President Obama Gets Why Working People Are Occupying Wall Street

[Omaha Steve]

Just found this.

http://www.laborradio.org/Channels/Story.aspx?ID=1551827

10/6/2011

As Jesse Russell reports President Obama understands why working people are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement.
When President Barack Obama was asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement during a press conference on Thursday he said he wasn’t surprised it was happening.

: “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad based frustration about how our financial system works.”
The President tied that frustration to financial institutions resisting reforms that are intended to fix problems that caused the current crisis.

: “What we’ve seen over the last year is not only did the financial sector with the Republican Party in Congress fight us every inch of the way, but now you’ve got these same folks suggesting we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis.”

Obama added that the country has lost sight of the American way of rewarding those that do the hard work.
: “These days a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded.”

[nineteen50]

1. Man that guy can talk a mean wrist slap.

[enough]

5. Not that mean. Hardly even counts as a wrist slap. (nt)

[dkf]

2. Some people need to be cut off from borrowing money.

Access to credit should be earned by showing evidence of fiscal responsibility.

[mmonk]

4. Or mortgage banks shouldn't swindle people and gamble by bundling

subprime loans, betting on them, and insuring them, while defrauding investors with bogus ratings.

[dkf]

9. They aren't allowed to misrepresent what they are selling. That is fraud and that needs to enforced.

But ratings aren't the banks thing. You should rail on the rating agencies for that.

And yes I was talking about how the banks should act by not offering credit to those who shouldnt have it. Debt can be an addition. We don't help people by enabling them to borrow when they aren't suited for it.

[Fumesucker]

10. What someone hears when you say that depends a lot on where they are standing..

People like Lehman, MF Global, Enron, GM?

Those kind of people?

[dkf]

11. Everyone including sovereigns, individuals, corporations, whatever.

This guy has a great point.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/kyle-bass-destroys-ponzi-prone-debt-sustainability-arguments-status-quoand-why-germany-cant-sav

[JackRiddler]

27. Most unintentionally funny comment of the week, surely:

dkf says: "But ratings aren't the banks thing. You should rail on the rating agencies for that."

[mmonk]

36. It wasn't just the rating agencies.

They were one of the connections meeting the demands of the swindlers such as Goldman, Lehman, etc.

[TBF]

6. And some banks need to be cut off from preying on folks. nt

[Selatius]

8. Exactly. Blaming debtors totally absolves creditors of any responsibility in the mess.

If you owned a commercial bank and you are an investment bank that repackages mortgages into securities that are sold for a profit, of course you're going to want to weaken standards for lending so that you can generate more loans and thus more securities that can be sold. Whether or not those securities are stable is immaterial to them. The profits were already booked. Somebody else held the securities when they went bad.

[dkf]

12. My point was that creditors need to cut off overexposed debtors so yes I was putting this on the

Banks.

Borrowers have no concept of ability to pay. We need to assume they can't manage budgets unless we see evidence to the contrary, like consistent savings, and manageable debt loads.

[saras]

17. Sure thing. Start from the top and work down...

...and - fiscal responsibility means "do no harm with your money" not "make more money with your money".

Under THOSE conditions, sure thing.

[Enrique]

3. financial fraud prosecutions fall sharply

[piratefish08]

7. put a fucking banker in jail.. people might listen again.

[phantom power]

26. +oo

[Owlet]

13. That was back in October

Has Obama said ANYTHING about OWS since then? If so, I missed it. He seems to have 'pivoted' (hate that effing word) to TRM - Total Relection Mode - and OWS does not factor into that.

[MedleyMisty]

14. I heard that he said it was up to the cities to decide

how much force to use to put down the protests. Other than that, I haven't heard anything.

[Juneboarder]

35. That's the last I heard too ...

And now I wonder and question why nothing is being done with regard to the blatant abuse to our own citizens by the police that are supposed to be there to protect us. It's as if the intention is to create a fascist state, because it's clearly acceptable for these cops to exercise the brute force.

[JNelson6563]

15. We discuss it every day, therefore he should!

In fact, I think the President needs to stop in @ DU every morning to find out what the all-knowing political activists that are in the trenches every single day feel he should be addressing.

Oh wait, I forgot, DU is not very populated by real world activists. That's probably why so many DUers don't know how real world politics work...

Julie

[Owlet]

18. Oh, I dunno

I think real world politics (at least in this country) works something like this:

Party A proposes Something. Party B says No. Nothing happens.

-or-

Party B proposes Something Else. Party A says No. Nothing happens.

Did I leave anything out? :)

[JNelson6563]

21. I'd give anything for it all to be so simple as that!

When I ws the chair of my Cong. district for the Dems, there were 14 counties in the district. Each one had it's own leadership. Believe me, getting 14 Democratic egos to all get on the same page was damn near impossible every step of the way.

But it's so much easier to believe there are two side and that's it. I'd love to see every DUer serve as a chair over a 14 county anything and try to make stuff happen--all with people who are on "your side" and then get back to me about how simple it should be for the President to just make shit happen.

The cluelessness here is so utterly revealing it's not even funny.

Julie

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Ah, sarcasm, last resort of the last resort crowd. It gets old.

It is pointed out that this statement is many, many weeks old. So you spout off with snark 'every day' and 'he should check in here'. What a lame tactic that is. Then you follow it with arrogant and snide remarks toward others in the DU community, they don't know that in the real world, if you say 'not a word in many weeks' that means ' he should check in with us, and speak daily'.
Hyperbole, sarcasm and meanness are not selling points, nor do they make a point of fact. You post is a vacuum, with a snark in the center and no meaning anywhere.

[JNelson6563]

24. Oh my!

Angry, angry!

Oh I have seen way too many posts here at DU about how big muckety mucks, or at least their aides, should be reading DU to be "informed" to have not made my initial remark.

As to the second, which seemed to have rather stung in your case, yeah, way too many of our commentators haven't spent any time in the trenches (and sorry, if you show up every four years to help with lit drops you're still not in the trenches).

Lot of armchair quarter-backing goes on here. Most days it's easy to ignore, once in a while I remark on it. Don't like it? Shouldn't be too hard to ignore as I don't often voice my views on such things because engaging in such matters, as I am doing now with you, just ain't why I come here.

With that said, you have yourself a good day. I will look forward to reading all your posts that include n'ary a shred of "hyperbole, sarcasm & meanness" to them. Also will keep an eye out for you taking such issue with like minded posters (to yourself) applying "hyperbole, sarcasm & meanness" in their writings.

Julie

[Owlet]

29. I have a solution!

Break DU up into two separate groups.

Group One - The Cognoscenti: who understand to the minutest detail how the political process works in this country, who 'get' OWS, who
brook no criticism of President Obama or his policies, and who don't for one minute want you to forget it.

Group Two - The Clueless Ignorami (ignoramuses? I said I was clueless): more or less loyal Democrats who come here to listen and learn.


Every six months or so there could be an exam (developed by the mods) given to the Clueless Ones to see if they have acquired enough knowledge and attitude to be admitted to the Higher Branch.

Just my

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. ...

:spray: :evilgrin:

[themadstork]

31. Didn't seem very angry to me.

Not sure why you're all worked up.

[unhappycamper]

16. Too bad he can't call DHS off the 'Smash OWS' movement.

:(

[progressoid]

19. "and so, I've decided to fire Tim Geithner and Larry Summers"

Bwaaaaahahaha. :rofl:

[Lionessa]

20. ROFL

[themadstork]

32. if only!

[piratefish08]

23. does he get why they are being hit with clubs and sprayed with pepper for the privilege?

or does he think it's just a big ol' sign waving block party?

[woo me with science]

25. Thank you.

[Zorra]

28. Great! He admits it! "financial institutions resisting reforms that are intended to fix problems "

In other words:

Financial institutions have grown more powerful than the government, and therefore do not obey the law, and we are powerless to enforce laws regarding the finance industry.

They refuse to obey the law, and continue to break it, because nothing can be done to stop them?

Mr. President, you need to kick their asses and make them obey the law. You are Commander in Chief.

OWS should not have to camp in parks and march in the streets in order to force the financial sector to obey the law.

This was hands down the number one problem that needed to be fixed when we elected a large majority of Democrats to both Houses of Congress and put a Democrat in the WH in '08. This was the root cause of the economic collapse that ruined the world economy.

And there will be folks who will repeat the mantra - "Oh, nee!, nee!, (sobbing) they couldn't do anything! Democrats only had 255 members in the House, and the republicans had had a whopping 179! That's why we couldn't stop them! Democrats only had 59 votes in the Senate, and the republicans had 41! They filibustered everything! (wailing, gnashing of teeth)!! It would have been so wrong to end the filibuster, even though Dems could have and should have done it, first thing in the morning, on Jan 21, 2009.

And the President! The President had no power to do anything! He was helpless in the face of republican opposition, those horrible mean republican bullies!"

Well, that's total horsepucky. They didn't do anything because, many of them sold their souls to the 1%. Just like every single republican legislator has.

The President has now basically told us, in so many words, that the 1% is more powerful than what is supposed to be our Democratic government, and that no one can make them obey the law, or make laws that can stop them from robbing and raping us.

If you desire to live in a genuine democracy and have maximum control of your own destiny, support and participate in OWS.

In fact, by supporting and participating in OWS, you will be making a direct effort to help President Obama, (if he actually sincerely wants to), rein in these wealthy and powerful criminals that are messing up our lives and who cannot be made to obey the law.

[mmonk]

33. If he gets it, he should not keep cutting budgets at this time.

[Marr]

34. Well if he understands, he really has no excuse left. /nt

[_ed_]

37. No, he doesn't

No one who "gets" OWS would appoint and keep Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary. Or get advice from Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. His personal wealth, as well as the personal wealth of most of his advisors, makes both he and his circle of advisers members of the 1%.

His #1 campaign contributor was Goldmann-Sachs.