The Dems just don't get it. Even after their demoralizing defeat, they push voter-repudiated trade deals.

Are the Dems clueless or what?

Even after their demoralizing and disastrous defeat they continue to push voter-repudiated, destructive trade deals that have decimated the working class, the group which has been their core historical constituency.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may not be dead after all: House Ways and Means Committee Kevin Brady wants to “re-negotiate” Obamatrade during President-Elect Donald Trump’s first term. Read more.

Amazing idiots.

There is no "left" anymore

I am writing this in response to the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard article that Tom posted earlier. Pritchard makes an excellent yet very disturbing observation that the left has not merely become ineffective, but has morphed into the "enforcer of the policies of the right," and those policies, which everybody knows, are the policies of plutocracy, inequality, war, an ever-expanding police, carceral and surveillance state.

Forty years ago this would have been unthinkable. Even three years ago this would have been unthinkable. After Obama's second election victory here in the United States the pundits were declaring the Republican Party as dead and the conservative movement in general as history. Yet only two years later they went on to win sweeping victories in the 2014 midterm elections.

Recent losses by the liberals in the U.S. have a lot to do with Obama, let's be honest. His embrace and protection of the corporate class, the laissez-faire attitude his administration took toward Wall Street criminality, his support of tax cuts for the rich, the lack of any real aggressive jobs program, the backing of austerity, his push for grand bargains to cut Social Security and of course, Obamacare, which was seen, correclty in my view, as a huge giveaway to insurance companies, were all at least partially responsible for extremely high levels of voter dissatisfaction on both sides that led to the violent shift to the right.

The media, partically Fox News, was also very effective in branding Obama and his policies as liberal and socialist even though they were clearly in the favor of large moneyed interests and big corporations, but the public didn't see it that way and the left and the "liberal media" (if there is such a thing) had no answer.

Even though just about every metric of middle class well-being has collapsed under Obama the decline started long ago. It has been in progress for at least forty years if not longer. You can begin by tracing it back to Jimmy Carter and his moves at deregulation, which was one of the original tenets of Milton Friedman neoliberalism.

Of course this followed with the Reagan-Thatcher era, where the doctrine broadened to include Europe. Once again these leaders and their newly created and well-endowed propaganda organizations, the "think tanks," effectively derided the policies of the left, branded them as failed and limiting and basically re-wrote history.

Bill Clinton accelerated the trend by creating the first of what was to become the "faux left," a Trojan Horse by any other name, which was "left" or "Democratic" in title only. Clinton backed with unrestricted zeal the removal of all restrictions and regulations on the financial sector, which unleashed a level  of financial speculation that we hadn't seen in at least 70 years. He pushed through welfare reform, which was nothing of the sort, but rather, a redistribution of government financial support to the wealthy and big business and away from the truly needy. He introduced mandatory sentencing for many sorts of minor drug offenses and the prison population skyrocketed. His trade deals, NAFTA in particular, led to huge job outsourcing and of course how can we not forget his balancing of the budget, which caused private sector household savings to collapse and debt levels to skyrocket, something that still burdens a huge segment of the citizenry today.

Clinton was, and still is, a disaster. He quitely backs cuts to Social Security and other social safety nets by praising the crazy aims of the Simpson-Bowles commission. And, unbelievably, we may even be on the verge of electing another Clinton next year who despite her rhetoric is sure to bring the same policies her husband brought if she wins the White House. This is the left's chosen candidate!!!

FYI...Hillary was silent on the passage of fast track for the Trans Pacific Partnership, recently. What does that say about her position on trade, big business and job outsourcing, hmm? She is a consummate corporate insider and she and her husband have reaped millions in speaking fees from big business and the moneyed crowd so they're not about to shy away from them.

Pritchard went on to say this in his article:

"We Conservatives have watched in disbelief as one Socialist party after another immolates itself on the altar of monetary union, defending a project that favours the elites - a 'bankers' ramp', as the old Left used to call it."

"We have watched our friends on the Left apologise for 1930s policies. We have seen them defend a regime of pro-cyclical fiscal cuts imposed on the whole eurozone by a handful of "Ordoliberal" reactionaries in the German finance minstry."

Pritchard is speaking of Europe here, but his words ring true not just in Europe but everywhere. "Apologize for the policies of the 1930?" This is truly unbelievable that the left has run away from these policies? Why? They stopped a world depression dead in its tracks, lifted millions out of poverty and won a World War.

The left truly has "immolated" itself as he says.

I for one do not see a resurrection of the left anytime soon. It's nice that we have a guy like Bernie Sanders running for president here in the U.S. but what chance does he have? Still, you gotta respect a person that can publicly call himself a Democratic Socialist with a straight face in today's rabid conservative climate. My god, it's almost unbelievable that any serious sitting Senator would have the guts to ascribe that term to themselves, let alone run for president. It's refreshing. Even so, the left establishment bashes him. They hate him. The very people who share the same principles and ideals that he shares and which, harken back to the glory days of the Democratic Party...they despise him! Go figure.

It's true that the right must be sitting there watching in astonishment at how the left is not only self-destructing, but also how easy it is to get liberals to do the bidding of conservatives. Bernie Sanders is a breath of fresh air, but again, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

I am afraid the left's descent into the enforcer of the conservative will, will in fact continue and that should not only be a disappointment to anyone who stands on the side of equality and democratic values, but it should also be something very scary. When there is no countervailing force anymore and when the side in control has moved so far to the extreme and has the ability to snuff out the other side's proposals without as much as lifting a finger then we are in trouble. The system has become dangerously corrupt.

Spineless Democrats cave again. What a fucking useless party.

This is really so upsetting. The Democrats are a useless party. Spineless, weak, cowards..deceitful bastards. This is a total giveaway to big corporate. It risks our environment, labor laws, intellectual property, etc. The whole entire Congress is bought...useless. That goes for Obama, too. Worst. President. Ever. Lying backstabbing sonofabitch.

What the fuck do we have/need a government for? This is EXACTLY why I don't vote. What the fuck is the use? Republicans, Democrats...it's all the same shit.

Do Democrats Usually Get Credit For GOP "Deficits?" While Neither Notes That Co-selection Produces More Than The Sum Of All Their Parts?

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson.)

An admittedly zealous Democrat promotes his party and skewers the GOP.

They're Not Even Close? The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

His many graphs sure seem to support his claim ..... except that his thesis founders on this sentence:

"Democrats Reduce, Republicans Increase, Government Deficits [= Public Fiat = Public Initiative]"

(My additions, in brackets.)

:) Makes you wonder whether Dems always get credit for GOP "deficits!"

And vice versa, whether GOP gets blamed for DNP austerity? :) LOL!

While neither group knows "Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot" is really going on? :(

Two moronic processes captured in each other's orbit, neither noticing that the sum of their orbital interactions produces sparks of group intelligence?

They need outside observers to even see the sum of themselves. No wonder oligarchs usually wield the keys to every Democracy. It's usually a basic matter of perspectives in gridlock, & therefore easy prey for transistor-like "control" signals, no matter how weak in & of themselves?

Any discussion of conservatism ought to include questions about what, exactly, it is that they're trying to conserve.

If it's adaptive rate, then there's no fight between conservatives & progressives. The latter generate diversity, and the former help select additions from it, continuously.

Co-selection produces more than the sum of both parts?

(Thanks to Prof. Brad Lewis of Union College, for excellent discussion, leading to this train of thought.)

The Cycle's, Krystal Ball, hammers the GOP, but also has some harsh criticism for the pro-corporate Dems

The real problem: Democrats/Progressives, embrace neoliberalism and free market fundamentalism

Good post over at Daily Kos that talks about how Democrats/Progressives, etc have really been the enablers of Republican free market fundamentalism because Dems, themselves, believe in it, too!

All of us here in the MMT community see this and understand this and have been frustrated by it for so long, however, until we get a Democratic Party or a Progressive movement that once and for all casts off its neoliberal bindings then nothing will change.

Check out this paragraph...

"The problem is that the neoliberals are still firmly in control of the Democratic Party. No Democratic leader is willing to admit the idea of having free-trade agreements with 3rd world nations means a race to the bottom with wages. No Democratic leader is incline to propose rolling back 40 years of disastrous deregulation. Instead Democrats push things like legalized gay marriage, which while being a positive development for civil rights, is exactly what the "culture warriors" of the Republican Party want. It continues to distact people away from the item that the vast majority of people are most concerned with - jobs and wages. Before anything else, the Democrats need to challenge the most basic premise of the far-right -market fundamentalism."

The rest of the post can be accessed here.

Look at who Democrats nominated in 2008 and who they reelected: Obama. The neoliberal doctrine intensified under his watch. He's negotiating secret trade deals, cutting deficits, raising taxes on working people and looking away as labor unions get decimated even more.

And who is the "dream candidate" of the Democratic Party for 2016? Hilary Clinton...the ultimate neoliberal. Her husband was the welfare cutting (real welfare, like, for needy people), Glass-Steagall ending, Wall Street deregulating, surplus running, king of all time who is still revered by Democrats.

Nate Silver — In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens G.O.P. Campaigns

Nate investigates why the president had such an overwhelming tech advantage.

Even without the Bay Area’s vote, Democrats would still be favored to win California by solid margins. So why does any of this matter? 

The reason is that Democrats’ strength in the region is hard to separate out from the growth of its core industry — information technology – and the advantage that having access to the most talented individuals working in the field could provide to Democratic campaigns.

Companies like Google and Apple do not have their own precincts on Election Day. However, it is possible to make some inferences about just how overwhelmingly Democratic employees at these companies are based on fund-raising data. (The Federal Election Commission requires that donors to presidential campaigns disclose their employer when they make a campaign contribution.)

Among employees who work for Google, Mr. Obama raised about $720,000 in itemized contributions this year, against only $25,000 for Mr. Romney. That means that Mr. Obama took almost 97 percent of the money between the two major candidates.

Apple employees gave 91 percent of their dollars to Mr. Obama. At eBay, Mr. Obama took 89 percent of the money from employees.

Over all, among the 10 American-based information technology companies on the Fortune’s list of “most admired companies,” Mr. Obama raised 83 percent of the funds between the two major party candidates.

Mr. Obama’s popularity among the staff at these companies holds even for those which are not headquartered in California. About 81 percent of contributions at Microsoft, which is headquartered in Redmond, Wash., went to Mr. Obama. So did 77 percent of those at I.B.M., which is based in Armonk, N.Y.

It does not require an algorithm to deduce that the sort of employees who might be willing to donate substantial money to a political campaign might also be those who would consider working for it.

The New York Times | FiveThirtyEight

In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens G.O.P. Campaigns

Nate Silver

Shades of 1968 Chicago?

The Washington arm of the Occupy Wall Street movement plans to target a high-dollar Democratic fundraiser near the group's McPherson Square encampment Thursday night. The cost of attending the dinner for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is a pricey $5,000 to $75,000 a plate.

"This elitist event is indicative of how the Democrats represent a major part of our government's failure to represent 99% of its citizenry," reads an Occupy DCaction alert.

By marching on the Frontline Member Holiday Reception, the protesters seek to send a message to the Democratic Party that its reliance on corporate contributions makes it part of the problem -- or all the problems.

Read the rest at The Huffington Post

Occupy DC Plans To Target High-Dollar Democratic Fundraiser

by Ryan Grim

Sending a message. Are you listening, Dems? The GOP obviously isn't.

Republicans block infrastructure spending bill

Republicans blocked an infrastructure spending bill that was part of Obama's American Jobs Act. The reason for their opposition? A 0.7% surtax on people earning over $1 million per year.

The problem is not with the Republicans, who have clearly shown that they don't give a crap about people who are not millionaires.

The problem is with the Democrats, who are divided and continue to believe that taxes fund spending. Their "fairness" rationale for raising taxes is just not working. If they understood MMT, they would say that the spending needs to be deficit spending, not "paid for" by any new taxes and that the deficit is too small and show, with evidence, that the deficit has added to income, savings and wealth of the private sector all the while as interest rates have come down.

When it comes to economic policy the Democrats are their own worst enemy

I wish someone of influence within the Democratic Party would learn some MMT. Unless that happens, their economic ideas are doomed.

Here's an example of the proposed "stimulus" being put forth by Democratic members of the Supercommittee:

Supercommittee Dems push for stimulus to be part of deficit deal By Erik Wasson - 10/26/11 11:49 AM ET Democrats on the congressional supercommittee this week presented Republicans with a plan to cut the deficit that included billions of dollars in stimulus spending, aides told The Hill. In a private session of the deficit panel on Tuesday, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, proposed trillions of dollars in tax increases that would partially cover stimulus spending for the economy, aides said.

The tax hike thing is just not going to pass. They should stop, already.

Or, they should call it what it really is: income redistribution. They should just come right out and say, "We want to redistribute income. That is our plan."

But for heavens sake, stop calling it a stimulus.

The don't do this because they are ignorant about how our monetary system functions. So are the Republicans, by the way, but at least the Republicans don't lie about their intentions. They pretty much come right out and say they want to give everything to the rich because the rich are "the job creators." We know that's a bunch of BS, but it's a sound bite that they've managed to make work.

This thing will never work. You have one party that is openly and unabashedly creating a policy conduit by which all of the nation's wealth is funneled up to an elite class of plutocrats, and then you have the bumbling Democrats who talk of "fairness" and greater equality, but then act like we've but a few crumbs left and we must struggle and strive and sacrifice in order to find a better way to divy those crumbs up among the citizenry.

It's truly pathetic. Both parties are to blame, but mostly I blame the Democrats. The party's leadership and its "intellectuals" are a bunch of snobby elitists who went to places like Harvard, Yale and Princeton who'll fight you tooth and nail so that that their misguided dogma rules the way they think and act.

It's hopeless.