"What sentence here is supposed to get my blood boiling, exactly?"

[babylonsister]

http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/02/dont_begrudge_obama_his_bloomberg_quote.php

Don't "Begrudge" Obama His Bloomberg Interview

In an interview with Bloomberg/BusinessWeek, President Obama toned down the anti-Wall Street rhetoric and called the heads of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs "very savvy businessmen." Naturally, everybody is furious now, because indirectly complimenting bankers for being clever is a monstrous act of treasonous barbarism, or something.

Let's see what Obama really said. The Bloomberg begins like this:

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."

This makes it sound like Obama is specifically defending the $17 million and $9 million bonuses. He wasn't, really, defending any kind of bonus. If anything, he was softly criticizing Wall Street's bonus culture. The actual exchange went like this:

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.

What sentence here is supposed to get my blood boiling, exactly? These are obviously savvy, politically aware businessmen. When Blankfein announced that he would be taking a $9 million all-stock bonus after some of Goldman's most profitable quarters ever (he took a record $67.9 million bonus in 2007), plenty of news organizations called the move savvy. For Obama to state the same isn't a capitulation to Wall St., it's an acknowledgment of fact. Moreover, Obama is absolutely right that Americans don't normally begrudge success or wealth. That's one reason I've been told that middle Americans usually don't want to jack up the top marginal tax rate -- "It could be me one day," and so forth. Obama's also right that the kind of success and wealth achieved on Wall Street hasn't match up with performance in the last few years. Some tweaks to bonus pay protocol would be nice to see.

Liberal blogs are suffering conniption fits over the idea that Obama didn't spend the whole interview sweating in an apoplectic rage about bonus figures. I can't muster their indignation. Responding to a question about Goldman's bonuses just days after its CEO converted his pay to stock and slashed it by 80 percent, Obama spoke calmly about how Wall Street's bonus culture has misaligned incentives. Good for him. And bad on Bloomberg News for splicing his quotes suggestively.

[phantom power]

1. The part where he buys into the whole "free market" frame.

These guys aren't making their money in some kind of fair free-market competition. They've gamed the entire system that they play inside of, with the help and approval of federal govt.

[rudy23]

3. Bingo. Too big to fail is not part of the "free market." The Repubs are owning us on the populist

side of things.

[gateley]

5. He doesn't 'buy into' it, I don't think -- he knows exactly what they're doing

and I think he's as disgusted and angry as the rest of us. But jeez, he's got to be President. He has to be careful how he phrases things, or what he chooses to include or not.

[avaistheone1]

8. The bankers have hurt a lot ordinary Americans on Main Street

in order to walk away with those compensation packages.

I don't feel good about that. I don't believe most of us consider acquiring wealth in the manner these Wall Street banksters have should be considered any part of the American dream, nor should it should not be condoned nor should it be emulated. Many little people have had their lives destroyed so these greedy bankster/con artists can enjoy their extreme wealth.

[vaberella]

31. It's called CAPITALISM; and smart capitalists always make lots of money.

I can't deny that.

[Canuckistanian]

37. No kidding

They live in a an artificial world where no one loses, even if they have to call on the Fed to bail them out.

But even THAT is in their business plan, which we're not allowed to see, of course.

[gateley]

2. David Shuster is talking about that right this minute!

I think people just knee-jerk reacted -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Obama said. IMO, natch.

My blood is still tepid. :)

[Pirate Smile]

13. Ugh. Shuster and Ed are talking about it like all they know is the headline and out of context

quotes. Jumping to the worst, uninformed conclusions.

[gateley]

15. Ha! And I thought they were reasonable in their coverage of it. It's so interesting

how we each interpret the same thing differently -- through our own filters. :hi:

[Pirate Smile]

4. I just heard somebody on CNBC bemoaning the "silly" bank tax and how off the financial stocks are

since the President announced that.

As usual, he gets bashed by both sides.

[gateley]

6. Always, that's to be expected. Frustrating, but that's how it will always be. Especially

with Obama as President.

[Jennicut]

7. Exactly. Personally, if he suddenly decided he was wrong about the bank tax

or wanting the Volcker rule then I could see myself actually getting pissed. At this point all of this outrage is so misdirected at the wrong people. Really, we should be concentrating as usual on Congress where financial reform lives or dies (and it will probably die or being watered down to death).

[Armstead]

9. "Savvy" too often means "Criminally greedy" -- We have to stop bolstering shitty values

I really don't care about those bonuses.

We will never change the underlying problem until our leadership stands up and states the obvious truth -- We are allowing ourselves to become a feudal society, with a handful of immensly wealthy people while the rest slide into serfdom.

[Phx_Dem]

11. Yep. Savvy means smart or strategic, not good.

And let's face it, these guys are savvy. They brought the country to the brink of disaster and they're still in business. That's what I call savvy.

Arianna is not savvy. And she's not a journalist either.

[Phx_Dem]

10. Yeah, I missed it too. Arianna is catching shit from several liberal

bloggers for her 'Drudge-like' headlines and right-wing reporting style.

It's about time someone called her out.

[Armstead]

12. Yes she's another one of those awful progressives -- They have to be silenced

Can't have anything more left wing than the New Republic being heard.

[Robb]

14. On what planet is Arianna a progressive?

[Jennicut]

16. LOL. Not on this one. Disliking Bush does not make you a total progressive.

I like Krugman and respect him even when I disagree with him. But Arianna Huffington? Eh. I think her loyalties lie in how many hits she gets for HuffPo.

[Armstead]

19. Difference in style vs. substance

Her style may not be everyone's cup of tea, but politically she's progressive.

[Armstead]

18. Do you ever listen to her beyond her Obama bashing?

She's prohgressive. You may not like her personal style or the fact that she goes after Democrats, but politically she is a progressive.

[high density]

17. I'm all for silencing lies

The President sure does have to put up with a lot of them.

[Cha]

28. arianna gets hysterical and she does no good for progress.

[Armstead]

42. As opposed to Rahm who calls progressives F'n Retards?

[Phx_Dem]

46. Arianna sounds more like Drudge than any leftwinger.

[Armstead]

47. In terms of screaming headlines -- But can you cite exaqmples in substance?

I will grant you that they do do screaming headlines that can be misleading, and sometimes she tosses out off the cuff things that aren;t always totally accurate.

But in terms of positions, and actual substance, what is right wing about what she complains about or advocates?

[On the Road]

20. I Agree -- This is What He Should Say

and he knows the cause, namely that stockholders have had little in executive compensation. Or rather that they have theoretical control that's almost never used in practice.

I am sure there are ways to fix the corporate governance issue. They may even be invisible. I just want to see Obama see that an effective one becomes law.

[amandabeech]

30. Shareholders have no direct control over executive compensation.

All they can do is vote in directors who also think that executive compensation is totally divorced from reality or they can vote with their feet, so to speak, by selling their shares.

There are no other ways at this time.

[On the Road]

41. That is Correct

The control is theoretically absolute over selecting board members but it's indirect and most shareholders are passive investors, it's totally ineffective at controlling compensation.

Railing about people's greed is not the solution. There have got to be relatively simple ways of controlling this by changing some ground rules. Obama brought up the subject; he seems to understand the issue. If he is serious about it, he will get something done.

[zipplewrath]

21. Here is your answer

He had a chance to very specifically take a stand against specific individuals receiving bonuses they did not deserve, and he took a pass. Instead, he compliments them, and then he makes some broad comment about a disconnect of "compensation packages we've seen over the last decade...". How about THESE SPECIFIC BONUSES? He took a pass. He ducked, and really he chickened out. These companies, either directly or indirectly where in severe danger of going belly up and the American taxpayer saved their companies, for which they want to take huge bonuses, and turn them into contributions to the GOP.

He's gonna have to grow a pair and name names or the independents are going to continue to see him and the entire democratic party as clueless an unable to see what the ordinary guy on "main street" sees.

[ProSense]

22. Wouldn't it be great if people weren't knee jerk and actually focused on the key statement?

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.

This is an important statement, loaded with opportunity for people to run with and point to examples and show how shareholders could and should influence CEOs' pay and bonuses. Instead, the kneejerkers are doing the RW thing and jumping on the irrelevant part of what the President said.

[babylonsister]

23. Here's another take from Salon, agreeing with the OP...

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/02/10/bloomberg_and_obama


Pretty clever, those Bloomberg folks! First they buy BusinessWeek. Then BusinessWeek gets an interview with President Obama. Then, one day before the interview is to run, Bloomberg scoops its sister publication by excerpting a couple of choice nuggets suggesting Obama is cuddling up to the banks.

snip//

Unsurprisingly, two of Obama's harshest critics on banking policy -- from the left -- immediately went ballistic. Simon Johnson called it "a major public relations disaster" and Paul Krugman, in a post titled "Clueless," said "you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what's happening" and declared that "we are doomed."

Hmm. Maybe we should read the entire interview before rending our hair and screaming doom and disaster? If there's one thing we know about the president, it's that he is pretty good with nuance and capable of making complex, multifaceted arguments. His performance during his meeting with the House GOP two weeks ago should provide all the evidence we need for that.

snip//

It's a modern American political tragedy. We've got a guy in the White House capable of more nuance than anyone in recent memory, and a political culture that can't deal with any nuance at all.

[tomp]

45. EXCEPT, nuance is not what's needed.

bold, progressive opposition to business control of gov't, spoken in no uncertain terms, is what is needed.

what you call nuance doesn't even rise to fence-straddling. he's clearly in the business camp... and you support that.

that sucks, and that makes you part of the problem.

[freddie mertz]

25. I think it's an extraordinarily tepid statement.

Multi-million dollar salaries and huge bonuses are OK, but only when they "match" performance.

What kind of "performance" could possibly justify such excess?

I thought we were supposed to be DEMOCRATS, and as such, advocates for the needs of working and poor people.

Did I miss something?

[ProSense]

26. "Did I miss something? "

Yes, the entire point of his comment.

[freddie mertz]

29. Actually, I understood the comment all too well.

What I asked about missing was the moment when the Democratic party became exclusively devoted to protecting the ill-gotten gains of the rich.

[Armstead]

33. Um, The problem is a lot bigger than CEO performance and shareholder value

There have been many years in contemporary history when CEO's performed well, made their companies profitable -- AND SCREWED OVER THEIR WORKERS by slashing pay and benefits, outsourcing and other tactics.

Shareholders were happy, CEOs were happy -- But it helped to drive down our stabndard of living and screwed over working people.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Who gives a crap what they think either? Big payouts for wrecking the economy

are unacceptable whether the stockholders approve or not. These companies should have been nationalized, broken up, and re-privatized when their are rules for the road and cops on the beat again.

The same bastards that are richly rewarding themselves for creating generational debt, trillions of lost value, and untold lost opportunity for millions of Americans are also using some of the same ill gotten loot to launch an unending onslaught on our "representation" to lobby that they be allowed to continue to rob the treasury, stick us with the losses, and to reward themselves greatly for the ingenuity.

This isn't kneejerking but rather a response to the willful wink and a nod treatment these toxic criminals get time and time again while they continue to make money hand over fist on our misfortune.

Nobody is looking to trim around the edges here, the way Wall St works must see wholesale changes, yesterday.

[impik]

24. Stupid Left bloggers. The Left, and only the Left, will bring Republicans back to power

[JoeyT]

38. That's funny.

I thought there weren't enough of us to make a difference?
Which is it? Are there not enough liberals to matter or are we as a group capable of dramatically shifting elections?
I wish y'all would make up your mind. It's tiring not knowing what sort of bogeyman we're supposed to be this week.

[Hydra]

27. Let's give them huge sums of money and cheer them on about it

President Obama speaks his mind now and then (The issue with the police comes to mind). After we get the genuine and correct comment- "Something is not right here!" he has to back off, moderate his comments and in the end, support the side that was in the wrong.

Why is that, I wonder?

[Doctor_J]

32. Fail? The taxpayers will bail you out. Succeed? Keep everything

Threaten me? I'll capitulate.

Which part isn't supposed to piss me off?

[notesdev]

34. They're not "savvy businessmen"

They're crooks, liars, and thieves and Obama should be putting these guys in jail, not complimenting them in interviews!

[jobwithout]

35. Help Me to Understand

You say they aren't Savvy businessmen

Definition of savvy "shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny"
Definition of businessmen "a man regularly employed in business, esp. a white-collar worker, executive, or owner."

The nature of their business was to make a profit for their company period. By that measure I think even you would be hard pressed to admit that they dint fit the definition.

Now I'm not saying that its moral but..............

[notesdev]

36. It takes no particular cleverness

to be a con man and a crook.

And even less to be caught doing it.

Of course, they have, to borrow a phrase, "no controlling legal authority". They can rob us blind and we're supposed to bend over.

[Kltpzyxm]

39. "savvy"

if shitting on the american middle class, kicking people out of homes, and ruining lives is "savvy", then the world has gone fucking insane.

[freddie mertz]

40. And yet we have a Democratic president saying this, and DUers praising these Wall Street crooks.

They are falling over themselves to praise the men who threw millions out of work and out of their homes.

This is not Democratic Party thinking as I was raised to understand it.

It's pure Republican, social Darwinist swill.

[QC]

44. Yeah, but if Obama ate a litter of live puppies on TV, those same posters

would rush to DU to sing the praises of this bold and hopeful new political strategy of puppy-eating and declare that those puppies actually wanted to be eaten anyway.

Pay them no attention.

[tomp]

43. obamaphilia is fatal if not reversed.

and all those hearts won't save you...or us.

that you think that ANYONE in banking, or ANYWHERE for that matter, should get a $9 million bonus, shows you are deep in the disease.

[branders seine]

48. three comments for starters....

"savvy businessmen"
who drove their companies and the world and national economies into disastrous meltdown

"free market"
set aside that this is an imaginary construct, a capitalist fantasy that never existed anywhere; Obama is talking specifically about companies that required TRILLIONS of public dollars to save their private asses; there is nothing "free" about that market. Indeed, it isn't even a "market" by any reasonable definition.

"baseball players"
Never mind the hand-waving obfuscation of this comment; with the exception of a few billion dollars of stadium subsidies or municipal tax breaks, baseball is at least an actual business instead of a tax-subsidised kleptocratic public ris, private profit enterprise.

[inna]

49. K&U nt

[cleveramerican]

51. People forget how much of his campaign was funded by wall street

[QC]

52. Yes, $60,000,000 from the FIRE and health sectors of the economy.

That turns out to have been a very wise investment indeed.