Mr. Conciliation
Is President Obama’s Bloomberg interview his “fundamentals of the economy are strong” moment, or just a big misunderstanding? Already, his statement that he “doesn’t begrudge” Wall Street execs their megabonuses, and his comparison of big banker pay to that of Major League Baseball players (who by the way, didn’t bring the U.S. economy to its knees with their profligacy,) has prompted Paul Krugman to declare the president “clueless,” and MIT prof Simon Johnson to question whether the president even understands the difference between a free market and a bank-saddled one. The White House clearly feels the liberal criticism is undeserved, although I suspect that the Rahm Emanuel wing in the West Wing revels in criticism from the left out of a misguided belief that such attacks will help the president among independents. They put out a full transcript of the Bloomberg exchange in order to tamp down criticism, and to avoid the president looking out of step with middle America, which definitely agrees with the liberals on this one, while the president’s statement made it look like he is siding with the banks. Read more
The orange revolution: Boeher, GOP beg for Wall Street cash
John Boehner to Wall Street: 'show me the money!'
Just when you thought the GOP was poised to recast itself as the populist party that really understands and looks out for the little tea party guy, Republicans charge headlong into the Bastille, to hide inside it with Marie Antoinette. First into the breach: John Boehner, House minority leader by day, Wall Street call girl by night: Read more
And now, the Obama course correction
It took three statewide election losses and a sure-as-rain in Florida certainty that Teddy Kennedy is now haunting the White House, but it appears that Team Obama has finally gotten the message. Yes, America, they hear you. And it appears that going forward, it’s going to be (a lot) less healthcare, more financial reform and J.O.B.S.; and less Geithner, more Volcker; which represents a serious shift for the administration, which has been pretty much ignoring Volcker, the former Fed chairman and head of its “Economic Recovery Board” in favor of the Goldman-Sachs-favoring Harvard wiz kids (wiz, indeed.) Well, it looks like the trauma of losing Teddy’s seat may have finally convinced Obama to move on the big banks, and to do something about “too big to fail” (which the public really wants, along with about 10 million jobs…) Read more
Obama (and the GOP) by the numbers
The Boston Massacre that turned Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat over to the Republicans last night has caused Democrats all over the country to reach for the Prozac, and to start revving up the circular firing squad. But some of the numbers suggest that while Americans are in an angry mood, particularly over jobs, they’re not just mad at Democrats, and they still rather like the president, but they are frustrated that he isn’t getting much done. At the end of the post, I’ll give you some really unexpected numbers that the Wall Street Journal won’t be highlighting any time soon. First, from the NBC/WSJ poll:
Americans appear to have two different views of the president: They like him personally, but are more doubtful about his positions on the issues. Read more
Can you force a fat cat to give to charity?
Two stories in the New York Times today about the struggle in Washington, and on Wall Street, to deal with public anger over the obscene bonuses about to be issued by the big banks we bailed out, after they reaped handsome rewards on the misery of average Americans. On the Washington side, word the Obama administration is mulling a new set of bank fees to recoup some of that bailout money. But first, they have to find a way to make it hard for the banks to pass the fees on to their hapless customers. Second, a strange report that Goldman Sachs executives are weighing a plan to force their bonus babies to give some of the money to charity. Really? Wouldn’t it be easier to just give them smaller bonuses (or for Washington to just tax the SOBs)? And doesn’t forced charitable giving both undermine the basic intent of charity (that it is sincerely, freely given) and represent an undue intrusion on people’s personal decisions about what to do with their earnings? Either way, can’t be good…
Click here for the debate over Goldman’s charity gambit.
Also in the Times: Cuomo to banks: show me the bonus money!
Bring back Glass-Steagall! John McCain (and Maria Cantwell)’s very good idea
TDB has a piece focusing on one way Sen. John McCain could use his trademark peevishness for good:
The Obama administration is talking tough but acting tame with respect to Wall Street. But a pair of senators is coming out swinging. Today, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John McCain (R-AZ) are taking a step towards proactive reconstruction of the banking sector by introducing the Banking Integrity Act of 2009. The bill would reinstate provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the New Deal-era law that built a wall between commercial banks and risky investment banking. Read more
Quote of the day: Barney Frank vs. Ralph Nader
“Ralph gets to luxuriate in the purity of his irrelevance.” – Barney Frank responding to Nader’s critique of his bank regulatory reform bill, on “The Ed Show,” October 26th.
Obama administration, Barney Frank target ‘too big to fail’
Perhaps realizing that the right is going to accuse him of being an anti-capitalist ogre anyway, President Obama appears finally to be prepared to take on the wizards of Wall Street (with a member of Congress, in this case Barney Frank, running point, of course…) From the New York Times this morning:
A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution. Read more
The Stewart v. Cramer beat-down: the reviews
The NBC family may not want to deal with it, but the reviews on the Jon Stewart thrashing of Jim Cramer are positively brutal. A sampling:
Jon Stewart uses sports term, then hammers Cramer
Newsday
Jon Stewart thrashes Jim Cramer
BusinessWeek
It’s true: Jon Stewart has become Edward R. Murrow
Atlantic Online
After Being Eviscerated By Jon Stewart, Cramer Skips Morning Show …
Think Progress
Brawl Street: Jon Stewart beats Jim Cramer by TKO
Newsday
Meanwhile the NYT Opinionator blog picks up the back and forth Twittering between Joe Scarborough and the “elites” who don’t get that the real point is that Cramer is sad because fellow Democrats are “turning on him…” Whatever, Joe.
Santelli’s scared… or: some revolutionary HE turned out to be
Um … who could possibly be afraid of Robert Gibbs? Answer: Rick Santelli, the Bourgeois Baron himself, and would-be leader of the Chicago Tea Party. Now, our friendly neighborhood “real American” Wall Street capitalist says he’s terrified … terrified, I say! … of the guv’ment:
Seriously, Rick? Seriously???
Previous:
Connect
Book deals
Links
Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Poll
Loading ...
