Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings. (here)
Is a neo-con at heart:
Is more conservative than Ronald Reagan:
Obama’s approach to the financial markets reveals this same combination of free market fundamentalism and an anti-government rejection of regulation. During the initial bank bailout, instead of taking over the banks and imposing new restrictions on exotic instruments, the administration turned to private capital to stabilize the banks. In his many interviews on this subject, Timothy Geithner stressed that they did not want the government to interfere with the free market. (here)
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Maintains a stricter view of the drug laws than George W. Bush,
Don’t forget the bending over backwards to work with the GOP. I mean, even the health reform act favored the insurance companies.