Seems our incoming Dems got sassy with Rubin today...Good for them.

[madfloridian]

I knew that he was scheduled to speak to them on Rubinomics, and that although Labor had requested they be included....they were not allowed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/745

Well, according to Sirota's source, Rubin had his hands full answering questions. Sure sounds like a group of Democrats who speak their minds. This made me smile.

http://www.workingforchange.com:80/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=592307CF-E0C3-F084-DA10CFAEFC6EE72B

SOURCE: Rubin grilled by Dems today about Wall Street happy talk

Today, Citigroup executive Bob Rubin gave a presentation to the new House Democratic Caucus about his prescriptions for economic growth. This is the same Bob Rubin who has, for years, attacked Democrats for trying to reform America's trade policy. As I wrote earlier today, a powerful faction of Democrats for years have worshipped at Rubin's feet, seeking his approval for everything. But a source from inside today's meeting tells me that Rubin was met today with an entirely different Democratic Caucus than he has been used to - most likely because so many Democrats were elected on populist themes this year. Here is a slightly-edited dispatch from my source (with some obvious additions/commentary by me):
Rubin began the meeting by talking about the three deficits - savings, fiscal and trade to a packed room of about 100 Democratic lawmakers (you may recall, Democratic leaders said they didn't invite a labor representative to counter Rubin because Rubin was supposedly only talking about fiscal deficits, when in fact, he delved into the controversial area of trade deficits). Notably, Rubin called the trade deficit issue "complicated."

After his presentation, he got peppered by questions on the loss of manufacturing jobs and our trade policies.

Indiana freshman Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) told Rubin he has former Delphi employees in his district who feel that our government sold them out to foreign governments, that they were making $21/hour and are now making $9/hour, meanwhile they're outsourcing, dumped their pension obligations on the government. He demanded of Rubin: "What do you say to that?"

Freshman Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) complained about the pending NAFTA superhighway going through her district and that the link between immigration and trade is real and a problem. (She was one of the KS Republicans who turned Democrat, I think. I heard her speak on C-Span and am impressed.)

More at the link. This made me happy.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The Clintons Are Like the Clap

The gift that keeps on giving - can't get rid of them. A lying Carville outburst here... lying Rubin corporatist propaganda there (sponsored by Madame Speaker, no less)...

Is there any sort of fungicide that can work on these folks?

[w4rma]

2. I had no idea the trade deficit increased from $70 billion to $370 billion after NAFTA passed. (nt)

[madfloridian]

4. Me neither...Kaptur's words....

"Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) said the Democratic Party has lost its way. She noted when Clinton started there was a $70 billion trade deficit and they left with a $370 billion trade deficit, and reminded people she opposed NAFTA and has been a fierce opponent of Rubin on these issues over the years."

This did my heart good. I love to see Dems standing up against someone who wants to keep doing things the same old way...when it is not working for the people.

Rubin told Dean in 03 to stop criticizing NAFTA or he could not send any big donors his way. I think Dean had his say. He had seen the harm NAFTA had done when he was traveling the country. Seeing first hand with an open mind changes things.

[Skidmore]

8. I also didn't realize the exact monetary effect on the trade deficit

but I remember being astounded that Clinton signed that bill for NAFTA back then. It didn't seem like a good idea to me at the time, and as time has passed, how bad an idea this was has become glaringly undeniable. Before this party decides rush into coronating Hillary Clinton, these are the very issues that need to be revisited. I do not want to see more of this type of policy. It has been just as destructive to the nation as many of *'s policies.

[lonestarnot]

11. No? Well isn't that an eye opener!

:smackknees: :tiphat:

[LostInAnomie]

3. Hooray for Joe Donnelly!

It takes a lot of balls for a freshman congressman to challenge a big name like Rubin. I hope it's a sign of things to come from the freshman class. Letting Wall Street and big money be the only concern of our economy will always work out poorly for the working class.

[madfloridian]

5. Look at this list of the caucuses, you might be surprised.

These are the incoming Dems who are joining the Blue Dogs and New Dems.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/701

Gillibrand and Donnelly are members who are speaking out. I thought they might. There might be others, I did not check too closely.

[madfloridian]

14. Gillibrand and Pascrell also had their say....

"Freshman New York Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) said it's a serious problem that we're losing our manufacturing base, she noted that we lose our innovation capacity when the manufacturing base declines, that one goes with the other."

"New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell (D) - my source says he "unloaded on Rubin," telling him that the loss of our manufacturing base is a national security issue. The Chinese are manufacturing our tanks, there is a clear link between economic security and national security."

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=592307CF-E0C3-F084-DA10CFAEFC6EE72B

I would love to hear more about this meeting.

[OneBlueSky]

6. current economic and trade policies are for the benefit of the already rich . . .

and for the detriment of working people . . . changing them radically should be high on the Democratic agenda . . .

I'm not holding my breath, though . . .

[xchrom]

7. the single biggest crisis gripping this country is corporatism,

free marketeering or what ever you want to call it.

if politicians don't get a grip and realize that the ''bottom line'' is not now nor has it ever been a substitute for being a responsible patriot and promoting the general{economic} welfare of the country -- then there won't be a country left for them to serve.

a corporation does not = america.

[July]

9. xchrom, you've hit on my single biggest beef about the GOP.

I use a variation of your last statement, i.e., capitalism does not = democracy.

Even if they're sometimes complimentary, they also have essentially different and sometimes conflicting aims (capitalism: profit; democracy: common good).

The GOP has it exactly backward about which should be favored when they are in conflict.

[xchrom]

10. the whole country suffers from this disease.

whether it's the suburbanites with their evre bigger homes and suvs -- or politicians who try to tell what's good for {insert any company} is good for the country.

but yes -- the gop is the major carrier for the message that capitalism = democracy.

[madfloridian]

12. And we are in that grip..

You are right.

[madfloridian]

13. Kick for the incoming Democrats being asking questions.

:kick:

[TheFarseer]

15. This is what our reps should be worried about

Glad to see some are concentrating on this instead of internet porn like my dumbass rep was for the last 6 years.

[KingFlorez]

16. They aren't pushovers

Finally, people who will stand up and say what needs to be said.

[Strawman]

17. Boy, Sandy Levin nailed it

The free trade versus protectionism dichotomy is bs. Rules determine outcomes. The activist approach recognizes that and the hands off approach is a scheme of it's own to let the rich get richer.

Nobody is opposed to the idea of trade. Trade should be free to the extent that it makes sense and regulated to the extent that it doesn't. There are front end solutions (restrictions) and back end soultions (freer trade with compensatory policies for those people who bear the burden of concentrated costs, e.g. wage insurance). It ought to all be on the table.

My own inclination is to favor back end solutions because I think they are more efficient, but some mix of the two in order to produce an economy that shares prosperity seems the best approach to me.