What Happened?

I am no expert on taxes and spending, but your view seems a little narrow focused.

You claim the only people who gain from raising taxes are those that gained from the increase. Who gains? What gains?

Take military spending going up(assume that's what you mean by gaining), do you think only the military gains if? No, those that supply to the military gain. For if spending increases, so does buying. And work loads increase if production demand increase. It's not just the military alone that gains.

Same as those getting food stamps. If more families qualify for food stamps, those new qualifiers gain, but so does the supermarkets, the farmers, and workers by increased demand for products.

It seems you think the one actually cashing the check is the only one to gain. Money circulates.

 

Not everyone gains from raising taxes. If they did, there would be no reason to not raise taxes to 100%. Do you support raising taxes to 100%?

 

I think think this is an important issue.

In Seattle, where I lived for a long time, there is no state income tax. So, much of what is needed by the state falls on property tax, exacerbating the problems of housing availability an expense.

 

Good points. Also, we don't have a free market system at our ports. Between the Long Shoremans Union and the trucking regs in LA County, it's a command economy until the trucks are back out LA.

 

There are numerous supply chain issues.

And, as you point out they trace back out of the USA in many directions.

If a more local corp had a better offering for the goods transported, I'm confident our free market enterprise would find it.

 

A free/ish country inevitably breeds division. As others have said there is a natural and age old battle between conservatism vs liberalism.

 

Plus, the very definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" shift over time.

 

Probably because America has enabled non-participation more than any other nation.

Other nations are not dealing with a significant proportion of their populace contributing nothing.

 

A Govt invested in private progress, would promote self-reliance.

 

Why would it, when his position was a result of racism?

 

The administrative state is too large. Too many unelected officials doing what they want regardless of who is voted in.
They will always be your master so long as they are given the power to know better than you and enforce it.

 

You think it should be measured by the individual? What is value to one, isn't to another - so that premise is an absurdity.

If you're talking of some kind of universal measure, then it has to be predicated upon pragmatic outcomes. IOW what percentage torqued the opportunities created by tax dollars, into financial security?

 

Obama's race agitating, and Hillary's demonisation of the working classes.

That enough for ya?

 

Is it still 1985 where you live?

Lordy me Lovely, you need to climb out of that hole and have a peek around. Things have moved on.

 

No, we didn't. In fact worldwide, that would be most unusual. The vast majority eat most of their meals within a private home setting (whether their own, or a relative or friend's), and probably most of those in our own home.

 

No not really.
Politics is built on far bigger issues than this.
And frankly TBH there ARE some deplorables out there...the ones the right condemn as scroungers via the social support system.

 

Now wait a minute.
Are you telling me that per capita, the US has more welfare beneficiaries than any other country??
How about I ask you to prove that? Or shall I chalk it up to shallow cynicism?

 

This site says 56% of calories come from home, while the rest come away from home.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2020/food-away-from-home/home.htm

I said 50%. I think I was pretty close.

But, the issue is that the pandemic moved people towards eating at home. That means that food produced and packaged for home use was in much greater demand.

That change in demand could not be met instantly.