Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, March 22, 2019

For Obama, Pro-Business Populism Is No Oxymoron

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) — If 2011 was defined by a debate over the national debt, 2012 looks to be focused more on fairness, which is just the way President Barack Obama wants it. The trick for him — the balance he was trying to strike in his State of the Union Address — is to come across as a pro-business populist.

That may sound like an oxymoron (and “progressive” is a more accurate description of Obama than “populist”), but it fits this president and these times. There’s nothing anti-capitalist about wanting to help businesses that help America and to penalize (through the tax code) those that hurt the country by not paying their fair share and by taking jobs overseas.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 0

9 responses to “For Obama, Pro-Business Populism Is No Oxymoron”

  1. Vail says:

    Let’s be realistic my former hope and change president has done absolutey nothing to enhance the business environment. The comparison to JFK is inappropriate and unfair to his legacy. Expecting some sudden change from Obama if reelected is totally unrealistic. I voted for the so called populist but feel very deceived. We really got in Obama what we deserved A man with no business background , a resume that would not open the doors to midlevel law firms,but we allowed brilliant retoric to sway our logic. Even Chris(a breeze up my leg) Matthews is unhappy with his performance. I say let’s show him the door. It is what he deserves. Nice man but terribly incompetent.

  2. 1olderbutwiser1 says:

    Nobody seems to understand how Clinton balanced the budget. If if seems the real estate bubble is bad, consider then how ludicrous the bubble was, at least in real estate, there is something to show for the excess money blown, but in bubbles, all it was, was stock profits taxed to high heaven, with nothing at all to show for the squandering of money. And note that he was successful in having the american public perceive him as a genius or guru while doing the deception. Clinton and Obama both have the same problem, they want to appear as saviors, to make up for their abondment as children by their fathers. We have found their shortcomings as being very damaging to our nation, possibly a totally critical failure. Might as well get rid of Hilary as well. These people are very intelligent, but terribly misguided. They are worse than public housing, gathering up poor people and feeding them drugs. I honestly feel people in public housing who have lost their children to the drug trade, should file a horrendous lawsuit against the american bar association for the failure to control controlled substances, and the executives of public housing as well. End that series of government interference in free enterprise, today.

  3. Charles Higgins says:

    Obama is on the right track to heip the middle class and grow the economy.The alternative is that we go back to failed policies that got us in this mess.The Republicans want to do exactly that!Obama deserves 4 more years…not the “do nothing” Republicans.

  4. valszy says:

    According to Vail Obama’s resume wouldn’t get him a job in midlevel law firm — are you really that dense or uninformed? Obama was editor of Harvard Law Review, one of the most honored, prestigious prizes in the most prestigious law school in the nation. That alone would get in the door of virtually any law firm he wanted.The incompetent president was the one before him.

  5. Dominick says:

    A careful review of President Obama’s domestic policies, especially those designed to stimulate the economy, would reveal a keen focus on helping the business community. In addition to the GM/Chrysler bailout, the administration put in place temporary policies such as the first-time home buyer subsidy to help the real estate and construction sectors, a subsidy for people replacing old appliances with energy efficient units, the cash for clunkers, and even the much maligned healthcare mandate which forces uninsured Americans to get coverage from for-profit insurance companies. He is on the right track and his policies are bearing fruit in spite of the obstructionism that has been the only discernible priority for the Republican controlled House.

  6. freethinker says:

    The ‘failed policies that got us into this mess’ so often referred to, is the Community Reinvestment Act. Who pushed that? I own several businesses and I don’t need special tax privileges or penalties or other government carrot/stick actions. Just get the government off my back. I’ll create more jobs which in turn will help bring the middle class back. I can guarantee that nothing proposed now by the administration will do a thing to bring the middle class back.
    P.S. How about showing us some the material that Obama authored or some reason why he as given the position of editor of the Harvard Law Review. I think he B.S.’d his way into just like he did the Presidency.

  7. rustacus21 says:

    … requires a huge amount of honesty & many of the anti-Obama remarks ignore the REALITY that the recovery never took hold b/c of Conservatives! Plain. Simple. Unequivical. Government is YOU! Business is what it is (competition), but small/medium size businesses CAN’T possibly hope to compete when corporations are hogging all the tax benefits & priviliges. Freethinker should know this all too well, if done his homework. Vail overlooks facts of EVERY type, in typical Conservative fashion, but it’s not a fault, so xcuse my pointing it out: U wouldn’t be confused over any of the last 3-12 yrs if corp media weren’t so determined to run a steady stream of mashed potato’s & slime, into an oozy goo & call it “news!” Omission of reality & facts is deception, no matter how its cut, sliced &/or diced. Citizens United, compliments of just such a dis/mis-information “crusade”, resulting in erroneous voting by Conservatives, is the curse to modern age judicial/electoral/governmental events & will eventually be reversed. But til then, the overabundance of money in politics will create nothing but whores & prisoners, who slave themselves out to the bidding of self-appointed “kings” ruling over our Democracy!!! If this “reality” is unclear to ANY American by now, we’re in deeper trouble than even the most pessimistic patriot dare imagine…

  8. Newborn says:

    Republicans hate so much Obama that they’ll obstruction everything he want to do, even the rescue of Goldman Sachs and GM (who now are backing Romney). So, this is the problem. And why they hate so much Obama… not because of his policies, and let face it, it is because he is black. They can not digest the fact that a black can be the brilliant and talented president we have in the White House today.

  9. cynic32 says:

    Good speech. The Pres can orate quite well. But I must have dozed off at the wrong time – missed hearing ANYTHING on how he proposed to accelerate job creation in the NEAR FUTURE (next 3 months?). If he is “brilliant and talented” he MUST have covered that somewhere in his speech? We can’t just keep extending unemployment benefits year after year – bad for our national debt, and bad for recipients who receive them. (Need to start decreasing benefits after the first extension.)

    Heard the other day that FDR created some 4 million jobs in 4 months with programs like CCC, WPA, etc (which, by the way, may have been Herbert Hoover’s ideas – adopted by and credited to FDR). The Pres may be “brilliant and talented” but SOMETHING is missing. He and his staff seem to be in a 7 feet deep gully without the inspiration to climb out to size up the situation.

    I hope the idea presented here will be read by SOMEONE with an open mind, in a position to look into it and act upon it if the idea is practical. Link job creation with slowing the rate of climate change – BOTH must be done anyway since Earth is our ONLY home. Alternative energy sources are not a viable option – it will take decades to replace our fossil-fueled generating capacity
    with alternatives. (And we’ll STILL need our fossil-fueleds since alternative energy is not always available when needed.)

    It might be feasible to plant vegetation (trees or any other plant that consumes a lot of CO2) wherever suitable land (public or/and private) can be used. The cost of the program can be born by the owners of every fossil-fueled plant likely to be up for relicensing in the next 40-50 years. Each owner pays for vegetating enough land (which can be located anywhere) to consume the estimated CO2 emissions of his fossil-fueled plants. His costs are recouped by raising rates on his electricity customers. (Those using energy from fossil fuels ought to pay for the climate change they cause.) Some of the cost may be allayed by harvesting the plantings within 40-50 years – timber, for example.

    I don’t like to just criticize without putting in my 2 cents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.