@Leon Said
Yes.
I think mainstream Democrats and Republicans can both agree on this. Both believe in capitalism.
The difference between each group is how much they believe government is responsible for in providing services such as what you described above, and, therefore, how much taxation is needed. Sure, there are extreme views from each group, but those are just that: extremes. Most Democrats are not Communists and most Republicans are not Libertarians.
And, what I was getting at initially before we got sidetracked on the origin and interpretation of a phrase, is that there is also difference in philosophy on where the weight of these tax dollars should come from. Democrats view that tax money should weigh more towards the rich in comparison to Republicans. Republicans feel that too much weight on the rich will stifle spending and resulting job growth. Democrats feel that less weight on the middle and poor class will spur the most spending and resulting job growth.
Studies tend to show the latter.
I am not a huge fan of Trump's tax policy to be honest (although not being American I have little knowledge of or interest in it). Cutting regulatory red tape I agree with 1000% - especially where the regulations strangle small business.
I don't think it is useful to cut taxes wholesale for multinational corporations. The argument that they will invest in the country as it offers competitive advantage has a little bit of merit, but there are other ways to achieve the same end that I think would be better (although given the choice I'd prefer not to have multinational corporate entities at all. They seem quite cancerous to me).
There is merit in offering tax incentives to companies for investing in jobs and other things (which is not what the "trickle down" strawman refers to as I understand it. That refers to just wholesale cutting regulation with no obligation on the business. I actually dislike and disagree with that theory - even when Trump uses it). So far as I know, the Amazon deal was that if they met specified targets on jobs and wages they would receive tax exemptions (or credits I think you call them), on X% of their gross profit. Again, I'm no expert, so could have the detail a bit wrong. However, that type of deal is one I support. But it is still not "trickle down" in action so far as I know).
Having heard AOC speak she did seem to be saying that the government was going to just give Amazon billions of dollars, as opposed to Amazon getting tax exemptions for meeting those targets.
These two things are not the same. It's almost as different as getting paid or getting robbed.
@Leon Said So calling AOC stupid for adhering to the latter seems a bit over-reactive to me,
Possibly. But I don't say I think she's a dullard for this one thing alone. She has said some rather dumb stuff. Surely you don't think the girl is intelligent?
People who say, as she did recently, that those who attack my ideas are getting, "hung up on being factually correct rather than being morally right," are intriguing to me. Anyone claiming moral superiority over their political opponents is not a good person in my opinion (and to avoid being attacked pointlessly again, I will say this is not an absolute statement. There are people who are better and worse than me and her that agree and disagree with me and her).
@Leon Said and instead seems to expose vitriolistic bias coming from reasons that have nothing to do with her stance, as it is simply in line with common, long-standing political philosophy.
I'm always happy to use hyperbole in discussing political figures, but there's no vitriol there. I have no animus for her. I do think she is a symptom of the greater malaise in the west these days. A bit of an entitled, uneducated clown who preaches hate but is barely capable of reflecting on, let alone acknowledging it. But as I said recently in a post here somewhere, she's young. If she has the right people around her she can learn. She could become good at her job. However, I think she needs to get away from the DNC for that to happen - they are a party preaching cancer as far as I can tell. The GOP seems to have corruption issues, but the DNC from this outsiders perspective seems to have made lies and corruption an art form.
As of right now she is ignorant... and I suspect remarkably racist and more than a little dishonest. Hence being in the DNC. But again, she can change.
@Leon Said Is it her age? The fact she is a female? And speaks out as such?
I do not care about things like that. I am not on the left.
In the last couple of Australian elections I have campaigned for women candidates (plural), and gave my first preference to a woman on three of four ballots with women (plural), being in my top five preferences.
I care about the ideas. I support ideas I think are good, and oppose ideas I think are bad. You can have any genitalia you want, or none. What effect does it have on your ideas?
The only time I am concerned about what someone has between their legs or how old they are is when they're coming on to me at a bar..., and the level of concern is dependent on how long I've been at said bar