There is a basic philosophical difference:
--Liberal, collectivists=government owns everything, "allows" people to keep only some of it
--Conservative, wealth belongs to the producers, and should only hand over a minimal amount, for defense, public safety, etc.
The idea that retirement, healthcare, is a function of government is quite recent, in keeping with soviet "cradle to grave," thinking
That's well and good, but the reality is that the government's spending must be paid for, or it will be the responsibility of future generations. Cutting spending's a great idea, but if that can't be done the question of how to pay for it becomes front and center.
There is indeed a split in the conservative ranks between those who want to cut taxes to spur economic growth, even at the risk of increasing deficits, and those who want to provide for a balanced budget. I wouldn't drum either out of the conservative ranks, and Reagan's tax cuts certainly did create a rising tide that lifted all boats.
Not all tax cuts have the same dynamic effect. Raising the standard deduction or the child credit will do relatively little to spur growth in relation to the impact such cuts will have on the deficit. Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% or less, by contrast, will spur growth that will easily make up for the lost revenue. All in all, Trump's plan strikes a decent enough balance, even as I'd personally have done it differently.
The key objective now must be to demand GOP unity, so the tax cuts can be enacted in the face of universal Democratic opposition. Trump's plan may not be perfect, that's not the point - solidarity is.
