PDQ Democrats -Plausibly-Deniable Quisling Democrats

Only the stupidest of thugs proclaim they want to hurt you. More intelligent criminals pretend they are on your side; and when they have your confidence, they stab you in the back. Can you say "compassionate conservatism"? For ease of discussion, I refer to this behavior as "camouflage". It is a basic tactic in nature and in human sociopathy. In the political world, it comes under the heading of "plausible deniability". In the natural world, it is the basic material of Darwinism:


It is my firm belief that the Democratic Leadership Council is nothing more than a thinly-camoflagued front organization for the corporate disruption of the Democratic Party and the corporate looting of the middle class, which relies on the Democratic Party for representation. The DLC is the "good cop" in a classic game of "good cop, bad cop" that is being run on the middle class of America. The game is to get the middle class to give up what remains of its political power to corporations.

To my way of thinking, the DLC has lost any pretense of being Democrats. They negotiated a secret trade deal with Bush that was akin to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. You heard me right - they divided up our trade among the corporate powers in a secret deal. That deal alone was cause enough for anyone with an ounce of party discipline to drum them out of the party.


In an earlier post, I claimed that "there is no difference between the DLC and the GOP -both are beholden to corporate interest". In response, I was given a laundry list of differences. This post is a response to that laundry list.

The laundry list talks about a lot of things. But, in the final analysis, none of these things are hostile to the galloping corporate takeover of America and its government. And the lack of difference on that one topic outweighs any tactical camouflage that the DLC might adopt on other issues.

(NOTE: Since the previous post was weeks ago (Xmas intervened), I am uncertain whether to exactly quote the list or to paraphrase it. Either way, I could be accused of manipulating the original list. Given that I can be attacked either way, it is simpler, and more easily defensible, to simply quote the list.)

--------

What follows is the original laundry list (in italics) and my responses:

1) Anti-science agendas. When did the DLC ever nominate a virulent anti-contraception wacko as head of the FDA, or prevent the Surgeon General from supporting a sensible helath initiative because it offended the fundies? Let alone censor websites that talk about earth sciences?

Corporations (even corps run by fundamentalist whackos, like Domino's Pizza) depend on science to make money. Did you ever read "What's the Matter with Kansas?"? The country club set is fed up with fundamentalist idiocy. This is hardly an anti-corporate position. The corporate elites share this position; and, as the flight from Huckabee indicates, they are beginning to hammer the fundies.

2) Fiscal restraint. What DLCer supports budget deficits of 300B+, not including an off-budget war - to finance tax cuts for millionaires. Last DLC prez we had raised top bracket income taxes and got us a surplus. Bad DLC! Bad!

At this point in time, with massive deficits and a plummeting dollar, fiscal restraint is in the interest of corporations. Not even the most heavily outsourced and off-shored corporation is immune to the effects of US budget and trade deficits. They want a balanced budget, and they will balance it on the necks of working Americans. I haven't heard a DLC candidate demand tax increases for any corporations yet.

3) Politicization of DoJ. Only two USAG's of that same DLC prez's choice were removed for reasons other than promotion or term completion - both committed acts of moral turpitude.

Once again, corporations not in the "inner circle" (e.g., Haliburton) are fed up with being shaken down for political contributions every time they turn around and being cheated out of work by no-bid contracts. A few (Joe Naccio and his telco come to mind) don't like being coerced into illegal acts. Corporations have plenty of lawyers. They are quite capable of defending themselves in a legitimate (for those who can afford to pay) justice system.

4) Unemployment reduction. DLC prez - went from 7.1% to 3.6%. GOP prez? Back up to 4.6%. Bill Richardson has created tens of thousands of new jobs in a high-poverty state however, against the national trend. Bad DLC again! No!

Unemployment is a result of policy, not a policy itself. You cannot claim that a new DLC candidate will automatically reproduce the 1990s' growth economy. The Bill Clinton event was a one-time, special circumstance - due to the dotcom stock bubble - not a reproducible policy.

5) Pro-choice. Name the DLCer who wants to overturn Roe or nominate "strict constructionist" judges at all levles. Now name the GOPer who hasn't used at least one of those code words.

Name the corporation who gives two shits what the abortion policy is. Name the religious codeword that hasn't been used by Holy Joe Lieberman. Explain why Obama refuses to disavow Donny McClurkin. Explain why Hillary feels a need to be seen attending churches during her campaign. Pander much?

Barack and Hilary want to play the same "use em and lose em" game with the fundies that the GOP did. But, the fundies won't even buy such BS from the GOP anymore, much less the hated (by the GOP) Hillary.

6) Starting wars of choice. Combat deaths of troops sent into harm's way by DLC prez = 0 (accidental deaths in Bosnia and Somalia was Bush's baby before you try either). GOP prez? Gosh who knows but 4000 or so at least. Hillary (and Bill Richardson - who is DLC. too) says she'll bring the troops back in a sensible manner. DUers say she won't (will he?). Forgive me if I go with the one who will actually get to make that call.

No difference there (OK OK that's probably a corollary of decent economic stewardship, but it's also got to be affected by hopelessness and lack of optimism in society too)

Your own post contradicts you. Didn't Clinton initiate massive strategic bombing of Serbia, as opposed to tactical bombing of Serbian troops? The fact that there were minimal casualties does not eliminate the fact that, for the US, Serbia was a "war of choice". Not to mention the fact that the CIA was up to its mujahadein-loving eyeballs in setting up the KLA - with loads of support from Israel. So, spare me the "DLC Dems are less warmongers than the GOP." Hillary refuses to apologize for her Iraq War vote and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Warmongers like a duck, votes like a duck, must be a duck.

8) Health care - DLC candidates at least want to get it for more people. Sorry if they don;t want to do it your way, but GOPers don't give a damn and 46 million uninsured is fine by them. You asked for differences I believe. Not perfection right? Ask someone whose sick kid gets covered - even via a for-profit HMO if need be - if they like the difference or not.

Hillary's plan was widely condemned as being exactly what the health care industry wants. Barack's plan is just as corporate-friendly. Forcing people to go through the rip-off middleman of private insurers is not an improvement. Its exactly what the corporations want.

9) Cronyism and corruption. No a DLC prez won't pick people they don't know and trust for key cabinet or senior positions (would Kucinich? Would anyone?) but they are generally not too keen on unqualified buddies, no bid contracts (one of Hillary's key issues I believe) and the rest. In fact Hillary actually has the best plan in this area I've seen so far. Here it is:

Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
Strengthening whistleblower protections.
Creating a public service academy.
Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
Publishing budgets for every government agency.
Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

Now does that sound like GOP to you? Why?

Again, none of these proposals are corporate-hostile (unless you are Haliburton or some other vandal corporation who sees America as nothing but a pile of pillage). Non-BushCo corporations would welcome a return to government neutrality in contracting, a return to open and honest accounting practices, a return to sensible government involvement in technology planning. All of this stuff is of great benefit to sane corporations, who finally realize what a bunch of incompetent and radical whackos the Bushies are. A return to the "status quo ante" would be a great relief to them. See my response to your point 3 above.

10) Oil industry ties vs. Energy reform. Which GOP candidate wants to put billions into alternative energy research? Bill Richardson and Hillary both do.

Once again, all corporations subject to oil-extortion would welcome a sensible energy policy. Such a policy crafted by the DLC would help corporations, but it sure would not be designed to help individual citizens, except as a side-effect.

-----

Since you like to play the list game, I've got a list for you. Will a DLC candidate support the following platform planks?

1. Make it legal to sue HMOs.
2. Roll back the FCC consolidation rules and guarantee net neutrality.
3. Stop treating hedge fund managers' incomes as capital gains.
4. Repeal the Repeal of the Estate Tax and permanently fix the AMT.
5. Demolish the concentration camps that Haliburton/KBR has built inside the U.S.
6. Order the Department of Labor to support unions instead of demolishing them.
7. Order the EPA to enforce the laws on pollution and endangered species.
8. Stop building the Mexican border fence which, unsurpisingly, is using illegal immigrant labor. Oh, explain why Obama voted for this fence.
9. Disclose and destroy the covert and illegal implementation of the Total Information Awareness spy program, which happens to heavily rely on Axciom corporation (located in Arkansas, with General Wesley Clark on its board).
10. Stop expanding the H1-B visa program that is stealing jobs from technically-educated Americans.

As you say, "want more?".

----------------------------

arendt

P.S. Posting this at midnight. I will check it in the AM. Hopefully, we can have some discussion before The Permanent Campaign BS from Iowa swamps everything else.

there are reasons to not like the DLC, but your rant here is a pile of crap.

I'd give it an "F".

except to say that he contradicts himself in obvious ways. An example:

"5) Pro-choice. Name the DLCer who wants to overturn Roe or nominate "strict constructionist" judges at all levles. Now name the GOPer who hasn't used at least one of those code words.

Name the corporation who gives two shits what the abortion policy is. Name the religious codeword that hasn't been used by Holy Joe Lieberman. Explain why Obama refuses to disavow Donny McClurkin. Explain why Hillary feels a need to be seen attending churches during her campaign. Pander much?

Sure, I'll name the corporation who gives two shits about abortion policy- I'll crib it straight from the OP: Domino's Pizza. And the OP conveniently ignore the blunt fact of Alito and Roberts. All the pukes have said they'll nominate justices in that vein. The dems won't. period.

BTW, the OP, didn't answer one single question in a straight forward manner.

The OP is a masterpiece of obfuscation and weasel words- not to mention massaged facts.

I mean how many completely distinct and factual points can you respond by changing the subject to some nebulous definition of "corporatism" as if theg word alone was some deft syllogism that brooked no disagreement? What has abortion to do with corporatism? outside some health care companies and the crusading wingnut-owned ones not much. Why does it have to? Isn't it an important enough issue on its own? Isn't non-fossil fuel energy important enough on its own? Judicial independence and restraint doesn't matter? If ALL that matters to you is a false distinction between either completely dismantling the profit motive or being a "quisling Redpublican" there's not really a lot of scope for sane discussion is there?

I want companies to make profits. It keeps people employed, it boosts the I sector of the economy, and it causes competition for customers that improves the standard of living for all of us. This makes me a capitalist, not a quisling pseudo Republican.

I want corporations to pay fair taxes. I agree with several of the Democratic candidates - including the DLC-affiliated ones - who have covered this issue. However except for a passionate few, a stump speech on the details of fiscal policy vis a vis repatriated contributions is not exactly on a par with "I have a dream" for motivation, so don;t expect any of the candidates with a serious shot at winning to devote huge amounts of TV or face time to it. This makes me a deficit hawk, not a quisling pseudo Republican.

I want a balanced budget because despite the pipe dreams of some it DOES matter. When the goevrnment crowds out the private sector in seeking capital, it raises real interest rates and reduces access to investment funds that could create small businesses, allow stable mortgage rates, and lower inflation for the rest of us. It matters becuase we are spending ever-increasing amounts of the federal budget to service the debt cuased by not balancing the budget. This means even less money is available for those nasty horrible fascist things like education, healthcare and infrastructure investments. Typical government bonds pay about 4%+. There is about $8T of them out there. You do the math on what we could do with the money. This makes me a Blue Dog, not a quisling pseudo-Republican.


Since you answered (sort of anyway) my list - let me take a short crack at yours. Notice I'll actually stick to the subject without changing everything into a buzzword driven digression.

1. Not a black and white issue. Who would pay the extra costs? Take a guess... FWIW I'm 100% behind single payer healthcare and the end of HMOS - not only becuase it's the moral thing to do but because it makes economic sense too. How much more could we collect in corporate taxes if profits were not drained by healthcare costs? How many more economy-spurring small businesses could be formed if entrepreneurs did not have to worry about losing coverage before they made it? How much less would be spent on healthcare overall with one set of forms, one set of rules, and no need to spend money on sales and marketing of insurance? There's a very sound economic moderate argument for UHC. Now let's say the dream comes true. Do you think people should then be able to sue the insurer - the government? If not why the difference? if so what effect do you think that will have?

2. Pretty good chance I would imagine. No DLC Democrat (heck no Democrat I know of) has made a move to end net neutrality, and you can bet the FCC will not be stocked with neocon patsies under any Dem administration/

3. Again this is simply a guessing game - candiodate silence on an issue tells us nothing. However as the archetypal DLCer Bill Clinton demonstrated with the ERA of 1993 - give a Democrat a Democratic congress and chances are very high incomes will be taxed more fairly.

4. See above - I don;t have the time or inclination to seek out quotes from every candidate on every issue you care to name to see if any even exist - but which DLC Dem did anything to try to repeal the estate tax? AMT tax HAS been mentioned by several Dem candidates. It could easily be fixed by number 3.

5. What? Surely some hyperbole here. You mean Guanatanamo? What DLC candidate hgas suppoorted it as is? I am unaware of "concentration camps" outside that. I am willing to be enlightened.

6. Support unions in what way? The right to organize aagainst unsafe or exploutative practices? Or the right to bring companies to their knees with unrealistic demands? If you wanted a lifetime job in the auto industry would you try to get hired at unionized Chrysler or non-union Toyota right now? I know where I'd be applying.

7. Which DLCer did not do this? Again I could ask to get a guarantee of Dennis K's stance on, say, Canadian border crossing delays. He has probably said nothing on that subject. Should I then assume he wants to put in a ten hour delay simply because of my rhetorical desire to make him look bad? I'm not chasing quotes here which will if found be dismissed as campaign rhetoric anyway> What exactly do you think the DLC or any DLC candidate has done to make EPA protection worse? What did Bill do? What has any DLC candidate suggested to reduce enforcement? Give me some concrete objections or it's just a guessing game.

8. What else was on the bill for the fence that Obama voted for? Which DLC candidate has made anti-immigrant efforts an important part of their campaign? Which one has suggested they would continue the fence?

9. Again - which one has suggested that we extend and continue this program? More guessing games. I have a feeling Clark is on quire a few boards and he's not running anyway.

10. There is no such thing as "stealing" a job by applying for it and being successful. H1-B rules are already in place to ensure pay is commensurate with market rates and US candidates have a fair shot at a job. I'm an immigrant. Did I "steal" an American job? Have the 5.6 million Americans who work for foreign-based companies "stolen" Japanese or German or Swiss jobs? So much for Toyota auto plants, Siemens consultancies and Novartis laboratories then - on the breadline for you Americans who work there since we can't steal jobs! Economic isolationism is economic suicide.

thanks for taking the time.

NOTE: snips from your post are in italics, and begin with "..."

8. It's my list. Why not answer it?

Well, for starters, I didn't realize it was your list. It appeared as one item in a list of ten items in another poster's response to my previous OP. So, I have never heard of you before. I will try to get off on the right foot with you; but you will have to realize that you have stepped into the middle of an ongoing conversation.

...I mean how many completely distinct and factual points can you respond by changing the subject to some nebulous definition of "corporatism" as if the word alone was some deft syllogism that brooked no disagreement?

What I was responding to - a ten item list, whose last item contains ten items - is guaranteed to degenerate into an unmanageable brawl if addressed in a single thread on a point-by-point basis. So, I used the idea of corporatism to unify my response. Now you beat me up for actually daring to have a theme.

And, its not like corporatism is "nebulous". Its about as nebulous as Naziism was in 1938. We have over a century of creeping corporate hijacking of democracy, starting with the infamous 1880-era "corporate personhood" interpretation (as opposed to actual decision) of a railroad case. The vast majority of Americans know what corporatism is, and they don't like it.

...What has abortion to do with corporatism? outside some health care companies and the crusading wingnut-owned ones not much. Why does it have to? Isn't it an important enough issue on its own?

But, I didn't make this connection; the person I am responding to did. In fact, in my response (i.e., this OP), I said: "Name a corporation that cares about abortion policy." I agree with you.

...If ALL that matters to you is a false distinction between either completely dismantling the profit motive or being a "quisling Republican" there's not really a lot of scope for sane discussion is there?

There's that phony black-and-white trope that bryant trotted out a few days ago - if you don't totally worship totally unregulated capitalism, you are a communist. Bunk. I support small, local business and businessmen, not monster, global, megacorporations and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.

...I want companies to make profits. It keeps people employed, it boosts the I sector of the economy, and it causes competition for customers that improves the standard of living for all of us. This makes me a capitalist, not a quisling pseudo Republican.

It depends on whose profits and how they are made. The idea that we should treat mom and pop business (increasingly rare) on the same footing with global corporations is about as stupid as giving corporations "personhood". It is simply nonsense. I want small business to make profit in a fair market; not corporations to make profits in a monopolized market full of no-bid contracts from a corrupt kleptocracy.

...I want corporations to pay fair taxes. I agree with several of the Democratic candidates - including the DLC-affiliated ones - who have covered this issue. However except for a passionate few, a stump speech on the details of fiscal policy vis a vis repatriated contributions is not exactly on a par with "I have a dream" for motivation, so don;t expect any of the candidates with a serious shot at winning to devote huge amounts of TV or face time to it. This makes me a deficit hawk, not a quisling pseudo Republican.

But, as long as we keep electing corporate-whore politicians, based on the legalized bribery campaign system, corporations will never pay fair taxes. That's just political reality. Tell me how Hillary and Obama are going to govern after taking $100 M apiece from the corporations so far in this election cycle. Are they going to govern for the little guy? What a joke. The false naivete of your argument is transparent.

...I want a balanced budget because despite the pipe dreams of some it DOES matter.

So do I. I just want the corporations (as opposed to the middle class) to balance it by paying back in taxes the obscene and historically unprecedented profit levels they are making. Don't tell me this must raise prices. Its the CEOs pay packages and the stock dividends that have to go down if we are to save the middle class. The income disparity gets worse with every giveaway to corporations. Even Warren Buffet says so - I guess you would say he is no capitalist.

...When the goevrnment crowds out the private sector in seeking capital, it raises real interest rates and reduces access to investment funds that could create small businesses, allow stable mortgage rates, and lower inflation for the rest of us. It matters becuase we are spending ever-increasing amounts of the federal budget to service the debt caused by not balancing the budget. This means even less money is available for those nasty horrible fascist things like education, healthcare and infrastructure investments.

I already agreed about the need for balancing the budget. But, I would do it by raising taxes on the corporations and the rich - at least back to where they were before Bush started his looting. Your Chamber of Commerce recital of classical economics is so 1980s Reaganite.

...You do the math on what we could do with the money. This makes me a Blue Dog, not a quisling pseudo-Republican.

You know, with your constant denials, you are starting to sound like William F. Buckley in his famous debate with Gore Vidal: "how dare you imply I'm a crypto-fascist!"

But, why I am I not surprised you are a Blue Dog? You can say all you want that you aren't a Republican, but that doesn't make it true. The voting record of Blue Dog Dems is effectively the voting record of right-center Republicans.

...Since you answered (sort of anyway) my list - let me take a short crack at yours. Notice I'll actually stick to the subject without changing everything into a buzzword driven digression.

Oh, no. No buzzwords or boilerplate from you :eyes: ("completely dismantling the profit motive"; "competition...improves the standard of living for all of us").

To keep the thread from getting to messy, I will respond to your responses to my list in a separate post.

arendt

But seriously, I totally agree that too many people on DU sound a lot like conservative websites, where if you dare to question so-called "free market" monopolistic corporatism you are automatically branded as "anti-business" or "too far left."

The only support of monopolies came from arendt's implicit assumption that unions are positive by their vary nature (unions are both monopsonies and monopolies). Any capitalist with a lick of sense is no fan of monopolies.

So again - what ARE the answers? How can we rein in "corporatism" withoput being anti business? I've already given my suggestions at least in general so to be fair in more detail I would decrease the ability to deduct expenses incurred in offshoring and outsourcing, while in no way making it illegal to adjust to global markets. I would investigate the possibility of basing corporate taxes on a simple revenue and gross profit matrix rather than on easily manipulated EBIT data. I would limit the deduction of income to any individual in excess of 40 times the lowest FT employee pay. I would exempt true R and D and investment expenses from taxes but allow no SG&A to be rolled into that. I would look into replacing competitive local TIF shell games with federal job creation zones. But no absolutely I would in no way apply limits on how much profit a company can make, how bitg it can be or how it wants to grow, outside of true monopoly regulation.

So again - stop hiding behind buzzwords and clichés - what in detail SHOULD we do?

I'm going to use very round figures to summarize what has happened in many industries.

30 years ago, in an industry where there were perhaps 10 large companies, 100 mid-sized companies and countless small independent companies, the number of competitors has been significantly reduced. Company A bought 10 small companies, and then was acquired by Company B, which had swallowed up 30 companies -- thus reducing the field from 42 competitors of varying sizes down to two massive companies.

And then Company C, which has gathered up 20 companies, comes along and swallows up Company AB -- thus absorbing what had been 42 companies into ONE mega corporation.

And then Company D comes along and....etc. etc. etc.

Add to that, the practice of corporations buying up companies in a variety of fields -- including verticle and horizontal integration -- and the number of players is winnowed down further, while their size and power over the marketplace -- and society -- increases. AND the profits are concentrated into fewer hands.

For example, where a company once was a broadcaster with seven stations, it is now a book and magazine publisher, owner of hundreds of broadcast stations,cable provider, Internet provider, movie studio, etc. etc. etc.


If that is not monopolistic behavior, I don't know what is.

This has been made possible by the refusal of the government to actually use anti-trust laws combined with deregulation, privatization and a general avoidence -- or actual support of the pseudo "free market" conservatism.

We need to stand up to that as a society, because THAT is anti- free enterprise and anti-business.

The list was mine originally and was not at all in response to corporatism. It was in response to the oft-asked BS question "what's the difference between the DLC/Blue Dogs and the REpublicans? These differences are not limited to "corporatism" or positions on corporateinterests. If someobody cut and paste it in reference only to corporatism, sorry but not my intent. Your "theme", even if well argued, does not address the points raised in this list.

Again - that's what I'll do.


How big is too big for a company? What if a bigger company can put more investment into R and D? What if economies of scale permit lower cost production and therefore make the good more affordable? Again - what is the limit? When does a nice ma and pa company become a big bloated corporation? Is it just revenue? I'm glad you can see it's a phony dichotomy. Now what makes it any different from the phony dichotomy of anti-corporate or quisling? Spout off as much vitriol as you want about "kleptocracy" but please show data - the number of companies receiving no bid contracts is exceptionally small. Even huge global corporations generally have competition. For every Pfizer there is a Merck. For every GM there is a Fotd. Why shouldn't they compete to give us the best drugs or cars?

Do you have anything to offer but ideology and buzzwords? How do YOU know what Clinton or Obama will do for corporations? What IS a fair tax rate?

Obscene profit levels? Please specify. Outside oil - which is a feast or famine industry - which markets are seeing increasing profits? What profit level is too much? If companies made less profits who would be hurt? You deny corporations personhood with one sentence and say "they" should make less profit in another. If GM makes no profit who suffers? The shareholders? 50% of the population plus all the big retirment funds. The workers? Nuff said. The massively paid CEOs and executives? Well that's a couple hundred people - and they wouldn't suffer alone.

Sorry if my economics - which is my education after all - is not to your taste. Please give examples of rising standard of living and real incomes outside regulated capitalism. Please demonstrate how profits do not generate teh ability to invest. Pleas demonstrate how lower debt service costs would NOT increase discretionary spending potential in teh G sector?

Constant denials? Constant accusations dseserve answers surely?

I am not ashamed to be a Blue Dog - ecomonomic centrism is the answer to our problems. Please demonstrate how many Blue Dogs have voted for how many Republican initiatives, and how many they have not supported.

Competition DOES improve the standard of living for all of us. Please dmeonstrate why not. What is it except the dismantling of capitalism to limit the profit motive as you have suggested?

Again - please try to make a point without sounding like a member of some "popular front" group and actually explain what we should do to corporations, what tax rate they should pay and what rights they should not have, and perhaps we can salvage some discussion. However all it seems to be from your end is 60's faux-radical ad hominems and unsupported assumptions. Tell me WHY and WHAT we should change corporate governance.

... I think you are mistaken

...The list was mine originally and was not at all in response to corporatism. It was in response to the oft-asked BS question "what's the difference between the DLC/Blue Dogs and the REpublicans? These differences are not limited to "corporatism" or positions on corporateinterests. If someobody cut and paste it in reference only to corporatism, sorry but not my intent. Your "theme", even if well argued, does not address the points raised in this list.

...Again - that's what I'll do.

You seem to want to blame ME because someone used your words in their post. YOU engage me in an argument on what you call a different topic, while complaining that it is "not YOUR intent" to have YOUR words used on that topic. WTF? All I'm asking you to do is drop the "hurt and offended" attitude. You clearly are capable of making a logical argument. It is so refreshing to have a real argument instead of a name calling match. Couldn't we do that?

----

...How big is too big for a company? What if a bigger company can put more investment into R and D? What if economies of scale permit lower cost production and therefore make the good more affordable? Again - what is the limit? When does a nice ma and pa company become a big bloated corporation? Is it just revenue? I'm glad you can see it's a phony dichotomy.

I'm not stepping into the trap of naming an absolute number for a general case. It depends on too many circumstances.

While I won't give a number, I will say that the current profit rate is bankrupting the middle class. American worker productivity is up; their pay is down. Any economist will tell you that income is divided between (among other things) profits and wages. Profits are up, in large part, because wages are flat or down; and its been going on for 25 years. 25 years of union-busting and outsourcing and benefit cuts.

As for R&D, the pharma business has increased its R&D for two decades, but the Tufts study shows new FDA drug approvals have FALLEN over the last ten years. The pharmas are in such bad shape that they are shutting in-house R&D and buying new drug ideas from SMALL companies. So much for the instant value of R&D investment and the advantage of big companies. BTW - how can you argue for the value of size and the need to preserve small entrepreneurship at the same time? Just asking.

As for economies of scale, as I said, they are completely blown away by cheap Chinese labor.


...Now what makes it any different from the phony dichotomy of anti-corporate or quisling? Spout off as much vitriol as you want about "kleptocracy" but please show data - the number of companies receiving no bid contracts is exceptionally small. Even huge global corporations generally have competition. For every Pfizer there is a Merck. For every GM there is a Fotd. Why shouldn't they compete to give us the best drugs or cars?

The dichotomy is Democrat or crypto-GOP. If the GOP want to sell out the working class, its their party. But when I hear this business-school boilerplate from so-called Democrats, I tend to think I am being sold out.

Do you have anything to offer but ideology and buzzwords? How do YOU know what Clinton or Obama will do for corporations? What IS a fair tax rate?

Do you have anything but Chamber of Commerce rah-rah and Libertarian bile? And, why can't I know what HRC or BO will do? Its a primary. They are supposed to tell me. You want me to just trust them. No thanks, Lucy, I'm not kicking that football.

Obscene profit levels? Please specify. Outside oil - which is a feast or famine industry - which markets are seeing increasing profits? What profit level is too much?

Pointed out this strawman above, and answered it. The share of income going to the top 5% versus the bottom 50% is back to 1920s levels of inequality. America is moving the opposite direction than it used to, while Europe has kept its improved equality. To go back to before the New Deal is obscene to this real Democrat.

If companies made less profits who would be hurt?

So long as the profit came from the dividends, only the 5% of the country that owns the vast majority of the stock. And, please, don't trot out the BS that we are all shareholders. Yeah, my 50 shares, and Daddy Warbuck's 50 million shares. Comrades we are. I don't have the exact stats, but something like 50% of all working Americans have ZERO retirement savings. They won't be screwed by less profit.

You deny corporations personhood with one sentence and say "they" should make less profit in another. If GM makes no profit who suffers? The shareholders? 50% of the population plus all the big retirment funds. The workers? Nuff said. The massively paid CEOs and executives? Well that's a couple hundred people - and they wouldn't suffer alone.

"There you go again." Mr. Black and White.

I never said "GM should make *no* profit. (Besides, they are going under anyway. They spent their profits designing and marketing gas-guzzling SUVs and will have to buy any enviro cars from foreign competitors.) I said corporations in general should make less profit. Just stay away from the hyperbole.

...Sorry if my economics - which is my education after all - is not to your taste. Please give examples of rising standard of living and real incomes outside regulated capitalism. Please demonstrate how profits do not generate the ability to invest. Please demonstrate how lower debt service costs would NOT increase discretionary spending potential in the G (do you mean government?) sector?

You are an economist. Well, this explains a lot about your attitude.

You see, the reason your taste in economics bothers me is because we are on a board called Democratic Underground. I used to hang around alt.politics.economics, where I would expect the kind of amoral rationalization you are peddling. But I don't expect it at DU.

I have wasted enough of my life arguing with what Philip Mirowski calls "The Laplacian Dream" - that economics is just a version of 19th century Newtonian physics, just neat, clean differential equations. No network effects, no market failures, no gaming the system. All is for the good in that best of all possible worlds.

...Constant denials? Constant accusations deserve answers surely?

Really not sure which this is in reference to. But, I could make the same complaint against the constant accusations about the perfidy of unions.

...I am not ashamed to be a Blue Dog - economic centrism is the answer to our problems.

And, please, what does that buzzword (economic centrism) mean? I never heard it before. Sounds like communism to me :sarcasm:.

...Please demonstrate how many Blue Dogs have voted for how many Republican initiatives, and how many they have not supported.

Please give me a detailed breakdown of the Federal Budget for the last 20 years. Who are you to give me blanket orders?

...Competition DOES improve the standard of living for all of us. Please dmeonstrate why not. What is it except the dismantling of capitalism to limit the profit motive as you have suggested?

No. Competition increases output. But it does nothing to make the distribution of that output fair. Else Americans wouldn't be making less money when their productivity has gone up. An economic system that refuses to put a dollar value on protecting the environment fails to measure the reduction in living standards caused by dumping pollution on society at large to clean up.

Again - please try to make a point without sounding like a member of some "popular front" group

Please try to make a request without sounding like a condescending frat boy.

and actually explain what we should do to corporations, what tax rate they should pay and what rights they should not have, and perhaps we can salvage some discussion. However all it seems to be from your end is 60's faux-radical ad hominems and unsupported assumptions. Tell me WHY and WHAT we should change corporate governance.

For corporate governance, I would start you reading "The Divine Right of Capital", by Marjorie Kelly, former Business Week reporter. Then you can read "When Corporations Rule the World", by David Korten. There is plenty of opposition to out of control corporatism from within the business world. Your accusation of "60s faux radical" is a measure of how out of touch you are with today's opposition to corporate rule.

Your constant attempts to label my dissection of your flawed logic as "ad hominems" is getting boring. I do not attack you, only your business school take on the world.

arendt

First, let me say that your politeness is wonderful. We disagree, but we do it civilly. That is a rare thing in GD-P anymore.

--------

ON EDIT - put in and then removed two paragraphs. Sorry - added to wrong response.

----

Once again, your quotes are in italics, preceded by "...".

1. Make it legal to sue HMOs.

...Not a black and white issue.

Oh, yes it is.

Why are HMOs the ONLY corporate entity that cannot be taken to court. Simple question. It has a simple answer: because the Congress is corrupt. Following in their footsteps, we have the gun lobby - who passed a law preventing people?cities? from class-action? suing them for gun injury.

As you keep asking, where do you draw the line? When every corporation is free to do as the please and all those rotten trial lawyers are out of work? Or, we could try "equal justice under law".

...Who would pay the extra costs? Take a guess...

FWIW I'm 100% behind single payer healthcare and the end of HMOs - not only becuase it's the moral thing to do but because it makes economic sense too. How much more could we collect in corporate taxes if profits were not drained by healthcare costs? How many more economy-spurring small businesses could be formed if entrepreneurs did not have to worry about losing coverage before they made it? How much less would be spent on healthcare overall with one set of forms, one set of rules, and no need to spend money on sales and marketing of insurance? There's a very sound economic moderate argument for UHC.

Well, I agree with these arguments. When the HMOs are ripping off doctors and patients to the tune of 30% of health spending, even businessmen want these worthless bloodsucking gatekeepers to go.

...Now let's say the dream comes true. Do you think people should then be able to sue the insurer - the government? If not why the difference? if so what effect do you think that will have?

First, if it happens, there will be some kind of controlling agency, like Fannie Mae is for mortgages. I keep hearing that people are suing Fannie Mae (or taking some kind of legal or financial action against them) because, like everything BushCo has touched, they have become corrupt. If it can work in an industry as big as mortgages, it can work for healthcare.

Second, I think if people had better health insurance, they wouldn't be as desperate to maximize their financial settlement. The point is to change the entire atmosphere surrounding healthcare. Then, maybe the passions around having enough money to survive a health crisis would cool.

2. Roll back the FCC consolidation rules and guarantee net neutrality.

Pretty good chance I would imagine. No DLC Democrat (heck no Democrat I know of) has made a move to end net neutrality, and you can bet the FCC will not be stocked with neocon patsies under any Dem administration.

And none have really made a big deal about it either. They get airtime from media conglomerates who want to kill net neutrality. The corps have bought their silence. The likely scenario is that the GOP plus the usual gang of phony Dems will block attempts to reverse a fait accompli by the FCC. The DLC will look the other way while pocketing a handsome windfall of airtime come election season (which is now ALWAYS).

3. Stop treating hedge fund managers' incomes as capital gains.

...Again this is simply a guessing game - candidate silence on an issue tells us nothing. However as the archetypal DLCer Bill Clinton demonstrated with the ERA of 1993 - give a Democrat a Democratic congress and chances are very high incomes will be taxed more fairly.

I beg to differ. Candidate silence tells us a lot. It tells us the candidates' priorities. These hedge fund guys are loathed by all people who work for a living, by all taxpayers who would love to have their wages declared to be "gains". These guys are a huge applause line for any Dem who wants to use them. The fact the DLC candidates don't is telling. As the Russians say, "The silence shouts."

4. Repeal the Repeal of the Estate Tax and permanently fix the AMT.

...See above - I don;t have the time or inclination to seek out quotes from every candidate on every issue you care to name to see if any even exist - but which DLC Dem did anything to try to repeal the estate tax? AMT tax HAS been mentioned by several Dem candidates. It could easily be fixed by number 3.

I wish I had any confidence in the triangulating BS spouted by the DLC. We barely heard about the AMT deal they just patched together with Bush. Why was that? Shouldn't they be crowing about it? Again, the silence worries me. You keep telling me to trust these guys, when the whole point of view of my argument is that they are not trustworthy.

5. Demolish the concentration camps that Haliburton/KBR has built inside the U.S.

...What? Surely some hyperbole here. You mean Guanatanamo? What DLC candidate hgas suppoorted it as is? I am unaware of "concentration camps" outside that. I am willing to be enlightened.

You can start at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2062553

Then, just google: Haliburton KBR internment camps.

Its true. We have ALREADY built these camps. The POS Bush has signed Executive Orders authorizing himself to put people in these camps. Can you agree with me that this is a threat to the Republic? Oh, again, why the silence from EVERY candidate on this?

6. Order the Department of Labor to support unions instead of demolishing them.

Support unions in what way? The right to organize against unsafe or exploitative practices?

Getting back to that basic standard of human decency would be a good beginning.

...Or the right to bring companies to their knees with unrealistic demands? If you wanted a lifetime job in the auto industry would you try to get hired at unionized Chrysler or non-union Toyota right now? I know where I'd be applying.

"There you go again." - R. Reagan.

You keep coming up with these black-and-white strawmen. Not biting. To paraphrase your post "I think you are mistaken": "How big a demand is too big a demand? Answer: it depends on the situation. You know it, and so do I. So, can we stop with the hyperbole?

7. Order the EPA to enforce the laws on pollution and endangered species.

...Which DLCer did not do this? Again I could ask to get a guarantee of Dennis K's stance on, say, Canadian border crossing delays. He has probably said nothing on that subject. Should I then assume he wants to put in a ten hour delay simply because of my rhetorical desire to make him look bad? I'm not chasing quotes here which will if found be dismissed as campaign rhetoric anyway.

You are just a strawman a minute. You claim that not talking about the fox in the henhouse at the EPA is of equal importance to Canadian border delays. LOL.

...What exactly do you think the DLC or any DLC candidate has done to make EPA protection worse? What did Bill do? What has any DLC candidate suggested to reduce enforcement? Give me some concrete objections or it's just a guessing game.

Oh, right. I see so many DLCers sticking up for James Hansen and the climate change crowd. I see so many DLCers investigating Christie Whitman for lying to everyone about WTC toxic pollution after 911.

Once again, it is the silence that speaks to me. What I DON'T see is DLCers making an effort to make protection BETTER. We both look at inaction. I find cause to worry. You find reassurance. The psychologists call this "set and setting". Pretty hard to get past such a basic disagreement.

8. Stop building the Mexican border fence which, unsurpisingly, is using illegal immigrant labor. Oh, explain why Obama voted for this fence.

...What else was on the bill for the fence that Obama voted for?

If the average DUer could use this excuse at will and have it accepted, this whole board would be heaven. You are dreaming.

Which DLC candidate has made anti-immigrant efforts an important part of their campaign? Which one has suggested they would continue the fence?

Again, the fact they haven't brought up such a red meat issue is suspicious to me. The GOP look like troglodytes on this. The Hispanic vote is going even more Dem than it was because of issues like this. Why not wave this flag for all its worth?

Hell, the dumbass Minutemen collected donations for their own fence - and it turned out that all the money went to build a fence on (wait for it) the property of the Minuteman who raised the money. How can you ignore such greed, racism, and outright stupidity and call yourself a Dem? Why can't you twist the knife and make the GOP candidates squirm a little?

9. Disclose and destroy the covert and illegal implementation of the Total Information Awareness spy program, which happens to heavily rely on Axciom corporation (located in Arkansas, with General Wesley Clark on its board).

...Again - which one has suggested that we extend and continue this program? More guessing games. I have a feeling Clark is on quire a few boards and he's not running anyway.

Oh, the forgetful CEO excuse. Paging Ken Lay! Paging Ken Lay! LOL.

Besides, nobody is going to own up to continuing an illegal program. Same as we will never get the truth about torture or wiretapping, as long as corporate-bought politicians run the government, matters like this will be dealt with behind closed doors. Can't let the dirty workers in on this.

Need I add that this is more silence about the quiet strangulation of American domestic freedoms. There are mountains of speculation about which Democratic politicians are being blackmailed by such data trolling efforts.

10. Stop expanding the H1-B visa program that is stealing jobs from technically-educated Americans.

There is no such thing as "stealing" a job by applying for it and being successful. H1-B rules are already in place to ensure pay is commensurate with market rates and US candidates have a fair shot at a job. I'm an immigrant. Did I "steal" an American job? Have the 5.6 million Americans who work for foreign-based companies "stolen" Japanese or German or Swiss jobs? So much for Toyota auto plants, Siemens consultancies and Novartis laboratories then - on the breadline for you Americans who work there since we can't steal jobs! Economic isolationism is economic suicide.

I used to write job descriptions for H1-B jobs. The rules were to right them in such a manner that they only applied to the immigrant you wanted to hire at lower pay. That way, you could blow off qualified Americans because they didn't exactly "match the job description". The whole H1-B program has degenerated into hiring your replacement. The rank and file of engineering organizations despises the program, but is held hostage to training their own replacments by the threat of pension/severance cutoffs.

Don't pontificate to me about "a fair shot". I've seen the program from the inside. It is totally corrupt.

----------------------------

So, let's total up your score:

A meaningful discussion: answer 1.
Unaware of the issue: answer 5.
Silence by DLC on issues important to the middle class is fine: answers 2,3,4,7,8,9.
Pro-business, anti-worker boilerplate: answers 6,10

I score you at 20%. See no evil in union bashing, hear no evil in unsupportive silence, speak no evil about business. Just about the score I'd expect for a Blue Dog.

arendt

:hi: It's high time we discussed all the issues involved in a civilized manner. Thank you for trying to allow for that.

I, personally, prefer heavily regulated capitalism to socialism. But "heavily regulated" is the key. The nature of corporations to push for more & more of everything, the predatory nature of competition for money, ignoring social impacts of business decisions... all of that and more, require a heavy hand an HONEST government to balance the scales, and keep things sane.

What we have going on now is runaway predatory capitalism, taking over government decisions, and stealing tax dollars. It has to stop.

:kick:

The caucuses are going to suck the life out of this board for the next three days. So, I thought all the bomb-throwing, one-line artists would be busy slagging each other and leave me alone. So far, its working.

I agree with you. From a historical perspective, regulated capitalism gave the best results of any social organization. But, since 1980, we have had de-regulated capitalism. It has been like dropping a black hole into the middle of society - it is sucking the life out of everything. If we don't stop it, the whole economic world will look like Haiti - until the whole natural ecosystem just collapses.

Honesty - gee, I vaguely recall honesty. Remind me again what it was like.

Hang in there,

arendt

Bookmarking for future reference.
:toast:

K&R