More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
HuffPost TV

HuffPost TV

Posted: September 12, 2010 11:29 AM

Arianna appeared on ABC's "This Week" Sunday as part of a roundtable with George Will, Kate Zernike, and Jonathan Karl.

During the discussion, Arianna and Will sparred over bank lending and Wall Street reform. "Somebody I was talking to over the week -- people in business, venture capital -- were asking 'Why doesn't the government do more to force banks to lend, to do more to make it easier for people to actually go out there and show some kind of consumer activity,'" host Christiane Amanpour said.

"Well maybe if the government did less, period, people would me more inclined to lend money," Will replied. "The banks aren't hoarding the money because they're in a pout. They're not hoarding the money because they're mad at somebody. They're hoarding money because they can't find lenders who think they can borrow it and make money."

"No, that's not true," Arianna responded. "The banks are getting almost zero-percent interest rate loans from the Fed and they are spending it to make a lot of profit in derivatives trading and all the things that got us into this trouble in the first place. And this administration and this Congress still has not passed an end to Too Big To Fail, still has not reinstated Glass-Steagall. So even though people may not be able to give you all these details, they know that the system has not been fixed, that financial reform is full of loopholes, and that the system is not fair, basically, for them as they're seeing their lives falling apart."

WATCH:

In the Green Room, following the roundtable, the panel was asked whether Obama's push on the economy this past week accomplished anything.

"Well, he changed the rhetoric," Arianna replied. "But he needs to do a few things that go beyond the rhetoric. I think nominating Elizabeth Warren to run the Consumer Protection Bureau would be something that would show the middle class, who he talked a lot about this week, that he really means it, that he's willing to put a champion for the middle class in a place of power. He can't do anything much in Congress, so he might as well do some things that are in his control."


WATCH: (the question on the economy comes at the 1:40 mark)


 
Arianna appeared on ABC's "This Week" Sunday as part of a roundtable with George Will, Kate Zernike, and Jonathan Karl. During the discussion, Arianna and Will sparred over bank lending and Wall St...
Arianna appeared on ABC's "This Week" Sunday as part of a roundtable with George Will, Kate Zernike, and Jonathan Karl. During the discussion, Arianna and Will sparred over bank lending and Wall St...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 560
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
08:14 AM on 09/14/2010
as bailouts don't work........see
08:48 PM on 09/13/2010
Based on the summary, they're both right. Given that the Fed has interest rates at zero, they can make money with less risk than giving loans to small businesses, etc. It's not the banks fault. It's the Fed.

And who created this bubble to begin with? The Fed.
05:29 PM on 09/13/2010
It never ceases to amaze me that working class people struggling to make ends meet continue to lend their support to the super-rich by opposing tax increases for them. Never in the history of the world has this happened, where you have so many people who are relatively poor saying, "hey, don't raise taxes on those wealthy people! That's Communist!" when clearly it is the rich who are making the decisions to move their factories overseas, evade taxes completely in offshore tax shelters, and manipulate markets illegally, putting a heavier tax burden on the working class, decimating the jobs market, and ultimately bringing down the entire economy.
Why do these people continue to so grossly misjudge the situation, and support the very people who are sucking them dry? For the same reason people play the lottery. The myth of the American Dream has been pummeled into their heads from birth. No matter how unlikely, these people still support the right of the obscenely wealthy to exist, because they imagine themselves there one day. Winning the lottery is a statistical unreality, yet one out of every three people in the US think that winning the lottery is the only way to become financially secure in their life.
In any other culture, in any other time, if 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%, and the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth, there would be a revolution. Period.
07:08 PM on 09/13/2010
You are right on target. It has been reported Corporate America is sitting on large reserves. Are these the same people who refuse to invest in this country, export jobs, and want permanent tax cuts. If a Labor Union representing low and middle class families withheld their services and called for a strike, big business would cry foul and close the place of business. Wake up middle class,the republicans,banks, CEO's, and big business are and have been conducting their own form of the largest wild cat strike ever and right under our noses. Remember! these are same who are first to say, things are so much better now, "We don't need Unions anymore". The Point? We the working lower and middle class, union and non-union alike must rise up, take our collective heads out of the sand and ask ourselves, just which candidate and party will truly work for the overall good of our citizens and our country. Hope it's not to late.
09:46 PM on 09/13/2010
Or, maybe someone not wealthy like myself understand that the rich earn 19% of the income and pay 38% of fed taxes. I would like to know why so many people feel that the world would be a better place if we wacked the wealthy. When you look at day to day life, you see stories about high crime rates, bad schools and other things that would be around if we took every rich guy in the country and shot them in the head and took all their money.
12:34 PM on 09/13/2010
George Will needs to live a year or two as a Middle Class American to have a clue what life is like for the average person. He probably speaks highly of Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner and most on Wall Street.

Just the facts: Larry Summers created 'too big to fail' pushing for repeal of Glass Steagull, admits to speaking with Rubin often, was Secretary Rubin's enforcer under Clinton and with Rubin and Greenspan got Congress to vote to stop Brooksley Born from regulating derivatives in the Clinton years. Born was stopped then because Bankers called Treasury to get this woman off their backs.

Think Wall Street is already calling Treasury to get Warren off their backs? Let's not forget that Geithner was mentored by Rubin who left Treasury and joined Citibank's top management. Senator Dodd, he removed the Amendment restricting pay for institutions that received TARP funds after Treasury lobbied him to do so.

George, financial reform further legalized ‘too big to fail’ and when the Middle Class goes from endangered to extinct, what will you say? It was their own fault because they didn’t spend what little they had left to support the global economy so that’s why they became extinct! George, people can’t make money here because they are undercut by the international corporations who go to low labor countries and import it back to increase their profits.
08:21 AM on 09/13/2010
Arianna, you're right on.
11:34 AM on 09/13/2010
Arianna clearly says that banks are not lending because they are in a pout.
12:37 PM on 09/13/2010
No, I believe she says it's because they are getting money at zero interest from the Federal Reserve and are using it to make money which is guaranteed income for them. They are happy because they are still increasing their profits and bonuses on the backs of the taxpayers! This ponzi scheme makes Bernie Madoff look like a nice guy.
07:55 PM on 09/13/2010
The quote about bank's allegedly pouting was just before Arianna' response and was part of George Will's excuse for blaming Obama's economic team. The article did not make it very clear but the video does. Arianna says that banks would rather make money the same way they did before the recession because Congress cannot fix the system that's still broken.
12:31 PM on 09/13/2010
No she isn't, she isn't even close to being on the mark and I have all the evidence in the world to prove it. Bank lending has gone down due to a sharp decrease in demand, and lack of qualified borrowers. I work in banking, I am dealing with this on a daily basis. I would LOVE to make more loans, that is HOW I MAKE MONEY. I can't do that however, because companies are holding on to cash, cutting expenditures, holding off plans for expansion, and already have a glut of inventory to deal with. THE DEMAND IS NOT THERE.
photo
getsit
good morning, I'm here
12:49 PM on 09/13/2010
There are all kinds of viable small businesses who are doing quite well and can't get loans. I've talked to somes of them who surround my place of work. The critiria for loans has been tightened so much that many companies cannot get loans for their day to day business activities. The "new" credit card rules do not apply to business credit cards. The interest rates are too high on all the loans.
photo
Yank in France
Thomas Paine, expat in France 1792-1802
03:42 PM on 09/13/2010
You are right, Danny. I like Arianna on all sorts of other issues, but she does not have the foggiest idea about banking, macroeconomics or business. I am clearly on the left on the American political spectrum (on the right, in Europe), but I am sorry to say that very, very few of my liberal friends can carry on an informed discussion of economics.

Perhaps that is because the laissez-faire economists have dominated the school textbooks and political discussions for so long?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaxEterna
08:19 AM on 09/13/2010
What in God's name is taking this Administration so long?

Let me guess: Timmy, Larry, Ben & O don't want anyone with integrity on their team.

EW will call them out, and they know it.
05:53 AM on 09/13/2010
George is 100% correct!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
09:31 AM on 09/13/2010
George isn't a 100 percent correct. We are in an economy that needs stimulation, or without that - we would all be worse off. Our history with previous recessions, and depressions shows us that. And, if you understand how our economy works, it is not that difficult to understand even without our past history.

If government were not to be involved at all, I guess that also means that those subsidies, and tax cuts they get - shouldn't had been given either. I am not "against" helping business - I am against helping only the businesses that don't need it, or produce goods and services here in the US. Some of that overseas business is okay. In fact we do need some of that, but those who use it to keep the cost of producing materials down do so for a purpose, but the end result is often the higher profit margin for the company, and it does not often get passed down to investors or the existing labor force here in America. Some of those materials/goods - are defective as well. We send way too much of our business across abroad. And these our the companies that also get the help. Our smaller businesses need more help. They also hire, and are more likely to hire here. George is not 100% correct.
12:49 PM on 09/13/2010
Great analysis. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bryan broome
All your money won't another minute buy.
10:12 AM on 09/13/2010
Whatever you say George.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
03:14 AM on 09/13/2010
More evidence of Reagan and the Republican's handy work.
 
If you are poor, you have lost ground steadily since the 1980s.
If you are middle class, you have lost ground since 1980.
If you are rich you have gained ground steadily since 1980.

Precent of total national Income going to a specific group:

Poor: Decreased by 16%
Middle Class: Decreased by 20%
Rich: Increased by 15%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/inequality/index.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
09:36 AM on 09/13/2010
good information elfish.
01:20 PM on 09/13/2010
But what have the Democrats given us? Taxing anyone who makes anything over 250k a year at 50%? Talk about the government strongarming you down to keep you from getting "Rich". Why didn't they go tax the hell out of Buffett, Soros, and Gates who clearly had far more money than they know what to do with? Instead they attack up and comers who managed to eek out a better lifestyle for themselves, most of whom started with little and are hardworking business owners.
Nothing can be more clear than the Democratic Party's desire to hold you down from success and independent financial security.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
torres6510
02:08 PM on 09/13/2010
Get your facts straight GRUTCH, the tax percentage for anyone over 250K will go back to how it was under Clinton which is 39%. So it will go from 34% to 39%. It will go back to the time when the economy was GROWING, it will go back to the time when we had a SURPLUS and Not a deficit.
STOP EXAGGERATING & DOWNRIGHT LYING!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
03:16 PM on 09/13/2010
Typical republican. Can't get your facts straight. If the tax cuts expire, they will go up from 35 to 39 on every dollar made over $250,000. But every dollar under that amount is tax at less than that amount so the average tax rate on the wealthy is 18%.

Eek out a better life style? Eekk really? The typical business has a profit of under 10% so in order for them to net $250,000 they have to gross $2,500,000. That is not exactly what I call a small up and comer.

PS Warren Buffet says that he only pays 17% taxes while his secretary pays twice that amount. He says the rich are taxed too little.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
01:51 AM on 09/13/2010
George Will is quite an amazing person.  How someone can make a successful career out of being 100% wrong on literally everything, yet still be taken seriously... that's quite an achievement.
02:59 AM on 09/13/2010
No kidding. If Will should retire to a cabin in the mountains and not be on TV, the GOP would lose the entirety of it's legitimacy.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
03:10 AM on 09/13/2010
... it's truly remarkably isn't it. Despite being never either knowingly or accidentally correct, he's still the intellectual core of the GOP.
01:37 AM on 09/13/2010
the majority agrees with AH most of the time

i strongly disagreed once with AH along with many other HP readers; probably concerning al gore or afghanistan

george will is out of touch with todays america and part of some "old guard"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whyus
San Francisco native
01:11 AM on 09/13/2010
Go Arianna! You are my hero.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaulaEmKay
12:46 AM on 09/13/2010
I love the way Christiane Amanpour will not kowtow and bow to G. Will any more. He is now just one of four. And I like the format of This Week more and more. Less pundit yapping and more substantive interviews.
photo
creatifvision
my micro-bio is empty;-)
12:24 AM on 09/13/2010
I watched that this morning. That was no debate. He made an unsupported statement based on an ideological position and she schooled him with a reality check. Normally, Will is hard to debate, but she seems to have caught him off guard this time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
Don't settle for less evil, demand good
11:46 AM on 09/13/2010
Well stated.
11:50 PM on 09/12/2010
Very good, Arianna!
11:22 PM on 09/12/2010
Honestly, I can't see a way for America, (and Canada,) to really recover econonomically without bringing a robust manufacturing sector back to North America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthechangeyouseek
11:57 PM on 09/12/2010
I agree. We need to make something. Import less and export more if possible. No economy can sustain if it imports everything it uses.
Jack Canuckski
Canadian Observer of the passing scene
12:05 AM on 09/13/2010
Meanwhile, China is investing billions of dollars in the development of wind and solar energy.

Their politicians seem to see the future more clearly than ours.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Third Way
06:43 AM on 09/13/2010
That's a big advantage of having a command economy. The government can decide what is best for the macro economy and force the people to deal with it. While more efficient economically, the tradeoff is a loss of freedom for the citizens to decide for themselves what they want to do in life.
photo
cyclone70
if there was a time to reach for the pitchfork
08:29 AM on 09/13/2010
And their health care costs are lower, making canadian business more competitive