on...

So, I've had the utter displeasure of watching the Reps finally gain total power and do nothing but give tax cuts to their favored interests at the expense of good fiscal policy while failing to challenge government abuses or inefficiencies or deal with the toxins of the far left. What's up with you Reps, anyway?
And the Dems have failed to come up with any ideas newer than from around 1975, so I can't count on them to fulfill their role in the cycle either - and there are moderate and liberal Dems who have new and interesting ideas, so this is puzzling.

Maybe I'm going to have to wait for the baby boomers to loosen their incompetent grip on power...

[Platypus]

People see the Democrats as the Party of FDR, one of the best domestic politicians your nation has ever had.

People see the GOP as the Party of Reagan, one of the most loved foreign policy presidents in the US that you've ever had.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I've had the utter displeasure of watching the Reps finally gain total power and do nothing but give tax cuts to their favored interests at the expense of good fiscal policy

I trust that GWB has sincere convictions regarding the war on terror. He probably has sincere convictions with regard to social issues and corporate privilege, as well, but I just don't agree with those positions.

Most people feel that government has a responsibility to uphold a very basic standard of education, housing, health care delivery and protection of natural resources.

Democrats are traditionally more vocal about these issues, but their traditional spending programs have been discredited. Republicans have made headway with market-based proposals, but are still perceived (particularly the Bush administration) as favoring the health and wealth of corporations and the moneyed class over the “little guy”.

[mddem2004]

Why should they? Look at the record: Whats Conservative about cutting taxes that mainly benefit the top 10% that in turn run $500 billion plus deficits that only increases the amount of interest owed on our own debt. Cutting taxes is the easy part, anyone can run on that. Cutting spending is the tough part, yet since 1994 earmarked pork barrel spending has risen by nearly a third every year since the Republicans took the House. Theres nothing Conservative about plunging the country into unsustainable red ink. What I want to know is where are all the Republican Deficit Hawks now???

The Republicans can't touch domestic policy without trying to use it to bolster their own base. Look at the Medicare Bill that now appears to be costing them many senior votes. They've created a system that guarantees price supports to the two most profitable industries in America: the Pharmacudical and Insurance industries. All of this of corporate welfare is at taxpayer expense of course.

Energy Policy: again the policy is aimed at guaranteeing profitability and expanding market share for the Oil, Coal, and Nuke industry as opposed to protecting the environment or let alone its own citizens health by doing what we've needed to do since 1973...ween ourselves off a carbon based energy economy. This may take 50 to 80 years to complete but the Republican Energy Bill would only delay what is now becoming obvious to all with $2.00 for a gallon of gas. (I just love to see all those SUV behemouth drivin fools shelling out the $green$ at the pump now!)

Not the the Democrats don't guide their policy by politics as well. But when it comes down to the root of your question....The reason the Republican Party is not trusted on domestic policy is because when you boil through all the BS and look at the facts...the everyday common working joe in this country is not a part of the Republican constituency...its corporate America that counts to them...we are just an inconvenient after thought.

[12th Doctor]

Whats Conservative about cutting taxes that mainly benefit the top 10%

Do you or your parents make over $70,000 per year?

[WMS]

I've had the utter displeasure of watching the Reps finally gain total power and do nothing but give tax cuts to their favored interests at the expense of good fiscal policy

I trust that GWB has sincere convictions regarding the war on terror. He probably has sincere convictions with regard to social issues and corporate privilege, as well, but I just don't agree with those positions.

Most people feel that government has a responsibility to uphold a very basic standard of education, housing, health care delivery and protection of natural resources.

Democrats are traditionally more vocal about these issues, but their traditional spending programs have been discredited. Republicans have made headway with market-based proposals, but are still perceived (particularly the Bush administration) as favoring the health and wealth of corporations and the moneyed class over the “little guy”.

Very true Mort...note my "economic centrism". While I do support the basic standards you enumerate, there are different ways to fulfill them...and neither "Let's do everything the exact same way we did it in 1967!" nor "Let's not do anything at all!" are good positions IMHO. We'll see what happens...

[Nym90]

Well said, MDDem. I think you meant to say top 1% though, not top 10%, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most people are in favour of tax cuts *for themselves* but *not* for richer people.
It's just one of those things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most people are in favour of tax cuts *for themselves* but *not* for richer people.
It's just one of those things.

Richer people don't need or deserve tax cuts though. Hardly selfishness. And George Soros doesn't seem to care if he gets his taxes cut.

[mddem2004]

"Do you or your parents make over $70,000 per year?"

 As a matter of fact my wife, two girls and I had an income of $75,600 last year. Since Bush came into office I have received approximately $3600 in reduced Federal taxes over the three years.

However, because in 2002 there was no Federal aid to the states (at least not my state of Maryland), the first time by the way by any modern President in time of recession to not provide aid to the states, our State budget (which must be balanced) forced those cuts onto the local governments. That in turn raised my property taxes two consecutive years, the tax percentage my local government charges was increased, and of course because I am a local government employee, not only have we not received a COLA but of course we have not received any merit increases as well. So...by my calculations when you take into account the increases in our health insurance and of course inflation (even though its low) I calculate I've lost in real income close to $5,000 over the same period.

In a nut shell...Bush's shell game of tax relief has cost me about $1400 in real income since he's been in office....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You meant 1%, not 10% right?"

I used the figure of 10% in my ealier post because the information that I have seen on Bush's initial 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut gave 42% of that to the top 10% of the population....

[TeePee4Prez]

"Do you or your parents make over $70,000 per year?"

 As a matter of fact my wife, two girls and I had an income of $75,600 last year. Since Bush came into office I have received approximately $3600 in reduced Federal taxes over the three years.

However, because in 2002 there was no Federal aid to the states (at least not my state of Maryland), the first time by the way by any modern President in time of recession to not provide aid to the states, our State budget (which must be balanced) forced those cuts onto the local governments. That in turn raised my property taxes two consecutive years, the tax percentage my local government charges was increased, and of course because I am a local government employee, not only have we not received a COLA but of course we have not received any merit increases as well. So...by my calculations when you take into account the increases in our health insurance and of course inflation (even though its low) I calculate I've lost in real income close to $5,000 over the same period.

In a nut shell...Bush's shell game of tax relief has cost me about $1400 in real income since he's been in office....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You meant 1%, not 10% right?"

I used the figure of 10% in my ealier post because the information that I have seen on Bush's initial 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut gave 42% of that to the top 10% of the population....

Same problem here in PA.  Schools are underfunded, tuition has skyrocketed, Pell grants went down, Rendell HAD to raise taxes because fo the lack of federal funding.  I got what an extra $50-100. WOW!!! <<Not>>>  I'm also a federal employee so Bush has repeatedly tried to stifle our COLA raises.  I can not see voting Bush for another 4 years given his gross mismanagement.