The End of Socialism?

[David Horn]

(09-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.

There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930.  The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.

Let's all agree that the Obama years were a bit unique.  When Ted Kennedy died, the ability to pass anything without Republicans onboard was dead.  After 2010. the GOP controlled Congress, and their mantra was focused on keeping Obama from doing anything, period.  Even the stimulus bill was watered down with much of it in the form of tax benefits to the rich and corporations, so the Obama years can't really be called "The Obama Years".