tallslenderguy

Eek, i repent. Bur seriously, that was a throw it at the wall to see if there's any adhesion comment. i resort to my foundational assertion that i'm a regular guy talking about stuff that confounds experts. On the one hand, a flat tax seems to treat all equally, but then it doesn't take into account that all are not (e.g. financially) "equal." From my limited grasp, it seems a method more suited to starting out an economy, than it does applying to an already complex economic system. Looking at your response, the progressive tax system seems more suited to the realities facing individuals, while a flat tax seems to assume one total group would be equally affected. YES!! Agreed. Go back to my previous paragraph (where i to my credit "repent"), some guy (i.e. me) on the internet suggesting a flat tax does not constitute a "real leader," (at least, not on that topic). In this case, i'd be the patient who watched a youtube video and then chose my own judgement over my doctors. On the other hand, those patients questions can help challenge presumption that often comes with 'expertise' or professional authority. Sort of how the ongoing scientific process (ideally, more study is always needed) disallows static notions in a an infinite, fluid reality. A challenge is, knowing when we need to go to the doctor. Vive democracy. i'd (likely) be by your in the vehement fight. The notion of "take from these people to give to these people" strikes me as the opposite of moral. How to we reach the Star Trek era where "those with more" agree and voluntarily (even want to?) "pay more?" Yes, you are right of course. It's not as if we are starting from scratch here, society already is a huge system that has long relied on taxation. Day to day governance is more like tending the establishment garden vs a revolution that does a reset. Yes and no? (note the question mark). The wealthy benefit maybe more from the roads and infrastructure they use to transport their stuff to the workers they employ who buy the stuff they make to make the wealthy, wealthy (is that convoluted?). Pharmaceuticals. i did an investigation a few years ago on the cost of developing a new drug. Then, it was about 5 billion dollars. Half of the cost is subsidized by federal grants (i.e., tax dollars). Half of that 5 billion dollars is profit. So, as the 'patient' watching the youtube vid, i go to my 'doctor' with a cure. Why not skip the middleman. NIH hire, instead of fire, those same scientists working for the pharmaceutical company. The incentive for creativity could be enhanced by paying the research scientist more than the pharmaceutical company did, or maybe a bonus system to incentivize creativity, would still result in a much lower cost for drug development. It would still employ the same amount of productive people. The primary investors would be the ones to lose out, but then, what are they really contributing? The small investor whose few dollars a month go into a mutual fund won't take much of a hit on that side of the equation. I'll use the incendiary term here, the "oligarchs" are the biggest losers? But, have they produced anything or just exploited the productivity of others? The notion of risk of investment is pretty watered down by federal grants. i wonder how many are super wealthy because they benefit from our system of taxation? No, no particular direction other than publicly discussing and learning to perhaps better refine or qualify a direction to go. It seems to me that all government programs are directed to "one group of people," but the benefits vary amongst the members of the group. E.g., national defense (spending), benefits Lockheed Martin more directly than the person working at McDonalds (referential). Having fun with AI: "Usage Statistics: In 2020, it was reported that Walmart accounted for approximately 18% of all SNAP transactions in the U.S." i know i'm maybe missing your point, but maybe simultaneously making a valid point that "one group" is hard to label or define? But to your question: Some argue the current guys in charge used group programs like SNAP and ACA tyrannically. i don't presume to have the answers, just thoughts and more questions... but to me, this is part of the process of maybe finding answers. i've been pretty fiscally 'conservative' my whole life. I.e., i work hard to get out of and stay out of debt. i was first debt free at the age of 43 when i paid cash for my first house. i worked my ass off to get there. Then at 51, i got divorced and my former wife got everything (long sordid story), and i started over. i'm currently debt free again, and that's after paying of >100k in student loans from a career change at age 55, and own my house again (no mortgage), no credit card debt, etc.. my individual experience and philosophy is one remains solvent through hard work and not spending more than one has. Debt should be a short term tool vs an ongoing integral approach. i honestly do not know if that would or could work on a huge government level? my intuition asks: "why not?" my rational brain says: "it's complicated." Volume of taxation can be summed up as "driven by the activities of government," but it seems to me, the devil is in the details? Some activities are driven by the voting population. Some are driven by greed, corruption. Some are driven by systemic red tape. The list is probably really long, but it seems to me the activities of government often fly under the radar. Legislation often feels like buying a used car from a disreputable dealer, where the sales person is always leaving the negotiation to "check" with their "manager." I.e., the disguised or buried add on expenses are SOP. So, "what it takes on" is way more than the proposed used car. All my answers refer back to my first disclaimer lol. Education and engagement seem important to me to managing capability. i think US government does a lousy job of managing expectations. i think we Americans often expect a panacea when there is no cure, just management of an ongoing condition. I.e, "needs" will always be a part of life, part of education and expectation management might include replacing the notion of a total fix with need reduction that fits within means. I may want a Ferrari, but i can get by with a Toyota. Both are capable vehicles.

We agree. Whew. Glad we established that. Got it. Sort of an example. i quit my Hulu streaming service when Jimmy Kimmel was "indefinitely suspended." Apparently lots of other people did too, "collectively." Though i do not know how we can accurately measure the impact, it appeared to have an impact. This was where i was going earlier in the discussion when i referenced topics, taking a dive into sepsis and healthcare, looking at trust, experts and added a nod to Krishnamurti's assertion: You Are the World. "Where does [one] start in terms of solving a problem?" i think, realistically, it always starts with ones own actions. E.g., The question of "organic" labeling grew to the point of legislation. As an individual, i'd been an "organic" grower for years prior to that becoming a legislative issue. i promoted and supported that locally and state wide by growing my own food organically, providing organic produce at a local farmers market, participating as a member of a state wide organization that did similar stuff to me as an individual. When it became a national question, i contacted my representatives, signed petitions on legislative definition of "organic." While problem solving starts individually, much of it is more effective collectively. A point i'm making of the "endless trail," is any individual is limited by capacity in how much and in how many things one can be "expert." i used the example of healthcare. We cannot all get 12 years of education to be doctors, and that is only one branch of the complex healthcare tree. Doctors specialize because physiology is vast (infinite), then there's nutrition, pharmaceuticals, physical therapy... ad infinitum. i get sick, i go a doctor. Solving the problem of sickness starts with me, but i'm asking/demanding, relying on, someone else to "fix things for [me]." i think this approach applies, in varying degrees, to a lot of things. Healthcare, plumbing, government... on down "the endless trail." i think it's vital to be engaged as an individual. Honest, caring professionals from the endless list will both praise and bemoan stuff like youtube. On the one hand, it can be very helpful to me as a critical care nurse for a patient to be engaged enough that they have understanding about issues and interventions affecting their individual health. But, it's impossible for that individual to have the collective understanding and expertise of the "complex healthcare tree." So, they extend trust. But to whom? Ultimately, their own self by the choices they make individually who to trust with their issue. It may be the youtube vid vs their primary care doctor. But really, they are trusting their own emotions and rationale. There are trustworthy people, and there are liars and cheats. But there are also unsolvable problems. i saw a recent discussion/interview between HC Richardson and Rep Adam Smith. i found it refreshing to hear an American government member asserting that America needs the humility to be a part of the world community vs being in charge of it. That we cannot 'fix' everything, nor should be necessarily take on that responsibility every time we do. There are problems that cannot be fixed by us as individuals, collectively or by experts. Goes back to (i think need for) things like "grace," "love" ( i think love can more than an emotion, that i can have a very practical, principled side). Because the human condition is, we know and see in part. Ditto "massive topic." i think that there was a time when "conservative" meant "dislike [of] all tax, in general." Both sides of our political parties approve of taxes because both want to spend, the distinctions are where the money is spent and who pays for it. But, at least in current times, the "conservative" assertion of being anti tax is disingenuous at best. i may get crucified for saying this, but there is a secret part of me (no longer secret with this writing lol) that thinks there may be a silver lining to the current administrations slash and burn approach. No, i don't agree with the careless approach, but, on the other hand, when i consider the "massive topic," it is a sort of approach to making it smaller. i say "sort of," because, well, side effects. my point being, in the US history, we've created a "massive topic," that is not easily or simply addressed. The current approach has a lot of "just blow it up" approach to it, which may present opportunities for a do over? Many of our issues are from constant adding with never any subtraction. We run into sustainability issues, while continuing to introduce new and different stuff that costs additional sums. i think we both have a similar sense of right and fairness when it comes to "targeted tax." in my (ignorant, non professional) "do over" scenario, a more simplifies tax system strikes me as more egalitarian. A straight percentage tax on all income. Of course, that means defining "income." If there is a loophole, people will find it. A world where one can choose which group they want to be a member of, and that group (country?) decides how much to charge and for what services and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen, we have to work with what we have, adding snow here and there to the massive snowball, taking away snow here and there. To me Trump and his inner circle (guys like Miller and Vought) are examples of "despot, oligarch and monarch" approach. i think they exist because "we the people" (individually) became too disengaged from those we hired to run and "fix it." my hope is, the current situation will result in more people who "stop and think about that." Would you go into some detail about what you see as "the left [getting] their way previously" that would have resulted in "Trump being in charge of so much more!"

I follow several political podcasts, a few lawyers, The Bulwark among them. One of my favorites is historian HC Richardson, i appreciate that she doesn't use click bait manipulative titles for her podcasts, and often has some great interviews/discussions with prominent's. i found her analysis of the current state of affairs balanced and level headed.

i think "purely progressive" or its counter "purely conservative" (for lack of a better term) both represent minority sub groups of the "two worlds." i question the notion of "purely" on either side. i think the cyclical election shifts from one side to the other are a reflection of the... impurities of each group. I.e., each group is really a mix of sub groups, and ultimately, a mix of individuals. Re "the group" i referenced. i should have made that plural: i.e., "the groups," i think each side of the general divide is made up of groups that end up getting generalized into two groups, each with their extreme ends, but i wonder if most (ore enough?) of each group has sympathies with the other "world" that resulted in a shift to the other side, depending on the current direction of the wind? Then there is the 33% who don't participate in the voting process, the disengaged, which numbers change through the cycles. I'm thinking about the smaller sub groups that make up the larger "group." The attached poll info includes sub groups by demographic: gender, age, race and education. Will you link the particular poll you are citing? i did a quick look poll search, and chose The Economist site since that's the one you referenced and will attach the results. i need to dig further and look at sampling size and questions asked, so i understand this is not an apples to apples comparison, but the devil is in the details, eh? Different set of questions, but also looks at the overall Trump approval question, providing demographic info by state, age and gender, as well as specific topics of concern, like economy, immigration, crime, environment, etc. Lower down is a second poll, also from The Economist, on the 2024 election results that gives some similar demographic and by state info for comparison from that timeframe. 298 days into Donald Trump's term The president's net approval rating is -18%, down 0.2 points since last week. 39% approve, 57% disapprove, 4% not sure Last updated on November 14th 2025 [think before following links] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker Trump election results: [think before following links] https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/results/president

Yes, you are correct, the system is a marginal system, so only the income that falls into the higher bracket gets taxed at the higher rate. my comment is half tongue in cheek... and half not, looking at the notion of taxes in general as punitive or a disincentive to success. A lower middle income earners tax virtually doubles a that juncture, whereas, once income gets to ~~$626k per annum the rate is a static 37%. i say "static," but the reality is, the more income one makes, the more ways exist to shelter wealth from taxes. To me, the bigger consideration is social. At what point does one reach the stage of "no financial worries." The person making $48k, trying to raise a family, buy a house, pay for college, etc., has financial impact of not being able to afford a standard of living that does not impact those who have 'extreme' wealth. To me, a question would be, what constitutes "extreme," and some would argue that even asking the question is unfair. And, it does impinge/impact individual autonomy (i.e., the freedom to choose where our earnings go)... but that is true about the entire system of taxation. What are the social questions/ramifications in a social system that relies on taxation? A few questions: Whose standard of living is most impacted by taxes? Do social systems that rely on taxation benefit all equally? What constitutes benefit?

i'll be vulnerable a guess that we agree that trickledown economics doesn't work the way its proponents assert? It was and is (and was) reasonable to me that income disparity has a cause. It may be as simple as the point you are trying to get across using the article you cite may be over my head. i think i maybe too simplistic (and macro) terms myself. The point i'm trying to make is i see the cause of income disparity as from a point we both hit on earlier: "greed." And, immediately i pause because what may constitute "greed" for me, may not constitute "greed" for another. i'm going to come back to this and connect "greed" with another term being used in our exchange. But, to me, the vid i shared on "who had it better," demonstrates income disparity as a reflection of greed. The money and growth are there, but the smallest and richest group of people is benefiting many times more than the majority middle and lower wage earners. But it was not always that way. There have always been the three levels, but for many years, they all benefitted pretty equally from overall national economic growth. Well, collectively. If it was just me buying from Amazon, the success would be much less. It seems to me, we can point to any large successful company and make the same statement, and we might be able to demonstrate that everyone, in some way, is a "people like you." If one drives or takes any fossil fuel vehicle anywhere, they are supporting oil company successs, and the examples are without end. It becomes a question of degree, no? The organic farmer that we buy from locally may buy the packaging they use for the honey they produce at WalMart (the "affordability problem" you note) or the diesel for their tractor from Exxon, or___________. The trail seems endless? i do not believe there is something as absolute as a "solution to the problem" of what i think of as less than ideal individual behavior. And i'm a believer that asshat is not a permanent condition, but a moment by moment choice we can all make. But that gets into the weeds, i know. i said i'd return to the factor of "greed," because i thing its connected to how one defines "success." Looking at the 2025 tax brackets, the percentage of taxes paid on "income earned" goes from 10% to 37% if "earned income" exceeds $626k. Does everyone making >$626k pay 37% in taxes? Not implying that the tax rates are right or fair, but thinking lower and middle class people pay a larger percentage of their earnings than the Musks of this world. In terms of left over income, who experiences the larger penalty for success, or conversely has less incentive to 'succeed?" At what level of income or wealth does one stop experiencing an inability to purchase enough. Is greed a matter of perspective? Is "rich?" Is it class warfare to tax the person making $48k 12% but the person making $49k 22%? At what point does it become class warfare? While i do not believe there is a perfect answer, a straight percentage paid by all seems more equal. Maybe one step considering a "living wage?" i think the other side of the picture is the challenges of agreeing on what our tax dollars are spent on. i need to eat dinner 🙂

i may be missing you on this? i think income disparity can be both a cause and effect and i think that is demonstrated historically, i.e., "over time." i think history has lots of examples of waxing and waning vs linear movement on this topic? An extreme example of income disparity (to me) is the history of slavery. It's always been around. In current times, there is reference to some 'occupations' as "wage slaves." That income disparity seems to me a cause that in some instances has the effect of the "wage slave" collectivizing into a union that in turn affects change in wage disparity. i think "our collective behavior" is a mix of individual behavior. Though we tend to join others who have things in common with us and become a part of a more general group, vs going it alone. A reason for that is to ensure our individual desires/needs get met (to some degree). The group gets affected by individuals who use powers to persuade, (over simplified) e.g.: an egalitarian vs a fundamentalist. They then separate into separate groups and go to war with each other. To me, the Amazon example has echos of trickle down economics? Sorry, i may have leaped instead of stepped in my response. Where i was going was: ideally "we the people" are the government, and if we become to far removed from our role in government, the elected "governments role the problem" can grow. As i see it, what is happening in our county now is a reflection of that. I.e., i think too many of "we the people" became complacent, even detached from government. One result is excessive, far reaching corruption that goes way beyond partisan. I think this has resulted in a whiplash response from some opportunists who would step into the void of our disengagement (and as is see it) growing the "governments role in the problem." my perception is Trump and his current cabinet/inner circle represent people "who in the US [who] feels differently." i think the "over reach" is much more extreme than typically happens in our election cycles. i also think the result is their support base is shrinking the more they try to implement their particular 'agendas." The current administration seems way less responsive to the majority of Americans and the 'group' they represent is presenting as much smaller and more extreme. The "groups" i reference in my first paragraph vary in size and membership. i think the political sides you reference also have smaller sub groups (on both sides) and the more 'extreme' (meaning fewer identify with them), the smaller the group. i think the current "group" is extreme to the point of wanting to thwart and undermine the democratic process vs just wanting to win within that system. Idk lol, maybe? The written word has so many more challenges than face to face, missing the tonal and visual cues. And even face to face is fraught with hazard, eh? my sense is, in some areas we come from very different perspectives, while we may synch in others, and we will benefit from continuing to make the effort to hear and understand each other. i'll confess feeling dumb as regards your Amazon example, because i cannot tell if you are presenting for or against Amazon (or both)? On the one hand there is the resultant job losses of individual, small business owners, and on the other hand you note they "...can pay their employees with incrementally large salaries and wealth...." my guess is you advocate for more independence... i.e., 'the small business owner?' i'm leaning more heavily towards the latter with your argument for every day choices. Re "EVERY DAY" choices. That too is a mix. i became a Prime member as a poor, struggling nursing student. i was able to get my text books cheaper, delivered next day for free. i also could not afford cable, and was able to stream stuff from Prime as a 'free' add on for a service i was already using. Over time, the system has evolved? (or is it created by 'intelligent design'?) into more of an addicting system. "The first one is free," approach. On the other hand, i have been a much longer term supporter and contributor to the buy local culture. i've been an organic farmer, was participant in getting GMO's removed from the orgainc label, been a member of the Virginia Association for Biological Farming before organic became official. The short story is i've been participant in two (opposing?) groups when it comes to every day choices, while probably being on the support individual end of things more than most? i grow much of my own food still, and promote that in various ways. i've gotten lots of people into growing food. While i "choose to bother," in many ways, i don't feel like i qualify as a David vs Goliath. i believe so. i read a book in my early twenties: You Are the World by J. Krishnamurti. It impacted and stuck with me. But i think that is one side of the coin that composes "ourselves." i also believe we are all connected. That means i affect others, but it also means they affect me. i think many aspire to the ideal of individual responsibility and that the "claim to care," is not wholly disingenuous. To me, this loops back to the premise of knowing and seeing in part... i.e., we may aspire to perfection, but we are still flawed. i think fixing self and fixing the system are maybe more successful symbiotically? Did i do better communicating with you this time? ❤️

i appreciate the historical perspective HCR brings to political discussion.

^^ sorry, lots of typos and some autocorrect, and just some left out words, hopefully some of what i'm thinking conveys?^^

i brought up more than one topic. Will you be more specific about what you linked this article in response to? There's a lot here and connected to much of what you've written. It also seems we are coming from very different places, which i think puts broader value on this discussion, but also makes it harder to see the others points as they see them. Something i think factors (almost universally?) into this discussion is size. We've only selected a tiny portion of issues, but they're all big. Healthcare is a little more familiar to me because i work in healthcare, front lines. i have 1600 hours taking direct care of Covid+ patients the first two years of the pandemic. i'm also heavily invested in education and professional certifications regarding preventing and intervening in many of the major disease processes that beset western culture because of diet and exercise. i have a computer folder full of very specific studies on the topic, as well as continuing education. (bear with me, this is going someplace). Some of my patients trust me and my education as an authority. But i don't extend the same trust towards myself or peers, i go another layer and look for evidence. The thing is, before i became a professional, i didn't really understand what constitutes "evidence" like i do now. We have journals, peer review, professional experience where some can spot and point out flaws in studies. Long story short, "we know and see in part." So, "grace and trust," and questioning always (should?) factor in. The ability to doubt and always realize and add: "i could be wrong." One of the things i look for in a 'good' study is "more research is needed." To me, that's a humble admission that "we know and see in part." The process of ideal science tends to spread power and authority out vs concentrating or giving it to one or less people. i use healthcare and science as an example because i live it every day and am immersed in it. But to me, the framework can apply to so many things. We cannot all be healthcare professionals, so we end up trusting (or thinking we know enough from a youtube or book to accept our own conclusion rather than trusting an authority). We cannot all be engineers. We cannot all be plumbers, electricians, chefs, presidents, senators, ad infinitum. i think there has to be a mix. i educate my patients all the time, especially when it comes to their specific issues. But they still (usually) do not know as much as me or the doctor or the physical therapist or the pharmacist. And i go to all of these people as well to bolster my understanding of the infinite universe that is the human body. i often disappoint my patients (emotional) expectation for a panacea by telling them things like: "in medicine, we often kill ants with elephant guns." Sepsis is an example. Someone comes into the hospital with the signs and symptoms of sepsis. If we don't intervene, they will typically/statistically die. So, we load them with draw blood first, to help confirm the general diagnosis of sepsis, then give them fluids and then broad spectrum IV antibiotics. It's an elegant gun because we know they have an infection, but we do not necessarily know from what. That's one reason we draw blood prior to antibiotics, so we can culture the blood and know better what we are dealing with. But that takes a day or two for something to grow in a culture, and if we waited to treat until we knew better what we were treating, a lot of people would die. So we hit them with broad spectrum antibiotics, and often find out a couple of days later that one or the other was not even effective. Meanwhile, those antibiotics all have side effects. A major effect we are learning more about now is killing of beneficial bacteria in our gut that we live in symbiosis with. i have a bunch of medical examples, but the point is, reality is individually detailed, response is general, collective. "Governments role in the problem." i think 'we the people' have stepped too far away from government. Or put another way, i think we need to be more involved. To me, it comes down to balance and where we put our individual weight (i.e., time and effort). i can get some education about government and be more engaged. i can get education about healthcare and be more engaged. i can get more education about business and be more engaged. i can get more education about sports and be more engaged. You see where i am going with this no doubt, the list is endless and always involves some degree of trusting others. i think our government has potential to be representative, so "governments role" has the potential of being our role. But it will never be perfect because "we the people" are diverse individuals with diverse wants and needs. So, we end up having to kill ants with elephant guns. i like to work at a teaching hospital professionally, and go to a teaching hospital when sick because i'm always going to get a group of doctors looking at my patients or me vs just one authority. It's not a perfect comparison, but i would rather live in a democratic system than a more dictatorial one where one persuasion calls all the shots. To me, done 'right,' "government role" in a representative context is we the people collectively doing things like addressing the problems of defense, general welfare. As an individual, i can ride a bike, but i still have to ride behind someone's diesel pick up truck. As an individual, i can not smoke, but i may have grown up in an era where private money interests used doctors to advertise tobacco and smoking cigarettes as a healthy practice. When tobacco was exposed, many of the tobacco companies bought food manufacturering companies and applied the same principles to processing and engineering 'food' to be addictive by adding sugar, salt and fat... along with a lot of invented ingredient that our bodies are not adapted to. It's a vast topic, i can provide substantiation. The point i'm making is, size matters. As an individual, it's possible for me to choose from the infinite list of need to know topics that affect my life. Or, we can engage at a macro level and elect a government to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." i think governments role in the problem is ever changing with circumstances. i do not see a black or white, simple answer, rather it seems an ongoing question with ever changing answers. sorry, this got long, and i know leaves so much out. Vast topic.

Haha, you were maybe braver than me going after the practical/economic side of this question. Really, we have to go there eventually to answer the question? i think with the underpinning principle of "grace" (for lack of a better term? you do seem to get where i'm going with it though). i left a culture of religious absolutism (fundamentalist christianity), so i'm molded by my history, and response to it. In that case their 'trump' was "God," and good luck winning a disagreement with "God." But i see that same attitude of absolutism everywhere (for instance, i've met more than a few fundamentalist atheists). To me, it's mostly an emotional disposition that creates rationale to support it. Sorry, seems like i'm getting into the weeds, but i see this as foundational. As i see it, the notion that i know and you don't removes the opportunity for true debate, because at least one side cannot be engaged (i.e, because they already know the answer/s, so the only think left is for the other to agree or capitulate to the truth. To me, it comes down to actions born of personal responsibility that derives from "pain only a moral person would feel--doing nothing." Your wrote: "Society is 'a system' and systems need to be as self-sustaining as possible either independently or in groups. The human body is a great example of inter-related systems to provide an analogy...simply: it's better not to need a ventilator to breathe than to need one. Most times, government programs are the ventilator." i'll add to your analogy, maybe break it down further. If "government programs are the ventilator," then governors/police/judicial etc., are the doctors that decide one needs the ventilator. And they can be "wrong," inadvertently or by intentional corruption. Of course, we've developed a system to deal with that too, but it always seems to come back to balancing act between trust and grace. It is likely best not to need a ventilator, but our systems all seem to rely (ultimately) on a degree of trust/grace to be self sustaining, and i think that is where things often end up broken(er?) in an already imperfect society. So, i'm nodding my head at "Financial market regulation is an absolute necessity due to greed and market manipulation," while simultaneously wishing it was a ventilator we didn't need. i find myself wondering if we've not upset homeostasis in how wealth is currently distributed in the US. In that vein, i appreciate this simplified assessment of division of wealth. Of particular interest (to me) is a graph he uses throughout his assessment of low, middle and high earners and how all three are increasing income at a similar rate along side the growth of the economy. Towards the end of the analysis, he shows how that has changed (dramatically).

i have not read your response yet... so here goes. my initial (and continuing) thoughts and feelings to this question is to feel 99% inadequate to the task of answering. IOW, IDK, and any other answer seems presumptuous. my own particular moral code includes a primary idea that violating another's autonomy ranks up there as a top guiding principle. Though, intuitively, giving away money for a 'good' cause feels like a 'good' gesture on the surface... but, i'm back to worries of presumption. When my sons were teens, i posed a sorta similar question to them (and me) on the topic of love: "Is it love to give a child chocolate cake for breakfast because they want it?" i think the answers to this kind of question reveals more about the person answering than it actually does to answer the question? (aside: your question also makes me feel vulnerable lol). At that point, i was trying to help them see that there isn't a universal answer to the question. If they answered no, objecting about health considerations i'd insert, what it the child was dying and only had a week to live? An intro to situational ethics. But, $100 trillion is not a piece of cake, eh? Money is power and influence. i do conclude that one person is ill equipped to handle that amount of power, but there is still no getting around it... well, maybe AI lol. At this point, the democratic process is looking, not so much "good," as it is potentially more universally considerate. i think something i would include as a possible "prime directive" in a democratic process would be the principle that 'I' can be wrong. To me, that is one of the biggest dividing factors in the human race (i.e., the notion that i (and mine)'know' i/we am/are right and i/we "know" you (and yours) are wrong. To me, that introduces (imposes?) grace in the process of decision making, because we all are in the same position of knowing and seeing in part.

Ah cool, fun and interesting question. i despise AI as a substitute for individual expression. i've been on a few gay dating sites where scammers were using it to reply to attempts at engaging... which i get coming from scammers, but when i see guys using it as a tool to connect? Makes me a wee bit crazy. i'm going to answer the question, thinking on it, and would also like to read your answer to the through experiment as well, and that we both answer prior to reading the others response? What think you?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Would you unpack this one some more? What (and who?) , in your opinion, constitutes "unpopular things" and a grandstanding"ideological purist? What are issues that you believe should be front and center? What to you would constitute, in a diverse US, taxation with representation? You've written some on healthcare, for instance (and i may have missed if you've answered this one, so point me?), what do you see as a solution/s to healthcare needs in the US? But, of course, that is just one of many issues, and i don't want to direct your answer, more looking for your list of what you think a government should provide, what constitutes: "... a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (BTW, my tone here is really wanting to understand you perspective in more detail, not a challenge or disagreement, i am appreciative of your input and contributions to this vast topic)

@tobetrained i think you provide thoughtful criticism, it leaves me wondering, who (if anyone) resonates with you to support as a government representative and why?