Politicians are now Terrified of Large and Wealthy Corporations

money imagesPaul Krugman just wrote an article, "How is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?" President Barack Obama said he doesn't "begrudge" the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.  What Krugman, who's an economist instead of a politician, apparently fails to realize is that with the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision, politicians are now terrified of large and wealthy corporations, which can now legally and easily destroy any politician who doesn't toe the corporate line.

Comments

John (not verified) 12 years 15 weeks ago
#1

If Obama doesn"t see what corporations are doing as "guerilla enemy at war against the American people", then Obama speaks "populist rhetoric", but doesn"t back it up and is merely the passive side of the corporate party.(Republicans being the aggresiive side of the corporate party.

Obama understands what needs to be done in the face of the enemy simply refer to Obama"s Nobel Peace prize speech. Obama understands the "enemy terrorists" need sanctions, but Obama doesn't classify "Health Insurance corporations(who murder people by saying that operation is too expensive, recision, etc...) or Defense contractors (fraudulent contracting, negligent work murders our own soldiers, etc...) and Banksters (who rob the American people's treasury, etc...)(the list goes on) as the enemy of the American people.

We see Obama's "outreach" to Neocons but where is Obama's sanction of Neocon obstructionism? Where is Obama "seeking justice" for the majority will of the American people who spoke in November 2008?

Simply read Obama's speech( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/ ). He understands how to fight the enemy in a "just war" scenario, but Obama is completely failing the will of the American people.

I say that with deep regret and disappointment.

It is not enough to be placated with populist rhetoric. THAT is Obama slapping the left in the face, when Obama does not ACT on that rhetoric. If Obama does not act on that "populist rhetoric" then Obam is intentionally irresponsible and leading us to defeat in 2010 and 12. Obama is not fighting the enemy with sanctions and also outreach. So far ir appears to be outreach only with no standing up for the justice of the populist rhetoric. This seems to be a manipulation of the stock market on one level. Because Obama will make the populist speech and "let" insurance companies "win" the law making So? insurance stocks skyrocket when things such as the public option are removed. Therefore? Manipulation of the stock market and the American people for gambling and insiders know ahead of time where to place thier bets before Obama or Baucus speak.

Maybe I am wrong. Hopefully I am. But I do not think so. Obama could have stood his ground and appointed recess appointments but he did not. Bush would have and being raised in a Neocon family I know one thing you do not cower to Neocons because you just encourage them to run you over.

Mister_Ed (Edward) (not verified) 12 years 15 weeks ago
#2

Can there be a way both Dennis J. Kucinich and Bernie Sanders be given more
Air Time. from way they talk I bet they are not getting any more money that what their jobs pay! get the inside from them?

Rick in Canadia (not verified) 12 years 15 weeks ago
#3

Thom,
The corporate power now granted by your Supreme Board of Directors, sounds more official than SCROTUS, means that true reforms in lots of areas has just become more difficult.
It would be interesting to hear some whistle-blowing officials recording the actual threats delivered by lobbyists.. Of course most of them are lawyers..

A bit aside but related, I wonder if there might not be a way to start taxing some of that upper 1%;

A modest Proposal;
Income is taxed at different rates with a number of different rationales.
The very rich, as you often note, receive their money in a large part from dividends and capital gains, often through the mechanism of stock options.

Why not tax capital gains from different sources at different rates?
If someone has capital gains from the sale of the family home that is one thing.
If someone is holding stock in a company and receives dividends, fine.
If, however, someone has been given a large number of stock options as a way to defer payment and really, avoid paying tax, (avoiding, not strictly evading) and eventually cashes them in, flipping for a sale immediately, that could well be a different class of income.
Perhaps it could depend on how much time a stock was held.
Perhaps the tax rates could be tied to how much of that gain was really generated or benefitted the country as opposed to being off-shore growth.

The right will scream about how many pages the tax law is now and how this could never be done, but they scream just as loud about any change that would simplify by closing loopholes.

It's not for us to decide details, it is just the idea that not all capital gain is created equally and perhaps it shouldn't all be treated the same for taxation.
You could even tie the time a stock was held to a scaled transaction fee..
Hmm?
Rick

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
Michael Toms, Founding President, New Dimensions World Broadcasting Network and author of A Time For Choices: Deep Dialogues for Deep Democracy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist