Are Democrats Bad for the Economy?   

Heck, I'll jump into this.  The Democrats are wanting to raise the corporate and personal cap gains tax possibly to 25-30%, apply protectionist policies to "preserve American jobs" and potentially abandon NAFTA in order to pressure the other countries to strengthen its labor and environmental provisions. 

Obama continually has said he wants everything to be fair.  And the money these hedge funds and private equity groups are making is not fair to everyone else.  Well, private equity firms are taking substantial risk in order to make their money.  They participate in a very important facet of the economy...funding entrepreneurs. There are so many more small businesses than larger ones in America.  And they employ millions of people. If you raise the taxes and make it harder to get a reward for the risk you're taking, the seed capital will dry up.  As a result, less jobs will be created for new businesses.  Larry Kudlow makes a great point that you cannot have capitalism without capital.  

Furthermore, Charles Gibson pointed out at the April 16th Democratic debate, raising the cap gains tax has actually led to a reduction in revenues the gov't collected.  And each time it has been lowered it has led to an increase.  On the flip side, there is the argument that the lower cap gains tax is a only short term benefit and not a long term one. Ok...whatever.  What I’m lacking is finding a solid reason in this current economic climate to raise them. 

What I do think could be more damaging would be the protectionist policies Hillary and Obama are considering.  Like restricting free trade agreements.  In this current globalization of economies, now is not the time to put up barriers or apply tariffs.  NAFTA has not hurt our economy...it's helped create more jobs than it has lost.  Yes, certain sectors of the economy like manufacturing have been hit.  But this was inevitable due to our inability to remain competitive. 

I remember when John Kerry wanted to allocate a substantial amount of money to get back the textile jobs that were lost to China.  Little did he know there was no way we could get them back.  It was impossible.  Chinese labor was too cheap.  So cheap that India was losing its textile jobs to China as well! 

It's hard to point to a good solution on that, but, our manufacturing sector is still one of the best in the world.  Maybe all those recalls in China will facilitate a resurgence to go back to America pay a premium and get high quality products that are not going to be recalled b/c of lead paint, counterfeiting or worse. 

In my opinion, the Democrat's economic policies are economically counter productive. Although Hillary and Obama may seem like they are "behind the American worker" and making it "fair" for everyone, the ramifications of these policies if they were passed would have a severe negative economic effects and create a worse scenario as a result. 

And please everyone... prove me wrong. Am I missing anything?

 Yes they are...and you are spot on with your observations.

 The Democrats are bad for the economy for one real good reason:  they are blocking all attempts to allow an energy growth strategy (nuclear energy), and this will lead the country to be economically backwards.

The US economy needs cheap energy, which impacts 40% of economic activity.  Either drill more oil (which I think is not the best solution), or build out many big nuclear power plants.

China and other countries are putting in huge Gigawatts of nuclear power, and soon they will overcome us.  We will have too high of an economic cost with high energy prices.

We need cheap energy, and nuclear power is it.  Since the Democrats have been taken over by the fanatic left, they will always block economic growth based on cheap energy. 

We don't want too many workers to become independent of the Democrat's low-income politics, don't we????  Cheap energy is the road to high income for all. That is why the Democrats are against it.

 You don't make any sense.   If we have nuclear power plants, where do you think all the discarded waste goes to?  The environment, the water you use and the air you breathe.  The solution isn't that easy.  You can be the richest person in the world, but you too can crumble under the devasting effects of a bad environment.  We shouldn't be asking if democrats are bad for the economy, that is an oversimplified questions. It ignores the fact that in BOTH parties we see a largely upper class elite who almost always vote for their own benefit. Corporations are doing just fine in this country; the problem is that they aren't distributing the wealth in a way the theory of a free market economy warrents.  When oil companies make record profits each year we should be demanding that the politicians tax those companies accordingly and use those proceeds to invest in alternative energy, which, by the way, has proven to be financially beneficial for both the people and the economy.  Please people, think outside the box, you have as much choice between a republican and democrat as between coke and pepsi.

hey dewigv....well, I may have to disagree with on on numerous fronts here.  Granted..we are seeing a large upper class elite system here in the US that vote for their own benefit.  However, most all americans vote for their own benefit already right?.  THe only people who don't are billionaires and they typically vote Democratic b/c they have enough money to vote like socialists and feel bad for those who are in the "have not" category.  And if any those grandiose idiotic ideas like socialized medicine passes, those billionaires won't care b/c they can hire a Dr. full time and not have to worry about the fact that the quality of the medical industry will be worse than if it was left to the free market.

Now... when it comes to windfall profit taxes, you might be a little confused.  You're right...it has been proven, but from my understanding,  it's been proven to fail.  Remember the Carter's Administration's profit windfall tax?  Well, there's a reason it didn't last.  Also, Exxon paid 64billion in taxes b/t 2003-2007.  We'd be taxing them simply b/c they've made more money?  Doesn't sound like a free market capitalist system to me.  Remember $15 oil?  No one was coming to rescue the  Oil Industry back then and now we want to penalize them just b/c oil is higher?  It's not their fault oil is priced where it is.  Blame OPEC.   Even so...if  profits are taxed, that means they'll have less capital to invest in new exploration and production and it could raise gas prices and force us to import more foreign oil b/c we won't find more domestic oil.  Ever more so, if there's a profit tax....won't that prevent more exploration companies to reconsider exploring for oil?  Or more investment in drilling?  Also, we'd be allowing the government to dictate what money goes where for alternative energy?  Screw that...they did such a great job with corn based ethanol that now we've seen the ramifications with higher food prices and decreased supply of corn.  I don't think we should allow the gov't to make those decisions.  Again, let the free market dictate that.  But I am for subsidies in the alternative energy categories (wind and solar). 

As for the corporations that are doing just fine in this country and the problem that they aren't distributing the wealth in a way the theory of a free market economy warrants???....well, isn't fundamentally wrong?  The theory of a free market capitalist society wouldn't dare allow the gov't to dictate redistribution of wealth from corporations in that way to begin with. That's contradictory fundamentally to the theory of a free market capitalist society. This redistribution of wealth is more like socialism.  Why should the gov't have ANY say whatsoever in what that oil company (or any company) does with those profits as long as it's in the best interests of the company and it's shareholders and they're conducting themselves in a legal and legally ethical way?  Moreover,  Exxon's profit margin is like 10%.  Does that mean that we''ll need to tax other industries who make that amount of money or profit to be taxed too?  Doesn't sound very free or fair to me.  If Oil companies want to ignore the benefits of investing in alternative energy for the future then let them die and perish in the free market system and allow their shareholders to vote for themselves and sell their stock.  Not force the companies by the hand of government.  Also, the Democrats are only using this as an attempt to get more votes...b/c everyone is pissed at high oil prices.  Again, blame OPEC. 

Here in Texas and California can agree on redistribution of wealth:  the Robin Hood education system that takes $ from the wealthy neighborhoods to give to the poorer ones has been a failure of biblical proportions.  Throwing money at a problem that based fundamentally on the failure of the parents lack of commitment to their child's education is not going to work.  I wish solving this probelm by throwing money at it was that easy.  However, after 15-20 years....we've seen that this redistribution of wealth doesn't work either. 

Keep the arguments coming though guys!!!  We have a lot of smart people on this thread.   I'm just glad we're having a good discussion here. 

 I'm enjoying this debate!

First off, I agree with you that democrates are rich, so are republicans.  i don't have a political affiliation, so to me they are both the same.  that's why sticking up for any one party is a little silly to me; we are all americans and therefore are needs should be fulifilled by all politicians.

You are right, it is wrong to penalize a corporation for creating profits, but unlike Nike which is a shoe company, an oil company like Exxon has proven to be so essential to the makeup of our economy to the effect that we can't function without it around.  No one would miss nike's shoes (except for some athletes), but if you woke up tomorrow without any gas for your car you would be screwed.  that's why we all have an invested future in oil.  The following article demonstrates that while oil companies are investing in alternative energy, they aren't doing that enough:

http://www.sitnews.us/0207news/021107/021107_shns_bigoil_biofuel.html

It's eventually in the best interest of the corporation, but  in the long run, and therefore not satisfying to the shareholders.  Yes, corporations have a duty to help the shareholders, but what about the workers and the people?  What about the community?

We don't live in a free market economy, we never had and we never will.  Part of the theory is that companies who have profits will eventually invest back into the country, and therefore stimulate the economy.  That's the theory, the practice is something different.  And don't for one second think that our own government, from BOTH parties don't go against the theory.  If you read the ny times today you would see an article that shows how the bush administration privatized the war in Iraq to such a scale never before seen.  This goes against their own republican beliefs of market competition!  We can't have it both ways, we can't be completly for corporation rights and then use government funding to help them.  It's ok to give taxpayer's money to corporations, but not to fuel the money back to the people in ways that can be more beneficial?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218572928-LgDUGYuvD59cd0WhwAhDQA

Here's a thought.  In Bolivia a few years ago the government allowed corporations to come in and they began to privatize the water.  That meant that anyone who wanted to use Bolivia's own water had to pay corporations for it.  This being Bolivia many many people live in poverty and could not even afford the basic essentials of life, something that was in their own backyards!  They protested, and demanded a better standard of living, and they got it.  The government listened to the people, and now you can drink a glass of water without paying 30% of your montly income for that.  

We need to draw the line somewhere and wake up and see that we are all in this together.  My basic idea was to get away from the 2-party mentality, and ask, what is best for the country as a whole?  We can send a man to the moon, but we can't figure this one out.   

Government is bad for the economy.  The problems we are facing are caused by the government interfering with the market. 

If you want to have true change in government repeat these two words: TERM LIMITS

 As a Democrat, I immediately tune out when I read  far leftist, lunatic left, and etc.  There is no way we can have any kind of viable discussion when you describe Democrats in that way.  And this: " cheap energy is the road to high income for all and that is why the Democrats are against it."  Does that make any sense?  As a lifelong Democrat I personally cringe when I constantly hear the other side of the political divide say "the Democrats"  never just "Democrats".  We are not stupid;we know why Republicans say "THE".  It becomes an epithet. I almost never use "the" in front of Republicans.  It mostly is redundant.

Nevertheless, I seem to remember that President Carter was a big proponent of nuclear enerygy.  Then came 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.  I have real qualms about the long term safety of nuclear energy and real concerns about ground storage of nuclear waste and seepage into undergound rivers thereby contaminating large portions of the nation's drinking water.  When is Chernobyl going to be livable again?  How many hundreds of years?.