Obama Says He’s ‘Fierce’ Free-Market Advocate, Rejects Critics

[TomClash]

Source: Bloomberg


By Mike Dorning and Julianna Goldman

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market, rejecting corporate criticism of his policies.

“The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business,” Obama said in a Feb. 9 interview in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands tomorrow.

“You would be hard-pressed to identify a piece of legislation that we have proposed out there that, net, is not good for businesses,” he added. He predicted that legislation he will sign this year would cut corporate taxes by about $70 billion.

<snip>

“My goal over the course of the next year is for China to recognize that it is also in their interest to allow their currency to appreciate because, frankly, they have got a potentially overheating economy,” Obama said.

He said his administration is “going to have some very serious negotiations” with China that are “going to be bumpy.” China has held its exchange rate with the dollar steady since July 2008.

Obama discussed a range of economic issues in the 35-minute interview with editors and reporters.

He said he would press for passage this year of free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, though he cautioned that “different glitches” must first be negotiated with each country. He dismissed the idea of expanding the payroll tax break he proposed for small businesses to larger companies. And he offered a less-than-optimistic forecast for the legislative prospects of the “Volcker Rule” he embraced last month to bar commercial banks from proprietary trading.

‘Dysfunctional’ Washington

“Whether we can get it through Congress is always a question because, as we have seen throughout this year, we have a political process in Washington right now that is a little dysfunctional,” Obama said.

more . . .




Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDLk0lPYaSa0&pos=3

[AngryAmish]

1. .

[groovedaddy]

2. "The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and

then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business"
Which is exactly why re-election is problematic. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[TomClash]

3. This is the type of statement you make

when you want to be perceived as a centrist.

[tomp]

13. he goes on to say he is pro-business, meaning the left is correct....

....in their assessment. THAT is why re-election is problematic. many of the people who elected him have seen through his charade and he has now even admitted it.

[Iowa]

52. Yep. He doesn't even try to hide it.

He's no different than a Republican. He's just another shitty corporatist who conned the country into electing him.

[yava]

57. He is just rowing for himself, to keep the job for 8 years

He wants the non-teabag independents to prefer him to a Chritian extreme Right candidate that will emerge on the Republican side. Then he will get the vote of the Left any way but with a lower turnout for elections. All the rest is of lesser importance to him.
He will give to the Left when it costs less on the Right, such as greenhouse gas control, less agressive NATO, more support for clean energy, infrastructure building to create jobs (but lower-paid ones), promoting gay rights, talking about human rights in Iran and China (but not in Egypt, Arabia or Israel-Palestine), college loans (for increased tuitions!), credit for small business again to create low-paid temporary jobs, "talk" of universal healthcare, "talk" of campaign contribution limits, etc etc.
The only solution is the emergence of another Dem candidate in the primaries but for that, the Left must take over the grassroots Dem activities away from his unconditional supporters this year as the campaign really starts in 2011.

[Lorien]

68. He won't run for a second term

the Right won't vote for him because of his race, the Left won't vote for him because of the betrayal. Independents are not centrists; they're Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, teabaggers, agnostic conservatives, Baptist tree huggers, apolitical know nothings, and anyone else who doesn't identify with either party.

[maxsolomon]

71. he WILL run for a 2nd term & he will win

on nearly every conceivable measurement, he is still the best possible president. there is no "electable" democratic candidate that would be any different. HRC would be exactly the same.

and another republic would be a disaster this country won't recover from.

i think the difference is that i EXPECTED him to sell us out and still gladly voted for him, and will do so again.

[Iowa]

74. I agree with part of what you're saying...

"...the difference is that i EXPECTED him to sell us out and still gladly voted for him, and will do so again."

I, too, expected that he would sell us out, but that's where our agreement ends. I did not gladly vote for him... I did so reluctantly and only because I had a gun to my head (the "gun" being McCain/Palin). And I will not vote for him again. Obama is the first Republican I ever voted for; I will not repeat that mistake.

[maxsolomon]

86. so you didn't vote for Clinton?

again, turd sandwich or giant douche. the gun will always be there.

[depakid]

79. I don't think so

This interview- at this point shows that the administration is utterly incapable of framing a narrative and mustering popular support over time. When 2012 comes along and unemployment is still well above 8%, the people aren't going to be so forgiving of an administration who's gone out of its way to cover for and befriend bamksters and health insurers- among others, while at the same time alienating its own base.

[barb162]

81. Unemployment will probably be much worse in 2012 than it is now

and if he keeps talking pro-business instead of getting jungle capitalism under control, I wonder what will happen. Of course, the Republicans will be singing their same old tune that jungle capitalism is the best thing ever.

[depakid]

83. The administration's own projections for 2012 are 8.2%

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/business/economy/12usecon.html

I suspect that's optimistic and doesn't take probabilities like oil price rises into account. Or the inevitable scandals.

Add to that the chance of an ostensibly competent and ostensibly moderate Republican nominee- and it's not easy (nor rational) to be confident with the odds).

[barb162]

87. I bet one of these months they'll be revising those optimistic numbers downward.

[Joanne98]

4. When is he going to figure out that the conservatives are trying to get

him attacked by his own base? Making these kinds of statements just to please them is getting him into deeper trouble.

[TomClash]

5. He figures we have nowhere else to go

and he wants business money to keep the campaign coffers full and he may actually believe this.

But he will get no help nor quarter from conservatives. Ever.

[Better Believe It]

6. He fully understands that. There isn't very much for him to figure out at all.

[marshall]

50. He's already said he is not thinking about re-election

And would rather be a great one term president than a mediocre two term-er.

Perhaps he could be persuaded, depending on how things develop, to turn the reigns over to another man or woman come nomination time.

[Lorien]

67. I seriously don't think that he'll run for a second term

he's dropped plenty of hints already about that. Someone else will have to clean up the mess.

[marshall]

72. When is the last time we had a presdient who chose not to run for a second term?

I knoe LBJ could have run again, for what would have been his third term. Maybe he was getting pressure to not use that loophole, and anyway weasn't he dead before what would have been the end of a third term? So he might have had health issues as well.

It is actually refreshing to see a president who is willing to go balls out on his progressive agenda, with not obsessive attention paid to how it effects polls and re-election. I wish we had more politicians like that.

[theothersnippywshrub]

73. LBJ did run, but he withdrew when Robert Kennedy entered the race

after LBJ had only narrowly defeated McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary.

[Celebration]

7. Great!!

How about some real competition, instead of monopolies and oligopolies? How about the end to corporate welfare?

[earthside]

12. Bingo!

If Pres. Obama was indeed a "fierce advocate' for the free market, he would have directed the Justice Department to be bustin' up the mega-corporate banks.

And he would have asked for some real tariffs on imported goods that are killing our domestic manufacturing.

And he would have supported Sen. Dorgan's drug re-importation bill.

And he would be talking in that interview about a bill to outlaw "corporate personhood".

Sorry to say, I get more depressed everyday when this kind of stuff comes out.

I vote to end Bushism in November 2008 ... I'm not sure what I'm getting now ...

[change_notfinetuning]

17. You know exactly what you're getting - Republican free market philosophy.

You've stated it quite accurately with your examples. Capitalism for profits and socialism for losses. And the bribing corporation is always right.

[dgibby]

21. You're getting screwed. n/t

[Juche]

31. Plus the public option, plus anti-trust exemptions in health care

Private insurance didn't want the public option available to the public since they knew they couldn't compete with it (it would cost 5-30% less than private insurance but offer equal benefits according to various sources). So they blocked it.

It is as if GM prevented people from being allowed to buy Hondas because the Hondas were cheaper and better. So, ban the sale of Hondas then pass a law mandating everyone has to buy a GM. That is what the health insurance companies have done. Ban the public option, then mandate people buy private health insurance.

It is all very despairing. That isn't even free market capitalism. That is corporate oligarchy (banning competition, a government not strong enough to regulate corporations, forcing people to buy corporate products). When did corporate oligarchy become synonymous with free market capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

37. 1000% ++

[Doctor_J]

80. Yes. Corporations are people now. They should pay our tax rate

among other things.

[scentopine]

8. Another "centrist" is the last thing we need in this world...

Obama is ready to prove to Wall Street that he's just like them and is ready to sacrifice another million or more jobs here in the USA to prove it. It's all about street credibility.

Centrist
–noun
1. (esp. in Obama Admin) a member of a political party who empathizes with the need for corporations to make profits without the encumbrance of principals, morals, ethics, civil law or criminal law;

2. a politician who holds a smug composition of academic purity; takes path of least political resistance; deferential to wealth and power; conservative; moderate; realist.

[Toasterlad]

9. I'm Just Glad He's Telling the Truth About Being a "Fierce Advocate" For SOMEthing.

[earthside]

53. Zing! n/t

[Lorien]

66. Yep, it's just bad that it wasn't for the public option

or better public schools, or slowing climate change, or ending wars, or anything else that constitutes as positive "change".

[pberq]

16. good definition of centrist!

That hits the nail on the head. A centrist is someone who has a "D" after his or her name, but basically acts like a Republican

[Mari333]

10. this article explains in detail how he got there

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31961846/no_we_cant

[olegramps]

19. Thanks for posting this. It was very informative, but damn discouraging.

Perhaps, Hilary was right. He gives nice speeches.

[HughBeaumont]

44. Yes, because as we all know, there is no better progressive economic example than Hillary Clinton.

And in case you were wondering, that's sarcasm.

[Bigmack]

11. Why is he trying to push me away?....

I'm NOT a Free Market advocate. I want my government to stand up for me against the guys who want to squeeze every last dollar out of my pocket.

It's kind of an important difference between us.

Next time, I guess I've got the choice of voting for a guy I totally disagree with, or staying home and helping the Repubs win.

That's a double-bind... an avoidance-avoidance conflict.

That's a no-Hope choice.

[tomp]

14. that is the question. it is so obvious where his interests lie...

...and it's not with mine.

[Lorien]

65. Vote third party

if enough people do it on both sides it may shake them up a little.

[msongs]

15. Obaam endorses outsourcing and offshoring....what else is new? nt

[pampango]

20. I missed those endorsements. I think he does believe in the value of trade and knows that China

will have to be forced to "play by the rules" of trade that they agreed to when they joined the WTO. Bush ignored all of China's breaking of trading rules, so the problem just got worse and worse. When Bush didn't call them out and force them to follow the rules, they went further and further down the road of a mercantalist trade policy.

Obama seems to know that changing China's behavior will be a rough undertaking but is ready to do it. While I blame China and Bush for 8 years of exponentially growing trade imbalances, it's not uncommon for any of us to start to ignore rules that we find are never enforced. (If I drive faster and faster on my local highway and the police don't bother to give me a ticket, I might start to believe that the speed limit rules are a joke.) If Bush had nailed China the first couple of times that they broke the rules, things would not have gotten so bad. Now China is not happy with Obama taking them to task and yells "protectionism" whenever he institutes tariffs or other punishments that are allowed under trading rules to compensate for China's trading violations.

[TomClash]

22. He won't force China into anything

We act like we have leverage and we don't - unless we are willing to let their goods rot in their containers on their vessels and piers.

[pampango]

27. We have leverage on each other. The EU and US are their biggest markets which they need,

which is why they squeal about "protectionism" when Obama (or the EU) imposes tariffs. They own part of our debt. China certainly used its leverage over us better than Bush used our own leverage. We'll see if Obama does any better than Bush. I hope so.

Trade leads to interdependence; one of the reasons that free trade within the EU has led to decades of peace and prosperity. Progressives there realized long ago that having countries dependent on each other makes wars less likely.

[change_notfinetuning]

18. The first step is admitting you've got a problem. This is a problem. For the

future of Americans, progressives, and Obama, too, even if he doesn't get it just yet.

[MessiahRp]

23. I hope he's as much of a fierce advocate on this as he is for gay rights..

Because then he'll do nothing and all of this big business coddling will sink the way any real progress on gay rights has.

I remember everyone talking about the all star class of candidates for the 2008 Democratic field. Turns out the whole lot of them was pretty much garbage. Look how Dodd turned out. Or Edwards. And you had a known pro-corporatist with Hillary and an unknown quanitity in Obama who turned out to be just as bad or worse than the Clintons were.

There was no real candidates for the people... well maybe except Kucinich who was pretty much deemed out of the race before he began by the media.

Makes me appreciate the 2004 field so much more. For all of his lack of Obama's charisma, John Kerry would be one million times the President Obama is.

Rp

[mbperrin]

24. There are no free markets when the balance is tilted toward business.

Which is what he said they have done.

President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda


See, that's the opposite of a free market, where both parties have full knowledge of the transaction, equal power to participate or not.

Never has been a free market, but this is worse than ever. Why don't we just cut through the bullshit and pass a law that companies will work us for no wages and hand out whatever they feel like we ought to have in the way of commodities and cardboard boxes to live in? It would be far more intellectually honest.

[L0oniX]

25. Free markets? Free for who?

[Abq_Sarah]

41. Mega corporations

Who have laws written to specifically benefit them.

[robcon]

26. I agree with the president. The free market is the best way.

Interdependence of economies and free trade are the best ways to promote world peace.

[Juche]

33. We aren't a free market. We are a plutocracy

A free market, to my understanding, needs various regulations to promote competition and restrain the worst aspects of market economics (pollution, labor mistreatment, instability, risk, etc). People may disagree on the kinds and degree of regulation, but the end fact is that a responsible government has dominion over the corporate world and the power to force it to act in the public's best interest.

We don't have that. We are a plutocracy where the wealthy basically own the government and get to write the rules.

Compare it to the military. In a military dictatorship, the military controls the government and the public exist to serve the military. In a liberal democracy, the government controls the military and the military exists to serve the public. We are the former (except with corporate influence, not military influence). Corporations control the government, and we exist to serve them. Not the other way around.

[defendandprotect]

38. There is no "free enterprise" except for the wealthy ...

How could you possibly look at the corrupt system of capitalism and get

such an unclear vision of what it's all about?

Capitalism isn't about competitition -- it's about killing the competition --

The best way to promote world peace is to stop the elites from creating wars from

which they profit --

[dysfunctional press]

60. getting rid of huge inequalities is the best way to world peace....

which basically means that the western standard of living has to get knocked down a few pegs.

and here in the u.s., we're well on our way...:hi:

[Lorien]

61. Which is why we're killing people for their oil? nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. I have only one thing to say:

:puke:

[Lorien]

64. Let me join you

:puke: :banghead: :mad:

[seabeckind]

29. but...but...but

"Recovery not complete until jobs restored: Obama". I just read that somewhere (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4264917).

So exactly what was it that made these jobs go away in the first place? I thought that business of someone pissing on my leg ended a year or so ago.

[pampango]

32. "So exactly what was it that made these jobs go away in the first place?" - Not trade.

The EU has more free trade than the US does so that must not be the reason that our jobs have gone away. Perhaps is it our lack of progressive policies like progressive taxation, empowerment of unions and workers, a strong social safety net, strict regulation of business and the financial industry. And in Canada free trade is a much larger part of their economy, but their progressive policies make for a stronger economy with good jobs.

[WriteDown]

39. We should be more like Greece.

Answers are harder and harder to come by. What we need is Americans who strive to buy American products and are willing to pay a few dollars more for quality. Right now that doesn't exist.

[defendandprotect]

40. Amazing that we know that, but seemingly Obama and the Dems don't... !!???

This is a all game-playing --

and not for the benefit of labor!

[gulfcoastliberal]

42. Yeah, NAFTA has been great for jobs!

:sarcasm:

[pampango]

51. Yeah, we should never have let China join NAFTA!?!? Little ol' Mexico is really cleaning our clock?

If the EU can survive the admission of Romania and Bulgaria (and the free trade and open immigration that goes with it) which are both poorer than Mexico, I don't think Mexico is responsible for our economic problems. We just need the progressive policies that the EU and Canada have and we would welcome trade with Mexico as the rest of the EU welcomes trade with Romania and Bulgaria.

[Romulox]

59. Your EU schtick is stale; the Union is presently facing an economic crisis.

:hi:

[pampango]

69. We wouldn't want to learn anything from the experiences of other countries, would we?

Particularly from "old Europe" (as Bush would call it) which makes progressive government and open trade work together. Your "make the world go away", we have to do SOMETHING so let's stick it to the foreigners "shtick" gets old as well.

[Romulox]

76. Right, but you are advocating we follow the example of an economic union that is currently in chaos

You certainly weren't admonishing us to learn from their mistakes. If one didn't know better, one might guess you aren't a keen follower of the headlines on this, a forum called "Latest Breaking News"... :shrug:

EU Pledges Solidarity In Greek Economic Crisis, But No Financial Support

2/11/2010 12:06 PM ET

(RTTNews) - An informal European Union (EU) summit has pledged solidarity with Greece and "determined" measures to defend the eurozone but stopped short of offering financial support to the debt-stricken country.

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1209071

Europe's recovery stalls amid Greek rescue doubts

BRUSSELS — The German economy has ground to a halt as recovery stalls in the eurozone, new figures out on Friday showed, deepening investor unease over the EU's tepid response to the Greek debt crisis.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iE4UteDPX7Jr7zhaQzb7CA2LU9Hg

[pampango]

78. Indeed the EU has problems, particularly at the moment. Governments there are more progressive

than in the US, but that doesn't mean they are immune from problems. I don't know of any system or place on earth that is. (Certainly not ours.)

Despite their current problems their societies take better care of their people than ours does. I think that in the long run the EU has set a positive example of how 500 million people with different nationalities, cultures, languages and levels of prosperity can cooperate for their mutual benefit. They don't try to wall each other off, but to get rid of existing walls. When I was younger, that was considered a progressive way for nations to deal with each other. Perhaps European progressives are stuck in the past (with me) and don't realize that walls are now considered as a progressive solution to problems, at least to some Americans.

[Romulox]

85. Um, could you get back on topic--we were discussing your advocacy for neoliberalism, "free trade"

There is no logical correlation between greater rights for workers and more "free trade" (even if you'd ever started a thread regarding the former, which I don't believe that you have, despite starting scores regarding the latter! :hi: )

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Juche]

30. Corporate profits tripled in the last decade. 0 net jobs were created

Why would a corporate tax cut create jobs? If letting them triple their profits (from $500 billion to 1.4 trillion) in a few years creates 0 jobs, what is an extra $70 billion in tax cuts going to do?

Getting China to reevaluate their currency is a good idea though.

[HughBeaumont]

45. Maybe instituting a REAL progressive tax structure in our country will cure things.

You give the wealthy their taxes back, they're not going to give shiznite to us. History proves this time and time again.

What's the big problem with 40% as the TMTR?

[Jakes Progress]

34. There is business and then there is business.

It is a silly and empty statement to say that you are for business. It is disingenuous to claim that none of your legislation is "not good for business".

What is good for the couple running the pizza joint on the corner is bad for the giant restaurant chains. What is good for GE is bad for the local entrepreneaur. The kind of legislation that enable and helps WalMart, closes local stores, cuts off the support for US manufacturers, and raises the unemployment rate.

The concept of good for people and good for business do not have to be competing ideas. But it depends on what you mean by business. Free trade benefits the wrong businesses.

[burning rain]

35. There's an easy solution to his dilemma.

“The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business,” Obama said

He should give up the faux-populist rhetoric and be a frank conservative Democrat. Better to be known as a conservative, than a conservative and a phony.

[defendandprotect]

36. Welfare for the Rich -- Free Enterprise for the Poor -- !!

[Vidar]

43. Just more corporate welfare & private suffering. Somehow it seems familiar.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Goldfish]

47. Thank you for saying this!

This is exactly how I feel!

I joined DU several years ago, and although I rarely post, I
have enjoyed the
discussions here and have learned so much!

I recently sent a reply to a DCCC survey (which is just a
gimmick to ask for 
more money) and I told them something similar--that I no
longer recognize the
Party.  It has morphed into something else and I will
therefore give financial
support directly to LIBERAL candidates of my own choosing.

[Lorien]

62. Well said Bvar22! nt

[scentopine]

75. Excellent, thanks for this - nt

[Zorra]

48. Yeah, this fuckin' free market WTO NAFTA bullshit has just done wonders for Americans.

That's why our economy just about collapsed, the unemployment rate is realistically about 18%, and people are losing their homes at a record pace.

“You would be hard-pressed to identify a piece of legislation that we have proposed out there that, net, is not good for businesses,” he added. He predicted that legislation he will sign this year would cut corporate taxes by about $70 billion.

Sometimes I think Obama wants to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Nothing like aspiring to be an anti-democratic shithead corparasite.

[Solly Mack]

49. I'm confused.

In a "free-market" wouldn't failing businesses just go out of business instead of getting government interference in the form of hand-outs? Hasn't a central tenet of a free-market always been that the market will solve its own problems if the government would just leave it alone? Isn't infusing a failing business or businesses with tax dollars a case of the government not leaving the market alone to fix its own problems?

[Odin2005]

54. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

[DebbieCDC]

55. The only thing Obama is a fierce advocate for is Obama.

[chasmj]

56. How about a little price negotiation for Medicare drugs?

Just a little.

[Lorien]

63. No. that would help the people, which doesn't help profit the "free market."

Profit over people; it's the American way! (Or so we're supposed to believe).

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Smashcut]

70. “The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business

and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business"

Except so far one side is generally correct and the other is generally incorrect. Can you guess which is which?

[JCMach1]

77. Isn't this the first time he has supported anything in a 'fierce' manner?

:wtf:

[robcon]

82. I'm with the presdient. I'm a fierce free market advocate, too.

Free trade is the best solution for peace and prosperity.

[depakid]

84. MIT professor Simon Johnson to Obama: You still don't get it

This is the antithesis of a free-market system. Not only were their banks saved by government action in 2008-09 but the overly generous nature of this bailout (details here) means that the playing field is now massively tilted in favor of these banks. (I put this to Gerry Corrigan of Goldman and Barry Zubrow of JP Morgan when we appeared before the Senate Banking Committee last week; there was no effective rejoinder.)

Not only that, but the incentives for the people running these megabanks is now to take on reckless amounts of risk. They get the upside (for example, in these compensation packages) and -- when the downside materializes -- this belongs to taxpayers and everyone who loses a job. (See my testimony to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday; there was no disagreement among the witnesses or even across the aisle between Senators on this point.)

Being nice to the biggest banks will not save the midterm elections for the Democrats. The banks' campaign contributions will flow increasingly to the Republicans and against any Democrats (and there are precious few) who have fought for real reform.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/10-10