Is Obama responsible for Wall Street's meltdown?
Red Hot Pepper
Is Obama responsible for Wall Street's meltdown?
It's an absurd argument, but that's where populist rage on the right is
heading.
By Robert Reich
Is Obama responsible for the meltdown of the Dow? The consistently
wrongheaded Wall Street Journal's editorial page says so, as does
Republican Fox News, CNN's reliably demagogic Lou Dobbs, and now CNBC
(where, full disclosure, I frequently appear as a token liberal). CNBC's
Jim Cramer, who bloviates nightly about stock picks, says Obama is
pushing a "radical agenda" that's destroying investors' wealth. My
friend Larry Kudlow, who rants nightly about nearly everything, says
Obama is destroying capitalism. CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's ballistic
nonsense about Obama's mortgage plan made him a pop-populist icon for a
week or so.
The argument that Obama is somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall
Street is absurd. First, every major policy that led to this collapse
occurred under George W.'s watch (or, more accurately, his failure to
watch). The housing and financial bubbles were created under Bush and
exploded under Bush. The stock market began to collapse under Bush.
Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial
sector, would lose their remaining hot air as the new administration
begins "stress-testing" the big banks, many of which are technically
insolvent. After all, their share prices were built on a tissue of lies
and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly distorted and
distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard, such
as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world
before they can recover. Which could mean more stock losses.
Finally, none of the financial wizards who are now charging Obama with
leading America into the abyss have offered an alternative plan for
getting us out of the mess that, not incidentally, many of these same
wizards happily led us into. For years, the Wall Street Journal
editorial page and the financial gurus of cable news cheered as Wall
Street leveraged its way into oblivion.
This bizarre charge wouldn't be worth mentioning were it not a market
test for a more intense attack from Wall Street and Republican media
outlets next year as the nation moves into the gravitational range of
the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans have made no secret of their
wish to blame Obama for the bad economy, and to stir up as much populist
rage against his so-called socialist tendencies as politically possible.
History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is
stressed economically. Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks
just below the surface of the terrible American economy, ready to be
launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays,
blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists,
and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.
To complicate matters for Republicans, however, grass-roots populist
rage is also building against Wall Street itself, and with some
justification. Top Wall Streeters who raked in tens of millions of
dollars a year for more than a decade have now effectively eviscerated
the pension fund savings of millions of middle-class American workers
and destroyed millions of Main Street jobs. The public is understandably
appalled that its tax dollars are being used to pay and prop up the very
people and institutions responsible for this debacle. And there seems to
be no end in sight: Citigroup and the insurance mammoth AIG, in
particular, have become giant ongoing sump-pumps for tens of billions of
public dollars. Yet no one seems to know exactly where these dollars are
going, or why.
Worse: When it turns out that people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of
Goldman Sachs, who took home $68 million in 1997, was the only Wall
Streeter in a meeting last September at the New York Federal Reserve to
discuss the initial AIG bailout with Tim Geithner, then New York Fed
chair, among others, at the very time Goldman was AIG's largest trading
partner, a distinct scent of self-dealing begins to emanate. When it
turns out that Citigroup got a bailout deal last October far more
generous than that given to any other distressed bank, when a top Citi
executive was advising the Treasury and Fed, the scent increases.
Goldman's past CEO was treasury secretary at that time, by the way, and
another former Goldman CEO was a top Citi official and also a former
treasury secretary. I am not suggesting anything so crude as corruption.
But could it be, given these tangled webs, that -- innocently,
unintentionally, perhaps even subconsciously -- the entire bailout
effort was premised on saving these companies rather than protecting the
public? Or that the distinction between the two was lost, and still is?
The Wall Street and Republican media attack machine doesn't know exactly
what to make of this. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, along
with CNBC, alternates between attacking Obama for bailing out Wall
Street and excusing Wall Street's excesses. But then again, Obama
doesn't seem to know exactly what to make of it either. He seems to
vacillate as well -- one moment scorning Wall Street, the next moment
justifying further bailouts. I do hope he takes a firmer hand, drawing a
clearer distinction and making a clearer connection between clearing up
these financial balance sheets and helping average people. Otherwise,
the next populist uprising will be born in this moneyed quagmire. It is
here -- within the muck that was created by AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and
Freddie, other giant financial institutions, now in combination with the
U.S. Treasury and Fed -- that the public is most confused, bears its
most serious scars, and is potentially most burdened in future years, by
decisions still made in secret.
TrinhQuocThien
Tin na`y cu~ tu+` ho^`i March 04, 2009.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-obama-responsible-for-wall-streets.html
Lu'c tha'ng 3 thi` phe Obama co`n no'i la'o la` "mo+'i qua'", "mo+'i
nha^.n job"! ;-))))))))))))))
Chu+' ba^y gio+` ca? na(m ro^`i ma` no'i la'o "mo+'i nha^.n job" thi`
ky` qua' ! ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Trong ba?n tin tre^n ma` CNN co`n phe^ pha'n O^BaMa thi` qua? O^BaMa
co' va^'n dde^` !
QT
Red Hot Pepper
ca'i economic problem na`y co' tru+o+'c tha'ng 3, 2009. ca'i editorial
hay ba?n tin na`o co' sau tha'ng 3, 2009 bao la^u cu~ng kho^ng ma^'t
gia' tri.: bush ga^y ra tha?m ca?nh kinh te^' nga`y nay.
nha^.n job sau tha'ng 3 ba^'t cu+' bao la^u ddi nu+~a cu~ng kho^ng co'
lo^~i dda~ ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n ba.i kinh te^' nga`y nay.
ba na(m sau, ca'i lo^~i ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n ba.i na`y cu~ng thuo^.c ve^`
bush, dda?ng co^.ng ho`a. 15 na(m sau, ca'i lo^~i ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n
ba.i na`y cu~ng thuo^.c ve^` bush, co^.ng hoa`. 20 na(m sau... hie^?u
chu+a tha(`ng ngu ho+n bo`?
TrinhQuocThien
Red Hot Pepper ma(.t bi.p, chu+a co' ba(`ng Trung Ho.c 12 cu?a VN nu
+~a la` ! ;-))))
Canada co' gi` la. kho^ng ? ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Thu? ddo^ Washington D.C. co' gi` la. kho^ng
em ? ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To+'i ti.ch thu nha` ngu+o+`i ta nga`y nay la` dda'm Da^n Chu? ddang
ca^`m quye^`n chu+' ai va`o dda^y ? ;- (((((((((((((((
QT
On Nov 6, 8:53 am, Red Hot Pepper <redhotpep...@yooha.com> wrote:
> tha(`ng ho. tri.nh na`y vu+`a ngu ho+n bo`, vu+`a ngu ho+n bo.!
>
> ca'i economic problem na`y co' tru+o+'c tha'ng 3, 2009. ca'i editorial
> hay ba?n tin na`o co' sau tha'ng 3, 2009 bao la^u cu~ng kho^ng ma^'t
> gia' tri.: bush ga^y ra tha?m ca?nh kinh te^' nga`y nay.
>
> nha^.n job sau tha'ng 3 ba^'t cu+' bao la^u ddi nu+~a cu~ng kho^ng co'
> lo^~i dda~ ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n ba.i kinh te^' nga`y nay.
>
> ba na(m sau, ca'i lo^~i ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n ba.i na`y cu~ng thuo^.c ve^`
> bush, dda?ng co^.ng ho`a. 15 na(m sau, ca'i lo^~i ga^y ra ca?nh lu.n
> ba.i na`y cu~ng thuo^.c ve^` bush, co^.ng hoa`. 20 na(m sau... hie^?u
> chu+a tha(`ng ngu ho+n bo`?
>
>
>
> TrinhQuocThien wrote:
> > Ngu nhu+ bo`!
>
> > Tin na`y cu~ tu+` ho^`i March 04, 2009.
>
> >http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-obama-responsible-for-wall...
> >> decisions still made in secret.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Red Hot Pepper
tha(`ng lua^.t su+ bo` ho. tri.nh na`y.
bie^'t bao la^`n bi. bi', bi. ba('t che.t, tha(`ng lua^.t su+ ho. tri.nh
co' ba(`ng ha`nh lua^.t lie^n bang/quo^'c te^' no^?i tie^'ng chi? bie^'t
dda'nh tro^'ng la?ng, no'i nha(ng no'i cuo^.i dde^? che la^'p ca'i
do^'t, ca'i dda^`n ddo^.n.