I'm not sure what you're saying....
Are you suggesting that if Democrats don't care about defense....they can vote to let the Republicans foot the bill for it? Likewise if Republicans don't want to fund welfare programs....they can leave it to the Democrats?
First, I just thought of the idea that the U.S. has two parties who can't get together about things, but they could at least each get a fair share of the tax money, so each group could do what good they can with what they have. And a way to decide how much each group gets would be by giving each group tax money in the amount which matches how many votes they get.
And ones have "debunked" this in a number of ways. I just found the thought interesting, but not what I would commit to. So, I was interested in why others would not buy it.
Now, for me, for one thing, I forgot how there could be independent voters in the mix. If they really had a choice, they might not want either Republican or Democratic candidates managing anything, but they could be voting for what they consider the "lesser of two evils", not really what they want, even though they voted either Republican or Democrat.
So . . . about if Democrats care about defense > I would say they do. And probably there are those who care more than others. Ones might feel it would work better to take care of people, and this could help the country to be more safe . . . versus investing large amounts directly in defense weapons. And do things to help other countries, versus getting isolated just in self-protection. I don't know individual Democratic candidates well enough to know how each one might approach this. But I would not be surprised if Democrats can be highly varied in how they would approach defense by weapons spending, versus mainly diplomatic assistance to other countries and, of course, a combination of both.
But my opinion is Democrats tend to favor, at least in theory, the approach of benefitting Americans so the country is stronger and healthier as a people, while also benefitting other countries; and they would consider this the best way to defend this country and help others to prosper and be safe. Education would be big, for this. But in practice > of course, ones into Christian morals would have issues with if Democrats really are into what is really best for people.
So, my proposed idea could work like this > Democrats would get money and Republicans would. And each could use theirs how they chose, for defense. They could work together, or at least each could get something done, on their own. But each would be required to spend a certain amount on defense, in any case; or else, if either group did not, their defense money would be forfeited to the other group to use.
They could barter their funds. For example, Republicans could let Democrats handle their funds for education and welfare, in exchange for Democrats leaving their defense funds in the hands of the Republicans.
Now . . . about if Republicans don't want to fund welfare programs > in my offered system, not really what I am committed to but just offering for discussion > I don't know how welfare would be handled. Possibly there would be no welfare, but education would be developed so there would be no or much less need for it.
I guess, though, there would need to be welfare. So > Republicans would get tax money in an amount to match the number of votes their candidates get, and Democrats would likewise get a percentage of money along with the percentage of votes they got . . . for welfare. Then Republicans might use welfare money more with an educational focus, maybe, while Democrats might give money directly to parents. Each could decide how they invest their money.
For an example, Republican money might go to food in schools, for students and for parents who do time helping in schools, in order to make sure money does help people, instead of being available for drugs and TV. Meanwhile Democrats might give funds directly to parents . . . so they have the opportunity to do good things for themselves, which school food alone would not be enough to do.
They could complement each other.
But what I think really works right is developing a consensus after everyone has offered what they understand. Use everyone as a resource. Debating, then, is more of a discussion, versus ones merely trying to approve themselves.
)
