PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues More Obama Broken Promises


NewChief
12-08-2009, 04:30 AM
Another area of major FAIL that hasn't really gotten that much hype since it's not one of the "big" issues. The big annoyance to me here is that he puts on such a dog and pony show on the issue (organic garden at the white house. Farmer's market outside. We're going to revolutionize food production in the USA!), but then just sticks to the status quo. More "change" from this charlatan.


http://civileats.com/2009/12/08/obamas-broken-promises-disappointing-and-dangerous-for-farmers-and-eaters/

Obama’s Broken Promises, Disappointing and Dangerous for Farmers and Eaters

December 8th, 2009 By Jim Goodman

“And it means ensuring that the policies being shaped at the Departments of Agriculture and Interior are designed to serve not big agribusiness or Washington influence peddlers, but the family farmers and the American People.” President-elect Barack Obama, December 17 2008, Chicago, Illinois.

The message was one of hope, the words of a newly elected President echoing the Populism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the promise of John F. Kennedy. It stopped there, the delivery of the promise fell short.

We have gotten a New Deal, albeit one that is more protective of those who caused the economic and agricultural crises than of those who suffer from them. We have also gotten a new version of “The Best and the Brightest” in the Obama Administration and their faulty counsel extends beyond war into food and trade policy.

The campaign promises were not worth the notepads they are written on. The promises were broken and business at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will carry on much as it did during the Bush Administration.

Instead of going outside the agribusiness and agrochemical industries, Obama has kept the revolving door spinning and appointed the very lobbyists and special interests he said would find no home in his administration.

Monsanto stalwarts Michael Taylor, special assistant to the FDA Commissioner for food safety and Roger Beachy, head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

Rajiv Shah, head of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) where his pro-biotech leanings will continue to be pushed on the developing world. Perhaps it is a good fit, as President Obama noted “The mission of USAID is to advance America’s interests by strengthening our relationships abroad.” However, advancing America’s interests and giving real aid to those in need are not the same thing. Advancing interests implies control and empire building.

Islam Siddiqui, Chief Agriculture Negotiator, office of U.S. Trade Representative, is a particularly troubling nomination. He is no friend of consumers, considering his most recent employment at CropLife America (CLA), the pesticide industries main trade association. As a registered lobbyist and vice president of regulatory affairs, Siddiqui was responsible for setting and selling CLA’s international and domestic agenda which, simply put, was to weaken regulations on pesticides and agricultural chemicals worldwide.

He is no friend of farmers either, and not just organic farmers, even though he has a long history of distaste for organic agriculture. He promotes agribusiness, chemical companies, processors and grain marketers who make their profits by buying low, processing and selling high. In his world, a farmers job is to maintain corporate profits.

As an unabashed ‘free trader” he is a strong supporter of the World Trade Organization and its ability to strong-arm countries into accepting unwanted U.S. imports. He openly derided the European Union’s rejection of hormone-treated beef, Japan’s desire to mandate labeling of Genetically Modified (GM) food and he pushed to permit pesticide testing on children. In his world consumers should be forced to accept whatever food products are thrown at them.

Forced trade, telling countries they must accept our products whether they want them or not is not trade, it is nothing short of blackmail.

His “public service” career has been dedicated to selling more pesticides and GM seed to farmers world-wide and easing restrictions on their use. The beneficiaries of these policies were not farmers or consumers but the agribusiness corporations that Siddiqui worked for. That is not public service, that is promoting private interest.

Siddiqui has not worked in the best interests of farmers or consumers, rather he has consistently promoted the interests of multi-national corporations, grain companies, meat processors and chemical companies over those of the farmer or consumer. If appointed, why should we believe that that the leopard will suddenly be changing its spots ?

President Obama noted as a candidate “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s [USDA] not the Department of Agribusiness. We’re going to put the peoples interests ahead of the special interests.” Just another empty promise.

blaise
12-08-2009, 05:22 AM
It's no problem for him. The only thing 90% of voters pay any attention to is the initial promises during the campaign and the dog and pony show you referenced.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 05:35 AM
Why should the Federal govt SHAPE such policies. Just stop shaping things altogether and the bad guys won't be put to such an advantage. Let 'em compete.

memyselfI
12-08-2009, 06:46 AM
But you are still on board his wagon, yes?

NewChief
12-08-2009, 06:50 AM
But you are still on board his wagon, yes?

I haven't been "on board" from the moment he was elected. I voted for him yes, but I anticipated that I would start holding him accountable for his promises as soon as he was elected. I'm pretty much a malcontent and dislike whoever is in power, even if I helped put them there. I was the same way with Clinton. I'm pretty sure that I posted that this would be my position as soon as the man was in power. I don't see it as some on/off dichotomy like you seem to. I'll give credit to the guy when he deserves it, and I'll criticize him when he deserves it. Unfortunately, he's warranted very little praise and a heap of critique up to this point of his administration.

memyselfI
12-08-2009, 06:52 AM
I haven't been "on board" from the moment he was elected. I voted for him yes, but I anticipated that I would start holding him accountable for his promises as soon as he was elected. I'm pretty much a malcontent and dislike whoever is in power, even if I helped put them there. I was the same way with Clinton. I'm pretty sure that I posted that this would be my position as soon as the man was in power.

If you're asking if my enthusiasm for this presidency has waned. Then, yes. It has. That doesn't mean that I feel the urge to start ridiculing people and posting excessive ROFLcopter smilies, though.

Would you vote for him again knowing what you know now?

NewChief
12-08-2009, 06:54 AM
Would you vote for him again knowing what you know now?

I've edited my post about 10 times since you quoted it... but anyway. The situation being the same: him running against McCain and there being no viable 3rd party candidate? Yes. I would.

BigRedChief
12-08-2009, 06:55 AM
I've edited my post about 10 times since you quoted it... but anyway. The situation being the same: him running against McCain and there being no viable 3rd party candidate? Yes. I would.
THIS!

Reaper16
12-08-2009, 11:20 AM
Yup. None of the info in that article is new, but it is devastating just the same. His empty promises about food policy is right up there with healthcare as reasons why Barack Carcetti pisses me right the fuck off. Motherfucker talks a good, believable game about being anti-lobbyist and then embraces them once elected. Add the lobbyist love to food policy (something I've very passionate about) and you get a pissed-off Reaper.

KCWolfman
12-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Yup. None of the info in that article is new, but it is devastating just the same. His empty promises about food policy is right up there with healthcare as reasons why Barack Carcetti pisses me right the **** off. Mother****er talks a good, believable game about being anti-lobbyist and then embraces them once elected. Add the lobbyist love to food policy (something I've very passionate about) and you get a pissed-off Reaper.

Yeah, who needs farmers when we have the ability to strip the land without them?

HonestChieffan
12-08-2009, 02:14 PM
What change has he made or would u like made specific to ag policy?

Bwana
12-08-2009, 11:17 PM
More Hope and Change!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv0/ShM4_qbz7FI/AAAAAAAADpM/BlHmQFWgifs/s400/Obama-Muslim-1.jpg

SNR
12-09-2009, 01:35 AM
I haven't been "on board" from the moment he was elected. I voted for him yes, but I anticipated that I would start holding him accountable for his promises as soon as he was elected. I'm pretty much a malcontent and dislike whoever is in power, even if I helped put them there. I was the same way with Clinton. I'm pretty sure that I posted that this would be my position as soon as the man was in power. I don't see it as some on/off dichotomy like you seem to. I'll give credit to the guy when he deserves it, and I'll criticize him when he deserves it. Unfortunately, he's warranted very little praise and a heap of critique up to this point of his administration.Have you seen an ideal candidate of yours run in any party in the past 3 or 4 elections?

NewChief
12-09-2009, 05:09 AM
Have you seen an ideal candidate of yours run in any party in the past 3 or 4 elections?

As far as truly being close to my ideology, Kucinich might be fairly close, though he may be a little out there on some of the planks of his platform. Nader might be somewhat close. I'm attracted to outsiders who I hope can actually change Washington. See what I'm disappointed in Obama? ;)