[ablekh]

Regardless of whether you call gridlock a feature or something else, I think that it should be used to the benefit of the people. Unfortunately, too many times it is used not to the benefit of the relevant constituents, but for playing political games, catering to interests of some financial donors and sometimes even due to an outright lack of responsibility. As for "repairing moral fabric", this has nothing to do with the gridlock issue. I don't know why you even mentioned that in this context.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Believe it or not, politicians not messing up the system more than it is already messed up is an actual benefit to the people. To parent's point, it is a feature that benefits everyone. Doubly so at times where country is almost evenly split over what to do.

Edit. Also, they DO cater to their real constituencies. If you do not believe it, check the votes immediately after 2016 elections. What was the priority? Lower taxes for the already well to do.

[ablekh]

What some classify as "messing up the system", others might classify as "progress" or "benefit to the people". So, it's a moot point.

"Their real constituencies" (emphasis mine) - I assume that it's a sarcasm. Otherwise, I don't see how wealthy people comprise a majority of relevant party representatives' aggregate constituency. The trickle-down economics is a myth.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Eh, I am worried that I am not expressing myself accurately. "Their real constituencies" was definitely not sarcasm. I am not sure how that could possibly be misinterpreted as such.

The example I gave, post 2016 election tax reform benefited said real constituencies. If you do not believe me, look back what threats were lobbed and by whom at republicans if they do not deliver to said constituency. It is not trickle down, but he with the gold makes the rules. And they -- the real constituency -- happen to pay the bills.

In that context, I am not sure I understand the point about "wealthy people [don't] comprise a majority of relevant party representatives' aggregate constituency". They don't, but we don't live in a democracy. In the best of times, assuming you subscribe to taking things as they are written, we are republic ( you know, protection from the tyranny of the majority ). At worst, we already past oligarchy.

So... what does trickle down have to do with anything?

[ablekh]

> In that context, I am not sure I understand the point about "wealthy people [don't] comprise a majority of relevant party representatives' aggregate constituency".

It is quite simple. "Around two-thirds of registered voters in the U.S. (65%) do not have a college degree", with relevant numbers for Democrats plus Democrat-leaning voters and Republicans plus Republican-leaning voters being 59% and 70%, correspondingly [1]. For simplicity, let's use education, which, as we know, has a direct correlation with net worth, as a proxy for wealth. Thus, as I've argued earlier, the aggregate constituency of congressional representatives largely consists of non-wealthy people. Therefore, by reducing taxes on businesses (especially big businesses, which are mostly owned by wealthy, including the "top 1%") and high-income people, the post-2016 tax reform disproportionately benefited a very small segment of said constituency ("socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" [2]).

> So... what does trickle down have to do with anything?

Trickle-down economics is directly related to taxes, as it is based on the notion that "taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term" [3]. And your example was referring to post-2016 tax reform. Hence the connection that I have mentioned.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-20...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_cap...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics