4 ms·

‘We’? Good luck with that. At least Tankies are honest about the degree of coercion required to get a population to agree on things.

• PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is). (*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
  • cjbgkagh 2y ago
    There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      That was not at all my point (and yes, it would be preposterous if it was). My point was that large numbers of people agreeing on things may not be as difficult as you seem to think.