Here is what the progressive economic ideology boils down to:

[Brain357]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

Who pays for your fairy tale?

And do the Unicorns eat the rainbows and poop skittles?

What part do you think is so crazy? Think the Nordic model has it all covered and they do rather well.

 

[22lcidw]

Who is claiming it is for nothing? Paying taxes to fund services is not nothing. I'm European. My wife is American. I pay a tax rate that would make you blanch. On the other hand that tax rate gives me access to services that would require an American citizen to be an actual millionaire to afford.

I did not say that the Euro’s have to give up their socialist system and be like Americans

so please dont tell Americans that we should be more like you

I know it's uncomfortable to hear that the big socialist bogeyman is being implemented successfully throughout the world but you will have to deal.

You are making claims that are demonstrably false. And I'm more than happy to point out the flaws.

You made the choice to reply to an OP dealing with what the liberal economic policy actually is, not the caricature that is portrait by the right. I think my perspective is both useful in the discussion and relevant to the OP.

If Uncle Sam takes his military and goes home, how long do you think European countries will be able to afford their lavish government services? WWII was not very long ago, and trust between nations can die very quickly.

WWII was indeed not that long ago. But it prompted something that hasn't existed ever on the continent. A unified body of governance. I will admit the resurgence of nationalist movements across the world and in Europe, in particular, do worry me. But as I see it, a European internal war is unlikely. At the moment I consider the US as a greater threat to European peace (although still highly unlikely).

Now just to head off where I think you are going. Yes, Europe should spend more on defense. But I think you overestimate the impact of the defense budget on the overall budget of a country. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621784/IPOL_BRI(2018)621784_EN.pdf The EU averages around 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, (atrociously low). The US in comparison spends 3.4 in 2019 The Biggest Military Budgets As A Share Of GDP In 2019 [Infographic]
Great, you do better.

Now let's put this in perspective. The US spends 16.9 percent of GDP on healthcare alone. Health expenditure as share of GDP by country | Statista
The EU 10. Meaning that there are way bigger ticket items of expenditure and I've never heard a Republican ask if it was a good idea to spend 7 percent of GDP more in order to keep a for-profit healthcare system. I suspect the EU will survive a US withdrawal of troops, as I suspect you think the US will survive paying a 7 percent higher price for healthcare.

With the rise of social justice seems to be a decline of unalienable rights with it. With surveillance and massive security restrictions on individuals its all fun. What has happened is there are people in our nation who have sold out. And we are not important as individuals and will be jettisoned anytime the Prog State government wants. We are supposed to vigilant and then we get self serving people like you who are above others like a blue blood waving to the impoverished as he drives past the them in a luxury vehicle. I remember when there was very little security wherever we went. And because of people like you we are forming a world prison.

 

[forkup]

Who is claiming it is for nothing? Paying taxes to fund services is not nothing. I'm European. My wife is American. I pay a tax rate that would make you blanch. On the other hand that tax rate gives me access to services that would require an American citizen to be an actual millionaire to afford.

I did not say that the Euro’s have to give up their socialist system and be like Americans

so please dont tell Americans that we should be more like you

I know it's uncomfortable to hear that the big socialist bogeyman is being implemented successfully throughout the world but you will have to deal.

You are making claims that are demonstrably false. And I'm more than happy to point out the flaws.

You made the choice to reply to an OP dealing with what the liberal economic policy actually is, not the caricature that is portrait by the right. I think my perspective is both useful in the discussion and relevant to the OP.

If Uncle Sam takes his military and goes home, how long do you think European countries will be able to afford their lavish government services? WWII was not very long ago, and trust between nations can die very quickly.

WWII was indeed not that long ago. But it prompted something that hasn't existed ever on the continent. A unified body of governance. I will admit the resurgence of nationalist movements across the world and in Europe, in particular, do worry me. But as I see it, a European internal war is unlikely. At the moment I consider the US as a greater threat to European peace (although still highly unlikely).

Now just to head off where I think you are going. Yes, Europe should spend more on defense. But I think you overestimate the impact of the defense budget on the overall budget of a country. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621784/IPOL_BRI(2018)621784_EN.pdf The EU averages around 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, (atrociously low). The US in comparison spends 3.4 in 2019 The Biggest Military Budgets As A Share Of GDP In 2019 [Infographic]
Great, you do better.

Now let's put this in perspective. The US spends 16.9 percent of GDP on healthcare alone. Health expenditure as share of GDP by country | Statista
The EU 10. Meaning that there are way bigger ticket items of expenditure and I've never heard a Republican ask if it was a good idea to spend 7 percent of GDP more in order to keep a for-profit healthcare system. I suspect the EU will survive a US withdrawal of troops, as I suspect you think the US will survive paying a 7 percent higher price for healthcare.

With the rise of social justice seems to be a decline of unalienable rights with it. With surveillance and massive security restrictions on individuals its all fun. What has happened is there are people in our nation who have sold out. And we are not important as individuals and will be jettisoned anytime the Prog State government wants. We are supposed to vigilant and then we get self serving people like you who are above others like a blue blood waving to the impoverished as he drives past the them in a luxury vehicle. I remember when there was very little security wherever we went. And because of people like you we are forming a world prison.

I'm sorry but your post is a bit hard to follow so if I miss your meaning forgive me. But can you explain how you get from here

I'm saying our way has an objectively better outcome for a large segment of the population. While making it objectively worse for a smaller segment ( the wealthy).

to here?

we get self serving people like you who are above others like a blue blood waving to the impoverished as he drives past the them in a luxury vehicle.

 

[Markle]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

So glad to come across someone who knows what I know. But since I'm always someone who questions what I know I've decided to actually research my knowledge. Income Inequality - Inequality.org. Hmm I guess my knowledge of Trump being the first president to narrow the gap was in error. He was in office in 2018 right?
And in 2019? Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019

Care to state something else I know?

Next time seek current information.

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds
JEFF FALK
– OCTOBER 28, 2020 POSTED IN: NEWS RELEASES


Jeff Falk
713-348-6775
jfalk@rice.edu
Avery Ruxer Franklin
713-348-6327
averyrf@rice.edu

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds
HOUSTON – (Oct. 28, 2020) – Analysis of Federal Reserve survey data shows U.S. wealth inequality has declined for the first time in nearly 30 years, while income inequality has seen its largest decline in three decades, according to a new working paper from Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

[...]

Wealth inequality rose persistently between 1992 and 2016 — a trend that saw a reversal in 2019, Barro found. “Income inequality also experienced the largest decline since 1992,” he wrote. “Both changes are a result of gains in the total shares (of wealth and income) by lower deciles (groups). While there are many plausible explanations, changing age demographics and the economic impact of the TCJA may have played a role in generating this outcome.”

[...]

The SCF collects granular data on the financial positions of U.S. families, with regards to assets and liabilities. The extent to which a family’s assets exceed their liabilities determines their net worth, which in turn defines the family’s wealth. Between 2016 and 2019, real median family wealth grew 17.7% from $103,460 to $121,760. Even as broad measures of wealth grew over this time period, the dispersion of wealth contracted, Barro said.

Between 2016 and 2019, real median U.S. family income rose 5.4% from $56,019 to $59,051. Over that period, income inequality experienced its sharpest decline since the decline between 1989 and 1992, Barro said

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds

HOUSTON – (Oct. 28, 2020) – Analysis of Federal Reserve survey data shows U.S. wealth inequality has declined for the first time in nearly 30 years, while income inequality has seen its largest decline in three decades, according to a new working paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for...

news.rice.edu

 

[forkup]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

So glad to come across someone who knows what I know. But since I'm always someone who questions what I know I've decided to actually research my knowledge. Income Inequality - Inequality.org. Hmm I guess my knowledge of Trump being the first president to narrow the gap was in error. He was in office in 2018 right?
And in 2019? Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019

Care to state something else I know?

Next time seek current information.

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds
JEFF FALK
– OCTOBER 28, 2020 POSTED IN: NEWS RELEASES


Jeff Falk
713-348-6775
jfalk@rice.edu
Avery Ruxer Franklin
713-348-6327
averyrf@rice.edu

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds
HOUSTON – (Oct. 28, 2020) – Analysis of Federal Reserve survey data shows U.S. wealth inequality has declined for the first time in nearly 30 years, while income inequality has seen its largest decline in three decades, according to a new working paper from Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

[...]

Wealth inequality rose persistently between 1992 and 2016 — a trend that saw a reversal in 2019, Barro found. “Income inequality also experienced the largest decline since 1992,” he wrote. “Both changes are a result of gains in the total shares (of wealth and income) by lower deciles (groups). While there are many plausible explanations, changing age demographics and the economic impact of the TCJA may have played a role in generating this outcome.”

[...]

The SCF collects granular data on the financial positions of U.S. families, with regards to assets and liabilities. The extent to which a family’s assets exceed their liabilities determines their net worth, which in turn defines the family’s wealth. Between 2016 and 2019, real median family wealth grew 17.7% from $103,460 to $121,760. Even as broad measures of wealth grew over this time period, the dispersion of wealth contracted, Barro said.

Between 2016 and 2019, real median U.S. family income rose 5.4% from $56,019 to $59,051. Over that period, income inequality experienced its sharpest decline since the decline between 1989 and 1992, Barro said

US wealth, income inequality has declined, Baker Institute expert finds

HOUSTON – (Oct. 28, 2020) – Analysis of Federal Reserve survey data shows U.S. wealth inequality has declined for the first time in nearly 30 years, while income inequality has seen its largest decline in three decades, according to a new working paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for...

news.rice.edu

You don't think the US census bureau's information dated September 2020 is current enough? Also.

"While there are many plausible explanations, changing age demographics and the economic impact of the TCJA may have played a role in generating this outcome.”
Funny seems your information doesn't contend it was Trump who drove the alleged drop. So even if true you would still have something to prove right? To prove what I know?

 

[Mac-7]

If Uncle Sam takes his military and goes home, how long do you think European countries will be able to afford their lavish government services? WWII was not very long ago, and trust between nations can die very quickly.

I think the two traditional rivals - france and germany - are far too effeminate to fight each other again. In fact they may not even be capable of defending themselves from any invading army

so they may no longer need conventional military forces

the main threat to the community of nations at this time is china which wants to be the only superpower and is very skillful at employing non military aggression against other countries

 

[Mac-7]

Repubs love something for nothing. You got
your increased military spending, how much your taxes go up?

Do I get to keep a tank or a fighter jet for my very own the way dems get a welfare check with their name on it?

of course not

but the republicans in congress are not serious about balancing the budget either so they are an obvious target for libs like you

 

[Brain357]

Repubs love something for nothing. You got
your increased military spending, how much your taxes go up?

Do I get to keep a tank or a fighter jet for my very own the way dems get a welfare check with their name on it?

of course not

but the republicans in congress are not serious about balancing the budget either so they are an obvious target for libs like you

You got the spending you wanted and didn’t cost you a penny. You love freebies.

 

[Mac-7]

You got the spending you wanted and didn’t cost you a penny. You love freebies.

I got the spending?


as I pointed out the government did not give me any personsl weapon for national defense the way biden voters line up for their welfare checks

 

[Brain357]

You got the spending you wanted and didn’t cost you a penny. You love freebies.

I got the spending?


as I pointed out the government did not give me any personsl weapon for national defense the way biden voters line up for their welfare checks

Trumpers wanted it and got it. And it didn’t cost a penny. You didn’t want it?

 

[Brain357]

You got the spending you wanted and didn’t cost you a penny. You love freebies.

I got the spending?


as I pointed out the government did not give me any personsl weapon for national defense the way biden voters line up for their welfare checks

Trump even executive ordered free money, why are you talking Biden?

 

[Mac-7]

Trumpers wanted it and got it. And it didn’t cost a penny. You didn’t want it?

I didn't get it

Where is my personal M4 or SAW?

 

[Mac-7]

Trump even executive ordered free money, why are you talking Biden?

Are you referring to the lockdown and pandemic relief helicopter money?

that was bipartisan stupidity that I do not support

 

[Brain357]

Trump even executive ordered free money, why are you talking Biden?

Are you referring to the lockdown and pandemic relief helicopter money?

that was bipartisan stupidity that I do not support

No he ordered the cash giveaway.

 

[Brain357]

Trumpers wanted it and got it. And it didn’t cost a penny. You didn’t want it?

I didn't get it

Where is my personal M4 or SAW?

So you didn’t want increased military spending? You aren’t a trumper?

 

[Mac-7]

No he ordered the cash giveaway.

End the lockdown

 

[Mac-7]

So you didn’t want increased military spending? You aren’t a trumper?

I do want a strong defense

which protects every American

you want to rob the rich and pander to the poor

 

[Brain357]

So you didn’t want increased military spending? You aren’t a trumper?

I do want a strong defense

which protects every American

you want to rob the rich and pander to the poor

Ah so you do. How much did your taxes go up for that?

 

[Brain357]

No he ordered the cash giveaway.

End the lockdown

He ordered a handout.

Trump’s COVID-19 executive order-palooza explained - Poynter

President Donald Trump signed a flurry of executive orders and memos in response to the coronavirus pandemic. We checked them out.

www.poynter.org

 

[Mac-7]

How much did your taxes go up for that?

My taxes did not go up

if democrats manage to raise my taxes in the future they will spend the money on social programs rather than defense

then when an emergency breaks out you will send our troops into a meat grinder without the weapons they need to survive