Does Everybody Hate Pres. Obama?
Article below provides support for my long-time thesis that the current president is a moderate who has no ideological constituency.
Barack Obama learned how to ?do? politics in Chicago & Illinois, first as a community organizer & then as a state representative. He learned the art of the deal--compromise--giving all parties something. He learned mutual back scratching & log rolling. It turns out that compromise no longer works in polarized national politics.
Obama's politics fall short of the ideological purity desired by the Right & Left.
Right-wing & Left-wing politicians have a constituency, but moderate politicians have no constituencies.
Robert Gibbs attacks the fringe losers of the Left - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Replies
62
SoWal Insider
General Motors Co posted its biggest quarterly profit in six years on Thursday, a day ahead of an expected IPO filing that would open the gates for the U.S. government to slash its stake in the automaker.
Good thing for us taxpayers/stockholders that not everyone (unlike futurebeachbum & Andy A) has sworn off ever buying anything from GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/12/news/news-us-gm.html?_r=1&hp
This is the rub because many Americans are taking stories/reports like this to heart. They are able to report such profits because there was so much debt forgiven....and, that is ultimately tax payer dollars that were forgiven. I didn't even have a choice in this. I am on the fence as to buy GM again (but, lean toward not); my family is historically brand loyal to GM - not so much any longer. ;-) Abolish the unions and I'll bet you'll see more consumers falling in love with GM again.
Beach Fanatic
General Motors Co posted its biggest quarterly profit in six years on Thursday, a day ahead of an expected IPO filing that would open the gates for the U.S. government to slash its stake in the automaker.
Good thing for us taxpayers/stockholders that not everyone (unlike futurebeachbum & Andy A) has sworn off ever buying anything from GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/12/news/news-us-gm.html?_r=1&hp
Well, voting with our wallets is about the only right we have left these days and when a company reaches the point that they are too evil, too corrupt or too inept, I stop buying their products. I think GM qualifies for at least 2 out of 3 on that list.
I've had Microsoft and Sony on my don't buy list for a long time and GM is on it now too. Its difficult to totally avoid companies like Sony who make computer components and own multiple movie and music labels, but I at least am able to avoid any products directly carrying their brand.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Abolish the unions and I'll bet you'll see more consumers falling in love with GM again.
When there were no unions, corporations exploited workers in many ways (long working hours, poor pay, dangerous working conditions...).
When workers came together in unions & forced corporations to work with labor collectively, many corporate abuses of workers were mitigated.
When unions became powerful, they sometimes abused their power & became corrupt.
Corporations have abused their power & unions have abused their power.
Ideally, corporations & unions should depend on one another & work toward common goals.
I don't think we want to abolish the unions & leave corporate power completely unchecked vis-a-vis the individual worker(s).
Moderator
Republicans have used, and insert the term "Democrat Party," whenever they can. It serves two purposes for them: it is their special way of dumbing themselves down for the sake of their very maleable base, AND it fosters the idea in their base's paranoid heads that there may be actually nothing democratic about the party--which of course is not true.
They are actually two different words with different meanings. All Republicans are democratic, but they are not Democrats (except the RINO's). Democratic can be used in place of Democrat, but the latter fits the bill better...
SoWal Insider
My guess is that most states if not all have pretty strong labor laws now.....and, if a State doesn't, Fed does. Collective Bargaining/Unions were a great institution up until about 1970. Arguably and factually, the Union Executives are benefitting monetarily off of the union member fees and negotiating power among the group. Why does a UAW worker make substantially more than a non-union worker? And, it makes perfect sense that the GM workers agreed to a reduction in wages. The alternative of no job or worse, a job sans union security didn't seem very appealing, which is another reason GM can show a profit for 2Q 2010. This was the first full quarter of reductions. So, GM isn't servicing their debt they owe to the American People (because someone announced they didn't have to), their union workers took a cut in pay and suddenly GM is an American Hero? NAH! Hardly.
So, to compromise, maybe not abolish the unions, but rather heavily regulate. I am for abolishing, however and have been since studying this in business school in the early '90's.
So, to compromise, maybe not abolish the unions, but rather heavily regulate. I am for abolishing, however and have been since studying this in business school in the early '90's.
Moderator
I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up. I've been sitting idly by waiting, but it hasn't happened. Good thing that GM is taking their new found wealth and reinvesting it in the US economy...
Yeah...they have unions down there, but they are paid far less than workers here.
IndustryWeek : GM to Build New Vehicle at Plant in Mexico
Yeah...they have unions down there, but they are paid far less than workers here.
IndustryWeek : GM to Build New Vehicle at Plant in Mexico
Beach FanaticAuthor
So, to compromise, maybe not abolish the unions, but rather heavily regulate. I am for abolishing, however and have been since studying this in business school in the early '90's.
It seems to me that corporations really run this country. Both major political parties largely do their bidding. The once-powerful unions have had their powers greatly reduced, while the power of the corporations grows steadily. The Health Insurance Reform Act--maligned as "socialist"--still leaves most people's health insurance in the hands of for-profit corporations. With unions now representing only about 12% of workforce, you're not far from getting your wish of no unions at all.
You say "heavily regulate [unions]." In a world without unions, would more regulation of corporations be called for? Or can we trust the invisible hand of the market to ensure that workers and consumers will not be exploited?
SoWal Insider
Things change and more regulation usually surfaces out of crises. Corporations are presently regulated in this Country.....arguably could be more or less depending upon your politics.
Unions today are no different than Affirmative Action in some respects....i.e. job security.
Unions today are no different than Affirmative Action in some respects....i.e. job security.
Beach Lover
Who are the "corporations?"
Beach FanaticAuthor
Who are the "corporations?"
Wal-Mart
Exxon Mobil
Chevron
General Electric
Bank of America
ConocoPhillips
AT&T
Ford Motor
J.P. Morgan Chase
Hewlett-Packard
Microsoft
Apple
Haliburton
Google on Fortune 500 for the rest
Beach Lover
My question was to make a point. I am sure you understand.
Beach FanaticAuthor
My question was to make a point. I am sure you understand.
I'm sorry if I'm stupid, but I honestly don't understand your point.
Can you explain it slowly & clearly for me?
Beach Comber
I don't hate him he is just a left wing radical that belong on a back bench complaining to keep true leaders in check!
Beach Fanatic
My question was to make a point. I am sure you understand.The simple answer to your question is...people. They are the people who create the technology, build the cars, washing machines and a myriad of other goods and supply the services we need to operate our businesses and lives. Some fail or don't wish to realize that a corporation is not an evil, underhanded and nefarious many headed monster that is absolutely against all that is for the benefit of the public in general. Look at the list that UB so generously supplied. Are those corporations headed by some unknown enity? They are made up of people, nothing more, nothing less and yes those people make mistakes just as you and I do. BTW, this applies to the unions composed of people who,also, are subject to make mistakes just as the corporations do. Nothing is perfect in this world but there are idealists who would try to convince you that such can be so.
Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
The simple answer to your question is...people.
Thx, Andy A, for clarifying Middlesister's post.
Then if I understand correctly, the corporations are ?us?--maybe in a similar way that the government is ?us?.
(We have met the enemy & it is us?)
I won't deny there's a germ of truth in this.
BUT, we need to realize that sometimes the interests of some of ?us? don't accord with the interests of the rest of ?us?.
Examples:
My health insurance corporation may be more interested in maximizing profits than in my health.
An auto corp. may be more interested in maximizing profits than in making my car safe or non-polluting.
A defense contractor may be more interested in making war than in making peace.
An oil company may be more interested in profits than whether or not it dumps millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Neither corporations nor governments are intrinsically & wholly evil, but we need to be wary of the power of both.
My original point was, that in my opinion, we've let the corporations get too much power [relative to the rest of "us"].
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Thx, Andy A, for clarifying Middlesister's post.While I understand your point, I find your examples in the extreme but then that is only my opinion as someone who is closer to the capitalist philosophy than the socialist one. And while you are correct about corporations and government, you conveniently forgot the unions which all hold a great deal of power considering they now represent less than a quarter of all workers. It is not their workers who hold their power, it is their leaderships, and they use use that power ruthlessly.
Then if I understand correctly, the corporations are ?us?--maybe in a similar way that the government is ?us?.
(We have met the enemy & it is us?)
I won't deny there's a germ of truth in this.
BUT, we need to realize that sometimes the interests of some of ?us? don't accord with the interests of the rest of ?us?.
Examples:
My health insurance corporation may be more interested in maximizing profits than in my health.
An auto corp. may be more interested in maximizing profits than in making my car safe or non-polluting.
A defense contractor may be more interested in making war than in making peace.
An oil company may be more interested in profits than whether or not it dumps millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Neither corporations nor governments are intrinsically & wholly evil, but we need to be wary of the power of both.
My original point was, that in my opinion, we've let the corporations get too much power [relative to the rest of "us"].
margarita brocolia
While I understand your point, I find your examples in the extreme but then that is only my opinion as someone who is closer to the capitalist philosophy than the socialist one. And while you are correct about corporations and government, you conveniently forgot the unions which all hold a great deal of power considering they now represent less than a quarter of all workers. It is not their workers who hold their power, it is their leaderships, and they use use that power ruthlessly..
So you are saying that you do understand that corporations, as with unions, can work in ways not in the public/members interest. Your earlier post almost sounded like you didn't see it that way.
.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
.I undestand quite well that leaders can influence their subordinates in one way or another. That doesn't change the general premise that I typed in my original post and it would be nice if you would see fit not to try and indicate that it did.
So you are saying that you do understand that corporations, as with unions, can work in ways not in the public/members interest. Your earlier post almost sounded like you didn't see it that way.
.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I find your examples in the extreme...
If I retract the defense contractor example, leaving only
(1) My health insurance corporation may be more interested in maximizing profits than in my health.
(2) An auto corp. may be more interested in maximizing profits than in making my car safe or non-polluting.
(3) An oil company may be more interested in profits than whether or not it dumps millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
will you still say that these examples are "extreme"? I wish they were extreme, but unfortunately, they're commonplace.
How 'bout:
(4) tobacco, alcohol & fast food companies may be more interested in profits than in our health?
(5) baby formula companies may be more interested in profits than the health of babies in third world countries where the FDA doesn't police them?
Andy A, these are not extreme examples--they reflect reality!
I'm not saying "eliminate corporations." I consider myself a capitalist--but hopefully not a predatory capitalist.
If you don't think corporations have too much power, do you think they have just the right amount of power, or should we cede even more power to them?
Beach Lover
Does Everybody Hate Pres. Obama?
Only speaking for myself, I don't hate him but do dislike him and I don't trust him. I worry about what he is doing to our country and how we will recover from his four years of service. I am not sure that he really has America's best interest at heart. His hope and change are not my hope and change. And YES, I AM A REPUBLICAN! (and proud of it!)
Beach Lover
I was being facetious in my response to ugabuga. AndyA got it. I was trying to make a point about how we can generalize things. There are some people out there who are truly unfortunate. There are a lot of people out there who do not want to take personal responsibility. Let us focus on the truly unfortunate and support lawmakers who are for personal responsibility. What do y'all think?
SoWal Insider
I was being facetious in my response to ugabuga. AndyA got it. I was trying to make a point about how we can generalize things. There are some people out there who are truly unfortunate. There are a lot of people out there who do not want to take personal responsibility. Let us focus on the truly unfortunate and support lawmakers who are for personal responsibility. What do y'all think?
I'm down with that. ;-) No party affiliation for lawmakers; simply merit and what he/she stands for......brilliant!!!!
Beach Fanatic
Yes - I've hated him when he was running for President and I HATE him AS a pPresident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He hasn't a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beach FanaticAuthor
People hate Obama even though he doesn't talk about gays and abortion--or guns
People hate Obama even though he doesn't talk about gays and abortion--or guns.
From article cited below:
People hate Obama even though he doesn't talk about gays and abortion - Barack Obama News - Salon.com
People hate Obama even though he doesn't talk about gays and abortion--or guns.
From article cited below:
...it's almost as if, in the absence of outrage over gays and fetuses, the organized right wing is just whipping up outrage over the fact that the president is a Democrat who supports Democratic policies!
People hate Obama even though he doesn't talk about gays and abortion - Barack Obama News - Salon.com
Beach Lover
I do not know why anyone would hate Obama. I believe he is well intentioned. I know you don't get to where he is without being intelligent. I can't imagine why anyone would want to go into politics, however, from what I know he has never run a company or met a payroll. This is going to sound strange but I really think the 60's were the beginning of what divides us now. I think that was the dawn of political correctness which is not a good thing. By the way, how do the beaches look?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.