Why Is Obama Refusing To Enact Reforms That Europeans Want?

[MannyGoldstein]

Seriously... does anyone have a specific answer? France and Germany want to regulate hedge funds and whatnot - what's the reason given for our refusal?

[babylonsister]

1. Now you want him to kowtow to Europeans? Damn, your scope is wide!

:rofl: He can do no right! Throw da bum out!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. You're Inferring An Awful Lot, No?

Did you see the episode of The Odd Couple where Felix tells us what happens when we assume?

I just asked a question, sheesh!

[babylonsister]

22. I'm 'inferring' nothing with you, Manny. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Yikes! Sounds Like I'm Your Arch-Enemy!

The OP was nothing more than a question. All of the sudden it hit me: "not regulating Wall Street operations sounds like a very bad idea, given the experiences of 2009 and 1929. But maybe I'm missing something here - let me ask if I am".

I'd love to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I've backed him almost from the day he put his hat into the ring. But I can't ignore what seems to me (and to most all economists) to be a policy that bets so much money (a good part of a year's wages for each person in America) on something so unlikely to work.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz writes in the NY Times today ("Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism"), "What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.".

So, let me flip this around: what would it take for *you* to believe that this newest bailout is a bad thing? Is there any evidence whatsoever that would do the trick for you? I'm genuinely curious.

[Teaser]

42. "I'd love to give Obama the benefit of the doubt."

[MannyGoldstein]

44. You Remind Me Of Republicans

Instead of answering questions and presenting facts, we get cheap nonsense.

[iamthebandfanman]

57. scary, isnt it ? n/t

[rwheeler31]

3. Good ? Why can't we enforce our laws on the wealthy?

[Zavulon]

4. Because Europeans didn't elect him?

He's responsible for his constituents first. Improving relations with other countries doesn't mean taking orders from them.

edited to correct the following typo: "Eurpoeans"

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Do You Want To Regulate Hedge Funds?

I do. I'll bet most Americans do.

[Zavulon]

7. Then talk to President Merkel.

Oh, wait, OBAMA is our president.

Tell me: what's the difference between the French and German proposals and why either would be difficult to enact here in the States?

When we get around to a sensible proposal, we'll do it at OUR speed and in accordance with OUR needs, and not just because France, Germany and you want it done right now.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Holy Tangent, Batman!!!

You said it was to serve his constituents. I suggested that his constituents want to do it. Then you say that his constituents should move to France and Germany.

I'm almost done with my Harpoon UFO Raspberry Hefeweizen, so I can't precisely put my finger on it, but there's something very wrong with that reasoning.

[Zavulon]

17. Holy Misconception, Batman!!!

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that his constituents should move to France or Germany. For that matter, nowhere in your post did you answer my question. Please, enlighten us with your knowledge of the French and German proposals.

I can only assume that you're not currently on the East Coast, because April Fool's Day is over and your last post was too absurd to be motivated by anything else.

edited, another typo

[biopowertoday]

35. Both of those countries say they will not toss more $$ at the problems. Obama says

he will toss more money. Regulation is the strategy for many european countries now that the money is gone. The Wh is reluctant to regulate more.

[Zavulon]

59. Someone who has looked up the specifics of the issue? Impressive.

I'm still waiting for Manny to answer, though, and find it amusing that I never got such an answer. I find it hilarious how willing people are to slam Obama on DU without knowing what they're talking about. The guy's been in office less than 75 days, and it's amazing to me that he's subjected to crap like the OP.

In the meantime, thank you for having a clue as to what you're talking about. Too little of that these days.

[dflprincess]

18. If he really thought he was responsible for his constituents first

he'd be backing single payer - not looking for a way to save the health insurance executives.

[Zavulon]

21. Fair point.

However, there's something in the tone of the OP that really gets under my skin. I've seen a bunch of Obama criticism here, some warranted, most not (all of this in my view, of course), but the suggestion that we take marching orders from Europe without working it out our own way just rubbed me the wrong way. The things people find to rip Obama for amaze me.

Maybe I've just seen too much anti-Obama whining (this does not include your post), but this struck me as absurd.

I admit I was very anti-Hillary during the primaries, and don't apologize for it, but now that the matter is over I'm just disappointed (and sort of pissed) to see people rip Obama this often 72 days into his administration. It isn't as if Bush didn't leave him a steaming pile of shit to clean up, and out of all the things to attack first I found the OP's desire to be way down the list.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I have the same question as the OP

I can think of no good reason for this resistance to meaningful regulation. I wish I could be a fly on the wall and hear the backstory on this bank rescue plan because it just does not make sense that regulations from after the depression are not put back in place and new ones invented for the hedge funds.

[Zavulon]

27. Perhaps if the OP

was put the way you phrased it, I wouldn't have had an objection to it.

[bvar22]

54. So you object to perceived tone...

..and don't care about the content.
Too much of this on DU.

I would like the question answered.

[Zavulon]

58. Blah, blah...

I object to the notion that we're supposed to respond to Europe's orders immediately, forgetting our problems, and also to any notion that this is the biggest fish to fry on the plate of steaming shit that Obama was left by the chimp. He's been in office less than 75 days, and the OP is demanding to know why he hasn't set aside our most pressing problems to pucker up to German and French backsides?

Talk about "Too much of this on DU" - the OP is a fine example. Golly, why not impeach Obama now for failing to snap his fingers and solve all problems immediately, making sure to make Europe happy before all else?

For that matter, I find your post to fit into into the category of "too much of this on DU" as well. :eyes:

[Enthusiast]

39. I agree. I want new regulations with NO loopholes.

President Obama should do as his constituents wish. We want this regulated!

[babylonsister]

23. Please provide a link where the health insurance execs are being saved. THANKS! nt

[HopeOverFear]

52. They can't n/m

[avaistheone1]

34. I don't get why Obama does not hear the people on this issue.

Instead he is choosing to lock the people out of real health access and peace of mind by not considering and supporting single payer health insurance.

[stillcool]

46. Do you think the American Health Security Act of 2009.

that Bernie Sanders introduced will pass? Does it matter at all what our representatives vote for or against?

[dflprincess]

47. Yes, how Congress votes matters

but it could only help both versions of the single payer bills if Obama backed them.

I have contacted Klobuchar about cosponsoring Sanders' bill (no response) and my rep (a Republican) about supporting the House bill, not that I expect him to listen - and I don't have a lot of hope that Klobuchar will either.

[stillcool]

49. I live in MA..

and there's no way Kennedy or Kerry will support this, with Kennedy's bill waiting in the wings. I just wish one time, a small percentage of the 300+ million people we are called our representatives. I can't imagine what might happen..it's never been done.

[dflprincess]

50. Even if we all called, I'm beginning to doubt it would do much good

unless we could match the money they get from health insurance and big pharma pacs.

But, we have to at least try and keep calling them. Outrage over her first FISA vote (for it) did get Klobuchar to change her vote the next time it came up. Of course, that was before she went over to the Blue Dogs.

[stillcool]

51. I doubt if even 1% of the population

have been involved in the passing/failing of a piece of legislation. Why would people sent to D.C. do anything different, when they have no reason to? By the time the next election comes along, who cares about how they voted? Especially in Congress.

[truedelphi]

6. Both Bernanke and Geithner want the Credit Default Swaps left a lone

And Obama's position on the economy has been pretty much that Geithner and Bernanke, Summers, Rubin and Gensler are the only ones who understand our economy. For whatever reason, he wants these Big Boys in charge.

But don't ask me to explain why he is so hung up on these people, as they continue the defrauding of our money system and transferring the wealth of Main Street to the Barons of Wall Street.

[Enthusiast]

40. Credit default swaps must be regulated! nt

[AtomicKitten]

8. Did the MSM tell you that?

Hey, why don't you let the leaders hammer out the details and soon you'll have more information. Til then your criticism based on hearsay is premature. Obama is in negotiations playing his hand closer to the vest than you think.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. So You Think That He Does Want To Regulate Hedge Funds et al? n/t

[Thrill]

12. Where were you last week? Of course he does. Did you just miss Geitner's whole presentation

last week?????

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Um, Yeah, I Did Miss It n/t

[Thrill]

10. What are you talking about? Did you hear him today? He said what Geitner has proposed

is tougher than anything proposed by the G20.

And at Merkel and Sarkozy's Press conference they want Hedge Funds and Derivatives regulated. Geitner has already proposed tough regulations on this. So they are asking for things Geitner has already proposed to Congress.

Which is why Obama said today, the differences the media is pushing is vastly overstated.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Thank You - I'll Have to Check That Out

But it seems a bit odd that Sarkozy and Merkel want to walk out because Obama is over-regulating... I have some reading to do.

[Barack_America]

15. They want the focus to be on regulations and not spending.

Obama and Brown are insisting that increased spending is necessary (but obviously want regulations too).

That's where the difference lies.

[Thrill]

16. Thats overstated. They want to be able to say they won

when they agree to increase their spending. Obama has no problem agreeing with their demands for regulation. Because he already proposed those same regulations here at home.

This is why both are going to come out tomorrow looking like winners to their people. Obama is going to be able to say I convinced them to increase spending. Sarkozy and Merkel are going to be able to say we feel comfortable increasing spending after we got the regulatory reforms we wanted. Even though here in America we already know Obama proposed the very regulations they want, before he left. I don't think its a coincidence Obama proposed this stuff before leaving.

[babylonsister]

25. Where did you read Merkel wants to walk out, and Sarkosy hasn't.

Please share that link.

[truedelphi]

20. If you can offer a source, any source, about how very heavily regulated the hedge funds would be

Under new proposals, I would be interested in seeing it.

Would appreciate even a simple URL

[avaistheone1]

28. Wait a minute Geithner gave testimony 3/26/09 that he did Not want naked short selling regulated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=290531&mesg_id=290531


So are people saying we should not believe what comes out of Geithner's own lips, OR should we believe that Geithner is going to regulate?

[SpartanDem]

30. maybe you should listen

to what he says, he said that isn't favor of naked CDS' banned, but want to see them that they are properly capitalized like any other insurance policy.

[avaistheone1]

31. That is what I said.

[SpartanDem]

32. Hold on

so requiring them to be capitalized isn't regulation?

[avaistheone1]

33. How can they be capitalized if Geithner is saying shorts will continue to be sold naked?

What kind of regulation is that?

[SpartanDem]

36. This what he said

Well our issue is not whether we want to protect the American economy from these things(I presume naked CDS) in the future, which we do, the question is how best to do that. And our view is that the absolutely essential thing is to make sure there is more capital held against those positions

I don't pretend to have the greatest understanding of these economic issues, so take it this forwhat it's worth.

[truedelphi]

48. Here are some questions - I can not offer a straight up answer because Geithner

Does not inspire enough confidence in me to do anything but question:

First of all, with his track record, why was he appointed?

The Sydney Herald posted a story about Geithner three weeks ago, relating to this man's history. Apparently when the IMF sent him to Asia to help the economy recover, he had two models to choose from in terms of recovery - and he choose the one that kept that economy underwater. So the recovery part of his track record is dismal.

Secondly, he was all Rah Rah about Paulson's weird 700 Billion dollar Bailout - you know, the one that did pretty much NUTTIN for anyone but the financial circle. Other much wiser analysts of that scenario here at DU have had several OP's describing how AIG and others got money and passed it around. IIRC, some of the money was actually used for more Credit Default Swaps! So again, why was he appointed?

Thirdly, this Tuesday March 31, C SPan had televised the meeting with Ms. Warren, also the guy who heads the GAO, and with Neil Barofskey, and the Senators grilling them left me with this impression -

Ms. Warren already heads an oversight committee. Her big complaint is that the Geithner crowd will not get back to her and they refuse answer her questions. The Senators chimed in with the fact that no one there gets back to them either. If we already have Senators and an oversight person being flummoxed by Geithner, how is a new face on a new "oversight" committee going to be any better?

As Cynk from the TYT has said, we should be liquidating any firms that so desperately needs our money. Then the contracts, including contracts that stipulate that the Credit Default Swaps must be paid first, and the bonuses must be paid, would become null and void.

The fact that the Credit Default Swaps must be honored first is quite disgusting. If the money was first used to prop up the investment entity end of things, then that would mean that some of those wanting their bets on loss to be covered IN FULL would not have losses any more. (Those in the inner circle were pretty much overwhelmingly focused on betting against our economy -and of course that was a good take, given what happened.) So we need those contracts null and void.)

Fourthly, we don't need people sitting around and re-inventing the wheel, do we? We all know that our economy was rather well protected when we had Glass Steagall in place. SO re-instate it. Scrap the 1999 Banking Reform Act and scrappy the Credit Modernization Act of 23000 (The act fashioned I believe by Gramm)

Politicians want to reinvent the wheel usually for this purpose: the new "craftier" legislation will contain valuable loopholes that will allow their cronies to still get what they want. That is why we don't see Geithner banging his shoe on the table demanding to put Glass Steagall back in place, or to scrap the bad legislation relating to the financial companies circa 1999 and 2000,isn't it?

Last and not least - why in the world is a discussion of regulation be happening now? Do you build a building and then draw up blueprints? Do you put a cart before a horse?

Hasn't the money already been handed over to the jackals? Isn't it sad that Obama's financial team from Hell got so much chance to screw us over again?

[elleng]

19. Refusing???

I don't think thats the case. I think hedge funds are on the list of newly-regulated creatures, according to geithener. There might be disagreement on the nature of the regulation, which would be a perfectly reasonable thing about which to disagree.

[SpartanDem]

24. I posted these yesterday

of course the thread didn't get any attention since didn't allow people paint him as a big business shill.



Obama to shop market reforms to G-20

A week after the administration revealed to Congress how it wants to beef up rules on financial markets, president will present them on the world stage.

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- Last week, Congress. This week, the world.

At the Group of 20 meeting on Thursday, President Obama is expected to push the new regulations that he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pitched to Congress last week as a way to prevent another financial market collapse. He heads to London on Tuesday and will meet the next day with the leaders of Great Britain, Russia and China.

The president will emphasize the need to regulate hedge funds and derivatives markets, encourage better capitalization of financial companies and "forge coordination among regulators," said Michael Froman, a deputy Obama adviser on international economic affairs. The need to crack down on offshore tax havens is also on the agenda, Froman added.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/30/news/economy/g20_london_summit/?postversion=2009033007



Obama Seeks G-20 Accord on Approach to Tax Havens

By Hans Nichols

March 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will seek backing from other leaders of the world’s advanced and emerging economies on incentives for off-shore tax havens to adopt global accounting and transparency rules, an economic adviser said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAQ2mX1K37Lc&refer=home

[babylonsister]

29. Manny, why don't you respond to any of the questions asked?

Ugh. You want someone to come to your aid? You just set the trap? :puke:

Lower than low. Good job, mission accomplished.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Which Questions Would You Like An Answer To? n/t

[Undercurrent]

37. ?

..."It’s not at all clear why Sarkozy and Merkel are making such a show,” said Morris Goldstein, a former economist at the International Monetary Fund and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “On regulation, the differences really aren’t that big.”

Geithner’s Effort

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants to bring hedge funds, private-equity firms and derivatives markets under federal supervision for the first time. A new systemic-risk regulator would have power to force companies to increase their capital or cut their borrowing, and authorities would be able to seize them if they came unstuck."...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDU5NkPPc6EA&refer=home

[eridani]

38. Never mind that Europeans want regulation

What about listening to us AMERICANS that want regulation?

[olegramps]

43. I appreciate your question and I appreciate the responses.

What we can be thankful for is that people on this board have answered your question. Obama whats regulation and there appears that there are only some minor differences to be ironed out between us and our European allies. It is my opinion that the media is attempting to discredit President Obama every chance that it has and magnifies every minor nuance. Anyone who is still laboring under the delusion that that the media is controlled by liberals is a fool.

This demonstrates the most important aspect of this board in that it a huge information clearing house that does what I am incapable of doing by myself.

[Mass]

53. Sarkozy is the king of measures that look great but do nothing.

I would be very surprised that he really want to regulate his friends, big capital and hedge funds. So, take what he is proposing with a grain of salt. He is the perfect opportunist.

Now, the real question is to know what Obama wants to do to regulate the financial industry. It would not surprise me that it is actually more than Sarkozy.

[backscatter712]

55. It helps to have more specifics - they wanted us to cede sovereignty.

China wants us to abandon the dollar for their idea of a global currency.

France and Germany want us to sign a treaty giving some international agency control over our financial system.

Fuck. That.

Obama's more than happy to push for the U.S. to regulate its own financial system.

[depakid]

56. Regulations do need to be international to work

That much should be clear even to the thickest of American exceptionalists.

Obama and his banksters are on the wrong side of this issue, and if it continues, down the line, it's him- and the rest of us.