Steven Pearlstein: Is Obama's On Wall Street's Side -- Or Main Street's?

Fairly or unfairly, the official who has come to personify this let-them-eat-stuffing attitude is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who can't seem to decide whose side of the buffet table he's really on. It was Geithner who, at the height of the financial crisis last year, was able to best articulate the unpleasant truth that we could save the financial system or we could punish the banks but we couldn't do both at the same time. But now that the system has been saved, he seems to have lost his appetite for retribution.

Read the whole story

Comments

[StephenJK]

02:58 PM on 11/30/2009

Listen to Max Keiser, please. Let's just drop any "benefit of doubt" we give to the banksters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6I04&feature=related

[invest in jobs]

11:24 AM on 11/30/2009

Stock market going up as always while unemployment continues to rise. Scr4w themiddle class..scr3w the unemployed is that the administration seems to be implying. Geithner , Bernanke & summers could care less about job loss.

hat tip to http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com

We were promised 'shovel ready' jobs and green jobs with this massive stimulus, yet the results have been anything but stimulating for those out of work. Nevertheless, the rigged economy grew 3% so we can all pretend the recession is over.

[jmpurser]

09:25 AM on 11/30/2009

"It was Geithner who, at the height of the financial crisis last year, was able to best articulate the unpleasant truth that we could save the financial system or we could punish the banks but we couldn't do both at the same time."

And what exactly makes this "the truth"? Why couldn't we let the banks go bust, take them over, clean them up, and sell them? You know, like we were supposed to do with failed banks.

Well, we couldn't because Obama was in charge and there really is no question about who's side he's on. I suppose it's possible that "deep down inside" he believes that the only way to help main street is to MASSIVELY subsidize wall street but Occam's razor says the simpler explanation, that he's a corporatist just like Bush and Clinton before him, is likely to be the better explanation.

[blogisti]

10:52 PM on 11/29/2009

If Tim's primary job at the New York Fed wasn't to supervise the very banks that almost brought down the entire world's financial system he may have some credibility. As it stands, I have no reason based on his past performance to have any confidence in what he now says.

[GaBulldog10]

08:41 PM on 11/29/2009

Geithner and Summers, chosen by Obama, will cause him to be a one term president.

[invest in jobs]

02:39 PM on 11/29/2009

invest in people , not banks

good articles; http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com

[Erdgeist]

11:46 AM on 11/29/2009

The side Geithner should be on is macro-economics and not micro-economics. This is not the time to listen to the cries of businesses, Wall Street, and the rest of the capitalist predators. It is time to look at the big picture and see what we did wrong and correct it. It could be a time when we need to bring back the 90 percent tax bracket, and find a way to force businesses to invest in their country of birth -- and use tariffs to protect U.S. jobs.

[StephenJK]

12:10 PM on 11/30/2009

This doesn't fit in with the banksters globalization models. So we will see no such direction so long as it excludes plundering the world's middle and lower classes.

[xilduq]

10:58 PM on 11/28/2009

The Great American Ponzi Scam will NOT collapse on Obama's watch. C'mon, give them credit, at least they have a goal.

[MilwaukeeDan]

10:40 PM on 11/28/2009

Who's side is he on? I was questioning that after seeing who some of his campaign advisors were. Then came the cabinet picks and I knew we were in trouble, but then what did you expect? We have had 30 or so years of status quo, center right government, nothing has changed. I just laugh at some republicans when they claim Obama is destroying the country and is a socialist. What has changed since he took power? Listen people, you are marketed candidate A and B, you choose, but they've already made a choice, they win, you lose, simple as that. I haven't voted since Clinton 92(Mr. free trade and deregulation).

[hypnotoad72]

09:26 AM on 11/29/2009

I'll be proud when the people are bailed out and not Wall Street and the banking and the corporate interests that are making people not proud of this country.

[vandegrasse]

08:02 PM on 11/28/2009

THe Obamatons have single-handedly turned me against this man by their unswerving almost cult-like allegiance to him,no matter what he does.

[jane8877]

04:20 PM on 11/28/2009

I wouldn't vote for Obama again if he showed up at my door and personally asked for my vote. From the moment I heard who he picked, Emanuel, Geithner, Vilsack and most of the others I knew those of us, the non filthy rich, that supported and voted for Obama were played for a bunch of fools. Since he chose the crooks he hired to this day he has done nothing but confirm that first stab to my heart that change and hope were never coming and we got ourselves another Reagan, Clinton and Bush I and II.

If only all of those that ran around on Black Friday like a chicken with its head cut off spending to support those that rob us had instead taken to the streets and to their phones and emails and snail mail to tell everyone from Obama to their local politicians that we are not going to stand for the 1% stealing it all anymore maybe things would change. That's what I spent my day doing, but what good will one or two protests do. I guess it'll just prove to them that, yes, they can continue to get away with destroying the middle class and the poor because Americans just don't fight back anymore but at least I feel better for having done it and for not giving as much as a penny to those destroying us.

[vandegrasse]

08:00 PM on 11/28/2009

Amen! He's a walking talking conundrum.

[hypnotoad72]

09:13 AM on 11/29/2009

I'm starting to agree. Obama prefers to know what he is talking about and admitted as such to a reporter who asked why he waited so long to report on some issue back in March. It was a great dig at his predecessor, but it also set a precedent. Obama, therefore, did not pick the Gang of Geithner haphazardly.

Unless anyone can prove our inference wrong, of course.

[mountainweb]

04:08 PM on 11/28/2009

Whose side is obama on, certainly not the taxpayers! The longer he keeps Geithner, the worse it will get....

[Eres]

03:23 PM on 11/28/2009

With exception to buying for the kids and mom, our family is boycotting unnecessary spending. I refuse to continue to support corporations who ship our jobs offshore for cheap labor and goods. Bring the jobs back and you'll get my dollar. It is that simple.

[Vetinari]

09:43 PM on 11/28/2009

And when prices triple for everything you will complain about that...

[hypnotoad72]

09:15 AM on 11/29/2009

Oh, but offshoring was supposed to lower costs.

Actually, it's lowered things. You know, wages, well-being, peace, security. Useless stuff like that...

[MakeAWish]

02:53 PM on 11/28/2009

That's easy, when one sees who Obama surrounds himself with, advocates for, listens to and protects at all costs.

[JBS]

01:06 PM on 11/28/2009

Hmmm? One might as well ask, "Whose Side Is The Washinton Post On?"

A remarkable turn-around for them to be supporting any kind of tax the wealthy.

Guess Sally Quinn must of gotten taken for a ride by one of the Wall Street predators.