**** Heads Up: POTUS Addresses Wall Street Reform, Live! (11:55am EDT) ****

[Clio the Leo]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-wall-street-reform

http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

[Clio the Leo]

1. starting now! NT

[jefferson_dem]

2. I'm on it.

Thanks Clio! :hi:

[Clio the Leo]

6. help me out if you want to....

.... I'm starving and missing stuff. ;)

[Clio the Leo]

3. "until progress is felt on Main st. and NOT just Wall st. we cant be satisfied." NT

[Political Heretic]

18. Trickle down economics.

[flamingdem]

4. Wonder if Wall St. is watching nt

[Clio the Leo]

22. ""A few traders watching Obama speech,"

"A few traders watching Obama speech, but mostly looks like business as usual"

Ed Henry (via Twitter)

[Crystal Clarity]

51. My daughter was there

But I wasn't aware of it till about an hour ago. Do you know where I might find clips scanning the crowd?

[Crystal Clarity]

59. Didn't see her on ABC or CBS. Bummer

Even though she was only the 3rd or 4rth row back slightly to Obama's right. On CBS I could see the column she was near but not her. I wish I knew how to transfer the pic she sent from my e-mail onto here.

Sorry for interrupting your discussions w/this... (It's kind of a proud mom thing :blush:)

I think Obama did an excellent job BTW

[Clio the Leo]

5. "some on Wall st. forgot that behind every $ being traded is a family..."

"looking to buy a house ... or send a child to college"

[valerief]

11. But they didn't forget. Every house a family loses means they make money in their hedge funds. nt

[Clio the Leo]

7. "I'm here because I want you all to join us in solving this problm"

it has been widely reported he is NOT here to chastise Wall St.

[Clio the Leo]

8. "the goal is to make sure that tax payers are never again on the hook..."

"when a firm is deemed 'to big too fail.'"

[Clio the Leo]

9. "a vote for reform is a vote to end tax payer bailouts" NT

[Clio the Leo]

10. "this bill will enact the Volker rule..."

to which someone in the audience shouts, "YEAH!" ... lol #wallstreetnerds

[Clio the Leo]

12. "reform would bring transparency to financial markets"

rules in the past were often so complex that those in the firms didn't understand them

[Cha]

13. Thank you, Clio~ nt

[Raine1967]

14. Watching here as well!

[Clio the Leo]

15. "standardized derivatives will be traded out in the open."

[Political Heretic]

24. Not unless something with more teeth than the current reform bill is introduced.

[Clio the Leo]

16. "Plan would enact the strongest consumer protections ever." NT

[Political Heretic]

20. Sort of silly to say since we haven't had consumer protections

So yeah of course they are the "strongest." Are they strong enough to be meaningful?

[Clio the Leo]

17. squarely putting the blame on the economy on those who duped the American people. NT

[Clio the Leo]

19. "we will offer consumers clear and concise information ...."

"when choosing important financial decisions."

[Political Heretic]

23. We've heard all this before. We heard this after savings and loan. We heard this after Enron.

And we'll here this same rhetoric after the NEXT wall street fucking of America after business returns to usual, as it always does.

So far I've not heard anyone ready to address the fundamental structural injustices that are driving our country to the brink. And until someone is willing to stand up and seriously do that, admit that our system is fundamentally broken and that transformational change is the only thing that can save us, not just new coat of paint on the same old brokenness - we're no better off.

[FrenchieCat]

46. I didn't want to hear CNBC's commentators giving their opinion

as the speech was happening, and I certainly didn't want to hear yours either.
We all have opinions.....and sometimes it would make more sense if folks waited
till after the speech to make their own interpretations as to what what means.
The fact that you were in this thread commenting as it went, shows that you
are closed minded and aren't willing to hear anyone out. You outed yourself
with this display.......which said more about you than about the speech
Pres. Obama gave.

[madmax]

50. WTG Frenchie ++++1 nt

[Political Heretic]

54. Nice try. But convenient double standards are transparent.

You can't on one hand praise those cheering the speech "as it happens" and then express consternation at someone critical "as it happens" and show any sort of authenticity. Unless of course the fact that Cha was "commenting as it went" outs him as closed minded and already having his mind made up that anything Obama would say was going to be "awesome." You're not implying that, are you? Because that would be consistent.

Instead, it is the very fact that I'm listening and paying attention that makes me so disappointed with the fact that none of our elected representatives have demonstrated a shred of seriousness when it comes to acknowledging that our country has been in crisis long before the financial meltdown - a mere symptom of the systemic failing of our political-economic structure.

When politicians become ready to address the crisis, by name, and talk about the complete moral failing of our country - have the balls to acknowledge that we have the highest income inequality and the highest poverty and the highest child poverty, worse than all twenty of the richest industrialized peers in the world (that we're even failing by capitalist standards) - then I'll stop being critical.

Until then, this is all a steaming pile of bullshit, and I'll continue to say so, whether you like it or not.

Slapping a new coat of "reform" paint on our sinking ship - just like we did every other time Wall Street gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, before returning to business as usual - is an insult to the injustices experienced by ordinary Americans (you know, the people who make less than the overwhelming majority of DUers) day in and day out.

[Clio the Leo]

21. talks about "say on pay"

which gives share holders a stronger voice on management of companies and how much they're paid.

[Political Heretic]

25. You could just make a single post with the transcript, which will obviously be available.

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

32. You could confine your pointless bitching to just one post too, the feature is obviously available.

[Moosepoop]

34. So could you.

Then you could piss all over your own thread, instead of someone else's. ;-)

[Political Heretic]

40. How am I doing that?

[quiet.american]

27. Hey, Clio - thanks for the thread and play-by-play. nt

[Clio the Leo]

30. welcome

;)

[Moosepoop]

37. +1

Thank you, Clio!

[NJmaverick]

39. +2

[quiet.american]

26. Oh, that was a great setup - the quote from 1933. nt

[Clio the Leo]

29. wasn't that funny?

The journos had been hinting at it all morning (Twitter) but it was embargoed so they couldn't give too much detail.

[quiet.american]

31. Yes - still smiling off of that one. nt

[DrToast]

33. What are you talking about?

[quiet.american]

38. Obama read a quote from Time magazine about bankers freaking out over fin. reform -

-- the quote stated that "last week" a chill wind swept over Wall Street, and bankers were enraged, and screaming that new reform would bring the industry to its knees -- and the quote was from 1933, in regard to the formation of the FDIC.

[Cha]

43. Perfect! Thanks QA~ Too bad people don't

take history to heart more.

[quiet.american]

45. Cheers, Cha. :) nt

[flamingdem]

28. fabulous speech clear and practical nt

[quiet.american]

36. Have to admit, I don't think it was one of his best-delivered speeches, but it had its moments. :)

And I really liked the line -- paraphrasing -- "if you are not running a company based on bilking people, then you have nothing to fear from financial reform."

Loved it. That should go on a T-shirt. :)

[impik]

35. Gahhh. The man's a genius.

[Political Heretic]

41. I'm sure Wall Street thinks so.

[katandmoon]

44. Yes, they know he's all show and no go.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Actually, your statement is untrue.

It may be perhaps your interpretation of things,
but an interpretation does not represent truth.

[Political Heretic]

52. You're not the arbiter of truth.

You interpretation of things is backed by people's opinions on policy.

My interpretation of things is backed by people's opinions on policy.

If there's a factual dispute, we can easily sort that out.

But differences between us aren't about typically about factual errors. It's about disagreement over what is required to save this country from itself. And that's a matter of opinion, and a matter of values. We might accurately represent every objective fact and still disagree on what needs to happen.

The sooner you were honest about that, the better things would be.

[Cha]

48. Yes, he is and Wall Street hates him for it. nt

[Political Heretic]

53. Oh yeah, they hate him so much they were the chief financiers of his election

They hate their instant access to his administration, chief of staff and economic advisors. They just loathe the trickle down economic policy that prioritizes their whims ahead of needs of the poor and of working class families.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Another untruth.

But don't let that stop you.

[Political Heretic]

56. That's not untrue. Obama took more corporate money than any candidate in history, in part because

he raised more money than any candidate in history.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Untrue, because of his overall donations,

came from ordinary folks.....
and I'm tired to see those who work for a specific industry
being morphed with a corporate entity in order for folks
like you to make your point.

I'm an accountant....so my donations were earmarked as "Financial services" sector donations,
cause they asked me who I worked for and for my profession each time I donated.

My dad donated plenty to Barack Obama, and yet he is a healthcare professional who works for a
particular company that employs a whole lot of thousands of people. What does that really mean?
Nothing much unless one wants to use such as a weapon.

[Political Heretic]

61. It's not untrue, Frenchie. You just keep saying its untrue, without evidence, while I provide some.

The numerical number of donations, there were more donations from "ordinary folks." But in terms of money raise, the majority of his money came from the same source everyone else's money comes from - big donors.

You are also distorting the truth about donations. Donations can be tracked from businesses PACs not just individual donations from employees. You didn't mention that.

Open Secrets for example, has a solid methodology for how it tracks corporate giving. It includes money from funnelled through PACS, as well as given from EXECUTIVES, not some Joe Blow on a factory floor somewhere.

Is your father a Health Care corporation executive? If so, then his donation should be counted as part of the contribution from his company. And it is - by most organizations that track corporate giving.

You really LOVE to call people liars, and then when pressed it turns out that no, no one is lying, you just don't agree with them.

I wish you'd stop that.

[FrenchieCat]

62. The information you provided was based on "EMPLOYEES"

of the companies you listed, not from PACs.

Why don't you provide information on PAC donations to the Obama campaign that you speak of,
cause Open Secret has the number for PAC donations.


Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%
PAC contributions $1,830 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $88,626,223 12%

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638

Pac Contributions for Barack Obama for the Presidential elections were....$1,830.00,
as shown in the above link.


Open Secrets states....
Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information
The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest. We do this in two ways:

First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.
Second, we standardize the name of the donor's employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization's name winds up on the Top Contributor list.



Thanks! :hi:

[Political Heretic]

65. Sigh. No, it most certainly does include PACs, AND Owners, as well as employees.

According to OpenSecrets, The PAC Contributions that gives you a 0% results are independent political action committees organized for the campaign year and dissolved upon completion.

On the other hand, corporations and non-profits have permanent 527s, or even more commonly 501(c4s) that are often referred to as PACs - by the way not all states even have the entity known as a Political Action committee, but they organize under what is usually referred to nationally as a "PAC" even though it is not technically or legally a PAC.

Corporations give money through their permanent 501(c4) arms or permanent 527s. Actually to make things even more complicated, some give through 501(c3)s because a certain % of electioneering can be done as a 501(c3) technically, as long as it does not rise above a certain percentage of the organizations total operation budget - so if you had an organization that was a (c3) but was huge, they could be doing a huge amount of political action and donations and still keep their non-profit status.

All of these various mechanisms for donations are accounted for in sunshine reports, which is all Open secrets uses (frankly, anyone can do the same thing open secrets does, if they aren't lazy.)

Clear? Great.

Here's the next thing:

Bundling

Another consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual ($2400 for each election, with a total of $4800 for a primary and general election as of 2009) is that campaigns seek out "bundlers," people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.

Bundling has always existed in various forms, but has become more important with the enactment of limits on contributions at the federal level and in most states in the 1970s.<3> EMILY's List, for example, was involved in early bundling-like activities. Bundlers grew in importance again after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited soft money contributions to political parties.<4>

Bundling became organized in a more structured way in the 2000s, spearheaded by the "Bush Pioneers" for George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. One infamous former "bundler" was Democratic Party supporter and apparel manufacturer Norman Hsu, who achieved a prominent role as one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "HillRaisers" for her 2008 presidential campaign.<4> Hsu was then found to be a fugitive from an early 1990s fraud charge; in such cases, campaigns usually return or donate to charity the contributions that the person in question gave, but are left with the thorny question of whether to return all the other contributions that bundler gave. In some cases, including Hsu's, bundlers are suspected of having donated their own money under others' names (to circumvent the individual contribution limit) or of having coerced employees or others to make contributions with their own money, both of which are illegal. But most bundlers operate legally and help to reduce the time and cost of fundraising for the candidates and their campaigns.

During the 2008 campaign the six leading primary candidates (three Democratic, three Republican) had listed a total of nearly two thousand bundlers.<4>

And again from Open Secrets:

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates.

Now, if you agree to never, ever - as long as you draw breath - ever talk about how much "corporate" money a republican takes, under the argument that "corporation's employees give money and that's not fair to count" then you would be consistent. But as long as you're willing to talk about corporate money in politics for some politicians, than it is fair game for all politicians.

So let's take a look at the top contributors list again:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

I'm sorry, if you think saying, "OMG some of the contributions from Citigroup, JP Morgan and Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc. were from employees in addition to their executives, directors and permanent 501(c4s) of 527s" makes it better - you're nuts.

I don't want Barack Obama taking a million bucks from Goldman Sachs employees any more than I want him taking a million bucks from goldman sachs executives, and you can bet it came from both.

[Political Heretic]

57. From OpenSecrets,org:

Here's just the TOP donors. See if anything jumps out at you:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

[Cha]

63. Having you say that about

my post only means it's true, of course.

[ClarkUSA]

42. President Obama said the bill would invoke the Volcker rule and pointed to the man sitting in front.

President Obama said the Wall Street reform bill would invoke the Volcker rule, pointing to the smiling Mr. Volcker sitting in the front row. He also said there would be no more "too big to fail" banks to bailout via taxpayer dollars because the bill places limits on the size of banks and kinds of risks.

[LeftyAndProud60]

49. I thought this was a bad idea and still think so. HuffPost is alread insinuating he was soft

compared to FDR. It looked like he was begging for their help instead of laying the hammer down. I didn't see it, but I knew that would be the spin.

[Clio the Leo]

58. lol, OH well, if Huffpo says so....

... HuffPo can .... as the French say .... SUCK IT!

[Cha]

64. I don't believe huffpost on anything..and you

are always worried about something. I'll take what President Obama is doing over some anonymous interneters.