I agree. People do need to look at real history, starting with yourself, since you’re clearly ignorant of the facts.

The Progressive party does not exist in any real sense in America. Also, it’s a poor label to use anyway. If they’re progressive, what are you? Regressive? What’s wrong with progress? We progressed into a society of religious tolerance, we progressed into a free society, we progressed into an automobile-owning society, we progressed into being a society capable of unsurpassed space exploration, and scientific progress keeps extending our lifespans. Progress seems to be a pretty sweet deal.

It wasn’t government action, but rather government inaction, that caused the Great Depression, largely because it was deregulation of private industry that allowed private businesses, largely banks, to set up an economy built on top of a house of cards (similar to the crash of 2008). Herbert Hoover was only in office for eight months prior to the stock market crash. Also, he was part of Calvin Coolidge’s cabinet for something like 7 years before that. The Republicans elected him under the auspices that he would keep everything the same.

Yes, Hoover did impose more regulation on private industry, but nobody can claim with a straight face that was the sole cause. Hoover’s inaction after the crash is part of what fueled the depression. FDR pulled the country back from the brink of complete destitution with The New Deal, although that didn’t work as well as it should have. Deficit spending, as foretold by Keynes, did wonders for getting the economy working again, and in a stable format. 1934 had showed the most growth, but also had the most deficit spending. 1935 did great until halfway through the year when FDR realized he was deficit spending, and started slashing spending. This caused a recession through the rest of ’35 and ’36, stopping in ’37 when he started deficit spending again. The Great Depression ended in 1939, but the economy didn’t really take off until FDR started arming in preparation for World War 2, again, through deficit spending paid for by sane taxation.

Here’s a fact that cannot be stated enough: Since 1980, the US economy has doubled, but the median income is basically the same. Where did all that money go? To the super rich. In 1980, the wealthiest 1% had 10% of all income. Today, the wealthiest 1% has 40% of all income. That money has been used to buy the media, which has been used to drop tax rates on the super wealthy, so they can become wealthier. This is the cause of our deficit, not spending. I will repeat, this lack of taxation is the cause of our deficit, not spending. In the 1950s, the tax rate on the wealthiest 10%, was something around 90%, and everyone will agree that the economy was doing great at that time.

See, the way that a circular economy works, is that in a bad time, the government spends a lot of money to get private industry moving again. Then the government avoids debt by collecting taxes on the business it creates, and immediately injects that money back into the system where it spurs additional growth. And on and on and on.

Currently, the spending isn’t broken, yet, although it will be if it stops. The taxation, the re-uptake that powers the spending and the economy by extension, that’s what is broken. This has allowed a certain super rich section of society to take over politically, as well as caused our massive debt.

We need to tax the super rich, if only to pay for things. Allow me to demonstrate:

Imagine a pie, whatever flavor you like, that is between 4 and 5 inches in diameter. Each inch represents 10,000 dollars. This is the median household income. This is the majority of people make. If I guessed that you made around that amount a year, it would be a safe, if somewhat uneducated guess. By contrast, someone with 1 billion dollars, their pie is over a mile and a half in diameter. Currently, that 1% (which often has well more than just 1 billion) is only paying, on average, 17% in taxes. They have the money to hire a lot of accountants to drive down what they pay in taxes.

Giant Corporations, the Kingdoms that generate the super wealthy, are even worse than the individuals in charge of them. GE pays nothing in taxes. A child buying a candy bar pays more than GE does in taxes. In fact, the Feds give GE money, which it uses to find more ways to avoid paying taxes.

So in order to solve our debt problems, and not cause a massive recession, we have to tax the super wealthy (and corporations) at a sane (meaning higher) rate. This sort of basic economics is easily understood by children, but strangely, the average conservative just cannot seem to get their head around this fact.

So it isn’t “progressives” that are trying to step up the same scenario that has destroyed the economy before, it’s the super wealthy, who refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.

At this rate, looking at the political scenario in any terms other than Haves vs Have-Nots is part of the distraction that the Haves had engineers to keep the Have-Nots confused and keep themselves in power. You are, like me, a Have-Not. Joe the Plumber, he was a Have-Not who had the delusion that he was a Have (or that someday he could be). America ranks below many, if not most, other industrialized nations in measures of social mobility, but thanks to successful propaganda, a lot of Have-Nots hold the insane belief that they could be a Have.

If the Have-Nots (you and me) are going to survive, and America by extension, the Haves must pay their fair share. This is simply a math problem. Claiming that the Have-Nots could solve the problem by simply working harder is perhaps the most idiotic response one could have to this situation. The Have-Nots are already working their fingers to the bone, but the Haves are the ones making all the money from it.