Obama has a choice to make: The People or the Corporations

[Postman]

Which side are you on?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. to be fair, not just Obama, all of the elected dems need to make this choice

and be strident and confident in public about it

[joeycola]

11. yes,

[tbyg52]

29. Really hard to make your decision on the side of the people

when you are dependent on corporations for your campaign funds. (And that includes Obama.)

[cascadiance]

33. THEN, whatever happens with health care, public campaign financing must be passed next!

Solves problems for them, and solves problems for us!

[tbyg52]

49. Bingo!

:patriot:

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. I agree. this will be a big time eye opener on our whole political process.

And therefore how deep the shit is that we are all in.

[AllentownJake]

3. He already made the choice

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Before the election, even. nt

[Toasterlad]

+2

[Individualist]

23. Correct

When Obama began surrounding himself with DLCers as soon as he was elected, the path he would take became obvious.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. That choice was made long ago

Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

[Buzz Clik]

5. This again.

Even if you cut the corporations completely out of the equation from his perspective, this is a hugely difficult task. Trivializing it with false dilemmas adds nothing to conversation.

[kentuck]

7. I don't think it's a false choice..

I think this is an indicator of how "corporate" the Democratic Party has gone?

[Buzz Clik]

10. That's been a theme of many, many posts at DU. Bill Maher has declared it so (his opinion).

The GOP is out of the picture in terms of any support, but they will be noisy and horrible in trying to drag down the process. Pressure is being applied to all Dems in Congress to avoid the public option. And Obama's role is to watch, be supportive, and apply as much pressure as he can to get at least something through that will provide insurance to the uninsured.

Pointing to a single aspect and declaring, "Support this unconditionally or you don't care about the people, only corporations" is ridiculous.

[mdmc]

8. well, he could choose corporations for the donations

and let the people choose between Palin and him in 2012.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Oh bloody horseshit...

there is no dichotomy here-- people ARE the "corporations."

The stockholders include your pension and savings funds. The employees are your neighbors. Small businesses by the thousands depend on them.

So, yeah, some corporate leaders are greedier than others and make shoddy products, skeez out of taxes, pollute the planet, and bribe politicians, among other things even more criminal.

But, the chair you're sitting on typing this bullshit, the computer you type it in, the cables it speeds over, the car you drive, or bus or bicycle, or whatever... all of it came from "corporations."

The point is trying to find that balance where they do their job while not destroying the planet-- not an easy task for anyone, and not made easier by setting up false arguments and strawmen.

[ddeclue]

13. No they are not.. the vast majority of corporate wealth is held by a tiny minority of the population

Just because you own a few shares of Microsoft doesn't make you Bill Gates.

Doug D.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. That's not exactly true, but even if it were...

what about the jobs, the capital investment, the research...? You cannot supply electricity to over 100 million households without some large industries being involved.

Or, perhaps you would prefer be Amish?

[Postman]

15. I'm not advocating elimination of corporations....

We do not need For-Profit Health Insurance Companies to provide basic health insurance. They are middle-men leaches that do nothing but pass money along....

Our government can do that more efficiently...

[TreasonousBastard]

25. I suppose, then, that we don't need...

fire insurance companies, either?

Health insurance companies in the US are out of control, but that does not mean the concept is faulty. Someone has to administer claims and count the money, which insurance companies are curretly contracted to do by various government programs right now. Bean counters and claims processors can do their jobs no matter who pays them-- the only difference is what standards they have to adhere to.

All this focus on insurance companies completely ignores countries like France that have fee-for-service and insurance companies, but have far more efficient and comprehensive systems for delivery of services.

(Has ANYONE involved in all this huffing and puffing over healthcare bothered to note the disappearance of the family practitioner?)

[Postman]

27. No comparison between Health care and Fire Insurance companies

The better analogy is our socialist fire dept's - we all agree to pay for in case any of our houses catch fire. Why are our houses more imporatant than our bodies?

Health care should be a right..

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Nonsense-- insurance of any kind is simply a pool...

to draw money from. Even Medicare is an insurance pool. The fire department would be more analagous to the doctor's office or hospital, but it's for paid by taxes.

I'm not arguing about healthcare being a right, but about the proper and efficient distibution of it. Universal healthcare can be achieved in many different ways, as Europe has shown. We all pay for it eventually, and the primary question should be how to increase the availibility of care, not the method of payment.

[laughingliberal]

43. The lack of family physicians has been noted in the debate

President Obama has talked about incentives such as help with the expense of education and higher reimbursements for those entering primary care. And, yes, someone does have to process the claims and so on but Medicare does this with a 4% overhead. The private insurance companies are at 30% overhead.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Medicare keeps its expenses low by contracting...

much of the work out to insurance companies. And I still don't know where that 30% number everyone throws out comes from. I was an underwriter for property/casualty companies for years and we never had expenses that high-- how could health insurance companies spend more than we did when they don't have the inspections, travel, and other expenses we had?

I've heard Obama mention incentives, but there have been similar incentive schemes for years and none of them have managed to stem the outgoing tide of family care slowly disappearing. A drastic overhaul of our entire system is needed, and dictating that from Washington won't be easy. Setting the stage for such an overhaul might be, but i'm not smart enough to know how to do that. I doubt any politician is, either.

[Hannah Bell]

28. "people ARE the "corporations." lol.

[tbyg52]

31. >>people ARE the "corporations

Yeah? Then how come the stockholders have no control over executive compensation? How come the interlocking boards scratch each others' backs?

[salinen]

12. Dems siding with corporations

Indecent exposure.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. As Bill Moyers said, You Really Have Two Corporate Parties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6421160


MOYERS: "The Democratic Party has become like the Republican Party-- deeply influenced by corporate money. I think Rahm Emanuel, who's a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama's re-election will come primarily from the health industry, the drug industry and Wall Street. He is a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won't be something in this legislation-- if we get it-- that will turn off those powerful interests..."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3f8_1251526869

[DCKit]

37. Then Obama should "Do Unto Others, Before They Do Unto You."

Given how close this fight is, the Corporations will want an (R) administration and majorities in both houses by 2013. The threats of new laws, taxes, regulation, re-regulation and Medicare 4 All have put the fear of Dog into them. They won't support Obama or the (D)s in Congress in 2012 if the option is going back to the lawless, unregulated days of BushCo*.

Take their money NOW and screw 'em over on all-of-the-above, 'cause they're NOT your friends.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. The problem is him working with Blue Dog and Corporatist Democrats.

Yes, he's a corporatist, too, but even if his heart is in the right place on this one issue where he's decided to put people first, he still has to confront DemoCRAPS who want to essentially CRAP on the people to protect their campaign contributions.

And a point that on a few people are making is that these DemoCRAPS who are in leadership positions represent only a small segment of the population. They come from very small states with very small voting populations. So essentially we are allowing a very small minority dictate the whims of the great, vast majority. That's the saddest aspect of this debate...

[rudy23]

17. I think he was hoping that "bipartisanship" would be the cover for his siding with corporations.

Now that that cover has been smashed by the right, he's got to sell us out in broad daylight. That's why they're stuck right now, and their message is splintering into so many directions. They're scrambling.

[laughingliberal]

44. I think that's exactly the situation

I do believe all this dragging out of the bipartisan negotiation was expected to be the cover for having to pass a corporate friendly bill. Now the Republicans have pulled their covers by saying they won't vote for a bill no matter what. So, he is going to be stuck taking responsibility for this giveaway to the insurance industry. Nobody but the for profit industry is going to be happy with this bill.

[Romulox]

18. Corporations cannot be harnessed, cajoled or tricked into giving us a just society

This "third way" lunacy must end. It is self-evidentally destructive.

[Vidar]

19. I'm afraid he chose the corporations long ago.

[kentuck]

20. I think it is premature to make that judgment ...

the President inherited a terrible mess with no good choices. Do you save the system or let it collapse? Do you save the banks and let the stock market go under, along with hundreds of billions in 401K's of average citizens? That was the advice he was getting, whether or not it was factual? But when you are sinking in quicksand, there is no time to argue about which rope to use to pull you out. When circumstances change, we will have a better idea of which side the President stands?

[subcomhd]

21. Proudly Kicked and Rec'd. nt

[Forkboy]

22. His nature seems to want both.

Sadly for him, and maybe us, that won't work on many issues.

[Echo In Light]

26. Who and why do you suppose hired his admin, and for what purpose?

Vested interests, or The People?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. Bush's "houseboy", huh?

[Laelth]

32. That's it, in a nutshell.

I hope he chooses wisely.

"The last thing this country needs is two Republican Parties." - Ted Kennedy

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hidden Stillness]

35. This is the Question That Decides if We Will Have a Democracy at All

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, 1938, proposing a Monopoly Investigation.

The two interests of Government and society--the citizens and their public general good, or commercial corporations and their consolidation of power and wealth--are always, and only, totally opposed. The one attempts to make a decent standard of living available, with things priced fairly and at prices that can be justified, to the most people; the other seeks specifically to cut the most people out, take the most away from the general population, reduce the activity of Government to the area and influence of the fewest people, and steer all privilege to the smallest, most powerful group. The two can never be reconciled, or compromised on. They do not relate, except as oppressor and oppressed.

The Democratic Party, during the time of the corporate "D"LC takeover, form the 1990s to this time, has been cursed with one slick phony after another, trained, rehearsed, with all the lines, only to set up yet another series of corporate proftiteering ties, and ignore the general good--from Bill and Hillary Clinton to John Edwards, from Barack Obama to Al Gore. It is not hopeless, it is just the same situation that people have been aware of for many years now, the takeover of the Democratic Party by this well-funded corporate Republican group. How to get rid of them--it is just the same question again.

[Leftist Agitator]

36. Well, the coroporations made him...

So who do you think he's going to side with?

If he were an FDR-type progressive firebrand, it would have shown by now.

He's a center-right pragmatic, which considering the last 8 years, is OK by me.

Obama is not the progressive that so many of us wanted him to be, but any change, no matter how incremental, is almost certain to be beneficial.

[cali]

38. how did the corporations make Obama?

[Leftist Agitator]

39. Cash-i-ola.

$$$

[cali]

40. bzzt. Obama's chief source of funding wasn't corporate.

[Hannah Bell]

41. yes, millions of small mom & pop donors sent him their pennies.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. .

:spray:

[ipaint]

42. Campaign contributions related to lobbyists

"While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital," Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.<10>
"Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform the capitol, Mr. Obama makes his policy clear in fund-raising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from 'federal lobbyists.' ... The Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobby operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in state capitals including Springfield, Ill., Tallahassee, Fla., and Sacramento, Calif., although some deal with national clients and issues," Morain wrote.<11>
"Obama accepts money from lobbyists' spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren't registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. The campaign says it is making a 'best effort' to stay away from tainted money," according to FactCheck.org following the April 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate.<12>
Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama "gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different ... But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists," Morain wrote.<13>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

Public Citizen relaunched the WhiteHouseForSale website for the 2008 elections.
As of January 9, 2008, Barack Obama had 356 bundlers, including 9 lobbyist bundlers, who have raised $78,915,507.

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009

[Deja Q]

47. Which side is more benevolent and supportive?

[fascisthunter]

48. it really does come down to this... and millions are watching (nt)

[earth mom]

50. It's not looking good for the people. nt