"The Obama administration is driving a very hard line on financial reform."

[ProSense]

Game Of Chicken: Democrats And Republicans Square Off Over Regulating Wall Street (VIDEO)

Brian Beutler

Senate Democrats, guided by the White House, wasted little time responding to Republican opposition to their financial regulatory reform proposal. A day after GOP came out swinging against a bill authored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, Democrats had a simple message for the minority: your time is running out. This touches off a game of chicken over the first big issue Congress will address after health care reform. And the question of whether the two parties can reach agreement over a growing number of disagreements remains in serious doubt.

This morning, Dodd took the the Senate floor to sound the warning to the GOP. "My patience is running out," he bellowed after issuing a withering critique of Republican leaders for grounding their opposition to his reform bill in a political strategy memo authored by conservative strategist Frank Luntz. Dodd has been negotiating with his counterpart, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), but those talks may not last much longer.

If they're to be successful, somebody's going to have to give. The Obama administration is driving a very hard line on financial reform. They have made it clear to leading Democrats in Congress time and again that they will not tolerate making major concessions to the GOP, particularly if those concessions aren't guaranteed to win any votes. Most recently, according to Republican and Democratic sources, the Obama administration put the kibosh on negotiations between Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln and her counterpart Saxby Chambliss, who were negotiating a compromise on derivative regulation that the White House and Dodd found unacceptable. With Lincoln facing a stiff primary challenge, the administration made it very clear they wouldn't abide by her expected proposal.

"As the bill moves to the floor, we will fight any attempt to weaken it," warned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a Washington Post op-ed yesterday. "The American people have suffered through too much to enact reform that does too little."

And sure enough, yesterday, Lincoln--typically one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate--announced that she was putting forth derivatives regulation language that exceeded the White House's expectations.

more

[Arkana]

1. Music to my ears.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Anyone who's still screeching that Obama & Geithner are "corporate tools" is either mega-clueless...

... or so emotionally enmeshed in their opposition to anything Obama that they are deliberately being intellectually dishonest. No doubt they are busy unrec'ing this OP because how dare the truth contradict their bullshit!

[JuniperLea]

6. "emotionally enmeshed in their opposition to anything Obama"

That's how I see it.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Me too.

I always like to offer a choice when confronted by a consistent absence of intelligent discourse.

;)

[okie]

10. Do you really believe that?

You don't even consider the third possibility? That people really have good reasons for questioning the motives of the Obama administration? I think it's a little too easy to just assume people hold different opinions because they are stupid or dishonest. The ties of people like Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel to the financial industry are well documented, as are the contributions made by Wall St to the Obama campaign.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Yes, of course.

<<That people really have good reasons for questioning the motives of the Obama administration?>>

What are they? Hmm?

<<The ties of people like Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel to the financial industry are well documented, as are the contributions made by Wall St to the Obama campaign. >>

So what? What'd you expect to head up the Obama's economic team? Farmers? :eyes:

Wall Street gave money to all candidates but unlike his opponents and for the first time in modern presidential history, candidate Obama never accepted lobbyist or PAC money. To further prove my point that your attempt at guilt-by-campaign donation is baseless, here's a news article from today:

"Obama: Lobby ‘Army’ Aims to Thwart Financial Reform"
http://ecreditdaily.com/2010/03/obama-lobby-army-aims-thwart-financial-reform/

[okie]

12. I don't think that's damning to my case

Here's a different perspective:
http://counterpunch.org/andrew04082010.html

I wouldn't argue that banking and financial lobbyists won't try to fight reforms. Obviously they will. They've been making a lot of money under the current 'rules'. They will, however, accept reforms that don't rock the boat very much. Don't you think it's interesting that there is no serious move to regulate credit default swaps?

You're response to what I said about the connections of some of Obama's people seems a little glib. Although I think it would be nice to have the interests of small farmers represented in the Obama administration, I obviously don't expect farmers to make up his economic team (there's that thing again about assuming everyone who challenges your positions is an idiot). The point is that it's perfectly understandable to be skeptical about who's interests are being represented when so many of Obama's people are part of - or connected to - that banking/finance/public sector revolving door.

I'm also unimpressed by talk of Obama never accepting lobbyist money. Saying you won't take money from 'federally registered' lobbyists leaves you plenty of room to maneuver.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Not having proof of one's polemic is always "damning to" any "case" in terms of credibility.

No doubt the perpetually disdainful, finger-pointing folks at Counterpunch know better how to govern the nation than the Obama Administration.

:sarcasm:


<<I'm also unimpressed by talk of Obama never accepting lobbyist money. Saying you won't take money from 'federally registered' lobbyists leaves you plenty of room to maneuver.>>

If that's the case, then why didn't his main opponents do the same thing? Oh, and you forgot the part where he didn't accept any PAC money, which none of his main opponents did, either. No top presidential candidate has ever done so, which should impress anyone who is an unbiased political observer. Other than Barack Obama, I doubt Americans will ever see another top presidential candidate do it again.

I don't recall any president ever calling out banking lobbyists before, either. Barack Obama is a unique politician who refused to be bought by special interests yet he offers all parties a seat at the table next to the American people. His policy decisions and public statements easily reflect that.

Being a skeptic is fine, but making sinister insinuations about the Obama administration without offering a shred of proof is not credible, so expect to be called on it.

[okie]

14. I don't know what kind of 'proof' you're looking for

The best we can do is look at Obama and the folks surrounding him and ask who's interests are being represented. Or we can look at how 'reform' has been used by bankers and big business in the past to protect their profits. Again, how can financial reform be meaningful if we ignore credit default swaps?

As for why Obama's opponents didn't make the same declarations about lobbyists...I think it's transparent. It's politically useful to say 'I'm not taking lobbyist money' while I continue to receive checks from their spouses or those who aren't federally registered.

And maybe Andrew Cockburn couldn't govern the nation. Maybe that's a good thing. It's also beside the point. If he's making a sound critique we should consider it, not ask if he could be president.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Something more than sinister-sounding insinuations and taking a "look" would be good.

<<As for why Obama's opponents didn't make the same declarations about lobbyists...I think it's transparent. It's politically useful to say 'I'm not taking lobbyist money' while I continue to receive checks from their spouses or those who aren't federally registered.>>

I disagree with your cynical assessment. Just look at the math.

Candidate Obama effectively cut off a very eager and ready source of maxed-out cash for his campaign - federal lobbyists - that his top opponents did not. Do you really think his top opponents didn't have lobbyists' spouses AND the federal lobbyists themselves writing checks? Thus, candidate Obama turned down at least half the money that other top candidates received, if one were to be logical about the math involved. That's alot of dough to be turned down which is not "politically useful" at all. But it was the ethical choice of a candidate who didn't want to be bought by special interests.

Also, why do you keep ignoring the fact that candidate Obama did not accept PAC monies, something that is a first for any top presidential candidate in modern American history. Why didn't his top opponents do the same? Why hasn't any top presidential candidate EVER done it?

As for Andrew Cockburn, he's long on inflammatory rhetoric and short on credible proof of his claims, too.

[okie]

17. I'm honestly unsure of what you mean

...when you're asking for proof. I can point to certain Wall St connections, and conflicts of interest, and how 'reforms' ignore things like credit default swaps and I can attempt to draw conclusions from that. That's all anyone can do. You act like this is a weakness in my position, but I honestly can't see it. Similarly, Cockburn's piece isn't about trying to 'prove' something. He's just pointing out ways in which financial reform might be circumvented or used for financial interests. I don't think anything he's claiming is particularly controversial. Do you? I'm not being antagonistic here, I'm genuinely curious.

As for the lobbyist issue, I'm saying there's a trade off. He 'cut off' federally registered lobbyists (again, kind of) because it was politically useful. He wasn't exactly hurting for funds, after all. Check out Wall St contributions to his campaign, for instance.

I don't want to give you the impression that I'm ignoring something you think is an important point, but I honestly don't know very much about the PACs. I'm skeptical, however. As with the lobbyists, there are always backdoor ways to collect money. What do you think of this piece I just came across?

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

[ClarkUSA]

20. The piece you "just came across" proves my point.

"Through the end of December, Clinton received more than $800,000 and McCain around $400,000 from this group, which the Center says includes people who work for lobbying firms at the local, state, and federal level and their relatives who are not otherwise employed, as well as those who are officially registered as Washington lobbyists. Obama received contributions of about just $86,000 from this group."

Ergo, candidate Obama deliberately turned down lots of ready and eager donations to his campaign. PAC monies for other candidates numbered in the many millions; Obama netted zero dollars. Your claims of turning down millions as being "politically useful" is nonsensical and cynical speculation. The Obama campaign thought they were going to be vastly outmatched by the Clinton campaign's coffers when they started up so this decision to turn down potential millions in donations was anything but "politically useful" but it was highly ethical. Spin it anyway you want in hindsight, but at the time, this was the kind of decision that was considered iffy. Few thought his campaign could raise enough money to compete with the Clinton DLC money machine by forgoing federal lobbyist and PAC money from special interest groups.

<< I can point to certain Wall St connections... Check out Wall St contributions to his campaign, for instance. >>

So what? Lots of teachers and doctors donated to his campaign, too, but that doesn't mean President Obama is in their pockets now. This kind of guilt-by-campaign donation is silly and definitely not proof of intent or wrongdoing, especially since reality shows that Team Obama has crafted excellent TARP restrictions that are so onerous that banks can't pay back their loans fast enough (with 5% interest) which has netted the Treasury billions. Also, the value of the government's senior preferred shares in Citibank alone is worth ~ $8B and climbing.

It's evident that you have no proof of your claims. Indulge your mutual skepticism with Counterpunch's Cockburn, but I have no more interest in them because I appreciate facts more than op-ed pieces from professional shit-stirrers.

<<... how 'reforms' ignore things like credit default swaps and I can attempt to draw conclusions from that."

BTW, you're wrong on Obama's position on credit default swaps. Here are some facts from a news article that came out yesterday:

OBAMA PUSHES DERIVATIVES CRACKDOWN

A senior administration official said Obama focussed in the meeting on pushing for tougher oversight of derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that played a large role in the credit crisis that froze world capital markets in late 2008... In addition to creating a "resolution authority" to wind down failing financial firms, the bill would toughen oversight of banks and capital markets and beef up consumer protections.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-ups-pressure-on-financial-reform-reuters_molt-4493b8960d52.html?x=0

I guess you "can attempt to draw" new "conclusions" now that you've been shown some facts.

[okie]

23. Well, conclusions obviously change with new facts

That's part of what it means to be a thinking person. It's nothing to get smug about. As for your first point, I can't see how it's inconsistent with what I said. I never denied Obama left money on the table. It's just that the amount not taken was small in the grand scheme of things, and refusing it was good politics (not sure how that's nonsensical, BTW). From the article:

“It’s a politically smart position for him to take. It sounds profound,” says Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “But in fact neither PACs nor lobbyists give a lot to presidential campaigns. He’s not leaving a whole lot of money on the table by eschewing PACs and lobbyists.”

And again, I have serious doubts about how 'ethical' all this is when everyone acknowledges refusing money from 'federally registered' lobbyists leaves you plenty of wiggle room to accept lobbyist money. On the second point, you're kind of conflating two distinct points I made. The first is that his administration contains people from, or friendly to, Wall St. Not controversial. The second is that he received large amounts of money from other sources making it not so difficult to refuse small amounts of money that might be politically harmful. And the rush to pay back the government is not evidence that the banks are subordinate to the administration. What we're seeing is the banks demanding to pay back money (for a while last year the administration was actually resisting this) while still holding billions in bad loans on their books. This allows them to continue handing out ridiculous compensation packages, and continue making dangerous bets in pursuit of profits. That's part of how we ended up in this mess, and TARP did not change that. When the banks pay back the TARP money they get a 'clean bill of health' then its back to business as usual.

As for credit default swaps, I never said anything about Obama's position on them. I said the reform bill referenced in the original post doesn't do anything about them. Maybe Obama is serious about regulating them, I don't know. I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical that even if he was serious about regulating them he actually could. This is, after all, an economy utterly dependent on the kind of financial shenanigans that led to the current downturn. Until people get serious about radically altering this structure, nothing substantive will change.

[ClarkUSA]

26. It helps to dig a little deeper to get the facts.

<<That's part of what it means to be a thinking person. It's nothing to get smug about.>>

How was I "smug"? Hmm? I simply said, "I guess you 'can attempt to draw" new "conclusions" now that you've been shown some facts.'

:shrug:

<<I never denied Obama left money on the table. It's just that the amount not taken was small in the grand scheme of things, and refusing it was good politics (not sure how that's nonsensical, BTW).>>

That's nonsensical because the figures are only "small" in hindsight and candidate Obama made the decision at the beginning when his campaign was struggling to raise money and had no backers to rival Clinton's Coterie of Deep Pockets. Perhaps Massie Ritsch thinks walking away from millions of dollars is not "a lot" but to a fledging campaign that was dwarfed by the Clinton Machine, it sure was.

I explained this in detail in my previous reply:

"Through the end of December, Clinton received more than $800,000 and McCain around $400,000 from this group, which the Center says includes people who work for lobbying firms at the local, state, and federal level and their relatives who are not otherwise employed, as well as those who are officially registered as Washington lobbyists. Obama received contributions of about just $86,000 from this group."

Ergo, candidate Obama deliberately turned down lots of ready and eager donations to his campaign. PAC monies for other candidates numbered in the many millions; Obama netted zero dollars. Your claims of turning down millions as being "politically useful" is nonsensical and cynical speculation. The Obama campaign thought they were going to be vastly outmatched by the Clinton campaign's coffers when they started up so this decision to turn down potential millions in donations was anything but "politically useful" but it was highly ethical. Spin it anyway you want in hindsight, but at the time, this was the kind of decision that was considered iffy. Few thought his campaign could raise enough money to compete with the Clinton DLC money machine by forgoing federal lobbyist and PAC money from special interest groups.

<<And the rush to pay back the government is not evidence that the banks are subordinate to the administration. What we're seeing is the banks demanding to pay back money (for a while last year the administration was actually resisting this) while still holding billions in bad loans on their books. This allows them to continue handing out ridiculous compensation packages, and continue making dangerous bets in pursuit of profits. That's part of how we ended up in this mess, and TARP did not change that. When the banks pay back the TARP money they get a 'clean bill of health' then its back to business as usual.>>

I never said "banks are subordinate to the administration." I said that they are paying back their loans because the TARP restrictions are onerous to their operations. As for the rest of your claims, preventing another financial debacle is what the financial reform bill is supposed to address. TARP was meant to prevent the nation's economy from collapsing and in that respect, it has succeeded quite well. Now the Obama administration is following up, which is more than any other administration has done.

<<As for credit default swaps, I never said anything about Obama's position on them. I said the reform bill referenced in the original post doesn't do anything about them. Maybe Obama is serious about regulating them, I don't know. I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical that even if he was serious about regulating them he actually could. This is, after all, an economy utterly dependent on the kind of financial shenanigans that led to the current downturn. Until people get serious about radically altering this structure, nothing substantive will change.>>

You implied it by your insinuations by mentioning his "Wall Street connections" while erroneously pointing out the alleged lack of attention given to credit default swaps, as if President Obama's position was influenced by his team of advisors:

"That people really have good reasons for questioning the motives of the Obama administration? I think it's a little too easy to just assume people hold different opinions because they are stupid or dishonest. The ties of people like Geithner, Summers, and Emmanuel to the financial industry are well documented, as are the contributions made by Wall St to the Obama campaign."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=268799&mesg_id=269015

So far, President Obama has been rather successful at confounding those who bet against his ability to pull off historic legislation such as HCR. This financial reform bill will be historic as well if passed. I wouldn't bet against him. At the very least, he is trying to do more to regulate the financial industry than the last Democratic President, who had a DLC pro-business brain fart which led to the deregulation of the financial industry via repealing Glass-Steagall, thus opening the barn doors for Wall Street to wheel and deal which in turn led to what happened in the fall of 2008.

[okie]

29. Well lets dig!

I understand the point you're making about Obama's fundraising, but I'm not convinced Obama was especially hurting for funds in the beginning. According to wiki, "Obama's fundraising prowess early on matched that of Hillary Clinton's and, financially speaking, stayed competitive with her. On April 4, 2007, Obama's campaign announced that they had raised $25 million in the first quarter of 2007, coming close to Hillary Clinton's $26 million in first quarter contributions." When you've got a good fundraising team, saying you won't take dollars from lobbyists is a savvy move.

And while I would hardly call the TARP restrictions onerous, it is true that banks couldn't dish out the compensation they wanted under them. So if they want to pay the money back fast so they can get back to business as usual, then paying back the money quickly is a purely self-serving move. While I agree that TARP prevented something worse, I think the idea that throwing money at the banks was all we could do is a controversial one. Dean Baker said:

"However, keeping the financial system operating is a rather low bar. There is little doubt that the Federal Reserve Board, with its virtually unlimited ability to print money, can prevent a financial collapse. The relevant question is whether the TARP, along with the other programs put in place, restored stability in a way that best served the real economy and also can be viewed as fair by the American people. By these criteria, the TARP does not score very well."

"While the economy clearly benefited from preventing the outright collapse of the financial system, this could have been carried through in ways that led to more broad-based benefits to society and also directly transformed the financial system, instead of restoring and reinforcing its existing structure. This point is crucial, since the country is paying an enormous price for its dysfunctional financial system. The downturn is likely to lead to a loss of close to 40 percent of GDP (about $6 trillion) in total. If a government social program ever led to such disastrous losses, there would be a very serious accounting and undoubtedly major changes to ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. There is little reason at this point to believe that serious reforms will occur."

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/baker241109.html

And I'm absolutely right about the inattention paid to credit default swaps. The Senate bill doesn't touch them. That someone in a meeting heard Obama say we should regulate them is certainly nice, but we'll see if it leads anywhere. Obviously I doubt it will. As with the health care reform, I think the industries being regulated get what they want, or get what they're willing to live with. And the trend towards financialization of the US economy, and close relationships Wall St has in Washington make it unlikely we'll see Obama try to rein them in. Our economy is kind of dependent on their bubbles. Repealing Glass-Steagall did lead to the crisis today, but it was also part of the process that led to the facade of prosperity early in the decade and the Gilded Age-esque inequality we have today. I don't see Obama and his people changing this structure in any meaningful way.

[ClarkUSA]

34. We have gone over this particular patch of ground already but I'm game to reiterate my points.

<<According to wiki, "Obama's fundraising prowess early on matched that of Hillary Clinton's and, financially speaking, stayed competitive with her. On April 4, 2007, Obama's campaign announced that they had raised $25 million in the first quarter of 2007, coming close to Hillary Clinton's $26 million in first quarter contributions." When you've got a good fundraising team, saying you won't take dollars from lobbyists is a savvy move.>>

The decision not to accept federal lobbyist and PAC money occurred before a dime was raised, so barring a crystal ball, no one on the Obama campaign, much less Obama himself, ever believed they would be as successful as they turned out to be. Quite the opposite. Team Obama never dreamed that they would beat the Clinton money machine at fundraising because the they were the best the Democratic Party had for the prior two decades (page 79: "The Audacity to Win" by David Plouffe). David Plouffe's original blueprint was to raise $12M in Q1 and $50M for all of 2007 (Source: pp. 22, 28: "The Audacity to Win" by David Plouffe). Thus, it was a principled decision based on candidate Obama's personal beliefs.

<<And while I would hardly call the TARP restrictions onerous, it is true that banks couldn't dish out the compensation they wanted under them. So if they want to pay the money back fast so they can get back to business as usual, then paying back the money quickly is a purely self-serving move. While I agree that TARP prevented something worse, I think the idea that throwing money at the banks was all we could do is a controversial one.>>

So what? Someone's always a critic. As for the "dysfunctional financial system" that's what the present push for financial reform is supposed to address, as I have said in my previous reply to you.

Nevertheless, TARP II's success has exceeded expectations and is now on course to enrich the Treasury. Deficit projections have been lowered due to TARP II's costs being $200 billion lower than originally thought: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126015764384079549.html

<<And I'm absolutely right about the inattention paid to credit default swaps.>>

No, you're spinning. You said that reform "ignored" the problem of credit default swaps and implied it was the fault of "Obama and the folks surrounding him":

"The best we can do is look at Obama and the folks surrounding him and ask who's interests are being represented. Or we can look at how 'reform' has been used by bankers and big business in the past to protect their profits.Again, how can financial reform be meaningful if we ignore credit default swaps?" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=268799&mesg_id=269286

Notice there is no mention by you regarding the Senate bill.

<<I don't see Obama and his people changing this structure in any meaningful way.>>

"meaningful" is a subjective term. Since you're so "skeptical" of anything Obama, then I doubt you will feel anything they do will be "meaningful" but the fact is the Obama administration efforts at financial reform will be, if passed and implemented, will prevent another meltdown like the one we experienced in 2008. That, to me, is "meaningful".

[okie]

35. Meaningful reform would be mean stopping future meltdowns

But we're not seeing that. We're seeing banks rake in huge profits essentially doing what they were doing before the crash. And for good reason - our economy is intimately tied to the health of these institutions. The reforms being debated now don't even touch credit default swaps. That's not spin (I think you're missing the point of what you quoted above. The 'financial reform' I was talking about is the same mentioned in the OP). It's a fact. This isn't Obama's fault, and I don't want to imply that it is, it's just a systemic problem. He can talk about regulating credit default swaps and cracking down on banks in meetings, but I'm not convinced that will lead to substantive change. In Dreams From My Father you can see Obama plainly has issues with British imperialism/colonialism. Yet, as President, Obama is the leader of the country that inherited British imperialism. The point is Obama's personal feelings are interesting, but the problems are with the diseased system. Even if we do get something like a reform pushing derivatives trading to exchanges, does anyone really think that would be an important structural change? These banks make enormous profits by staying ahead of the regulators! Who knows what kinds of financial products they'll be swapping around in ten years? This is all theater until people get serious about building an economy that is not completely phony. It's true there are always critics out there, but isn't it a big problem if we never bother to listen to them?

As for Obama's fundraising, I still fail to see how this was a decision based on principle. It's certainly possible I don't see it because I don't believe much in politics happens because of 'principle', but it remains the case that Obama took lobbyist and PAC money his entire career. I'm not really criticizing it, everyone does it. Unless he had a change of heart on the matter in 2007, I don't see why we should just take this at face value. In 2000 John McCain said he wouldn't take bundled or soft money. Most of us would be skeptical of the principle behind that decision. Politics is an extremely cynical sport, to say the least. Can you really not see how claiming to be against lobbyists and bundled corporate cash might be an effective fundraising strategy? How things like that might, to use the stock phrase, 'galvanize the base'?

[ClarkUSA]

36. You must have a crystal ball to predict that. Do you do lottery numbers, too?

<<As for Obama's fundraising, I still fail to see how this was a decision based on principle.>>

I'm tired of repeating myself on this issue. I have explained my logic to you, buttressed by historic fact supported by facts straight from the campaign manager's own words, which I referenced as footnotes. BTW, for the first time in modern history, the DNC is not accepting federal lobbyist or PAC money. If you don't see that as a historic shift, then I have nothing more to say to you on this topic because you seem determined to ignore the facts in favor of a terminal case of baseless "skepticism:

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama put his stamp on the party Thursday, announcing the Democratic National Committee would no longer accept donations from political action committees or federal lobbyists. That brings the party in line with his campaign's policy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-05-lobbyists_n.htm

I suppose now you'll twist yourself into a pretzel rationalizing how Candidate and now President Obama made this decison because it was "politically useful"? Even though it's never been done before, forces the DNC to forgo hundreds of potential millions over the next seven years (unlike Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, I believe this president is a two-timer) and 99.9% of all voters have no clue about it and nobody in the party is advertising this fact?

:shrug:

[okie]

37. These aren't exactly wild predictions

If we stay the course there will continue to be big problems. There will still be stagnant or declining wages and we will still see more and more appropriation of wealth at the top. My argument (not really a prediction) is the reform of this system under the Obama administration will consist of cosmetic changes that do not radically change the financial system. They really can't. The economy doesn't grow without this system and all the instability it brings. Just one man's opinion. What do you think? And why?

I'm sorry if you feel like you're repeating yourself. I do dispute the notion that Obama's team had no idea they'd be able to pull in a lot of cash. Obama had a great deal of support among Dems going back to the aftermath of his 2004 speech at the convention. I remember a lot of fawning talk about how he would be president after that speech. I don't, however, dispute your facts. My interpretation is just different than yours. I go back to what I asked above. Do you see how someone could think that a candidate standing up to the lobbyists or positioning himself as a 'man of the people' untainted by dirty money might be seen as campaign strategy? Do you think they don't talk about this kind of thing within the campaigns? Can you see how this might be similar to Palin or McCain's talk of being 'Washington outsiders'? I know you don't agree, but I'm wondering why this position is unreasonable.

[ClarkUSA]

38. President Obama (and I) disagree with you.

<<My argument (not really a prediction) is the reform of this system under the Obama administration will consist of cosmetic changes that do not radically change the financial system.>>

Here's what President Obama had to say on this topic today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x271784

Like I said before, I wouldn't bet against him. I will not be repeating myself further.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The few million that Obama got from Wall Street was a tiny fraction of his $700 million raised

You can't buy a President for that little money on an issue that is as politically charged as this one. Obama isn't going to cave on Wall Street regulation just so that he can get some chump change in the next election.

Besides the fact that Wall Street will keep giving him money anyway because they give to whoever is in power no matter what they do.

If you're looking for people who are bought and paid for, look at Congress. Their races are a lost less expensive and thus Wall Street can come up with the cash needed to buy them off.

[okie]

31. I definitely agree about Congress

But Obama still recieved 18 million from banks during the campaign. That certainly doesn't tell you everything about where Obama was getting his money, but it does show who Wall St preferred at the time. I don't want to give the impression that I think this is the most damning evidence that financial interests have a strong hold on the 'corridors of power'. I'm much more troubled by people like Lawrence Summers raking in millions in speaking fees for his Wall St tours. Or Michael Froman skipping over from Citigroup into the administration. Or Tim Geithner, as head of the NY Fed, withholding information about banks who stood to benefit from the AIG bailout. These people deserve our skepticism.

[JDPriestly]

28. The gies of Geithner, Summers and Emmanuel to the financial industry

exist and are well documented as you say. But the Republicans' ties are even stronger. McConnell has been meeting with Wall Street bankers recently, and the GOP attacks on this reform are being managed by Wall Street and motivated by the promise of big donations from Wall Street.

Remember, it was George W. Bush and Paulson and their administration who failed to regulate Wall Street in the first place and above all that the basic bail-out scheme was created and sponsored primarily by the Republicans and the Bush administration.

Once the Bush administration had put the bail-outs in place, the country was pretty much committed to that approach.

I like the fact that the new bill will require that the derivatives markets ALL be open to scrutiny.

Many people do not understand what really caused the economic crisis. They think that it was home buyers who could not afford their mortgages. That was one aspect of the problem. But the main cause of the problem was the manipulation and fraud in the derivatives markets.

The Republicans' campaign against the proposed bill's provision to require that all derivatives be traded on an open market is excellent.

Okie, have you read the book on Paul O'Neil's experience as Sec. of the Treasury in the Bush administration? It is called The Price of Loyalty. Paul O'Neil was a successful businessman and genuine conservative on fiscal matters. His description of the way the Bush administration worked is really interesting. It's a great book. I recommend it to you.

[okie]

32. Oh, I agree Wall St will fight reform

They obviously have a great interest in maintaining the status quo so they will fight any 'liberal' provisions in the bill. Maybe those pushing for the reforms will win, but I still argue that these reforms aren't going to fundamentally change a system that is dangerous to the vast majority of us. And even if we do get something like a reform where derivative trading will be pushed to exchanges, that doesn't change how fundamentally tainted this whole legislation process is. Dodd's wife, for instance, is a major player in an exchange group that would benefit greatly from this kind of reform. The point, I think, should be to get an economy that is not so dependent on things like derivatives trading.

I also think this mess goes back quite a bit further than George W. The financialization of this economy, of which deregulation is a part, goes back at least to the late 1970s. The administrations of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton all played major roles. It's a system that works very well for a tiny minority and they are desperate to keep propping it up (or inflating it back up). I don't see the Obama administration reversing this trend save for some cosmetic reforms. Even that might be iffy.

Thanks for the book recommendation, BTW. Always interested in insider's takes on the Bush years.

[Enrique]

30. no, it's not like that

it sounds like you like Obama a lot and you are overreacting when he gets criticized.

[DirkGently]

3. Sounds good. Geithner's not a corporate tool?

What was he doing at Sachs -- working for the good of all people? Anyway, it'll be nice if the administration indeed stiffens its spine on this issue. We dearly need it after Dodd's inexplicable backpedaling.

[frazzled]

16. Geithner never worked at Goldman Sachs.

Henry Paulson, Bush's last Treas. Sec. did. Geithner never worked for a private corporation in his life, only in the public sector.

Jeebus, at least get your facts straight. You can't go around saying things like "what was he doing at Sachs" if you want to be taken credibly.

[DirkGently]

21. I stand corrected

Geithner's corporate toolmanship has always been in the public sector. Thanks for the classy correction.

[liberation]

24. Actually, Geithner worked in the private sector. Kissinger and Associates, according to his bio

I guess, that must be an A-OK credential to some people in this site. But as an actual progressive, I find Mr. Geithner's links to people like Kissinger et al rather troubling.


Then again, seeing the new barrage, now it makes sense what the latest talking points are for some of the DLC PR contingent... after their past week's retreat.

[Cha]

4. Ha! Timothy Geithner, eh! Good for him..

I knew Pres Obama wouldn't have him around for no good reason.

[Froward69]

5. GOOD!!

On edit/ about time the MAJORITY stops coddling the minority...

[Phx_Dem]

8. Awesome. Kudos to Dodd for his floor speech, and to Geithner.

We'll win this battle just like we did with health care. And the GOP can pick up their bloody stumps off the Senate floor.

:smoke:

[ClarkUSA]

9. Note that Bill Clinton is supporting Lincoln... I guess DLC birds of a feather stick together.

The expectation is he will try to barnstorm the state and pull it out for Lincoln. If she gets re-elected, she'll have Bubba to thank for it.

[TomCADem]

18. K & R - Frank Lutz Talking Point/Lie - Tougher Regulation Implies Equals Implicit Bailout Guarantee

The big question is the degree to which the corporate media continues to push this up is down talking point.

[jeanpalmer]

19. Would this bill have prevented the meltdown?

Don't see how it would. All it does is create more regulators. We had plenty of them, but none of the regulators, including the Fed, did their jobs. Is there anything in this bill that regulates mortgages? Because bad mortgage lending caused the meltdown. How about designing some mortgage standards, like 20% down, no gimmick mortgages, elimination of 2nd and 3rd mortgages, no ARM's, very limited home equity withdrawal? Almost all of the bad housing lending could have been prevented by such standards. Where's the rating agency reform? Where's the separation of investment banking and commercial banking? How about some standards on usury and predatory lending? The Consumer Protection bureau inside the Fed will protect consumers from what? Predatory lending and usury? Fat chance.

We'll get none of that. Not from bought politicians. What's being proposed is just another layer of bureaucracy.

Here's what it's really about: "Administration officials and congressional Democrats believe the issue is politically beneficial for them in this midterm election year."

[ClarkUSA]

22. Yes.

Here are some facts from a news article that came out yesterday:

OBAMA PUSHES DERIVATIVES CRACKDOWN

A senior administration official said Obama focussed in the meeting on pushing for tougher oversight of derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that played a large role in the credit crisis that froze world capital markets in late 2008... In addition to creating a "resolution authority" to wind down failing financial firms, the bill would toughen oversight of banks and capital markets and beef up consumer protections.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-ups-pressure-on-financial-reform-reuters_molt-4493b8960d52.html?x=0

[phleshdef]

33. Bad mortgage lending didn't cause the meltdown.

Bad mortgage lending might have contributed to the downfall of these financial institutions. But if these institutions weren't allowed to become so influential that our economy became codependent on their survival, then it wouldn't actually be a "meltdown" to begin with, it would just be a company going out of business while everyone else moves on.

[PufPuf23]

27. A litmus test of any financial reform is to re-instate Glass-Steagall

that would effectively break up the financial conglomerates by separating commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance businesses.

I do not know what the Dodd bill contains and would like to know what is favored by POTUS Obama and his administration.