Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama on banks: a bit pragmatic amid the populism

World Jan. 25, 2010 - 06:18AM JST ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

0

MolenirJan. 25, 2010 - 11:02AM JST

Once again, what Obama wants, is to further expand government.
0

WilliBJan. 25, 2010 - 11:28AM JST

It is amazing to see how this Chavez-style populism works in the US.

One would have thought a Western democracy is above banana-republic politics, but apparently not.
0

GJDailleultJan. 25, 2010 - 12:45PM JST

Amazing to see how some people can be against socialized medicine and in favor of socialized banking.
0

LFRAgainJan. 25, 2010 - 12:48PM JST

WillB,

How is trying to find solutions that will appeal to both sides of the political spectrum a bad thing? I always assumed compromise was an essential ingredient to a healthy democracy. Republicans seem piqued by the proposals. Democrats seem intrigued. It could potentially be win-win for everyone, as far as the economy is concerned. After all, that's what we all want here, right? A successful economic policy for the entire nation? Right . . . ?

Molenir,

“Once again, what Obama wants, is to further expand government.”

As if that we’re his only goal, such a simplistic criticism ignores the likelihood that Obama is actually more interested in protecting and sustaining the U.S. economy.
0

WilliBJan. 25, 2010 - 01:02PM JST

LFRAagain:

I do not see where there is a "compromise" here, much less one that appeals to both sides of the political spectrum (compromises between opposing positions rarely do).

What I see is blatant populism.
0

lostrune2Jan. 25, 2010 - 04:22PM JST

Volcker's Rule wasn't supposed to be in Obama's plan but was included to get Republican support for the bill.

Volcker’s proposal, delivered with the support of top officials from past Republican administrations, did not result in the usual partisan reflex.

“When Volcker’s got something to say I want to hear it,” Republican Sen Bob Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, said in an interview.

While the consumer agency has long been a cornerstone of Obama’s regulatory plan, Volcker’s proposal was not. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has argued privately and in congressional testimony that proprietary trading by commercial banks did not lead to the financial crisis.

The Democrats get something; the Republicans get something.
0

SushiSake3Jan. 25, 2010 - 04:37PM JST

Molenir - "Once again, what Obama wants, is to further expand government."

ha ha, I thought you were being serious for a moment there. :-)
0

LFRAgainJan. 25, 2010 - 04:51PM JST

WillB,

According to the article, Obama is proposing preventing large banks from taking part in high-risk proprietary trading, which, when gone sour, can have such a dramatic impact on the national (and the world) economy. The compromise here is that Obama is making concrete proposals that Republicans can agree with -- When they aren't accusing Obama of making sound proposals simply for political gain. The main opposition to Obama's plan is that Republicans are suspicious of the timing, believing that it comes in the wake of the Pennsylvania loss of a Democratic seat.

But so what if it is?

A WSJ review of the plan reads, "[W]e're encouraged by yesterday's announcement. The Democrats appear to finally realize that too-big-to-fail is a problem to be solved, not the foundation of a modern banking system."

Sounds like someone likes the plan.

Isn't this what Republicans wanted, a president who heeds the will of the people? Conservatives kept going on and on about how the Pennsylvania election was a wake-up call from the People, so when faced with Obama giving the nation not only what it wants, but what it needs, people can only muster skepticism?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t: If that isn’t petty politics, I don’t know what is.
0

goddogJan. 25, 2010 - 04:59PM JST

Economies basically run on faith and rumors. We need congress to get together and work to make it happen. Splitting of demo and repub is not the way to go. Think people. Work for the American people and get this engine pumping again.
0

SargeJan. 25, 2010 - 10:54PM JST

"Obama is both populist and pragmatic."

He's a dream.
0

AlphaapeJan. 25, 2010 - 11:39PM JST

Banks have come out against the proposal, with some critics arguing that it signals a return to the limits imposed by the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking. Most of the Glass-Steagall restrictions were repealed by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999.

When the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the Depression, that did help stop some of the speculations that got us in the Great Depression. True we have had ups and downs in the markets since the Act was passed, but those could be contributed to other factors and not like the whole scale fallout that we had since 2008.

Instead of Obama taxing the banks, I am all for putting the provisions of the Act back in place. That way he can not be seen as anti-business, and yet put back some of the reforms that "Billy" took away. If Obama and the Reps keep talking of compromise, then I think this would be a positive step, instead of drastic measures that both sides are talking about.
0

yabitsJan. 25, 2010 - 11:59PM JST

and yet put back some of the reforms that "Billy" took away

Neither Glass nor Steagall were presidents, as everyone knows. The legislation that removed Glass-Steagall is the bill known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

That's Gramm (Republican) - Leach (Republican) - Bliley (Republican).

Unless you misspelled Bliley as Billy, you are not being forthright about the real parties who were primarily reponsible in removing regulation from banks.
0

usaexpatJan. 26, 2010 - 01:06AM JST

Mr. Obama don't make any more press statements because the dow unloaded 300 points the last time you spoke about penalizing banks. Wallstreet is afraid that the banks will get whacked in a bid for the administration to look like they did something since healthcare and cap and trade are effectively dead.
0

AlphaapeJan. 26, 2010 - 06:49PM JST

yabits, Bill (Slicke Willie) could have vetoed the Bill if he so chose. Believe it or not, I knew that neither Glass or Steagall were not presidents, the same as Gramm or Leach.

Funny how those reforms that were in place but were removed by a Dem President along with a Rep help (since you are so good at saying I am not forthright look at how the Dems and Reps voted on the repeal of the law, and I bet you will see more of a bi-partisan vote on that than you saw with the health care bill).

Also, before Obama taxes banks, he needs to tax Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac and their outstanding bonuses they give. I read that Rahm Emanel made a cool $46,000/hour as a consultant. So instead of just trying to ride a populist wave and try to increas his poll numbers, I suggest Obama ride the wave and make real changes that may have to hurt his base, instead of going after the Republican "boogey man."
0

LFRAgainJan. 26, 2010 - 10:48PM JST

"instead of going after the Republican `boogey man.'"

Are you saying that banks embody the Republican Party, or vice a versa?