Obama hits Wall Street; pushes for bank size limits

Actually, the American economy boomed in the 50'sband coasted through the 60's. The 70's, Under the Carter administration, brought us the oil embargo and "stagnation". It took Reagan's economic miracle- remember him- the "great communicator" to launch economic policies that were still entrenched through the Clinton years

Too funny Branded, too damn funny! Umm, maybe you were not alive during this time, but I was, and I remember the Nixon created Stagflation, and those "socialistic" price controls which did not really work out so well. Major recession and double digit inflation which Carter inherited--and he was the only one to submit a balanced budget a few years later; nothing any Repiglican has ever done!! And as for Reagan, give me a break! The recession and pain under that man! Double digit growth for whom is more like it: the arms industry. And what a great coup, he did by unleashing the savings and loan industry from that horrible regulation, oh---but that unfortunately did cause a huge recession later on and 4% decline in GDP under Bush 1. The only thing you are good at Branded, like all other repigs is rewriting history. Besides, breaking up the banks--won't that cause more competition and isn't that what you people are all about??? I did notice that really, at the end of the day, like with Bush 1, he was not so much about creating more competition, but limiting it, in that time, it was with cable TV. Hey, Branded, live it up to smarter people to rewrite the history. You are not up to the job.

While he's at it how about putting a cap on how rich the rich can be. Cap it off at 100 million. That'll solve all problems.

Appears that Obama is ready to throw Bernanke under the bus for this mess. The current head of the federal reserve's job is in jeopardy, even though he is the one credited for saving the US- and world for that matter- from a second great depression after the world economic crisis exploded on the scene. With the dems losing the Mass. position to Scott confirmation for Bernanke and another term are in real trouble. And it looks like Obama will offer no support, actually probably ready to lay blame on bernanke. Speaks volumes of this Prez.

Yabits: Of the income tax, approximately 3% was contributed by the bottom 50% of income earners, making $56.5 billion.

The data that I used was incorrect when I said that their tax bill went to the US government, which I now see after the article I used had information that has since been updated (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-one-corporation-exxon-paid-almost.html). But the fact remains that the original poster was making a claim that the oil companies would, in some cases, be paying "no taxes at all." Exxon paid about 40% of NOI in income taxes on global operations, a far cry from nothing.

Ha-ha ! Stop Bitsy- you are killing me here !

"The American economy boomed after WWII, during the early 60s, and during most of the 90s. (Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.)"

Actually, the American economy boomed in the 50'sband coasted through the 60's. The 70's, Under the Carter administration, brought us the oil embargo and "stagnation". It took Reagan's economic miracle- remember him- the "great communicator" to launch economic policies that were still entrenched through the Clinton years. It took the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to finally crack and eventually break the US economy. Bush managed to raise the Dow up to 14,000 before the "perfect storm" scenerio that Krugman talks about brought it crashing down.

Yabits, you best avoid the name calling, "economic kool-aid drinkers", and spend more time learning about the real America. Obama is now in real trouble with this attack on the banks decision. This is "his" economy now and he is running into the ground at unprecedented speed. The ripple effect will be disasterous for Japan, China, the EU, and every other nation that counts on the US for it's exports. I see 2010 as the year of the "American worker". the focus will be on jobs for "Americans" ! This means more market protection stateside- thats the only solution for Obama. Elections are coming again in the fall- he must appease the American public this spring and summer or risk mass ouster of his party members. You just watch as the democratic infighting begins these next few months over Obama's policies. Coakley got waxed in Massa. How many Dems are going to risk their careers and positions because this African American has an axe to grind with big business. Let the fireworks begin !

C'mon now, this is basic economics 101 !

The American economy boomed after WWII, during the early 60s, and during most of the 90s. (Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.)

The U.S. economy went into the Great Depression in the late 20s/early 30s, and pretty bad recessions in the 50s, the early 80s and the early 90s, all during Republican adminisrations.

I think the course that you are referring to is Economic for Kool-Aid Drinkers.

As for Republican philosophy towards big banks, we can't help but note how much in a rush Bush Jr. was to bail them out with taxpayer dollars. The philosophy appears to be: spout one thing, do another.

"The world's financial system wasn't facing total panic and collapse due to it's worry about the election of Barack Obama.

The world's financial systems ? No ! Those markets were already under seige from Englands collapsing housing industry, Frances insoluble banks, world oil prices, and a variety of other issues from market saturation from Asian suppliers to uncontrolled immigration policies. The US however ? Different story. Bursting of the housing bubble for one, but the kicker would have to have been the shift from a republican run political field to a democratic one. C'mon now, this is basic economics 101 ! Realizing the different philosophies regarding taxes, big business, etc. one would have to be, how is it you say, a "looney tune" to have not bailed when the power switch seemed inevitable. But hey, you don't have to believe me ? Pull up your charts and have a look for yourself. Or better yet, read up on Paul Krugman's analysis, maybe a nobel prize winner in economics can offer some insight. But then again.

Just two days ago the dow was at 10,725. And today it sits at 10,167 !

I noticed all the conservatives giving Obama credit for the steady climb in the Dow since he took office a year ago.

Go back and look at the dow react to the likelihood of Obama becoming prez 3 months before he took office

LOL, this is looney tunes. The world's financial system wasn't facing total panic and collapse due to it's worry about the election of Barack Obama. Heck, the only thing that was visibly clear to all was how much more articulate and intelligent Obama was (and is) than the doofus-in-chief who presided over the meltdown.

And the numbers are in. Another bleak day on wall street as the dow plummeted 216 points. Just two days ago the dow was at 10,725. And today it sits at 10,167 ! Watch for the democrats to try and distance themselves from this meltdown as quickly as possible. Polls out today show 77% of investors think Obama is anti-business... like duh ! Go back and look at the dow react to the likelihood of Obama becoming prez 3 months before he took office. The mass exodus started then, and its liely to continue again.

Exxon's $30 billion tax bill in 2007 paid as much in taxes as the bottom 50% of US individuals combined.

Grossly inaccurate and/or dishonest.

In 2007, Exxon may have paid $30 billion, but roughly $25 billion of that was taxes paid to foreign governments, and therefore inappropriate to imply that it matched in any way proceeds to the U.S. Treasury by U.S. taxpayers. Exxon's actual U.S. tax in 2007 was $5.12B.

U.S. income tax revenues in 2007 were $1.884 trillion. (This does not count Social Security taxes, which the bottom 50% certainly pays too.) Of the income tax, approximately 3% was contributed by the bottom 50% of income earners, making $56.5 billion. The claim above is therefore off by a factor of 10.

sources: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

It's a good idea to stop deposit-taking banks from gambling on stocks and derivatives. The casino banks can be allowed to go bust with no cost to the taxpayer.

Anyone else finding it odd, how Obama is creating jobs, by destroying the companies that produce them? Depression era job creation helped maintain the depression for another 8 years. It took a war to finally break free from it. Lets have anything but that.

"closing in on 300, loss in the Dow Jones"

Try closing in on a 400 pt loss ! Right now we are looking at -359 points since Obama decided to rein in the banking industry ! Can't wait to see the nikkei numbers come Monday morning, this is going to leave a mark.

"Embracing Depression-era policy and populist politics, a combative President Barack Obama chastised big Wall Street banks Thursday and urgently called for limits on their size and investments to stave off a new economic meltdown."

Yeh ? By creating a "new" economic meltdown. I mean 250 points, closing in on 300, loss in the Dow Jones in the past 24 hours is staving off something ? Sorry, but Obama needs to refocus his anger and bitterness and embrace depression era style "job creation" ! The US economy will not recover here in the US or abroad until people are put back to work. This means government sponsored jobs, more aid for education, and most of all "market protection" via the Asian model.

People can rightly be angry about bank bailouts and compensation but Obama's BS populism grab isn't going to do anything but hurt the consumer. This guy went to Harvard right? He should have some grasp of economics. If he penalizes the banks they will simply pass the cost along to borrowers. He also succeeded in shaving 2% off the Dow with his loose lips. Is it 2012 yet, this guy has got to go. Thanks god at least cap and trade and the insurance company handout healthcare bill are likely dead from the Mass. senate race. That won't stop him from trying to find other ways to damage the economy however as witnessed in this little peice of genius.

Yes! Debt! I owe ¥29,000,000 still on a loan of ¥43,000,000 For 20 more years. And it is worth ¥16,000,000 if I try to sell. sucks. Thanks for the encouragement Obama san. I now owe even more from the economic implode

Beelzebub: In the end it won't matter. Whatever the law, people with megabucks will pay smart accountants and lawyers to find them loopholes, enabling them to park their millions while paying as few taxes as possible. (Or maybe even paying none at all and earning government subsidies for depreciation on their oil wells.)

Exxon's $30 billion tax bill in 2007 paid as much in taxes as the bottom 50% of US individuals combined. I'm no fan of big oil, but my guess is it's not quite like you're describing it.

too damn confusing to figure out what really happened....100% agree with you, it will take next few weeks for market to settle down,hopefully.

Don't write articles like this. Bullet them and put plus and minus because it is too damn confusing to figure out what really happened.

I have been reading http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com and feel that he has some valid points to make.We were going on without addressing the fact that the banks were making money out of a situation which they created.There is very little detail on the plans so it could yey go either way. Lets see how things develop and wish Obama luck..

Obama is hitting Wall Street alright - Goldman Sachs was his biggest donor.They expect a return on their investment. Rahm Emanuel used to work for them.

Heh, just like pro 'rasslers, President "B Plus" is probably in the locker room high-fiving the bank execs and asking where they wanna go for lunch.

Obama is hitting Wall Street alright - Goldman Sachs was his biggest donor.They expect a return on their investment. Rahm Emanuel used to work for them.

More government meddling in the private sector.

Everyone was so glad of their meddling when they were busy bailing out the banks...

More government meddling in the private sector. But of course the feds have such a great pedigree in their handling of Social Security.

Wow - Warren Buffet is a major shareholder in Goldman Sachs, so is not exactly impartial. He also said derivatives are Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction, and Goldman is a leading trader of derivatives, so go figure on that one.

You're right, he's not impartial, but on the other hand, he knows finance. He can predict the results of what Obama is suggesting. I agree that changes are needed, but not these changes. His proposed changes would do nothing to address the causes of the crash, and only add burden to an already strained system. You want to choke off the money supply, this is a step in that direction.

If Dems are smart, they will vote this down. If they're not, then expect the recession to continue well beyond this year, and expect that Dems will suffer catastrophic losses in the Midterms, and Americans punish them for the continued recession. Though they'll try to blame it on Bush, it will be their own fault.

Obama's gotta keep this class envy gig happening. After Massachusetts/Brown handed his azz to him it's about the only card left in his hand.

Wow - Warren Buffet is a major shareholder in Goldman Sachs, so is not exactly impartial. He also said derivatives are Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction, and Goldman is a leading trader of derivatives, so go figure on that one.

And nobody is talking about "killing the banks". They can continue doing what they want, just without a government guarantee on their debts and losses. Guarantees would be just for customer deposits (like they used to be), and there would be no more "we need money cause we are really, really big and if we go broke it will screw everything up". Now if any of you debt slaves could explain logically why you SHOULD be covering the gambling debts of the bankers (and are happy to do it!), I will happily take you along with me to Las Vegas. You can stand outside of the casino and be my personal ATM. Because that is what you are doing now, so you have experience in the job. But bring lots of cash.

30061005 - about the 2010 double-dip crash. First off, it may be coming anyways, the banks know it, and that is why the bonuses are so big. The time to siphon the gas is after the tank has been filled up. The US government filled the tank, but it won't be full again next year if there is a crash. Second, is the elephant in the room that nobody talks about which makes any change risky. If you take away the smoke and mirrors of finance, you might find there is nothing there anymore. The smoke and mirrors were there to hide the fact that the real economy had been trashed. Maybe better to just keep the charade going as long as possible and let somebody else deal with the mess when the house of cards collapses.

"why Yanks think that state provided care is wrong is beyond me."

Look at who does the innovating. In basic science, diagnostics and therapeutics the United States leads the world. That is one reason. Americans, and not a few Canadians, apparently don't mind paying for the quality care US hospitals offer.

Also, we are talking about a nation of over 300 million citizens, with at least 12 million in the country illegally.

why Yanks think that state provided care is wrong is beyond me.

Are you familiar with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and the rest?

good job Obama - just when a recovery of sorts is starting you put the skids on it!

Yes I agree some more regulation is required but to shoot from the hip without thinking it all through is just plain madness. And the UK opposition coming in with comments about they have the same idea - guess they just lost the City vote...

Stimulus = bad> Healthcare rreform is a great idea badly executed - why Yanks think that state provided care is wrong is beyond me. This idea is really bad - he could have found plenty other ways to rein the banks in without killing them.

Geithner's been cuddling up with the banks and apparently Obama wanted someone who wants to follow his lead.

30061015

The US govt loans banks free money, the banks then lend it back to the govt at 3% interest.

When was the last time you got a 3% loan? 3% and they think they're losing money.

Molenir

When a big time Obama supporter like Buffet is opposed to the idea

Buffet may be rich and has good ideas sometimes. But he's the same guy who said that $4.00 gas prices are good for the nation. You may like his ideas, I don't particularly care for him.

I want to see the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act brought back into law. < :-)

This is a nightmare. Truly. Anyone who has even the slightest idea what he's talking about realizes how bad of an idea this is. Its good soundbyte, but bad policy. He might as well come out and say he wants to nationalize all the banks. Its almost that bad of an idea. And listening to Paul Volker? My god, the man is an idiot. When a big time Obama supporter like Buffet is opposed to the idea, you start to get a sense of how bad it is. Then add to the fact that even Geithner isn't supporting it. Obama has made some bad calls before. The stimulus bill was a joke, health care reform was a horrible idea, but this, if you want something that could potentially kill the US economy, this is a good start.

Markets tumbled on the news, the Dow Jones industrial average losing 213 points and continuing this week’s slide that has erased the Dow’s gains for 2010 and provided yet another dire sign for recovery.

Great Mr.President, take the only bright spot in this dismal economy and kill that also.

The US govt loans banks free money, the banks then lend it back to the govt at 3% interest. What a cozy deal, with no money left even to lend to the "consumer"! Why lend $ to Joe-Jobless-Credit-Debtor, when the US govt will pay guaranteed money?

Who then, ultimately pays the bill for this? Answer; The over taxed American slaves who fund the whole freakin system! While I don't agree with Obama's populist bank bashing; (can anyone say double-dip crash of 2010? ) why the hell should banks get such preferential treatment?

In the end it won't matter. Whatever the law, people with megabucks will pay smart accountants and lawyers to find them loopholes, enabling them to park their millions while paying as few taxes as possible.

Agreed. Banks have armies of accountants and lawyers to find creative ways of wriggling around the rules. They'll just morph into something new an equally profitable. Still, it's good that Obama's bringing out the big guns by getting Volker involved - politicians would be no match for the banks.

We will see how much of this is just rhetoric and how much is for real. But it looks like maybe Rip Van Winkle has woken from his slumber, realized he was being set up, and was going to get his head handed to him on a plate if he didn't start listening to somebody who actually knows what he is talking about (and who isn't bought and paid for by Wall Street). Volcker said last month that he was going to win in the end, and maybe he will. Also, before the usual "socialist", "big government" posts start flooding in, make sure you actually know who Paul Volcker is.

In the end it won't matter. Whatever the law, people with megabucks will pay smart accountants and lawyers to find them loopholes, enabling them to park their millions while paying as few taxes as possible. (Or maybe even paying none at all and earning government subsidies for depreciation on their oil wells.)

Obama is right that we need to bust up this Federal Reserve Bank Cartel. Let's start right from the top and perform an audit on this illegal monopoly.

I am surprised that Japn Today does not have more on President Obama's plans for the US banking sector. I have read on http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com that these are brave fundamental reforms and that it is good that he is taking advice from Paul Volcker. it has certainly impacted on stock markets!

American government seems about as ineffectual as the Japanese government

seems true as American Financial Markets (Dow/Nasdaq/Oil/Gold) have tumbled and trying to 'reset' in line with Obama's policies.

American government seems about as ineffectual as the Japanese government