Really Mr. President?

[MadHound]

"President Barack Obama praised JP Morgan Chase in an interview recorded Monday as "one of the best managed banks there is" and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, as "one of the smartest bankers we got." On Tuesday, the White House made public financial disclosure forms showing the president and First Lady Michelle Obama had between $500,001 and $1,000,000 in a "JP Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management Checking Account."
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-financial-forms-show-big-jp-morgan-account-215741430.html

Look, I don't begrudge the President having lots of money, though he is now a member of the 1%. I don't even begrudge him having an account at JP Morgan, after all, it was one of the most stable of the big banks before last week.

But really, it is really such a bright idea to praise JP Morgan as one of the best managed banks, and its CEO as one of the smartest bankers after word of last week's debacle? Losing 2 plus billion is not a sign of good management or being a smart banker. It is a sign of greed, greed that got caught and burned.

One does have to wonder however, with all of his investments in bankster institutions, does this have any relation to the ongoing laxity of financial regulation in this country? Maybe, maybe not, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'm just cynical that way.

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[bhikkhu]

100. rec DU to verify quotes, before jumping in with a cheer. n/t

[cali]

2. Is it a bright idea? I don't think there's any way

of excusing his comment about that scumbag Dimon, but he did seem to use the comment about Morgan as a springboard for greater reform and oversight.

I still don't like it.

[Lionessa]

54. Problem is most Americans are so ignorant, no one even has to hide their allegiance to these crooks.

Weird situation. I'm homeless, so I seek out people who will allow me to park my 5x8 utility trailer in which I live, hook up to electric so I can try to re-start my biz as I seem to be otherwise unemployable. To date regardless of community, only wingers have been agreeable to this, and I don't usually find out they're wingers till a few weeks in. Nonetheless, no Dems or Libs or Progs have ever offered anything but sympathy. So I am currently outside the abode of a gentle biker, making between $50 -100K a year at skilled manual labor.

He works the night shift, so every evening I come in to cook myself some dinner (he never wants any so yes, my dinner, not ours, and now I am not sleeping with him or even inside) and we bullshit. Every night I try to sneak in a little politics. Now he knows I'm a raging progressive, but we have gained some mutual respect just about general life issues. He's a progressive, he just doesn't know it.

Last night I mentioned my annoyance that the Buffet tax is being called a millionaires' tax, when in fact only multii-mil and billionaires would actually be paying it because it was with regard to yearly income, not accumulated assets. He didn't know this. He's lived small most of his life, he's been fortunate in some wills, and he's probably close to a millionaire though most of it isn't liquid assets, it's mostly land ownership. Once I finished my rant, just a general rant so as to not let him feel targeted in enlightening conversation, he's all "yeah, those are the one's that need to be taxed, not me, and gee, it isn't going to be me if the Buffett rule goes in or the Bush tax cuts for the rich are expired.. ."

Well then I hit with the fact that it's Republicans that keep interfering with keeping the middle class tax cuts and expiring the billionaires' tax cuts. And they are blocking any attempt to get the super-wealthy from paying fair share.

His answer, "F; it doesn't matter, they're all the same, it'll never change, and I'm a Republican."

So then I read this and realize that the ignorant can yet be 100% right in their final analysis. It doesn't matter who we vote for with regard to the economy, all available options are pretty much the same, and anything the 1%, banks, & Wallstreet did that was illegal is being made legal anyway.

Very discouraging.

[whathehell]

68. Just so you know..

"Nonetheless, no Dems or Libs or Progs have ever offered anything but sympathy".

I have offered two "Going to be homeless" DUers shelter of at least a couple of months.

Neither took me up on the offer. The first, with whom I spoke to via telephone, found family

to help him. The second never offered me a reason beyond " I have difficulty trusting people".

[Lionessa]

70. In no way have I said it never happens, just not for me.

It's been pretty bizarre. Most of them agree with me issue by issue but are so misinformed as to what their elected officials are doing, they just believe what FNC tells them they are doing. This guy doesn't watch FNC but all his co-workers seem to.

[whathehell]

72. I understand..

and it's a sad thing...Where do you live?

[Lionessa]

75. Currently I'm trying Arizona, Phoenix area.

[whathehell]

81. Seems like a good place to be in the winter

Summer seems like it might be rought, though you probably have

other considerations like friends, connections, etc.

I live in the Chicago area.

[marble falls]

3. If I had between a half and one mil in a bank, it'd be in one I thought highly of,......

just saying.

[Jumping John]

4. Yea no matter how stupid, sloppy and messy it admits itself to be.

[marble falls]

82. I hate banks. I can't believe how cozy some relationships with banks the President has are, .....

its worrisome and then I realize that if the election was all things being equal except how the President has expressed himself regarding banking regulation how Mitt has expressed himself - hands down I am voting for the President. Remembering that the crap the GOP pulled during the Dick Cheney presidential manifestation was through changes in regulations in what constitutes a bank and what they were allowed to do to make money with my money during Bill Clinton's second term.

Morgan isn't the worst and I don't even mean that as faint praise. The President has been as transparent as any President we've ever had has been. I hope he does what he says he's going to do to rein in the banksters. I hope Morgan doesn't expect any tax dollars.

[TBF]

5. The President is likely in the top 1% now -

but he's in the bottom rungs to be sure. It's an important distinction. I don't like him making that comment with his own money in that bank and I am glad for the full disclosure (which in all honesty I'm sure we wouldn't have gotten from the last administration).

Obama has power for sure but he is a lightweight in terms of wealth. He and Michelle just finished paying off their student loans within the past 10 years if I'm remembering correctly. We truly have bigger fish to fry. Jmo.

[progressoid]

10. "We truly have bigger fish to fry"

Yep. And one of those fish is JP Morgan. But I have a feeling that big fish is going to get away like all the others did.

[Marblehead]

6. never talk bad

about your boss

[Myrina]

8. +10

n/t

[harun]

24. We have a BINGO

[BlueIris]

50. Snerk. nt

[donheld]

106. + 10 more

[Onlooker]

7. I think the president is being clever

Rather than blame the JPMOrgan, he's blaming the Congress, implying that Congress is failing in its obligation to regulate the banking industry, and to the extent it is regulated, that's thanks to the Democrats. If he blamed JPMorgan, the response from the right would be that the industry is self-regulating and JPMorgan would be punished by the market. By saying JPMorgan is well run, he's saying there are structural problems that need to be addressed by Congress.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. He's being clever? The chess master has certaintly out-foxed some. n/t

[JayhawkSD]

32. Actually, that's not clever.

It's intelligent, and factual to boot.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. You are entitled to your opinion.

Others are entitled to theirs.

I'll agree with those whom I wish, thank you very much.

[sharp_stick]

45. That's a funny comment

taken along with the first line of your sig. Which to believe?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. I agree with your first post, and this one as well.

[jtuck004]

44. That's like blaming the sheriff for Jesse James robberies. n/t

[Matt_R]

95. NO.

It would be like blaming the sheriff for letting Jesse James go after he was behind bars.

[abelenkpe]

31. That's the way it seemed to me

He's trying to emphasize the need for regulation. That is a good thing. And an idea gaining popularity around the globe as austerity is being rejected. I've seen this same tactic at work. If you criticize someone (no matter how much they might deserve it) they will withdraw and possibly drag their feet or worse get defensive. But if you praise them you stand a better chance of getting them to change and work within a different changing set of rules. Sucks though cause most people (including myself) would like to see jp Morgan and all big banks get their comeuppance.

There is a great possibility of another financial crisis similar to 2008. Many fear governments will react the same by coddling the financial industry to the detriment of the working class. I don't think they can repeat that. The reaction will be different.

[JayhawkSD]

33. Yes, blaming JP Morgan is counterproductive.

By pointing out that well managed banks can have this happen, he illustrates the to problem is not "mistakes were made on Wall Street" and that existing structure is not working. I actually wish he's gone on to be more specific about the need for regulation of the credit derivatives which caused the loss, and which Congress and Barney Frank refused to regulate.

[uponit7771]

42. Yeap, I saw this as a contrasting statment too...saying if this one screws up this bad look at

...what the other will do.

Bashers see everything in a negative lite though

[progressoid]

9. Yeah, it's this kind of statement that gives one pause.

One could argue that he's trying to keep the economic community calm or some such crap. But it really sends a message to the rest of us peons that this will get a cursory review by the govt. Followed by a slap on the wrist again (if anything).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. Plus bonuses!

[BklnDem75]

11. Really? Why cherrypick a quote? Context matters

Just hours after a top JPMorgan Chase executive retired in the wake of a stunning $2 billion trading loss, President Obama told the hosts of ABC’s “The View” that the bank’s risky bets exemplified the need for Wall Street reform.

“JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,” the president said. “We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-jpmorgan-is-one-of-the-best-managed-banks/


Anyone who actually heard the full quote would know he was trying to make a point.

[FSogol]

12. Yup, the OP is essentially taking the quote out of context to bash the President.

Maybe this is too subtle: JPMorgan is the best bank around and if they can get away with such boneheaded moves, then it shows the need for more Wall St Reform.

Now what does the OP remind me of?
Can't think of it.
Guess I'll keep trying.

[Robb]

18. Fox News.

[inna]

107. You Better Believe It!!1111

Seriously, comments like that are fucking nauseating. Quit hounding progressive posters; it's sick and disturbing and reflects extremely poorly on DU as a whole.

[ProSense]

14. Context does not

matter. The proof that Obama (not JP Morgan, not Dimon, not the banks, not the Republicans) is the enemy is clear.

Why the hell would anyone focus on a few words in a valid point to spend days slamming the President?

The political climate is becoming absurd.

[FedUp_Queer]

16. No, actually it doesn't matter.

The fact is he called JPMorgan and Jamie "the Shark" Dimond, among the best banks and the smartest bankers. Context, in this context, is irrelevant because, in fact, Jamie Dimond is a crook and scheister. Context WOULD have mattered had he told the facts and called Dimond the crook that he is, but, I know, I know, it's all three-dimensional chess and we "just don't see it."

[ProSense]

17. Yes, it does matter

and no amount of idiotic spin changes that.

And fuck" three-dimensional chess."

[FedUp_Queer]

43. Yawn.

No, actually, in this case it doesn't matter. However, you are right about one thing...fuck "three-dimensional" chess, because Obama is a corporatist in the pocket of the big banks. Can you EVER step out of the spin zone? I can certainly give him credit where it's due (on his marriage equality stance, for instance), but it does not erase the fact that the criminals who got us in this mess, the national security state and military industrial complex have prospered swimmingly under this president. The rest of the people? Not so much. Mr. Dimond, along with his minions, got off with a tap (not even a slap) on the wrist with Obama's mortgage fraud settlement. Ronald Reagan would be proud.

[trumad]

13. Finish the fucking quote.

Fuck I hate when people do that...

“We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”

[spanone]

15. no shit. taken out of context.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. I see it as the Bradley Manning declaration in reverse

Obama made off-the-cuff comments implying he believed Manning was guilty. He should have kept his opinions private and let the process work on its own. On the flipside he shouldn't be opining that J.P. Morgan is is well-run and and Mr. Dimon is a good executive. If the investigation is the important take-away then let there be an investigation without the sideline commentary by the one person who adminstrates the entire investigative and enforcement branch of government.

[Dragonfli]

48. This is why we passed wall street reform!

So that the smartest bankers can still get almost free money and trade and gamble as they see fit with it!!
Just like God and the free market intended.

This proves the reform worked!

You have to admit, they are smart, they still do as they wish and credit default swaps are still there to help the economy by fueling the casino.

Really bad reform would have needlessly impaired them from doing so, the only way out of this is with more "financial products" like swaps, can you imagine if reform stopped the betting that is needed now most of all?

That banker is smart, hell yeah, but Obama is smarter, he knows how to not interfere with what really matters.

I am sick of all the bank bashing and Obama bashing.
both are our better angels.

[trumad]

49. Bank bashing?

Go read the Taibbi piece and come back to me to tell me why we shouldn't bash banks.

[Dragonfli]

51. Because they are smart people, and JP is one of the best ones! Why bash the good? /nt

[trumad]

53. JP just lost 2 billion dollars....

Let's say it again--- 2 billion dollars.

[Dragonfli]

56. That is why we passed reform, what aren't you following?

Reform worked, this is one of the best banks run by one of the smartest guys, since it happened after reform the only possible conclusion is the loss had nothing to do with it being a bad bank, or a CEO doing something less than smart.

That is why we passed reform, all you want to do is bash, not very productive IMO.
Go after the real criminals, there are millions of habitual drug users out there smoking under a "medical" technicality.

The banks have been reformed, my President says this is a good bank, end of story.

STOP BASHING!

[trumad]

58. You really do not know what you are talking about....

<snip>
The JPM episode touches on all the major protections of D-F, which at the behest of Wall Street lobbying will not go into effect for months if not years and therefore did not apply to the JPM trades in question.

If the trades at issue were proprietary trading (as now appears to be the case), they would be banned by the Volcker Rule. Even if these trades were not proprietary, but, as they almost surely were, uncleared, they would have been banned by the Lincoln or push out rule. There is now a bi-partisan effort in the House to dump the Lincoln Rule.

If Dodd-Frank had been in effect, these trades would almost certainly have been required to be cleared and transparently executed. So they would have been priced by objective clearing operations on at least a weekly basis for purposes of collecting margin against the losing nature of the trades. As the trades lost value, margin would have been called for on a regular and systematic basis. (The losses would never have reached $ 2B without much earlier and corresponding regular calls for margin.) The losing nature of the trades would have been transparent to market observers and regulators for quite some time and the losses would not have piled up opaquely. It is almost certain that, at the very least, the Fed (not wanting to exacerbate its reputation for throwing taxpayer money at TBTF problems), would have backed JPM off these trades long ago.

Even if the trades were not required to be cleared, they still would have had to be reported to the public and to the regulators.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/jamies-cryin-dimon-j-p-morgan-chase-lose-2-billion-20120511#ixzz1v3apBGkb

[Dragonfli]

60. You just proved my point, reform has saved us. /nt

[trumad]

61. OK--now you're fucking with me.

[Dragonfli]

62. No, Listen to our President, he explained JP is/was not the problem as you have tried to tar them

“This is the best, or one of the best-managed banks. You could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we MIGHT have had to step in,” Obama said. “That’s exactly why Wall Street reform’s so important.”

I stand by my President, he says this is a good bank, you disagree with him FINE, but don't bash him and a bank he vouched for.

I stand by the POTUS, what do you stand for? Are you here to disrupt?

[trumad]

63. Dude---

You were spouting---no shouting--- reform worked----reform worked!!!

I just posted proof that reform wasn't even in play with the JP fuck up because it's not in place yet and won't be for years.

I really can't stand sycophants who chirp the type of shit that you chirp.

You ask if I'm here to disrupt? Well I don't know Junior---am I?

[Dragonfli]

66. I was quoting our president, the one you kept contradicting, bashing the President

is not allowed here. Contradicting him is what Republicans do, I am not sure yet if you are here to disrupt, that is why I asked. I will have to see if you cross the line in future to answer for you.

So far you have been counter-productive to the party, had there been more I would have alerted, as it stands, I am simply suspicious.

I do not wear a fake cowboy hat, so "dude" is not a very apt description.

[trumad]

73. OK---here it is--- please don't tell anyone.

I have been here since 2001 and am amazed that I have gotten away with trolling as long as I have.

Over 31,000 thousand posts here on DU and you are the first to figure it out.

Fucking amazing in mho.

I cannot even begin to tell you how hard is---errr was... to keep others from knowing who I really am.

Again---please keep this quiet---but my name on Free Republic is douche1. My name on Conservative Underground---douche2. At those forums you will find a litany of posts making fun of DU Members like Catwoman, Will Pitt, MadinMaryland, etc.

Catwoman---come on---I bet you she only has Dogs. Will Pitt--- yeah guy name, but trust me when I say this---he's a female in Patriots drag. MadinMaryland, dude lives in France and pretends to be a Pirates fan. LOL---who the fuck pretends to be a Pirates fan?

I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not alert on this and turn me in. Between you and me--- Cool?

[Dragonfli]

74. Fair enough! Congratulations on your incredibly successful venture.

PS I always thought that Catwoman was a Dog lover!!!

I knew about Will years ago, I used to date her for a short period in '05

[WilliamPitt]

76. Excuse me?

And who the fuck are you again?

I have shoes, ties and phlegm older than you.

Try again.

[Dragonfli]

77. Trumad was joking, it was funny

I played along with the joke, that's all.

The part that made the joke funny was it's absurdity.

I am nobody, just a guy trying to evolve to fit a party that has been changing for a while, I joined the party in 1972, my views from then as with most of the older Democratic views have been abandoned, it has evolved far beyond what I believe, at this point I am just trying to adopt the tone and opinion of the party as it is now.

I never met you personally, but I have been following at least some of your writing (here and at TruthOut) since at least '03.
I think you write very well if that matters.

[WilliamPitt]

80. And we dated?

You'd think I'd remember.

On edit: I missed the Pats joke.

Trumad is a notorious douchebag, but nobody's troll.

You have my apologies.

[Dragonfli]

94. I think I can shed light on why you don't remember, you see, people like to call me "a little prick"

At first I thought it was a derogatory statement meant to disparage me, but I realize now, they were being physically descriptive.
It is quite possible that you do not remember what was too small to feel, that would explain why you don't remember while also explaining why that is such a go to nick name for me.

[theaocp]

67. Dragonfli, did somebody step up to your keyboard while you took a break?

This isn't like you at all. Bad day?

[KG]

91. i see what you did there...

[Dragonfli]

93. Shhh, don't blow my cover. /nt

[Romulox]

19. Don't let them fool you. It's just as bad in full context:

Here's the context. The President is still praising the man who just lost $2B, and he's still justifying NOT regulating JPMorgan more stringently ("we might have HAD to step in...&quot

“JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,” the president said. “We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”
...
“This is the best, or one of the best-managed banks. You could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in,” Obama said. “That’s exactly why Wall Street reform’s so important.”

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-14/wall_street/31699758_1_banks-jamie-dimon-watch-obama#ixzz1v2ONoUyu

[ProSense]

21. No, here's

"Here's the context. The President is still praising the man who just lost $2B, and he's still justifying NOT regulating JPMorgan more stringently ('we might have HAD to step in...')"

....what's important:

What Five Hours From Last Thursday Can Tell Us About Dodd-Frank and JP Morgan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002688437

You see, the regulations are there, enacted by this President. They are in the process of being implemented, and they can always be strengthened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002688392

[Romulox]

22. "a bank that isn’t as strong...making those same bets and we **might** have had to step in..."

You could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-14/wall_street/31699758_1_banks-jamie-dimon-watch-obama#ixzz1v2SHQmun

[ieoeja]

83. Part of the bank reform was requiring them to keep more cash on hand. Without that JPM would ...

... be bankrupted by this mistake. Because of reform they have the cash to weather this.

And the cash on hand is relative to their investments. Since they lost cash on this, they now have a smaller limit they are eligible to gamble.

So the bank is as strong, and we don't have to step in because of ... bank reform.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Thanks.

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
-- George W. Bush "

[malthaussen]

20. I think he's trying to have it both ways

In the first part of the statement, he damns with faint praise. But in the second, he licks the hand that feeds him.

-- Mal

[BootinUp]

25. You missed the point, and the point is as obvious as the nose on your face.

How did you miss it? There are articles all over the place that will explain it to you.

[Roy Rolling]

26. the truth hurts

Banks are so screwed up that Chase is one of the better-run banks, despite dumping $3 billion in trades over a month's time.

JP Morgan Chase is one of the better-run banks, it gives some indication how bad the whole industry is.

Still, it was a bonehead statement because it lacks context.

[BklnDem75]

34. Probably because the context was left out

Usually happens with half quotes...

[WI_DEM]

27. if you are going to quote the president then quote in entirety what he said instead of selective

bits to back up what you want to say.

[lonestarnot]

28. Geeze Mr. President...

Why do you even bother to say crap like that so that context removers can use it against you?

[rusty fender]

35. From his remarks on "The View" it is clear that

the President has a crush on Jamie Dimon. Obama is, afterall, the 'Gay President.'

[jeff47]

36. Why are you lying?

You cut the important parts out of the quote.

Obama's point was that a well managed and successful bank still lost $2B, which is why we need wall street reform.

Instead, you mangled the quote so you could take a cheap shot at President Obama. You are claiming he meant something the exact opposite of what he was saying.

[Pisces]

39. Yes, it is a good idea. If the best can't stop such huge losses it proves we need stringent

regulation. Not that you care for a good response. It is ridiculous that we have snipers on this board ready to attack the
President by parsing his every word. You would think this was a Fox news blog at times.

The President will win reelection despite the attempts by some to disrupt.

[kentuck]

40. If this is one of the best-managed banks...?

..with one of the smartest bankers...?

Then why is this the only bank we have heard about so far that has made such a huge "mistake" since the crash of 2008?

If the other banks are worse, wouldn't this have happened before now?

Or maybe there is more to the story?

[Gregorian]

41. Eliminate lobbying from our politics. Let the government serve the real people.

He's bound by strings of money. It may seem like there is no difference between the different presidents. But one was doing the job willingly. I believe Obama cringes as he follows orders.

[Zorra]

46. It's true. Dimon is one of the smartest banksters.

But the bar is set low for banksters. Banksters...well, ya know...they're generally a few slices short of a whole pizza, if you catch my drift.

That's why none of them have a real job, and why they have to steal from everyone else in order to survive.

[phleshdef]

47. Disingenious criticism.

You know better than this. You know exactly what his point was. Even the best managed banks are subject to utter shittiness if we don't properly regulate them. That was his point and its a damn good one. And I'm sure you realize this. Stop pretending that it meant something that it didn't mean.

[mac56]

57. +1

[snooper2]

52. You get enough OP FAIL replies yet..

Or will it take 50-80 more LOL

[Ikonoklast]

55. As noted above, half-quotes to fit a commentary is not going to prove whatever point

you were trying to make.

I can do it, too.

...it is really such a bright idea to praise JP Morgan as one of the best managed banks, and its CEO as one of the smartest bankers...a sign of good management...being a smart banker.

Half-quotes are useless, unless they are used to fit an agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

59. Really, MadHound? Short-sheeting the president's comments?

Anybody that offers up an edited comment to prove a point is not to be taken seriously.

A familiar technique. You better believe it.

[FSogol]

64. LOL

[Son of Gob]

71. We're witnessing a power play to see who takes the mantle of head distortionist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. "one of the best managed banks there is" Does that mean that the other thieves aren't as blatent?

[theaocp]

69. I don't think JPM lost $2 billion...

I think it's much higher than that. Well-managed, my ass.

[boxman15]

78. Gotta love cherry-picked out of context quotes.

He was making a point that this is why we need Wall Street regulation. If one of the best can lose $2 billion+, what more proof do you need?

[October]

90. Wish I could "rec" your reply. /nt

[JoePhilly]

79. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

... and another manufactured outrage widget hits the shop room floor.

[Dragonfli]

97. Obama is not bad you troll, I am alerting on your post

if you think he is bad go to some Romney site, The Obama I know is perfect in every way!!!

TOS alert.

I hope you get banned for your hatred of all things Obama!!!

[JoePhilly]

108. I heard he once put mustard on a burger.

[lefthandedlefty]

86. He really is smart

I bet that he never lost one thin dime himself even though the bank lost billions.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. It would give all of us more confidence that justice would be done if there was a history of that.

For some, it is difficult to forget the widespread mortgage-bubble scam, the bailouts, the bonuses, and not one bankster in prison.

Now, some believe that this latest $2 billion fiasco is similar to what we saw before.

Some, who may not be as wise as others, believe that, at most, there were be some public talk and a symbolic slap on the wrist. Some believe that there may be more bailouts and bonuses.

Are they right? Time will tell. But I sure wish that we had a country with a history of putting banksters in prison.

[magical thyme]

88. Actually, it IS a good idea....

It proves, once and for all, that when even "one of the best managed banks there is" fucks up so royally, we really, really, really desperately need strong bank regulation.

We need to re-instate Glass-Steagal. President Obama's admission that "one of the best managed banks there is" can't avoid mismanagement and criminality proves it beyond reasonable doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and beyond all doubt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. Obama sucks! You Better Believe It!

[Dragonfli]

96. Life must be really empty for you as the only joy you get is to continue to dance on that grave

We get it, it was a victory for Obama, I am in the tank for him too, no matter what he does, it is the best thing anyone could have done, he is perfect in every way, I actually agree and have been taking those to task for even the slightest insinuation that he is not perfect.

But grave dancing over a critic of his (thank God) right of center policies, is just low class.

I agree that any criticism should be banned and BBI was a major victory in the good fight to end criticism of what is likely the first perfect man since Jesus, but Obama would take the high road, not keep grave dancing over this small victory against criticism (a worthy goal in itself, as criticism of God is the devils work)

Try to be as classy as our hero in future. He hates conflict.

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. And I hate GOP drivel. And apparently so does Skinner.

With as much class as I can muster.

Sincerely,
TD




[IMG][/IMG]

[Dragonfli]

99. It is good to hate everything right or left of Obama, but just sayin, HE has class

perhaps we should emulate him, he even speaks well of Boehner at times and seeks common ground and compromise with the GOP itself, a left wing critic is evil, that goes without saying, everything left wing is evil, look at the Nation, or FDL (yuck) but, I think Obama is so great we should be more like him, the great man that gets along with the opposition in Washington.

We won, the critic was silenced, time to move on to compromise with the GOP as God and Obama intended.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. Say hi for me!

[Dragonfli]

102. I WISH, Obama doesn't take my calls, even tho I am his biggest fan ever

He has more important people to talk to.

Subsequently, if you get the chance, say hi for ME OK?

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. "He has more important people to talk to."

So do I. See ya!

[Dragonfli]

104. Thank you for your service!

[tblue37]

92. His point is that if the "very best managed" bank and "very brightest" banker

screws up so badly when inadequately regulated, then it is inevitable that “ordinary” banks and bank managers—i.e, most of them—will inevitably screw up even worse, to the point where once again we would have to bail them out. Therefore, we must enact regulations that won’t depend on banks and bankers getting it right, because the best of thejust do not and cannot "get it right."

I worried when he said it, though, that many people would misinterpret his point. He isn't really praising the bank or the banker, but pointing out that even as "well-managed" and as "smart" as they are, respectively, they nevertheless screwed up really, really badly.

I teach college writing, and my rule is what can be misunderstood will be misunderstood. So when I teach, I spell everything out as clearly as possible, and I require my students to make their points crystal clear, as well.

[JoePhilly]

109. Agree to a point, however ...

those who want to misunderstand will do so no mater what.

[Rex]

105. They are wrong to tether their careers to these organizations

aw who am I kidding! Rich people need mega yachts!