An Iraqi American who wants to see peace and justice in the world.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Obama is pro business
Republicans like to say that Obama is anti-business. The truth is that Barack Obama is very pro-business. He is so pro-business he bailed out GM, one of America's biggest companies. It turned out to be a smart move.
I find it laughable that suddenly conservatives care about corporate welfare. You object to corporate welfare when Obama is President and said nothing when Republicans did the same thing.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Obama is pro corporation, like the Republicans are. Obama has been very helpful to the auto industry in America. GM is back!
One could say many things about Obama's help for American corporations. Socialism for corporations, or "corporate welfare". But when conservatives paint Obama as a socialist or even a communist, and at the same time they believe that Republicans are not socialists, they make themselves look rather stupid.
Read:
'So, there is now no doubt that Barack Obama was a “card-carrying socialist” in his early political career. But the GOP’s gleeful use of this revelation against Mr. Obama in the presidential campaign hides in plain sight a much bigger problem: Most politicians in America today, including virtually all Republican “leaders” like Mitt Romney, are socialist fellow travelers. Fellow-traveling Republicans have been an open secret since Richard Nixon admitted “We are all Keynesians now,” by which he meant that what Keynes called “New Liberalism” had won the day.'
Limited Keynesian programs work fine when you have independent balanced accounts for these programs. We are 3.5 trillion dollars in debt. Austerity is the only solution for massive dept. Most people, who were raised outside the privileged bubble Obama flourishes in, understand you need to make money before you spend it. Family wealth has dropped by about 40% in last four years primarily because of Keynesian programs infused into the housing market over the last two decades. Still to date, not one person has been charged with a crime for robbing the wealth of the middle class. The fact that Obama is a corporatist (“pro business” according to you) means nothing. His economic literacy is equitable to a teenage Hollywood princess celebrating her sweet sixteen.
John T. Harvey in Forbes today: "Today on Face the Nation (hosted by fellow Horned Frog, Bob Schieffer), I heard Mitt Romney add his voice to the chorus of those saying that economic recovery would follow if only we relieved the terrible burden that the government has placed on the nation’s job creators: business. Were taxes and regulations relaxed, this would reduce costs sufficiently to allow firms to do what they are already dying to do, which is expand operations.
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise."
"The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs."
dear mojo, I see your Obama Man-Crush is still throbbing.It's going to be hard on you,if OBambi goes down in November !! We'll just have to have a wake here for the Obama presidency, and help you get thru it. btl
I do admire Barack Obama. He actually worked hard and earned his degree. Like most Americans, he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I can relate to Obama. I cannot relate to Mitt Romney.
"When JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon testifies in the U.S. House today, he will present himself as a champion of free-market capitalism in opposition to an overweening government. His position would be more convincing if his bank weren’t such a beneficiary of corporate welfare.
To be precise, JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fund and our own analysis of bank balance sheets. The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy."
"According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric."
I do not recall conservatives complaining about corporate welfare in 2006.
You may not of heard conservatives loudly complaining because the Tea Party had not yet formed.
But times change and I'm sure you're glad there is now a strong voice against corporate welfare. And I'm sure it doesn't bother you that the roaring anti-corporate welfare voice emerged from the right.
I remember Ron Paul complaining about govt expenditure in general. But I do not recall conservatives complaining as loudly about corporate welfare and national debt in 2006.
I did not know that Ralph Nader coined the term "corporate welfare": "Ralph Nader, an American critic of corporate welfare,[2][3] is often credited with coining the term.[4]"
16 comments :
I find it laughable that suddenly conservatives care about corporate welfare. You object to corporate welfare when Obama is President and said nothing when Republicans did the same thing.
I'm not the one who calls corporate welfare "pro business."
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Obama is pro corporation, like the Republicans are. Obama has been very helpful to the auto industry in America. GM is back!
One could say many things about Obama's help for American corporations. Socialism for corporations, or "corporate welfare". But when conservatives paint Obama as a socialist or even a communist, and at the same time they believe that Republicans are not socialists, they make themselves look rather stupid.
Read:
'So, there is now no doubt that Barack Obama was a “card-carrying socialist” in his early political career. But the GOP’s gleeful use of this revelation against Mr. Obama in the presidential campaign hides in plain sight a much bigger problem: Most politicians in America today, including virtually all Republican “leaders” like Mitt Romney, are socialist fellow travelers. Fellow-traveling Republicans have been an open secret since Richard Nixon admitted “We are all Keynesians now,” by which he meant that what Keynes called “New Liberalism” had won the day.'
Limited Keynesian programs work fine when you have independent balanced accounts for these programs. We are 3.5 trillion dollars in debt. Austerity is the only solution for massive dept. Most people, who were raised outside the privileged bubble Obama flourishes in, understand you need to make money before you spend it. Family wealth has dropped by about 40% in last four years primarily because of Keynesian programs infused into the housing market over the last two decades. Still to date, not one person has been charged with a crime for robbing the wealth of the middle class. The fact that Obama is a corporatist (“pro business” according to you) means nothing. His economic literacy is equitable to a teenage Hollywood princess celebrating her sweet sixteen.
P.S. Your Obama loving Statist sycophantic propagandists will tell you the “wall street” caused the market to crash.
Poor Mojo,
He just doesn't get it. Bailing out GM was a pro-union move.
Government take-overs are antithetical to pro-business policy.
But leave it to Mojo to make the world conform to his views instead of the other way around.
They are Ezra Klein's views. But I do agree with him.
John T. Harvey in Forbes today: "Today on Face the Nation (hosted by fellow Horned Frog, Bob Schieffer), I heard Mitt Romney add his voice to the chorus of those saying that economic recovery would follow if only we relieved the terrible burden that the government has placed on the nation’s job creators: business. Were taxes and regulations relaxed, this would reduce costs sufficiently to allow firms to do what they are already dying to do, which is expand operations.
But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise."
"The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs."
dear mojo,
I see your Obama Man-Crush is still throbbing.It's going to be hard on you,if OBambi goes down in November !! We'll just have to have a wake here for the Obama presidency, and help you get thru it.
btl
I do admire Barack Obama. He actually worked hard and earned his degree. Like most Americans, he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I can relate to Obama. I cannot relate to Mitt Romney.
"When JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon testifies in the U.S. House today, he will present himself as a champion of free-market capitalism in opposition to an overweening government. His position would be more convincing if his bank weren’t such a beneficiary of corporate welfare.
To be precise, JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fund and our own analysis of bank balance sheets. The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy."
"According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric."
I do not recall conservatives complaining about corporate welfare in 2006.
You may not of heard conservatives loudly complaining because the Tea Party had not yet formed.
But times change and I'm sure you're glad there is now a strong voice against corporate welfare. And I'm sure it doesn't bother you that the roaring anti-corporate welfare voice emerged from the right.
Because you're a man of integrity.
I remember Ron Paul complaining about govt expenditure in general. But I do not recall conservatives complaining as loudly about corporate welfare and national debt in 2006.
I did not know that Ralph Nader coined the term "corporate welfare": "Ralph Nader, an American critic of corporate welfare,[2][3] is often credited with coining the term.[4]"
Did Ralph Nader come from the right?
Check out Ralph Nader in 2000 talking about corporate welfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICBH7OL_Fu8
Post a Comment