Obama outlines right-wing, pro-corporate agenda in State of the Union Speech

[Cali_Democrat]

You will not see this kind of analysis in the corporate-owned MSM.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/obam-j26.shtml

Obama outlines right-wing, pro-corporate agenda in State of the Union speech
By Patrick Martin
26 January 2011

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama outlined a reactionary political agenda that amounted to a full-scale embrace of the policies of the incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

The speech was a demonstration of the bipartisan consensus of the American ruling elite. Both Democrats and Republicans serve the interests of the financial aristocracy, from whom they are taking their marching orders to cut domestic social spending and enact further tax breaks for the wealthy.

<snip>

Listening to Obama’s desultory remarks, one would never have guessed that just 28 months ago the American financial-corporate elite brought the American and world economy to its knees, precipitating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The speech was a paean to American capitalism and the very financial bandits who are chiefly responsible for the catastrophe facing the American people.

<snip>

Obama boasted of the good fortune of corporate America, which is making more money than ever. “The stock market has come roaring back,” he declared. “Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.” Under conditions of near double-digit unemployment, he claimed to have “broken the back of this recession.”

Read more...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/obam-j26.shtml

[emulatorloo]

1. I call bullshit because of "Selective Quotation"

Your article:

Obama boasted of the good fortune of corporate America, which is making more money than ever. “The stock market has come roaring back,” he declared. “Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.” Under conditions of near double-digit unemployment, he claimed to have “broken the back of this recession.”

SOTU:

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

[Uzybone]

2. A propaganda outfit will never give the full quote

Cherry picking is par the course.

[emulatorloo]

3. One should be able to make an argument without Intellectual Dishonesty

[Dr Fate]

9. How does bringing up Obama's mention of small businesses & jobs negate the OP's thesis?

All he did was suggest that we might use these things as a measure some day. He did not seem to have examples of a strong job market a small business success stories to use as a measure last night.

Maybe that is what the OP is trying to say?

[emulatorloo]

11. The article cannot make an argument without lying

That rules out any credibility

[Dr Fate]

12. You did not answer my question. n/t

n/t

[emulatorloo]

13. If somebody lies to me, that's it. Everything they say could be a lie.

[Dr Fate]

16. I guess I just failed to see the lie as to small businesses, jobs, etc.

Just b/c the OP did not mention Obama's shout out to measuring things via small businesses & jobs does not change any facts.

I asked you why bringing that in is even relevant, considering that he can not claim that jobs, small businesses, etc. are "roaring" like Wall Street is.

All Obama said is that we should measure success by looking at things besides a roaring wall street. If he has no examples or "roaring" success stories about jobs & small businesses, then I dont see how leaving that part of his speech out amounts to a lie.

[emulatorloo]

17. Do you understand what Selective Quotation is?

You take a quote. You remove the parts of the quote that contradict your specious argument. You make the person being quoted appear to be saying something he is not.

It is not a case of "did not mention", it is a case of DELIBERATELY TWISTING the quotation by selectively leaving parts of it out.

[Dr Fate]

20. Yes. That is why I am asking you why you think his quote about Small businesses negates the OP.

He offered no comparable success stories about how small businesses and jobs for the little guy are "roaring"- yet he can claim that Wall Street is indeed "roaring."

I maintain that no facts are changed whehter you leave that quote in or out- either way, after his two years in office, he can proudly calim that Wall Street is "roaring", and that small businesses and jobs should be (but are not).

I concede that the OP failed to mention that Obama gave lip service to main street as a possible measuring stick- I still do not see how it changes a damn thing or amounts to a dishonest argument or opinion.

[emulatorloo]

21. I think you get it, but I think maybe you are pretending not to get it?

Once more anyway:

The article spins the speech a certain way by misrepresenting the actual content.

Any quotation that is contrary to the author's thesis is omitted.

That tactic is intellectually dishonest.

Have a great night. :patriot:

[Dr Fate]

23. I do get it. Maybe we just honestly disagree about the significance of the quote.

I dont see how it even matters.

You have yet to exaplain how leaving out that quote changes anything as far as Obama's policy's towards wall street & big business.

It's nice of him to say that we should be measuring mainstreet success stories- we can agreee on that much. In my opinion, this mere quote should not cause anyone to be any less skeptical as to his centrist agenda.

[SpartanDem]

4. WSWS is no more credible than WND

"Obama boasted of the good fortune of corporate America, which is making more money than ever. “The stock market has come roaring back,” he declared. “Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again"

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

Obama declared, and proceeded to argue that government intervention was necessary to subsidize corporations that otherwise would not invest in basic research because it is not profitable. Aside from maintaining the military and national security apparatus, Obama suggested that propping up big business with taxpayer funds was virtually the only legitimate function of the federal government

Now government investment research is a bad thing? Free Republic would be proud of this level dishonesty

[Dr Fate]

6. Obama never declared that job & small business prospects were "roaring."

He declared that Wall Street was roaring, but he did not seem to declare that things were roaring for everything else. All he seems to suggest on that we might measure our progress by these things, some day.

I'm not sure that everyone would say that govt. research is a bad thing. Some of us might say that giving more of my tax dollars to the Koch Brothers, trans-national corporations, BP, etc. to do said research might not be the best option.

[emulatorloo]

10. Two things: Part of the speech was about CLEAN ENERGY, so that lets BP out

Second the ultimate goal is American Job Creation, I seriously doubt foreign companies or companies which outsource are going to be eligible for these grants.

[Dr Fate]

15. You can seriously doubt it all you want. He was not clear either way.

Perhaps it is possible that BP or companies that are just as bad as BP could get a hold of grant money. Just b/c you say it wont happen doesnt mean that centrists in Washington wont "compromise" in order to make it so.

Obama has already indicated that he is fine with Indian corporations providing jobs for Americas, so I'm not sure that your doubts are based in fact. "Centrists" may very well allow them such grants. All we have is your doubts.

Then again, maybe I'm being too negative. In the interest of balance, why not list some current or past examples of Obama punishing or denying benefits to companies that outsource? I'm all for listing the good examples along with the reservations.

[emulatorloo]

19. Outsourcing

Obama supported this bill. Republicans killed it. There were other efforts to do this over the last 2 years. Republicans killed every one of them.

http://iactnow.org/2010/09/27/democrats-will-introduce-a-bill-to-close-tax-loopholes-that-outsource-overseas/

Democrats will introduce a bill to close tax loopholes that outsource overseas, saving American jobs!


A group of Democratic Senators, including Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, said Friday they are bringing a new bill to a vote next week that would close tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas, and create tax credits for those that bring jobs back to the United States. The decision sets up a political showdown with their Republican counterparts.
“Our tax policies have to help working Americans and not stab them in the back,” Brown said in a conference call with several other senators, including New York’s Chuck Schumer, Pennsylvania’s Don Casey, Illinois’ Dick Durbin, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, and Vermont’s independent Bernie Sanders.

“I don’t want to be out there in 20 years and be asking ourselves why did we let our manufacturing base crumble and not do anything about it?”
The bill would prohibit companies from declaring the losses from closing plants and relocating them overseas as expenses on their tax returns, with the exception of severance packages for terminated employees.

The bill would also force U.S.-based companies to pay income tax on all products sold in the country, even if the products are made overseas and the profit is taken at an overseas subsidiary. This current practice is known as tax deferral, and companies don’t have to pay tax on them until those funds are pulled back into the U.S.

For example, under current law, a company that owns a subsidiary and plant overseas does not pay taxes on the profits for products made at that plant that are sold in the United States. Under the new proposal, such sales would be taxable even though the profits were held by offshore subsidiaries.

Finally, the proposal would give any company a two-year waiver on the 6.2 percent federal payroll tax for any worker who is hired in the United States as a result of bringing back operations from overseas.

The senators say the program would cost about $720 million over 10 years as the credits from new hires would be partially offset from the new tax revenues from off-shoring companies.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opposed the measure Friday morning, forcing a floor vote to continue debate of the bill. Such a vote requires 61 votes and the Democrats currently only have 59. That “cloture” vote is necessary for the bill to continue in the Senate, and is scheduled for Tuesday morning. That vote will make individual Republicans vote up or down on the measure in the midst of the politically charged election season.

“My view is that the majority has literally wasted months in the chamber trying to tell the private sector what to do instead of providing certainty they need to make investment decisions,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

“This bill … will do nothing to create jobs here in our country. Most of the factories the Durbin bill is trying to prevent from moving overseas are not traveling overseas to sell back to the American market, but are moving there to gain competitive advantage over foreign companies in foreign markets.

“And in doing so, they create more jobs and more opportunity right here in the United States,” McConnell said, adding that the bill would also add to the deficit.

Brown said that Ohio has seen manufacturing jobs fall by nearly 40 percent between 1999-2009 – a drop of nearly 400,000 jobs from more than 1 million in 1999. Locally, his office says Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties have seen a loss of more than 35,000 manufacturing jobs between 1999-2009 – including nearly 27,000 in Hamilton County alone.
“Now we know that not all of these are caused by outsourcing and off-shoring, but it certainly has had an impact,” Brown said.

Democratic leadership decided to bring this bill to a vote without certain approval as the session nears its end, instead of other legislation closer to passage and bipartisan agreement.

“I don’t care who you are, Democrat or Republican, you can’t go out into your districts and not hear that people are clamoring for suits, appliances, cars and other items that are made in the U.S.A.,” Brown said.

[Dr Fate]

22. If Obama's efforts failed every time, then how is that an example supporting your argument?

I asked you for examples of how Obama has punished or denied benefits to outsourcers- not for another story of caving, failure and excuse making.

If Obama & DEMS allowed Republicans to kill your example, then they can certainly "compromise" to make sure outsources get grants as well.

Time will tell- but these past examples of failure and caving you have provided tell us much.

Giving me an example of yet another GOP victory and yet another DEM cave-in is hardly encouraging.

[SidDithers]

49. +1...nt

Sid

[ProSense]

5. "You will not see this kind of analysis in the corporate-owned MSM." Actually,

propaganda isn't above the MSM.

Has the Communist Party weighed in?

When did Obama say this:

The actual policy measures proposed in the speech were right-wing and pro-corporate. Obama called for lower corporate tax rates, a five-year freeze in annual domestic spending to be carried out through “painful cuts” in social programs, and a bipartisan effort to slash spending on the major entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

What a crock!

[Dr Fate]

8. So your argument is that Obama should move to the left?

LOL! Just kidding. You dont have to answe that. It's not your job to say what Obama should do, but to agree with whatever it is that he does or does not do.

But seriously- Communist party and other far left malcontents aside-I have not seen and I do not expect to see any major effort by cable media to frame things as the OP has. In that respect, I can see the OP's point.

[displacedvermoter]

67. "It's not your job to say what Obama should do, but to

agree with whatever it is that he does or does not do."

Love it!!!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

14. Unrec. nt

[MadBadger]

18. Anything that is to the Right of Socialism is Right Wing to them.

[phleshdef]

24. I love pretentious, douche bag, more left than thou phrases like "the financial aristrocracy".

Its always a sign that some idiot is just trying too hard to impress someone.

[Dr Fate]

26. So there is no financial aristocracy, or whatever you want to call it?

What is a more "centrist" term for it then?

What do centrists call it when the top 1% pays basically nothing, but controls basically everything? I got it- how about "The New Normal."

Do you have facts showing that there is nothing resembling financial aristocracy in the USA, or is yours just an issue of style?

[phleshdef]

29. Its just a bunch of "hey look at me, look how academically left I can be! Me, me, me" garbage.

[Dr Fate]

30. What do academic "centrists" call the people who control all the money?

I know- "DONORS" or "constituents."

"Me me" garbage indeed.

;)

Either way, I note that you cant deny the fact of its existence, you can only attack the terminology.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

38. I just figured that if you thought using "academically left " language was such a bad thing...

...then you might have some other phrases that are more mainstream or moderate sounding. Something that would play in Peoria.

All you have done is attack his choice of words- I dont think it is all that absurd to identify a type of aristocracy in the US.

Sounded like a bunch of "hey look at me, look how academically centrist I can be! Me, me, me" garbage. My mistake. ;)

I'll be "over here" on the left when you need me. ;)

[DCBob]

25. Nonsense.

These articles are starting to sound like The Onion.

[Dr Fate]

27. True. Who would beleive that Obama and his advisors are pro-Wall Street? n/t

n/t

[DrToast]

28. Poor listening comprehension (what a surprise)

Obama didn't call for less taxes from corporations. He called for lower tax rates with loopholes eliminated.

He called for a revenue neutral restructuring of the corporate tax code.

Economists of all persuasions support this idea.

[damonm]

31. This and $3.27 will get me a gallon of gas...

[ncteechur]

33. crapola!

[jenmito]

34. So I take it that you're in the 8% or so who didn't approve of his proposals laid out in his speech?

:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

36. I approved of some parts of the speech...

....disagreed with other parts.

[jenmito]

39. I approve of Rachel's opinion over your OP and your opinion. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

41. I didn't see Rachel's show

Actually, I rarely watch cable news except for youtube clips I see posted on DU.

I'll have to check out her show.

[jenmito]

43. It will be on again at 12am ET. You should really catch it. n/t

[emulatorloo]

48. It was an excellent show - thnks for the recommendation n/t

[jenmito]

35. Rachel Maddow disagrees with you. She just said he laid out "Eisenhower liberal/leftist

ideas" and that he defined the center, which was NOT to the right. She said he stopped the rightward drift.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. I thought it was a very corporate-friendly speech

When the chamber of commerce is praising your speech, something doesn't smell right.

Keep in mind that Rachel has new bosses that recently threw out Keith Olbermann.

Her new masters will likely be expanding the filter on her :(

[jenmito]

40. So you're throwing Rachel under the bus? She has not changed ONE BIT.

Olbermann had a contentious relationship with MSNBC for a while now. The "new masters" are not influencing her, Ed, Cenk, or anyone else.

[woo me with science]

59. Interesting that in the minds of some here

EVER disagreeing with someone equals "throwing them under the bus" completely.

That has sort of creepy implications when it comes to backing political leaders, no?

[jenmito]

64. The poster didn't simply disagree with her...

He said, "Keep in mind that Rachel has new bosses that recently threw out Keith Olbermann. Her new masters will likely be expanding the filter on her" That implies that Rachel is being manipulated to say things she really doesn't mean.

[Dr Fate]

46. She describes him as a 1950's Republican?

I'd prefer a 21st Century Liberal Democrat.

Maybe he too can someday give an after-the-fact, farewell speech about the industrial military complex.

Then again, better to have a 1950's Republican than a 2012 one.

[vaberella]

51. Actually Eisenhower was more left of the left. If you saw the video.

But most people have always said that Eisenhower was leftist. Democrats don't always equate liberals and definitely not in history.

[Dr Fate]

52. He taxed the rich at around 90%, so maybe he could afford to be to the left on an issue or two.

Obama simply does not have the money to be the next Ike. He recently "compromised" most of it away to the Koch Brothers, the CEO's of trans-national corporations, Billionare Republican donors & their ilk.

Anything that needs to get done will have to get the stamp of approval from them. They hold the money, they hold the cards.

So his speech sounded like something a moderate Republican from the 50's might say. Great start, I guess.

In his last SOTU, Obama pledged not to extend these tax breaks, but he broke that promise. He arguably sounded like Ike last year when he promised he would tax the rich.

Sounding like Ike & following through like Ike might be 2 diff. things.

Time will tell. I usually look to past actions when it comes to politicians, not just at what they say.

[treestar]

42. And yet others call it Marxist!

The labels are beginning to be meaningless.

[Dr Fate]

45. Anyone who thinks Obama is too cozy w/ Wall Street is just a Liberal version of a Tea-Bagger.

AKA the far, professional left as the "moderates" say. (Their labels, not mine)

[golfguru]

44. Stock market is doing well n/t

[impik]

47. Of course he did. next.

[Dr Fate]

50. I love all the detailed, point by point rebuttles & responses on this thread!

Everybody knows that it is SILLY to even suggest that Obama's ultimate actions might somehow end up favoring wall street over mainstreet jobs & small businesses.

Never happened that way before, and even if it did, centrist & moderate voters will surely reward us, this time.

The Liberals who were complaining & warning us about center right DEMS before the midterms were just as "chicken little" as they are now.

My advice is that we all just listen to what the centrists say, not those Liberals who have been wrong about everything.

NEXT!

[dionysus]

53. another wheelbarrow full of BS from our favorite non-credible source.

:woohoo:

[Godhumor]

54. I can sum this up easily, "Hey here is an WSWS opinon! It can be safely ignored!"

There is zero credibility associated with the WSWS.

[Dr Fate]

55. Best to listen to the analysis of clear-eyed centrists, like we did b/f our midterm victories.

Centrists are the ones who always get it right- Liberals who criticise these centrists are always wrong.

The popular centrist war plan, the popular centrist job creation plan, the popular centrist HC mandate and the subsequent midterm election results prove that.

[Godhumor]

58. The WSWS has not now nor ever presented a viable opinion

They certainly should not be associated with the US left if the left wants to be taken seriously.

[Dr Fate]

60. But centrists have. Like when they support popular war spending, or the wildly popular HC mandates.

WINNING issues for us in the midterms, BTW!

If we want more victories like 2010, we must listen to the centrists who present the most popular positions on issues.

If we even listen half-way to the people who opposed the war and Wall Street favoritism, we will never win another midterm or major election.

How can we possibly take people who opposed the war and opposed conservative economic plans seriously? No sir- I'm going with the centrists- who's wildly popular stances have brought me recent election victory!

[Godhumor]

61. Being emphatically anyi-wsws BS does not mean being a centrist

It just means I think the wsws is horseshit.

[Dr Fate]

63. As your point by point, detailed refuations & examples demonstrate. n/t

n/t

[Godhumor]

65. Sorry, your version of wanting refuations is proclaiming those who don't like the wsws

as pushing your self-defined centrist positions.

I don't feel there is anything to have to counter in the wsws, because I don't think it has any basic understanding of issues.

Any issues.

[Dr Fate]

66. You have yet to explain how socialists, per se, have been incorrect on the major issues & strategies

Not being a socialist myself and therefore not familiar with everything they have been writing, I'm sure you could find something.

I'm just noting that you have not. Neither has anyone else on this thread.



In turn, I have demonstrated how the "centrists" being criticised in the article were DEAD WRONG on several major issues and election strategies.

I'm making the case that maybe we should view the centrists as just as unreliable as socialists. Issue by issue, maybe even more so.

[geek tragedy]

56. The Trotskyites didn't like it? Shocking! nt

[Dr Fate]

57. But the clear-eyed centrists who are always correct on the issues love it!

Centrists & our "see no evil, hear no evil" DEMS love it almost as much as they loved similar speeches & stances he gave before our midterm victories, so it must be great!

Lets see- socialists opposed the war(s), opposed tax cuts for the top 1%, were for a Public option and warned us that mandates would be unpopular in the midterms.

LOL! Will those far lefts ever get ANYTHING right like the victorious winners from the center always do?

[wisteria]

62. It is a Socialist web site, so of course we wouldn't see it referenced in our media. n/t

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[stevenleser]

69. Sounds like they wrote this before listening to the speech.

Most credible progressives are praising the speech.

wsws always engages in this odd "Look at us, were more left than YOU" game with Democrats. Its really pathetic. Its an ideological left version of a barely-post-pubescent male penis length competition.