A New Conservative Party

Harry Bosch

Contributor
The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.
There's another aspect to this.
The Democrats have become the party of fiscal sanity. That used to be a Republican thing, but now it just isn't. Both parties spend a lot. But the Democrats are more "tax and spend", whereas Republicans are more "borrow and spend".

Tom

Completely agree. But there are some on the left that believe that the economic pie is fixed. And when Bill Gates stock portfolio increases by 5%, that is taken from the poor.

ronburgundy

Contributor
Avoiding this kind of fracture within the party is precisely why 43 Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump and thereby prove they share his complete lack of regard for Democracy and the rule of law. Conservatism is by definition incompatible with the inevitable progress that happens within a free democracy. Those who seek to conserve the past and traditions and thus oppose change and progress will eventually become so out of step with the majority that their only recourse is to destroy democracy itself. That is what the Trump 2020 campaign and "stop the count" was all about, what continued support for him is all about, and as proven this weekend, what the vast majority of the GOP leadership are all about.

WAB

Veteran Member
I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

It helps to earmark it for something.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

The Politics of Donations

NYT's Yeahbuts

WAB

Deepak

Veteran Member
I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

Who are these people you're talking about? I can't recall anyone talking about increasing taxes being anything other than a means to collections, which are used to fund programs. I've not encountered anyone saying that taxation is remediation.

I mean, whether you agree with them or not, Dems' spending priorities are not exactly secret or constantly changing.

Most people when asked what their taxes should be will say less than now, and greater than zero.

I'm genuinely baffled by this comment.

Deepak

Veteran Member
I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

The Politics of Donations

NYT's Yeahbuts

Honest question, did you read the linked paper, or simply cite the abstract since it was called out in the NYT article? I haven't had the chance to read the article, but I have read this paper before and it doesn't quite support the generalized assessment you're drawing:

The Politics of Donations: Are Red Counties More Donative Than Blue Counties? said:
Before we discuss our results, it is important to acknowledge that, as with all research, this study is subject to several limitations. First, our measure of philanthropic giving is the aggregate amount of people’s charitable contributions on their tax returns. This is limited for a couple reasons. First, not all people who make charitable donations itemized their tax returns, potentially underestimating the overall level of charitable contributions. However, Deb, Wilhelm, Rooney, and Brown (2003) estimated that itemized contributions account for 60% of total contributions. Second, it is conceivable that itemized donations capture, at least in part, charitable donations that provide high levels of private benefit, such as neighborhood associations, sports clubs, and churches. Likewise, our measure of tax burden is based on itemized returns and does not capture the content and aim of government spending—whether it is redistributive public spending policies or other types of government efforts, such as spending on infrastructure and economic development. Future analysis might link specific types of government spending (e.g., infrastructure or social welfare) with philanthropic behaviors in the community (e.g., donations to religious, education, arts, or social service organizations). Finally, we are not testing how political ideology affects the charitable behavior of households. Rather, we explore a place based phenomenon by aggregating individual-level characteristics to the county level.

TomC

Celestial Highness
I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also.

In my experience, that's not true.
The reason for confusion concerning statistics is simple. Oftentimes, tax deductible expenditures are referred to as charitable donations. But, here in the USA, most are not. Church tithes are tax deductible, but churches generally spend their income on services for the church community, not charity. Giving money to the local Philharmonic might get you more social status, but it's not charity. Donations to an anti-abortion operation might get you good reviews for your favorite politicians, but it isn't charity.

Then there's all the donations of time and expertise.

Claims that conservatives are more charitable than liberals are, in my experienced opinion, uninformed and self-serving.

Here's the basic difference. Conservative people tend to have a church to support. They give money and time to the church and consider themselves justified. Liberals tend to give to individual causes that they care about. Liberals tend to give to charitable causes, conservatives tend to give in a more self-serving way.
Tom

ronburgundy

Contributor
Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

It helps to earmark it for something.

I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

Most white conservatives claim they are not racist, but the evidence proves otherwise, thus, most conservatives are full of shit and hide where they really stand.

First, your own article actually refutes your claim. The final sentence of the abstract says, "Ultimately, total levels of redistribution—both private and government—are higher in Democratic-leaning counties."
IOW, Democrats act to redistribute more money toward the poor, they just do so through a combination of charity and passing government programs to help the poor.

In addition, this analysis separates "charity" between giving to one's own religious congregation, vs. giving to more general religious organizations, and giving to non-religious charities.

[P]"We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."[/P]

They find that all the extra "giving" of Republicans is to their own congregations to which they belong. IOW, they are self-servingly "giving" to their own ingroup and to promote their own dogma, and to advance their own political interests, since Churches get away with far more political activities than non-religious non-profits charities do. Also, since we are talking about congregations that appeal to right wing conservatives, some of that "giving" is going towards denying people's human and civil rights (anti-choice and anti-gay laws) and to pay for programs that abuse children, such as gay-conversion therapy and creationist education that lies to kids about science.

Deepak

Veteran Member
Another bit from that NYT article:

Charitable giving does not match government aid
Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

It also bears mentioning again that small scale donations by people who don't itemize is completely ignored. The study simply does not support the conclusion that private charity is better - and in fact if measurement were more accurate, both to capture giving that's not deducted, and remove private benefit write-offs, the mere observation that conservative areas give more to charity is most likely a mirage.

ronburgundy

Contributor
It also bears mentioning again that small scale donations by people who don't itemize is completely ignored.

This is really important, especially due to the "religious" vs "non-religious" giving. Giving to one's church on a regular basis is far easier for a person to just estimate at year's end (or just make up) without have to keep constant track of, compared to more sporadic donations to varied causes. Given that churches get exempted from most filing requirement of non-religious charities (like reporting donations or being audited), church donations can be guesstimated by taxpayers without much worry of having good records for it.

WAB

Veteran Member
It helps to earmark it for something.

I would agree and a look at charitable donations would support this also. Generally speaking, I find liberals to be more full of shit than conservatives. Conservatives will tell you where they stand. Liberals will pretend.

Most white conservatives claim they are not racist, but the evidence proves otherwise, thus, most conservatives are full of shit and hide where they really stand.

First, your own article actually refutes your claim. The final sentence of the abstract says, "Ultimately, total levels of redistribution—both private and government—are higher in Democratic-leaning counties."
IOW, Democrats act to redistribute more money toward the poor, they just do so through a combination of charity and passing government programs to help the poor.

In addition, this analysis separates "charity" between giving to one's own religious congregation, vs. giving to more general religious organizations, and giving to non-religious charities.

[P]"We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."[/P]

They find that all the extra "giving" of Republicans is to their own congregations to which they belong. IOW, they are self-servingly "giving" to their own ingroup and to promote their own dogma, and to advance their own political interests, since Churches get away with far more political activities than non-religious non-profits charities do. Also, since we are talking about congregations that appeal to right wing conservatives, some of that "giving" is going towards denying people's human and civil rights (anti-choice and anti-gay laws) and to pay for programs that abuse children, such as gay-conversion therapy and creationist education that lies to kids about science.

Most conservatives are racists? Some are, some are not. I have conservative leanings and I despise racism. I know of many others like myself. How do you explain black conservatives like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell? Think they want to keep blacks from voting? Are they Uncle Toms? Or are they paid by the righties to shpiel and pander for the right, like some dipshits have said about Candace Owens?

Deepak

Veteran Member
It’s peculiar to me that you’re talking about black conservatives as some homogeneous entity. More, I don’t think Sowell ever called himself a black conservative. And more than that, if he personally doesn’t advocate for black votes (either to increase or decrease their franchise) but also supports people whose policies disenfranchise black voters then DO they want to keep blacks from voting?

Does Lee Atwater’s Southern Strategy and the Republicans’ coordinated effort to disenfranchise voters somehow become both virtuous and race-neutral because Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell exist?

While you specifically may not support disenfranchisement of black voters, would you support a party that had a large contingent in favor of that policy in an effort to get a good conservative Laissez-Faire economy and tax reduction?

I mean the premise itself is flawed, unless you think skin color is a proxy for anything other than one’s complexion. For all your venom, you seem to be the only one constraining the possibilities for black minds, conservative or otherwise. I can tell you I’ve met half-Jewish people who associated with people who had swastika tats, and I’ve met black people whose words if you wrote would leave no one wondering if the author was racist against blacks.

WAB

Veteran Member
It’s peculiar to me that you’re talking about black conservatives as some homogeneous entity. More, I don’t think Sowell ever called himself a black conservative. And more than that, if he personally doesn’t advocate for black votes (either to increase or decrease their franchise) but also supports people whose policies disenfranchise black voters then DO they want to keep blacks from voting?

Does Lee Atwater’s Southern Strategy and the Republicans’ coordinated effort to disenfranchise voters somehow become both virtuous and race-neutral because Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell exist?

While you specifically may not support disenfranchisement of black voters, would you support a party that had a large contingent in favor of that policy in an effort to get a good conservative Laissez-Faire economy and tax reduction?

I mean the premise itself is flawed, unless you think skin color is a proxy for anything other than one’s complexion. For all your venom, you seem to be the only one constraining the possibilities for black minds, conservative or otherwise. I can tell you I’ve met half-Jewish people who associated with people who had swastika tats, and I’ve met black people whose words if you wrote would leave no one wondering if the author was racist against blacks.

There is nothing racist in what I wrote. And you don't seem to have understood any of it.

Venom? Where? How?

I do sense some from you, though.

Deepak

Veteran Member
There is nothing racist in what I wrote. And you don't seem to have understood any of it.

Yeah, that's not what I said, so you may want to reread the post.

Venom? Where? How?

"Are they Uncle Toms?"
A pretty racially charged term that you seem to have introduced to the lexicon of this thread.

Or are they paid by the righties to shpiel and pander for the right, like some dipshits have said about Candace Owens?
Who are you referring to here? This again seems to be something you're introducing to the thread and attempting to wield against other participants.

I do sense some from you, though.

Your sensory equipment is faulty. Quote specifically where my racial animus is.

And just to add here, while Africa is one of the two continents to still elude me, having been born in India and being a cricket fan I have a lot of friends from the West Indies. The town I grew up in had a sizable Haitian population and I generally a very diverse population. I'll extend my offer to my entire post history. I'm not sure if the IIDB archive is still easily available and searchable too, but include that in the universe as well. Quote specifically my racist comments and demonstrate why they're racist.

<Edited>

Last edited by a moderator:

WAB

Veteran Member
Yeah, that's not what I said, so you may want to reread the post.

"Are they Uncle Toms?"
A pretty racially charged term that you seem to have introduced to the lexicon of this thread.

Or are they paid by the righties to shpiel and pander for the right, like some dipshits have said about Candace Owens?
Who are you referring to here? This again seems to be something you're introducing to the thread and attempting to wield against other participants.

I do sense some from you, though.

Your sensory equipment is faulty. Quote specifically where my racial animus is.

And just to add here, while Africa is one of the two continents to still elude me, having been born in India and being a cricket fan I have a lot of friends from the West Indies. The town I grew up in had a sizable Haitian population and I generally a very diverse population. I'll extend my offer to my entire post history. I'm not sure if the IIDB archive is still easily available and searchable too, but include that in the universe as well. Quote specifically my racist comments and demonstrate why they're racist.

<Edited>

Egads, Deepak, I have not said you are racist.

You may check my posting history as well. I've posted at this site and the old site since 2004. In the archives I am WilliamB.

We have a misunderstanding. When I said "I sense some from you", I was referring to 'venom', NOT racism! Read my prior post again...

Deepak

Veteran Member
We have a misunderstanding. When I said "I sense some from you", I was referring to 'venom', NOT racism! Read my prior post again...

Mea culpa, though I'll offer that addressing the contents of my post rather than me is probably the best means of avoiding misunderstandings. When I see someone dismiss my post out of hand then start talking about my character, in whatever capacity, it's a red flag to me.

Swammerdami

Staff member
I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought.

WAB

Veteran Member
I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought.

I'm not a right winger. I am a moderate with some conservative leanings and some liberal leanings.

I am pro-choice. I am a secularist. I advocate the legalization of drugs. I am all for gay marriage.

I am generally fiscally conservative. I defend the first and second amendments. Especially free speech. I approve of gun control laws but am defiantly against the concept of making gun ownership illegal.

I am registered as an independent. I have never been a democrat nor a republican.

My political views are on record at this site and have been since 2004.

I have no hatred for anything or any person. Hatred is a waste of energy and unproductive.

I have, however, called some people in the modern progressive movement 'regressive', because I see many people of that ilk who do not appreciate the right to free speech and wish to eradicate it. I disagree with left wing proponents of compelled speech, and agree with Jordan Peterson's stance in that area.

That you could describe me as a hateful right winger shows me that you don't know my posting history and I don't believe you care to know me.

Fling your slings and arrows, Swammi. They bounce off and do no harm.

Jarhyn

Wizard
I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought.

IKR? It's like cancer.

Honestly, I don't really care about tumors. Sure they're shitty weird growths, but ultimately it is not the tumor itself that kills (ok, sometimes it does...). Rather, it is the malnutrition that the tumor makes happen around the body. If cancers just grew and did not soak up all the resources, we wouldn't care.

Rich people are like tumors. We don't care about them excepting for the fact that they are soaking up and controlling all the resources that the rest of the body of society needs. We have tissue necrosis due to malnutrition across all sorts of segments of society.

Then the tumors of society are like "you just hate tumors! You don't care about that tissue necrosis at all! Tumor rights!"

No, we care about the necrosis. It's just that the most direct path to end the necrosis is to cut out the tumors. If they were less malignant and greedy, it never would have come to this. It didn't have to, and over the last several decades didn't come to it. But this is where we are now.

ronburgundy

Contributor
Most white conservatives claim they are not racist, but the evidence proves otherwise, thus, most conservatives are full of shit and hide where they really stand.

First, your own article actually refutes your claim. The final sentence of the abstract says, "Ultimately, total levels of redistribution—both private and government—are higher in Democratic-leaning counties."
IOW, Democrats act to redistribute more money toward the poor, they just do so through a combination of charity and passing government programs to help the poor.

In addition, this analysis separates "charity" between giving to one's own religious congregation, vs. giving to more general religious organizations, and giving to non-religious charities.

[P]"We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."[/P]

They find that all the extra "giving" of Republicans is to their own congregations to which they belong. IOW, they are self-servingly "giving" to their own ingroup and to promote their own dogma, and to advance their own political interests, since Churches get away with far more political activities than non-religious non-profits charities do. Also, since we are talking about congregations that appeal to right wing conservatives, some of that "giving" is going towards denying people's human and civil rights (anti-choice and anti-gay laws) and to pay for programs that abuse children, such as gay-conversion therapy and creationist education that lies to kids about science.

Most conservatives are racists? Some are, some are not. I have conservative leanings and I despise racism. I know of many others like myself. How do you explain black conservatives like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell? Think they want to keep blacks from voting? Are they Uncle Toms? Or are they paid by the righties to shpiel and pander for the right, like some dipshits have said about Candace Owens?

Ah, the ol' "I have a couple black friends, so I cannot be a racist" canard. No one with any intellectual integrity would offer such a defense, so the following is a waste of time, but...

The GOP has spend the last half century courting the white supremacist vote, which is the #1 reason they took control of the south. Southern counties that had the most slaves in 1860 (just before being forced to free them) voted strongest for the Dems when Dems were the conservative party, and then switched around the Civil Rights Act to now being the counties that most support the GOP because they became the conservative party via an openly admitted strategy of Republican operatives to court the pro segregationist white conservative christian vote. Most conservatives and 85% of Republicans support preserving monuments to traitors who killed US soldiers and lost a war trying to preserve slavery, and those monuments were mostly built by white supremacists the early 1900s in opposition to civil rights efforts and at the height of the KKK. Most conservatives deny the impact of slavery and Jim Crow on current outcome inequalities and instead blame blacks themselves or "black culture", which logically presumes inherent racial inferiority since any self-inflicted harms by blacks that could explain outcome differences must either be caused by black Americans unique historical experiences (which is slavery, Jim Crow, and modern racism) or are innate. Most conservative deny that white supremacy exists to any notable degree today, which is a position so absurdly irrational and in denial of reality that only the severally mentally disabled could actually believe it, and all others are lying. Unless one has money to gain by lying about it (such as Owens), the most plausible reason to lie about the existence of white supremacists is because one is trying the hide amongst them and shared their ideology, so they don't want it accurately identified for what it is.

As for the rare black conservative, they mean nothing and there is various factors that motivate them. Candice Owens is a dishonest shill, who radically changed her supposed politics overnight when she realized she could make far more more money and get more fame by being a poster child for the alt-right whose views she had previously lambasted before making a career move.

WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor.

I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought.

IKR? It's like cancer.

Honestly, I don't really care about tumors. Sure they're shitty weird growths, but ultimately it is not the tumor itself that kills (ok, sometimes it does...). Rather, it is the malnutrition that the tumor makes happen around the body. If cancers just grew and did not soak up all the resources, we wouldn't care.

Rich people are like tumors. We don't care about them excepting for the fact that they are soaking up and controlling all the resources that the rest of the body of society needs. We have tissue necrosis due to malnutrition across all sorts of segments of society.

Then the tumors of society are like "you just hate tumors! You don't care about that tissue necrosis at all! Tumor rights!"

No, we care about the necrosis. It's just that the most direct path to end the necrosis is to cut out the tumors. If they were less malignant and greedy, it never would have come to this. It didn't have to, and over the last several decades didn't come to it. But this is where we are now.

Hi Jarhyn.

So, if I read you correctly, you do advocate for pulling down the rich, who you describe as 'tumors'? Am I wrong? Please correct me, as I'm just a working man, and something of a numbnuts.

I assume you care about helping poor people, though. You seem like a very moral and decent person.

Let me tell you plainly and without any decorative language the impression I get from some progressives here at TFT (and I will give you names in a private message should you ask). I occasionally get a whiff of snobby disdain from posters here, who it seems to me don't think a working 'class' (there is no such thing as social classes. Class categories are social constructs and not real things) person like myself can possibly have that much on the ball. In fact, one member who is still active, told me straight out that I couldn't be very intelligent since I was a working schmo who never went to college and always had low paying jobs. I will tell you this member's name in private message if you ask.

Now, what I believe led to this member's ire was that I had voiced some rather conservative political views in a thread. Not crazy far right garbage, not white supremacist nonsense, not racist bullshit, nothing misogynistic (I consider myself a feminist and have stated that I think I should have been a woman), nothing hateful. This person wouldn't acknowledge that I thought of myself as the artistic type: while not exactly starving, since I always worked hard at my various jobs, but someone who was willing to settle for little money in order to keep me free to pursue my passion, which is poetry and fiction, and my important hobby, writing, playing, and recording my own music.

All of the above is on record here at TFT and the older, defunct sites associated.

I have also received snooty, snobby remarks from other posters, and have been called a simpleton by one particularly silly and obviously classist member.

More later...

ETA: I see Ron has made a derogatory post. Hey Ron, did I say I have a "few black friends"?

I would still like to hear a rational answer to why there are many Black republicans and conservatives. All I hear is your kind of hand-waving bullshit.

I will look into Candace Owens more, to see if what you say has any merit.

WAB

Veteran Member
Most white conservatives claim they are not racist, but the evidence proves otherwise, thus, most conservatives are full of shit and hide where they really stand.

First, your own article actually refutes your claim. The final sentence of the abstract says, "Ultimately, total levels of redistribution—both private and government—are higher in Democratic-leaning counties."
IOW, Democrats act to redistribute more money toward the poor, they just do so through a combination of charity and passing government programs to help the poor.

In addition, this analysis separates "charity" between giving to one's own religious congregation, vs. giving to more general religious organizations, and giving to non-religious charities.

[P]"We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."[/P]

They find that all the extra "giving" of Republicans is to their own congregations to which they belong. IOW, they are self-servingly "giving" to their own ingroup and to promote their own dogma, and to advance their own political interests, since Churches get away with far more political activities than non-religious non-profits charities do. Also, since we are talking about congregations that appeal to right wing conservatives, some of that "giving" is going towards denying people's human and civil rights (anti-choice and anti-gay laws) and to pay for programs that abuse children, such as gay-conversion therapy and creationist education that lies to kids about science.

Most conservatives are racists? Some are, some are not. I have conservative leanings and I despise racism. I know of many others like myself. How do you explain black conservatives like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell? Think they want to keep blacks from voting? Are they Uncle Toms? Or are they paid by the righties to shpiel and pander for the right, like some dipshits have said about Candace Owens?

Ah, the ol' "I have a couple black friends, so I cannot be a racist" canard. No one with any intellectual integrity would offer such a defense, so the following is a waste of time, but...

The GOP has spend the last half century courting the white supremacist vote, which is the #1 reason they took control of the south. Southern counties that had the most slaves in 1860 (just before being forced to free them) voted strongest for the Dems when Dems were the conservative party, and then switched around the Civil Rights Act to now being the counties that most support the GOP because they became the conservative party via an openly admitted strategy of Republican operatives to court the pro segregationist white conservative christian vote. Most conservatives and 85% of Republicans support preserving monuments to traitors who killed US soldiers and lost a war trying to preserve slavery, and those monuments were mostly built by white supremacists the early 1900s in opposition to civil rights efforts and at the height of the KKK. Most conservatives deny the impact of slavery and Jim Crow on current outcome inequalities and instead blame blacks themselves or "black culture", which logically presumes inherent racial inferiority since any self-inflicted harms by blacks that could explain outcome differences must either be caused by black Americans unique historical experiences (which is slavery, Jim Crow, and modern racism) or are innate. Most conservative deny that white supremacy exists to any notable degree today, which is a position so absurdly irrational and in denial of reality that only the severally mentally disabled could actually believe it, and all others are lying. Unless one has money to gain by lying about it (such as Owens), the most plausible reason to lie about the existence of white supremacists is because one is trying the hide amongst them and shared their ideology, so they don't want it accurately identified for what it is.

As for the rare black conservative, they mean nothing and there is various factors that motivate them. Candice Owens is a dishonest shill, who radically changed her supposed politics overnight when she realized she could make far more more money and get more fame by being a poster child for the alt-right whose views she had previously lambasted before making a career move.

Yes, I did know that Owens had gone from left to right, but I did not know it was so sudden. I suppose what you say might have merit, since sudden political 180's are rare and potentially suspect. But in her case, it appears she was attacked and then received support from the right. I do not know, as I am not inside her mind. I never pretend to KNOW more about another person's motivations than they do themselves.

However, dramatic changes in political views happen. Dennis Miller was deeply affected by the 911 attacks.

Usually the switch is gradual, as in the case of David Horowitz, a former communist who now swings for the right, and there is Dave Rubin , who is not a right winger but who became disillusioned by the growing silliness of the regressive left.

I was a very left liberal into my twenties, until I began to take an objective look at things.

I think the radical left has never been sillier than at present in the U.S. of A.

I do not like the far right either. They are dangerous bozos.

But will you believe me? That is the question.

WAB

Veteran Member

Great song! Love me some Simon, Paul and Carly, unrelated.

Oh, and it's good to have no.secrets. Tell it all. Wear thy heart on thy sleeve. And put money in thy purse! Above all, put money in thy purse. Money is freedom. No money, no freedom.

ronburgundy

Contributor
Ah, the ol' "I have a couple black friends, so I cannot be a racist" canard. No one with any intellectual integrity would offer such a defense, so the following is a waste of time, but...

The GOP has spend the last half century courting the white supremacist vote, which is the #1 reason they took control of the south. Southern counties that had the most slaves in 1860 (just before being forced to free them) voted strongest for the Dems when Dems were the conservative party, and then switched around the Civil Rights Act to now being the counties that most support the GOP because they became the conservative party via an openly admitted strategy of Republican operatives to court the pro segregationist white conservative christian vote. Most conservatives and 85% of Republicans support preserving monuments to traitors who killed US soldiers and lost a war trying to preserve slavery, and those monuments were mostly built by white supremacists the early 1900s in opposition to civil rights efforts and at the height of the KKK. Most conservatives deny the impact of slavery and Jim Crow on current outcome inequalities and instead blame blacks themselves or "black culture", which logically presumes inherent racial inferiority since any self-inflicted harms by blacks that could explain outcome differences must either be caused by black Americans unique historical experiences (which is slavery, Jim Crow, and modern racism) or are innate. Most conservative deny that white supremacy exists to any notable degree today, which is a position so absurdly irrational and in denial of reality that only the severally mentally disabled could actually believe it, and all others are lying. Unless one has money to gain by lying about it (such as Owens), the most plausible reason to lie about the existence of white supremacists is because one is trying the hide amongst them and shared their ideology, so they don't want it accurately identified for what it is.

As for the rare black conservative, they mean nothing and there is various factors that motivate them. Candice Owens is a dishonest shill, who radically changed her supposed politics overnight when she realized she could make far more more money and get more fame by being a poster child for the alt-right whose views she had previously lambasted before making a career move.

Yes, I did know that Owens had gone from left to right, but I did not know it was so sudden. I suppose what you say might have merit, since sudden political 180's are rare and potentially suspect. But in her case, it appears she was attacked and then received support from the right. I do not know, as I am not inside her mind. I never pretend to KNOW more about another person's motivations than they do themselves.

However, dramatic changes in political views happen. Dennis Miller was deeply affected by the 911 attacks.

Usually the switch is gradual, as in the case of David Horowitz, a former communist who now swings for the right, and there is Dave Rubin , who is not a right winger but who became disillusioned by the growing silliness of the regressive left.

I was a very left liberal into my twenties, until I began to take an objective look at things.

I think the radical left has never been sillier than at present in the U.S. of A.

I do not like the far right either. They are dangerous bozos.

But will you believe me? That is the question.

I have no basis to believe you, so it would be irrational for me to do so. People lie, especially about holding immoral views, and you are a random person to me. What I know is that you uttered the phrase that you don't like the far right. Well, Trump is the extreme far right and is supported by the most white supremacist and generally bigoted elements of US society. If you are not strongly opposed to at least 90% of what Trump has said and done over the past 5 years (including while he campaigned in 2016), and if you do not support his impeachment, then you definitely do not oppose the far right and your words are empty. Similarly, if you think the far left (which failed to even get it's candidate nominated) is more dangerous than the alt-right (which is the far right) then you are either dangerously ignorant of reality to a level denoting mental deficiency or you are lying and/or deluding yourself, with the most plausible motive for deceit being that you don't have a problem with most far right's views and only want to count actual hood wearing KKK members as the "far right", so you can pretend you're a moderate by comparison.

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Once again, my Schwarze Raubtier (Dark Beast) as Bomb#20 calls it. Bomb’s second language is apparently French, mine is German.

It is not an accident that things in the US started to go to shit in 1980, from increased income inequality to reduced life expectancy to the lack of good jobs to the high cost of medical care to the surge in illegal immigration to the increase in the national debt. This was the year that we adopted new political economics to use to form our economic policies. We went from a reality-based one built on how the economy works to doing whatever we could do to increase corporate profits.

It is not an accident that to accomplish these results the corporatists choose to lie to the least demanding segment of the political spectrum in the US, conservatives. Conservatives not only tolerate being lied to, but they also need to be lied to maintain the fiction that their default position of no change is rational in the most dynamic economy and society that have ever existed.

It is really that simple.

WAB

Veteran Member
Ah, the ol' "I have a couple black friends, so I cannot be a racist" canard. No one with any intellectual integrity would offer such a defense, so the following is a waste of time, but...

The GOP has spend the last half century courting the white supremacist vote, which is the #1 reason they took control of the south. Southern counties that had the most slaves in 1860 (just before being forced to free them) voted strongest for the Dems when Dems were the conservative party, and then switched around the Civil Rights Act to now being the counties that most support the GOP because they became the conservative party via an openly admitted strategy of Republican operatives to court the pro segregationist white conservative christian vote. Most conservatives and 85% of Republicans support preserving monuments to traitors who killed US soldiers and lost a war trying to preserve slavery, and those monuments were mostly built by white supremacists the early 1900s in opposition to civil rights efforts and at the height of the KKK. Most conservatives deny the impact of slavery and Jim Crow on current outcome inequalities and instead blame blacks themselves or "black culture", which logically presumes inherent racial inferiority since any self-inflicted harms by blacks that could explain outcome differences must either be caused by black Americans unique historical experiences (which is slavery, Jim Crow, and modern racism) or are innate. Most conservative deny that white supremacy exists to any notable degree today, which is a position so absurdly irrational and in denial of reality that only the severally mentally disabled could actually believe it, and all others are lying. Unless one has money to gain by lying about it (such as Owens), the most plausible reason to lie about the existence of white supremacists is because one is trying the hide amongst them and shared their ideology, so they don't want it accurately identified for what it is.

As for the rare black conservative, they mean nothing and there is various factors that motivate them. Candice Owens is a dishonest shill, who radically changed her supposed politics overnight when she realized she could make far more more money and get more fame by being a poster child for the alt-right whose views she had previously lambasted before making a career move.

Yes, I did know that Owens had gone from left to right, but I did not know it was so sudden. I suppose what you say might have merit, since sudden political 180's are rare and potentially suspect. But in her case, it appears she was attacked and then received support from the right. I do not know, as I am not inside her mind. I never pretend to KNOW more about another person's motivations than they do themselves.

However, dramatic changes in political views happen. Dennis Miller was deeply affected by the 911 attacks.

Usually the switch is gradual, as in the case of David Horowitz, a former communist who now swings for the right, and there is Dave Rubin , who is not a right winger but who became disillusioned by the growing silliness of the regressive left.

I was a very left liberal into my twenties, until I began to take an objective look at things.

I think the radical left has never been sillier than at present in the U.S. of A.

I do not like the far right either. They are dangerous bozos.

But will you believe me? That is the question.

I have no basis to believe you, so it would be irrational for me to do so. People l
ie, especially about holding immoral views, and you are a random person to me. What I know is that you uttered the phrase that you don't like the far right. Well, Trump is the extreme far right and is supported by the most white supremacist and generally bigoted elements of US society. If you are not strongly opposed to at least 90% of what Trump has said and done over the past 5 years (including while he campaigned in 2016), and if you do not support his impeachment, then you definitely do not oppose the far right and your words are empty. Similarly, if you think the far left (which failed to even get it's candidate nominated) is more dangerous than the alt-right (which is the far right) then you are either dangerously ignorant of reality to a level denoting mental deficiency or you are lying and/or deluding yourself, with the most plausible motive for deceit being that you don't have a problem with most far right's views and only want to count actual hood wearing KKK members as the "far right", so you can pretend you're a moderate by comparison.

I am glad this bit of extreme silliness is on record here. Thanks Ron!

I am a random person to you? Hmmmm... I have posted here for nearly 17 years. You are most certainly not a random person to me. Why? Because I read and pay attention. If I am a random person to you, then that tells me that you are not paying attention.

Stay sharp, stay on your toes. I've got you where I want you. On the ropes.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

A magnificent human being used to say that.

Swammerdami

Staff member
I do NOT condone comments like the following:
Jarhyn said:
Rich people are like tumors. We don't care about them excepting for the fact that they are soaking up and controlling all the resources that the rest of the body of society needs. We have tissue necrosis due to malnutrition across all sorts of segments of society.

Then the tumors of society are like "you just hate tumors! You don't care about that tissue necrosis at all! Tumor rights!"

No, we care about the necrosis. It's just that the most direct path to end the necrosis is to cut out the tumors. If they were less malignant and greedy, it never would have come to this. It didn't have to, and over the last several decades didn't come to it. But this is where we are now.
Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work. Most of us would be quite happy to be rich. Some rich people donate heavily to charities; some don't. But it is human nature to be greedy, and to want to pass on one's wealth to one's children.

Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on. Since production is finite, to afford improving the living standards of our poorest it is necessary to insist on higher contributions from our richest: capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and so on. Regulations and transaction taxes are also good to reduce the waste on talent in the financial sector. Better law enforcement would help too; I just read that $100 billion of Covid aid money was diverted to criminals. Perhaps he agrees with all this, but Jarhyn's tone is completely wrong. We don't want to tax the rich because there's anything wrong with rich people as individuals. (There are plenty of greedy poor people who just haven't got lucky!) We just want a better allocation of society's finite resources: housing for the homeless, improved schools, and better nutrition for the masses, rather than spending society's finite resources on private jets and imported caviar. @ Jarhyn, do you mostly care about helping the poor? Or are you more concerned with pulling down the rich? I assume it's the former, but if so, your words are very VERY misleading. I cringe whenever I hear a "liberal" write or speak like this. I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor. I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought. I'm not a right winger. I am a moderate with some conservative leanings and some liberal leanings. ... I have, however, called some people in the modern progressive movement 'regressive', because I see many people of that ilk who do not appreciate the right to free speech and wish to eradicate it. I disagree with left wing proponents of compelled speech, and agree with Jordan Peterson's stance in that area. That you could describe me as a hateful right winger shows me that you don't know my posting history and I don't believe you care to know me. I don't keep good track of the political stances of posters. This is the first post from you on a political subject that I recall. (I may have read other political posts from you without noticing the name, or making a permanent memory.) I shall assume that I over-reacted. You DID write "I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor" which is extremely damning of progressive thought. Do you feel this way about AOC? About Sen. Elizabeth Warren? About me, if you consider me "on the left"? I hope I'm not wrong about this, but I'll guess that Jarhyn is much more concerned with lifting up the poor than pulling down the rich. I understand that his tone suggests the opposite; I find his attitude very unfortunate. There is a horrid schism in American politics today. You make a severe charge against most on the "left" which I think is unfair (and which I took personally); I over-react by using pejorative words against you. Can you and I move toward bridging this schism now? WAB prideandfall Veteran Member Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work. what exactly do you consider 'rich' to be? either in terms of total wealth ownership, or annual income, or something. because i'm willing to bet whatever figure you come up with once you nail that down is not the people jarhyn is talking about. Most of us would be quite happy to be rich. most of us would also be quite happy to be able to fly, but that wouldn't stop those of us who can't from having an issue with those who can continually taking a shit on us from up in the air. in fact, if the one who could fly persisted on shitting on the rest of us for long enough, and did so in a way that it became blindingly obvious was both intentional and spiteful, one might even conclude that an opinion that the solution to the problem is to 'pull down the flyers' might not be unreasonable. Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on. Since production is finite, to afford improving the living standards of our poorest it is necessary to insist on higher contributions from our richest: capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and so on. Regulations and transaction taxes are also good to reduce the waste on talent in the financial sector. Better law enforcement would help too; I just read that$100 billion of Covid aid money was diverted to criminals.
so let's just say for the sake of a hypothetical that both of your suggested actions were taken: government programs improved, and taxes were levied on certain wealth activities.
what if that still didn't cover it? what if school improvement was inadequate and more was needed? what if more funding for healthcare was required? what would your suggestion be at that point?

Perhaps he agrees with all this, but Jarhyn's tone is completely wrong.
i recall once reading on these forums from a middle-of-the-road conservative southerner that he was all for programs that helped the poor, but he voted republican because democrats had, and i'm paraphrasing here: "an attitude like i should be thanking them for helping me, like i should be grateful. i'm a southerner and i have pride, and their attitude that i should be thankful for their help sickens me" - and that was quite possible the dumbest fucking thing i had ever heard a supposedly functioning human being say out loud.

likewise, 'the content of the message is right but i don't like the tone so therefor reject the message' is pretty monumentally stupid.

@ Jarhyn, do you mostly care about helping the poor? Or are you more concerned with pulling down the rich? I assume it's the former, but if so, your words are very VERY misleading. I cringe whenever I hear a "liberal" write or speak like this.
you seem to think that the two aren't synonymous, or at least symbiotic.
if you have a circle that represents all of the resources available to the human race, and 99.9% of that circle is taken up by 'the rich', then pulling down the rich will necessarily help the poor because there will be more resources available to them.

personally i favor pulling down the rich and also preventing the rich from even existing. i don't think there is any conceivable rational argument to justify any single human owning more than 3 million dollars - i mean that as the sum total of all wealth and assets controlled by an individual, including personal property and real estate and liquid cash and whatever else.
if you have a combined total wealth of 3 million dollars you should be taxed at 100% for anything/everything else that you do until you're under 3 million. and no member of a corporation in any position should be able to make more than 10x the salary of the lowest paid member of that corporation.

that's how you fix the issue of wealth inequality, by making it non-existent. not by some limp-wristed mewling about maybe sort of a little bit if it's OK with the rich perhaps taking just a tiny bit more from one of their revenue streams BUT NOT TOO MUCH as long as everyone is alright with that.

I hope I'm not wrong about this, but I'll guess that Jarhyn is much more concerned with lifting up the poor than pulling down the rich. I understand that his tone suggests the opposite; I find his attitude very unfortunate.
you are again operating under the assumption that the two aren't the same thing. i find no logical reason for this assumption.

There is a horrid schism in American politics today. You make a severe charge against most on the "left" which I think is unfair (and which I took personally); I over-react by using pejorative words against you. Can you and I move toward bridging this schism now?
the schism in american politics today is not one of civil discourse, despite the right's attempts to frame it as such.

the schism in american politics today is that there is one center-right party in the US that while flawed and generally without vision or political will is sort of at least trying to appear like they're identifying the worst issues plaguing society and trying to implement governmental policy to correct those issues in order to forward the advancement of human civilization... more or less. they might not always have the best ideas about how to fix these issues, and often may only be pretending to care, but they at least put some minimal effort into it.

meanwhile there is another party in the US that has a stated goal of undermining the very concept of human social government, and is actively trying to destroy the foundational notion of human civilization moving forward through time and adapting to emerging challenges with reasonable government regulation and social change.
this party doesn't offer ideas on how to fix problems, it either denies that problems exist and refuses to engage with even the idea that a solution should be found, or it makes the problem worse by pouring gas on the fire of the problem or seeking out all the fire extinguishers and throwing them in a lake.

you can't have rational civil discourse when the question is "how do we approach the issue of inflating health care costs making access to medical treatment out of the reach for a significant number of adults" and the two answers you get from the political parties break down to one side going: "perhaps if we give a massive handjob to the insurance industry they'll be nice enough to occasionally provide the service their business is supposed based on, instead of taking money from customers and then refusing to give them anything for it"
and the other side replying with "LET'S LYNCH ALL THE NIGGERS"

marc

Veteran Member
Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work.
Inheritance might be benign way to get large amounts of wealth. But among some of the richest people it is not a matter of 'good investments' and 'hard work'. You have vulture capitalists make their money by destroying businesses. The family that owns Walmart are all billionaires, but pay their employees so little that there have been Walmart stores that did Thanksgiving food drives for their own employees. Sure, some can reach extreme levels of wealth without screwing over large numbers of people, but that does not seem to be the norm.

Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on.
Any solution to a problem needs to deal with the cause of the problem, not just the effects. If someone is bleeding badly the solution is to close the wound, not just give them more blood to try and compensate. Many people are poor because businesses have worked hard to make sure they don't have to pay people a living wage. And when they can, move those jobs to other countries where they can pay far less for labor.

During the 50's and 60's, when we had an expanding middle class, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Nearly everything made over, I think it was 3 million, was taxed. So the wealthy had a choice, either that money could go to the government, which would hopefully put it to good use helping people out of poverty, or reinvest the money in the company to do things like hire more people, or pay them better. Reagan severely cut that tax rate, allowing the wealthy to pocket that money instead, incentivizing paying people less and using fewer people to do the same amount of work.

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

Who are these people you're talking about? I can't recall anyone talking about increasing taxes being anything other than a means to collections, which are used to fund programs. I've not encountered anyone saying that taxation is remediation.

I mean, whether you agree with them or not, Dems' spending priorities are not exactly secret or constantly changing.

Most people when asked what their taxes should be will say less than now, and greater than zero.

I'm genuinely baffled by this comment.

I didn't originally comment to your question because I knew that it wouldn't take long for someone to prove my point! Please see post 69...

Deepak

Veteran Member
Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.

Who are these people you're talking about? I can't recall anyone talking about increasing taxes being anything other than a means to collections, which are used to fund programs. I've not encountered anyone saying that taxation is remediation.

I mean, whether you agree with them or not, Dems' spending priorities are not exactly secret or constantly changing.

Most people when asked what their taxes should be will say less than now, and greater than zero.

I'm genuinely baffled by this comment.

I didn't originally comment to your question because I knew that it wouldn't take long for someone to prove my point! Please see post 69...

I think we’re reading that post very differently. Strong language aside, the point is that the wealthy have used their position of wealth and the power of money to not only get wealthier, but have taken things to the point where the fabric of society is starting to unravel.

As I see it, the money collected would be spent remediating issues that affect people now. I didn’t interpret it to mean that simply killing all the rich people will solve the problem.

Harry Bosch

Contributor
I didn't originally comment to your question because I knew that it wouldn't take long for someone to prove my point! Please see post 69...

I think we’re reading that post very differently. Strong language aside, the point is that the wealthy have used their position of wealth and the power of money to not only get wealthier, but have taken things to the point where the fabric of society is starting to unravel.

As I see it, the money collected would be spent remediating issues that affect people now. I didn’t interpret it to mean that simply killing all the rich people will solve the problem.

Well, you're exaggerating my position. I didn't say that the left always leads with "killing all the rich people". I said that some on the left lead with that we can help the poor by taxing the wealthy. My point is that the left would do much better by leading with here is how we can level the playing field and help lift people up (education, entrepreneurship, economic development, less barriers, managing assets, taking control, fighting discrimination, and etc.); and then explaining that these programs require taxes to pay for them, but this is how we all benefit. And etc. The problem here is leading with antagonism just pisses people off - and the overall plan gets lost.

Deepak

Veteran Member
Honestly this is the sort of language game up with which I will not put. There’s no shortage of people who say it the right way and we still have Rs going on about how windmills go brrr. Go check out the Day Without Stupid Redux thread with a mayor in Tx telling people they should have planned better and it’s their own fault for not planning ahead.

I didn’t put words in your mouth, I was pointing to the rhetoric from the post you referenced. I’m judging based on your own assertion that taxation was an ends not a means and now you’ve revised your position to being one about marketability.

WAB

Veteran Member
I do NOT condone comments like the following:
Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work. Most of us would be quite happy to be rich. Some rich people donate heavily to charities; some don't. But it is human nature to be greedy, and to want to pass on one's wealth to one's children.

Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on. Since production is finite, to afford improving the living standards of our poorest it is necessary to insist on higher contributions from our richest: capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and so on. Regulations and transaction taxes are also good to reduce the waste on talent in the financial sector. Better law enforcement would help too; I just read that $100 billion of Covid aid money was diverted to criminals. Perhaps he agrees with all this, but Jarhyn's tone is completely wrong. We don't want to tax the rich because there's anything wrong with rich people as individuals. (There are plenty of greedy poor people who just haven't got lucky!) We just want a better allocation of society's finite resources: housing for the homeless, improved schools, and better nutrition for the masses, rather than spending society's finite resources on private jets and imported caviar. @ Jarhyn, do you mostly care about helping the poor? Or are you more concerned with pulling down the rich? I assume it's the former, but if so, your words are very VERY misleading. I cringe whenever I hear a "liberal" write or speak like this. I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor. I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bullshit right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought. I'm not a right winger. I am a moderate with some conservative leanings and some liberal leanings. ... I have, however, called some people in the modern progressive movement 'regressive', because I see many people of that ilk who do not appreciate the right to free speech and wish to eradicate it. I disagree with left wing proponents of compelled speech, and agree with Jordan Peterson's stance in that area. That you could describe me as a hateful right winger shows me that you don't know my posting history and I don't believe you care to know me. I don't keep good track of the political stances of posters. This is the first post from you on a political subject that I recall. (I may have read other political posts from you without noticing the name, or making a permanent memory.) I shall assume that I over-reacted. You DID write "I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor" which is extremely damning of progressive thought. Do you feel this way about AOC? About Sen. Elizabeth Warren? About me, if you consider me "on the left"? I hope I'm not wrong about this, but I'll guess that Jarhyn is much more concerned with lifting up the poor than pulling down the rich. I understand that his tone suggests the opposite; I find his attitude very unfortunate. There is a horrid schism in American politics today. You make a severe charge against most on the "left" which I think is unfair (and which I took personally); I over-react by using pejorative words against you. Can you and I move toward bridging this schism now? Yes, Swammi my dear friend, we can begin to build this bridge! I like your post, and I like you, especially for the Shakespeare thread which was instrumental in pulling me out of a deep despair. I thank you. First, I don't think most Democrats or people on the left want to tear down the wealthy, and I think most of them are truly concerned about helping the poor. But bottom line is this: I can not crawl inside the heads of other people and know exactly what they think and believe. I wish that some posters here would know that as well, but it has been my experience that a few people here and elsewhere really do believe that they know more about what someone else thinks than that person themselves. My own father is a person like this! My father is convinced that he knows what other people are thinking MORE than they do. He uses such phrases as, Oh, they think they know, but they don't know shit! They're heads are so far up their asses they don't know what's going on! I can tell you what they think they know...etc, etc. He happens to be hard right, but I have seen the same attitude from a few posters here over the years. There is nothing more irritating and offensive than to have an interlocutor tell you what you are thinking! There is a poster here who loves to say things like, I know Americans think X, because they're Y and Q, but in the developed world, we enlightened and less ignorant people know P, and bla blah blah... Such silliness should not be tolerated, but it is. I will talk with you more. What I think might help is a new thread about bridging the gap between left and right. I would start one but it would die fast... Swammerdami Squadron Leader Staff member I consider myself a centrist who is emotionally allied with the Left. But when I read some leftist rhetoric I am disheartened, and can understand why many on the right find these opinions laughable. Can we start by stipulating that human nature is what it is, and won't change any time soon? Most people with 5 million dollars would like to have another million. The profit motive has been absolutely essential to economic progress; surely this is not in doubt. There are straightforward reasonable steps for the U.S. to "have its capitalist cake and eat it too", to reduce wealth and income inequality, while leaving the U.S.'s admired entrepreneurial spirit intact. In addition to progressive income taxes and estate taxes, there are plenty of social welfare programs needed to better "split up the pie." We want to divert spending from imported caviar to simple nutritious food for children. We want this NOT because we hate caviar or the people who eat it, but because it should be the goal of an economic society to maximize the common well-being. And there are many regulatory changes that would help. We should encourage smart people to become doctors, nurses and teachers, even making them "richer" if that's what it takes. OTOH, a tiny tax on financial transactions would reduce one huge misappropriation. Many of the smartest Americans today, who could be doctors or scientists developing better energy sources, end up on Wall St. enriching themselves but not helping society. Those financial traders aren't to blame — trying to change human nature is not a solution (at least in the short-term) — but simple steps will change their incentives. "Vulture capitalists" are a more complicated issue. I'll just say that it's silly to treat those people as evil. (And their activities often contribute to the economy.) Some European countries give employees (and perhaps customers) a voice in corporate decisions; perhaps the U.S. should adopt something like that to reduce the excesses of vulture capitalism. Someone asked how I define "rich." Setting a threshold is besides the point, at least until we start designing the detailed tables of income and estate taxes. But there are plenty of people making big money. Do those calling vulture capitalists "evil" also think top athletes and actors are evil? What about Tucker Carlson and his$6 million salary? Or Rachel Maddow and her $7 million salary? Let me guess: Evil Tucker's salary is a symptom of what's wrong with capitalist America, while Rachel deserves more! I think I agree with most of you liberals on many of the SOLUTIONS. Where I differ is on the way I describe the problems. I'm happy to raise the minimum wage that Walmart employees are paid; I'd be happy to increase the taxes on Walmart's rich stockholders. But I don't call the Walton family as "evil"; and I think it's silly to think that way. Replace the Waltons with a family chosen at random, and the new Walmart owners would probably be just as happy as the Waltons to keep their billions intact. Here's a random post from the thread. marc may think he's arguing against me, but we are in broad agreement. The difference is that I prescribe policies to improve American economic society without framing it so that wealthy people are the villains. Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work. Inheritance might be benign way to get large amounts of wealth. But among some of the richest people it is not a matter of 'good investments' and 'hard work'. You have vulture capitalists make their money by destroying businesses. The family that owns Walmart are all billionaires, but pay their employees so little that there have been Walmart stores that did Thanksgiving food drives for their own employees. Sure, some can reach extreme levels of wealth without screwing over large numbers of people, but that does not seem to be the norm. Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on. Any solution to a problem needs to deal with the cause of the problem, not just the effects. If someone is bleeding badly the solution is to close the wound, not just give them more blood to try and compensate. Many people are poor because businesses have worked hard to make sure they don't have to pay people a living wage. And when they can, move those jobs to other countries where they can pay far less for labor. One area where we might find agreement is about corporate behavior. We can't change human nature, but via regulation we CAN change corporate nature. WAB Harry Bosch Contributor Honestly this is the sort of language game up with which I will not put. There’s no shortage of people who say it the right way and we still have Rs going on about how windmills go brrr. Go check out the Day Without Stupid Redux thread with a mayor in Tx telling people they should have planned better and it’s their own fault for not planning ahead. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I was pointing to the rhetoric from the post you referenced. I’m judging based on your own assertion that taxation was an ends not a means and now you’ve revised your position to being one about marketability. My position is pretty simple: lead with fixing problems rather than lead with increasing taxes, and we'll get more support and votes. Most Americans favor a strong safety net and helping people. And they understand that it needs to be paid for. But most Americans don't favor increased taxes to no end, just to waste it away. Deepak Veteran Member Honestly this is the sort of language game up with which I will not put. There’s no shortage of people who say it the right way and we still have Rs going on about how windmills go brrr. Go check out the Day Without Stupid Redux thread with a mayor in Tx telling people they should have planned better and it’s their own fault for not planning ahead. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I was pointing to the rhetoric from the post you referenced. I’m judging based on your own assertion that taxation was an ends not a means and now you’ve revised your position to being one about marketability. My position is pretty simple: lead with fixing problems rather than lead with increasing taxes, and we'll get more support and votes. Most Americans favor a strong safety net and helping people. And they understand that it needs to be paid for. But most Americans don't favor increased taxes to no end, just to waste it away. And to make that point you posted to an analogy by a person posting in a dark corner of the internet, where the purpose of the post was to provide the poster’s assessment of rich people on their surrounding community rather than be a slick sellable political message. And indeed, even that post didn’t say the thing that you’re saying. You’re seriously saying that Dems have been promising nothing but tax increases with no benefit attached, but can’t provide a single tangible example of it? How do you want me to address this? You’re asking me to hunt for Russell’s teapot. Show me prideandfall Veteran Member Can we start by stipulating that human nature is what it is, and won't change any time soon? but that exact same argument would state that we should just shrug and allow rape and murder and theft because "it's human nature". the entire point of civilization is that we subdue certain instinctual actions for the betterment of everyone. to hoard is natural, sure. equally nature is to see someone with when you are without and to murder them directly in the fucking face and take their stuff. these are both completely equal (and equally valid) survival instincts for a way of life which no exists within human society. and yet, our cultural is designed exclusively to encourage and endorse the former while excluding and denying the latter... because our cultural is designed by the wealthy and it benefits them personally to have it be this way. The profit motive has been absolutely essential to economic progress; surely this is not in doubt. you miss the point here: that "economic progress" is something that we should aspire to is what's in doubt. Someone asked how I define "rich." Setting a threshold is besides the point, at least until we start designing the detailed tables of income and estate taxes. But there are plenty of people making big money. Do those calling vulture capitalists "evil" also think top athletes and actors are evil? What about Tucker Carlson and his$6 million salary? Or Rachel Maddow and her $7 million salary? Let me guess: Evil Tucker's salary is a symptom of what's wrong with capitalist America, while Rachel deserves more! i did, and i asked specifically because whatever wealth point you picked would be substantially below the wealth point that jarhyn was talking about that you were commenting on, and i was right about that. Replace the Waltons with a family chosen at random, and the new Walmart owners would probably be just as happy as the Waltons to keep their billions intact. and thus you accidentally come to the entire point - it's not to 'pull down the rich so that a new crop of rich can take their place', it's to end the existence of 'the rich' in its entirety. the walton family shouldn't exist, conceptually. those of us who advocate for the destruction of the monied upper class aren't wanting to just swap one white stock photo for another, we want to end the existence of that level of wealth altogether. Swammerdami Squadron Leader Staff member Do we want to incentivise top Hollywood actors? Top surgeons? Top lawyers? Top athletes? Top inventors? (I vote respectively yes, yes, no, no, and yes on these questions.) How much incentive is needed? (I don't know) For inventors, did we really want the invention? For Steve Jobs' inventions, Gates' Microsoft and Walton's "invention" (cheap retail) I will answer Yes, maybe, No, respectively. (I disapprove of Windows, but like how Gates is spending his share of that huge rent.) Because incentives are good, but long-term inherited wealth is rather useless, I strongly favor big estate taxes on the very rich. Can we at least come to a good agreement on that much? prideandfall Veteran Member Do we want to incentivise top Hollywood actors? Top surgeons? Top lawyers? Top athletes? Top inventors? what is your definition of 'incentive'? also, to what extent to you think that people gravitate to those areas solely for the profit? in particular, the careers that you specifically mention all have a significant personal passion component to them - the 'starving artist' is a well trod cliche. people spend decades being poor to be actors, forsake money to be doctors in other countries or public defenders, most athletes make very little money, and most inventors die penniless. you've never once heard of someone spending their life being destitute to pursue their dream of being an investment banker or hedge fund broker. people will aspire to creative endeavors regardless of a financial motive (though obviously dreams of making it big are a part of that) - but if there was no chance of making huge amounts of money from it and instead just making a good solid decent living wage, you'd still have gobs of people doing it all the time. i don't see why 'incentive' needs to be 'a statistically significant percentage of the resources available to the human race as a species' in order to be viable. excess for its own sake is a socially toxic concept. Deepak Veteran Member 8 people have more wealth than 4 billion. This isn’t a question of incentivizing any given job. This is just a recast version of the Republican mind warp where their destitute constituents are fighting for tax reductions and the abolition of the death tax, while not understanding that their tax liability is already nil, and anything they would pass on to their children would likewise not be taxed. I genuinely don’t care how much a plastic surgeon is making or what a personal injury lawyer is taking home. Bomb#20 Contributor I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor. I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bull... right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought. Why do you have that reaction? Seems to me prideandfall's post #79 is a perfect example of what WAB was on about. It's just a massive vomit of hate speech at rich people and at everyone less left-wing than himself. The difference between an antisemite and prideandfall is that an antisemite defines his outgroup as parasites and makes believe that getting rid of them will solve his ingroup's problems, whereas prideandfall defines his outgroup as parasites and makes believe that getting rid of them will solve his ingroup's problems. And the proof that he doesn't care about helping the poor is right here: "if you have a combined total wealth of 3 million dollars you should be taxed at 100% for anything/everything else that you do until you're under 3 million."​ If people aren't allowed to accumulate more than X, then when they get close to X they'll consume their additional income -- and consumption is a type of destruction. Likewise, if people aren't allowed to have incomes more than X, then when they get to X they'll go on vacation for the rest of the year and stop producing anything more for the government to tax. So it's painfully obvious that the government will raise more revenue for lifting up the poor and for everything else the government seeks to accomplish at a tax rate of 90% than at a tax rate of 100%. It follows that if someone wants to tax anything at 100% then his goal is to destroy it rather than to obtain wealth with which to accomplish something useful. Of course you wrote your denunciation of WAB before post #79; but surely that can't have been the first time you've heard an irrational screed like prideandfall's. Advocacy of 100% tax rates isn't a novelty; this hate-driven insanity comes up on a regular basis. Heck, even Bernie Sanders proposed a 100% tax bracket. Deepak Veteran Member I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor. I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bull... right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought. Why do you have that reaction? Seems to me prideandfall's post #79 is a perfect example of what WAB was on about. It's just a massive vomit of hate speech at rich people and at everyone less left-wing than himself. The difference between an antisemite and prideandfall is that an antisemite defines his outgroup as parasites and makes believe that getting rid of them will solve his ingroup's problems, whereas prideandfall defines his outgroup as parasites and makes believe that getting rid of them will solve his ingroup's problems. And the proof that he doesn't care about helping the poor is right here: "if you have a combined total wealth of 3 million dollars you should be taxed at 100% for anything/everything else that you do until you're under 3 million."​ If people aren't allowed to accumulate more than X, then when they get close to X they'll consume their additional income -- and consumption is a type of destruction. Likewise, if people aren't allowed to have incomes more than X, then when they get to X they'll go on vacation for the rest of the year and stop producing anything more for the government to tax. So it's painfully obvious that the government will raise more revenue for lifting up the poor and for everything else the government seeks to accomplish at a tax rate of 90% than at a tax rate of 100%. It follows that if someone wants to tax anything at 100% then his goal is to destroy it rather than to obtain wealth with which to accomplish something useful. Of course you wrote your denunciation of WAB before post #79; but surely that can't have been the first time you've heard an irrational screed like prideandfall's. Advocacy of 100% tax rates isn't a novelty; this hate-driven insanity comes up on a regular basis. Heck, even Bernie Sanders proposed a 100% tax bracket. Notice how this is all self serving double talk. It doesn’t actually address the post being referenced, smuggles in a bunch of assumptions then declares victory based on those assumptions. Income and wealth get introduced and swapped without explanation where it’s convenient. No effort is spent quantifying the effort of a Walton, or a 7th generation Rockefeller who play works as a barista at a Manhattan Starbucks while living in a town house in the Lower East Side. Bomb#20 Contributor Notice how this is all self serving double talk. It doesn’t actually address the post being referenced, Sorry, my bad. WAB isn't a right-winger. What he wrote wasn't hateful. He doesn't dislike progressive thought; rather, progressive thought has a lot of complexity to it and WAB likes some aspects and dislikes others. And he's shown little sign of obsessing about it. Happy? Swammerdami Squadron Leader Staff member I don't think many on the left actually care that much about helping the poor. It seems to me that some of them are MUCH more about wanting to pull down the rich than lifting up the poor. I continue to be bemused and saddened by the confused hateful bull... right-wingers come up with to justify their obsessive dislike of progressive thought. Why do you have that reaction? Seems to me prideandfall's post #79 is a perfect example of what WAB was on about. It's just a massive vomit of hate speech at rich people and at everyone less left-wing than himself. ... I am afraid you're correct. Without singling out prideandfall — I'm not even going to re-read his post — I have noticed this sort of hatred directed against the rich, in this thread and elsewhere. Since I feel an emotional attachment to the Left, I repress my memories of such nonsense (while NOT repressing memory of nonsense from the Right.) I tried to explain why this leftist view is wrong-headed in a previous post, but some continued to brand the rich as villains. I still think WAB's first sentence quoted above was an exaggeration (Do the majority "on the left" have this irrational attitude? I think few Democratic Party intellectuals feel this way; does AOC?), but I will apologize again to WAB for my ill-tempered response. I'd be happy to see the top tax bracket raised to 50% or 55%, and have big taxes on capital gains and estates as well. I just think it's stupid to consider the rich to be villains. Well-paid entertainers and inventors have improved the lives of Americans. They should be applauded, not condemned. We should talk about improving the system (e.g. regulations to curb some Wall St. excesses), but there's no need to point fingers of blame at those who took advantage of a flawed system. (I have a very smart computer-programmer friend who went to work for Jim Simons' Renaissance Fund and is now very rich. I don't condemn him; to the contrary I wish I'd zigged instead of zagging in my career and worked alongside him!) What is especially bad about hateful leftist ignorance is that it turns people off and makes them more likely to vote for Trumpists. That is an outcome we do NOT want. Loren Pechtel Super Moderator Staff member I do NOT condone comments like the following: Most rich people won their wealth in benign ways: inheritance, good investments, hard work. Most of us would be quite happy to be rich. Some rich people donate heavily to charities; some don't. But it is human nature to be greedy, and to want to pass on one's wealth to one's children. Exactly. So many on the left think wealth is automatically evil, they don't understand that it's usually due to prudent actions on the part of those that have the money. These days anyone with a decent job should be a millionaire as they are approaching retirement. Furthermore, a lack of money is far more often due to poor handling of thee outgo. Wealth inequality is bad for society, but the solution is to take political steps to help the poor, steps like improved schools in low-income areas, increased government funding for healthcare, childcare, education; and so on. Exactly. We should be trying to help people up. Schools are problematic, though, because they far more are a reflection of the students than a cause of the poor performance. I do not believe there is a good solution when the parents don't care, I favor focusing on helping those students who are interested in learning. This would have to be done with great care as historically it has often been used to discriminate. Since production is finite, to afford improving the living standards of our poorest it is necessary to insist on higher contributions from our richest: capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and so on. Regulations and transaction taxes are also good to reduce the waste on talent in the financial sector. Better law enforcement would help too; I just read that$100 billion of Covid aid money was diverted to criminals.

The problem with the Covid aid money is they were trying to get it out fast and the systems weren't up to it.

Deepak

Veteran Member
I am afraid you're correct. Without singling out prideandfall — I'm not even going to re-read his post — I have noticed this sort of hatred directed against the rich, in this thread and elsewhere.

It's a shame, I think.

I'm not envisioning a world that really looks all that different for the vast majority of Americans, or even people in the western world. That includes well paid entertainers and inventors, the vast majority of whom may or may become rich, but are never wealthy.

Indeed, the world I would envision isn't something that requires mechanisms other than adjustments to taxation, and a willingness to enforce rules on taxation.

The top income tax bracket is 500k for individuals. I you want to squeeze those poor bastards for another 13 percentage points of tax then it seems like you hate the rich more than I do.

I don't have any problem with people working for a living and being rewarded for the investment they make in that living, either through exploiting their natural talents, their efforts to educate themselves, or through shrewd decision making and even sheer luck.

My issue is much much higher level than that.

If your starting point is to say that the status quo must be maintained to even listen, then I think you don't have much cause to point out recalcitrance from others.

I don't want to speak for prideandfall.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
personally i favor pulling down the rich and also preventing the rich from even existing. i don't think there is any conceivable rational argument to justify any single human owning more than 3 million dollars - i mean that as the sum total of all wealth and assets controlled by an individual, including personal property and real estate and liquid cash and whatever else.

What you don't realize is this path results in the destruction of the human race. Probably not in your lifetime but without a doubt it would happen. Our current technological level is not sustainable--we will burn through our fossil fuels and crash. Crap like AOC's green approach will only speed the demise. (It's been tried--fossil fuel use goes up because the renewables can't pick up the load--all that really happens is nukes go away.)

It's those people with a ton of money that drive the innovation that is our only hope.

if you have a combined total wealth of 3 million dollars you should be taxed at 100% for anything/everything else that you do until you're under 3 million. and no member of a corporation in any position should be able to make more than 10x the salary of the lowest paid member of that corporation.

And while you're at it why don't you bring about immortality by prohibiting dying. (All you're actually going to do is increase the wage disparity because of outsourcing.)

that's how you fix the issue of wealth inequality, by making it non-existent. not by some limp-wristed mewling about maybe sort of a little bit if it's OK with the rich perhaps taking just a tiny bit more from one of their revenue streams BUT NOT TOO MUCH as long as everyone is alright with that.

That's how you fix the issue of humanity infesting planet Earth.

and the other side replying with "LET'S LYNCH ALL THE NIGGERS"

You're the one calling for a lynching.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
During the 50's and 60's, when we had an expanding middle class, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Nearly everything made over, I think it was 3 million, was taxed. So the wealthy had a choice, either that money could go to the government, which would hopefully put it to good use helping people out of poverty, or reinvest the money in the company to do things like hire more people, or pay them better. Reagan severely cut that tax rate, allowing the wealthy to pocket that money instead, incentivizing paying people less and using fewer people to do the same amount of work.

During the 50s and 60s we had no meaningful foreign competition. And only idiots paid those tax rates in the first place. Trying resurrect that golden era isn't possible.