Arianna lies about what Obama said

[Pirate Smile]

Arianna lies about what Obama said

by kestrel9000
Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 07:01:01 AM PST

This'll be short.

Has anyone seen the Drudge-like screaming on the HuffPo FP yet?

No link. If you can't find HuffPo without my help...:)

kestrel9000's diary :: ::
Arianna's screaming, bright red headline:

OBAMA: I DON'T 'BEGRUDGE' BIG BANK CEOS FOR THEIR MASSIVE BONUSES

What Obama said:

I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.

Quite a gap between those two statements, I'd say. But that sort of thing has never stopped Arianna Huffington.

Article titled:

Obama Still Doesn't Get It

Not a blatant distortion of the truth like Arianna's blood-red screaming (despite the weasel quotation marks), sure, but look at this statement from the article by one Simon Johnson (never heard of him):

we have to wait until Friday for the full text of the interview - and the White House has a major public relations disaster on its hands.

Funny, I must have missed that major disaster. What if they gave a major disaster and nobody came?

To be fair, the article isn't all bullshit:

The president's only political chance is to take on the too big to fail banks directly and clearly. He needs to explain where they came from (answer: the Reagan Revolution, gone wrong), how the problem became much worse during the last administration, and how - in credible detail - he will end their reign.

and that I can get behind.

But what I can't get behind is Arianna Huffington deliberately lying about what the President said on her front page. That, gentle reader, is a game for Matt Drudge and his right wing ilk.

Or am I being thin-skinned?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/10/835693/-Arianna-lies-about-what-Obama-said

Plus - some comments which gives a better flavor of what the President said:

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he doesn’t "begrudge" the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is "an extraordinary amount of money" for Main Street, "there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well."

"I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen," Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. "I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA

This is a hack job (6+ / 0-)

I just read the Bloomberg article and the title for that article is deliberately deceptive. Huffpost is just like drudge and Fox news and tries to spread any meme that puts the administration in a bad light. In Huffpost case, anything dealing with the financial sector. Its a hit piece and they know what they're doing at Huffpost

It's no longer the left blogosphere (5+ / 0-)

It's the outrage blogosphere. The blogosphere was born in outrage under the Bush years and it's the only speed they know how to run on.

edit to add that part of the interview - h/t SanchoPanza

Q Let's talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of "say on pay," that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs' success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

[SanchoPanza]

1. Johnson posted the full portion of the interview.

Q Let's talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of "say on pay," that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs' success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

Quotes only because I'm doing people a favor by not linking to HuffPo. The site doesn't deserve 90% of the traffic it gets.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I'm going to add that to the OP. Thanks.

and take out the link to HP.

[Robb]

2. K&R.

Progressives, you are absolutely correct in feeling like you've been duped. But it ain't by who you think.

[AndyA]

4. I read the article by Simon Johnson and found it to be accurate.

There does seem to be a change of tone in Obama's words, and if he endorses these bonuses, he will indeed have a public relations nightmare on his hands.

I would have no problem with the huge salaries and bonuses if that income weren't on the backs of hard working Americans who are barely making ends meet. If we had low unemployment, low credit card interest rates, reasonable bank and credit card fees, and regulations and oversight in place to make sure these "too big to fail" companies weren't gaming the system, it would be fine.

But that isn't the case. Those huge salaries come directly from abusing customers and gaming the system. Currently, few regulations are in place to stop them and oversight is a joke.

So, yes, if Obama suddenly endorses these practices, he will indeed have a major disaster on his hands.

But Obama is smart enough to know that. If he isn't compromised he will be able to deal with the issue effectively, but if he is compromised it will not be good for him or his administration, or for the Democrats in Congress. Let's not forget what the actions of these "too big to fail" corporations did to America and the world in 2008.

[cilla4progress]

5. Saw that too -

When I went back to it, they'd CHANGED the screaming headline to: "WHERE'D THE OUTRAGE GO?".

I think we need to keep an eye on Arianna, and keep them honest!

[cilla4progress]

6. Simon Johnson

By the way, if you haven't heard of Simon Johnson, you should - BIO: former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBO’s Panel of Economic Advisers. He is a co-founder of The Baseline Scenario.

MAJOR articulate voice on the economy; MIT Econ Professor, etc. I've heard a lot on NPR. He's a good guy...on "our" side...

[OHdem10]

7. Reality is: Obama has made these comments more than once.

I took it to mean that he did not want to look like he was
mean spiritedly attacking banks. It appeared to ba a caveat
before he did say some critical things. or what some could
construe as critical.

[Jennicut]

8. HuffPo is slowly turning into a joke for me, her hysterical headlines to get more traffic

are mostly hyperbole and BS.

[ginnyinWI]

9. HuffPo has jumped the shark.

When I realized I was not getting news but a slanted view of the news, I was done, and took it out of my bookmarks.

[euphoria12leo]

25. + 1,000 n/t

[tallahasseedem]

10. Thank you so much...

for posting this. I had her page up for a second and was a bit bewildered when I saw the headline. I guess she's showing her true Republican background again.

[DrToast]

11. The Drudgington Post lies about a lot of stuff

It's hard to take them seriously.

They do have some hot naked models on occasion, though.

[vaberella]

18. You ain't lyin'! n/t

[high density]

12. CBS News is running with this!

Obama: I Don't Begrudge Wall St. CEO Bonuses

In an interview with Bloomberg News, President Obama likened bonuses for Wall Street CEOs to outrageous salaries for athletes, but he said he does not begrudge the bank chiefs for pulling in such hefty sums.

"I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth," Mr. Obama said. "That is part of the free-market system."

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was awarded a bonus of around $16 million for 2009 after leading the company to profit through the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs Group CEO Lloyd Blankfein, meanwhile, is getting a $9 million bonus for 2009 after his company's profits soared last year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6193788.shtml

Amazing.

[Cha]

15. Shows you how lazy the corporatemediawhores are and

how much shit the Obama admin has to put up with..it's not just fauxsn00ze.

[Doctor_J]

13. The administration must be fearing yesterday's headlines

about how the bankers are giving their money to the pukes again.

why don't they run with that news? "Of course the banksters are going to the GOP. No one should be surprised by that. They are the party of Wall Street, and we are the party of main street".

[uponit7771]

27. Dems hate message control, it would mean they succeed

[Cha]

14. It's so damn frustrating..what with "chuckie todd

giving feeble questions to kit bond on msnbc and letting him drone on about the admins failure on terrorism" and huff post screaming their disingenuous headlines..Democracy is the one that suffers.

[e-mail]

Thanks for this Pirate Smile and kestral of dk!

[quiet.american]

16. Great piece -- I've long referred to HuffPo as HuffFaux.

HuffPo started to lose me long ago with their sensationalistic for sensation's sake inaccurate headlines, amongst other things. It's gotten to the point where I consider links to their site to be as toxic as links to the freep's site. And Arianna does a piss-poor job when she's supposed to be the "progressive voice" on talking head panels. Useless.

I used to never miss a day there. Haven't visited that site in about 8 months.

[vaberella]

17. He gets misquoted a lot on the left. From bloggers to DUers...

This is disgusting, more so, because she wants to paint herself as journalist and yet blatantly lies for sensationalism's sake. Abhorrent.

[davidpdx]

38. The sad thing is some around here talk as if she and her rag blog

speak the truth. Even when it's debunked it's still truth to some.

[truedelphi]

19. Where you say that the article is not total BS

The president's only political chance is to take on the too big to fail banks directly and clearly. He needs to explain where they came from (answer: the Reagan Revolution, gone wrong), how the problem became much worse during the last administration, and how - in credible detail - he will end their reign.

He has already addressed this as a campaign pledge, and of course, like so many other such pledges, he has forgotten about it.

Circa Oct 2008, The President was using as a campaign mechanism the notion that he would carefully watch what went down with the big banks getting the Main Street person's wealth via wealth distribution of the BailOuts.

He was constantly saying, Oct 2008, that should the Bailout turned out to be more of a pleasure cruise for the Big Banks at the wretched expense of the rest of us then he would step in DURING HIS FIRST YEAR and put in iron clad regulations that would force the banks to start lending to Main Street.
Well his first year has come and gone. And judging from our watching how the health "reform" scenario ended up: with its help for mandates for the Big Insurers and no discussion of price roll backs for us, no real guarantee that we will have health care but only that the Big Guys get their money.

And most importantly, if you are paying attention, you already know how Congress and Obama lack the will to write any legislation that favors We The Average Americans (who are the real backbone of the economy) over their campaign contributors and Big Money buddies.

It is a shame that the Congress and the President do not care about us. There has never been a democracy without a middle class, and the Bush/Obama coup of letting Wall Street have all the money ensures that a democracy is pretty much done to a crisp and stick a fork in it.

[Sultana]

20. What can one expect from a former 'Rethug'?

duh!

[krawhitham]

22. +1

Same goes for Ed Schultz and Hillary Clinton

Once a rethug always a rethug

[Sultana]

40. Ed Schultz was a rethug?

:o

No wonder my siblings and I always thought he 'looked' rethug.

[krawhitham]

21. Arianna lies? SHOCKER

SHE wants to be the news, not report the news

[Enrique]

23. that's not a lie n/t

[freddie mertz]

24. Obama's statement reflects his close ties to bailed-out execs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113650178

[wowimthere]

26. You are right. Arrianna is doin' some real smooth talkin'. It's not the first time

I'm starting to wonder what her real agenda is now.

[jn2375]

28. Huffington Post and Drudge becoming one in the same

[jn2375]

29. she's been posting demonic pictures of Obama lately too

[wowimthere]

30. Maybe Arianna is still a right wing shill... she just decided to corrupt the left

[Lord Helmet]

31. The HuffingtonPost long ago succumbed to sensationalism over facts.

[Number23]

32. Thanks for this. I am so glad that folks are calling out "liberal" obstructionists just as quickly

as conservative ones. This mess needs to stop.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Corporate governance

It's a boring topic, but it's the only way to really kill the crony in capitalism.

Government regulation can only go so far; corporations have to be self-regulating to no small degree. Ineffective boards are doing more to destroy the free market than anything else.

That's what Obama is getting at. But people want heads on sticks, or bully boy quotes that amount to nothing more than posturing. And the progressive blogosphere is addicted to calling the President a sellout, even if they only have excerpted quotes to run with. They can't resist.

[tomp]

34. the difference between what obama is quoted to have said and...

...what arianna huffington says he said, is not enough to indicate that the president actually has a clue.

[WCGreen]

35. It's all about Arianna...

It always has been.

What ever gets Arianna attention and money is what is going to be all right by Arianna...

So, in that sense, I don't begrudge Arianna her hyperbole.

But I don't have to pay any attention to what ever it is she is yakking about.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

36. This is true.

However, many people are paying attention, too much attention to her, and therein lies the problem.

:hi:

[jeanpalmer]

37. The distinction between

getting it in the form of stock or hard cash is meaningless. It's compensation. And don't think that whatever form they receive it in provides a lesser or greater motivation to scam people. They're both scammers. Obama is living in a bubble.

[freddie mertz]

39. And that is the real news here.

Huffpo is prone to ridiculous headlines. Granted.

But the statement from the pres does in fact reveal a lack of concern about the outrages perpetrated by Wall Street, and a lack of political judgment in expressing it so directly, and frankly, so smugly.

Given the admin's close ties to the execs mentioned in the piece, it all comes up smelling very bad.

And that is not the fault of Arianna Huffington.

It is the president's doing.

[SanchoPanza]

41. No where near meaningless.

Cash and option compensation promotes short term growth strategies, because it gives no incentive for executives to plan for the long term. Enron execs, as the most extreme example, became corrupted due to their compensation coming in the form of exotic options (exotic, in this sense, means that they could be exercised or sold at their discretion), and they put running stock tickers in every board room to show in real time how their own personal fortunes were doing. This certainly was a key factor in the fraud they perpetrated on their own shareholders, including employees with 401ks. Compensation in the form of common stock has the opposite effect, because an executive can't sell that stock and their wealth increases with the long-term productivity of their company.

So does, incendentally, an exorbitantly high top marginal tax rate. An executive is far more likely to limit his or her income to on or around the threshold of that rate so they don't have to pay in increasingly larger share of their income in taxes. One of the common misperceptions of the years when we had a top marginal rate at 80-90%, with a lower threshold of a million dollars, was that it actually generated a lot of direct tax revenue. It didn't. What it did do was cause people to funnel that money into their businesses (more and better workers, better products/services, etc) to keep them competitive over the long term. The tax revenue that it did generate was indirect, in the form of increased corporate tax receipts.