President Obama goes after Wall Street over bailout in his weekly address

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

President Barack Obama vowed to recoup billions of dollars in bailout money paid out to prevent a major crisis among large financial firms in his radio address Saturday, declaring, "We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run."

Obama announced his plan to levy a new fee on large banks and similar institutions earlier in the week, seeking to reclaim the rest of the nearly $1 trillion distributed to prevent a collapse of the financial system in 2008 and 2009. The federal government already has regained a substantial portion of the bailout money but Obama insisted the banks were obliged to offer up more.

Obama described the bailouts as "distasteful but necessary" and indicated that generous bonuses being offered to executives -- which he previously described as "offensive" -- were a sign that these companies are in good enough shape to contribute more to the economic recovery.

"We want the taxpayers’ money back, and we’re going to collect every dime," Obama said. "If the big financial firms can afford massive bonuses, they can afford to pay back the American people."

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76497-obama-goes-after-wall-street-in-weekly-address

---

Weekly Address: Getting Our Money Back from Wall Street
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/15/weekly-address-getting-our-money-back-wall-street

"Now, like clockwork, the banks and politicians who curry their favor are already trying to stop this fee from going into effect," Obama said. "The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits, and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history, are now pleading poverty. It’s a sight to see."

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I woke up this morning to my radio to hear

"We want the taxpayers’ money back, and we’re going to collect every dime,".

I was like, WHOAAaaaa nelly! :rofl:

Let's hope that this happens. CONGRESS is the one that must do it, the crap from doddering Dodd and finagling Frank not withstanding.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hansel]

52. Sounds like a major rewriting of history.

The Bush administration and Henry Paulson set the conditions under which to give the money away and then threatened that if the congress did not pass it that the whole banking industry and the economy along with it would collapse. They basically held a gun to their heads because the fact was that the whole banking industry would have collapsed without the money.

The vast majority of the money was given away long before Obama was president. Obama has been tougher on the banks since he's been president than Bush ever was and now is working to get ALL of the money back and you are bitching about it like he and Rahm, all by themselves, created this mess in the first place. Bush and Obama are not the same person no matter how hard some people on this board try to make them.

BTW, 'RahmBama'? Is this now the Freeper website?

[truthisfreedom]

76. Look at the post count.

Freeper.

[stuart68]

79. Run for your lives

he disagrees with the President, must be the enemy.

Uh, Post count ? Only existing members allowed in this club ?

You ought to be embarassed.

[Hansel]

88. It's not that you disagree with the President.

It's that your post does not exactly adhere to fact and is a rewriting of history. It also is oozing with utter disrespect and disdain for the President which, when coupled with the overriding misinformation, indicates that you are stating opinion based on emotion rather than any objective observation.

[stuart68]

Actually

he said "look at the post count" and then insulted me.

Sounds like a bitter, biggot.

[stuart68]

157. Actually

he said "look at the post count" and then insulted me.

Sounds like a bitter, biggot.

[liberation]

77. ... that is what Libertarians do, they are in full damage control mode

See, it is not capitalism if it looks bad. Just like it was not "conservatism" when their hubris was too obvious to hide.

Interesting how the "personal responsibility" crowd seems to be made up of people whose only expertise seems to be in "passing the buck," eh?

[stuart68]

78. Nope, but funny.

sorry, I will now respectfully refer to them as President Obama and his closest confidante, Rahm Emanuel, or POAHCCRE...

BUSH who ? WHat ? Held a gun to Who ? That's funny, the lame-duck president of the party that was thrashed in the election held a gun to the winning party's supoermajority in congress.

Very funny...

[Hansel]

89. Fear makes people do stupid things. Lame duck or not.

Like you, rewriting history because you appear to be incapable of objective analysis.

[stuart68]

98. Objective analysis

nice try. What did I rewrite ? Dems in control ? Obama coming in ? lame duck Bush ? No, no and no. You are just hell bent on blaming Obama's failure on someone else.

So a fearful lame duck can make the dem controlled congress spend $800B - wow !

[Hansel]

102. Whatever. Bush create the mess and did the bailout.

You can pretend that 8 years of his policies and turning the other way regarding regulations and the massive spending that Bush engaged in with no accountability didn't create the mess. You can pretend that he and Paulson didn't come up with the bailout and its rules if you want. You can pretend that the economy was not on the verge of collapsing under Bush's watch. And you can pretend that Obama is entirely at fault and everything was lovely and rosy when he took office and he really didn't have a huge mess to clean up, that he just pretended he did. That's call rewriting history.

If you want to be an apologist for Bush, that's your choice.

[stuart68]

104. holy crap

Never said any of that, nor am I an apologist for anyoen, let alone bush.

You still have yet to answere any of the issues I presented.

Obama could have stepped in and wrote the rule book, but he did not. He let bankers get away clean. GM CEO left with a $25M payout - what a punishment. He had the power and did not use it, or was listening to the wrong folks.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Hansel]

108. The conditions of the bailout were already written when he assumed the presidency

The banks signed contracts about the conditions of the TARP loans before he was president. He could not have just come in and write a new rule book. Well he could have, but the courts would have reversed it. It was Bush who let the bankers get away somewhat "clean". Now Obama is moving forward. This is outside of the contracts and is a tax. So now there is something he can do.

The GM CEO also already had an existing contract that Obama did not write. Obama wanted the guy out and the contract had to be honored by law. If Obama had written a contract after he gave GM the money that gave the guy a $25MM ($25M is $25,000 and I'm guessing is typo) bonus that would have been a different thing. But the law is the law and a contract is a contract. Obama really didn't have any say over it. Period.

Obama is not a dictator and he is still bound by law. There is really only so much he can do. If he had written TARP and didn't have stronger rules, I would agree with you. But he didn't.

Sorry about implying you are an apologist for Bush. No one should be accused of that.

[stuart68]

111. So explain teh GM bankruptcy

If you can rewrite the bankroptcy law to ensure the unions were whole despite the existing "contracts", why not TARP.

Your argument is sound, but it was disproven by the provisions of the GM bankruptcy. This is my point. Bankers who donate get a pass. Union heads who deliver the vote get a pass. the rank and file worker and consumer get screwed.

[Hansel]

118. Bankruptcy is decided by the court.

Obama is in the executive not the judicial branch. He cannot make any decision regarding a legal contract. He could try to get all parties to agree to dissolve the contract, but I bet that the CEO being forced out of his job wouldn't be too keen on going along with that.

There was really nothing Obama could do.

[stuart68]

141. Ah, but you're wrong

Obama and Geithner forced conditions on the bankruptcy favoring the unions with respect to pensions and HC benefits and at the expense of creditors.

Whether or not he could have or should have, he did. Therefore he could have dealt similarly with banks, had he wanted to. Unfortunately, the facts are the facts.

[Hansel]

145. No, you are wrong. Obama is not a judge.

He can push for whatever he like in a bankruptcy, but the judge decides and is not bound by what conditions Obama "forced".

Also, the GM CEO was not a part of the bankruptcy. He was already gone by the time that happened.

Again, you are mixing Obama up with Bush. The conditions of the bank bailout were set during the Bush administration. I know that it is an inconvenience fact for you, but it is still a fact. Contracts were signed and there is not much Obama could do about it. He has to work within the parameters of what Bush's admin set up. He's not a dictator or a God. Unlike Bush, Obama is trying to work within his legal boundaries. Don't like, find yourself a dictator.

[stuart68]

151. Keep your head in the sand

Dem congress signed off on all that "Bush set up". Dem Congress authorized the money. Bush could "authorize" buying Mexico, but Congress signs off on the money. As for the union deal in the bankruptcy - do your homework - Obama and Geithner forced it through.

Keep your head in the sand ! Keep telling yourself that Obama is looking out for your interests. I will keep reviewing the facts and drawing my own conclusions.

[No Elephants]

136. It's naive to think a newly-elected Democratic President, one who had

been elected by the largest margin in a while, had nothing to do with the shape of the TARP a Democratic Congress passed in 2008 and re-affirmed in January 2009.

And please see again Reply 120.

[Hansel]

146. It's naive to think that an extremely stubborn president who acted as a virtual dictator

for 8 years, lied about everything and did exactly what he wanted in every case was going to be influenced by a newly-elected opposing party president after he treated every Democrat like sh*t for 8 years. Especially an opposing party president who is treated with complete and utter disdain by that president's party. And especially when that president pissed away tax dollars to his rich friends for his entire presidency at the demise of the country's economic health.

He and his folks had control, have never shown any propensity to reach across to Democrats for their input and now in the last hours you think he suddenly changed? I'm sorry but I would be careful about calling anyone else naive. Seriously.

Although the bailout was necessary, you know damn well that it was part of the goal for Bush and company to make sure it wasn't too painful for his Wall Street buddies.

[stuart68]

152. you really do sound naive

so Congress, controlled by dems, had NOTHING to do with this ?

Bush is gone - time to move along to takng responsibility for our own screw-ups.

[sendero]

154. You are right..

.. but there are a lot of people here that cannot accept that Obama has handled the banking crisis in just about the worst possible way.

Coming back now and saying he's going to tax his way to getting even is just campaign bullshit. The 90 billion he's talking about is a drop in the bucket.

[No Elephants]

120. Congress did not bow to the threats. Paulson was all over the talking heads

shows one Sunday, saying the sky was falling and would crush us forever unless Congress passed the bill within a day or two. That was September 21, 2008. (See, e.g., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26820117/ns/meet_the_press/) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/21/ST2008092100538.html

Congress did not do that. It did fiddle with the bill, despite what Paulson said, not passing it until October 3, 2008. There was time to put in conditions. Dodd did, in fact, add a provision to limit Executive Compensation and someone from the Obama camp told him not to.

See this story and the many stories it links. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

It is entirely possible, even likely, that the TARP bill is exactly the bill Democrats intended to pass. Every time Democrats do something unpalatable, a group says they had no choice. They were just helpless victims of the Republicans, or of the Blue Dogs. Never that maybe, just maybe, Democrats in national politics are on occasion sufficiently smart and competent to hit just about what they aimed for.

Rewriting history is extremely dangerous to our democracy--not to mention to us and to our kids, grandkids and their kids, BUT so is failing to get the accurate and full story in the first instance. Don't put Party above truth, principle and country.

Wake up, America.

Besides, if anyone had gotten spooked, simply on Paulson's say so, they are not fit to govern anyway. Ditto, if they are too dumb or incompetent to pass the laws they want to pass, even with this majority. Republicans never seem to have that problem when they're in the majority.

Republicans are not the answer, though. Better Democrats are. But, we are unlikely to get them if people keep rationalizing away everything that is wrong.

[stuart68]

142. Well said.

[damyank913]

164. I'll grant you that it is possible.

But I don't think it's likely-and not because most of the Dems (and Repubs) are true to their duty as our elected reps. But rather because most of them are cowards and were scared that they might be on the wrong side of history. Add to that "the sky is falling" scenario that Hank so skillfully crafted and, well, here we are, no?

In all fairness, one does tend to listen to an expert. Economics is an inexact science. But a science, nevertheless. If you have someone on staff that's a bomb expert and he comes running past you yelling RUN-how much time do you want to take to verify his knowledge or truthfulness. Unfortunately they all decided to run 1st-then check. Rather human.

Perhaps the checking should have been done long before the bomb arrived. We need people with fore sight not hind sight. Not all of our reps voted for the repeal of G/S. That's a beginning.

[laughingliberal]

131. I agree about the the Wall Street proposal but 'rank and file workers' did not get screwed by unions

The unions were offered a deal on Tuesday that would have exempted their members from the excise tax and they turned it down in favor of further concessions for all workers. In the end, they took a temporary exemption and got the threshold for premiums raised for everyone and got the premiums for dental and vision care exempted. They also won a concession to index the premium costs so the amount to qualify for the tax will go up with inflation. They and all of us would have preferred to see the tax defeated but the unions did work to improve it for everybody.

[dotymed]

16. The bad part is

that these institutions will just pass this tax onto us, the consumer. We have to regulate them so that this won't happen. Also, we have to re-instate the Glass-Steagal Act as well as the Fairness Doctrine (no connection, but we have to fix our MSM too).

[snot]

20. Agreed (except I think there IS a connection).

[stuart68]

37. disagree

you will NEVER be able to regulate fast and far enough. Tax the receiver, ie, in a slaes driven company, when you sell somethign, when do you get paid - when the customer pays. What if the customer sues you for their money back ? Most plans are written so that you forfeit your commission / bonus.

They can have their bonus IF AND WHEN the economic benefits follow. If the company needs to be rescued, we take it all back. If we are in the middle of a rescue, we keep more of it.

It is called driving behavior. Regulations are for corporate lawyers and as long as I do what the comapny told me, I get my bonus even if we go out of business. NO. If you are the reason, your personal bonus is confiscated. Mroe regs just employ more lawyers which reduce operating income which reduce taxes to the fed.

Watch what happens if we hit an individuals paycheck.

[dotymed]

138. Sorry Stuart

What I could understand from your post,imo (not a lawyer) is B.S. "Most plans are written so that you forfeit your commission/bonus?" REALLY?

[stuart68]

153. Absolutely

if the company that bought something fails to pay, you forfeit commission. There is even a complicated set of rules that govern when promises are made outside standard product, ie, the next version will be blue. If they buy it now BECAUSE the next version is blue, you will not see a commission until the next version is released and they sign off on the shade of blue. This is not universal, but is done by most ethical companies and I believe it is a standard Accounting practice.

This is what keeps the regular folks honest. I cannot convince my buddy, who owns a company that is about to go under, to buy my stuff, then stiff my boss for the payment - as I said earlier, I would lose my commission. It is written into most plans to eliminate this type of issue.

[Hansel]

57. This is where Obama's promise to funnel more money to community banks

comes in play. Because that will enable them to compete with the big banks which will force big banks to think twice about passing this tax along to their customers. There is already a trend toward moving money to community and smaller banks so the large banks will need to think twice about charging more in fees if they want to continue to compete effectively.

The banks that are carrying more debt and higher risk products are going to pay more. That will force them back down into offering more conservative products in order to avoid the tax. They can't lend any less than they already are so, if Obama can get the money to community banks to lend, the big banks being more conservative on their lending to stay out of debt won't have as much impact on our economy.

Only banks with more than $50 billion in assets will be taxed so the small banks will avoid having to pay anything.

All that being said, I wish that they would increase the upper income tax bracket for those making over a million dollars to at least 50 percent or more. This would at least either decrease the greed incentive or recoup a lot of the money for the people who are getting shafted.

[stuart68]

62. taht's a lot of dominoes

to fall in the right order to make this happen. just don;t see it coming to fruition.

[Hansel]

90. We'll see. nt

[dotymed]

139. After FDR, pre-Reagan

We had those types of taxes (and higher)in place. It was a lesson learned from the Depression. The greedy corporations (people?), paid the Congress and Reagan to drop them. Reagan said that the free market and competition was all the regulation we needed. He also said, when he got rid of THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, that "the free market should control the content of their (news) programs." So, the truth was sold to the highest bidder. So "SNOT" was right, "there is a connection."

[wake.up.america]

66. of course, it will be passed onto the general public...

What does one expect? Capitalism is based on greed. On one hand the banks are encouraged to financially rape the public, now they are now being threatened with taxes, which they will pass onto the public, WTF? Making sense out of this is maddening. As I noticed elsewhere, it's open season. Steal and gouge seems to be the name of the game.

[stuart68]

69. Capitalism is Not based on greed

but performance, and when performance that is unhealthy is rewarded with zero risk, then it gets out of kilter.

The banks should have gone under. Fannie and Freddie should go under.

Question - If I have a loan with Fannie, and it went under, who do I send my money to ? Don't I just get to keep the house ? Why have we committed unrestrained resources to Fannie and Freddie. Those guys got bonuses I bet ! Let capitalism work, let them go out of business. If they did, woudl unemployment go over 17% (the real rate) ? probably not, but we'd have a lot or $$ around to help folks with ...

[damyank913]

80. you're contradicting yourself

First you say that an NFL QB is not worth the money. Then you say to let capitalism work. An NFL QB's pay is one of the purest forms of capitalism-it's what the market will bear. As for the bail-outs; unfortunately there IS currently such a thing as too big to fail. That is something that needs to be fixed-but right now it is what we have. The Fed did what it was designed to do back in 1912. To provide banking stability. One lesson that was learned during the Great Depression was that the Fed did not do enough or act quickly enough.

Look, this system that we have is still an experiment. We're smarter now but there's still a learning curve.

[stuart68]

81. Too big to fail is a myth

You're telling me that NO ONE would step into the gap ? That's like saying the 32 QBs are so talented, not use having a talented backup. Backups are just waiting to make a name for themselves.

There would have been havoc, but in an internet connected, it is a farce to say that ANYTHING is too big to fail.

And btw, that is captialism. I dont thinkt the QB is worth it, so I don't have one (or the money in any event). Don;t think they shouldn't be allowed to max out their earnins, though.

[liberation]

83. A quarterback and a multi-billion dollar corporation are two very different things

Why is it that libertarians have such a fantastic hard time dealing with complexity and orders of magnitude?

[stuart68]

87. not sure - go ask a libertarian

are you passing a qualitative judgement on me and you've read a couple of my posts ? that's pathetic.

[Hansel]

92. The collapse of several of these large institutions at one time when

the economy was teetering on the brink made these institutions too big to fail. Yes. It would have added both directly and indirectly to massive unemployment (closer to that of the great depression) and would have totally interrupted any real money flow capacity making it very hard for anyone to do business.

It don't think that they would be too big too fail if only one of them was failing and the rest were healthy. It was the domino effect of several of the major banks failing when the economy was in trouble that made them too big to fail.

I don't know about the other poster, but I'm telling you the NO ONE would have stepped in to fill the gap. The gap would have been far too large to fill and the healthier banks would shy away from taking on that type of risk.

That certainly doesn't mean that in a strong economy that any of them by themselves are too big to fail. Now that things have settled down a little, I think that Obama is looking at ways to make them less likely to fail by implementing things like this tax that will force them to rethink the way they do business. Evidently, I think you will see some banks spun off from the investment firms because the rules that will be put in place will only hold down the investment firms business. Rather than breaking up the banks Obama is going to make it less palpable to stay big and conduct business as usual.

[stuart68]

100. keep clinging to hope

it makes you feel good, but it just ain't gonna happen.

There woud have been plenty of people to step into the gap. What, no one would ask for a loan anymore. It is like the excues ont he car companies failing and losign a zillion jobs. People would still buy cars somewhere. Someone would have to make parts and put them together. Someone woudl make loans.

Thanks should have failed, plain and simple. We are NO better off now than we were before.

[Hansel]

105. If several of the big banks had collapsed, there would have been no money to lend.

I know this is complex, but there is no magic money fairy who could have come in and saved the day. There would have been no money whether someone wanted to borrow it or not. And healthy banks wouldn't touch these banks with a ten foot pole, because in order to stay healthy they would not have made such asinine business decisions. There would not have been plenty of people to step into the gap and that borders on pure fantasy.

And NO, no one would ask for a loan when unemployment began to skyrocket worse than it is now and their economic confidence was destroyed when one bank after another collapsed. People would have pulled their money from all banks and the stock market would have crashed worst than it did. The money would have been gone.

These institutions invested their money into bad investments and lost a great deal of it. Without the the government stepping in, there would have been a global collapse. It's that simple.

Talk about clinging to hope.

The economy would have collapsed had it not been for the bailouts and that might have been one of the only things Bush did that made some sense. But there should have been stronger conditions and that he, once again, screwed the pooch on. It's not Obama's fault no matter how much you want to pretend that it is and I give him credit for doing what he can to fix it.

[stuart68]

112. one at a time

the government siezes banks on a regular basis, and could have done the same. Investors could have and would have stepped in to take over assets.

We have created a monster -anyone who thinks the lesson learned was don't make risky investments is kidding themselves. The only lesson a thrill seeker learns by jumping off a roof and not killing themself is to find a cooler, riskier wat of doing it the next time.

these bankers are thrill seekers, and natural selection would have been the best course.

[damyank913]

161. The investors!!!

You're wrong. The investors would have lost it all. Normally, I would not have a problem with this except that, thanks to the repeal of G/S, the investors were retirement accounts representing millions of Americans doing the "right thing" by actually planning for their retirement. What's ironic is that now you have to know how to negotiate the Las Vegas pit that is the stock market AS WELL as know your job.

45 yrs ago corp America and unions actually paid you a pension for trading 45 yrs of your life, but they came up with a "better" idea (IRA's). Since then the common's man wage has increased by around 3.5% per year-while the upper echelons of corp America has skyrocketed by hundreds of percentage points. Talk about wealth reapportionment! He who has the gold makes the rules.

[SanchoPanza]

97. I keep hearing this.

I've yet to hear it explained how, exactly, banks will be able to do this. Just because something has an intuitive sort of sense to it doesn't make it true.

For one, any manager of a lending institution would be inept in the extreme if they took a tax liability out of expected borrowings, since the return made on expected borrowings is how these institutions make money. Especially if there are other ways in which the liability can be paid that would be a lot less objectionable to shareholders. Even if it did come directly from bank reserves, it would come from free reserves (the difference between expected borrowings and total reserves), which banks keep on hand to handle such unexpected short-term liabilities.

It also leaves out of the equation the fact that not all banks would be subject to the new liability, which would give banks that didn't take TARP funds a competitive advantage if said liability could actually be passed on to borrowers. If Bank of America, as an example, reduced rates on savings or increased rates on loans in order to reduce their share of the liability, banks like Chase, which already repaid their share of TARP funds, would eat them for lunch.

[stuart68]

101. Close, but not quite

Wht, when the gas station on one corner raises prices a nickel, the other does the same. Why wouldn't they just "eat their lunch" ? because people will still buy gas and we can all make more money !

Also, some banks that did NOT take tarp will pay as well.

Bottom line is that the tax will not reduce teh exec salary or bonus, so it will come from somewhere else. To keep dividend up, they will pas it on through.

Do the oil companies take the gas taxes out of profits ? No, they get added to the price at the pump.

[Hansel]

107. Oil companies are a oligarchy. Banks are not.

Banks have a tremendous amount of competition so this is not a good analogy. Oil companies set their prices together and there are a hell of a lot fewer of them.

For 2009, six banks alone will pay $150 billion in total executive compensation which is only slightly less than the record $164 billion in 2007. This is only 6 banks out of hundreds that would be paying and Obama is only seeking $90 billion dollars over 10 years. If you extrapolate $150 billion in bonuses for just these 6 banks over 10 years that is 1.5 trillion in bonuses. These 6 banks, along with the many other who will be paying the tax, can well afford to pay less than $10 billion a year in taxes without having to pass them on the customers.

The proposed 0.15 per cent tax would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade for all of the banks with more than $50 billion in assets. That is a tax of .0015 if the article I read is stating it correctly. That is a paltry amount of money for these banks. They can easily lower bonuses to pay this back.

Basically if they choose stupidly and tack this fee onto their customers, their customers have plenty of other places to go. There are only 35 banks in the US with holdings over the limit. So I think they will more than likely take it out of bonuses. There already is a revolt against them by customers toward smaller banks. Obama is just helping that along.

[stuart68]

109. we'll see

didn't say they couldn't take it our of bonuses. Just said they won't. As far as the flight to smaller banks - that is anecdotal. If it were substantial, the larger guys would buy them.

[SanchoPanza]

119. Like I said..

The notion that a firm will pass the cost of a tax liability on to their consumers makes an intuitive kind of sense. But the transaction model for banking (and financial products in general) is very different from other sectors of the economy.

Bank managers are still accountable to their shareholders. If they take that liability out of expected borrowing (which is how the bank, and the shareholders, make money), instead of free reserves than they are essentially thumbing their nose at their bosses. If they take it out of depositors by reducing the interest rate on CDs (just as an example), they're giving an incentive to their depositors to go to another bank. Right now the biggest thing preventing people from taking their money out of bigger banks and putting them into smaller community banks or credit unions is interest rates are fairly even.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

128. I am skeptical of Glass-Steagall

I am highly skeptical that Glass-Steagall is relevant for a few different reasons. I think it was just a convenient sacrificial lamb.

First, many countries without a Glass-Steagall equivalent did not suffer a bank meltdown (read: spurious correlation). Second, it was originally implemented to stem bank failures (which it did), though everyone seems to forget that. Third, it makes sense from the standpoint of elementary finance and investing -- if we were to believe it was fundamentally unsound, it would imply 99+% of the American public are bloody morons because they handle their finances the same way.

I have heard it asserted ad nauseum by talking heads that Glass-Steagall was somehow responsible, but I've never heard anyone justify that assertion in any kind of sane, rational manner that makes any sense. It is one of those invented assertions with no justifiable basis that was repeated so often by people without a clue that it is assumed to be true. Being at least somewhat familiar with it, every time I hear someone blame Glass-Steagall it raises a "WTF?" in my mind. When pressed, no one has ever been able to support the idea, they always heard it from someone else. It reeks of manipulation.

There are plenty of greedy jackasses on Wall Street, but I cringe every time we have to invent facts and reality out of whole cloth. It should not be necessary if our belief is correct. We can't fix the problem if we aren't honest about the causes.

[No Elephants]

137. You should suspend skepticism.

1. Other countries: First, other countries suffered from our economic meltdown. Second, who knows what else may have prevented them from especially risky transactions? Could have been anything from a brutal dictator to an especially cautious culture to it just not having occurred to them.

If you're implying that you know all the laws and all the cultural inhibitions in all other countries, I call bs. You are obviously repeating something someone else has said or written. And, if that other person is imply that, I call bs on them too.

When trying to figure this out, let's just stick to our own country bc most of us don't even know all of our own laws and practices, let alone those of all other countries.

2. The original intent of the Glass Steagall Acts (there were two) is irrelevant. The relevant issue is what effect the Acts actually had, not what their original purpose was. If I enact a law banning ice cream, I may intend to keep people health, but that law may also result in a lot of folks going out of business, filing bankruptcies, etc. The fact that those things were in no way within my original intent is irrelevant.

3. Not sure what your third point even means. The average American does not do what banks did after repeal of Glass Steagall.

Granted, this is wiki and therefore not always reliable, but sometimes wiki is a good leaping off point to research from sources everyone and his brother cannot edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act See especially the paragraph, under the heading "Events After Repeal."

[damyank913]

165. I don't know where you get your facts Pal

But Phil Gramm and his boys, as well as every rep that voted to deregulate banking had everything to do with why this happened. Every few years we have to be reminded that bankers are not to be trusted. Remember the S&L crisis? How about Enron? Remember when we had to bail out California? Mexico? Why do you suppose we did those things? Because of American banking policy and our lack of regulation.

[liberation]

75. By every dime, he meant the $700 billion from TARP, and the other $700 billion from the Fed?

That is almost $1.5 trillion bucks.

Or he is referring to a couple of billion bucks to keep this whole kabuki play going? Because if that is the case, we're talking a few orders of difference here...


And by "going after" does he mean actual legislation, or more speeches (I am sure the banksters are quacking in their boots, maybe Mr. Reid can join in and use some of his "strong worded" form letters, that will show them!)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SHRED]

3. That is a good reason to...

...MOVE YOUR MONEY:

http://moveyourmoney.info/

:toast:

[Hansel]

93. Everyone should be sure to do their research on these banks before moving their money.

One of the banks this site recommends has an upper management made up of the founders of the right wing blog Power Line at which a man lovingly referred to by Atrios as Hindrocket, and we refer to locally as Assmissile, posts.

Despite being a community bank, it is highly political in favor of the extreme right and they treat their employees like Walmart treats theirs. Members of its management have spent untold dollars in the area to smear Democratic candidates and were also involve in going after Dan Rather to get him fired during 2004 election. At the same time, a much more "blue" bank in the area whose managers were not caught up in the bank failures and made very wise decisions about running their company were left off of the list because they are a bigger bank.

Whoever is putting this list together is not doing enough research or they should have caught this mistake. Just because a bank is a community bank does not mean it is a good place to put your money. And just because a bank is larger does not necessarily mean they are bad.

Please, when you post these links would you mind including the the caveat that people need to do their homework about the bank before moving their money. They just might be making the matter worse by moving it to bank who use the money they generate to elect Tea Baggers.

[damyank913]

6. Why this is different...

You must remember that not all banks took this TARP money. There are many smaller local banks that are doing just fine. If the big guys want to pass this cost onto thier customers; they run the risk of losing quite a lot of business. I believe, in this particular case, the marketplace will actually work.

[stuart68]

10. you're joking

quick - tell me precisely what all your banking fees are and are they regulatory, ie required or a money grab for the bank. You don't know do you ? Banks will slice this so thin no one will ever notice.

Also, ever try to change your bank, it really is a pain in the butt. NO ONE will ever notice, and if they do, they will NEVER change banks because their fees went up $1.62/month ! The smaller banks will make out, as this will be hte perfect excuse for them to up fees to even things out.

This is ideal for RahmBama, however. It makes you feel like he is issuing a smack down to those nasty bankers, when in fact he is not. Oh, you cute little Hopey/changers - this is a smack down on th elittle guy.

NEWS FLASH - we own or did own those banks. we fired CEOs. now we're saying we CAN'T eliminate a bonus ? If he really wanted to do something, he would issue an exec order and take the money under the argument that it was ours in the first place and as we were the biggest, most valuable investor (remember they would have failed without us), we make the rules and take all the bonus money. OR this should have been a condition of TARP, ie, we save your fanny and you get to keep your salary but we take all the icing off th etop for the next 4 years ! Wow, some Harvard Business student couldn't figure that one out ? or wouldn't ? NOOOOO - we'll lose our top talent ! You mean the guys who ran the business into the ground in the first place ?

RahmBama won't do that - would piss off too many big donors. This would actually be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[fasttense]

13. Yeah, why didn't the bush and Paulson do that?????

I seem to recall that the bush and Paulson pushed TARP, without restrictions, through the congress because the sky was falling.

[stuart68]

26. They weren't asked and would never suggest it

All of this was done under the eyes of the incoming admin and the dem congress. You thought the repubs would suggest this scenario. That's funny...

[damyank913]

36. and denial isnt just a river in Egypt

The key operative words in your statement "this was done...". Bush was pres until January 20th.

[stuart68]

38. quote me correctly

"this was done under the eyes of the incoming admin and dem congress"

Seems you are the one in denial.

Why does Paulson still have a job, then ? RahmBama must like what he did/continues to do...

[damyank913]

47. Now THAT is a good question.

Maybe because Paulson was a replicant-I mean a republican and Bama still thinks this buys him some street cred with th repubs. Maybe because of the generally held belief that you don't fire a coach in th middle of a game. I honestly don't understand that one.

[No Elephants]

122. Please see Reply #120. Besides, Bush can't legislate or appropriate $$.

Those powers, since 2006, belonged to a Democratic Congress.

[No Elephants]

121. Please see Reply # 120.

[damyank913]

15. I get what you're saying...

But remember these were deals brokered by Paulson and Bernake back in Sept of 08. I had a bad feeling when old Hank asked for total control. Nevertheless, we're stuck with it and are left having to do something after the fact. My Citicard went from 7.9% to 17.99%-and in 10 yrs I NEVER had a late payment. I went to my local bank and got a card for 9.9%. Although I am by no means a Laizze Faire capatalist-I think the system will work. These greedy bitches deserve a smackdown and I applaud Bama for going after them.

[stuart68]

19. that's my point

while he is making people feel like he is going after bankers, he isn't. It is a good cop / bad cop play.

We are screaming that these people gettign bonuses are exhibiting risky behavior, and then do NOTHING to deal with them personally.

Look at it this way. I am a greedy banker, I got a massive bonus on the backs of a lot of individiuals pain. My punishment is what ? nothing ! Taxes are paid after bonuses, so this year the risky behavior will continue and the bonuses will come again next year and any damage to the company will be covered by you !

Obama is doing NOTHING to punish the guilty with this move, he just wants you to think he is...

[damyank913]

29. The repeal of Glass/Speigel...

...enabled these guys to do exactly what they did-LEGALLY. That repeal was pushed through by a republican congress and signed by Clinton. Ordinarilly, I have no problem with these people making the big bucks. But, Bama has got to abide by the law. And I agree that the problem is systemic. but this system that he's pledged to change is bigger than any 1 president. We've just gotten through the 1st quarter-be patient Grasshopper.

[stuart68]

33. Name One thing

of significane that he has accomplished. Not bashing the guy, but just not willing to accept the be patient thing. Everyone will tell you that the first qtr is the biggest opportunity for a president. dems WILL lose seats in 2010 - it happens to both parties in the WH. Yo uthink it will get easier ?

This is not analagous to football, ie, the 2 minute drill. The last year is called lame-duck for a reason.

[damyank913]

44. Watch it now!! Life...

...is a ballgame. So you actually think that this health care initiative (something that Truman and Clinton could not get passed) is a small thing. It was easier for Bush to invade Iraq than to deal with this pressing social issue.

[stuart68]

51. never said it was going to be easy

but all the side deals and manipulation will end up doing something - just doubtful the somethign will be worth anything....

[No Elephants]

124. Don't know about Clinton, but Truman did not propose a giveaway to

health insurers, drug companies and Big Medicine, all of which were very different in Truman's time than they are today. Apples and Oranges.

As for Clinton, he mdde the mistake of assigning it very publicly to Hillary, whom no one had elected anything, let alone the Lone Legislator. Again, apples and oranges.

[damyank913]

163. You're missing my point...

...which was that this is not an easy thing. As Truman found out when he proposed his own version of a "Public Option":

...As he readied for the approaching 1948 election, Truman made clear his identity as a Democrat in the New Deal tradition, advocating national health insurance,<87> the repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, and an aggressive civil rights program. Taken together, it all constituted a broad legislative agenda that came to be called the "Fair Deal". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

As for your fruit basket-we still don't know what the end result of this will be.

[uncle ray]

64. Sonya Sotemayor.

who would McCain't have picked?

[stuart68]

67. Oh please

not to diminish the accomplishment, that's ridiculous.

Dem Pres, super-majority in Congress ! That was a challenge ???? this is my point, it's like saying I deserve a position because I didn;t cheat on my taxes - no that is just somethingn you're supposed to do. It does not garner you any extra credit.

[No Elephants]

126. Isn't it premature to assess her career on the SCOTUS bench?

[stuart68]

155. Not my point

Someone pointed to her as a major success, and while it is important, it was a layup for a dem president and a dem congress.

[No Elephants]

123. Congress has been Democratic since 2006--and Obama was part of it.

The Glass Steagall Act (not Spiegel, a catalog company) could have been re-instated any time the Democratic Congress wanted to reinstate it. Still can.

But it was not only the Republican Congress who wanted to repeal Glass Steagall.

Clinton said he wanted it done and Democrats stood side by side with Republicans to vote for it--and, as you say, then Clinton signed it. So, it's kinda hard to blame only the Republicans.

Anyway, apparently "Bama" does not have to abide by the law because our law requires that we prosecute people who torture and he declared he would not do that. So, I guess he can pick and choose which laws he wants to obey.

BTW, condescension does not become you.

[damyank913]

158. yes I'm clear about the catalog company...

...Anyway, seems to me that Bush was in a veto state of mind when ever it came to anything that even hinted of regulation; or even anything suggested by a dem.

[No Elephants]

129. The increase in your Citicard is not due to Paulson.

You can probably thank folks like Barney Frank for that. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52977.html
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2009/11/06/credit_card_firms_hurry_to_raise_rates/

After all his years heading his committee, he claims he did not foresee that credit companies would raise rates if he gave them plenty of time--nine whole months-- to raise rates (and lower creit limits) before new restrictions went into effect. Or rather, he claimed they had abused the ability he left them. What a shock it must have been over a year after the TARP that banks would abuse a door you left wide open.

Come on, Barney, you're way too smart and experienced to make that claim plausibly. It's human nature.

After the increases, he belated wanted to move up the effective day by a couple of months, but it never happened. Anyway, by then, it was too late.

I once saw Barney being interviewed on TV about something that Congress had done that was not good. At first, he, too, tried to blame only the Republicans, Then the interviewer pointed out that Democrats had done the same.

Almost unable to suppress a smile, Barney's only answer was: "Voters don't hold us accountable."

The interviewer look at him incredulously, whereupon Barney simply added, "They're too easy on us."

Sure, when in doubt, blame Republicans and, if that doesn't work, blame those who trust you and keep re-electing you.

[damyank913]

162. I used to like old Barney...

...but I think he's now part of the problem. I often wonder what kind of re-elction money he gets from financial institutions.

[snot]

17. Which bank CEO's did we fire?

[stuart68]

23. imprecise language

I said "we fired CEOs" meaning we bought the cars companies (the same as the banks) and fired a car company CEO. So yes, for companies we bought, we didi fire a CEO (and I woudl argue forced others out).

[snot]

22. I changed my bank months before moveyourmoney.

If you find that so difficult, maybe we really are screwn.

[stuart68]

25. all depends on your scenario

not sure of your situation, but when you have a lot of electronic accounts, kids tuition accounts, kids savings, ect, it can take more than a few minutes. $2/mo is $24/year. If it takes you even 1 hour in total, you are losing money...

[mbperrin]

39. That's why I quit banking in 1978. No accounts, no loans, no cards.

Feels good, and I have literally saved a fortune, not only in fees and fines, but in interest as well.

[stuart68]

43. the problem is

I had to cover a hotel room for my 82 year old uncle when his wife was in the hospital (so he could stay close by). With (literally) $3,500 in his pocket cash, they would not give him a $90/night room without a credit card.

[mbperrin]

58. We love to travel, so bought a reasonably sized 24' RV a few years

ago. Park anywhere, and you're set.

[stuart68]

60. self contained...

nice !

[Iowa]

113. mbperrin, that's interesting...

When you say you quit banking, do you mean just commercial banks? Or does that include credit unions, mutual funds, and all financial institutions? Do you just live check-to-check? Or do you put savings into hard assets only?

I also quit commercial banks (back in the early 80s). But I saved for retirement (mostly via Vanguard) and I have used a local credit union for day-to-day stuff. In almost 30 years I have never paid a penny in fees of any kind at the credit union.

[mbperrin]

115. We actually abandoned all commercial financial institutions.

We have hard assets in the form of property, rental property, a couple of retail stores, and cash.

I teach, but have just 7 years until retirement.

Sounds like your credit union is a good one. Even the educators' here is rife with local politics, so we didn't choose that option.

The only real way to punish these rogue outfits is to leave them. Congratulations to you for doing that!

[MilesColtrane]

84. .

[fasttense]

12. How come when taxes or other costs go up we get it passed on to us, yet

when the price goes down we don't get that passed on to us? When all the corporations moved our jobs and factories to foreign countries so their labor costs were seriously reduced and their costs to prevent contamination from their factories were reduced, yet their prices stayed the same. Just look at Nike and other name brand items. They use child labor and sweat shops, yet their prices don't come down.

True Wal-Mart reduces some of their prices but a lot of Wal-Mart prices are pretty high for such crappy stuff.

So, I'm beginning to believe this is just a scam the corporation play on us. If you raise our taxes, if you make us pay our fair share for using your country as a dumping ground for our crap, then we will raise our prices and pass it on to you.

This is just another con corporations are playing and people buy into it way too easily.

[stuart68]

27. exactly my point

hitting the banks with a tax means YOU will pay it. Hitting BANKERS with a tax means they will pay it.

This is not very difficult to figure out.

Gasoline production is down, inventories are up and yet the price is way up at the pump ? Because people think it should be. When Katrina hit, the NEXT DAY, gas prices shot up at the pump. Believe me, gas does not move that fast from the gulf to the pump...

[damyank913]

32. When Katrina hit they had to pay...

...for thier next supply of gas which was more expensive. Although I do agree that there appears to be a much longer lag time for prices to go back down.

[stuart68]

34. c'mon

the prices NEVER went down in accordance with 10% of the population out of work and 17% if you count the ones that gave up. Refineries are shuttign down for lack of demand !

[damyank913]

50. Ya gotta look at the picture.

While it is true that we're having our share of problems in the USA, the price of oil is driven by global demands. China is opening a new power plant monthly-or maybe even weekly. Man, it's the rise of the dragon.

[stuart68]

54. so why are refineries being idled ?

[damyank913]

61. What refineries ? Where?

The price of oil has now made it profitable to go deeper and to process shale. Much of the problem, in my humble opinion, is caused by the refusal to issue permits for new refineries, drillers, and exploration. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[stuart68]

63. Google

simple google search shows utilization is down considerably in US.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_m.htm

[damyank913]

71. You should read your own chart pal...

Operable capacity is up. Idle units are down.

[stuart68]

74. sorry - but you're wrong

you cannot look at absolute numbers that are rolled up and draw a conclusion. The number that matters is "Operable Utilization", of what we can run, what is running. That is dowwn 3.5%

Operable Utilization Rate (%)
83.8 86.1 84.2 84.0 84.8 81.3

[No Elephants]

125. And why do you think we do refuse to allow more refineries.

Much as I cannot abide Pat Robertson and do not want him to have a refinery--or anything else that makes him more money--what happened to him when he tried to start up a refinery was an eye opener.

[Knight Hawk]

46. Not Really

Money is the most fungible thing in the world.If the government taxes the bankers directly their employers can just give them a raise to make up for their lost income.The bankers will net the same after taxes income or close to it.Then the cost of doing business will be passed on to the consumers.Big corporations have to pay big bucks to keep top talent.There are only about 32 people in the world,at any given time, who have the athletic ability and discipline etc. to be a first string quarterback in the NFL.That is why they are paid so well.If I thought I could play better than anyone of those 32 I would try out for the team.

[stuart68]

53. Don't believe it

Out of all the billions of people, you think that job is sooooo complex that only 32 can handle it ?

No way. The 32 have the right agent, the right connection, got the right publicity, etc. I think there are hundreds who could do it, but most never try or never get a shot.

As for wages, the banks will never raise wages to account for taxed bonuses as the board of directors will not allow it. Wages are fixed cot - management will ALWAYS work to control or minimize fixed cost. That's why some of these guys make more (and want more) in bonus than wages.

There is NO way the banks would say to the employees - you lost $X in taxes on your bonus, we'll just bump your salary to cover it. As a result, it will not be passed on to consumers, at least at the same level.

[damyank913]

68. The latest thought...

...is to give bonus's based on stock that cannot be traded for x amount of years. That way these guys will be motivated to work for the benefit of the stock holders. This sounds more credable. And I don't think there are hundreds of ppl that could be NFL QB's on a yearly basis. I think maybe you could count the guys with this level of skill on a yearly basis on the fingers of one hand.

[stuart68]

70. bonus in stock

that's they wat it used to be done...

as for NFL players, how do you accoutn for guys who bag groceries making it. There is NO ONE else out there we missed. I donlt think they are that valuable.

[damyank913]

72. occasionally ppl fall through the cracks.

This is the exception, not the rule.

[No Elephants]

132. Trouble with that--Enron worked for the benefit of the stockholders.

Until the house of cards built to do that collapsed. Ditto the banks and everyone else involved in sub-prime mortgage derivatives, credit default swaps and related hedges.

Executives have a lot of legal and practical incentives to work for the benefit of the stockholders, like legal fiduciary duty, and practical desires to keep their jobs and to increase the value of the stock they probably got when they got hired.

Getting bonuses of any kind, including stock bonuses, even when they fail does not help, though. They need more incentive to work for the benefit of the consumer and the public in general. That is where government is supposed to come in--to protect consumers, the integrity of the markets, etc.

[Knight Hawk]

106. I do believe it

Board of Directors ,employers,company presidents ,the movers and shakers of the business/sports world are MOSTLY concerned in making a profit .This keeps the real owners of the company,the shareholders,happy and continuing to keep the company stock and perhaps buy more.It also attracts new stockholders.They will almost always find a way to keep top talent and not lose it to the competition .You cant keep good people down.As far as the top 32 quarterbacks go if you have the talent and DESIRE you can walk on the field and get a quick look.If you can pass the first set of drills that shows you have exceptional athletic ability(running 40 meters in a set period of time,jumping a certain height from a flat footed position etc. etc. )Believe me they will take a much longer look at you.But you have to have the ability AND the desire,the "want to".As Woody Allen says "half of life is showing up",you have to walk on that field.You do not need an agent to do that ,just ability and desire .You can get your agent before you sign any papers.

[No Elephants]

133. Meh. I think we'll still pay it, one way or another. Regulate 'em and jail 'em when

they deviate from the regulation. They can't pass their jail time on to the consumer.

Otherwise, the banks will only pay the execs more to cover the tax liablity and that increased payroll cost will get passed onto us.

[stuart68]

156. It's called Gross-up

I got a $1,000 bonus once and my paycheck went up by $1,000 net. They gave me enough additional money to make sure that after taxes I ended up with exactly $1,000.

If they do it for a schlub like me....

[Xenotime]

42. Agreed. Good post.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Finally! Obama And Co. Are Scared, Pretending To Give A Shit.

The open Senate seat in MA is in danger of falling to a Republican, and all of the sudden amazing things are coming from the mouths of our elected Democrats. This is one of several in the past few days. They're pretending to act like Democrats instead of telling the base to STFU.

But they definitely won't behave in any positive way unless they stay scared. Even if they stay scared, they'll pull bullshit "under the radar" - we need to sweep out the lot of them.

[stuart68]

8. scared people jst make deals with God or the devil...

either way, the commoners will get screwed...

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Ultimately, WE Have The Vote

As long as we have the vote, we can win - when we realize that we can. It's like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz - she could go home any time, she just didn't realize it.

This is what happened in 1932, and it can happen again.

[stuart68]

11. Amen Brother (or sister) - sorry...

[fasttense]

14. We had the vote and we voted for Obama.

President Obama is a breath of fresh air compared to idiots like the bush and Palin. This country is in the mess it's in because of RepubliCONS just like the bushes, dead eye dick and empty headed morons like Palin.

The country was destroyed by RepubliCONS and President Obama isn't cleaning it up fast enough for your liking. So, your solution is vote in the same idiots who destroyed the country.

Now that's ignorance we can believe in.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Voted For Candidate Obama; Got President Obama

Two different people, entirely. I guess he was the change we could believe in - he turned into a Reagan Republican. (I was a big supporter of Candidate Obama.)

This is precisely the problem - for 17 years, Democrats promise to help the working class but, once in office, they economically sodomize the working class. But we keep voting for them because they suck a little less than the Republicans. So, things have gotten worse and worse.

We need to threaten the vast bulk of the current crop of elected Democrats or else they will continue to have their way with us. And, at the next opportunity, replace them with actual Democrats.

[Robb]

30. That's just it, though.

If a Dem gets voted out of office, it won't be a more progressive Dem replacing them. There's little to no history to suggest as much.

If a Dem gets voted out of office, they'll be replaced with a Repub. And given the high reelection rates of incumbents in general, that means they're there until they retire or die, usually.

That's a long time with a lot of "sucking more" before you get another shot. Better to put pressure on the ones we've got in there, frankly.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. And We're Doing It. And It's Working!

All of the sudden, just over the past few days, we're hearing about getting money back from Wall Street, regulating oil prices, BPA actually being dangerous, using reconciliation for HCR... it's amazing.

We can't stop now.

[stuart68]

40. painful

so the others are crappier, so we're happy with the crp we have ? They are all the same.

Hey, didn't people say "IT'S WORKING !!!" on day one when the closing of Gitmo was announced ? It's working, It's working !!!

except we are NO closer to making that happen than we were a year ago....

[MannyGoldstein]

49. You May Be Right.

At least, for the first time in a year, they're not mooning the Democratic base. It's a start, and it may not continue. But it's the best bad option right now.

[stuart68]

55. Maybe I am too optimistic

I don;t think we should settle for the best bad option...

[Hansel]

95. So let's settle for the worst. nt

Edit to add: :sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

135. No. Let's work smarter.

Pressuring incumbents does not work. Can you imagine how many millions of communications they must have received about the TARP, the stimulus bill, single payer and the public option? Heck, I must have sent at least 100, just by myself.

They don't much care what we say because they don't need us to win. As long as they have the lobbyists, the support of the DNC and the support of each other, they have a very good chance of winning an election, no matter what the base wants or does. (See Joe Lieberman, for one.)

We have to pressure the DNC to stop supporting incumbents, no matter what. I would also say pressure the DNC to stop co-operating with Republicans to freeze out third parties, so that the existence of third parties will put pressure on the left to go further left and not only on the right to go further right. However, I have a feeling you would not agree with that. And even that may not work because the DNC gets plenty of big money donations, just as do individual candidates.

Anyhoo, we need to get involved much sooner, so that state parties pick good primary candidates. And, once we have a good rimary candidate, we have to work our butts off for him or her.

As it is now, most people are doing none of the above, then complaining when the ticket consists of only two "evils" and we only get to pick the less evil of the two. I'm sick of that.

Oh, and stay awake. And when incumbents do mess up, stop defending and rationalizing and trying to shut up those who do riticize. Instead, yell publicly, and loud and long.

No matter what we do at this point, it's long shot, but we can't keep doing the same things we've done until now and expecting a different result than we've been getting from those behaviors until now.

On edit: And maybe even fund a citizens' lobby that will fight for our best interests, the way that corporations fund lobbies to fight against our best interests.

If anyone has better ideas, please let me know. I am willing to do almost anything, as long it doesn't require staying home or voting Republican. I just can't, period.

[Hansel]

147. Good points and well said. nt

[No Elephants]

134. The Teabaggers are no happier about the TARP than is the Democratic base, though.

Neither are the independents, which is the group to which both sides play because neither base is large enough for a win.

Thing is, if Democrats vote for Brown OR stay home, the message that will be publicized and received is that people are unhappy with Democrats and want the country to go further right.

If you absolutely refuse to vote for Coakley, at least write in FDR or someone like that.

[Hansel]

94. Maybe. Or it could simply backfire.

Brown might just get elected because the left has put a negative spin on absolutely every move that Obama and the left has made. No one on the left gets any credit for the efforts they have made. They are just ridiculed because a handful of Democrats and all of the Republicans suck. Obama is suppose to be a dictator and the blue dogs and Republicans have nothing at all to do with the fact that Obama can't get anything through without weakening it. Yippee! Let's continue to focus our anger on the wrong people. That'll work.

Now the left is demoralized and won't go out to vote. There has been very little realistic analysis of what the situation is that the Progressives are trying to govern in. The fact is that the Progressive candidates can't do much because of the handful of blue dogs and ALL of the Republicans. Those are the ones we want out of power.

However, the effect has been that we may be on the verge of getting a Tea Bagger to replace one of the most progressive senators in the senate. So how is all of the bitching and complaining working out for us? What is going to save that seat from being taken over by a Tea Bagger? Who is motivated at all to go out and vote for the Democrat? Obama and the progressives are weak and lying and corporatists aren't they? Obama is constantly betraying us, isn't he? So why would anyone vote for them? They are the problem! Or so most of this site seem to be saying.

Our anger has been focused on the wrong people and it is more likely than not going to simply backfire on us. Welcome Tea Bagger Brown to the senate.

But carry on.

Edited for spelling.

[stuart68]

103. What progress

just trying to understand what this progress is that you refer to ...

Got SS from the question I posted above, but that was a gimme. What else, specifically ?

[Hansel]

110. That's what you got from that? What progress?

The point of the post is that they are unable to make progress because of blue dogs and Republicans and we are focusing our anger on the people who are actually trying to do something, to make progress.

With the incessant filibustering it is hard to make any progress and that is my point. They are trying and some on the left are just making it harder by constantly attacking the people trying to do something instead of the human roadblocks.

[No Elephants]

140. Really?

"Brown might just get elected because the left has put a negative spin on absolutely every move that Obama and the left has made."

Which "left" are you talking about? The left on DU? Because the left I see outside of message boards is not doing that. I see the left in the mass media (aka Democrats, btw) being very liberal (no pun intended) in its praise and defense of Obama and very restrained about criticizing Obama.

And, if you think message board posts by the left put Brown ahead of Coakley, with all due respect, you don't know jack about reality vs. message board, or the left, or Coakley and her campaign or Brown and his campaign.

[Hansel]

148. When I talk about the left I mean

the so called left blogosphere. The message board posts put out by the left can and do demoralize a signficant part of the base whether you think they do or not. They have the ability to motivate people to vote (as they did in the last election) and they have an ability to demoralize the same people.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree with you more. The left is disillusioned partially for legitimate reasons, but more because the analysis of everything that is being done by Democrats is being hyper-spun into completely nonobjective negativity without considerations of the consequences. Only a handful of left bloggers, Atrios being one of them, posted anything about the stupidity of the blanket attacks on the Democrats in the congress without any consideration that most of them are trying hard to work for what progressives want. That most of them would vote for what we want. But that they cannot do it because of the constant filibusters by the Republicans and a handful of blue dogs taking the Senate hostage. Hell, they have you believing that Obama practically co-authored TARP with Bush despite 8 years of evidence that Bush acted as a virtual dictator and NEVER reached out to a Democrat for their input. I mean really?

The lesson that should be taken by the shoddy legislation that is coming out of the congress is not that Obama has betrayed us. It is that you have a Republican party and a few blue dogs that they have to get past in order to pass anything. The direction of critique should have been aimed at them and the mobilization should have been to get the most progressive people elected.

The left blogosphere (DU, Salon, Kos, Huffington Post, FDL, etc - the latter 2 of which are nearly right now) was so busy joining Republicans in calling Obama names and attacking him to take the smart action of mobilizing a more electable candidate in MA. They could have used that energy and power to get someone who would have won hands down. Instead they spent all of their energy attacking Obama and whining because they didn't get their pony. "Obama doesn't do exactly what I want, whaaaa!" "Obama caused every problem we have, whaaa!" "Obama's naive, whaa!" No appreciation of the enormous problems Bush left and very little acknowledgment that it's too hard to get what we want passed because the Republicans don't believe in Democracy and don't respect the wishes of the voters.

Also, there have been a couple of posts were you have insinuated that I am naive. I am not. I can see what is going on. If you do not believe that the internet, and don't forget talk radio, is not highly influential in how a great deal of people view politics, you haven't been paying attention.

You made a post in response to one of mine above that I think shows we are not that far apart. But to pretend that the gross exaggeration of Obama's wrongs that has been created by the echo chamber of the left wing blogosphere and talk radio isn't hurting and isn't playing a part in the MA election is what I would call naive.

[stuart68]

28. Keep kidding yourself

I never said vote the rest back in. You keep believing that change is right around the corner.

I woudl argue there is one issue that far left and far right woudl climb all over to support - hammering the greedy bankers. This is a no-brainer for RahmBama, but he won't do it. He will hit your paycheck because you keep believeing tis is better that than the last.

Sounds like you would rather be bitten by a rattler (slower death) than a scorpion (i think they are faster). How about not getting bitten at all.

Tell me - where is the change ont he banks ? Oh, he yelled at them ? Wow, that's original.

[No Elephants]

127. Please see Reply 120.

Granted the Republicans made a mess. But Democrats helped when they helped repeal Glass Steagall and kept voting to fund Buchco's wars and torture; and they have helped since 2006.

P.S. Glass Steagall still has not been re-instated.

[No Elephants]

130. Things are a little different today than in 1932. For one thing, TV time was not a factor in

elections then. It cost a lot less to become Senator then, let alone President.

Obama raised such ridiculous sums of money (including from me) that contributions of people like me were almost irrelevant. If you can buy the best brains to run your campaign and the most TV time, and you don't do something horrendous, you'll probably win, especially if you are an incumbent. Sad, but true.

We do need to stop making excuses for Democrats and get fired up. But, I also think we need our own lobby, well funded by us. One that will hold their feet to the fire, as Dr. Dean, the ACLU, Amnesty International, et al. and, yes, even Nader, try to do.

[katandmoon]

59. +1,000,000 This was my reaction exactly.

[snot]

18. I have to say the same as I said about B*sh: talk is cheap.

[closeupready]

48. That's true. I think we're all a little tired of Obama's tough talk and no action. I'm

'hoping' he follows through. Won't be surprised if he doesn't.

[Xenotime]

24. It's a little late, isn't it? WH just needs to come down hard on them.

[Selena Harris]

35. No actually it's right on time for

the Senatorial election to replace Ted Kennedy. The Republican contender is being backed by the finacial industry.

His Democratic opponent, Coakley, is being backed by Big Pharma.

The election is Tuesday..

[Mari333]

41. strongly worded letter?

Im sure Rahm and Tim will make sure their friends dont suffer.

[closeupready]

45. Yes!

Just yes!

[Odin2005]

56. Let's hope this is Obama's "They hate me and I enjoy their hatred" momement.

[Jackpine Radical]

86. Indeed.

While I understand the cynicism of so many on this thread--and share in that cynicism in no small measure--I would be overjoyed to see our President take meaningful action of the sort he's talking about.

I have not been reluctant in recent months to criticize him for what I see as his failures, even his betrayals of progressivism.

I would be among the first to praise him when I see effective positive action coming from his leadership.

[Autumn Colors]

65. ....

When he goes after them BEYOND "his weekly address", let me know.

Not holding my breath.

[OhioChick]

73. More lip service? I'm not holding my breath. n/t

[PSPS]

82. Big deal. More Obama "speechifying." Wake me if this one really means anything.

[Iowa]

114. +1

[lib2DaBone]

85. Hate to say it.. but this seems like Kabuki Bank Reform Theater...

Saw a few minutes of proceedings on C-SPIN... Couldn't believe the smirk brothers.. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon.

"They feel badly" about the way things worked out... but not bad enough to give back the money!

LOL... ya.. now we will get to the bottom of this.. get some real answers..

(BOHICA) bend over here it comes again

[western mass]

91. More talk from the cheap talk President

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

99. I'll BELIEVE President Obama when he backs his tough talk with ACTION - Fines for the Banksters. eom

[ShortnFiery]

116. TALK is CHEAP. Penalize them BIG, then I will believe ... HOPE AGAIN even.

:grr:

[treestar]

144. This is one thing that should make you happy

But I can see there is no way for him to penalize them big enough.

[Vidar]

117. More "strong language". Talk is cheap.

[treestar]

143. Even this doesn't make you happy?

I get it. No matter what Obama does, he's wrong.

[yurbud]

149. has Obama said whether he will support the transaction tax on Wall Street to curb speculation?

[yurbud]

150. call it ''Economic Terrorism Reparations''

just to put things in proper perspective and keep Congress and Obama from letting Wall Street dictate how much they deign to be taxed.

[Lost4words]

159. oh I'll bet wall st is shaking in their Bruno Mallies!

[Javaman]

160. Meh, whatever. More outrage over what?

We are all just pissed at ourselves for letting this happen.

It was Obama's plan. The problem is: He and his room full of economic genius's didn't hold wall streets feet to the fire, now they are trying to do just that and they are surprised that wall street is giving them the big FU?

There was so much BS thrown around with this "emergency bailout aka give a way" that no one bothered to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's". As a result, it's only now dawning on them that they fucked up.

When you play with very well entrenched entities, you better have a really good shovel, if you don't you will never ever see the light of day ever again.

Moron* gave away our money to fruitless wars of ego, Moron* and Obama gave away our money to the wallstreet bottomless pit. We won't see that money again any time soon if ever again.

We are serfs. Once you embrace that, the rest is easy. Are you going to eat that chair? If not, I'll take it.