Obama extends support for protesters

[Autumnleaf]

Obama extends support for protesters - FT.com

So, the president behind the bank bailouts for Wall Street is supporting the protesters who are protesting Wall Street. As a voter its good to know when the leadership is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

 

[ChavaK]

Exactly. It's his policies that have gotten us into this mess, and it's his policies they
should be protesting.

 

[Incariol]

Heaven forbid that the President change his mind or admit to a mistake.

 

[chris4243]

Heaven forbid that the President change his mind or admit to a mistake.

He's more than welcome to do either.

 

[mpok1519]

a) he gave wall st the chance the public wanted; a chance to redeem itself, with the bailouts

b) he wants to give the public sanctity, for protesting the fact that wall st DIDNT redeem itself with the public's tax dollars.

Heck, if I bailed out Wall St, I'd expect results. and if people protested the lack of results, I'd not be surprised.

 

[ChavaK]

a) he gave wall st the chance the public wanted; a chance to redeem itself, with the bailouts

The public wanted it?

b) he wants to give the public sanctity, for protesting the fact that wall st DIDNT redeem itself with the public's tax dollars.

Who's fault is that? If the government is going to throw money at something, how about enough oversight to make sure it's used properly?

People should be grateful to these "greedy corporations" and the "rich people". Who they think creates jobs and employs people? If the government would get out of the way with it's excessive regulations and taxation, it would make for a much healthier business environment.

 

[Dairy]

In a way it is odd what Obama is doing. The President has been a large supporter of Wall Street and the banks, and they in return have supported him with large donations. But the banks and Wall Street are the exact institutions that the OWS are against. It is almost as if Obama is hoping Americans forget the first 3 years of his Presidency.

Thought political pundit Dick Morris had a nice video this afternoon, giving his thoughts on the President and the OWS group.

"OCCUPY WALL STREET COULD BE DEADLY FOR OBAMA"

OCCUPY WALL STREET COULD BE DEADLY FOR OBAMA – LUNCH ALERT! at DickMorris.com

 

[Supreme]

The link doesn't work, but I'm glad Obama is with the protesters on this. He should extend his support to those protesting the greed and selfishness of the banks, which is, let's be honest, the main reason America is in the financial mess it is.

 

[Jade Margery]

America is in its financial mess for a lot of reasons. It wasn't only one iceburg that started to sink this ship, but hundreds of little leaks. The banks, the government, the businessmen on wallstreet all had their hand in it, but so did a large percentage of the American people as well. Debt in this country is rampant because people saw only the short term gain of having something expensive that they wanted or needed right the heck now and never planned for how they were going to pay for it. We had a great time riding the rising tide together, and now that we've been left high and dry we're all scrabbling around for someone to blame.

I can see how the president could be both for the bailouts at the time and support the protesters: given the sinking ship analogy, the bailouts were temporary measures to prevent total collapse, like shoving everyone's bedding into the holes in the hull. Not something we wanted to do or liked doing or felt good about, but something that seemed like the least worst option at the time. Now suppose that you do that because some of the people who made the biggest leaks promised that if you helped give them more time by slowing down the sinking, they would fix the leaks. And now it's several years later and the leaks aren't fixed and what's more, the jerks who got you to give up everyone else's stuff to save everyone are now sleeping pretty in the new bunks they have constructed with the materials and time they were supposed to be using to fix the boat. So naturally you and everyone on the boat might be a little ticked at them. A small mutiny wouldn't go awry.

By golly, I do love unwieldy metaphors.

 

[mpok1519]

The public wanted it?

If they didn't, they'd certainly not want the results; even worse economic calamity.

Who's fault is that? If the government is going to throw money at something, how about enough oversight to make sure it's used properly?

Perhaps it is the banking and financial institutions fault, who decry "socialism!" everytime govt tax dollars are used to help them.

People should be grateful to these "greedy corporations" and the "rich people". Who they think creates jobs and employs people? If the government would get out of the way with it's excessive regulations and taxation, it would make for a much healthier business environment.

I'm sorry, but, when the govt never had a hand in regulation, factories were employing children who would get their arms chopped off by the machines, factories dumped toxic sludge waste byproducts of their industry into local water supplies, businesses wouldn't even employ people of certain ethnicities, etc etc.

I don't think that is a healthy business environment at all. Govt regulation is what stopped all these unhealthy practices.

 

[Wayte]

America is in its financial mess for a lot of reasons. It wasn't only one iceburg that started to sink this ship, but hundreds of little leaks. The banks, the government, the businessmen on wallstreet all had their hand in it, but so did a large percentage of the American people as well. Debt in this country is rampant because people saw only the short term gain of having something expensive that they wanted or needed right the heck now and never planned for how they were going to pay for it. We had a great time riding the rising tide together, and now that we've been left high and dry we're all scrabbling around for someone to blame.

I can see how the president could be both for the bailouts at the time and support the protesters: given the sinking ship analogy, the bailouts were temporary measures to prevent total collapse, like shoving everyone's bedding into the holes in the hull. Not something we wanted to do or liked doing or felt good about, but something that seemed like the least worst option at the time. Now suppose that you do that because some of the people who made the biggest leaks promised that if you helped give them more time by slowing down the sinking, they would fix the leaks. And now it's several years later and the leaks aren't fixed and what's more, the jerks who got you to give up everyone else's stuff to save everyone are now sleeping pretty in the new bunks they have constructed with the materials and time they were supposed to be using to fix the boat. So naturally you and everyone on the boat might be a little ticked at them. A small mutiny wouldn't go awry.

By golly, I do love amazingly accurate metaphors.

Fixed that for ya ;D
Granted, I thought we should have let em collapse personally. Companies are always crying "free market" when it suits em, let em fall like it's a free market. But as far as metaphors go, that one got your point across beautifully.

And as for Obama? Eh, that's politics. It might be what the quote is saying, it might just be him trying to appeal to his hipster fanbase again. Who knows.

 

[davelinde]

hmmm edit does not work as I'd expected...

 

[davelinde]

Granted, I thought we should have let em collapse personally

My reference point is AIG... my mother-in-law had her life savings in an AIG annuity. If she had been returned pennies on the dollar she would be living with us right now. Then again, I'm not sure WE would be working and still have a house either. If the financial institutions had all collapsed it could have been terrible. But then, we will not know for sure.

Fast forward to now. What, exactly, do the OWS want from the WS financial community? Beyond a desire to spend another half trillion to buy votes (or NOT spend it and generate anger to gain votes... hey a perverse "win-win") I'm not sure I get what BO has done that aligns with the nebulous OWS demands?

 

[Billnew]

Obama extends support for protesters - FT.com

So, the president behind the bank bailouts for Wall Street is supporting the protesters who are protesting Wall Street. As a voter its good to know when the leadership is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

As Max Smart would say:
"You missed it by that much."

Obama is saying he was forced into the bailouts because "Wall street" has too much power, he was helpless against them.
He is a helpless pawn trying to be a good leader...

Occupy Wallstreet="Move on" Wall street.

Obama embraces the protestors, they are the "class warfare" warriors. I am sure he would like to have the socialist and commmunist signs removed from the protest. It is the goal of the protest, but it is not suppose to be overt.

 

[jayem]

Just for the record, the bank bailout (which created TARP) was a product of the Bush administration. It was voted on in 2008, a month before the election. Sen. Obama did vote for it, as did John McCain and at least 20 other Republicans in the Senate. The original version of the bill was defeated in the House because a majority of the members didn't think the taxpayers should be responsible for banker's bad decisions (the House was under Democratic control at the time.) But this caused the DJIA to drop almost 800 points in one day, and global stock markets also plummeted. The Senate made some revisions, and attached it to an existing bill, which the House approved. Pres. Bush signed it in Oct., 2008.

Actually, it's been a pretty good deal. Of the $350 billion or so that was spent, the banks have paid back over $190 billion. As part of the bailout, the government received bank stocks at depressed prices, which it has since sold at a profit. And it may well have prevented a much worse meltdown in the stock markets worldwide, which could have been catastrophic.

But don't blame or credit Obama for it. It was fully bipartisan.

 

[jsn112]

The link doesn't work, but I'm glad Obama is with the protesters on this. He should extend his support to those protesting the greed and selfishness of the banks, which is, let's be honest, the main reason America is in the financial mess it is.

Are you kidding? These protesters are as greedy as the corporations they're protesting against. It's called urban greed. In socialist/communist society, it's full of urban greed. It usually good short term (after the revolution, e.g. Cuba, Soviet Union, and etc.), but for long term wise it's a disaster. Europe is heading that way. The US are heading that way as well, if these Occupy Loons get their way. If the rich leaves the US, I suggest all the who wants to prosper catch that boat. And wherever the rich lands, that country will no doubt kick everyone's butt economically. Remember, usually the jobs the poor are hiring are usually... hmm... I can't think of one.

 

[jsn112]

If they didn't, they'd certainly not want the results; even worse economic calamity.





Perhaps it is the banking and financial institutions fault, who decry "socialism!" everytime govt tax dollars are used to help them.



I'm sorry, but, when the govt never had a hand in regulation, factories were employing children who would get their arms chopped off by the machines, factories dumped toxic sludge waste byproducts of their industry into local water supplies, businesses wouldn't even employ people of certain ethnicities, etc etc.

I don't think that is a healthy business environment at all. Govt regulation is what stopped all these unhealthy practices.

What about child actors? Isn't that against child labor law too?

 

[Autumnleaf]

As Max Smart would say:
"You missed it by that much."

Obama is saying he was forced into the bailouts because "Wall street" has too much power, he was helpless against them.
He is a helpless pawn trying to be a good leader...

It all makes sense now. Obama is just a lost babe in the woods surrounded by evil greedy businessmen. As the President of the United States he really had no other choice than to obey them and all their perverse demands.

 

[Umaro]

Are you kidding? These protesters are as greedy as the corporations they're protesting against. It's called urban greed. In socialist/communist society, it's full of urban greed. It usually good short term (after the revolution, e.g. Cuba, Soviet Union, and etc.), but for long term wise it's a disaster. Europe is heading that way. The US are heading that way as well, if these Occupy Loons get their way. If the rich leaves the US, I suggest all the who wants to prosper catch that boat. And wherever the rich lands, that country will no doubt kick everyone's butt economically. Remember, usually the jobs the poor are hiring are usually... hmm... I can't think of one.

How dare the bottom 90% of working Americans want more than 30% of the economic growth of the last 3 decades to split among them!

 

[jsn112]

How dare the bottom 90% of working Americans want more than 30% of the economic growth of the last 3 decades to split among them!

To split among them?! Another serious one?! Really? How about those 90% go out and get it instead of asking for a redistribution. Also, it's not 90%. It's more like 50%; and they DON'T PAY any income taxes. But they still want more money coming their way. If you want to see the US go down the crapper, just count the number of rich, or lackthereof, living in this country. Then we'll see how the bottom 50% runs the country. Oh that's right, we already have some samples: Cuba, N. Korea, Soviet Union, Greece, and soon Spain, Italy, Portugal, Venezuela, etc.

The socialist's moto is, "If we are not rich, nobody should either."

How true!