Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Bush Ended Capitalism.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 24, 2012, 8:30 p.m. EST by gsw (2733)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

so says David Stockman here

http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-broadcast-crony-capitalism/

There is no capitalism left, says Stockman, when too big to fail speculative banks were not allowed to fail, but were propped up.

Sorry Conservatives--it was ended by your Guy Bush.

Bill Clinton doesn't get away free either.

Wall Street Banks have been propped up repeatedly.

We are a Crony Capitalism System. We have a Real Crisis.

Eliminate all contributions to campaigns over $100.00. Money must be out of politics, elections.

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

We need to eliminate contribution based politics all together.

And don't forget to blame the highly corrupt Congress pushing through legislation.

You couldn't have the bailouts without congress.

Speaking of Congress... why wasn't Bush impeached?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 2 years ago

I think a big issue within our society is there is a huge disinformation strain concerning the difference between 'crony capitalism' and free trade.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

Well, Obama had 4 years to fix it and he didn't. Now he has another 4 years to fix it and he won't. This country gets what it deservers.

Voting for Obama with the same people controlling the house and senate expecting different results. Insane I say.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

You are not finding Obama fan here.

http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/declaration/

I also voted not Obama.

That is why we are here. Welcome to the club.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 2 years ago

Private donations less than 100 are not a bad idea. Can an individual make multiple 100 donations. Can a CPAC collect many <$100 donations and contribute and lump sum?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

I was quoting what David Stockman said in interview.

I think a one time limit is the intent. Maybe 4 in a year. A candidate could give self an amount a bit higher I imagine.

We'd see less tv adds

My idea would be ban cpac, but money could go to election fund from which all candidates could get message out on PBS or print media, Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States

We need to end monopoly of duopoly.

http://www.freedomkeys.com/whatforb.htm

http://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-oklahoma-allow-third-party-candidates-for-president-on-the-oklahoma-ballot

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/articles/political-broadcasting/?nomobile=1

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

CPACs should not be allowed to pool money for this reason. Individuals can contribute up to 100 and thats it. Total.

We did the numbers, and for one person to tour Florida for a month, all costs including some cheap help, it was around 10k. They really dont need to be campaigning for a fuckin year. 3 months is fine. 30k. 300 people giving 100 bucks. 600 giving 50. 3000 people giving 10. Its very doable.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

Bush is now relegated to that cadre of formers who are measured by the good that they achieved. Bush outlawed partial birth abortions (a no-brainer); he attempted to introduce a more racially inclusive cabinet; he attempted to improve education on a worldwide scale, and he encouraged energy production. Clinton reduced the size of Federal government and halted many of our welfare programs. We can go on and on but the problem with this form of assessment is that it ignores the negatives that were introduced which in virtually all cases exceeds the good.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

It's not accurate to say the Dems are not attracted to wealth; it will take another mighty strong conservative to right this ship.

[-] 3 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

I think it will take leadership to encourage all these reforms. Initially, in constitution, it is congress who is supposed to lead on these issues. They should start doing a way better job of leading.

Repubs have a majority in house, but seem morally bankrupt, unable to lead, are a group who does not want to lead.

So we have crony capitalism, both sides are way in to it, giving perks to corps, in a symbiosis.

all corporate subsidies should end. Tax credits for solar installs, if rebate goes to consumer, should be ok as this is part of national defense of country and environment. Tax credits for higher education good.

Also, reform tax code a good idea. Wealth tax looks good. Close many loopholes. I think we need to look to any ideas to fix this mess, regardless of old party stereotypes.

Rich and congress people should pay a bit more for letting deficit get out of control. They control the governmenent. They shoul pay more for that privilege, not less.

Sure some government may be a too big. Defense is one area. Homeland security.

There are other areas. Maybe fiscal cliff will make everyone perform there job.

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

I don't think this congress has any intention of addressing any of the issues you suggest. It would appear they are intent on purging the books, slipping in more and more EPA regulation, essentially imposing greater control over the American populace.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're against Environmental Protection? Why?.

If the people do not exert control (through the EPA) then corps will poison our food, air, & water to make a little more profit.

Are you kidding.?

[-] 2 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

Exactly.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41561.pdf

This congressional report lists how the congress is sabotaging the health of American people by doing what Red Dragon implies, congress is working against EPA and our health, another example of their treason.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Great report. Thanx

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

Yea, it's way outa hand, just crazy...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well there is no better way to keep corps from poisoning our food, water, & air. so until you have a better option you either support the EPA or you support poison.

Do you have a better option?

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

There's nothing wrong with EPA regulations but it has taken on rather bizarre proportions that make it virtually impossible to create energy or pursue energy sources. We represent some very small geographical area of the earth and all around us the world is very busy polluting. We should not allow the EPA to put as a economic disadvantage. Drill baby drill... and I'd like to see new refineries, nuclear power, etc. And of course if you're living in NY it doesn't matter since your world is one of concrete, steel, chemical particulates, and imported water.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Well we produce more energy than we ever have. And we drill more than ever as well. So obviously you are absolutely wrong. We've also recently just approved the1st new Nuclear plants in decades.

So then your desires are met and you have no need to complain.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

People are complaining because in my area we are paying the highest electrical rates in the country and fuel oil ain't cheap, either. In fact, it's gotten so expensive that few can afford it, most are burning wood. You can't tell me that that is somehow better for ecology; I'm just not feeling it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Stop burning wood!, Get in the street and force your pols to implement cheap renewable energy.

Stop whining and get to work!

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

Get in the street? Dude, what street? I live on a f*cking dirt road.

Oh well, guess I'll go cut a few more trees for the fire.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha!

Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You should inform them about the chimney fire and cancer risks of burning wood and the water table risks of fracking...... and that's aside from other environmental risks of those practices.

They should actually, just move.

It's obvious WallStreet wants their land, so they should do the "right" thing and let them have it.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

We're going to frack because that land is privately owned and they need the money, unless of course, the EPA forks up the money to buy the rights. Bring cash.

Secondly, we are very rapidly deforesting because we can't afford fuel oil and freezing our nuts off really doesn't sound all that appealing.

These are what you might call "economies of scale" - resources are either affordable or human beings slide off the scale.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Deforestation?

Kinda like the Rapa Nui, eh?

Well, have fun with cancer and chimney fires and whatever that shit is in your water. .

You know what they say. If your too damn cheap to buy the fuel you aren't worthy. Buncha' low lifes.

After you've finished deforesting, they will get the land for pennies on the dollar. Fools!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Another need for Hemp legalization - save the forests.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I think he may already be burning enough hemp to keep his whole house warm.....................................:)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22325) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Ummmm I am thinking it more likely - co2 poisoning. {:-])

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

You can't possibly be this foolish; everyone is heating with wood right now because they can't afford those thousands to fill the tank.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What?

They're just too lazy to get out there and make the money to pay those deserving oil corporations? They are just asking them to pay what the invisible hand decided they should.

So now you figure going all Rapa Nui and using all that human energy to chop down all those trees is a good thing?

Why not get a real job?

Why not use all that energy to create something that pays the price of oil?

So you figure all those deaths from chimney fires and cancer are better than getting a real job?

I hope you're not expecting any sympathy, but perhaps if they had invested what little money they actually earn wisely, they could pay cost of freedom.

Or they could just move somewhere were that kind of laziness. pays better and is more accepted...............somewhere like WallStreet.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

There are no jobs. And those that have them still can't afford fuel oil. At this very moment not only are many chopin' wood for heat but many are also putting venison in the freezer. For at least 20% of America there are no jobs.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

Maybe oil would do better going green here in USA.

All of it matters. Kyoto accord, we should lead to greener world. If china makes cheaper solar panels ok. No biggie. Maybe we can take their technology and use robotic manufacturing to out produce them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z94VIGaXxho

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 2 years ago

Well certainly if anyone can produce green energy it is us. And that includes green oil.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Conservative policy is at theroot of all our problems. Pursuing conservative ideology will put the ship right to the bottom ofthe sea.

We need progressive change that benefits the 99% to correct thedebacle created by conservative policy.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

VQ. Tsk Tsk not here please.

They could have 1 idea in a million worth something. (call me an optimist!) We need to look at the idea, not stereotype. They need to think we buy into some of their ideas so they can save face and get problems solved in DC. (so although we don't agree with them, hold your enemy close, as the term goes)

We can say smaller govnt: homeland security, defense. I might even cap govnt workers and put unemployed who are qualified in there, paid a living wage of course.

Did you see the Donald had a wealth tax?

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm

One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt

Trump wants to soak the rich, including himself. He proposed a 14.25% tax yesterday on the net worth of wealthy Americans. He said the one-time tax package would: Raise $5.7 trillion to erase the nation’s debt and save $200 billion in annual interest payments Use the savings to save Social Security and slash taxes for the middle class Increase his personal tax bill by at least $725 million.

This source is outdated, so I dont know if his wealth tax numbers completely add up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Donald Trump is a racist piece of shit. I support a boycott of macys (he has ties with them) and his crappy show. You think I'm gonna consider anything that blow hard says?

And I am absolutely not going to walk on eggshells for conservative support. THEY can adjust their speech to accomodate a progressive approach.

The time of worrying about conservatives feelings ended when OWS was formed against the conservative 1% corp banksters.

Now if their is some conservative policy you think is worth a look, I will look.

Do you disagree that conservative policy is at the center of all our problems?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nice. Definitely support a wealth tax. Hard to get but with the right kind of pressure on all pols from the street it can be done.

The power of the people is vastly greater than the people in power.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

Good point.

They do own over half of congress, and can continue to drag feet, do treasonous crap if we can't get public to rise up against them, like they are trying to do with EPA, and have done with jobs bill hold up, and voter suppression.

But since we can't convince public they are wrong (as once a belief is established it is hard to chane even when given evidence) we have to pay lip service to a idea of theirs, so they can go along and do work in DC, which is they must compromise.

It is not concern for thei feelings, but for the publics attitude of Ows, a PR ploy.

Government may be too big in one or two areas. Corporate entitlements, other loopholes need to be closed.

I don't care for the trolls feelings. But there once were conservatives, who had some defendable ideas, before they all went to loony tunes camp, and gave us bush and Romney and all the traitors.

TrumP said one time 14 percent tax on wealth over 4 million dollars, which would bring in 5.7 trillion in 2000. The guy is a racist loon. But a one tmie wealth tax makes sense now.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I would have to take the time to find and analyze this proposal he made. I don't have enough respect for him to expend that energy. In fact I feel I know him well enough to say it is probably a scam.

I cannot pretend that conservative policy is not hurtful to decent hard working Americans, and benefits the 1% plutocrats who crashed the economy. I can't pretend that progressives have been compromising for 30 years, and conservatives not at all.

We need compromise! Them 1st.

Govt too big? Ok. let's see conservatives start by cutting the size of defense dept/budget. Progressives have been cutting all other areas (that conservatives don't like& want cut).

Corp entitlements/loopholes. I'm definitely for cutting that. But that ain't no conservative policy.

You got any other.? I'm willing to look at it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 2 years ago

The defintion of capitalism is not propping anything up to begin with. So your premise is flawed.

Bush ended nothing. We've had crony capitalism for 50+ years, if not longer. Ethanol subsidies, SEMATECH, Boeing, Fannie/Freddie taxpayer backing, green subsidies and on and on and on. Plus all the gubment artificial barriers of entry into the market to stop competition. It's all a very bad idea. Bush didn't start it. That schit goes back to FDR and the railroads.

BTW, the first amendment doesn't read "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except for campaign contributions over $100."

We have a real crisis? You're just figuring that out? Brilliant!

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So it sounds like you want your cake and you want to eat it too. The reason capitalism is dead is because people are allowed to buy elections. You either allow us all to have an equal voice which means putting regulations on free speech or continue down the road of "those with the most money speaks the loudest." The final destination will be aristocracy, not democracy. But hey, at least you get your unregulated free speech, it's just that your speech ain't worth shit if you don't have the money to amplify it.

[-] -1 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 2 years ago

You have an equal voice. One vote.

I want unregulated speech. The last thing we need is another gubment politburo to give us "free" speech.

You want some money, go EARN it.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You are a nincompoop. I don't want money; I just don't want to have to be forced to vote for the two idiots who moneyed interests have payed to see elected. And why do they get elected? Because most citizens are lazy and only listen to what they want to hear, whether it is true or false.

Unregulated free speech allows lying and misinformation to be the news of the day.

Your argument is close to the argument that those with money are the only ones who matter.

Besides, we had regulation on speech back before Raygun did away with it. It was called the Fairness doctrine and it seem to work better than the echo chambers we now pass as news.

[-] -3 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 2 years ago

You aren't forced to vote for anyone. You can vote for whoever you want or not vote at all.

Check yourself into your local mental institution along with VQkag.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

Please. Be. Nice.

Trying to solve worlds problems won't happen throwing sticks and stones.

Or maybe will, (no violence doesn't solve anything).

So consider your manners if you want the world to hear you.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Voting is nothing compared to donating millions, and spending the other 1400 days lobbying. When the choices are preselected and bought out, and others cant even get into a freakin debate, voting is nearly meaningless.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2733) 2 years ago

Ok. made you look. No you didn't watch the video. Volkers a repub, so you should relate to him a bit.

Bush sure didn't help to keep government out of the market.

To be fair, the below article does say crony capitalism has a long history. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/101446/conservative-republican-business-capitalism-influence

Volker has free speech to say limit contributions to campaigns to 100 dollars, and he does, and says it will need a costitutional amendment.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Opening one's wallet is not the same as opening one's mouth.

[-] -1 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 2 years ago

Try again.

130 S. Ct. 876.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Dredd Scott v. Sandford - 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

The Supreme Court decided blacks were not citizens of the United States. Later nullified by the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court has a history of not understanding who a citizen is. Amendments are already in process to correct this error as well.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Capitalism hasn't been around for decades....but completely agree Bush really destroyed it by taking it to a whole new level.

Love Stockman...a man who actually knows what the hell he's talking about.