Is President Obama a corporatist?

[Sancho]

Because of his introduction and support of the TPP, some have accused Obama of being in the pockets of big business, and willing to sacrifice American jobs for some unknown dollars. Personally I really doubt it. Obama may make mistakes, and he may get bad advice from those around him, but he is not stupid.

After his eulogy and all the pronouncements after Supreme Court victories this week, I can't help but think he is sincere. I also can't help but think that he has a pretty good grasp on the realities of Congress and the world we live in today. Is there any doubt that his heart is in the right place?

Maybe the final TPP will be a disaster, maybe not, but I can't believe that Obama will sign a trade agreement that he knows will be bad for workers only to benefit more and more profits for big corporations. Whatever he puts on the table, I believe he thinks it is a good international agreement.

We have seen that Obama will accept a compromise - and the ACA is a compromise compared to a single-payer system, but we can also anticipate that Medicare for all or universal health care is the next step after ACA. He takes what he can get, and I think he knows the camel's nose is under the tent on healthcare now.

So, can we take Obama's word that the TPP will eventually be presented to Congress as something that's good for American jobs? Is trashing Obama as a corporatist, a Wall Street shill, and an economic traitor fair criticism? Whatever is in the final TPP, I have confidence that Obama won't present it or sign it if he thinks it's bad. He may think it's a compromise, but he won't support something that's clearly wrong.

I cannot believe the President we saw this week is the one being characterized as anti-American workers.

[Little Star]

1. I hope you're correct.

[HFRN]

2. my questions would be these

1) does corporatism exist, in this party at all?

2) have these trade bills, in general, served corporatism?

I examined some of the material presented by Lori Wallach, who calls herself a 'recovering trade lawyer'. she was a classmate of Obama's in law school, and she used to write these trade bills, before flipping to the other side and exposing to the public what they are

Her material is mindblowing - these trade bills are government, secret, and out of reach of the public, of and for the corporation

http://www.c-span.org/video/?325414-4/washington-journal-lori-wallach-transpacific-partnership-trade-deal

[LondonReign2]

3. Obama himself told us that his economic policies are 1980's Republican

I think it is time people realize he told us the truth.

[BillZBubb]

9. Exactly.

Obama, on economic issues, is what would have been a republican moderate back then. On social issues, he's generally more liberal, but cautiously so.

[hifiguy]

70. Yup. And people somewhow do not want to believe

what the man himself said. He's what they used to call a Rockefeller Republican - liberal on social issues, devoted to the interests of big business on economic issues and mildly imperialistic/interventionist in foreign policy.

The very incarnation of the Turd Way.

[Marr]

11. Yeah-- I don't get why so many people build these elaborate narratives to

explain why he pushes things like the TPP. It's very simple; he thinks they're good things. He thinks your role as a plebe is essentially to 'eat your peas' and be grateful that the 1% makes the world work so well for you.

[Vincardog]

33. Simply stated Yes he is and he admits it.

[EndElectoral]

68. People are placated by social stances while the divide between poor and rich grows wider.

In 2008 he stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
In 2012 he says he evolved on the issue.

As to the Affordable Care Act he disregarded the attempts to promote Single Payer or Medicare for All, and went for a more business type solution to affordable healthcare. Here is a 2015 quote from Obama:

"First, it’s because the Affordable Care Act pretty much was their plan (Republicans) before I adopted it — based on conservative, market-based principles developed by the Heritage Foundation and supported by Republicans in Congress, and deployed by a guy named Mitt Romney in Massachusetts to great effect. If they want to take credit for this law, they can. I’m happy to share it."

And Obama on Reagan:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

I find this last quote particulary offensive since the Savings and Loan debacle of the 80's when 1043 savings and loans out of 3234 institutions failed and at the same time the criminal offense of Iran-contra was taking shape during the Reagan administration and Reagan failed to use the government in any way to aid in combating the AIDS crisis. It was the era of just say no. Indebtedness grew dramatically in the Reagan administration while businesses got richer. It was the age of corporatism gone wild as the financial differences between workers and CEO's expanded exponentially.

No, Obama is a corporatist. The TPP should make that evident to anyone. He's a Democrat on social issues, but a Republican on financial and trade. All one has to look at is his Treasury appointments after the market collapse of 2008.

I like Obama's humor, smile, and concern with providing minimal healthcare, and changing his stance on gay marriage, but lets not pretend he is not business friendly. The trade bill and his financial policies have left wages stagnant for American workers while the wealthy have continued to line their pockets. How soon we forget the Occupy Wall Street message of the 1%. Do people just remember those protesters as dirty inconveniences or unwelcome reminders?

[Vincardog]

86. There can be no socal justice without ecomonic justice. "Fiscal conservative" = FASCIST

[RichVRichV]

41. It amazes me

how many of his ardent followers couldn't accept that he was telling the truth when he said that.

They shouldn't take it personally. Most of Washington is stuck in the failed trickle down mindset. That's why it's so out of touch with the rest of us.

[Marr]

45. Yep-- and the mental gymnastics they have to do to reconcile that simple admission

with their wholly unfounded assumption that he's a Keynesian...

I really wonder how they pull that off.

[pampango]

49. I thought he compared himself to a "moderate" republican of the pre-Reagan era, not

to the 1980's republicans. Obviously Eisenhower was quite different from Reagan.

[PETRUS]

59. The quote:

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican"

Source: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[pampango]

65. To me that is ambiguos. Many think of moderate republicans as like Eisnehower and conservative

republicans as like Reagan. I'm pretty sure that Reagan republicans of the 1980's (and most of them since) viewed themselves as conservative, not moderate, republicans.

Eisnehower was pro-union, had high taxes on the rich and warned of the danger of the MIC. I think he an example of the "moderate republican" that Reagan was rebelling against in the 1980's and perhaps that Obama was comparing himself to, as opposed to the conservative republicans who came to rule their party in the 1980's and since.

[PETRUS]

79. We'd have to ask Obama for clarification in order to know what he meant.

But I don't believe that's necessary, as actions tell the story. Everyone is free to judge for themselves where the President stands when it comes to unions and the MIC.

Regarding things under the purview of the executive branch, we were much more aggressive investigating and prosecuting the financial sector following the S&L crisis than we were following the most recent disaster. And in the 1980s, we went out of our way to prioritize currency values in our trading arrangements in order to bring our current account into better balance. I don't if those things are liberal/moderate/conservative, or Democratic/Republican, but recent history has been a disappointment by comparison.

[LittleBlue]

77. A Rockefeller Republican to the core.

Not as labor friendly as they were.

[LondonReign2]

99. Nope. He said his policies were moderate 1980s Republican

Those that ascribe nefarious or greedy motives to the President are wrong, IMO. The problem is, he really believes that what is good for corporations is good for the US. The fact that so many corporations committed so much money to his campaigns indicated they weren't fooled by Candidate Obama's rhetoric.

[pampango]

102. As opposed to 'conservative' 1980's republican policies which is what Reagan pursued.

I think that is why he added the word 'moderate' rather than just saying 'republican policies of the 1980's' which would have been Reagan's policies.

"Moderate" republicans were represented by Ford and Eisenhower, not Reagan.

[LondonReign2]

104. You can twist yourself up all you'd like trying to rationalize his policies as "not as bad as Reagan

So what? He is an avowed Republican economically as his corporatist policies bear out.

[pampango]

109. Being an "avowed republican economically" is not bad if Eisenhower is your version

of 'republican economics'. Taxes on the rich were high, unions were strong, infrastructure spending was high and the middle class was healthy. (Heck, many thought Eisenhower would run as a Democrat rather than a republican. In many ways he governed more like the former than the latter.)

There are some here who promote a Herbert Hoover version of 'republican economics' with high tariffs, no trade agreements and little trade. It depends on which republican you are using as the basis for comparison when you decry "republican economics".

I suppose you think FDR was a 'corporatist' too since he saved corporations from their own excesses of the republican 1920's. And the stock market did better in FDR's first 2 terms than it has under Obama.

[delrem]

131. That is not consistent with what Pres. Obama said.

Obama said "Reagan", not "Eisenhower".
Obama praised "Reagan", not "Eisenhower", for setting the new direction that he, Obama, is following.

That's the plain fact, it's information central to the quotations being discussed and Obama's words couldn't have been clearer.

Obama is a "Reagan Democrat" - a DLC democrat - identical down the line with the Republican party on economic and military issues.
He is exactly the same as the Clintons and every DLC/third-way Dem in this regard. Furthermore, Obama's words are consistent with his ACTIONS in pursuing the WoT, in lining up identically with the Clinton and DLC direction and apparatus (e.g. all the right-wing appointments).

Some people like that politics - and that's why they vote for it. Others get "fooled", perhaps by their wishful thinking - it's easy for anyone to do - and some get "fooled" all of the time. Others yet are cynical manipulators who, liking that corporate/MIC politics and the propensity for good people to get "fooled", deliberately seek to promote confusion.

[pampango]

137. I thought he said "moderate", not "conservative", republican. Reagan was not "moderate" and

did not claim to be nor was he perceived to be, at least not by liberals.

A 'moderate' republican in the 1980's were not Reagan and his supporters but the republicans whom they had rebelled against who supported (or at least maintained) high taxes on the rich and supported (or at least did not bust) strong unions. Reagan was no 'moderate'.

Wasn't Reagan an FDR-supporting Democrat when he was younger? I think we can safely say that he was not an FDR-supporting Democrat once he was in office. I would say that his is a classic example of political 'evolution' if not to say 'reversal'.

That's the plain fact, it's information central to the quotations being discussed and Obama's words couldn't have been clearer.

It is 'clear' if you assume that Reagan was a 'moderate' republican and his economic policies were 'moderate'.

... identical down the line with the Republican party on economic and military issues.

Except for income taxes on the rich which plummeted under Reagan and have increased under Obama.
Except for military spending which skyrocketed under Reagan, not under Obama.
Overall tariffs increased under Reagan, not under Obama.

[TM99]

139. The Left have lots of myths about Reagan's

conservatism.

He was far more moderate than either the Right or the Left of today want to believe.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nicole-hemmer/2014/03/11/the-reagan-myth-was-alive-and-well-at-cpac

Reagan was not a racist either. After he won the GOP nomination in 1980, he said,

“I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans . . . into every phase of the programs I will propose.”

And on MLK's birthday in 1983, he said, “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man,” he noted. “In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. … Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”

Now, I am not here to glorify Reagan or his administration. But Obama said he admired Reagan and was a 1980's moderate Republican economically. This is absolutely true especially when you strip away the myths of history and look at the actual reality.

[Recursion]

144. Well, in fairness the right have that myth too

The past two administrations have taught me that activists never notice when the other side compromises: DU hasn't digested the fact that conservatives see W as a quisling RINO who triangulated at every turn.

[delrem]

166. Re-quoting from EndElectoral's reply #68

"And Obama on Reagan:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." "

Speaking for myself, I have no idea what political propagandists mean when they say that some politician is "moderate" -- beyond the fact that when the term is used as a descriptive on the MSM it means that politician is "electable" and "safe" and "won't rock the corporate boat", or maybe just "bought by Koch" or etc. It drives me nuts when I read some of the most informed DUers repeat the term "moderate" as if it signified some truth, as if it provided some true information -- even while protesting when e.g. Bernie and Bernie's policies get called "extremist".
Reagan was a war president. What he did in Latin and South America was monstrous. There was nothing "moderate" about that, except maybe compared to the fantasies of Jeffrey Dahmer. Reagan's controllers instituted what they called "trickle down economics" -- they invented the term, while those who objected to Reagan's "moderately centrist" economic policies called it "voodoo economics". I guess it depends on whether you LIKE what Reagan did.

[Adrahil]

156. Can you post the quote and it's comtext?

Because Obama does NOT support supply-side economics.

[LondonReign2]

163. Google is pretty simple to use

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

[Adrahil]

172. Fine. He's basically right. Moderate Republicans used to reject the whole Trickle Down Bullshit.

[LondonReign2]

174. I find it amusing that in their loyalty to Obama

some people are now DEFENDING Republican policies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I eschew labels...

Corporations are a fixture of American life, they are fixture of anyone's life not living in a state of nature. I just want them to live by the rules the rest of us do. They can not be made to go away.

[HFRN]

6. 'I just want them to live by the rules the rest of us do'

the *whole point* of them is that they dont

if they did, they would never have been created in the first place

[BillZBubb]

12. Nobody is asking that corporations go away. That isn't the issue.

Corporatism deals with how society is organized. There are several definitions, so it can be difficult to pin down exactly what someone is saying when they call someone a "corporatist".

The republican party, by any definition is corporatist. They go so far as to allow corporations to write legislation.

Obama isn't in that league, thank goodness. But, he has always surrounded himself with advisors who advocate corporatist policies. That's not a good thing.

[HooptieWagon]

18. Corporations wrote TPP.

From his inauguration, Obama filled his staff with corporatists. There was no prosecution of criminal bankers. Drilling and fracking have a big green light, oil companies aren't held accountable for spills or contaminated groundwater. As posted above, Obama himself said his economic policy is 80s republican...which is why there has been increased wealth at the top, and increased debt at the middle and bottom.

[KeepItReal]

5. Believe it.

Look at his economic team. Look at his DOJ failing to prosecute anyone for the financial misdeeds that preceded his term.

Look at his Chief of Staff calling liberals "Fucking retarded".

The President is a good man. He's a nice person and very like-able.

He is just a fiscal conservative in addition to that.

[HFRN]

10. 'He is just a fiscal conservative'---> for whom?

sure as hell wasnt conservative toward the people who created the mess in the first place, just conservative tward the people who suffered the fallout

[KeepItReal]

13. He's in line with the EU austerity movement, Wall Street, and big money politics

His main sponsor in his rise was Penny Pritzker, an heir to one of the Hyatt hotel chain founders.

She's now his Commerce secretary.

Only one person voted against her confirmation, BTW: Sen. Bernie Sanders.

[geek tragedy]

23. He is most certainly not in line with the EU austerity movement.

He's tangled publicly with Merkel over this, and has resisted calls for austerity here. Do you really think spending remained semi-normal with the Teabaggers controlling the House by accident?

[KeepItReal]

25. The whole "Sequester" BS was how we implemented EU-style austerity

Without calling it that.

Even the Department of Defense had to cut back. Unheard of.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. I liked the Eulogy

I believe he is a good man. I believe he worries about the choices he makes while in office.

I also believe he has caved to right wing corporatist or he truly believes that is the best path forward for our country. Both of those options I disagree with.

[Marr]

8. I don't think he's in anyone's pocket. He simply believes in trickle down economics.

Reaganomics/trickle down economics... unrestrained international trade, 1%er first policies... the man has demonstrated over and over that he thinks the economy should primarily serve the top of society; that what's good for Wall Street is good for America.

All his talk about 'job creators' was unabashed trickle down rhetoric, but still, some people insist on believing he is a liberal at heart and all these contrary policies he works so hard to advance are either done as a 'compromise', or that he's powerless, or that he's just playing brilliant 50-dimensional chess, or that he's been bought.

You don't have to buy a true believer. I've no doubt he was screened very well by the people who funded his campaign. And he staffed his cabinet with like-minded people.

[KeepItReal]

16. "Without Penny Pritzker, it is unlikely that Barack Obama ever would have been elected"

Without Penny Pritzker, it is unlikely that Barack Obama ever would have been elected to the United States Senate or the presidency. When she first backed him during his 2004 Senate run, she was No. 152 on the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans. He was a long-shot candidate who needed her support and imprimatur. Mr. Obama and Ms. Pritzker grew close, sometimes spending weekends with their families at her summer home.

In 2008, she poured that energy and grit into putting Mr. Obama in the White House. Democrats often have rocky relationships with corporate interests, but Ms. Pritzker helped forge an unlikely bond between Mr. Obama, a former community organizer, and bankers, entrepreneurs and executives. For most of 2007, Mr. Obama trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton in polls, and yet his candidacy survived in large part because of the money collected by Ms. Pritzker and her team.

She wanted to be commerce secretary, friends say. But shortly after Election Day, while she was still raising money for Mr. Obama — more than $53 million for his inauguration, on top of the $745 million for the campaign — she withdrew from consideration. (She and campaign officials say it was her choice; others say the president-elect had no interest in a confirmation fight at a time of public anger over the advantages of wealth.)

A bank owned in part by her family had been so mired in toxic subprime loans that the Pritzkers and other owners eventually paid a $460 million settlement to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. And her nearly $2 billion fortune exploits a network of trusts, including some held offshore, to minimize tax liabilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/politics/penny-pritzker-had-big-role-in-obama-08-but-is-backstage-in-12.html?_r=0

[corkhead]

37. and not backstage now: she is the current Secretary of Commerce afterall

and has been for almost 2 years

[Sancho]

61. Interesting...I didn't know this background

[winter is coming]

17. ^^ This.

We've been told, again and again, that he's amazingly bright, so people always go for the multi-dimensional chess excuse. Thing is, I've known people who are brilliant in their little sphere of influence, yet curiously unable to bring that ability to bear on other subjects. By now, there is IMO plenty of objective evidence that trickle down doesn't work, yet some fail to see that. I've no doubt that for many they have incentive$ to remain ignorant, but for others, it's just their blind spot.

I find it ironically amusing that some of the President's staunchest supporters accuse some of his detractors of expecting him to be a messiah or to give them ponies, or whatever. No, that's you guys: the ones unable to wrap your mind around the idea that Obama can be wrong about some things and not others.

[truebluegreen]

14. "...can we take Obama's word that the TPP will be good for American's jobs?" NO.

I am sure he believes it, but he has a long history of listening to the wrong people. I don't know if they believe it, or just believe it is good for them but I'm betting on the latter.

[HFRN]

15. the oldest game in the world is

'he/she is a great guy/gal, it's just those people who work for him/her that are the problem'

[truebluegreen]

123. What's your point?

Mine's pretty clear: he's a likeable person, and the people he chooses to listen to are the pits. So you can call them the problem, or you can realize as I do that they would not be a problem unless he listened to them.

[darkwing]

56. Yet it might still be good for American jobs.

The TPP could open up Japan, if Japan joins it, which would be great for American exporters. Either way, one of the main goals of this deal is to make sure there is a leveler playing field with respect to regulations and such. I for one am eagerly awaiting the text of the final deal.

Trade is a global good. According to economic theory and history it will increase the GDPs of the participating countries. The real question is how do we use that increased GDP. Lately it's been going mostly to the 1%. As far as I'm concerned the way to make sure the deal is a good one isn't to fight against global trade, which increases economic output overall, but to distribute the gains from it more fairly (such as not giving a special tax break for capital gains or dividends).

[BillZBubb]

93. Or not...

Trade can be a global good. Usually it isn't when there is a disparity in standard of living between the trading partners. Why? Because the high standard of living country will lose jobs to the low standard of living country if that country will safeguard corporate interests. No company can afford to use high wage and benefit labor when rock bottom labor costs are safely available elsewhere. If they don't take advantage, their competitors will.

One thing the TPP will do is establish the safety of capital in the Asian countries, which will in turn draw the jobs from high wage rate countries.

There is a reason that US real median wages have been stagnant for decades, and adjusted for productivity gains have declined significantly and it is not because of tax breaks for dividends and capital gains.

[darkwing]

117. The middle class in Asia is growing faster than anywhere else.

The middle class in Asia is growing faster than anywhere else on the planet. We want to be involved in that and not be left behind. I mean it will grow with or without us, but it is better for our companies and our workers if we have a leadership position in the region instead of just burying our heads in the sand and pretending Asia is irrelevant. Look at the US GDP per capita. Trade has not hurt us. The main thing that has hurt us is looking inward instead of outward and over-investing in housing and finance which lead to the 2008-2009 crash.

[Art_from_Ark]

134. "Open up Japan?

This isn't 1853, and Commodore Perry's black ships have long ago come and gone.

The Japanese economy is pretty saturated as it is. What exactly does the US have to offer Japan, besides jumbo jets and fighter aircraft, that is not already readily available in Japan?

[darkwing]

162. Agriculture

Japan still has high tariffs on agriculture products.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. Japan already imports 60% of its food, and there is no food shortage.

Supermarket shelves are always fully stocked. What is the pressing need for Japan to import more food, when there is already a surplus?

And for that matter, food imports in Japan have been increasing steadily since 1966, without the TPP.

[darkwing]

168. As far as farmers are concerned, more is better.

[Art_from_Ark]

170. Which farmers?

Certainly not these farmers.

[darkwing]

178. That's because Japan has one of the most protectionist farm industries in the world...

... which also means they have some of the highest food prices in the world. It is a system that could use competition.

[Art_from_Ark]

179. Japanese food is some of the most wholesome in the world

It is grown with a minimal amount of chemical input. Your argument is the typical free trade nonsense which is only concerned with money and doesn't care if it ruins local economies or results in lower quality.

And don't try to tell me that Japanese food prices are among the highest in the world. My food budget here in Japan is comparable to what it would be back in the States, and it is certainly less than what it would be in most of Europe.

[TM99]

19. He is a neo-liberal.

They are typically late comers to social liberalism (evolving is the political term!) though once they do so, they offer solid support. On economic issues, they are decidedly corporatists and into the same voodoo economics of Reagan. On foreign policy issues, they want to be seen as strong and often come into sync with the neo-cons.

His support for civil rights not withstanding, he put forth the TPP which is about as anti-American workers as you can get. The ACA is really nothing more than repackaged Heritage Care.

He is a human being like all of us, and he is a politician. He gives terrific speeches, and candidate Obama is quite a bit different than President Obama.

[RiverLover]

22. +1 Very well said. /nt

[BrotherIvan]

46. +1

[roamer65]

54. Bingo.

[pampango]

95. Or he is an imperfect liberal. "He is a human being like all of us, and he is a politician."

... into the same voodoo economics of Reagan.

Except that Reagan cut taxes on the rich. They have risen under Obama.
Except that Reagan deregulated, Dodd-Frank would not have happened under Reagan.
Except that defense spending soared under Reagan, not under Obama.

... he put forth the TPP ...

And FDR put forth the ITO. Truman put forth GATT.

The ACA is really nothing more than repackaged Heritage Care

It's actually a 'repackaged' version of the health care package that passed the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts which was 85% Democratic at the time. Romney had introduced Heritage Care. The Massachusetts legislature changed it and passed its own version. Romney vetoed it. The Democratic legislature then overrode Romney's veto and passed it. Obama took it from there though, of course, ACA got exactly 0 republican votes.

[TM99]

119. Do I have to post the video yet again

where Obama calls himself a 1980's moderate Republican when it comes to economics?

https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

Actually under Reagan, capital gains tax levels (a good indicator of the 'rich'!) were between 16.8% and 23.9%.

Under Obama the capital gains tax levels are 15% to 23.8% which is exactly the same my friend.

The ITO and GATT are trade organizations. TPP is a free trade treaty. You do know the difference right?

ACA is repackaged (only slightly) RomneyCare which is a repackaged (only slightly) version of HeritageCare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

So yes, Obama is definitely a neo-liberal whose economic policies are closer in alignment with moderate Reagan Republicans than traditional proressives like FDR, Truman, and LBJ. Hell, Eisenhower and Nixon are further left than Obama.

[pampango]

135. "Obama's (2015) budget with a proposed increase in the maximum federal tax on capital gains

and dividends from 23.8 percent to 28 percent."

As secretary of then-President-elect Reagan's Transition Task Force on Tax Policy, and having later helped shepherd legislation into law, I can say with certainty that I was there, and Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to taxation on savings and investment.

Over the years, capital gains taxation has evolved into a polarizing issue that is part economics, politics and religion. To Republicans it can be the Holy Grail. To Democrats, it can be the original sin.

Enter Reagan, who ran his presidential campaign on a pro-growth platform, that Americans were being taxed too heavily and that our was stifling innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship. In 1981, he made a cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income which reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20 percent — its lowest level since the Hoover administration.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/231728-on-capital-gains-obama-is-no-reagan

And, of course, income taxes on the richest (another good indicator of the 'rich'!)have increased under Obama after plummeting under Reagan.

The ITO and GATT are trade organizations. TPP is a free trade treaty. You do know the difference right?

Different structures for sure. All designed to enable multilateral governance of trade which was what FDR and Truman believed in and Hoover hated.

ACA is repackaged (only slightly) RomneyCare which is a repackaged (only slightly) version of HeritageCare.

The "slight repackaging" of Romneycare" resulted in ACA getting ZERO republican votes. The "slight repackaging" of HeritageCare into RomneyCare resulted in a Romney veto of the Massachusets Health Care Law passed by the Democratic legislature.

The "slightness" of "repackaging" is apparently in the eye of the beholder.

[TM99]

138. We can go back and forth more if you would like.

In in later years of Reagan's administration, those tax rates went right back up to present day rates.

TPP and NAFTA are NOT the ITO or GATT. They are not even close to being the same. Yet you are stretching in order to support the passage of it by your man, Obama, because, what? Yay team?

Your measure of the differences between ACA, HeritageCare, and RomneyCare is solely based on whether Republicans support it. Hell, they are as stupid as the Democratic politicians when in the minority position.

When they are pushing it forward, they support it. When the Democrats push it forward, they are against it.

Funny that sounds like most of the last eight years of 'national defense', warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes, and the like. When Bush did it, bad, very bad. When Obama does it, good, very good!

[pampango]

154. Reagan raised capital gains taxes later in exchange for a slashing of income tax on the rich.

In in later years of Reagan's administration, those tax rates went right back up to present day rates.

True, though that happened as part of a compromise involving further reducing income taxes on the rich.

TPP and NAFTA are NOT the ITO or GATT. They are not even close to being the same. Yet you are stretching in order to support the passage of it by your man, Obama, because, what? Yay team?

I would prefer that we go back in time and force congress to approve the ITO. We would now have labor rights, business regulations, investor protection and a commitment to full employment all as part of international trade rules and enforced through multilateral mediation and arbitration (I expect environmental standards would have been added to ITO rules when the environment became a global issue.) If the ITO had been approved by congress, GATT would have died and the WTO would have never been born.

I did not mean to imply that TPP and NAFTA are the same as the ITO or GATT/WTO. They are similar (but not the same) in the sense that they involve mutually agreed upon trading rules that are enforced by mutually agreed upon mediation and arbitration. The mechanisms for how this happens are indeed different

Your measure of the differences between ACA, HeritageCare, and RomneyCare is solely based on whether Republicans support it.

Hardly. Support for the Massachusetts health care law came from Democrats in their legislature, not republicans. Romney vetoed it so calling the resulting law "RomneyCare" seems a bit unreasonable. Support for the federal health care law came from Democrats in congress, not republicans. So I am basing an assessment of the differences in the reform ideas by the support for or opposition to them from Democrats.

When they are pushing it forward, they support it.

When Romney was pushing forward Heritage Care, republicans did indeed support it. When the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts rejected that offering and changed it so much that Romney vetoed the resulting legislation, republicans stopped supporting it.

When the Democrats push it forward, they are against it.

To give republicans some credit, their opposition to Obamacare was consistent with the opposition of Romney and Massachusetts republicans to the health care reform that emerged from the Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature and which was used as the basis for Obamacare. To that extent republicans were consistent in their opposition.

[Starry Messenger]

20. The Democratic Party is never going to bring down

corporations. I learned that a long time ago. You can wring some concessions out of them for workers, which is more than we will ever get from the Republicans.

Any restraint on corporate power is going to have to come from us.

[geek tragedy]

21. He can be well-intentioned but wrong

There are some people who cannot accept that those who disagree are also well-intentioned. It's a malignant way of thinking

[Marr]

43. +1, I agree.

Then again, personal benefit has a profound influence on what people see as 'right and wrong'.

Dacia was a peaceful, Romanized neighbor of the empire until Rome found itself too short on gold to mint coins. Then Dacia suddenly became such 'dire a threat to Rome' that the only answer was genocide... and the seizure of their gold mines, of course.

So I think just about everyone has good intentions, but good intentions don't really mean anything.

[tblue]

47. Good intentions and $3

will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

How good are someone's intentions when they fight, and I mean REALLY FIGHT, for the tpp?

"Yay, you have good intentions. Boo, you threw us under the bus."

[geek tragedy]

48. That is exactly the mindset I'm talking about. You assume because he

wants the TPP, his reasons must be evil.

[RiverLover]

24. "Obama Sides W/ the Wrong People for the Wrong Reasons at the Wrong Time"

This article makes several excellent points, but here's an excerpt~

...The political class loves the TPP and other "trade" deals because they promise short-term profits. But they're dangerous because they could impoverish so many Americans in the long-term that we can reach a point where there won't be enough demand to keep the economy running. When bosses and oligarchs do a dance on the heads of working people they stymy demand and put so much downward pressure on wages the whole economy eventually screams.

As demand declines, banks will try to rope more people into debt because there is so little real economic growth. Consumer and household debt, student debt, mortgage debt, and higher rents are already victimizing millions of working families in America. They feel it in their bones that their livelihoods are more precarious than ever.

Obama's support for the TPP also reinforces one of the most damaging narratives attached to Democrats: They're all a bunch of cowards and tools of big corporations just like the Republicans.

If the $5 billion presidential election in 2016 is going to be between another Bush and another Clinton, the voter turnout will be low and the GOP could hit the jackpot.

Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to need the base of the party to show up....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/transpacific-partnership-obama_b_7665862.html

[Recursion]

26. He "introduced" the TPP? Way back in 2005?

That's surprising to learn.

[msanthrope]

29. Indeed......this was the point I was going to write on....nt

[Sancho]

72. True, but I meant he's been promoting it.

Most people never heard of TPP except the current issue with Obama.

[joshcryer]

100. His policy makers put the work in.

Hell, before he took office it was probably mostly theory policy.

[Recursion]

101. GWB signed on Brunei and Chile (nt)

[joshcryer]

103. Fair enough.

[rurallib]

27. in 2008 he was my next to last choice going into the caucuses

Hillary was last - both because of their ties to corporations.
I will get ripped when I say this, but both along with WJC remind me of the old Rockefeller Republicans - very liberal on social issues, but very beholden to corporations. Sad that I am old enough to remember the Rockefeller republicans.

Almost seems like we had a trade of personnel in the 70s and 80s. We gave up southern democrats and got rockefeller republicans in return.

[Cleita]

38. Me too. I think many of us thought the same. eom

[hifiguy]

71. I actually had some hope, naive in retrospect,

largely because of the endorsements of Ted and Caroline Kennedy.

I knew we had been royally had when HRC and Geithner were two of his first appointments and that scumbag Larry Summers was also prominent in the picture. Geithner and Summers were two of the chief arsonists responsible for the great Wall Street Fire of 2008. And Obama put them in charge of teh fire department. That made it very clear whose interests he intended to serve.

Anyone who couldn't see the writing on the wall at that point was deaf, dumb. blind AND delusional, and they still are.

[INdemo]

83. The Southern Democrats joined the Republicans when LBJ got the 65

Civil Rights legislation passed and the voting rights act.
But there were real liberals in Congress then too.

[randome]

28. Most likely, in my armchair non-economist opinion, TPP will either be good or neutral for jobs.

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:52 AM - Edit history (1)

It is definitely not the end of life as we know it, as some insist.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hoyt]

58. +1.

[darkwing]

64. +1

Yes. I believe it will be good for American jobs in the long run (and neutral in the short run). Asia is growing economically by leaps and bounds. They have a great expanding middle class. Plus a major goal of the TPP is to make it easier for small businesses to participate in international trade. This means more potential consumers for American goods and services and more ways for our goods and services to reach those consumers.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. He is a complex human being

with good and bad qualities.

[BeyondGeography]

31. His whole life has been a rejection of the corporate path

It's plain as day and people who don't see it are making a statement about themselves, not Obama.

Obama is a practical man and if you're going to be both powerful and practical in this country (which is the only way you get to be President for eight years) you're going to bump up against money, and money doesn't like to lose. It's important where your starting point in those encounters is; Obama's is on the side of the average American. That doesn't mean he always makes the right choices. It also doesn't mean you can deny him his identity when you disagree with him. Well, you can, if you want to make a fool of yourself.

[Cleita]

32. The ACA was not a compromise. Advocates of single payer were not even

allowed a seat at the table and some were arrested when they demanded it. Instead insurance and pharmaceutical companies were the ones invited to craft a plan that made sure they would continue to enjoy profits on the backs of sick people. Sure the ACA was an improvement over the lassez faire system that we had, but it's very corporate friendly and President Obama approved and signed it into law.

[geek tragedy]

52. Single payer had 8-10 votes in the Senate. Taking away everyone's health insurance

and replacing it with an unknown, untested new government program was not an option, and would have violated his core campaign promises on the ACA.

So, single payer was never part of the equation. Heck, they couldn't even get Medicare expansion through the Senate.

[hifiguy]

73. The Wayne Gretzky Rule applies here.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take.

It is actually worth fighting for principle sometimes. When you do, "compromise" may then not consist of a wholesale cave-in to the other side's demands. He didn't even try to get half a loaf.

[geek tragedy]

75. How many shots did Michael Jordan attempt from beyond half-court?

Single payer was not a serious possibility in 2009, nor was it something that could provide a framework for negotiations.

The president got expanded and improved coverage for millions, and shored up federal finances. He got a lot more than half the loaf he was seeking.

And, it's working.

Meanwhile, single payer imploded in Vermont, the state that gave us Bernie Sanders, because they weren't serious enough about it to figure out the finances.

[Cleita]

81. Single payer did not fail or implode. It was shot down by Gov. Shumlin.

They didn't even try it.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141223/NEWS/312239965

[geek tragedy]

82. Because the politics of the necessary tax increase were toxic. nt

[Cleita]

85. Exactly, it had nothing to do with the failure of the program. It was never tried because the

politicians got cold feet. If you read the article the numbers are actually there to make it feasible.

[geek tragedy]

87. If the politics are toxic in VT, that's not very encouraging for national efforts nt

[Cleita]

89. No shit Sherlock. Some of us have been trying for decades to do just that because it works. eom

[Cleita]

74. Single payer was Medicare for all and it has been tested, mostly notably our neighbors to the

north. Canada, has been running single payer health care successfully for years. There are many variations of it throughout the world running successfully. For it to be cost effective, it can't have insurance involved in primary care, which is why our corrupt Congress won't pass it. Their buddies in the insurance industry wouldn't like it. There is nothing unknown about it.

[geek tragedy]

76. Who would process claims in the Medicare for All program?

And, how would it be financed?

Medicare by itself doesn't provide adequate coverage. Which is why people pay for private supplemental coverage.

So, Medicare as currently constituted would not be single payer.

[Cleita]

80. It would be financed with the money that now goes to insurance companies and

the same people who process claims for insurance would do so for Medicare as they do presently. It could have 100% coverage and much better coverage if all the money that goes to Wall Street profits would be put into Medicare instead. You would have to pay a premium like you do now but the number crunchers have found out that full ranging Medicare for all would still cost less that half of what today's crappy system costs and offer full coverage for all. If there are people who want bigger and better, like private hospital rooms with bars and private nurses, then the insurance companies can sell insurance for that. It's what France does. But I have had this argument so many times over the years with naysayers like yourself. So why don't you mozie over to this website. They have so many excellent and well researched and fact based articles on the subject that you might educate yourself with.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

If after acquainting yourself with these facts, unless you are an insurance company shill, you can't deny it's the best way to go.

[geek tragedy]

84. Single payer is the best end result.

But there has to be a transition.

Private insurance companies process Medicare claims, btw.

[Cleita]

88. As long as the fox is in the henhouse, he will not leave until there are no more hens to eat.

Insurance will never leave until it becomes unprofitable for them and that requires a public option in the mix, which is why we never got it. The insurance companies knew the public option would send them the way of the dinosaur. But none of our corporate politicians in high places including the President would lift a finger to fight for it. I wonder how many nice cushy jobs on the boards of insurance companies are waiting for those retired from office politicians?

[hifiguy]

91. Precisely.

[Marr]

158. Gay marriage wasn't possible either, not so long ago.

If you want something, you push for it. You don't start with 'what will the opposition accept', and negotiate from there.

[Adrahil]

157. Her's the thing...

There was s no fucking way a singlepayer system would have passed. None.

Sometimes progress must be inremental. We got the ACA, and it's a step n the right direction. Heck, I'm not even sure I want single payer, though I DO want a public option.

[Cleita]

165. Yes, as long as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are

writing the laws. There was no seat at the table for the doctors and other medical professionals who wanted to present their case for single payer. There were no single payer legislations put up for a vote. Yet, for the thirty five years I have been following this issue, every time someone puts up a straw poll on the issue, consistently 70% of the participants are in favor of it.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Out comes the names, I have found when the argument is going away from some then the

name calling starts. Name calling does not present facts.

[Doctor_J]

35. Come in from the (brain) dead zone, Sancho

Heritage Care (locking Big Insurance into the government forever), Race To The Bottom, proposal to cut social security, TPP, ANWR drilling, offshore drilling, fracking, refusal to prosecute the bankers, approval of firing all of the teachers in RI, continuation of the budget-busting presence in the Middle East at the behest of the MIC...

can we take Obama's word that the TPP will eventually be presented to Congress as something that's good for American jobs?

He's a serial liar, so I'd say no.

You members of the personality cult have really left the tracks. A pre-emptive thanks for destroying the party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, the sytem he operates in is.

[alarimer]

39. Basically, yes.

None of them are perfect, nor is ANY politicians deserving of absolute trust. You cannot put such faith in politicians.

I don't think he "has our back" when it comes to jobs or the economy, at least. I think we've been had when it comes to all these trade deals.

Yes, he talks a good game on some issues, and probably his heart is in the right place. But he is so very, very wrong on trade and the economy.

A lot of it may not be strictly his fault. There is far too much corporate money in politics and the lobbyists get listened to far more than we do, that's for sure.

[jwirr]

40. I woke up in the middle of the night composing a letter to him which asked that question. The

Obama we saw at the funeral yesterday was the one we all voted for. Yet there is the fact of his appointment of one Wall Street economist after another to his cabinet.

And then there is the TPA and the TPP. If the TPP ends up containing the leaked parts we have seen then it certainly looks like he is giving more power to the corporations again. Not one good idea for the people was leaked in this entire time. But now he has the authority to do what he wants with it. If the Obama from the funeral is doing a rewrite then it could be turned into something good.

He could put protections in the law to stop the rise in the cost of medicines from going up and help both us and the poorer countries of the world. The question is - will he?

He could make the treaty about helping the workers of those poor countries with both better wages and better working conditions AND put teeth in the law by using tariffs to enforce the laws. But again the question is - will he?

He could add laws that protect the world environment and put teeth in the laws by use of tariffs to enforce them. But will he?

He could protect the sovereignty of all the member nations by taking the power of the tribunal court out of this treaty on issues such as labor laws, environmental laws and worker safety laws. But will he?

The irony of it would be that he would then use the TPA to keep the changes safe from the R congress. But will he?

In my letter I asked him if there are two of him? We will see.

[polichick]

42. It's not just the TPP, but every step of the way he puts corporations first...

Right down to his administration officials.

This president "evolved" on gay marriage - basically following the political winds.

This president talks a good game but his justice dept. has failed to jail the banksters, yet non-violent drug offenders still languish in prison when he could pardon many of them.

The ACA has been great for insurance corps. - Americans deserve Medicare for all.

Is BP still operating in the Gulf? Has the arctic been opened to oil corps?

I could go on and on.


You better believe this president is a corporatist!

[JTFrog]

130. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! n/t

[treestar]

44. He must think it will do us good

I tend to believe him over internet people who wish to create a wedge issue and get a following parroting their claims about what it would cause. None of which make sense. Even the Republicans don't want us to lose jobs, etc. How would they stay in office. It's just paranoid to claim they are this cabal of "corporatists" trying to destroy us all.

Corporations are a way or organizing business, those who demonize them as such have no alternatives for a 21st century economy.

[BillZBubb]

92. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is just naïve to claim that corporatists are not trying to control the economic policy of the country to the benefit of corporate interests and ownership. As to jobs, corporatists don't necessarily want us to lose jobs, but they want to keep wage rates down and productivity up. If moving jobs offshore boosts the bottom line, they are all for it. And they'll blame "lack of competitiveness" or "union labor" or "government regulations" or "taxes" as the culprit.

Some, like Obama, may feel that such policy is beneficial to the country. Certainly, the Koch brothers and their ilk do, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous.

No one is objecting to how business is organized. That is a strawman.

[treestar]

116. Everyone wants business to continue to do well.

Nobody has an interest in it failing. And there are a lot of people here who blame everything on "the corporations" as if we could shut them all down and still eat, etc. Things are organized efficiently where large economics of scale keep prices down for everyone. It's ridiculous the people here who demonize that.

[restorefreedom]

50. yes.

i don't use it as a slam, but i can't describe anyone who supports the tpp as anything else.

the tpp is all about corporate power consolidation. it is not good for jobs or workers.

i still can't believe he is for it.

[Art_from_Ark]

136. It's easy to believe he is for it

After all, he's an "'80s Republican", and '80s Republicans were all for trickle-down voodoo economics.

[restorefreedom]

149. almost forgot about the reagan years

good times.

[AZ Progressive]

51. If Obama's heart is in the right place, then that must say something about the current state

of our government and system.

That the big corporations and rich have so thoroughly gotten power of the government that Obama has to pay his respects and tribute to big corporations (in the form of things like the TPP) in order to be allowed to do good things for the people. Bill Clinton also had to pay tribute via NAFTA.

[orpupilofnature57]

53. I can't beleive the 2008 Presidential canidate said the things he did, and saw

the things President Obama has done .

[AZ Progressive]

57. Let me remind everyone that even Bernie the fighter has a history of being a pragmatist

Not even Bernie practiced all out war when governing. He also reached out across the aisle to get things done.

http://www.thenation.com/article/208849/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future

After he was re-elected in 1983, and voters swept in a more progressive City Council, Sanders gained a stronger foothold in City Hall. With the support of local Republicans and business leaders, he created the Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) to carry out his vision for more affordable housing, more locally owned small businesses, greater community engagement in planning, and job development.

Most of Burlington’s business leaders initially distrusted Sanders. They didn’t know what a socialist would do once he held the reins of power. But even many of Sanders’s early opponents came to respect and even admire his willingness to listen to their views and his efforts to adopt progressive municipal policies.

Pomerleau wasn’t happy when Sanders opposed his waterfront development plan, but he gradually got to know the mayor and came to admire his pragmatism, his bulldog tenacity to get things done, and his support for the local police.

To be sure though:

After Sanders’s re-election victory in 1983, business groups concluded they could not defeat him and thus had to work with him. But many businesspeople also saw that Sanders shared their interest in “development”—what he saw as “good development”—while opposing projects that would hurt middle- and working-class neighborhoods or victimize low-wage workers.

[orpupilofnature57]

96. 1983 Is no 1984, He was also the first Mayor of a city to indict the CIA , for

inciting half of our problems around the world .

[Vattel]

60. I am not sure, but he is corporeal.

[AZ Progressive]

62. Another thing one must consider about the TPP is that it's likely a hail mary pass

China is growing fast and sucking the center of the economic world to it. The United States government is likely desperate to retain power. The TPP is a hail mary pass to retain some economic power. And yes, corporations are milking the opportunity to put their dream list of legislation on it.

[Recursion]

90. I get why it's US policy but it's a fool's errand

Chindianesiadesh has more than half the world's population and the economic center is just moving back that way, period.

[TheKentuckian]

63. See, I don't care what he believes. It is a non factor as the road to Hell is

paved with good intentions and his pitch has essentially been the exact same bullshit used to sell screwing us over for decades even from Democrats.

Look at who he has listened to and appointed on economics, no matter how well intentioned he is wrong headed and villains and crooks dominate his perceptions.

[ananda]

66. Yes, and he always has been.

..

[GoneFishin]

67. Yes. He definitely is a corporatist. Never doubted he oratory skills. It's his actions I have a

problem with.

[hifiguy]

69. Is the Pope Catholic?

Do ursine mammals defecate in forested areas?

Do you even have to ask?

[INdemo]

78. Yes he is

its not just the TPP. Take a look at what he has done recently when he pressured Congress to pass a bill that included provisions that would weaken the Dodd-Frank bill. He is no longer a friend of organized labor because of the TPP and he so much and said so when Unions were pressuring Democrats with primary opponents.
Yes he is a corporatist and he has to please one hell-of-a lot of corporate contributors as Well as Wall St. from his 2012 run.

I voted for this guy twice. The first time because I believed his campaign rhetoric and the second time was a vote against Romney.

[DCBob]

94. What specifically is a "corporatist"??

I see this term thrown about here on DU a lot and I doubt everyone understands its meaning.

[orpupilofnature57]

105. Some would say fascist Lite, incorporating us with business, by force .

[Broward]

97. I don't see how there can be any doubt.

[joshcryer]

98. The founding fathers were corporatist.

FDR, liberal hero, was corporatist.

[orpupilofnature57]

106. Oh like Jefferson saying they were the new enemy ? FDR was a corporatist ?

[joshcryer]

108. Hamilton laid the foundation for corporate America.

It's unavoidable.

[orpupilofnature57]

110. And Aaron Burr was the best editor the ' New York Evening Post ' ever had, no doubt

Hamilton would of loved what was going on in the world today, because he was a usurping, opportunist who exemplifies what a Republican or morphed Democrat should be.

[joshcryer]

112. WTF are you talking about?

Burr was a POS of the highest order and Hamilton was probably the cleanest of the founding fathers...

[orpupilofnature57]

113. WTF ? He was an upstart who would have built another monarchy if given the chance , a real Bush.

[joshcryer]

114. He was an orphan who rose to the top.

This is so stupid.

[orpupilofnature57]

118. No it's the ilk who will do whatever they need to profit, Orphaned great people included, Corporatist

[pampango]

111. The stock market did better during FDR's first two terms than it has under Obama. Does that

make FDR a corporatist?

Also, many would say that FDR saved corporate America from its own excesses of the republican 1920's. Without FDR's action to moderate and rescue capitalism who knows where we would be today with respect to the presence or absence, the strength or weakness of corporations.

[orpupilofnature57]

115. He saved US from, not for Capatalism .

[Recursion]

143. Of course FDR was a corporatist

He wanted and needed a strong corporate sector to aid in the reorganisation of the US economy.

He was lambasted for his corporatism by progressives like Strom Thurmond.

[orpupilofnature57]

145. Reorganize ?? You mean organize, and this is how much he liked corporations..

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html

[Recursion]

146. That's a Jefferson quote

Jefferson opposed corporations, as did his Republican party (no relation to the current GOP).

Our party which descended from it was fearful of corporations for most of the 19th century and delayed or prevented all kinds of infrastructure development (look at our absurd opposition to a national bank for so long). FDR largely turned that around and founded a coalition that included large powerful national corporations rather than the hodgepodge of local corporations that were the norm before the 1930s.

[orpupilofnature57]

147. I'm sorry didn't mean to confuse presidents and centuries, those coalitions you speak of created

the TVA, WPA and those things that were direct benifit to Citizens and the infrastructure, unfortunatly his TPP was the MIC .

[Recursion]

148. His TPP was the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the Ex-Im bank

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/export-import-bank

[dflprincess]

128. The Founders had a fairly healthly distrust of corporations

government support of them thanks largely to the East India Tea Company.

[joshcryer]

129. You had the Jefferson and Hamilton camps.

Jefferson was for small government, libertarian type.

Hamilton was for a strong central government.

Hamilton won.

[orpupilofnature57]

132. We lost .

[joshcryer]

140. Oh man, if Jefferson won...

...we'd be in a heap of trouble. Dude didn't want any interference in corporations. Whatsoever.

[orpupilofnature57]

142. Agreed, Bailouts included, but your right he was a Libertarian . And

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html

[orpupilofnature57]

133. The first Halliburton .

[Joe Turner]

107. If actions speak louder than words "Yes"

Obama reaches into the Clinton playbook of triangulation frequently. Like Clinton, when it comes to social matters he frequently sides with liberals when it comes to economic matters its 3rd way all the way. He's a calculating individual that is quite insensitive the issues that effect working people.

[Fred Sanders]

120. Obama: Knock, Knock, Who's There?

[burrowowl]

121. YES!!!

Is he going to get a rich after presidency with Wall Street?

[lostnfound]

122. He's won a lot of battles that we needed him to win..corporatocracy just wasn't one of them.. now

It's time for Bernie. Bernie won't win what we need either, on corporatocracy, because we can't yet give him the congress he would need to do it. But he could move the ball down the field and shift the dialog.

Obama's successes on the battles that he did win puts us in a better position to move forward. He has strengthened the Democratic Party by getting ACA passed. He has weakened the Republican Party. De-fanged some enemies of progress. Gave us a couple of good Supreme Court justices. Possibly prevented economic meltdown and the shock-and-awe ravaging of our political system that the Republicans would have pushed in response (i.e., austerity / dismantling of Social Security).

His term isn't over yet, either.

[99Forever]

124. In a word, yes.

Actions, not words say so.

[TheFarseer]

125. I can't decide

Does he actually think this is good for some reason or is trying to nail down that job at Goldman Sachs or Monsanto when his term is up? I seriously don't know.

[SusanCalvin]

126. I have formulated an opinion about TPP

I think he has been convinced, or threatened, that the world economy will crash without it. And that that must be kept secret from us peons, or the mere rumor will crash it.

I don't think he is a bad man. As a matter of fact, I'd like to hug his neck and thank him for a number of things.

But I think corporations have WAY too much power.

[restorefreedom]

151. i have no doubt

that powerful economic and corporate voices convinced him of the "desperate need" to get tpp through.

and i know he is not an economist, but he is so freakin smart it saddens me that he went along with it amd didn.t consult others. i am sure bernie could have put him in touch with economy experts would have said the opposite.

guess there isn.t much to do now but see what happens

[cantbeserious]

127. Has This Question Already Been Answered By past Actions

eom

[DCBob]

141. The "corporatist" confusion: Why a prominent political term needs to be retired -- The Salon

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

The term “corporatism” is in the news. Some on the left use it as an epithet, distinguishing between a progressive and a “corporatist” wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, as Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute has noted in the New Republic, some on the right accuse the Obama administration of a “corporatist” agenda of furthering the interests of well-connected corporations, at the expense of free enterprise. Conservatives and libertarians continue to describe the New Deal as a sinister “corporatist” arrangement allegedly inspired by Benito Mussolini’s fascism. And one Nobel Prize winner in economics, Edmund Phelps, has sought to stigmatize all modern industrial capitalist economies that do not fit his utopian libertarian ideal of a laissez-faire market system as “corporatist.”

When a word has too many meanings, it ends up spreading confusion rather than clarity. Confucius said that reform must begin with “the rectification of names,” that is, assuring that words and meanings be used consistently. It is high time to distinguish among the multiple meanings of “corporatism,” as a preliminary to deciding whether the phrase is useful or useless.

There are at least four different and incompatible meanings of “corporatism”: political representation by vocational groups; centralized collective bargaining among employers and organized labor; modern industrial capitalism; and “crony capitalism” or the corruption of public policy by special interests.

more: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/the_corporatist_confusion_why_a_prominent_political_term_needs_to_be_retired/

[RiverLover]

150. Salon.com 3/2015 Rahm has "corporatist worldview"...

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/01/rahm_emanuels_moment_of_reckoning_how_he_ended_up_in_a_fight_for_his_political_life/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

152. Actually, his being a corporatist was clear long before the vocal support of the TPP.

The TPP has been in the works since at least the Bush era if I remember what I read elsewhere correctly. But Obama's place among the corporatists has been a given since his earliest appointments of economic advisors and officials. Summers, Geithner, Bernanke and many others were clear indicators in his belief in supply-side 'what's good for business is good for America' economics.

Notice that I'm giving him credit for 'believing he's doing the right thing for America', but that it's done within the greater framework of his greater narrative of assuring that we do right by businesses and the wealthy, and that doing that will automatically help American workers. He thinks he's 'doing good', but that's because the advice he gets on what is 'good' is from his Republican economics team.

[raouldukelives]

153. i guess it all depends on if you think he gives more consideration

to private interests than to public ones, or even equal interest, when it comes to the question of creating a better world.

In the face of climate change, increasing economic growth for the sake of growth, is certainly something many shareholders desire, but not the general public at large and certainly not future generations or the voiceless friends in our dwindling natural world.

Compromise with genocide is a tough pill to swallow. If you hear a gagging sound, it might be because someone is choking on it.

[Adrahil]

155. I believe the President is a pragmatist.

That is, I don't think he's the kind of guy who wnats to "burn down the system." He believes, rightly in my view, that we have to deal with the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in.

I've been called a sell-out more than once. I can live with that. I do not like noble defeats.

[AZ Progressive]

169. I'm both an idealist and a pragmatist

My head's a pragmatist, my heart is an idealist.

Ideals are great as a guide, and if we don't fight with the ideal in mind, we will accept compromise in times that we would've gotten everything we wanted if we pushed hard enough (case in point: gay marriage and gay people not accepting the civil union compromise.) What we have to be realistic is how much effort it will take to achieve what we want, and do we want it badly enough? If we want it badly enough, no amount of effort is too much.

[Adrahil]

171. I almost completely agree with you.

I'm not a believer in the "if we work hard enough" meme. The fact is that there are things beyond our control. Dynamics that are not within our immediate ability to control. We can be most effective by recognizing those things beyond our control and making what progress we can with those in mind.

Like you, I'm an idealist in my heart, but a pragmatist in my head. Fortunately, most of the time, my head wins the argument in such cases!

[Romulox]

176. If the system is Right Wing and Racist, then being a "pragmatist" means supporting that status quo.

[Adrahil]

177. Nonsense.

I know the fervor of revolution lies in many hearts around here, but dramatic change CAN happen using the tools of out democracy. It just takes some savvy, effort, and time. Although it's imperfect, the ACA respresents the first progress in public health care since Medicare. That's important, even though some progressives reject it as benefiting insurance companies.

[betterdemsonly]

159. Yeah he is a corporatists

has nothing to do with sincerity. There are sincere corporatists. He cares somewhat about the gross racism that created the Charleston Massacre, and the Trayvon Martin incident, but that is self interests. He doesn't care about poverty, income inequality, labour unions, or public schools. Nor does he care about
more dominant forms or racism like the high incarceration rates less advantaged blacks, and some whites experience.

He was apathetic to gay marriage until 3 years ago, when he was seeking reelection and realized it was hurting him with some wealthy gay donors.

He is not up for reelection and it is Clinton's corporatism that matters at this point.

[haele]

160. No, he's a communitarian.

Communitarians put equal value on business interests as they do social and environmental when they cite a greater good as a motive. Unlike a progressive leader who weighs interests based on both on non-monetized costs to individuals (quality of life, equal access) and opportunity costs for the future.

He is a 1960's Republican. Pretty much in the Nixon mold, without the Nixon paranoia.

Haele

[TheKentuckian]

161. Yes, see his appointments, follow the money, and ask again honestly.

[sjk.fly4ever]

164. Is President Obama a corporatist?

I don't think so!!!

Stephan

[SCantiGOP]

173. Wish I could K&R more than once

Thank you for a well-reasoned and necessary post.

[Romulox]

175. He is absolutely a corporatist. nt