If you voted solely on economic issues....

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

Naturally, I disagree. As a business-friendly Republican (and I mean small businesses and entrepreneurs, not transnational corporations), I am a big proponent of the use of technologies and investments to encourage new ideas, market-based proposals to enable the working class an opportunity to make their own life, and to increase productivity.

I see much more room for this philosophy within the Republican party.

[Scam of God]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

Naturally, I disagree. As a business-friendly Republican (and I mean small businesses and entrepreneurs, not transnational corporations), I am a big proponent of the use of technologies and investments to encourage new ideas, market-based proposals to enable the working class an opportunity to make their own life, and to increase productivity.

I see much more room for this philosophy within the Republican party.

Then good for you. You ought to try to make the Republicans more flexible in the industries they represent. But I guarantee you now that you will face stiff opposition in this - conservatism, while perfectly happy to conserve those industries which have proven profitable, is hardly willing to take a change on upsetting the established order. You'll have my support; now if only you can get yours.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

Naturally, I disagree. As a business-friendly Republican (and I mean small businesses and entrepreneurs, not transnational corporations), I am a big proponent of the use of technologies and investments to encourage new ideas, market-based proposals to enable the working class an opportunity to make their own life, and to increase productivity.

I see much more room for this philosophy within the Republican party.

Then good for you. You ought to try to make the Republicans more flexible in the industries they represent. But I guarantee you now that you will face stiff opposition in this - conservatism, while perfectly happy to conserve those industries which have proven profitable, is hardly willing to take a change on upsetting the established order. You'll have my support; now if only you can get yours.

 

Politics is about packaging, and, moreso, politics is local.

I think "conservatism" needs to be "unredefined", that is, returned to its original meaning. Would Mr. conservative, Senator Taft himself, supported many of GWB's policies? I think not. Likewise, he would be disgusted with the Democrats at least as much.

[fezzyfestoon]

I do and I want nothing to do with any of those parties.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Obviously Republican, though on economics the Libertarians are good too.

[TeePee4Prez]

Still at home as a Democrat, but I'm finding both parties have issues with spending.  The GOP branding themselves as fiscal conservatives is an utter joke.  When the GOP was in power it was the Democrats who made a stink about tax cuts for big oil and spending on cronies.  It seems "fiscal discipline" will always be the minority party's battle cry for no party will really own that issue.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of these, Libertarians, though I don't trust them much either.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Economic issues are the only real reason I am a Democrat.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Obviously Republican, though on economics the Libertarians are good too.

[JSojourner]

Democratic, on balance.

[RI]

Democratic, easily, though perhaps Green occasionally.

[Bo]

Democrat, because the Republican party is too corporatist.

and favors the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans. Sure Democrats are very pro-wealthy as well, just slightly less than the Republicans.

[tmthforu94]

Democrat

[Psychic Octopus]

Economic issues are the only real reason I am a Democrat.

Yeah, just change to Republican and I agree. As far as social issues, I'm a Dem.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Economic issues are the only real reason I am a Democrat.

Yeah, just change to Republican and I agree. As far as social issues, I'm a Dem.

My social issues are centrist, maybe RINO if I were a Republican, but social issues matter very little to me.  My foreign policy, though, is certainly on the Republican end of the spectrum.

[Psychic Octopus]

Economic issues are the only real reason I am a Democrat.

Yeah, just change to Republican and I agree. As far as social issues, I'm a Dem.

My social issues are centrist, maybe RINO if I were a Republican, but social issues matter very little to me.  My foreign policy, though, is certainly on the Republican end of the spectrum.

I'm a moderate on foreign affairs; I support the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and I am an internationalist. I would have opposed Iraq vigorously back in '03. However, once the wars are over, I think we should reduce our spending in the area.

[Vepres]

Libertarian

[Ronnie]

Obviously Republican, though on economics the Libertarians are good too.

[Beet]

I would be independent. Both parties are infested with special interests, and libertarians and greens are too ideological.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Democratic/Green

[phk]

Both Parties as presently arranged are great centralizers of power: the Democrats are right for wanting to champion the needs of the working class

Some Democrats do. Let's not forget the DLC types or the record amounts of money the financial sector poured into Obama's campaign...

Point taken. Nevertheless, I think the pro-business Democrats are better at putting a pro-business philosophy into practice than are pro-business Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that could have replicated the successes of the 1990s.

The Congress that oversaw it?

Not hardly. They largely opposed the DLC programmes that made the 1990s the economic juggernaut it was - Clinton's massive expansion of the EITC, for instance. Gingrich openly campaigned against it in his Contract on America, and - behold! - that decade saw the highest period of growth for the lowest tax percentile since the 1950s.

I am very tired of this old canard. Clinton was always the DLC's man.

The '90s were not a product of any particular policy but rather than technological revolution that was taking place, the rise of computers and the Internet, mass communications, etc.

Let's not forget that the bubble burst relatively quickly.

But it was largely Clinton's moderate, business-friendly image that fostered the rapid growth in the technological sector. And while the bubble did burst, it's still probably the most promising sector for economic growth for the foreseeable future.

Business-friendly Republicans and business-friendly Democrats are not the same beast. The former is extremely skeptical of real technological innovation; the latter makes it a central part of their policy. The former represents the established industries, the latter those which are struggling to be established.

Naturally, I disagree. As a business-friendly Republican (and I mean small businesses and entrepreneurs, not transnational corporations), I am a big proponent of the use of technologies and investments to encourage new ideas, market-based proposals to enable the working class an opportunity to make their own life, and to increase productivity.

I see much more room for this philosophy within the Republican party.

Then good for you. You ought to try to make the Republicans more flexible in the industries they represent. But I guarantee you now that you will face stiff opposition in this - conservatism, while perfectly happy to conserve those industries which have proven profitable, is hardly willing to take a change on upsetting the established order. You'll have my support; now if only you can get yours.

 

Politics is about packaging, and, moreso, politics is local.

I think "conservatism" needs to be "unredefined", that is, returned to its original meaning. Would Mr. conservative, Senator Taft himself, supported many of GWB's policies? I think not. Likewise, he would be disgusted with the Democrats at least as much.

Why are you people debating over stuff that was said 4 years ago?

[Eraserhead]

Democratic/Green

[Mint]

That depends what level you're talking about. Locally? Independent or Republican, depending on the candidate. Nationally? Libertarian of the above, though I have serious issues with them.

[Hash]

Democratic on balance. The Republican record vis-a-vis economics is poor to say the least and their rhetoric contrasts a lot with their actual policies. Though I'm not much of a fan of the Democrat's protectionist tendencies.