Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

Before we begin, I would like to define a few terms: "responsible (r=8;G2;sp;4;nsəb ə l) — adj (usually foll by for ) (foll by to )1. having control or authority (over)2. being accountable for one's actions and decisions (to): to be responsible to one's commanding officer3. (of a position, duty, etc) involving decision and accountability4. ( often foll by for ) being the agent or cause (of some action): to be responsible for a mistake5. able to take rational decisions without supervision; accountable for one's own actions: a responsible adult6. able to meet financial obligations; of sound credit" [1] We will be utilizing definition five of "responsible." "economically (G6;iH0;kəG2;n;4;m=8;kəl=8;, G6;ɛkə-) — adv1. with economy or thrift; without waste2. with regard to the economy of a person, country, etc" [2] Of "economically", we will utilize definition two. Now, let's begin. Economic Policies and Successes of the Democratic PartyThe Democratic Party has much more successful economic policies than the Republican Party. First and foremost, I will list some of the policies and then I will describe how and why they positively influence the economy: "Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest American's pay the highest amount in taxes. Democrats support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military.They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other welfare programs, believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positivefreedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity. The Democratic-led House of Representatives reinstated the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) budget rule at the start of the 110th Congress." [3] These policies have been proven successful. I will also list some of the successes Presidents Clinton and Roosevelt have had. "In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans." [4] These economic policies worked and they benefitted the country greatly. Now, I will state a fact about the FDR Presidency. "Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. However, it increased slightly to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and fell to 17.2% in 1939, and then dropped again to 14.6% in 1940 until it reached 1.9% in 1945 due to World War II when increased manufacturing and conscription decreased the labor supply number. Total employment during Roosevelt's term expanded by 18.31 million jobs, with an average annual increase in jobs during his administration of 5.3%." [5] Economic Policies and Failures of the Republican PartyThe economic policies of the Republican Party have their advantages and their flaws. It is most unfortunate that there are more flaws than advantages. I will begin by talking about Herbert Hoover. "Hoover had long been a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much government intervention would undermine long-term individuality and self-reliance, which he considered essential to the nation's future. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression. Although Democrats at the time and for decades afterwards denounced Hoover for taking a hands-off ("laissez-faire") approach to the Depression, historians emphasize how active he actually was. Hoover said he rejected Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach, and called many business leaders to Washington to urge them not to lay off workers or cut wages." [6] It is a common misconception that Hoover started the depression. He did not. He was an active man and proposed programs to try and remedy the issues, but he underestimated the weight of it. He misunderstood. He didn't have the capacity to deal with it. Now, I will make a point about George W. Bush's policies:"The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2009, both in dollar terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP), due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq." [7] This round is only for main arguments. Therefore, you will make your arguments in your next post and we will then begin making rebuttals. I await your response. Sources [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...