January 25, 2011 by staff
Occ Foreclosure, Foreclosures rose to 382,000 newly initiated in the third quarter, up 31.2 percent from the previous quarter and up 3.7 percent over the same quarter a year ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in a quarterly report of the mortgage.
The central idea of the piece is personal and philosophical conflicts between Obama’s top economic advisers during the financial crisis – including Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Christina Romer and Peter Orszag – undermined the government’s response. It’s a familiar story, and easy. Summers, director of the National Economic Council, is as always, is humiliating dissidents and ideas of the stovepipe at the top. Time meetings are held to discuss policy options, such as the nationalization of Wall Street banks. Courtiers fight for access to the Oval Office. Baker also makes focusing much of Obama’s wonky and ostensibly nonpartisan search for “exciting” solutions to the country’s growth slowdown and rising unemployment.
Bored yet? I was. With the President supposedly ready to formally reestablish himself as a “centrist” in his January 25 State of the Union, when that section is not coincidence. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. The problem with this story is that it reads as official history, as if Obama (who clearly sanctioned the piece) and Baker had lined up the ghost of his post-White House memoirs. And as happens too often in the Times (and the media in general, for that matter), the story credulously allows the officer to impose their spin on events without challenge.
Recognizing that Baker is an insider, while I’m here in the desert, I remember these fierce “debate” on the nationalization of banks. After all, if summers only “entertaining” the idea to lack of land on him, that hardly constitutes a serious consideration. And while we are told that in the inner circle of President of nationalization against (it is a matter of public interest), the story does not say that the advisers are defended, much less if any of the growing influence explored the idea in depth.
Summers’ characterization of the major economic decisions Obama team, especially on how to stabilize the banking system and fiscal stimulus size 2009, also does not match reality. He told Baker in e-mail:
“We always believed that the increased risk was not doing enough, not to do too much,” he wrote.
Please. So why administration officials down to talk about nationalizing the banks just a month in the office? Why summers inevitably described as abrasive iron will wither like a leaf of spinach under pressure from deficit hawks in Congress and comply with what many economists agree is an insufficient stimulus package?
Why the White House in 2009 to give in to the lobbyists of the financial industry to discard the so-called “cramdown” law that have allowed bankruptcy courts to reduce payments for struggling homeowners’ mortgages? Why was former OCC chief John Dugan – a long-term advocate of financial deregulation (which since he left the bank has joined a lobbying firm to advise financial institutions on financial regulation) – allowed keep his job despite a disastrous record of the police OCC Wall Street?
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.