in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 A Bill To His Desk As Quickly As Possible - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/6/10 — Wednesday, January 06, 2010 — MR. GIBBS:Chip. Q Following up on Dan's question, during the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise? MR. GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript. Q But today is today and -- MR. GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one -- Q But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that? MR. GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible. Q In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN? MR. GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday. Q But the President in this meeting yesterday -- MR. GIBBS: And I addressed that -- Q -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign. MR. GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday. Mike. Q Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see -- MR. GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this? Q Speaking for myself -- MR. GIBBS: Just a guess. Q That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise. MR. GIBBS: So the answer is -- Q I deal with the information that -- MR. GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct? Q Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information? MR. GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information? Q Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care -- MR. GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything -- Q But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime -- MR. GIBBS: And he'll do so today. Q -- and pressed them to -- MR. GIBBS: Do you have another question? Q -- short-circuit the process. C-SPAN | Health Care | Open Government | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: C-SPAN, Health Care, Open Government, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:03:00 PM
|
|
3 Comments:
The HuffingtonPost has published three articles in the last three days on the "shadow elite" relationship between the large "too big to fail" banks and government.
I would love to see the press corps help expose this corruption.
Please consider asking Mr. Gibbs if there is a conflict of interest between President Obama's inner circle of economic advisors and the administration's position on big banks.
Also ask him to comment on the trail of economic destruction that Larry Summers and Robert Rubin seem to generate as they climb the latter of corruption.
Americans need to know. I think this information is a defining moment for this country.
The link between government and the banking industry needs to end.
Larry Summers, Robert Rubin: Will The Harvard Shadow Elite Bankrupt The University And The Country?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-robert-rubi_b_419224.html
For The Shadow Elite Failure Often Guarantees Future Rewards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-r-wedel/for-the-shadow-elite-fail_b_422939.html
Voters Who Lost Faith In Dodd Wouldn't Trust Obama's Economics Team Either
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/voters-who-lost-faith-in_n_424834.html
Is anyone interested in breaking up these "too big to fail" banks?
Virtually everyone considers them to be a systemic risk to the country.
I rarely see this mentioned in the media.
======================================================================================
The below comment was made by a HuffPost reader concerning President Obama's plan to tax the TARP-recipient banks.
"The tax-the-banks proposal rests on conspicuously false empirical assumptions and very bad math.
A key premise of the tax proposal is that TARP is the government's sole gift to the financial elite.
This is of course false: TARP is in fact a relatively small fraction of the State's total rescue effort.
Financial institutions have also been treated to no-cost and virtually unlimited access to credit, broad guarantees against losses and lax regulation, to mention only the most conspicuous gifts.
Even if TARP did represent the administration's total commitment to financial institutions, Obama's claim would still be nonsense.
TARP handed $700 billion to the banks.
How does $90 billion (now $117 billion) "recoup every last penny" of $700 billion?
The president thinks, with good reason so far, that he can get away with anything.
Hence the counterfactual premise and the slapstick math.
That's not the worst of it.
Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General charged with overseeing the bailout plan, reports that the bailout could end up costing $23.7 trillion.
Critics of Barofsky accuse him of exaggeration.
Let's suppose they are right.
Say Barofsky doubled the true cost of the government's commitment.
Bloomberg reports, with no challengers, that the cumulative commitment to financial rescue initiatives amount so far to more than $8.5 trillion."
Post a Comment
< whpc home