Wow. How we are talking past each other is beyond me. It seems we agree on the major problem. Government subsidizing industry: tech, banking, ..., railroads, oil, etc, etc.
Almost everything you write I agree with: government channeling huge sums to global industry and little to most Americans, crumbs as you say. I completely agree. If tech was greatly subsidized by the public, either directly or indirectly, then how is it inaccurate for people to take down the billionaires' boldness in saying they built it all? They took advantage of the public money, no?
There are details we disagree about: the vast majority of the internet was built out by private companies such as AT&T, L3, etc. You say it was to a large extent, fine, I'll give you that.

Paragraph by paragraph
You paragraph 3: agree,
4: absolutely, but SEC only puts in place what they write! (a nuance)
5: absolutely, and I would add almond growers - much more water than Nestle, the most water intense crop in a water baron area. That is government subsidies for over 100 years.
6: You say the industries would not exist, I think they would, but be less profitable and not grow as fast. But YES.
7: Yes, the scraps do pale in comparison. What we see differently is that I see redistribution as roads, schools, water & sewer generally infrastructure that benefits all, being funded by tax dollars coming from a flat or progressive tax type system, which is not at all what we have today, it starts progressive, but then gets regressive as high-income folks get income from gains rather than wages, which are THE highest taxed thing in the country. I would argue for no corporate taxes, but a very different personal income tax system that is truly progressive or flat. You say these folks make huge money from subsidies, but they should not be taxed too heavily "stolen from". What am I missing here?
8: I do not want government to be Robin Hood. I do not want to regressive tax system, like we have today. I want government out of a lot of stuff they are in today, and work to foster free markets, competition, etc. As it used it. Government is in as much as they are due to industries pulling them in to extract $, which you also said.
I think you are stereo typing me as liberal, but I far from that. Do not read into what I write, just read what I write.
9: completely agree with your "Helping Americas" paragraph, but remember, it does help a handful of rich Americans who are execs of the financial institutions and also helps the largest owners (some American - all rich), and of course keeps the global banks solvent, when they should have been bankrupt, or at least taken huge haircuts.
10: Your best case is exactly as I see it.
11: I agree with you about the good jobs, but know that started in the mid to late 70s and supported by both parties, if you don't remember Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot, check them out. They warned the country about this, and ridiculed primarily by their own party. They were wrong on much, but right on the exporting of jobs. We agree. Back then the jobs were not smart manufacturing jobs, no, just high school was good enough and often not required. But those jobs were lost primarily to automation, and also to exporting.
12: I agree about the race to the bottom, which is foolish of the US.

We are seeing almost exactly the same thing, but yes, from a different view. We both do not like it, and think it should change.

I do not understand some of what I see as contradictory. You think they build it, but say a lot got built with public money. I don't get that. I do not want Robin Hood or handouts, but do want a progressive tax, rather than the regressive we have today. I want gov out of subsidizing, but working to foster competition in order to make things as affordable as they are in most other developed nations.

Ok, here is something I am guessing we very much disagree about, but I look forward to hearing from you on it...
The reason guys putting a nut on a lug and tightening it, and the many other low skill jobs of old school manufacturing paid a good middle class wage was that corporations agreed to pay that good wage, and society expected it, it was normal. There was nothing inherently valuable about the job, they just paid middle class wages. They paid the CEOs about 20 times that wage. Today unskilled people are paid poor wages and the CEOs get 500+ times that compensation. Why not do the same thing today with service jobs? Maybe profits would not be at record highs, maybe the US would not have as many billionaires and multimillionaires, but wouldn't we have a better country of people who would need fewer handouts, etc?

By the way, I do think government should be funded for the 10% of the stuff it should be doing. And not do the other 90%. So taxes.

What do you mean when you write you don't think it should be funded, but that it should do 10% of what it does. How does it do that 10% without funding?

Or we could just keep it to booze and keep the system that works in place 😂. Y’all libertarians can go back to Candyland with your bullshit😂