MSM says it's Obama's fault bank stocks are tanking.

[louis-t]

Every headline today makes that assumption.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/world_markets

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. No it's Rupert Murdoch's fault

his news outlets are about to go under!

[Jennicut]

2. Let the stocks tank. Besides helping people's 401ks, the stock market

does little to help the average person. Screw them.

[Doctor_J]

3. Strange. They said Tuesday that it was going up because Brown was winning

now that he actually won, it's plummeting.

Lots of Big Media casualties when we finally revolt.

[gratuitous]

13. Well, if the market was still going up then Brown would be the reason

Heads, Republicans win.
Tails, Democrats lose.

Jeez, it's really very simple, but some of you lot just don't quite get it yet. Here's some of the basics: Republicans united, Democrats in disarray; Republicans fiscally responsible, Democrats tax and spend; Republicans strong on national security, Democrats coddle terrorists. Just keep these rules in mind, and you'll understand, regardless of any so-called "facts" to the contrary.

[Joanne98]

4. It's the BROWN EFFECT! Obama doesn't have anything to do with it.

This is what the MSM gets for cheer leading faux populism coming from the right. They were too cute by half and now mob rule will come for them too.

If they think this is bad wait until the Bernanke nomination fails. The RW corporations and the MSM love Bernanke, but they just couldn't resist attacking Obama for a solid year for no other reason than to cause conflict and boost their ratings.

Let them eat the guillotine!

[TexasObserver]

5. It's true that bank stocks are lower following the president's announcement.

They're not tanking. They're down.

The DOW has been hovering in a 400 point range (4% of its value) for weeks. This week has seen investor confidence weaken slightly.

Contrary to the manure that mainstream business pundits spread, the market did not respond well to the election of Brown, because the market likes CERTAINTY. The election of Brown means things are more uncertain, and that makes investors nervous.

As the president reacts politically to the Brown loss, his actions cause some sectors to get nervous. Right now banking is getting nervous, because they've been out of the focus while health care has taken center stage. Big banks and the markets instantly know this means there is a change in direction, and their industry is about to be looked at more closely. In this election year.

So, you're damned right big banks are nervous today, and so are those who hold their stocks. They should be. With health care in intensive care, banking abuses are going to move to center stage, and I'm glad.

I wouldn't own any big bank stock, because I think they're reprehensible, anti American institutions that should be put out of our misery.



FYI - I was a loud and harsh critic of the bank bailout bill in fall 2008 here and said then it was a way for the Bushies to keep their favorite big banks afloat, with little or no benefit to the public. I favor much more stringent control of big banks, and favor letting them fail if they can't survive their own bad practices. They bet wrong, so they and their investors lose. That's the free market they spend their lives worshipping.

[louis-t]

7. BofA was down like 4%.. Others were down similar amounts.

I guess my point was the 'hype'. MSM making it sound worse than it is.

[TexasObserver]

15. I wasn't really disagreeing with you, but addressing the underlying reasons.

This is an overdue correction. Big banks have skated for months, as health care has monopolized the political focus. This means big banks are in the cross hairs in this political year, so unloading big bank stock is a smart thing to do.

[louis-t]

18. Correct. At the same time, some earnings reports

came in lower than expected. At least we're not seeing 800 point swings in one day like 2 years ago.

[janx]

14. I wouldn't own any big bank stock either.

:puke:

[TexasObserver]

16. They should have been allowed to fail in 2008.

And the criminals who defrauded their stockholders or investors should have had the same fate as Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff. Instead, they were given billions for almost nothing, and allowed to misuse those funds, while conferring no benefit to the citizenry.

[janx]

20. I agree!

But how many innocent people may have had to go down with them? I still don't know what the ramifications would have been if they'd not been bailed out. :shrug:

[DJ13]

6. It was "his fault" they went up in the first place

If he had gotten tough on them from the start their stocks wouldnt even be a third of the current price (if some of them were still in business).

They had their fun and profits, its time to fix them.

[JBoy]

8. Damn right. They were artificially high due to the gift they got earlier.

Too fucking bad.

[tom_paine]

9. On to the next synergistic Bushie propaganda PsyOp!

Gotta beat that bank bill back!

Not to worry, Obama and our Democratic Leadership will surely give away the farm before the negotiations begin, so the banks get a win-win.

The neat thing about Inverted Totalitarianism is that you don't NEED goons with guns pointed at the back of scared journalists' heads to make it work. That's bad PR and so passe, so 20th Century, anyway. Wouldn't work. This works much better for our Corporate and Aristocratic Masters.

[taught_me_patience]

10. According to MSM

stock market rising = Brown.
stock market falling = Obama.

[still_one]

11. This is the talking point being spread by wall street. Essentially wall street

wants too big to fail banks and for those banks to be involved in risky investments

It doesn't bring back Glass Stegal, but it is a good start

The people who caused this problem argue that they won't be able to compete internationally, and that this didn't cause the problem

There were a lot of causes for the financial crisis, and this was one of them

That the culprits who almost melted down the financial system worldwide have no right to continue their business as usual

This should be a bi-partisan issue. Ironically you have people like Dodd against this, and people like mccain for it.

In fact the Democrats in Congress might be more of a problem then the republicans

We The People should demand it

[janx]

12. Thank you--

:rofl:

You just gave me my first good laugh of the day! :hi:

[Ian David]

17. They were going UP until the day after Brown beat Coakley. n/t

[Arkana]

19. B...but...I thought Obama was an evil corporatist who was going

to sell our children's organs for drug money!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

21. I don't get it

First the Administration is criticized for loaning aid to the banks, thus warding off a much larger financial disaster ("we can't afford it!", then it gets criticized for when the banks make paying it back a priority. I suppose in some respects, one simply can't win when Prez.