Krugman: Corporate America really, truly hates Obama

[NJmaverick]

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.

///

...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?
One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/24/15925/3452

[jaxx]

1. but but but he's a 'corporatist'......

Looks like he's the President to me and he's making them squirm. Good job!

[vi5]

5. But the thing is...

They'd (the corporate types) hate him anyway no matter what. So if that is going to be the case, and nothing he does will win their support then why not go all the way? Why not do what truly needs to be done.

It's just another extension of the whole naive "bipartisan" thing that gets many of us so upset. No I don't think he's a corporatist. Never have, and never have said that. We've done a lot of good thing but in such small bits and pieces, a little bit from their side a little bit from our side.

But we can still be dissapointed and upset with the whole "split the difference" approach that's been taken on so much stuff that's been done by this administration.

The fact is at some point we will not be in the majority and may or may not have the presidency. And at that time, the republicans will roll back whatever they can and erode away at our work. So if that's the case then we/he should be overshooting to such a large extent that even if 50% of what we want and need gets rolled back or reversed then we'll still be on solid ground.

There is something in between "YAY OBAMA IS THE LIBERAL DREAM AND NOTHING HE DOES OR SAYS IS EVER WRONG AND ANYONE WHO SAYS SO HATES HIM AND IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL!!!!" and "OBAMA IS A CORPORATE SCHILL WHO IS IN THE POCKET OF BIG BUSINESS!!!" I realize a nuanced and non black and white reality doesn't play well or isn't nearly as much fun on internet message boards, but it really is the case.

[zipplewrath]

7. False dichotomy

The use of the false dichotomy to defend Obama around here is extensive. So is arguing against the hyperbole. Yes, there is something "in between" and actually there are many things "in between". He doesn't have to be the spawn of satan, nor the second coming of Christ. He can be something in between and still be failing.

[jaxx]

9. He can be something in between and still be winning too.

Failing means nothing ever gets done.

[zipplewrath]

11. So you're defining success for everyone?

"Getting something done" isn't, in and of itself evidence of success. Bush "got something done".

[Dr Morbius]

13. George W. Bush was an extremely successful President.

For war profiteers. For oil and virtually all other corporations. For big pharma. For the filthy rich. For the rest of us, his success was disastrous. He was indeed successful, but he never was working for the American people.

[jaxx]

14. Oh please, it's too early to play games.

I said what I said, not what you responded with. Moving mountains can take time, invading countries can happen in a minute. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[zipplewrath]

15. you said failing was getting nothing done

Failing can also be getting the wrong thing done.

[jaxx]

23. LOL

Let's assume for a moment you know it all. Feel better now?

[zipplewrath]

24. So you're all about feelings?

Strange attitude for a discussion forum.

[jaxx]

25. Truly LOL

No, but I thought you were with those off the wall counters.

[zipplewrath]

26. Projecting

I believe that's called "projecting".

[NJmaverick]

16. The real question is why are you attacking, by using selective listening and reading skills?

[zipplewrath]

17. Cite

That actually wasn't the question. And you might wanna be more specific in your accusation.

[vi5]

27. Who did I attack?

Look based on every single post I've seen of yours you have chosen a path of extreme deference to and support of every decision Obama makes. Even before any or all details are out. And that's your prerogative. It seems to satisfy you and you seem comfortable with that decision and that's all that matters. I just happen to think that's every bit as short sighted and damaging to us politically as the approach to pre-decide that every single decision Obama makes is the wrong one.

And on most issues I freely admit in my posts when I've yet to fully read up on the subject and plan to. And when I do and come to conclusions that are less negative than the ones I started with then I try to post that as well. I'm sorry if you missed those. I just am by nature a skeptic and I think all politicians, democratic or republican deserve our skepticism. So my initial reaction will always be one of questioning and not one of a fond embrace. If that's not to your liking.....well then I surely hope that nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

[jaxx]

8. Nuance works with me.

We'll never get it all, but if we can get them cornered then the work really begins. So I don't know how you use split the difference and nuanced without saying both are acceptable at times. I think any rolling back has to have 67 votes in the senate to repeal a law. That ain't an easy thing.

[proudohioan]

12. Yes, I couldn't agree with you more on this one....

"So if that's the case then we/he should be overshooting to such a large extent that even if 50% of what we want and need gets rolled back or reversed then we'll still be on solid ground."

We might as well be going for the gusto, so to speak.

Thank you for posting. This is exactly how I have been feeling myself.

[pundaint]

19. Gotta disagree with that "little bit from our side" assertion. If you are a centrist, that may be

true, but the starting position with Obama always gives up the entire Left position. So to some of us it's giving up our whole side to address a small fraction of a great Right leaning imbalance, resulting only in a further tilt to the Right.

[vi5]

28. What I mean is more....

It's the position of "our side" that health care needed to be reformed. It's the position of "our side" that we should having financial reform. Unfortunately to your point too often that's the largest concession given to our side is the mere tackling of those problems.

[NJmaverick]

6. Yeah, it's funny how reality gets in the way of those memes

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

3. Dupe

[annabanana]

4. big fucking crybabies..

They can't play in the national playpen without an adult anymore and they are crying

[Writer]

10. PLEASE spare us yet another round of culture war politics.

And all of the analysis therein.

[Nancy Waterman]

18. One of Krugman's best!!

This article should go viral. K%R

[NJmaverick]

20. Agreed, Krugman has been on a roll of late

[mzteris]

21. corporate america, teabaggers, and

a whole lotta people around here. :(

[DevonRex]

22. Of course Krugman is now unqualified to speak on economic matters

since he's just a corporate shill. :sarcasm:

:rofl:

[chill_wind]

29. He was once very despised by the very same

staunch Obama supporters when he was equally critical. He better not slip up or he'll be on that same shit list again.

Krugman is Krugman.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

31. Exactly!

"Krugman is Krugman."

Not unlike Chris Matthews, he serves the ruling political elites by keeping us chattering classes confused and at each other's throats. In the end he supports all that is corporate controlled.

[NJmaverick]

30. Have you noticed that?

[chill_wind]

32. LOL!! Was it not you who has said "Krugman is a bitter PUMA

exploiting his economic credentials as cover for his personal agenda."?

Like I said, there was a time when there was a very ferocious and memorable anti-Krugman bandwagon by many of the same who now laud him,

To then add gratuitous mockery that his supporters can now be counted on to shift opinion is too funny and ironic for words, when it's the very same Pot and kettle stuff you are not innocent of yourself. And silly.

[amborin]

33. Nonsense! NY Times today reported how Wall St. is RELIEVED at the "reform" bill

[chill_wind]

34. AIG is crying big fat crocodile tears, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x537950

[Cha]

35. Thanks, NJMaverick, and

Paul Krugman~