JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon described his company's $2 billion trading loss as "terrible, egregious mistakes," adding, "there's almost no excuse for it."
Although Dimon had what CNBC Analyst Andrew Ross Sorkin called a "mea culpa" moment about the errors, the JPMorgan CEO was optimistic about the future of the bank.
"This is not a risk which is life threatening to JPMorgan," he said.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) also joined the program to respond to Dimon's comments and made the case that more government regulation could have prevented the loss.
"It could be prevented because these are the kind of bets that put us into the soup to begin with," Levin said. "If we can prevents these kind of bets from being made, we can avoid ever again having to bail out banks."
Gay marriage was also a central part of our discussion this morning. After President Obama announced his support of gay marriage this week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus reinforced the Republican position that "[marriage] is between one man and one woman."
You can watch the entire program on our website including our political roundtable for more on the gay marriage debate and what role it will play in the 2012 election. We were joined by: Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom; Chairman of the American Conservative Union Al Cardenas; Washington Post columnists Kathleen Parker and Jonathan Capehart; and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
Also, you can watch my full PRESS Pass conversation with Jamie Dimon about the economic recovery, politics and how to get America working again.
We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Leave a Comment:
I don't care who marries who. I dont' care if they marry a horse. I am more concerned with the economy, education and other more important issues. I won't be voting for the next president based on who HE thinks someone else should marry. WHO CARES!
I care about making sure I have a retirement fund to fall back on in a few years and jobs for the young people now. Education and Jobs!!!! that is where it's at! Let"s talk about that.
I care...I can think about more than one subject at a time...
How is it possiable that if a gay couple gets married in one state, they move to another state and are suddenly unmarried? Could you make the argument that if a couple got marred in Nevada without the California required waiting period and blood tests, then they are not married in California?
Also the following possibility: I have a so-called "registered partnership" (similar to a civil union in the US) with a US citizen here in Germany. Full marriage is not yet possible by our law either. But my partner has a legal stay and the full right to either work for a company or to open one himself and is entitled to social benefits and health insurance too. Now, if he decided he wanted to return to America, he'd have to leave me behind, because "DOMA" and the US immigration laws don't care about civil unions made in a foreign country - so I'd neither get a stay (or "green card") nor a work permit.
How is it possible: Because the so-called Defense of Marriage Act carves out an exception to full faith and credit.
The same sex marriage national debate is moronic and national and international
embarrassment. There is but one issue at hand, classification.
While there was a time in this nation's history that it wasn't moronic, when a
black sought to pass as white to be recognized as white to be treated as white,
the nation has "evolved" since then through a Civil War and the American Negro
struggle for equality from slavery through the civil rights movement.
A black does not now need nor seek to be classified white to be treated equally
with a white, and women have not sought reclassification as a man, through
their continuing effort, for equality with a man.
The classification of a union of a man and woman is marriage. The
classification of a union of a man and man or woman and woman, including
anything in between, as marriage is a plain and simple, and it might be added,
moronic misclassification.
moronic indeed
I heard several times that Mr Preibus said that marriage has a religious definition. Why is this not being discussed? I support peoples right to practice their core beliefs but wonder why they feel they have the right to forcr others to go by their particular beliefs. We have freedom of religion, we should also have freedom from religoin.
You are right: It is of absolutely no consequence if marriage has a religious definition, because there is no priest or other religious leader needed to bind a couple in marriage acc. to US laws. Just a judge. Period.
Wow, David Gregory is on his CONSERVATIVE SOAP BOX again...Reinse Prebus?
Really? And he can always count on fence straddling closeted REPUBLICAN Chris
Matthews to come in and do some nut swinging. Boy howdy! Gregory, how soon
can you be packed and ready to move on over to FOX NEWS? Your FAMILY is waiting
for you! When is Meet the Press going to pick a somewhat unbiased moderator?
Just sucks to watch MSNBC on Sunday afternoons.
I just tried to post link from Think Progress outing him as keynote speaker for the republican advocacy group NFIB but link isn't posting. Gregory needs to be fired so he can go and dance with rove till his hearts content.
there should not be a debate about who/why god made man. he made him for a woman, not a man for man. the devil has taken over the minds and bodies of people that we debate over unnecessay issues. god is real, he destroyed sodom and gomarha/ mispelled. and he is coming back and to the same thing again. young boys are destroyed because some old demon in another demon posses petifile did to then some time or where in life. we learn habits from evil forces. get in god and he will let you see that evil demon.just remember the ways of the cathloic priest who destroy young men and look at the demonized women who does the samething to our young women . wake up you real men. our president needs to get close to god himself. love is our biggest weapon in life. god said let the wheat and the tares come together and he wii seprate then. we are to love everyone. if you are a man, stand up for what is right, women too.
From which century did you time travel and which primary school did you grace with your religiously challenged presence to obtain this mastership in spelling and grammar?
Always, always, always -- those who profess to be spokespersons for The Creator seem to know more about Evil than those whom they are condemning. You will see before you that which is in your heart and speak that which is in your mind. Let go of that, and have nothing more to do with it, rather spread love and peace and you shall know that for all eternity. Do not judge others, not even yourself.
god is rel and he id not make man for no one but woman. there should not e no debate about what/why god made us the devil is the deceiver/not god.
POLITICAL 42nd 44th"FAITH PRESIDENTS"for"GAYS"?Thank GOD,Atleast"LEWINSKY"was a FEMALE in those OVAL rooms,it could had been WORST.@.White house should leave BIDEN the"GREAT"alone,things Obama dont have Guts for,JOE have balls for,and American people know THAT.@
Once again, we see You Mr. Gregory allowing Reince Priebus to rattle on against President Obama and the economy and get all of the right wing talking points in on a totally unrelated question! You are just so great at that, but if a democrat who has the facts and figures, you cut them off The republican party , the same party that destroyed this nation financailly and who has obstructe4d every iniative to help move this country forward sits there in front of you and the American people any you allow him to lie his butt off about the economy, what the President has accompolished with no interuptions or corrections! WOW! Amazing! Reince flat stated that the Dood-Frank Bill hasn't worked! What? It has not e3ven been fully implemented alon with the Volker Rule, so how is it that you would not correct this total bull@!$%# statement and throw that back on him? He also stated that the democrats had control of the senate and the house and nothing was done! Another big bald face lie! Would it ever occur to you to remind him that the republican party FILIBUSTERED every GD bill the democrats tried to pass? How GD hard would that be? Or is it that you just choose not to ask the real questions or state the real facts, or is it that you are just so republican that you do not want the truth to ever come out? Your ommissions are so GD obvious to most of us who pay any attention, that you are just a shill for the republican party!m This nation will never move forward when we have moderators like you who do not want to bring out the truth in this country! We need to get rid of people like you who do not adhere to the basic journalist rules andd pledges! You are just not capable of doing so because you do not want to criticism from the party that is and has destroyed A,merica! Why? This is the question I have had for you ever since you took over for Tim Russert! Tim Russert at least knew the facts on the questions he asked whereas you have no clue and allow your republicand guests to lie over and ove rand over! Please resign so this nation can move forward!
The previous writer said it all for me. I do not understand how Mr. Gregory could allow the Republican Party Chairman to make his bald comments about the failure of Obama to address the problems under discussion, without reminding him, and the public, that the Republicans had vowed to do everything in the power to make Obama a one-time President. And by failing to compromise on virtually every legislative initiative, they did what they promised. They are like the kids who killed their parents, and then complained of being orphans. That is the standarad by which the Republican nay-sayers should be judged! Please speak up for that which is reasonable, fair and true!
NBC couldn't have picked a worse person to host MTP. It's become a mouthpiece for the #GOP and Gregory is doing their bidding. It's time for him to be fired. This is unacceptable.
Rance Preibus is quite amusing. First, he says that states should set the standard for marriage; but when DG points out that Romney has said he wants to put in a federal ammendment, Rance agrees that there should be a federal ammendment.
Then, he decries the failure of Frank/Dodd when the relevant sub-law (Vockler rule) hasn't even been passed or implemented yet. When he gets pushed on that fact, he goes on broadly about how Democrats couldn't pass strict enough laws while in control of Congress. So his solution is... get rid of the rules.
RP wields the kind of contradictions that would destroy the most powerful sci-fi sentient super computers.
The President's statement was a good start, but..... I do think people in same sex relationships deserve more from him.
Gay marriage is an issue of civil rights and equality before the law. Same sex couples need to be treated equally in matters like social security benefits, tax benefits, health care benefits, military dependent benefits, and immigration law. Because these important legal benefits of marriage are handled at the federal level, it's important to address the issue of gay marriage at the federal, not just the state level. Therefore, leaving the issue of gay marriage to the states does little to address the issue of equality under the law.
So, what needs to be done? There's clearly no way federal legislation to recognize gay marriage can be passed anytime in the near future, due to its association with religious beliefs and the slow rate at which public opinion is evolving.
I think President Obama needs to acknowledge the need for a 2-pronged plan.
First, as he said, let each state work on the issue of gay marriage at its own pace. Some will lead the way and benefit from the participation of gay and lesbian families in their community and economic activities. Others will continue to lag until there is a national consensus that forces them on board. But this is no excuse for inaction at the federal level.
The second prong must be to pursue equality at the federal level in as forceful a way as possible, without waiting for the states to do their part. The way to do this is to obtain federal legislation that doesn't interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. This means legislation that separates civil rights from the emotionally charged word of "marriage." Leave that word to the fights in the churches and the states for the time being.
The crucial thing from a civil rights standpoint is to get federal legislation that permits and recognizes gay civil unions to be a status completely equal to marriage under the law. Gay and lesbian couples would still need to find a state or a church willing to bless their unions with the title of "marriage." But they would be able to obtain a document of civil union from any courthouse…. and could take that to the IRS or social security office and be assured of equality under the law. That would be a huge step forward from where we are now, and much more sensible than waging battle over the term "marriage" in the national political arena, in its current un-evolved state. This is the position the President should take if he really wants to stand up for equal rights for all.
be happy he acknowledged the issue. no other president has Obama put his reelection & political career on the line. that should be enough. republicans, if the have their way, will try to wipe you guys off the map along with the poor. this is still a christian nation where God says in the bible that marriage is one man one woman. what you want would me like going to iraq and trying to get them to convert to Christianity.
Obama has done things for the gay community that makes life a little easier for you already. the man is gong thru enough already. why put this on his shoulders also.
like Obama was, the country is still evolving on this issue. be happy with the freedoms you already enjoy. their are african nations where if you are found to be gay, you automatically receive the death penalty.
I had already written it. My point was to decry the failure of Mr. Gregory to at least remind the Republican Party Chairman that Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and John Boehner, the House Speaker, had let it be known, openly and honestly, that their chief objective during the Obama administration was to make him a "one term President." How can Gregory assume the mantle of being either informed or objective and not tell his guest that they are redolent of the kids who killed their parents, and then had the temerity, of complaining that they are orphans! Just that rejoinder would have given the interview a ring of authenticity.
David,
you have an hour show that is watched by millions.....WHY did you spend most of that hour discussing the gay marriage issue???? there are so many more important things going on in our country. when will you have a balanced panel so that a healty debate can be had? Chris (thrill up his leg) should never be allowed on any serious show
Marc
Because it affects so many people that's why. Republicans want to believe with all their heart that Gay Children are only born to Democrats. Dick Cheney is the head of a GOOD CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN Family and his daughter is GAY. Phyllis Shaffley one of America's Conservative Matrons had a gay son, Laura Ingram had a gay brother and Newt Gingrich a gay sister. Just remember Republican Parents and Grandparents, you are voting the rights away of your own children and grandchildren, you are voting against their happiness and well-being....you who say you love you children are making life a horrible and sad experience for them....Only God knows who will be gay and their will be just as many Republican Families with gay children as their are Democratic Families with gay children...THINK AMERICA
Addedum included in full text of previous post.
The same sex marriage national debate is moronic and national and international embarrassment. There is but one issue actually at hand, classification of a group.
While there was a time in this nation's history that it wasn't moronic when blacks sought to pass as white to be treated equally as white, the nation has "evolved" since then through the
Civil War, which was largely a result of a statutory (Fugitive Slave Act) misconstruction of the full faith and credit clause by the President and Congress at the time;
the American Negro continuing struggle for equality from slavery through their civil rights movement; and,
the Woman's Equal Rights continuing struggle for sexual equality.
A black does not now need nor seek to be classified white to be treated equally with a white, and women have not sought to be reclassified as men to achieve equality with men.
The classification of a union of a man and woman is marriage. The classification of a union of a man and man or woman and woman, including anything in between, as marriage is a plain and simple, and it might be added, moronic misclassification.
As affirmed by the Supreme Court, an "emerging awareness" is by definition not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions, as we have said "fundamental right" status requires.
It has also held that constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because of some States choice, much less because what foreign nations do as the Court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.
Finally, the Supreme Court must let Congress, instead, use the debate to correct Congressa's earlier statutory misconstruction of the full faith and credit clause which, arguably, can be attributed as being the single act by the President and Congress at the time that resulted in the Civil War.
This is simply, and as matter of separation of powers and states rights concern, to allow the Congress to prevent the laws of one state from overriding the laws of others, and either constitutionally or legislatively resolve this when it occurs.
Footnote
In ignorance, in passing the same sex marriage law, Maryland also passed, perhaps the first to do so, a pedophilia marriage law.
In Maryland, a boy of 14 years old who has either been emancipated, or with his parent’s or state’s, in the case of foster boys, consent, legally marry a man.
Jeff Bentham is in the process of getting his immigration papers in order.
Many states allow minors to marry. How, then, could this be the "first?"
Perhaps with regard to same sex marriage that with the combination of incentives, such as money or US citizenship, and right paperwork a man and boy marriage could occur in a state, or country, where the marriages between or with minors is allowed
Comment also related without reference to conditions (i.e., extra paperwork), for example, like those in New York, a same sex marriage or civil unions, where
If either applicant is 14 or 15 years of age, such applicant(s) must present
the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a
judge of the Family Court having jurisdiction over the town or city in which
the application is made. If either applicant is 16 or 17 years of age, such
applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents. If both
applicants are 18 years of age or older, no consents are required.
Or even New Hampshire where
A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. The above regulations on age apply to New Hampshire residents or to a non-resident who desires to marry a resident. If both parties are non-residents and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in N.H. under any conditions. Waivers: When "good and special cause" is shown waivers may be obtained which can alter certain requirements.
The example of South Africa is given as an example as how to disallow this from happening in same sex marriages and civil unions where
Under the Civil Union Act, 2006, which allows for same-sex or opposite-sex marriages, both parties must be 18 or older.
A similar restriction, but requiring both parties must be of the age of majority, 21, should be established federally or by each that allows same sex marriages.
Perhaps with regard to same sex marriage that with the combination of incentives, such as money or US citizenship, and right paperwork a man and boy marriage could occur in a state, or country, where the marriages between or with minors is allowed
Comment also related without reference to conditions (i.e., extra paperwork), for example, like those in New York, a same sex marriage or civil unions, where
If either applicant is 14 or 15 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Family Court having jurisdiction over the town or city in which the application is made. If either applicant is 16 or 17 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents. If both applicants are 18 years of age or older, no consents are required.
Or even New Hampshire where
A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. The above regulations on age apply to New Hampshire residents or to a non-resident who desires to marry a resident. If both parties are non-residents and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in N.H. under any conditions. Waivers: When "good and special cause" is shown waivers may be obtained which can alter certain requirements.
The example of South Africa is given as an example as how to disallow this from happening in same sex marriages and civil unions where
Under the Civil Union Act, 2006, which allows for same-sex or opposite-sex marriages, both parties must be 18 or older.
A similar restriction, but requiring both parties must be of the age of majority, 21, should be established federally or by each that allows same sex marriages.
I guess that Mitt Romney is saying that he cannot MULTI-TASK. The Presidency encompasses, more than just the economy. It also expands and restricts the "CIVIL RIGHTS" of the American People: White, Black, Hispanic, Gay, Straight, Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, Evangelical, Hindu, Women, Man, Tran-sexual...ALL AMERICAN TAX PAYERS and all SHOULD BE FREE....the Republicans have "redefined" FREEDOM and LIBERTY to only count for White Evangelical Christians, but FREEDOM and LIBERTY extend to all of GOD's CHILDREN!
Really a very helpful post. I am a new reader and have been impressed with your post. Thanks for sharing the valuable information regarding <a href=""><b>presspass</a></b>.
Really a very helpful post. I am a new reader and have been impressed with your post. Thanks for sharing the valuable information regarding <a href=""><b>presspass</a></b>.