Barack Obama Inc.
November 22, 2010 7:50 AM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: Joe Beese, I think we've heard enough about Obama from you. -- mathowie



 
... leans decidedly farther to the left. At booths outside the main auditorium, young activists handed out pamphlets opposing nuclear power, high pay for CEOs, excessive profits for oil companies, harsh prison sentences for drug users, and Israeli militarism in Gaza and the West Bank.
Christ, it's sad that this is what passes for "far-left" these days.
posted by schmod at 7:56 AM on November 22, 2010 [10 favorites]


is this a joke? Industry needs to be regulated and Obama has demonstrated a shocking inability to do so. He's allowed Goldman and HBS to continue spreading chaos as the Fed and Treasury. What anti-business agenda?
posted by 1adam12 at 7:58 AM on November 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


U.S. in Vast Insider Trading Probe

Federal authorities, capping a three-year investigation, are preparing insider-trading charges that could ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders, and analysts across the nation, according to people familiar with the matter.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:05 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Dear America,

I love you but I worry about how your political system is based not on what people do and say, but what they look like on TV and in the press. Images are manufactured to represent a feeling, not a logical argument or well-formed plan.

Hopefully you will find a way to make your politicians less interesting and thus more useful.
posted by sixohsix at 8:05 AM on November 22, 2010 [6 favorites]


Anti-business image? Oh lords.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:07 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


OMG, Obama may give a speech and talk directly CEOs?! Have you no shame sir?!
posted by nomadicink at 8:09 AM on November 22, 2010


What anti-business agenda?

The anti-business agenda concocted by the pro-business PR and lobbying machine so as to force further concessions to business. One of the problems with corporate involvement in politics is that nothing is ever enough for a corporation. Take oil, for example. We lift the overshore drilling moratorium, but the companies want more permits. We could give more permits, but then they'd want looser labor and safety regulations. We could do that, but then they'd want to open more government land and offshore areas.

There is no end point. We could let them drill everywhere in the country with no limit and no regulation. We could ban electric vehicles and eliminate fuel taxes and they'd still want more. We could start devoting 100% of our foreign policy and military to securing more sources of oil for private oil companies and some executive somewhere would be planning how to get just a little more.

And oil is not special; it's the same for every single industry. It is simply not possible to be pro-business enough. It is an ever-shifting position, always moving toward greater privatized profits and more socialized losses and costs. This is not some doom and gloom slippery slope. One only has to look at the 19th century robber barons to see exactly where modern companies would happily go in order to make more money.
posted by jedicus at 8:11 AM on November 22, 2010 [43 favorites]


"Obama Is Preparing New Overtures to Counter Anti-Business Image"

And that's why we need a Left Wing Noise Machine. It doesn't matter anymore who is telling the truth. That's not how the Big Lie works. You need VOLUME.
posted by DU at 8:14 AM on November 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


What anti-business agenda?

What, you haven't heard? Obama is hostile towards businesses. GOP activists and leaders tell me so all the time on TimeWarner CNN. Banks and auto makers and other industries have been struggling against his socialist agenda; what to do with their bailout money, how many underlings to lay off, how to distribute their record profits. Business leaders don't trust Obama or his plans for the future. Who knows when the business tax cuts he's passed will expire - we need to have more, and make them permanent. Corporate spokespeople and 'journalists' inform me of this on CNBC every hour. It's clearly true
posted by crayz at 8:15 AM on November 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


The anti-business agenda concocted by the pro-business PR and lobbying machine so as to force further concessions to business. One of the problems with corporate involvement in politics is that nothing is ever enough for a corporation. Take oil, for example. We lift the overshore drilling moratorium, but the companies want more permits. We could give more permits, but then they'd want looser labor and safety regulations. We could do that, but then they'd want to open more government land and offshore areas.

This is not some doom and gloom slippery slope.

actually, that's exactly what that paragraph is.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:15 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


the solution is the sensible regulation that President Sarah Palin and Speaker of the House John Boehner suggest. These reasonable folks will take care of the regulatory problems the Obama administration has.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:17 AM on November 22, 2010


the solution is the sensible regulation that President Sarah Palin and Speaker of the House John Boehner suggest.

Boehner tears will save us?
posted by R. Mutt at 8:21 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


actually, that's exactly what that paragraph is.

Your quote stops just short of the bit where I refer to the well-known facts showing that it is not a slippery slope. This is a prediction based on past observation, not baseless conjecture. Given freedom to operate, companies behave in exactly the manner described. They will happily sacrifice low-paid workers for higher profit margins (e.g. railroad workers and miners), devastate the environment (e.g. strip mining), engage in anti-competitive collusion (e.g. the 19th century trusts), do long-term harm to the US in exchange for their own profit (e.g. getting cities to tear up street car rails in order to sell buses), hijack the US government for their own purposes (e.g. Smedley Butler's statement: "I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914...."), and generally stop at nothing if it means making another buck.
posted by jedicus at 8:26 AM on November 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


Dear America,
I love you but I worry about how your political system...


Dear Unnamed Western Nation,

Thank you for your concern. Unfortunately your opinions have zero effect on our politics. I can assure, you, however, that the same interests shaping our history have their sights set on you and yours.

Be wary, lest we become the model of your destiny.

Cheers,
America
posted by clarknova at 8:28 AM on November 22, 2010 [7 favorites]


Greed, by definition, can never be sated.
posted by Legomancer at 8:30 AM on November 22, 2010


Interesting, Obama often said, while campaigning, that if both sides weren't happy with what he was doing, then he was probably doing something right. Bet it feels a little different now that he's in the cage, as opposed to outside of it.

Otherwise post the contrasting view this post presents straddles the line between "but, but you promised" and "how dare you deal with to the business industry after they fought against you and your agenda". Which is really odd.
posted by nomadicink at 8:32 AM on November 22, 2010


the nice thing about having both parties trying to be the party of wall street is that wall street can play them off each other. it's important to remember that the hedge fund money in 2008 broke towards Obama.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:41 AM on November 22, 2010


I'm beginning to think that many users on this website have an extremely shallow view of how politics works.

Good thing we have you around to enlighten us, then!
posted by hamida2242 at 8:44 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


is this a joke? Industry needs to be regulated and Obama has demonstrated a shocking inability to do so. He's allowed Goldman and HBS to continue spreading chaos as the Fed and Treasury. What anti-business agenda?

How has Obama, rather than Congress, "allowed" or disallowed Goldman and HBS to do anything, especially?
posted by Riptor at 8:52 AM on November 22, 2010




How has Obama, rather than Congress, "allowed" or disallowed Goldman and HBS to do anything, especially?

An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan
posted by Joe Beese at 8:59 AM on November 22, 2010


Levitin in particular singled out the Treasury Department. “The prime directive coming out of Treasury is ‘protect the banks’ and don’t force them to recognize their losses.” That says it in a nutshell, and it was said in open testimony in Congress.


Uh, yes. You do realize that if the banks go down it all goes down, right? The Great Depression ring any bells? FDR protected the banks all the way. All the way. The idea is to string the losses out over a long period of time so that the damage to the economy is gradual. The banks are entities, not people. Hating them like people, which is what people do here, is for 14 year olds. Figuring out a strategy that will make sure that more people don't lose their jobs is what this is about.

Useless anger does us no good.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:03 AM on November 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm beginning to think that many users on this website have an extremely shallow view of how politics works.

Our current political system doesn't work and is broken seemingly beyond repair.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:05 AM on November 22, 2010


How has Obama, rather than Congress, "allowed" or disallowed Goldman and HBS to do anything, especially?

An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan


This is a logical fallacy called guilt-by-association. When asked to provide an example of actions allowed to be done by Congress rather than the Administration, no example is provided. Instead, a list of people associated with Goldman Sachs is presented. This does not answer the question presented, and is disingenuous.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:06 AM on November 22, 2010


Our current political system doesn't work and is broken seemingly beyond repair.

Its because no one takes the time to be informed or to write their representatives or the President.

I wish I was allowed a voting representative. You think you have it bad.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:08 AM on November 22, 2010


Its because no one takes the time to be informed or to write their representatives or the President.

Lobbyist money speaks louder than any informed citizen ever could. That is the problem. Also the fact that if you want to get money for your re-election bid you have to tow the party line. Letter writing will not and can not fix systemic problems.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:12 AM on November 22, 2010 [5 favorites]


I have a great idea for Obama to counter that "anti-business" image: he could just give $700 billion to the business sector, and then everyone would.... oh. Hm.
posted by gonna get a dog at 9:14 AM on November 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


Its because no one takes the time to be informed or to write their representatives or the President.

Maybe I could drag Jimmy Stewart out of his coffin and see if he might get some Boy Scouts to write some letters and knock some sense into the those corrupt Washington chuckleheads, by Jiminy!
posted by blucevalo at 9:22 AM on November 22, 2010


Uh, yes. You do realize that if the banks go down it all goes down, right? The Great Depression ring any bells? FDR protected the banks all the way. All the way. The idea is to string the losses out over a long period of time so that the damage to the economy is gradual. The banks are entities, not people. Hating them like people, which is what people do here, is for 14 year olds. Figuring out a strategy that will make sure that more people don't lose their jobs is what this is about.

Here's one: allow mortgage cramdowns
Here's two: ban CDS and all other fraudlent products
Here's three: pass a real jobs program

It's not so hard. Banks are made up of people. Very special people who get very special treatment.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:29 AM on November 22, 2010


The Divide.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:31 AM on November 22, 2010


Reworded: President Caters To Yet Another Powerful Lobbying Organization Pissing All Over Your Rights.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:32 AM on November 22, 2010


I have a great idea for Obama to counter that "anti-business" image: he could just give $700 billion to the business sector, and then everyone would.... oh. Hm.

Way to repeat your talking points like a good little soldier in the war on Obama, but that $700 billion dollar bailout was a Bush administration program, genius.

Or maybe you're talking about the $787 billion stimulus package, which was passed during the Obama administration. Except it was't a $700 billion gift to the business sector at all, since more than half of the total spending and tax breaks went to things like: tax breaks for couples making under $150k/year, supplemental payments for people on food stamps and SSI, extending unemployment benefits, subsidizing COBRA for the unemployed, and keeping Medicaid solvent.

Don't worry, though. Both the disgruntled lefties and terrified Tea Partiers are proud of you ( and overjoyed that once again their noise machines are louder than the truth).
posted by dersins at 9:34 AM on November 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm beginning to think that many users on this website have an extremely shallow view of how politics works.

Our current political system doesn't work and is broken seemingly beyond repair.


The current political system "doesn't work" for you... it therefore seems "broken seemingly beyond repair." In fact, it works exactly as designed for perpetuating wealth, which has been its primary purpose for at least a hundred and fifty years. The fact that the sociopolitical system doesn't benefit you doesn't mean it's not working; it's means you're smart enough to notice what's going on but not smart enough to game it into benefiting you. If you want to change that, fine, and oh by the way, good luck with that; but whining about a political not doing something it's not designed to do is silly.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 9:34 AM on November 22, 2010


I have a great idea for Obama to counter that "anti-business" image: he could just give $700 billion to the business sector, and then everyone would.... oh. Hm.

Ed McMahon didn't show up on Wall Street with an oversized check for $700 billion and a bouquet of balloons.

TARP, you don't understand it.
posted by clearly at 9:35 AM on November 22, 2010


« Older Polygamy in Canada   |   I meant the other thing. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments