Obama crumbles. Again.

Obama Strikes Softer Note With Wall Street
February 10, 2010, 5:44 am
Obama

President Obama took a more conciliatory stance toward the financial sector in an interview with BusinessWeek, saying he did not “begrudge people success or wealth,” as it was “part of the free-market system.”

The president’s comments come days after the chief executives of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs received multimillion dollar bonuses. But during the interview in the Oval office, he pointed out that “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

Wall Street banks have been pulling their support for Democrats as they come under fire for their role in causing the financial crisis, as well as the huge payouts they make even as the rest of the United States continues to struggle with a sluggish economy and high unemployment.

While Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein have made gestures of cooperation as Congress looks at the bank practices that preceded the financial crash of 2008, the banking sector as a whole has poured money into fighting efforts to overhaul the system and increase regulation, bringing the chief reform bill to a standstill.

The president said, however, that the fact that Mr. Dimon and Mr. Blankfein took their bonuses in stock instead of cash was an improvement over the way bankers are often paid. He told Bloomberg Businessweek is was a “fairer way of measuring C.E.O. success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.”

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/obama-strikes-softer-note-with-wall-street/?partner=yahoofinance

this is not a good message. And yes, I'm disappointed by this President's continually backing down.

should I?

have done anything wrong in accumulating their wealth?

Not all. I have no information on what the vast majority of "wall street bankers" (that isn't actually a job, you know, there are investment bankers, quants, etc. please specify which profession you mean) did or did not do to make their money.

The highest profile individuals clearly did wrong. The rest? I have no data.

Never said differently.

Don't get your panties in a twist until you read everything in context.

It's not like the MSM is going to report him accurately.

It's not like this is some recent and shocking development.

...and eat it too.

Gee - what a surprise...

I am so sick of this shit.

The repukes have Lucy and all we get is Charlie Brown...

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

he's afraid of wall street. sorry. I like Obama but increasingly I'm seeing him as a weak president.

I think it is by design

:eyes:

one-term president, two-term Congress.

I must say that I am horrified at how weak and appeasing he is. I thought he would stand up for real people, but he makes Clinton look FDR-ish by comparison

And did I see Obama dismissing FDR "type" programs as not suitable for these modern times? Yes, I believe I did.

He should be able to unapologeticcaly begrudge.

CEOs are getting paid." That's part of the quote. We'll see Friday what the rest of it says.
http://thepage.time.com/2010/02/10/obama-i-dont-begrudge-dimon-blankfein-bonuses/

People love to stir up shit, don't they.

for federal elections.

Unfortunately, such an amendment must either pass Congress or be brought up at a Constitutional Convention called by the states.

I don't see Congress starting the amendment process since they are controlled by their big contributors. The problem with a state-called convention is that it could conceivably go with a much larger series of amendments or come up with a completely new constitution.

I used to think that the convention method was too risky, but when I see both parties genuflect before big business and big money to the detriment of everyone else in the country, I begin to wonder whether a state-called convention might be worth the risk.

From what I can tell, our government seems to be ready to give away our jobs and what remains of our sense of national community for big bucks and trips to Davos after leaving office.

:shrug:

A sucker is born every minute.

Several have already pointed out, above, that one line was taken out of context from the interview, which has not yet appeared in Business Week. What we know from other snippets released, however, is that Obama put a big "but" on that comment, stating that these bonuses were "extraordinary" and that shareholders had to have a way to vote on corporate heads' compensations. Power to the people.

How could he begrudge people success or wealth when he is an exemplary model of both?

SEC prosecutions are up
More and more in the financial industry are being given bonuses in long-term stock tied to performance, rather than cash
Financial reform legislation is still moving ahead
Almost all banks that received TARP money have repaid it


How can that be called "crumbling" or "backing down."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

It is becoming more and more apparent that President Obama's personality is one that demands that he must never criticize someone (no matter how egregious the offense) without offering a compliment to the party who was criticized. This is a very disturbing character trait in one who should be able to stand up for what is right without apologizing for telling the truth.

I like him, but I also understand he can, and has, been wrong.

I see a comment about not demonizing people with wealth, but I don't see what he backed down from. Obama's come out and used much more inflammatory language speaking up against the bank bonuses, but that's received with crickets. I guess this OP is just another excuse for a Obama hate circle jerk. Pathetic.

He simply said that he does not want to demonize people with wealth...oh, he is so folding. Really, it is Congress that will ultimately fold anyway but at least Obama tried. Chris Dodd, my soon to be former Senator, is becoming scum in my eyes.

Dramatic much? We have a capitalist system and excessive bonuses are the reality of the system. There was no "crumbling" or backing down by Obama.

These are corporations and ultimately their shareholders will decide on the level of compensation. You're assuming that Obama should begrudge them even though they're playing by the rules just like baseball players. I agree with Obama that we shouldn't begrudge folks who play by the rules.

In our capitalist system, there will will inequality. Thus is the nature of capitalism. Obama didn't campaign on changing our capitalist system.

BTW, how can you crumble again once you've already crumbled? :shrug:

unrec'd :thumbsdown: