Ok, Obama. Main Street or Wall Street, which will it be?

[metapunditedgy]

According to this article, Obama's "pay czar" Feinberg, who was also tapped to manage the BP fund, has decided not to press the issue on recouping executive bonuses at bailed-out institutions.

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/99160424.html

The article is a bucket full of WTF, with choice bits like:

"I'm not suggesting we should blink or turn the other cheek," Feinberg said in an interview with the Associated Press. "These 17 companies were singled out for obviously bad behavior. The question is: At what point are you piling on and going beyond what is warranted?"

and:

"He said a fight with those banks could have exposed them to lawsuits from shareholders trying to recapture the executives' money, and he did not think that would be fair."

Is this shit true? I hope it will be debunked right quickly.

(Discussion of the original article itself should go to this thread; I don't want to hijack that discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4477706)

My question in this thread is, "President Obama, what are you going to do about this?" This is a watershed. Financial BS, corporate overlords, government enablement, lax enforcement, out in *broad daylight*.

What is the President of the US, who campaigned on fairness for Main Street, going to do about it?

Woodchucks and unicorns be damned, I want to see just one thing... I want to see Obama step up and say (publicly and clearly) that he disagrees. That this is unfair and wrong, as we all know it is. Just say it. Publicly. Loudly.

[Common Sense Party]

1. So, you want words, not actions?

"I want to see Obama step up and say (publicly and clearly) that he disagrees. That this is unfair and wrong, as we all know it is. Just say it."

He doesn't have to DO anything?

That should be easy...

[metapunditedgy]

3. I think some blunt, unambiguous words would be a great start.

I could maybe be persuaded that his hands are tied and he can't push his agenda through whatever morass is somehow blocking it.

But I cannot be persuaded that his tongue is tied. And a few blunt words from the bully pulpit can have tremendous power.

[Oregone]

2. Main Street, as long as Wall Street can profit during the course of it

Its the Third Way, Baby! There can be money in helping people (otherwise, don't fuckn do it)!

[Desertrose]

4. Thought the answer was already pretty clear......

and its sure not Main Street.

[jtuck004]

5. Oh man. So if I rob someone, when I am in front of the judge I should say

"Judge, judge. I have already been embarrassed, not to mention highly inconvenienced, by being called in here. For the DA to file
charges and try me would just be piling on. Don't you agree? And besides, you charging me would open the window for the person I stole from to sue me. That's just more than I should have to take. I would like to leave now."

I would probably have, say, 6 to 10 years to figure out why that was a bad approach.

There are 30 million of our neighbors unemployed or underemployed and among them several million who have lost their home as a direct result of all this. And this guy isn't on their side. Who will be?

[leftstreet]

6. +1

Excellent analogy

[metapunditedgy]

7. Ha ha, phantom unreccer. Care to say why? n/t

[metapunditedgy]

10. Ooh... more anonymous unrecs. Very sensible to stay anonymous, since

there's no way to spin this story into gold. (Unless it can be debunked... I'm open to that.)

[DrDan]

8. I thought that was answered a year and a half ago

[metapunditedgy]

9. I think this case is blatant and unambiguous. It can't be blamed on Lieberman, LOL.

Which is why I call it a watershed.