When I read this, I was thinking how wonderful of this guy to sever his ties with any hopes of playing with the big boys anymore and finally expose some of the inner workings of a 143 year old organization gone bad.
Money has never been the thing I love most, and I’d have to admit it’s probably because I’ve never had much. I don’t know much about how banks work, but when I watched the following video – where a filmmaker who knows something about banks after decades of studying them and even making movies about them – brings up the prospect that maybe there’s something going on here besides a man seeing the error of his ways.
There are two facts that come to my mind here. Although Obama got immense amounts of money from Wall Street to run for president in 2008, they have now turned their sites to Mitt Romney. Also Obama said in the most recent “State of the Union” that his justice department was going to prosecute people on Wall Street for any wrongdoing.
I would love to know what Greg Smith thinks of the man whose name is on my dollar bills; the present Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. I would also like to know what he thinks about Paul O’Neil; a man whose name was on my dollar bills during the Bush II Administration and who hasn’t been heard from since he wrote a book detailing that administrations epic failures concerning humanity.
Nobody knows for sure why Mr. Smith decided to take this action against his own money interests, but this interview brings up some very good points:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I don’t really care what banks do with their money, but keep it out of our government, our media, and anywhere else it doesn’t belong.
#1 by brewski on March 15, 2012 - 11:01 pm
Larry,
I did a few deals with Goldman Sachs back in the day in my capacity of an employee of a Fortune 500 company. I can tell you that they lie, cheat and steal and that their customers come last. I don’t know why anyone does business with them. But it is their right to choose with whom to do business I suppose.
As for Obama, string together these events:
1. His #1 contributor was Goldman Sachs
2. His first pick to lead his VP search team was James Johnson (this guy was a Managing Director of Lehman Brothers – now bankrupt, CEO of Fannie Mae – and under his command Fannie Mae was found to have misstated its financial statements and underreported Johnson’s compensation, which was $21MM, also Fannie Mae has received $71B in taxpayer support since being taken over by the government, he was also on the Board of Goldman Sachs, and United Healthcare Group, the largest FOR PROFIT health insurance company in the country, among other boards).
3. Obama picks Biden for VP. Biden is from Delaware, a state which exists by being friendly to banks and credit card companies. Biden’s largest supporter is MBNA.
http://www.propublica.org/article/bidens-cozy-relations-with-bank-industry-825
4. Obama pick Geithner for Treasury. An admitted tax cheat in charge of the IRS, who was also “endorsed” by Wall Street since he is a friendly regulator who had already bailed them out.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jim-hightower/-the-troubling-ethics-of-timothy-geithner.html
5. Wall Street gets bailed out
6. No one even gets charged with anything
7. William Daley, executive of JP Morgan is made Obama’s Chief of Staff. Daley headed the firm’s Corporate Responsibility division, which included oversight of the firm’s lobbyists and relations with government officials.
And now Obama and Biden are running on the platform that the Democrats are out fighting for the little guy and the GOP is the party of bigwigs and big corporations?
I am sorry. I know you folks all think I am biased. But please please please look at the record. This is not opinion. This is record. Based on this, I really really really can’t see how Becky can refer to Obama as “beloved”. I don’t mean to be mean or sarcastic at all about this. But Obama is and was from the very beginning a giant con man.
#2 by cav on March 16, 2012 - 8:23 am
I occurs to me the only reason Obama has kept Geithner on was because he’s got his signature on the dollar bill. He therefore must be a credible actor. Right?
:sarcasm:
#3 by Richard Warnick on March 16, 2012 - 8:43 am
Don’t bet too much on prosecutions of Wall Street crooks. The statute of limitations has already expired on most of the criminal activity before the 2008 meltdown.
#4 by brewski on March 16, 2012 - 2:15 pm
I’m betting that Obama will do what he is paid to do by his benefactors, which is to do nothing.
#5 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2012 - 2:17 pm
Oops! Had the feeling all day at work today that I forgot to link to the article. That’s been fixed.
brewski:
Everybody is aware of Obama’s terrible appointments – I’m not going to say choices, because I don’t think presidents make many of them these days. Bush didn’t make any choices except for a couple of times when he said things off the top of his head and made the media spin machine do summer salts.
I’m definitely not a fan of Biden. He has some ability to speechify, but paying off my MBNA credit card was one of the best decisions I ever made.
I don’t understand why Obama got hooked up with Biden any more then I know why Al Gore got hooked up with Lieberman. I guess they are minders.
#6 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2012 - 2:20 pm
Richard:
That’s not what I wanted to hear, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
#7 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2012 - 2:21 pm
brewski:
As I said, Romney is the one with the big bank benefactors this time around.
#8 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2012 - 3:57 pm
I don’t know Richard, I just found this article by Robert Scheer whom is a very respectable journalist.
From the first paragraph:
#9 by cav on March 16, 2012 - 9:48 pm
I suggest it’s time to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from our money.
#10 by brewski on March 16, 2012 - 11:10 pm
So far, Obama has received $22.1MM from the Financial Industry.
Mitt Romney has received a minuscule fraction of that amount.
So Larry, your feelings and opinions and the spin from MSNBC is not supported by the evidence.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012
#11 by cav on March 17, 2012 - 9:04 am
While Obama may have twice as much as Romney, it is interesting to note the small donations from individuals is: Obama – 47%
Romney – 10%
#12 by brewski on March 17, 2012 - 11:03 am
Yes, you are correct. That makes sense given how Romney has had a hard time getting people to vote for him, never mind actually donate.
I think we should change “In God We Trust” to “We sure as hell don’t trust anyone else, so God is all we have left”
#13 by Larry Bergan on March 17, 2012 - 4:33 pm
brewski:
From the page you linked to:
Well, that doesn’t seem fair. Sort of like when Bush kept the war budgets off the books and Obama put them back on.
Besides, the financial institution contributions for the Republican candidates are split up between the candidates.
I’m not sure where I read that the banks had turned their sites to the Romney campaign, or I’d post it. Maybe I’m wrong, or maybe they were going to before they realized how fickle the republican voters have become this time.
#14 by Larry Bergan on March 17, 2012 - 4:38 pm
If I were Obama and wanted to cinch this election, I would start investigating bank personalities and the Fox “news” dudes, pronto.
#15 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2012 - 8:58 am
But since I’m not Obama and don’t have a totally white – dude – minder – I would probably not know what to do; would you?
#16 by cav on March 18, 2012 - 4:40 pm
From today’s Krugman:
And I know for a fact that some of Obama’s big-money early backers were motivated in large part by the lure of being in the inner circle in a way that someone like Hillary, with her long record and connections, couldn’t offer.
And now Obama says what anyone paying attention would: that these big-money people were, to some extent, making their money in socially destructive ways — and they go insane, precisely because in their hearts they know that he’s right.
And because money talks in politics, this pettiness, this display of ego and hurt vanity, may have disastrous consequences.
#17 by cav on March 18, 2012 - 4:53 pm
The link:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/the-power-of-plutocratic-pettiness/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
#18 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2012 - 6:22 pm
Krugman always nails it. That’s why he’s not on the editorial staff.
#19 by brewski on March 18, 2012 - 10:33 pm
And your point is what? That Obama got elected by outspending his opponent by 3:1 using dirty money? And then once elected has done nothing but shit? Is that your point?
#20 by cav on March 18, 2012 - 11:00 pm
Well, there was McCain, Palin and all those informed (propagandized) voters. Other than that, yes, I think you got it.
#21 by brewski on March 19, 2012 - 7:27 am
And Obama and all his misty-eyed followers were not propagandized?
#22 by cav on March 19, 2012 - 8:11 am
That’s not what I wrote.
Propaganda, like paternalism…we swim in it from our first breath (and probably earlier).
Blue team and Red both share similar ownership, The illusion that we are even minimally powerful shareholders is the issue that must be faced here. That and the lies.
#23 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2012 - 1:57 pm
brewski:
Here’s what’s really happening this year. Obama isn’t getting much support from the big boys yet, and my original assertion about Romney was true.
From a Washington Post article two days ago:
and…
#24 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2012 - 2:03 pm
And part of a sentence from the Krugman article cav linked to above.
So you can stop saying Obama is the one with the dirty money now.
#25 by brewski on March 20, 2012 - 2:59 pm
Larry,
Good post.
#26 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2012 - 4:08 pm
Thanks. I wish we could get money out of politics altogether.