Stunned Wall Street Firms Don’t Want to Wage War on Obama

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Banjo, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. Banjo


  2. Yeah, no wonder they're gunshy when they can be attacked from so many angles (Congress, executive orders, unelected "tsars," a media that puts an Obama-esque spin on most every news story, etc.).

    However, Obama's wish for banks to start lending more to small businesses is unlikely when he's verbally or legislatively attacking them almost every day.
  3. clacy


    I don't have much sympathy for these assholes.
  4. It seems to me that Obama is waging the war on WS whether they want to fight back or not. 'Recovering every single dime' will lead to the same stage that we were at in 10/08, only difference is the market is much lower now. This doughnut will turn the economy around to a second, deeper leg down. BTW bankers were never known for an open war, but somehow they always got their way. Though it sounds cool on TV to get every dime back: people eat up such demagogy...
  5. He'll do it because populism is the only way to save his presidency. Hatred of the shennanigans performed by the banking elite under the auspices of 'saving the banking system' has spilled out into mom & pop america and republican and democrat alike will support whomever promotes the lynch mob to follow against bankers and financiers. Interesting that his administration really wasn't too bank unfriendly in the beginning.

    I really don't know if it was smart for the TARP funds to be used to pay outrageous bonuses - I do know if you knew that things were going to get so bad you would be reviled, one last golden paycheck to last you the next 20 years (in relative ignominy) isn't such a terrible idea. But I think it should have been handled differently - such a short sighted mindset is unprecedented in history, at least in my mind.
  6. Obama sure can talk a lot but all his bills will never pass as even his own party is against him. his presidency will be remembered as the most status quo presidency ever
  7. wmb


    "Representative Stephen F. Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, asked Friedman why he bought Goldman shares during his tenure and sought a waiver to allow him to stay with the New York Fed. The shares purchased by Friedman in December 2008 and January 2009 have about doubled in value to around $8 million. Friedman resigned his post at the New York Fed in May.

    “You knew you were not in compliance, you had to apply for a waiver,” Lynch said at the hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Yet you bought 37,000 more shares.”

    Oversight of Goldman

    Friedman, 72, said the New York Fed staff sought the waiver on his behalf. He said he “played no role” in decisions about payments to AIG counterparties.""

    This my friends is why GS and the fed is so unehtical! If they are explicitly braking the law they don't think its wrong! He had a feeling the stock was going up and not to zero as he feared a week earlier! Not if he could help it, gs wasnt going out of business! What a bunch of JERKS, just waiting to get clobbered.
  8. when you are robbing the storehouse you dont make much noise to call attention to yourself.
  9. jjj1000


    I would not be sure of that. Democrats are feeling the heat and they will have to produce "change" this year. Maintaining the status quo as it is would be a failure for Obama (in many areas, like: health care, financial reform, immigration, etc.). Failure of Obama will be a failure of Democrats. If they start feeling cornered, they will come swinging... and the first target are the banks... and I agree with that: Make the banks pay for the failures they themselves created
  10. What would Bush do? Or rather, which country would he attack?

    Edit: Not fair, since he wasn't really aware of what his administration did, so it's not fair to blame him.
    #10     Jan 27, 2010