There is a whole lot of space between moderate and extremist that's easy enough for me to occupy. From the point of view of tankies and anarkitties, Bernie was the compromise candidate. Matter of fact, pretty much any candidate would've been the compromise candidate for them since they don't see electoralism as a viable path to progress. Considering we're now stuck with the choice between Joe "nothing would fundamentally change" Biden and Donald "faster descent into a police state" Trump, I'm starting to see the merits in that argument. I am neither a communist nor an anarchist, however, and despite my criticisms of her, I would've greatly preferred Warren to Biden as the Democratic candidate.
It's worth noting that you also qualify as an extremist by Waygeek's definition, being a Libertarian Trump supporter and all.
@Xzi, say my name. It's "Trumpkin", get it right.
All jokes aside, I support whoever and whatever takes me closer to my goals. Right now that's Trump, tomorrow it might be somebody else. That said, it's been a thrill ride so far, I hope it continues for a while longer.
The ways numbers are used can be very biased. Climate change deniers manipulate numbers all the time to make it seem like global temperatures aren't rising.
Now clearly you have more knowledge about economics than I do, and clearly we're approaching (relatively) similar problems from different frameworks. I do still believe my points have a lot of merit, but I don't really know enough about economics to engage in any meaningful debate in that field.
While I still disagree with several of your points, I understand where you're coming from, and it's enlightening to hear from alternate perspectives.
That being said, I concede because it's clear that I don't have the same level of understanding of economics as you do. Thanks for your time.
Pleasure is all mine, and I apologise if I sounded too harsh at any point - it's just the way I argue. I can see some of the merits of your side as well, however in order to achieve your stated goals I really think your side needs to focus on how to effectively fund them first. "Eat the rich" is not a good way to do it - we're already eating the rich.
One of the reasons why many European countries can afford to have "free" universal healthcare is because a lot of the tax burden is relieved by a value added tax, that's not a thing in the United States. All goods are taxed at 4-20%, which is similar to your state sales tax if it operated on a federal level and was much higher than it is. Food is of course exempt from VAT altogether, as are many other essentials. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are, comparatively speaking, much wealthier than their European counterparts - you're not taxed twice on the same dollar, at least not to the same extent.
If you wanted my prescription on how to propel the US towards prosperity, step one would be to eradicate the income tax altogether, either to the lower 50% of the population who are just not making a meaningful contribution anyway and could use the extra cash, or completely, and replace it with a value added tax on all domestic transactions. That way your taxes scale with your consumption - the rich still pay a lot, the poor pay less since they consume less. Makes for a better society in my opinion, one where productivity isn't penalised and people are taxed per government service rendered, as in order to purchase something, one must use legal tender as provided by the government. I hope that makes sense. Step two would be to scale back the cost of government, but neither the red nor the blue side want to do that, so we'll put that one on the wishlist for now.