The Chief of Staff from JP Morgan

Joe Subday has a post focusing on Bill Daley’s role in the serial capitulation Obama is making to the debt hostage-takers.

Politico’s David Rogers and Carrie Budoff Brown report on the $3 trillion deal under discussion between Obama and Boehner. And, despite denials, it appears that Obama and Boehner are negotiating and the number is $3 trillion, mostly in spending cuts. Towards the end of the article is this nugget:

At the same time, the White House’s tactics in this situation most infuriate Senate Democrats, who complain that the president’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, is too quick to make concessions to Boehner, even at the party’s expense.

Yes, they are quick to make concessions at the White House. Like everyone, I’ve been trying to figure out what’s really going on. One trusted source told me that one problem is definitely Daley:

Bill Daley is behind the White House’s capitulation. He’s the Democrat’s Neville Chamberlain. It’s dominoes of caving — one cave leads to another. They are so desperate for a deal that they’ll take anything at any price. They won’t fight for anything.

Now, of course, Daley works for Obama. He hired Daley, who used to be on the Board of Third Way, the group always willing to sell out on Democratic principle. And, that’s what Daley is doing on Obama’s behalf.

Now, Joe’s right: Daley ostensibly works for Obama, and so Obama is ultimately responsible for those capitulations.

But is Obama the only one Daley’s working for?

Daley was hired, after all, because the banksters had convinced Obama that seemingly endless supplies of free money wasn’t enough for them; they also needed a bankster in the White House.

And so here we have an unelected bankster in a key role at a moment of crisis. And every time Boehner asks, Daley reportedly offers up yet more austerity in the hopes that he can prevent uncertainty in Jamie Dimon’s world.

It’s funny. Unlike Obama, Daley men aren’t exactly known for their poor negotiating skills. But this one sure seems to be acting helpless in the face of a bunch of demands for more. And ultimately, it won’t be the TeaPartiers who benefit from that process. It will be Jamie Dimon.

25 replies
  1. scribe says:

    Has anyone ever bothered to consider that this is all part of a “pre-existing plan” (Blankfein’s Houseboy Obama’s words, not mine), in which the banksters both create a huge short on US debt and profit from it, both in the short-term (e.g., CDSs or their analogs shorting US debt) and the longer term (raising effective and/or actual interest rates on that same debt, goosing the stock market into higher returns, too)?

    Not like it hasn’t happened before that the banksters haven’t written documents that short the securities of their clients and then invest against those very clients, for their own profit.

  2. klynn says:


    I think you are right on target. And, your point needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

  3. DWBartoo says:

    Agreeing with scribe; it is all part of the “plan”, which has been in effect for almost seventy years.

    (Nice place you’ve got here, EW …)


  4. BoxTurtle says:


    I think you’re dead bang on target. And I think that the MSM will be carefully avoiding mentioning anything like that.

    Boxturtle (Oo! Look!! Bright shiny debt deal over there!)

  5. klynn says:


    Think about it, selecting two COS that have ties to banksters?

    That is as bad as a Pres/VP in office for 8 years with ties to the petro industry.

  6. klynn says:

    Scribe’s comment would make a great follow-up post. Your work on CDS’s in the past has been amazing.

    It would be interesting to see what the banksters would gain and look at the historical practice of the banks creating a short on US debt. Painting a picture of the total despair would be quite a dose of reality.

    Wonder what the shrill one would think about this point made by scribe?

  7. BoxTurtle says:

    [email protected]: Worse, actually. BushCo never bothered to pretend they weren’t oilies, even during the campaign. ObamaLLP gave us NO clue until after the vote just how close with the banksters they’d be.

    Boxturtle (Fool me once….)

  8. Katie Jensen says:

    Well, Scribe’s comment was alluded to in EW previous post about the suspicious lack of lobbying by the banks during these talks. The only way I can think of that this makes sense is if they know the outcome, and feel it unneccessary. It’s not likely that they just aren’t interested and we know that they have a rat in that race…so…Scribe’s comment seems quite plausible.

  9. DWBartoo says:

    [email protected]:

    Perhaps, “even worse” …?

    and Katie [email protected]:

    Yes, the banks’ resoundimg quietude in the “run-up” suggests that the “sexed-up” phony “crisis” caused little pause and even less anxiety in certain, closed and tight, circle$.

    Of course there always is the possumbility that the “astute” bankers were so surprised and taken off guard, of late (having no “inside” info, it might be assumed … by some) that they did not (as EW also suggested) have time to react in ways consonate with their “interests”.

    I’m guessing that the bankers’ apparent “no worries”-stance reflects possumbility number one, else their $omewhat, shall we say, $ubstantial “investment” in Obama shall have been wasted and not, in the least, very astute.


  10. klynn says:


    Remember when we wrote about the role of CDS’s IRT the auto industry and then rolled out the economic impact on 2nd and 3rd tiers? Te content you could write about Scribes point would be a much larger in terms of addressing the economic devastation.

    Your voice would be important on this.

    KatieJ ran with your point from your previous post @ 11 and I think it is a high point. The endgame devastation is beyond comprehension.

  11. MadDog says:

    So let me see if I understand this.

    Consumers aren’t spending – Check.
    Homebuyers aren’t spending – Check.
    Businesses aren’t spending – Check.

    Government solution? Don’t spend – Check.

    Question: If no one spends, how does economy function at all?

  12. b2020 says:

    Read the section on S&P:

    A rating agency – one that should be discredited at best, investigated at worst for its performance leading up to 2008 – is attempting to dictate policy choices by changing its ratings for political reasons. The fiction that Obama has been mouth-breathing from his Bully Pulpit – “our nation’s credit card” – is now turned into real leverage through financial market manipulation of interest rates for public borrowing.

    If you are looking for a “coup” where monied elites and their bankster thugs are taking over, this is probably as blatant as it will ever get.

  13. DWBartoo says:

    [email protected]

    Well, gummint did “spend” 16 trillion dollars to “reassure” the too-big-to-fail, “million-dollar-bonus” crowd, so that part of the “economy” is just fine, thank you very much. However, it is true that gummint doesn’t want to spend anything on “the people” unless it is trillions for more wars of choice and convenience …

    Oh, you think an “economy” should serve the interests of everyone?

    Now, MadDog, you just don’t have your “looking forward” vision devices properly adjusted.

    Set the tabs for “neofeudalism” and “the Divine Right of Money” and you’ll see what gummint intends, in terms of its “spending” on them what ain’t TBTF.


  14. b2020 says:

    “the serial capitulation”

    I object. Obama wants a big “Raw Deal” that will hurt, to feed his narcisstic need for a place in the history books as written for the wealthy and powerful. He is not capitulating, he is – in a painfully obvious and not effective way – pushing the agenda. He is creating the openings that the opportunists exploit. Enough of the Incompetence Dodge please – Obama’s degree of incompetence in pursuit of his objectives is irrelevant, focus needs to be on the objectives themselves.

    “Daley men aren’t exactly known for their poor negotiating skills.”


  15. klynn says:

    MD let me add to your checklist:

    Bush Tax cuts – check
    2 Wars – check
    Big Pharma – check
    Bankster thieves – check

    US Chamber supporting all of this list – check

    (Ed’s rant last night needs to go viral along with the Galbraith interview.)

  16. ferd says:

    OT, but important. Hey frandor55, do you remember a drive-in burger joint on Saginaw, near Frandor? If so, what was it called?!! They had the best burgers, with shredded lettuce and a tangy mayo sauce.

    –Ebert is, or was, a fan of the Daley’s, if I’m not mistaken.

  17. klynn says:

    After listening to a report on NPR this AM about elections in Venezuela, Obama and the Dem Party should donate all their 2012 campaign war chests to save SS, Medicaid and Medicare and then invite the GOP to join in and match the donations. O should do this after saying, “No!” to the cutting of the big three.

    (klynn holding her breath but still likes the idea.)

  18. Katie Jensen says:

    The perfect endgame…use america’s greed to kill it. Meanwhile America strips searches it’s people, tortures it enemies, and gives up it’s freedoms. I can’t think of a better act of terrorism?

  19. klynn says:

    Amazing townhall…

    Mr. President does not understand that we the people get that his plan is not a “balanced” approach and yet he patronizes us and tries to sell his “deal of destruction” as “balance”.

    Boy, a long thesis could be written on the fact that none of the plans out there have ANY balance –especially the President’s plan.

  20. Skilly says:

    Can we say “Never Mind” to this yet? Boehner has walked so, I guess we don’t have to give in to anything?

    I can’t wait to see how this works out.

  21. P J Evans says:

    Well, the FAA will be partially shutting down at midnight, thanks to the GOP and its anti-union budget-cutting demands. (I would like to see all the GOP congresscritters using private aircraft having their flight cancelled because the airports they use have shut down.)

Comments are closed.