Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 10/25/2012 3:10:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Our president made his fifth visit to the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno on Wednesday evening, and for me, one of the most painful moments of the interview came when the president yet again paraded his woefully inept and downright disquieting economic sensibilities by once more heaping blame on Everybody's Favorite Financial Crisis Scapegoat, big finance. Stay with me, 'cause I'm running through this one line-by-line:
They’ve learned that I keep my promise to make sure that they pay back every dime with interest, which they have. We passed Wall Street reform, which they fought tooth and nail. But, what it did was is it made sure that they can't make some of these same reckless bets.
One of the biggest drivers of the financial crisis was the federal government creating artificial, politically-driven incentives that moved these financial institutions to even make these “reckless bets.” Finance isn’t blameless, but how is more government involvement and control a desirable idea?
They’ve got to keep more capital so that if they make a bad bet, taxpayers don’t pick up the tab.
Yes, Mr. President — because of all people, you’re in a wonderful position to make sure taxpayers don’t pick up the tab of poor decision-making. (Ahem, stimulus, bailouts, green energy boondoggles, trillion-dollar yearly deficits, cough cough).
We put in place this consumer advocate that will work with families all across the country on things like mortgages, credit cards, payday loan operations, so that people have more information and they don’t get tricked into bad financial deals.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Please, save us.
But, look, these financial institutions are in to make money and that’s why we need some smart regulations and this is an example of the difference in this campaign because my opponent says he wants to roll back all those regulations. These folks are not going to do it just out of a sense of guilt of what happened previously or because suddenly they feel charitable.
Firstly, the president has yet to sufficiently explain why a large, entrenched bureaucracy seeking political gain through fiat is somehow nobler than a private, productive business seeking monetary profit by meeting consumers’ choices. As Ammon Simon writes for Forbes, Dodd-Frank is the very definition of tyranny. Secondly, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are not financial anarchists, but yes, they do want to roll back these new economy-damaging, job-killing, small-bank-sinking regulations still being written that are protecting large institutions “too big to fail” status rather than mitigating it.
Rant, over.
Every socialist democrat who was involved in HOODWINKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE into voting for this communist should be taking outside and B’slapped silly. We must politically destroy his regime and the drones who worship him in November then clean house of those still infested in our government.
As a reluctantly involuntary former banker, I can say through first-hand knowledge that the Obama administration “regulated” a lot of perfectly good banks out of the banking business.
Seeking profits!?!
The nerve! How dare they seek profits!
I’ll second that.
Why do we regulate Leno and the rest of those Hollywood pukces out of business too. They are profit seekers.
Obama’s seriously intent tone, the one that signals you to pay attention, no longer works on even the faithful. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they have stopped coming once they realized that just because the bell rings doesn’t mean that dinner or a functional economy will be served. The weighty tone that he once used to deploy to great effect, borrowing the tricks of the preachers that he encountered in his huckstering days, has come to seem as empty as Oprah’s smile or Bill Clinton’s sincere head nod, just another of the tricks of hollow public personalities signifying nothing.
For years and years, he has talked and said nothing of any import. All the talk, the endless speeches and addresses, the verbal and facial tics that indicated seriousness of purpose, have never led to one single thing. Not one problem solved, not one crisis resolved and not one plan laid out and completed in four years with something to show for it.
Somewhere along the way, Obama became boring. He became that one man at a party that you don’t want to talk to because he will go on forever and all his chatter leads nowhere, because for all his conversational skills, he is capable of nothing but talk. And after talking to him for ten hours, you don’t know him any better than you did after ten minutes.
Voting for Obama was never the right choice objectively, but it was the right cultural choice, it was the trend, the impulse that everyone seemed to be following, the style that everyone was wearing and the book that everyone was reading. But trends like that don’t last. How many people will have Lady Gaga songs in their players or Fifty Shades of Grey on their bookshelves ten years from now? This too is the fate of the president of the trending topic, the commander-in-chief of the pet rock and the mood ring with his binders full of women and t-shirts with pictures of horses and bayonets on them. A joke that like Snakes on a Plane or All Your Base Are Belong To Us never gets old until 5 minutes later.
- Daniel Greenfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2949373/posts
((*crickets*))
Right. Thought so. Now shut up.
Amen. But they get a pass because they do the Dems bidding. Leno is a tool. And he’s such an ass he actually thinks he’s smarter than he is.
He needs writers to tell him how to take a dump in the morning.
Democrats: Let’s Ban Profits!
Peter Schiff speaks to mainstream DNC delegates who want to see a cap or ban on corporate profits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=07fTsF5BiSM
as if we needed more proof
WALL STREET PROSECUTIONS UNDER OBAMA: ZILCH
Bush: 1,300 convictions; Clinton: 1,000 convictions; Obama: Zero attempts.
http://times247.com/articles/on-wall-street-obama-all-bluster
Crooks aren’t the problem, according to Obama. Profit is.
This is a complete bald-faced lie. Goldman Sachs literally WROTE Dodd-Frank. The bill was a total give-away to banks. It put directly into law the promise that these banks never have to worry about losing money, because they are "systematically important." These liberal banksters are promised big fact checks from John Q. Taxpayer if they ever have significant losses from irresponsible activity.
I imagine that many of Leno’s advertisers (who, by the way, make it possible for him to pull down the big bucks that he does), are also trying to turn a profit.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/
Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/
Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
I think you are on to something here. I have no idea if a Romney administration gets that or understands the methods to get rid of those infesting our government.
Here's an example of what needs to be done. I think all on FR would agree that the EPA needs to go. The EPA is a poster child of liberalism, anti-business and thoughtless regulation. The government reform that is required needs to be framed with phrases, such as, "stream lining", "efficiency" and "better protecting our environment for our children's future." The key word missing is "business", wink, wink. What needs to be done is to take two or more agencies, such as Interior and EPA, plus offices and bureaus that have functions loosely related to the environment and consolidate them. The streamlining means redundant functions are eliminated through merger into a single department, let's call that the Department of Interior. Of course efficiencies can be achieved if the Department of Interior is relocated to an area that is close to real environmental concerns. Fairbanks, AK comes to mind. Now let's see how many liberals will give up Washington, DC for -40 degree winters that last 8 months.
The same things can be done with other departments. HUD could be relocated to Sioux City. Commerce moved to Provo. Ag moved to Huntsville. HHS moved to Livingston, MT. And so on.
As opposed to businesses that 0bama approves of (cough)Soyndra(cough) that focus on losing money. Taxpayer's money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.