Obama urges taxing the rich, reining in Wall Street

Better late than never, I guess.



Only took him 3 years.

He had to make sure that his friends, like George Soros, had covered up their misdeeds before he mentioned the investigation. Also, care to bet that the investigation talk will end immediately after the November election?

See, the problem with Obama's attack on the 1% is that it hurts Democrat politicians and political supporters far more than it does Republicans.

I don't know about far more, but certainly they are both in it up to their necks. The stat that staggered me is that the banks made more profit in the first 2 years of Obama's reign than in the 8 yrs of Bush. This is right during the meltdown.

Basically you guys have nobody to vote for - neither party is interested in real change. And yes, that is more shameful for the Democrats, because they are supposed to be the party looking out for the working guy.

The GOP establishment is pushing hard on Romney and the rank and file are rebelling and supporting Gingrich.

If anyone would impose austerity it would be Gingrich. I hope he gets in even though it means more economic pain in the short run because in the long run we'll still have a country and a currency.

But is he pushing to regulate Wall Street and go after the crooks? As David Stockman said in the Bill Moyer's interview, "if a bank is too big to fail, it's too big to exist." Bring back Glass Steagal.

Gingrich probably will bring back some form of Glass-Steagal in order to reduce the exposure of the FDIC. He was opposed to the repeal when it was first proposed under his watch as Speaker and it was only repealed after the neo-cons got Gingrich to leave Congress after the 1998 elections. Note that a Democrat Senate and President Bill Clinton approved the repeal of that law.

I support bring back Glass-Steagal and I do not consider it to be a 'regulation' so much as it is a legal definition of what a bank should be and that's a safe place for depositors to place their funds.

I often wonder whether Obama, and any president for that matter, actually have good intentions and just find they can't do what they need to once the realities of power brokering crush them in office, or, if it's all a clever rouse to give us the illusion of choice.

I am sure I am speaking from a position of naivety having never been president, but people LOVE a strong leader. FDR went up against far worse than Obama is now. There was even a coup planned against him. Not to mention he was treading new ground since his reforms had never even been tried, and the country was far more bankrupt at the time than now� but he won because people everywhere LOVE someone who talks straight, sticks to their guns, and does what is right. The result was 25 years of �golden prosperity� and a real middle class with upward mobility, fair taxation, an economy that innovated, and prosperity.
All this dumbass has to do is stick to his guns and call out the idiots and they�d have a super majority in both houses� any fool can see that� which leads me to my original question. All an illusion?

The proposed coup had to do with FDR trying to obviate the US Supreme Court by packing it with more judges - something that was not permitted under the Articles. FDR also had granted himself numerous extra-Constitutional powers and he had arbitrarily done a number of things without the input of Congress.

The prospect of the coup brought FDR back to his senses and in his second term there were no such problems as he worked within the framework of the Constitution.

Obama did what the Democrats do every time they get into power - reach across the aisle. For it they get kicked in the nuts. I hope he means what he said in the speech, he gets a second term and a congress to go with it, and he goes for the jugular. I hope middle class Americans are finally waking up who their enemy is. But with Citizens United, my guess is corporate America has bought the US and it will be same old same old until the whole thing falls apart.

Urges..........

He didn't actually say he would increase taxes on the rich. He said that he would close loopholes and protections which allow them to avoid taxes. He also said he was going to cut more useless regulations in an attempt to save more money, dunno how many people actually saw his speech.



He did say that he wanted to increase regulations on wall street and the banking system and hold accountable the people who were the main perpetrators in the housing collapse.

He did say that he wanted to increase regulations on wall street and the banking system and hold accountable the people who were the main perpetrators in the housing collapse.

So far they've eliminated Glass Steagal, which prevented ordinary banks from also being investment banks - ie they couldn't gamble with your deposits. That's part of what caused the crash. Instead they have Dodd-Frank which just adds red tape and hurts the smaller banks, but does nothing about safeguarding your deposits. And they won't safeguard them because they know the govt will bail them out.

As for holding people accountable, he's already had three years and done nothing. All his top financial people come from Goldman Sachs etc - you've got the foxes guarding the hen house.

Yeah umm, that's what I like to call "edited history"...