Bloomberg: Obama Will Cost NYC Jobs

Alright, if Obama wants to make war on capitalism for his perceived political benefit, seems to me a little push back from unexpected places is in order. Geithner, or those around him are already doing the same. I'm not so sure the Chicago bullies have the match ups they want when it comes to trying to take on the financial engine of American commerce.

It's a clash between the president and the mayor. President Obama wants to whittle away at the size of the financial services industry.

"The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms," the president said.

But Mayor Bloomberg said the banks and Wall Street are part of the bedrock of the city's economy, and efforts to slash their business just means less tax revenue for the city, which brings up the dreaded "L" word.

"If that's the case then we'll have to lay off people because it will really hurt our industry," Bloomberg said.

Comments

[toad]

Ah, the difference between people who run financial institutions and those who own them is about to be explained to Obama.

[egoist]

It's like Obama's pouring salt in Bloomberg's festering scabs...oh yeah, master Bloomberg is controlling that salt thing, and transfats, and... you get the idea - everything. Those !@#$-heads deserve each other.

[H Blix]

After 8.5 years of adding personnel and running up salaries, calling NYC a "luxury product" and doing basically all he could to drive the middle class out he's now crying. Dumb f***.

[Punkindrublic]

You've got to hate the impacts of the rule of "unintended (or intended) consequences" when the rules just pop out of the mouth of our President. Yawnnnnn... One of these days the buffoon voters will figure it out...or, maybe not.

[david weiss]

Don't worry Senators Schumer, Gillabrand, Lautenberg, and Menendez will take care of this. They warded off O's threat to our medicare dependent institutions. Didn't they?

[TTTCOTTH]

Lets all be Socialists and tax ourselves into prosperity!

[Bill McGill]

Dan - can you please scream this from the hilltop:

The large banks that received TARP funds - in fact, some unwillingly - have all paid their "loan" money back, and with significant interest. Their balances and conscience are clear.

Whereas the Auto Companies, AIG, and Fannie/Freddie haven't paid back a dime. And probably cannot and more importantly will not.

Yet Obama wants to penalize all of the former, to pay for his handouts to the latter. Hating the "banks" strikes a lovely populist chord, unless you see it for what it is - yet another union and "Friend of Barney Frank" payoff.

This distinction needs to be made clear.

[Granus]

The not-so-good mayor, Chuck Schumer, Eliot Spitzer, two generations of Cuomos, several hundred Democratic lawmakers in NY state's legislatures, and the state's civil service population are finding out that words have meaning. For years, they have all made a good living and enjoyed the sport of financial services industry bashing and, unhearing, expressed great, open, unwavering support for the giant killer now occupying the White House. Who did they think he was taking about? It's always somebody else. Couldn't happen to us. Hey, we're on your side. Of course we want to tax the rich; we thought you meant the other rich. We need ours. Sorry mayor, senator, attorney general, boards of education; they meant your rich, too. But you can stand in line with all the other suckers for a few scraps.

The frightening thing is, they apply the same logic and hold the same beliefs about the people who want to destroy us. If they survive, they'll be saying the same thing - all the way to the wall. Your (and my) rich are gone; try not to doom us.

[MikeC]

As Prof. Reynolds would say, "Who are the rubes?"

[Anon]

I have to disagree here. Banks have proven they need to be more tightly regulated, they proved it in spades and if that means fewer $50 million bonuses to investment bankers in NY and CT, then so be it and fewer profits for New York to tax to death, so be it.

Conservatives and Republicans need to stop automatically opposing any regulation to business.

The entire capital markets structure collapsed, if it wasn't for TARP and the Fed printing money as fast as they can there would be no stabilization whatsover. If ever there was a crystal clear case where regulation is necessary, this is it.

[unseen]

I can't stand Obama but in this regard I think he is right. With the massive consolidation we have seen in this sector many, many people were laid off as companies merged. If Obama's plan goes thru it would mean many more smaller financial houses and many more people employed. It would also mean less profit for the bankers as they will have to hire more people thereby given them less of a hold on the power in DC and the people more of a voice. You take one bank and divide it up into two or three companies, bank, brokerage, insurance etc and all of a sudden you have more jobs. (yes it is less productive, yes it increases the cost of doing business and profits will suffer but it also creates more jobs, it spreads the wealth and power around not in a socialist way but thru capitalism)

Monopolies are not good for capitalism (unless your goal is to reduce cost for the benefit of society even then it hurts productivity in the long run). they hurt small business they destroy jobs the only thing they do is increase profits for the company in question.

I think the government's failure to police anti-trust law in the last 20 years has been a major mistake.

If you need an example look at AT&T. the breakup of At&T created many more companies, ushered in the wireless era, created manufacturers of phones, longdistance companes, regional companies, etc all of which had to hire more people.

[fernstalbert]

Well the Mayor of New York City did support Obama in the 2008 election. Actions do have consequences. Hope the bitter gall is tastely. How many bankers and their associates will be supporting the Democracts in the next election? Cheers.

[J]

Seeds of the Marxist Rot......The House of Kennedy 1962

That is how we got here.

[Old One]

Soros's paid talking point concern trolls (anon and unseen) have arrived. Take your tale bull elsewhere but first investigate your paymaster Soros's hideous days helping his father round up fellow Jewsin Hungary for the gas chambers and crematory ovens not to mention the pervert Soros's involvement in destroying the currencies and economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand and the banking crisis he created in September 2008 that sent the US into recession.

[xerocky]

as an aside, did they ever figure out who was going to pay for the terror trials, now that he's (Obama) going throw a wet towel on state income tax.

[Patricia]

Think of all the trans fats scofflaws who will go unpunished!

[Anon]

Oh come on, George Soros did not cause the banking crisis, that is veering into tin hat territory. I understand that for whatever reason, a lot of conservatives hate George Soros, but I am telling you right now that if the GOP doesn't agree and support some kind of sensible banking regulations that ALL of the gains that have come over this last year of Obama's incompetance will be WASHED AWAY and the GOP will be right back where they were.

We need banking regulations, that should be obvious even to the most conservative free market thinker out there.