What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Jan. 22 2010 - 9:09 am | 3,960 views | 6 recommendations | 54 comments

Obama shifts power away from Geithner

Senior administration officials say there is now broad consensus within the White House and the Treasury for the plan advanced by Volcker, who leads an outside economic advisory group for the president. At its heart, Volcker’s plan restricts banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. He has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis. [Source]

Obviously this is good news, but what I find irritating about it is that the government only starts listening to its voters once the more corrupt option turns out to be untenable. They are making these moves out of necessity now, and that’s great — but it’s too bad they had to drive us right to the edge of the cliff before they thought about backing up.

There are rumors all over the place that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is about gone, and I’ve even heard some gossip indicating that Rahm Emanuel might have to start watching his back. Hey, whatever works. Obama, as is his nature I think, tried to take the fork in the road all year, making nice to his base while actually delivering to his money people, not realizing the two were perpetually in conflict. His failure to make a clear choice, or rather to make the right choice, is what has doomed him everywhere politically.

It will be interesting to see what comes next, whether this is just for show or not.


Active Conversation
One T/S Member Comment Called Out, 54 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    I’m just hoping Obama and the Dems stop this “bipartisanship” nonsense with the party of “NO” and grow spines. They need to become traditional Democrats, for the people, not the power-brokers.

    For too long Dems have tried to appease; it doesn’t work. They should try leading; it will gain them some respect.

  2. collapse expand

    Getting rid of Tim Geithner would be a great start. If should be done with bells and whistles, too. Obama won’t do it that way, of course, but the populist anger is real, and he has to make sure that those of us out here who have not given up on him — and I’m talking about the base here — see that he has recognized his mistakes. {For the record, I thought Geithner was a terrible choice from Day 1. Sadly, I was right.]
    Rahm Emanuel has been a huge disappointment. He has gotten the politics of the past 12 months all wrong — culminating with a ridiculous/disastrous loss in Massachusetts — and Obama needs some who can turn the ship around. This administration is clearly going in the wrong direction and sinking fast.
    And taking us down with it.

  3. collapse expand

    If this is more than just show, let’s hope he sees it as an opportunity to do some pre-emptive house cleaning so we won’t have to be brought to the edge on every issue before he gets it right. In every policy area, he needs to rid his administration of all those who helped get us into these messes. I doubt he’ll do this – but I’d love to be wrong.

  4. collapse expand

    Wow, maybe I’m simply too tired of voicing my disaffection, but this is fantastic news. I think the litmus test for how seriously this should be taken will be if we get Glass-Steagall reimplemented, as Volker’s called for. (And hell, Obama can finally get some bipartisan legislation that seems so important to him) Without it, it’s just more progressive lip service.

  5. collapse expand

    Don’t worry, I am sure they will put in a few escape loopholes for all of tax cheat Geithner’s rich Goldman Sachs buddies, and all his and Bernanke’s wall street buddies….who have all done quite well the past year and half clean out out national Treasury

  6. collapse expand

    Word is that Ben Bernanke may be up for the chop too soon. Things are starting to get interesting.

  7. collapse expand

    So Obama comes out sounding tough on the banks just two days AFTER losing his supermajority in the Senate. Why is this so not surprising?


    It’s like that old Richard Pryor skit, in which he plays a drunk in a bar who gets into a dispute with a bigger drunk. Pryor’s friends physically restrain him as he yells at the bigger guy, “You’re in a WORLD of trouble now! Let me at ‘im, let me at ‘im!” Problem is, his friends do just that–and Pryor gets thoroughly whupped.

    Same thing here. The 41 GOPers in the Senate are like Pryor’s friends in the bar. The Dems can launch all the progressive initiatives they want–now. And they know–and will be secretly delighted–when the Repubs block them, thus pleasing corporate donors in a satisfyingly bipartisan way. The absolute WORST thing for the Dems would be winning back that 60th seat in the Senate this fall. In that unlikely event, look for them to get all wimpy and Harry Reid-y again.

    • collapse expand

      You know, I wondered about that the other day when it was announced that Coakley had lost — like maybe they put her up as the candidate just so they WOULD lose so the fat cats could keep on keepin’ on and the administration would look like they were cracking down, because quite honestly, it seems like most of us are angry at Obama for being such a milquetoast — now he gets the opportunity to be ‘Superprez’ by lifting a few papier mache boulders while concomitantly changing NOTHING!

      Kinda like the rumors last year when it was said the Repubs put Palin on the ticket because that whole election was a throw-away.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Yes, yes, yes. I’m glad we’re thinking along the same lines here. The pundits I’ve heard have occasionally made the point that, unless the Republicans pull a switcheroo and suddenly go populist on the banks, Obama’s proposals don’t stand a chance.

        Indeed, we can’t entirely rule out the GOP factor. It could just be that so much financial industry money has flopped over to the Dems by now that some Repubs will feel free to ride a populist wave and vote for tougher regs.

        If that happened, it would be quite interesting to see how Dems react, as beholden as they are to their banking buddies. Could be that Obama would end up vetoing the very legislation that he’s now advocating.

        By the way, I love that metaphor of papier mache boulders. Maybe Reid and Pelosi will start tossing some of these things around too. Should be fun to watch.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          So is Pelosi the Joker and Reid the Penguin? I realize those are enemies of Batman but I really can’t see either Pelosi and Reid as Lex Luthor — if they were anywhere close to being a Lex Luthor this damned healthcare bill would have been passed 2 weeks after Obama took office.
          Thanks for the compliment on the ‘boulders’ –I just think he’s going to go thru a period now where it looks like he’s doing some heavy lifting, but nothing will really change. Like when Cheney had Homeland Security up the terrorist alert the night before the 2004 election.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
  8. collapse expand

    Getting rid of Tim Geithner & Rahm Emanuel will not have any impact on the Obama Administration or the Democratic machine – even though it’s not likely to happen anyway. The rot goes much deeper than that. Indeed, this entire generation of “new” Democrats are more like the Republicans than you progressives will ever admit. Quite frankly, I don’t see any difference at all. Every time I hear one of you Progressives say that the Democrats are the party of the people, I just laugh — it’s like I am hearing you say that Santa delivers presents to all the children of the world in one night – hilarious stuff.

    Restoring Glass-Steagall would be a good start in protecting America from corporate corruption that permeates the air on Wall Street but until we have real shareholder reform, nothing will change. The game has been rigged and until we have someone at the top who focuses on the middle with laser beam accuracy, our society cannot advance. America needs a dramatic overhaul, not a make-over. Think of “the Biggest Loser” for inspiration, we need to drop 200 pounds and change our lifestyle. People have lost faith in government, in institutions and certainly in corporate America. Restoring this faith should be this Administration’s only goal.

    • collapse expand

      “Indeed, this entire generation of “new” Democrats are more like the Republicans than you progressives will ever admit.”
      Only at DailyKos and DU…

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      “Every time I hear one of you Progressives say that the Democrats are the party of the people, I just laugh — it’s like I am hearing you say that Santa delivers presents to all the children of the world in one night – hilarious stuff.”

      Actually I don’t think anyone here has said that Democrats are any sort of a party of the people, but you’re entitled to feel free to put words in mouths and be unnecessarily condescending I guess. Cheers, douche!

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  9. collapse expand

    Doesn’t matter what Obama does. Not ALL senators and reps. are whores, but enough are that with the Supremes making it possible for them to significantly increase their prices, the horny boys on Wall Street will pay to be serviced any way they choose.

  10. collapse expand

    So what if Geithner goes – the damage is done. I doubt Volcker will make any drastic sea change – he will slowly close the cash register drawer, now that most of the cash has been grabbed, and we’ll hear a satisfying click and think for a while that an adult is in charge. Paul and Timmy are in the same club.

  11. collapse expand

    The Administration should be converted into a Goldman-Sachs-Free Zone. When the American people wake up to understand that both parties are irreversibly corrupted by monied interests, we will remain a nation in decline. Every time I hear a blabbermouth on TV or in real life start spouting about which one of these rotten-to-the-core parties is the good guys or the bad guys, I want to scream. This is not the WWE people!! This is our great nation! Who is the bigger boob? Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell? It does not matter. They have both delivered us into serfdom.

  12. collapse expand

    I give credit to Obama for being persistant to find an angle to do some meaningful reform and retribution on Wallstreet. He definitely has made mistakes, but I am glad to see him keeping at it. I feel today, unlike the overwhelming skepticism generally seen in this forum, Obama and his intellect can turn the corner and be a great president if he can navigate through banking reform, a simplified health care proposal, and achieve a few foreign policy victories. Like others have said, he has to purge his advisers that have a vested interest in the status quo in Wallstreet. My advise to the Whitehouse is to make a short list of goals and work them bypassing the normal political process. Go around Reid and Pelosi work directly with individuals (the ones that care more about their country than getting reelected) in congress. This team Democrat/Republican shit needs to go. I turned in my jersey years ago. There is nothing more irritating than reading regurgitated mainstream media commentary in some people’s responses “party of NO”, “if I wanted more of Bush, I would have voted for McCain”. Just brilliant, think for yourselves people.

  13. collapse expand

    I find the whole Obama election and administration fascinating from an historical standpoint. Much has been made of the similarity between this financial crisis and the Great Depression. Both were unique points in history and presented opportunities for fundamental reform and change in society. The reactions and actions by both presidents and their administrations could not be more different. Roosevelt was bold, decisive, creative, determined, relentless in pursuing his agenda and confronting his opposition head on, and explaining in clear terms to the people what he was doing and how he it was going affect them. Not everything worked, but virtually nothing was left untried.
    Compare Obama’s response. An almost completely opposite approach with correspondingly disastrous results. Can’t do shit with 60 votes in the Senate, presides over a health care bill which, incredibly, not only pisses off the Republicans, but nearly everyone in his own party, progressives, and independents. Not because it is bold and transformational, but because it is so tepid and weak and abysmally lacking. The status quo is in reality better than this bill. The litany of critical issues and the response to them is nearly endless. Gitmo, financial reform, Wall Street, the foreclosure crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, gays in the military, and more.
    The point isn’t that all the nation’s problems haven’t been quickly solved in one year. This isn’t TV where the world is saved in 48 minutes plus commercials. The issue is the approach, the methods, the players, and the results so far. It’s Luke-warm, timid, non-confrontational, ‘please like me’, cozy up to the the problem creators and ask them to be the problem solvers, lack of creativity, fear of displeasing and upsetting the minority opposition, letting the opposition set the agenda, frame and control the narrative.
    It’s like Hollywood remaking a bad movie. It’s still the same POS script, but with more CGI and FX. It’s like Bush & Company with more intelligent, but much less determined people.
    In the end, Roosevelt is seen as not only visionary, but bold, creative, and determined. Obama will be seen as a well-spoken opportunist who squandered a once-in-a-generation chance to be a transformational figure. Based on results, I don’t see anything materially changing in his approach or results in the next three years, let alone a second term.

    • collapse expand

      Your comment comes off as a lot armchair historianism than real insight, buddy. The truth is FDR is both whitewashed and blackened by both sides of the political spectrum when in reality he was a very complex president with a long, difficult presidency of ups and downs. He even did some incredibly bad things (like Japanese internment).

      I’d say if he really wants to or is pressured enough to, Obama still has the chance of being a good reform president. It is interesting to note FDR’s first year was spent putting an enormous effort into bringing a bank system back from the brink, in this he often courted bankers as much as he vilified them in the press and was vilified by them in return.

      The early New Deal was scattershot reform more often than not and sometimes a number of his bills blew up in his face. For example, in an attempt to follow a promise he made during his campaign, Roosevelt ended up trying to slash the federal budget by cutting veteran and widows benefits. This sparked widespread protests. The National Recovery Agency he created only ended up making everyone angry, unions and businesses alike. It was later abolished by the Supreme Court in 1935 for being unconstitutional. He was utterly opposed by the right wing of his time with accusations of being a socialist who would in time bankrupt the country and criticized for being long on promises but short on results.

      I am not saying that Obama will be the new FDR or not deserving of criticism, he may as well be the next Carter and set back liberal politics for the next decade. I think the comparison you’d like to make is badly sweeping, reductionist, and not as clear cut as you want it to be though.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  14. collapse expand

    I love the Internet. I love political blogs and forums where all us commenters can get together and argue over how to reassemble a ‘62 VW without a shop manual.

    I say the motor goes in the front.

    • collapse expand

      uhhh, huh huh huh. uhhh, what’s a motor and stuff?

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      Yes, it’s fun to pick over carcasses and offer unsolicited advice. With the Obama administration and it’s approach to the financial crisis and related matters, there is a ’shop manual’ of sorts. It’s called history and the precedent of The Great Depression and how it was dealt with and responded to by the President at the time. Not his specific programs, but his methods and approach. That crisis was much worse and offers a clear blue-print that with the hind-sight and perspective of history, reveals what worked and what didn’t. Obama has demonstrated that to date, he’s cribbed nothing from that lesson and blue-print.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  15. collapse expand

    Too little, too late; the inertia of disillusionment, discontent & disaster has been charted for the foreseeable future.

    Americans are about to taste some of the medicine they’ve been dispensing to the world for the last 50 years.

  16. collapse expand

    Would love to see Volcker and Goolsbee replace Summers and Geithner.

    With all Summers & Geithner did for Wall Street this year, they’ll be fine with their high-paid lobbyist jobs that are waiting for them.

  17. collapse expand

    I hope it’s not too little too late.

  18. collapse expand

    Obama surrounded himself with Clinton people and the democratic machine to mend the fences within the party and insure his power base. He assumed this would help him avoid the outsider handicap that plagued Carter his first year.

    It is not 1976 and that was his mistake. If America wanted a Clinton they would have voted her in. If the political insiders wanted a Clinton the super delegates would have supported her.

    Clinton politics are as much responsible for the melt down as the lasse faire conservatives. Clinton signed the bill that killed Glass-Steagal. Clinton never met a Wall Streeter he didn’t love or a trade bill he didn’t support. he was pro-industry, pro-off shoring, pro-tax support for moving overseas.

    Twenty years later the country’s industry is but a shell of it’s former self. Obama needs to wake up to the fact that both the democratic and republican status quo have failed the country.

    We voted for Obama, for new blood, new ideas and they cannot be found if surrounded by advisers entrenched in failed policy.

    We don’t need health care written by the insurance companies or financial reform written by Goldman Sachs or job fairs filled with resume companies or congressional investigations that ask questions but never look for facts or an administration that accepts past abuses of power now part of a job description.

    Getting rid of Rahm and Timmy and Ben is just a start; what is really needed is a reboot of his entire presidency.

  19. collapse expand

    Both of those would be good news. I think it’s a bit too late however as someone above mentioned already.

    The part of your post I’d disagree with is that Obama has been “making nice to his base”.

    He has? All I’ve seen is stiff-arming and insults, the worst of which was Emaunel’s “we’ve got the Left, don’t worry” comments and only slightly less worse being Obama’s craven disavowal of his previous belief in single payer (going back a few years) or at least a public option (which he championed just the year before as a candidate).

    The most depressing part of all of this has just been watching him get elected, then extend his hand to the Republicans… and promptly have it bitten off. Now he says that he’ll “keep trying”, which I assume means extending the other one.

    It’s really almost sort of admirable, in his sheer devotion to the themes of his about “no blue states, no red states” that he’s run on all along. It’s also sickening, harrowing, and wrong, given who the GOP are these days.

    Harry Reid recently admitted that Olympia Snowe “wasted our time, for months” on health care.

    Gosh, no one could have predicted that.

    This is just what progressives said she would do.

    So, where would the bill be now if months hadn’t been wasted?

    I think Obama and Emanuel have ignored, insulted, and taken their base for granted. And this is the result, no energy, most of the hard core progressives hating them, losing elections because no one turns out…

    Yeah, that’s good work, guys.

  20. collapse expand

    Obama took us right up to the edge?

    Matt, I hate to break this to you, but the Minsky Moment is long past. To be fair, this moment may have happened during GWB’s term, only a post-mortem will tell us.

    This is what you get when you elect career politicians and lawyers to office!

  21. collapse expand

    This sort of thing is good to hear, but it’s just a start, a year too late, and I don’t know if the mistakes that have been made are even reversible in time to matter at this point. Not many average people could probably tell you the difference between Volcker and Geithner, although informed people certainly could.

    I’ll tell you though, firing Rahm Emmanuel would be one way to almost instantly do massive repair work on the relationship with the left, who are seriously pissed off right now. The guy’s a complete twit who threatens the wrong members of Congress into passing the wrong kinds of legislation. Not that the White House escapes responsibility for picking him in the first place.

    There’s a saying about Americans “You can always count on the American people to do the right thing… after all alternatives have been exhausted.” That saying seems to even better apply to Barack Obama now.

    I don’t think going from 60 to 59 Senators is important, because the 60-vote strategy was always a fool’s errand anyway. In order to use it, you had to sell out to the whim of every odious crook and sellout in the Senate and nothing you passed was ever going to be popular or effective. Which is how the Senate health care bill came to be what it is. If the White House takes the right lessons from the MA loss, it’s a positive development.

    The optics of health care reform would improve tremendously if you could bring up a different, GOOD health care bill that people LIKED and make the Neanderthal Party oppose it, then pass it with a simple majority through reconciliation. Then when Republicans whine about it tell the people that Republicans used it to pass tax cuts for millionnaires. Whether Democrats are on the whole too corrupt or stupid to do that, we’ll have to see. As political strategists, they could improve by taking lessons from schizophrenics.

    I think the State of the Union speech is a BIG opportunity to level with people about the truth of what’s gone on, and accept some responsibility. If he just uses it to defend the current health care bill, tout the “accomplishments” so far, and not acknowledge his mistakes or establish a clear responsibility for what policies brought us to this pretty pass, it will be a massive waste of time and he’ll be off to a single term. It’s not like the Republican agenda is popular, people just don’t see a meaningful difference.

  22. collapse expand

    Mike……I would like to ask you a question: Why, when given the opportunity, don’t “reporters” ask questions that seem to me (a nobody) the questions that are just screaming to be asked? I mean, common sense, to the point, obvious questions. And, please, answering that they can’t do it because they would then be “cut out” of the action simply doesn’t “cut it.” You wouldn’t even need a lot of reporters doing it; just a couple of key questions by a couple of reporters with functioning brains and a modicum of self-respect would do it.

    Example: “Cramdown” authority for bankruptcy judges thwarted by a handful of DEMOCRATS!

    Now, you and I, and anyone with an I.Q. higher than their shoe size knows what happened. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people whose I.Q. is actually lower than their shoe size, so for them, and because, tragically, they’re allowed to vote, they should be entitled to hear what happened. Make the question so simple, and to the point, that even Sarah Palin (and Evan Bayh) would understand it.

    Reporter: “Senator Bayh, my question to you is not why you voted against the interests of your constituents, nor the obscene betrayal of your Constitutional duties; nor even how you can get your dick up with your wife after squatting before the banksters and taking a mouthful in return for a couple of crumpled dollars. Obviously, that’s a given. My question is, just exactly, how does the bribe take place? I mean, sliding an envelope across the desk is just, so yesterday. Do they stick the bills into your shorts in a crowded elevator? Does a pimple-faced teen slip it between the patties of your double cheeseburger at Mickey D’s? Seriously, your constituents want to know, Sir. Just exactly how you give away a few billion of your voters’ dollars in return for a couple of hundred cum-stained banker-bucks?

    And, I’ll bet, Sir, the voters will reward your honesty come November. They just love politicians who “tell it like it is.”

  23. collapse expand

    Given the Supreme Court decision this week, isn’t all this somewhat irrelevant now?

    Anything like reinstating Glass-Steagall will be reversed by whoever wins in 2012 anyway. The chance of any given politician NOT being 100% owned by corporates is vanishingly small.

    This issue of corporate free speech is the only thing that matters now, everything else is a distraction. You’ve only got 3 years to find a way to neutralize it or the American dream is over.

    • collapse expand

      I cringed when I heard Obama call the White House the “People’s House” today, but I digress..

      It will be interesting to see how the “Tea partiers” respond to the SCOTUS decision. Will they react to the further “theft” of their nation by special interests and big corporations, even foreign influence, or buy the bullshit “free speech” line? In theory, they are fed up with the lobbyists as well… I think this will tell whether it is a “real” movement, or just a sham – I know people who CLAIM to be independents and mouth all the Tea Party rhetoric, but when it comes down to it, have never voted for anyone but a Republican their entire life. If Obama really moves on reining in the banks and wall street, will they support it? If legislation is introduced to limit corporate influence on our election process, will they support it? I fear not; sadly, I believe no matter what is done, the answer is NO.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  24. collapse expand

    Can’t imagine the new found nasty Cover your Ass protocol going on in the WH today….I Love it ..

    I’ve never been so excited/proud to vote for Scott Brown…knew he would shake things up, but Wow…..the rats are scrambling…..

    I just hope the rest of the country follows his lead….”Independents”….have a voice…All Incumbents OUT…..

    BTW….Geithner is a tax cheat…Rham a power hungry creep….they should be out…..”It’s The People’s Seat”.

  25. collapse expand

    Anyone wanna bet which Wall Street firm Geithner will work for after his Cabinet stint? My money’s on Goldman, but Citigroup is a first runner-up.

  26. collapse expand

    Addressing this directly to Matt Taibbi:

    Do you think it pays for us to continue to turn the heat up on Obama?

    For instance, I am wondering if forwarding around and sharing your own December Rolling Stone feature “Obama’s Big Sellout” would be counterproductive now that Obama is beginning to respond; or is it more vital than ever to turn up the fear level on these guys?

    My gut opinion is, you can never scare a spineless Democrat too much — but I worry about the right owning this whirlwind outright, no matter where it blew in from. (Is that too many metaphors for one sentence?)

    After all, with Obama gone, any right-wing community college professor will serve just as well as Geithner in screwing us all to the wall.

  27. collapse expand

    Oh please lord make this be true. But i am so close to the point of giving up on this guy (Obama). He seems to make bad decision after bad decision about who to put in powerful positions. Emanuel? Yeah, let’s pick the guy who funded all the wrong house races in 2006 but ended up in the drivers seat ’cause net-roots, etc. kept the non-DLC candidates viable enough to win a house majority. Geithner? Summers? Yeah, let’s take the guys who were part of the cabal that pushed for all this finance merging and deregulation. Oh, and especially that Geithner guy who was head of the organization (New York Fed) that was responsible for policing all those big institutions that crushed the economony so bad that the entire country had to pay for it.
    Yeah, lets pick those guys!
    I would love to see a change it Obama’s hiring practices in this regard, but i’m not holding my breath.
    (My personal theory is that he has the hubris to think he can hire smart guys who have previously worked for other causes/goals and harness them by his own force of personality and keep them “honest” by his own intelligence and savvy. Which reminds me – pride goeth before a fall – for us all)

  28. collapse expand

    Actually as your source indicates and is usual for this Administration, they are talking about doing something. They have actually *done* nothing to improve, while often making worse, the awful situation that most Americans face.

  29. collapse expand

    Volker recently corrected the popular notion that he is for reinstating Glass-Steagall. He want’s something in the spirit of Glass-Steagall. Who knows what that will look like.

  30. collapse expand

    If BO can manage to get rid of Bernake, Geithner and Emanuel it will be a good start to get back in my good graces. Anything short of that is just another failure of colossal proportions.

  31. collapse expand

    The only question I have left about Obama is whether he’s actively running a con on liberals for the good of his corporate owners or if we just have a political system that flawlessly selects for Democrats who are spineless, breathtakingly stupid screwups who always manage to fail to the advantage of The Money.

    Oh, now that he’s gambled away every shred of political capital, leverage and credibility he had, now he’s maybe going to start pretending to give a fuck about liberals? Well then.

  32. collapse expand

    Nothing is coming of this. I watched the Bank stocks start to recover yesterday and today. That is usually a sufficient “tell” that we got some more pre-announcements of Kabuki theatre. Geithner, Bernanke and Summers are not going anywhere.

    Anyone who is taking any of these pronouncements seriously just needs to look at the track record. If the Obama brand was a delivery service the company would have been sued into a sewer by now.

    “Yes we can” has morphed into “yeah right- any day now”

  33. collapse expand

    O-Dam-A Changeling You Can’t Believe In Anymore!

    It’s ridiculous that Obama and the Democrats didn’t come into power with at least two shovel-ready policies. The break-up of the power of Wall Street banks and an agreed Health Care Bill. Where’s the democracy and the People in this Party?

  34. collapse expand

    To think that when/IF he gets fired instead of prison he’ll get a nice 50M sign on bonus and a standing ovation for a heck of a job by Wall st.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I'm a political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, a sports columnist for Men's Journal, and I also write books for a Random House imprint called Spiegel and Grau.

    For Media Inquiries: taibbipress@rollingstone.com

    See my profile »
    Followers: 2,552
    Contributor Since: March 2009

    What I'm Up To

    • taibbipromo

    • My Latest Book


      To purchase a copy please, please go here.

    • Writing for Rolling Stone

      rolling-stoneI’m a political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine.

    • +O
    • +O
    • +O