"It is universal, this outrage"
The anti-Wall Street mood, as assessed by Michael Lewis
"It is universal, this outrage"
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
For weeks I've been skeptical that the naysaying Senate Republicans would try to block financial reform, and thus tag themselves as the party of Wall Street - not exactly the smartest political move these days, given the fact that most Americans rightly hate Wall Street. Yet that has appeared to be their posture lately, as evidenced by GOP leader Mitch McConnell's false attacks on the financial reform package (recounted here last Thursday) - attacks so empirically absurd that they have even been denounced by Republican senators Bob Corker and Judd Gregg as "silly" and "over the top."
Yet, quite suddenly, McConnell now seems calmer. Yesterday he urged all senators to "come together...and leave aside all the name-calling and second-guessing." Other Republicans who have leaned toward voting No on financial reform are now saying that surely a deal with the Democrats is doable with all deliberate speed. So what's changed? Perhaps it's due to a reading of the tea leaves. According to a new Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans favor tougher federal regulations of "Wall Street banks," while only 36 percent oppose.
To reiterate: Given the current public mood, Republicans would be well advised not to climb into the sack with the same greedy visigoths who drove our economy to the brink of ruin.
This very issue arose back on April 8, during a public forum at the Free Library of Philadelphia, where I hosted writer Michael Lewis. He, of course, is the author of The Big Short, the current bestseller that chronicles the (mis)adventures of the Wall Streeters who made a bundle off the subprime mortgage fiasco.
During our long conversation on stage, I asked Lewis for an assessment of the current political climate, and the likelihood that Washington might pass substantive reforms that ideally would curb the worst of Wall Street's rapacious abuses. His reply:
"We have an emboldened financial sector trying to influence the reform bills - and, on the other hand, we've got a population that is furious with Wall Street. The amazing thing about this book tour I've been on? I've been in front of thousands and thousands of people - and no one has stood up to defend Wall Street. And I feel kind of badly. It's so one-sided, that I feel myself defending it sometimes. Because I'm outflanked by my audience! They're more outraged than even I intend them to be! And it is universal, this outrage. So this outrage will find some sort of political expression."
It was clear that Lewis didn't expect the Senate Republicans to buck this "universal" outrage by standing up for Wall Street. The "political expression" of this outrage is evidenced in that new Gallup poll. (Indeed, the Republicans - even while assailing the Democratic reform efforts - have shied away from threatening a filibuster that would block any floor debate on the issue. Debate is expected to begin late this week.)
Lewis wasn't quite finished, however. The rest of his voluble response is also worth a read - if only because, hey, after all, he's Michael Lewis:
"I recently spoke to a House Republican book group. I should first explain that the House Republicans have a book group. That is not to poke fun at them. The woman who runs it called up and said, 'You can actually assign one of your books, and they will actually read it.' In this group, there are 40 or 50 Republicans, and their staffs. Instead of a book, I had them read a little magazine article...something I wrote for Portfolio in December 2008. It was my first attempt to explain the crisis. And it was a very funny experience (with the House Republicans). They were inquisitive. The ones who spoke with me were outraged. This whole notion of a financial sector where people are rewarded whether they succeed or fail? It really bothered them that all these people got rich....
"So it's a weird and unsustainable situation right now, and something is gonna give. I will say this, that if you look at the (legislative and political) process with frustration, just be aware that democracy always moves kinda slowly - that in 1929, after the crash, it took four years before we got Glass-Steagall (the basic federal reforms that created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and curbed rampant speculation). It took a good three years before we got proper hearings on Capitol Hill, explaining to the population what had happened. So in many ways it's our great good fortune that democracy moves slowly...It's not surprising that (reform) takes time. It always takes time."
Me: "Is this a great country, or what?"
Comments (102)
DP: I'd like to know if you have any reservations about federal government intervention at all, for any reason, or are you all in with the government? Because it's kind of strange for a journalist, who's supposed to be a line of defense against possible government tyranny, to be so damn enthusiastic about the government. Journalists in general seem to love the government much more than the average citizen. Is there something were missing? Do you ever ask yourself how you can reconcile your pre-teen girlish crush on government with your job as a journalist?— jmc
Any legislation that outgoing Senator Chris Dodd is involved in is suspect in my mind:)— NEPhilly- Try this DP: You say that 50 percent of Americans favor tougher regulations on Wall Street, so Republican should heed these polls. A Pew Research poll shows 8 in 10 Americans don't trust the federal government, and don't believe it can solve America's problems, but you still believe wholeheartedly in the government. There's a disconnect here. Putting the polls together, people distrust government more than Wall Street. If your on the side of the people, why would you throw your hat in with the government?— jmc
- ***Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., has telegraphed the Republican opposition to the financial reform bill now awaiting debate on the Senate floor. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on the need to end the too-big-to-fail syndrome, but they don't agree on how to do it. The Democrats want to use a mechanism similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that would allow the government to seize and dismantle failing firms. The Republicans favor using the existing bankruptcy laws to handle firms' failures. Relying on bankruptcy is a rather naive solution, given that the collapse of Lehman Brothers ignited the financial meltdown of 2008. Bankruptcy laws can handle the firms themselves, but it can't adequately address the interlocking financial arrangements that could threaten the entire financial system. Shelby, however, zeroes in on the problem with the Democrats' solution, which the Obama administration doesn't support. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Shelby said creating an FDIC-type solution - he calls it a "slush fund" - essentially ratifies a permanent government guarantee for Wall Street. "The mere existence of this fund will make it all too easy to choose a bailout over bankruptcy," he said in the letter, according to the New York Times...Wall Street's influence is too profound. As a result, the Democrats' bill, passed out of committee, is a flop, a political placebo that ignores the root cause of the problem, and Republicans' criticism is little more than a hollow charade.*** http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2010/03/shelby_raises_k.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Florensteffy+%28Loren+Steffy%29— NEPhilly
- I don't think people really comprehend how close we came to another Great Depression. They assume that this is just another garden variety business cycle recession that's going to snap out of. The difference was Wall Street. It's easy to blame homeowners who bought or refinanced more house than they could afford, but these loans had 2 parties. The lenders weren't interested in whether the homeowner could repay. Those exposure to these mortgages was passed off in complex financial instruments that even the experts didn't understand. The execs at Bear Stearns never understood why their firm collapsed. They blamed it on plenty of things.— SteveMG
- Of course, corrupt and defaming Dick Polman omits this quote by democrat Brad Sherman (Democrat, California) a member of the House Financial Services committee: "But there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority."— CD75
- jmc, it is the job of government to protectpeople from swindlers. Nobody, except perhaps you, believes otherwise. Have you read what Goldman-Sachs is accused of? It's called "swindling". We should all be far more fearful of than than of a government that does its job and protects us from it.— anonymous
- Brad Sherman's quote is in an interview with POLITICO's David Mark, for those who care about the truth and want to see it (unlike Dick Polman).— CD75
- Can someone explain to me why Fannie and Freddie, who were at the center of and culprits in this crisis, are getting a pass? I don't think this reform bill even mentions or affects them. I stand open to correction but that's my understanding. And NEPhilly, I concur, Dodd (a friend of Angelo) and financial reform in the same sentence is an oxymoron.— pj katauskas
- CD75: A Democrat making an off-the-cuff quote should stand as unchallengeable fact? Wow, that's an interesting precedent to set. If there's one thing the healthcare debate taught me, it is that quotes from politicians have increasingly become equine poop.— schnail
- Goldman-Sachs is a bastion of support & money for the democratic pary. They gave the President close to a million dollars for his election in 2008 & gave money to the Dems, 2 to 1 over the GOP. Jon Corzine was a former CEO of Goldman. The just hired President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, Gregory Craig, to defend against the fraud case. It just goes to show I was correct in questioning any legislation that Chris Dodd is involved in & I doubt he has ever done the right thing for the average American taxpayer in his whole career (i may be wrong, but I doubt it). I would use existing anti-trust laws to break up these companies into smaller pieces right now, while they are making billions, instead of giving our govt. a $50 Bil slush fund as a permanent bailout mechanism & authority to use it whenever they see fit.— NEPhilly
- Funny. Brad Sherman, D-CA, member of the House Financial Services committee, says..."But there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority." Does Polman mention that item? No, he only lambastes "fact challenged" Republicans. Second, why are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac excluded from being regulated by this bill? Third, funny Polman mentions Bob Corker since Corker was on MSNBC this morning saying the Dodd bill does not do anything to punish Wall Street for reckless and risky behaviour. Corker's main problem with the Dodd bill is that it is not tough enough. Funny how Polman does not mention that item.— tom - wilmington, de
Dickie, Dickie. Let's see what your daily attack on the Republicans consists of today. (YAWN). On second thought, why bother. You need a new 'shtick', Dickie. You're boring and repetitive.— phluphya19147- Funny how the Goldman case came about. First, the firm actually lost $90 million on the deal. Second, the hedge fund manager, who approached Goldman on the deal for which they are now being sued, who actually picked the mortgages to include in the marketed securities, and who shorted them on the market making $1 Billion, AND who has close ties to NY Senator Chuck Schumer, is not a party to the suit. Also, why is there no coverage of the Inspector General report showing how the SEC really dropped the ball in the Mark Stanford Ponzi scheme, which cost the average citizen $8 Billion. No, instead we give the SEC kudos for its Goldman suit, with no criminal charges included.— tom - wilmington, de
- Bottom line here is that McConnell & C. thought they could get away with killing reform for their Wall Street masters (and believe me, they get way more from Wall Street than the Dems) by the tried & true tactic of flat out lying about what it really is. Now they've found out that isn't going to work this time, and the filibuster is out of play as a result. So, reform is going to pass, and it's probably going to be a better package than it would have been if the Republicant's had gotten involved in creating it and doing their best to cripple it. Win-win for everyone, except the Party of "No, I can't because Wall Street pwns me."— yoda
Comment removed.- This is great, I'm enjoying the debate and hypocricy from politicians on both sides. I also love how we can't afford financial reform or the health care bill. Repeal! Take the country back! Where were the sharp pencils and healthy scepticism when it came to the invasion of Iraq? I would have like to see that wise tea party formed in 2002 so they could have taken a sober look at the price of an unnecessary war. If universal health insurance is unAmerican and Wall Street bailouts are unAmerican then dumping hundreds of thouands of American soldiers into the middle of a civil war in a country where were weren't wanted was certainly unAmerican. I read an article by a Harvard Librul that Iraq may end up costing three trillion dollars. Our grandchildren will be paying for Iraq moreso than a financial bailout or a healthcare bill.— Rabe56
- Actually, the people most to blame were the enablers - the ratings companies Moody's, Standard & Poor, and I forget the third one. They were the ones who gave AAA ratings to stuff they knew, or should have known, was toxic waste. If they didn't understand how to rate it, they shouldn't have been taking money from Goldman, Citi, Lehman, etc. to put their stamp of approval on the toxic CDOs.— yoda
- The observation that no one stood up to defend wall street on the book tour does not really match up with the fact that only 50% of Americans favor more strict regulation--one would expect 70-80% to favor more regulation in this case. The question then is: why do Americans show such limited support for wall street regulation? Is it related to distrust of the government? I would love to know what the other 36% (who do not favor regulation) and the 14% undecided feel that we should do instead to control wall street excesses?— Nalaka
- So the Dems, with their sacks full of Gold(man) won't regulate some of the worst elements of the meltdown and the Republicans with their hearts filled with deregulaion and less Gold(man) don't want to upset their long time support...who does the average guy want to back in this fight? Time for some serious toss-outs in Congress— JimR
- NEPhilly --> The financial collapse was not the result of Lehman Brothers but the underlying problems of giving mortgages to people, like some in NE Philly, who could not afford to pay their mortgage in the first place coupled with WAY, WAY too many people betting that the mortgage industry would continue to earn huge profits year in and year out AND that house values would always grow by 20% a year.— Grill
- ***If mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the proverbial 800-pound gorillas in the room, Congress appears to be ignoring them. Neither the financial regulatory reform bill passed last year by the House nor the one introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., in the Senate Banking Committee resolve the future of the government-sponsored enterprises that played a key role in the financial meltdown...Crucial to this expansion was the pressure Congress exerted on Fannie and Freddie to buy up or guarantee these riskier loans. This provided lenders with the funding necessary to swell shaky credit. Investors purchased such MBS with the expectation that Fannie and Freddie had an "implicit guarantee" that Congress would bail them out if they ever got in trouble...The Bush administration, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others did warn that Fannie and Freddie were too big, too leveraged and backing too many risky loans. But Democrats and many Republicans on Capitol Hill ignored such concerns. Frank famously said he was willing to "roll the dice" on those risks.*** http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530073&p=2— NEPhilly
- grill, I agree:)— NEPhilly
- The DNC paid for media only blames wall street for the economic crisis. Fpr potjer topics of interest, you might try wieghing in on a few other culprits instead of all mimicing each other to try and blame selectively for political gain. Yo umay want to look into the credit rating agencies. FanniMae who undewrwrites mortages with no regard to standards, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank's ex- spouse (google Herb Moses, Robert Rubin and any number of policiticans both democrat and Republican) and speculators who bought houses they couldnt afford. Looking one way to try and lay blame on one entity when there is plenty to go around is disinformation. Dmeocrats as ususal are hypocrites and use the media to spin the balme to other people while they get a free pass.— tr88
- tr88, well said:)— NEPhilly
- tom: you seem to be finding a lot "funny" today. A question and a comment related to "Also, why is there no coverage of the Inspector General report showing how the SEC really dropped the ball in the Mark Stanford Ponzi scheme, which cost the average citizen $8 Billion. ". The question is how did this cost the average citizen $8B. From what I've read, the majority of investors weren't even American (not that it makes it any better). Now the comment. Which is a sexier story? The most profitable WS firm ever colluded with a hedge fund marketing financial instruments that were designed to fail, OR, some government accounting weanie didn't do his job? I agree that in a real way the latter is far more important - obviously financial reform is pointless if it's not properly executed. But media covers that which will garner the most ratings/clicks, not that which is most important.— still_independent
- DP, you epitomize a partisan lackey. There's an opinion piece at wsj.com today about how Senate Dems blocked Fannie & Freddie legislation in 2005 that could have mitigated the current financial mess. Read it, you hammer!!— A Friend
- Oops! Looks like flawed computer model exaggerated the effects of ash cloud which led to closing of air space over Europe. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c05510c-4c13-11df-a217-00144feab49a.html But don't worry there is no way the global warming computer models are flawed.— Mike Welbourn
- Still_independent, from where did you read that the majority of investors in Stanford's scheme were not American?— tom - wilmington, de
- A Friend: while Fannie and Freddie DO need to be addressed, and were definitely a significant part of the problem, the author offers up no opinions as to how to address them. That and the American Enterprise Institute isn't usually the place I go to for unbiased analysis... In any case, the crux of DPs piece were that Republicans can adopt a strategy of simply being against financial reform. Fine, work to ensure that Fannie and Freddie are addressed in any potential legislation.— still_independent
- "As a senator, he [BO] was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry." WSJ 4/20/10. BO helped scuttle R-sponsored reform of Freddie and Fannie in 2005. Now he's lecturing/haranguing Wall Street and ignoring Freddie and Fannie. "With hypocrisy like this at the top, is it any wonder that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don't trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country's problems?" No, it's not at all surprising.— pj katauskas
- Repeal the CRA and stop extorting/mugging banks to make home loans to lenders who aren't qualified. There is no right to home ownership. There's a right to try to earn the wherewithall to buy a home, and that's all.— pj katauskas
- Oops, obviously I meant "borrowers."— pj katauskas
- "It is true Obama received somewhere around $130,000 from Freddie and Fannie employees. However, McCain received $169,000 from Freddie and Fannie executives and lobbyists. Obama received $16,000 from executives and lobbyists". http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/439405-cnn-factcheck-who-got-most-freddie.html#ixzz0lfTJH7Jj— PA_Dutch
- PA_Dutch, please! You are just confusing them with facts - that just makes them angrier! Although I would have to say that being angry does seem to be a congenital condition for many of the wingnuts no matter what the discussion is about...— yoda
- Still, The author is pointing to the fact that Dem lawmakers have amnesia. They blocked legislation in 2005 (when saying "no" was patriotic) that would have implemented better safeguards against what we're dealing with now. You and DP seem to forget that the party of "no" in 2005 was inhabited by Barack Obama and Chris Dodd. How can you point to the GOP's actions today, and ignore what Dems were doing 5 years ago?? My guess is because it's easy.— A Friend
- Excellent point, Friend.— pj katauskas
- Despite what is bouncing around the right wing echo chamber. A January 19, 2009 survery of over 10,000 scientists as listed by the American Geological Institute showed 90% agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years, and 82% agreed that human activity played a significant role. Of course most of those there scientists are democrat libruls.— Rabe56
- It's ok guys, grandmother McConnell spoke a few minutes ago... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell struck a markedly different tone on financial regulatory reform today, suggesting an agreement could be struck with Democrats sooner rather than later. And Democrats have taken notice. "We believe the process to achieve [a bipartisan bill] has now been reconstituted," McConnell told reporters after the Republicans' weekly caucus meeting this afternoon. "We are all confident that this can be fixed... Senator Shelby [the Republicans' chief financial reform negotiator] believes that there's been a very serious effort to re-engage." McConnell credited his own efforts to unite the Republican caucus in opposition to the bill as it stands for sparking a breakthrough. Democrats find this simultaneously annoying, but also promising. On the one hand, they say negotiations never stopped, and that they plan to bring the bill up as is, whether or not agreement is reached, early next week. "Talk about taking people taking credit for things--that's like the rooster taking credit for the morning," Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Democrats' reg reform point man, told reporters after a caucus meeting. "This has been ongoing for people who have been following this thing. Welcome to the discussion.... Where has the [Republican] leader been?"— Rabe56
- Pulease! There is no meaningfull financial reform that will be enacted. This is all a big show. The winner will sucessfully frame the other side as in bed with Wall Steet. As both sides sit back and collect huge sums of money from the very entitity they demonize. The most ironic side of this is that it will be the Democrats who will scream the loudest yet they have a 2 to 1 advantage in payoffs from Wall Street. Don't let the political calls play you all as fools. Reconnect the lender and borrower and ban the practice of selling loans. Unless the political class wants to do that, then spare me all the chatter.
- Rabe56- blah, blah, blah, blah and blah, blah blah blah. Are you really buying any of this from either party?
- What a bunch of complete wackos you posters are! If the government doesn't regulate the industry, who would? Let the market deal with it? That would work great. You stole all of my retirement savings so I'll never do business with you again. Sure, that'll work. And, no, Fannie Mae and Freddie were not at the heart of the problem. Not by a long shot. The problem was these companies were packing mortgages and presenting them as AAA investment vehicles when they were really garbage. Then, they sold insurance (credit default swaps) on these bogus packages. Even though they were a sure thing, people wouldn't buy without insurance. But, the companies selling the insurance, had zero in reserve to pay claims. All this was EXPOSED by subprime morgages. When people started defaulting, the holders of the insurance started submiting claims and the banks had no money to honor them. If Fannie and Freddie had default without these bogus insurance policies, there wouldn't have been an issue.— MikeP
- Main Street was buying things they could not afford. Government was all too happy to encourage the lending and backing up the mortgages. Mortgage brokers were lending with no skin in the game. And Wall Street found a way to package the toxic loans into investment funds. So don't give me this nonsense between the R's and the D's. What we have here is the fox guarding the hen house.
- After after that comment, I want to stick my head in the oven. A tad less cynicism, a touch of self deprecation and a little less taking ourselves seriously will go a long way towards making this site better. Our elected officials, from both parties, are merely a reflection of the electorate. We put them there. If we're dumb enough to get bought off by advertising, then we deverve what we get.— Rabe56
- Same questions as always to the righties. What is your better solution and can't this at least start the ball rolling?— HandNik
- Rabe56- Actually there is quite a bit of sentiment to vote them all out of office. More and more voters are unafilliated. There was a story about that today on the front page of the USA Today. Don't stick your head in the oven just yet. There is hope. These politicians sit there all smug why they collect payoffs from the very entity they demonize. We're just the pawns in this media show.
- The crash resulted from a long series of situations beginning in the 1980s. Wages stagnated, so people started borrowing to live the way they thought they should. Builders stopped building houses that people could afford, so the market was revived by unwise lending, and the banks took steps to get rid of the risk, they thought by creating instruments nobody understood that earned them huge bonuses. Fannie and Freddie participated in this. Foolish democrats thought it was only about affordable housing for the poor and gave it all a pass. The government deregulated financial institutions drastically. All of you (us) should stop pointing the finger at the culprit that fits your politics and ignoring the others.— liberal
- tom: I read it several places, but here's the first one I found again ..... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124541442985031211.html— still_independent
- handnik- Here is the solution. Reconnect the lender with borrower. Ban the practice of selling loans. simple. doesn't cost anything and it solves the problem.
- swedesboromike : so long as you are willing to accept a further drop in home prices in the short term and a lower appreciation rate in the long term, then that solution will work. I don't have a problem with that, as I view my home as my home much more than an investment, but that would be a result.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: "it will be the Democrats who will scream the loudest yet they have a 2 to 1 advantage in payoffs from Wall Street" Are they? As you love saying, you are no entitled to your own facts. Are you saying that I could go onto opensecrets.org and see that for the entire financial industry, 66% of donations are going to Democrats? If that's the case, then I stand corrected. That wasn't the case in 2008 (it was a majority, but it wasn't that overwhelming). And as a side note, we've all said that the money goes all parties, especially the party of power. I would like to add that part of this is basic math. If there are 50 more D congressman than R, then I'd expect that proportionately, that much more $$ would go to the Ds.— still_independent
- Still Independent- You really think that is what would happen? I built a house in NJ in 2002. I had to prove my income and savings. In 2007 we sold that house and moved to a bigger house. Except this time the lender said I didn't need to provide any of that stuff. I found that rather odd but it was quite clear that mortgages practices had changed. I don't want my house value to deteriorate but we do need some common sense business practices. The mortgage brokers have no skin in the game.
- Still Independent- I posted this a couple of days ago. Are you saying it is incorrect? " In the 2008 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org website, Goldman Sachs personnel contributed $4.5 million to Democrats and just $1.5 million to Republicans. Add in three other big Wall Street firms -- Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup -- and the total take was $12.7 million to Democrats and $6.7 million to Republicans. The image of Wall Streeters as solid Republicans is as dead as J. P. Morgan himself"
- A Friend: I am not pointing at the Rs today. DP is. But in any case, how is yet another variant of "but he did it first!" going to solve anything? How will that address the Fannie and Freddie mess? It's EASY to complain that a certain bill doesn't address it. Fine. But to not even offer a suggestion shows that the author is far more interesting in opposing a Democratic bill than actually fixing the issue. Beyon that I had issues with his overly simplistic analysis, but that wasn't my main focus.— still_independent
- Still Independent- I think you are missing my point. I don't want to listen to any politician browbeat an entitiy for political gain while they are collecting donations from them. Regardless of party affiliation. I am sick and tired of the stagecraft from the poltical class. They bash Goldman Sachs by day and drink scotch together at night.
- Let me get this straight - the same gov't that had a hand in creating this disaster now wants the American public to actually believe they know how to effectively regulate Wall Street? The politicians love to create diversions to deflect criticism and sadly (more like tragically) we reward them by continuing to re-elect them year after year. I think Washington needs to be better regulated.— soc993
- Soc993-BEST POST OF THE DAY. HOW TRUE!
- Comment removed.
- The people who think Goldman is beholden to only D's are delusional. They're influence on Capitol Hill encompasses both parties in a major way. Like Henry Paulson wasn't a Goldman alum. Wall Street lobbyists are fighting the reform tooth and nail right now.— p-diddy
- Sorry, that should read "only D's are beholden to Goldman...."— p-diddy
- The Gallup poll referred to throughout this posting also shows that 42% of respondents favor dems handling financial reform as opposed to 34% favoring repubs. Also, the PEW poll noted in JMCs 11:31 AM comments shows that the 8 of 10 Americans that are highly dissatisfied with the federal gov't are REPUBLICAN voters absolutly certain to vote in the mid-terms. The same 8 in 10 figure shows for independent voters absolutly certain to vote in the mid-terms. Basically, the Tea-Partiers, not 8 of 10 Americans.— jti
- This is all Theatre of the Misinformed and bamboozled. Where is Talvenada when you need him? Democrats controlled congress since January of 2007, accepted two times more in donations from Wall Street in 2008 and now we are to believe they are the ones to enact the proper regulatory controls? Color me skeptical. Not that Republicans are any great shakes but the jockying for position is comical. Reminds of the campaign in the movie" O' Brother where art Thou"— Alvenada
- Alvenada /swedesboromike: stop, stop, stop (usually my five year old listens by the third try, so I figured that might work). WHERE do you keep getting the 2/3 number? Goldman Sachs? GS, for the 2008 election cycle, represented 0.4% (yes, that's less than 1/2 of a percent) of "wall street money". they were $666,625 of the $157,468,464 donated by the Security/Investment industry, at least according to opensecrets. The overall ratio was 57-43, which is closer to 50-50 than it is to 2-to-1. Listen, I COMPLETELY agree with the general point that it is hypocritical for the Dems to complain that the Repubs are any more beholden to "Wall Street" than they are. But, as swedesboromike loves to say, you aren't entitled to your own facts. And for 2008, Dems did NOT get 2-to-1 the money from "Wall Street". And swedesboromike, I wholeheartedly agree with your 4:30 posting.— still_independent
- NEPhilly : as to bailouts? According to politifact, not really. The language allows for the LIQUIDATION of firms. It explicitly says ""In taking action under this title, the (FDIC) shall determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company; ensure that the shareholders of a covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid; ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed (if such management has not already been removed at the time at which the FDIC is appointed receiver); and not take an equity interest in or become a shareholder of any covered financial company or any covered subsidiary."... Sounds like anything BUT a bailout. Haven't read the proposed bill yet, so I am neither for nor against it. But it doesn't seem to be set up for bailouts... http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/20/mitch-mcconnell/bank-bailouts-not-bill-liquidation/— still_independent
- Still Independent- " The financial sector has given $11.1 million to the Democratic National Committee and its two congressional campaign committees so far this election cycle, compared to $7.3 million for Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org. Goldman has given about 70 percent of its donations to Democrats this cycle and gave 75 percent of its $6 million in donations to Democrats in the 2008 election."..........http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/20/republicans-democrats-politici.............. I guess it depends on how you want to spin it. Goldman appears to be the sacrificial lamb at this point and it's fairly obvious that this firm is very much in bed with Democrats. I think what is going on now is just a political show.
- Still Independent- Must you quibble over this? First of all you are missing the broader point by focusing on a statistic. And 2nd of all it depends on how you slice and dice the figure. Is it just in 2008 or over a longer period of time. Are we talking just Goldman or the entire financial sector? Truth be told they are getting millions of dollars from the financial sector. Too many hands are suddenly grasping for the broom of reform for me to believe any of these people are to taken seriously.
- swedesboromike : that's why I like opensecrets. that blog was cherry picking a stat - donations to the DNC/RNC (although the stat is probably representative). They're ignoring donations directly to Republican and Democrat candidates, PACs, etc. opensecrets includes them all. Some of what's going on is definitely political show, but if some meaningful reform comes out of it, then I'm OK with it.... On a partly related note, I do find it odd that many who hailed the Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited spending by corporations as a first ammendment victory are now fretting over how much Goldman Sachs has donated to either party.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : why, time and time again, when you make a factually incorrect statement and I call you on it am I quibbling? " Is it just in 2008 or over a longer period of time." - YOU said 2008. "Are we talking just Goldman or the entire financial sector?" - YOU said "wall street", certainly denoting much more than Goldman Sachs. Again, I "quibble" when you make factual assertions that are untrue. And if we go back over the last several years, then the money favors the Republicans.... Again, I generally agree with you on this. But stop trying to back up your (correct, IMHO) conclusions with demonstrably false facts.— still_independent
- Still Independent - you asked " On a partly related note, I do find it odd that many who hailed the Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited spending by corporations as a first ammendment victory are now fretting over how much Goldman Sachs has donated to either party."..... Fair point. I think George Soros and his move on.org crowd are pretty slimy as well. But, the point is this matter is Democrats are trying to frame themselves as being the party of virtue with clean hands when it come to Wall Street influence. All the political theatre is an insult to anyones intelligence who takes the time to inform themselves. And if the political class are all the sudden geniouses then how did happen in the first place?
- Still Independent- 2008 $5,934,089 $4,463,788 $1,459,961 75% 25% / from open Secrets.com. Sure looks like more than two to one to me. It is actually 3 to 1. This is from Goldman Sachs. This is from the hedge fund industry. 11,248,831 $5,949,299 65% 35%- Edge Democrats and to be fair here is the Securites and Investment Industry, 21,513,828 $12,867,315 62% 37%- Edge Democrats- perhaps this is the statistic you would rather site.
- swedesboromike : see, I can agree with the 10:05 post w/ no qualifiers... missed your post from earlier about the home prices. I experienced something similar. I bought my first home in 1992, at a very young age. Not only did I have to document everything, I had to explain EVERY non-regular deposit over $50. When I bought my current home in 2000, I pretty much provided a copy of my W-2 and signed a check. "Reconnecting" the lender and the borrower would obviously mean less risky loans. That would mean less borrowers. Less borrowers means less demand to purchase homes. Less demand means lower prices. It'd probably be worse in the short term. Finally, not having a Fannie/Freddie there to buy mortages or not having loan originators able to sell them off means that either more lenders would need to move into the market space (not likely, many of the firms that purchased the bundles are definitely not going to go into the mortgage business), or the money supply for lending would be reduced. Assuming this happens, interest rates would also go up. I don't know that any of this is necessarily bad when weighed against what we went through, but it is a likely result and needs to be considered.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : you're mixing stats from different years. For 2008, for the total industry, D - $89,221,944 R - $68,022,536, 57% - 43%.— still_independent
- OK, Still Independent- Is it far to say that Democrats have a significant edge in donations from Wall Street?
- Look at the advantage the Democrats have from the Hedge Fund Industry through the years. What is up with that?............................http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F2700
- swedesboromike : since 2008, yes.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : it's also odd the way the hedge funds EXPLODED in donations in 2008. The gave roughly as much in the 2008 cycle as they did in the ten years prior. I also notice some that gave 100% one way or the other (or really close), but then I guess they don't have many employees.— still_independent
- Betraying my age here, but when we bought our house in the late 70's we had to deliver a truckload of paperwork to show income, job stability, and statements that indicated that we had at least 10% of 'non borrowed' money, 20% preferred. The bank actually wanted us to be able to afford what we borrowed (Imagine that!) We also borrowed from a local bank that still holds the loan. How about we go back to that and let's get rid of most of the current congress as we go.— JimR
- No denying the D's were in bed with Wall Street. Duh, really? I didn't know that. But if you think the R's aren't in bed with Wall Street also, and aren't extremely jealous of the D's at the moment for all the great campaign cash they're getting from Wall Street, you're an imbecile. Also, I'm always amazed at how many R's seem to instinctively defend Wall Street, no matter what they've done. All the outrage is directed at government (not saying it's not deserved), but very little toward the big banking firms. Is anyone here AGAINST the SEC suing Goldman? I think it has something to do with the 2010 election, but who cares? Goldman deserves it. I'm glad they're being sued and their reputation tarnished.— p-diddy
- Just curious, if it were October 2008 and you could place a $1 million bet on who would win more congressional seats in the 2008 election, would you have put it on the D's or the R's? How about the presidency? That's what it comes down to, mostly.— p-diddy
- Corporations that defraud the public should be nationalized, stay nationalized, and run on a non-profit basis for the American consumers. And the real question is not whether this is a great country but, instead, how great could we be without big banks and insurance companies exploiting us.— Delaware Jim
- Delaware Jim, putting the control of our banking system exclusively in the hands of the government is as crazy as leaving it unchecked in the hands of the robber-barons who handle it now. The government doesn't work as effectively as it should now. The answer is in the middle.— JimR
- Over and over and over da da. The opponents of anything productive out of the White H. do the same as matter of routine. They bash any new idea/bill or they offer sarcasm or name calling for anyone attached to that original productive idea/bill. It never changes. How about offering changes or tweeks to the bill. How about a completely new original productive idea/bill to solve the same problem? Wow, wouldn't that be an original productive offering from the Party of NO!— stoneman
- Pdiddy- The point is that Democrats should give up the sham that they have clean hands when it come to wall street money. The narrative the Dems are trying to create is a total con.
- still, why have a $50 Bil slush fund? Even the President is against that piece of the bill. And one statement troubles me, "the (FDIC) shall determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States". How will they determine? What standards are being set? What makes you think the FDIC has the expertise to even make that determination after what they let happen? I say we break these companies up right now, while they are making money. Why wait for some bureaucrat to determine when the 'financial stability of the United States' is at risk. It is at risk right now w/too big too fail companies even bigger today then they were before (other than AIG).— NEPhilly
- still_independent, "Several thousand of the investors are believed to be Americans. But the majority come from countries where investors believed their money would be safer offshore at a bank that appeared to be a formidable global player, investigators say." You appear to be correct, that the majority of Stanford investors were from overseas. Thank goodness on "several thousand" out of the 30,000 total (as noted in the article) were Americans.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, from where on opensecrets do you get your info. If you look up the "heavy hitters" and search for Goldman, in the 2008 election cycle they gave $4.46 million to Dems and $1.46 million to Reps. Since 1990, they have donated $20.3 million to Dems and $11.2 million to Reps. They gave $964K to Obama alone. Are you simply looking at their PAC contributions?— tom - wilmington, de
- I have no problem with the SEC suing Goldman, so long as the suit is legitimate. Already there are problems with it, as indicated by the New York Times, and the hedge fund manager who made $1 Billion on the shorting of the mortgages, who even picked the mortgages to include in the investment vehicle, but who has very close ties to Chuck Schumer, is excluded from the suit. And still nobody has answered why Fannie and Freddie are excluded from the Dodd bill, even as they receive upwards of $400 Billion of bailout money (off budget, by the way, so as not to be reflected in the deficit) with no hint of ever being able to re-pay it. And why is the government still funding high risk mortgages?— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom- From Goldman Sachs, Democrats got nearly 3 times as much money as Republicans. What Still Indpendent is quibling over is that from all of Wall Street the percentages are more like 60/40 with the edge going to the Democrats. I made the mistake of saying all of Wall Street when I should have said Goldman Sachs. Still Independent seizes on a mistake like that. The broader point I was making is that Democrats are more in bed and beholden to Wall Street yet they try to protray themselves as being above wall street influence. This whole thing is a big sham and the case will go no where.
- From today's WSJ..."Sen Charles Schumer (D NY) raised money for the Senate Democrats' campaign arm at an April event sponsored by John Paulson, the New York hedge manager at the center of the government's fraud case against Goldman Sachs.....Neither Mr. Paulson nor his firm has been charged with wrongdoing..." Sure, this whole Goldman lawsuit has nothing to do with politics. Charlie Rose to Rahm Emmanuel..."ROSE: How was it that The New York Times knew about this before Goldman Sachs did, the filing of the complaint? EMANUEL: I have no idea. Everybody at the White House found out like everybody else, when it hit the news. ROSE: When it hit The New York Times, you had it. EMANUEL: No, when it hit the news, it is -- the SEC is an independent agency, operates independently. Nobody at the White House knew anything ahead of anybody else." Nah, not political at all.— tom - wilmington, de
- Do a search on Google, enter "Goldman Sachs SEC" and marvel at the first item that appears..."Help Change Wall Street" with the website "BarackObama.com". It takes you to Organizing for America, the President's campaign arm, and asks for donations. Nah, nothing political in this at all.— tom - wilmington, de
- The IRS is investigating the Florida GOP (and in particular Marco Rubio) over the use of a party credit card and any personal benefit. This was a charge initially leveled by Charlie Crist, friend and supporter of Barack Obama. Coincidence? They must really be afraid of the Conservative Cuban American.— tom - wilmington, de
- Goldman Sachs bailed out YRCW on new years eve thus saving 35,000 teamster jobs. YRCW was trying to do a debt for equity swap but only has 59% of the bondholders agreeing to the deal. The deadline kept gettting extended but the remaining bondholders were not biting as the company was worth more in bankruptcy because the bonds were insured. Finally on News Years eve, and after extending the deadline time and time again it was JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs who bought up the remaining 11% of the bonds needed to make the deal go through and turned them in. YRCW was able to retire 500 million in debt and have access to a credit line to keep the company operating into 2010. Their stock was worth 64 dollars a share in 2005 was worth just 40 cents a few weeks later. Goldman had no reason to help this company out of bankruptcy but it was a union company and the Obama admin wasn't going to let 35,000 union jobs go down the drain without using their defacto financial arm, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, to save them. The Obama regime and Goldman Sachs are in cahoots with one another. They accepted tarp funds and because of that they will forever be in servitude to the Obama regime. Don't let what is going on now fool you.
- Audit and End The FED "LENDER OF LAST RESORT", who with their Wall St. buddies created this mess........How in God's name can we give The FED more regulatory power, when they won't open their books to show who was favored w/ the bailout?????— Dadair1
- From CNBC..."The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned. Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling. If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson's position." So, according to this story, the SEC has testimony that refute the charges it ultimately brought against Goldman. Nah, not a political move at all.— tom - wilmington, de
- swede...is YRCW the trucking company that used to be Jevic, Yellow, Roadway, etc.? They are teamsters, correct?— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom- YRCW is Yellow Freight and Roadway- that is now all one operation called YRC but the trucks are not re-logoed yet . They also own New Penn and USF. All of them are teamsters. At one time Yellow did own Jevic but they sold that to SCS many years ago then a private equity firm bought Jevic and they went out of business a few years ago. YRCW is the lagest LTL trucking company in the country and one of the last remaining teamster trucking companies in the country . Their profit issues are caused primarily by pension fund obligations to their own employees and the employees of all the teamster trucking companies that went out of business. But they are trying to get that fixed with legislation now in congress. If passed the taxpayers would be on the hook for all the pensions. The other issues are archaic work work rules, declining customer base, old equipment, and antiquated networks.
- NEPhilly: "What makes you think the FDIC has the expertise to even make that determination after what they let happen? " What did they let happen? Did the FDIC have mortage oversight? Any Fannie or Freddie oversight? As far as criteria, I have no idea what it is. How do they determine now if a bank has "failed"? Should they not insure depositors anymore?... As for the $50B, if you read the article I linked, it was pretty clear. They need to do things like keep the lights on, meet payroll, pay vendors, etc while an institution is being liquidated. I haven't seen that Obama was against it, just that it wasn't in his proposal. ... In any case, I was addressing the fact that the reform bill is NOT being set up to enable bailouts in the future.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: "Still Independent seizes on a mistake like that.". Yes I do. When you use the same incorrect statistics on three separate blogs because it favors your point, you get called on it all three, and continue to use it, then yes, I "seize" on it. And it's closer to 55-45 than 60-40. But round up as it suits you.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: "Their stock was worth 64 dollars a share in 2005 was worth just 40 cents a few weeks later" - you may be right about all the rest, but why this throwaway line? It was $0.99 on 12/30. It dropped to $0.72 on 1/4. It didn't break the $0.40 barrier until mid-feb. Why are you (or the author you copied w/out indicating as such) throw this in except to make it seem like GS cost shareholders a ton? btw, the price has recovered about 50% since those lows.— still_independent
- tom: about the stats - at different times I was going to the opensecrets data that matched swedesboromikes. at times he was citing numbers from congressional data, other times overall. generally, I try to stick to overall, unless speaking directly about congressional races. you have to be careful, because it's based upon "election cycle", not the date it's donated.— still_independent
- Polman blasts McConnell for meeting privately with Wall Street investors, and Obama at the Boxer fundraiser even joked about it, yet here was the Washington Post on April 19th, 2010..."As President Obama prepares to deliver a speech in New York later this week that will attempt to align his administration squarely on the side of American taxpayers furious with Wall Street, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, met privately on Sunday night with some of the city's top investors. At a private cocktail reception at the Park Avenue home of investors Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein, Emanuel joked about how each of the 60 guests should take a work of art home before speaking seriously about the administration's commitment to regulation reform." Harry Reid wants to know details of McConnells meeting, does he also want details of Rahm's meeting?— tom - wilmington, de
- The Democrats should "give up the sham" when it comes to Wall Street influence? Gee, great point Swede. So the reason you're upset is because right now the Democrats happen to get more money from Wall Street than the Republicans. You know why they get more? Because they've been winning elections recently. You've been wailing away at the Dmeocrats over this. Just curious, do you think Goldman should be sued? Do you think increased regulation of Wall Street is necessary?— p-diddy
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: