- This topic contains 0 voices and has 36 replies.
September 20, 2012 at 4:28 pm #604924September 20, 2012 at 8:15 pm #771649
dobroParticipantSeptember 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm #771650
One of biggest disappointments of Obama’s first term (notice I said first term) was the failure to rein in Wall Street. Of course I don’t blame him entirely for that failure. And I certainly don’t blame him for getting us into the mess in the first place.
But I do blame him for not taking a stronger stand against those who did: The Tim Geithners. The Ben Bernankes. The investment bankers. The Wall Street 1-percenters.
Earlier this year, PBS aired an excellent two-part Frontline documentary on what was happening on Wall Street in the crucial months leading up to the 2008 election.
“Money, Power, and Wall Street”
In the first segment, we see a clear pattern of screw-ups at the highest levels of government. We also hear a story of ass-covering so monumental that if the Pampers company doesn’t buy the rights to it, they’re missing the opportunity of a lifetime.
At the peak of the crisis, just as the full dimensions of the screw-up were becoming clear, uber-bankers Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke made the canny (but also dishonest) decision to keep Candidate Obama apprised of the situation, while denying Candidate McCain the same information. As a result of getting a steady stream of insider information, Candidate Obama was able to bone up on his economics, and in the fall of 2008, when President Bush brought the candidates into a roundtable discussion on how to deal with the crisis, Obama looked had a plan and looked prepared, while McCain, who hadn’t been told what was happening, looked the fool.
Well guess how PRESIDENT Obama returned the favor to Geithner and Bernanke after the election? He rehired them. And since then, he’s even promoted Geithner to Secretary of the Treasury!
Are you following this? Let me break it down for ya.
► Two fat-cat bankers.
► Both George W. Bush appointees.
► Both were at the controls of the government’s financial policy machinery in the months and years leading up to the crash.
You’d expect these lame-o’s to be among the first whose heads rolled after “regime change,” wouldn’t you?
But is that what happened?
Nope. Not at all. Bernanke and Geithner are still firmly at the levers of power, still trying to help their old pals at the Wall Street banks, and still screwing over the rest of us.
All for the price of a couple insider tips that helped Barack Obama get into power.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I haven’t quothed Scripture at you for a few days now, and I was getting kinda antsy. Hope you don’t mind if I reuse one now and then.September 21, 2012 at 12:09 am #771651
+1 for the Frontline piece, Money Power Wall St. It was eye opener, fo sure. Except, IMO, it was a little soft on some of TBTF financiers.
Also, “Inside Job” was a good documentary. Showed the elite club made from members of top Ivy League & business schools, large Wall St firms, and Washington DC — the club that carefully collaborated to bring the financial system to collapse. In the film he analyzes the Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama administrations, and their roles.
The thing that makes me vomit nearly is when I read that so and so is being considered for some position in the administration now… and lawd, if it’s not one of those Players! One of my biggest disappointments is Obama sent no message, he made no heads roll when they were vulnerable and needed govt. backing, and needed govt. to ‘soft test’ their garbage, ahh their assets, so their firms wouldn’t Bankrupt. He had a golden opportunity early in his admin, and he went completely soft. Why? IDK.
I also think Bill Moyers interviews of David Stockman, and his interview Gretchen Morgenstern, were good.September 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm #771652
Serious.. meg, serious? Go down the campaign donors list. DPB they were covered and cloaked from day one. “They” got the federal reserve, the Dept of Treasury, and then to tie up the package neatly … they hired the big dog of Wall Street legal firms to head up DOJ. That pretty much covered the bases. Now, if it was a little hand holding and a mass jump.. and I have my favorites to join in… tell ya dobro, you grab 5 to join in, and I will grab 5…. let’s see who really should be on the Ledge Leaping Olympiad. How many times have we heard …. ” most economists say/agree”…. (fill in the blanks) …September 21, 2012 at 6:11 pm #771653
Meg…Kootch will argue about anything that smacks of not agreeing with him all the time. You actually agreed with DBP about something. Heaven forbid you would ever agree with anything that I said or JoB said. – lol ( and,it seems that according to Kman, Obama is the anti-Christ…he’s to blame for everything)
You mentioned Bill Moyers…can’t say enough good things about him and his journalism :)
(trying to keep this comment as generic as possible – lol)September 21, 2012 at 8:21 pm #771654
All it took was for him to make sense. Next, you might too. He doesn’t rise to the level of “anti-Chrsit”.. a tool for him maybe. A front man in a suit. He doesn’t have the juice.September 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm #771655
Kman, can’t tell what you’re arguing w/the ‘serious’ thing.
Jan, heaven forbid …(oh nevermind) in this thread I agreed with a particular assessment not person, an assessment that Wall St. financialization machine and our central govt priests have woven a democracy-murdering blanket in which they are smothering us.
Why do politics have sacred leaders? These ones don’t deserve respect, craven fools at best. Plus, for non-religious ppl, why does religious terms like “anti-Christ” even matter?
OK, then. Obama is … anti-Santa. An empty shirt. Better? :)
Hate focusing turns non-religious ppl to holy war emotions, no different from Taliban or Westboro churchers. Focus instead on deep understanding of what’s actually true, not snipets for puppets, and how things really work and the complexity of it. Only from That will I find what I as a citizen can do.September 21, 2012 at 8:36 pm #771656September 21, 2012 at 8:51 pm #771657
nevermind, I think you’re saying he couldn’t hard-stress them cuz they brought him to power?
off topic here, sorry OP:
what do you think about what simpson’s saying, about how repubs are scared to raise taxes in order to deal with the deficit due to them signing that grover norquist’s non-taxing oath? they can’t pass simpson-bowles cuz they are terrified, according to senator simpson who seems po’d.
do you think republicans will be able to pass this? do you think they will feel a one-time tax raise will be fine and they can still hold to a high level of no-new-tax ideology without being hog-tied, forevermore, to an oath to grover norquist?September 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm #771658
waahhh, K-man made the ledge too crowded now I can’t fit My faves!
gdamnit moveover, I got a couple economics schools deans and some elite paper-smacking testifiers.September 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm #771659
no…I think Grover Norquist has them by the proverbial balls…he has pledged to unseat them if they break the pledge.And if they stick with him, constituents will eventually kick ’em out. I don’t know why anyone gives this man any importance at all..he doesn’t/can’t even shave right ;->September 22, 2012 at 3:31 am #771660
(yeah, I have a few words on Grovie’s oath-harvester, but have to collect them after a thought experiment that went sideways into a parallel universe)
There’s a season for everything, and a time for every purpose. isn’t that the quote?
Grover had his season and his purpose. At the start he just trying to get accountability, right? The central govt is Huge, and voters learned they can’t trust their DC pols, so Grovie found a medieval way to put them in straight-jackets, in order to get a bizarre form of “accountability”. Perhaps it worked well for a while.
What he’s doing is not illegal. But it IS not necessarily effective now, is disgraceful, and a stupid way for legislators to have to work. It’s very very Nanny-ish: “We don’t trust your intention, so we will hog-tie you to the fence, into perpetuity, and pretend you can still do your best work.” (like some nanny laws that conservatives & libertarians hate. interesting.)
Anyway, Grovie is another reason why voters need a huge amt education about issues, not party punch bowl trash-talking half-lies and inuendo scare-tactics campaign crap. Do you hate what Grovie is doing? Enuf education on the part of voters would crater him – even if they don’t vote for your party. But voters have to be really educated, not just more party zombies. Grovie IS vested in party ppl staying uneducated. Haters be making Grovie very secure.September 22, 2012 at 3:40 am #771661
what gets me is the “Grovie”s background…a damned lobbyist…like that’s qualifications for running people in congress. Chaps my hide that they are more indebted to him than to their constituents..
and, oh, yeah…besides other right wingy things, he worked with Oliver North and his Nicaraguan thing…now that’s inspirational. I’ve seen some interviews with him…have a hard time listening to them all the way through…but feel like I should…September 22, 2012 at 3:44 am #771662
Don’t hate him….UNDERSTAND him. Best way to deal with your opponent. Yeah, you may find yourself scarily slipping between both realities, sometimes. But that’s the best way to really understand what’s ticking, and how to ‘untick’ it.September 22, 2012 at 3:08 pm #771663
meg are you boning up on your Sun Tzu ? 孙武 Here’s how you marginalize Grover Norquist. Reduce the size of the federal government. Spend no more than you take in as taxes. Pass and sign a constitutional amendment for a balanced federal budget. Poof! Norquist gone.October 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm #771664
The ripple effects of the stock exchange shut-down were being felt as far away as Washington state Tuesday morning, where Highland Park resident David Preston was hunkered down in his basement, gripped by uncertainty.
“I was going to go out for donuts this morning,” he said, “but with all the markets shut down, I probably won’t risk it.”October 30, 2012 at 11:06 pm #771665
Ah.. but the markets around the world were trading… robustly. Starting to get the feeling we are not the only place in the world to conduct business?October 30, 2012 at 11:33 pm #771666October 31, 2012 at 2:14 am #771667
Ah the beauty of capital.. you don’t even need a wheelbarrow anymore. Just hit the “send” button to execute. Donuts a cure for uncertainty?
Anyway, Grovie is another reason why voters need a huge amt education about issues, not party punch bowl trash-talking half-lies and inuendo scare-tactics campaign crap.
War on Women?
4 million new jobs?
Things like that?October 31, 2012 at 2:54 am #771668
it’s too bad the education your are opting for doesn’t include accuracy…
you wouldn’t invest on the basis of the quality of the political information you are disseminating,
would you?November 21, 2012 at 2:51 am #771669
This just heard on tonight’s PBS Newshour (11/20/12):
The day’s other major business story involved Hewlett-Packard. The company announced that a British firm acquired last year had lied about its finances. As a result, H.P. said it’s taking a charge of $8.8 billion against earnings. H.P. stock fell 12 percent in daily trading today.
So let me get this straight, HP.
You paid $9 billion for a foreign company based on . . . what?
–A wink and a nod?
–A number written on a napkin?
–An e-mail from some Nigerian prince?
I always thought you had to be kinda smart to make computers.
Guess this just means there’s different kinds of smart.
Still only one kinda dumb, though.
Oh, hi Hewlett-Packard.
I’m afraid we’re gonna have to ask you to go ahead and move your desk down to the basement now. Mmmm-KAY?
Y-y-y-yeahNovember 21, 2012 at 4:13 am #771670
dude. how do you think BofA avoided taxes in ’08/’09?
they bought merrill lynch at a loss and wrote it off.
simple accounting. it’s done every day by people way smarter and richer than you and i will ever be.
and it should be criminal.November 21, 2012 at 8:22 pm #771671
Thanks r/b . . .
Couple of years ago some Dems in Congress proposed a 0.03% “transactions tax” on market trades.
That’s a rate of oh-point-oh-three percent. Or about 1/300th of the tax rate you’d pay on a hot dog from 7-11.
The proposed tax wouldn’t have “hurt” anyone but the big Wall Street traders, and it would have raised $350 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Guess who killed it?
Go ahead. I’ll give you oh-point-oh-three guesses.November 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm #771672
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.