Brenda wrote: "If you read the actual party platform it is clear that it speaks to prosperity moreso than wealth. However, the media and Democratic spin is that it is about wealth, just as the Republican spin is that Dems want to rob the public with taxation and make the government bigger."
Well, I'd be the first to admit that the Democrats can "spin" with the best of them. And certainly, wealth and prosperity are interconnected. But I'd say that we need to look to the Republicans' own ACTIONS, as well as to their platform, to see where at least a portion of their interests lie. And I see those actions--on environmental issues, on regulation of business in general, on various positions on capital gains and the estate tax--as more vigorously alligned with aiding business and maintaining wealth than I do the actions of the Democrats. As with all spin, there's an element of truth to both parties' "positions," as you put them from the presumed perspective of the other. The Republicans, as I see it, DO protect wealth, and the Democrats ARE willing to "tax and spend." But of course, neither caricature goes far enough. The Democrats ignore that wealth can--it does not always--bolster and support general prosperity. And the Republicans ignore that some investments in our present and future are worth paying for, even if it hurts now. They decline to ask: tax and spend *for what*? Is it worth it? Can some things be done best, or done only, by government? In all, I, too, wish there were a lot less "spin" and a little more truth in our public political discourse. But until that day arrives--and I'm not holding my breathe that it will arrive anytime soon--those with ears to hear will simply have to find it for themselves. It sounds like we're doing a good job of trying to do just that on this list. Mary P. P.S. One of the examples of "spin" I hate the most is the Republican characterization of the estate tax as the "death tax." In exasperation, I say, repeat after me: The ESTATE TAX only kicks in if you DIE with an **ESTATE**!!!! And currently, the worth of the estate in question is somewhere between $1 and $2 million (I should know the exact amount, but I don't practice in this area). Now I concede that that amount means that the tax does not apply merely to the filthy rich, but to a significant portion of the upper middle class. Granted. But to style it as a "death tax," when the vast majority of Americans who die will never, ever have to pay it, is simply, in my view, intellectually dishonest. And I see it as a slick attempt to come across as the party of the common people rather than the rich that, in this instance, just doesn't work. Let the floodgates open for comparable examples of Democratic dishonesty! ;-) 2d P.S. If anyone thinks this discussion should move over to the PC list, just let me know by separate e-mail. I'm on digest.
