Please, spare us from the melodramatic populism

This is getting to be pretty predictable:

President Barack Obama's top economics adviser, Lawrence Summers, said that insurance giant American International Group's plan to award senior executives hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and retention pay is "outrageous."

...In a phone call Wednesday to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said it was unacceptable for the company to give out tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for senior executives after the government committed $170 billion to keep the struggling company afloat -- far more government bailout money than has been awarded to any other firm.

"UNACCEPTABLE", says one.
"OUTRAGEOUS", says the other.

Fake and disingenuous also come to mind.
Between Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, its hard to imagine Obama's economic leadership being any worse. We really need for the Democratic congress to take away the economic agenda from these two. The corporate bailouts have become a complete political disaster.

Whisky Fire has had it:

The other fun thing about this continuing saga is that we still have no idea what the bailout money was used for or where it has gone and to whom. Keep in mind that the American taxpayer now owns 80% of A.I.G. The socialization of this company has happened, very quietly, but also very definitely. The large banks and corporations we are bailing out continue to report that it would be impossible to track where all the money is going. This is unequivocal bullshit as these accounting professors point out.

Josh Marshall is too timid:

I've been highly critical of the government bailout of AIG.... So on the business merits, they're bankrupt. But we decide it's in the national interest to prevent formal bankruptcy. And these sharks -- not everyone at AIG, but the execs that created this mess -- use that as a lever to get paid the money they never would have seen if we'd let (market) nature take its course.

Chris in Paris, over at AmericaBlog, has an attitude problem:

Geithner has been such a firebrand, standing up for the American investor who has lost their retirement plans. It's hard to understand how so many people believe Geithner is in deep over his head and not up for the job. Sure, he sat on his hands and did nothing for years while working at the NY Fed, but can't they see that he kindly asked AIG to scale back bonuses after they rolled out yet another round just to kick sand in the face of the American public? I hear he asked very sternly and insisted they would all be very naughty if they ran over him again. The leadership out of the Obama administration has been oh so impressive and investors become happier by the day as they watch such forceful displays of executive power. What red blooded American doesn't like to be abused by Wall Street and lose their retirement money? Heck, there's no way the public would ever start pointing the finger at Obama for failing to stand up to Wall Street with this response. Nope, never, ever, never.

David Waldmanis having a period:

Do. Not. Pay. Any. More. Bonuses. You. Are. Failing. There. Are. No. Bonuses. For. Failure.
Down with Tyranny:
It's time for Liddy and Geithner to get a clue. They don't have the best; they don't have the brightest. They employ a bunch of failures and losers who are lucky to have jobs at all after leading their company into the toilet. Wednesday morning the House Financial Services Committee will be holding an AIG hearing at 10AM. These people won't be facing a Wall Street shill like Geithner or a panel like Stephanopolous' today on ABC-TV. They'll be facing Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Brad Sherman, Jim Himes, Jackie Speier, Mary Jo Kilroy, Keith Ellison, Brad Miller, Gary Peters and Maxine Waters.
That Cramer vid is classic.



Display:


well, what can you expect? (2.00 / 1)

From 'the worst Democratic nominee in decades'?  I just wish we had listened to you on how badly Obama sucks, Jerome.  That huge progressive Hillary would have been so much better.  Might have even beaten McCain by more than the crush margin Obama put on him, the O-Man sucking so bad and all.  


by Tangie3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:21:44 PM EST

Re: well, what can you expect? (2.00 / 1)

But, it is disingenuous.  Like a Seinfeld routine, first you eat the last brownie and then you join in with those condemning the pig that took the last brownie, rather amusing.

Look, no one knows how to fix this mess, we're just one country and there are many players who have to do something, but China is worried about our ability to pay our debt, and said so out loud? That should be a wake-up call, we need to provide jobs and do the lending ourselves, not rely on zombie banks to pad their own nests and let the rest of us go without credit.

In today's NYT magazine there is a story about homes in the Hamptons. When rich people cant get loans to buy houses, where do you think the rest of us can go to borrow? And if we can't borrow how can we innovate and invest?  How many small businesses have had their lines of credit cancelled or frozen, does Mr. G know?

Barack is relying on these guys, they're his experts and he expects them to get it right. Well, they're not.  It's time for Plan B.


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

Actually, Hillary would have been the same thing, which was the point you've been in denial over now through about 20 usernames.

And yea, Al Gore or John Kerry would make a much better President than Obama is.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Al Gore, maybe (2.00 / 1)

Kerry?

The guy didn't fight when they insulted his honor mano y mano.

He listened to his handlers, guys who had blown THE LAST election.

Sorry, I have no faith Kerry would have put in a better performance then Obama.

I will grant you Al, who might have been one of the best presidents this century.

But, he too couldn't get elected.

Second guessing is a game where you can define the rules...


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore, maybe (none / 0)

The comment wasn't about the campaign, Obama ran the best campaign by far, of anyone in recent history. It's about the candidate as President.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and I disagree (none / 0)

that Kerry and Gore would have made better Presidents.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Gore, maybe (none / 0)

Al Gore, by all accounts WAS elected or have you forgotten all about Florida in 2000?  


by realtarheel on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Got me... (none / 0)

you're right...

Too bad it wasn't Minnesota in charge instead of Florida...


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you really think (2.00 / 2)

Al Gore or John Kerry would have a different economic team?

Get real.

Also, as much outrage as we like to scream about with these bonuses, it's important to look beyond the obvious reactionary outrage, something rarely done on the blogs.

Are these bonuses legally binding? Is there anything the Obama administration can do to prevent them from giving them out? If so, would it cost the taxpayers more money than just letting them get the bonuses? and is it that AIG may have more leverage than our government?

I think the last question's answer is where our outrage really lies. The years of neocon capitalism have given corporations more power than our government. That's showing itself now.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THANK YOU! (none / 0)

Again, our outrage is justified, but misplaced...

Where is the National Seething anger at Phil Gramm, and his cohorts, that CHANGED THE LAWS that let this happens.

yes, people want a pound of flesh from the AIG employees, boy do I get that.

I got A PAY CUT this year, a forced 32 hour week.

Bonus, hell, I may never see one again.

So SURE, I would like to cold-cock those big swinging dick traders who sold all those credit default swap death burritos..

But, just today, we saw WHY they are not letting AIG go under...

Lists of LOTS of Foriegn banks they are paying off...

That is the nasty secret. It we let these companies go under, we sink the world economy.

And foreign countries will reek havoc with us, with the dollar, etc.

The OUTRAGE should be at those that thought they could undo FDR...

Scream at CATO, Scream at Phil Gramm and the Ayn Rand Deregulation Army!

The outrage at these bonuses is visceral, and well placed.

But the 1000000 Pound Gorrilla is the enemy, these guys were just footsoldiers in the Army..

How can we punish the Generals?

That is where the outrage should be....


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

And hey, it was "this decade", and I gave that he was better than Dukakis.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

Look- this is b.s. I rarely agree with Jerome, but here he's right. If you can argue on the merits, that this is acceptable, then do so. Otherwise, stop changing the subject from our economic crisis. Or do you not care about it?


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

He belongs to "bankers for Obama."


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

the problem is focusing on personality rather than policy outcomes. I am in a small group of people who could care less who won so lon as it was a dem who would do what iw anted them to do. this bickering over personality is irrelevant to whether we are creating policies that will make our society better. call me an idealist, but I don't see why people focus so much on who they like rather than what does it mean for their lives personality regarding polcies being made. I suppose (despite your joke) that if the focus is on helping bankers and one is a banker, at least that makes sense. But for everyone else, I have no idea what they get out of defending Obama on this when clearly we are heading down the wrong policy pathway.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, what can you expect? (none / 0)

So if Obama can't get the ecomomy going, should he be primaried in 2012?


by esconded on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not going to happen... (2.00 / 2)

Hey, I did a diary calling for Summers to resign weeks ago, when it was clear he was trying to marginalize Volker....

But, now, with this slight up-tick on WS, removing BOTH of them would be handing the Republicans and WS the biggest cudgel you could, it would be "obama is in over his head, he's too inexperienced, yada yada yada" and the Media would grab onto that like a starving pack of wolves.

And, how can Congress "take away" the bailout from Obama?

Yeah, THOSE GUYS are complete geniuses, didn't they SIGN OFF on most of the stuff that caused this?  

I haven't seen Barney Franks calling for Krugman Or Stiglitz on the councils?  

The idea that CONGRESS is going to wrestle control from Obama and take away the bail-out from Geithner and Summers is techincally really a strange idea, I am not sure HOW that works?

No, at least for the rest of March, we are stuck with these guys.....Q1 Ends, and let's see where the lay-offs go.  

If it slows down, then I think this piss-poor team has bought itself a life-line.

if there is a massive correction, say up to 10% nationwide unemployment THEN you may see a shake-up.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST

Re: Not going to happen... (none / 0)

Unfortunately, I can't argue with your main point about the "geniuses" in charge.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just hope Obama will wake up (none / 0)

and realize he needs to ditch Summers and Geithner before they do any more damage to his presidency.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:54:37 PM EST

Summers and Geithner (none / 0)

I've said this before but they need to assemble a team. That's killing them. Having said that, I have little confidence in Summers and less by the day in Geithner. It time for Stiglitz, Volker, Geithner or Roubini. Laura Tyson is another possibility.

I get the feeling Summers thinks that this is cycical.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:14:15 PM EST

Re: Summers and Geithner (none / 0)

It time for Stiglitz, Volker, Geithner or Roubini.

No coffee as yet. I meant Galbraith instead of Geithner.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Summers and Geithner (none / 0)

Yeah he does- the whole new tactic of saying that people are "irrationally down on the econmy " (or some such wording) to play on the previous "irrational exuberance" seems out of touch with what are long term structural problems. The problem with this strategy of faux happy talk is that it gets people energize, but if the structural problems aren't addressed and things go bad, you still are seting yourself up for the out of touch with reality narrative.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agree\ (none / 0)

Sadly, on this point, I agree with you. These are botht he wrong men for the job.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:15:57 PM EST

Looks like Jermoe is back (2.00 / 1)

To his fake outrages. Aren't you glad you can still bash Obama after being so irrelevant, so wrong and absent from here for so long?

You cant govern out of anger Jerome. the contracts are binding by law and there is nothing the government can do about it. We are not a communist state that controls every aspect of the law so that we can break it when we feel like it. But you knew that already. Your Dear Leader Mark Warner would have shoveled money to the banks with a bank plan in his first week in office. He is far more centrist/corporatist than anyone we have in the field but you also knew that . Disingenuous post at best.


by Burryz on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:53:33 PM EST

Re: Looks like Jermoe is back (none / 0)

You created a new alias all for that?

Here's what Mark Warner said:

Mar. 3 - Senator Mark Warner said today he is "irked" that taxpayer dollars will be used to bail out undisclosed investment partners who made risky gambles with AIG, which will receive a fourth bailout from the government.  

aig-buildingjpgDuring today's Budget Committee hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Senator Warner suggested that these investors, called "counterparties," should take a "haircut" loss on their investments as a consequence of their "lack of appropriate due diligence or responsible behavior" in entering into the risky deals with AIG's credit default swaps.  

Here is what Senator Warner told Chairman Bernanke:

   mark-warner-12It just irks me a bit that we, the American taxpayers, are still basically asked to continue to totally bail out all these counterparties when ... there ought to be some haircut taken by these folks at some point in this process. ...

   Folks who bought these instruments and, at some point in their process, should have been doing some level of credit analysis of what AIG was selling ... are going to still come out whole [despite] their lack of appropriate due diligence or responsible behavior.

Senator Warner agreed with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon that at a minimum the government ought to disclose who exactly these counterparties are and who will receive the bailout money given to AIG.

Now get lost.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"get lost"? (none / 0)

A funny thing to say when the majority of the front page diaries around here have under 8 comments. You want the handful of people that are left to pick up and head out now because they don't agree with you, Jerome? At some point you could admit that the only reason people were coming here were for the drama you cultivated, driving away people that actually wanted a discussion. I guess its easier to tell people to leave, though. Enjoy your skyrocketing popularity!


by upstate girl on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks like Jermoe is back (none / 0)

your argument would make more sense if it were one person sounding the alarms of concern. Are you going to dismiss everyone with the same conclusion- to try to personalize it. I have notice this habit. When faced with a policy issue, let's make it about the person disagreeing with us.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's everyone? (2.00 / 1)

I've seen a lot of outrage at this, even from the administration. I've seen no one argue how we can overcome a legally binding contract and prevent it from happening. That's the problem with this diary. It's simply outrage. Yes, great, everyone is outraged, but being outraged isn't enough.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's everyone? (none / 0)

My "outrage" began with the first bailout.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and yet (2.00 / 1)

you failt to explain how else to fix the situation. Outrage isn't a problem, the problem is it's quite possible that no solution is a good one and we need to come up with the best solution no matter how much it outrages us.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 09:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's everyone? (none / 0)

I think you are confused.  I am not Jerome. I am not even outraged since I expected this to happen.

Jerome isn't a lawyer so he does not know how to respond to you. I do not become outraged with the system. What I am is focused on the bottom line of what I want to have occur. Sometimes I think God for my training because it makes me very clear about what are the interests in anyg iven situation./

Let me be clear. Your argument to me is naive.

This is the reality check: When TARP was passed, Rudy Giuliani , and others, set up consulting services to specifically protect these sorts of executive payment arrangements. indeed, there are several firms who put out their services on this front.

So when you argue 'no one could have done ..." You already lost me and I am pretty much ignoring you because that says to me you are buying the narrative rather than looking behind the curtain. The reality is that no one tried to do anything, including at present the Obama administration.

When a cap was attempted, Obama's people barked at it until it became clear that the issue would not go away. This is not theory or dislike of personality. This is their action. There were no stimulations or requirements. The only reason why these contracts are "binding" is because we structured a deal that required nothing of AIG in this regard.

Here's what could have happened but didn't. We give them the money, but stipulate a renegotiation of all such contracts. Indeed, many more responsible companies are engaged in just such a process right now in the private sector. They go to their talent, they say "hey, we can't afford this deal. Let's renegotiate."  The response to that by folks like Geithner is that you lose that talent- but again. This is a lie. Where's that talent going to go. It's called using the power of leverage to obtain the better deal. It's not that no one thought of it, or that the contracts are binding, it's that what we are seeing is exactly what everyone in charge wanted.

Now Obama and crew (like that Senator from Mo) can claim they did their part, but hey, my hands are tied. Except they weren't. They are just tied now that the public has found out and its too late to change. Even the second bail out in which AIG just got more money could have been used toward this purpose, but because we aren't doing any due diligence at all. The same kind of due diligence that one would find at a minimum in the private sector, now it's "too late" and the rest of  your naivette.

To believe you , in otther words, is to ignore all that one knows about how businesses are run.

I have a friend who works tangentially on wall street who put it best to me- "our business does not expect to pay bonuses in a down turn. Even our top players know this reality."


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was talking about Jerome (none / 0)


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 09:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who's everyone? (none / 0)

by the way, I have another lawyer friend - a heavy Obama supported, who predicted everything we are seeing now. THis is not about like or dislike of Obama. THis is about being able to be honest about what's occuring.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes and I have a friend (2.00 / 1)

who was my economics professor in college who also predicted what was happening now and isn't outraged because he says despite how horrible it is, what is happening is necessary.

I think our outrage is misplaced. We're angry at the administration for something it has no control over because we're angry that they have no control over it, but that is neither the our fault or the fault of the administration. It's the fault of all those who set the policies that led to this mess.

Our outraged should be placed at everyone who was in charge of the economy for the past 40 years.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 09:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes and I have a friend (none / 0)

I like how you intentionally miss the point of both this post and my last one.  Obama's team is a part of the problem rather than the solution, but you stop at their decisions. This isn't a real conversation because you are not dealing in reality. I was there with you defending Obama's team before any of these decisions were made. But at this point. they are making it clear who they are.   You keep also projecting emotions onto me that are not the case. I don't feel anger or outrage at this point. What I feel is disappointed that they are the same as previous neoliberals on how they place too much faith in the private sector to do things that the private sector is not meant to do- namely expecting the private sector to not act in the interest in individuals. But of course, they can make mistakes like that because they got a bunch of people ready to give them a pass for screwing up.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh bullshit bruh (none / 0)

I have never seen you defend Obama...EVER. You brutalized him over the stimulus package.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:14:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh bullshit bruh (none / 0)

You and Armstrong are so similar it's funny. You can't argue policy so you fixate on character. Let me be clear, I dont' care about Obama. I dont' carea bout Clinton. I don't care about any of this shit that gets you hard. I want the Dems to suceed because its the best chance I have of seeing  policies that will impact my life in a possitive way. But none of that will happen through sychophancy.

I care about the policy outcomes because I live in a working class black community so I have to live with the consequences of these policies. Reading your posts, I sense none of this is real life to you.

I defended Obama's policies on several occasions both here and else where. Sometimes even to the detriminent of myself. On gay blog (yes I am gay), I am regularly attacked as an Obamabot because I make the point that I am willing to give him a chance on gay issues. I thought his pick of Warren was bonehead, but now that we are pass that point I am wiling to wait and see. indeed, if you bothered to click on my name- you would see a diary saying he did a good job on a gay issue with the UN.

I also defended Obama's choice of cabinet and said we can not judge them based on it back in December. But added we should judge their policies. If you didn't read that- this is your problem, and not a problem of my not saying it. I can't make you read what you refuse to see.

Indeed, I told Jerome that he was wrong back in December to criticize Obama's choice of cabinet members because we must base views on policy.

People  like you and Jerome are funny to me. You are willing to overlook the obvious because Obama's your guy.

On the one end, Jeromes was ready to make a prounouncement- as was Chris Bowers and Paul Rosenberg- back in December. I defended Obama's decisions at that point because for me- it's about the policy chocies. I know- odd right. To actually not give a shit about some sacred cow one way or the other.

So I was willi ng to wait. Then I saw the same Clintonian choices, and I said so. THis is where we are at. When he makes a good decision I will agree with it, and parse where I don't. If you are unwilling to read nuiance, that's your problem.

This does not mean I dislike everything he's doing. I parse my answers all the time. but to a sychophant, any criticism is damning of all. So I can see why when I say - 'I like Obama's healthcare plan, but it will not work with out the public option" all you hear is " He doesn't like Obama."

I really can't address this mindset. I am not interested in doing it. I am not interested in proving to people that I could careless about personalities.

The only reason I responded this time is that I think you represent far too much of what passes for progressives out there right now. People willing to give up their individuality to be a part of some idea without requiring any accountability.

I can tell none of the real issues matter to you. It's about Obama. Not the economy and not the banks. THus, to you, of everything i said- all you hear and think is "does he like Obama?"

Wrong fucking question. THe right one is "is this a good policy for Americans." Try that for a change, and you may begin to understand me.


by bruh3 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

once again (none / 0)

blah blah blah


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: once again (none / 0)

Yeap - point proven. You are basically some idiot online. I am going to predict something right now. If Obama follows peoplle like you, he will end up where bush was at the end.


by bruh3 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes and I have a friend (none / 0)

And, by the way, part of the problem here is your pretending that Obama's people aren't acting, and that therefore we can not come to judgement basedon those actions. They are acting. People know what these moves mean. Thus, it's pretend much business as usual. That's the whole  not dealing with reality point. There are steps as I outlined that Obama could have taken to have addressed this. The dishonest part is to pretend "oh well these were private sector binding contracts.' Such statements reliance of the ignorance and good graces of folks like yourself.


by bruh3 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and the steps you claim to have outlined (none / 0)

are WRONG


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hypothetical question (none / 0)

When you take fire at the lieutenants, and the general doesn't replace them, doesn't the fire get redirected at the general ?

I am asking not because I disagree with you (in fact, I agree), but because I am wondering where that criticism fits in the larger picture.


by Ravi Verma on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:56:39 PM EST

Re: Hypothetical question (none / 0)

It's one of many pieces (his economic advisers). I tend to appreciate a lot of the Obama administration's endeavors, except his economic (see above) and his Republican military team.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hypothetical question (none / 0)

Regarding the military team, what we he going to do?  The Democrats don't have a deep bench in military and defense matters.


by esconded on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please, spare us from the melodramatic populis (2.00 / 1)

The underlying problem here is that the bonuses appear to be required by contract.  That is a huge problem, insomuch as the contracts ought not have been made to start with, but Geithner and Summers are not Federal bankruptcy judges and they do not have the right to modify contracts.  They are within their rights to demand different terms for new contracts, but unfortunately the contracts as they stand are enforceable.

I feel like it's too early to judge Geithner and Summers yet.  As a former Bostonian, I'm not a fan of Summers as a person - he's brash, arrogant, and doesn't seem to be the best person in New England to be around.  But I'm willing to give this Administration some time to see how they deal with this circus.  They have inherited many of these problems, including the first bailout and AIG's contracts, and there is no elegant solution to AIG.  We are in many ways in uncharted waters here.


by auronrenouille on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:08:06 PM EST

Doesn't get more disingenuous than this... (none / 0)

...concerning the $2 Trillion TALF program, about to be formally announced this (upcoming) week:


Fed Eliminates Compensation Limits for TALF Program
By Scott Lanman

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury eliminated executive-compensation limits for companies that bundle loans accepted under a new $1 trillion program, indicating the rules may have hampered efforts to start the plan.

The rules won't apply to the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility out of "desire to encourage market participants to stimulate credit formation and utilize the facility," the New York Fed said in a document on its Web site today. The government separately said it will expand the TALF to support vehicle-fleet leases and loans for business, construction and farm equipment.

The change suggests the government doesn't intend to apply compensation limits beyond firms that receive direct investments from the Treasury's $700 billion bailout fund. Officials have yet to announce whether such requirements will be imposed on firms participating in a separate effort to remove as much as $1 trillion of distressed assets from banks' balance sheets.

"Just like salesmen toward the end of the month get kind of worried if they're not meeting their quota, the Federal Reserve has got to worry," former Fed monetary-affairs director Vincent Reinhart said. Today's moves are "an attempt to make the facility more accommodating," said Reinhart, now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.


by bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:11:09 PM EST

Geez (none / 0)

I wasn't for Obama either - BUT - can't we give him a chance? He is the DEMOCRATIC President - we need to REJOICE!!! He's only been at this less than 2 months. For all the he inherited, I think he's doing a good job. I think he is focused, he is NOT moving too quickly on resending Bush's BS EX Orders and overturning 8 years of hell.

Time will tell if he has chosen the right team and if his economic policies will work. If they don't then we're sunk - he's a Carter and we can kiss it all good-bye. But, C'mon does anyone really believe Obama is dumb enough to be Carter #2? I just don't see it.

People have said it here - if he is HALF as good as Bill Clinton, then he is an AWESOME President. Bill Clinton came into a mess, but his mess was not as BIG as Obama's mess. And how can you or anyone be so sure that Gore or Kerry would be better on economic policy? I just don't see it.

Even Bill Clinton said in a Larry King interview not so long ago that he would have "asked for more" stimulus $$$ and he pointed out he's a "fiscal conservative". Obama is doing everything right, imo, and the proof will be in the results. We simply have to be patient - but most, including Clinton, think it will turn around BEFORE the end of the year. If this happens, Obama will go be able to high five his team and take all the credit. If it doesn't work, then the people can "get a new President" (his words) and they will.....


by nikkid on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:46:42 PM EST

Re: Geez (none / 0)

He's the president. Not the winner of AMerican idol. He's dealing with the realities of being a President. Read about FDR or look at LBJ, and then tell me he's got it hard. This is crazy. This isn't about Obama. It's about the job he's there to do.


by bruh3 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (2.00 / 1)

Is this really what "progressives" are all about?  Hard right ideology in left winger clothing?  Because the Obama admin is not doing what YOU think it best on either finance or military, YOU say this the leadership could not be worse?

I have to wonder if it really is spoiled grapes, or huberous?

I have many contacts, low end, within the Government, Defense Dept, Finance sector, and Military.  You know what, all this was predicted, pretty much, back in 2006.  And like going over a waterfall, NOTHING is going to change the fact that WE ARE GOING OVER A WATERFALL.  So far as I see it, Obama is trying to do DAMAGE CONTROL and SOFTEN the blow as much as possible.  But the BLOW WILL STILL LAND.  WE ARE GOING TO BE HURT BY THIS.  PERIOD.  There is no reset button, no cavalry to ride in to save our butts.  We OWN this mess.

NOONE likes the way this is shaping up.  Noone.  The economy is so F-ed up that stupid S$%T like this is going to happen a lot more.  It is the cleaning out of the system all the CRAP that has been pent up inside for 30 years.  There is ABSOLUTELY no way to change this fact.  You let these business' collapse like they should, you WILL get a world wide recession and sow the seeds for probably another war, this time with nukes in the mix.  Sound like fun?  Because emerging markets and third world countries, not to mention any 1st world countries that take a HUGE hit, will demend blood for betrayal.  I am thinking Pakistan here if nothing else.

Afghanistan...BUSH F-ed that up SO DAMNED BAD, he set us BACK 5 years from 9/11.  I really do not think a lot of people on here understand the situation in A-stan and talk with a lot of emotion instead of rational.  A-stan CAN be fixed, but it is WAY more complicated than it looks.  Right now, it is the crucible for the future.  How Obama handles it will determine how well the world, on the whole, does for the next century.  Delve DEEP into the diplomatic, cultural, and military side to what A-stan, and the fight there, means.  Philisophically, it is described as the fight for the soul of the world.

And I find it Terribly presumptuous that many here are ready to condemn LIKE REPUBLICANS when I know for a FACT that they do not have access to all the information that the President has.  There may be things going on you may not believe...and there may not.  But I do not have access to that info, who here does?  I lay my judgement on how things are going so far and so far the President has not dissapointed ME.  So I will stand by him even if it looks crazy.

(BTW I got a home equity loan last Sept. from my Credit Union, my house has APPRECIATED in value modestly, and I am fairly secure in my job.  Of course, I live in the POOREST per-capita county in the state of Minnesota.  Shows that those of us who did not get to taste the fruits of the ride up may not have to taste the vinager of the ride down.  Modesty may be more MODEST than you think/like.)


by Hammer1001 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:43:46 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.