Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama stiffs Dimon, Blankfein on signing
NY Post ^ | July 21, 2010 | Mark DeCambre

Posted on 07/21/2010 6:52:53 PM PDT by CutePuppy

Wall Street's most vocal critics of the new financial regulations aren't invited to the party.

Neither Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein nor JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon were asked to attend President Obama's signing ceremony set for today in Washington.

FinReg, as the financial sector overhaul is known, is likely to alter the state and style of business of Wall Street and, potentially, sap billions of dollars of revenues from some of the most powerful financial institutions in the country.

The high-profile ceremony is expected to be attended by a few hundred guests including Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, viewed by some as a front-runner to become head of a new consumer-focused watchdog.

Rep. Michael McMahon (D-SI), who made a series of last-minute maneuvers to amend components of the bill that might have slammed Big Apple businesses, also is expected to be in attendance at the event.

At Morgan Stanley, CEO James Gorman was invited to the signing, sources say. However, given that Morgan is scheduled to report its second-quarter earnings today, he could not attend.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan was also invited but a spokesman said that he won't be attending due to "long-scheduled" engagements.

One bank CEO that will be making a trek down to the White House is Citigroup Chief Vikram Pandit.

.....

(Excerpt) Read more at m.nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: blankfein; carterscenario; citigroup; clintonscenario; dimon; doddfrank; elizabethwarren; finreg; goldman; goldmansachs; jamiedimon; jpmorgan; obama; unemployment; wallstreet; warren
Dems will have less money coming to them from Wall Street this election season... but how long will that last? They are still the party of "protectors" and "care takers," aren't they?

Sapping billions of dollars of revenues will certainly help generate jobs, on "Wall Street" and "Main Street"... of other countries.

1 posted on 07/21/2010 6:52:56 PM PDT by CutePuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
This story is geared to Obama's hard-left base.

They are mad at Obama because they believe him to be in the pocket of corporate America.

2 posted on 07/21/2010 7:00:22 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Gee, I bet Lloyd and Jamie are bent out of shape about not being invited down the the District of Corruption in the middle of July so The Kenyan can rub their noses in his and Nanzi’s doody (along with Dood and Bonnie Fwanker). GFY, 0bama.


3 posted on 07/21/2010 7:00:51 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Heckuva job, Brownie!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Yet another "law" and Office, positions and regulations that must be stalled in courts, then repealed or defunded (before it is repealed) by the next Congress.

Wall Street reform will take years for government to fully implement - The Hill, 2010 July 20, by Silla Brush


4 posted on 07/21/2010 7:01:30 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

dimon stiffs obama is quite more like it.


5 posted on 07/21/2010 7:04:23 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (Lying, socialist thieves. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

Jamie, who is generally low-key, was unusually openly and harshly critical of “some” things and proposals in FinReg. Guess he won’t be taking the Treasury post everyone is pushing him for.


6 posted on 07/21/2010 7:07:55 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Steve Liesman CNBC noticed that during the signing ceremony, Obama dissed Geithner.
How bizarre!


7 posted on 07/21/2010 7:13:38 PM PDT by griswold3 ('Regulation and law without enforcement is no law at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Ah, the poor little sacrificies.


8 posted on 07/21/2010 7:14:30 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

Dissed him how?


9 posted on 07/21/2010 7:19:27 PM PDT by ScoopAmma (We are led by the Resident -in Chief; aka part-time member of Webelo Troop 44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Dimon is one of the most powerful people on Wall Street....lulz, idiotPOTUS thinks he has a clue but is in truth, about as clueless as they come...I am sure Dimon will remind idiotPOTUS in the coming next few years, bet.


10 posted on 07/21/2010 7:22:51 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScoopAmma

After the ceremony, Obama avoided contact/acknowledgement of Geithner even as Geithner moved through the crowd to become more accessible.
Larry Kudlow said he saw a brief handshake but upon further review there was clear avoidance.


11 posted on 07/21/2010 7:22:57 PM PDT by griswold3 ('Regulation and law without enforcement is no law at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

It’s Obama’s act to trick lefties.

Wall Street Banks are mad because they only got 80% of what they wanted. They are used to 100%.


12 posted on 07/21/2010 7:28:41 PM PDT by Shermy (Keynesianism, Supply-side "economics." Two sides of the same borrowed coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand; cranked
dimon stiffs obama is quite more like it.

That's my take on it, no Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from Dimon and other CEOs, except completely and reliably dependable Citigroup.

13 posted on 07/21/2010 7:38:27 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
"FinReg, as the financial sector overhaul is known, is likely to alter the state and style of business of Wall Street and, potentially, sap billions of dollars of revenues from some of the most powerful financial institutions in the country."

This ought to really help Democrats' chances of re-election.

14 posted on 07/21/2010 8:07:03 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

Pandit is a former college professor in way over his head. Steve Leisman is an idiot. Only on CNBC can an English major be called an economist. There is one TV channel in hell, and it is CNBC.


15 posted on 07/21/2010 8:32:43 PM PDT by Raster Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
This ought to really help Democrats' chances of re-election.

Yep. I think Obama is hoping to kill two birds with one stone - enact and entrench as much Big Government socialist legislation as he can in his first term, which in turn will sour much of the electorate on Democrats and lead to them losing the House in November.

This sets up a Clinton scenario (1994-1996) which can lead to his winning second term, as economy improves a little due to natural business cycle and market's enthusiastic "surge," and because of repeal or modifications alleviating some of Obama's "crown achievements".

Just like Clinton in 1996, in 2012 he could take credit for all the "good" and blame all the "bad" on Republicans in Congress and what he "inherited from previous administration". If House remains Democratic, he is looking at Carter scenario (1980) and one term presidency, with most of his agenda overturned after 2012 elections, and with it, Democratic dreams of enacting them again in the near future (generational memory).

Democrats in the House and Senate already understand that they are being fed to the wolves or led to slaughter and some don't want to play the sheep, but the ones in the House will be goners, and Dems only hope to hold enough for the working majority in the Senate, which will also help their "blame game" in 2012.

16 posted on 07/21/2010 9:02:44 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
This sets up a Clinton scenario (1994-1996) which can lead to his winning second term, as economy improves a little due to natural business cycle and market's enthusiastic "surge," and because of repeal or modifications alleviating some of Obama's "crown achievements".

I don't think the economy will improve a little due to the natural business cycle, at all. The Democrats have done so much damage to the natural forces of the free market, that I doubt seriously if our economy will come out of the tail spin until MAJOR revocations and repeals of their horrendous legislation occurs.

Republicans are going to have their work cut out for them to repeal, or defund everything they can before our whole economy implodes. It's going to be all they can do to keep the walls from crumbling.

While they're doing all this, Obama will be acting as the primary Democrat Opposition Force, and using every power of the Executive to foil everything the Republican majority tries to do.

Don't forget, Obama is NOT Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat you care to compare him to. The standard model doesn't fit him, because frankly, he's not a politician. He's a committed Marxist ideologue, driven by an insatiable desire to implement every leftist wet dream that's ever been dreamt.

He is NOT going to move to the center, as Bill Clinton did. He will NOT play politics as usual, because in his twisted world, he's above all that. He's got a narcissistic personality disorder, with delusions of grandeur. He is The One, the Messiah, and he doesn't brook opposition to his grandiose Olympian plans by mere mortals.

If you want to play the game correctly against Obama, you need to throw out everything you know about American politics and look to history to find successful methods for dealing with someone like him.

Little hint: none of the successful methods involve political solutions.

That being said, Obama can, and most likely will be voted out of office in 2012. His approval rating has been in negative territory for a solid year, and there's little chance that it will ever return to positive territory again. He's losing Independents and Democrats in droves. He and his administration are so inept and incompetent, that it's highly unlikely that he'll achieve any real wins from this point on. Public perception of the man will follow his real performance, which will of course, be dreadful.

Oh, he may still get some Socialist goodies from Congress, but I'm talking about public relations victories that raise his approval rating amongst the voters. You've likely seen the last of that. The man is incapable of leading, and it's transparent. He's little more than a campaigner and cheerleader. A spokesman for radical liberalism. Nothing more. He's not going to do a single thing to restore anyone's trust or confidence in him. He doesn't have what it takes to do that because he's a complete phony.

Meanwhile, his minions in Congress are going to do everything they can to pass as much of the rest of his Marxist agenda while they still can. ALL of it is destructive to our economy, our security, and our liberties. NONE of it will endear Obama and the Democrats to the electorate, once the effects begin being felt.

By the end of 2011, he'll likely be in bunker mode, holed up in the White House, refusing to give press conferences, and throwing advisor after advisor under the bus. His delusional dictatorship is already coming unraveled, and the foundations of his support are badly cracking. By this time next year, he'll be lucky if he isn't facing impeachment and treason charges.



17 posted on 07/21/2010 9:53:44 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Agree with almost everything you said, but most of the same has been said about Bill Clinton running up to and after November 1994... but after David Gergen's and other "adult supervision" "wise men" entrance into WH, and "the era of big government is over" the rhetoric changed somewhat (not the substance, as three vetoes of welfare bill and budget battles have shown) and then... Bob Dole happened.

The reason why it was hard to imagine 1996 outcome, was because in 1994, people only knew (or remembered) the Carter scenario. The difference in 1996 was not only because Clintons were better politicians (despite personal baggage accumulated before and during the WH term) than Carter ever was or Obama will ever be (despite his "rock star" and Messiah 2008 tour) but because of political ineptness of Republicans - demonstrated time and time again - and the "blame game" that Carter couldn't mount even if he were as good a politician as Clintons.

If the House Republicans are even moderately successful in undoing some of the Big Government damage passed in these 2 years (despite Obama's and Senate Democrats' best efforts), just the perception of relative stability could lift the economy and market up a bit, and it could look relatively better than 2008 ("Bush's financial crisis") and 2010 ("high unemployment as consequence of Bush's financial crisis")... after all, economy is always relative to some timepost or another.

I am not saying that Obama will win in 2012 (we don't even know what stupid things or candidates the GOP will come up with) but he is already practicing the "blame game" rhetoric, and he needs a "Republican Congress" to complete Clinton scenario, to have even a chance at reelection in 2012... and having a small but ineffective, token majority in the House and Senate denies him both the potential for a bump in the economy and the markets (the still dreaded "Obama factor" / "Obama effect") and the plausible "blame game".

In other words, he will benefit far more from Democrats losing the House in November than having Democratic Congress, and while he is not a good or sympathetic politician, he has people around him who are (former Clintonistas) and he is not stupid enough not to understand that being reelected will do more for his "prestige" and his Marxist agenda to be more entrenched, i.e., the only way to get there is the Clinton scenario and he is already half-way there. Whether he will be successful in the end depends on many factors, many of which are unknown at this time and some that don't depend on him or Democrats... but that's the way to bet, as the saying goes.

18 posted on 07/21/2010 10:47:16 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
Rep. Michael McMahon (D-SI)

SI ? Samoan Islands? Southern Illinois? Sports Illustrated? Gosh, maybe there really are 57 states.

19 posted on 07/22/2010 3:18:17 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raster Man

Who calls him an economist? He’s a business reporter.


20 posted on 07/22/2010 3:25:14 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Rep. Michael McMahon (D-SI)

(D-NY / Staten Island and part of Brooklyn)

21 posted on 07/22/2010 4:05:25 AM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Wall Street Fumes At White House Fin Reg Rebuke - CNBC, 2010 July 21, by John Carney

Obama's message: "No soup for you, infidels"

22 posted on 07/22/2010 4:45:28 AM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy
If the House Republicans are even moderately successful in undoing some of the Big Government damage passed in these 2 years (despite Obama's and Senate Democrats' best efforts), just the perception of relative stability could lift the economy and market up a bit, and it could look relatively better than 2008 ("Bush's financial crisis") and 2010 ("high unemployment as consequence of Bush's financial crisis")... after all, economy is always relative to some timepost or another.

That's a mighty big IF, predicated on even bigger IFs.

IF everything you hypothesized were to come true, the US economy will not return to even Bush era levels by 2012. Not even the appearance of similarity will prevail. There's just been far too much fundamental destruction of jobs, income, personal wealth, markets, and consumer confidence, for it all to be so quickly rectified.

Democrats are suddenly realizing this, and are now making plans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (at least) to stave off a political disaster in 2012. That will go a long way to averting a catastrophe of even greater proportions than the one we're now facing, but it does nothing to alleviate or turn around what damage they've already done to the economy.

In fact, the full pain and effects of their meddling hasn't even been felt yet. As I said earlier, Republicans in Congress are going to have their hands full trying to neutralize as much of the Marxist agenda that's already been passed. They won't be able to stop it all. Much of what's been done is beyond their ability to repair, and will have to heal over time in the free market.

Unemployment now stands at close to 10% (and is probably higher, in truth). It is not going to go back to Bush era levels of around 4.5% by the time of the 2012 primary. That much is fairly certain, so the Democrats will not be able to claim that they've improved economic conditions for average Americans.

That's the bottom line on their meddling, and they won't be able to run away from it.

23 posted on 07/22/2010 10:42:40 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Again, agree with most of what you said.

Unemployment now stands at close to 10% (and is probably higher, in truth). It is not going to go back to Bush era levels of around 4.5% by the time of the 2012 primary. That much is fairly certain, so the Democrats will not be able to claim that they've improved economic conditions for average Americans.

Exactly. Which is why Obama (and Democrats) would not want to "own" it completely (which they would do if they have small, ineffective majority in Congress - few seats ahead in House and Senate counts). Now, if the House is Republican, they may have a more credible case of blaming ineffective, "obstructionist" congressional Republicans on the problems with the economy, while claiming credit for any positives (perceived or real, but relative to 2008 or 2010) due to Obama and 2008 Congress "stimulus" and "reforms".

In other words, whatever the outcome of 2012 will be - and I am not handicapping because of too many variables and unpredictable things could happen, including the actions or inactions by Republican leadership / elite, which is not even close in strength of personalities or agenda to 1994 counterparts (Contract with America) - the Republican House (Clinton scenario) is Obama's (and, by extension, Democrats) is the only possible salvation, something that could make 2012 competitive, outside of GOP screwing up even worse than nominating Bob Dole or John McCain. Basically, it comes down to this: Democrats will not gain anything for 2012 by keeping entire Congress in 2010, but could gain at least somewhat plausible blame game counter play if they lose it, as Clinton demonstrated in 1996 after he and Democrats were written off in 1994, i.e., the Clinton scenario is their est bet for 2012. IF people are going to be [still] pissed off in 2012, there will be another "outlet," Republicans, for them to punish. Nothing to lose, everything to gain politically by "abandoning" the House and trying to hold on to as much of Senate as possible - where, I suspect, the real efforts and money from DNC will be directed.

The thing about politics, and especially Democratic politics, is that anything except the Tele-Prom-Ter can be outsourced to minions and the media. Keeping Obama in the White House will keep his obstructions going for another 4 years and will solidify / extend the Democratic inroads into judiciary. So most vulnerable / "out of district" Democrats are now taking "one for Obama" whether they want it (voluntarily, and/or for a price) or not (being pushed out or threatened with loss of funding or organizational support).

24 posted on 07/22/2010 10:47:53 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson