I'll compromise and say that the physical amount of people on the far-left who push for a socialist form of government is small, but they're so loud it seems as if they're a large group. They've helped split the democratic party a bit along the way.aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:06 am"there’s a large group on the far-left" define "large group". How large of a group are you talking about? There are a few elected officials in the Senate and House and likely a few others at state and local levels but the numbers are few, far, far fewer than elected officials who some may call White Nationalists, Neo-Nazi, etc. Guess you don't remember reading about the high tax rates of the 50's and how the economy was then.DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:56 am I used the word socialism because there’s a large group on the far-left who want to take more from companies and individuals to put towards more social programs. There’s a line and if you go too far with taxing and social programs, negative consequences start to happen. Democratic socialist long term goal is to replace capitalism with socialism and they’re committed to this long term goal. Take power from corporations and give it to the people sounds great in theory.
I find myself leaning right but very turned off by several far-right ideas.
What "negative consequences" are you talking about?
"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/maga ... ocrat.html
I don't know of any far-right elected officials describing themselves as white nationalists or neo-nazi unlike those on the far-left who proudly claim to be Democratic Socialists. The only person in politics that comes to mind right way is Steven Miller who was an advisor to Trump. He wrote some emails and for sure seems to be a white nationalist. Any elected officials I'm missing?
As for the 1950's economy and high tax rates. Many factors went into that including coming out of WWII, TV's in homes, large companies merging and needing even more workers etc etc. Also, while the tax rates on the wealthy were higher, there were barely any wealthy people in 1950's compared to today's situation. Playing devils advocate, one could argue that the decrease in taxes has lead to the wealth this country has and if the high tax rates of the 1950's had stayed in effect, we could have been worse off for it. The poverty rate today is half of what it was in the 1950's despite the high taxes of the time.
The biggest negative consequences as proven in other countries is slower economic growth, lack of motivation by individuals due to lesser rewards and a decrease in entrepreneurialism.