White dudes and identity politics.

[LDAHL]

Haha... I appreciate that, LDAHL. There is always a tension between idealism and realism, so I'll always be the yin to your yang. But I feel that we need to determine what's in the best interest of everyone and then figure out how to get it done. My mother's saying was always "God will handle the details." God... and people like you.

I believe this would be a better country if we elected more accountants and fewer lawyers.

[ApatheticNoMore]

What if the only actual realism for life on earth is radical ecological economics, because it's really the only one that adds up. It's the only one where the math makes sense. We can't use up natural resources at a rate above replacement as this just borrows from the future, and they will have less. And yes we also use natural resources as a sink for trash but they are about filled up there too (really are, ocean can't keep absorbing carbon for instance).

But this is a very long discussion and perhaps one might conclude hopeless, but so is the alternative and objectively so. It's just that what is presently being called realism is:

But more on topic and something with a lot more working examples: single payer healthcare costs less than what we have. By far. And covers everyone for that spending less. We have pretty much the most expensive system in the world. So it makes the most obvious economic sense that if we wanted to save money we'd go with single payer healthcare. Anything else is being unrealistic and a very odd form of idealism as in "let's spend more than everyone else just to make sure everyone isn't covered". A very odd impractical idealism that we can only do because we're rich enough to throw away money.

[Ultralight]

What if the only actual realism for life on earth is radical ecological economics, because it's really the only one that adds up. It's the only one where the math makes sense. We can't use up natural resources at a rate above replacement as this just borrows from the future, and they will have less. And yes we also use natural resources as a sink for trash but they are about filled up there too (really are, ocean can't keep absorbing carbon for instance).

But this is a very long discussion and perhaps one might conclude hopeless, but so is the alternative and objectively so. It's just that what is presently being called realism is:

But more on topic and something with a lot more working examples: single payer healthcare costs less than what we have. By far. And covers everyone for that spending less. We have pretty much the most expensive system in the world. So it makes the most obvious economic sense that if we wanted to save money we'd go with single payer healthcare. Anything else is being unrealistic and a very odd form of idealism as in "let's spend more than everyone else just to make sure everyone isn't covered". A very odd impractical idealism that we can only do because we're rich enough to throw away money.

There is nothing that will change a right-winger's mind.

[jp1]

If trickle down economics actually worked kansas’s economy would be booming like there’s no tomorrow and california’s would be completely tanked.

I guarantee you that if you put more money in the pockets of the people in the bottom 50% economically the ‘job creators’ will be happy to hire more people and produce more product since more consumers will have more money to buy more stuff.

[LDAHL]

There is nothing that will change a right-winger's mind.

To paraphrase Barry (Goldwater,not Obama), in your heart you know I’m right.

[JaneV2.0]

And the inevitable response to that was "In your guts, you know he's nuts!"

But Goldwater--who lost in a landslide--is looking saner by comparison all the time.

[LDAHL]

If trickle down economics actually worked kansas’s economy would be booming like there’s no tomorrow and california’s would be completely tanked.

I guarantee you that if you put more money in the pockets of the people in the bottom 50% economically the ‘job creators’ will be happy to hire more people and produce more product since more consumers will have more money to buy more stuff.

So the problem with trickle down was that it lacked the secret ingredient of coerced redistribution?

[jp1]

So the problem with trickle down was that it lacked the secret ingredient of coerced redistribution?

No, the problem with trickle down is that it doesn't do what it's proponents claim it is supposed to do. But if conservatives were honest and said "we're passing this tax cut because we think rich people should pay less taxes" they might have as much difficulty selling the idea as trump would have if the government's lawyers had been honest about the reason he wanted a citizenship question on the census. The latest tax cuts didn't result in some magical dramatic increase in capital spending by corporations, unless by capital spending one means share buybacks. And most wealthy people are probably like me. They don't live paycheck to paycheck, so I doubt many of them went out and spent their tax cuts growing the economy. Their behavior was probably more like mine. Shovel the extra money into an index fund or some other investment that does nothing to grow the economy, only the stock market. But put the $3,000 or so that I got from the tax cut into the pockets of people living paycheck to paycheck and I guarantee that money would have been percolating through the economy buying stuff and services within weeks of its arrival.

[ApatheticNoMore]

maybe, I suspect much of it would go to debt, which would be trickling back into the hands of the rich pretty fast in that case. But for people without much debt maybe.

[jp1]

If you live life perpetually in debt then getting a windfall that reduces that debt just means an opportunity to spend money and build that debt level back up.