Is there any good reason for Obama to try to work with corporations?

[Ken Burch]

Poll question: Is there any good reason for Obama to try to work with corporations?

Shouldn't we just assume that ALL the wealthy will do nothing but hose us, no matter what?

It's not like(other than Soros)there's any such thing as a progressive corporate type anymore.

[Robb]

1. Corporations tend to employ people?

:shrug:

[quaker bill]

6. +1

[Avant Guardian]

7. ...before they destroyed the unions

Now they employ wage slaves

[hugo_from_TN]

59. I work for a corporation and I'm not a wage slave.

Also, I hope my corporation makes lots of money - it keeps me employed.

:hide:

[Avant Guardian]

66. Automakers in Detroit now make 14$ per hour

As go the unions, so goes the middle class.

[treestar]

67. +2

[ixion]

2. Yeah, work with them. Not let them write the damn laws

which is what happens now.

[cali]

3. sure. just wish I trusted him to do so

[Reader Rabbit]

4. If by good, you mean "good for *him*", then yes.

That's why all politicians work with corporations—it's very good for them...and their bottom line.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. work with which corporations?

We have a plutocracy. The problem isn't that our government works with corporations, it is that our government works for a small set of very wealthy individuals who control a few very large corporations.

[jobycom]

8. Do you even know what a corporation is?

I work for a corporation. It's a family-owned local business that's been around since 1934. It has five shareholders, all members of the same family that founded it in 1934. In fact, the man who founded it in 1934 is still the primary shareholder.

Ralph Nader has organized his concerns into corporations and has lobbied fiercely to protect corporate privacy laws (even using the whole "corporate personhood" concept to do it). I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that Michael Moore has organized as a corporation. Heck, maybe even Skinner. It's just a business construct, and the vast majority of corporations are small businesses, or even individuals, since there are some benefits for an individual to file that way.

It's just a legal construct that lets a business or non-profit be treated as a single entity instead of as a number of individuals. It helps them take legal actions, and it allows the public to take legal actions against them. You can sue a corporation instead of having to sue each individual who owns part of a company.

Your question makes as much sense as saying "Should Obama deal with people because some do bad things."

[el_bryanto]

9. Are you proposing a new economic system?

If not, than corporations are fact of life in America, and of course Obama should work with them.

Bryant

[KharmaTrain]

10. What's The Alternative?

Abolish all corporations and nationalize the economy? Attempt to tax them into submission? And this would create jobs how? I'm just curious as to how those who so detest the status quo would replace it with and how they would accomplish it.

[Ken Burch]

16. Myself, I'd advocate decentralized economic democracy

Not state bureaucracy, but as many small worker cooperatives as possible. Where large concerns are needed due to economies of scale, run them democratically, with, at least, an elected management that could be recalled by the employees at any time.

I'd also use something like the "eight to one ratio" rule that Sweden uses for differences in compensation between managers and supervisors.

The status quo cannot be made humane, my friend. The last two years clearly demonstrate that market capitalism won't tolerate any regulation at all.

We need to run the economy ourselves, from below, and for the good of all. It's that, or we'll grind each other into the dirt.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Thank-You For Your Response...

I'm not trying to be an ass about this, but I'd really like to know what people think can or should be done about the current kleptocracy. I'm too much of a cynic to think the "system can reform itself" but also that a majority in this country could support a massive change of the economic system. Call it the what could be vs. the world as it is. I tend to view things as how it fits in the current framework...not a very pleasant place to be, but its what we have to deal with.

I've long been an advocate of small business being the catalyst of economic growth but the deck is so stacked against this at the present time and I see only token moves (a little tax break here or there) that makes it all but impossible for a small business to start up yet create products and jobs. My hopes are the too bigs to fail will devour themselves...become so top heavy that they will collapse under their own largess. Unfortunately, if and when that happens, it'll be the poor and middle class that will pay the biggest price.

Cheers...

[MineralMan]

11. What would be the alternative to working with them?

Seriously. Our economy is corporate-based. You may assume whatever you like, but the facts remain that corporations are our economy. The President of The United States must always be concerned with the economy. So, what do you suggest he do?

[blindpig]

12. Don't negotiate, expropriate.

Of course that will never happen under any Democrat or Republican but is the only effective way to deal with these parasites.

[MineralMan]

13. That simple, huh?

So, describe the mechanism by which that can be done legally in this country, please. I can't think of such a mechanism.

[Statistical]

14. Magical communism faries?

Some people just think Obama can rule by decree.

There is that pesky thing called rule of law. Seizing privately owned assets without compensation is illegal.

Some would like to see illegal actions happen as long as they are illegal actions they agree with.

[Ken Burch]

19. dude, blindpig DID say that we weren't going to actually see expropriation under OUR current leaders

(although what you AREN'T seeming to get is that keeping the tax cuts for the rich, on profits made by the labor of their employees, is letting the rich expropriate from the rest of us).

[Statistical]

22. Forget current leaders. It would be illegal under ANY leader expect maybe Stalin.

[Ken Burch]

23. Wouldn't have to be Stalin...just FDR...

Get your mind out of the Cold War, wouldya?

[blindpig]

15. You can observe a prototype in Cairo right now. n/t

[Statistical]

24. You are aware that the Egyptian military owns most businesses in Egypt.

The idea that Egypt is some capitalistic state is a joke and ignores the reality of the situation.

Egypt is a socialist state with vast majority of the means of production owned by the state (military).

[Ken Burch]

26. It's owned by military officers, but run for their private profit

Egypt hasn't been "socialist" since Nasser died.

And one of the major reasons for the revolt has been the massive corruption and massive increase in economic inequality caused by thirty years of Mubarak's privatizations(btw, you did hear that that "envoy" we sent over was involved in helping the Egyptian ruling class get even richer by letting them use privatization to steal the Egyptian educational system, didn't you?)

There's no way you can paint what's happening in Egypt now as the people demanding that "socialism" be replaced with "market values". And, since the years since 1989 have proven that market values are the enemy of all progressive change in the world, why would you as a "progressive" still back them at all? Every time you make getting rich the main goal of a country, you destroy that country's soul and silence its poetry.

[Statistical]

29. Just because there is corruption in a socialist state doesn't mean it isn't a socialist state.

Lots of people get rich in socialist states. Egypt is no exception.
Still the means of production are controlled by the state, in this case the military.
That is the very definition of socialism.

I never said people are clamoring for free markets in Egypt but to paint the blacklash in Egypt as anti-capitalism is bogus. You would need capitalists in order for there to be a an anti-capitalist movement.


"Since the years since 1989 have proven that market values are the enemy of all progressive change in the world"
BS. Many countries have done exceptionally well with capitalistic economies. Finland (most all of Scandinavia), France, Germany, etc all have strong vibrant middle classes, labor rights, public healthcare, and social safety nets built on the backs of progressive taxation of free market economies.

[Ken Burch]

31. Nothing progressive has happened in any of the former Eastern European countries since 1989

I'm glad the Stalinists fell, but it was a betrayal of those people to force them to submit to the Western bankers and Western-imposed austerity after they freed themselves. No progressive or humane policies have been put in place in any of those countries. No "green" policies either.

[blindpig]

39. They have been going backwards ever since.

There is a lot of regret.

[Ken Burch]

40. Most of them wanted Scandinavian social democracy when they took to the streets

but, oh no, "The West" couldn't POSSIBLY let them be REWARDED for freeing themselves from the police states.

[blindpig]

34. Was, not is.

State enterprises have been sold off on a regular basis, and every time that happens new billionaires spring up. All part of the Mubarak kleptocracy.

[Statistical]

36. Is not was. The Egyptian military controls all key industries in Egypt.

Everything from construction and roads to major appliances and water treatment facilities.

The idea that Egypt isn't a socialist state is a joke. One needs to willfully ignore the reality to believe otherwise.
The millionaires and billionaires (including the so called President) are IN the govt siphoning profits from government run industries.

The idea that corruption, crony-ism, and wealth disparity can only exist in a capitalistic economy ignores the history of the last 100 years.

[blindpig]

63. The state does control strategic industries,

steel, for example. However state participation has dropped from 60-65% to below 40%.

One must also consider IMF involvement, that's the capitalist system writ large.

Yes, corruption is rife and socialists nations are not immune, that's why there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, to weed those capitalist elements out.

You should try to understand 'Arab Socialism', it probably has more to do with nationalism than Marxism.

[MineralMan]

28. And what do you think the likelihood of such a thing happening

here might be? It sounds like you're advocating an uprising. I don't see that as a likely or desirable thing. The United States is quite different from Egypt in its system of government. Americans are not likely to even think of that sort of mass uprising.

[blindpig]

33. The only difference is the degree of sophistication.

It's all capitalism, the form of government a matter of local convenience.

I think you have a low opinion of our citizens.

[MineralMan]

45. Not a low opinion - A good understanding

I think your idealism is clouding your view of the actual realities of the situation here.

[blindpig]

46. Not an idealists...

thems fightin' words.

Just a student of history.

[MineralMan]

47. An idealists? Is that something like a shrubbery?

No, you're not just a student of history. You're actively advocating something here. What you're activating is ill-conceived and poorly thought, but you're not just a student of history. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that your views are far more commonplace than they actually are. You're also forgetting about at least 90% of the US population, who would reject the sort of uprising you envision completely.

So, you're an idealist. You have an unrealistic view of what is and unrealistic expectations of the population in this country. Because of that, you will always be disappointed. You also appear to have a limited understanding of how the US government works. All in all, you've not suggested any course that is either possible or desirable in this country.

Now, that's idealism.

[blindpig]

49. Desirable by your definition perhaps.

As for the rest, time will tell. It has nothing to do with my views but actual conditions, and those are deteriorating. When the effects of all of this 'austerity' come home to roost then talk to me.

[MineralMan]

50. But, you see, I'm questioning your view of actual conditions.

That's where the disconnect comes in. It seems to me that you're thinking in black and white terms, and that seems clear from your signature art. I believe you have no concept of what the vast majority of people in this country think or want. So, you make broad statements about what will happen. But, those statements are not based on any sort of real look at those actual conditions.

You may think I'm satisfied with current conditions. That's a mistake. I'm in no way satisfied. But you don't present any concrete ideas about how to go about changing those conditions. It's all just another "Come the revolution..." fantasy. Well, it isn't going to happen. Not even close.

When you can describe a system that can work in a nation of 300+ million people and provide a better day-to-day life for a large majority of those people, then I'll begin to listen to you. So far, you've described nothing at all. So far, you've only rambled on about the need for the "people" to "rise up" and take over. Give me a description of how that would work and what would follow, and you'll demonstrate that you've actually thought about this a little. So far, I'm not seeing it.

[Ken Burch]

52. You're not achieving anything here by repeatedly declaring your contempt for blindpig's views

And YOU've presented no worthwhile "pragmatic" alternative.

The fact is, the wealthy have now made it clear that NONE of them will tolerate any humane values in this society(and no, pretending to help the homeless by using your American Express card to pay for a six-course gourmet meal doesn't count).

Before anything can change, the power dynamics in this society and this world have to be changed. The first priority is to take greed(at least as much as possible)out of the equation. Only then can positive motivation(the desire to work to make life better, to make the planet more liveable, to create beauty and poetry and magic)play a real role in life.

As long as we concede the notion that those who currently run things MUST run them, nothing can change for the better. Any government committed to "pro-business" policies and to "austerity" must, by definition, be committed against justice and decency and compassion. The last two years have made it clear:

The wealthy are the great enemies of the rest of us, and only when we free ourselves from them can the world finally grow a soul.

[MineralMan]

53. Actually, I've been presenting my alternative for a very, very

long time. It involves using the current political system to put people in office who will do as we want. The last election demonstrated that far too many people aren't interested in that solution. So, now we have a bunch of wacko teabaggers trying to make things worse.

You want to change the "power dynamics?" OK. Tell me how you plan to do that.

[Ken Burch]

54. Why do you still think it's POSSIBLE to use our current political system

to "put people in office who will do as we want"? In case you missed it, the Citizens United decision made that permanently impossible. Progressives, even watered-down liberals, will NEVER win an election again in this country now that the rich get to spend all the money they want. Nothing can defeat that within the existing system.

We need a culture of resistance...and that culture can't be built through hopeless election campaigns.

With Citizens United as the law, no one like Feingold or Bernie Sanders can win anymore. At best, we'll be allowed watered-down Bill Clintons for the rest of the way in.

We'll need massive civil disobiedience, on an Egyptian scale, to break the grip of money now. Otherwise, there's no hope at all.

It can't be worth bothering just to try to elect a few more cowardly centrists, which are the only kind of non-conservatives the Citizens United decision will ever allow to win again.

[MineralMan]

56. Nope. It IS still possible. Every congress member is elected

locally. The means are still there to elect good progressive legislators, if we're willing to. The 2010 election seems to demonstrate that far too many are NOT willing. That's a bad turn, and only facilitates the goals of the right.

Massive civil disobedience is not going to happen. Too many people are still living OK as things are now. Far too many for there to be any concerted and massive uprising.

Failing a rebirth of progressive spirit and political activism within this system, we'll keep moving right. That's not the correct path, but it's the path we're on unless all the people who are activists but who have given up on making the system work get back on track.

You've given up, but do not have enough people who believe as you do to actually carry anything off. You can fail either way. By trying to stir up some sort of mythical mass action or by failing to do something that has a chance of working. Your choice. I've made mine.

[Ken Burch]

57. I haven't given up on change. I've rejected the limits you accept

There's a difference. I'm no quitter.

And if people are "living ok" they won't vote for liberals anyway.

Face it...THIS system will never allow change again. We HAVE to change it, or build something new to replace it.

You've agreed to settle for crumbs.

[blindpig]

64. To paraphrase the Old Man...

'I do not write recipe books for the chefs of the future.'

Laying the ground work for them is job enough.

[L0oniX]

He's going to need their money for 2012 ...cause he ain't getting it from where he got it before.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Corporations exist

and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, so there will at least need to be SOME approachment/collaboration with them on some things though neither side will ever be completly satisfied with the other nor will the relationship between the COC and the Obama Administration ever be anything quite as cozy (or trusting) like they were with, say, the George W. Bush (mis-)administration IMHO.

[Ken Burch]

20. Corporations do exist...no one denies THAT...

but what you seem to be missing is that, these days, corporations have now made "capitalism with a human face" impossible. They won't stop until they've broken and starved ALL of us.

They're tyrants and you can't reason with any of them. No one in the corporate leadership of this country has humane values anymore.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. So what's your solution?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

27. I laid out one proposal in post #16

We won't ever have a fully non-market system, but we need one with as many non-market(and non-bureaucratic)elements as possible. Humane values only grow in situations where getting rich is NOT the primary goal.

[JuniperLea]

37. I like Norway...

Seems there's a balance. Socialist, no question, but there are many wealthy industrialists. The best part is, most of the people are very happy with their form of government. Some hate the taxes... pft. When you add up all the government taxes and fees we pay, plus the out of pocket health insurance, we pay just as much as the Norwegians, and we get a hell of a lot less in services. Plus, their infant mortality rates are lower, and their life expectancy is higher than ours.

[Ken Burch]

38. Norway's not bad either...although I'd like a system with warmer weather...

:thumbsup:

[JuniperLea]

42. All in due time!

I'm thinking Los Angeles will be unlivable unless the increase in atmospheric moisture continues to give us onshore flows, AKA "June Gloom" a term I take issue with personally:) Norway is on my short list... Seattle may be the new Los Angeles before too long.

[dkofos]

18. He must keep the corporofascists happy so he will be re-elected.

So he can keep the corporofascists happy.

[Ken Burch]

32. yes...this administration is full of corporo-philes

:eyes:

[Little Star]

30. Work with not work for!!!!!!!!!!!! There is a difference.......

He should work for us and work toward not allowing corporations to hose us or discard us.

[du_da]

43. Here is where the problem arises

the rest of our society views the owners of corporations as citizens on par with themselves and equally justified of representation and protection. We have a disconnect from the way we view a corporation and the way others view it. In their eyes each individual is their own little company and corporation are simply groupings of these individuals working toward a shared goal.

We have to convince these people that corporate owners ceased to be their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and neighbors.

[Ken Burch]

44. Good analysis, there. Thanks.

n/t.

[Locrian]

62. nice points

"the rest of our society views the owners of corporations as citizens on par with themselves and equally justified of representation and protection. We have a disconnect from the way we view a corporation and the way others view it. In their eyes each individual is their own little company and corporation are simply groupings of these individuals working toward a shared goal."

Not only that - but people model their own behavior after corporations. The model of externalize all cost and internalize all profit (ie selfishness) is the natural outcome behavior not just by corporations but by people emulating them in their lifestyles.

At the exact time that we need cooperation and true value (not $$$ value) we have embraced the selfish, greed is good model of zero sum.

[Better Believe It]

35. The Missing Option in this poll: Should Obama continue to work FOR the big corporations?

[creon]

41. Fact of life

Obama has to work with them.

[grahamhgreen]

48. Of course he should. He should tax them and break them up and make lobbying illegal and imprison

law breaking CEO's, and force them to list all of their convictions and settlements on all of their advertising material, and on their front door.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. To what end? Who would Obama represent when working "with" corporations? The people?

He has to have something to negotiate with. Such as taxes. With congress in the pockets of the corporations it's unlikely that, even if he wanted to, he could do anything but acquiesce to their endless demands. Which is exactly what he is doing.

[ReggieVeggie]

55. Is there a reason to think that a president's job...

would not include kowtowing to corporations? I mean, anybody who would put people over capitalism first and foremost would never be elected president.

[robcon]

58. Corporations are essential to the economy and freedom of the U.S.

There's no choice but to work with them.

[Ken Burch]

60. If you accept that, you've surrendered.

Accepting that corporations are our natural rulers(which is what you have to accept to accept the idea that there's "no choice but to work with them")means accepting that we can't change anything at all.

It leaves no remaining space.

The last six years of the Clinton Administration proved that. The non-rich made no gains at all in those years.

[bobthedrummer]

61. No, K&R, still in negative recland.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence is Fascism-ownership of government by an individual, by group or by any controlling private power."
FDR

[cynatnite]

65. They're not going anywhere. n/t