Wall Street Traders Have Profited More Under Obama Than In Eight Years Under Bush

[Donnachaidh]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/07/362488/wall-street-profit-obama-bush/

As protesters around the country take to the streets to protest the excesses of Wall Street banks that benefited from a federal bailout and quickly returned to profitability, new data from the financial industry has shed light on just how profitable those banks have been since the financial crisis brought the American economy to its knees three years ago.

Wall Street banks experienced years of unprecedented growth under President Bush, at least until the crisis of 2008. But in the two-and-a-half years since President Obama took office, the largest Wall Street banks have grown even larger, and profits at banks and trading firms have risen even faster than they did under Bush, the Washington Post’s Zachary Goldfarb reports:

:snippage:

The relatively quick recovery on Wall Street has been bolstered not only by the policies of Washington politicians, but by questionable business practices. Banks have begun profiting off public goods such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, issuing those benefits to unemployed, impoverished Americans on debit cards that carry heavy fees. Cash-strapped state governments, meanwhile, have addressed budget shortfalls by shifting pension plans to Wall Street-run private accounts, further boosting the banks’ bottom lines.

Despite this evidence that banks haven’t suffered under Obama, Republicans and Wall Street traders and lobbyists are attempting to make Wall Street’s windfalls even larger. Industry analysts told the Post that the Dodd-Frank financial reform law will stabilize the future of the financial industry even as it has “crimped bank profits” slightly. But that hasn’t stopped lobbyists from spending millions of dollars to make its rules and regulations more Wall Street friendly, and it hasn’t stopped Republican presidential candidates from lining up to support the law’s wholesale repeal, even if they aren’t always quite sure what the law actually does.


More at the link --

[DJ13]

1. I dont know whether I should applaud, or cry

[saras]

2. K & R - fabulous article unrecced by trolls

"Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration"

"The largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, earned $34 billion in profit in the first half of the year, nearly matching what they earned in the same period in 2007 and more than in the same period of any other year."

"Banks have begun profiting off public goods such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, issuing those benefits to unemployed, impoverished Americans on debit cards that carry heavy fees. Cash-strapped state governments, meanwhile, have addressed budget shortfalls by shifting pension plans to Wall Street-run private accounts, further boosting the banks’ bottom lines."

[FiveGoodMen]

3. And I just visited a thread that said "Imagine if the republicans got their way"

[MjolnirTime]

4. So Obama is worse than Bush, right Donna?

[Donnachaidh]

9. read the article

:eyes:

[badtoworse]

5. With friends like this...

[Romulox]

6. Truth hurts. A lot. K/R nt

[banned from Kos]

7. Duhhhh! Its because the market is up a whopping 806 to 1260 under Obama

nothing else.

(S&P 500 index)

[LynneSin]

8. But wouldn't that be because of the years of deregulations by Bush finally kicking in

It's not like Obama got into the Whitehouse and magically everything changed.

[Norrin Radd]

10. kr

[FrenchieCat]

11. Get rid of him! It's his fault that the stock market went back up.....

and millions of 401K have been saved.

GDP growth under Presidents Bush and Obama:

Thank you for your hard work on this.

:applause:

[banned from Kos]

13. wow! you skilz with graphs are impressive!

not to mention the CONTENT of your graphs.

I want to be your fan.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Dictators these days usually meet a bad end......

I'm glad that Pres. Obama isn't one of those,
although he has been accused by some. :shrug:

[jtuck004]

14. He is not likely to get as much of their support this time because he hasn't got

the stomach to squeeze the last drops of financial blood out of the rest of us after working to get this far. But there are those running that can accomplish that, republican, regardless of what they call themselves. We appear to be waiting for the magic "good jobs" fairy to open up on us, like Rick Perry encourages people to pray for rain. We forget it took 20 years of investment in the country and our people to make us strong. Without that there is nothing for the next decade that will interrupt the downward slide of the most vulnerable, that will stop the wholesale replacement of wealth-creating jobs with those that require you be able to serve lukewarm french fries. Even if the heavens opened and Democrats were re-elected across the board, would it be the same Democrats that are currently proposing cuts in SS and Medicare, working with those who are stealing away with heating assistance for the aged shivering in their homes?

Read about the Senator that has asked the White House to restore the heating assistance the same WH asked to be cut.. Hey, here's a philosophical question for you: If our elders, alone in their homes, cry in pain as they are freezing to death, do they make a sound?

So the choice on voting day will be continuing to live life as an indentured servant to the wealthy, either a little (now) or a lot (under the Repubs). Maybe we could simplify the ballot for those among the increasing numbers of people who rely on the government for food stamps, who are in or near poverty, who are among the long-term unemployed, or for those who are upside down or being foreclosed on, based on what their lot has been for the past 10 years:

1 - Die Slowly ==

2 - Die Fast ==


It has to break. Maybe better now than later.