OK, We'll Give You $250 Billion, But We'll Be Real Surly When We Do It

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 17:15


President Obama has issued an angry statement about Wall Street bankers receiving billions in salary bonus last year. He declares that, along with Treasury Secretary Geithner, he will make this point to said bankers in upcoming conversations:

President Barack Obama said it is irresponsible and shameful for Wall Street bankers to be paid huge bonuses while the American public is dealing with economic hardship.

The president reacted harshly Thursday to reports that corporate employees got paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year.

Said Obama: "That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful."

The president said he and new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will have direct conversations with corporate leaders to make the point.

Cool--Obama is going to tell Wall Street bankers off! Here is a preview of this "direct" conversation (emphasis mine):

According to several Wall Street officials, senior administration members spent the weekend and the last few days reaching out to top bankers for their views on how a bad bank should be structured. Lawrence H. Summers, head of the White House's National Economic Council; Sheila C. Bair, the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation chairwoman; and Mr. Geithner have been involved in the talks, the Wall Street officials said.

Federal policy makers are discussing how to use the second $350 billion portion of bailout funds. About $50 billion to $100 billion is expected to be allocated to stave off home foreclosures. That would leave up to $250 billion available for the banks, with the bulk going to buying troubled assets.

So, let me get this straight:

  1. President Obama is outraged by the $18 billion going to salary bonuses on Wall Street;
  2. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner will make this point directly to Wall Street bankers;
  3. The conversation will then return to exactly how President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner will give Wall Street bankers $250 billion in exchange for a bunch of worthless assests.
That doesn't make any sense. How outraged can the Obama administration really be about the $18 billion in bonuses when it is about to give a $250 billion bonus to Wall Street? How will giving the same banks, the same corporations and the same people an additional $250 billion prevent them from once again handing out the same $18 billion in bonuses in 2009? There are no new legal protections mandating that the banks act differently this time around. This is more like a reward than a punishment. Wouldn't you put up with a verbal lashing, even from the President, if it means not only you can keep $18 billion, but that you get another $250 billion on top of it?

Simply getting terse, either in a press release or in a conservation, won't solve anything. Please President Obama, don't buy up the bad assests.

Chris Bowers :: OK, We'll Give You $250 Billion, But We'll Be Real Surly When We Do It

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The problem is... (4.00 / 1)
...who are you going to talk to?  If you're going to save the banking system, or even create a new one, you have to talk to bankers, 'cos they know what's going on.

You could talk to me about the banking stuff.  I have a degree in economics... I have plenty of opinions, but I've never actually worked in a bank and dealt with day-to-day operations... My advice would only be somewhat useful.

You almost have no choice... to find out about banks, you have to talk to banks, even if they dont' deserve talking to.

FDR hired a wall street crook, Joe Kennedy, to run the SEC... Security firms hire convicted hackers to run their companies... sometimes you need an insider crook to know how to defeat the crooks...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


well, the good news is (4.00 / 1)
Is that for once we are taking money from the red states and spending it in the blue states.  If all $250B had been bonuses, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut wouldn't have any budget problems. We need more government programs liek this, as long as we're subsidizing farms and military.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


Clean Up Your Room, Or Else No Vegetables With Your Ice Cream! (4.00 / 4)
I mean it!

No broccoli.

No lima beans.

No spinach.

This time, I'm serious!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Can't this be considered fraud somehow? (0.00 / 0)
I would think the Treasury or DOJ could do something about this.  

Obama isnt outraged at all (4.00 / 1)
he is playing the "good cop."
just look at the evil criminal scums on his economic team.

You are bellyaching loudly with almost nothing to go on (4.00 / 1)
The money hasn't been spent and Obama hasn't yet said how he'll spend it.

I'm curious, what role is more important to you: 1) a commentator, offering trenchant analysis from a liberal perspective or 2) an activist fiercely agitating for specific policies?

Either way, I don't think going off half-cocked is the best approach.  


Because it's impossible to do both... (0.00 / 0)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
look over there! evil Limbaugh!!! look over there! evil CEOs!!! ... (0.00 / 1)
and it's not billions -- it's trillions all told -- and we're gonna shovel even more to banks and Wall St. before it's all done.

4 years of the same bs, lies, and games is worse than useless (and that's all it'll be).  


So, your solution is then... n/t (0.00 / 0)


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
how about regulations and restrictions written into law, if we have to give them anything? (0.00 / 1)
that's just a start.

how about we let some of them fail? they're all "free-market" capitalists, no?

how about not ever ever bailing them out and not us?

how about not electing lying sacks of shit who are wholly funded by Wall St and rich Corporate asses?

...


[ Parent ]
If all the banks fail... (4.00 / 1)
That will be about $10 trillion sucked from the economy...  it will be a trip back to the middle ages...

And all the banks are failing...

Just letting them fail is not a solution...

You haven't proposed a solution of any sort, yet...

It's fun and easy to criticize, but solving the problem is hard, and there are NO good solutions right now... none...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
those trillions are already gone -- how about nationalizing fully then? (0.00 / 0)
there are millions of solutions and i've already given you some.

banks and wall st have already lost the trillions in market value and bad loans and deals. it's already gone.

right now what they're doing with our money is totally unacceptable -- we get nothing in return for all our money, and they have no real restrictions on what they do with it -- by intention.


[ Parent ]
throwing money at them and assuming and erasing their debts is not a solution -- (0.00 / 0)
in any way at all.

solving the problem is not hard at all -- it's a lie to say so.

they can do what fdr did, for yet another of the many real and simple solutions -- real nationalization, and real regulations and real laws and real punishment for not following them.

when we get bailed out like this because of our actions, they can get bailed out -- until then we should never "save" them.


[ Parent ]
ALL the banks are not failing (4.00 / 1)
The big boys are, but the smaller local/regional/community banks and credit unions are doing fine since they didn't dive into risky investment products and derivatives. And those institutions have still been lending. A large part of the problem is that people are rightly freaked out and are not borrowing to make large purchases even from healthy financial institutions due to the shakiness of the job market.

If the big boys fail, as they should, the smaller banks can gradually fill the gaps left behind. And they deserve the business.


[ Parent ]
it's not hard to regulate. it's not hard to make govt work for us instead of them. (4.00 / 1)
none of this is hard or unheard of.

Govt exists for us -- not for private corporations. It's really clear and simple.


[ Parent ]
You nailed it on that one (4.00 / 1)
For DC, the question is: "what are all the things we can do to avoid nationalizing the banks?"

For me, the question is: "once nationalized, should they stay that way permanently?"



The adulation/fear of the financial sector by centrist Dems (0.00 / 0)
is one of the more pernicious, and disappointing, phenomena of our times. Ever since the rise of the DLC in the late 80's, it's been a potent factor in Democratic politics. Clinton started it, and Obama's just following in his footsteps. It's like Kool Aid for politicians. They just can't get enough of these people. I don't get it.

These people, however "brilliant" they supposedly are, made their fortunes by basically ripping off the public, in the form of unethical and often dishonest credit practices in the form of high credit card interest rates and fees and fraudulent teaser rate loans, and endless financial churning in the form of unproductive arbitrage and deal-making.

I'm not saying that there aren't honest banks and bankers, or that financial services firms don't serve a necessary and important role in our society. There are and they do. But I'm talking about a cancer that's taken over this industry and made it much larger and more powerful, and play a much more prominent role, in our society and economy, than is warranted. And this has usually been through unethical and even illegal means.

And Obama's kissing their ass over it, which I just don't get. Either he fears them and feels that he has no choice in the matter, he's using them, he's lulling them into complacency with the intention of eventually sticking it to them, or he just loves them to death.

Has anyone been able to definitively figure this out?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search