Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
$1 Trillion and a Glass of Water
That's what president Obama is giving the Wall Street banks. Politico did not use good judgment in running this "Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting," piece.
The basic point is that everyone who took part in this meeting had an interest in making it appear as though President Obama is taking a hard line with the banks. After all, the rich bankers who wrecked the economy are not very popular right now. Most people probably do not consider President Obama's plan to give them another trillion dollar bailout (equal to 300 million SCHIP kid year years) the best use of taxpayer dollars as the unemployment rate rises towards double-digit levels.
It serves both the bankers and President Obama to have President Obama seen as being tough on the banks, even as he hands them this money. Maybe he really only did give the bankers one glass of water and maybe he really did speak sharply to them. But, the bank chieftains were probably happier with this reception than they would have been with a gourmet lunch and music that didn't come with the $1 trillion.
Politico was likely fed this story to distribute it for public consumption. The White House and the banks have public relations offices that are supposed to do this work.
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (18)
Dean said:
"Politico was likely fed this story to distribute it for public consumption."
That's what I was thinking while reading this article. Note the sources of this store are not named.
Actions speak louder than words (and news leaks). I do not believe Obama. He won't even support Buy American. He won't even stop the bonus payments to the AIG division that sold apparently fraudulent credit default insurance. And on and on and on ....
Posted by: aspin | April 4, 2009 12:01 PM
Keep up the great work Dean. Just wish journalism and economics had more guys like you.
Posted by: Ed | April 4, 2009 2:49 PM
And a few days later, Christmas arrives early for the bankers: mark-to-market is tossed aside for them, saving their bonuses for at least another year.
No pushover he, that Obama!
Posted by: some guy in a cube | April 4, 2009 2:55 PM
“We’re competing for talent on an international market.”
The old banksters excuse. As far as me concerns they can have them...
Posted by: Hoi Polloi | April 4, 2009 3:13 PM
Politico is just washington post lite.
the two klowns that started the on line propaganda outlet are ex washington post hacks.
they were hacks at the wapo and they are still hacks at the politico.
Media Matters eviscerates their hackery on a daily basis.
Posted by: Politico = Washington Post Lite | April 4, 2009 4:16 PM
NObama is worst in dealing with this crisis. Best at talking tough but handing out billions and billions of tax payers' $.
Posted by: W | April 4, 2009 4:44 PM
They give back all the ill-gotten loot, and we give them each a second glass of water.
Posted by: PeonInChief | April 4, 2009 6:50 PM
Certain things don't change:
You poor, you pay taxes.
No $ and no access, remain at the bottom.
Million listened to the sound bites, yes, things will be different, but last eight years are still brighter than the next four.
And don't believe what you read.
Posted by: W | April 4, 2009 7:29 PM
Dean,
Could you help to clear the air on the "mark to market" accounting. There are some who say that the rule caused the meltdown and there are others who say that the rule provided a necessary limit on the discretion of bankers to value their assets.
Is this really a good thing for the economy?
Thanks.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Dunn | April 5, 2009 12:12 AM
i believe it's in the best interest of US government to resuce failing banks.Bank and its healthy operations is the bedrock of stable economy.Loss of confidence in banking operations is significant negative impact on the economy.However, getting banks to rending would stimulate the economy.Reaction of people towards has much influence towards stocks and other economic indices.
Posted by: ugo ubili | April 5, 2009 1:28 AM
aspin wrote, Actions speak louder than words...
This is such an obvious point but one which many observers of the political scene forget time and time again, regrettably.
Posted by: liberal | April 5, 2009 8:37 AM
W wrote, Million listened to the sound bites, yes, things will be different, but last eight years are still brighter than the next four.
LOL!
The last eight years spawned this disaster.
Of course, certain Democrats (the Clinton-era Treasury department, e.g.) contributed to the problem, but the notion that the previous eight years were "better" is laughable.
Yes, they were "better," as much as it's "better" to be on a bubble upswing than the aftermath of the burst.
Posted by: liberal | April 5, 2009 8:41 AM
Scott,
I would support mark to market accounting with very limited rules based exceptions. If you just give discretion to the banks, then you are inviting fraud.
Posted by: Dean Baker | April 5, 2009 9:45 AM
Those "some who say that the[mark to market] rule caused the meltdown" are basically bankers and their supporters. In a matter like this it may be necessary to google the people who are quoted to see where their real interests are, as the media often hide this.
Posted by: skeptonomist | April 5, 2009 10:27 AM
another trillion dollar bailout (equal to 300 million SCHIP kid year years)
Wow. That hit home.
Posted by: eRobin | April 5, 2009 11:34 AM
I think is interesting how the car companies have really gotten hammered but all the CEO's and top heads of the financial companies are still in place, Citi...hmmm!
Posted by: scott moore | April 6, 2009 12:58 PM
The last eight years spawned this disaster.
Doesn't mean they couldn't be better by comparison. Logic 101.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2009 4:09 PM
The RNC has a sardonic Machiavellian statesman. It seems they have forgotten about their involvement in Watergate, Iran Contra affairs, support of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden's family and a host of other interest against the Constitution and the American people. But, we can declare war without debate...bankrupt the country by getting loans from China for these endeavors...how about, sending the debts of previous administrations 20-years out e.g. Reagan administration on our grandchildren's inheritances. When will the RNC take responsibilty for the destruction of this economy?
Posted by: Dr. Warren C. Humphrey | September 9, 2009 10:21 PM