On Obama, Wall Street Shows A Reluctance To Commit

The New York Times:

President Obama's $35,800-a-plate fund-raising dinner was the talk of Wall Street last week.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[liltrix]

11:49 PM on 06/28/2011

Why wouldn't they go back to him? They run his treasury and economics team. He's given them everything they could ever want and then some. Who they going to support? Bachman? Don't make me laugh.

[Duppy]

09:49 PM on 06/28/2011

Of course they wont. They want to go back to the good old days like under Bush where they could crush the economy freely as long as they can take home a big bonus check.

[craigermt]

09:20 PM on 06/28/2011

Maybe someone should tell obama wall street is not sitting on the sidelines. The corporations in the USA are not sitting on their money, they are investing heavy over border in Mexico, Brazil and God knows how many other countries at a lower cost than here in the US. I have tried to buy items made in the US for where I work, all I hear now is I cost too much, always compared to companies that stock stuff made overseas. I carried pumps made by Jaccuzi in Little Rock, AR. They got bought by Franklin Motors, now both are made in Mexico. Franklin bought Little Giant out of Oklahoma City, which is now made in Mexico. Franklin bought The Monarch pump company, which is now made in Mexico. All the new jobs in the US that obama tought about are in the service industries. Manufacturing jobs that produce products will pull us out of the hole, jobs providing services only slow our run to bancruptcy.

[seachange525]

04:48 PM on 06/28/2011

So I guess he sold his soul to the corporate elite for nothing.

[Richard Dix]

04:30 PM on 06/28/2011

the great american affirmative action experiment is now winding down .

[Kmuzu]

01:37 PM on 06/28/2011

Really Obama .. I wonder why that is?

[garl26]

01:32 PM on 06/28/2011

I think Wall Street has unemployment derivatives. The higher unemployment goes the more money they will make.
The most common derivatives are futures, options, and swaps but may also include other trade-able assets such as a stock or commodity or non-tradeable items such as the temperature in the case of weather derivatives( remember Enron?), THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, or any kind of economic index.

[MilesToGo]

07:43 PM on 06/28/2011

You may be onto something. They've entirely rigged the financial gambling games in incredible ways, why not create index derivatives relative to unemployment?

[liltrix]

11:52 PM on 06/28/2011

Well that would make sense since they are also bundling life insurance claims and selling them on the market too. Betting on when we are all going to die. This is no joke.

[SDLee]

01:29 PM on 06/28/2011

I don't understand the reluctance. He's given them everything they wanted and more. His AG Holder won't prosecute them, His Fed Chairman loans them unlimited interest free money and buys their crappy bonds. His regulations can't get enacted because business owns the congress. I think they're waiting for him to say "I'm sorry, I once said bankers are irresponsible. Of course you are the pinnacle of civilized behavior." that will probably make everything right again.

[MilesToGo]

07:45 PM on 06/28/2011

Wall Street elites don't trust a second term Obama, where their leverage is gone. Barack was foolish to ever try and work with them as he has done, rather than prosecute their thieving and fraudulent behaviors when he had the chance.

[patters85]

12:45 PM on 06/28/2011

I say: Study the politicians that pander to big business, vote them out in2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and there after they will get the message that the middle class has finally realized their only power. Voting in large numbers. Then we will see change.

[Janine547]

03:02 PM on 06/28/2011

Bet you're wrong on that. Money has no bounds. Regardless of who gets voted in, it's easy to fall prey to the money being offered. We are dealing with people here not machines.

[patters85]

12:18 PM on 06/28/2011

Obama's relationship with banks is my one major problem with him. Even thou I voted for him in 2008 and I will in 2012. He is way to cozy with the people that Support Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. I can only imagine that he(Obama) sides with the wall street moguls that by law should to be in prison. He is the reason that home owners have no fair fight against banks. He is by far the lesser of two evils and I think he is OK with that. In 2016 when we have the ability to vote for a President who's actions will speak for the middle class(a democrat probably)more strongly. I will vote for that person. Obama's words don't always match his actions. At least when it comes to the middle class.

[nornoralee]

11:44 AM on 06/28/2011

Most people assumed that Wall Street "Bankers" are Republicans while the Democrats are the defenders of the little guy. The truth is very much the opposite: Wall Street Executives are Progressives and have been for generations. Progressives love big government and Democrats are Progressives, par excellence. Bankers make tons on Municipal Bonds and Tsy's needed to finance Democrats "social programs"....they are tied to the hip, working togehter for each others mutual best interests. The fall out is higher taxes, and regulations on small business - taking $$ from ordinary, hard working, middle class Americans. This can't be more evident than in the Obama Administrations New Financail Reform Bill which continues to bail out the big banks. The electorate on the Left just don't want to see it...because it's such a blatant betrayal.

[1088]

10:16 AM on 06/28/2011

While George W gave Wall Street the bail out money without any strings, President Obama change the rules, by having them pay the money back, with 8% interest. So, they're piss by having to pay the money back.

[nornoralee]

11:20 AM on 06/28/2011

What you are saying is so not true. Wall Street loves the Progressives Big Gov't Agenda...they make a fortune on it. Obama's Financial Reform Bill has "too big to fail" in it.
Why don't they like him anymore? Obama over reached even for greedy Wall Street and they are scared.
The other regulations in the Financial Reform Bill have gone too far...esp. capital requirements.
Wall Street realizes that maybe if they are co-conspirators there won't be an economy left. Wall Street has gone from greed to self-preservation. They're not stupid.

[patters85]

12:58 PM on 06/28/2011

You need to read more financial papers. You have your facts crossed up. The reason why wall street loves Obama is because he caves in when the pressure is put on. None of his bills go far enough. If they did he would be hated for his actions not his comments. Calling someone a fat cat and then allowing a watered down bill to slip through is a fat cat's dream. Bailing out a bank robber(CEO)and then allowing him to keep his take and not go to jail is a fat cat's dream. So there is nothing big about Obama's Government. That's his problems with Progressives. He's weak.

[craigermt]

09:35 PM on 06/28/2011

Does anyone remember a skinny black lawyer from Chicago back in the 90's that was suing local banks because they were denying people loans on homes because apparently their only problem was they could not afford them. Yep, they had to loan and they found a way to distribute the risk, derivitives. And here we go.

[nornoralee]

04:56 PM on 06/29/2011

I just bought "Reckless Endangerment" Morgenson and Rosner...written by Dems ...
About the outsized ambition, greed and corruption that led to the economic armageddon.
It's all about the housing bubble...give me a few days. Should be interesting.
Starts with Clinton who started the mess. . . remind me I will report back.
I

[nothingchanges]

10:03 AM on 06/28/2011

Politicians can't get elected under our current system, unless they pander to the rich and corporate America for campaign funds. The rich are getting richer, for a reason, they OWN our politicians.

That situation could be resolved by an act of congress, but that would require ethical action for the good of the people of the United States, instead of personal profit, or political power. Doesn't look like that is going to happen.

We end up with a system nobody likes. The politicians don't really like having to crawl and prostrate themselves before the wealthy, who would? The wealthy don't like being shaken down by politicians, who can blame them?

A system ruled by corruption, that nobody really likes, and benefits very few Americans, at the expense of the rest of us...............yet will not be changed, simply because our system is broken, and the only ones with the legal authority to fix it, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The problem with money as a universal "lubricant". Once things start to "slide" they generally go "downhill".

[unionave]

10:21 AM on 06/28/2011

f/f ! Totally correct . Including the "too soon old . too late smart" . I grew up hearing that from my Grandmother .

[nornoralee]

11:23 AM on 06/28/2011

Excellent Post. You hit the right note. . ."the ones with the legal authority to fix it, are part of the problem". Thanks for saying it better than anyone else has.

[Mafdet]

10:02 AM on 06/28/2011

Henry Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon have played this president like a fiddle. He made sure that his Justice Department didn't prosecute those criminals thinking that he would coast into a second term fueled by their contributions and by their help manipulating the country's cash flow to support small banks, and therefore small business, and therefore improve employment. But they hoarded the cash we gave them, they drove the small banks under, and with them small buisnesses so that they could leverage our bailout money and snap those failed assets up cheap, and they created endless, sprialling unemployment. And Obama is now asking them to put him back into office when they have nothing to gain by doing so because in a second term, Obama might decide to screw them the way they screwed him. They might as well buy a new guy.

[advocatusdiaboli]

09:49 AM on 06/28/2011

The real story here is that we have a political system that makes that matter way too much. Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, no longer the people. Well after all, corporations are now people according to SCOTUS.