>>The same is true in the US: under Democratic control, more money goes directly to those who need money (and therefore spend it right away) and to projects (like roads, bridges, etc.) that hire people. Those efforts result in less Federal debt after 4 or 8 years and a healthier economy. Under Republicans, the money goes to corporations, where a good chunk of it is never seen again. Money doesn't come from a "pot" -- it moves around the economy, either quickly or slowly. When it moves quickly, everyone benefits. This isn't just Keynesian theory -- it's been proven over and over again across the shifts in political power in the US.
>
>The Democrats had eight years to demonstrate that under Obama ---
>and Trump was elected.
>
>If you look at who benefited from TARP you'll understand why the Tea Party (and Trump) thrived and will continue to thrive.
>
>Trump is a disgusting, obnoxious boor, but the things that got him elected haven't changed.

>Agreed on TARP. for the most part. The automaker bailouts worked out (but the workers should have been better protected). In fact, most of the bailouts worked out. But some of the executive bonuses were plain ugly. And the lack of prosecution of mortgage companies who hid their bad tranches of loans by hiding the bad loans (e.g, by not accepting short sales) was appalling. Keeping companies together is smart economics: building complex systems is a drain on the economy. It's much cheaper, to society, to keep them intact.

>All that said, our economic recovery afterwards, starting in late 2009 and continuing to today, was better than many other advanced countries. So there's that.

>As for the Tea Party... How one can be for the working person and be against Unions that protect worker health, working conditions, wages and benefits is beyond my comprehension. Of course the money for the Tea Party came for people who want employers to have free rein to do whatever they want. Follow the money. Those same tea party funders have said they want no government regulation. Follow the money.

>Trump did tap into the legitimate frustrations of those cast aside for generations (I live in KY in the Appalachian foothills) and those whose relatively comfortable way of life is increasingly insecure because of a changing society. He didn't, doesn't, have any solutions for these folks except to urge them to hate. And to buy his merchandise.

>Hank

I have seen many statements about hate that some how Trump is causing. But when I look at the Trump voters I do not see a lot hate towards anyone. Are you seeing hate in Kentucky? Kentucky voted Trump and if there are these hate people as you suggest they should be right in front of you. When I was allowed to travel I met many Trump supporters and they were very frustrated with the general changes (as you suggested). When any society has rapid change - you will have push back. And there has been plenty of change! Where I have seen the most intolerance has to do with sexual orientation issues, and religions. Many do not want males in women's bathrooms or locker rooms in schools. The religion that seems to be a big issue are the Muslims. Of course you do not have to be a Trump supporter to be concerned with either of these issues. I believe the religion issues are not new. It happened to many of the minorities in the past (the Irish, Italians, Jews. etc..). IOW it is not new.
Johnf