Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy

[Mr. McD]

A New York-based labor organizer and writer, Jonathan Tasini, said he was puzzled by the selection of Mr. Furman. “It’s legitimate to give you pause,” Mr. Tasini, who ran an unsuccessful primary challenge to Senator Clinton in 2006, said. “There have been concerns raised about where Obama’s economic policies will trend,” the writer said.

Mr. Tasini noted that, while Mr. Obama spurned labor groups by voting for a free-trade agreement with Peru, his past suggests he would be an ally of labor. “It’s hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn’t have something sink into him about income inequality. There’s no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model,” Mr. Tasini said.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-taps-wal-mart-defender-as-director/79665/

[TexasObserver]

1. Whose side are you on?

I'd expect to see your thread title and this content on one of those GOP sites.

[ellacott]

2. David Sirota was on Thon Hartmann's show today

Even David has issues with this choice. I think it is legitimate to ask questions about this.

[TexasObserver]

3. The topic title is accusatory of Obama and pejorative

There's talking about an issue and there's framing it in Rightwing talking points.

Your dissent is noted.

[wyldwolf]

6. is he a wal-mart defender and is he directing Obama’s Economic Policy?

If the answer is yes, how can it be accusatory of Obama and pejorative?

[TexasObserver]

9. Have trouble with reading, do you?

If you have to have it explained, maybe you've got your bitter tears to deal with yet.

Get back to me when you are on board for Obama. I'm done talking to his detractors here. This is the DEMOCRATIC underground, not the Clintonista Underground, so get on board with the nominee or don't address me.

[wyldwolf]

10. have problems with reality, do you?

[TexasObserver]

11. 20 more hours

that's reality

[wyldwolf]

12. Until what? Facts become against the rules?

[TexasObserver]

14. Until Obama bashers get shown the door

The only reason I took you off ignore is to see you, and a few like you, get behind Obama or flame out. You seem intent on doing the latter.

[wyldwolf]

16. sorry, DU rules always allows legitimate criticism

[Elidor]

25. For once, I'm in agreement with you

*marking the calendar*

Obama's policy advisors are indeed very germane topics here. I think someone has a poor understanding of what will happen tomorrow.

[apocalypsehow]

23. Yep, and notice the dishonest way he does it: just widdle 'ole "legitimate criticism" when what he

and the other bitter boosters are really doing is trying to crap on the Democratic nominee. Can't wait till this type of thing is shown the door after noon tomorrow.

[TexasObserver]

28. There are other articles on the same topic that are not ATTACK columns

If a person chooses to promote a column that is attacking Obama, and doesn't use it as an example of attack columns but as legit, he or she is adopting such a column.

This thread is a slimey way to slime Obama, by implication.

Those with their heads firmly planted up their asses won't see that, but it's true.

[apocalypsehow]

30. Agree with you 100%.

:thumbsup:

[Mojorabbit]

59. I am concerned

about his pick too and I am behind our nominee.

[seaglass]

35. it won't be. DU will not be turning into a church. n/t

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[alarimer]

46. This is NOT bashing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is in la-la land. Obama is not the second coming and is not really a friend to labor if he picks some Wal-Mart apologist to advise him on economic issues. Many of our problems can be laid at the feet of Wal-Mart. Obama has never had my vote anyway but it is legitimate to ask questions about the people who advise him.

[JackORoses]

31. you spent all that time away from here just to come back and act like a toad?

lame.

[wyldwolf]

41. facts are facts... toad...

[ellacott]

13. I understand your point

I guess I didn't take it that way because I had just heard David Sirota say it. The OP probably heard the same program because this is exactly what David said.

[TexasObserver]

15. We're suppose to be striving toward unity, but some seem intent on attacking Obama.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that title and OP appeared today. I'm directly challenging what I believe is a thinly veiled attack on Obama.

[ellacott]

17. Yes, there are many here with ulterior motives

[NashVegas]

38. Sorry to Go Trip Trapping Over Your Bridge

But this falls under "useful criticism."

[NYC_SKP]

4. Someone doesn't understand "consensus building", and, Why post this???

Liberals/progressives have sometimes been constructively criticized as being too narrow in their approach to finding solutions, allowing single (though vital) issues to make or break partnerships and refusing to dialog with anyone who doesn't support their points of view.

Like many another post here lately, the OP doesn't offer alternative approaches or commentary on the import of the article.

All we are offered is an alert and a link, without a clear reason offered for posting these here.

I don't care for it, seems like flame bait disguised as concern, but I could be wrong...

[TexasObserver]

5. It's an attack piece on Obama. "Why" is right.

Apparently, this is how the Obama haters who lack courage intend to play it.

[rox63]

7. As far as I can tell, Obama likes to hear from all sides on major policy issues

I'm sure he'll have people from both labor and corporate management advising him. Please keep in mind that the NY Sun is a RW paper.

[democrattotheend]

8. That's a good point

I was upset when I read about this, but I have praised Obama in the past for seeking out different points of view. As long as this guy is not actively lobbying for Walmart it's not a conflict of interest...I don't think he was ever on Walmart's payroll.

[newmajority]

18. Anyone posting SHIT from the Likud Sun on this board should be banned immediately

Whether it's officially "pizza time" or not. That fucking piece of shit rag even makes the Richard Perle Jerusalem Post look reasonable by comparison.

[KittyWampus]

20. Opening Poster neglected to include this quote from a progressive economist Furman brought aboard

One economist who has disputed some of Mr. Furman's findings on Wal-Mart said the disagreement shouldn't disqualify him. "That's small potatoes. Jason's economic agenda goes way beyond that," Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute said. "That's not anything close to a deal breaker."

[MonkeyFunk]

47. another one who signed up this year

who knows exactly who should be banned.

What arrogance!

[Skwmom]

60. How about the LA Times

Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama's choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart -- considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-furman11-2008jun11,0,2347842.story

[iamthebandfanman]

19. good thing hillary wasnt picked then

since she was a member of walmarts board.

if this is an issue to people, i mean.


if we wanted someone with absolutely no ties to people whove worked for corporations... we shoulda nominated gravel or kucinich.

[Mr. McD]

21. My reason for posting this was strictly informational.

It was certainly not intended as an attack.

I will be voting for Obama in the GE as I would have voted for Hillery had she won. I really hope he rethinks this appointment.

This is also posted on the Common Dreams website

[indimuse]

22. I find this VERY interesting...

Obama’s VP Vetter is a Corporate Shill
Posted on June 10, 2008 by garychapelhill
One of the promises that Hillary made during her campaign was to help shore up the crashing housing market by putting a freeze on so-called “sub-prime” loans, giving homeowners in danger of foreclosure time to refinance or find some other remedy to their situations before they lost their homes. Obama has (as usual) been vague on what he would do to halt the growing foreclosure crisis (over 1 million homes have been foreclosed on since the crisis began).<<< http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/05/news/economy/foreclosure/index.htm?postversion=2008060510 >>> Ironically many of those affected by the crisis are African Americans, some of Obama’s most stalwart supporters. Jim Johnson, who was selected by Obama to help him pick a VP, does not seem like a good fit for a candidate who promises to “clean up” Washington and keep lobbyists and corporate money at bay:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080610/pl_politico/10971

Yet despite Johnson’s legendary fastidiousness, his high-profile campaign role has suddenly exposed him to questions about his financial dealings. The questions range from his relationship with the embattled CEO of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial to his more recent oversight roles on various corporate compensation committees that approved hefty executive pay packages.

In a presidential campaign where the subprime mortgage crisis and high corporate salaries figure to be staples of debate, Johnson is now at risk of becoming a political liability for Obama, who’s trying to sell anxious voters on an economic message that calls for stricter financial industry regulation and ridding Washington of special favors and tax breaks for wealthy CEOs.

On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson received at least $7 million worth of home loans from Countrywide through an informal program for friends of company CEO Angelo Mozilo that offered rates below the market average. At least four of the loans were issued while Johnson was employed either as the CEO or an outside consultant for Fannie Mae.

Once again, either Barack Obama is a big fat liar when it comes to ending big money influence on politics, or he is exceedingly unskilled at vetting his vetters. John McCain didn’t waste any time pouncing on Johnson’s ties to Countrywide:

Signaling the campaign’s intention to fan the flames over Johnson’s ties to Countrywide, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement in response.

“There is nothing ‘overblown and irrelevant’ about millions of Americans facing foreclosure and Barack Obama entrusting his most important decision as a presidential candidate to a man who has accepted millions in special loans from a subprime mortgage lender.”

In response Democratic leadership continued to show how politically tone-deaf they are:

Despite the controversy, Democratic insiders maintain that Johnson is highly-skilled at the vetting process, having handled the responsibilities for Walter Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.

He was so skilled, in fact, that he helped pick two VP candidates for former Democratic LOSERS. Edwards could not even carry his home state of North Carolina (which would have almost given Kerry the EV’s needed to win the presidency). And, yes, Mondale’s pick for VP was groundbreaking, but he ultimately lost in one of the most humiliating landslides in presidential election history. And don’t forget who that VP choice was….none other than Geraldine Ferraro, who has been painted by Obama’s fans as the worst. racist. EVAH! I wonder what the WORM will be on this one. Obama is really starting to make GWB look like a brain surgeon.

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/obamas-vp-vetter-is-a-corporate-shill/

[JTFrog]

44. BITCH! BRAV-F*CKING-O! Four hours to Go!!!! n/t

[PM7nj]

24. I don't think he is directing anything.

He is one advisor among many.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Obama Is Running As A Main Stream Democrat

That's how Democrats get elected nationally...

Folks here are going to have to get to used to it...

[NashVegas]

34. I Think Some People Ought To Know

Everything they can about the unity candidate whose supporters tore apart this forum to promote as the golden steed of Progressivism.

But I'm just funny like that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Matt Bai Wrote A Great Article In The Sunday NYT Magazine A Few Months Ago

That Bill Clinton's Third Way economics is de rigeur for national Democrats...Obama is a main stream Democrat; the type of Democrats who tend to win...

I am a realist... I never thought he nor Hillary were radical progressives...

[NashVegas]

39. Nor I

Sometime when you're bored read the CNN exit polls and check the voting trends among those who were asked who was more trustworthy: Clinton, Obama, Both, or Neither.

Hillary did something towards the end though, that gave me a small bit of hope, when she talked about "invisible people."

pm coming to you

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Considering how well Wal-Mart has done, this guy may know a thing or two about economics

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. If There Is No Wal Mart Where Are Folks With Limited Incomes Supposed To Shop?

Whole Foods and Neiman Marcus?

[Solon]

32. So stealing Overtime pay from employees is a good business practice then?

You fucking disgust me! :puke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Are those actual Wal-Mart corporate policies or the actions of a few rouge managers?

:shrug:

[QC]

49. Ladies pinch. Whores wear rouge. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

55. !

:spray:

[Skwmom]

54. I think you need to learn more about Wal-mart. Their corporate policies

for employees is terrible.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Please enlighten me. Is stealing Overtime pay from employees one of their corporate policies, or

is the action of a few rogue managers?

[Marie26]

33. Furman also supports corporate tax cuts.

He wrote a column in the Washington Post supporting "reform" of the corporate tax code. In this article, he criticized the US for having "one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world" & supported cutting corporate taxes to 30%.

"Corporate Taxes, In Need of Reform", Jason Furman - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601860.html


Coincidentally, Austan Goolsbee, Obama's other economic advisor, also supports cutting taxes for corporations.

Journal articles written by Goolsbee:

"Taxes, Organizational Form and the Dead Weight Loss of the Corporate Income Tax," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 69, July 1998, 143-152.

"The Impact and Inefficiency of the Corporate Income Tax: Evidence from State Organizational Form Data," Journal of Public Economics, 88(11), September 2004, 2283-2299.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/research/vitae.htm


Seeing a pattern here?

[Zodiak]

37. First two paragraphs from your first link

"America's system of taxing business and capital income is broken. It is complicated, economically inefficient and is proving increasingly incapable of raising the revenues it should.

Case in point: The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate of the 30 countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But because the United States has so many generous special tax preferences for businesses, it collects the fourth lowest corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP among all OECD countries. "


There is nothing false about these two paragraphs. We do have a high corporate rate, and we have a corporate tax code that is so full of holes you could drive a truck through. It doesn't generate revenue as it should.

What do you wish to argue, the rate or the amount corporations have to actually pay? Those are two different issues. It is not a "cut" if they are playing more revenue.

[Marie26]

40. The rate

Furman supports lowering the tax rates for corporations, as does Goolsbee. And maybe it's a good idea, I'm certainly not an expert on taxes. But to me it seems to form part of a larger pattern, in that both men seem to focus on pro-business measures & lowering taxes - this is free-market economics. And from what I heard of Obama's economic speech yesterday, he also talked about getting rid of the capital gains tax, creating more tax cuts & "putting money back in the hands of the American people." IOW, that tax money is better off w/the people rather than the government. There wasn't anything radical there, or all that liberal. He WASN'T talking about how gov. could use taxes to better society, reduce poverty, get universal health care, etc. There wasn't bold proposals for government, only a promise to give tax rebate checks back. SO - a long way of getting to my point - Furman's position, Goolsbee's articles, & Obama's speech all seem to focus on lower taxes & free-market positions, rather than a real vision for the role of government.

[brindis_desala]

42. You are correct. Unfortunately by Clinton's choosing to

embrace the neo-liberal free market mantra there is no longer a viable political left. What the Obama approach appears to be is to lower corporate tax rates on businesses who employ US workers and thus provide them with an incentive to stay and pay rather than foot the expense of more lawyers and accountants to find more loopholes to let them hide their profits in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. To illustrate the dilemma between 1996 and 2000 roughly 70 % of US corporations paid $0 federal taxes.

[Independent-Voter]

48. As opposed to the the Wal-Mart Lawyer that ran in the Primaries (Hillary)

HRC served on Walmart's board for several YEARS. But I'm sure you knew that.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. yes

long ago, when Walmart was a very different company. But she wasn't a "walmart lawyer". She wasn't employed as a lawyer - she was on their board of directors. Very different role. Don't fib.

And she was attacked here non-stop for it. So now Walmart's OK because the guy's with Obama? Your hypocrisy is showing.

[Skwmom]

53. So just b/c the Clintons do something that makes it okay.

One of the reasons this country is in such a mess is b/c people BLINDLY support their candidate of choice.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

51. His "defense" of Wal-Mart is somewhat more nuanced than you think...

I'm going to assume you haven't read his white paper on the subject which was published by the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf">Link), a progressive think tank and website. Furman's argument is that the savings that Wal-Mart provides for its customers (who are predominantly low-income) more than makes up for the losses from its low wages. And Furman does take the Walton Family to task for being opposed to federal programs (like EITC and SCHIP) that benefit its own workers.

Now you could certainly argue, as I do, that we would be better off in the long run if employers would simply pay a living wage and not count on the government to supplement low wages through programs for the working poor. But that being said, Furman favors increasing the minimum wage, increasing the EITC, increasing the benefits of savings for low-income workers, and making health care universal and affordable.

In short, you might disagree with him, but he's not the anti-Christ.

[Skwmom]

52. This sure isn't in keeping with change you can believe in.

I read this post at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/11/9306/31037/22/533905

Robert Rubin who had a hand in creating the subprime mortgage crisis? Why isn't being involved with such a STUPID debacle a dis-qualifier for employment?

And Lawrence Summers: Former Treasury Secretary (he strongly pushed Clinton to privatize Social Security), World Bank Chief Economist (where he wrote a memo saying "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that") and Harvard President (where he suggested that women might be biologically inferior to men in science and engineering).

On the thread at DailyKos someone posted about his EPA pick: Bob Sussman, former Clinton-era Deputy Administrator of EPA, whose day job is a high-powered attorney representing chemical companies before EPA.

This sucks. I read on the net that these are the types of people being put in charge while the progressive voices are unpaid advisors. I wish Gore would have run. At least he seems like he's a reformed politician.

It' also a stupid move b/c it will make his "I care about the working class" seem lie a joke, and his "change you can believe in" a lie. McCain can also push his reformer, maverick image.

About getting different points of view. Well you let people like this give unpaid advise, you don't put them in charge.

I watched CSPAN a while back. They had a guy on their talking about our financial crisis. What struck me was the guy looked scared. The projected loses were in the TRILLIONS. Some of the people responsible were Clinton people (e.g., Rubin). So we reward them for their incompetence and stupidity by giving them positions in an Obama administration.

This country is SCREWED. It is a MYTH that the Clinton team was so qualified. This country is reeling from the policies put in place by that administration. They only appear qualified b/c the Bush administration has been even worse.

[TexasObserver]

56. Being a Walmart Director is the ultimate in guilt. They're Walmart Toadies.

Walmart does not put on the board anyone who is not a complete corporate toad for them. Their job is to AGREE with ownership and management. If they didn't AGREE, they'd be off the board in short order.

This guy was an advisor, hired for his economic expertise, and it's hardly his entire resume, or even a big part of it.

Much ado about nothing.

[Romulox]

57. Rationalization is a trip. With your logic: Dick Cheney would be a fine addition to the Obama team

It was his job to AGREE with management. But the last 8 years are hardly Dick Cheney's entire resume, or even a big part of it!

:puke: