Can you be pro-Republican Economics and still be considered a Democrat?

[HughBeaumont]

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Just curious how that works, considering the obvious damage 31 years of never-leaving Reaganomics and top-favoring, top-down business models has done to the population. I thought Democrats in general shouldn't be about voting against your best interests and should be championing a more sustainable, long-term growth model for business, not hailing more debt-increasing tax cuts for the wealthy.

This notion that America "isn't business friendly" has got to the be biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard. American business controls America and the world. America's tax structure heavily favors American business and the wealthy that run it. Surely we shouldn't be suggesting that American workers lower wages even further while the cost of necessities never decreases.

I edited this to add clarification to this question. By "Pro-Republican economics", I mean "Belief and Support of one or more of the following theories":

* The prime function of a business or corporation is to care for the shareholder's needs only, by which I mostly mean "major".

* Business functions best as a "top down" model; hypothetically speaking, of course.

* You CAN "feed the birds by giving the horse more oats".

* That this country's economic problems have more to do with "high taxes", "high wages" and "strangling regulations" than wealth inequality and top-heavy greed.

* It's absolutely not possible to pay workers a better wage and still be profitable (an idea that completely ignores the very real fact that Middle/Working/Poor wages haven't risen in real dollars since 1979 while income of the wealthy has outpaced inflation, productivity, their cost of living and lotteries).

* The post-WWII boom cannot be replicated (no one's really saying it HAS to be; that doesn't mean we have no choice but to accept "Trickle-On" . . . there ARE happy mediums).

* The Republican model of Free Trade, a zero-sum proposition that surmises because the price of tchotchkes are going down, the worker is better off . . . among other things (this ignores the very real fact that it's ever-increasing-in-price necessities (i.e. education, housing, health care, transportation, food, etc) that are killing the average American's pocketbooks).

* The Republican model of Globalization, a zero-sum proposition that dictates (for all nations involved) environmental standards, worker rights, worker wages, worker morale, worker safety and business regulations must be destroyed in proportion to the enormous increase in company productivity on the BACKS of those strained workers, layoffs, profits, CEO/management salaries, perk packages, stock options, exit packages and, as we're tragically seeing, governmental influence.

* The Republican model of offshore outsourcing, another zero-sum proposition that laughably states "While we ship low-skill work over THUR, it frees up better jobs fur the higher-skill 'Murkin workers over HERRR!" (yet again ignoring the fact that high-skilled work is ALSO being shipped overseas and companies are getting tax breaks to DO so).

* Americans simply have to accept a lower standard of living adherent to their inevitably lower wages (There's never a discussion on how wages can keep up with the cost of living, productivity and inflation . . . only that we can't participate in a consumer-based economy by proxy, but the wealthy absolutely HAVE to have THEIR needs met first, foremost and often times, ONLY).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. The bigger question is: Can you be pro-Republican Economics and still be considered intelligent?

Seeing the disaster that Republicans have been on the economy, I have my serious doubts.

[Chan790]

104. +1 n/t

[Zanzoobar]

112. Even more germaine, can you be Horshack and still be Vinny Barbarino?

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Not in my book.

[AllTooEasy]

49. Absolutely Yes!

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-Repuke Economics.

There are a lot of Dems in NYC, and around the country, who still think trickle down economics is a good idea. On the other hand, they are totally turned off by the anti-women, racist, irresponsibly hawkish, anti-gay, corrupt, obstructionist, theocratical, enviromentally destroying bull$hit politicies of the Repukes. Even some who embrace trickle down economics dislike the extreme fashion by which today's Fiscally Conservative Right executes the policy.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that one needs to pass a liberal purity test to vote Dem. My cousin vehemently opposes gay-marriage, is pro-life, and wants all illegals deported yesterday, but she would cut off her arm before she votes Repuke. She has a red-faced, teary-eyed hatred for the GOP.

[sinkingfeeling]

50. I didn't say a word about a 'purity test to vote Dem'. Anybody who so desires can

call themselves a Democrat. Why look at Terry Randell, he's running against Obama in primaries! But does he follow the Democratic Party's platform? No. And neither does 'trickle down' economics.

Just because somebody calls themselves a Democrat and votes for Democratic candidates doesn't mean I, personally, agree.

www.qnc.us/dems/Democratic-Platform-Summary-2012.doc

[11 Bravo]

93. Is "Terry Randell" any relation to Randall Terry?

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Apparently so. At least considering the number of...........

neoliberal economic believers in politics with a "D" behind their names. I'd venture to say that at least half of the elected Dems agree more or less with the neoliberal, Reaganite agenda.

[HughBeaumont]

7. It's probably the reason "Bewsh got everything he wanted" . . .

. . . too many Nelsons, not enough Bernies or Sherrods (and in my state during the Bewsh era, both of my Senaturds were Republicans).

[Quantess]

4. Sure, why not? It's a big tent.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who vote D who like republican economics. Clinton was a great republican.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Clinton at least raised taxes on the rich, which worked for the most part.

Got neolib Dems arguing we shouldn't even do THAT.

Problem was, Clinton was also a dereg and free-trade champion as well. The onslaught of blue-collar work going bye bye and beginning of white collar work going bye bye happened during his terms.

[pnwmom]

15. Clinton is a good example of a popular Democrat

with some policies that progressives think were too conservative - in other words, Republican.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Oh sure, Big Tent or Fifth Column, why quibble?

[shcrane71]

5. First, I agree with the OP. Second, here's what I don't understand...

I've often heard that capital gains taxes are a double taxation because businesses have already paid the tax, and then the dividends or earnings from those are then taxed on an individual level. Aren't wages double taxed: first with FICA, and then for income taxes (not to mention state taxes, sales taxes)?

Where's the difference?

[jmowreader]

68. ALL monies are "double taxed"

The money I am paid comes out of my company's advertising revenue. So...

Joe Smith goes to work and earns money. He pays taxes on it. (It goes farther back than that, but that's okay for now.)

Joe then takes some of that money to Acme Real Estate and buys a house. Acme Real Estate pays taxes on it. Mary the Realtor pays taxes on her share. The person who owned the house Joe bought pays taxes on it. And Joe pays taxes on the house.

Acme Real Estate buys a display ad in my paper, and Mary buys a classified ad. We pay taxes on the ad revenue.

We buy paper, ink, plates, press oil, diesel for the delivery truck, electricity (lots and LOTS of electricity) to run the building, and shipping supplies, and pay tax on all those things.

We pay the staff. Some of it I get. We all pay taxes on it.

I then take the money to the store and buy pants. I pay sales tax on the pants and the store pays business tax on the profit.

The people who bitch about capital gains tax have no income taxable at "ordinary" rates. They don't want to pay capital gains tax because, in the final analysis, they really don't want to pay ANY tax.

[shcrane71]

86. Yet this stupidity of "double taxation" is repeated in our business schools.

One would think that educational facilities would promote accurate ideas.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. I Get Your Point, But One Small Quibble

Mary the realtor pays taxes on her share, but because the agency gave her that share, it is a deduction from their revenue stream, so they don't actually pay any taxes on that. (Except payroll taxes, perhaps.) My company doesn't pay taxes on what they pay me. That is part of the expense statements for the year. The taxes are paid on margins after expenses and depreciation. So, they don't pay any income taxes on what they pay me. Only i do. That's ok, i'm not one to complain about having to pay taxes in an advanced society.

So, some of your examples don't really result in "double" taxation.

We agree in principle, just a few details we would argue.
GAC

[hifiguy]

6. They may call themselves Dems, but they are not.

Repuke economics are destroying the country and are the antithesis of everything the Democratic party has stood for from the time of FDR.

[Hatchling]

9. Nope.

That would be a DINO.

[HughBeaumont]

12. One would think.

By it's very nature, Reaganomics (and, according to some, Capitalism itself) is a zero-sum game.

Yet by DINO logic, we can't turn back the clock to the post-war boom and just have to hope Free-Trade, Free Marketz claptrap will yield tangible results.

Iron Law of Oligarchy notwithstanding, I wonder if there's a way around that zero-sum inevitability?

[fascisthunter]

10. No... but they are trying like hell to co-opt the party

right New Dems?

[pnwmom]

16. They've always been part of the party.

The Democratic party has always covered a range of opinions.

[fascisthunter]

29. how many true liberals is the dem establishment supporting?

not many... and the funny thing about the big tent, is it has shrunk quite a bit since the DLC new dems took over.

[kenfrequed]

89. I have noticed...

that concessions are rarely ever made to the progressive side of the party... usually just repeated hippie-punching and browbeating.

[fascisthunter]

90. hell, we get that here!

funny how the argument for a big tent seemed to always come from the conservative side of the party. Now that they are in, we are on our way out...

[pnwmom]

13. If you vote for Democrats and/or are a registered Democrat, yes.

That wouldn't make you progressive, or correct on the issues, but you would be a Democrat.

Unlike the Rethugs, the Democratic party has a big umbrella. That's why Obama beat them in 2008.

[HughBeaumont]

17. Should we welcome people who would send the unemployed to the streets?

Should we welcome people who see nothing wrong with one's progress being deteriorated or stifled?

For example, Thomas Friedman says he's a Democrat, but the way he trips over himself to champion Republican economic policy and the folly wars started by Bewsh, one could question if he's in the right place.

[pnwmom]

67. Many of them were part of the party before we were.

So the word "welcome" doesn't really fit.

[Chan790]

106. They should have left with Reagan.

Actually, most of them did. I've got a family full of Democrats that haven't voted for a Democrat in a presidential race since Carter.

[Chan790]

105. No.

I think we should encourage them to leave the Democratic Party...I like to think of it as "Joementum." (I'm a native nutmegger, I can't help cracking Lieberman jokes.)

[Swede]

14. Where would a socially liberal,economically conservative person sit?

If one was truly socially liberal,many conservative econmic ideas would conflict.

[HughBeaumont]

18. Libertarian Party, which take votes away from Republicans more than anything.

The Democratic party should be about progress, which, by all evidence, economic conservativism has been the opposite of.

[Nye Bevan]

28. To their credit, the Libertarian Party supports marriage equality.

Unlike the Repubs and the Dems.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality

[shcrane71]

31. Every time I've asked a die-hard Libertarian about where HE (why are they all men?) stands on

abortion, they always back track on their personal liberty beliefs. That's why libertarians are a sham.

[Nye Bevan]

33. So not Libertarians. Just Repubs but ashamed to admit it (nt)

[shcrane71]

34. Die-hard Ron Paul supporters. I guess he is running as a Republican.

There's no personal economic freedom without reproductive freedom, and that's for men as well. I'll step off my soapbox for a minute.

[HughBeaumont]

36. Their support has more to do with getting the government out of the marriage-defining business.

It's not out of some noblesse oblige towards same-sex couples and their rights, which people like Ron Paul would rather toss to the states. That's awesome if you live in New York; not so much if you live in Idaho, Utah or Oklahoma.

[shcrane71]

39. Well said.

[Spike89]

19. Current Repub crazy economics--not really

I always thought the basic concept of republican economics was misguided, but it wasn't bat-shit crazy until Reagan. Those of us around at the time might remember that Reagan's "trickle down" theory was as radical and as mocked as Paul's insane Libertarian ideas are today. Bush the elder famously called it voodoo economics.
The point is, there is a place for fiscal conservative voices, but the current prevailing ideology of the republican party is not conventional conservative thinking by any means and it is not a useful or helpful "foil" to progressive thought. As much as I hate to say it, the country needs the Republicans to become sane again so we can have meaningful conversations and give-and-take negotiations between two sane views on the economy.

[EC]

20. We can be pro-business without

giving away the farm. We need business to survive, so we have to keep saying we are pro-business. I remember when my boss and I were discussing politics of the partys. He said he was repub because he was pro business...I said well so are Dems, we wouldn't survive very long without business...he's turned Dem since and is heavy in the recall of Walker now.

[HughBeaumont]

27. Maybe a re-framing is needed?

I like the "bottom-UP" business model that dictates some common sense:

1. Without a solid foundation, your house will collapse.
2. Nothing is built from the top down.
3. All strengthening the strong did was make them so wealthy, the only thing left for them to buy was the government.
4. You can't help the wage payer by destroying the means of the wage earner.
5. No labor, no business/Know Labor, Know Business (from a DU poster).

One of the dumbest things Republicans say about us is that Democrats are "lazy" and "all about handouts". How exactly does one survive by being lazy and all about handouts?

[TheKentuckian]

21. Apparently but not by me, I consider them as much a deadly enemy as bigot or a theocrat and cut

from the same cloth. All these blood lusting neocons make me sick as well playing "pragmatic progressive" but the dogshot for brains economic royalist are killing us and my patience for their schtick is non-existent.

I'll also say that the economics are the base the TeaPubliKlans build off of and how they inflict their damage.

I don't see how not being a bigot or a theocrat puts you left of or even center, such things just mean one isn't utterly contemptable to me.

[woo me with science]

72. Hear hear. nt

[LeftishBrit]

97. I think economic far-right-wingers ARE bigots and theocrats

They are bigoted against poor people first of all, against the 'weak' and 'unsuccessful', and implicitly and sometimes explicitly against the sick or disabled. And often, scratch the 'social liberal but fiscal conservative' and you get someone whose hatred of the benefit claimant, the single parent, the 'feckless', reeks of strong, if unacknowledged, social as well as economic prejudice. As regards theocracy, their worship of Mammon and the free market, and the prophets Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Reagan and Milton Friedman, can be as fervent as any other religion.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. VERY good point in your last sentence.......

It IS a religion to those people. Here in this country they even want to carve a big idol on Mt Rushmore to their prophet Reagan. Disgusting.

Good post.

[HughBeaumont]

101. +100. Don't forget America's worship of Horatio Alger.

It's like crack without the high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_alger_myth

[TheKentuckian]

119. Truth

[Populist_Prole]

22. No, I don't think so

Being pro-Republican economics-wise is casting one's lot with those whose policies unabashedly seek to marginalize the working class; the traditional base of the democratic party. It should be noted that by "working class", I mean all but the rich and upper middle class. These people are fighting for their lives: All the "green" this and diversity that, and save-the-whales stuff will not help sustain them.

I apologize if I sound too blunt.

[HughBeaumont]

42. I thought it was well put.

Without workers rights and promotion of their well being, there'd be no business. We shouldn't aspire to merely "surviving". Our grandparents had a wage that matched their cost of living and were allowed to retire with a fair amount of comfort; why can't we have the same?

[guitar man]

23. No

There is nothing democratic about their brand of economics.

[woo me with science]

24. There has been an infiltration and deliberate corruption of the party.

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The giveaway is that the rise of the neoDems/Third Way types has never been a grass roots phenomenon. It has *always* been an orchestrated, well-funded, and aggressively marketed movement of policy and propaganda, backed by corporate elites focused on consolidating their own power.

Take a look at the donation records of the neoDems in Congress and the funding of neoDemocratic think tanks. And when you have bundles of corporate cash, you can pay for the slickest messaging available.

But we can see by the current state of Washington and our media that it has been considered well worth the investment.

..........................


No, they aren't Democrats in the way most people think of Democrats. The deception is a big part of what makes the movement so pernicious. If they came out and said what they stood for, people could make a decision as to whether this party was for them, and perhaps they would demand its reform. As it stands now, neoDemocrats remain in the unholy position of claiming to stand for traditional Democratic values, while aggressively promoting policies that are in diametric opposition.

[Taverner]

25. Both of the Clintons are. So is Carville.

But their excuses are starting to be hard for even them to believe.

[Nye Bevan]

26. I think corporate taxes should be cut, and that the tax code should be simplified.

Just like Barack Obama wants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/business/economy/obama-offers-to-cut-corporate-tax-rate-to-28.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/politics/10tax.html

I guess I'm a Barack Obama Democrat.

BTW I also share Obama's position on NAFTA and free trade in general:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-signs-3-trade-deals-biggest-since-nafta/

[HughBeaumont]

30. NAFTA was a loss for the environments, wages and worker progress of all three nations.

http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2003/12-19-03NAFTA.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html

http://economyincrisis.org/content/nafta-jobs-losses-continue-mount

Free trade does absolutely nothing for workers except make their wages and tchotchke prices lower. Meanwhile, their necessities get ever more unaffordable.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Did Paul Krugman deserve the Nobel Prize?

If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&mobileaction=view_normal_site

[brentspeak]

52. Does your non-sequiter respond to the previous post?

Not really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong On Trade--Sadly

by Jonathan Tasini

I am glad Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times. He is one of the great voices exposing the incompetence and dishonesty of the Bush Administration on all matters economic and chimes in usually quite well on foreign policy. But, he has one blind spot---trade. His column today does a great disservice to the debate about trade. My goal here is not to tear down Krugman--for whom I have enormous respect--but, hopefully, to get us to change our language about the trade debate.

snip

But, the real issue I have with Krugman is much bigger than the controversy over the recent political trade deal. Krugman perpetuates some false myths and, disappointingly, regurgitates the notion that people who are opposing so-called "free trade" are "protectionists."

snip

The biggest disservice Krugman does, though, is by raising a complete straw man by raising the specter that we might go back to "old-fashioned protectionism." The problem is not protectionism versus so-called "free trade" (though to his credit, Krugman never uses the phrase "free trade&quot , which is simply a marketing phrase. The problem is: what are the rules? Right now, trade deals are structured primarily around the interests of capital and investment.

The real challenge is to scrap the NAFTA-style trade deals. The only way to do that is to start with a blank page and start with the following premise: trade is about trying to improve the standard of living of communities. When you answer that premise, then, labor rights and the environment are addressed as fundamental pillars of any agreement--not grafted on as an afterthought. And, then, and only then, would we ask the question--how to corporations help society reach that goal?

[Nye Bevan]

55. When was Jonathan Tasini awarded a Nobel Prize? (nt)

[brentspeak]

57. Which, I guess, is your way of admitting you have no argument to make n/t

[white_wolf]

59. Milton Frideman also won a Nobel Prize. Does that mean we should listen to him?

As long as we are using appeals to authority, I'd much prefer we follow Einstein's advice on economics and abolish capitalism.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Friedman would strongly endorse Obama's free trade policies (nt)

[white_wolf]

64. Yes, he would and he would disagree with Krugman on many things.

However, the fact that Friedman would approve of Obama's policies only serves to highlight how right-wing Obama's policies are.

[karynnj]

85. His argument is based on a bogus strawman

which is that Krugman agrees 100% with all the "free trade" deals - exactly as they were written.

In fact, I think Krugman is far closer to what Tasini proposes as an alternative. Not knowing when this was written, it ignores that since the Democrats took the Senate in 2007, they have refused to pass deals that do not contain provisions for workers' rights and environmental requirements.

One problem I have had with most politicians speaking against ALL the trade agreements is that seem to think that the problems of jobs going overseas happens because of the agreements - and wouldn't happen otherwise. In fact, the shift started well before any trade deals - and the real cause is the globalization of the labor market. Consider what happens to the balance of power between companies and workers (and unions where they exist) when the labor alternatives are not geographically limited. This is a fundamental change - likely as significant as either the industrial revolution, which created an imbalance where the companies were all powerful and individual workers powerless, or the birth of unions, which were able to collectively give some power to the workers. Globalization of the labor force destroys that balance.

Companies in a globalized world often really do not have the choice to both survive and have their products made in the US. Even without a trade deal, companies are faced with the decision of which people to hire to make their products or provide service. At first this affected mostly manufacturers. Imagine that you were the CEO of a dress company and all your competitors had low production costs by having their dresses made in large, modern factories in countries like those in Central America or Sri Lanka. Even the companies that require their sources to comply with fair trade working practices are able to produce dresses far less costly than if they were manufactured in the US. Look at the labels of dresses and you will find that even upscale dresses are not made in the US.

So, what forces are there to restore balance. There is reason to believe that the activists who pushed consumers to avoid companies that did NOT require these standards have helped to raise the working conditions in the factories they used. Other than the power of the consumer to demand standards, the only other force I can think of that could do this is trade treaties with the developed world.

[grahamhgreen]

47. You should consider the other party. Do youy have ANY evidence free trade creates jobs?

[Nye Bevan]

48. Why should I consider the other party? Obama agrees with me on all those issues (nt)

[brentspeak]

53. He agrees with you on dismantling the American middle class? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

54. Perhaps you missed my earlier post?

I agree with Obama on reducing corporate taxes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/business/economy/obama-offers-to-cut-corporate-tax-rate-to-28.html?pagewanted=all

I agree with Obama on simplifying the tax code:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/politics/10tax.html

and I agree with Obama on NAFTA and free trade:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-signs-3-trade-deals-biggest-since-nafta/

Hope this helps!

[brentspeak]

58. Yes, it helps to clarify that you indeed prefer the middle class gets demolished

so as to enrich -- along with their coterie of quisling yes-people -- a few people at the top, .

Very sporting of you. Thanks.

[Nye Bevan]

63. I guess you're not a fan of Obama (nt)

[grahamhgreen]

113. You're right, but I think he's wrong on these issues,

Maybe you can convince me.

Is there any evidence the costly trade agreements are increasing American jobs or wages?

[Cali_Democrat]

32. No. n/t

[badtoworse]

35. Absolutely. Economic policy is very complex...

and I think you would have a difficult task articulating what is Republican policy and what is Democratic policy. You would have an even more difficult time getting agreement within either camp as to what a good policy would be.

Personally, I think the free trade policies that were initiated by Clinton were terribly damaging to workers in this country as we gave low production cost countries unrestricted access to our markets. If memory serves, NAFTA was passed in 1993 under a Democratic Congress. Was that Democratic economic policy? You tell me.

[backscatter712]

38. Not using their current sabotage economics.

That's what they're doing. Deliberately sabotaging the economy to seize power.

They want the entire U.S. like the state of Mississippi - poor and ignorant.

They want us to be a third-world country with millions of desperately poor people they can exploit for slave-wages.

We should be calling them Banana-Republicans.

And I will not have any of their economics in the Democratic Party. The GOP is truly un-American.

[raouldukelives]

40. From what I've seen the past decade. Sure.

I've met quite a few Democrats who claim to champion liberal causes like environmentalism while at the same time investing in companies like Haliburton, BP and Monsanto through mutual funds.

[Green_Lantern]

41. it depends on how you define pro-Republican economics...

Democrats can support tax cuts, balanced budget, and cutting bureaucracy. We can be conservative on certain policies.

I think Democrats should be judged by who we help and the end goals we want to accomplish. A true Democrat will work to empower the people without political and financial power.

[HughBeaumont]

45. Except we know that there's a time and a place for such conservative economic measures.

That time isn't now.

I'm more referring to policies that would result in direct depreciation of a worker's well-being and means of earning/consuming.

[Green_Lantern]

46. In that case I'd lean towards no they aren't Democrats..

Unless it is part of general govt. reform. Like if public workers are being overpaid in a downturn.

[librechik]

43. Apparently. It's a big tent. But sometimes I want to leave it because of all the clowns. n/t

[Aerows]

44. Yes

You can also be a Republican that is sick of the bat shit crazy wing of the Republican party and still vote Democrat, too. I hope most of them do.

[Starry Messenger]

51. Evidently so. nt

[Doug Diggler]

56. Sadly, yes

Why of course you can be a Democrat and favor GOP junk economics, look at Barack Obama, Joe Biden and every Democrat in the Senate and all Democrats chairing absolutely any committee having anything to do with regulating business over the past 30 years! If only such were not the case, tehn maybe this country and the world economy wouldn't be such a wreck right now!

[RagAss]

60. Not in this world.

[FLAprogressive]

61. Ask the New Dem/DLC types. Seems to be working for them.

[NNN0LHI]

65. Anti-union, pro-Republican economics have been popular on this board since I landed here

But being on an anonymous website there isn't any way of knowing if those clowns are actually Democrats. I have my doubts.

Don

[progressoid]

81. Anti-union, pro-Republican economics are popular with our elected (and apppointed) Democrats

in Washington too. Except during election season, then suddenly they are populists.

[DonCoquixote]

66. No

Because as much as we like to think of them as separate, Economic policy is Human rights policy, a system that does not charge the Lynn Evelyn de Rothschilds or Al Gores more in taxes will not deliver any more justice than George Bush.

[saras]

69. I hope so - most Dems are since the neocon revolution

To NOT be pro-Republican in economics, all you have to do as a Democrat is advocate for unions, and the public they represent, having MORE POWER than corporations, or that democratic desires for government direction OVERPOWER the economic arguments of the elite.

It's a simple matter of saying "No, we're going in a different direction than that", not "is there a compromise direction between due North and due South?"

[totodeinhere]

70. All you have to do to be a Democrat is register as one. You can believe in any policy

decisions that you want. There is no litmus test.

[woo me with science]

71. K&R

[Firebrand Gary]

73. Not only NO, but HELL NO!

For me, personally. There are many democrats that I can accept, but there is one common thread that we must keep and that is our stance on economic policies.

We should be able to trust our President to NOT give away the store to the wealthy or corporations when we are not looking.

[Crowman1979]

76. +1

Damn right!

[inna]

74. Rec. This thread reminds me of the "old DU" (that so many of us used to know & love)

[HughBeaumont]

79. Yeah, one where Republicans are actually policed and not welcomed with open arms.

[OnyxCollie]

75. If one is unfamiliar with the constraints of a particular group,

or perhaps considers them secondary to other interests they may have, then sure, one can be a supporter of pro-Republican economics and still be considered a Democrat.

They may consider themselves to be a Democrat, but I don't.

Like the person who claims to be vegetarian (but will eat fish and chicken), I call bullshit on that.

[Selatius]

77. The answer is MOST DEFINITELY YES.

You can advocate right-wing economic policy and be a Democrat. All you have to do is register as a Democrat. Your party registration papers are enough. Anybody can register as a Democrat. You could literally have economic views as far right as Ron Paul or Augusto Pinochet and be a Democrat.

As I said, party registration papers are enough. People are hung up on names. If people actually voted for candidates based upon their platform and not party identity, this country would be better off.

[HughBeaumont]

80. Then again, could that be the reason progressives aren't getting promoted?

If we're talking in economic terms, a handful of people on this board are completely on board with Laissez fail.

It leaves me wondering if "Doesn't matter, so long as you click 'Democrat'" has to come with the price of spraying poisonous economic rhetoric.

[limpyhobbler]

78. No.

Any politician who supports trickle down economics should leave the Democratic party now.

Same with anybody that makes a fetish out of deregulation.

We'll be better off without them.

[mathematic]

82. It's obvious most people are confused

The OP says pro-Republican economics but people on this thread are expressing their disagreement with democratic leaders and established Democratic economic principles. Wanting Democratic economics to be isolationist or more socialist does not make Democratic economics isolationist or more socialist.

I think the more relevant question is "Can you be anti-Democratic economics and still be considered a Democrat?"

My answer to both questions is yes because economic policy is only a part of what government does and it's up to every individual to judge the relative value of the different things government does. I think the contraception dust up of the last month is proof of that.

[Motown_Johnny]

83. No, you can be pro-Republican Economics and be Libertarian

which will get you to where many people on this thread seem to be. They think that being liberal on social policies is enough, it isn't.


Anyone who thinks that Reagan's economic policies are anything but a disaster can't be a Democrat.

[MineralMan]

84. Can you define what "pro-Republican Economics" is?

And how do you decide whether someone is for that, based on posts here?

[HughBeaumont]

87. The belief and support of one or more of the following ideas:

Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The prime function of a business or corporation is to care for the shareholder's needs only, by which I mostly mean "major".

Business functions best as a "top down" model; hypothetically speaking, of course.

You CAN "feed the birds by giving the horse more oats".

That this country's economic problems have more to do with "high taxes", "high wages" and "strangling regulations" than wealth inequality and top-heavy greed.

It's absolutely not possible to pay workers a better wage and still be profitable (an idea that completely ignores the very real fact that Middle/Working/Poor wages haven't risen in real dollars since 1979).

The post-WWII boom cannot be replicated (no one's really saying it HAS to be; that doesn't mean we have no choice but to accept "Trickle-On" . . . there ARE happy mediums).

The Republican model of Free Trade, a zero-sum proposition that surmises because the price of tchotchkes are going down, the worker is better off . . . among other things (this ignores the very real fact that it's ever-increasing-in-price necessities that are killing the average American's pocketbooks).

The Republican model of Globalization, a zero-sum proposition that dictates (for all nations involved) environmental standards, worker rights, worker wages, worker morale, worker safety and business regulations must be destroyed in proportion to the enormous increase in company productivity on the BACKS of those strained workers, layoffs, profits, CEO/management salaries, perk packages, stock options, exit packages and, as we're tragically seeing, governmental influence.

The Republican model of offshore outsourcing, another zero-sum proposition that laughably states "While we ship low-skill work over THUR, it frees up better jobs fur the higher-skill 'Murkin workers over HERRR!" (yet again ignoring the fact that high-skilled work is ALSO being shipped overseas and companies are getting tax breaks to DO so).

Americans simply have to accept a lower standard of living adherent to their inevitably lower wages. There's never a discussion on how wages can keep up with the cost of living, productivity and inflation . . . only that we can't participate in a consumer-based economy by proxy.

[Nye Bevan]

98. Obama has signed more free trade agreements than any Republican.

So why do you refer to free trade as a "Republican model"?

[HughBeaumont]

100. Uh . . . BECAUSE IT IS???

Letter in front of name doesn't matter. I LOATHE President Obama's Chi-School bullshit. I LOATHE the fact that economically, progressives officially have no option or even minority representation in DC or corporate America. I don't want to call Obama an idiot, but if he can't see voodoo economics for the proven SHAM that it is, does that mean he's on board with it? How much further to the right are the moves going to go?

Are we cheerleading the destruction of American workers' progress? Are we minimalizing the fact that affordable worker options for progress are dwindling with each passing year? I would HOPE those are not Democratic ideals, because that sure as day is what's happening in "Free Marketz" and "Free Traitor" realities: zero-sum free movement of labor by corporations where the American worker winds up the loser on more than a few fronts.

[Nye Bevan]

102. Clinton signed NAFTA. Al Gore lobbied hard for it.

I remember his debates with Ross Perot on the issue. And Obama has kept NAFTA and signed several more free trade treaties.

My problem is a semantic one. Going back decades, the Democrats have been pushing for free trade and signing free trade agreements. So how can you refer to free trade as a Republican policy?

[HughBeaumont]

108. Er, maybe I'm trying to tell you something about every modern Democrat since the 1980s?

We need more Sherrod Browns and less Third Way corporatists. American workers are running out of options, money and time.

[woo me with science]

88. Pro Republican economics policy also means pro Republican war policy.

Note the overlap between those supporting corporate economic policy and those defending the signing of NDAA, targeted assassination of Americans, and defense of pre-emptive war as foreign policy.

Why? Because the Military Industrial Complex is profit driven.

[HughBeaumont]

95. Death at a 2547% profit margin!! Other People's Money used for slaughter is awesome!

That's a sacrifice they're totally on board with us making.

"We bought them both and your ticket price just doubled, banana nose!" (Bloom County reference )

[usrname]

91. Republican Economics

is a catchall phrase. Before anyone can adequately address whether it's good or bad, one needs to clarify what that term means. Is it trickle down? Is it anti-regulation? Is it Grover Norquistism? (Is it the combination of all or some of the above?)

Please provide a more thorough definition. I don't want to judge a philosophy based on its name.

[HughBeaumont]

94. See post #87.

That should clear things up.

[LeftishBrit]

96. I suppose 'a Democrat' just means how you vote

There have been plenty of right-wing Democrats in history.

But (and this applies to many countries), I don't think economic right-wingers can be considered progressive. I think that sometimes the economic Right are considered at least better than warmongers or social conservatives. While it's certainly better to be right-wing on only some issues than on all issues, real economic right-wingers are nevertheless truly dangerous. They cannot be socially liberal for all, but at best only for those above a certain economic margin, as the threat of extreme poverty is just as authoritarian and oppressive as the threat of the police state. And at the extremes, harsh economic policies can kill as surely as the warmonger or the terrorist.

[Chan790]

103. I've always staunchly felt that the answer is no.

I don't think one can hold conservative economic theories and be a Democrat; I contest that the last Democrat elected to the Presidency was LBJ.

Obama and Carter are compromise-seeking moderates who will readily adopt conservative economics in order to obtain compromise. Clinton was simply an outright economic conservative, same as the rest of the 3rd-way/DLC, corporatist-wing of the Democratic party.

It's time for a economic litmus test on our side of the aisle. Blue Dogs and other closeted-Republicans need not apply.

[HughBeaumont]

107. I agree with this answer.

Those Gore/Perot debates sealed it for me . . . nothing but a bunch of Third Way tripe and corporate apologia from a stiff right-moderate. How they could so readily believe and accept the Milton Friedman claptrap when it failed every South American nation it was attempted in was beyond me. This was before I woke up.

I especially agree with the litmus test . . . American workers cannot afford for the politicians they vote for to be economically similar to Bewsh or Reagone. Otherwise, what would be the point? How are we the "opposition"?

Further concessions in wages will lead to no one ever retiring, no younger workers ever being able to start and the ability for the middle/working/poor to participate in a consumer economy severely compromised.

[Nye Bevan]

109. So you're redefining the word "Democrat" because you don't like the policies of post-LBJ Democrats.

Sorry, but Carter, Clinton, and Obama are all Democrats. You don't get to pretend that they are Republicans because you happen not to like their economic policies.

[Chan790]

110. Geez...

I'm going to assume likewise that you're going to defend Harold Ford and I'm going to dismiss your opinion as part of the problem.

They all claim to be Democrats.

Do you know who else claims to be Democrats?

Bill O'Reilly and Randall Terry. Clearly claiming to be a Democrat doesn't make one a Democrat.

It's like this, a tent so big as to be all-inclusive without standards is meaningless. If we cannot say "Sorry, this isn't your tent" to anybody...then we don't really have a tent. Standards are not optional...being a Democrat has to mean more than simply claiming to be a Democrat.

[Nye Bevan]

111. OK. The message I'm getting is that the policies of the Democratic party over the last 30 years

or so are considered too centrist by many DUers. This is the real issue. If it makes DUers feel better to pretend that the Democrats who have fought for and implemented these policies are not "true Democrats" then that's fine; it doesn't really change anything.

[ChunderingTruth]

114. No not at all even though we have Republicans Prentending to be Democrats currently

in the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party needs to clean house to allow people are real choice not a false choice like many people have today when voting.

[HughBeaumont]

115. I think it's been this way for years, as the rhetoric moves further to the right.

I also think Democrats learned the wrong lesson from the Reagan/Bewsh presidencies . . . an opposition party doesn't mean "eternal compromise", thus the ushering in of "Third Way" Repub-lite milquetoasters with the subsequent driving out of left-of-center liberals.

[ChunderingTruth]

116. Being Nice and Compromise is the problem

One can compromise with rational people, the Reich Wingers are not rational at all one will NEVER be able to compromise with them.

The turd way is destroying this country just like the GOP but only slower.


IMHO the DLCers/Conservadems/DINO/turd way needs to be eliminated from the Democratic party or America will never fully be able to move forward.

The only way things could get better is if Obama moved hard left after Nov but I doubt he will he is way to conservative and does not have it in him to really lead this country the way it needs to be lead.

In fact if Obama were white he would be a Moderate Pub and not a Democrat.

[DCBob]

117. I do agree with Republicans on one thing regarding economics.

That is that we have a problem. But their priorities and solutions are all wrong. There might be a few specific items of agreement but taken as a whole its wrong.

[woo me with science]

118. Kick. nt

[handa]

120. Democrat? Yes. Liberal? Hell no. (nm)