Did Democrats Have Something to Do with the Economic Troubles?

MeeMie

No Spam Here
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Posts
7,328
Did Democrats Have Something to Do with the Economic Troubles?

By Mike Baker


I don’t know about you, but these days it seems I spend most of my waking hours simply trying to keep my head from exploding. Sun up to sun down we’re battered by economic news, none of it very perky to be honest, while experts from the current administration, the incoming administration, the media and Punditville try to demonstrate their command of the situation.

Meanwhile the line for government bailout money keeps growing as new industries and companies shuffle up to Congress with tin cups and those big sad eyes previously seen only on velvet paintings of kittens.

Citigroup deftly showed other big companies how to play bailout bingo earlier this week. They got theirs in record time even though most of the nation didn’t know they were in trouble until a few minutes before the check was written. By the way, lost in the back pages of the Citi story is an interesting sidebar about former Citi director and senior advisor Robert Rubin.

In case you’re not familiar with Robert Rubin, he was treasury secretary during the Clinton Administration and joined Citi in 1999 as a trusted smart guy. How smart? Reporting shows he made somewhere in the region of $100 million while working with the organization. Rubin claims that he studiously avoided any daily management issues, in part because Citi over the past few years has had some bad management issues. So that $100 million wasn’t for management, it was for things like schmoozing, making big picture pronouncements, pondering and muttering smart things in the CEO’s ear while glancing furtively side to side.

He left in August of this year after helping to fill the bucket of poo but before it was thrown at the fan. Rubin’s also been working as an economic advisor to Obama’s transition team. It appears that several Rubin protégés, proponents of Rubinomics, are being positioned within the new Obama administration.

So here’s what I find amusing, in a curl-up-in-a-fetal-position-and-scream-loudly kind of way.

Remember during the campaign how this whole economic mess, according to the Obama camp, was the fault of the Bush administration and the past 8 years? They had all those excellent slogans… we can’t afford four more years of the same… remember? I don’t want to say that a lot of people bought that crap, but anytime you tried to talk about actual economic history and how this mess evolved, most people glazed over and muttered “past 8 years… more of same… must change.”

Well, just this Sunday while enjoying a piping hot cup of joe and a danish, I was reading through the Sunday papers. Being desirous of news from all sides, I always start with the New York Times. Eventually I finish up with Guns & Ammo. The Times had a story on the front page entitled Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk.

The story continued on the inside pages and on page 34, paragraph 15 of the story I came dangerously close to throwing myself off my deck. Here’s paragraph 15:

“When he (Robert Rubin) was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.”

Is the New York Times now suggesting that the Democrats might have had something to do with our current economic troubles? I mention this only because the Dems (to their credit) made piles of hay off the economic crisis leading up to election day… it was those damn Republicans and their addiction to deregulation. What a load of crap.

Imagine my surprise now, after the election, when the other side of the story gets a little play in the liberal press. Turns out the Obama camp might’ve put one over on us. Well played Obama campers.

Regardless, Citi executives apparently showed up to Congress with a better business plan than the fellas from the auto industry. The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, were all set to write a check to GM, Ford and Chrysler when the latest poll numbers came in showing the public was strongly against the auto bailout. Upon seeing that, Pelosi and crew got tough and insisted on plenty of camera time so they could be seen asking super difficult questions like “What will you do with the money?” and “How many cup holders are in a 2006 Suburban?”.

The auto executives stared gormlessly into the faces of their inquisitors. It became uncomfortable to watch, a bit like old episodes of Mr. Ed where you have to watch Wilbur make a fool of himself yet again because the damn horse won’t ‘fess up to talking. When asked if they have a business plan, one of the auto executives, I believe it was Shemp, muttered “… been meanin’ to get me one of them.” Clearly things were not going well.


While those car guys got bupkus for now, I suspect Congress slipped them a note saying meet me in the alley and we’ll get something sorted out. According to PWB statistical research, the auto industry executives will receive assistance from the government once they figure out how to pull their heads out of their backsides. Wearing cheaper suits and carpooling to the next hearing will likely cement the deal.

There’s so much else to discuss this week but Bobo the talking intern just poked his head in the door and announced everyone is heading down to Buzzy’s lounge for redistribution of beer and wings. Tonight’s seminar at the lounge is entitled “Obama – the new Lincoln or the new FDR?” It’s part of the ongoing seminar series put on by Buzzy called “Crap that makes your head explode”. It’s been very popular.

Intern number two studiously clipped all the articles comparing Obama to Lincoln and she’ll weigh them against all the articles describing Obama as the new FDR. Intern number three will give a practical demonstration of just how much $700 billion is using nothing more than coasters and Slim Jims and then we’ll finish up with a rousing rendition of Those Were the Days. Finally, we’ll sit quietly staring into cold tasty beverages while remembering how the New Deal sent the US into a new recession back in 1938 before WWII showed up to revive the economy.
By the way, last week’s question to the PWB faithful… “Bail or no bail?” It was a resounding victory for the No Bail crowd. Many of you pointed out that government assistance might be palatable if we had any confidence that the government could provide proper restrictions and oversight. Unfortunately, many of those same readers expressed doubt that the government could do either.

Not to worry. According to a Bloomberg News study, current bailout promises and planned expenditures only total approximately 7 trillion dollars. So there’s still time for fiscal prudence.



Mike Baker served for more than 15 years as a covert field operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, specializing in counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations around the globe. Since leaving government service, he has been a principal in building and running several companies in the private intelligence, security and risk management sector, including most recently Prescience LLC, a global intelligence and strategy firm. He appears frequently in the media as an expert on such issues.
 
Just to add insult to injury.

Just days after procuring a $326 billion bailout and $20 billion capital injection from the federal government, just a week after divulging its intention to lay off 52,000 workers, Citigroup is publicly confirming and remaining steadfast in its plan to pay $400 million for naming rights to the New York Mets' new baseball stadium.


That's almost as pathetic as GM postponing dealer incentives for two weeks "to help cash flow".


Why the hell should taxpayers fund Citigroup's advertising at a baseball stadium, and millions in dollars for GM dealer incentives?


The Democratic majority Congress right now has less than an 11% approval rating, yet these fools are giving away taxpayers dollars like it is holy water.
 
Have you noticed that Robert Rubins $100 gain from working at Citi Group isnt even mentioned on the lame stream media circut?

For every good thing he did durning the Clinton years there was a bad/dumb thing.

Robert Rubin= bad for America
 
Yeah, the facts are pretty hard for them to swallow.

They've all been so busy pointing their fingers elsewhwere, faulting everyone else for the economic woes, when the blame follows them everywhere and sticks to their hypocrisy with their very own history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMLo7i38D58
 
I seem to recall Obama being #3 in that gravy handout.

I'm sure they'll all be totally exonerated after Dodd's investigation into the matter.
 
why hasn't anyone posted "get over it" and "you guys lost...HA HA HA" yet?
we all LOST if ya wanna know the truth-
 
The labor unions (typically Democratic) are innocent also. They are not responsible for busting Detroit, with their meager legasy payments.
 
Don't forget Nancy Pelosi who refused to bring "off shore drilling" to the house floor.
 
Can we just agree that if you are a politician or work in Washington you are likely shady and a greedy bastard? Republican or Democrat!

I understand and agree with your point. The finger of blame has been pointed largely at the Bush administration, incorrectly in some cases. However, lets not forget the deficit and the debt wracked up in Iraq. It's all a part of the problem.
 
Odd that the Dems, who usually like to give billions to the "welfare Mom's" are now giving it to "big business". WTF
 
Don't forget Nancy Pelosi who refused to bring "off shore drilling" to the house floor.



SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of American voters were demanding that the oil bans be removed, and they went on vacation without addressing the matter.

Then Pelosi pushes a pretend bill (with known deal breakers) in a half-hearted attempt to look as if there was a compromise. All the while planning on pushing through her agenda when Obama took office.

The only bright possibility might be that Obama will throw that whole bunch under the bus with the rest that would drag him down, and chose what works.
 
SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of American voters were demanding that the oil bans be removed, and they went on vacation without addressing the matter.

Then Pelosi pushes a pretend bill (with known deal breakers) in a half-hearted attempt to look as if there was a compromise. All the while planning on pushing through her agenda when Obama took office.

The only bright possibility might be that Obama will throw that whole bunch under the bus with the rest that would drag him down, and chose what works.

Gawd, I hope you're right. Pelosi is determined to go "green" at all costs. Obama seems as if he's ready to compromise.
 
And so, it continues......

Problem is the Solution?

I am no economic genius. Far from it, actually. However, I know enough to know that I certainly don't like what's going on with this Citigroup bailout.

$1000 from each and every living, breathing American man, woman and child has been earmarked by our government to inject capital and insure the company's mortgage-backed securities. Sure enough, meetings are being held, phone calls are being made, plans are being hatched. Still, even knowing as little as I do about business and the economy, I know that the government should not trust part of the problem to act as a solution.

Let's say for a moment that two buddies, Billy and Bobby, go out to the local T.G.I. Friday's for a burger and a beer. Billy drove. During the course of the meal, however, Bobby doesn't stop at one Budweiser, and each and every time he orders another beer, he orders one for Billy as well. By the time the burgers are done, and the last french fry is gone, both Billy and Bobby are highly intoxicated. Neither can walk straight. Neither can see straight. Billy is far too drunk to drive, but the restaurant is closing and the two do need to get home. Should Billy hand his keys to Bobby? Of course not. Bobby is largely the reason that Billy is too drunk to drive, and Bobby himself has shown that he sure isn't capable of taking the wheel, either.

On Sunday, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was described by The New York Times as "the architect of the bank's strategy" and was identified as being front and center in Citigroup's investment decision to take on more and more risk. As it turns out, the guy made more than $100 million doing part-time work as consultant and adviser for Citi, and counted his money as he drove the venerated bank into the ground in the name of taking on more and more risk in an attempt to keep pace with other banks like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

Asked by the The New York Times whether he thought he made any mistakes at Citigroup, Rubin actually said no.

"I’ve thought a lot about that," Rubin told the Times. "I honestly don’t know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we’d do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I’m inclined to think probably not.

The problem should not be part of the solution. If we're looking to solve the problem of childhood obesity, should we name Rosie O'Donnell as the new health czarina? If we're looking to bring objectivity back into journalism, should we ask Keith Olbermann to lead the charge?

This is a man who was caught making a back-channel telephone call to a Bush Treasury official in an attempt to delay the inevitable at Enron, a high-profile client of Citi as it breathed its last. His instincts are wrong and his attitude unapologetic, but not only is Robert Rubin still employed and trusted to bring Citigroup out of the quagmire he had such a hand in creating -- his disciples are currently populating the economic team behind President-elect Barack Obama.

Obama has chosen New York Fed president Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, Peter Orszag as his budget guru, and Larry Summers as his head White House economics adviser. All three are Rubin disciples. Obama has even tapped Rubin's own son to help him weed through the potential candidates for such appointments.

Still, for a moment, forget the folks in Obama's ear -- why is Rubin still affiliated with Citigroup? When Enron crumbled in a cloud of mismanagement, corruption and self-dealing, the American people were absolutely outraged. Outraged. They wanted heads to roll, jailhouse doors to clang shut. Yet here, nobody seems to care, and I don't understand why.
 
Last edited:
Look Mommy" Mee Mee Make Pee Pee!

As usual this ignorant partisan muckraker can't look reality in the face. I'll help.

YOU LOST ASSHOLE! AMERICA REJECTED YOUR REPUBLICAN MISMANAGING, NAME CALLING, COORRUPTION, LIES, SLANDER, TORUTRE, WAR MONGERING, AND BULL SHIT. SO THE MORE YOU PUMP IT OUT. THE STUPIDER YOU LOOK.

JUST SHUT UP! MAYBE BUSH PARDONED THE WRONG TURKEY!:cattail:
 
I think everyone's hands are dirty. There's your answer. I certainly do not have faith in our government to bail us out of this huge economic mess. I think Govt does some things well, but this aint it!

The deal they made with Citi Corp is laughable...and im sure the executives over there are laughing their heads off...bailing these guys out is the definition of the Old Boy's Network.
 
As usual this ignorant partisan muckraker can't look reality in the face. I'll help.

YOU LOST ASSHOLE! AMERICA REJECTED YOUR REPUBLICAN MISMANAGING, NAME CALLING, COORRUPTION, LIES, SLANDER, TORUTRE, WAR MONGERING, AND BULL SHIT. SO THE MORE YOU PUMP IT OUT. THE STUPIDER YOU LOOK.

JUST SHUT UP! MAYBE BUSH PARDONED THE WRONG TURKEY!:cattail:


Can you logically cry "ignorant partisan muckraker" and then just go on and blame Republicans 100%?
 
I think everyone's hands are dirty. There's your answer. I certainly do not have faith in our government to bail us out of this huge economic mess. I think Govt does some things well, but this aint it!

The deal they made with Citi Corp is laughable...and im sure the executives over there are laughing their heads off...bailing these guys out is the definition of the Old Boy's Network.

Problem is.... most of us own stocks, either through pension plans or 401K's.

Thus, the question is ..... do we keeps bailing out these incompetant assholes to keep them from going bust, or, do we support bailouts to keep our own asses afloat?
 
Skandalon
This message is hidden because Skandalon is on your ignore list.
 
Cause, Effect, and Blame

When presented with something that is universally agreed to be bad the temptation is to blame politicians and policies that we more personally dislike. The opposite temptation exists to explain something good. Democrats credit Bill Clinton for the good economic numbers of his administration. Republicans credit Ronald Reagan.

Economists cannot prove their theories with controlled and repeatable experiments the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back to 2000, arrange for the election of Al Gore and a Democrat Congress, and see what the economic results would have been if taxes had not been cut, and if the United States had not invaded Iraq.

Nevertheless, when determining cause, effect, and blame, we should give the greatest attention to the most recent causes. President George W. Bush cut taxes while starting two wars, and reduced regulations of business. In my opinion, that is what caused most of our present difficulties. Democrats, however, share the blame because they made it easier for low income people to get home loans. Democrats erred by helping the poor. Republicans erred more by helping the rich.
 
“When he (Robert Rubin) was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.”

In the early '90s I got a bank loan for something, and discovered after the fact that they'd signed me up for life insurance without me being aware of it. Florida had, at that time, recently changed the state law (not anything Clinton could have done), allowing banks to sell insurance. It had been a state referendum up for popular vote. I'd voted for that change, thinking, "What harm could it do?"

The insurance premium added a significant amount to my monthly payment, and it pissed me off. However, I knew it was my fault for not reading the fine print and declining to buy it. I had the choice, I just didn't pay attention.

"Buyer beware" is ALWAYS the case, in any era of history. Never trust the seller to have your best interests at heart, whether it's a stranger on Ebay, a bank, or especially the government.
 
Back
Top