Is it possible for any American President to go against corporate interests?

[undeterred]

[cantbeserious]

1. Until Campaign Finance Reform Eliminates Corporate Donations Directly Or Indirectly

The answer is no.

[AlabamaLibrul]

2. Possible, yes. But membership has its benefits. n/t

[dbonds]

3. Not unless they have a spine.

[Cant trust em]

4. occasionally, but not generally. nt

[Donnachaidh]

5. It requires testicles

And we know they are missing from this administration.

[avaistheone1]

6. FDR and Kennedy certainly did.

:kick:

[RevStPatrick]

11. Yeah, and Kennedy's presidency ended on such a positive note...

...because of it.

[undeterred]

19. ouch

[avaistheone1]

28. Wrong you are.

Despite the House Select Committee on Assassinations being convened twice over the decades there is no proof that corporate interests caused the assassination of President Kennedy.

Proof of a conspiracy,yes. Evidence that leads to the mob and rogue elements within the CIA, yes.

[ret5hd]

37. who do you think the "rogue elements" were working for?

[readmoreoften]

7. It's possible but it would take a revolution to back that person up.

[undeterred]

8. Are we ready to have one?

[Ricochet21]

10. yes

[Enrique]

14. i disagree

all we have to do is figure out why we support corporate Democrats in the primaries, and stop doing it. I include myself, because I supported Hillary Clinton.

Why did we stop calling Joe Biden "the Senator from MBNA", which he was, when he started running for president, and become lovable old Joe?

[FredStembottom]

15. Thanks, Enrique!

I get a little... weary... with apocalyptic scenarios offered up as solutions when much, much simpler solutions are needed.

It's sort of a rock concert mentality. "Blow the whole thing up!"

Spectacular. Gratifying. But not gonna happen. And not needed.

We need the boring church-basement persistance of the old Norwegian farmers of my area. Dogged precinct by precinct slogging.

The revolution will be ... boring and tedious.

[marions ghost]

20. How's that

election thing been workin' for ya?

Maybe we need both more direct activism AND legal elections?

Don't think anyone is saying "blow anything up" :eyes:

[undeterred]

36. He's both.

We do it because our choices have already been made for us. The few candidates who aren't in bed with with corporate interests never make it past Iowa.

[fivepennies]

24. Who would finance this revolution?

They don't come free and soldiers have to eat, too.

[Enrique]

9. it's a matter of degree

next time, let's not go with the #1 recipient of Wall Street money, from either side.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. +1000!

[dameocrat67]

13. A candidate should not be supported if he does not refuse corporate money

n/t

[undeterred]

18. That leaves you with very few choices.

[dameocrat67]

22. you are just pretending to have choices when they do. n/t

n/t

[treestar]

16. "Corporate interests" is so vague

People buy and sell from and work for corporations. People are involved. If a President "stood up to" the corporations what would that entail and how would it be legal in the US?

[Enrique]

17. increase regulations

increase corporate taxes. Pass laws that shift the balance of power from corporations to workers and consumers.

[fivepennies]

26. Increase taxes? Pass laws?

Who do you think writes corporate law? Who do you think really has the power to hold elected official's feet to the fire (and possibly other sensitive appendages, as well) to get the legislation they need to ELIMINATE regulations on corporations?

[treestar]

30. What laws, like the ones against discrimination, the ones requiring

minimum wage, the ones regulating benefits and retirement programs? The ones regulating pollution and the very existence of the EPA (which right wingers hate). The consumer protection laws?

How did all of those get passed if all Presidents (and Congresses for that matter) were actually just in favor of corporate interests? They'd have refused to pass those laws.

[fivepennies]

32. Those are great examples of the attempted "end runs"

around centralized control of money. Those programs depend as much on bank money to run as any other entity. And as we're seeing, a subsequent congress can defund them at will.

[Enrique]

35. yes, like those laws

and not just in the past, such laws are still being passed. Republicans even vote for them. Like I said above, it's a matter of degree. Maybe it is unrealistic to expect a 100% "pure" candidate. But do we have to go with the #1 recipient of Wall Street money? I say no. I say go with Feingold types rather than Obama types.

[saras]

21. They run a significant risk of assassination, but no more risk than the poor face daily...

And I don't think it's possible for a President to successfully go against them unless they are willing to bend the law the same way conservative presidents do, and they need to rally the public consistently and repeatedly, and they would need to fix the corporate media.

And they would need to explain to the public that the corporations will retaliate, with both price and supply problems, and with violence, and that they need to be prepared to defend themselves if they expect to succeed.

All hard, but doable.

[fivepennies]

23. The only president who went against the bankers

successfully was Andrew Jackson and that was only temporary. Banksters create booms and busts, finance wars, and more, all to control politicians. They create the emergencies and like Rahm said: you don't let any emergency go to waste.


"President Andrew Jackson opposed the Bank of the United States for both centralizing the U.S. economy and supporting his political enemies.
When Andrew Jackson assumed office as the 7th U.S. president, he railed against the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson believed that this financial institution, which was the forerunner of today’s Federal Reserve System, was destructive because it held too much power over the U.S. economy and it served the privileged elite at the expense of the working class. Perhaps more importantly, Jackson opposed the Bank because it supported many of his political opponents. Consequently, Jackson set out to destroy the Bank.

The Second Bank of the United States
Following the War of 1812, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States (the First Bank’s charter had expired in 1811). Inflation had run rampant during the war, and the Bank was created to stabilize the economy. However the Bank ultimately made matters worse by printing paper money and increasing lending to banks and businesses. This led to a boom of economic prosperity in the late 1810s that crashed with the Panic of 1819.

When the Bank attempted to offset inflation by contracting the paper money in existence (i.e., deflation), many people could no longer cover their loans. A massive wave of bankruptcies, foreclosures and bank failures ensued in what became the worst economic depression in U.S. history up to that time. The depression ended within two years, but many did not forget the Bank’s role in the economic crisis."

http://www.suite101.com/content/andrew-jacksons-bank-war-a202709

Read more at Suite101: Andrew Jackson's Bank War: Jackson Uses Presidential Power to Kill the Bank of the U.S. | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/andrew-jacksons-bank-war-a202709#ixzz1ThXmAeUM

FDR tried to do a work around the power of the fed. Several others, including Kennedy died while trying to end it. Now its gone totally global and it is no longer possible to overturn the power of the purse without inflicting extreme pain to everyone on earth. We know that but no one knows how to fix it, so we keep slapping band aids on our gaping wounds.

[undeterred]

25. Thanks for the info on andrew jackson

and i've bookmarked suite101 for future reference. :hi:

[fivepennies]

31. You're welcome!

I have a love hate relationship with Jackson. Love him for shutting down Nicholas Biddle's banking operation, but hate his Indian Removal campaign.

[tomg]

27. It is possible, but high unlikely and

Not in their immediate and long-term economic interests. For that matter, they simply won't get the nomination. I have been a moving left since I was 14 ( strange how one person can set you on a path) and I will be 62 in a few months, but until the past year I always held out hope - through LBJ ( who was truly tragic), Nixon, and on to the present - that our government could be changed to act in the best interests of all of it's people. I simply don't believe that anymore.

[GoCubsGo]

29. No. Not until the "Citizens United" abonimation is remedied.

Until then, forget it.

[taught_me_patience]

33. No - Absolutely not for two reasons

#1) Citizens United
#2) The growing disparity between large and small states. I'm sure the founding father's never envisioned some states with 500,000 people and some states with 35MM people. A senator who represents 250k people has the same amount of power as one representing 15MM people. Senators from small states can always be bought.

[undeterred]

34. The only Senator I ever knew who couldn't be bought

is Russ Feingold...who is currently not in office, though I expect he will be again. But I always thought of him as 'one of a kind'.