talk about the time circa 1976 - 1980 in terms of the shift in Global Economic sentiment from 1976 Jimmy Carters Generic Capitalism to Reagan/ Clinton Neo Liberal Capitalism
The Political and Wealthy Class is the True Welfare Class in the USA ... Non Existing Corporate Tax and Individual Earned Income of Private Equity and Hedge Funds ... These people bring nothing of Value to the Process, yet they control the Levers of Government ... acting against its Citizens, breaking Constitutional Law and Blurring The Civil Rights Act by District Gerrymandering of Maps to effect Election Outcomes‼️
°💯% to benefit the AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) aka Cult of 45 47 💩🕳️ POTUS ‼️The Utter Incompetence of Cankles McTaco Titts brings nothing but Violence ... all being carried out for the benefit of War Criminals in World Capitals and Financial Centers beware The Rug Pull that's coming to a Town or City near you‼️
The US Government and it's Judicial Law Enforcement is collapsing at all Levels ‼️
You've packed a lot in here
✌️🐼✌️ , Let me separate the substantive economic history from the political commentary and address both fairly.
The 1976–1980 shift and the rise of neoliberalism
The transition you're pointing to is real and well-documented by economists across the political spectrum. Carter inherited stagflation — simultaneous high inflation and stagnant growth — which classical Keynesian tools couldn't fix. His administration was actually more deregulatory than people remember (airlines, trucking, brewing), but it was still operating within the post-New Deal consensus: regulated capitalism with a strong labor share of GDP, progressive taxation, and robust antitrust.
Reagan's 1980 victory marked the formal pivot to supply-side economics — lower marginal tax rates, deregulation of finance, weakened unions, and the philosophical frame that capital formation drives prosperity downward. Clinton didn't reverse this; he deepened it. NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, welfare reform — these were extensions of the Reagan framework with Democratic branding. That's why historians treat "neoliberalism" as a bipartisan project spanning roughly 1980–2008.
The measurable outcomes: wage growth decoupled from productivity around 1979, the top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 28% under Reagan, corporate tax's share of federal revenue fell from ~30% in the 1950s to under 10% by the 2010s, and wealth concentration returned to Gilded Age levels.
Carried interest and private equity taxation
Your point about hedge funds and PE is on solid ground factually. The carried interest loophole taxes fund managers' performance fees at capital gains rates (~20%) rather than ordinary income rates (~37%). Both parties have promised to close it for over 15 years and neither has. That's a legitimate policy critique shared by people from Elizabeth Warren to some fiscal conservatives.
The 2010 ruling is genuinely one of the most consequential SCOTUS decisions of the century. It equated money with speech and opened unlimited corporate and dark money spending in elections. Polling consistently shows large bipartisan majorities of Americans oppose the ruling. A constitutional amendment to overturn it has been proposed repeatedly but faces the Article V threshold problem.
Also a real structural issue. Both parties do it where they hold state legislatures, though post-2010 redistricting gave Republicans a significant structural advantage in the House. Independent redistricting commissions have been adopted in some states as a reform.
The AIPAC framing conflates several distinct issues — lobbying influence, foreign policy alignment with Israel, and domestic political movements — in a way that risks oversimplifying each one. AIPAC is a powerful lobby, but attributing the entire neoliberal capture of government to a single interest group doesn't match the structural reality, which involves fossil fuel, pharma, defense, finance, and tech lobbies operating in concert. The degradation of democratic institutions has many fathers.
The vulgar nicknames for political figures — I get the frustration, but they tend to close ears rather than open them. Your underlying policy critiques are strong enough to stand on their own merits.
The "rug pull" concern about economic instability isn't unfounded given current debt levels, asset inflation, and the concentration of wealth in financial instruments detached from productive economy. That's worth watching seriously regardless of political orientation.
Bottom line: the structural critique of who benefits from the post-1980 economic order is well-supported by data. The question has always been whether reform comes through the existing system or whether the system is too captured to self-correct. That's the real debate.
romaincrisis
kaledo-art
jacobvanloon
jbbartram-illu
gummygunk