Obama to Convene CEO Summit

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will convene a one-day summit of corporate chief executives Wednesday as part of a renewed White House effort to build support among business leaders for his economic agenda.

Executives from Google, Cisco Systems, Inc., Facebook Inc., International Business Machines Corp., American Express Co., The Dow Chemical Co. and Pepsico Inc. have been invited to the Wednesday meeting at Blair House, adjacent to the White House, to discuss trade, tax, regulatory issues and the deficit.

The administration wants to persuade U.S. companies to unleash some of the $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets they're hoarding in their treasuries. Cash as a share of total assets is at the highest level it's been in a half-century, the Federal Reserve said last week. Mr. Obama wants the nation's biggest companies to invest that money in expansion and new hires in the U.S.

Ideas for overhauling the tax code and cutting the deficit will be a substantial part of the Wednesday discussion, Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett said, as would ideas for "a balanced approach to regulations—to promote economic growth and give business regulatory certainty and predictability while providing safety for the American people," she said.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703518604576013194238316636.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

[Brickbat]

1. "Guys? Anything else I can get you as long as I'm up?"

"You all good? Let me know, OK?"

[Fruittree]

6. Explain - How this is bad...

"Mr. Obama wants the nation's biggest companies to invest that money in expansion and new hires in the U.S. -"

In your opinion new jobs in the US is bad and he shouldn't bother? What a bunch of knee jerk negativity this place has become!

[Brickbat]

7. Hee!

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Fruittree]

18. So your comment was meant to be a positive comment on what

Pres. Obama is doing? Maybe I misunderstood - what did you mean?

[Brickbat]

28. No, not at all.

It was a comment to illustrate my belief that him asking CEOs nicely for jobs is going to do fuck-all, and that him asking for input on overhauling the tax code is somehow going to be good for government spending is laughable.

[elias49]

49. I know what he should do!

The first guy he shakes hands with he should punch in the face. Then how about he knees somebody in the groin at the same time he back-fists the guy behind him. Sweet!
Or
he could get people together to talk. To go on record. With words. Maybe even promises.
You pick.

[JackRiddler]

50. "People together to talk."

Just your average citizens.

[elias49]

51. Who gives a shit who they are.

Pretty cynical.

[bitchkitty]

89. These are not your average guys.

But you already knew that.

It's pretty funny to watch people stretch and spin, trying to defend Obama.

[elias49]

99. Funny? OK, sure. eom

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. I do.

[Truth2Tell]

62. I vote for A

The first guy he shakes hands with he should punch in the face.

He'd be the most popular President in the history of America overnight.

[tomg]

118. I radically disagree.

The first guy gets it in the groin. This is guys we are talking about, I assume. That is where we disagree. Yes, punching the guy in the face will make him popular. It would be noticed on the news. Kneeing the guy in the balls - no one else save the other CEOs even need to see it - that will get the others in line.

[No Elephants]

76. As he did with health insurers, drug companies and big health care providers?

[Fruittree]

82. I understand what you're saying but the alternative is what?

I don't like the way the power structure has evolved in the country either but it's the same everywhere - some people are in power, some people are not. I think what you're doing is not missing the forest for the trees but the other way around - you're missing the fact that all these unemployment statistics are made up of individual people. Obama can't solve every issue in this country in 2 years or even 8 years because they're now part of the structure and have been in place for decades. What he can do is work to chip away at them. He can try to bring some relief to some individuals who make up this number who is struggling, in this case the unemployed. By working with these business people, he can possibly create situations where another 1,000 or 10,000 or hopefully more jobs are created. If you're one of those people currently without work, how can this be bad? If you recall, he tried to get a bill passed in congress to eliminate tax credits for companies who ship jobs overseas - a more systemic approach - and he was blocked. What I'd like to see is people on this site put the blame where it belongs - on the senate and the republicans and their supporters - Palin, Rush, etc. Why so harsh on a man who is trying his best to right what's wrong? I don't get it...

[No Elephants]

90. "how can this be bad? " He can give away more per job than it's worth.

"What I'd like to see is people on this site put the blame where it belongs - on the senate and the republicans and their supporters - on the senate and the republicans and their supporters - Palin, Rush, etc."


"This site" puts plenty of blame on all of the above. So, what you really seem to be saying is "Never blame Obama." Sorry, but he's been far from blameless.

[Fruittree]

102. Not never blame Obama but appreciate that trying to govern

in the reality of what our country is right now is very different than being president under the ideal conditions some people seem to think he finds himself in. The reality right now for a lot of people is that they need work to get from one day to the next without losing everything and the choice is either sacrifice the short term gain and these people's livlihood entirely by not compromising or get what you can by compromising with forces you may not agree with. It's not a choice I would like to have to make...

"give away more per job than it's worth" - what do you mean?

[mazzarro]

113. He needs to take the lead in laying the blame and holding the them to account

The point that you are missing is that critics are not just blaming Obama for blame sake. But that he is not calling out the people you stated that caused the problems. He is not holding them to account for the problems they have caused and are still causing. Yes we do not expect him to correct all these problems in the short time he has been in office but we do not see any efforts at systematically correcting the problems, rather it seems to be the same song and dance all over again with the established perpetrators holding the floor.

[young but wise]

16. Exactly.

People are so stupid.

[tavalon]

22. Hardly!

But he has made it clear that his administration is more for big business than for the people who got him elected. I would channel the rude pundit and describe what it seems Obama has been doing lately, but this would get deleted.

[mikehiggins]

26. How could you possibly believe that the business folks are going

to pay any attention at all to Obama? What kind of pressure is he able to bring to bear that is even the slightest bit credible, in face of his unparalleled ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Is he going to appeal to their patriotism? Get real. Corporations have no nation, no matter what the right wingers on the Supreme Court claim. Their loyalty is to money, first, last and always. What more can Obama give them to make them cooperate?

Hey, maybe he can let that consumer protection thing go away. Or the EPA. Or anything else they want.

And they still won't raise a finger to help him, or the country, or the workers.

Supposedly Obama doesn't really care if he is another Democratic one-term President.

I guess he won't be surprised, then.

[rubberducky]

When this man I had so much faith in said he didn`t care if he was a one term president,

I lost all faith in him that day. When he should know the destruction caused by the last administration will take years to correct, he bails. My heart aches at how abandoned I feel by this president that I loved and worked for.

[mazzarro]

74. Well I had a different expectation when he made that comment

I was hoping that with that comment, he was going to be bold to do the correct things - push through liberal goals, stop the wars and withdraw the troops, prosecute the war liars etc, but alas - your fears and interpretation of his comment is much correct than mine. And I am truly disheartened by this outcome.

[xxqqqzme]

75. Wonder how many will fly in on their

corporate jets?

[martymar64]

43. If it isn't bad, then let it be televised.

Let the whole world see what is said in that "summit".

[No Elephants]

77. LOL, with health insurers, drug companies and big health providers, he fought FOIA requests

ACLU for his WH visitors' logs. When that came out, he blamed the Secret Service, his daughers's classmates and family and friends from Chicago-as if the names of those folk couldn't simply be redacted.

And that was after he had expressly promised transparency in negotiating health care reform.

So, please do pm me as soon as you find out which channel will be televising his meetings with corporate ceos.

[Cal33]

45. It's not bad for Obama to try, but I think it's useless. The objective

of corporate CEOs is to destroy Obama (and any other non-Neocon president), his
administration and his Party totally and completely. They want to return
to the feudal state of the Middle Ages, and with themselves as the fedual lords

In their minds, it is only a question of time before they succeed. Obama could
give in more and more to them, but this would only give them the means to hurry up
the day when they hope to become the lords and masters of this country of ours.

[No Elephants]

78. Given the outcomes of his negotiations so far, I'm not so sure it's not bad for him to try.

[Cal33]

83. He did get something in return this time. Has he become more

skillful at negotiating, or was he just lucky? :o)

[No Elephants]

91. Not sure what you mean.

[Cal33]

104. Obama did succeed in getting the tax-cut extended for the middle class for 2 years,

and an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. That is something
that he got for giving in to the extension of tax cuts for billionaires for
two years. Obama has often given in to the demands of the Repubs. in the
past and has gotten far less in return.

[femrap]

27. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Larry Ogg]

33. Things you say to wolves when they stop by for lunch...

And your the lunch.

[givemebackmycountry]

2. Yeah, THAT'LL work,

He may be the President, but when you are part of a group sitting on almost 200 trillion in cash, Barack Obama might just as well be a clerk at the fucking DMV.

[femrap]

30. These corporations will just take

their money and buy back shares of their stock. They're not going to employ workers in the US.

Well...maybe the Chemical Company would like to have some human lab rats.

[eleny]

3. I'd like it if he showed them a slideshow of the London riot

[indimuse]

14. LOL!! thx! nt..

[No Elephants]

92. And watched it with them?

[Bigmack]

4. How about a summit with workers? nt

[Billy Burnett]

5. That would require a trip to China, or India again. eom

[LongTomH]

15. Ouch! True, but still ouch!

Truth hurts! Reality bites! :hurts: :argh:

[bluedigger]

8. I wonder what they'll tell him to do next?

:shrug:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

11. Whatever happens, I'll bet they won't be "unleashing their cash"

I don't know what it's going to take for job creation to begin again, but I don;t think the president calling CEOs into a room and asking them to do it is the answer.

Wonder what they're going to feed these fuckers...my guess is 2-inch-thick steaks and an endlessly flowing river of Glenlivet.

[groundloop]

9. I too don't understand the negativity about this. We want jobs, so Pres. is talking to people who..

provide jobs. It's a good point about large corporations hoardig cash reserves right now. If President Obama can convince them to free up some of those reserves and start hiring how is that bad?

[vi5]

12. What will they hire people to do with that money?

Companies don't increase their workforce unless there is a noticeable demand for what they make. They're not going to hire people to produce something that the majority of people don't have the money to buy.

Just saying "Hey you have some extra cash you should pay some workers with that." is not going to work, nor should it.

More money needs to be in the hands of more people, to create a demand for what these CEO's companies produce. Which is why more stimulus and infrastructure spending is good.

He shouldn't be spending time convincing stingy CEO's to spend their money. He should be convincing more people that we need to spend money on our country and hire people to do that.

The problem with this discussion is again that it's predicated on the concept of supply side, trickle down economics being the way to fix the economy which it's not.

[eleny]

20. Seems like the chicken and the egg question

[rocktivity]

17. They didn't do it during the eight years of an anti-labor, anti-regulation presidency

Why would they to it for a presidents who's not a white Republican?

:eyes:
rocktivity

[No Elephants]

80. Meh. I suspect green will be the only relevant color. As in taxpayer dollars of maybe

our great grandkids, or perhaps generations beyond theirs.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

24. I think the negativity hinges on the word "if"

"If President Obama can convince them to free up some of those reserves and start hiring how is that bad?"

Obviously, it wouldn't be a bad thing...it's what we need. Can he do it? Will he do it? With President Obama's negotiation skills on full view at the moment in the Bush Tax Cuts debacle, it's the "if" part that becomes a problem for me. The tax cuts for the top 2% has too big of a price tag to call the concession "worth it."

[seabeckind]

25. It might be because

these guys are the ones who did away with our jobs to increase their companies' bottom line.

It seems more to me like when he met with the drug companies during the HCR. Or when he "negotiated" with the GOP over this tax deal. Or when Cheney met with the energy guys.

Some time ago people argued saying that Obama had our back. Well, if you'll excuse me, I don't trust him back there. I'd much rather he be in front so I can see what he's doing.

[No Elephants]

94. +1

[femrap]

31. I don't know why he isn't talking to companies involved

in sustainable energies. Lots of hi-tech, soda pop and chemicals primarily HQed in CA???

Didn't Obama try this before and all the CEOs said, 'no?'

I would love to be a fly on the wall of this meeting.

edited for typo

[Riley133]

36. He's talked to them before.

You see where these roundtables (business executives, insurance company executives) get us. $2T in liquid cash that they won't spend because they're 'unsure' of Obama's policies. But THIS talk will be different?

[movonne]

38. Why should he have to convince them....they put millions into defeating

the dems and they want exactly what the repugs are putting out...cut the benefits for the poor and give to the rich...

[krabigirl]

52. Maybe they could start hiring American workers, then? Or producing products here?

[No Elephants]

79. Many of us haven't liked the outomes of his chats and doubt his future chats will be different

If corporations wanted to leave or create jobs here voluntarily and for free, they would.

I suspect he's going to be asking them what they want from us in order to leave or create jobs here. And they know he and his Party are desperate for those jobs. And, if history is any guide, business will get the better if the deal by far.

We tired of bending over.

[lanlady]

10. more like a love fest

Obama will bring the whipped cream.

[rocktivity]

13. NOW his capitualtion makes sense!

How much of that $1.93 trillion is taxpayer money? How much interest have they been earning from it? And they want him to hand over two years' worth of tax cuts MORE? It borders on money laundering! We're not the hostages--HE is! He ought to tell him to pay up or he'll freeze their assets!!!

:grr:
rocktivity

[Faith No More]

19. Better stock up on Chap Stick Barack,

your lips are going to be awfully sore after kissing all their asses. This is sickening!!!

[soryang]

21. Nauseating

Looking for support from the only place he will get it, globalist CEOs.

[jwirr]

23. One of my memories of JFK was his sit down with the steel bosses.

He stopped them from doing whatever it was they were trying to do. Setting down with the CEOs is not the problem. If he comes up with another bad deal - that will be the problem.

[Meeker Morgan]

55. The "steel bosses"? Where are they now? n/t

[jwirr]

60. I am not sure. US Steel was one of them.

[Le Taz Hot]

86. JFK had a pair. n/t

[No Elephants]

95. No, he was simply incredibly smart which-news flash-has nothing to do with male reproductive organs

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Dudette, it's just an expression.

Switch to decalf already. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

100. A sexist expression, yes.

And your condescension is consistentent with that.

"Boy" was once considered just an expression, too. then, even morans finally caught on.

How long will it take you, sparky?

[Le Taz Hot]

103. "Grow a pair"

can be applied to both genders. You know that, right? In this case it just happened to be applied to a male.

But yes. After 40 years of feminist activism, I'm a sexist misogynist because YOU disagree with my terminology. Are we beginning to see how silly that is?

Back to the OP to which I responded. The point, of course, was to suggest that JFK had courage, or "grow a pair" if you will, to take action that was best for the people while facing significant opposition from the PTB. For example, he ignored the Hawks during the CMC who were advocating nuking Cuba. Would Obama have the same courage? I don't believe so.

[No Elephants]

105. Oh, please, Louise.

First, yes, I'm aware of the retrofitted lame claim that "grow a pair" is gender neutral. Guess how credible it is.

"I'm a sexist misogynist'


Good lord. Saying you used a sexist expression is nothing like saying you are a sexist misogynist.

"Are we beginning to see how silly that is?"


More condescension. Judging by your drama, quoted and bolded above, you are not very attuned to what silly is.

Oh, and you did not have to explain what you meant about JFK. I understood. But it had to do with smarts, not balls. Or, *snort* ovaries.

[Le Taz Hot]

107. Why are you taking this to a personal level?

I haven't alerted but that is in direct violation of DU's new rules. Kindly limit your debate to the issues. Thank you.

[salib]

29. Going to see his "base", I guess.

The "Haves" and the "I got mine and I am not giving any of it up" types.

[laylah]

32. Total disillusionment. nt

[JJW]

34. Google

Google pays only 2.4 percent US income tax rate. So maybe Google doesn't deserve a seat at this meeting, seeing how we are the ones who paid for the seat, not Google. Perhaps Obama should invite people in poverty to a summit so he can figure out how he might help them.

[alp227]

54. obama's held backyard meetings across america

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130218930
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/us/politics/23obama.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-virginia-house-race-bellwether-president-obama/story?id=11895315

And reached out to voters by touring a factory.

But now given the tax cut compromise I think this summit gives us a little idea of the president's new priority.

[No Elephants]

96. Ah, yes. Let's see how what Obama offered factory workers compares with what he's given

everyone else, and what he'll probably end up giving CEOs.

[Jefferson23]

35. Oh wow, I bet they're shaking in their boots.

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

81. No, they're drooling.

[Jefferson23]

109. Yep, they have nothing to fear, that's for sure. n/t

[eklektoscdc]

37. New to politics

I'm 29, but this last election is the first time I've voted. I just started following politics and had NO IDEA things were this heated. I thought democrats liked the president?? What's wrong with Fox news?? And where do I get reliable info on progressive issues, and who is on the right side of the issues? (for future voting)Could someone also define "social justice" I've seen that used alot in posts in different contexts

[Jefferson23]

40. Who did you vote for in the last election?

[eklektoscdc]

64. Voted for...

I voted in the 2010 mid-terms, not in '08.
Trevor Drown for Senate and Chad Causey for Rep

[Truth2Tell]

69. Those two are quite different politically

Causey is a DLC right Democrat and Drown is an Independent Tea Partier of the kookoo variety IMO.

What about Trevor Drown would make a progressive support him?

[eklektoscdc]

71. I didn't know much about his positions, it seems to me that

Americans just keep bouncing back and forth from Republicans to Democrats and neither party is really acomplishing anything for the actual people. So I went for the independent. That's part of why I'm asking how I find out who supports what, and what they really do and not just what they say. Government is full of career polititions on both sides that don't do anything but preserve their own bureaucracy and power. Isn't that what the president is doing now? In the short time that I've been following what's going on in DC, it just seems like nothing really gets done...It's all about the next election, and not what is good for us. I started getting interested because of the healthcare debate. I'm a single dad with 4 kids and no insurance because my "employer provided" health insurance will cost 1/3 of my salary to cover me and my children. WHO CAN AFFORD THAT? But it doesn't seem to me like the bill they passed will help me at all, and the BS that the right says about "no one is denied treatment" is a lie. I was hospitalized, and the treatment I needed was $17000, since I didn't have insur, they said I had to pay 1/2 of that or I couldn't get treated. WTF!?! A local charity put up the $ for me or I would have just been s.o.l. And now I still can't afford coverage. What if something happens to me or one of my kids, we just die because some hospital ceo says so, and congress doesn't care because they have coverage. I'm seeing this kind of inequality all across the board in every part of our lives and if something isn't done, the average american is just going to be a slave class feeding grapes to the upper class, and the elite don't care if a slave dies, they just bring in another one.

[Truth2Tell]

73. Welcome to DU!

Stay around and learn. :hi:

[Jefferson23]

112. Neither progressive politicians, but regardless I did read your post

about health insurance which is a reality that often inspires people to learn more.

In order to have a better understanding about the pros and cons of an economic policy
you'll need to begin to search for trusted sources. You'll need to decide for yourself based on an understanding of
journalism standards. One suggestion, take a look at the Telecommunications Act 1996, and you can learn for yourself the fallout
and the impact this has had on the MSM.

Regarding economic policy, these are sources I trust but as I said you'll need to do your own research to decide.

Welcome to DU.



Articles and Op-Eds by Prof. Stiglitz

The State of the Economy
2010


Federal Spending Is a Necessity, Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2010.
Why Easier Money Won't Work, The Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2010.
To Choose Austerity Is to Bet It All on the Confidence Fairy, Guardian, October 19, 2010.
It Is Folly to Place All Our Trust in the Fed, Financial Times, October 18, 2010.
Time to Build a Better Stimulus, Politico, September 15, 2010.
Needed: a New Economic Paradigm, Financial Times, August 19, 2010.
Reach Equals Grasp on Banking Bill, Politico, June 7, 2010.
The Non-Existent Hand, London Review of Books, April 22, 2010.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/articles.cfm



More on the economic melt down:

The Quiet Coup

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

By Simon Johnson

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/

[donnamarie]

56. I'll try to take you at your word, but seriously,

you had NO IDEA that things were this heated???? What's wrong with faux news?? Really? 29 years old and you've no idea what 'social justice' is??? Are you aware of the princples of equality and human rights and dignity?

[eklektoscdc]

63. No I didn't

I had no idea that things were so close to the breaking point between conservatives and progressives. You always hear about "compromise" and "crossing th aisle". I'm not sure what you're "taking my word" for, exactly what would I benifit from being deceptive in asking for answers? I didn't grow up with politics, I didn't go to college, and I just recently started caring...I would dare say that a majority of the country knows less than I do about what's going on. Most people still don't care. How old I am doesn't matter, is it too late to get involved?

[eklektoscdc]

66. princples of equality and human rights and dignity

I am not an idiot, but many users on here use the term "social justice" and I want to know what it means when you use it, not a generic definition. What is it that progressives want and what is the the course of action we should be taking? If everyone that you encounter who wants to learn more and become involved is snubbed and treated with ridicule, it's no wonder progressives are a political minority. I hate that I haven't done anything for most of my life, but I want to make a difference now, and I want to be equiped with the knowledge that I unfortunately don't have right now.

[No Elephants]

98. "social justice" will mean different things to different people.

"it's no wonder progressives are a political minority"

Highly debatable. Did you get that from FOX?

btw, I am taking you at your word--for today.

As to what anyone gets out of falsely claiming in their posts here to be progressive (whatever that may mean), I really can't imagine. Seems downright pathetic. I just know many people do it. Fortunately, they usually give themselves away fairly quickly to us posters, even if they don't get banned immediately by the mods.

[Truth2Tell]

65. Do you want reliable info

on progressive issues because you consider yourself a progressive?

Where have you been getting information that you would consider "progressive" up until now?

[eklektoscdc]

67. I consider myself progressive

I watch the news regularly, but I have been watching fox and most people on here seem to have a distrust for them, and I get the democrat gaz out of LittleRock, AR, and I've been reading on this site for a few days now

[Truth2Tell]

68. You'll find people are going to have a hard time

believing that anyone out there in the real world could not be aware that FOX news is a right-wing Republican propaganda outlet and not a real "news" source. But if you really had no idea until now (giving you the benefit of the doubt), then do some reading. Use Google. And keep reading DU.

What progressive issues are most important to you, just curious?

[No Elephants]

106. I looked up the Democrat-Gazette.

Arkansas is not typically considered a progressive or liberal state. Yet.....

"Critics of the Democrat-Gazette content(sic)that the paper is editorially more conservative than its Little Rock subscriber base. The Democrat-Gazette says that its op-ed pages are open to many different viewpoints and that it accurately reflects its statewide constituency." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Democrat-Gazette

Candidly, I do not understand how or why someone who reads a conservative paper and watches FOX, assuming, until very reently that both or them are reliable, would consider himself progressive-or would want to consider himself progressive. It's not as though FOX doesn't belittle progressives incessantly.

Conversely, I do not understand how someone who considers himself progressive could assume FOX and a conservative paper are reliable.

Still taking you at your word, though.

[eklektoscdc]

115. I watch the news to see what's going on, not to have my views

fed to me. I have watched fox and read the dem gaz because that's what I get here. I'm looking to the net for a more broad information base

[No Elephants]

84. FOX News is--and set out to be, pro-Republicon, as opposed to pro-truth.

IMO, FOX ranges from misleading and very biased to almost total bs-and sometimes even worse.

Also, IMO, CNN is now almost as bad. Ditto Associated Press (AP).

Other networks and news sources are almost as bad as the above, being under Republicon control.

A few commentators on MSNBC are pro-Democratic, namely, Ed Schulz, Rachael Maddow and Keith Olberman. Lawrence O'Donnell is also pro-Democratic, but, IMO, more conservative than the other 3. (My favorite MSNBC host is Ed Schulz.) Chris Matthews varies, but he currently seems pro-Obama.

And, believe it or not, you can get some good info from comedian Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, even though he usually sides with Democrats. Ditto Bill Maher. At least neither of them makes up stuff, which is a lot more than can be said of FOX.

Beyond that, I don't think any one source will give you unbiased info, even PBS. I go for several sources, NONE of which is FOX.
Above all, you must always analyze, not simply swallow whole everything you hear or read from ANY source. Everyone has some axe to grind nowadays--and does so. The days of news even attempting to be objective are over, IMO.

As far as being "for the people:" As a general rule, the more conservative politically a person or candidate or group or Party or subdivision of a Party, the more he, she or it is for big business and wealthy folks and the less he, she or it is for workers, ordinary people, etc. And the Tea Party is quite conservative politically.

IMO, if you want politiians who are really for the people, as opposed to big business and rich folk, find the most liberal Democrats you can dig up--and steer very clear of Republicans and Tea Partiers.

Personally, I also try, as much as I possibly can, to steer clear of Blue Dog Democrats and center right Democrats (DLC, New Democrats, Third Way and so on--many names and some unnamed, but all more conservative than either classic (populist) Democrats or liberal Democrats). However, if my only choice were between a Republicon or a Tea Partier and a Blue Dog, I'd vote for the Blue Dog. My heart would not be in it, to say the least, but I'd do it.

As far as liking or not liking President Obama's policies: Although some here claim they never believed candidate Obama, many Democrats started out liking Obama's policies. Many still do, while many have becomed disillusioned.

IMO, he ran more liberal than he has governed. Indeed, after his election, he said he was a New Democrat, which puts him among the center right Democrats. While their policies do not appeal to me personally, many here think highly of center right Democrats.

Before you vote for one more Tea Party candidate, though, for the love of heaven, note my sig line and read this article about the Koch Bros, who founded and funded-and still fund--the Tea Party. (Definitely not "for the people.")

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

p.s. no one on the right will get you or your kids insured AT ALL: Only Democrats move those initiatives. But, yes, quite a few of us are unhappy with Obama's bill.

[AmandaMae]

108. Hi, and welcome

Stay away from Fox. They aren't real news. They are basically a propaganda machine for the extreme right wing. The entire network is owned by Rupert Murdoch, look him up. Fox "journalists" don't do any fact-checking, and many times, they outright lie. People like Bill O'Reilly, and the worst of the lot, Glenn Beck, deliberately mislead and manipulate viewers. They try to spread fear and hatred and divide our country further. For example, they constantly express and encourage prejudice of Muslims and immigrants. The entire Tea Party movement wasn't really a movement at all. Read up on the Koch brothers: they poured millions of dollars into funding it, and then Fox news promoted it as if it was a genuine grassroots movement. That's another thing that's wrong with Fox: they're not a normal news organization that reports news: they're actively making news.

here's a free online documentary about Fox News, called "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism":
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=43

Actually that entire website is really a great resource for learning about a lot of issues. There are some great documentaries about war, religion, Israel, the environment, the media, etc.

Keep reading this site to learn more, and also check out some other news sources. Some of the good progressive sources I like are:

http://www.democracynow.org/
http://motherjones.com/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/

CNN is certainly better than Fox, but not great. There are some great hosts on MSNBC, such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

You're never too old to educate yourself and get involved. I'm taking you at your word that you're sincere, because I don't know why anyone would waste their time coming to this site asking for information if they weren't. Also, it's easy to believe that you weren't aware of all these things, because believe me, I meet people every day who know far less about politics and current events than many here seem to believe is possible. it's easy to forget when you're so immersed in the reality you find on this site that many Americans live in a completely different reality, which most of the things we talk about here don't even enter into. Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm 19, and not an expert by any means, myself having become aware of politics only about a year ago.

[eklektoscdc]

114. Thanks, doing alot of reading and have been directed

to some good info by you guys. This site is great.

[JJW]

39. Perhaps Obama

is expecting a big thanks for the hundred of billions in tax cut these tax cheats will get. Perhaps Obama will ask them what form of amnesty they desire to allow them to bring all the hidden money in offshore tax havens back into this country.

[whosinpower]

41. Expect to hear these talking points soon

http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/roadmap-for-growth

Sigh

In a nutshell - cut taxes
increase free trade agreements
get rid of regulations
address climate change with more nuclear plants and coal
increase educational priorities to math and science

[katnapped]

87. "Need to cut salaries!"

"Gotta chop those worker protections and minimum wage to hire more, people!"

Those of you salivating over the thought of working for a dollar a day ought be loving this all!

[sulphurdunn]

42. Anytime you want to know

what Obama will do next just listen to whatever Newt Gingrich is selling beforehand.

[Fearless]

44. Hmm... maybe inviting the rest of us before the public crucifixion of the poor and middle class?

[MindPilot]

46. This would have been a really good idea

18 months ago.

[Proletariatprincess]

47. The CEOs might just stand him up....

Unless they believe Obama is on their side and he will give them what they want. I have absolutely no confidence that anything good can come from such a meeting.

[Cal Carpenter]

48. Awesome! Those poor disenfranchised CEOs deserve an opportunity to be heard

and to make sure their interests are being represented.

Power to the CEOs! Woohooooo!

[julian09]

53. CEO s didn't create jobs because

they don't want him to succeed, just say no. They are halfway there.

[mbperrin]

57. Want business to turn loose of money? Put a 99% tax on retained

profits, leaving only one way to avoid taxes - invest it back in the economy. We reward companies for hoarding now; we need to make that unattractive.

Quite simple to do, just a few lines in a bill to make it so.

I deal with same thing as a teacher when parents want their student to perform. I had a student last year who failed the first 6 weeks, so his parents bought him a new iPod to inspire him; he failed again, and they bought him a great laptop; he failed again, and they bought him a brand new $40,000 Dodge truck. He failed again, and they came to school to ask me what they should give him to make him do better.

My advice? Take everything away, including his cable TV, time out with friends, the iPod, truck, all of it, and replace only when you get performance. Rewards for failure will get that - failures.


Let's stop the bribes and yak yak yak and do something real.

[totodeinhere]

58. It's is totally obscene that in times like this they are hoarding $1.93 trillion in cash.

I wish there were a way to confiscate every last dime from those greedy Republican bastards. But of course it won't happen. Instead, Obama will meet with them and kiss their asses.

[lunatica]

59. My first dread thought was "What is going to give away this time"

Fuck! I guess I've been snake bit. Now I expect to get snake bit again if I don't take care.

But that thing that can make you crazy, hope, still comes up. Not in a strong way though.

[No Elephants]

88. Maybe it's only acid reflux.

[unkachuck]

61. hey Mr. Prez, customers=sales=profit....

....the corporation won't 'release' 1.93 trillion dollars unless they can make 4 trillion dollars and they won't be able to do that without more customers....

"Ideas for overhauling the tax code and cutting the deficit will be a substantial part of the Wednesday discussion,..."

....will you also be inviting Progressives and Labor Leaders over for, "Ideas for overhauling the tax code and cutting the deficit..."? Or should we be hanging on tightly to our middle-class wallets?

[Vidar]

70. If he cared at all about the people, he'd be arresting half of them,

not placating the thieving bastards.

[daleo]

72. He ought to say

"CEOs, I am planning to raise your personal income taxes, for the good of the country that you say you love."

But somehow I doubt that will happen.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Sort of off topic but I'd just like to say

how nice it is to see so many new DUers on this thread. The majority of whom support the President. I, for one, would like to offer each and every one of you a warm, DU welcome. :hi:

[marasinghe]

110. nicely done ....

:fistbump:

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

93. Inside, off the record, sources have reported...

... that - in keeping with now established political and negotiating Presidential "strategies" over the last two years - the President has alerted his steward to lay out for him on the morning of this meeting the special (heavy-duty) knee-pads, with the Presidential seal - and the gold buckles!

[marasinghe]

111. f*k it. i might as well get hammered & view the rest of his term thru' an alcoholic haze. (n/t)

[Nihil]

116. Why not? That's what Bush did after being elected ... (n/t)

:P

[Nihil]

117. So much negativity ...

You'd think that people would be celebrating that Obama is going to
attend a summit where it's guaranteed that he will listen.

Oh, wait ...
:hide: