Obama didn't do much bailing out, that's historically inaccurate.
He wasn't president for all of the bail outs, but he was for some, and he voted for TARP while in the Senate.
Sometimes it's better to do something than nothing. It's not like there was a reasonable liberal plan on the table, or one that stood a chance of passing.
The health care bill was written by Congress, it wasn't written by Obama, and Obama has voiced support in the past for a single-payer system, and was somewhat of an advocate for at least a public option.
But he did not veto it.
Because it's still a step forward from where we were. It's actually going to save the government ~150 billion dollars, as without the Bill, and it gets rid of horrible practices like not insuring kids for pre-existing conditions and dropping coverage for people when they get sick. There's plenty of good things in the Bill, and I'd say it outweights any of it's faults. Obama has a yes/no power over legislation, nothing more.
Cap and trade isn't motivated by some corporate desire, it's motivated by something else, so it's hard to say he's a corporatist for that.
His relationship with the CEO of General Electric, and the amount they would benefit from that legislation is more than eyebrow raising.
Yet hasn't Obama called for the end of all the loopholes and other suck things which allow a company like GE to pay no Federal income tax? Either way, we don't have cap and trade, and considering his stance on Global Warming, it's absurd say this is a decision made from corporatism.
And I think it's equally as weird to claim that corporatism is responsible for why Obama is involved in the Middle East, which is to let the fact go that Obama has reduced our military involvement in the Middle East in a lot of ways
The Iraq draw down followed Bush's time table. Afghanistan escalated under the Obama administration. Libya. Now Syria and possibly Iran. And as to why it's corporatism... fist Oil interests and then there is this: https://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/
I'm not sure it's corporatism to be interested in the oil fields. It's definitely true that everyone in the country benefits in some way from the low cost of fuel. It's imperialistic.
Iran? There's been no indication whatsoever that Obama has any interest in fighting Iran. In fact, everything I see is just the opposite. I know I've seen headlines about the Obama administration disagreeing with Israel on a military strike in Iran. You cannot blame Obama for Iran being a threat, that's due to years of horrible foreign police - on this I'd be willing to be we fully agree - most recently that of the invasion of Iraq.
Just so ya know, I'm not saying you're not bringing up points I disagree with - I just think it's wrong to say it's
Obama being a corporatist, or that those policies are in place
for corporatist reasons. Since we're talking about Obama being a Corportists, I sorta need proof that this is intentional, otherwise I say we're being a little unethical.
young people who voted for Obama in the last election who are now turning to Paul
Not sure if it's the same group of young people changing to Paul or if it's a new set of young voters, but this is kind of interesting. To me it says that young people see the need for radical change to the way things work. Obama was supposed to be a change, but he's basically more of the same in most cases. Paul (though at the opposite end of the spectrum politically) is a radical change from the status quo. It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.
Knowing most people my age, the problem is I'm not sure they all know how the government actually works. They have correct gripes against the Governmnent, but they have undue expectations of how much change a President, any President, can reasonably bring. Quick change is going to mean vast power, which basically means an expansion of Presidential authority.
Topic: Election 2012 (Read 234848 times)
