Reponse to Robert Cooper and Don1

[AntiFascist]

This thread is to continue my response to Robert Cooper and Don1 who went to a lot of trouble to give detailed responses to my post in this locked thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2315377#2318642

Please, no flame wars here from anyone else otherwise I'll be hitting the Alert button.

My response to this question:

Tell us DLC plans to
(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;
(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;
(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;
(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;
(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;
(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";
(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;
(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;
(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;
(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

My response was:

Since I recently said that Kerry is making some interesting comments (regarding Bush getting impeached if Dems take control in 2006), and he was looking better as a possible candidate, I'll take a crack at defining the DLC's new platform. Let me state for the record that I don't support HC, for reasons other than being DLC, and I still make regular contributions to PDA.

1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem).

2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries.

4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair.

5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies.

6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence.

7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages).

8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients.

9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court.

10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!

11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)

(This post probably has nothing to do with the reality of the DLC, but at least I got it off my chest)

[xchrom]

1. how do we address the continuing power accrued to corporations?

corporations once they get but so big must{at least that's how it's worked thus far} begin to exert political influence on goals that they want to achieve -- i.e. corporations WANT a lack of economic diversity with the united states and that's a goal they are working -- i note that address part of that concern re:subsidies and taxes -- but i assume the goal of multi-nationals can be at opposite ends from what The People might want for themselves. and i do think lack of diversity in an economy represents a kind of aenemia.

corporations must at some point spend a certain amount of their money to influence public opinion and the opinion of politicians.
that remains i think a chronic problem.

i don't know that ''free trade'' represents the same thing as the national interests of a country -- though it can certainly be argued that interdependance is it's own reward.

[AntiFascist]

4. I don't believe that all big corporations are evil....

a corporation is only as good or as bad as its board of directors. We need to crack down on the bad ones, even more than we are currently doing.

The problem of multi-nationals is serious because they may not be subject to paying taxes and may get away with stuff not allowed in the US. Also, they don't necessarilly represent the interests of the US, yet still have an effect by lobbying or basically bribing politicians. The only thing that can counter this is to have Executive and Judicial branches of government that care about the problem.

[kliljedahl]

2. Looks like the DLC shills attacked en Masse like they usually do

Personal attacks instead of rational arguments. & we all know who they are.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[AntiFascist]

3. Robert Cooper wrote....

"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act" - OP

I'm sure with a name like "AntiFascist" you don't need reminding of how close that logic parallels the logic that justified the Enabling Acts of Nazi Germany. Furthermore you are tempting those in power to make it permanent. Indeed, Bushco argues for a permanent installation of the Patriot Act... a foot in the door towards abridging your constitutional rights in the name of 'public safety'.

You say "Capitalism works best in a truly free society". Does this mean suspending the laws that prevent price fixing through the creation of cartels and monopolies? Does this include suspending labour laws that establish minimum standards for work hours and safety? I've always found that "capitalism" works best in RW totalitarian states, where the maximum profit is earned with the least amount of investment, supported by the state machinery. These are the states with the maximum amount of corporate corruption (corporations bribing governments for favourable regulations).

AF response: 1.) My statement partly reflected the hope, which I see may be confirmed, that DLC senators will see the error of neocon ways and eventually rollback the entire Patriot Act once Al-Qaida is under control. I firmly believe that Al-Qaida is a very serious threat mainly because it is supported by universal fascist forces, and its not limited to "Islamo-fascism" as they would like us to believe. There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions.

And let me say this: the radical right wing may be counting on our emotional reaction to the news that Bush illegally allowed the NSA to spy on us. Why? Because the NSA may be digging up quite a bit of dirt on the administration itself. What do you think may be ultimately driving the Plame investigation?

As for my comment that capitalism works best in a free society, what I meant was that people are more likely to be much more productive when they don't feel oppressed. Certainly I would be spending less time blogging myself. I don't believe that monopolies and cartels are the best thing for capitalism. In the case of energy resources I would support government regulation, especially after what we saw happen in Caleephoneeeia. Corporate welfare is also not conducive to good business, it only makes management lazy. Satisfied employees are the best thing for business. Read "Raving Fans" and apply it to the internal customers, your employees.

RC wrote:
"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;" - OP

"level playing field" - the question is who sets the standard for that field: first-world nations or third world nations? Do we use the standard of living for Zimbabwe, Poland, North Korea, America, etc as the benchmark for defining "level playing field"?

AF response: I agree there's more to it than just resolving human rights issues, there's also standard of living issues. This is where government incentives come into play. This has worked very well in certain industries in Canada, for example, which are now competetive with the US. Since we have no problem subsidizing farmers, why not also subsidize those industries that have historically been the backbone of American industry? Also, we should raise the minimum wage level higher than what it currently is.

RC wrote:
"This is the ultimate goal of free trade." - I thought the ultimate goal was to pay the lowest wage while charging the highest price, thus maximizing profits to be paid to stock-holders and thus encourage more investment and greater financial power for the company. Free trade makes it much easier to exploit cheap labour markets abroad, and then ship the goods back to NA where they're sold at high NA prices.

AF response:
The ultimate goal you describe may be the bottom line for a given corporation, but it does not make for good policy, otherwise we end up with Bush's view of free trade. Again, providing incentives to companies to keep jobs in America would work to counter-balance the profit motives.

RC wrote:
"The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China." - I agree that this is one of the problems. But how many of these countries have passed laws preventing companies from paying their workers there as much as workers would get here? That companies don't do this voluntarily demonstrates free trade is not about creating a "level playing field" but is about exploiting depressed labour markets.

AF responds:
I've read that the problem of demonstrations and rioting in China has become much more prevalent in the last couple of years. As information slowly leaks into China about what is possible under a fairer system, they may eventually be in a position to demand more equality.

RC wrote:
"Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - well first off what you propose here would not fit any definition of "level playing field" that I've heard of. What you are describing could be better accomplished by increasing corporate taxes and redistributing the wealth to individuals paying income tax and through increases in social funding such as retirement plans, medical support, welfare.

But I don't think you're addressing a fundamental aspect of free trade: it removes jobs from one place and places them elsewhere. By outsourcing jobs from America, American workers are thrown out of work and into competition with each other for fewer jobs. American standards of living are dropping to compete with third world labour markets. With more American workers out of work or working for lower wages, who buys the products these companies are trying to sell? This is how the Depression got started: productivity outstripped demand to such an extent that demand could not support the marketplace.

Unless the consumer is protected from the effects of outsourcing there will be a dwindling market for the products being made.

Meanwhile, you have increasing costs associated with unemployment and lower standards of living. Local economies are impacted and local investment dwindles. This affects infrastructure, cascading into tourism.

Essentially, outsourcing depresses the American labour market, forcing it towards third world status where it will once again be an attractive choice for business. But as long as business has it's pick of labour markets, and there are markets costing less than the American market, why would business continue to invest in America?

AF responds:
There's a big difference between providing tax credit incentives and increasing taxes on corporations. This is one of the reasons Democrats are not as popular as they used to be, more people are now investors who are aware of the advantages of lower taxes and increased profitability for corporations. I personally have a problem with raising taxes if it is to be used on increased "defense" spending.

I understand the problems of free trade enabling outsourcing and the problem of bringing down the nation to third world status, and I totally agree with this. What I'm suggesting is that, instead of setting up trade barriers, the government can do quite a bit through offering incentives to corporations to not outsource its workers. Right now the government is mostly providing incentives and benefits only for companies that are part of the military-industrial complex. This has got to change.

[Avalux]

5. Locking.

This thread is a continuation of a locked thread which is against DU rules. I'd like to suggest private messaging this information instead.