Inspired by the awesome debate in Healthcare as Good Business, linked here,

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/universal-health-care-is-good.php

I wanted to continue the discussion about liberal ideals as good business.  Moreover, I want not only to market liberal policies as common sense, and appealing to the right, but all liberal values as such.  I want to take “liberal” back, we are much stronger than the current perception.  The Left is stronger on almost all topics, and agrees with the vast majority of American people on important supposedly weak Liberal issues including security, foreign policy and religion, than the Right.  Despite what the media tries to tell us, Liberal values are the real reflection of the majority of Americans.  I will blog on these topics later if people like this post.

But lets talk the economy.  Im a converted republican leaner and CPA, so this is a topic that kept me in chains with the GOP until events called on me to educate myself on realities behind the hype.  Good business is a powerful marketing concept for any Dem platform, as Desidero saw with the well received post. 

So to begin, we all know the economy has done better under Democratic presidents in recent memory, deficits have grown less fast and stock markets done better.  But even on traditional issues of Liberal concern, Dems have very persuasive arguments for fiscally conservative counterparts that they in fact have the stronger position, one that is more economically beneficial.  Consider:

 
Universal Welfare.  Healthcare makes us more able to work, helping the economy.  Child welfare is important to our economy, up to 25% of our country’s children live in poverty.  
 

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm

Your income and neighborhood are some of the biggest determinants of how well you will do in life, so more money invested means more productive future workers.  Yet we invest in children’s financial well being shamefully poorly.  Our poverty rates are among the world’s best for seniors, terrible for children.  Why?  After welfare reform, people got left out, whereas social security is universal coverage and beyond “Liberal” labels.  People feel less angry about senior free rides, after all we will all be less able older citizens someday and will hope to depend on the good nature of younger citizens to care for us, even though we can’t pull our weight as much as before.  But this justification is just marketing.  Considering the amount of a welfare check is hardly enough to live on, much yet to incent people not to get a job, there is much less free riding than there is resentment of the possibility.  But Liberalism has solutions good for business there too- make them work, like in Holland.  They create jobs just to employ people.  Such a program would add another $2 billion to our tax burden, but hey, get out of Iraq and we can fund that in one week.  Plus, don’t forget workers actually contribute stuff…
 

Deregulation.  Oh the burdens of laws.  Sure, they can go overboard and restrict progress, but much of the deregulation we have seen in the past few decades has its most major societal impact not on heightening progress, but restricting it.  Consider the relaxation of ANTITRUST laws.  These laws don’t help foment competition- we can all agree competition helps the economy right?- it helps crush competition, innovation and progress.  Further, relaxing pollution laws doesn’t help the economy overall, it helps owners of corporations make money, and passes on a bigger bill to the public to clean up.  Yes, Big Pharma may benefit from medicine sales to treat those poisoned by pollution and additives (all of us), but the cost we bear has increased as a result, overall bad for business, but good for owners of polluting corporations and other entrenched interests.  And we haven’t even begun to talk about the last three recessions are directly correlated to the Right’s deregulations in housing (2008), financial sector (late 1990s Asian monetary collapse) and the S&L crisis (early 80s).  Of course, if you ask Joe Scarborough, or McCain, it was due to greedy speculators flipping houses.  
 

Environmentalism.  The Right has been blocking solutions to global warming since the day it began.  They claim its bad for business.  No.  Innovative solutions are good for business and help fuel the economy and our economic leadership in the world.  It is bad for Big Oil and The Big 3 automakers though, for example.  Not because they cant make money selling things like the electric car (someday), but because its RISKY.  They have a good thing going with the whole oil thing, they have the market controlled, game theory says milk that until its gone.  Sure, they could jump to making innovative cars running on saltwater (yes someday this could be possible!), but your company isn’t made up of creative Silicon Valley types.  And if they do develop the market and the right technology, the new market will attract competition and making additional profit from the risk over the long haul.  Environmentalism is better business overall, just not for the companies making money killing the planet.  We don’t need to kill whales to have a thriving economy, sorry Dick.

Taxes.  Thanks to the Iraq War, Dems don’t have to defend an increase in taxes to fund many programs, such as infrastructure relief, education et all.  Whether it’s a reduction in the deficit or increase in current taxes, the overall burden on the average American would be lower post war.  Most of the tax controversy has been and will be, war or not, that the richest Americans basically lie about the middle class impact to get the support needed.  See the Death Tax discussion of 2003.  Notice today how the talk about taxes centers on capital gains, yet McCain’s more regressive tax plan is left unfettered.  The truth is the Left’s tax plan has been more fiscally responsible, the Right’s propaganda about tax and spend Liberals more effective.  But we are factually better on this issue that the GOP.  Yes, higher taxes haven’t stimulated the economy since the days of FDR, but Liberals championing rollbacks of tax cuts for the richest Americans is good business, lest we overburden future generations with more irresponsible debt.  Unpopular for Rupert Murdoch, but better overall.  Thank God we can prove that trickle down isn’t good for the economy, but, as George Senior said, it is voodoo economics after all.  

If you liked this discussion please recommend!

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clinton-camp-gas-plan-she_n_99643.html

So, not only does the parallel the Right on campaign tactics, and arguable policy, she borrows their rationalizations.

We know all about presidents who dont listen to experts. 8 years now in fact.  Why would you want to model that?

Her for starts.  Still no apology for the Iraq vote.  Kyl Lieberman salt in the wound.  Her image as a leader comes before honesty and good governance?  Would she overturn an erred decision or is she incapable of admitting a policy mistake.

And the ego.  Would she listen to a cabinet?  Shes smart, but not smart enough to run the country on her own.

Wolfson doesnt even grant the detractors unquestioned "expert" status.  After all, they are questioning HER.  The audacity of knowing more than her.  He calls them (Krugman, Bloomberg, and every economic adviser who has been approached so far) "quote unquote" experts.  I died laughing reading that, fits in well with the is Andrews from Indiana meme.  If I dont vote for her am i aiding terrorsits too?  What a mockery.

We whould understand better though, us lowly plebes.  She has 35 years of experience, morons!  What do career economists know?  Take the Nobel Prize and stuff it, shes lived in the White House, been in the eye of the storm, and now knows all.

Well, later on in the article we have our answer why the experts should be conveniently wrong and probably questioned as to their expert status anyway:

  "... in our polling that working people appreciate..." 

It polls well.  Yes,  Clinton leadership ground in the most deep of convictions, the polls.  Pandering to the public, ignoring the evidence, mirroring the Right, in the name of tough, true leadership.  Only in the Bizarro Clinton world.

This will be my last post criticizing HRC, Im turning my energies to McCain, BO policies, and issues common to all Democrats, like voter suppression.  But this was a good not to end on, too rich.

A great post.  Didnt see this here, maybe its well known.  If you dont know about this, you should.  He is not my hero.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/29/125350/785

See the last comment for the Tibet comparison.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

Again, HRC has done little to earn the benefit of the doubt, but the GOP may have as good a reason to do this as her.  As the Supreme Court Voter ID  Indiana decision confirmed, the Right want HRC, or at lest they want her to damage Obama before the General. 

All options are not feel good ones for her supporters I know.  Take the main point to heart.  How can you win back our country if the GOP spots themselves a few million votes?

They stole our civil liberties.  They steal our money to kill citizens of a country that never attacked us.  And they steal the only means we have to stop them, the election itself.

I write this because its topical, its real, and I watched Uncounted the Movie last week.  It made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.   So this blog is for anyone not outraged, not doing what they can to take back the vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/is-the-scotus-picking-ano_b_99201.html

An story about the primary, but a horror story about the general.  See what your precincts are doing for provisional ballots, numbers of machines, paper trails.  Most of the time you will be outraged at the answer.  There is still time to ensure all votes are counted.  Accurately, without the help of the Supreme Court, please.

 My hope is yes.  Will the media continue to play Wright until October, or is it going to die after this week except snippets.
(tried to paste link but problems?). 

Sure, any issue will be there, but is this a dead horse, like Bosnia  Hillary got Bosnia to die, BO's campaign should take notes-  or maybe the press conference was it.  Clear repudiation, distancing, all questions forward are distracting, the issue sufficiently covered.  Maybe 200 questions and hundreds of articles is enough  (ionly the public wanted to talk about something else, hmmm).

Talking about positive changes and policy differences with McCain should help move the focus we apparently DONT want to hear about:  Iraq withdrawal, torture, FISA, economy, environment, Iran, Israel, tax relief for the poor, healthcare, auditless voting machines, voter caging, subpoenas, war crimes impeachment  (Nah, play the Black Man clapping white, talking Aids conspiracies)

BO said:  You can't attribute what he says to me.  He said multiple times he was angry.  He looked angry.

Not a legitimate topic anymore.  Can the swiftboats properly capitalize, or is it too late to have fatal impact?  Regardless, the Right can't be happy Wright is cast out.  Maybe a renewed talking point:  BO's judgment to have a pastor like him.  I'll take that over the Iraq vote and Kyl Lieberman anyday.

So, did Obama redress the issue well?  Well enough?  Or was Wright's damage this week too deep?  I think with this past few days the biggest loser was Wright.

He went on Fox and didn't fight.  For many in the blogosphere, that was insult to injury. 

He doesn't fight HRC very aggressively, especially in debates.

He wants to reach across the aisle to pass legislation, to build new coalitions of voters.  The claims of "getting along" have watered down Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi and our Dem congress since they won the majorities. 

How can you partner with Republicans without selling your soul.  Why would we even want to?  They havent tried AT ALL with the left, and it will take an aggressive counter to reverse 8 years of unprecedented harm.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.  I will offer my two cents in the comments also.

Wow.  Im in the Seven Circular Logics of Hell. 

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/todays_must_read_325.php

Is this a whole new dimension of legal defense:

- I can cheat on my taxes if I commit to do more good for society than the government (just need to say "commit," not actually do it- torture doesnt need to be effective to be legal), but if Im just plain greedy I will go to jail
- I can beat my child if I truly believe it builds character and not because Im mean or have emotional issues
- I can opt out of my military duties if I believe I am better to serve as Pres (or VP) someday

Ugly.  Is there anything this government will not permit, justify and hold harmless?

He did well.  He needs to talk simpler, clearer, but not too much.

His nuanced helped when he talked about reaching across the aisle while not alienating the base.

Chris Wallace wasn't terrible.  I wouldnt say fair and balanced, but better than ABC.  GS:  Can I carry that for your Mr. McCain.

A good start to defending the tax and spend label.  A better start to showing that he is tough.  Just a start though.  He seems to enjoy talking about McCain and the differences.

Im relieved it didn't blow up.  A risk, yes.  But worth it.  And I trust him more when he takes risks.

Yes anyone reading Mr. Krugman can see his objectivity is very suspect of late.  If you dont, here's a summary:  Hillary policies good, Obama's bad and scary.  Forget the Nobel winning economists who love the Obama fiscal plans.  Well, Obama may have looked over HRC's shoulder to make some if it...

But in looking back I see the bias has been there for months, I just didnt see it.  It is actually challenging standards of professionalism. 

He has as accountable to facts and previous statements as Terry "MI won't get Seated" McAuliffe.

Sad for a respected liberal author and economist.  Even worse, his columns now become hyprocrisies of his previous op ed's:

Feb 4:  Electability is a stupid argument
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/electability/

Mar 3:  If HRC doesnt win big she is out (note:  Her Texas size lead in Feb wasn't so Texas 3/4)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03krugman.html?ex=1362286800&en=a04dd444bb894a71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Worse still, he has misrepresented facts in the same 3/3 op ed:
"Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else"

Um, Obama was elected in 1995 to the Illinois State Senate.  But Im sure that was a innocent typo.  He mentioned in the same article that he has more elected official experience (you know, for evidence of the crap shoot that Obama wont burn down the White House and actually do something) on than HRC, right?  Wrong.

And cKrugman herry picked definitions of an "acceptable" candidate (mostly from the 3/3 "op ed"):
 - Now that polls are definitively showing Obama in the lead, he says they don't matter, and never mentions how Hillary does v. McCain nationally, but cherry picks her v. McSame in FL.
- With BO ahead, he raises the bar to an "overwhelming electoral victory."  Thats the only reason we wanted Obama, because the victory was larger? Really, I thought the Dems had disadvantages, but we must beat the point spread?  Ah, the beauty of the straw man argument.  And used twice, in sequence, is powerful, but shameful-  Some people say.... others say the opposite... but they agree on one thing, voting for Obama is a wing and a prayer..
- He says once the press turns on Obama, no one will know whether he will better match up against McCain in the national polls.  Today we know, he's doing as good compared to HRC as when the question was posed, Wright, Ayers and Bitter be damned.  Krugman's April op eds on this fact:  Crickets
- He paints Obama as moderate.  Does this jive with him being elitist, his charge in recent columns?  I dont think so.  (What other reason could Paul have to change his mind in 45 days?  Hmmm)
- He claims Obama has created dissent by not representing progressive activists.  Now thats funny.

Yes hindsight is 20/20.  And Krugman is a smart and valued voice.  But Im not buying anything he is selling, and he is selling, until this primary is over.  And I ask him and the NYT to consider why its deplorable of Kristol and Rove to use Op Ed space to masquerade their propaganda as news and opinion, free and outside FEC laws, but Krugman can do it for HRC.  Everyone gets dirty, and to what end?  HRC's?  For our sakes?  Could you be honest with us for a second and explain why Obama scares you so much that you fuel the damaging- and losing- argument for her chances?  That you take an honorable name like yours, Mr. Krugman, and roll it around with the RePigs in integrity defying journalism?