Free Trade is Costly
 

Stop it stop it stop it. We all know that it's the greedy trial lawyers that are the problem.

File This Under 2 Good 2 Be True
 

Woo hoo! What do I win?

Free Trade is Costly
 

That is true. But is there one federal elected Democrat out there that is against farm subsidies?

Free Trade is Costly
 

You forgot Specialized tax breaks for large corporations. I never said they were perfect. Just a hell of a lot better than the Dems.

Replaced Texan
 

The debate about Roe can be had among lawyers but not the general public. As a candidate you can either be pro-choice or pro-life. We didn't let the liberals paint us into a corner, we branded ourselves the pro-life party and that was a screw up. We need to brand ourselves as the pro-choice party that is against late term abortions, and label the Dems the pro-choice party that supports late term abortions.

Replaced Texan
 

Yes. And when you are a party that has not courted the hispanic vote, it is very hard to fight charges of racism. I disagree with Spanky that the GOP woes in CA are a problem of branding. They are a product of incredibly poor organization, communication, and recruitment.

Free Trade is Costly
 

Anyone (D or R) who isn't from a farm state. No one likes them as policy.

Free Trade is Costly
 

Not even.

• Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers
  
  By Michael Kinsley
  Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page B07
  
  It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom more often than Dad who must play both roles.
  
  It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn't really sunk in how completely Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values -- if in fact they ever really had such values.
  
  Our text today is the statistical tables of the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a while back with the 2004 tables and couldn't quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close.
  
  The Republican values I refer to are universal. We all want prosperity, oppose unemployment, dislike inflation, don't enjoy paying taxes, etc. These values are Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals such as equality and clean air.
  
  Statistics back to 1959 make this clear. A consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained by shorter-term factors, such as war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much, but the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. So consider:
  
  Federal spending (aka "big government"): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
  
  Leaning over backward even farther, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.
  
  Federal revenue (aka taxes): You can't take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenue goes up under both parties but about half as fast under Republicans. It's the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.
  
  That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenue to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenue by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenue is good because it will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.
  
  The numbers in the Economic Report of the President undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.
  
  Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
  
  As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or measured with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income -- that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket. Democrats score about 30 percent higher.
  
  Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
  
  Almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, Republican presidents edge out Democratic ones on inflation, 4.57 to 4.36. Congratulations.

WaPo

And if you keep pretend the GOP does a better job of managing the nation's finances, you're only empowering the wingnuts who are going after judges.

Andrea Dworkin died on Friday.

File This Under 2 Good 2 Be True
 

Board motto!

Replaced Texan
 

I agree with you about the communication, but that has been my central point in a way.

When somebody mischaracterizes you or your party, tell them loudly to fuck off. And correct the mischaracterization.

Of course, this would surely get tiring in a state like California (i.e., filled with leftist cartoonists), but its necessary. Otherwise, before you know it, the kids are coming home from school with books that say your party hates minorities and oppresses the poor.

This would be a lot easier if the freaking Bush I and II people could try and reach out a bit (a lot) more to minorities etc..., and I appreciate how that hampers your ability to counter allegations of racism.

Free Trade is Costly
 

So when you say that the social conservatives are "knee-jerk free marketers", you actually meant to add "except when the Democrats are against it"?


And do your own googling.

I wonder if the right would attack her views and policy proposals on pornography now as vehemently as they did in the late 80s/early 90s.

A great country
 

I love a country where this (spree: link to links of video of "America We Stand as One") can be turned into this (spree: link directly to video of "America (Fuck Ya) We Stand as One").

Free Trade is Costly
 

Not really. I'd say they were far worse. But then, I bet you knew that.

Go Away
 

• "Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters.
  
  "There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that," he said.
  
  Kerry supporters have charged that voting irregularities in largely Democratic areas made it difficult for voters to cast ballots in the November election. A lawsuit in Ohio cited long lines and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, but the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the suit.
  
  Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.
  
  "Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

Did I Break the Board?
 

?????

Did I Break the Board?
 

You said go away. We went. Quitcher bitchin'.

Another One Bites the Dust
 

From Andrew Sullivan:

• It behooves me to write that I'm chastened - and extremely heartened - by the progress we're making in Iraq. The elections were obviously the key - and they should have been scheduled at least a year before they were. But it's equally true that the constancy of our amazing troops, and the magic of democracy, are turning this long hard slog into a long hard slog with an end in sight. The criticisms of the past endure. But the fundamental objective seems to be within sight. The right decision - to remove Saddam - is no longer being stymied by wrong decisions. I feared the worst. I was wrong.

Another One Bites the Dust
 

How many times is he gonna switch teams?

Free Trade is Costly
 

I think you are wrong on that. I think even big city Dems support them although I have nothing to back that up.

Free Trade is Costly
 

Well, there's Charles Schumer but, as I said, do your own Googling.


Seriously, the parties' positions on farm subsidies reflect some of their worst vote-pandering conduct (and, in turn, reflect the severe problems that the Electoral College one-state-two-senators system causes this country).

But your claim was that certain Repubs were "knee-jerk free marketers" and I pointed out farm subsidies as a glaring contradiction to this. Your response -- "but the Dems support them too!" -- is, well, non-responsive (even if accurate -- which it is to some extent, but not nearly to the extent you claim). If you want to admire Santorum for being "knee-jerk free market.... except when it might cost him some votes," be honest about it. Omitting the second half of a key sentence is beneath you, spankster.

Free Trade is Costly
 

No way, Jose. It's pure pork, nothing more. Everyone knows that.

Free Trade is Costly
 

While not "new board motto" worthy, I do think this is certainly a board mantra.

Another One Bites the Dust
 

NTTAWWT

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

Riddle me this, why is it that the median income of individual full-time workers in the US has been falling since around 1973? Median income has been in the shitter for a long time. Household incomes have held steady because more members per household are working, namely women. What is it that's eroding median income per worker? Free trade with low wage countries that bid down the price of most labor is a likely candidate? Why not? If not that, then what???

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

In the mid-70s US workers started buying consumer products made by non-US workers because they were a better deal. Once the Busch beer/Catapiller Tractor/US Steel line workers thought "fuck it- I'm buying a Toyota" it was inevitable that it would trickle down to each of them too. Except for beer- US beer has problems because the imports are better tasting not cheaper.

Free Trade is Costly
 

Slow down there cowboy. Pointing out that some Republican vote for Farm Subsidies does not effect my argument in any way. One example doesn't show a thing. I would submit that Generally Democrats are Pro-Choice. Does the fact that there are a few prolife Democrats disprove that statement. No. I still stand by that Repubs are knee jerk free marketers and Dems are not. You look at the Chamber of Commerce or any group that rates politicians on how much they support the free market and Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are way ahead of the Democrats. Its not even close. Sometimes Conservatives stray, but in general you can depend on them much more to side with the free market.

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

Where did you get this statistic? From everything I have heard this is wrong.

Free Trade is Costly
 

Ok - here are some stats - For the “Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” that was passed in 2002 which was the huge porkbarrel farm bill, of the forty Republicans that voted 24 voted against and 16 voted for. Santorum voted against, along with Hatch, Bennet, Alllen, warner etc. Only five Democrats voted against out of the twenty six Democrats voting. Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Dodd and Biden all voted yes.

So Schumer supports farm subsidies, and Santorum does not, even though he comes from a farm state.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyv...p?vote_id=3177

Why I hate Republicans, by RT
 

Today, HJR 6 passed out of the State Affairs Committee in the State of Texas. This is a superfulous constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state of Texas. Apparently, the statute that says the same damned thing wasn't good enough.

Among the Republicans voting for the measure was my representative Martha Wong.

Let me tell you a little about my district. We are the highest educated district in the state. We're also have one of the highest incomes. We were recently redistricted, and the woman who held the seat before, held it ably for 21 years. Because of her seniority, we were used to getting a lot of things to go our way. We have the Texas Medical Center, Rice University, West University, Bellaire, part of the Heights, part of River Oaks and most of Montrose.

Let me tell you a little more about that last neighborhood, my neighborhood, Montrose. Montrose is one of the largest gay neighborhoods in the country. A sort of hippie enclave in the 60s and 70s developed, and eventually, it became known as a gay friendly place. There are gay and lesbian bookshops, cafes, restaurants, and other organizations here. Half of the residents on my street are gay couples, including my next-door neighbors who have been together for 13 years and bicker over their renovation project. Land being at a premium, there have been a lot of townhomes and other large residential projects developed in the last dozen or so years, but the people who have moved in have been gay-friendly and fairly bohemian in nature.

The rest of our district isn't as, er, loud as we are about our tolerances, but they don't care what happens in Montrose. It's a fairly urban and sophisticated district, and the money thing is much more important than anything else. The district is at best a moderate leaning one, and of all of the people voting in that committee, Martha Wong had the most people in her district personally affected by the resolution. And when it goes to the full House, more of her constituents will suffer than any others in Texas.

A moderate Republican representing a good percentage of the gay people in Texas should have never voted for this bill. But the goddamned Republican party has their faithful voting in such lockstep that ridiculous and extreme position like changing the constitution for political points.

Moderates are just as bad as, if not worse than, the radical, and the voters in districts like mine aren't going to appreciate being labeled as neanderthals. She can couch hers as the "moderate" position but I read the 12 hours of testimony from last Monday, and I personally know how much shit like this hurts MY family. There's nothing moderate about legislating hate into the constitution.

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

If this is indeed true, I was not aware it was the only measure we should care about. You really think that standards of living have decreased since 1973?

And I think you suggest one potential answer to your question. More people are working.

What is the mix of jobs in which those people are working? Are all of the women who entered the work force working in jobs that pay as well as men's jobs? The answer to that, even today, and even for the same job, is still very clearly no.

And, of course, what do you think the effect of all of these new workers on wages would be (even if there was equal pay)?

I flipped a coin on whether to post this FB or PB
 

My net nanny at work didn't let me go there this morning at work, but Susie Bright's obituary for Andrea Dworkin and the subsequent comments are really worth a read, even if you're not really much of a feminist theory type.

I'm a big Susie Bright fan, and I'm almost surprised at how even handed this account is given how radically different the two women's views towards sexuality was. Bright points out, though, that Dworkin was the first to even begin to look at pornography from a feminist perspective. She drew attention to it, and a lot of fantastic feminist pornographers, writers and sex workers got their inspiration from Dworkin's early work.

The comments are great too. Many are fawning towards Bright's piece, but a few are downright critical of Bright's approach to sexuality in general and defensive of Dworkin's work.

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

It's from the economic report of the president, and the Financial Times. The 2005 report covers years 1989 through 2003 (slight increase, due to the late 1990's); the 1999 report covers 1979 through 1997 (bigger decrease). http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/
The various articles I've read over time say the same thing about years 1973 through 1980.

Why I hate Republicans, by RT
 

It's not superfluous, it's necessary from the republican perspective. Each additional constitutional amendment banning gay marriage makes it less likely the US Supreme Court will say that "evolving standards" mandate legalizing gay marriage. It also sets up a fight to amend the US constitution in the event the US Supreme Court votes to legalize gay marriage.

hi
 

:rolleyes:

Free Trade is Costly
 

You identified specific people as being consistently in support of the free market. You didn't say that one party is generally more free-market than the other. So, pointing out how those specific people are against the free market when it satisfies their political goals certainly affects your argument.

More importantly, it suggests, as I meant to, that maybe their free-market sensibilities (when they choose to apply them) are driven more by political goals than by accepting economic wisdom.

As for your general point, cowboy, farm subsidies are hardly the only counterpoint. Or were you a fan of Bush's steel tariffs as well?

I am not challenging the view that Repubs have in general leaned towards free trade while Dems have in general leaned towards more protections for American workers and the environment. I'm questioning your apparent view that this is driven by moral and ideological purity rather than broader considerations.

Free Trade LOWERS Median Income???
 

You haven't been listening very well, then. Household income is up since the early 70s, but that's largely due to more women working -- i.e., more two-earner households. Individual incomes have been stagnant or falling since then, consistently, except for a few years during the Clinton Administration.

Given that you've been pontificating about economic issues on this board for weeks or months, I find it surprising that you don't know one of the basic economic facts of our generation -- that individual incomes have suffered an unprecedented fall.


But I'm sure none of this affects your arguments either, right?

Free Trade is Costly
 

Except for those that work in high rise buildings

Free Trade is Costly
 

Good point. I keep forgetting that Clinton was President on 9/11, and that he ignored the report about Al Qaeda planning attacks within the US.