Obama Coddles Wall Street

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20100208/cm_rcp/obama_coddles_wall_street

Obama Coddles Wall Street
RealClearPolitics.com

Jack Kelly – Mon Feb 8, 1:00 am ET

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said: "We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give the people the government they deserve."

The day after the president uttered those words, a senior Democrat offered private policy briefings to lobbyists on the administration's plans.

"In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies -- or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people's interest ahead of the special interests," Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a press release Jan. 27.

That weekend Mr. Menendez and 11 other Democratic senators hosted a "winter retreat" at the Ritz Carlton South Beach resort in Miami for 108 prominent lobbyists, who paid up to $30,000 each to attend.

"The retreat's guest list is a marked contrast to Menendez's recent rhetoric, which has echoed the White House denunciation of 'special interests' and 'fat cats,' " noted Ben Smith of the Politico, who broke the story.

....

...

The banks have been restoring their balance sheets because they've been lending the TARP money, which they received for virtually no interest, back to the government "at a phenomenal markup of at least 3 full percentage points," said Henry Blodget of the Business Insider.

This system, in which we taxpayers bear the risk and costs for bankers' investments, works very well for Wall Street, not so well for Main Street. So why has Barack Obama supported it?

OpenSecrets.org provides a clue. Employees of Goldman Sachs were the largest private sector source of contributions to Barack Obama's presidential campaign (second overall to employees of the University of California). Two other bailed out banks -- Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase -- ranked 6th and 7th.

To get off "the same winding mountain road," the zombie banks need to be broken up, and strict limits placed on the amount of debt banks may incur if they've accepted federally insured deposits. But these reforms would not be popular with the banksters whose contributions fill Democratic campaign coffers.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Originally posted by zeeblebot
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

get rwingett some valium. Those people should be feeding the poor?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
...


To get off "the same winding mountain road," the zombie banks need to be broken up, and strict limits placed on the amount of debt banks may incur if they've accepted federally insured deposits. But these reforms would not be popular with the banksters whose contributions fill Democratic campaign coffers.

What I find hysterical is that these far lefties get all exited about sticking it to the "fat cats", so to speak when really all that happens is the "fat cats" end up sticking it to the consumer. Of course, as I have pointed out before, Barak is very selective in terms of who he goes after. For example, he will go after the CEO's of banks for their bonuses who are paying back their TARP money, but not so for the fat cats in Freddie and Fannie whom continue to such trillions of dollars from the tax payers. Why? It is because Freddie and Fannie are part of the FDR progressive vision of housing entitlements for those who cannot really afford them.

As for Goldman and their ilk, they deserve exactly the President they got!!

Originally posted by whodey
What I find hysterical is that these far lefties get all exited about sticking it to the "fat cats", so to speak when really all that happens is the "fat cats" end up sticking it to the consumer. Of course, as I have pointed out before, Barak is very selective in terms of who he goes after. For example, he will go after the CEO's of banks for their bonuses ...[text shortened]... afford them.

As for Goldman and their ilk, they deserve exactly the President they got!!

Your ignorance is astounding. What makes it even more so, is that facts are repeatedly pointed out to you that you absolutely ignore. I have never seen just a ridiculous partisan hack.

Freddie and Fannie were PRIVATE corporations for the last 40 years. They don't have anything to do with the origination of mortgages, And somehow FDR's supposed vision of giving people who couldn't afford it a home didn't collapse the financial sector until 75 years later when banks created instruments which were supposed to be based on the value of mortgages, but that were issued at many times the value of said mortgages.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your ignorance is astounding. What makes it even more so, is that facts are repeatedly pointed out to you that you absolutely ignore.
.

Wow marauder do you act like this all the time when you talk to people? You must be very popular at home.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your ignorance is astounding. What makes it even more so, is that facts are repeatedly pointed out to you that you absolutely ignore. I have never seen just a ridiculous partisan hack.

Freddie and Fannie were PRIVATE corporations for the last 40 years. They don't have anything to do with the origination of mortgages, And somehow FDR's sup ...[text shortened]... d on the value of mortgages, but that were issued at many times the value of said mortgages.

...AND after Republicans loosened both the rules governing banks and thrifts (thank Reaganomics) and allowed for far more lax mortgage and credit lines.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Wow marauder do you act like this all the time when you talk to people? You must be very popular at home.

What, acting accurate and to the point? And that is bad because.....nope, I'm drawing a blank.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

What are you saying? Do you believe lobbying is a method the rich elites use to control politicians?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your ignorance is astounding. What makes it even more so, is that facts are repeatedly pointed out to you that you absolutely ignore. I have never seen just a ridiculous partisan hack.

Freddie and Fannie were PRIVATE corporations for the last 40 years. They don't have anything to do with the origination of mortgages, And somehow FDR's sup d on the value of mortgages, but that were issued at many times the value of said mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie were created by the government. Then when their debt became to massive they simply "privatized" them with the ruse that the tax payer was not held accountable for their debt. This helped the government look good on paper in terms of overall debt even though we know now what the reality of the situation was. They then were overseen by the government as Barney Frank and company sung their praises all the way to the credit crisis. In addtion, the CRA act that forced lowered lending standards and Clintons deregulation of these standards helped get us to where we are today. Of course, partisan hacks like yourself just sit back and blame Wall Street and post threads about how great it is that Obama is punishing the bank CEO's for getting bonuses while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the same being done for the CEO's of Freddie and Fannie. The Fannie and Freddie debacle is one of the biggest scandels of our time. In fact, Barney Frank even conceeds they should be abolished. No doubt, he wishes to make a bigger and better Freddie and Fannie in their absence.

Saying Fannie and Freddie were privatized, and thus free from government blame, is like the government placing land mines and then selling the property to private owners. Then when people begin dying try to blame wall steet for trying to make a buck off selling land mines.

Originally posted by whodey
Fannie and Freddie were created by the government. Then when their debt became to massive they simply "privatized" them with the ruse that the tax payer was not held accountable for their debt. This helped the government look good on paper in terms of overall debt even though we know now what the reality of the situation was. They then were overseen by the ...[text shortened]... people begin dying try to blame wall steet for trying to make a buck off selling land mines.

How many lies do you endeavor to fit into one post?

The claim that Fannie and Freddie's debts became too massive so they were privatized rates as a "pants on fire". They were privatized due to an ideological moving away from the philosophy of the New Deal to one that believed that private firms were always more efficient. And if the government was trying to somehow escape these debts, why in the world did they take control of them last year? Your ravings don't even make any sense. In fact, this claim contradicts mountains of your prior posts which complain about the government taking on added debt by taking over Fannie and Freddie! Make up that thing you laughingly call a "mind".

I've dealt with the absurd claims that the CRA (enacted in the 70's) somehow triggered a crisis 30 years later. It's a complete and utter BS claim. Certainly the repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999 and the deregulation craze helped lead to financial disaster in 2008, but blaming that on Clinton is disingenuous; only 6 Republicans in both the House and Senate voted against it, while on its first pass through Senate Democrats were virtually united in opposition. And you, of all people, who constantly rant and rave about how inefficient the government is are a poor mouthpiece for enhanced government regulation of private industry.

Fannie and Freddie were poorly managed private companies which got themselves into trouble by doing something they weren't supposed to do: invest a lot of money in speculation. Whether the government should have bailed the company out is a subject worth a serious debate which you are incapable of engaging in.