Vixentrox Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Yes, comrade! Spoken like a fellow Marxist. I think the problem is that redistribution through taxation only shifts power from the wealthy to the government. We simply switch masters. Gotta love George Bush, he started all that "redistribution" you are pissing on. In fact I think the people who are fucking us are pretty smart, and the funny thing is watching Republicans deny Bush did it and watching Democrats play it off like just because "Obama" is doing it we will be good 2 go. Mean while all those corporations, you know the fucks who are really pulling the strings, just keep gettin more power in the form of other peoples' money. Sure the government is growing at an absurd rate, but that's being eclipsed by Corporate power and the consolidation of that power into an ever decreasing number of people. If we where in a healthy environment we would see startups to replace the old failures. But instead... There are these banks and companies that are just "too big to fail". Yay!! Bring on more corruption! George Bush started it? Hahahahaha. It got started way further back in time than that. I'm pretty sure he didn't invent social security, welfare, Medicare, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 You're right, Reagan was the first one to really implement trickle-down economic policy on a national scale. Bush just decided to exhume and continue beating the horse for another 8 years after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Obama has not taken many actions yet Obama has appointed virtually the same economic team to the SEC and Treasury and coincidentally enough, they are all tied to Goldman Sachs and benefiting Goldman Sachs. Moreover, he is offering exactly the same solutions from the exact same group of advisors. The question here isn't his tax policy, it's his spending policy. It's the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hmm. What's it called when you have for-profit corporations deciding who lives and who dies? Capitalism Reverse Corporate Fascism (in our case) Okay. Thanks. So my next question is: what's the fundamental difference between for-profit corporations deciding who lives or dies vs. the government deciding who lives or dies? Because it seems as if in these threads the second is treated like the worst thing in the world but the first is okay for some reason, and I don't get it. I don't really see what the essential difference is: you still have some bureaucratic pencil-pushing body other than yourself and your docs deciding whether or not you get to live or die. If someone could explain it to me I'd be very grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Yes, comrade! Spoken like a fellow Marxist. I think the problem is that redistribution through taxation only shifts power from the wealthy to the government. We simply switch masters. Gotta love George Bush, he started all that "redistribution" you are pissing on. In fact I think the people who are fucking us are pretty smart, and the funny thing is watching Republicans deny Bush did it and watching Democrats play it off like just because "Obama" is doing it we will be good 2 go. Mean while all those corporations, you know the fucks who are really pulling the strings, just keep gettin more power in the form of other peoples' money. Sure the government is growing at an absurd rate, but that's being eclipsed by Corporate power and the consolidation of that power into an ever decreasing number of people. If we where in a healthy environment we would see startups to replace the old failures. But instead... There are these banks and companies that are just "too big to fail". Yay!! Bring on more corruption! George Bush started it? Hahahahaha. It got started way further back in time than that. I'm pretty sure he didn't invent social security, welfare, Medicare, ect. Um, TARP and the bailouts started under Bush. But you know, just like I said: this is funny to me that people such as yourself say these things. It's like a sort of cognitive dissonance I can toy with.... Bush was spreading that wealth bigtime with Paulson as the frontman and Geithner in the background: 300 billion the first time and 700 billion the second time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Larry, I'm not trying to criticize you here. What Quid was talking about and what I responded to was the idea that under the Bush admin we had massive levels of corporate socialism and redistribution of wealth taking place. This is exactly the kind of thing that GOP voters hate yet their party did it in spades. While they were doing it, the Dem party and its supporters heavily criticized the Bush admin for it. Now we have a changing of the guard and how quickly GOP supporters forget that it was their party that initiated this redistribution of wealth and how quickly they have been able to turn the blame toward Obama. And how quickly the Dem supporters have turned into apologists for policy they were vehemently opposed just one short year ago. Obama took the baton from Bush on this one and both parties get away with a massive fraud on the American public because both party's supporters are willing to apologize for the actions of their own party or shift the blame to the other party when they both do exactly the same thing. I think it is incorrect to say that the "redistribution of wealth" perpetrated by the Bush administration and that of Obama are the same. Bush lowered corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and the top rate for personal income taxes for the wealthy. There was indeed a redistribution, but it was entirely "upwards." He was very, very consistent about this. Obama has not taken many actions yet, but if we assume he follows through on his campaign proposals, the tax rate for the wealthy will return to that of the Clinton era, and the taxes for the middle class will either stay the same or decrease. The same applies with many of his other actions, and he is being criticised for redistributing wealth in a "downward" direction - towards the middle class (and poor). To test this, which president wanted to reduce the "death tax" (inheritance tax) which only applies to the extremely wealth? The two parties and presidents have very different approaches, policies and goals, so equating them does not comport with the facts. Um, No.... The bailouts and TARP program Bush started where essentially the same thing implemented by Obama..... I think it was 300 Billion for the 1st bailout under Bush and 700 Billion for the second bailout iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qec Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Obama has not taken many actions yet Obama has appointed virtually the same economic team to the SEC and Treasury and coincidentally enough, they are all tied to Goldman Sachs and benefiting Goldman Sachs. Moreover, he is offering exactly the same solutions from the exact same group of advisors. The question here isn't his tax policy, it's his spending policy. It's the same. Yep. They are essentially the same group of Neo-Liberals who are cracking the egg to make an omellette for their friends while the rest of us can fucking eat cake "bailouts" while they get obscenely rich over those same bailouts. Should be interesting to watch them crack an egg again (and boy they will) and then watch the "deer-in-the-headlights" reaction on the faces of Democrats as everything totally goes to shit. Hell, now with Preventative Detention those asshats can get away with anything at all. Funny times indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts