Harold Ford is Vice Chair of Bank of America. When he wins the DEMOCRAT Senate Seat for New York will..?
… he join 0bama in cracking down on banks, thus possibly making Ford’s own massive wealth tied up in Bank of America stock dwindle?
Or will Ford (who is also African American) remind 0bama that Wall Street owns 0bama and the Democrat party since Wall Street is 0bama’s biggest donor?
Ford was Vice Chair at Merrill as Merrill crashed America into poverty.
Corzine is former CEO of Goldman.
Parsons ( a very close friend of 0bama’s and an African American) is Chair of Citigroup.
He’s a policy advisor for bank of america…. what massive wealth are you talking about? You are clueless.
He’s a policy advisor for bank of america…. what massive wealth are you talking about? You are clueless.
References :
It’s hard to reply to a question that is based on speculation, lacks complete factual accuracy, and erroneously suggests that if Harold Ford runs and win as a Democrat there are only two courses of action available to him after he’s sworn in, while mischaracterizing both suggested courses of action to the detriment of both Harold Ford and President Obama. Congratulations. Precious few Yahoo Answers users have ever reached such lofty heights.
President Obama’s recent conversion to populist banking policies does him and his party a political disservice. It also forecloses the possibility of a Gillibrand victory in November since she cannot win New York state without winning New York City and she will not win New York City now that she will be forced to run on President Obama’s economic policies and, in particular, his banking policies.
I don’t know why Harold Ford would want to run as a Democrat. (I became an Independent on Christmas Eve.) But if he does, he will be running as a Democrat who opposes President Obama’s economic and banking policies in part or in total. But the idea that Wall Street owns President Obama is as far fetched an idea as I have heard. President Obama has tried to work within the contours of the existing banking and shadow banking system that defines the modern American financial economy. Albeit with the understanding that some better regulations may need to be written, and regulatory enforcement needs to be handled by highly experienced professionals, and Congress needs to exercise meaningful oversight constantly. But there are downsides to the Volcker approach, which does not even appear to affect the shadow banking system in a meaningful and effective manner, and it is possible to achieve the primary goal of wringing out systemic risk from the banking and shadow banking system without emasculating America’s financial economy.
If you don’t think that’s a worthy goal for this administration, then please cast a glance at the article by Robert Fogel in this month’s Foreign Policy, which is entitled "$123,000,000,000,000*." When you have digested the economic and national security implications therein ask yourself if this does not cast a much different light upon the various economic policies and spending priorities of this administration and Congress.
The year 2040 is only thirty years away. In about fifteen years without substantial improvement to the national balance sheet and a huge commitment to education, a significant brain drain will begin in America that will become more and more substantial over time. Our best and brightest will not wait around to see if we can pul ourselves out of our tailspin beyond that point and they will begin positioning themselves for economic success outside of America. That’s why we cannot afford three more years of heading in the wrong financial and economic directions. We simply cannot afford to get it wrong as a country over and over again and continue to prosper. China isn’t going to slow down to accommodate us, and economies like India and Brazil and Russia and the EU won’t either. Things aren’t going our way by default any longer. It’s a whole different economic ball game toady, and we have to change our ways in order to survive.
If you’re listening Harold, I’m dog sitting for my sister in SoHo for a week beginning Saturday, February 6th. I took the gig in anticipation that it will punch up an otherwise paltry resume. I’m not a finance guy because I’m simply not that bright. But I have two concepts that your finance guys could shape into a substantive banking policy that should satisfy both concerned constituencies and give you an important policy position on which to run a campaign. If I’m wrong, it only costs you the price of a meal and several adult beverages. So think about it. And if you should run into Mr. Gifford, you might tell him for me that I miss our old board meetings in South Hamilton with Mr. Moseley and Mr. Rowland and John Chandler et al. (I don’t suspect he’ll remember me right of the bat, however. I try to remain quiet when I’m surrounded by people who are a lot smarter than me.)
Anyways, to get back to one of your erroroneous factual assertions, it was the decision of Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson to allow Lehman Brothers to fail based upon his calculation that such a failure would work like a splash of Old Spice to a freshly shaved face. But instead of having the effect of a bracing tonic for the financial markets it almost crashed America and the global economy into a depression. And exactly how former NJ Governor/Goldman partner Jon Corzine and Dick Parsons figure into your hypothesis that President Obama is owned by Wall Street is, I’m quite sure, a knee slapper. But let’s save it for another day, shall we?
Finally, here’s a quick quiz for you since you have such a yen for speculation. Which country will be the epicenter of the next global recession or depression? And you must list all the re
References :
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/123000000000000