Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House to banks: shut up and take it

White House senior adviser David Axelrod loves a good populist rant. And he's found plenty of fodder for his political pontifications in the failings of the financial institutions that got billions in government handouts. Some of these institutions are now showering executives with millions of dollars in bonuses. Does Wall Street know something that Main Street -- with unemployment hovering around 10 percent nationwide -- doesn't know?

Lots of us share Axelrod's outrage at the thought of lavish, taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives whose companies probbably would not be in business today but for a government bailout. It just doesn't seem right that the wizards of Wall Street who were responsible for so much of the devastating financial mess over the past two years are again thinking about acquiring luxury yachts and European villas when so many of the rest of us are struggling and having a hard time sleeping at night for fear of losing our jobs.

But Axelrod & Co. go too far -- way too far -- by insisting that banks and other financial institutions that accepted government money should not have a voice in shaping future regulatory reform. Financial institutions should be "standing down and allowing the kinds of reforms we need to protect consumers and protect the country from the kind of disaster that we've seen," Axelrod said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," criticizing financial industry lobbying on regulations now being considered by Congress. And you wondered why some firms fought desperately not to take Uncle Sam's money back when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson all but forced them to do so?

I'm not suggesting that financial institutions be allowed to write the new rules -- that's so 2001 -- or even that they be given a leading role in shaping the regulations. But to suggest, as Axelrod does, that they should shut up, roll over and accept whatever Congress and consumer groups cook up would be absurd -- unless, of course, you think it makes sense to keep, say, doctors off of medical ethics boards. Banks and other financial institutions have expertise to offer; they know better than lawmakers how business creatures react and how even well-meaning consumer-driven legislation may have the effect of deterring businesses from entering particular markets. Most of all, though, business should have the right to continue pushing for legislation that is admittedly and unabashedly in its self-interest. Axelrod may wish banks to shut up because weak legislators (or lawmakers in need of campaign funds) may be all too willing to cave to business's demands. Rather than shut up the banks, Axelrod and his cohorts would do better to buck up lawmakers to ensure fair and effective regulation.

By Eva Rodriguez  | October 19, 2009; 2:32 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fox should stop whining
Next: At the Smithsonian, a living lesson on racism?

Comments

Let us all applaud Ken Lewis as he retires from the Bank of America with his $70 million dollar bonus to join the ranks of American ARISTOCRATS who, together with their children and grandchildren, never have to work another day in their lives forever. America is truly the land of opportunity.

He really earned it in conning the government out of $45 billion. That accomplishment alone puts him second behind Bernie Madoff with his $65 billion Ponzi scheme. And we shouldn’t forget his central role in buying up bankrupt Countrywide Bank, the largest lender of subprime mortgages or in buying up failed Merrill Lynch, one of the largest sellers of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) and derivatives. Our pension funds are underfunded because of their investments in CMO debt. What accomplishments Lewis has!

These banks are too big to fail so let us stop talk about breaking them up. Why Lewis is an American genus, isn’t he?

Posted by: fedupindc | October 19, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Axelrod & Co. go too far -- way too far --by insisting that banks and other financial institutions that accepted government money should not have a voice in shaping future regulatory reform."

Would you put a convicted felon on a parole board absent evidence that he'd really reformed?

The banks have not reformed.

Posted by: norriehoyt | October 19, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Get to the truth. Banks are not working with folks on house loans, etc. Why? The bigger the loss on the books, the bigger the pot of bailout money...Bailout money is more lucrative than foreclosures. We have created a mess...

Posted by: billisnice | October 19, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Are you joking??? You cannot be seriously criticizing Axelrod for taking a hard line on the banks or for not allowing THEM to help formulate the regulations that will prevent them from dragging us over the abyss in the future as they almost did last year. You cannot be serious... Who pays your salary? Goldman Sachs? B of A?

Posted by: borntorun45 | October 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Are the bankers so enfeebled they can't cope with a rant against them? It's not like they made a small mistake for which they alone suffered the consequences. They involved all of us in their rescue. In an ideal world they would have paid the price for their mistakes by going out of business. They didn't, thanks to the taxpayer.

Obviously they can't manage their own affairs without endangering the whole economy. If they could, we wouldn't have experienced the unraveling of their derivatives' mess last year with all its consequences. They should be ignored and let the government deal with it now.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | October 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I absolutely agree with this, as angry as I am with the banks about the mess they've put this country's economy in. The financial industry obviously should have the opportunity to engage in the legislative process over regulation that will directly effect their industry. However, our elected officials are accountable to their constituents, not to any business interest. The voters need to hold their elected leadership in Congress accountable for the votes that they take. If we have a problem with what results, then we vote in 2010 to take the elected officials that sides with the banks at the expense of their constitutents out of office. That's how democracy works.

Posted by: amybk12 | October 19, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey Alexrod. It is not YOUR money. It is not OBAMA's money. It is the taxpayer's money!.

Posted by: edgar_sousa | October 19, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

In most Socialist nations, the government owns the banks. We should be no different. The President should use his executive powers to overthrow these capitalist institutions.

Posted by: Dodgers1 | October 19, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I have a few choice words for the Banks and they ain't pretty. Unfortunately, WAPO will not let me quote them on the site. However, I can use coded words.

All the major U.S., Banks in this country are nothing but a bunch of corrupt scheming M____ F____'s. This includes all banking systems, e.g., investment, mortgage, credit cards, personal loans, et al.

There. That's my rant for today on this topic.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 19, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad so many people reject this writer's point of view outright.

Posted by: spyrule | October 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Rodriguez, are you suggesting that the American Banking Association has no say in banking legislation? If so, will you share whatever you're drinking?

Moreover, rule by executive order is not rule by law.

The Executive branch has acquired far too much power and needs to be pruned severely.

Posted by: rmlwj1 | October 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Maybe they should start with putting back in the rules the congress dismantled in the 1980's / 90's when the ilk of Pelosi, Gengrich, Clinton and others got together to create this mess. I remember Newt stating on the news that it's a different era and we don't need these rules anymore. Only took ten years for the system to come crashing down. Obama wasn't around then so he gets a pass but Pelosi and Clinton (Bill) were there so it was a bipartisan effort.

I also get a kick out of the fact that banks that really didn't want the money, like GS, were forced to take it by the current administration, then the administration got upset with them wanting to pay it back and are now all upset they made lots of money on it. I looked, I watched, I pondered and bought GS stock in those dark days of last year. Have since made a lot of money on that purchase. I guess I should thank this administration because they made it possible for me to fund my son's college education. If the stock reaches the target price I have set for it he'll get a new car too. A cheap one, but a car none the less.

Posted by: JAMoore1 | October 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The financial industry has forfeited their right to a seat at the table. They have ZERO respect for the interests of consumers.

Posted by: st50taw | October 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be effing kidding me.

I'm not suggesting that financial institutions be allowed to write the new rules -- "that's so 2001"

Yeah make light of the deregulation and "pro-business" environment that nearly crashed our entire economy and has millions of Americans out of work and trying to put food on the table.

These businesses should shut up and take it. We need experts, but not those experts writing legislation. We need economic populists like Paul Krugman writing the regulations.

Unfortunately we have an Administration that has been very Wall Street friendly, and if this group of robber barons Obama is employing is saying we need XYZ regulations... yes the banks need to shut up and take it.

Go crawl back into your hole lady... or wherever it is you came from.

Posted by: pdxgeek | October 19, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Let me see if I have this right. Wall Street speculators and investment bankers gambled with funds entrusted to them and when their schemes blew up in their faces came running to Uncle Sammy who extorts money from simple folks and as fast as you can say Hank Paulson, given a generous bailout. Now low and behold, we are told the Dow has hit 10,000 and they want their rightful bonuses. What a travesty. I say we would have been far better off letting the whole financial system fail and start over with oversight and safeguards Mother Teresa would have been looked upon with suspicion.

Posted by: agkaska | October 19, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse


I have a few choice words for the Banks and they ain't pretty. Unfortunately, WAPO will not let me quote them on the site. However, I can use coded words.

All the major U.S., Banks in this country are nothing but a bunch of corrupt scheming M____ F____'s. This includes all banking systems, e.g., investment, mortgage, credit cards, personal loans, et al.

There. That's my rant for today on this topic.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 19, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

i concur except I would add THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRIES TO YOUR RANT
Thank you

Posted by: kare1 | October 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

All Hail Obama!
All Hail the State!

Posted by: jimbevan | October 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

With cheerleaders like these in the media, it is easy to see how we got into the mess we did with the banks. Someone very aptly asked if Ms. Rodriguez would put a convict on his or her own parole board. Get your analogies straight Ms. Rodriguez. Banks are more like convicts than doctors.

Someone mentioned that Axelrod is asking the banks to step aside while the government writes the new rules for the financial system. The cynic in me says that this is only for public consumtion. Talk tough so that you don't have to act tough. The financial services industry is still the largest contributor the re-election chests of most politicians. And they will get a good return on their investment.


Posted by: amitinsf | October 19, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished and a National Bank owned by the taxpayers is what it will take to break the stronghold on the economy managed by the Federal Reserve. Why shouldn't the bankers borrow money from the taxpayers and pay them back with interest. As long as the fox is in the hen house your always going to be short when you count the chickens. This financial breakdown was nothing but a scam and we have to change our elected officials, and I mean all of them to make a change. The Jekyll Island Affair by G Edward Griffin is a good place to start you education of the powers that be and how they control the government.

Posted by: rickyd01 | October 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

This kind of report is like going to see the dentist, and the dentist drills into your aching tooth, only to touch a nerve. OUCH!

Most nearly every working man and women has been touched by the recession. Pension plans, 401(K), life-long savings all wiped by the excesses of Wall Street. Time Magazine ran a story, "Wall Street Party, With Your Money." Motely-Fool, Mooody, and more all report on Wall Street Party times.

Can Wall Street regulate itself? Can the SEC regulate Wall Street? Can congress regulate Wall Street? Is there anyone going to jail, who was pulling the levers of wide-spread unregulated RISK/LEVERAGE mis-management?

Posted by: rmorris391 | October 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

You must be kidding! Nobody was "forced" to take a bail-out. Not one single financial institution has provided any evidence at all that they were pressured to take anything, and PLENTY of them did not. What a bunch of hogwash.

Posted by: gasmonkey | October 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget that the politicians set the policy that got us where we are today. That's not to say that the banks are blameless, some were absolutely reckless, but they executed policy that was set out by the government.

Perhaps politicians should be the ones "standing down and allowing the kinds of reforms we need". Start with every incumbent agreeing to not run for any additional terms (and then holding to that promise).

Posted by: flexluther | October 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

jimbevan says:

"All Hail Obama!
All Hail the State!"

Isn't it ironic that the brainwashed right think the left are brainwashed? What will Rush tell you to say tomorrow?


Posted by: gasmonkey | October 19, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

This is one the stupidest pieces I've ever read in this paper.

And that's saying something.

Posted by: solsticebelle | October 19, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

One reality is that many major financial institutions and the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans all have major responsibilty for the financial crisis. Another reality is that there is not much sign of anyone having much interest in serious regulation because the consequence of limiting risk would be too much austerity. We probably will get a little regulation of the most obvious problems that probably would not be repeated in the short term anyway. But we will still go back to living on the hope that we will not fall over the edge and to counting on the government for a bail out in the likely event that we do.

Posted by: dnjake | October 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Wall Street knows that the Obama administration is going to shut up and take it lol. They have been taking it for 9 months, why would anyone think they suddenly found some backbone now?

Posted by: DCDave11 | October 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

END THE FED.

let the "too big to manage" banks fail (or thrive) on their own merits.

Posted by: millionea7 | October 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The scary part of the 'populist rant' is that they are ranting about banks that have paid back the bailout money, not just the banks that have not. It is fine to say that the banks that still owe the taxpayers should not pay bonuses, but to interfere with private organizations is right from the socialist playbook this president and those around him work from. How soon will we have the 'fair profit boards' or 'fair salary boards' formed?

Posted by: thelaw1 | October 19, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Where have you been Ms. Rodriguez? Surely not here in these United States, are you at all aware of what Wall Street and the legislature of these United States have done to our economy and to the American people? I cannot understand why you are published? No credibility.....

Posted by: lfarnham | October 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

JAMoore - "Maybe they should start with putting back in the rules the congress dismantled in the 1980's / 90's when the ilk of Pelosi, Gengrich, Clinton and others got together to create this mess."

Boy, that Clinton must have been one powerful governor. He didn't arrive in Washington until '93, but you say that he dismantled the banking rules? Wow!

The Republican-sponsored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 sounded the death knell for the banking regulations (Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) that kept the banks, security and insurance companies from consolidating. Most economists agree that this act, more than any other factor, caused the meltdown that ensued. But good try, there JA.

Posted by: borntorun45 | October 19, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Au contraire - the robber barons of the 21st Century need to shut up, roll over, and accept whatever Congress sends their way. Industry lobbyists have no right at the negotiating table and they should neither write nor influence economic policies. We have many brilliant academics and economists who can assist our legislators.

What they’ve done to hardworking Americans across this country is simply contemptible – they do not get a pass.

Posted by: rkrenke | October 19, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Always Remember "THE PEACEKEEPERS" 241 Marines KIA on Oct.23,1983 in Beirut, Lebanon while they slept. By an IRAN backed Hezbollah JIHADIST.

The more the "SPEECH GIVER" and his lackys speak. It is becoming perfectly clear they have a COMMUNIST agenda. Are all the CEO'S of these banks AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Since when did AMERICAN CITIZENS who work for a private corporation work for the GOVERNMENT. Oh it was when they were FORCED to take STIMULUS money. Lewis was strong armed into buying a company he did not want!!

Wake up AMERICANS the greediest people in the country are not bank CEO'S it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!! Health-care,Green Jobs,Cap and trade, GM, the BANKS is all about taking OUR MONEY for GOVERNMENT PORK SPENDING. This is one big CORPORATE takeover by the GOVERNMENT!!! All at OUR expense!!

If we are forced to buy Health Insurance and refuse to pay the fine. We can be jailed!!! If so are we not then POLITICAL PRISONERS because we refused to BUY something FROM the GOVERNMENT. What next, WE all will have to give up time to VOLUNTEER, if we refuse we become a POLITICAL PRISONER.

Last I checked AMERICA was about FREEDOM!!!

"BETTER DEAD THAN RED"

Posted by: 79USMC83 | October 19, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

OK, so here go the democrats again, thinking they know what is best for the country. I am sure they will write some new laws that transfer banks into Govt control if they do not provide some sort of service for the poor. The Democrats need to realize that while the banks took us to the edge of economic collapse, they are still needed to help shape how policies and regulations will help us in the future. The author made a good point that about the inclusion of doctors on medical boards. But it does make you wonder how many doctors are in the room when Congress is deciding on what medical services to provide under their public option plan. The thing that scares me is that they probably have some bureaucrat who THINKs they know what they are doing making those decisions.

Also, why haven't the Democrats done anything to limit the banks from paying the bonuses in the first place? They were in control of congress when the money was handed out! Why didn't they do anything then? If anyone should be made you should be mad at the Democrats for allowing this to happen, even if Bush was in the White House. Congress approves the money and how it would be used, NOT Bush!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | October 19, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, as usual, blame the big institutions, they forced people to buy houses they couldn't afford, run up credit card debt, etc., etc. While I am not enamored of the play money some institutions generated with CDS and other exotic securitized derivatives, it seems quite foolish, and quite frankly undemocratic, to not allow banks and financial institutions to state their case via their lobbyists. Additionally, you are entrusting all of this regulation to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who managed to push Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over the edge and into government receivership and arguably started the recent collapse. As with all things, underegulation made a mess, and overregulation will make a similar mess, so how about a little cicumspection and intelligent oversight. As to "hard working americans", those same people will be howling when overregulation dries up their ability to access credit to live beyond their means as they did for almost fifteen years. I didn't hear anyone complaining when they could buy a house beyond their means and max out their credit cards on flat screen televisions. As it happens every cycle, once the party is over, the recrimination begins.

Posted by: fwillyhess | October 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Please tell us one thing - just one - that the banks have done that helps ensure that this catastrophe does not happen again.

They've done nothing. They will do nothing unless they're forced to. And you want them to have a say in financial reform.

Why? Because that's the democratic thing to do?

Poppycock. These guys CREATED the fiasco. Millions are out of work and will be for months, possibly years because of these guys.

They do not deserve a seat at the table. They've done nothing to earn that seat. They will fight reform with everything they've got. They feel no remorse for what they've done. Witness their reception to Obama's speech before the so-called leaders of their industry. If they do participate, they will do everything they can to kill reform. Sort of like the Republicans are doing with health care reform.

Why bother, for geez sake. Leave these arrogant, overfed, gluttonous pigs outside the door.

Posted by: kim4 | October 19, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Is this real? Banks have "expertise" to assist the writing consumer legislation? And of course they have a right to pursue their self-interest. I agree with the latter point, but the first point is like saying the foxes have expertise in writing henhouse protection ordinances. What planet are you from Ms. Rodriguez?

Posted by: TKinTexas | October 19, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

What next media squelch on free speech?
Obamaland isn't the USA.

Posted by: dottydo | October 19, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

borntorun45-The Republican-sponsored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 sounded the death knell for the banking regulations (Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) that kept the banks, security and insurance companies from consolidating. Most economists agree that this act, more than any other factor, caused the meltdown that ensued. But good try, there JA. Nice try but go back and look at how it passed and you will see that both parties were complicit in it's passage. The big pusher was Robert Rubin then at Treasury who would leave government to take a job as head of the executive committee of Citigroup three months after passage. If you look at the current administration you will find Rubin disciples everywhere so don't look for much in the way of regulation from this Administration. I saw a speech by Larry Summers last week where he sited the repeal of Glass-Steagall as helping in the crisis as most of the large investment banks would have been unable to receive money from the fed without the repeal. Let's hope Larry is not setting the administrations regulatory goals.

Posted by: Lvrplfc | October 19, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Does Ms Rodriguez think that it would make sense to let doctors who had flagrantly and frequently violated medical ethics serve on medical ethics boards?

Posted by: bran-solo | October 19, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

JAMoore1 wrote
"I looked, I watched, I pondered and bought GS stock in those dark days of last year. Have since made a lot of money on that purchase."
.......
Could you kindly re-read the tea leaves for us in what guided your selection of Goldman Sachs?

I assert that Goldman Sachs had the connections that assured them access to 0% interest capital from the Fed, and no restrictions on loaning those same dollars to US Treasury for 3.5%. This is because GS is not like "banks" such as BofA, Wells, or Chase.

This opportunity persists to this day, and, as you note, will likely earn GS enough for your son's car.

I don't know about GS's mortgage backed securities or their other obligations with CDO's and CDS's but would love to know more.

Posted by: boscobobb | October 19, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Sure, banks need to be regulated a tad more but the last time I looked, they were a lot better at creating or helping create jobs than Obama and his band of half wits (Axelrod is near the top of that list). Let's get these rookies out of here.

Posted by: mmourges | October 19, 2009 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Are you insane? You want these ruthless, filty rich thieves to still have any say in bank regulation? This incestuous group -- from the same banks (Goldman Sachs, BOA, Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase)-- run not only the banks but also have seats at the highest levels of our government, They control most of the money in the U.S. They wrote the guidelines and regulations that have destroyed our economy and that continue to enrich themselves. When the banks got OUR money a year ago, no regulations were put in place as to how any of it was to be used -- or every repaid. That's the kind of regulations they will continue to put in place. They will cover only their butts and the rest of the country can go to hell. They should all be in jail along with Madoff. They are not any different from him. You are a complete idiot.

Posted by: t1123 | October 19, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I completely disagree with Ms. Rodriguez's notion that David Axelrod went "too far." Absolutely not. We should all be outraged. These banks are absolutely incorrigible. They have shown they don't care a whit to do the right thing - it's all about money and profit. I know this is sad and hard to accept, but it is true. Look to their actions, it's not a pretty sight. Why have them influence legislation - they will just water it down for their own benefit. Sometimes I feel editorial writers are overly cautious - everything always has to "moderate" - but sometimes the situation calls for tougher measures.

Posted by: andrew41 | October 19, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

If the choice is letting banks having input or letting Barney Frank and Chris Dodd write the regulation I'll take the banks.

Posted by: alstl | October 19, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Why yes, it would be so much more effective if we asked the criminals if we were being too tough on them before passing laws.....
Time to leave Disneyland, Ms Rodriguez, and come back to reality! These people will take us for every dime they can get...IF we let them!!! They were willing to destroy not only the US economy but the world's and yet you want us to ask them if they're happy with regulations? Are they paying you for this ariticle???

Posted by: aint2sure | October 19, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Soooo sensible!...and we should let the Mafia decide whether heroin is harmful, after all, they are the experts!

Posted by: arque | October 19, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Last week, representatives from Kansas and North Carolina offered an amendment to exempt all but the 200 largest banks (or about 98%) from new regulatory oversight from a proposed financial consumer protection agency. Bank of America CEO announced that he would go without salary this year - but still ends up with with 53.2 million retirement pension and 10.2 million insurance benefits. I don't really understand how a person can end up with so many millions of dollars AND declare they are giving up pay. Write to your congressional reps. and senators to vote down the exemptions. Banks are not helping to write regulatory legislation! They are lobbying to be exempt from any oversight at all!

Posted by: Questioner1 | October 19, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

The banks may not have gotten a seat at the table, but Goldman-Sachs got the whole table. Those other banks should have saturated the financial agencies with their own executives. Sheesh.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | October 19, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

We could ask drug users to help write drug laws.

Or maybe burglars to write burglary laws.

Posted by: camasca | October 19, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

What miracle of nature spared me from the gene that causes people, seemingly normal people, to be so jealous, so bitter, and so incensed over the success of others???

If you hate bankers so much because the large banks reward their people well when the banks do well, then shut up and become a banker. Retire your pajamas, take some courses, and do something. And if you are also one of the frequent I-hate-the-bank-because-they-raised-my-rate-even-though-I've-been-a-perfect-customer-for-many-years types, then pay off your card, cut it up and take charge of your life. Nobody owes you a living, and nobody owes you a loan.

The government will exercise some control over compensation for employees at banks still beholden to the taxpayer. That is why the Great Leader brought in the Pay Czar. But for other businesses, not owned by the government, not owing the government any money, what they pay their people is their business.

If you're still all stressed out over someone else's salary, buy yourself a plane ticket to any socialist paradise, where everyone makes the same $$, except of course the government bureaucrats.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | October 19, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"Shut up and take it?"

"But to suggest...that they should shut up, roll over and accept whatever..."

The Obama administration does not think bank parasites sucking the value out of anything left in this country that has some money left in it is a sexual problem.

This lady needs to work on her issues in private.

Ms Rodriguez, your personal life and the cause of the jobless recovery having nothing in common. Got it?

Posted by: shrink2 | October 19, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse

How can a retired banker be expected to retire on $70 million when he knows full well that there is more money out there looking for love in a banker's bank account?

The poor man will suffer knowing that he suffered for America.

Posted by: robertjames1 | October 19, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Axelrod is window dressing. The economic powers in this administration are Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, both Wall Street insiders.

The Democratic party ain't what it used to be.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | October 19, 2009 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Axelrod has no credentials for being in the White House. He's a marketing hack and Chicago thug.

Posted by: judithod | October 20, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

douglas, you are right and the list of names is a lot longer than those two, I just couldn't resist the joke.

The idea that the Obama administration is going to take the bankers in bed, ha!

The administration are the bankers.

The Republicans ought to be thrilled.
No worries Curmudgeon, this ai'no socialist paradise. You are not going to end up just fine, but your opinion rules.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 20, 2009 12:12 AM | Report abuse

OK, "solsticebelle" has to be the coolest moniker I've seen in a while.

Just so happens I'm an equinoxman m'self

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 20, 2009 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, tongue-in-cheek, lots of laughs.

well done.

Posted by: ignatz | October 20, 2009 1:56 AM | Report abuse

rodriguez, your hair dye has bleached your brain. and what a laugh to read zombie reich wingers complain about govt takeovers on one hand and the complain that the obama administration is to blame for not putting severe limits on the bonuses these banking scu.mb.ags are taking. you beck-monkies are too stu.pid to live. i also gotta laugh at the usmc nut.ba.g whose worried about "reds." are you foo.ls in some kind of 1950s timewarp or just re.tar.ded?

Posted by: memorybabe1 | October 20, 2009 2:24 AM | Report abuse

And you people want the White House in charge of our Healthcare??? YIKES Tell your representatives to VOTE no on the Current Healthcare Reform Bill. It is a scam. The government could extend medicaid for the uninsured and add Tort reform instead of "Reinventing the Wheel" Most states have free clinics so even illegals can get service if they are concerned about that.

Now about Axelrod and banks. Goldman Sachs and AIG and BofA are too big to fail- Right... we bailed them out and the gangsters in congress get kickbacks and low interest loans ...The government is part of the problem and Wallstreet knows how to play the game and WE THE PEOPLE are stuck with the bill!! Now that sucks!

Posted by: LeeYu | October 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company