i always remember the douchebag NYT business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin telling Bill Maher that "Obama doesn't LOVE the business community".

that's his sin - he doesn't kiss their ass sufficiently & personally. never mind leaving them with their bonuses & unprosecuted, he's supposed to thank them for fucking the global economy up for a decade.

I think it's simply a cultural bias. I'm hesitant to cast aspersions over the traits of every single business school graduate out there, but anecdotally— it's as safe to say your typical BFA is as stereotypically conservative...er... maybe not exactly conservative, as banking is as close to a meritocratic workplace as you'll ever find... as your typical MFA is liberal.

Regardless, Wall Street would have us believe Wall Street IS America, and I can't think of the last President to stand up against that idea.

I don't understand why bankers, Wall Street, any who have done well in finance during the past 4 years, would complain about President Obama. He's capitulated and conceded so many things to protect certain business interests (Republican AND Democrat). They should be grateful to him, not complain, obstruct.

This annoys too: When the Obama administration acts in a way more typical of the GOP (re national defense), the GOP should be happy. Instead, they are critical!

Wall Streets tries to back whoever will let them get away with the most, always has, always will. The Dems campaigned so well and the GOP so poorly, the Street now knows for sure Obama's who they'll be dealing with the next four years. Krugman puts his finger on it in a blog post today, i think:

This really isn’t looking like the election anyone expected. Obviously it’s not the election Romney and the Republicans expected and wanted; but it’s also looking very different from what Democrats expected.

What Romney & Co. expected was a simple rejection of Obama because of the weak economy. As Greg Sargent often reminds us, this isn’t how it has played at all. On one side, voters tend to react to recent trends, not the absolute level — and the economy has gotten better in some ways over the past year, though obviously not by a lot. On the other, people do remember the crisis of 2008, which they still blame on Bush, and remain willing to cut Obama substantial slack.

But as the polls move strongly in Obama’s direction (yes, I know, it’s all a liberal conspiracy that somehow even includes Fox News), it’s clear at least to me that there’s more going on.

The conventional wisdom — which I too bought into — was that Democrats were going to support Obama, but grudgingly and without much enthusiasm. There had been too many disappointments; the golden aura of 2008 was long gone. Meanwhile, Republicans would show their usual unity and discipline, and at best it would be Obama by a nose.
Instead, the Republicans appear to be in a shambles — while the Democrats seem incredibly united, and increasingly, dare I say it, enthusiastic. (Mark Blumenthal sees this in the polls, but it’s also just the impression you get.)

How did that happen? Partly it’s because this has become such an ideological election — much more so than 2008. The GOP has made it clear that it has a very different vision of what America should be than that of Democrats, and Democrats have rallied around their cause. Among other things, while we weren’t looking, social issues became a source of Democratic strength, not weakness — partly because the country has changed, partly because the Democrats have finally worked up the nerve to stand squarely for things like reproductive ights.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09…

@3, I know, it's puzzling. It seems that the GOP cannot be satisfied unless the other side is worse-off. It's a zero-sum game for them. Wasn't there an Onion story a while back about how Obama declared his love for puppies and the GOP followed by coming out against puppies?

Because he is Black.

That's why.

@6: Him being black isn't the reason so many old white people hate him. That would be racist.

It's because he's not white.

Do you see the important difference?

Mene mene tekel u-pharsin.

@7, most bankers may be old white people, but most old white people are not bankers (or racist). You're stereotyping.

I had lunch with a New York banker yesterday who's one of the good guys: not a racist, not a dick, an old-fashioned smart guy who wants the system to work for everyone. He has nothing but contempt for the current Republicans and their Fox-driven willful ignorance.

He is, however, furious with the Democrats generally (and Barney Frank in particular) not for instituting reforms, but for instituting pointless "reform" that doesn't reform anything, which wouldn't have prevented the 2008 crisis, which won't clean up the mess, and won't stop the next, inevitable round.

What it has done is create a whole new massive, capriciously managed compliance burden that's driving him crazy, and which is driving his bank out of categories of business where they might do some good because it's just not worth the trouble to them (like low-income housing lending).

He wants regulation in his industry. He believes in it. What he doesn't want is to deal with the caprice of rock-dumb regulators who don't know anything about the activities they're regulating, and don't want to know.

Well, yeah, you can do something when you put $1T/yr onto the credit card. It's all good fun until the bill comes due. At that point, we can either increase taxes and cut spending, default, or print like mad. I am going to bet on "print like mad". I think that decision will be made in about fifteen years.

@9, Actually, you're both stereotyping. But @7's stereotyping is not mutually exclusive with yours--if most bankers are old white people, and there are many bankers, then many old white people still hate him.

Me? I'm willing to allow that there are a few people who want Romney to win for purely financial (not racial) reasons, and the fact that a Romney economy would fuck over people of color even worse than the status quo is neither a pro nor a con. Doesn't concern them in the least. Of course, not giving a shit (as opposed to enmity) is a lesser but insidious form of racism.

#9 - This is the Stranger blog. You can stereotype white folks all you want. Fill the page with references to crackers, hicks, and rednecks, it's OK! And of course racism is the only possible reason someone wouldn't support Obama! It's SLOG!

Well, Obama made no effort to regulate Wall Street or prosecute the bankers after they destroyed the economy, appointed one of their laywers to the SCOTUS and is willing to "reform" Social Security. I never got why they don't like him.

@13, I heard yesterday that not being blindly supportive of Obama made me a right winger. So apparently my wanting single payer health care, nationalized banking, and stop killing American's without due process makes me a right winger. Who knew? But it's Slog and it does reflect modern political discussion

@15:
Truth hurts, huh?

11, actually the Federal Gov't *has* to run a deficit, they *have* to be in debt, because otherwise the economy would implode. It may seem backwards, but since money is created by the government issuing bonds -typically to finance war- which the Fed Reserve buys and then issues cash against... the government ALWAYS has to be in a position of owing money. If they magically paid off the debt, all money would actually disappear and we would have nothing to trade with here down in the trenches.

So all this crap about "national debt" being so terrible, and the government using that claim to strip flesh off the backs of the poor via austerity programs, slashing social services, and what not is basically disingenuous bullshit.

There's plenty of money for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and building up forces around Iran... That's all debt money.

Why should WE have to suffer by having Medicare cut, social services slashed, and social security floated on the market? It's a highly elaborate scam to see exactly how much value they can stripmine from the rest of us.

Obama's fully aware that his hands are tied in this regard. The machine is far, far bigger than he is... and yet it is beholden to no one. Except profit.

Real numbers are actually 5 million.

Different measurement statistics.