Democratic Party Moves toRedistribute Wealth to the Upper Class

The ongoing large scale changes in the U.S. economy seem more bad that good overall. Wealth is being concentrated and the number of the nation's poor now has reached about 50 million. Basically both major parties have changed to advocate for the rich instead of the poor with the Democrats throwing bones to the middle class occassionally.

Until President Reagan and following President Hoover the U.S.A. had a series of quality presidents that continuously maintained a recycling of wealth from the rich to the poor through tax policy. Today tax policy alone if corrected to a 70% rate for the rich could not correct America's outsourcing, foreign investment and policy of neglect of innovation. Not even stimulating dumb highway infrastructure contractors is much of an ongoing economic cas multiplier. Stimulating real renewable energy and other small business start ups would be better.

Now the nation compared to the Roman Empire's Antonine emperors in a series of quality rulers has run a Lemon series of presidents outsourcing the nation's wealth and tech infrastructure, gaying up the military to create a new opportunity for levering the destruction of individual civil liberties and economic well being, and supporting concentration of wealth, comparative decline of U.S. economic competetitity etc. The well known facts of politics since the Reagan administration are too obvious to belabor here.

The Democratic party has morphed into a support service-an ad hoc employer owned sweetheart union, to support the domination of wealthy corproate America heavily invested abroad. During the 20th century until the Reagan administration mostly white poor Americans fought for economic fairness against the rich who exploited them. They fought to get a fair portion of the AMerican pie though concentrated wealth coulod outbid them at every turn. The moderately egalitarian income distribution was a phenomena in human history.

Near the end of the cold war President Regan slashed taxes on the rich and plundered America's natural resources in order to stimulate the economy. He also exploited deep deficit spending to increase business and expanded the military significantly without getting into expensive foreign wars. His term objectives economically were perhaps fullfilled yet his methods were disposable-or should have been. Instead following administrations have continued deficit spending, exploiting natural resources, keeping a low tax rate on the rich and even engaging in protracted foreign wars. During Wall Street crashes the government has bailed out the banks and investment firms. U.S. loans at near zero interest to Wall Street banks that are little better than government guaranteed gambling houses skimming the public like the owners of a large casino have enabled trillions of dollars of potential U.S. investment to be diverted to China and elsewhere.

The Democratic party transitioning to a gay advocacy group and a party of activist women have implicitly conflicted with the interests of all the poor. Though homosexual militancy may seem liberating to some, homosexuals in the United STates are not more poor than any other general section of the U.S. public. There are numbers of prosperous homosexuals, as there are millions of prosperous women in the United States. When the Democratic Party transformed itself into a party of women and homosexuals it moved away from effective representation of the poor. In fact for many years poverty seems to have been a dirty word in the Democratic party; poor relations or aquaintances the President in getting support from one of the richest women in America-oprah Winfree, and getting new campaign support from one of the richest billionaires-Warren Buffet.

If Harvard Law School has trained its right leaders to transform the Democratic party into willing tools of the rich (were Barrack Obama and Gary Locke in the same class?) as Oxford's equivelent of Rhode's Scholar selections to advance Anglo interests, if a Democratic President becomes the leading advocate for tax cuts for the rich and signs an extension of the Bush II tax cuts in to law (December 2010) then what hope is there for reversing the Wall Street and the rich above all things policy in the White House that has diverted America's development and ecospheric recovery until some future time in case the nation is still around?

The President has cancelled U.S. leadership on lunar colony development and retired from the space development field that should create bold new ideas in Earth-moon transportation infrastructure at low cost. The President while liberating black repression and the appearance of racial exclusion fostered during the Bush II administration by undercurrents of wise guy add ons, is something like a too obliging servant of the interests of a class that considers it war to mention tax increases on the rich. The wealthy in the United States seem to believe they have some perennial right to enjoy unchallenged domination of the U.S. economy and that the people who are poor and even of a middle class do not have implicit interests in enjoying debt free prosperity in a secure and healthy ecosphere.

The poor have an implicit right to war upon the rich, if that means political expressions in advocacy of a more fair, higher tax rate. The Republican Party tends to drag out the war term as a kind of implicit threat that they might have to bitch slap down with the power of their military industrial complex, economic sanctions, clever terror or miscillaneous perfidy. They should have a kinder, gentler attitude toward higher taxes that should be used to continually improve the quality of life for all in the United States, the quality of the environment, biodiversity and national security.