• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A crack in the republican bedrock

J

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
A new term has arisen amongst the Republicans that I hope gains some traction in general use.

The term is "vampire capitalist".

Many of their arguments have been based on the idea that unfettered capitalism/free markets are always good. This has been a rock-solid, almost universal stance for a long time.

To hear them use a term like "vampire capitalist" seems like a huge shift to me. And I can think of several more places the term could be used where someone might look silly arguing against the use of the term.

IMHO, this has enormous potential for future arguments.

What do the rest of you think?
 
I think it uses a word that's now become associated with sparkly people and therefore anyone using it can't be taken seriously.
 
That's a nice propaganda term. Short, catchy, powerful. Helps that it's fairly accurate. Should have staying power. Probably has its roots in the movie Daybreakers (decent flick, literally about vampire capitalists).
 
first time I've heard that term.

I've heard "vulture capitalist" a lot this week, though.

who knows if it will have any sticking power; it's weird for a republican to campaign against another republican on the basis that he took advantage of the free market to run a successful and profitable business.
 
So let me get this straight, you think that a crack in the Republican bedrock is to continue the name calling tactic? Oh because its catchy its not juvenile behavior? Lolberals. 🙄
 
xBiffx said:
So let me get this straight, you think that a crack in the Republican bedrock is to continue the name calling tactic? Oh because its catchy its not juvenile behavior? Lolberals. 🙄
Click to expand...

Lolberals is pretty retarded. You need to try harder. The L and the B can't be side by side. It has literally no flow to it. You must have made it up yourself.

Try like Liberlols. :thumbsup: Way more catchy and way less retarded.

Maybe even Liberofls.
 
Last edited:
jackschmittusa said:
A new term has arisen amongst the Republicans that I hope gains some traction in general use.

The term is "vampire capitalist".

Many of their arguments have been based on the idea that unfettered capitalism/free markets are always good. This has been a rock-solid, almost universal stance for a long time.

To hear them use a term like "vampire capitalist" seems like a huge shift to me. And I can think of several more places the term could be used where someone might look silly arguing against the use of the term.

IMHO, this has enormous potential for future arguments.

What do the rest of you think?
Click to expand...
I can guarantee you that romney and the entire Republican Establishment doesn't think that a free market is good.

For starters, they support unnecessary wars which basically redistributes wealth.
 
Anarchist420 said:
I can guarantee you that romney and the entire Republican Establishment doesn't think that a free market is good.

For starters, they support unnecessary wars which basically redistributes wealth.
Click to expand...

but I bet Dr. Paul has this shit ON LOCK. :thumbsup:
 
Capitalism isnt a problem or an issue because if we had capitalism then all these banks would have gone bankrupt in 2008 and been liquidated instead of bailed out. We'd be in a depression right now, a recognized depression instead of one only inflicted on the bottom 90%. And of course with economic depression comes social and political change.
 
xBiffx

Don't be silly. It is not name-calling. It will be using terms popularized by the Republicans themselves to counter their future arguments for unfettered free markets. They've opened the door for legitimate criticism of one of their dearly held core beliefs. Terms like vulture or vampire capitalism will keep the door open.
 
jackschmittusa said:
Many of their arguments have been based on the idea that unfettered capitalism/free markets are always good. This has been a rock-solid, almost universal stance for a long time.

To hear them use a term like "vampire capitalist" seems like a huge shift to me.
Click to expand...

The US does not have "unfettered capitalism/free markets".

When you have a private company that prints money out of thin air and controls the interest rate (federal reserve), it is not a free market.

When the government bails out banks and other large companies, we do not have free markets.

When the banking crisis hit in 2008, 2009, a free market would have allowed the banks and everyone on wall street who made bad investments to go belly up. But instead, the CEOs got nice bonuses funded by tax payer money.

What we have is a market that caters to the money lenders and the investment sector.
 
Texashiker said:
The US does not have "unfettered capitalism/free markets".

When you have a private company that prints money out of thin air and controls the interest rate (federal reserve), it is not a free market.

When the government bails out banks and other large companies, we do not have free markets.

When the banking crisis hit in 2008, 2009, a free market would have allowed the banks and everyone on wall street who made bad investments to go belly up. But instead, the CEOs got nice bonuses funded by tax payer money.

What we have is a market that caters to the money lenders and the investment sector.
Click to expand...

It's free market. The laws are an outcome of the free market system too, those willing to pay the most get the laws they want.
 
I find this all rather amusing. Newt's like a suicide bomber right now. He's basically saying that Gordon Gecko preditory capitalism is bad and accusing Mittens of being a prime participant. Even Rush was almost speachless in describing his dismay in Newt's attack adds in South Carolina.

Let the circular firing squad continue!
 
Last edited:
I've said for years this language is a huge issue in our politics blocking good discussion.

You can't criticize abusive capitalism without attacking 'all capitalism' easily, which is nonsense.

It's like all drug dealers begin lumped with all businesses so if you criticize drug dealing you're anti-business. We have a ways to go.
 
Texashiker said:
The US does not have "unfettered capitalism/free markets".

When you have a private company that prints money out of thin air and controls the interest rate (federal reserve), it is not a free market.

When the government bails out banks and other large companies, we do not have free markets.

When the banking crisis hit in 2008, 2009, a free market would have allowed the banks and everyone on wall street who made bad investments to go belly up. But instead, the CEOs got nice bonuses funded by tax payer money.

What we have is a market that caters to the money lenders and the investment sector.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough the passage of "Graham Leach Bliley" which repealed some of the regulations on banks enacted shortly after the Great Depression in the name of moving more towards a "free market" economy; probably helped these banks and investment firms become "Too big to fail."

Something that Clinton should never have signed.... (makes me wonder if he really was suckered into believing it or if someone had something on him)



After all "bail us out or a majority of the world economy will crater" is a pretty compelling argument.



Another factor regarding regulation was the failure of congress and the president to follow Brooksley Born's advice to allow the oversight of derivatives during the 90's.

Lack of oversight of these financial instruments is another decision in favor of freer markets which can be argued to have contributed to the "Too big to fail" banks.



So two decisions in favor of a more laissez-fair economy instead leads to a situation in which a government bailout of certain banks is needed to prevent an economic meltdown. Sensible regulation is actually needed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top