The Republicans desired lower taxes on the wealthy, and stated that the spending cuts were not based on factual calculations. The debate between the two parties occurred due to their contrasting economic, political, and moral philosophies. The Republicans support lower taxes on the rich because of a theory k... ... middle of paper ... .... Furthermore, the people of America have due to tradition come to expect low taxes and multitude of services for their benefit. Such service come at a large that cost, which the current tax system cannot support; thus, sacrifice must be made in order to achieve a balanced budget.
Neoliberalism encouraged borderless global affairs for international competitiveness. Furthermore, Neoliberalism view on redistributive tax system differed from the Keynesian theory. According to the Neoliberalism Theory “Unlike the Keynesian model, tax cuts to the poor and middle classes are not necessary to stimulate consumer demand. This is because it is supply that drives the economy, not demand. Rather, cuts in taxes should be directed toward the wealthy and business to induce savings and investments.” (Introduction to Business, Government, and Society, Page 83) This resulted an increase in poverty.
They are often opposed to social hierarchy and social inequality. Democrats, although not Socialists, believe in Socialism oriented ideas. They believe that people who are living in poverty should be helped by the government assistance programs such as unemployment welfare, food stamps, government provided universal healthcare, and social security checks after a person has retired. Democrats usually support lower tax rates on the lower classes and higher tax rates on the upper classes. Republicans are the party that leans to the right, and are often referred to a... ... middle of paper ... ...automatic firearms that would usually be utilized by the military and some police forces, and reducing the amount of ammunition that an ammunition magazine can hold.
However, Clinton cannot be given full credit for this economic boom, and in fact many ignore the long term effects of his policy. America is built on a equality and ambition that should not be restrained by tax codes. Taxes should not be raised on the wealthy because the wealthy provide a majority of employment, they can invest their saving from taxes elsewhere, and they entitled to what they’ve earned ("Should the Wealthiest 1%”). Raising taxes on the top two percent of Americans will have a reverse effect on fighting inflation. They’ll move out of taxable income and depend on lower taxed sources of wealth which in return will slow down demand and create a slower economy.
The idea that these people should have power to affect government more than those with less money goes against the concept of equality for all, which is what made this country great. People who make large donations do not share the same views on most issues as the general population. Robert L. Borosage and Ruy Teixeira report that while 53 percent of voters want stricter regulations on businesses and corporations, to give workers a fair salary and working conditions, 58 percent of campaign donors want to see less control over the businesses and corporations of America. Donors also want less government spending with lower taxes, while the majority of citizens want a larger, more powerful government. A very tiny part of our populat... ... middle of paper ... ...r. After cuts from corporate welfare and wasteful government spending this would save taxpayers 495 to 995 dollars a year, not to mention price drops as a result of reduced corporate spending on political campaigns.
Even though the economy could benefit from the budget deficit such as economic growth, the economists do not want to take a chance on that. Also, some economists are also concerned that higher borrowing by the government may also openly result in reduced utilization spending. They argue households recognize that higher current government borrowing results in highe... ... middle of paper ... ...ful spending because it is taking a toll on our future, our children’s future, and our children’s children future. Works Cited 1. Case.
His ideas came from the fear that social inequality would lead to upheaval and threaten the established social order - therefore social reform was necessary to consolidate the position of the conservative elites. This is the pragmatic basis of one-nation beliefs, but there was also a moral basis. There is a strong sense of social obligation within paternalistic conservatism - with wealth comes obligations, and the economic inequality in the country leads to an inequality of social responsibilities. This comes from the idea of ‘... ... middle of paper ... ...he liberal new right contrasts completely with one nation principles in that it opposes social welfare, both on economic and moral grounds. The welfare system pushes up taxes and is often inefficient, but also creates a ‘culture of dependency’ by taking away people’s initiative and desire to better themselves.
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control. Concerning the debate on our economy, republicans generally believe strongly in the power of a free market system, reduced income tax rate, more spending from the people, and less spending from the government. The Republican Party wants the tax rate to not be affected regardless of how much wealth a person has, and wants the tax rate to be reduced in order to create more private spending. According to the Republican National Convention web site, republicans “believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions,” such as keeping citizens safe from criminals and maintaining basic infrastructure and national security (Barton).
This idea is radical in form because of the new government imposed restrictions, and conservatives may argue this movement shows signs of socialism. Many people saw implications that free enterprise was disappearing; Herbert Hoover specifically mentions in his Anti-New Deal Campaign speech that he proposes to “amend the tax laws so as not to defeat free men and free enterprise.” The threat to free enterprise challenged the American economy because u... ... middle of paper ... ...y new ideas, presidents after him felt they had a lot to live up to. Franklin D. Roosevelt “cast a long shadow on successors” with his New Deal program. Conservatives were constantly worried about the loss of their capitalist economy, but it is possible that Roosevelt’s greatest New Deal achievement is the fact he never allowed America to completely abandon democracy or turn to socialism or communism. Many New Deal programs fixed economic problems but did not completely solve social ones surrounding equality and discrimination.
It has become common for people to blame the polarization of politics on gerrymandering. According to a study “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization,” redistricting increasingly produces districts that are homogenous with respect to ideology; this is because ideologically homogenous districts make it more difficult for moderates to win, since moderates are divided so they no longer hold the majority in any given district even if they are the majority of the population. Due to redistricting (gerrymandering) polarization is possibly greater than it would be if the districting process were more politically neutral, but the fact that the U.S. Senate has experienced an increase in polarization at the same time the House has, suggests that gerrymandering plays a modest role at best in polarization (“McCarty, 3”). This leads us to our next theory that economic inequality is a possible cause for the increase in