I find this kind of thinking dangerous, because it falls into the "they're just 2 sides of the same coin" mindset. Not to mention, it is also false. The DoD budget for 2019 is below the budget for 2008, and much lower as a percentage of total expenditures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
Yes, there are things the parties agree on, but that minimizes the huge, material differences between their platforms, e.g.:
- appropriate levels of taxation, and especially types of taxation (e.g. capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc.)
- mix of spending on social programs
- the huge gap on social issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.
"They're just the same, they don't care about the little guy, etc." are tactics the Russian trolls used to convince people not to vote.
There are absolutely meaningful differences between the parties, but the mainstream, and who we end up having to choose between, trend to the center, which is where the similarities are. I think a well-informed citizen must keep in mind the ways both parties rally to particular issues and can be hostile to common interests while differing, sometimes in huge and significant ways, on other things. You're right that the "they're the same thing" is blithe and shallow, but that doesn't mean there aren't similarities.
Not saying they are the same, just that when centrists come together they get a lot of bad things done. Also not surprised spending is down after the US left Iraq, would be surprised if it wasn’t overall up though.
My point is, fighting “zealotry” is just a nice way of saying let’s make it easier for corporate centrism.
There were substantial decreases in 2012 and 2013; I think the military budget has increased in every other recent year (though maybe sometimes by less than inflation?). 2019 is indeed down on 2008. (But not 2007, or any earlier year: there were big increases in 2006, 2007, 2008.)
You could say the same thing about you only posting the constant dollars graph, instead of also including a percentage of GDP chart, which is in many senses a better assessment of federal spending: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Defense_Spending_as_a_P...
Huh you’re right about that. For some reason your heritage chart makes it look a lot more reasonable, which I don’t agree that it is. I’m guessing it has something to with comparing to GDP?
Also, those can both be problems at the same time. Both parties cater to corporations heavily, but also they are very different on many policy issues and shouldn't be treated as equivalent in those areas.
The two parties are functionally identical for the handful of issues I really, really care about. Those issues you've mentioned are not among them -- furthermore they are not as black-and-white as you imply. As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.
All that’s telling everyone is that you are not caring about a lot of very important stuff and caring way too deeply about the wrong things. When one party is blatantly anti-science, doesn’t believe in the value of professional expertise, and 2/3s of their voters believe the world is 6000 years old (10 years ago- if anything its much worse now), the two parties couldn’t be more different. If none of that stuff matters to you, then I can only conclude that the stuff that does matter to you doesn’t matter at all.
Socially I don't align myself with either party, so I vote based on outcome. In fact, this is my chief complaint about the democrats. It's membership is defined increasingly by being "not Republican" rather than supporting and advancing worthy causes.
That's an interesting perspective that I just don't understand, and I would claim that exact opposite is true. Just look at the debate over healthcare. As a group, the democrats created a clear vision for US healthcare reform. At an individual level there's not a clear consensus on what the path forward is, but you can't claim that mainstream D candidates aren't presenting concrete and actionable plans.
Contrast that with the Republican healthcare plans, which consist of nothing more than "not obamacare"
Republicans have the same stance on gun violence and climate change.
Which issues do you care about? Because I hear this vague-y statement ("the two parties are functionally identical") without specifics, and I can't for the life of me figure why people think this.
Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for Medicare payroll and the surtax on investment income for high earners.
The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT.
Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.
Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list:
1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns.
2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties.
3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies.
4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently.
The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.
The Republican House had narrowly passed a bill on December 20, 2012,[15] which would have replaced only the defense side of the sequester with cuts to programs including food stamps, Dodd-Frank and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
"By Democrats in Congress"
Patty Murray, Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, proposed on February 14 to replace the 2013 sequester with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. Like the House version, these policies also include a Buffett-rule tax, the closure of the oil subsidies, and cuts to farm subsidies. Additionally, this bill would cut defense spending for 2013 in excess of the amounts required by the current sequester. But this bill has little chance of winning the 60 votes required to override a filibuster.
My point is that the DOA bill was facetious. None of the current establishment democrats are serious about military spending cuts, so much so that Warren/Bernie have been making waves by suggesting they will be.
They're irrelevant differences to me. I care about local and state issues. For instance local infrastructure, local school districts, local road maintenance, local taxes, etc.
Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
> Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if:
1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex.
2. You have anyone you care about who has been affected by federal drug laws.
3. You have any close relatives who are citizens of another country.
4. You are a woman who cares deeply about her own reproductive rights. Conversely, you believe that human life starts at a stage earlier than currently recognized by the Supreme Court.
5. You have a pre-existing medical condition.
I could go on, and of course there are loads of ways federal policies affect virtually everyone albeit in a less direct manner (tax policy, monetary policy, foreign trade policy, etc.)
But congratulations, I'm sure those only apply to other people, so fuck them.
I'll add one hilarious thing to this list - local school districts. Local school funding is usually done out of the funds of the local government (sometimes city, sometimes district, sometimes county) which means that poor locales don't have enough money to fund their schools. This was a famously contentious issue where I grew up in MA and where inner city schools were and continue to be terribly underfunded.
Yes, there are things the parties agree on, but that minimizes the huge, material differences between their platforms, e.g.:
- appropriate levels of taxation, and especially types of taxation (e.g. capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc.)
- mix of spending on social programs
- the huge gap on social issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.
"They're just the same, they don't care about the little guy, etc." are tactics the Russian trolls used to convince people not to vote.