KRUGMAN: "Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration."

[kpete]

The Old Enemies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010

So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.

Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.

How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.

Look, for example, at the campaign contributions of commercial banks — traditionally Republican-leaning, but only mildly so. So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.

These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann of New York magazine. What’s going on?

more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html?src=twr

[rurallib]

1. and of course this year the money can really flow thanks to SCOTUS

[dmallind]

2. But he's a corporatist DLC shill DINO in their pockets!!

How can they hate him as much as a good segment of DU?

Hell now the doomers are agreeing with teabaggers AND corporations. That's gotta grate a bit.

[jgraz]

43. Wow, corporate propaganda works better on you than it does on Obama.

And that's really saying something.

[dmallind]

50. Thanks for the compliment. I'd much rather be closer to Obama than doomer loons on DU. NT

[jgraz]

58. That much is obvious. No critical thinking required.

[JHB]

48. That's not as inconsistent as you may think

While the people who use the terms "shill" and "in their pockets" may be going over the top, he's still basically "pro-business" (as Washington defines it). But that doesn't mean he's sufficiently "pro-business" for corporate donors, either in reality, or just as a foil to better stampede Republicans in particular and Congress in general towards further reduction of corporate accountablility to anyone.

[theophilus]

3. Well, He must be doing SOMETHING right then. n/t

[Kievan Rus]

4. KKKorporate America is funding the Teabaggers!

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. For those that would make the case that this is becuase Obama's policies are hurting them

think again. This is solely because the Obama Admin. is not the complete carte blanche Admin of the BushCo crime family. Simply put, these corporations want complete, unfettered control over policy like they had with Bush. Even a moderately controllable President is not to their liking.

As an aside, one wonders why the Obama Admin would put up with this. The GOP had an entire K street policy that threatened and punished corporate lobbies that hired Democrats and did not pony up the bucks.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

6. sure they are

Of course, it could also be bread and circuses. Aren't we getting to the time period when plans need to be made for the next presidential election? Making it seem like *corporations are mad at us* is a GREAT set up to lead the sheep once again to the voting booths.

Considering how WEAK the financial *reform* is, and how BP has been given a free hand to do nothing -- I'm inclined to believe that Paul Krugman has been smoking some really fine shit lately....

[berni_mccoy]

8. And there it is. If you can't blame Obama, you can minimize the good he brings.

[KittyWampus]

9. So does a certain group of DU'ers.

[TwilightGardener]

10. No one here will believe it--they're too busy making photoshops of

Obama's "O" in the middle of BP's sunflower.

[rudy23]

11. Corporations "hate" Obama the way they hated the healthcare bill.

This is all PR, and all part of the show.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Ah, so Krugman is a corporate shill, shilling for Obama. Great argument bro.

[rudy23]

16. I'm saying just because someone is "hated", doesn't mean it's for a great reason.

Like the healthcare bill, Obama's drawing "hatred" for doing anything at all, instead of for doing what we would consider "too much."

[berni_mccoy]

19. You said "This is PR, just all part of the show".

Sounded like you were talking about Krugman. And if you weren't then you are saying the corporate hate is just for show and assuming Krugman is falling for it. Again, that's not believable.

Krugman is saying that Corporations have run wild under bush and are freaking out at the slightest reform and regulation. FDR faced the same resistance and he's calling on Obama to do the same. To say the corporations are showing their disdain for regulation is just PR simply is just not believable.

[DevonRex]

23. Bernie, they'd rather believe some obscure blogger with no econ degree

than Paul Krugman. They chose their meme and they're gonna stick to it no matter what.

[cali]

26. that's just silly

and uninformed.

[Lorien]

53. Bingo. Same ploy as continually calling the corporate RW media "liberal"

"please don't throw us in that nasty ol' briar patch!"

[rudy23]

66. Yes, they're "working the refs." I almost used that briar patch quote in my last post. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

13. Krugman said it himself

It's not that Obama is doing something radical with taxes/regulation it's that he's doing ANYTHING AT ALL. Just because he's doing something doesn't mean he's doing ENOUGH.

I think it's legitimate to complain about not going far enough. It's called pressure and it has a legitimate place in policy politics. But pragmatist that I am, I also think that if I can't vote for a socialist or at LEAST an FDR liberal, I'll vote for the lesser of two evils. Because doing SOMETHING is better than doing nothing at all.

Obama IS a pragmatic centrist policy maker. He never claimed to be anything ELSE. He'll move left when he's FORCED to, not before. As a centrist, he probably sees that corporations' pursuit of immediate profit hurts EVEN THE CORPORATIONS. So somebody's got to do something before the corps destroy THEMSELVES along with the rest of the country.

It's up to us to KEEP applying pressure to push him left on this issue (the MOST important issue IMO), but it's also up to us to keep the party in power that's doing SOMETHING rather than, by inaction, electing the opposition who will do nothing.

[jgraz]

61. Why wouldn't they piss and moan? Obama has already shown them that complaining works

When corporations screamed about the Public Option, Obama dropped it. When they screamed about CEO pay caps, Obama dropped them. They're screaming about Cap and Trade... any guesses on where that's headed?

Obama's already shown that his first, instinctive reaction to corporate whining is to buckle. The corporations are just doing what he's trained them to do.

[FarCenter]

14. There is also the principle that corporations give to politicians that they think will win

So part of the shift in contributions reflects a reassessment of probable success at the polls.

[Romulox]

15. Krugman = a useful idiot. He *poses* as a "liberal", but economically, he's a Chicago Boy. nt

[berni_mccoy]

20. Wow. Great jump of the oily shark. Good job Fonzarella.

[Romulox]

24. One wonders when, if ever, you'll begin discussing current events, and quit discussing posters.

I don't think you're capable of doing so! :hi:

[berni_mccoy]

27. When you say Krugman = useful idiot, it says everything there needs to be said bout you.

[Romulox]

30. Um, can anybody say Quod Erat Demonstrandum (I know Berni can't!)?

:hi:

[berni_mccoy]

32. Personal attacks. It's all you got.

[donco6]

65. Sez the guy who just called someone Fonzarelli.

But oh well.

[berni_mccoy]

69. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "Jumping the Shark" and its origin

It's not a personal attack. When someone calls Krugman a "useful idiot", corporatist and right-winger in liberal sheepskin, then they have quite literally, jumped the shark.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. heheh.

:evilgrin: :thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

57. I actually think it is the other way around.

There is a vocal group that calls Krugman a "corporate shill" for telling Obama to act more like FDR, etc etc etc.

But I think a much larger group (who may post less in volume) just rolls their eyes at these Obama-Krugman-corporatist-conspiracy folks. It really does get to a point where basically everything they say (even in isolation, let alone put together) indicates that none of these people should be (and for some, even want to be) taken seriously.

[uponit7771]

33. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously without a link after this show of not informed?!

[Romulox]

36. I don't take anyone who promotes Krugman but is ignorant of economic ideology seriously.

Krugman invents a test to "prove" that labor standards don't matter, for example:

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/berries.html

:hi:

[Romulox]

40. Oh up, I KNOW you've had enough time to read the article now. We taking things seriously yet?

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

60. baaaawhahahaha. freakin funny as hell. nt

[joeybee12]

17. Krugman really has become ludicrous....n/t

[berni_mccoy]

21. Another shark jumper. Great work.

[DevonRex]

18. Of course Krugman is now a shill.

:rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

22. Some of the responses above are truly, quite laughable. If they'd read the article

They'd realize it's a call to Obama to be more FDR like. But that would require *reading* the article.

[Redbear]

28. I certainly hope President Obama "welcomes their hatred."

Now would be a perfect time to do that.

[DevonRex]

31. I'm enjoying seeing them throw Krugman under the bus over this.

They can't take it back since he's been crowned as a corporatist. Once that happens it's all over.

:silly:

[berni_mccoy]

34. I'm sure they could take him back if he criticized Obama. Oh, wait, he *did*. But they'd rather

listent to a true corporatist like Norquist being channelled through Hamsher/FDL.

[Vinnie From Indy]

39. As are yours Bernie!

One need only review your posts on this thread to see quite clearly that rather than explain your position, you simply call people names. I find this post by you to be quite amusing. You scold others for not reading the article, but when you had the chance to actually offer your interpretation of Krugman's article, you refused and opted for labeling everyone and everything "anti-Obama".

Quite funny indeed! :)

[RainDog]

46. I agree with Krugman - it's what he's said all along

He noted that Obama didn't do enough initially with the fiscal stimulus and money should have gone to people other than the wall street banksters.

he has been telling Obama from the start that he's governing too much like a neo-liberal when actual progressive legislation and policy is needed.

This is also what more than a few on DU think as well. Those of us who think Obama has governed too far to the right want him to succeed and we agree with Krugman that success is contingent upon overturning the Reagan legacy that has brought us to where we are today in terms of financial and corporate regulation.

America needs a big jobs program to put people trained in manufacturing to work on infrastructure, for instance... another position that Krugman supports.

When Krugman was saying all these things, he was also getting attacked on DU by Obama supporters.

[BootinUp]

54. not just a shill, a Corporatist Shill apparently, lol. nt

[redqueen]

25. Well obviously the thing to do to improve the situation

is not vote for Obama or Dems ever again, for not going far enough... then when Republicans take over again, that'll really show these corporations who's boss.

[uponit7771]

35. Buh...buh....but....Obama is a corporatist pony!!!

[Dream Girl]

37. But Obama is a corporatist!!!!

Isn't he?

[Jefferson23]

38. Does anyone doubt Krugman is correct? I don't.

I have more than a few disappointments I hold the Obama administration responsible for...but I still count my
lucky stars McCain did not win.

Our country deserves much better than this, but how is that going to happen without public funded elections and we have a complicit
corporate MSM to boot that does not challenge Obama with legitimate criticism on policy. Arnie Duncan and his advancing charter schools
is just one issue, not just the Wall Street reform that is lacking.

The corporate pigs want it all, so of course they hate Obama.

[Romulox]

41. The Corporations get to grouse about who they like an iota less, we get to BEG for somebody

that we can say we like an iota better.

The power dynamic is evident.

[Jefferson23]

47. And it is that power dynamic that must be confronted, no one will

be shocked if Obama faces a third party progressive challenger. Yet we'll likely see that individual kept out of the
debates too. Some may consider that jeopardizing for the Democratic party, but I don't agree. Obama needs to defend
his policy choices and his staff choices too..Duncan, Geithner, Summers etc. The MSM will not challenge him, at least a
third party has an opportunity to do just that.

[jgraz]

42. Exactly why we need STRONG leadership to stand against these criminals.

The kind of leadership we've yet to see from the Obama administration.

[rudy23]

45. Teabaggers hate the President, too. Does it really mean anything? n/t

[readmoreoften]

49. Wow. Imagine how much they'd hate someone who actually challenged them.

I don't care if they hate Obama. I want them to fear Obama.

[BootinUp]

51. B...but, I read on DU that

Obama was a corporatist. They couldn't possibly do this to him.

[amborin]

52. Krugman forgot the sarcasm simile; Wall St. is relieved:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/24reform.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

[Individualist]

62. +1

His article is downright Orwellian; corporations hate the current DLC/NDC administration, up is down, day is night.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[AllentownJake]

55. They are pissed he asks them nicely to behave

Instead of patting them on the back, these fucks all need to be dealt with, and politeness is not the way.

[jgraz]

59. Don't worry. If they complain enough, he'll stop.

[Scurrilous]

56. K & R

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

64. Krugman backs his opinion with facts based on political contributions

Meanwhile DU's anti Obama brigade runs on something other than facts.

[Better Believe It]

68. And what do Krugman's facts show regarding 2008 Wall Street/Corporate political contributions?

They would probably show more corporate money going to the Democratic Party in 2008!

For 2009 Krugman admits that Democrats got 47% of "banks’ corporate PACs"!

So what's his point?

[Better Believe It]

67. Wall Street and big business give more money to whoever they think is likely to win an election.

In 2008 some major financial interests gave more money to Obama and Democrats because they thought the Democrats would sweep the election.

This year these same interests will probably give more to Republicans because they expect the Republicans to make major election gains in Congress.

They prefer to put most of their money on the "winning horse".

But, they always fund both major parties and most of their candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars in every election.

So Krugman's point is a bit off base and obscures this political reality.