This is the perfect illustration of why you shouldn’t believe a word out of President Obama’s mouth.
The New York Post: The two faces of Obama
In public, President Obama is on a tear against Wall Street. In private, not so much
Over the weekend, Obama attacked fat-cat investment bankers, telling “60 Minutes” he didn’t become president to aid and abet Wall Street — which, only a year after the financial meltdown and taxpayer bailout, is now scheduled to hand out tens of billions of dollars in bonuses to its bankers and traders.
But the president’s meeting yesterday with the CEOs of the largest banks was nearly a lovefest, I’m told by attendees.
Yes, White House spinmeisters advertised the gathering as a chance for Obama to channel the public’s disgust over Wall Street’s celebrating while Main Street still suffers 10 percent unemployment, thanks largely to Wall Street’s bungling. But that’s not what he did.
[...]
Indeed, the White House last week sent the CEOs the president’s talking points: bonuses (too high), lending (more loans to small businesses), the need for more regulation of the financial business (support the bill now before Congress), etc.
So there were no surprises for the likes of Jaime Dimon of JP Morgan, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Mack of Morgan Stanley or Citigroup’s Richard Parsons. Said one CEO who attended: “I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite.”
Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: “The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt . . . He might have sounded mean on ’60 Minutes,’ but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer.”
Maybe Obama’s softened tone was recognition of Wall Street’s election help. Campaign-finance filings show that firms like Goldman — now getting ready to dish out $20 billion in bonuses after nearly imploding last year — favored Obama over John McCain by a fairly wide margin. Nearly all the major Wall Street CEOs — including Dimon, Blankfein and Mack — have told people that they voted for Obama. ….
I wonder if they’ll vote for him again. On the one hand, he’s been mighty generous to them with our money. On the other hand, they’re scrambling to pay back the borrowed money (which he plans as a slush fund for his liberal projects) to get him out of their business. And he call talk about lending until he’s blue in the face, but it won’t change the fact they can’t lend if they don’t have borrowers. Responsible Americans are afraid to take on more debt right now because we have no idea if we’ll be able to pay it back by the time the Democrats are through with us.
via memeorandum
This prick hates “FAT CATS”? Here are president O’B+ top donors in his run to a Socialist presidential victory. Hmm, I see a couple of banks HE BAILED out on this list. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
(1) University of California $1,591,395
(2)Goldman Sachs $994,795
(3)Harvard University $854,747
(3)Microsoft Corp $833,617
(4)Google Inc $803,436
(4)Citigroup Inc $701,290
(5)JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
(6)Time Warner $590,084
(7)Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
(8)Stanford University $586,557
(9)National Amusements Inc $551,683
(10)UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
The money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are president BARACK O’ LIARS top campaign contributors. Fat cats my ass. HE LOVES THESE COMPANIES!
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The “fat cats” who contributed to get president liar elected. In order of humongous to smallest (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638):
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very good analysis LC, especially on the lending issue. Just yesterday on the local news, Governor Jenifer Grandholm of Michigan was incensed and animated on TV over banks not issuing credit to businesses and individuals. It came across to me a threatening. Grandholm and her Democrat leadership have destroyed Michigan in 8 short years by poisoning the business / job climate with oppressive taxation and regulation. Millions of people have left to look for greener pastures that she claims are going to be in her state with the new “green economy”. Well, they’re not here and nowhere in sight. Unemployment is raging, almost the highest in the country. Banks cannot and will not loan to people that are unable to repay the debt, that’s how they got burned last round. Banks are holding back funds for the very reason I just mentioned, but as soon as they start lending to “qualified” applicants in large blocks, it will signal the flattening of the unemployment curve and trigger inflation. The Fed has alluded to higher rates, just within the past few days, probably on concerns to slow any anticipated inflation which could easily ramp up to hyperinflation depending on how much liquidity is infused and how fast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doesn’t it seem the only states not doing so badly during this recession are the red states? Look at NY and California. It’s crazy. People need to start waking up, not just at the national level, but more importantly at the state level.
I’ve had enough for one night. I’m going to schedule a post and then it’s off to bed – to dream of living in the land of the free.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolutely! It’s a balance within each individual state. Red states are mostly populated with self reliant residents; blue are mostly a dependent and expectatious populous. I’m torn whether people will or will not “start waking up”. In the United States of Entertainment, The TV show American Idol is explained, detailed on video and voted on by informed people in real time, yet more importance is placed upon that talent show than their individual liberty being assaulted by politicians; and incredibly, they seem to want to turn a blind eye and not be informed, believing The Daily Show is a real news. I can only hope that the vision and emotion of the individual human spirit to be free, trumps apathy and the public education system. OBTW, those are “sweet dreams”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0