The bottom 99% voted for it. The bottom 99% want more and more government, and this is what they get. More government in the mortgage business = more money to the rich. More government in education = more and more useless administrators with 6 figure salaries. More government in health care = again more and more useless administrators with 6 figure salaries. Wealth inequality voted for and by the masses. So dont give me any nonsense about right wing ideology. The bottom 99% will keep voting for more and more government, and they will keep getting screwed until they end up with Venezuela.
That's quite wrong again. Of course they are taking - massive amounts of wealth.
Compare the distribution of wealth in the 1940's to 1960's, with the distribution today.
The wealthy have shifted trillions of dollars of income to themselves from the rest of society by gaming the rules.
The top tax rate has gone from 90% to a fraction of that and 15% or less for some of the biggest incomes to zero or even a negative tax for some of the largest corporations, instead adding all that money to the national debt draining hundreds of billions per year in interest payments.
CEO pay has gone from 25 times worker salaries to hundreds of times as the compensation system has been corrupted.
The norm for the overhead of the finance industry to the economy is 10% historically; in recent times finance has taken as much as 40% of all profits in the economy for largely unproductive and parasitical activities.
Most stock trading today is high-speed trading that does nothing to create wealth for the economy, only taking wealth out of it. The largest hedge fund in the world is owned by Robert Mercer, who it's made a billionaire, by basically nothing more than creating effective stock trading approaches, which again do nothing ot create wealth in society but instead drain it - while Mercer uses that wealth to buy right-wing policies to help take even more wealth, including his being trump's biggest billionaire backer.
Activities are largely parasitical. For a couple of examples, one of Goldman Sachs' schemes had it buying all the available aluminum supplied to profit by price gouging the industries such as soft drink makers who needed it - which gouged consumers. Because of the risk of such gouging, government had created a law requiring that supplies not sit idle and hoarded - so you saw the spectacle of trucks moving the aluminum from factory to factory in a circle evading the spirit of the law. While the law was undermined, that's not a problem with 'too much government' but too little.
For the second example, speculators in the oil industry were estimated even by the biggest gasoline CEOs to add over 50 cents per gallon to the cost of gas in the US.
That's all money not creating wealth for society, but parasitical taking of money from others.
Near monopolies in industry after industry have become the norm as the businesses have bought government that won't restrict it since Reagan. The last major breakup was AT&T by Carter. That drains huge sums as well.
I could list many more ways they drain money from the rest of the country, but bottom line is that the top 1% keep increasing their share of all wealth drastically, with the top 0.01% increasing far more than the rest of the 1% - and effectively buying our political system in the process.
You severely misunderstand the issues. Government in the mortgage business - whatever you mean by the phrase - isn't the problem and isn't what results in more for the rich.
More government in education has resulted in student aid resulting in record numbers of people who are educated - the system is not perfect, it has corruption by the rich, with Republicans passing policies from charging high interest to benefit lenders to not allowing the debt in bankruptcy.
But even more government in education - Bernie Sanders' plan to pay for higher education for public schools - wouldn't make the rich richer, and any waste in 'six figure administrators' is a far smaller issue than other issues.
Where government is the least - 'private schools' - is where you see the absolute worst criminally low-quality education for horribly overpriced schools - an utter scam.
As a practical matter today, right-wing ideology has become nothing but policies to implement plutocracy - with justifications and propaganda to get support for doing so and deny the purpose.
For example, right-wing propaganda includes claims such as 'trickle-down economics' and the claim that all tx cuts 'pay for themselves' - both lies that argue for these huge shifts of the rich paying trillions less in taxes that are all added to the public debt.
You say the 99% vote for it - but the wealth of the plutocrats is used to fool the 99% into voting for the opposite of what they want, as their voices are heard far more loudly than any other.
Congress has been entirely hijacked as an institution, with only a minority of its members actually serving voters rather than the plutocrats who fund them.
State legislatures have similarly been corrupted - a third of the legislation passed by some Republican legislatures is now bills handed to them to pass by ALEC, the corporate interest group.
The alternative policies to plutocracy have nothing to do with Venezuela - which is nothing but a cherry picking of a country with problems to misrepresent the issues. And Venezuela had utter and worse poverty for most of its citizens before moving left.
It's a red herring, a straw man. used to hide the problems the US has of plutocracy, of the trillions taken by the rich which are destroying the country, denying its people the prosperity they deserve and democracy.
The policies being reversed from right-wing policies would not make the country more like Venezuela; they would increase the wealth and power of the citizens of the US drastically.
Before the shift to the right, incomes in the US went up pretty proportionally. Since then, only the most wealthy have gone up, skyrocketing, while the majorities have been flat or worse. That means that all these huge increases in wealth at the top and inequality, mean the worker today earning $60,000 should be making $90,000 or more, but the rest is taken by the billionaires.
These plutocratic policies not only are redistributing wealth to the top, they're also bad for the growth of the economy - reducing opportunity, reducing efficiency, steering money away from productive use.