(Thumbnail image: The White House)
“The president stood up and said if these guys want to fight, it’s a fight I want to have…and these guys are the banks. He came out very strong with a couple of new proposals to rein in the banks..their trading, their complexity and immediately the stock market tanked.” (CNN)
President Obama laid out a major policy shift on Thursday. He said too-big-to-fail banks are still acting irresponsibly—and he intends to do something about it. The two biggest changes are to just what how big banks can get…and what they can do with customers’ money. So why the sudden shift to a more populist message?
We’ve got perspectives from CNN, ABC News, CNBC, Fox News, The New York Times, MSNBC and NBC News
The new strategy—called the Volcker Plan—cracks down on banks that combine savings and high-risk investing. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Tavis Smiley says the White House desperately needed a change of tune...
SMILEY: “It’s a very good idea because you always want to…as you well know from being on Capitol Hill…you change the story. (laughing) You change the story…”
SMILEY: “Remember the campaign theme song of the campaign was Stevie Wonder?”
SCARBOROUGH: “Yeah, Signed, Sealed, Delivered.”
SMILEY: “Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours. Very good, Joe. It’s seems like that’s the chorus they’ve been singing to Wall Street. Signed, sealed deliverd, I’m yours. To the American people they’ve been singing Sam and Dave, I’m Coming.”
On the Today Show, David Gregory gives his take on Mr. Obama’s new tactic.
“There is a feeling the White House knows is out there…that is, who is looking after the little guy here? Not just Wall Street. And the president wants to be the person to do that.”
“The number on thing is to the pivot to jobs. The president will be in Ohio today. That’s what he wants to talk about in the State of the Union. Jobs, jobs, jobs. All the time. What can the administration can do this year to speak to that concern?”
Thursday’s announcement was a big departure after months of focus on healthcare reform. So why the change? The New York Times says it’s simple-- banks are an easy target.
“They have become the perfect foil for the White House as it tries to lead the Democratic Party out of its post-Massachusetts morass — and to change the channel from the seemingly unending debate over health insurance. As the White House hopes to define the fight, the enemy is not big government but big money.”
On CNBC and FOX News, analysts say while the new regulations on risky trading sound good in theory—it‘s not a cut and dry issue.
CNBC: “I understand the concept of…look, we can’t figure out what the next housing bubble or tech bubble or crazy underwriting scheme is going to be on Wall Street, so let’s make sure they’re not betting with taxpayers’ dollars. I understand that concept. I don’t understand the details of how you actually enforce it.”
FOX News: “But the name of the game now is loopholes…trying to get around the rules for proprietary trading. You can call proprietary trading as helping all customers, not just the firm’s own pockets.”
New York Times business writer, Andrew Ross Sorkin, says on Good Morning America he thinks the new plan will make big waves.
“It’s a game-changer because it is truly one step toward removing the casino from Wall Street, if you will. So the idea that the commercial bank…that these people were trading on their own account using tax payer money—that’s off the table now.”
So why do you think there’s been a change of focus? Will really make a difference?
Writer: Chance Seales
