There's no hypocrisy because deep down they never had any principles. Principles they did profess were just marketing. (This applies to Dems as well, while we're at it.)
> This applies to Dems as well, while we're at it.
I disagree with this both-sideism. Democrats are much more in following with norms, where MAGA-era FKA-republicans will through anything aside for their benefit (e.g. Merrick Garland).
Assuming the Dems can get power again we need them to aggressively pursue leftist economic populism. As you can see from the present moment, once principles become inconvenient, they abandon them. So, yes, “both sides”. Being clear-eyed about this can save our democracy.
My hot take is that we’re in the midst of a political realignment. The Democratic Party will be the new center-right “conservative” party, and progressives will be their primary opponents. Assuming MAGA has a dumpster fire collapse when the AI bubble pops and we have the worst market contraction and affordability crisis in decades.
You don’t think a progressive takeover (a lefty Tea Party, if you will) of the Dems is more likely?
I hope progressives can keep up momentum. I worry that if things go back to normal a lot of people who are doing fine (economically) will go back to sleep.
Continued speculation: 0% shot of a progressive takeover given the complete lack of moneyed interest, and the pushback from the core Democrats any time any progressive sniffs national success.
If MAGA fails as a political movement it’ll leave a rightwing power vacuum and the Democratic Party will fill it. The progressives will split and you’ll see center right Democrats going up against left wing Progressives in the north. There will still be some vestigial Republican Party in the south that will be based mostly on anti-woke rhetoric, but won’t have any appetite for the policies that MAGA is famous for after they caused an economic collapse, and will mostly vote alongside the new northern democrats.
They also wouldn't have tried using a holstered weapon as pretense for a public execution which the president doubled down on, until he didn't. They wouldn't be treading on state's rights so openly either. We might be seeing parties flipping, in very short order.
If the Dems pick up on some of the issues the Republicans are neglecting, while maintaining principles* about healthcare access and reproductive rights I expect they'd be the dominant political force in America for some time...if they just had somebody who could man the helm.
One way to view the history of the Republican Party is a power struggle between Wall Street and regional/small business owners. Wall Street understands that the U.S. consumer economy depends on international trade to provide cheap, abundant goods and so supports free trade, immigration of skilled workers, and foreign aid/interventions to further U.S. business interests. For them, the culture war and nationalist rhetoric is a way to get Republican voters riled up but they don't really believe any of it.
The regional/small business owners are always threatened by competition from larger international firms and benefit less from international trade. They believe in the nationalist rhetoric and are opposed to free trade because it undercuts their businesses with cheaper products. They think the U.S. can remain the world's superpower without running a trade deficit and doesn't need to build alliances to maintain its power. This is Trump's base, and their misunderstanding of U.S. power is why they love the idea of tariffs. (good for local producers!) They want to get all the benefits of being a superpower without any of the costs.
Every tax ever implemented by government has been initially sold as a tax on the rich. The people voting for it assume they will never be taxed because they aren't currently rich. But, there is never enough of other peoples money to spend. So, taxes expand and/or increase to include more people.
The original income tax was sold as 1% on mid income and 2% on high income. At the time more than half the country was not going to pay any tax.
Or, no amount of money is ever enough for government and taxing income is a dumb value to collect revenue.
Southern states supported an income tax because they believed it would make it possible to collect revenue for indigent people. Exactly opposite of "taxes the rich".
That is a bit of a lie. Getting a refund does not mean you didn't pay. Even getting more back than you actually paid does not mean you didn't pay. Money is taken from every paycheck. When you file your taxes the IRS decides what you get back.
Disagree, I think my wording was fine. But okay, 50% of Americans don't contribute to the country with income tax. They are leeching their services from those of us who do.
For the wealthy, or for high earners? I have never seen a proposal for an income tax that grades with your net worth. They only grade with your income.
