Only Thing Between You And The Pitchforks

[Telefrog]

The rest of this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-presidency19-2009apr19,0,1035963.story) is a pretty good summation of President Obama's progress, but this bit had me laughing hard:

On the last Friday in March, President Obama summoned leaders of the banking industry to the White House, where they gathered around a mahogany table in the State Dining Room, site of many a feast. On this day there was not a piece of fruit nor can of soda in sight. At each place was a glass of water. No ice. No refills.

The president's message was hard and crusty as a slab of day-old bread.

He urged the bankers to view corporate excess through the eyes of Americans who are belt-tightening their way through the recession. Obama mentioned the carpet stains in the Oval Office, to make a frugal comparison with $1-million suites decorated with $8,000 trash cans.

The corporate chieftains protested, citing the specialization of their field and the need to pay handsomely to avoid a brain drain. Obama cut them off: "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

It reminded me a lot of the corporate loan meeting bit in Tom Wolfe's A Man In Full. :D

[ShivaX]

I swear the banking guys would make Karl Marx so happy.

They've done more to push the nation towards socialism than anyone I can think of and they act like its somehow not their fault and that they should be able to whatever they want. Their superiority act when they're the ones who fucked things up is giving the socialist movement more power than its probably ever had in this country.

And thats a great quote.

[Telefrog]

The class warfare we're seeing now is great fun to read about. Here's a great article about the poor hedge-fund wives (http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/hedge-fund-wives-0509).

There is another line the banker spouses I know would rather not cross. And that's the one to buy a subway pass. "No matter how bad things get, my husband and I would never take the subway," one wife told me. "We would rather limit our social life to walking distance from our apartment than rely on going underground." When I bumped into an oft-photographed socialite on public transportation, she seemed beyond horrified to be "caught" by the tracks. "Oh, hi," she said sheepishly. "I've never been down here! This train goes so fast," she marveled.

[Ox]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little shady for a government official to say to a private citizen, "Do what I say or I'll permit this angry crowd to tear you limb from limb"? Aren't we supposed to, I dunno, protect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie) the unpopular-but-law-abiding from the angry mob? Or did we become Revolutionary France when I wasn't looking?

[alienmastermind]

"I'm just saying, it's good cake." - The last French moderate, before his beheading.

[Ox]

Alright, that cheered me up handsomely.

What was it the Mayor of Paris said to the executioner? "A thousand pardons, my friend, but permit me to finish this last dozen of oysters!"

[Generation ABXY]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little shady for a government official to say to a private citizen, "Do what I say or I'll permit this angry crowd to tear you limb from limb"? Aren't we supposed to, I dunno, protect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie) the unpopular-but-law-abiding from the angry mob? Or did we become Revolutionary France when I wasn't looking?

You're not alone. Of course, I'm not the least bit surprised by some of the reactions I've seen to this story (I remember that quote cropping up weeks ago) either.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I also like that this statement was published, which further villainizes them while making Obama look like the people's savior. What is he doing by saying that in a public venue but turning the American people MORE against them?

[National Kato]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little shady for a government official to say to a private citizen, "Do what I say or I'll permit this angry crowd to tear you limb from limb"?

I didn't see it so much as Obama saying, 'Do this or we release the hounds.' More of a, 'You guys do realize we're protecting you, right?' Which is what you think we ought to be doing, Ox.

I don't see anything wrong with opening these individuals' eyes. From most of what I read or hear, they're quite out of touch.

[Telefrog]

I found the Man In Full (http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?book_number=437) quote I was looking for:

Oh, everything about this room was cunningly seedy and unpleasant. The conference table itself was a vast thing, a regular aircraft carrier, but it was put together in modular sections that didn't quite jibe where they met, and its surface was not wood but some sort of veal-gray plastic laminate. On the table, in front of each of the two dozen people present, was a pathetic setting of paperware, a paper cup for the orange juice, a paper mug with foldout handles for the coffee, which gave off an odor of incinerated PVC cables, and a paper plate with a huge, cold, sticky, cheesy, cowpie-like cinnamon-Cheddar coffee bun that struck terror into the heart of every man in the room who had ever read an article about arterial plaque or free radicals. That, in its entirety, was the breakfast meeting's breakfast.

On second thought, Peepgass decided, to say that Croker or any other shithead actually noticed all these things at first was probably overstating the case. At first they merely sensed them, stimulus by stimulus, through their antennae, through the hair on their arms. It was the central nervous system that finally informed the tycoons that they had descended to the status of shithead at Planners Banc.

Shithead was the actual term used at the bank and throughout the industry. Bank officers said "shithead" in the same matter-of-fact way they said "mortgagee," "co-signer," or "debtor," which was the polite form of "shithead," since no borrower was referred to as a debtor until he defaulted. Why did bankers turn so quickly to scatology when loans went bad? Peepgass didn't know, but that was the way they were. At the Harvard Business School, back in the 1970s, he had taken a course called Structural Ethics in Corporate Culture, in which the teacher, a Professor Pelfner, had talked about Freud's theory of money and excrement . . . How did it go? . . . Dr. Freud, Dr. Freud . . . He couldn't remember . . . When people at the bank now referred to Croker as a shithead, they truly meant it. They truly felt it. His botching things was malfeasance. It made them look so goddamned bad! Half a billion! Now his heedless deadbeat squandering was making them all look like fools! suckers! patsies! And he, Raymond Peepgass, was one of the patsies who had signed off on those foolish loans!

Sound familiar?

[H.Bogard]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little shady for a government official to say to a private citizen, "Do what I say or I'll permit this angry crowd to tear you limb from limb"? Aren't we supposed to, I dunno, protect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_ Skokie) the unpopular-but-law-abiding from the angry mob? Or did we become Revolutionary France when I wasn't looking?

I didn't see any tones of threat in there. He was just asking them to keep the bullshit answers at bay and talk-straightforwardly.

[Ox]

I didn't see it so much as Obama saying, 'Do this or we release the hounds.' More of a, 'You guys do realize we're protecting you, right?'
If you read the entire article, it's clear Obama is threatening.

On the last Friday in March, President Obama summoned leaders of the banking industry to the White House, where they gathered around a mahogany table in the State Dining Room, site of many a feast. On this day there was not a piece of fruit nor can of soda in sight. At each place was a glass of water. No ice. No refills.

The president's message was hard and crusty as a slab of day-old bread.
And then he says, "Hey, don't you like me? I'm your hero! I'm protecting you from the proles! You can make out the campaign donation checks to..."

No. This article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html), I think, makes it even more clear that Obama was issuing a veiled threat. He wanted them to roll back employee salaries, they objected it was a bad idea. So he said that, without him, they would be victims of the mob. Why would you say that? To make them aware the mob was angry? He had already said, "The anger, gentlemen, is real." He talked about how poorly the banks were seen. That's why the bankers tried to give back the TARP money, "as their patriotic duty."

[Hotcod]

At times like these that little part of me that always thinks that a Benevolent Dictator might just be a good thing starts to shout a little louder. Which means that while i agree with Ox and it's clearly a threat, if not a physical one as such, and that it shouldn't have been made like that... well... i can't help but have a little part of me that thinks maybe it's the only way to deal with 'em. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite really.

[Ink Asylum]

If you read the entire article, it's clear Obama is threatening.

How does the LATimes writer's dramatic description of the refreshments prove that Obama is threatening the bankers? Or your following article.

"Oh no! He only gave them water!"

"He asked CEOs to tie their compensation to the health of their companies? The horror!"

The quotes and paraphrased exchanges are fairly tame. The most threatening Obama got was to say that he wanted the bankers to cooperate and help reform their broken industry. If they don't want to be help he's not afraid to pursue government regulation. Seems reasonable enough to me.

At no point do I see him threatening to abandon the banks to be torn apart by rioting mobs, in either a literal or metaphorical sense.

Most of that feeling comes from the writers of the articles dramaticizing the meeting by opining on the refreshments or body language.

[alienmastermind]

No. This article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html), I think, makes it even more clear that Obama was issuing a veiled threat. He wanted them to roll back employee salaries, they objected it was a bad idea. So he said that, without him, they would be victims of the mob. Why would you say that? To make them aware the mob was angry? He had already said, "The anger, gentlemen, is real." He talked about how poorly the banks were seen. That's why the bankers tried to give back the TARP money, "as their patriotic duty."

Aren't you the one arguing for torture in the other thread? But veiled threats are out?

Talk about your COSMIC intellectual dissonance. :)

[National Kato]

If you read the entire article, it's clear Obama is threatening.

Well, in the corporate world you don't get very far by being all nice and kissing ass. These CEOs are used to being the most powerful men in the room and they get what they want. Obama decided to let them know that that wasn't going to fly in the state dining room and used no uncertain terms in explaining what the American people felt.

[Ancalagon]

I didn't see it so much as Obama saying, 'Do this or we release the hounds.' More of a, 'You guys do realize we're protecting you, right?' Which is what you think we ought to be doing, Ox.

I don't see anything wrong with opening these individuals' eyes. From most of what I read or hear, they're quite out of touch.

I also thought that. To me, he was reminding them that they were out of touch with reality, that they were hated. He rightly pointed out that, but for his administration, they would be in serious trouble. I dont think he painted himself as the saviour, it was more to point out how unpopular they are.

EDIT:


On Jan. 21, the first full day of the Obama administration, the president stepped into the Oval Office at 8:35 a.m. He spent the first 10 minutes alone, reading a private note that former President George W. Bush had left behind: "To: #44, From: #43."

Wonder what the note said...

[TheFlyingOrc]

Aren't you the one arguing for torture in the other thread? But veiled threats are out?

Talk about your COSMIC intellectual dissonance. :)

Now, I rarely like to directly insult people's intellect, so I'd like to give this post a certain level of gravity. I want you to know that this comes with no small amount of consideration on my part as to whether or not its appropriate.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you are stupid.

[Johan]

Considering individuals like Christopher Dodd were stoking the populist flames, while having provided the legal "tinder" in legislative language and denying having done so, I'm not surprised at all that the government would basically all but threaten and extort its way into getting what it wants from corporations, banks, and the like.

Of course, now Obama won't even take the TARP money back without preconditions, and may convert the "loans" into equity stakes for the government...

when you let the wolf in, it's hard to get him out. The government doesn't like to go away, it likes to get more involved. That's one reason Obama has advocated a cut in the tax breaks people get for charitable donations. In his view, the government should be involved in allocating resources to as great a degree as possible, diminishing the role of private industry and individuals.

[Ox]

Aren't you the one arguing for torture in the other thread?
No.

Well, in the corporate world you don't get very far by being all nice and kissing ass. These CEOs are used to being the most powerful men in the room and they get what they want. Obama decided to let them know that that wasn't going to fly in the state dining room and used no uncertain terms in explaining what the American people felt.
Okay. That's credible. I have no doubt that Obama needed to threaten the CEOs to get them to do what they want. My question is whether Obama should have done it.

See, the threat is only effective if it's plausible. If Superman says, "Oh, I'll just let you fall to your death if you don't do what I say," you'll scoff. Superman is a Boy Scout and would never let that happen. You've got to be Batman, who has no problem letting people he doesn't like die for being obnoxious.

This is a time when literal death threats are being issued against bankers, most of whom did nothing wrong. What happens if a bank calls Obama's bluff? What if a CEO decides to tell the President to jump in a lake? Is he going to withdraw the protection of the law? If he doesn't, he'll look like a paper tiger. Even leaving aside the morality of issuing threats, it's prudentially a bad idea unless you're willing to follow through.

[Voodoo]

Now, I rarely like to directly insult people's intellect, so I'd like to give this post a certain level of gravity. I want you to know that this comes with no small amount of consideration on my part as to whether or not its appropriate.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you are stupid.

Congratulations. You have now earned a warning. Please don't forget the P&R Arena Rules (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=7562).

[alienmastermind]

Wonder what the note said...

It was the old Brezhnev / Kruschev story.

The outgoing guy gives the incoming guy two envelopes and tells him, when everything seems to be collapsing, all is against you, and nothing will save you open envelope one.

Of course, politics being what they are the new guy gets into a severe pickle and opens the envelope which has a note saying:

Blame everything on me. If you're in trouble again, open the second envelope.

Years go by, and the man gets into trouble again of course, and opens the second envelope. Inside is a note that reads:

First, get yourself two envelopes.

It was a good story in 'Traffic'

[Ink Asylum]

This is a time when literal death threats are being issued against bankers, most of whom did nothing wrong. What happens if a bank calls Obama's bluff? What if a CEO decides to tell the President to jump in a lake? Is he going to withdraw the protection of the law? If he doesn't, he'll look like a paper tiger. Even leaving aside the morality of issuing threats, it's prudentially a bad idea unless you're willing to follow through.

Wow. Do you really think that's what he was implying? What "protections" do you believe he will withdraw?

[Ox]

Wow. Do you really think that's what he was implying? What "protections" do you believe he will withdraw?
I do think that's what he was implying. And I don't think he'll withdraw any protections. So it was not just sketchy, but also dumb: it was a pure bluff.

Then again, there are a few obvious candidates for protections he could withdraw if I've misjudged Obama's character. The most obvious, of course, would be to demand the names of everyone who received bonuses with TARP money. Those people's lives will then be at risk.

[ShivaX]

Wow. Do you really think that's what he was implying? What "protections" do you believe he will withdraw?

The only protection he can withdraw is giving them free money, which honestly I don't think many people have a problem with, especially since loans haven't increased since they got it, yet bonuses seem to go on unabated.

[Generation ABXY]

Considering individuals like Christopher Dodd were stoking the populist flames, while having provided the legal "tinder" in legislative language and denying having done so, I'm not surprised at all that the government would basically all but threaten and extort its way into getting what it wants from corporations, banks, and the like.

Yeah, that's what strikes me as odd about it. One day he is saying, "Hey, I am keeping the wolves at bay" and, on another, he is "shaking with rage" over something his administration knew about and, if Dodd is to be believe (a tough choice, I know), even pushed for weeks before the public found out.

That's a sort of Mafia-style protection racket, if you ask me. Unfortunately, even if the banks were to comply, I fear Obama may find out that populist rage is a hard monster to control once you've created it.

[Ink Asylum]

I do think that's what he was implying. And I don't think he'll withdraw any protections. So it was not just sketchy, but also dumb: it was a pure bluff.

Well, that's your read of it. It's impossible to know the exact meaning behind the metaphor. Since he followed it up by talking about enacting government regulations and no mention of handing over executives to the mob I don't see where you're getting that from.

[DoctorFinger]

Well, that's your read of it. It's impossible to know the exact meaning behind the metaphor. Since he followed it up by talking about enacting government regulations and no mention of handing over executives to the mob I don't see where you're getting that from.He said this during the height of the AIG mess, when there actually were mobs forming outside the homes of executives. It's not proof it was a threat, but I consider it to be a point in Ox' favor.

[Johan]

My brother is one of the 116,000+ AIG employees, of whom roughly a few hundred are responsible for the financial products that ruined the company (and they are based in London, not New York). I can say with confidence that the insinuation was threatening, and that AIG employees are in fact rightfully concerned. Their main building in NY has to have guards, employees cannot wear insignia, and there have been a number of other things which make it clear that some very unhinged people in society were/are gunning for AIG employees and their families. When our own government stokes such fires, it plays with...um...uh...fire. Lousy figure of speech.

Ridiculous. The fundamental core point of concern in the whole thing was that the government essentially told AIG not to honor contracts. Contracts are written for the bad times, not the good times, and if the government itself encourages abrogating contracts, then what do we have left to rely upon in order to trust one another within society? Warm feelings?

:shakes head:

The whole thing is/was an absolutely mind-boggling period of amazing incompetence up and down the private and public hierarchies, and innocent people like my brother, who is a much nicer guy than I am, were/are dragged into it unfairly and unnecessarily.

[Shrinn]

The fires of rage in the eyes of the populace are high enough. They don't need the government pouring gasoline all over it.

If you read the entire article, it's clear Obama is threatening.

I'm unable to find where you're pulling that conclusion from.

I see it more as a way of reminding the CEOs of how serious the situation really is. However, I would think that they're already aware considering the death threats being received. I don't think it was a good move either way.

[Ancalagon]

I see it more as a way of reminding the CEOs of how serious the situation really is. However, I would think that they're already aware considering the death threats being received. I don't think it was a good move either way.

They are definitely aware of it, but somehow they dont seem to really care. They havent really done anything to either ensure it wont happen again or exercise some appropriate restraint during these times. And I dont think that those responsible, both in government and the private sector, have received their just desserts.

That is what I hope Obama was sayig - regulate yourselves and improve your act or we'll do it for you, and we both know you dont want that to happen.

[Shrinn]

And I dont think that those responsible, both in government and the private sector, have received their just desserts.

This we agree on. But it's not Obama's job to do this unless he's going to bring up criminal or civil charges. It is his job to stop rewarding them with bailouts for poor behavior, though.

[Ox]

They are definitely aware of it, but somehow they dont seem to really care. They havent really done anything to either ensure it wont happen again or exercise some appropriate restraint during these times.
Of course they have. Have you noticed how the banks have almost completely stopped all lending? They identified the problem -- bad loans and investments that failed -- and have come up with a solution -- stop making loans and investments.

Of course, this is a bit of an overreaction. We don't want the financial system to cease to exist. But I think it makes no sense to say they aren't exercising restraint. The problem is that they are exercising way too much restraint.

[Johan]

We don't want the financial system to cease to exist.

Speak for yourself (I suppose you were, but for the pronoun!:)). I want the present one to cease to exist. I'd like a reboot to the system.

[Ox]

What would you replace it with? I'm assuming by "reboot" you mean to replace it with something, but you may be referring to a reboot of society generally.

Describe your ideal rebooted society, please. I'd love to point out why it would be a dystopia. ;)

[Telefrog]

What would you replace it with? I'm assuming by "reboot" you mean to replace it with something, but you may be referring to a reboot of society generally.

Describe your ideal rebooted society, please. I'd love to point out why it would be a dystopia. ;)

Rapture turned out pretty well.

As long as you don't mind living with a sea slug inside you.

[Johan]

Describe your ideal rebooted society, please. I'd love to point out why it would be a dystopia. ;)

I have no ideal society. I believe society, like DNA, has a system of error generation that makes society weaker with each passing generation. Reboot the system to zero, and we might get a decent century out of it before the errors reach critical mass again.

Or, not. I don't care. I'm economically, socially, professionally, and in most every way, content.

You're starved for intelligent debate tonight, I think. I, unfortunately, am not! ;)

[Ox]

You are the orneriest contented person I know.

[Johan]

You are the orneriest contented person I know.

I'm not content with others. I dislike a lot about the world, but my own little corner of it is pretty awesome!

Also, I like to argue, and when I think I'm right, I'm less covert about displaying my disgust with others than you are! :) In fact, I'm extremely opinionated and think a large number of people are incredibly stupid, as a large number of people may well think of me, and may feel free to, as well!

And I say this without any malice. :)

[Narradisall]

Hmmm, to be fair I think he played it very well. he's showing he falls on the peoples side while not openly threatening them.

If he did nothing, what message does that send? "Live your lavish lifestyles, if you get in trouble, we'll bail you out and don't worry about being held accountable for anything"?

[Johan]

"Live your lavish lifestyles, if you get in trouble, we'll bail you out and don't worry about being held accountable for anything"?

Seems to me the trillions of dollars in spent/promised bailout money already sent that message.

[Slack3r78]

What? I thought it was Calvin Kleins.

[Narradisall]

Seems to me the trillions of dollars in spent/promised bailout money already sent that message.

Yea, obviously the carrot didn't work, so here comes the stick.

I'm surprised more violent action hasn't been taken personally.

[Johan]

Yea, obviously the carrot didn't work, so here comes the stick.

Can we glue some broken glass shards to the end of the stick? Maybe a few rusty nails? ;)

[Spockrocket]

Can we glue some broken glass shards to the end of the stick? Maybe a few rusty nails? ;)

And coat the nails with snake venom?

I'm in the same boat as Narradisall. I thought that Obama played that scenario very well. Of course, he shouldn't have had to say it at all, but this is where we are now. Hopefully that will go down as one of the great Presidential quotes, because I know my great-great grandchildren will get a kick out of it.