"[I am] the only thing between you and the pitchforks"

StorminNorman

Avenger
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
30,513
Reaction score
2
Points
33
Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting
By: Eamon Javers
April 3, 2009 01:00 PM EST

The bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president of the United States.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

The fresh details of the meeting — some never before revealed — come from an account provided to POLITICO by one of the participants. A second source inside the meeting confirmed the details, and two other sources familiar with the meeting offered additional information.

The accounts demonstrate that despite the public comments on both sides that the meeting was cordial, the tone in the room was in fact one of mutual wariness. The titans of finance — men used to being the most powerful man in almost any room — sized up a new president who made clear in ways big and small that he expected them to change their ways.
There were signs from the outset that this was a business event, not a social gathering. At each place around the table sat a single glass of water. No ice. For those who finished their glass, no refills were offered. There was no group photograph taken of the CEOs with the president, which typically happens at ceremonial White House gatherings but not at serious strategy sessions.

“The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water,” says a person who attended the meeting. “The signal from Obama’s body language and demeanor was, ‘I’m the president, and you’re not.’”

According to the accounts of sources inside the room, President Obama told the CEOs exactly what he expects from them, and pushed back forcefully when they attempted to defend Wall Street’s legendarily high-paying ways.

Watch the bank CEOs' news conference after last week's meeting:


From the White House, there were five principal attendees: chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who arrived a few minutes late, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers. Uncharacteristically, Summers said almost nothing, and it appeared to one participant as if he had been told to remain silent.

To break the ice, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon offered Geithner a fake check for $25 billion, the amount of Troubled Asset Relief Program money that the company has accepted. Although many of those in the room laughed, Geithner didn’t keep the check.

The president entered the room a few minutes later and made a lap of the table, shaking hands and saying hello to the CEOs, several of whom he called by name.
Taking his seat at the table, the president said, “So let’s get to it.” He spoke for several minutes without notes, giving an overview of the economic situation as he saw it. But the first comment that made an impression on several attendees was on Wall Street salaries and bonuses.
The president spoke of public outrage over the high-flying executive lifestyle. “The anger gentlemen, is real,” Obama said. He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional, balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

The president described the financial system as still “fragile” and asked for cooperation from the CEOs. But he also told them he wouldn’t shy away from regulatory reform. Obama wrapped up his remarks and threw the conversation open to the table, saying, “So, who’d like to talk?”

JPMorgan’s Dimon spoke first. He began by complimenting the president on the economic team he’d assembled. And he said his industry needs to explain more directly to the American people that the economic recovery plans are already working. Dimon also insisted that he’d like to give the government’s TARP money back as soon as practical, and asked the president to “streamline” that process.

But Obama didn’t like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital.
The president offered an analogy: “This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics,” he said. “Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle.” Returning the money too early, the president argued could send a bad signal.

Several CEOs disagreed, arguing instead that returning TARP money was their patriotic duty, that they didn’t need it anymore, and that publicity surrounding the return would send a positive signal of confidence to the markets.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis cracked a joke at the expense of his peers who’d lavished praise on the administration: “Mr. President,” he said, “I’m not going to suck up to Geithner and Summers like the other CEOs here have.” Lewis also urged the president not to paint all the banks with the same broad brush.

The president argued that’s not what the White House was doing. Indeed, earlier the same week, Obama said at a nationally televised news conference, “The rest of us can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit.”

As the meeting wound down after nearly an hour and a half, the CEOs hustled out to live television positions on the White House grounds, where many gave interviews to CNBC.

It had been a landmark day in the history of American capitalism. Unbeknownst to the financial executives, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner was also on Pennsylvania Avenue that day, meeting with Obama’s auto bailout task force. Although the finance CEOs got a meeting with the president, Wagoner saw only Obama’s senior advisor Steven Rattner at the Treasury Department. During the meeting, Rattner demanded Wagoner’s resignation.

It had been a tough day for CEOs in the nation’s capital.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html

 
While I'm glad that Obama made it crystal clear that he expects a change from the bank CEOs, I'm not sure it can be brought about. They have to want to change and I'm thinking that the corporate culture is too deeply ingrained into them. Making a profit is only natural, but flat out greed is obviously self destructive. Its time they see the difference and a chilly reception from the president may be just the wake up call they need.

As for the Obama administration being the only thing between the public and the bank owner's throats, that may only be true to an extent. Obama can keep us patient but where else can we take our money and get our loans? They may have gotten us into this mess, but we are still dependent on them for day to day life. I dont see a change in big bank's mindsets when they know we need them so much.
 
While I'm glad that Obama made it crystal clear that he expects a change from the bank CEOs, I'm not sure it can be brought about. They have to want to change and I'm thinking that the corporate culture is too deeply ingrained into them. Making a profit is only natural, but flat out greed is obviously self destructive. Its time they see the difference and a chilly reception from the president may be just the wake up call they need.
Agreed.

As for the Obama administration being the only thing between the public and the bank owner's throats, that may only be true to an extent. Obama can keep us patient but where else can we take our money and get our loans? They may have gotten us into this mess, but we are still dependent on them for day to day life. I dont see a change in big bank's mindsets when they know we need them so much.
In that case mass firings will be needed to get the point across. Same with the boards if they act similarly. House cleaning might be necessary. Since many of these people are so accustomed to their habits they may be beyond redemption to handle this. The public should be aware of every little perk and golden parachute they have, as well. It certainly would be a waste of money to reward these people after the failed their companies and it's not like they aren't rich enough to live comfortable lives without it.
 
Last edited:
Obama's statement of his administration being the only thing between the CEOs and the pitchforks was rather arrogant, but unfortunately true.

However, he should accept the TARP money back if the banks want to give them back.
 
"My administration is the only thing between you and the pie"

:hehe:
 
I wish I realized the title was to long :(

I would of made it "[I am] the only thing between you and the pitchforks"
 
I still think someone might get desperate enough to attack or kidnap one of these bank executives
 
2x, Twice, I've gotten love on the political forum today......

I'm quitting while I'm ahead.....
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?


My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.


If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.


Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.


Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.


Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.


After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
 
Frankly...this terrifies me even more than most things
 
That doesn't surprise me in the Least.
 
Me either....

Actually, nothing is surprising me these days....

My students are getting more "give me", "give me", "give me"...."and I don't do a thing for it..." so hey, I see that everyday......why would I be surprised that our government is ready to uuuuummmmm......"give it to them, without them doing a thing for it...." *smiles*
 
Doesn't anyone see the danger with that mentality?
 
Me either....

Actually, nothing is surprising me these days....

My students are getting more "give me", "give me", "give me"...."and I don't do a thing for it..." so hey, I see that everyday......why would I be surprised that our government is ready to uuuuummmmm......"give it to them, without them doing a thing for it...." *smiles*
The situation isn't that simple, Kel. The government isn't taking over because it wants power, it's doing it because the current leadership of these corporations have not only destroyed their companies but are taking down our economy with it. When both are falling apart in front of them their first instincts have been to use the same tactics which caused the mess in the first place, not adapt to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Hook, Line, and Sinker.
 
Doesn't anyone see the danger with that mentality?

Consequences? Who cares about consequences? I want what I want and I want it now. :cmad:

:facepalm
 
Last edited:
The situation isn't that simple, Kel. The government isn't taking over because it wants power, it's doing it because the current leadership of these corporations have not only destroyed their companies but are taking down our economy with it. When both are falling apart in front of them their first instincts have been to use the same tactics which caused the mess in the first place, not adapt to fix the problem.

I understand that Obama is probably doing this with the best intentions.

Which makes it all the more terrifying. It's much easier to defeat a man knowing he is doing the wrong thing than it is defeating a man doing God's work.
 
Greed and corruption have been running wild in this country for to long, it is about time someone does something about it.
 
The situation isn't that simple, Kel. The government isn't taking over because it wants power, it's doing it because the current leadership of these corporations have not only destroyed their companies but are taking down our economy with it. When both are falling apart in front of them their first instincts have been to use the same tactics which caused the mess in the first place, not adapt to fix the problem.

So if the companies are on solid enough footing to give the TARP money back, then the government should accept it. After all, it's not about power, is it?

Oh, wait . . .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"