Hypocrite Obama At It Again: Attacks GOP Leader For Wall St. Meetings Even As His Chief Of Staff Does Same Thing

Let’s see, the definition of “hypocrite“: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Yep.  That’s pretty much Barry Hussein – our hypocrite in chief – in a nutshell.

Obama Calls Wall Street Meetings ‘Shocking’ as Rahm Emanuel Meets with Wall Street Investors
by  Connie Hair
04/20/2010

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with Wall Street investors Sunday, the night before his boss, President Obama, criticized such meetings with Wall Street investors.

In Los Angeles trying to help Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) boost her sagging senatorial campaign that is in serious trouble, Obama Monday called such Wall Street meetings “shocking.”

“The Senate Republican leader, he paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago,” Obama said.  “He took along the chairman of their campaign committee. He met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don’t know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform.  He would oppose it.  Shocking.”

Just one day before, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was meeting with Wall Street “movers and shakers” working out the finer details of the Democrats’ Wall Street reform that sets up a permanent taxpayer-funded bailout structure for “too big to fail” companies.

How is that NOT hypocrisy?  “How DARE you do the same thing my guy just did!  How DARE YOU!!!”

So what is really “shocking” is just what a loathsome, lying, hypocrite demagogue our president is.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had absolutely every right and reason to meet with the Wall Street figures, given the fact that he had been blasting the $50 billion in “too big to fail” bailout money that the Democrat legislation had stuffed in it.  That was so heinous that even Obama was trying to strip out the uber-obvious unpopular bailout cash for Wall Street big boys.  Obama said he would onlyonly sign a bill if it passed the test of putting an end to bailouts; this bill contains a gigantic bailout slush fund – and promises many more bailouts to come.  And there is other bad news in that power-grab Obama calls a bill.

Hey, Barry Hussein, how about if we ask one of your Democrats how he feels about that fifty billion bucks that McConnell had been outraged about.  Ask your fellow Democrat how HE feels about your turd of a bill:

(As Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a Democrat member of the House Financial Services Committee, told the Politico yesterday that even if the $50 billion bailout slush fund currently in the bill were stripped out, “The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. … The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”)

The Washington Post reports:

“As President Obama prepares to deliver a speech in New York later this week that will attempt to align his administration squarely on the side of American taxpayers furious with Wall Street, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, met privately on Sunday night with some of the city’s top investors,” The Washington Post’s Jason Horowitz and Michael Shear report. “At a private cocktail reception at the Park Avenue home of investors Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein, Emanuel joked about how each of the 60 guests should take a work of art home before speaking seriously about the administration’s commitment to regulation reform.”

Perhaps Obama didn’t get the Rahmbo memo?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blasted Democrats for their support of the $50 billion Wall Street bailout fund from the Senate floor today:

“It is important for the country and taxpayer that we get this right, that we put them before politics.  That’s why I was disappointed to read that Senate Democrats are refusing to drop the $50 billion bailout fund — a fund that the Treasury Secretary himself opposes — unless Republicans pay a price for taking it out. This is exactly what Americans don’t like about Washington: when one side tries to ‘get’ something for doing what they should have done in the first place.  If everyone agrees it should be dropped, then it should be dropped.  And if Senate Democrats think it should stay, then they should explain why they think the Treasury Secretary was wrong when he said that this bailout fund ‘would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses.’

“Both sides have expressed a willingness to make the changes needed to ensure without any doubt that this bill won’t put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of Wall Street banks. Let’s just do that.”

Apparently Mitch McConnell is suffering from something slightly worse than Stockholm Syndrome, given the fact that he seems to think the depraved demagogues across the aisle actually have a “willingness” to make “changes needed.”  That just isn’t the way Democrats roll, Mitch: rather, they try to shove through one hard-core partisan bill after another, and then demonize and demagogue anybody who points out what’s wrong with the crap they’re pushing.

You should really KNOW that, Mitch.  After all, Barry Hussein just literally got through doing that very thing to you.

The often-way-too-infuriatingly moderate Susan Collins explained what was wrong with the Democrats’ thrust-into-our-face financial overhaul bill this way:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-ME.: I don’t think you do it by creating a moral hazard, by putting a big fat fund out there in the first place that tells financial institutions don’t worry, you can engage in risky practices, high-risk products, there is going to be a fund, there it is, $50 billion all ready to bail you out.

But Democrats LOVE moral hazard.  They LOVE rewarding the people who created the mess we’re in to begin with.  And those morally hazardous special interests KNOW it: that’s why Goldman Sachs was the SECOND BIGGEST FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO OBAMA DURING THE CAMPAIGN.  It’s also why John Paulson, the slimeball investor who made billions screwing America by getting investors to buy investments he was betting would fail, was a major Democrat donor and major supporter of Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Charles Krauthammer points out the fundamental power-grab that this bill truly is:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think what is so interesting about the bill that is now proposed is that it is Congress once again voluntarily emasculating itself.

The bailout as proposed in the bill would allow the executive branch on its own, without appropriation from Congress, any approval from Congress, to seize, essentially seize a firm it designates again unilaterally as systematically risky, take it over, have the treasury back all of the bad loans, and then have the Fed print the money to pay them off.

Now, when we did the Chrysler bailout, or the bailout of TARP, which we had in 2008, we had to get the Congress along. This is an interesting and I think a disturbing trend where so much arbitrary power is not only in Washington, but not only in the executive, there is no checks, no balance.

That means you get a few powerful people in Washington, secretary of the treasury, head of the FDIC. You walk into a large institution and say we might designate you systematically risky. We want you to do “x,” “y” and “z.” I can assure you they will do “x,” “y” and “z.”

And that’s what happens in Putin’s Russia when he takes over oil. That’s not the way it should be. Congress ought to stay engaged, and that it’s willingly giving up its prerogative is remarkable.

As usual, Democrats are counting upon outright lies and demagoguery to sell a truly terrible bill.  They present the facade that they are against Wall Street – even though Wall Street has been lining Democrats’ pockets with millions and millions in contributions, and even though Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel came out of Goldman Sachs – and that Republicans are somehow opposing everything that is good and right by standing against Obama’s next Washington power-grab.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest and most scandal-ridden Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs would BENEFIT from Obama’s “regulatory reform.” That’s because the president would have so much power to dole out bailouts and benefits to the most politically-connected Wall Street power-players.  Big Wall Street firms would be able to benefit from low interest government loans and undercut smaller and less politically-connected firms.

To quote the president of Americans for Tax Reform:

The new bank bill would institutionalize more bailouts. No longer would congressmen vote on bailouts, they would be run by bureaucrats and flow automatically from the pockets of taxpayers to the pockets of banks that contribute enough to the Chicago political machine to make the list.

Do you actually want that?  You are literally enabling Obama and Democrats to receive millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to help them win reelection even as they give huge Wall Street firms billions and billions in future rewards courtesy of taxpayers.

Please don’t believe the constant stream of lies that spew out of the mouth of your hypocrite-in-chief.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Hypocrite Obama At It Again: Attacks GOP Leader For Wall St. Meetings Even As His Chief Of Staff Does Same Thing”

  1. Brian Says:

    You, as are most of the Republicans, are either misinformed, or just outright lying about the tax-payer bailouts in this bill. The bill, explicitly forbids tax-payer bailouts. End of story. It would require banks to bail themselves out.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Wrong. Not only is that $50 billion a bailout fund, but the bill then proceeds to create permanent bailouts under the direct control of the White House. There is a discretionary bailout authority for FDIC and treasury, totally at the discretion of the executive branch. And that will be the case whether they strip out the fifty billion or not.

    And Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac – who are the epitome of “too big to fail” – are entirely untouched by this bill. THEY’LL certainly keep getting billions of dollars in bailouts. Loans will still be handed out, and you know if you lend money to the large institutions, in the end the Treasury and the Fed will come in and guarantee all the loans.

    Obama has already bailed out every “too big to fail” entity there is, from banks to car companies to Goldman Sachs and AIG. Why on earth do you think he’ll quit doing it now???

    This is a guy who is on tape at least eight times saying all the health care negotiations would be on C-SPAN – and then he went to closed-door meeting after closed door meeting. This is a guy who promised he would unite the country in a bipartisan manner – and instead he is the most polarizing and divisive president in history. This is a guy who said he would NEVER allow health care to pass by the awful partisan reconciliation tactic – and then he did exactly what he promised he wouldn’t do. This is a guy who promised a thousand times he wouldn’t tax anybody making less than $250,000 a year – and now he’s talking about a heavily regressive VAT tax that will hit EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. And you believe his next lie?

    Let’s not forget that he’s a man who deceitfully demonized Mitch McConnell even as his chief of staff was doing the very same thing that he was demonizing McConnell for doing. I notice you didn’t mention that. And you believe this guy’s next lie?

    Tell me I’m misinformed or lying; YOU’RE the one who is misinformed or just outright lying.

  3. ian Says:

    “Obama has already bailed out every “too big to fail” entity there is, from banks to car companies to Goldman Sachs and AIG. Why on earth do you think he’ll quit doing it now???”

    Because Bush started the bailouts in the first place? Because they were reactionary, rather than voluntary, and they prevented what could have been a second great depression?

    I mean, I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff, but I’d call this ranting a bit of an over-reaction. A bit, oh, I dunno, hypocritical?

  4. ian Says:

    “This is a big package, because it was a big problem,” President Bush said Saturday at a White House news conference, after meeting with President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia. “I will tell our citizens and continue to remind them that the risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package, and that, over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    I like the word “hypocrite” ian. It suits you nicely.

    Just what is it you’re trying to suggest? That really George Bush is STILL president, secretly telling Obama to follow his orders? That Obama isn’t grown-up enough to make his own decisions? And because Obama is a weakling and a clueless idiot, it’s really STILL Bush’s fault?

    You drove Bush from office saying he was a failure. Now you have the naked chutzpah to protect Obama from his own failed policies by comparing them to the policies of the man your hounded out of office in disgrace???

    I wrote an article after the election entitled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” Was that hypocritical of me? Is it hypocritical to say that we should employ the nasty, vile tactics that our nasty, vile enemy used to tear us down to tear them down? Really? If you people repeatedly punch us in the nose, it’s hypocritical to punch you back right in the nose?

    YOU’RE the hypocrite, ian. You don’t face up to what is obviously atrocious hypocrisy in your own guy: you just allude to something that happened in ancient history (last I checked Bush was gone).

    And here you’re using an argument that your mommy told you was asinine when you were four years old. You assert that just because Bush did something, it must be okay for you to do it too. Didn’t your mommy ever tell you that just because your friends jump off a cliff doesn’t mean you have to jump off it, too? I guess not.

    Bush’s bailouts are a tiny, tiny fraction now compared to all of Obama’s bailouts:

    Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

    Obama can’t dismiss critics now – and neither can his worshipers.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t even know what you’re trying to suggest by citing that NY Times article, ian. Maybe that Obama deserves to be disgraced and discredited, just like liberals did to Bush???

    I guess that’s what it is. I’m with you: Obama deserves to go down the path to ignominy and disgrace for his failed policies.

    Bush did quite a few things that were hardly “conservative.” When he tried to do the amnesty for illegal thing, who was it that screamed the loudest and stopped it? Conservatives, and Republicans in Congress. The prescription drug thing he did? Not conservative. The no student left behind thing? Not conservative.

    The interesting thing is that Bush was pursuing liberal policies when he did the bailouts, not conservative ones.

    Remember that first vote on the bailout? Who overwhelmingly voted for it? Democrats. Who stopped it? Republicans, by voting no. Free market conservatives said it was a bad thing to pursue big-government bailouts.

    Bush said: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” He wasn’t acting as a conservative; he was acting as a liberal who didn’t trust the free market.

    On the September 20 edition of the Fox News program “The Beltway Boys,” Kondracke noted the obvious: “I would just observe that the rescue package that got put together is what you might call massive government…It is going to cost billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars. It is a major intervention of the government in the private economy. I would say it’s a liberal program.”

    You provided an article. Let me do the same: the bailouts were socialism no matter who did them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: