Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

[Master Shake]

Re: Mess created 2001-2008 during BUSH's presidency

1. O didn't bailout the bankers; the bank bailout was last year (Bush and Co). O used TARP for GM, AIG and Chrysler.

2. Geithner was a vote for "continuity". As EJ and others make clear, we are at the mercy of our creditors, most of whom are foreign and likely demanded no significant changes in the TBTF policy started by Bush. We can all speculate whether anything would be different with a different man in Treasury, but Geithner was not unqualified, even though I opposed his appointment and believe his policies are mistaken.

3. "All of the data" on global warming has NOT been faked. Where do you get this stuff? I think the jury is out on the extent and causes of the problem and whether it is even a problem that needs immediate attention. But for god's sake, just look at the polar ice, Bolivia's glaciers, Mt. Kilamenjaro and the ice core studies, none of which is the subject of the emails. As for the emails, you're surprised that "group think" is prevalent on all sides of an issue? It's an embarrassment to that UK research team, but they are otherwise a red herring.

4. O has given several speeches expressing the dangers of deficits and the need for austerity. Last time I checked, though, Congress has the power of the purse.

5. He campaigned on the promise of a troop increase in Afghanistan. Or would you rather he break that promise so you could call him a liar?

6. Why lack of progress on a health care bill? Do you really not know the answer? Hint: FIRE owns Congress. At least he is trying and he has not yet given up.

7. What specific proposals do you have for "cleaning up" Congress? If, as you say, it's a problem that has gone on for decades, why is he now responsible for solving it? Isn't it more reasonable that he first address the problems he campaigned on, ie., Afghanistan, health care, the environment and winding down the Iraq war? You may not like his solutions, but from I can tell, he's just doing what the majority elected him to do.

What flavor Kool-Aid? Grape?

[Master Shake]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

That's a true statement. He did not campaign as a friend of Wall St, even though he certainly raked in the campaign cash from the big wigs at Goldman et. al. They were probably just caught up in his aura.

I used to call Bush II Chance the Gardiner come to life. Obama is merely a more verbally accomplished Chance in blackface.

[flintlock]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

8 out of 10 Jonestown koolaide drinkers preferred Grape.

[raja]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Here's more of what Obama said in the interview:

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) --
“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."

In the interview, which was recorded last week and aired last night, Obama said that some firms may have repaid bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to escape government limits on pay and bonuses for executives.

“The only ones that are going to be paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that TARP money and aren’t using taxpayer loans,” he said, according to a transcript of the interview from CBS.
“The people on Wall Street still don’t get it,” Obama said. “They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we’ve got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?”

“You’ve got these same banks who benefited from taxpayer assistance who are fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists up on Capitol Hill fighting against financial regulatory reform,” the president said.

I don't know what's in Obama's mind -- if he's genuine, or not -- but I was shocked at the frankness of his comments, and the implications for the future . . . .

He is openly saying that the bankers CAUSED the crash, and that the People have a right to be angry. In my mind, he is supplying ammunition for populist action against Congress and the Financial Elite. He's put a target on their backs.

Before, when I was talking to uninformed people, it was not easy to explain why they are losing their jobs and homes . . . and why should they listen to me, anyway? Now, I can just repeat Obama's words, "America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and (the bankers) caused the problem."

He doesn't go so far as to directly blame Congress, but he says it indirectly by pointing out that Congress is being influenced by lobbyists to vote against regulation to reign in the Financial Elite. Good enough.

In my mind, Obama's comments are a watershed event . . . .

[vinoveri]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Here's more of what Obama said in the interview:

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) --
“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."

In the interview, which was recorded last week and aired last night, Obama said that some firms may have repaid bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to escape government limits on pay and bonuses for executives.

“The only ones that are going to be paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that TARP money and aren’t using taxpayer loans,” he said, according to a transcript of the interview from CBS.
“The people on Wall Street still don’t get it,” Obama said. “They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we’ve got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?”

“You’ve got these same banks who benefited from taxpayer assistance who are fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists up on Capitol Hill fighting against financial regulatory reform,” the president said.

I don't know what's in Obama's mind -- if he's genuine, or not -- but I was shocked at the frankness of his comments, and the implications for the future . . . .

He is openly saying that the bankers CAUSED the crash, and that the People have a right to be angry. In my mind, he is supplying ammunition for populist action against Congress and the Financial Elite. He's put a target on their backs.

Before, when I was talking to uninformed people, it was not easy to explain why they are losing their jobs and homes . . . and why should they listen to me, anyway? Now, I can just repeat Obama's words, "America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and (the bankers) caused the problem."

He doesn't go so far as to directly blame Congress, but he says it indirectly by pointing out that Congress is being influenced by lobbyists to vote against regulation to reign in the Financial Elite. Good enough.

In my mind, Obama's comments are a watershed event . . . .

Watch his actions, not his populist rhetoric.

Talk is cheap. He's trying to boost his ratings and throwing verbal red meat to his die hard fans who don't want to admit to themselves and have to believe he is just another politician.

[Raz]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Let's see, Obama and Dems try to reform insurance; FIRE

Conservative votes in favor? 0 Conservatives continue to fight for the insurance companies with attempted filibuster.

Obama and Progressives in the house pass a Finance Regulatory reform bill, Fire
Conservative votes in favor? 0 Conservatives continue to fight for the big investment banks with a threatened filibuster in the Senate.

Next up; Conservative's fighting for the Real Estate Industry.

When Conservatives held the presidency and congress, numbers of reform bills passed? 0

Fair statements, every one.

The only correction needed is to change Conservative to "conservative" in order to accurately describe NeoCon phony conservatives.

(And to be even more accurate change "Progressives" to Liberal or Leftists. It's not accurate to imply that the effects of Democratic policies caused progress, any more than the term "Conservatives" have always conserved or maintained that which is good and beneficial.)

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Watch his actions, not his populist rhetoric.

Talk is cheap. He's trying to boost his ratings and throwing verbal red meat to his die hard fans who don't want to admit to themselves and have to believe he is just another politician.

Yes, the best way to protect your Fiance banker friends is to work with the house of Representatives to get legislation passed that would tighten regulations on the industry, then demand the Senate pass similar legislation, then go on national television and tell a public, that is so angry at bankers they are sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches, that fat cat bankers are making you angry by how irresponsible they are. Yep, if I wanted to protect my rich friends, this is exactly the way I'd do it.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Fair statements, every one.

The only correction needed is to change Conservative to "conservative" in order to accurately describe NeoCon phony conservatives.

(And to be even more accurate change "Progressives" to Liberal or Leftists. It's not accurate to imply that the effects of Democratic policies caused progress, any more than the term "Conservatives" have always conserved or maintained that which is good and beneficial.)

I'm going to jump at the opportunity to find agreement with you Raz.

Yes, the Conservative party has morphed into something that would be completely unrecognizable by Barry Goldwater.

Yes, many of the Democrats, liberals, leftists (I'll let you choose the one that you can have the most fun with), bought into the FIRE proposals pushed by Clinton and his cronies. And I can't think of a single policy (on the economic front) that came from that administration that was a policy for economic progress.

Where we'll differ is that I believe the "leftists" have seen the errors of their ways and are trying to rectify the problem. But they are a minority, and the effort to pass anything meaningful will be nearly impossible. It will have to be incremental gains which may not be fast enough to meet EJ's 2013 deadline.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

I think the time has run-out for America: decades of grid-lock and drift in the Congress (engineered by the Constitution) has meant that the nation is now bankrupt and out-of-time. Incremental change is not an option when fifty million people have nothing in America, and the government, at all levels is insolvent. It is truly, "game-over".

[goadam1]

Re: Mess created 2001-2008 during BUSH's presidency

The derivatives and huge real estate casinos, with loose lending standards and almost no regulation, expanded exponentially and blew up in the period 2001 to 2008, when GEORGE BUSH was president.

From 2001 to Jan 2007, REPUBLICAN consevatives controlled the House and Senate. Did they do anything to pur the brakes on the casino??? I don't think so..they were too busy extolling the free market.

It blew up in fall 2008, when GEORGE BUSH was president.

I don't agree with some of his policies, but the TRUTH is that Obama is the CLEAN-UP man, he didn't create the mess, he just gets to try to clean it up.

You made me laugh out loud.

Next you will tell me how he is cleaning up GWB's war and that he was very thoughtful about sending 30,000 troops for only 18 months.

[due_indigence]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Both parties are bankrupt morally and ideologically. Obama, Palin, and any of the other populist figures are merely diversions while the great heist transpires under our very noses. Much like a good magician can manipulate the crowd's attention to one part of the stage while he performs his "magic" on another, the powers behind the scenes use a Roman Carnival of issues like gay marriage amendments, health care debates, foreign wars, and feigned outrage at executive compensation as theater for the masses. Meanwhile, it is business as usual in the pursuit of power and greed particularly when there is still money left in the public coffers. Over the years, there has been a sickeningly array of giveaways to Pharma (i.e Medicare prescription plan), military support services (Halliburton and Blackwater), as well as the normal Wall Street suspects like Goldman and JP Morgan.

People are justifiably upset. They just aren't as upset as they should be because they don't understand the magnitude of what has happened to their country. In a way, the Great Recession is a blessing in disguise. Perhaps, just perhaps, the exposure of malfeasance will finally be the impetus for some badly needed reform.

I haven't heard it better said bcassill. Excellent, sadly.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

fliped42, I know you were just trying to be fair, but simply placing the CRA on the blame pedestal along with Fed's interest rate policies and Greenspan's subprime speeches is in itself a piece of agitation-propaganda.

Bear in mind that I take pride in being an equal opportunity basher of the two parties, their spokespeople and their Joe Six Pack fanatics.

The CRA is a red herring; a Republican Party crafted boogyman. It's the 2008-2009 version of the "Welfare Queen".

I am as confident of this as when I was just about the only person on the planet that called bullshit when they were proclaiming that the "Corporate Bond market was dead forever" in the wake of the White House - GM bankruptcy strong-arming.

The reason why the CRA has to be blamed above subprime issuance in general is because subprime issuance and delinquency rates were and are respectively high above all income brackets. Assigning huge blame to the CRA is in the very least, an act of (class) war.

http://www.ccc.unc.edu/abstracts/091308_Risky.php

Risky Borrowers or Risky Mortgages: Disaggregating Effects Using Propensity Score Models [PDF]

Authors: Lei Ding, Roberto G. Quercia, Wei Li, Janneke Ratcliffe
Sept. 13, 2008 (under review)

This research examined the relative risk of loans from two broad categories: subprime mortgages and special lending programs targeted to low- and moderate-income (LMI) purchasers. Using the propensity score match method, we constructed a sample of comparable borrowers with similar risk characteristics but holding different loan products. We found that loans in a LMI-targeted community-lending program have a lower default risk than subprime loans, very likely because they were not originated by brokers and lack risky features such as adjustable rates and prepayment penalties. Our results suggest that the higher default risk of subprime loans may not be attributed to borrower risk profile only but is instead significantly associated with certain characteristics of loan products and the origination channel in the subprime market.

We find that for borrowers with similar risk characteristics, the estimated default risk is about 70 percent lower with a CRA loan than with a subprime mortgage.

more, relevant data:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...3_analysis.pdf

[phirang]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

Yes, the best way to protect your Fiance banker friends is to work with the house of Representatives to get legislation passed that would tighten regulations on the industry, then demand the Senate pass similar legislation, then go on national television and tell a public, that is so angry at bankers they are sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches, that fat cat bankers are making you angry by how irresponsible they are. Yep, if I wanted to protect my rich friends, this is exactly the way I'd do it.

Actually, it is.

[MulaMan]

Re: Mess created 2001-2008 during BUSH's presidency

Hint: FIRE owns Congress. At least he is trying and he has not yet given up.

The Obama bashers must be the same retards that voted for GW Bush...twice!

Perhaps they bash Obama because if Obama fails, then they feel better for helping Bush/Cheney destroy America.

The alternative to Obama was Clinton or McCain.

It is too bad that Obama is not more hard-nosed willing to attack scumbags such a Lieberman, Dodd, ect..

Seems like he is trying to take the "moral high road" - congress has no clue what that means.

Bush / Cheney had more luck with congress because criminals understand criminals - bribes, smear campaigns, threats, attacks, torture, ...

[c1ue]

Re: Obama's response to Janszen, Taibbi, et. al.

The Obama bashers must be the same retards that voted for GW Bush...twice!

Perhaps they bash Obama because if Obama fails, then they feel better for helping Bush/Cheney destroy America.

The alternative to Obama was Clinton or McCain.

It is too bad that Obama is not more hard-nosed willing to attack scumbags such a Lieberman, Dodd, ect..

Seems like he is trying to take the "moral high road" - congress has no clue what that means.

Bush / Cheney had more luck with congress because criminals understand criminals - bribes, smear campaigns, threats, attacks, torture, ...

More moronic statements from the Mullet Man.

Here's your 'high road':

November 19, 2009

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/blogs/...n-deficit.html

After pressing Congress to approve an $800 billion package of infrastructure projects, unemployment benefits and tax cuts during his first month in office, Obama is now warning that too much debt could cause a double-dip recession.

Even more intriguing about this shift in rhetoric is that he chose to deliver the new message to Fox News, News Corp. (NWS Quote) network with which Obama has been feuding over a perceived conservative bias.

One can only assume that the detente with Fox and the decision to talk about debt issues is a politically calculated move to assuage Republicans who have been making deficit spending a centerpiece of their resistance to Obama's many initiatives, in particular health care reform.

Then less than 1 month later:

December 10, 2009

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...-1225809305729

WHEN all the world was falling apart late last year, the White House, Congress and Treasury officials had no problem selling taxpayers on their moral duty to reach into their pockets and find trillions of dollars to save the economy.
It was a very different story when President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled proposals yesterday to expand the $US787 billion stimulus package and the $US700 billion TARP fund that were launched last year.
A year ago, unemployment was barely 6 per cent and several economic indicators showed that most of the country was still experiencing growth. Only the decimation on Wall Street had Uncle Sam madly rushing to push into law any stimulus package it could -- and the public quietly in obeyance.
Today the economic picture across the country is not only drastically different, but a lot worse.

Go back 1 year - remember this?

November 8, 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...omy/index.html

President-elect Barack Obama offered an outline of his economic recovery plan Saturday, and jobs were the top priority.
President-elect Barack Obama talks about his economic plan Saturday on a video on his Web site.





American workers will rebuild the nation's roads and bridges, modernize its schools and create more sources of alternative energy, Obama said in the weekly Democratic address, posted on his Web site.
"The plan will mean 2.5 million more jobs" by 2011, Obama said. His Web site clarified that the plan would "save or create" that many jobs.

There is a term for this.

The general behavior is: politician

Colloquially it is: being all things to all people

In Rove-speak: a flip flopper

The 'high road' is simply one of leading the moneylenders in the Temple.