Krugman: "How is it possible for Obama to be this clueless (on bonuses)?"

[freddie mertz]

February 10, 2010, 10:59 AM
Clueless

I’m with Simon Johnson here: how is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?

The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:

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.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

Oh. My. God.

More...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dflprincess]

2. Not that many athletes aren't overpaid

but when they're at their best, at least they're giving the fans something to cheer about.

[freddie mertz]

4. And they didn't wreck the economy and put millions out of work either.

The presidents seems to be having trouble keeping his message clear.

When he tries to triangulate, he is not always at his best.

[Robeson]

10. Yep, trying to pull athletes into it is a pretty disingenuous...

...diversion.

[freddie mertz]

16. Movie Stars and Rock Stars make big money too, but they have to deliver.

It's not comparable, and he knows it.

[Jakes Progress]

68. It's not just that.

What you say is true, but to me the point is how disconnected, how out of touch, how clueless he seems to be about the real world.

[Enthusiast]

151. Of course he knows it.

He is simply repeating the words that were suggested to him by the banking interests. He hopes misinformed/under informed constituents will buy it. We ain't buying it.

[bvar22]

134. Only "successful" athletes pull down that kind of money.

In a REAL "Free Market" system, the failed Wall Street Bankers would be making the same as a failed athlete:
"Would you like some fries with that?"

Obama defending the Wall Street Bonuses as a product of the "Free Market System" was an INSULT to every American who Works for a Living.

This was much worse than, "I didn't campaign on a Public Option."
I thought it wasn't possible to be more disgusted, but I was wrong.


Forget the inspiring rhetoric.
"By their works you will know them."


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[olegramps]

150. Athletes are providing entertainment.

This lack of comprehension about the how 1% of the citizens have the managed to reward themselves with the majority of the nations wealth is mind blogging. The situation is hopeless and will only get better when the working class unite in a party that represents their interest because the Democratic Party has lost its way. This would be a party that would stop the out-sourcing of jobs, reasonable taxes on the wealthy, enforcement of anti-trust laws and a national usury rate, not to mention national health care and higher education for all. What we have allowed the Republicans, with the assistance of the milquetoast Democrats, is put us on a race to bottom for the working class.

[Metta]

3. Obama is Judas to hard working, suffering people, bending to corporate whims while we're collateral

damage. ... talk about elite and out of touch. The longer it takes him to wake up and stop caving to whining rich people the more the rest of us suffer. He's become the anti-Obama.

[freddie mertz]

9. I agree. He needs to find a clear populist, anti-big banks message, and FAST.

Start by proposing a massive reduction in the interest rates credit card companies can oppose.

Max it at about 5-6 %.

That would be popular, and good policy as well.

[Metta]

12. I don't think he has the balls to do that. He's conflicted: helping us & caving to rich whiners.

Rich, blackmailing whiners who threaten to make goods and services worse for the rest of us if they don't get their way. They should all be in jail.

[freddie mertz]

15. He could start the investigations too. The public would LOVE to see some of these crooks hauled off

I am amazed that he is still making these mistakes, after he seemed to get his voice back a couple of weeks ago.

What is wrong over there?

[Metta]

17. His talk is cheap, my friend. So far, he's just fairy tale-ing. So far, he's still the anti-Obama.

His admin is run by them w/o much concern for us. Almost w/o exception.

[JVS]

35. Would it even be credible at this point?

Obama has had numerous opportunities to have a "Sista Souljah moment" in which he denounces bankers to gain credibility and passed on it. He's developing a reputation for being nice to bankers.

[freddie mertz]

37. The hour is getting late, to be sure.

It seems like a political death-wish at this point.

[burning rain]

79. What you need to do politically, depends on your goals.

If you want to cash in--say, make a million a pop on the lecture circuit when you leave office--you make damn sure to stay in the good graces of big business even if it costs you your reelection. If it does, so much the better--you can start cashing in that much sooner. If you want to serve the national interest, you adopt a left-populist agenda. It will stand you in better stead at the polls, but will preclude making megabucks on the corporate circuit when you retire. What wealthy interests are going to shovel money into Bernie Sanders' pockets when he leaves office, in gratitude for his fighting them? My bet is, not many.

[AndyA]

5. I read Simon Johnson's article, and I found it to be accurate and honest.

If Obama doesn't "get it" by now, he never will.

As long as the American people are being taken advantage of, paying high credit card interest rates and fees, this will be an issue. And that's why it's not OK.

The "too big to fail" companies need to be broken up, and diversity and competition injected into the market. Without these things happening, we're in danger of the same thing happening again.

We also need new regulations and increased oversight to eliminate risky behavior that rewards only those at the top.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Obama also said that he wants the shareholders to have more say in executive pay.

It's in the Bloomberg article Krugman links to, but not in his post.

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

Obama said compensation packages over the last decade haven’t always been commensurate with performance, and reiterated his call for shareholders to have a say in CEO pay.

===================

[freddie mertz]

20. That is a good proposal, but not nearly enough.

These people should be unemployed and in jail, and were bailed out by the tax-payers instead.

And they are repaying us by denying loans and jacking up credit card rates.

They need to be publicly called out by this president as the crooks that they are, and legislation to limit their continuing predatory activities should be a priority, not an afterthought.

[Robeson]

7. Why would Krugman think he's clueless?...

...Obama, himself, says he doesn't "begrudge" it, and "That is part of the free-market system.".

Sounds like he's all for it.

[freddie mertz]

11. i think because it is politically stupid and self-defeating, as well as bad policy.

That is my take on PK's argument, and I agree with it.

[Robeson]

13. Oh, I agree with him, too....

...I just don't think Obama does.

But, of course, it's self-defeating.

[DJ13]

8. Obama cant make up his mind, is he on our side ..... or theirs?

I think his mind has become too bipartisan, where his desire to be liked by everyone paralyzes him into an inability to take a side and stay there.

Sadly he's reminding me of Jimmy Carter so far.

[freddie mertz]

14. He can't do the "both sides of his mouth" thing with the conviction of a Bill Clinton.

Obama utterly fails at faux sincerity.

He has to find his populist heart, if he has one, and stick to it.

[DJ13]

18. I wish he would

But I doubt he will ever be the populist we expected from him so long as the DLC'ers are his closest advisers in the WH.

[amandabeech]

39. He has no populist heart.

As one of the responses to Krugman's piece said, the Bushes made it to the top because they started wealthy and connected. Obama and Clinton made it to the top because they are social climbers. No social climber worth his or her salt criticizes those on the higher rungs of the social ladder.

Both Clinton and Obama are dazzled with the people with whom they now travel.

I was very, very critical of Clinton and I am now just as critical of Obama.

[Enthusiast]

152. I can understand you point.

It just might have some validity. More so with Obama than with Clinton, imho.

[newtothegame]

19. No surprises really.

We're the fools for all getting behind him anyways in our desire to make "history."

[polichick]

21. On another thread about this, I posted that he tries to have his cake...

...and eat it too - he plays both sides, maybe hoping to get our votes and their money.

[freddie mertz]

22. I thought it needed more play, and I didn't see the Krugman response here in my search.

That's why I posted it.

[polichick]

23. Good you did - the other thread wasn't about Krugman, just Obama's take. nt

[freddie mertz]

24. Thanks polichick.

I admire your posts, and value your opinion.

:patriot:

[polichick]

27. I appreciate that freddie mertz - what a nice thing to say. :)

[PurityOfEssence]

146. Oh, he's on BOTH sides. Always has been.

There's not the slightest thing reminiscent of Jimmy Carter in him except for high intelligence.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama needs to be loved by everyone, and this, coupled with inherent centrism, deludes both into thinking that the reactionaries will call off the dogs someday if only they're molly-coddled enough. Meanwhile, the monarchists actively pursue destroying them regardless of how effective they semi-wittingly are for the conservative agenda.

All things to all people ain't nothin' to nobody. It's been a fine winning streak with this one-trick pony act, but centrists run a futile race against reality: although they can chart the ultra-moderate course and curry enough favor for elections, when called to account and forced to CHOOSE, they slowly but steadily leave disappointed supporters by the wayside, and are doomed to fight two-front wars.

How can this possibly be news?

[Vincardog]

25. Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business? WTF world do they live?

[freddie mertz]

26. In a bubble at the White House, apparently.

Clueless.

[frazzled]

28. Except Obama didn't really say that

I expect Paul Krugman will be issuing a revised assessment very soon.

The White House is making a transcript of the interview available to anyone who asks, and the comments seem a bit more nuanced than the headlines suggest:

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/

[freddie mertz]

31. I suspect he will not be revising.

Obama's "explanation" in the transcript is way to accommodating to the premise of these ridiculous bonuses for most of us to swallow, especially in a world where the "performance" of the executives had caused millions to lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care.

This ends up killing people, you see.

And yet, these 21st century Daddy Warbucks clones continue to prey like vultures on the people whose lives they have crushed.

"Free market system" my ass.

What ever happened to common decency?

[amandabeech]

40. I'm not in the least mollified by the extended transcript.

In fact, when he talks about his friends Dimon and Blankfein, I became even more nauseous.

I'd be happier if he talked about the people back in his Illinois senate district in Chicago and how they needed jobs.

[freddie mertz]

51. I agree. It's just a bad in the "long form."

He comes off as too cosy in Washington.

People are really hurting out there, and Obama's "understanding" and sympathy for the greedy practices of its architects is not what we need to hear right now, as people freeze to death on the streets.



"Are there no prisons?"

[amandabeech]

62. He has become completely divorced from working class and middle class reality.

Michelle has as well.

[jefferson_dem]

46. +1.

n/t

[CTLawGuy]

148. don't try to inject facts into this.

the fact that Obama did not actually say he didn't begrudge their bonuses is not going to get in the way of a good bash-fest.

[Enrique]

29. lol at 'Oh. My. God.'

how many other Nobel Prize winners write like that? :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

32. What if we had not handed over the bail out money?

Would he still be in that chair?

I think not.

He should have been fired and investigated.

[freddie mertz]

33. Dimon has close ties to Obama admin, got special access to Geithner.

Maybe that's why Obama is not so troubled by all this.

Sourced reference from Wiki:

Dimon is a Democrat and worked in President Obama's town of Chicago, and after Obama took office and JPMorgan Chase repaid its bailout money more quickly than most, he became influential in the White House.<13> Dimon was one of three CEO's found by the Associated Press—along with Lloyd Blankfein and Vikram Pandit—to have had liberal access to United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner in the seven months after the financial crisis in fall 2008.<14>

Source: "Rewriting The Rules Of The Financial System". Alex Blumberg. Morning Edition – Planet Money. NPR. 2009-10-09.

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

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

[JVS]

36. How did he get the money to pay it back. If it was through CDS obligations paid by AIG it...

doesn't count. That would simply be taking our money to pay back other money to us.

[amandabeech]

42. In my book, nobody deserves $17 million.

No one person is worth that, and will not be until $1 is worth 1 cent.

Winner take all is not a winning philosophy for any society, and it totally warps the self-perception of the person who wins that much, not to say the perception of the groupies around them.

[freddie mertz]

52. You must be one those socialistic whiners!

Like me!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9AyQQX9JOSE/R1JCjlyjzGI/AAAAAAAAAWM/ZZ5X7kz6GMQ/s1600-R/future1951.bmp

[amandabeech]

63. I'd say so.

So would a lot of folks here on DU.

I'm also one of those nationalistic racists because I favor the U.S. over other nations and want it to thrive and prosper.

[freddie mertz]

122. It seems that you only want SOME Americans to prosper, at the expense of the livlihoods of others.

Not me.

I am against crooks ruining our economy and then getting million-dollar bonuses for it.

[JVS]

116. Stalinist!

[Enthusiast]

153. I favor a "maximum wage".

Why not, there is a minimum wage.

[krawhitham]

34. Unless companies still own bail out money the POTUS/GOV should have ZERO say in bonuses

[freddie mertz]

38. Why? Should we as a citizenry be lending money with no preconditions?

Seems stupid to me.

[dionysus]

43. apparently you couldn't understand the first 7 words of the post you replied to....

[freddie mertz]

48. I understand. I just object to the way the deal was made.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

105. You are brave to defend this one

Obama could murder kittens with a rusty razor on American Idol and you would probably say "Obama is doing it to reach out to dogs everywhere".

[jn2375]

41. Krugman owes Obama an apolopy which we won't see

[freddie mertz]

54. Silence, WHIPPERSNAPPER!!!

The GREAT and POWERFUL OZ has spoken!

[salguine]

61. For what!?

[freddie mertz]

65. Satire. Some people cannot abide any criticism of Obama.

Even when he says something unwise and/or stupid.

Like he did here.

[zulchzulu]

44. OK, let's set a precedent. Presidents should be allowed to meddle in your company's legal affairs

Yeah, great fucking idea. :crazy:

As much as I am disappointed in these guys getting hefty bonuses, it's up to them to amend how they deliver bonuses in their organizations. It's up to the shareholders and those who darken the doors of these companies to do something about it. The bonuses, while perhaps distasteful, ARE LEGAL.

Are those (like Krugman) as clueless as to think that a corporation needs to get the approval of the President before issuing bonuses?

We'll see what Obama says at the Business Roundtable.

[amandabeech]

95. The shareholders have a tough row to hoe.

First, they have to come up with some board of director candidates who want to bring executive compensation down to earth. Then, they have to confice said candidates to run. Then they have to convince the institutional shareholders to go along with them, if they aren't there already. The institutional shareholders are probably friends with the directors.

Then, if the board is staggered, the shareholders have to keep it up for at least six to nine years to get enough candidates to vote down ridiculous compensation.

I haven't seen it happen.

In reality the best thing that a shareholder can do is vote with his or her feet, or maybe find an better run corp to make an offer for the errant corp and fight out a tender offer. Usually, though no one but the vultures do this kind of thing.

It is a long slog and everybody knows it.

On a different note, I certainly hope that you know the difference between what is legal and what is right.

FDR really didn't care about what the business roundtable of his time thought. Maybe Obama should channel FDR instead of the last four presidents.

[TankLV]

126. WHEN WE GIVE THEM THE CASH - WE BETTER DAMN WELL "MEDDLE"!!!

Fucking apologists are getting tiring...REAL tiring...

[zulchzulu]

133. OK, Einstein. Illustrate exactly how a President meddles in legal corporate business affairs

Yeah, I know. It's like a video game. Ya walk in the room with a big bazooka and blow their dang heads off. Grab the money. Wink at the camera. Then hand out Fitties to the peeps on the street, who are cheering that you are the Big Fuckin' Hero.

Yeah... tough guy.

So what exactly does a President in a democratic, capitalist country do when a corporation does something that is perfectly legal that he might disagree with?

:shrug:

[frylock]

45. remember when manny ramirez brought our economy to the brink of disaster?

perhaps the mayor of LV was right; obama seems to be a little slow on the uptake.

[Dr.Phool]

159. Well, he ruined the Indians finances.

When they let him and Thome go, they went down the toobs.

[Thrill]

47. Will he offer an apology when he sees what Obama actually said

and the context in which he said it?

I doubt it. Lefties are as bad as the RW nuts these days

[freddie mertz]

49. Not if the longer excerpt I saw is the "context."

The tone is very...cosy is the way I would describe it.

Not the right note to sound right now.

[Uzybone]

50. Oh.My.God. Even Krugman is sounding like a 12 year old thanks to blog mentality

making a smart guy post like a fool.

[freddie mertz]

53. Under the Bus with him, then!

[Uzybone]

56. Not at all, I still love Krugman

but I hate internet hysteria that makes smart men behave like idiots. Krugman is best when he acts like the learned man he is, not like some aimless blogger trying to get folks to read him.

[freddie mertz]

57. In other words, criticism is hysteria?

Just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

Did you feel the president's remarks were helpful, or wise?

[Uzybone]

66. Oh. My. God. We are doomed. Clueless.

Yes, all of those are nothing but hysteria. President Obama has said much stronger remarks attacking bankers than praising them. Krugman shouldn't really join the knee jerk internet outrage gang. Its beneath him.

The comments were not helpful, but unless he is actually going to do something to strip them of their bonuses, its all hot air either way.

[freddie mertz]

73. I agree with you that "the comments were not helpful."

I think they were also morally insensitive, at a time when so many are suffering thanks to the malfeasance of these same bankers.

It is not just a matter of "performance".

They wrecked millions of lives.

[ProSense]

55. Krugman tries to backtrack a tiny bit

Sam Stein says that Obama has said somewhat similar things before. OK, although I wonder if that was in direct response to a question about Lloyd Blankfein. Moreover, on previous occasions he has also said something about Wall Street’s reliance on public bailouts; if that’s in this interview, it hasn’t been released.

<...>

Maybe it was a bit strong for me to say that we’re doomed, but this really is shocking and dispiriting.

link

It wasn't a bit strong, it was knee jerk ridiculous.

The question is why is Krugman is ignoring the relevant part of the President's statement:

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.

more

[freddie mertz]

58. He's not ignoring. He thinks it is still "shocking and dispiriting."

And I agree.

PS. People are hurting, losing jobs, and homes, going bankrupt, going hungry.

The president should talk about that more, and less about his pals in the banking racket.

[ProSense]

64. No, he is focused on the first part of the President's comment,

the key part isn't even mentioned in his column. He is focused on a comment that is taken completely out of context.

[freddie mertz]

69. No it's not. He has addressed that already, as you note below.

What Obama said was stupid and insensitive at best.

I know you don't want to accept any criticism of him.

But this was a mistake. At best.

[ProSense]

71. Nonsense. Krugman jumped on an out of context statement, and now looks foolish. n/t

[freddie mertz]

81. "Shocking and dispiriting"--Krugman's own words in his "reassessment."

Sorry, that is what he said, and I agree with him.

[ProSense]

86. "his 'reassessment'" of his overreaction

to a comment taken out of context at that.

[freddie mertz]

98. Did you even read the link and text you posted?

Sheesh.

[ProSense]

102. Stop pretending you're confused.

The test is his follow post, not his original.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

125. Testing, one, two, three....

[zulchzulu]

84. Bingo

Krugman seems a little hasty to be the first kid on the block to trash Obama without taking in the full story. He's becoming nearly as stupid as Arianna, although she wants to just make nasty news headers for some click-through revenue.

[TankLV]

127. Let's see - a NOBEL PRIZE EXPERT ON ECONOMICS or a fool that is all "talk"

I go with the EXPERT - KRUGMAN...

you - FAIL - again...

no surprise...

[zulchzulu]

131. So is it about people who won Nobel Prizes?

Oh...

:rofl:

[CTLawGuy]

149. what is he supposed to say?

"all rich people should have their money taken away?"

get real.

Criticism is fine, if it's legitimate and not bullshit.

[salguine]

59. It's not cluelessness, it's complicity. Why doesn't anyone see that?

[freddie mertz]

60. I think many of us do.

I think Krugman does as well.

[ProSense]

67. Because calling it "clueless" is selective bullshit.

It's pathetic.

[freddie mertz]

70. Actually, what he said was worse than clueless.

It was morally insensitive.

[ProSense]

72. BS. n/t

[freddie mertz]

75. You DO realize that these bankers have destroyed peoples' lives?

Do you think they should get bonuses for that?

Where was the moral fire in the president's comments?

[ProSense]

77. What I realize is that

some people spend an inordinate amount of time spinning the President's words to use against him.

[freddie mertz]

83. Nonsense. That quote started a firestorm on its own.

He spoke badly. At best.

[Jakes Progress]

74. So you go with complicit?

I think many still want to think Obama isn't fully on the side of the corporate devils. They would rather think the candidate they worked for is just not very quick, unable to see what is happening, blind to the people.

[ProSense]

76. "I think many still want to think Obama isn't fully on the side of the corporate devils."

Think whatever you want to. Krugman's reaction was kneejerk, and even he is acknowledging he overreacted.

[freddie mertz]

80. You exaggerate.

I read his statement, and he is not all happy with what the president said in that interview.

[ProSense]

82. Wrong, n/t

[freddie mertz]

85. So, you have nothing to say about the moral question here, then.

Got it.

[Jakes Progress]

89. Has nothing to say because

just last week this poster was singing Krugman's praises and using something he wrote to prove the Obama was perfect. The kneejerk reaction comes from this poster to any hint that all is not blue skies and honey because Obama is in the WH. I campaigned and voted for Obama. I'm glad he beat the geezer and the git, but I was hoping for more. Many were, but if they express those opinions the usual crowd blows up and starts unreccing and hi jacking the thread. I like to use them to keep bumping a thread to the top. My post above was regarding his scoffing at the idea of Obama being clueless. The poster hadn't read the thread and didn't know that their post was coming down on the side of Obama being complicit. They don't read to understand, just to obstruct. Hey. If it works for the republicans.

[ProSense]

91. "just last week this poster was singing Krugman's praises" Don't be ridiculous

agreeing with Krugman on a point is not "singing" praises.


He's wrong here, and his overreaction ("we're doomed") to an innocuous part of a more important statement in context is ridiculous.

[Jakes Progress]

94. Don't be dupicious.

You find anyone who thinks Obama could do a bette job is ridiculous. Many find those react without reason to any criticism to be ridiculous.

He is not wrong here. His premise is spot on. He knows so much more than you do about almost anything economic, historical, and political, that would would be well advised to study his writings and learn.

As for the statement being innocuous, it could only be seen as such by someone with a job (how are they treating you) and insurance, someone who isn't suffering from what the fat cats whose campaign funds are up for grabs have done to the country. If you don't need their campaign cash, you would be obliged to call them what they are rather than what Obama did.

(Thanks for the kick to a worthy OP)

[ProSense]

100. "You find anyone who thinks Obama could do a bette job is ridiculous." Don't be ridiculous

People have opinions that run counter to Obama's, not all of them are ridiculous. Responding to Obama's comment about CEO pay with "we're doomed" is ridiculous.

[Jakes Progress]

129. Now that's ridiculous.

First you say people have some opinions counter to Obama that you condone. Then you say that this particular opinion doesn't merit credence on your personal ridiculous meter. I would say that your meter is out of whack, and that an even cursory knowledge of your posting habits would reveal the faulty instrument. It is stuck. The needle is mired in the grime of preconception and needs the grease of logic and realism to loosen it. Those with better meters have needles that swing all the way across the dial. Why don't you just thump it with your thumb and see if there isn't something, some unreasonable bias or commercial concern that would keep the needle from working.

Try this to see if it can shake it loose. The "doomed" part is from Obama displaying a desire to placate the rich bankers before gently chiding them. It is from Obama displaying an attitude that this was just a little thing to get past without realizing the impact that this statement would have on both the suffering poor and the prancing rich. It is from Obama displaying a lack of true feeling for the effect of this downturn.

Notice please the words. We cannot know what Obama really means or feels, but this statement has the effect of displaying those desires, attitudes, and feelings. Sure if you are predisposed to believe and trust and support anything the president does without question, without judgement, you can casually dismiss the words as not being what they are. Those words were common talking points thrown in where they don't belong. They signal that the president is using canned rhetoric to respond to a situation where he shouldn't. That he used those phrases (again) in this place is the problem. That action connotes either a simpering desire to placate the financial architects of our current situation or a tone deafness to the plight of those suffering because of that situation. Either interpretation would signal doom for any help for the people.

[freddie mertz]

141. And they say WE are the ones who can't read.

And post the full comments, which are JUST A BAD as the original shorter quotes were.

Yes, the Huffpo headline was a bit sensationalist.

But the statement was also pretty sensational.

And not in a good way.

[freddie mertz]

78. I think he comes across as sympathetic to powerful, and blind to the suffering

Of the people who were the victims of these men's mendacity.

That adds up to complicity, or at least SEEMS to.

I am deeply troubled by the implications of what he said in that interview.

I saw no trace of empathy or outrage for suffering of the common people.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Better watch out.

The squad will be out to get you. You have to rearrange a few basics in logic, concentrate on comma instead of truth, and hold your mouth just right. If you do all that you can ignore this outrageous statement and make out that the people who are upset by it are the villains.

[brentspeak]

87. He was just being honest. Obama HELPED them get their bonuses this year

[Knight Hawk]

88. ?

Does anyone else have the feeling that Obama and his people are at a loss of what to do now and are simply pushing different buttons to find one that works?

[freddie mertz]

96. That is exactly the impression I am getting.

They seemed to have found their legs after the SOTU, but now, it's back to no message control and flailing about, saying crazy things like this.

They are going to lose both Houses if this keeps up, which is what is driving so many congress away from them.

Notice the silence?

[TheWebHead]

92. actually Krugman, the baseball industry is given a massive and continued govt bailout

has he looked at who finances large portions of these massive stadiums that have to be torn down and rebuilt every 15-20 years?

I think what's being missed here is that the view by Wall St. outside of financials is that Obama is at war with them - health reform, bank taxes, anti-Vegas, cap and trade, card check, etc. You may want him to be in a full scale assault against wealth, but if you look at what's happened w/ the proposed bank tax to the markets, it's extremely counterproductive. They proposed getting $90 billion over 10 years, but it triggered a market selloff, even more pronounced in financials, that eliminates capital gains revenue to the govt, eliminates wealth from the 50% of Americans that hold stocks. If the market loses $1 trillion in wealth because of government policy that only hopes to recoup about $10 billion a year from banks, you've lost not only the $150 billion in capital gains, but the wealth effect of that trillion.

Krugman doesn't manage money, his brain doesn't really process the ramifications of his proposed market unfriendly policies on the real world and how it literally sucks wealth and its revenues out of the system. If a couple CEO's whose respective companies paid a combined $10 billion in taxes in FY 2009, I could give a shit if they are compensated a combined $25 million.

[freddie mertz]

93. If you can say this, then you will never have a clue when the electorate tosses us out of power.

"If a couple CEO's whose respective companies paid a combined $10 billion in taxes in FY 2009, I could give a shit if they are compensated a combined $25 million."

Imagine that coming from the mouth of GW Bush.

Actually that is easy to imagine, but only in private, cause even HE would not have the political stupidity to actually say it out loud, near a reporter's notebook or a microphone (let alone on a web board... but then, I don't think he's handy with these sorts of things....)

[vaberella]

97. Kruman you're not a POLITICIAN. Remember that...so please be quiet. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

130. Are you a POLITICIAN?

[Lord Helmet]

99. Crappy reporting often leads to shark jumping like this.

[ProSense]

103. Exactly, and one way to avoid this is

to search out the President's actually statement. Instead, they're using crappy reporting to attack the President when the real culprit is the media taking the statement out of context. Media gets away with crappy reporting while the President's actual point is lost. The ones who do actually seek out the actual statement are now spending time defending the statement from the criticisms based on the statement being taking out of context.

What a friggin waste of a good opportunity to call out the media. More important, a perfectly good point gets lost in the silliness.





edited for clarity.

[Lord Helmet]

104. You're right but I think some people are okay with crappy reporting

because it gives them a window of opportunity to get their trash talk on. They seem disinterested in the subject once the actual quote/story surfaces.

The MSM for the most part has become a bitchy tabloid.

[freddie mertz]

108. Blame the messenger.

We've had the expanded transcript tossed in our face, and it says exactly the same thing.

Fail.

[vaberella]

112. On DU...that's always the case. n/t

[bvar22]

137. Actually, I'm unhappy with crappy leadership.

I didn't need Krugman to tell me to be offended by Obama's comments.

I was offended before Krugman wrote his column.
I was offended when I watched Obama call it the "Free Market System".

In a REAL "Free Market" system, the FAILED Wall Street Bankers would be making the same bonuses as a FAILED baseball player = "Would you like some fries with that?".

Obama was an integral part of funneling BILLIONS to these crooks.
Little wonder that he would rush to their rhetorical (and monetary) aid.

Would you support funneling BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to FAILED athletes, and then calling THAT the "Free Market"?

[freddie mertz]

106. The "real" statement was just as bad.

You guys are spinning worse than a top.

[Robb]

107. And you're covering your ass after jumping the gun. nt

[freddie mertz]

109. Nonsense.

You can't blame me for what the pres said, or for the reaction to it.

Though you will try.

[Robb]

111. Keep diggin'. nt

[freddie mertz]

113. That was really fast, "Robb".

I gotta give you that.

Still, you all haven't managed to shut it down yet, so I guess in the balance, I'm doing well, despite all the "incoming."

I imagine it coming straight up.

[Robb]

115. What?

I'm sorry, I'm trying very hard to parse your post and I still have no idea what it means.

What am I shutting down? Why am I in quotation marks? What's coming straight up?

[freddie mertz]

117. That's OK. I speak in riddles.

IIl presidente ha sempre ragione.

[Robb]

118. I'll keep my gibberish-English dictionary handy, then.

[freddie mertz]

120. I'll bet you will!

[Robb]

110. I'll say it again.

The media is not suddenly on our side.

[freddie mertz]

114. Right. Krugman is a secret enemy of Obama and the American people.

And is gloating over his new opening to launch his big attack.

Or else, and certainly more likely, he wants Obama to succeed and do the right thing, and is genuinely appalled by such a clueless screw-up of a statement.

But let's not consider THAT possibility, because that concedes the possibility of error from the White House.

[Prism]

128. Sort of like the Dan Choi news, right?

It happens.

[BeyondGeography]

101. Last week it wasn't all over for America (per Krugman), now we're doomed

Paulie, you're all over the map. Again.

[freddie mertz]

121. Yeah, it's all Paul's fault.

He's so silly.

[saracat]

123. Thank you Freddie for posting truth and having courage.K+R

[freddie mertz]

124. Thank YOU saracat. Your support means a lot!

I knew the post would be controversial, but the unqualified defense of the big bank bonuses from some of the respondents caught me by surprise.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

132. Manufactured outrage #999 of Obama's presidency. One more and progressive bloggers win a prize.

Rahm Emmanuel will call their tactics fucking retarded again and they can revel in orgasmic outrage.

[Jakes Progress]

135. Oh those nasty liberals.

How dare they protest. How dare they speak up of the people's agenda.

I'll put up manufactured outrage against prepackaged corporatism any day. Please stop the pretense that the word is doesn't mean the word is. In the context of this exchange Obama displayed either insensitivity or callousness. He used a stock phrase from his talking points at a place in the discussion where it didn't belong.

Put in another context. If you asked me how I feel about rape, and I replied that men have urges, you would be well justified in questioning my understanding and sensitivity. All of the defenders using sentence parsing and faux befuddlement are just compounding the president's error. To their credit, they recognize the stupidity of using that stock reply in that context. Most of the WH efforts have been to back off from the statement. Only a still tone-deaf few are still trying to defend the definition of "is".

[FrenchieCat]

136. And the fucked up media are joining in the orgasmic outrage via cable television.......

on the orgasmic outrage train that Huffington put on the tracks.

It's a perfect storm, and we will end up the loser...
although that never stopped a real good outrage
from growing.

I fault the media for their incorrect and fucked up headlines,
and I fault the fact that too many are too ready for outrage
to realize how it hurts us more than anyone else.

I'm fucking tired of the Rahm, but he obviously had a point.
Too bad that he is proving more accurate than one would like.

[freddie mertz]

139. We were the losers as soon as the stupid statement was made to Bloomberg.

the response should have been anticipated, and would have been if they had a handle on their "message."

As it is, I have come to conclusion that the sentiments expressed in the Bloomberg interview are closer to the president's real opinion than the speech rhetoric we heard over the past few weeks.

He really does sympathize, and identify with, Wall Street CEOs.

Or at the very least, he wants them to tHINK that so he can get his donations for the next cycle.

Too bad he didn't keep a lid on it, instead of blabbing it to the public.

Cause we all know the real story now.

And we, the American people, are truly and completely screwed.

[kiva]

138. Thanks for posting this,

and for defending it.

[freddie mertz]

140. You are welcome, Kiva.

The transcripts themselves tell the true story.

All the rest is spin, and not very convincing spin at that.

We have to keep our eyes on the Man Behind the Curtain.

[boppers]

142. Down with Oprah Winfrey!

How dare she make money when people are suffering. Unless Obama repudiates his ties with her, it's just more of the same corporate/capitalist behavior, supporting fat-cat friends when everyday people are suffering.

In case you need this:
:sarcasm:

[freddie mertz]

144. Oprah did not throw millions out of work. Failed analogy.

Is that all you got?

[vegiegals]

143. "savvy businessmen,” Obama said"--Yup--greedy and savvy!!

[freddie mertz]

145. Maybe he thinks those are the same things? "Greed is Good"?

Depressing.

[Orsino]

147. He's not clueless--he's helpless.

His attempts to shame the execs got no traction, and why would we expect him to keep waging a war without a Congress that gives a damn?

Wall Street rules us. Our president has little choice but to grit his teeth and pretend not to notice, or to be made a fool by fighting a fight he can't win.

[freddie mertz]

154. This is most ridiculously contorted attempt at an excuse for this I had read yet.

Blame it on congress!

They made him say it! Through their OWN inaction!

(Which hardly applies to the House, only to the dysfunctional DLC controlled Senate).

So now he HAS to serve his corporate masters.

If this was even half true, he would have no right being in the office.

Fortunately, your excuse fails to convince on any level whatsoever.

What he said was lame, stupid, a repeating of stock lines in the worst possible context.

It's bad political skills to the tenth power.

But it has nothing at all to do with congress!

[Orsino]

155. It's not an excuse.

It's a reason.

I don't know that any president could persuade this Congress to save the nation. While I wish President Obama would keep trying, he risks neutering himself utterly, and I understand why he doesn't want that to happen this early. He has only a little powder, and is determined not to run out before 2012/2016.

If we cared more about the health of the republic, so would he, and so would Congress.

[freddie mertz]

156. Congress cannot control the man's public statements or personal thoughts.

It's a ridiculous (and rather desperate) argument.

As for blaming WE, the public.

That is even more of reach.

Responsibility for what Obama says lands squarely on the man himself.

[Orsino]

157. Incorrect. Obama is a politician...

...and is therefore a product of his constituency, private and corporate.

He was willing to talk (and even promise) a public option back when it appeared to have a chance of passing, and he was no doubt influenced by our cheers. The realities of Congress having hit home, however, he's taking what cold comfort there is in minor insurance reform.

Politicians are vending machines. Put in progressive coins, and you get progressive product.

[freddie mertz]

160. Ok, enough of this argument.

This isn't even about the HCR mess.

It's about what he said to Bloomberg about the banking and finance execs and their bonuses, and that was his choice.

Sorry. But "the Devil Made Me Do IT" does not wash as an excuse, now or ever.

[Orsino]

162. It's about much more than a couple of sentences. n/t

[freddie mertz]

163. Yes. It is about the broader implications of those sentences.

Which the president made, of his own volition.

He's a grown up.

He's the president.

[Orsino]

164. I know what you mean...

...but it's sort of beside the point I wanted to make.

I often wish that President Obama would speak more of his own volition. He has offered more plain speech than most politicians, IMO, but mostly we get carefully-crafted, safe positions. Given the forces arrayed against the sort of reform he once promised, it's sometimes very difficult to tell how he really feels (c.f., marriage equality).

[freddie mertz]

165. He is a very unconvincing "triangulator"....

Clinton did this sort of thing much better, I think.

He should stick to straightforward.

[Dr.Phool]

158. I still remember when Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays destroyed the world's financial system.

And all I got was an autographed ball.

[freddie mertz]

161. Mickey and Willie: Enemies of the People!

[asdjrocky]

167. Don't be talking 'bout the Say Hey Kid!

[asdjrocky]

166. The man is not clueless.

He knows exactly what he's doing. You can't be that smart and be this tone deaf.

It's what he believes. Just look at his cabinet.

[Dr.Phool]

168. Bingo!

And to think that he was considering the addle-brained Evan Bayh for VP.

[freddie mertz]

169. He seems to be clueless POLITICALLY.

Whatever he believes, and who can really say anymore?, he should not be out there making contradictory statements to different audiences.

His new job means that EVERYTHING he says get recorded and critiqued.