PDA

View Full Version : OT: The Oxymoronic President


Kaylore
06-07-2011, 02:11 PM
The Oxymoronic President

By Richard Cohen

I once worked for an editor who banned the word "oxymoron." I don't know why. It's a good word, meaning a contradiction in terms. The dictionary offers some examples: "wise fool" and "legal murder." I would like to cite another: Barack Obama. He sends contradictory messages.

This aspect of Obama's is beginning to play a crucial role in his management of the economy. The fact remains, no matter what Obama says -- and almost no matter what he does -- the business community deeply feels that he is unsympathetic to them and their goals. They say all they want to do is make an (honest) buck but to do that they need consistency, predictability and -- it would be nice -- a pat on the back.

The apprehension about Obama was forcefully expressed by Kenneth Langone, a former director of the New York Stock Exchange. Last year, he used a CNBC town hall meeting to tell Obama that the business community thinks he's antagonistic. Speaking directly to the president (via videotape), Langone replied to the question of what Obama should be doing: "Well, I think the one thing to do is to not make people in business feel like we're villains or criminals or doing something wrong."

"Are you vilifying business?" the moderator, John Harwood, asked the president a bit later.

the rest: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/07/the_oxymoronic_president_110108.html

TheReverend
06-07-2011, 02:17 PM
The lockout has officially turned the OM into a political forum

Pontius Pirate
06-07-2011, 02:22 PM
There are so many people on Wall Street that have yet to even be indicted over their involvement in the mortgage crisis, let alone thrown in jail. Take the entire leadership team of Goldman for eg.

That's too bad that they feel there is a parent in town now that won't let them do whatever they want. I guess they need to grow up and follow the rules.

TonyR
06-07-2011, 02:29 PM
The lockout has officially turned the OM into a political forum

And Kaylore is competing to be the new epicfaildramaskillet. Who can get the most anti-Obama/anti-Democrat/anti-Liberal/anti-sanity threads on the front page!!!

The fog is getting thicker. (and Leon's getting larger)

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 02:36 PM
Obama is no mystery, when it comes to economics. He'll pretty much do anything his Goldman Sachs handlers tell him to do.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-07-2011, 02:37 PM
Obama is no mystery, when it comes to economics. He'll pretty much do anything his Goldman Sachs handlers tell him to do.

yeah, seriously. Those wall street cats got a pretty sweetheart deal. Its absurd they are complaining about anything.

Chris
06-07-2011, 02:41 PM
Ken Langone is a raging douche and a bully but this is certainly how that "community" (see: shark pool) feels. Having said that, that's not why the jobs report was unexpectedly weak. They're not small business owners. They're hijacking the recent job report to push for a repeal of the minor reforms they've encountered since the crisis they caused.

BroncosSR
06-07-2011, 05:21 PM
Let's be fair. Deregulation of the financial industry started with Clinton and was followed into the Bush administration. Obama might be turning a blind eye to it but certainly isn't the reason why Goldman/Morgan/etc have gotten away with murder.

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 08:21 PM
IMO, "Too big to fail" is the stupidest political (or economic) concept I have ever heard.

Dudeskey
06-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Obama is no mystery, when it comes to economics. He'll pretty much do anything his Goldman Sachs handlers tell him to do.

And so will the next president...Ö

TonyR
06-07-2011, 08:59 PM
IMO, "Too big to fail" is the stupidest political (or economic) concept I have ever heard.

I actually agree with it. The issue to me is that these big corps, particularly the banks, need to be broken up so they aren't "too big to fail". That and antitrust laws need to have more teeth.

BroncoInferno
06-07-2011, 09:02 PM
Let's be fair. Deregulation of the financial industry started with Clinton and was followed into the Bush administration. Obama might be turning a blind eye to it but certainly isn't the reason why Goldman/Morgan/etc have gotten away with murder.

Actually, it started with Reagan's appointment of Greenspan to run the Federal Reserve. You're right, though...every President since has capitulated.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-07-2011, 09:08 PM
Let's be fair. Deregulation of the financial industry started with Clinton giving conservatives, i.e., Gramm, Leach, Bliley, et al, what they wanted.

Fixed.

Mr. Elway
06-07-2011, 09:39 PM
The economic collapse was due to greedy people borrowing more than they could pay, and greedy creditors gambling on just how much they could make from it. That's simple human nature: Of course corporations want to make as much money as they can, even at the expense of others. Of course poor people want nice stuff they cannot afford.

The purpose of government regulation isn't to oppress big business, it's to keep them from breaking the rules, risking the nation's economy and forcing a bailout. Regardless of how you feel about the bailout (both sides of Congress seemed pretty supportive at the time as I recall), if companies like AIG could behave themselves it wouldn't be necessary.

Obama is a Democrat and as such he thinks that the privileged, educated and rich have a responsibility not to take advantage of a situation like that. Dems think that's altruistic and Republicans consider it naive, unnecessary and harmful to capitalistic endeavors. It is not, however, oxymoronic. Everyone already knows that Democrats think that way. Obama knows what side he is on and he speaks for it. Ideally I would love for a Democratic president to admit that the borrowers carry a big share of the blame, but of course that won't happen because that's not how politics work.

I am just continually amazed with people's inability to see both sides of these political issues. To me that is the real na´vetÚ.

Taco John
06-07-2011, 09:57 PM
The lockout sucks soooooooooooooooooooooooo bad.

BroncoInferno
06-07-2011, 10:09 PM
The economic collapse was due to greedy people borrowing more than they could pay, and greedy creditors gambling on just how much they could make from it. That's simple human nature: Of course corporations want to make as much money as they can, even at the expense of others. Of course poor people want nice stuff they cannot afford.

The purpose of government regulation isn't to oppress big business, it's to keep them from breaking the rules, risking the nation's economy and forcing a bailout. Regardless of how you feel about the bailout (both sides of Congress seemed pretty supportive at the time as I recall), if companies like AIG could behave themselves it wouldn't be necessary.

Obama is a Democrat and as such he thinks that the privileged, educated and rich have a responsibility not to take advantage of a situation like that. Dems think that's altruistic and Republicans consider it naive, unnecessary and harmful to capitalistic endeavors. It is not, however, oxymoronic. Everyone already knows that Democrats think that way. Obama knows what side he is on and he speaks for it. Ideally I would love for a Democratic president to admit that the borrowers carry a big share of the blame, but of course that won't happen because that's not how politics work.

I am just continually amazed with people's inability to see both sides of these political issues. To me that is the real na´vetÚ.

Well, I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 deal. The incentives given to lenders were not risk-adjusted, so their goal was to convince (trick) the buyer into thinking that they really could afford the deal. Once the deal was signed, the banker could care less whether the buyer made their payments or not...he still gets his commission. No less than Allan Greenspan said that you could have a doctorate in math and not be able to interpret the deals these banks were writing up. The average Joe assumed (understandably) that the banks wouldn't lend them money unless they believed they would get their money back, not knowing that the bank didn't care if they got paid back or not because they would just turn around and sell the mortgage to a third party. They didn't think their local banker would rip them off, or even have incentive to. You can blame them for naivete, sure, but it ain't a 50/50 deal. The predatory lenders deserve the brunt.

Mr. Elway
06-07-2011, 10:44 PM
The average Joe assumed (understandably) that the banks wouldn't lend them money unless they believed they would get their money back, not knowing that the bank didn't care if they got paid back or not because they would just turn around and sell the mortgage to a third party.

But that's just it. Borrowing is a responsibility, and people treated it like a lottery ticket. I remember when I bought my house about six years ago, I first sat down and figured what I could afford. Not based on some speculation of what I might be able to sell the house for, but what I could afford to pay each month. Making the biggest financial decision of my life, it seemed rather obvious to approach it with a certain level of caution. But when I sat down with the CountryWide lender, I was amazed to hear him try to convince me to borrow twice as much, all on an adjustable rate no less. And believe me, he was fully sold on his bill of goods - he believed what he was telling me. But it's MY mortgage. MY responsibility.

People got greedy. They fell in love with the idea that they could buy a house in the middle of the desert for 200k and sell it a year later for 250k. They read Rich Dad Poor Dad and wanted to be a real estate mogul. They fell in love with the idea that they could burn a 50k equity loan contracting people to put in a stainless/granite kitchen and make a 40% profit. It's nuts that the banks played this game, but it's up to the consumer to make responsible choices. Caveat Emptor.

ol#7
06-08-2011, 03:25 AM
Mr. Elway hits right on this. Im sorry, but borrowers werent tricked into taking those risky adjustable rate loans. Also, plenty of people took out all of their equity to finance vacations/luxury purchases only to wind up with a house that isnt worth today what they owe, so they want out. Or they fell in love with the idea of easy money ala flip that house. The banks got in on the feeding frenzy, but it wasnt by duping an unknowing public into taking on risks that they should have known better than to do. I cant beleive that line of thinking gets so much traction.

ETA: The lockout sucks.

BroncoInferno
06-08-2011, 05:41 AM
Mr. Elway hits right on this. Im sorry, but borrowers werent tricked into taking those risky adjustable rate loans.

Yes, they were. In many cases, they were literally told that their payment would be 'X', then end up with a payment of 'Y'. The banks could get away with this because the contracts had complex language that (again, to call on Allan Greenspan) someone with a doctorate in math could not comprehend. If the lenders had been giving out these loans in good faith - that is, honestly explaining the contracts - then I would agree with you. But they weren't.

I cant beleive that line of thinking gets so much traction.

I can't believe folks like you have been duped by these frauds and liars who wrecked our economy into thinking the primary issue was a case of the general populace poorly exercising their free will. Again, too many people were naive, but the brunt of the blame goes to the lenders. Period.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-08-2011, 01:54 PM
I can't believe folks like you have been duped by these frauds and liars who wrecked our economy into thinking the primary issue was a case of the general populace poorly exercising their free will. Again, too many people were naive, but the brunt of the blame goes to the lenders. Period.

That's because their "free market" ideology requires them to cover the flanks of the plutocrats at all times - no matter what.

razorwire77
06-08-2011, 01:57 PM
The lockout has officially turned the OM into a political forum

How awesomely sucktastic.

Is the 8 game season here yet?

DarkHorse30
06-08-2011, 02:32 PM
it's the economy, stupid

Obama is an ideologue that has no practical experience at anything that resembles "work", unless you counting getting elected. 57 needs take more vacations or at least pretend to care about the slim majority of idiots that elected him.

On another note, Biden is the best VP ever.....and the reason why obama will never get impeached.

bombay
06-08-2011, 02:35 PM
Another political thread on the front page. Sheesh.

People do actually read the political forum, unless you just have to have more attention than that provides.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-08-2011, 02:37 PM
57 needs take more vacations or at least pretend to care about the slim majority of idiots that elected him.


"Slim majority?"

You ditto heads just make it up as you go along, don't you? Ha!

In any event, if Obama is as terrible as you suggest, and if he was able to crush your party's candidate in a landslide, then what does that say about your party and its last WH incumbent? :D