Obama stiffs Dimon, Blankfein on signing

NY Post ^ | July 21, 2010 | Mark DeCambre

[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.

.....

[CutePuppy]

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.

[what's up]

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.

[clintonh8r]

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.

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Yet another "law" and Office, positions and regulations that must be stalled in courts, then repealed or defunded (before it is repealed) by the next Congress.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

The Obama administration’s landmark rewrite of financial regulations will take years for the federal government to fully implement.

President Obama will sign the 2,315-page bill into law on Wednesday as regulators, administration aides and the industry hunker down for hundreds of battles over the fine print of new regulations.

Senior administration officials said the legislation provides a “frame” for the new regulatory landscape, but the full force of the rewrite hinges on how regulators interpret their new powers in the comings months and years.

Officials noted it will take time to start up organizations like the consumer financial protection bureau created by the legislation.

“While some things start sooner than later, we should expect that this is going to be done thoughtfully and carefully, and that it will take time,” said Diana Farrell, deputy national economic adviser.

The legislation also requires the creation of a new council of federal regulators to oversee broad financial risks; new regulations of the $600 trillion derivatives market; and a new system for the government to wind down failing financial firms.

The bill largely resembles the Obama administration’s original proposal last year and will be enacted nearly two years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Passing new financial regulations has been one of the president’s top priorities. The legislation faced stiff opposition from Republicans: Only three in each of the House and Senate wound up supporting the final legislation.

One of the first decisions for the president will be nominating an inaugural head of the consumer bureau, which will have broad power to write and enforce rules over home loans, credit cards and other products across the financial system. The administration is considering a handful of potential nominees, including Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and original advocate for the agency.

She is expected to face tough opposition from Senate Republicans if she were nominated. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday questioned if she could win the votes necessary for confirmation. Labor unions and some Democrats are openly pushing the president to nominate Warren.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of the three Senate Republicans to support the legislation, declined Tuesday to say if she could support a Warren nomination.

By some counts, the legislation requires hundreds of rulemaking procedures and scores of studies.

Many of the key provisions in the bill come into effect over the next two years.

• The new council of regulators must meet within three months.

• Federal regulators must write rules within nine months for how companies retain 5 percent of the risk in mortgage-backed securities.

• Also within nine months, the Federal Reserve must write rules setting “reasonable and proportional” interchange fees that merchants and retailers pay to banks and credit unions that issue debit cards.

• The government must set up the new consumer bureau within one year.

• New restrictions under the “Volcker rule” on proprietary trading and alternative fund sponsorship by big banks would come into effect over the next 18 months. Full compliance with the rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, could take many years longer. .....

[the invisib1e hand]

dimon stiffs obama is quite more like it.

[CutePuppy]

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.

[griswold3]

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

[freekitty]

Ah, the poor little sacrificies.

[ScoopAmma]

Dissed him how?

[cranked]

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.

[griswold3]

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.

[Shermy]

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%.

[CutePuppy]

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.

[Windflier]

"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.

[Raster Man]

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.

[CutePuppy]

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.

[Windflier]

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.

[CutePuppy]

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.

[gusopol3]

Rep. Michael McMahon (D-SI)

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

[9YearLurker]

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