Barack Obama

[randolph]

Have the fat cats finally gone too far?



By Alex Brummer
Last updated at 10:39 AM on 22nd January 2010
Hard to imagine, isn't it, that just 15 months ago the chairman of Goldman Sachs was chasing around like a headless chicken trying to save his company from collapse.

In the end Lloyd Blankfein's finance house was saved by a ?6.25billion loan from legendary investor Warren Buffett and a bailout credit from Washington.
There was also a change in status from broker-dealer to bank holding company that allowed Goldman to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve.
Rescued: Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein

The result of this rescue is that Goldman Sachs has revealed one of the most profitable years in its history, clearing some ?8billion.
This outcome was achieved after the bank set aside ?9.99billion in pay and bonuses, representing an average of ?308,000 for everyone at the bank from Mr Blankfein down to his chauffeur and the security guards in London.



The remarkable aspect of this figure, a 57 per cent rise on the pay and bonuses of the previous year, is that it came after Goldman sought to calm the political storm engulfing its reputation by paying no bonuses at all for the final three months of the year and stepping up its charitable contributions.

It is the first time in Goldman's recent history that it has shown any recognition that the bank is in danger of becoming a political pariah around the world.

But the contrition from the 'Masters of the Universe' has come a little late. The global investment banks now face the double whammy of super-taxes and regulations which will make it far more difficult to make bonanza profits.

Getting tough: Mr Obama yesterday

Finally President Obama has recognised that allowing the banks to rampage untrammelled has been a political disaster.

In the U.S. it is seen as a key reason for the shock loss of the former Kennedy Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Mr Obama is recognising that ordinary taxpayers and bank depositors should not be funding risky dealings on the financial markets.

He is asking Congress to reform regulation so that no bank in the U.S. can be involved in high-risk hedge fund, private equity or share and commodity dealings on their own account.

The President's views echo those voiced last year by Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England. He suggested it was time to separate casino banking - of the kind described by Mr Obama - from the utility banking of taking deposits and making business and personal loans.

At the same time Mr Obama has recognised that some Wall Street finance houses have become too big and powerful and made it clear that the White House no longer wants to see any more major financial mergers.

The measures he outlined have a striking similarity to Glass-Steagall, the law passed in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, which forced the separation of risk-taking finance from traditional commercial banking.
If Goldman Sachs has hoped to insulate itself and Wall Street from criticism by curtailing its bonus culture in the final months of the year then its concession has come too late.

By setting the bonus bar so high in the first nine months of the year Goldman is privately blamed by the financial services, including Britain's HSBC and Barclays, for the new bonus taxes and fees being imposed by governments around the world.

Alistair Darling led the way with a 50 per cent one-off bonus tax in his Pre-Budget Report last month. This was quickly matched in France by President Sarkozy.

President Obama announced a fee designed to ensure 'every last dime' of the ?430billion bank bailout is repaid to the U.S. Treasury. The movement for super taxes on the banks is gathering momentum with Sweden this week proposing a European-wide tax policy to punish the banks for their extravagant bonuses.

If Mr Obama and Congress succeed with their reforms it could be the end of the multi-billion bonus pots at Goldman, Barclays Capital and others.

In 2009 the big upsurge in income at Goldman and other banks largely came from casino banking and trading - much of it on the bank's own account.

The figures just published show that revenues from this source climbed to ?14billion last year against just ?1billion the year before.
This is precisely the kind of 'casino' trading which Mr Obama wants to ban.

The President's sensational intervention could mean that the door is slammed on the 'fat cat' banking which brought the world to the precipice.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz0dMfcEUur

[jimnaseum]

The Battle lines have been drawn. PEOPLE vs. MONEY. Talk is over, it's ON now, it's war. It will be hilarious to hear Fox and Rush defend the freedom of the Wall St. thieves.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The Battle lines have been drawn. PEOPLE vs. MONEY. Talk is over, it's ON now, it's war. It will be hilarious to hear Fox and Rush defend the freedom of the Wall St. thieves.

YES THE WAR IS ON----That A-Hole Obama with his idiots now wants to destroy banking because they don't control it like they control your mind. The stock market just dropped 3 days ina row because of his big mouth---you happy?--you friggin liberal idipots don't realize that it's the businesses in this country that pay your wages and pay all the taxes. Remember the bottom half of income earners only pay 3% of the taxes to run this country and 90% or better of them are flaming loser liberals. Does that include you?

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CCC

YES THE WAR IS ON----That A-Hole Obama with his idiots now wants to destroy banking because they don't control it like they control your mind. The stock market just dropped 3 days ina row because of his big mouth---you happy?--you friggin liberal idipots don't realize that it's the businesses in this country that pay your wages and pay all the taxes. Remember the bottom half of income earners only pay 3% of the taxes to run this country and 90% or better of them are flaming loser liberals. Does that include you?

Look at taxes by state and general liberal/conservative leanings. Then look at tax burden in these states. You will find the majority of federal tax PAYING states vote liberal, while the most conservative voting states tend to be higher tax RECIPIENTS.

For example - Vermont = liberal = federal tax excess. Okalhoma = conservative = tax burden.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Look at taxes by state and general liberal/conservative leanings. Then look at tax burden in these states. You will find the majority of federal tax PAYING states vote liberal, while the most conservative voting states tend to be higher tax RECIPIENTS.

For example - Vermont = liberal = federal tax excess. Okalhoma = conservative = tax burden.

Isn't ironic that the most conservative anti liberal states are the poorest and least educated and require the most government assistance? Of course that is Pat Roberts, Russ Limbaugh, Fox News territory.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by randolph

Isn't ironic that the most conservative anti liberal states are the poorest and least educated and require the most government assistance? Of course that is Pat Roberts, Russ Limbaugh, Fox News territory.

The disconnects in the American voter is an odd odd thing. The base of the Conservative movement here is two-pronged. You have the "values voters" and "Free market folks". Ultimately these two will have to sort out their own laundry since "values voters" require welfare, state funding of religion, onerous laws and in short, MASSIVE government.

Free market dudes just want to remove child labor laws, government foreign aid, the Family Medical Leave Act, medical research and education grants.

Sooner or later they will realize they are their own worst enemy. The Free market dudes will eventually hive off, the values crowd will hook up with the Blue Dog Dems (good to see them go), and we can finally have an actual Liberal party as an option.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The disconnects in the American voter is an odd odd thing. The base of the Conservative movement here is two-pronged. You have the "values voters" and "Free market folks". Ultimately these two will have to sort out their own laundry since "values voters" require welfare, state funding of religion, onerous laws and in short, MASSIVE government.

Free market dudes just want to remove child labor laws, government foreign aid, the Family Medical Leave Act, medical research and education grants.

Sooner or later they will realize they are their own worst enemy. The Free market dudes will eventually hive off, the values crowd will hook up with the Blue Dog Dems (good to see them go), and we can finally have an actual Liberal party as an option.

That American voters so consistently vote against their real interest is actually not such a mystery. It becomes understandable when one considers the unique "ideology" that is instilled in American children from an early age ... an ideology that is largely unknown in the rest of the world. Specifically, those who control the wealth in this country figured out a long time ago that the so-called "American dream" (e.g., anyone can become rich, anyone can grow up to be president, etc.) was a powerful tool to use in avoiding having to do some of the things that the European welfare states have had to do, specifically have strong social safety nets in essentially capitalist countries. If you hammer into people's heads, at a young age, the notion that it is their own responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, you gradually erode within society the sense of social solidarity that is common to Europeans. It makes it easy to argue against the essential human reality that -- when it comes to living socially and ensuring a good life for all, especially in a wealthy land like the United States -- and injury to one is an injury to all.

I remember once when I was living in Paris for a short while that I would walk by, in my neighborhood, a creche (daycare center) every day on my way to work. There seemed to be about 30 or so children who were taken care of at this particular place. One morning, I walked by and found a large crowd, about 400 people, demonstrating. Many of them had their children with them, and few (obviously) were the parents of the actual children who attended the daycare center. The government had announced a cutback the day before, and the entire neighborhood came out in protest -- even the relatively wealthy people who had children with nannies! I asked some of my neighbors why they were there and they said that it was their civic duty to defend the interests of the people who needed this government-provided assistance. That was it. Simply put and simply true.

American "individualism" is a trick used by those who seek to control the wealth. But it is so deeply ingrained that you can find people voting and acting against their own economic interests and those they share with their neighbors at every turn.

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by CCC

it's the businesses in this country that pay your wages and pay all the taxes. Remember the bottom half of income earners only pay 3% of the taxes to run this country and 90% or better of them are flaming loser liberals. Does that include you?

Hey Genius, where do you think the businesses and banks GET their money? From the LOSERS? The middle class pays for EVERYTHING!!!

[CCC]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Hey Genius, where do you think the businesses and banks GET their money? From the LOSERS? The middle class pays for EVERYTHING!!!

I am going to try to play nice here BUT all the businesses and banks get all thier money from everyone---winners and losers---whether they be black, white, pink or purple. The problem is the dang liberal dems need a welfare class to vote to keep them in business--that is why there are more liberals in the cities and especially where there are universities.

Just a thought--could it be as a person gets more successful in the city that they try to escape to the country to get away from the libs??? Just a thought

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CCC

Just a thought--could it be as a person gets more successful in the city that they try to escape to the country to get away from the libs??? Just a thought

Population trends say... NO, not really. The most liberal cities tend to have massive housing shortages (even after the housing bust) while suburban and rural housing no such shortages (one could even say surplus given the current market)

[jimnaseum]

The "wink wink" factor you will never hear any politician talk about is the perception that Republicans are white and Democrats are black. And Republicans want you to keep the money you earn while the Dems want you to "spread it around" to welfare mothers. The perception is your one choice is to hang with the white people, or hang with the black people. While this is partly true, the greater truth is that if you make less than $100,000/yr, you ARE a black person!!!! And unless you are one of the very small percentage of people that strike it rich, the HOUSE will always win, and you lose. The game is fixed. The Republican plan is that every cent a working man earns goes towards "goods and services" ...and, oh yeah, (wink wink) they control all the "goods and services"
A strong middle class equals a strong America. Don't you worry about the rich people, they'll be fine.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

The Battle lines have been drawn. PEOPLE vs. MONEY. Talk is over, it's ON now, it's war. It will be hilarious to hear Fox and Rush defend the freedom of the Wall St. thieves.

Well the banks have paid back the bailout they took... with interest. Oh well... go get em BO