[WS:] Paroles, paroles, paroles ....
It took a Repug to mend fences with China, and a Dem to end welfare as we knew it. It now takes a Dem to privatise the public education system (social security will be next, after the markets improve a bit). So get the drift - it will take a Repug to "stimulate" the economy by giving generously to domestic capitalists.
The main difference between Repugs and Dems is which business interests they serve - the Repugs did a pretty good job preventing the Dems from expanding their "stimulus" package too widely, so now they can run on selling their own political patronage to those "underserved" under the Obama administration business interests.
In "The History of Forgetting" Norman Klein tells the story of a Vietnamese businesswoman running a fierce campaign against illegal Vietnamese micro-enterprises producing baked goods in private apartments. It turned out, however, that her business was prospering by buying those "illegal" bakery products and reselling them at a considerable markup in "legal" store fronts. The anti-illegal micro-enterprise campaign was simply a strategic move to thwart other businesses from doing the same.
This is, in a nutshell, how the political party business works. The only difference is the commodity being sold - political patronage instead of baked goods.
Wojtek
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Sandy Harris <sandyinchina at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am reasonably sure that when the Repugs gain control of the house
>> (or the presidency) there will be a little change in the level of
>> government spending - but a big change in which business cronies will
>> be getting the federal largesse.
>
> I agree.
>
> However, isn't one of the main points of the Tea Party "a plague on
> both their houses", a desire to cut down on government especially
> on gov't spending?
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk