Matt Taibbi & Bill Black: Obama's New Treasury Secretary a 'Failure of Epic Proportions'

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/matt-taibbi-bill-black-obamas-new-treasury-secretary-failure-epic-proportions

***SNIP

AMY GOODMAN: For more on the nomination of Jack Lew, as well as other news about Wall Street, we’re joined by two guest. William Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One_, he’s associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, former senior financial regulator. His recent article for the Huffington Post is called "Jacob Lew: Another Brick in the Wall Street on the Potomac."

We’re also joined by Matt Taibbi, contributing editor for Rolling Stone magazine, his latest piece, "Secrets and Lies of the Bailout," which we’ll talk about in a bit, author of Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Professor Black, let’s start with you. Your assessment of Jack Lew?

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, on financial matters, Jack Lew has been a failure of pretty epic proportions, and he gets promoted precisely because he is willing to be a failure and is so useful to Wall Street interests. So, you’ve mentioned two of the things in terms of the most important and most destructive deregulation under President Clinton by statute. But he was also there for much of the deregulation by rule, and a strong proponent of it, and he was there for much of the cutting of staff. For example, the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, lost three-quarters of its staff, and that huge loss began under Clinton. And the whole reinventing government, Lew was a strong supporter of that. And, for example, we were taught—instructed by Washington that we were to refer to banks as our "clients" in our role as regulators and to think of them as clients.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Whenever I read titles like that, ...

... my desire to read the article goes to zero.

If the title is pure hyperbole, why should I waste my time sifting through the hysteria to find tiny nuggets of information?

[Ninga]

2. I am interested when the first words I read are "Amy Goodman" n/t

[Buzz Clik]

3. Excellent point. Begs the question: did she write that ridiculous title, or was it her editor?

Either way, it stains the article.

[stupidicus]

13. whenever I read responses like yours

I'm reminded of how rightwingnuts don't have a monopoly on almost impenetratable bubbles.

How would you possibly know the article's title is "pure hyperbole" without reading the article?

Oh that's right, the mere assumption that it has to be given who's making the appointment.

Here's some more hyperbole for you

But that was a whole four years ago. Back then, Hagel was about to receive his first rating above zero from the Human Rights Campaign, for his one positive vote, in favor of emergency AIDS relief, which as John Aravosis points out, "isn't gay at all." So let's just forget that the new Defense nominee has a long history of virulent bigotry, and let's just forget that the new CIA nominee was considered too controversial for Democrats at the end of the Bush era, because of his activities during the Bush era. This is 2012, not the late-2000s, which is ancient history. The statute of limitations on outrage over abuses of human rights apparently is less than a handful of years.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178236/-The-problem-is-not-John-Brennan-It-s-us?detail=hide

With BHO's blessing, these sinners will no doubt become saints, no?

I'm guessing he had little to no choice on these appointments, because the lefty bench is oh so devoid old white guys up to the tasks.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Your comment is ironic.

I post on other boards and get into heated discussions with rightwingers all the time. The righties are famous for launching crazed attacks on people they oppose with the most extreme language they can muster. A perfect example of this is Christopher Horner's book, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. When my opponent in this debate tossed up Horner's books as the definitive work against global warming, I made a comment similar to the one I made in my post on this thread: I am not interested in reading a biased wad of shit. If Horner had any substance to his arguments, he would not need to bundle it in hysteria. My opponent was incensed and made the same accusations you just made. With great reluctance, I read Horner's book cover to cover, and it was the seething pile of dung I had predicted.

I am not interested in reading biased wads of shit from either side. Give me something that at least tries to be objective. Are there crucial facts in the article from the OP? I really don't care. The title gives it away: the motivation in writing that piece was to smear. If that were not the case, why such a ridiculous title?

[stupidicus]

25. hardly

one example using the effort of a rghtwingnut flat earther does not a case make. BS is pretty much all that crew has.

We all have our biases, but the important thing is whether or not that takes the form of omission of relevant facts, a distorting of the known facts, or proposing unreasonable/unsupportable conclusions from the known facts in their totality. Maybe your rightwingnut flat earther was guilty of all of the above, but I see no evidence for that here.

In this case, Lew's support for WS deregulation, etc, does represent an "epic fail" in principle and practice. That rhetoric/description was as far as I can tell, confined strictly to financial matters

Well, on financial matters, Jack Lew has been a failure of pretty epic proportions, and he gets promoted precisely because he is willing to be a failure and is so useful to Wall Street interests.

not some pro/con list covering his entire career or actions in it. All the support for that remark is provided in a few short paragraphs.
I'll list them so as to not burden you with any unnecessary reading or "biased" commentary.

1.From 1998 to January 2001, he headed the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton. During that time, Clinton signed into law two key laws to deregulate Wall Street: the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

2. For example, the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, lost three-quarters of its staff, and that huge loss began under Clinton. And the whole reinventing government, Lew was a strong supporter of that.

3. He goes from there to Wall Street, where he was a complete failure. You noted that part of what Citicorp did was bet that housing would fall. That was actually one of their winning bets. But they actually made a bunch of losing bets, as well. And the unit that he was heading would have not been permissible but for the deregulation of getting rid of Glass-Steagall under President Clinton.

4. Then he comes into the Obama administration, and he was disastrously wrong. He tried very hard to impose austerity on the United States back in 2011, which is—he wanted, you know, the European strategy, which has pushed the eurozone back into recession, and Spain, Greece and Italy into Great Depression levels of unemployment.

5. And this is the guy, after all of these failures, who also is intellectually dishonest. He will not own up to his role and deregulation’s role and de-supervision’s role in producing this crisis—and not just this crisis, but the Enron-era crisis and the savings-and-loan debacle.

All those things are easily verifiable "facts", and worthy of the "smearing" as you prefer to characterize it, that they got.

Rather than "epic failure", what would you propose describing all that as -- "he didn't do so good!"?

And the use of "epic failure" alone hardly qualifies as a sufficient reason to be asserting or assigning "hysteria" to either of the men here, and particularly if that's to be taken to mean that their use of it is on par with the hysterically and criminally stupid dishonesty of the common rightwingnut flat earther.

Lew was certainly a "failure" in terms of the results of what he promoted and supported, and I'd say in that context, "epic" is a fair and reasonable description of the 2008 recession.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. You say "he righties are famous for launching crazed attacks on people they oppose

with the most extreme language they can muster." Exactly. That is proven by the extreme language rightie Hagel mustered up in his crazed attacks on gay people.
So you understand why the virulent bigotry is definitive of his right wing nature. Interesting. You are opposed to biased, extreme statements, unless they come from a Republican? Is that it?

[Buzz Clik]

32. I was very clear about what I said.

No ambiguity. I made no mention of giving any exceptions. Not Senators of either party, and not the writer of scathing criticisms.

Did you read in my post any hint if support for Hagel? If so, quote it.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. My post says that you recognize Hagel's right wing nature, that's a compliment!

You see that he's a right wing bigot, saying all manner of crazed crap to make a big show about Chuck.
It is good that you can see that! Good for you! Very, very impressive!

[Buzz Clik]

35. No it is not what your post says

Having fun?

[mfcorey1]

4. Any person that the President nominates or appoints will receive opposition from someone or

some group. Please one sector and you will clearly alienate the other.

[Ninga]

5. I read the article. My tAke-a-way underscores my confusion in trying to understand the values and

positions true to Obama's moral course and value system. I truly want to know.

Perhaps my conflict is steeped in my lacking of understanding his role, the dynamics, and what would (could) be gained that will leave America better than he found it.

Someone please help me understand how appointing Lew is a good thing after reading the article.

[banned from Kos]

6. Don't believe anything Taibbi or Black say

their schtick is to sell books to bank griefers.

[Ninga]

9. Ok, serious?

[banned from Kos]

11. DU recent history - one week ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022141335

[trumad]

15. Recent history for a few knuckleheads...

Note that a vast majority sided with Taibbi the bank lickers.

[banned from Kos]

17. It got 235 recs at Daily Kos

Taibbi is a yellow journalist to the very definition.

[Autumn]

21. Now trumad, he just misses being able to post at Kos

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

come on, 235 recs for a crock of shit post at Kos and only 32 for it here. Oh noes, why can't we be more like Kos??????


Oh wait, this is DU except for a slight problem with trolls we are a lot smarter.

[Dragonfli]

12. He is serious, it is unpatriotic of Matt to tell the truth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2147081

We should NEVER EVER listen to him, all the reasons are listed below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022143810

True patriots abhor the press and often get banned from places for their bravery, It appears your stray puppy needs your lurv, an agreement to close your eyes, and your willingness to protect the honorable bank culture of our wealthy betters (betters like in a casino or like they are better than us, both are valid in this context)

[trumad]

16. And don't believe a troll who licks the balls of bankers.

[rhett o rick]

28. This post gets to stand??? I got hidden for calling someone an "enabler".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=6644

I guess trumad is blessed.

[Marr]

10. Those poor bankers...

Don't listen to anything Taibbi says! Don't listen! Don't believe it!

lol...

[brentspeak]

18. Instead, we should believe some bank shill

who posts on a Democratic website under the alias "banned from Kos".

[morningfog]

29. What is a bank griefer?

[Autumn]

7. Very good article, as always

a lot of my favorite people who are right on the money. K/R

[snot]

8. Let's just say, most of the people who caused the economy to tank

like Obama's appointments and economic policies, while most of the people who warned the 2008 meltdown was coming, don't.

[Octafish]

20. KR nt

[duffyduff]

22. You mean Obama's new pick is even worse than Arne Duncan for ed secretary?

It boggles the mind.

[PufPuf23]

23. Why Lew (and Brennan too)? kr

Here we go again.

[Jefferson23]

24. K&R for Mr. Black. n/t

[lib2DaBone]

26. Matt Taibbi is very accurate... don't kill the reporter....

Matt is one of the last true investigative reporters in the United States.

Mr. Obama once again makes the WORST possible choices in his appointments..

We are in the 4th Term of G.W. Bush.. (NDAA, 10 new wars, U.S. Troops in 35 African Countries..)

Don't blame me.... look up the facts... the American people are screwed...

[madrchsod]

30. i guess i`m screwed again....

why oh why did i waste my vote on obama.

[Buzz Clik]

36. True.

And when did DU become a site to support rightwing ideals? You know, like voting for Obama?