If Obama Were a Corporatist

[berni_mccoy]

He would not have voted to increase the Minimum Wage while in the Senate.

He would not have signed the following bills into law:
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180)
Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)
Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (S. 2179)
Medicare Informed Choice Act (S. 1841)
National MEDiC Act (S. 1784)
Hospital Quality Report Card Act (S. 2359)
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Efficiency Act (S. 2247)
Healthy Communities Act (S. 2047)
Healthy Places Act (S. 2506)
Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 (S. 3822)
Lead-Free Toys Act (S. 2048)
Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act (S. 2053)
Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act (S. 508)
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151)
Mercury Market Minimization Act (S. 3627)
Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act (S. 3631)
Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197)
Chemical Safety and Security Act (S. 2486)
Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act (S. 2441)
Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress Act (STEP UP) (S. 2149)
HOPE Act (Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act) (S.697)
Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988)
Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180)
Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475)
Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988)

He also would not have signed these Executive Orders:
13494 Economy in Government Contracting
13495 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts
13496 Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws (Repealed Executive Order 13201)
13497 Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Regulatory Planning and Review
13502 Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects
13503 Establishment of the White House Office of Urban Affairs
13505 Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells
13506 Establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls
13507 Establishment of the White House Office of Health Reform
13508 Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
13509 Establishing a White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers

There is no way in hell a corporatist or a "tool for corporations" or a "corporatist whore" as some have called President Obama would have done ANY of the above.

[Rude Dog]

1. Like any of that matters.

The attack squads have their ammo. Now all we have to do is wait to lose the next couple elections.

[berni_mccoy]

2. It seems like all they have to do is say Obama is a corporatist and people here believe it.

[berni_mccoy]

3. Well, I guess the unrecs have it. Obama is a Corporatist because they say he is.

[Orsino]

4. Well, he's too willing to work with corporate interests to suit my taste...

...but no, "corporatist" is at least an oversimplification. He's no crusading progressive, but is willing to lead, very gradually, away from fascist folly and tyranny.

[avaistheone1]

98. Okay...Reasons favoring Obama as a corporatitst.

Aggressively opposed impeachment action against Bush

Had argued that conservatives and Bill Clinton were right to destroy social welfare,

Supported making it harder to file class action suits in state courts

Voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill

Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards

Had the most number of foreign lobbyist contributors in the primaries

Was even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain

Was the most popular of the candidates with K Street lobbyists

Was named in 2003 by the rightwing Democratic Leadership Council named Obama as one of its "100 to Watch." After he was criticized in the black media, Obama disassociated himself with the DLC. But his major economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, was still the chief economist of the conservative organization. Wrote Doug Henwood, "Goolsbee has written gushingly about Milton Friedman and denounced the idea of a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures."

Supported the war on drugs

Supported the crack-cocaine sentence disparity

Supported Real ID

Supported the PATRIOT Act

Supported the death penalty

Opposed lowering the drinking age to 18

Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont

Lent his support, as Paul Street of Z Mag noted, " to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. . . Obama was recently hailed as a Hamiltonian believer in limited government and free trade by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks."

Endorsed US involvement in the failed drug war in Colombia.

Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.

Came in at 48th in the ranking of senators by the League of Conservation Voters

Supported federally funded ethanol and was unusually close to the ethanol industry.

Promised to double funding for private charter schools, part of a national effort to undermine public education.

Supported the No Child Left Behind Act

Favored expanding the war in Afghanistan

- Supported Israeli aggression and apartheid.

- Favored turning over Jerusalem to Israel

- Wouldn't rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran

- Called Pakistan "the right battlefield ... in the war on terrorism." Threatened to invade Pakistan

- Opposed gay marriage

- Opposed single payer healthcare

- Supported restricting damage awards in medical malpractice suits

- Favored healthcare individual mandates that would help insurance companies and banks but not
citizens

- Wanted to expand the size of the military.

- Wouldn't have photo taken with San Francisco mayor because he was afraid it would seem that he
supported gay marriage

- Dissed Ralph Nader for daring to run for president again

- Called the late Paul Wellstone "something of a gadfly"

- Was ranked 24th in the Senate by Progressive Punch

- Said "everything is on the table" with Social Security.



...Now, with a rapidity that surprised even this cynic, liberals are feeling uncomfortable with, and some even mad at, their instant hero. What went wrong?

http://prorev.com/sam.htm

[Mari333]

100. +100

[WonderGrunion]

102. I have an issue with several of your "proofs"

"Aggressively opposed impeachment action against Bush"
Supporting impeachment would create a media and legal circus that would be of far greater benefit to corporations than opposing it.

"Had the most number of foreign lobbyist contributors in the primaries"
He was winning. Everyone piles onto the winning side. This isn't proof of corporatism.

"Was even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain

Was the most popular of the candidates with K Street lobbyists"
Same as above.

"Was named in 2003 by the rightwing Democratic Leadership Council named Obama as one of its "100 to Watch." After he was criticized in the black media, Obama disassociated himself with the DLC. But his major economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, was still the chief economist of the conservative organization. Wrote Doug Henwood, "Goolsbee has written gushingly about Milton Friedman and denounced the idea of a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures.""
And he was also palling around with domestic terrorists, you betcha. Guilt by association is unbecoming a progressive.

"Supported Real ID"
This would actually reduce the employment of undocumented immigrants and drive up wages which would be harmful to corporations

"Supported the PATRIOT Act

Supported the death penalty"
What do either of these have to do with corporatism?

"Opposed lowering the drinking age to 18"
Alcohol corporations would LOVE to have the drinking age lowered.

"Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont"
This had more to do with not openly opposing a colleague in the senate and pandering to the Jewish voting bloc than corporatism.

"Endorsed US involvement in the failed drug war in Colombia."
Not sure what this has to do with corporatism either.

"Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain."
It also supported funding for purchase of ex-soviet nuclear stockpiles, his primary reason for voting for it.

"Supported federally funded ethanol and was unusually close to the ethanol industry."
And opposing Ethanol research just supports Big Oil. This is a null point.

"Supported the No Child Left Behind Act"
Ted Kennedy helped write that bill. Are you suggesting he's corporatist too?

"Favored expanding the war in Afghanistan

- Supported Israeli aggression and apartheid.

- Favored turning over Jerusalem to Israel

- Wouldn't rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran

- Called Pakistan "the right battlefield ... in the war on terrorism." Threatened to invade Pakistan"
Not sure what any of these foreign relations positions has to do with corporatism.

"- Opposed gay marriage"
Almost every study I've seen shows that legalizing gay marriage would be an economic boon. This is an anti-corporatist viewpoint.

"- Wanted to expand the size of the military."
Any Democrat that doesn't take this position is only going to be seen as anti-soldier and will suffer electorally.

"- Wouldn't have photo taken with San Francisco mayor because he was afraid it would seem that he
supported gay marriage"
Once again, anti-gay marriage is actually an anti-corporatist position. Where do you get this motive from?

"- Dissed Ralph Nader for daring to run for president again"
So did Michael Moore and Bill Maher.

"- Called the late Paul Wellstone "something of a gadfly""
What's wrong with being a gadfly?

"- Said "everything is on the table" with Social Security."
Saying it publically and actually meaning it are two different things. It makes a good soundbite to shut down critics in the Reich-wing press.

Most of these things may be proof of him being more of a centrist or less of a true liberal, but have little to nothing to do with corporatism.

[tekisui]

107. Not sure what any of these foreign relations positions has to do with corporatism.

I scanned through. I stopped on this one. I can't take you seriously if you don't understand what 'foreign relations' positions have to do with corporatism.

[WonderGrunion]

108. I can't take your criticism seriously if you don't read the whole post

N/T

[tekisui]

109. LOL!!

:rofl:

Okay, I read the whole thing. I still can't take you seriously if you don't recognize the war machine as a corporate game.

[WonderGrunion]

111. I fully recognize the danger of the military indutrial complex

But there are reasons to support or oppose those positions that are both pro and anti corporatist. His positions on those may make him less pure as a liberal but are not necessarily indicative of his status as a corporatist.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

106. +1

...

[jgraz]

5. Please tell me you're not this naive

Obama also didn't:

Declare martial law
Order the immediate execution of all puppies
Pee on the Constitution during a live national press conference.


Wow, he's a regular Abraham Delano Kennedy. :eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

6. Did you *read* my post?

[jgraz]

11. Yes. It seems you don't understand how corporatists operate in an ersatz democracy

You need to enact enough cosmetic legislation to fool some of the people most of the time. I guess it worked on you.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Wow, dude, you ought to seek medical attention for that.

Like, in a hurry.

[jgraz]

19. On the other hand, some people just want to be fooled.

Or want to be fools. Take your pick.

[Individualist]

92. +1

[Junkdrawer]

17. Your Honor, my client couldn't have knocked over the bank...

He paid for his coffee at Starbucks this morning.

And yesterday, he paid for his groceries...

[berni_mccoy]

18. I see, you can't refute my post, so you resort to insults. Thanks.

[jgraz]

23. Looks like he refuted it pretty damn well.

Did you hear about George W. Bush signing those marine sanctuaries into law? I guess that makes him an environmentalist.

[berni_mccoy]

27. Why don't you just admit you hate Obama and will campaign against him in 2012?

[Hannah Bell]

48. why don't you just admit you'd defend this admin if it were sacrificing puppies on the white house

lawn?

[jgraz]

61. Oh, come on! Obama would never sacrifice puppies

Unless, of course, some Repug back-bencher demanded it.

[Hannah Bell]

32. rockefeller couldn't have been a robber baron & exploiter of the working class;

look at all the dimes he gave to poor little schoolkids.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Ahh...the very beginning of Public Relations...

They've become more sophisticated nowadays I'm told...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. Doh

I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.


- Barack Obama, Speech to a Joint Session of United States Congress, September 9, 2009

[berni_mccoy]

8. That statement doesn't make him a corporatist.

[jgraz]

9. Um... yeah, it does.

[redqueen]

12. So... anyone who doesn't want to put insurance companies out of business

is a corporatist?

Really?

[jgraz]

21. No, but someone who chooses corporate health over human health is.

And that's exactly what Obama is doing.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. This is not Obama Underground.

[berni_mccoy]

33. No, It's Democratic Underground and has rules, one of which is

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values."

Calling Obama a corporate whore or tool is against the rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Then alert the mods on that. What you said basically was, Obama love him or leave DU.

[redqueen]

29. Doesn't seem that way to me.

It seems to me like he's trying to strike a balance that most Americans can agree with.

[tama]

46. Could be

... and if so, so much worse for corporate Americans, to be able to blame only their most agreeable themselves. :)

[jgraz]

50. Who is he striking a balance with?

Most Americans *want* a strong public option available to all -- something that Obama has already dumped. This is not about balancing the needs and desires of most Americans. It's about balancing the needs and desires of most Americans against those of Corporate America.

And that is, by definition, a corporatist position. We're only arguing over a matter of degrees.

[redqueen]

53. Most Americans want a public option, yes... but a strong one, available to all?

Citation please?

The polls I've seen, when you get into the finer points of it, seem indicate that many aren't exactly sure what kind they want. This leaves the door open for all those in congress who water the bill down.

As for what Americans need, most of them haven't a clue what they really need, so that opens the door even further for corporate influence.

The balance isn't between two sides, it's between two or three sides in congress, and more than that among the electorate.

[jgraz]

59. Really? You have to have seen at least one of these polls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html

Q: In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

A:

    Extremely important ..........................41

    Quite important ..............................35

That's 76% in favor of a public option available to all.

[redqueen]

65. You don't think those numbers have softened at all?

Or do you not think the fluctuating support among the electorate is important?

[Hannah Bell]

66. support for the strong public option of single payer has been pretty consistent since the 70s.

[redqueen]

69. Citation please?

Sorry, but just you asserting it does not make it so.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but the numbers have actually softened quite a bit.

Reality... it might suck, but that doesn't mean you just get to ignore it.

[jgraz]

72. With the weak-sauce leadership from the White House? I wouldn't be surprised

Of course, at the time of the poll, the Public Option had already been dealt away.

[redqueen]

73. Yes... *only* the WH is to blame.

Totally agree with you on that. Totally. :eyes:

[jgraz]

75. The White House is not to blame for weak leadership from the White House?

That's a new one.

[redqueen]

78. Weak leadership from the WH is the ONLY reason for softer numbers?

There, I spelled it out for you.

[jgraz]

79. I never said it was the only reason.

How many other reasons do you need to accept Obama's weak leadership on this issue?

[redqueen]

80. You implied it... in the most pitiful and transparent way.

As for your little quest to prove Obama is a corporatist ... I'll let you engage in that nonsense on your own. Enjoy.

[jgraz]

83. Nope, you inferred it. I just said that it was one of the causes.

It's much easier to win an argument when you make up both sides, isn't it?

[redqueen]

84. No, you didn't say that.

But if that's what you meant then fair enough. Perhaps you should consider wording your thoughts more carefully in the future.

Enjoy the quest!

:hi:

[jgraz]

87. I really don't get your point here.

You admit that the White House has been weak on this issue, but you think that's OK if you can somehow show that..what? They aren't exclusively to blame? That it's hard to write extemporaneous posts in a way that they can't be purposely misinterpreted?

When we are finally, conclusively sold down the river on the public option, will you take some solace in the fact that you were able to draw me into a meaningless argument over wording? If so, I'm happy to be of service.

[redqueen]

88. My point is - I disagree with you that he's more concerned with corporate health over human health.

We got involved in this morass because you chose to try to prove that yes, he is actually more concerned with corporate health than human health.

It's a baldly preposterous assertion... but you and a few others have absolutely no problem not only believing it, but going on windmill-tilting posting jags trying to convince others that your idiotic assertions are grounded in even the most tenuous fashion to reality.

You failed with me... feel free to go forth, and fail with others! Or you can just do the circle jerk thing with the other haters. Eether eyether.

[jgraz]

93. No, really. The posts are, like, right up there ^^^

To recap:

I object to Obama trying to "balance" away something supported by over 70% of the population.

Even though this statistic is common knowledge, you ignore the central point and instead ask for a citation. You say you've "seen" some polls that show "many" don't know what they want. (no citation provided)

I do one google, and provide you a clear citation off the first hit.

You switch tack at lightspeed, asserting that somehow the numbers have since "softened". (You decline, again, to provide your own citation)

I point out that such alleged "softening" would not be surprising given Obama's weak leadership on the issue.

You switch tack *again*, admitting that Obama's leadership is weak but choosing to argue with yourself over your parsing of my post.

And round and round we go.


At no point in this exchange did you provide any meaningful discussion on ... well, anything. But certainly you said nothing about Obama's concern for people vs corporations.

[redqueen]

94. LOL... over 70%... there you go again.

I have to hope that you're only *acting* like you're not really keeping up to date with public support for a public option... but I imagine it's equally likely that you've seen the information you like, and are choosing to filter out anything else.

Good luck with the batshit insane assertions about Obama. :hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

95. 77% according to this poll done a few weeks ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Updated: 08-20-09 03:56 PM

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

Continued above.

It's an interesting read because polls are only as good as how the questions are asked.

[redqueen]

96. Yep! Thanks for including the detail...

re: only 43% being in favor of what we are all hearing that over 70% of people want.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

[jgraz]

101. Yes, 70+% want the CHOICE of a public OPTION

And Obama's proposal does not give everyone that choice. It will only be open to the currently uninsured.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[redqueen]

103. ...

"only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

113. The people who don't want it are Colbert's backwash.

[jgraz]

114. Actually, Colbert's backwash is in favor of Single Payer

I hear he has very progressive backwash.

[geek tragedy]

35. Yes, he's a sociopathic monster. Feel better now? nt

[jgraz]

54. I always feel better when I force you to break out the straw man arguments

Thanks. Was it good for you?

[geek tragedy]

55. You said Obama values corporate profits over human well-being.

People like that are sociopathic monsters.

Not my fault you so pithily summed up your hatred of the man.

[jgraz]

63. No, I provided *evidence* that he values corporate profits over human well-being.

You can characterize it however you want. But I would object to you calling our president a sociopathic monster.

[Hannah Bell]

68. just business. gotta break some eggs.

[geek tragedy]

71. You presented no evidence whatsoever.

You presented evidence that he has a different view of the best possible way--from both a political as well as a policy perspective--to increase human well-being, and CHOSE to interpret it as evidence of malice and bad character.

You described him in so many words as a sociopathic monster without any evidence, which is revealing.

[jgraz]

77. Really, you must quit calling Obama a sociopathic monster

It's against DU rules and I find it personally offensive.

[geek tragedy]

82. I don't think he values corporate profits over human life.

So, I have not described him as one.

[jgraz]

85. No, you don't *believe* he values corporate profits over human life

"Think" is such a strong word... best to only use it when it actually applies.

[geek tragedy]

86. You *believe* he does value corporate profits over human life.

Your belief is that he is a sociopathic monster, and you accuse him of it but play word games to deny it.

You hate him more than Joe Wilson and the Fleabaggers do.

[jgraz]

89. If that's what lets you sleep at night, go ahead and believe it

I'll just be over here at the adults' table.

[treestar]

97. They can go hand in hand

Corporations and insurance companies employ people. They aren't evil just because they are corporations and insurance companies. Maybe there are some jerks in high positions in them, but to condemn them as evil just because is not very rational.

I suppose you think your job is somehow better than those of the people who work for corporations or insurance companies?

[jgraz]

99. Yes, in fact, my job IS better

I used to have a job in the finance industry and I quit because of the moral problems. I'm not exactly curing cancer right now, but at least I'm not actively working to make people's lives suck.

I realize some people don't have a choice of careers. That doesn't make their work any better for society. If we need a government-support jobs program, perhaps we should choose one that doesn't kill people.

[JVS]

25. In the case of these companies with their death panels, I'd have to say yes.

[redqueen]

28. So... because they have death panels, they should all be put out of business?

I can't agree with that logic.

[JVS]

30. ROFL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[redqueen]

39. Seriously.

As has been pointed out already, private insurers provide services in most countries with better healthcare systems than ours. Putting them all out of business for their despicable practices may soothe the outrage junkies' craving for revenge disguised as some kind of justice... but inreality it's fucking stupid.

[berni_mccoy]

49. +1

[JVS]

34. "So... because they have death panels, they should all be put out of business?"

YES!!!!

[redqueen]

41. Yeah, I got your meaning from your little outburst there.

Thanks for the 'clarification' though.

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

37. By your logic, Obama is a murderer then?

[JVS]

44. No, but he is an enabler to an inhumane form of medical "care"

[berni_mccoy]

47. So, he's not a corporatist then either?

[JVS]

51. Being a corporatist is not mutually exclusive with enabling an inhumane system. In fact, it...

is a likely reason for the enabling. Or do you think that he has some other motive for enabling an inhumane system, such as sadism? If so, why do you think Obama is a sadist?

[berni_mccoy]

57. I'm asking you how your logic says he's a corporatist but not a murderer (or now sadist?!?).

You are not consistent at all.

[berni_mccoy]

14. You have no idea what the word "corporatist" means then. Furthermore, MOST countries with Universal

Health Care also have private insurance. Their model is more like HR3200 than a Medicare only option.

[Deja Q]

115. Raise your hand if your neighbor peddles health insurance!

:bounce:

(brownie points if you're friends with them and you spend all day golfing with them too)


The President has a point, but I still can't help mocking it. It's not a legitimate service when he himself adumbrated a few cases where indolence, delays, or other issues caused harm - or even death - to people.

[Truth2Tell]

10. Sure he would.

How else could he get people like you to go around touting ridiculous window-dressing lists like this one, unless he put up a little actual window-dressing. You can't fool all the people all the time... but you sure can fool a lot of gullible progressives.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Minimum Wage Increase = Window Dressing? Lilly Ledbetter = Window Dressing? You are NUTS.

[Truth2Tell]

112. THAT wage increase WAS window dressing.

Given the real demands of the American people for living wages, that little tiny droplet of phony change was a dream for corporate America. They couldn't have asked for a more wothless pretense of a bill. Nevertheless, the whole charade seems to have fooled you completely. Mission accomplished.

[firedupdem]

13. Rec'd and Thank You n/t

[jgraz]

20. If Obama Were a Corporatist

Would he have fought against TeleCom immunity for illegal wiretaps?

Would he have called for drastic cuts in the defense budget?

Would he have immediately fired Blackwater?

Would he have demanded Single-Payer health insurance?

Would he have required that bailed-out banks pay back executive bonuses?

Would he have proposed financial reform legislation that actually reformed the financial industry?



Oh wait... he didn't do any of those things.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Just because you say he is, doesn't make him one.

Voting for TeleCom was a security decision
He has called for cuts in defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/obama-calls-for-defense-s_n_162884.html)
He has fired Blackwater.
Only a handful of nations have a pure single payer healthcare system. Not demanding a single payer system doesn't make him a corporatist. He fully supports a Public Option, something a corporatist would NEVER do.
He supported a bailout to prevent a global economic collapse. He's already called for strict oversight of the bonus plans and asked the banks to return the bonuses. A corporatist would never have done so.
Financial reform is a work in progress. He established the TARP Oversight Committee and established the Financial Consumer Protection Agency to enforce regulations and protect consumers against predatory financial practices.

So YES, Obama IS NOT A CORPORATIST.

Even if you think he is.

[jgraz]

38. No, but when I offer actual evidence, that's another matter

Speaking of things not being as you say they are...

Voting for TeleCom was a security decision

Now how did protecting large Democratic donors from lawsuits increase our security?


He has called for cuts in defense

Weak cuts which he'll never fight for. (Keyword you're ignoring: "drastic")


He has fired Blackwater.

Flat-out wrong. They just had their contract extended. (Keyword: "immediately". Another case of selective blindness)


Only a handful of nations have a pure single payer healthcare system. Not demanding a single payer system doesn't make him a corporatist. He fully supports a Public Option, something a corporatist would NEVER do.

Actually, the kind of lame-ass public option that Obama is weakly dissembling about is exactly what a corporatist would propose. How do I know? It was proposed by a proven corporatist: Rahm Emanuel.


He supported a bailout to prevent a global economic collapse. He's already called for strict oversight of the bonus plans and asked the banks to return the bonuses. A corporatist would never have done so.

To paraphrase another poster: have you actually *read* his proposal? It not only has nothing approaching "strict" reforms, most liberal economists say it will make the situation worse and guarantee another bubble. But, of course, the Goldman Sachs gravy train continues uninterrupted.


Financial reform is a work in progress. He established the TARP Oversight Committee and established the Financial Consumer Protection Agency to enforce regulations and protect consumers against predatory financial practices.

OK, where's the progress? Has there been a single substantive reform proposed by the Obama administration? Have any executives been charged with fraud for collapsing the financial system? Has he called for an investigation of the original Bush bailout program?


So YES, Obama IS NOT A CORPORATIST.

What more does he need to do? Shave his head and start speaking Italian?


Even if you think he is.

Or, apparently, even if I clearly demonstrate that he is.

[berni_mccoy]

45. Evidence? It'd be easier to convince a Teabagger who lost their Job in January that it's not Obama's

fault than for you to admit the truth.

[jgraz]

52. It sounds like your "truth" is whatever you want it to be.

You go with that. It looks like it works for you.

[berni_mccoy]

56. As I said in this post (link for you)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6554030&mesg_id=6554480

[jgraz]

64. Wow, you provided a link to your own post two spots up

If DU has ever had better demonstration of circular reasoning, I haven't seen it.

[berni_mccoy]

70. Because, as Barney Frank so eloquently put it

"To talk to you would be like talking to a dinning room table and I don't intend to do it"

[jgraz]

74. Yes, yes, more insults.

In case you haven't notice, you lost the argument a few posts back.

Have fun talking to your furniture.

[berni_mccoy]

76. I believe your first response was an insult. But that's ok. I know that there is a double standard

for Obama and those who would defend him.

[geek tragedy]

31. And the Obama-hating jackals descend with their unrec's.

Because, facts complicate their mindless bashing.

[ddeclue]

36. what have you done for me lately? nt unreccd

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. The word "corporatist" reminds me of "Islamist"

[kjackson227]

58. Since the US is some-what a capitalistic country, he does have..

to work WITHIN this system, but to call him a corporatist or a "tool for corporations" is absolutely not true. The President COMPLETELY understands that he works for the PEOPLE of this country, and he has always been sympathetic to the plight of the people. Remember, that Obama was a community organizer. He's had the opportunity to go "corporate" a long time ago if he wanted to, but his calling was to become a voice for the people. Sometimes people are so quick to forget facts.

[TheKentuckian]

60. I'll bash yer noggin in defense of the President but I'd say he is a corporatist

As has been every President at least since Truman BUT he isn't an ideological corporatist but just facing the reality of global economies and products and information exchanged worldwide. He sees no method for putting the toothpaste in the tube, accepts the reality of these global companies, and therefore is working for a more sustainable and less punishing brand of corporatism.

The basic idea he seems to buy into is that if the almighty corporations don't include its customers/employees in some share of their success that the pitchforks and torches will eventually come and burn down the cradle baby and all.

[berni_mccoy]

67. This is the problem with people saying this. A Corporatist would push for MORE Corporate Control

of the Government. Obama is doing exactly the opposite. The GOP is a modern-day version of a Corporatist party. Obama is taking us in a direction that is the exact opposite of a corportist would take us.

[jgraz]

81. Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic

We already have a corporate-controlled government. A corporatist doesn't have to push for more corporate control. They just have to accept a good portion of what already exists.

[armyowalgreens]

91. If corporatist= fascist, I would agree. But I don't know that they are identical terms.

[Taverner]

62. K&R

:kick:

[armyowalgreens]

90. I can only think of a couple politicians who aren't corporatists. Obama isn't one of them.

That doesn't mean that he won't better this country. It just means that the people play second fiddle to corporate America.

[alarimer]

104. He is a corporatist for the simple reason that he will not endorse a single-payer system.

As long as the insurance companies are involved in health "care" we will never have true universal coverage.

[Emit]

105. Who names these acts?

'Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act'

Say that three times quickly.

[TheKentuckian]

110. I'm just saying he is perfectly willing to work with a corporate structure

he just wants to reform them not to eat themselves alive.

Realizing the corporations need some willing participation from us is not the same as wanting to put them under our heel or even at parity (which is impossible).

Your definition of a corporatist is to limited. There are capitalist, socialist, and about every other school of thinking to varying degrees from hardcore fundamentalists to barely practicing as well as mixtures of ideas. Hell, you can fight like hell for the people and still be a corporatist. I'm telling you Obama is just smart enough to see they'll kill the golden goose in no time if they don't cut the employee/customer in for a living cut.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

116. But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/