The banks are profiting once again and Meredith Vieira is livid about it. During her July 21 interview with President Obama, Vieira questioned Obama about the banks having the audacity to do what taxpayers bailed them out to do: profit.
“You know I wanted to ask you about Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan reporting these big profits in the second quarter,” Vieira told Obama as they walked through the White House. “And they're talking about bonuses for their employees. People hear that, taxpayers, and they're very frustrated.”
One has to wonder though if it is the taxpayer’s frustration she was expressing, or rather the frustration of the hosts of “Today,” since this anger at banks has become a common theme on the show.
After Obama claimed, “taxpayers, I think, had to intervene to prevent something even worse from happening. And in fairness, these companies have paid the money back, a couple of them,” Vieira pressed him and asked, “But have they learned a lesson?”
Obama’s response was to place more blame on Wall Street: “That's the point. That's the point, is what you haven't seen, I think, is a change in culture, a certain humility, where they kind of step back and they say, ‘gosh, you know, we really messed things up. And so maybe we should be more focused on the products that we're providing consumers, let's make sure that we're operating in a more secure, safe fashion.’”
If Vieira found anything ironic about Obama calling for humility, she let it slide, along with an earlier claim that “a lot of the problems we have right now are attributed to misbehavior on Wall Street.” She never questioned Obama about a commonly accepted theory that government regulation helped create the economic crisis, not solve it.
She was too busy still fuming at the banks’ nerve to profit, and to put that profit to use in their own company. “Should taxpayers get a cut of those bonuses?” she asked Obama, while she claimed, “The reason they are getting that money is because taxpayers bailed them out.” She overlooked the fact that many of the banks were arm-twisted into taking the money and that the bonuses are being used to retain talent, a necessity in these economic times.
Surprisingly, Obama tried to correct Vieira. He correctly stated, “Well, here's what is happening. Goldman pays back the United States with interest. So we've actually made, the tax payers have actually made money on the investments that were made to many of these banks, with interest. And that will actually go back to deficit reduction. That's the positive of this. The other positive of it is we want banks to be solvent. We want them stable. That's part of the sign that the economy is stabilized a little bit.”
Vieira still did not grasp the concept. “But they're not just stable,” she protested. “These people are doing really well [while there is ] 9.5 percent unemployment, people looking for jobs, homes being foreclosed on.”
This gave Obama the opportunity to push more government regulation: “Which is why it's going to be important, I think, for us to have the kind of financial regulatory reform. And part of what gets me really frustrated is when I hear that some of the banks are resisting the idea of a Consumer Finance Protection Agency, that we’ve put forward to make sure that banks can't take advantage of people with predatory loans on their mortgages, or credit cards that are jacked up to exorbitant rates. When I hear some of these banks say we don't need regulation, after what we've just gone through, I'm thinking, well, people have some selective memory there. And this is going to be a major battle on the hill, because a lot of these banks have a lot of influence.”
And those pesky profits. But the President has Vieira and her mainstream media colleagues, so the odds are with him.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If banks weren't supposed
July 21, 2009 - 13:50 ET by Chris NormanIf banks weren't supposed to go back in the black, what in the hell was TARP all about anyway, you twit? Do you think banks are supposed to be non-profit public services? Why, oh why, do we have these ignoramuses "reporting" the news who know less about business and the economy than most teenagers?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Why doesn't she...
July 21, 2009 - 13:54 ET by Apodicticdonate her millions in annual salary to the government? How much should a teleprompter reader be allowed to make?
Even more surprising...
July 21, 2009 - 13:56 ET by heldmyw...Why aren't the brown-noses in the MSM squealing with glee that "The One" has finally had some sort of inadvertant success with Porkulus?
I would have thought that they would have demanded instant sainthood and deification!
July 21, 2009 - 14:06 ET by jessieHThis dumbass Vieira hasn't got a clue. The people aren't frustrated, they're MAD. The MSM "reports" only what obama wants them to say. THe govt. needs to get out & see for themselves just how mad WE are. Not just about the banks, but about everything coming out of D.C.
This is what TARP was all about
July 21, 2009 - 14:16 ET by c5thenGiving special favored institutions short term interest free "loans" so that they could post better numbers than their ballance sheets would otherwise have allowed.
This is EXACTLY what you would expect if the Mafia were running the government.
Throw 'da bums out!
no one re-elected who voted for socialism or debt
www.loyaltoliberty.com
NBC = Nothing But Communist
July 21, 2009 - 14:18 ET by R D HelmThe fact that ignorant pinheads like Vieira would slam banks for making a (Oh My God!) profit should surprise no one.
-Dave
"...stimulus plan is 'working exactly as we had anticipated.'" - PrezBO
Wat?
July 21, 2009 - 14:20 ET by someloudthunderOne of a banks main functions is to create a profit. Why would anyone start a bank for free? Really? Do these morons think money comes from no where?
She's confusing banks with
July 21, 2009 - 14:47 ET by SickofLibsShe's confusing banks with credit unions.
How About GE?
July 21, 2009 - 14:20 ET by slickwillie2001If GE turns a profit this quarter, will NBC vilify themselves? GE took many billions in federal bailouts via their financing arm, so they are just as beholden to taxpayers as 'banks' are.
That's what I was wondering
July 21, 2009 - 15:04 ET by mattmThat's what I was wondering - does NBC make a profit?
Huckin' Fypocrites!
Well gee whiz Meredith...
July 21, 2009 - 14:30 ET by Prester John...if Goldman Sachs doesn't make a profit, how can it pay it's executives enough to give BHO $1,000,000 in campaign contributions?
Goldman Sachs
July 22, 2009 - 06:12 ET by m1xramOr, destroy peoples retirement income with worthless AAA rated housing bonds, or drive up summer oil prices to $147/barrel. Yeah, Goldman Sachs is our friend.
He has already failed... his country.
Meredith, let's play
July 21, 2009 - 14:40 ET by jdlybrand"Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"
Also while I'm at it... What's black, hollow, and full of cobwebs?
Meredith Viera's head!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Revoltin' to the max!
July 21, 2009 - 14:44 ET by Pilgrim1949Don't know what's scarier.....this twit and her ilk or that I have vivid childhood memories of William Bendix uttering those exasperated words every week!
Rileys everywhere, unite!
Pilgrim
July 21, 2009 - 15:03 ET by jdlybrandI've been waiting for someone to acknowledge the tag line. In my mind I can see Chester in the close-up every time I post. For a while there I thought I was the oldest guy here. Now I know I'm one of the oldest! LOL
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
TWIT!
July 21, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Pilgrim1949Let's see....this twit no doubt has direct deposit of her generous salary for her God-given grace of her physical appearance (anybody seen 350-pound, ugly female new anchors anywhere recently?) and her ability to READ into a camera.....
...and she also no doubt expects to be paid interest on savings or mutual fund deposits with said financial institution ---- that come from ...... where? Thin air?
Hopefully her bank will announce a decrease in profits and will therefore decrease the interest paid to its depositors. Perhaps a little lesson in High School first year Econ 101 would provide a dose of reality to offset her libtard fantasyland worldview.
Then again, probably not.
Pilgrim1949
July 21, 2009 - 14:57 ET by MrShyGreat!!
It's jaw-dropping, the endless and mindless -- and OVERT -- hypocrisy these preaching libs wallow in day in and day out.
They are stuck on stupid, I tell you.
Vieira makes J. Blohar look like a Nobel laureate
July 21, 2009 - 14:42 ET by SickofLibsI loved the teaser for Vieira's segment: "First up, Meredith Veira's exclusive interview with President Obama."
I started flipping around and lo and behold, there was Barkky in other "exclusive interviews" on practically every channel except Home Shopping Network.
Taxpayers should get a cut of HER salary for subjecting them to her illegal lobbying.
Without profits, there is
July 21, 2009 - 14:52 ET by robert108Without profits, there is no economic growth. When Obama attacks profits, he is trying to produce stagnation. This is why his economy is tanking.
Of course, to a Marxist, "profit" is a dirty word.
How dare they make a profit
July 21, 2009 - 15:00 ET by Andrew_M_GarlandOf course profits are horrible. Without profit, things would be so much cheaper. Or, maybe not.
They Are Profiting From My Needs
I once met a person who blamed the bakery for selling her a cake. You see, thay made a profit off of her.
Andrew_M_Garland
Profits without honor
July 21, 2009 - 15:44 ET by Pilgrim1949A profit truly is without honor......to a statist Communist.
Once this twit's employer's profits start to tank, she'd better start updating her resume!
All we can hope for is that
July 21, 2009 - 15:02 ET by SnappyAll we can hope for is that the banks "Learned their lesson" and will no longer turn a profit
As Hillary put it so
July 21, 2009 - 15:09 ET by MidAmericaAs Hillary put it so well back in 2004, business profits do not belong to the businesses that earned them but become the responsibility of government to spread those profits around for the 'common good'.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
The way socialist leaning liberals see it they are willing to let businesses work and earn money and to pay 'reasonable salaries' but profits should be aquired by the government to redistibute for the common good. They see this as a natural and proper role of government.
Banking school
July 21, 2009 - 15:27 ET by sevenObama wants them to not pass stress tests. Then he can sieze them and dictate to whom they loan money. The last thing a bank wants to do is take risks and face a takeover.
Obama is a theif. He also told them that secured interests mean very little. look how he diced the secured debt and chrysler and GM.
of 3-4,000,000 mortgages in trouble, only 160,000 have a negotiated reprive deeesigned by the master Central Planning.
If he even starts to require they must be rented to people in default, the bank legally has to write off the asset. The asset has to be declared as non performing and written off.
Banking queen bwarny fwank,
July 21, 2009 - 17:25 ET by kangarooBanking queen bwarny fwank, said he didn't want put the tarp money back in the treasury, but wanted to piss it away on other stuff, so baz saying he made tax payers money is not so, so what else is new.
Haven't heard weather the queen got his way or not LOL
shazam!
July 22, 2009 - 14:56 ET by ZuccoZoidGoldman Sachs suddenly becomes a "bank holding company" to avoid a "meltdown" over their greedy investments and shazam! - best profits ever. Nothing suspicious here, of course.
http://www.telegraph...
Money is their business - big bankers absolutely know what they're doing, especially with what we used to call "real estate" - hyperinflate the value of homes, drive up insurance and property taxes, and - shazam! - your property ain't worth $hit - pay up
sucker, or get foreclosed, we'll drive you out, take it back and resell it.
Problem: all these bankers didn't seem to realize they were
ALL doing it AT THE SAME TIME! If they were smart they could've taken
us down state by state, beginning with Florida and Nevada; but no -
stinking greed - reselling the same thing over and over, then blaming
US the homeowners for daring to buy their snake oil - !
By the same logic, GM can sell defective cars, and if you're dumb enough to
buy one, despite what they promise - it's YOUR fault! Ain't that great?
No matter what a banker does, how they lie and sneak, it's YOUR fault
if you swallow the snake oil. Someone has to pay for their luxury spa vacations, right?
There is no such thing as "real estate" anymore - what used to be the backbone of American prosperity. Now your property is whatever the banks' say, any given time; at least if you invest in pork bellies or futures it's liquid; but this is the ultimate scheme: enslave us to what should have been our dream - now it's a nightmare - except for the bankers, who have more plans up their sleeves to "help" us from the very doom traps they laid for us.
They won't be satisfied until every dollar, every drop of blood is taken from us - no wonder they love Obama. Pure control over everything.
Calling George Orwell - !