Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

Clinton and Obama are then clearly not in the austerity, privatization, and deregulation camp. In fact, their cadre of economists are very much the opposition to this school. They are the ones for whom Keynes never went away.

 

What I refer to as fantasy are specifically the growth projections Sanders tacitly relied on and which were rightly criticized as not particularly "evidence-based". Here's in fact one of the more appreciative articles about it: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11113122/bernie-sanders-economic-growth

[RedDenver]

Clinton and Obama are then clearly not in the austerity, privatization, and deregulation camp. In fact, their cadre of economists are very much the opposition to this school. They are the ones for whom Keynes never went away.

 

What I refer to as fantasy are specifically the growth projections Sanders tacitly relied on and which were rightly criticized as not particularly "evidence-based". Here's in fact one of the more appreciative articles about it: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11113122/bernie-sanders-economic-growth

I'm not sure how you think Clinton and Obama are clearly not in the austerity, privatization, and deregulation camp. Since they've done all three, along with free trade policies that are all part of neoliberalism. Of course, nobody is going to be all in or all out of any ideological category, so it's a matter of degrees. Obama actions include deregulated Wall Street, deregulated Wall Street again, deregulated GMO crops, privatized the TVA, privatized public housing, and pushing the TPP. You may agree or disagree on the merits of those actions, but they are all neoliberal policies. And here's an article looking at whether Hillary is a neoliberal. And here's some of Bill Clinton's policies/actions when he was president: got NAFTA passed (free trade), cut welfare (austerity), privatized the prison system (privatization and deregulation), and deregulated Wall Street (in particular repealing Glass-Steagal). Again, you may agree or disagree on the merits of those actions, but they are all neoliberal policies.

 

Krugman is looking at the economists and economics in general, which doesn't say anything about the people on Hillary's team. Maybe I'm wrong about the economists on her team, but in a quick internet search I don't see anybody from Krugman's MIT group on her campaign.

 

As for Sander's "fantasy" numbers, here's two articles showing there's an economic debate about those numbers, which were put forward by economist Gerald Friedman. So calling them "not particularly evidence-based" is more political rhetoric than economic analysis.

[zoogs]

As I said, this is no longer the 90s. If we can't distinguish Paul Ryan and Barack Obama in terms of austerity, then we truly deserve Trump.

 

Krugman, if I recall, was describing the economists on whom the Obama administration leaned. These are the 'establishment' Keynesians that would have comprised Hillary's team as well, whether or not they are the same guys specifically.

 

By Sanders' fantasy numbers, I specifically mean Gerald Friedman's widely criticized fantasy numbers. Again, if we can't see that he was the guy out on a limb -- whether you agree with him or not -- and then lump in Obama with the likes of Paul Ryan and the austerity hawks, then we as a public have no ability to discern between anything and therefore will elect people who sound different completely regardless of their merits.

 

I am absolutely not saying Obama wasn't pretty moderate and centrist. But we are comparing him to the Bush guys and the Bill Clinton era, right? To say that Obama has been a force for deregulating Wall Street...I'm confused.

[RedDenver]

As I said, this is no longer the 90s. If we can't distinguish Paul Ryan and Barack Obama in terms of austerity, then we truly deserve Trump.

 

Krugman, if I recall, was describing the economists on whom the Obama administration leaned. These are the 'establishment' Keynesians that would have comprised Hillary's team as well, whether or not they are the same guys specifically.

 

By Sanders' fantasy numbers, I specifically mean Gerald Friedman's widely criticized fantasy numbers. Again, if we can't see that he was the guy out on a limb -- whether you agree with him or not -- and then lump in Obama with the likes of Paul Ryan and the austerity hawks, then we as a public have no ability to discern between anything and therefore will elect people who sound different completely regardless of their merits.

 

I am absolutely not saying Obama wasn't pretty moderate and centrist. But we are comparing him to the Bush guys and the Bill Clinton era, right? To say that Obama has been a force for deregulating Wall Street...I'm confused.

We can BOTH see that Obama has some austerity policies AND see that they are not as severe as someone like Paul Ryan. It doesn't have to be black and white.

 

Krugman doesn't come out and say that, or even mention political figures that I recall. Like I said, I may be wrong about her campaign as I don't see any evidence either way.

 

I don't understand your point here at all. I showed there's debate about Gerald Friedman's numbers, so calling them "fantasy" and "not particularly evidence-based" is an attempt to discredit them without actually debating the points. I don't mention Ryan or any austerity hawks, so I don't see how it's possible for me to be lumping them together, let alone impairing people's ability to discern merits of different politicians.

 

I'm not making a comparison to the Bush guys, but I am comparing him to Bill Clinton as in they are both neoliberals. Again, it's not black or white. Obama pushed for deregulating Wall Street, but certainly not as much as the Republicans have. Even Bill Clinton did more deregulating of Wall Street than Obama. I'm not calling them all equal.

[zoogs]

I must be operating under a vastly different definition of "austerity" than you are. Reducing spending of any kind is not austerity. Frankly I do not see how a Keynesian spend-for-growth philosophy is compatible in any degree with the idea of austerity.

 

Gerald Friedman is the guy who came out with these extremely lofty growth numbers. He stood pretty alone in that analysis, which is what I was pointing out. Bernie was never that much of a rigor/details guy. Had he been, perhaps he could have made a much better case.

 

Obama pushed for Dodd Frank, so I find the characterization of him as a Wall Street deregulator quite funny. Similarly that he is a deregulator in general (because of GMOs?...GMO hysteria is not one of the more evidence-based shining spots of the left, either). Really I find it hard to lump Obama in with Bill Clinton. This is a very aggressive recasting of Obama's legacy that I find extremely tenuous.

 

The area where he probably aligns most with this 'neoliberal' orthodoxy of the 90s is free trade. Though, lord help us if protectionism is the new wave that's meant to discredit that (JMO). As for the rest, I don't think moderation should be mistaken for...I mean, Obama the Austerity-Promoting Wall Street Deregulator, seriously?! Of all the criticisms, executive order overreach to implement his regulatory agenda is a far more valid one, I think. I think we have him to thank for pushing back against that here as well as abroad.

[zoogs]

Really interesting and insightful discussion, by the way, RedDenver. Appreciate it

[Danny Bateman]

 

But all of those policies directly affect the pocketbooks and bottom lines of real Americans. They're not macroeconomic policies, no, but they'd drastically change life on the individual and family level.

 

There's plenty more. She wanted a $275B infrastructure package, further transition towards more renewable energy - including that retraining for coal workers that she got killed for in WVa --, investments in companies that utilize profit-sharing, cutting taxes for small businesses, etc. etc. There's a LOT.

 

If you want, you can still go to her website and do some light reading. They created very extensive fact sheets detailing almost every policy they want done. This is a stark contrast to Trump's 1-page bullet point list of tax reform goals. Everything Clinton wanted to implement was visible on her website the whole time.

 

However, she/they got bogged down in the weeds trying to sell their message. There may have been too much. Trump certainly didn't care a lick about details, but his message struck a chord with his voters just fine.

 

 

Maybe you're starting to point out why the Dems lost to a guy who promoted growing the economy, opening back up factories and bringing jobs back.

 

 

And look what it bought us. A guy who's willing to absolutely trash the environment and flip flop on all matter of his campaign promises in order to slap together some form of economic policy. It's still far too early to know what it will be at this point, other than a select few of those classical neoliberal ideas RD listed off above (i.e., heavy deregulation and reducing government role in everything).

 

Perhaps if we have to live through Trump enacting fiscal policy much different from that he campaigned on, people will learn he's not some economic magician and he'll get his butt kicked out of DC in 2020.

[RedDenver]

I must be operating under a vastly different definition of "austerity" than you are. Reducing spending of any kind is not austerity. Frankly I do not see how a Keynesian spend-for-growth philosophy is compatible in any degree with the idea of austerity.

 

Gerald Friedman is the guy who came out with these extremely lofty growth numbers. He stood pretty alone in that analysis, which is what I was pointing out. Bernie was never that much of a rigor/details guy. Had he been, perhaps he could have made a much better case.

 

Obama pushed for Dodd Frank, so I find the characterization of him as a Wall Street deregulator quite funny. Similarly that he is a deregulator in general (because of GMOs?...GMO hysteria is not one of the more evidence-based shining spots of the left, either). Really I find it hard to lump Obama in with Bill Clinton. This is a very aggressive recasting of Obama's legacy that I find extremely tenuous.

 

The area where he probably aligns most with this 'neoliberal' orthodoxy of the 90s is free trade. Though, lord help us if protectionism is the new wave that's meant to discredit that (JMO). As for the rest, I don't think moderation should be mistaken for...I mean, Obama the Austerity-Promoting Wall Street Deregulator, seriously?! Of all the criticisms, executive order overreach to implement his regulatory agenda is a far more valid one, I think. I think we have him to thank for pushing back against that here as well as abroad.

 

Fair point about austerity not being the same as reducing spending. Austerity is more properly reducing spending/cutting government programs during an economic downturn/recession. And yes, that's the opposite of the Keynesian concept of spending your way out of a downturn/recession. I think Obama was mostly Keynesian in his approach to the crisis, and the EU showed pretty conclusively that austerity was the absolutely wrong thing to do.

 

The point I was making is that Friedman isn't alone in his analysis. IMO Bernie had about as much details as Hillary did. Both of them had details on some of their proposed policies on their websites and were missing crucial details for other policies. I don't see Bernie's website online anymore, but I remember it having the proposed stock trading fee to pay for his free college plan and the income tax breakdown to pay for his universal healthcare plan. If it's still on the internet somewhere, maybe somebody can find it. Clinton's campaign did a good job painting her as the practical one and Bernie as a dreamer with fantasy proposals, but I think that was more political rhetoric than reality.

 

Obama did pass Dodd-Frank, but that was about the weakest regulation they could have passed IMO. The links I have above describe Obama's deregulation of Wall Street after Dodd-Frank. Good point about him using EO for regulatory purposes.

 

Really interesting and insightful discussion, by the way, RedDenver. Appreciate it

likewise

[knapplc]

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

[commando]

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

do the democrats have to do much besides watch trump captain the titanic towards the iceberg?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

But all of those policies directly affect the pocketbooks and bottom lines of real Americans. They're not macroeconomic policies, no, but they'd drastically change life on the individual and family level.

 

There's plenty more. She wanted a $275B infrastructure package, further transition towards more renewable energy - including that retraining for coal workers that she got killed for in WVa --, investments in companies that utilize profit-sharing, cutting taxes for small businesses, etc. etc. There's a LOT.

 

If you want, you can still go to her website and do some light reading. They created very extensive fact sheets detailing almost every policy they want done. This is a stark contrast to Trump's 1-page bullet point list of tax reform goals. Everything Clinton wanted to implement was visible on her website the whole time.

 

However, she/they got bogged down in the weeds trying to sell their message. There may have been too much. Trump certainly didn't care a lick about details, but his message struck a chord with his voters just fine.

 

 

Maybe you're starting to point out why the Dems lost to a guy who promoted growing the economy, opening back up factories and bringing jobs back.

 

 

And look what it bought us. A guy who's willing to absolutely trash the environment and flip flop on all matter of his campaign promises in order to slap together some form of economic policy. It's still far too early to know what it will be at this point, other than a select few of those classical neoliberal ideas RD listed off above (i.e., heavy deregulation and reducing government role in everything).

 

Perhaps if we have to live through Trump enacting fiscal policy much different from that he campaigned on, people will learn he's not some economic magician and he'll get his butt kicked out of DC in 2020.

 

True....

 

But, that doesn't take away from the fact that Americans are looking for someone who is pro-American and is committed to increasing American industry so that more people have good paying jobs.

 

Now, we can both agree that Trump is an idiot and the public was sold a bill of goods. BUT, that doesn't take away from why he won. And...a large part of why he won was because he talked about bringing jobs back to the US and Hillary was stuck talking about other things.

[TGHusker]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/pelosi-i-never-thought-i-would-pray-day-bush-was-president-again

 

CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous” on Sunday that she wishes President George W. Bush was president again, because the Democrats were able to work with him and got a “great deal accomplished.”

“President Bush - I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again,” Pelosi said.

[BigRedBuster]

[RedDenver]

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

The Dems aren't really doing anything policy-wise. There's a lot going on within the party with regards to whether the establishment or progressive (aka Clinton or Bernie) wings of the party gain control. On the progressive side, groups like Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats are working on primarying establishment candidates, but that's slow and not as exciting as arguing over ideologies.

 

There are the drugs from Canada and $15 min wage bills proposed by Sanders with some Dems supporting.

 

 

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

do the democrats have to do much besides watch trump captain the titanic towards the iceberg?

 

They should if they want to change their image, but I bet they basically sit around and talk about opposing the Repubs.

[Danny Bateman]

 

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

The Dems aren't really doing anything policy-wise. There's a lot going on within the party with regards to whether the establishment or progressive (aka Clinton or Bernie) wings of the party gain control. On the progressive side, groups like Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats are working on primarying establishment candidates, but that's slow and not as exciting as arguing over ideologies.

 

There are the drugs from Canada and $15 min wage bills proposed by Sanders with some Dems supporting.

 

 

It's fairly telling about the state of the Democratic Party that the most traffic this thread has gotten is a tangent about economic policy.

 

There really isn't anything to say about the Democrats, is there?

do the democrats have to do much besides watch trump captain the titanic towards the iceberg?

 

They should if they want to change their image, but I bet they basically sit around and talk about opposing the Repubs.

 

 

Wresting control of Congress from them will require them to put the brakes on Trump's agenda. Most of it is widely unpopular, especially so in the Democratic base. There are a handful of issues like infrastructure where they could work with him.

 

But that would require being adults. The GOP showed where slamming your foot in the ground and saying no, no, NO to everything can get you... Control of both Houses of Congress and a vast majority of governorships. Anger can be harnessed quite well at the polls.

 

In order to affect change, they need to get back in power. In order to do that, they must block Trump's plans.

 

After that is accomplished, the goal is to NOT do what the GOP is currently doing -- seem completely incompetent and incapable of governance once in power.

 

To fix the underlying messaging/priorities problem at their core will required deeper introspection and a reckoning for them to find out what they stand for - besides opposing Trump.

 

Hopefully with a new influx of faces into the party will come new, constructive ideas that reflect the mood of the country.