Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama accuses nation's largest banks of selfishness

By Michael D. Shear
In his radio address Saturday, President Obama unleashed a verbal barrage on the nation's largest banks, accusing them of wanton selfishness by refusing to accept new regulations he and his party are proposing, and for opposing a new fee that Obama wants to impose.

"Now, like clockwork, the banks and politicians who curry their favor are already trying to stop this fee from going into effect," he said in the weekly address. "The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits, and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history, are now pleading poverty. It's a sight to see."

The proposed fee would raise $90 billion over 10 years, an amount equivalent to the eventual cost of the bank bailout, according to administration officials. By paying the fees, the largest banks in the country would essentially make taxpayers whole.

Banks argue that the fee is unfair because many of them have already paid the government back the money they borrowed, with interest. And they say the fees would sap money that could otherwise be lent out to customers.

Obama has no patience with those explanations, calling them excuses that do not fly with Americans. He takes particular umbrage with the billions of dollars in bonuses that those same banks are handing out to executives starting this week.

"If the big financial firms can afford massive bonuses, they can afford to pay back the American people," he said in the address.

He added: "Those who oppose this fee have also had the audacity to suggest that it is somehow unfair. That because these firms have already returned what they borrowed directly, their obligation is fulfilled. But this willfully ignores the fact that the entire industry benefited not only from the bailout, but from the assistance extended to AIG and homeowners, and from the many unprecedented emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and others to prevent a financial collapse. And it ignores a far greater unfairness: sticking the American taxpayer with the bill."

The president's increasingly tough rhetoric makes clear that he's not afraid to take on one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries -- at least verbally.

But the Obama administration has been measured in the actions it has taken. Worried that being too aggressive might, in fact, slow down the recovery, the administration has opposed proposals from members of Congress who want to stop or severely reduce the bank bonuses, for example.

In the radio address, Obama closed with language that suggests he will continue to try to walk that fine line.

"And I'm going to continue to work with Congress on common-sense financial reforms to protect people and the economy from the kind of costly and painful crisis we've just been through," he said. "Because after a very tough two years, after a crisis that has caused so much havoc, if there is one lesson that we can learn, it's this: we cannot return to business as usual."

By Michael D. Shear  |  January 16, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency , Barack Obama , Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton joins critics of Nebraska's extra health benefit
Next: Bush, Clinton join Obama in aiding Haiti


Excellent article. If Republicans don't like the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" (FCRF), how about this one: the Public Accountability Bailout Assistance Crisis Surcharge and Banking Industry Taxpayer Compensation (PABAC'S-A-BITC, or just “Payback” for short).

Read more at, sign petition supporting big bank bailout reimbursement, and play “Name That Tax” by choosing your own name for the proposed new tax.

Posted by: RayinDC | January 16, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I apologize here for the mixup on my user names.

I used to have TimMiltzForPresident2012 but those posts would only show up to me, if I logged in under an old account ? They were gone from view.

So, I created this new account 'ItsGlobalismHereOnOut' today - and I logged in with my older account 'TimMiltzForSenate' JUST TO SEE if the new ones were posting, or if WP had blocked by IP, turns out they are showing,- I'm happy about that.

BUT I forgot to LOG OUT of TimMiltzForSenate.

So it seems some of my posts came from ItsGlobalismHereOnOut AND from TimMiltzForSenate.

I will no longer be using TimMiltzForSenate account.

Honestly ? I don't think politics are for me.

I'm content to just gain understanding and share insights with those that do care to explore political roles more seriously.

Right now, I just need to find ANYTHING, even $7 an hour work.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Well - day one of no alcohol !

I do say - my thoughts are clearer, I give up drinking for one day and I observe corporatism has superseded nationalism, that jobs are not going to magically appear in the US, and that World Bank warns us that industries from the older industrialized economies are shifting to new emerging economies, names India, China and Venezuela. I observe that the US has been in denial of this shift in manufacturing base by living off of credit products to which now have all but dried up because Wall Street got a little too greedy too quick processing zero equity mortgage products- making money on the way IN on no value products, reselling them, and then betting that they'd fail and making money on those bets on the way out - ALL - topping it off, insured by AIG as instrument for covering those bets.

After that aftershock ? The United States really IS Haiti right now, economically.

It's ABOUT equal by analogy.

Recovery ? MAYBE 2015 - Maybe - that's IF the US can manage to lure jobs away from emerging economies.

I don't bother with US Central Bank or US Treasury for insights any more. I used to live on the financial boards and get into heated dialog, insights as to what Bernanke thinks, or Geithner - no, anymore I turn to World Bank and IMF for insights. I find the viewpoints far healthier- no bias whatsoever (strange word there).

Don't get me wrong people, I'm 100% Pro humanity - and the LONG term WIN is through humanity, not the temporary models that divide it on a mere blip in the history of our species. I put humanity interests first, nuclear weapons simply never - ever - are in the interest of humanity. Never. To that, maybe it's a good thing that nationalism falls flat on it's face through corporate dependencies.

The real tectonic tensions that exist in todays world are between globalism via economic infra-structures all the while isolationism via nation state infra-structures try to hold on to yesterdays 'best idea'. I would even argue the nation state model of Bretton Woods II currencies are being exploited and played. The World Bank says in 2010, the United States faces it's first year of high probability it will lose it's triple A status on US Treasury. Talk about systemic risk - ANY nation pegged to the US Dollar right now ? the US IS the systemic risk for the nations of the world, highly dangerous if you ask me.

Spain and Greece are on the BRINK of becoming the next Iceland - thanks to their ties to the US Dollar and thanks to US Central bank policies.

At least with tectonic plate pressures and conflicts analogous to nation state territories ? At least after an earthquake, everyone knows what happened, and why. With nation states ? it's often obfuscated by energy policy interests if you ask me.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

We don't have much time - While I wonder what Wolfowitz had planned for World Bank ?

I see Bank of America as the future lender TO America.

Once the United States loses it's triple A status, the Federal Government will lose it's ability to govern- and lose it's stature to set precedent on energy and climate policy.

Once that happens, no clear message can be sent for green energy industries.

Once that happens, we'll watch coal and oil take our health down, while others mint more money on dead end energy solutions mandating even more health care costs.

This administration needs to drop health care like a dead stone, and pick up on focus for emerging industries - WHATEVER they may be, clearly green energy is one of them.

Climate disaster relief organizations might be a good one.

I have done my own research and i've learned from online educational resource to discover that tectonic plates lift after glacier melt, and severe earthquake activity occurs after the weight of glaciers is removed, this is not debated in geology.

With Greenland's ice 1/2 gone, I have to wonder what plate changes will happen from that. Few people realize the largest earthquake to this the United States happened in the US North East.

Forget homeland as to terror threat, I'd bring FEMA focus back at 'homeland' - I find even the concept of homeland a threat to the psyche of any child. When I grew up, it was merely nuclear weapons, I intentionally do not share or mention 'terrorism' with children, never, nor will I. That would be to rob them of today in fear of tomorrow. When I saw the yellow pages had a 2 page ad for Homeland Security with a Kids Section at the website ? my god - "Here kids, here is the debt to our health care, while we ignored your health accepting money from coal and oil lobby, and here is the terror debt - and oh yeah, sorry we induced psychosis in you via Fox News Terror Alert Elevated >>> every day without ever saying why, and oh yeah, now that we robbed your childhood of the good days, you'll work like mad to pay off the debt we racked up on our failed policies...

No, that's no way to live.

Terror and failed energy policies need to go FIRST, healthcare will take care of itself to follow.

We have little time, incompetence in the White House or anywhere else will cost us dearly - EASILY it will cost us the nation state, it's a question of when, not if more likely.

Terrorists attack ? we recover, Bank of America moves ? as Goldman just threatened to move out of UK ? We're toast.

If only we had a Department of Homeland Security that was a WATCHDOG for entities like Goldman eh ?

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Plan
What is Obama trying to do with all this spending? He is trying to cause a collapse. Why would he cause a collapse? A collapse is the only way that you could stage a massive takeover of the united states. He has already built the frame work for this takeover. So what is holding him up. The Health Care bill is a key part in causing this collapse. The amount of money that will be required to fund the Health Care bill is a key player. If the Health Care bill passes; Then other planned bills will complete the collapse process. This is why I have called on every single American to do whatever is in their means to stop this takeover. May GOD walk with you and protect you in your journey to save America. The Anti-Christ is here and his name is Obama.

Posted by: makom | January 16, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I did email the National Security Division at Department of Justice - hopefully David Kris got it- no one ever writes back there, it's like a black hole of communication, perhaps SEC says the same thing.

But I pointed out to NSD at DOJ that Bank of America right now technically is the greatest national security risk, for JUST as Goldman responded in the UK to a threat of pay/bonus caps ? via taxes ? Goldman said - do that and we'll just leave the nation state.

I argue there is nothing stopping Bank of America from leaving America.

Now that Merrill Lynch is married to them ? and they have 300 billion in US real estate assets, that's not bad, that's 1/40 of all US real estate ? that they picked up for what ? 6 billion TOTAL ? 2 billion down payment, and 4 billion later ? something like that ? Sheesh, nice deal.

I'm TEMPTED to start calling BofAML - BofACWML - Bank of America Countrywide Merrill Lynch.

When you look at it like THAT ?

I can only wish I had emailed Anti-Trust Division at US Department of Justice to say- gee, just how big are you planning on letting this monster get ?

And that brings me to my final observation lately- which is corporatism NOW - trumps nationalism.

I see it when a nation state has to outsource to private mercenary forces like Blackwater/XE, DynCorp, Whackenhut etc. Technically ? The US just outsourced to Bank of America, Goldman, AIG etc, for - they DID say without these systemic institutions, the US economy would collapse. Writing is on the wall right there.

All it's going to take is for Bank of America-Countrywide-Merrill Lynch to say - "Hey Blackwater/XE, we want to hire you".

At that point ? They can run their own wars, they can kiss the US goodbye - they won't need it, and besides, Goldman is firmly nestled and secured in a global economy, well diversified. United States isn't. Every day we focus on terrorism is one more day we secretly invite isolationism and protectionism to the table, which is one day closer to systemic risk of global financial corporations just saying - see ya, we're moving to Dubai, thanks for all the help, it's all legal too ! JUST as Goldman JUST threatened the UK.

It's RIGHT around the corner, I see it.

No amount of degrees will even HELP me find work either - the industries are relocating as Hand Timmer points out they have beenm, are and will continue to do so.

Healthcare and Terrorism is the LAST of our worries, there won't even BE a nation state left if we don't focus on a jobs base through new emerging industries, all the old industries have left, are leaving, and will continue to leave, and that's a fact jack (Stripes).

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I think it's critical we keep our eye on the ball here.

And that is, it was investment banks on Wall Street that found it all of a sudden legal to take mortgage products, zero equity at that, and as Goldman CEO on Monday testified, they bet on them failing coming out, they made money both sides, ALL on a zero equity stink bomb mortgage shoved out the door thanks to acting President Bush in 2002 with TWO campaigns for every 'Merican to go buy a home, regardless of down payment, or ability to pay, it's 'their right' as Bush stated. Those two helped make this perfect storm.

Uplifting Glass-Steagal was the enabler.

Goldman was not legally able to process mortgage PRIOR only sent through banks, and NO bank would take a zero equity loan product, mortgage or not, even if housing was skyrocketing to the moon, and no bank did.

So, keeping our eyes on the ball - which IS - Wall Street COMPLETELY exploited the lifting of Glass-Steagal ?

I observe the UK explored a 50% tax on Goldman executive bonuses - to which Goldman replied ? Hey - try and stop us, cap us ? we'll just relocate to Switzerland.

So, here we have it - Wall Street after looting the US Treasury can just leave, and leave us holding the bag.

And frankly ? There isn't a thing we can do about it.

Making matters worse ? I JUST realized, Bank of America is NOW Married to Wall Street, so even IF Glass-Steagal is put back in place ? and many are struggling fast to do so ? Bank of America is now married to Merrill Lynch, AND if I'm not mistaken, to break them up would be to introduce systemic risk to the US economy AND - this WAS the argument MADE by Bernanke and Paulson to have the merger to begin with.

I am afraid I am finding Bernanke less competent and less competent every day.

I look at Hans Timmer of World Bank and just hearing him speak a bit- I get the impression Bernanke doesn't have a clue as to the top down view of the full global economy. Timmer points out issues that I just don't hear Bernanke speaking of, serious issues as in - beginning and end of nation state issues to which the United States is in the middle of.

This White House may not have a second term, but only because there won't be a new term for ANY president, it is possible.

These issues are far far far more important than health care, one year has been pissed away on some 1960's leftover's dream of health care all the while ignoring why people are in ill health.

Barbara Boxer should have been head of the house -we'd be on green energy - promoting real HEALTH, not followup healthcare that will bankrupt us all leaving us no jobs to pay for it.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

If the White House policy makers actually read the Washington Post online - hey - here is some advice for you.

You can not force the banks to lend, and it is not in anyones favor to force a bad loan.

What you CAN do is send a strong message to green industries that the United States will be capping emissions and there WILL be a market demand for green energy BECAUSE of such policy for strongly forthright.

Once you send that message, as World Bank speculates, and only then, can the US begin anew with it's share of emerging industries and in some ways ? The United States can get on the list of emerging economies.

If not ? It won't matter if you have 3 masters degrees, the jobs are shifting to emerging economies, little left in the US. The US was jockeying financial products to the world, not any more - we've lost face. Perhaps that is the greatest hidden cost to Goldman's antics - we lost face to the world, and possibly the dollar as we wreck it keeping interest rates at zero to encourage housing to stay alive and 'hope' lending takes place.

Oddly I argue a strong environmental policy will save the United States, not because of any pressing catastrophic weather changes, but as to bringing jobs in through new emerging industries.

Hey - Ford's in China now, GM's in China, they're not coming back folks. Face it.
That's just the way it is on this single planet.

US has to seed new industries or face that it's pretend economy that WAS running on credit products ? is over, and President Obama is correct as stated in the above article- we can not return to 'business as usual', credit is gone, and loans are no where to be found. Without a future for jobs ? I'd suggest to any bank in the US - why throw your money away, invest in India, China or Venezuela - UNLESS US locks in a foothold on potential growth for emerging industries such as green energy foremost.

At least we can count on one thing, aside from nationalism issues, and that is - humanity WILL prevail ! Go humanity !

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who remembers the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980's ?

I do recall Neil Bush at the forefront and I recall saying to myself - 'wow, this Bush family will be living in Alaska when this is all done with'.

Who would have guessed over 1 trillion in losses to the US Treasury, years later, Neil Bush's brother would be president, after his father. I mean, what ARE the odds, 20 of 28 years coming into 2008 - Bushes in the White House.

Hey, if Neil Bush wasn't involved in Savings and Loan crisis one ? I'd not make that jump.

But I can't help noticing the lawyer Monica Goodling had, Dowd - very interesting, this was the same lawyer used with the Keating 5 in the Savings and Loan crisis.

My argument has been that Monica helped paralyze the DOJ during this looting of the US Treasury.

I find it peculiar the same legal defense was used for Goodling as with Keating 5.

Anyone else ?

To me ? It's plain and simple - Glass-Steagal was uplifted and the US Treasury was looted by proxy of Goldman, Lehman and corporations on Wall Street.

AIG was the catch all.

I argue casino's in Vegas had safer odds than 40 to 1 leveraging, I see Goldman CEO saying 'but but we were only 20 to 1' - my god. Even 20 to 1, if a Vegas casino sought INSURANCE on 20 to 1 odds ? They'd be laughed out of the room, but AIG insured them - perhaps the loose ends of this crime can be found in AIG.

If I were at DOJ - I'd explore every nook and cranny on AIG's limitations to insure Wall Street's insane over leveraging. Clearly it's not in anyones interest but those institutions that minted their own money out of this.

In so many ways I can understand why Kashkari headed to the woods to get away from it all.

There is so much more work to be done in sorting this all out and finding what criminal accountability we can with Wall Street.

Lifting of Glass-Steagal I argue was Instant - Lord of the Flies anarchy. Wall Street argues, "no rules therefore no laws broken, what's the problem US citizens "?

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Just to offer up my current view on this gamut in the US economy.

Keep in mind, the zero equity loans that dealt the death blow to the US economy did not come from banks, it came from investment banks.

Keep in mind in 1999, Glass-Steagal came down through Graham-Leech-Blilely, this allowed investment banks to cross over and become new entities, 'FHC's Financial Holding Companies/Corporations and opened up marriages such as Citi and Travellers insurance.

Once Glass-Steagal came down from whence it was setup post depression to prevent this from happening ? Goldman and similar entities like Lehman went off the charts acting in roles that were previously carried out by banks.

I read that US Office of Comptroller of Currency chair Dugan states Countrywide didn't take their zero equity loans to doors #1 and #2, the banks, as that has BEEN the way we do mortgage processing in the US, way I see it, thanks to Glass-Steagal lifted ? Countrywide - as Dugan states they did - went to Wall Street.

From here on out these meat processing plants bundled up the meats and sold them off. New disguised complex financial products.

Topping it all ? Goldman and other institutions like it actually shorted their own investments and bet to win that the zero equity loans would fail.

They won coming in, and coming out. In fact ? I read the origin of 'laughing all the way to the bank' was originated of all people by Liberace in 1950's ? I would argue that Goldman didn't laugh all the way TO the bank, they laughed all the way to BECOMING a bank overnight, following Hank Paulson's advice to simply declare themselves a bank to gain access to TARP.

I'd argue Wall Street's access to TARP was and is wrong, it WOULD be illegal if it was not for Glass-Steagal being removed.

The system risk IS Glass-Steagal being removed according to this logic.

I hope this administration can gain from my insights, I've worked hard to sort all of this out. HA - and at BEST right now, all I can look for is - nope can't even deliver pizza's - for Progressive insurance won't cover pizza delivery.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: TimMiltzForSenate | January 16, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

President Chikatilo and his economic serial killer helpers are hard at work, doing their very best to turn American into a giant financial graveyard.

Posted by: Vituperator | January 16, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The only people in this country that are selfish are the communist party and zero. I'm sick of working my arse off and having to support bums. How long before whitey is absolved of slavery? My people weren't slave owners, they were hard working people. Bug off.

Posted by: Kansasgirl | January 16, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

What idiocy. These banks wont make loans to small businesses in this country. Their credit card schemes amount to criminal usury and the bonuses these crooks award themselves are so outlandish that they turn our stomaches. The appropriate way to deal with this situation is to get money flowing in the *American* economy again. The Fed should inject that money directly, making 5% interest loans directly or through the Small Business Administration, to small businesses. Establish a system for credit unions and small local banks to issue credit cards, bi-passing the big banks, at rates capped at 12%. Cut the mega-banks off from any and all federal money and starve them to death, or make use of the Sherman Antitrust laws and break them up. The present system is intolerable and Obama's pretend outrage and impotent and overly complex scheme wont work. It's all smoke and mirrors and anyone falling for it is an idiot.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

obama seems more like a carny making it up as he goes along...
he puts no thought into what he is doing...
thats why he makes mistakes...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Look ya'll, when government regulates business, it punishes the most able and ambitious members of society (business owners and employees) which in turn passes the punishment down to its customers( all of us). This is common sense economics. You want to know why jobs are becoming scarce? Our government has regulated American industry to the extent that most businesses have three options: severely jack up the price of its product, lay off a portion of its work force, or ship production over seas. This is not due to "greed" or "wanton selfishness" as the president tells us. It's to adhere to the law(taxes, quotas, and regulation)
while still keeping production running smoothly. All of us enjoy the rewards of business, the products that it produces and sells us. We want new cars, flat screen TVs, ipods, health care, and loans to buy homes. Unfortunately, most us want the whole candy store even though we can't afford it. Then, we turn to government and say that we're entitled to it...and expect it to force businesses to provide these products at a price that it cannot charge if it wants to stay in business( ie keep giving us jobs). Government regulation only slows production, and all of us pay with higher prices and less jobs. THE MARKET WILL FIX ITSELF IF WE LET IT! In the early 19th century, economist Adam Smith suggested that an invisible hand guides economics. What he meant was that people cannot force markets to do what they want them to do and expect the desired result. Markets will behave in a natural pattern which can be determined by mathematics. IF WE LEAVE IT ALONE AND LET IT WORK NATURALLY, HISTORY SHOWS US THAT OUR STANDARD OF LIVING WILL INCREASE. HISTORY ALSO SHOWS US THAT IF WE REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF IT, OUR STANDARD OF LIVING WILL DECREASE.

Posted by: poetic_dissonance | January 16, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

B202....the CEOs still have to report the bonus on their tax return. How they report it is up for scrutiny. This could, theoretically, make way for an individual tax audit.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

And the Washington Compost does not write one sentence about the fact that President Potatoe Head is not asking for one RED cent back from GM or Crysler. I guess if the banks had all of their employees unionized and the union had contributed tens of millions of dollars to Potatoe Heads campaign, they would not have pay the new 'FEES". Da man is truly outta control

Posted by: nosuchluck | January 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

This is a great idea. The GOP will argue that the "too big to fail" banks will just charge higher fees to get the money back, but if that happens, people can change their money to local banks which are smaller and closer to the ones they serve.

It disgusts me that the rich CEOs want to use the government to get huge bonuses and massive profits for their corporations while they also create a situation where the middle and lower people suffer.

I would like to see some of these fat cat money managers actually try to manage their companies to make fair profits and salaries in such a way as to build up, not tear down, the nation.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | January 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Why do these bankers get any say in whether or not they're going to "accept" the regulations necessary to prevent them from abusing the system and causing additional financial melt downs in the future? They should get no say whatsoever. Does a bank robber get any say in the law making his avocation criminal?

Posted by: ejs2 | January 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why this fee couldn't be targetted directly at the bonuses themselves? That way the individuals getting rich, rather than the banks themselves - which need to be loaning money to get the economy moving again - would pay off the bailout that kept their Golden Goose alive.

I vaguely recall Obama wanting to tax those bonuses and it got shot down. Is there something in the tax law that precludes this?

Posted by: B2O2 | January 16, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

globalism as an inevitability?

No. It's one of the reasons we have wars.
Mankind and power. All concepts ingrained in our human nature. All countries. All cultures have developed into the war concept of "divide and conquer".

Religion is another reason. Holy War.

Globalism can be summed up with the Bush Doctrine. The New World Order. But Hilter was into globalism too.

Are we at war for our belief in God, capitalism, or democracy.
Heck, we are at war still.......period.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey I get it , Obama wants the Banks to Pay Back the Money that Aig and the Auto Companies got.

Posted by: makom | January 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is so naive it makes ya wanna laugh out loud....hey, dem libs, the hike to the banks will be just fine with the banks...they will NOT suffer though as they'll pass the costs onto all of us. They didn't get rich by being stupid and won't be affected by Obama's grand standing for political attention. Banks win, Americans lose....thanks, dem libs.

Posted by: powerange | January 16, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Capitalism was destroyed a long time ago.

The rub is that the banks didn't do what they were supposed to with the "common man walking in their doors for a refi".
And they didn't do it....right off the bat.
From the gate.
Now, President is calling in that chip.

HUD is a perfect example. Talk to anyone with a FHA loan that went to HUD for help. HUD is working hard on these FHAs loan.

HUD told their list of banks (the list that agreed to terms of the stimulus package)- what they had to do on FHA loans, and help with loan modification of those in need.

The banks snubbed HUD and began foreclosing all FHAs anyway.
HUD keeps at the banks, the banks relinquish just a tad.....and start the "process of remodification" with a customer who had to raise heck with HUD to get anywhere in the first place!

Oh yeah...and this "process of remodification" that the banks are cramming down our throats. You have to give your first born up.

Then......oh yes. The credit report.
"sorry, we can't restructure because of your credit report".

I tell ya again. It's the Carmelengo.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I might be more receptive to Obama's argument if he spent just one breath criticizing the FIRMS THAT DIDN't PAY BACK the money.

This reminds me so much of the days when OBAMA was trying to convince us that we shouldn't mind paying our neighbors' mortgages.

Remember: it was the mortgage bailout and Rick Santelli that instigated the first tea party protests. But, oh yeah, Obama hasn't heard about those. Maybe someone up in Massachusetts will mention it to him.

Posted by: jeannebee | January 16, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Don't call me crazy folks, well, actually you can call me what you want.

BUT - seems clear to me.

With globalism an inevitability ?

I am starting to see that this entire 'terror' spook ? and face it - Dick Cheney has one function, to keep that spook alive - he's CONSTANTLY telling us it's nuclear weapon in US city next- but ? no intel. Just like Iraq.

Seems clear to me - while the terror spook went on ? The Treasury was looted, in the end ? Treasury is going to lose it's triple A status according to World Bank in 2010.

I can't help repeating that John Thain, I saw him speak two October's ago and he said "WHEN this merger of ML and BOA happens ? BofAML WILL BE the most powerful financial corporation on the planet" That's as in BIGGER THAN WORLD BANK People.

Now, ASK yourself, as I do, as I noticed one day looking up what General Tommy Franks was up to, I read he discovered banking - and joined the Board of Directors at BOA, then I see this Larry Di Rita - Pentagon sr. spokesperson - let's say SPOOKSPERSON heh heh - on Terror - HE decides to leave RIGHT when Mozilo sells off his Countrywide stock ? WHERE ? TO become Bank of America's sr. spokesperson.

YOU TELL ME - I've not been able to explain that until now.

NOW, after realizing US Treasury will lose it's triple A status ? that means NO nation will lend to us, that means US Dollar is no longer top dog in the global economy, that means there will ONLY BE ONE ENTITY LEFT TO LEND TO THE UNITED STATES.

Who is that ?

It's almost as if it was meant to be taunted in front of us.


And you tell me America - it's not going to give a zero equity loan to US Treasury THIS TIME - they're going to want something of an asset.

That will BE the nation itself.

HELLO CORPORATISM and GLOBALISM - but the BUSH way - the way that LOOTED US ALL.

Department Of Justice, you can step in at any time you know.

This is bigger than a breadbox.

In fact - it's not 21 questions, I just spelled out what's happening if you ask me.

Or call me crazy

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

You know ?

I see flipping through the dial yesterday - Fox News (Rove and Ailes 24/7 political sounding board disguised as news) "Nuclear plant in Austin Texas on lockdown after potential terror threat".

Now, this story wakes me up a bit and makes the think- wait a second, if these pesky terrorists REALLY wanted to hurt the US ? wouldn't they have flown the planes into a nuclear plant ?

Merrill Lynch was in WTC.

Building 7 was SEC - lord only KNOWS what cases were LOST when that building came down, and many people speculate on what caused that one to fall, nothing hit it, it housed the CIA and SEC.

Now, ask yourselves this.

All the while we've been spooked and distracted to live in absolute fear and mayhem that the redcoats are coming, whoops, wrong story, the terrorists are coming ?

We've been completely looted by Wall Street - the Federal Government was used to remedy and fend off a COMPLETE collapse.

Then ? The SENIOR architect of the 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan ? quits ? and decides to discover banking taking a seat on the Board of Directors at Bank of America ?

Who in the end ? Bank of America will be the ONLY financial institution CAPABLE of LENDING to the United States after as Hans Timmer of World Bank puts it "US Treasury will lose it's triple A status in 2010" where NO NATION will lend to the US ? Leaving only one option, BoAML to lend to the US ?

In the end ? Bank of America is going to take the NATION as an ASSET for the loan.

I see it now.

We've all been fleeced.

We've all been distracted - spooked, and looted - it's not bait and switch, it's SPOOK AND LOOT.

Hey, globalism was coming no matter what, I have a feeling a few people go together and said "we might as well make a MINT off of it and do it our way".

This blows Bush Savings and Loan out of the water.

I do say- it all makes sense now in this context.

Tim Miltz

Boy I wish I could find a job even delivering pizzas - I was contracting, I don't get unemployment - I get ZERO, ZILCH and can't find work.

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

didn't obama get it that going after banks, who in turn deny loans, is obama's fault...
if you wanted to destroy capitalism, this is a good place to start...
if I were a financial institution, I would cancel the President's cards and call in his mortgage...
for him and all his family...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 16, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

MY God -


Even WITH Education in the United States.

It doesn't MATTER.

You will NEVER get ahead.

Why ? Because as Hans Timmer of World Bank puts it -industries will have LEFT the United States in 2010, 2011 to emerging economies.

Face it - this explains why I see people at grocery store checkouts with TWO master degrees.

Even WITH education, which I used to say was the answer- my god - one day of not drinking and all these ideas ! I tell ya!

My god - education won't even save us, we're watching industries shift as Hans Timmer states they will during this - NON-ORDINARY economic crisis.

President Obama should dump Bernanke immediately and contract out to hire Hans Timmer for 30 minutes of his time.

Wow folks- there aren't GOING TO BE ANY new jobs- even GM and FORD are now in China.

Wow - it's just going to get worse here on out - until ? US Treasury loses it's triple A status in 2010 as World Bank speculates it will ?

THEN no nation state will lend to the US -and US will have to turn to CORPORATE GLOBAL BANKS for loans -
ha ha ha ha ha

at probably 20% LOL

Bank of America is going to end up owning this entire country as an ASSET.

I see it all clearly now.

No WONDER General Tommy Franks got the booby prize Board of Directors seat for heading up the distraction in Afghanistan.

By the time the US citizens realize they've been had ? A few nutcases in Afghanistan with guns won't really matter now will it.

My god - we've been distracted with 'terror' while the nation state is quietly being corporatized.


Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

FROM THE OBAMA: "The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits, and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history, are now pleading poverty. It's a sight to see."

MY COMMENT: Just one more reason not to keep money in a bank. The Banks in question borrowed from the Federal Government (some unwillingly, forced to take money under TARP rules), then paid it back with interest, and now Obama wants to use that history to tax the banks?? Sounds like conspiracy. IMPEACHABLE?

FROM THE OBAMA: "If banks can afford to pay out all those bonuses", he said, "then they can repay taxpayers, too."

MY COMMENT: Repay the taxpayers?? I called several congressional offices and asked...'If this is passed, when will I get my tax money back' the response from every congressman I called was the same, I WON'T GET ANYTHING SINCE "IT WILL GO BACK INTO THE TREASURY!" So, Mr. President spare me the bs.

FROM THE OBAMA: Obama said that although the banks were facing a "crisis of their own creation," the "distasteful but necessary" taxpayer-funded bailout prevented an "even greater calamity for the country."

MY COMMENT: What calamity would that be?? Something like 17% in real unemployment, $10 trillion in debt?

FROM THE OBAMA: "But as far as I'm concerned, it's not good enough," he said. "We want the taxpayers' money back, and we're going to collect every dime."

MY COMMENT: Again Barry, when do I get my check? BTW since the banks that have paid their loans back, with interest, it would appear that you did get my money, and more than every dime.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | January 16, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I would argue we have greater threats than 'terrorism' to our nation right now.

I would argue it is of utmost important to keep the focus on the ball.

US has no choice but to struggle through with current joblessness.

During this global economic crisis, US industries are shifting to emerging economies at lightning speed. There is a void left behind. There exists no more the credit products that kept people afloat. No more Home Equity Loans - no more easy access to consumer credit. This has crippled small businesses. This has led to mass joblessness.

Only two ways out exist as I see it.

Immediate term ? Infra-structure development backed at the Federal level, roads, bridges, internet provision to each home - yes, federally provided access to broadband, high speed railway, the list goes on.

Long term ? We HAVE to attract the green industries TO the United States or they WILL and ARE going to emerging economies.

The ONLY way to do that is through top down government - FEDERAL policy on emissions, on green energy incentives and penalties for energy solutions that only cost us our health, our children's health, ALL eaten up in health care costs.

This administration made the mistake of going after healthcare when they missed going after health.

Going after non green energy solutions ? would have led to better health, new jobs - instead ? we've strapped on a massive project that will only end up in mass exploits, even WITH golden medical coverage I find Western medicine SKETCHY at best. India blows the DOORS off the US in medical technology, so does South Korea. Who's lying to us that it's even WORTH IT in the US. I just saw a doctor that was a pharmacist, pretending to be a doctor on American Greed, he practiced for YEARS before being noticed... why ? he just gave out PILLS - people are HAPPY the this model. US treats SYMPTOMS and does not address CAUSES.

Either way, US has infrastructure and green energy to save it and bring job regrowth - other than that ? It will be a wealthy class that is globally diversified as the banks are propping up a huge peasant class struggling to get by on jobs to serve the wealthy, NEVER able to get ahead - for even education won't help at that point, for even WITH the education, you'll be competing in a global job market in an industry in another country that left the US a long time ago.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

TEAM OBAMA: IF President Obama can stand up to the bankers, when will you stand up to the extrajudicial federal Gestapo you inherited from Bush-Cheney?

ATTN. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder; Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano: Defense Sec. Robert Gates; Sec. State Hillary Clinton (staffs, pls. fwd.)


See: (Journalism Groups -- Reporting):

• "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves"
• "Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"
• "U.S. Uses CBS News to Cover Up Microwave Cell Tower Torture?" OR: (see "stories" list)

Note: If the "P" in the URL line for The Poynter Institute disappears or turns into a globe, it likely means that readers are being re-directed to a "spoofed" or faked web site controlled by U.S. government surveillance operatives, who can then "harvest" the IP addresses of those who dare to read these articles -- or add those IP addresses to a government "watch list."

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 16, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Where is the derision aimed at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the biggest perpetrators of the subprime housing mess which led to the financial crash ? Posted by: dan1138 | January 16, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

FYI Fannie/Freddie are not lenders. They do not make loans.

When they bought and passed along bundled loans from lenders, they presumed the lenders did due diligence and qualified the homeowners according to state and federal laws.

Wall Street KNEW mortgage lenders were approving loans to people who wouldn't qualify for a tent and took advantage of Congress looking the other way - despite repeated warnings.

Investors also KNEW what was going on and rode the train to the junction and then jumped off with their pockets full of money, leaving Americans to pick up the pieces.

Surprisingly (OK not so surprising) not one of these CEOs, Directors or Managers have been held accountable for blatant fraud. Instead, they were given MORE money to bail them out after the dollar signs in their eyes overtook the reasoning cells in their brains.

When Obama and Congress give shysters millions of dollars to get back on their feet (to correct a problem THEY caused) and then his idea of "call to action" is debasing them during a radio address, not only will they push back, they will laugh in his face while they do it.

Posted by: asmith1 | January 16, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

President's new bank tax proposal is more politics than economics

(1) Immediate political need for Obama is to win the late Kennedy’s Senate seat. He uses the bank tax to convince the voters that banks made the economic mess. Speech may influence voters but how many?

(1) Tax payers put over 700 Billion into economic recovery plan. The bulk went into financial institutions and car makers.
(2) Most banks paid back most of the money and in the process of paying back the rest.
(3) Obama’s proposal is to collect 90 billion for 10 years from banks. i.e. only 9 billion this year.
(4) Banks are planning to give 160 billion of so for bonuses in this year which is 10 billion lower than 2007.
(5) As we know 50% of 160 billion goes to State and Federal taxes. ie. ~60-70 Billion goes to Federal Treasury.
(6) Obama proposed new tax is 10 billion.
If there is no new tax on this 10 billion, still Government may get 4 billion in normal tax. So additional collection is only 6 billion. That is not much compared to total tax collection.
(7) If Government collects additional tax, Banks will charge that amount or more from the public through additional fees and service charges.

So the whole game is to transfer the money from the public including the unemployed to the Government using bank as an intermediary.

Do Massachusetts voters fall for it along with public overall? It is the starting of new taxes from the taxpayers using indirect methods?


Posted by: madayilnair | January 16, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Would someone kindly explain to me how limiting these obscene robber-baron bonuses will slow down the economy? I mean, wouldn't it leave the banks with all those billions of dollars more to lend to businesses and individuals to get our economy moving again?

Posted by: FergusonFoont | January 16, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Pure corruption. Obama must go.

Posted by: fury60 | January 16, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Thinking through all my prior thoughts.

It becomes clear to me - that Phillip Sutter is right, coupled with Hans Timmer from World Bank - and that is - unless the US sends out a governmental policy statement on promoting a serious shift towards green energies ? The US can watch it's industries leave - in the next 2 years PERIOD.

Hans Timmer sends out the most dangerous message that the US White House should listen to, which is - this is no ORDINARY economic crisis - US industrial base shifts during this, it has, is, and will continue and that translates to NO jobs in the US.

US has only one hope. Put forth STRONG green energy policies right now, even though we missed the boat in Copenhagen, it is our only hope.

US banks are not in the business of making bad loans, nor should they be. US Wall Street investment banks caused this crisis, no REAL bank would EVER take a zero equity mortgage product, nor did they. Do not blame the banks people, and do not expect them to make bad loans.

Banks would be best investing in the 3 emerging economies, India, China and Venezuela - this is called 'global free market capitalism'. I'm sure there will be isolationists who want to live in 1942 here- hey - try Eli Lily, or get real.

Banks WOULD invest into the US IF they ALSO say a FIRM policy on green energy that would give them a sense that green energy industries WOULD COME to the US.

As it stands ? China has the ball on solar, heck, I'd buy from China right now, it's simply cheaper.

US can fix things long term with proper climate policy. If not, hey - enjoy the last election probably in 2012 before this nation defaults.

We're looking at losing triple A at Treasury THIS YEAR people. THIS YEAR.

No one will buy from us at that point. As it STANDS US Central Bank is buying Treasury debt. That's dangerous enough, add in US losing it's 800 PICO score ? US Dollar is no longer champ in a post Bretton Woods II global economy. Some would argue it's not champ anymore even.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

What Obama is proposing is crazy. Don't punish the folks who have worked hard and paid back the tarp money plus interest. Most of the banks didn't want Tarp money anyway. Many banks who didn't take Tarp are going to get hit.

He needs to take a look at those who haven't paid their money back:The fannie-- Government motors and others. This is the way our country is headed...the Robin Hood effect. Take from the hard working people and reward those like GM and others who made terrible business decisions and should have been left to go bankrupt.

He are headed down the wrong path.

Posted by: tonyjm | January 16, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

They have already lost, WE THE PEOPLE that have been in the middle. Never belonged to a PARTY have awoken.

WE THE PEOPLE have stood by ,watched and listened. We want ALL of Congress FIRED!! When an elected offcial calls ANY canidate a tea-bagger,Extremists or any other vile name. That official is showing their TRUE character. They are degrading not only that candidate but the very people that support him or her. This is what most of WE THE PEOPLE are sick of. Not so much the POLICIES!!!

You offer a group of citizens, "UNIONS" an OUT but are going to TAX the majority of Citizens. You say you will televise the hearings to get elected but now EVERYTHING is hidden from WE THE PEOPLE!!

Alot of what WE THE PEOPLE are sick of is the "Government Stupid's " attitude towards WE THE PEOPLE.

Tyranny: Absolute power arbitrarily or unjustly excercised.

Tyrant: One who rules oppressively or cruelly, a despot. One who exercises absolute power without legal warrant.

When WE THE PEOPLE are being called TEA-BAGGERS a sexually derived name by a Senator from New York or any other elected official.

When a few bankers are signled out for what they make in pay. When one group of citizens are given special treatment. Is this not TYRANNY and are these ELECTED officials not being TYRANTS!!!!

TRAITOR: One who loses anothers TRUST and is FALSE to an obligation and or DUTY!!!

I have never had another man's testicles in my mouth. I did attend a TEA PARTY. I have never belonged to a POLITICAL party. My sign at the TEA PARTY was the definition of TRAITOR and the OATH I took as a Marine to defend the CONSTITUTION!!!




Posted by: 79USMC83 | January 16, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

ya gotta remember that Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, FHA mortgage lenders all broke regulatory code, beginning in 2001. And they are all federally "backed".

Breaking regulatory code is a crime.
They told people, falsely, that they could afford their home, when they knew they couldn't. Great sales reps they have at CountryWide. But the federally "backed" housing programs had to be "covered".
Then guess what - the banks that carried these loans said "oh yes, we will work with the people to help them from losing their house". There's a whole list out there.
The banks that held Fannies, etc. didn't do this.

President Obama's message is correct. You (banks) are not helping the American in you said you would.
Gets better. The HELOC debacle is now upon them big time.
All those HELOCs doled out from 2003 on. Most are second mortgages. Those people are hurting.

Now, did the banks break regulatory code when dispensing HELOCs earlier in the decade? That's a good question.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

How he handles the banks will be an indication how he handles the insurance industry when they start to push back.

Posted by: asmith1 | January 16, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

First of all, the tax is also there to have funds available for when they screw up again. (And like winter coming in December, they will screw up again, you can "bank" on it).

Second, I'd mention some other alternatives like going back to mark to market.

Last year it could be argued that no one knew the cost of real estate and other derivatives, so it made sense to suspend it. Now that the real estate and other markets are stable, make them mark to market on their loans. The economy will recover quicker.

Posted by: camasca | January 16, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

How about a tax on Fannie, Freddie, Ginne and the FHA? That is where the real losses are. About $600 billion and continueing. And all controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Government and looted by the politicans in Washington. And unlike the TARP funds given to the banks, virtually all of which has been repaid with interest, the taxpayers are eating these loss.

Posted by: jdonner2 | January 16, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

the banks.

I'm back to square one.

Banks are fine - Wall Street investment banks wrecked the integrity of the economic system we had thanks to near zero regulation.

And since no laws were broken at the top levels ? Gee...

What can we do except pick up the pieces, hope at the national level, every effort to promote and stimulate new industries can be made, and we all reach for a better tomorrow. Oh yeah, of COURSE we could put Glass Steagal back - and put ankle bracelets around Wall Street investment banks so they don't go wondering off into the world economy - no, Wall Street, NOT the banks - needs to offer retribution to the citizens of the United States.

I might argue against Arianna Huffington who promoted my idea of taking money out of big banks and putting it in small banks.

Banks are ok - selloff Goldman, Morgan Stanley- don't buy Goldman stock etc, shut them down if they still don't get the message - legally- JUST LIKE THEY SHUT THE US ECONOMY DOWN - legally.

Remember, it's NOT the banks people that got us into this, and banks lending won't fix it -it was WALL STREET investment banks that broke it all.

So people- don't take your money out of Bank of America, or real banks. (Well Bank of America DID take in Merrill Lynch and Countrywide, maybe they do need to go), but shorting Goldman might be a solution.

I think the message needs to be cleared up that it was Wall Street investment banks - not regional banks, community banks that caused any of this mess.

NO real bank would take a ZERO equity mortgage- come on. And no one did.

In fact, why are we asking the REAL banks to lend - when it was the INVESTMENT banks that LOOTED everyone with AIG to insure it - and after AIG failed, WE - the people insured AIG or of course, face losing it ALL.

That's the real eye of the storm if you ask me.

AIG decision.

Lehman fell ? but AIG didn't ?

AIG should have been held accountable for doing more damage to the United States than 500 million terrorists could ever do in 500 years.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I do apologize if I'm hogging the space here, I just like thinking about things, and I seem to think about them best while writing them.

To this ? Regarding this article ?

And what I JUST realized last post ?

Perhaps banks are in the following bind.

If they do not lend, US Central Bank will have to continue printing money, and holding monetary policies at 0% - risking hyper-inflation around every corner, potentially jeopardizing banks assets due to mark to market leading to them failing on having minimum capital requirements by FDIC requirements.

If they DO lend, they are lending at high risk - to people that may or may not be able to make business ideas work, for during this transitional stage as World Bank Hans Timmer put it "industries are shifting out of former industrialized nations to new emerging nations like India, China and Venezuela".

So, Banks probably would LOVE to lend in those emerging economies without question.

But this nation - the United States and President Obama are asking banks - what about us, ESPECIALLY after we just opened the window for TARP borrowing for -well- the T - Troubled Asset Relief Program - that's what it was there for.

Now it's TANP - Trouble Asset Nation State Program I suppose.

And President Obama is asking, hello banks - can you lend BACK to the US citizens ?

and the banks are saying - it's high risk if we do, we have World Bank saying US industries are restructuring to other emerging nations/economies.

So, tricky here.

BUT - I DO offer up this position President Obama COULD take with the banks.

Which is - hey, if you don't lend ? the dollar is going to be hit hard, and when we lose our triple A status ? you come down WITH US, AND - we KNOW you don't have enough on the books to RELOCATE to Poland like PNC can with their trillion dollar unit out of Delaware (I noticed this last year, PNC has this 1 trillion + unit in Delaware that was opening new deposit accounts in Poland (I'm fine with that btw, really- I celebrate the global economy)).

So, President Obama COULD say - it is in your best INTEREST, wrong word here, to lend right now.

Perhaps US Treasury - since it's facing losing it's face anyway when triple goes this year ? could say- "we'll BACK your loans to the people - so lend away banks".

And come to think of it - didn't we just DEMONSTRATE that we can do that ? As that is what we DID - we BACKED the troubled assets - we're STILL buying troubled assets from FFIEC institutions.

Hmm- in FACT? I'd say - come to think of it - if US is BUYING and BACKING troubled assets of banks ? They have NO excuse NOT to lend short of saying "But if we lend, this is what got us into this problem to begin with". EXCEPT - I argue - US Comptroller of Currency is WISE to point out - Countrywide didn't GO to banks - they took those stink bomb zero equity mortgages to WALL STREET - and THEY are the one that screwed the banks.

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse


no - that's called "the force".
May the force NOT be with you kiddo.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I guess we could print more money again.

Our nation's credit report is not good. I agree with you on the global issue of the worth of the dollar.

Somehow, I believe the disaster in Haiti will strengthen our dollar now. Disaster relief is a business even if it is humanitarian in nature.

In another entry you mentioned about how banks will help states first but not the nation state? Did I read that right? They won't be helping bum frick egypt arizona I bet!

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Can Obama recoup funds from Acorn? Oops forgot, he is their lawyer.

Posted by: cpameetingbook | January 16, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

How ironic that the self-described Messiah would accuse others of being selfish.

Obama is the most selfish, narcissistic creature on the planet.

This personality disorder is called projection—when one individual is so ashamed of his character flaws that he projects them onto another.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 16, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I do say - I do very much enjoy writing.

If I could make enough money to cover bills, maybe $2k a month ? That'd add enough to put $250 a month away into savings ?

I do say -I'd be happy with that.

Good people, ideas, HOPE, DIRECTION, something to work towards (a cleaner / greener society, better health, better education) ? Who could ask for more ?

I'm not in any deficit that I need community assets such as mere MONEY in large amounts to make up for what's not deficit.

Somewhere people have lost base with a meaningful life. Somewhere, more money has been equated with actual meaning in life.

I look at money as MERELY a community asset and personal utility.

I argue at the end of the day ? Money is ultimately given value through a collective participatory effort through members of a community who say - hey - we'd like to be one stage up from barter - bring on the liquidity instruments for inter-commerce interchange.

I even argue - if you THINK you can pocket a $5 bill ? you can't - all that represents in the integrity of beliefs offering up voluntarily by participating members of a society- Bretton II included globally (Bretton III needs to get here sooner than later- I vote for single global currency myself this time around !).

Large amounts of money are not to be horded.

Money has one function, it is a community tool in practice.

This idea of people hording it ? They are only living in a delusion. It's value is ULTIMATELY determined by those who brings new ideas to life, new improvements to society, to communities, THAT is the REAL use of money. You can't take money and go live in a cave and have it 'do' anything for you. Money has to be in USE.

PERHAPS - this is the message President Obama could take to the banks.

Something along the lines of 'horde it ? hold onto it ? and watch US lose it's triple A rating on Treasury bonds backing money debt, and you just come back and tell everyone what you're holding onto THEN !'

That's right, I'm promoting a new argument here FOR banks to lend, which is - lend, or lose it, through depreciation/inflation.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Where is the derision aimed at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were the biggest perpetrators of the subprime housing mess which led to the financial crash ?

Posted by: dan1138 | January 16, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Bank of America in 2011 calls up US Treasury:


"Hello, US Treasury"

Boa: "Yes, my name is Mary, I'm a loan officer here at BoA ? I'm calling to let you know that you've defaulted on your nation state loan".

UST: "Well, you see, it's been tough, I've lost my income, no one has jobs to pay taxes, you see it's been rough, please just one more month..."

Boa: "I'm sorry, now, we need to review your assets... I did talk to my manager, and he says that BoA will settle for your land, that is - the 12 trillion in real estate covering the entire nation "

UST: "Uh, okay, but can you give us 3 weeks to move out ? "

BoA: "I'm sorry, I'd really like to, but - you know, it's policy, and we will have to bring in XE, our new private security firm to move out out of the Treasury buildings in 14 days, I'm sorry..."

Somehow ? what's scarier to me ? is this isn't too far off base in reality from what can happen.

US Corporate banks will be the ones to bail out the nation states in NO time.

In fact, isn't that the premise of this article here ? Somehow the Nation State is saying "hey corporate banks, you help us, we helped you".

I observe there is no 'or else' from the White House - which I'd agree with, because there really is no 'or else' that the nation CAN say to a global financial corporation.

There is a way out - and that way is to focus on REAL growth mechanisms, green energy and industry, promote healthy living, better diet education, invest in transportation infra-structure, and my favorite - US REALLY needs to offer a federal level broadband access program to citizens. We can start voting using the internet at that point and cut out the over lobbied middle man - formally known as a US Senator.

And we'll ALL be happier we did it too.

Buh Bye Larry Craig -and take your nuclear lobby with you - don't miss your flight !

These sellouts who know their time is up sooner than the kids who have to LIVE with the energy policies they sold everyone out to ? HAVE to go. And I mean, no re-election, I bet in 10 years time we could move to internet voting and rid ourselves of sellout senators.

we have the technology

We can rebuild him !

the hit new TV series "The 60 trillion dollar nation state".

(6 million dollar man).

Yikes, and this is my first post in 6 months where I WASN'T drinking !

I do say- I feel I have a clarity in thought today.

Tim Miltz

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Oh my God,

I just realized something.

If the current model for nationalism is that for military solutions it has to outsource to private corporate firms such as former Blackwater, currently XE? Whackenhut, DynCorp etc ?

When US Treasury loses it's triple A status as World Bank warns of this year 2010 ?

Oh my...

I think I see what's coming.

US Treasury has already witnessed that China stopped showing up to buy anything over 7 year Treasuries as of last Jan 2009 ?

It is true that Bernanke has been showing up to buy these, as in - yes, the US Central Bank buys the US Treasury bonds now..

Well ? We can't print more money to keep that up - CLEARLY - I just went shopping, my food stamps bought VERY LITTLE - bread is $4 a load, MANY products are simply $5 when they used to be $2...

So, here is what's coming I think.

US Treasury and Central Bank ?

Are going to have to turn to the CORPORATE global banks now - for support.

that's right people.

You heard it here first, I think this is CLEARLY what's coming.

I see it with nation state military - outsourcing to private corporations for their energy resourcing/wars.

So, when US Central bank and Treasury come up against the wall that's coming ?

They won't be able to turn to China.

India ? forget it- they've been quietly shifting to gold - MAKES YA WONDER TOO - India banks are GOLDEN, er, wrong word, or wait, no, right word, but India banks are STRONG, China banks are riddled with sketchy books - BUT... EITHER WAY....

No one will be there to lend to us.



I hear the start of the show theme song from Price is Right.....

Except Bank of America will be there to rescue the United States NEXT TIME...

Instead of the other way around.

AH HA - It's ALL clear now, this is the ONLY way it can play out.

Wow - John Thain two October's ago when he said "WHEN this merger takes place ? Bank of America will be the MOST powerful financial corporation on the planet"...

Wow- Thain sure was right.

Well, now that had this epiphany ?

I feel I can rest, get some popcorn, sit back - no, I can't sit back, I have to go find a job.

Every single place - not hiring, cutting back - and I'm talking $7 an hour jobs here people.

I was at $20 an hour, which was a lot to me. I don't think I'll ever see those days again.

Tim Miltz

HA, I know, I'll dress up as a nation state - and go into Bank of America and ask for a loan, they'll say "Hey, you're not supposed to be here for 2 more years !"

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

My advice to President Obama is as follows:

US needs to commit to a strongly sounded message that the US will making FIRM policy changes on co2 emissions. From that green energy industries will sprout up and emerge.

It's not so much 'build it and they will come', it's 'announce it and it will come'.

I'd invest into working on climate policy first and foremost, this will pave the way for new REAL industries to emerge in the United States, real jobs, with a future.

I'd then invest immediate for job solution into infra-structure. From power grid changes that are necessary to the over 3,000 bridges I hear civil engineers say are unsafe in the US. I'd work on better optimized high way / road systems using modern computer software to optimize efficient traffic.

I'd drop health care like the 1960's stone it is, forget health care. Work on HEALTH, that is, move away from coal ? and oil ? and SO many pulmonary disease issues just go away. That's probably trillions over 10 years - bringing in healthy living potential.

In fact, I'd argue that moving to green energy, getting rid of coal and oil ? even nuclear (nuclear is just too much of a threat considering all those pesky terrorists, RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT ? ) will actually BRING health back. You only NEED healthcare if people are UNHEALTHY.

We spend billions on asthma related products. How is it the AMA says if a child lives within 500 yards of a highway ? They have a 50% chance higher risk of developing asthma ? really now. It's CLEAR auto emissions and diesel are causal factors.

So, Dear Mr. President, send a FIRM message - since we missed opportunity in Copenhagen - that US has ONLY ONE DIRECTION - GREEN energy. Might be slow, but it's ONE direction...

Send that ? And green industries will emerge and we'll have something here for jobs.

Health will follow.

In immediate interim ? Don't nationalize banks, nationalize national infrastructure programs- bring immediate job resolution.

More mortgages will collapse without jobs - if 1 in ten people are not employed ? I argue that's 1 in 10 people not making rent OR mortgage.

That's a SERIOUS wave coming. 2010 can't be another jobless year.

Hey, I'm unemployed, I can't even find a job at a Pizza Hut for god sakes, hire me - I'll work for $25k a year, and that's below poverty.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse


If you watch that video I posted above over at c-span ? You will see a very interesting point by Hans Timmer (iirc) that The United States in 2010 has SERIOUS risk of losing it's triple A credit rating.

With toppling debt ? And interest at 0% ? only having one way to go ? up ? You add in loss of golden credit for the Treasury ?

US citizens could bundle ALL their assets together into a new complex financial product and it STILL wouldn't save the economy - even chuck in Yellowstone for the Chinese too.

So, don't feel bad, short of the global financial banks, the regional and community banks are intermediary between being dependent on your deposit accounts and at the same time - dependent on the US Treasury maintaining that triple A rating, or currency falls, Greece and Spain are RIGHT NOW - facing absolute total sovereign currency crisis, as in - GONE- POOF - if the US Dollar goes. I'm not kidding. Last I checked, Greece and Spain aren't third world - not in my book.

So, TheBabeNemo - if banks are content to play ball by profiting off of credit scores ? Call it justice that banks TOO will be judged by this very process.

The only problem is- one person's credit fails, they lose their house, or maybe even job - some jobs I observe use credit rating now during hire or employee review, but if Treasury loses it's credit rating ? We lose the nation.

Hans Timmer puts it blatent - this is no ordinary economic crisis.

If I were Ben Bernanke ? I'd just walk away, he's out of his league. His intellectual credit rating in my book has taken a severe hit - he's not triple A. He's unable to present national economy issues in the context of the real world, the global economy.

United States can not fix this alone. This has to be a joint effort among existing industrialized nations and emerging nations that are CLEARLY - pulling the industry OUT of former industrialized nations.

If you ask me ? I'd say we have lost manufacturing jobs steadily since 1970's - and at 41, new to economics of 2 to 3 years ago ? It FEELS like the United States citizens have been living on credit products. Once that train broke down ? We all realized, jobs have left, are leaving, and why should a bank lend to a business that has no market or ability to compete with China, India or Venezuela. If I were a bank, I'd be lending in emerging nations, not dying nations. Oh yeah, they are !

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama–Supernatural Confusion???

Obama has passed the most stringent test in America–election to the Presidency. This alone is evidence of his competence and intellect. Only 44 Americans on our history have reached this level.

Yet Obama has consistently and repeatedly committed the most basic, obvious, elemental stupid mistakes. More ominously, even if he lacked the intellectual prowess, the President can obtain the best options from among 300 million citizens and then need merely make a choice.

Why has Obama been so helplessly confused?

Consider that Obama mocked the Bible books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus by name. Obama’s speech is still on You-Tube. These books are in the Jewish part of the Bible, the Old Testament , which is also part of the Christian Bible.

Deuteronomy 28, in the very book Obama mocked by name, pronounces specific curses:

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you

(Numerous detailed curses omitted)

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 16, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

A Predictive Profile of Obama in 2010

Obama's Presidency is at a minimum in disarray, more realistically in free fall FAILURE.

When a Republican even has a CHANCE in Massachusetts-- the verdict is in on the Obama Administration.

Team Obama is being voted off the island by angry Americans fed up with the stimulus waste, cap and trade, obama's incessant asinine attacks on capitalism as he kills jobs, obamacare and most importantly 10% unemployment.

A failed embittered Presidency can be extremely dangerous--
so a profile of Obama's like FUTURE actions is critical.

In his monumental work "Hitler and Stalin" Alan Bullock notes both Hitler and Stalin were narcissists. ProCounsel is NOT stating Obama is either Hitler or Stalin. But his analysis, written long before Obama's ascendancy, is a useful model.

Bullock explains narcissism on page 11:

"In such a state only the person himself, his needs,feelings and thoughts, everything and and everybody as they relate to him are experienced as fully real, while everybody and everything otherwise lacks reality or interest."

Bullock describes the effects of narcissism and provides a predictive model useful for Obama on page 343:

"Narcissistic personalities are convinced of their special qualities and their superiority over others, and any threat to this self image--such as being criticized, shown up, or defeated--produces a violent outrage and often a desire for revenge."

Bullock cites 3 psychological reactions Stalin used to guard his narcissistic self image. Bullock credits Robert Tucker for these insights on page 356. The 3 reactions to expect for the Obama profile would be:

a. Repression–simply blankly deny the truth, no matter how obvious or even if caught on video

b. Rationalization-Admit but use the fault as proof of his zeal

c. Projection-Obama will attribute to others the motives and attitudes he refuses to admit in himself

Ironically, per the Profile Dems in the House and Senate will be in much more danger from a wounded irrelevant White House than the Republicans, as Obama will deem the Dems unworthy of him--THEY failed NOT him.

Don't believe the profile??

Just go back and review Obama's response to the Detroit airplane bombing. Obama went through all 3 stages above and that analysis is especially instructive as Obama was naked--without senior staff.

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 16, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

A Predictive Profile of Obama in 2010

Obama's Presidency is at a minimum in disarray, more realistically in free fall FAILURE.

When a Republican even has a CHANCE in Massachusetts-- the verdict is in on the Obama Administration.

Team Obama is being voted off the island by angry Americans fed up with the stimulus waste, cap and trade, obama's incessant asinine attacks on capitalism as he kills jobs, obamacare and most importantly 10% unemployment.

A failed embittered Presidency can be extremely dangerous--
so a profile of Obama's like FUTURE actions is critical.

In his monumental work "Hitler and Stalin" Alan Bullock notes both Hitler and Stalin were narcissists. ProCounsel is NOT stating Obama is either Hitler or Stalin. But his analysis, written long before Obama's ascendancy, is a useful model.

Bullock explains narcissism on page 11:

"In such a state only the person himself, his needs,feelings and thoughts, everything and and everybody as they relate to him are experienced as fully real, while everybody and everything otherwise lacks reality or interest."

Bullock describes the effects of narcissism and provides a predictive model useful for Obama on page 343:

"Narcissistic personalities are convinced of their special qualities and their superiority over others, and any threat to this self image--such as being criticized, shown up, or defeated--produces a violent outrage and often a desire for revenge."

Bullock cites 3 psychological reactions Stalin used to guard his narcissistic self image. Bullock credits Robert Tucker for these insights on page 356. The 3 reactions to expect for the Obama profile would be:

a. Repression–simply blankly deny the truth, no matter how obvious or even if caught on video

b. Rationalization-Admit but use the fault as proof of his zeal

c. Projection-Obama will attribute to others the motives and attitudes he refuses to admit in himself

Ironically, per the Profile Dems in the House and Senate will be in much more danger from a wounded irrelevant White House than the Republicans, as Obama will deem the Dems unworthy of him--THEY failed NOT him.

Don't believe the profile??

Just go back and review Obama's response to the Detroit airplane bombing. Obama went through all 3 stages above and that analysis is especially instructive as Obama was naked--without senior staff.

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 16, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I don't accuse the banks of selfishness.

I watched the CEO's of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi - and hmm - was it Lewis or Pandit that put it well "We're not in the business of losing money".

At that very point I pivoted my views on banks and their obligations to lending.
While I WAS lead software engineer on the most advanced banking profitability analytics query engine in the nation, until Bank of America pulled the funding ? And I have MEAGER understanding of these issues ? Really, it's always been a personal curiosity to educate myself further on these issues... I CAN say- I agree with the big banks. Why SHOULD they lend if it's not going to be profitable. They are not 'federal' entities, there is no 'social' responsibility whatsoever, I'll even go so far as to say CRA shouldn't BE federally regulated, it should be community/citizen driven. I'd argue that the banks really should be legally required to publish to the public their latitude / longitude (geocodes) for each loan, and let the community decide. Really, CRA should have been regulated by the private sector, this would have created many companies that would SERVE a community to PROTECT it - and MAKE SURE a bank wasn't taking deposits from poor areas of a community and only lending to the wealthy. CRA should have been regulated in the private sector from day one, but it wasn't. THAT's non issue though.

What IS issue though is that banks are best left to run themselves. Had the US DOJ or FBI been more intimately tied into SEC ? Wall Street would never have been allowed to package up zero equity loans and then places bets that they'd fail, equivalent to shorting a stock that you just pumped up. Perhaps this was SEC then.

If I were President, I'd find a middle ground between SEC and DOJ - giving SEC more discreet communication with DOJ. Bank of America doesn't care about SEC, so what ? they get fined $30 million on something, BEANS, they just cleared 30 BILLION on something else. NO criminal activity, next day business as usual.

Forget CFTC - I'd move to give DOJ more access to SEC and I'd give SEC more access to DOJ channels. When a 'fine' is all that matters ? And you're clearing $30 billion on a deal ? 30 million isn't anything that will inhibit you. Madoff however is doing time. HAD SEC and DOJ had closer ties ? Madoff would never have happened either.

We need greater resources for federal watchdogs on potential financial crimes and exploits.

We very well may not recover from what happened.

I think if the US moves quickly to send a strong signal that green energy is the path to the future ? The US can discover a new emerging green energy industry infra-structure. If not, we just bailed out GM so they could relocate to China, and as I say - nothing stopping Bank of America from relocating to even Poland.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

these banks have done no outreach to their customers in need.
Most of the banks involved in the stimulus left the customer hanging completely.

You had to be two month delinquent in your mortgage before the banks would even talk to you. So you go 2 months delinquent --your credit report sucks now (and they are basing everything on the credit report)
It's like the Carmelengo again.
The banks set it up so they wreck your credit by not talking to you to rectify the loan fast......the report goes to 440.
And bang--the banks say we can't talk to you now because your credit report sucks.
They made it suck. Dig?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I highly recommend anyone interested in a healthier view of the global economy, and where the United States stands - watch this:

It's the Jan 5th meeting on World Economy in 2012. Chock full of gem insights. I notice Ben Bernanke wasn't there, and I don't think he could swim in those waters personally.

When I saw it - I felt like the adults finally showed up on the island of the Lord of the Flies at the end scene.

The best insights germane to this article here in the Washington Post I found were at 75:10 minutes by Phillip Suttle (Institute of International Finance, Chief Economist).

In fact, I would recommend ANYONE interested in this subject watch Hans prior, or Phillip's comments post 75:00 on 'what really needs to happen here'.

I witness myself the United States industries moving. I witness GM and Ford now in China, and hey, if they can build it cheaper ? and sell it back cheaper ? I'm fine with that, that's the global economy that's here and it's not going away.

It's perhaps time for the United States to grow up - move off of the Lord of the Flies. Current defense from Wall Street CEO's - Goldman, etc is that no rules - anarchy was the best solution through removal of regulatory constraints so that US financial corporations could best 'play' in the World Economy.

What I witnessed is a complete greed grab taking this nation state for a ride off a cliff to which we may very well not recover from.

I liked IMF/World Banks observation that a lax regulation on co2 at Copenhagen has and will prevent the birth of what Phillip Suttle suggests is perhaps the best path the US can take to restore itself -a move to green industries. It is interesting that such a lax political position that the US postured itself with at Copenhagen won't necessarily be the demise of it's Citizen's through health issues and catastrophic weather / climate changes, it's that this lax position may very will hinder all attempts at stimulus - whether direct to what industries that have not left the US, or to the financial corporations to which I remind EVERYONE - are global, and are NOT nationalized, and are free to relocate anywhere in the world they want.

I'd make a gentlemen's bet that Bank of America relocates to Dubai in the next 4 years.

Just a hunch.

Scary part is ? There is absolutely nothing stopping them. So, it's not 'too big to fail' - it's that the nation state is too dependent on global financial corporations all the while trying to hold everyone BACK in some Wilsonian isolationist ideal that is really a dead model in the face of these truths.

I'm saying - forget the Berlin wall- I'm saying the nation state boundaries must go next, clearly global corporations live in a global economy, why should the citizens settle for second best.


Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I hope President Obama keeps going on this and refuses to hear the whining of these banks.

For 2 days, on the day of his speech too, I was on the phone to JPMorgan Chase because they froze my first lien HELOC and I gotta tell ya........

They were rude.
They didn't want to talk.
They said "we only care about the credit report, not your personal situation".
I was amazed at how "down and dirty" the banks have really gotten.
MorganChase posted 3.3 billion proft.
They are not restructuring based on credit reports. And they are loaning --only at 62%. Now, freezing HELOCs on good customers that are up to date.

No one has a good credit report now. And in 6 months, half of Americans won't have a 600 score.

So I threw the gauntlet back to them.
You freeze my HELOC (I have no first mortgage and this is the first lien) - which is not over extended---
You get $50.00 a month. Come after this house if you can JP Morgan!

I want President Obama to also --or if anyone knows if it had been addressed federally----
this issue of "deeds of trust" being considered as "mortgages". I don't think so.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 16, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"Obama accuses nation's largest banks of selfishness"

This from a man who told Black folks they were on their own, with their 16% unemployment, because he did not want it to look like he was giving Blacks special treatment.

We need a President that will help all Americans, not just the rich white ones. That’s the only way the economy will get kick-started.

Posted by: question-guy | January 16, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

HANS TIMMER - Director of the World Bank's Development Prospects Group I observe sends grave warning to the industrialized nations, especially the United States.

Hans points out that this was no 'ordinary' economic crisis. After hearing Hans speak, I can no longer take Ben Bernanke seriously. It's as if the grown ups have arrived at the end of Lord of the Flies. And after watching the hindsight critique of Wall Street's exploitation of the lifting of the veil of Glass Steagal ? Claiming that 'we thought no rules would be best' ? This is nothing short of anarchy. This WAS the Lord of the Flies for US economic policy from 2000 to 2008. This truly did say - no rules, no laws, while the US DOJ was paralyzed thanks to Monica Goodlign ? the SEC sat limp - barely even keeping score of who to fine next. Perhaps when Building 7 which housed the CIA and the SEC failed on 9.11 the SEC just lost too many cases or files, WHO knows. Who knows why that building fell. I won't go in that direction.

I wish to keep focus here, Hans Timmer states that during this 'non ordinary' crisis - industrialized nations are at risk for VERY quick shifts in - well- their industries to relocate elsewhere. Hans points out that there is great flux in which nations adopt and thrive in existing and new industries.

Here I see the IMF and World Bank showing India, China and Venezuela as the top 3 emerging economies. United States ? BARELY made it out with just shy of nationalizing a global financial corporation.

If could what Elizabeth Warren might say - I can imagine her saying "Can you even nationalize a global bank ? "

This is a realization that just occurred to me as I'm writing this and I find it completely missing - as I once heard Hillary Clinton use the term 'conversation' - I will say- missing from the conversation. I seem to do my best thinking when typing things out seeking dialog or insights from others on issues. I welcome anyone who wishes to expand on this subject I bring up.

I'll continue in another comment, if I go too long, I risk having nothing show up at all. I think this is a good subject here that brings us closer to the truth, or at best a deeper understanding at what we are really looking at when we talk about 'too big to fail' - or as I awoke the other day thinking - "hey, wait a second, it's not that the banks are too big to fail, it's that the nation is too small to survive without global corporatism" and this explains the lobbying as well.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I believe I have settled on an understanding that can offer resolution to the 'Too big to fail' dilemma.

Upon waking the other day I realized it's not these giant global financial institutions are too big to fail, holding the nation state hostage...

It's that the nation state model is too small to succeed in view of global free market capitalism.

I have lately completed a 180 degree shift on how I view large banks. I no longer blame the banks for merely participating in a global free market economy. This is as Alan Greenspan points out a most wonderful time and shift in Western Civilization.

I could complain on the lending practices of the banks from community to regional where overdraft fees outweigh the total amount of the transaction but this really is an internal matter for each bank to consider. It is possible that banks will reconsider changing the 35+ Billion profits they take from such NSF/Overdraft fee's realizing they may risk losing deposit accounts to which they do need to function.

Back to the issue on 'Too big to fail'...

Elizabeth Warren - Chairperson of the Financial Oversight Committee states that the issue of 'Too big to fail' has not been dealt with.

I now see the situation as as follow. While the nation state continues to attempt to define itself through threat, the underlying national economy - US in particular here, is according to Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson - contingent on Merrill Lynch staying solvent. So, we merged ML with BoA - fine. This to my logic presents an issue that the US economy success is now contingent on BoA's solvency- fine. Note though that Bank of America can relocate anywhere it wants globally. Bank of America is in no way obligated to participate in the US economy.

I will end this comment here and repost another as I find if it's too long, it never gets published and gets auto sent to editor for review to which I never seem to see my original posts. Simply too long.
Thankfully I'm not Mozart and the Washington Post isn't Saliere in Amadeus where Saliere criticizes Mozart's work as having 'too many notes'. I do not mean to compare either. But as Confucius was not much older than I (I'm 41), he decided the river tribes were not getting along, so he up and left to bring music and demonstrate - literally- through harmony in music - that the river tribes and villages could get along. This is a little known fact on just how Confucius came to enter politics. I do recall one quote from him I read 20+ years ago "I only travel to the capital city when there is discord".

Tim Miltz

Posted by: ItsGlobalismHereOnOut | January 16, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Every time this man speaks, it costs me money. Enough.

Posted by: joneshn | January 16, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

This act might be the first "look back" tax of many to come. The Feds wait to see what businesses and individuals are successful and then they decide after the fact how much they want to take. The businesses and individuals cannot plan for the tax because it is decided afterward.

Great stuff Hugo Obama!!!!

Posted by: hz9604 | January 16, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Donate to Scott Brown

We need to get rid of obozo and the democrat communist party.

Posted by: charlietuna6661 | January 16, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

I seriously doubt that any of the banks and/or large corporations needed a penny of that multi-billion dollar bail-out fund. For far too long, Corporate executives have believed they somehow 'earned' and therefore 'deserve' and 'demand' multi-million dollar bonuses on top of multi-million dollar annual salaries. That needs to stop.

The banks and Corporations won't be the ones paying these 'fees' imposed by the President. The consumers will. To realistically hit these Corporations where it hurts, the President needs to put these fees on the Corporations in such a way that the Corporations cannot pass the fees down to consumers. Tax those executive bonuses into non-existence; tax Corporations which raise their prices, fees etc. in order to recoup the Presidents fees; fire the executives of the Corporations in which the Federal Govt. has a significant ownership percentage as a result of the bailout.


Posted by: momof20yo | January 16, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Oh yes, jpost1, wondered already that you and your whining friends kept quiet.

Posted by: mixedbreed | January 16, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Ah, this is Barry Hussein's thugocracy at its finest. I find it highly hypocritical that the Messiah folded like a Samsonite three-suiter when his labor buds whined about their tax, but now finds it "selfish" when banks want the same back room deals being cut for others. Grow up, Barry or resign and go back to your sewer in Chicago!

Posted by: jpost1 | January 16, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

sorry, made a mistake
Hey , seems everybody agrees with Obama!
Not even one hateful comment about the "socialist" ?

Posted by: mixedbreed | January 16, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Hey , seems everybody agrees with Obama!
Not even one hateful comment about Obama?

Posted by: mixedbreed | January 16, 2010 6:36 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company