who exactly pushes for the former? The latter clearly doesn't work, so I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Basically every republican lawmaker/executive and most democrats. Ever wonder why oil companies get subsidies greater than that of hydro and nuclear power or why Amazon pays no taxes? Lobbyists and campaign contributions work. Is it easier to focus campaign contribution efforts (and thus, policy concessions) on those with the means to give a lot of money or those living paycheck to paycheck? Virtually every politician would say the former.
If you ignore all the examples of it working including in the US, sure.
National socialism is, even by conservative viewpoints an officially racist and totalitarian philosophy. I don't know what you think you were saying, but it's literally just what Nazis followed.. Do you mean nationalism?
No, I mean national socialism. You've been told it's evil, and thus you say it's evil. Lest you be labelled a NPC, it's worth doing your own research and being aware of bias.
It's hardly a one sided issue. Certain people push for policies, can't say I blame them nor do I support it. To say it's one side is absurd.
Well the first 2 pages of google, including a biased conservative wiki page, only list it as the official doctrine of Nazis. Hitler changed it to be even more xenophobic, but to say the system they had in place before him was at all good compared to other socialist nations which are better examples of socialism, well that's just... Edgy? Dumb? Both? What source correctly lays out national socialism in a way that you see it (as a good system of government)? Not to judge, but it sounds like you watched some Nazi sympathizer video and rolled with it.
Seems pretty one-sided to me. That study is a great read in who gets what they want from legislation, in other words if you want to affect change, you need to do it this way or that way. It's a passive bias in the best case scenario when a legislator doesn't reach out to their community to understand them at the low income level and then naturally aligns with those around them who are either people who lobby or people who they solicit donations from, neither of whom is representative of the average person. In the worst case it's just direct intervention for the prospect of contributions. Which is worse? Besides morally, it doesn't matter because the result is exactly the same: a disconnect between the lawmaker and the problems facing their average constituent.
So pay more. You can't seem to fathom that the governments power is only derived from people like you and I. If you're so happy with increased taxes, pay more. Personally, I think we should be cutting taxes and pushing for a more efficient government.
Imagine licking the boots of government and suckling off the teet of others taxes instead of advocating for less of your money going to tax and having government be more efficient and waste less.
Can't argue with that, Biden is a damn walking stroke at this point. Like his campaign is trying their best to hide him away as if he won't be on the news every day as president. I don't think the people who voted for him could name a single policy that they like. Trump's buffoonery is worse, but Jesus Christ lol, "So I view (how many cases of Coronavirus are in the US) as a badge of honor. Really, it's a badge of honor." or that he'd do nothing different with the US response if he could go back. I remember when the book about all the stupid things W Bush said was released and people thought we'd never have a dumber president. Well apparently we'll either have 2 or reelect the first one.
The Trump presidency is an absolute disgrace. I honestly can't even put it into words. It's just unbelievable. I believe that when history looks back, when archeologist look back, that they will find you trumptards to be a subhuman species
