US Politics VIII

[mama cass]

it's like the proverb of the "boeuf bourgignon"

a group of homeless people sitting round a pot of water on the fire, and they each have got hold of one little piece of food that day - one has an onion, another a carrot, another a bit of wine, and another a bit of tough meat

so they talk about it and realise if they put everything together in the pot there will be enough for a nice meal, so decide it would be for the common good to share

so one at a time they go to the pot to put their bit of food into the water, but each time, they get to the pot and have second thoughts, thinking "what if i put my food in and no-one else does?" so each one pretends to put their food in the pot but instead hides it in their pocket, and at the end, they serve up the boeuf bourgignon but they have nothing but a bowl of hot water (and their own tasteless little bit of food each)

and that's what happens when you don't share

 

[Irvine511]

Also, can we remind ourselves that our incomes are not determined by how hard we work but on how valued our skill sets are?

Do you really think you work harder than a mother with three jobs or the guy who cleans your building?

I bet most of us work harder than Donald Trump and his vapid children.

 

[anitram]

Except that it's you know, theft. Why should you or anyone else be entitled to anyone else's money? This is what you don't get about free market capitalism, there's not an finite amount of money. Wealth can be created.

This is a really extremist libertarian view, even among those who don't like paying taxes. It's one thing to argue that the taxes we pay are too high or not commensurate to the services that are provided, or to argue that the government is inefficient at x/y/z which could better be delivered by the private sector, or that the bureaucracy is bloated and needs to be modernized through attrition, etc. But a totally other thing to argue that any sort of contribution to a common pot is "theft".

You appear to want to live in a place with no organized society. You want the private sector to defend you in times of war? To educate children? Keep law & order? Put our house fires?

My husband and I are very high income earners. We pay a lot of taxes. I do believe that there are services that are inefficient and that the government is not incentivized to be at its most efficient when there is very little accountability to spending other people's money. But the view you hold is totally outside of any kind of norm.

 

[DaveC]

it's been pretty clearly proven that the nations that tax work the highest also have the highest employment rates because income taxes fund social services, which promote labour market participation, especially for women. this effect also tends to snowball as the employment rate rises.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/...-allow-for-leap-in-employment-rate-.html?_r=0

i'd love to hear a thoughtful rebuttal to any of these excellent points that have been raised but surely as usual all of the intelligent replies to gzusfrk's post will be ignored and we'll get another self-righteous /r/badeconomics rant with nothing to back it up.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Wealth can be created.

And you think it's just so easy for people to get wealthy, huh? Nothing to do with other aspects such as who you know, how much help one gets along the way, the fact that some people get rich through very shady means, etc.

Nope. If you just work hard you'll be rich in no time. That's how it worked for my family...oh, wait, no, it didn't.

You're also presuming that everyone WANTS to be rich and is demanding that the rich give them all their money so they can go live in mansions or something, which, no. Most people just want to be able to make enough money to afford the freaking basics, like, say, having a place to live, being able to pay their bills without having to choose which ones they need to pay first, being able to go to the doctor without having to go bankrupt in the process, and stuff like that. Such greedy demands, huh? How dare we find a way to make it easier for those people to obtain that simple stuff, right?

Again, it's easy for YOU to spend other people's money, oh I'm sorry, "redistribute other people's money" than to just encourage those who want more to work harder, get smarter and go out and get more!.

You really, REALLY need to stop with this inane notion that people who "want more" aren't working harder or aren't smart enough, okay? That is not true. You have absolutely NO idea what kind of effort the working-class/poor put in to try and make it in this country, and it's awfully damn insulting of you to make negative assumptions about their efforts.

 

[PhilsFan]

Except that it's you know, theft. Why should you or anyone else be entitled to anyone else's money? This is what you don't get about free market capitalism, there's not an finite amount of money. Wealth can be created.

So you want everyone in the US to live in mediocrity? Punish people for being successful? We are the richest nation on earth because of this "horrible scourge called capitalism. "

Again, it's easy for YOU to spend other people's money, oh I'm sorry, "redistribute other people's money" than to just encourage those who want more to work harder, get smarter and go out and get more! People do it everyday, that's America.

What you're doing is just self righteous virtue signaling.

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

Money is a right to resources, nothing more. There IS a finite amount of resources.

 

[BVS]

This is a really extremist libertarian view, even among those who don't like paying taxes. It's one thing to argue that the taxes we pay are too high or not commensurate to the services that are provided, or to argue that the government is inefficient at x/y/z which could better be delivered by the private sector, or that the bureaucracy is bloated and needs to be modernized through attrition, etc. But a totally other thing to argue that any sort of contribution to a common pot is "theft".

You appear to want to live in a place with no organized society. You want the private sector to defend you in times of war? To educate children? Keep law & order? Put our house fires?

My husband and I are very high income earners. We pay a lot of taxes. I do believe that there are services that are inefficient and that the government is not incentivized to be at its most efficient when there is very little accountability to spending other people's money. But the view you hold is totally outside of any kind of norm.

THIS

His posts reek of someone who's never been capable of, or have had to look beyond their own nose.

I've always had roads to where I want to get to, so I don't have to think about where they come from.

Always had insurance, never been sick, so I don't have to educate myself on healthcare or think about those that don't have access.

I've always had clean water, because I work hard, never had to think about those that still don't have access to.

I volunteer one day a year at Habitat for Humanity, I did my part, free market takes care of everything else.

 

[PhilsFan]

And trying to convince yourself that the 45% of Americans who don’t vote are suddenly going to be moved to vote by a certain candidate or set of policies is, in my view, an equally foolish idea, just as foolish as the thought that Jill Stein moved people with no intention of voting to vote and didn’t actually rob Hillary of votes. Non-voters are either too busy to vote (hard to vote on a Tuesday when you have three jobs) or simply too self-absorbed/lazy. I think you fight for the persuadable. Which may be a small number of overall votes, but it’s how elections are won — it’s hard work, too.

While I am largely sympathetic to many of your views and admire the economy with which you express them, you’ve developed a Manichean outlook on the world that I find distinctly unpersuasive.

I respect much of what you post, but we do differ in this and a few other ways.

Do you know how many votes are lost due to voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement in this country? It's certainly way more than the number of votes Jill Stein received.

I am surprised to read this, in some respects. I strongly, strongly disagree with the notion that candidates need to explain how they are going to pay for things, but I at least understand it to some extent because that's the way many people think about the economy. But I don't understand how you can look at issues like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, afforable secondary education, etc. and think that they won't inspire non-voters to go to the polls. These issues affect almost everyone.

The reason people don't vote is because they've either been put in situations where it's too difficult to do so, or because they don't see the point. Give them a reason. The Democrats don't do this, and it's why they lose.

 

[BVS]

I am surprised to read this, in some respects. I strongly, strongly disagree with the notion that candidates need to explain how they are going to pay for things, but I at least understand it to some extent because that's the way many people think about the economy. But I don't understand how you can look at issues like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, afforable secondary education, etc. and think that they won't inspire non-voters to go to the polls. These issues affect almost everyone.

You're basically perpetuating the stereotype of "free shit don't care how it's paid for".

Of course it matters how it's paid for; if there's a candidate selling me student loan forgiveness I need to know how it effects my bank, my savings, my ability to apply for a loan in the future. If you can't explain it, then you're a liar or it's going to effect me negatively.

Yes, these issues affect everyone, but in which way? If you can explain it, then I know you've thought it through, if not you're just another "and Mexico's going to pay for it" conman.

 

[Irvine511]

Do you know how many votes are lost due to voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement in this country? It's certainly way more than the number of votes Jill Stein received.



I am surprised to read this, in some respects. I strongly, strongly disagree with the notion that candidates need to explain how they are going to pay for things, but I at least understand it to some extent because that's the way many people think about the economy. But I don't understand how you can look at issues like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, afforable secondary education, etc. and think that they won't inspire non-voters to go to the polls. These issues affect almost everyone.



The reason people don't vote is because they've either been put in situations where it's too difficult to do so, or because they don't see the point. Give them a reason. The Democrats don't do this, and it's why they lose.

I agree with you on voter suppression. Jill Stein was still designed to ciphon away votes from HRC.

I see no evidence for paragraph #2. We’ve see certain candidates in hr democratic primaries since 1980 (or even earlier) campaign on exactly these things and never make it out of the primaries — the non voters supposedly swayed by such things never materialize, and if people who believe in such things can’t be moved to vote against someone who would actively destroy these things, it’s because these voters aren’t going to be swayed by anything.

I’m imagining a response, and I could be wrong, but it’s going to be a version of the “no true Scotsman” argument.

Further, giving these people who are hungry for what you assume is your message may inspire an equal and opposite groundswell of non-voters who feel as if the other side gives them no reason to vote. This cuts both ways. There may be ways to inspire more non voters to vote, but you are incorrect in the assumption that all these non voters want what you want.

As I’ve said, I’m in Trump country right now. While I think all the things you mentioned would absolutely be the best thing possible for communities like this that have been dying since 1980, I don’t see these folks being moved to vote for such things.

The reasons why are too much to get into in a post I’m firing off on my phone.

 

[Irvine511]

And, keep in mind, your style, which positions people different from you as not just wrong but straight up evil, isn’t going to sell these issues to nonvoters.

 

[anitram]

This is largely the curse of the two-party system. The Democrats have not been operating from a position of strength and even when they were in that position, they were too concerned about going high and being cordial than getting things done. PhilsFan is right that they drift more and more right in search of these illusive "independents", which in my view is arguably a smaller % of voters than we are led to believe.

If you had an independent party which was truly created to court the alleged centre, the Dems would have more progressive policies to differentiate themselves and the Republicans would likely go full-on Trump even more.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I strongly, strongly disagree with the notion that candidates need to explain how they are going to pay for things, but I at least understand it to some extent because that's the way many people think about the economy. But I don't understand how you can look at issues like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, afforable secondary education, etc. and think that they won't inspire non-voters to go to the polls. These issues affect almost everyone.

I'm among those who would benefit greatly from all the things you list, and would happily vote for a candidate that would support and put forth legislation for them.

And yet I'd still consider it very important for candidates who support that stuff to discuss how they'll pay for all of it. I don't see how we can have a discussion about those issues and NOT consider and talk about that aspect at some point.

I think the big problem is trying to figure out how to communicate those particular details in a way that makes people want to pay attention, but without having to resort to silly "Make America Great Again!" style mantras in the process. That's one of the many things Democrats need to figure out how to do better.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

And you think it's just so easy for people to get wealthy, huh? Nothing to do with other aspects such as who you know, how much help one gets along the way, the fact that some people get rich through very shady means, etc.

Nope. If you just work hard you'll be rich in no time. That's how it worked for my family...oh, wait, no, it didn't.

You're also presuming that everyone WANTS to be rich and is demanding that the rich give them all their money so they can go live in mansions or something, which, no. Most people just want to be able to make enough money to afford the freaking basics, like, say, having a place to live, being able to pay their bills without having to choose which ones they need to pay first, being able to go to the doctor without having to go bankrupt in the process, and stuff like that. Such greedy demands, huh? How dare we find a way to make it easier for those people to obtain that simple stuff, right?



You really, REALLY need to stop with this inane notion that people who "want more" aren't working harder or aren't smart enough, okay? That is not true. You have absolutely NO idea what kind of effort the working-class/poor put in to try and make it in this country, and it's awfully damn insulting of you to make negative assumptions about their efforts.

This!!

Some of the hardest working people I know are people who are far far from lazy and they don’t expect free handouts, and I would say they are not exactly rich. In fact a couple I know both work their butts off and they are just getting by. But you know what they work hard and they contribute to society. Who is someone to look down on someone else when they fall on hard times financially and assume that they are lazy or expect free handout! A former classmate of mine was pretty broke but yet went to school full time, worked after school and had 2 kids to care for. And you know what? He had some of the highest grades in school but he was flat out broke. So because he isn’t rich does that mean he is a bad person?

 

[BEAL]

https://twitter.com/craigcaplan/status/1016761155723976704?s=21

Our democracy is so fucked. Midterms won’t mean a fucking thing

This guy has ties to Russian bank Alfa which is linked to the Russia collusion investigation

 

[DaveC]

your country desperately needs political and social reform that at this point is sadly not going to happen without bloodshed.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I’m deep in Trump country at the moment. Some grumbling last night about how the steel tariffs are going to really, really hurt people.

I smiled on the inside. But I’m polite so I never talk politics down here.

Smart man, still be careful down there, Irving!
If my battery hadn't run out I would have added that Blue States give out more money than they ever get back- and that part of their moneys go to help Red States

Except that it's you know, theft. Why should you or anyone else be entitled to anyone else's money? This is what you don't get about free market capitalism, there's not an finite amount of money. Wealth can be created.

So you want everyone in the US to live in mediocrity? Punish people for being successful? We are the richest nation on earth because of this "horrible scourge called capitalism. "

Again, it's easy for YOU to spend other people's money, oh I'm sorry, "redistribute other people's money" than to just encourage those who want more to work harder, get smarter and go out and get more! People do it everyday, that's America.

What you're doing is just self righteous virtue signaling.

How does redistributing some wealth equate to "punishing people" , or "living in mediocrity" ?!

If someone makes more money than me in an honest way (if they have employees - pays their workers a fair wage, good health care, doesn't cheat etc their workers, make them work in unsafe conditions, or doesn't supply the correct safety gear for risky jobs, and pays their taxes), then ok, good for them.

Not everyone has the types of intellect in certain areas to "get smarter" for certain kind of jobs. Sometimes it is a function of a certain kind of IQ- but not always!
I think Trade School is as good choice as college for some people.

As someone (?s) pointed out it's also where you start from! Could your parents be around for you, did they encourage your curiosity and/or passions?
Did you have books in the house? Did your parents encourage you to read?

If you were a person of color, or a female were you earned you might have to be twice as good to get to the same place as a white male, but if really tried you had a chance- though certain circumstances, certain people, and bad luck could knock you off your path. Were you encouraged in HS, or were you tracked into service jobs because of your color?
(Do you know that a white man with a HS degree and some kind of criminal background is STILL more likely to get ahead, than a black man with a college degree with no criminal record)

Did you have anyone around you (family, friends, neighbors) to model various kinds of success for you?

Were you lucky enough to have a friendly stranger give you a hand?
So many factors play into a person's success in this cointry!

As others pointed out working hard doesn't guarantee a lot of money.

Sounds like you could be an extreme libertarian.

And you think it's just so easy for people to get wealthy, huh? Nothing to do with other aspects such as who you know, how much help one gets along the way, the fact that some people get rich through very shady means, etc.

Nope. If you just work hard you'll be rich in no time. That's how it worked for my family...oh, wait, no, it didn't.

You're also presuming that everyone WANTS to be rich and is demanding that the rich give them all their money so they can go live in mansions or something, which, no. Most people just want to be able to make enough money to afford the freaking basics, like, say, having a place to live, being able to pay their bills without having to choose which ones they need to pay first, being able to go to the doctor without having to go bankrupt in the process, and stuff like that. Such greedy demands, huh? How dare we find a way to make it easier for those people to obtain that simple stuff, right?



You really, REALLY need to stop with this inane notion that people who "want more" aren't working harder or aren't smart enough, okay? That is not true. You have absolutely NO idea what kind of effort the working-class/poor put in to try and make it in this country, and it's awfully damn insulting of you to make negative assumptions about their efforts.

This.
If people truly had basic safe housing, nutritious food, and safe water, good health care, time and money for a vacation once a year, enough good wages to save for retirement, save for their children- there wouldn't be such distress in this country (I guees, excerpt for those people who don't think people of color, or women (on their own) deserve that and be mad that they have that.

LN7
trump believes in progressive tax rates?

 

[Irvine511]

Oh please. [emoji849]

 

[dazzledbylight]

your country desperately needs political and social reform that at this point is sadly not going to happen without bloodshed.

Oh, DAVE C, Mr Optimism here!

I suuuure hope and pray it doesn't come to
that!!!!!

But I also believe sometimes you do have to get nasty. I'm not a milktoast Democrat. I believe you sometimes have to "go low".

 

[LuckyNumber7]

LN7
trump believes in progressive tax rates?

Well I don’t know if the man *believes* in anything short of what’s convenient for him to believe, but yes, he acknowledged multiple times that progressive tax brackets are fair and that richer people can afford to pay more without suffering. He used that during his campaign to combat Ted Cruz’s flat rate tax plan.

You can support both reduced taxes and progressive tax brackets. That doesn’t mean the tax plan put forward generates enough revenue to support government functions, but both are certainly the status quo of fiscal conservatives. Well, the fiscal right. Don’t know how the term ‘conservative’ applies there. Not sure what they’re conserving.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Thx! Oh, yeah I know how trump changes his mind, contradicts himself etc.

 

[DaveC]

Oh, DAVE C, Mr Optimism here!

I suuuure hope and pray it doesn't come to
that!!!!!

But I also believe sometimes you do have to get nasty. I'm not a milktoast Democrat

it's fairly obvious that major reforms of all kind are needed. your system works great when you can get people to agree with folks on the other side of the political spectrum but i can't see how things get back to the point where constitutional amendments can be passed through consensus. i think the rubicon has been crossed. this kind of thing has happened before in history and it rarely turns out well.

 

[BEAL]

it's fairly obvious that major reforms of all kind are needed. your system works great when you can get people to agree with folks on the other side of the political spectrum but i can't see how things get back to the point where constitutional amendments can be passed through consensus. i think the rubicon has been crossed. this kind of thing has happened before in history and it rarely turns out well.

I agree with you. People are going to have to die for this to change.

There is no compromise with the GOP

We are going to need a revolution. I do not mean a civil war, with people fighting in streets.

But some form of protest is needed

 

[PhilsFan]

You're basically perpetuating the stereotype of "free shit don't care how it's paid for".

Of course it matters how it's paid for; if there's a candidate selling me student loan forgiveness I need to know how it effects my bank, my savings, my ability to apply for a loan in the future. If you can't explain it, then you're a liar or it's going to effect me negatively.

Yes, these issues affect everyone, but in which way? If you can explain it, then I know you've thought it through, if not you're just another "and Mexico's going to pay for it" conman.

The whole issue strikes me as yet another thing Democrats have let Republicans dictate the terms of the debate on. They flip the fuck out over the national debt whenever they are not in power. Yet the national debt has never been a problem for us at any point ever, and the Republicans have cut taxes (revenue) and increased defense spending at will without any long term negative impact.

Even forgetting all of that, it's not hard to do the math of "remove the significant, repeated tax cuts from the last 20 years on higher earners and corporations, and decrease our absurd defense spending" to pay for these things. Pretending like it's difficult is disingenuous to me.

I agree with you on voter suppression. Jill Stein was still designed to ciphon away votes from HRC.

I see no evidence for paragraph #2. We’ve see certain candidates in hr democratic primaries since 1980 (or even earlier) campaign on exactly these things and never make it out of the primaries — the non voters supposedly swayed by such things never materialize, and if people who believe in such things can’t be moved to vote against someone who would actively destroy these things, it’s because these voters aren’t going to be swayed by anything.

I’m imagining a response, and I could be wrong, but it’s going to be a version of the “no true Scotsman” argument.

Further, giving these people who are hungry for what you assume is your message may inspire an equal and opposite groundswell of non-voters who feel as if the other side gives them no reason to vote. This cuts both ways. There may be ways to inspire more non voters to vote, but you are incorrect in the assumption that all these non voters want what you want.

As I’ve said, I’m in Trump country right now. While I think all the things you mentioned would absolutely be the best thing possible for communities like this that have been dying since 1980, I don’t see these folks being moved to vote for such things.

The reasons why are too much to get into in a post I’m firing off on my phone.

You're comparing primary voting to general election voting. Voter suppression impacts primary voting at a much greater level than it does general election voting. States like New York mix up the dates in which they hold the elections, many states require you to be registered for a party to even vote in the primaries (literally the only reason I am registered as a Democrat). Voter registration ahead of primaries can be absurdly long out; I think I read that in New York you need to be registered 6 months ahead of the primaries? And while some jobs will accommodate people voting on general election day, I've heard of barely any that give the same flexibility to primaries. The media do not cover primaries in the way they do the general. Many people simply don't know what is happening with primaries. So, to compare the primary to the general like that seems like a move of convenience because it benefits your argument. Your acknowledgement of voter suppression and its impact before pivoting back to "Jill Stein ruined everything" hardly makes me believe you really have significant concerns about it.

As to your point about the whole "blowback from moving too far left," I say to that "let's find out." I don't think it will happen the way you say it will. I won't pretend I know for sure. But because most of the ideas I'm supporting never get into the larger conversation in the first place, I really don't think anyone can pretend to know. All I know is that they're very popular positions.

You're so scared trying something new could backfire that you want to stick with the tried and true plan that almost always backfires.

And, keep in mind, your style, which positions people different from you as not just wrong but straight up evil, isn’t going to sell these issues to nonvoters.

Please. The Republicans have been doing this to the Democrats forever with no consequences. "They're evil, baby-murdering socialists, and Hitler led the socialist party, so you do the math." Fuck civility, it doesn't work.

And I don't position people different from me as evil. I position people who take up evil positions as evil. Someone of a different race is different from me. That's not evil at all. Someone making a political choice is not. Politics is a choice, and I don't have to respect everyone's opinions. If you choose to side with the economic policies that degrade poor people and put blame on them for their circumstances, you are a piece of shit. It's about time we started saying it out in the open. Politics have a real world impact, and pretending they don't helped to get us here. This is not the fucking West Wing.

This is largely the curse of the two-party system. The Democrats have not been operating from a position of strength and even when they were in that position, they were too concerned about going high and being cordial than getting things done. PhilsFan is right that they drift more and more right in search of these illusive "independents", which in my view is arguably a smaller % of voters than we are led to believe.

If you had an independent party which was truly created to court the alleged centre, the Dems would have more progressive policies to differentiate themselves and the Republicans would likely go full-on Trump even more.

I think in a just society, the currently constructed Democratic Party would be the right wing party. Social issues don't have two legitimate sides so there should be no side that supports crushing people's rights the way the GOP does. But the Dems' support of nearly unfettered capitalism is right wing by most standards.
But I'd settle for the Dems being the center.

I'm among those who would benefit greatly from all the things you list, and would happily vote for a candidate that would support and put forth legislation for them.

And yet I'd still consider it very important for candidates who support that stuff to discuss how they'll pay for all of it. I don't see how we can have a discussion about those issues and NOT consider and talk about that aspect at some point.

I think the big problem is trying to figure out how to communicate those particular details in a way that makes people want to pay attention, but without having to resort to silly "Make America Great Again!" style mantras in the process. That's one of the many things Democrats need to figure out how to do better.

Because we absolutely can pay for it? Every other country can pay for it. We have ungodly resources and wealth in this country. It's really not complicated unless we still are trying to protect rich people, corporations, and the military industrial complex. Like I said to BVS, this is not going to be so complicated that I need to compose a 500-page CBO report to explain it to everyone here every time.

"Medicare for All" is the best example they've had of this yet, though it's hardly had the support from mainstream Dems at this time. It's not exactly what the healthcare system should be, but it's a catchy and simple enough concept for most people to understand that it works much in the way MAGA seemed to capture what people wanted. Only difference obviously being that we're talking about getting healthcare for everyone, instead of trying to revert to the 1950s and just giving all the jobs to white men. I guess some people still think that's horseshoe theory, though.

 

[BEAL]

I don't think we'll be getting anywhere close to a liberal/left society anytime soon.

The damage being done in the US (and all over the world) is going to take generations to fix.

And this is excluding the fucking climate

 

[DaveC]

peef i won't quote your entire long post in mine, but all of that is extremely on point

the "civil" politics of previous times are gone and they're never coming back. the democratic party is like a boxer in the ring who refuses to put his hands up while the other guy is punching him in the face because he didn't hear the bell and thinks they don't need to fight at all.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm all in favor for never hearing "they to low, we go high" again.

I'm also in favor of hearing about how someone actually plans on paying for the things they plan on spending a shit ton of tax dollars on.

These aren't related issues. At least they shouldn't be.

The left needs to get dirtier and fight harder. They also need to explain how they're going to do their shit.

 

[Hewson]

I'm also in favor of hearing about how someone actually plans on paying for the things they plan on spending a shit ton of tax dollars on.

Mexico will pay for it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Mexico will pay for it.

Ahhhhhh

 

[BEAL]

Maybe we need to dig for gold??

Other countries can afford their healthcare because they’re the size of Ohio.

I agree it can be done, but it’ll have to happen in increments.

Tho I’m not sure you could even convince this country to tax the rich. Somehow trickle down economics is still believable