I secretly suspect he's actually a libertarian free-market constitutionalist
I am a libertarian constitutionalist. I have just a touch of free market in me. I used to be exactly what you mean by that though. I was a far right libertarian, so libertarian in fact that I was bordering on anarchy. So I was not quite on the radical fringe of the Libertarian party, but I was close. Now I'm still libertarian, I'm not quite on the border of anarchy anymore, but I'm not far from there. However now, instead of being way to the right, I'm pretty far over to the left. I do have just a touch of free market in me, because I am not so far to the left that I would be considered socialist. I'm just very liberal/progressive.
On both political axis, I am on the moderate corner of left libertarianism. Left libertarianism is, in turn, a less extreme version of anarcho-socialism.
I did not just randomly decide to switch to the left. It was a slow progression, that required a lot of learning and admitting that I had been wrong about certain things. It is just where you end up when you change your position to fit the facts, rather than spin the facts to fit your beliefs.
A market crash, sure, but we'll recover. The great depression was caused by anti-capitalist policies in response to a market crash.
It was made worse by doing as little spending as possible. That was Hoovers plan. It caused deflation, which is very bad. The new deal stuff didn't happen until FDR. The vast majority of economists and myself agree the new deal was the primary force leading us out of the depression. However WW2, was also a very big factor. In addition WW2 had a lot to do with the economic prosperity to follow, or at least getting it started. The military economy was quickly and easily turned to civilian purposes and continued to grow.
I don't make a big distinction between corporate cronyism welfare and public housing welfare. In both cases the government is playing politics with our money to gain power and control.
Or just get rid of the FICA/Medicare tax entirely and use the standard income tax where there is no upper bound. The only reason they don't do that, is they don't want to admit it's a Ponzi scheme.
The difference is corporate greed vs people who can't even feed themselves. It's also temporary. We need SS/MC because otherwise we will end up with a lot of older people living in terrible conditions. You just can't do that when you are part of a social species.
Democrats believe in the program, but are bunch of pu$$!3$ who can't bring themselves to fix it. Republicans would love to get rid of it. Unfortunately for them, most of their voters are older and are receiving benefits. So you can't touch it.
Agreed that he is wishy-washy and equivocal, which just makes things worse. He ends up taking both sides of a controversial issue and pleasing no one. All the more reason he should take up a non-partisan cause like improving the family cohesiveness and moral standing of our most disadvantaged demographics.
I agree with your assessment. However he is just going to be criticized no matter what he does. So even the most non-partisan things will be spun as partisan and socialist.
With some Republicans and some Democrats I agree. I think many Republicans took principled stances against the various Obama takeovers, and many Democrats took principled stances for them.
The problem is that when Republicans are in power you get big government fascist takeovers like the Patriot act, and when Democrats are in power you get big government fascist takeovers like Obamacare and Fannie and Freddie. Then when they switch places they never repeal the takeovers that the other party enacted, they just enact more of their own.
"Obama takeovers" are an invention of right wing pundits. He's done health insurance reform and credit reform. That's it. All they really do is stop corporations from screwing people. The health insurance one will also help the poor afford insurance, and stop deadbeats from abusing the emergency room which is what jacks up medical costs so badly. It forces them instead to take personal responsibility for their own health, rather than taking freebies from the hospitals.
Holy crap the top rate was over 90% in the 1950s - that's crazy. Investment capital for entrepreneurship would be dead, as if it's not mostly going to China already...
No, that's not quite right. It's not the top bracket, as in what all your money is taxed at. It's a margin. It's like the alternative minimum tax today. The only money that was taxed at 90% was just everything made over a certain limit. Which if I remember right was 400K in the late 40's. That is equal to about $5 million today.
What they do now is make it lower, I'm wanting to say like 40% or so. Then they lower the cutoff down to 160K or there about (it varies a little by year). This leaves greed unchecked, encourages screwing people and taking risks. It also puts a ridiculous burden on people who are not at all wealthy. People who make 200K or 300K are doing pretty good, but it's hardly wealthy.
It also does not apply to corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are done completely different. As for China..... well we borrowed the money from them to feed our military machine, fight wars, and give tax breaks to the wealthy. We have to pay them back, with interest. Fair is fair.