The era that so many seem to idolize had marginal tax rates of up to 90% on the wealthy. I think the reason it's a "non-starter" for many politicians is because they don't actually care about their constituents - but rather their donors. And yes for their donors - it is a non-starter.

I also see a lot of people making posts about SS that make it clear that they don't understand what it is and how it is structured. In order for us to effectively defend and improve SS we need to understand it.

I know they are just echoing talking points by pundits. How do we overcome this kind of "pundit arguing" and actually get to where people try to understand things. I have my favorite pundits that I use as starting points - but I don't just accept what they have to say. I try to find the experts.

Silly me - My mind thought "file" instead of "drop" and I was trying to figure out this completely unexpected action. Makes much more sense now.

Of course, right now this is strictly a theoretical discussion for me.

Great question and I wish I had a decent answer. I'd appreciate it if you shared any that you find.

Of course there is the whole "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" that I tend to agree with. That limits my ability to invest in anything if I follow it strictly.

From The Righteous Mind (end of Chapter 4 "In Sum section)

This is why it is so important for us to work together to find the flaws in our own reasoning.

To me the more interesting question is when does the desire to increase exposure and reach of science communication lead to compromising the message?

I think both of them have used sensationalist language and rhetoric. The scientists interviewed in the latest Dave video seem the most reasonable.