Obama Hypocrisy Meter Off The Charts: "I Did Not Run For Office To Be Helping Out A Bunch Of Fat Cat Bankers On Wall Street"

Tyler Durden's picture

Obama goes back to his Wall Street-bashing rhetoric in today's 60 Minutes on CBS, after he has already doomed this country to tens of trillions in excess debt to make sure that Wall Street not only thrives, but prospers, courtesy of Bernanke's vertical bond curve and the daily destruction of the dollar. With statements such as "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street" which the WSJ disclosed will be uttered by Obama shortly, only the most clueless viewers will find empathy with Obama's latest message of banker "anti-hope."

And it is not only Obama, but Wall Street protege Larry Summer himself who continues the banker bashing:

White House economic adviser Larry Summers also voiced aggravation
with Wall Street on Sunday. "Here is what I think they don't get…It was
their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy
to collapse," Mr. Summers, who chairs the National Economic Council,
said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"And they don't get in some cases that they wouldn't be where they
are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are
paying today, if their government hadn't taken extraordinary actions
."

"For them to be complaining about serious regulation directed at making
sure this never happens again is wrong. For $300 million to be spent on
lobbyists trying to gut serious efforts at financial reform is not how
this country should be operating," Mr. Summers said. "For firms that
have benefited from taxpayer support to be complaining about the
government burdening them is, frankly, a bit rich."

First you bail them out, and now you bash them? It is one thing to dash criticism upon rhetoric but at least be consistent. If people can not read between the lines of this administration's endless hypocrisy, they deserve all they get. And if Matt Taibbi's latest controversial piece in Rolling Stone "Obama's Big Sellout" needed any final validation, you just provided it Mr. President. Because while your Wall Street-centric policies can be explained by your lack of financial comprehension and private-sector experience (thereby justifying your desire to be "advised" by those who are an integral part of the banker syndicate), your complete disdain for the average American's intellectual level exemplified by your most recent, upcoming 7 pm TV appearance is what is truly insulting. Maybe you can put Mr. Geithner up there next to you on the TV screen, and he can justify his reasoning for why incremental "fat cat" bonuses are such a bad idea. Come to think of it, why not make it into a round table, and include Larry Summer and Robert Rubin: we are confident they will have no problem distancing themselves from the very bankers they talk to 10 hours a day, telling them (and thus you) how to run national policy.

You say "Some people on Wall Street still don't get it"... The problem, Mr. President, is that more and more people on Main Street, do get it. They now realize just whose agenda you have at heart. And said Main Street expects nothing but merely more theatrics during your upcoming meeting with Wall Street "fat cats" tomorrow.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Astute Investor's picture

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street"....

(1)  With the exception of appointing a bunch of Wall Street guys to positions of power within my administration.

(2)  With the exception of collecting your donations to my presidential campaign and seeking more donations to my re-election efforts in 2012.

 

 

Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

Agreed. After all, that's why Goldman Sachs was his second biggest contributor to his election campaign.

 

you go Obama! I guess the latest Taibbi article hurt his fweeellliinggss.

Anonymous's picture

+1

No way Obama would be pulling this ridiculous bit of kabuki theater unless he read Taibbi's article calling him a puss and a sellout. Which he is--a couple of months ago he went on the radio to beg the banks to start lending again. Their response was to get the DJIA to drop about 150 points the next day, and he never uttered another word about it until now.

The interesting question is, how many people are going actually be fooled by this little act of his at this point?

zeta34's picture

I hear Obama's new pay czar is going to be Angelo Mozilo.

ZerOhead's picture

(2) Donations to my presidential campaign.

Hey the Real Money kicks in AFTER you leave office... then you can see who they were really working for. (HINT: It isn't the citizens of the USA)

Heres a list from Bill Clintons payoff... if he took the bribe money while in office it would be illegal.

Now do you understand Clintons financial and foreign policy? And yes I know it's legal guys... and Goldman even waited a couple years for things to cool down after Clintons abolition of Glass Steagal and implementation of FSMA. 

I'm just sayin' that's all.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2007/clinton-speeches/list/

milbank's picture

And who is Phil Gramm, the author and lead name on the bill you speak of, working for now?

UBS, formerly, Union Bank of Switzerland. 

Speaking of hypocracy. . .

Your Clinton bashing is quaint, "fly-over country" mentality.

They're all in on it, Boy.  Everyone you get to vote for has been vetted before you even get a chance to vote for them.  How do you think any of them get the money they need to run.

Back to the presidency, do you think McCain would have done any of this differently?  He was going to put John Thain (he of the $38,000.00 toilet fame) in Treasury. 

The "two party" system and those who inhabit it are puppets in a false choice.

 

ED's picture

Cummon! Surely your count's missing out all the old political hacks that are hunting for a cure for cancer and doing a stint in Medecins Sans Frontieres?!

Anonymous's picture

"He was going to put John Thain (he of the $38,000.00 toilet fame) in Treasury."

Link please. I saw the "fire Cox > install Cuomo" interview, but didn't see the list of prospective cabinet appointments. TIA

ZerOhead's picture

Hey milbank...

I'm in total and complete agreement with you bro'...

Seriously "They are all in it"... it's what I have been saying all along.

And Clinton is a very special case since he was in charge in Arkansas while his buddy was selling tainted prison blood products and he did nothing to stop it.

Thousands of Americans and Canadians now have HIV and hep thanks to Dollar Bill Clinton.

Hey did anyone ever figure out what Hilary's $99,000 futures payout extravaganza in Chicago (cattle or pork I believe) was all about? Payment from Tyson chicken for reducing water quality standards in Arkansas I think? Correct me if I'm wrong... just askin'... 

Anonymous's picture

And of course they're all at it - who hired Tory Blair after he got booted out over here in sunny England ?

JP Morgan ....

Same sh!t, different smell ...

It's all rigged ...

Ripped Chunk's picture

$31 million just in speaking engagements. 

All those "legal fees" they accrued while in the Whitehouse for Whitwater and Monicagate went away in a hurry.

What is Bush getting for his "motivational" engagements??  I bet a bit more than a Popiel's Pocket Fisherman.

 

Anonymous's picture

Well you do have 'Lee Harvey Obama' what did you expect?

The Patsy President!

ZerOhead's picture

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street"....

In the USSR there used to be a saying that went something like...

"Nothing can be confirmed until it is officially denied."

Now... Denied/Confirmed it has been.

aint no fortunate son's picture

His poll approval numbers are tanking, thus the so-called tough talk, but people aren't buying it at this point... unless he really turns it around, and he's batting 0 from where I sit, 2010 Democratic congressional majority gets seriously whacked, and he loses big in 2012.

I am a Man I am Forty's picture

And then we get the same shit different party.  

JET55118's picture

Exactly. That is why the Taibbi is a day late and a buck short. He should have been writing this article a year ago, when anyone with a pulse could see that Obama was just George W. Bush v.02. There is no criticism of the two party system. America needs a new party, whether it is Ron Paul or someone else. I don't know when America will understand that the Nation's continuance rests on this. 

Anonymous's picture

JET55118, you are dead on. Unfortunately, most Americans have no pulse when it comes to being informed citizens. To some extent, it's the fault of the fawning Main Stream Media, but if you really listened, I think the information was there as well as on internet sites. His sharp turn to the right after securing the nomination was obvious and had to be explained away by the pundits as an "adjustment". I was lukewarm on him and didn't trust him even before that, but after that my 3rd party vote was cinched.

As 3rd party politics is impossible given current US and state constitutions with their lack of proportional representation, the only alternative is massive civil disobedience. Things still aren't bad enough yet, not quite having reached 1930s levels yet. Anybody see "The People Speak" on the History Channel last night? It was direct action that forced Roosevelt to act and save elite brethren.

Incidentally, the avowed Neoconservative http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/communists-speak-howard-zi... calls Zinn a Marxist but if you actually read the information in the post, it provides evidence supporting a non-intervent foreign policy. What can these people be thinking?

Anonymous's picture

JET55118, you are dead on. Unfortunately, most Americans have no pulse when it comes to being informed citizens. To some extent, it's the fault of the fawning Main Stream Media, but if you really listened, I think the information was there as well as on internet sites. His sharp turn to the right after securing the nomination was obvious and had to be explained away by the pundits as an "adjustment". I was lukewarm on him and didn't trust him even before that, but after that my 3rd party vote was cinched.

As 3rd party politics is impossible given current US and state constitutions with their lack of proportional representation, the only alternative is massive civil disobedience. Things still aren't bad enough yet, not quite having reached 1930s levels yet. Anybody see "The People Speak" on the History Channel last night? It was direct action that forced Roosevelt to act and save elite brethren.

Incidentally, the avowed Neoconservative http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/communists-speak-howard-zi... calls Zinn a Marxist but if you actually read the information in the post, it provides evidence supporting a non-intervent foreign policy. What can these people be thinking?

cdskiller's picture

JET55118, spot on. But, 3rd party is not the answer. The first thing on the agenda is to hammer on Obama for his corruption and hypocrisy until we drive him from office. As soon as Geithner was appointed, I started screaming. Nobody wanted to hear it, but it was as plain as the nose on your face what that meant. It meant Obama was a liar. It meant nothing good was going to be done. The worst thing I did in that moment was NOT go long on Goldman and the private prison industry, and short on the U.S. housing market.

At the same time, we have to make campaign finance reform the top priority. If there had been CFR when this crisis hit, everything would have been different. The zombie banks would have been placed in temporary receivership, cleaned up, with losses spread among counterparties, shareholders and senior bond holders, then broken up, and sold. Glass-Steagall would have been brought back. The transparency of banking activity that would have resulted would have blown the lid off the whole scheme and could have been used to write effective regulatory reform legislation, which would prevent this kind of a crisis from ever happening again.

You implement campaign finance reform and EVERYTHING changes. Third party candidates suddenly can compete. Progressives can suddenly compete. Policy, not who you are letting use you in the back room, becomes the driving force behind electoral success.

The most glaring thing this crisis has revealed, the most glaring thing Obama's shocking and immediate hypocrisy about it has revealed, is just how broken our system is. Both parties are so deep in the feces they can't even smell it, it looks like food to them.  

Ripped Chunk's picture

Same big party with left/right media show in high gear.  The repub vs. dem show is WWF wrestling. The outcome is pre-determined.

Forecast: More shit including the same old combined with some new.

bbbilly1326's picture

yep.........I intend NOT to vote in 2010, as my Dem seanators, Webb and Warner, voted for TARP, for confirmation of Bernanke, etc.

 

I've notified them at each step, how I wanted them to vote.............you know how that went.

All we can do now, is NOT vote in incumbents, that's what I'm doing.

anti_republocrat's picture

I understand your frustration, but you MUST vote for either 3rd party candidates, write-ins or if neither of those is possible, deliberately spoil your ballot.

 

Failing to vote is interpreted as apathy and a license for the politicians to do whatever they like.  When 3rd party ballots get numerous enough, one of the major parties will start adopting their positions and actually supporting them with votes in Congress.  If we truly care about the issues and want change, that's what we want.

Crisismode's picture

I would never believe another word out of this heinous President's mouth.

 

He is a consummate, professional liar.

 

He is owned, bought and sold by the
Wall street gang.

 

He is the most utterly despicable head of office that we have today.

 

Voluntary Exchange's picture

 

I quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

“A state, in accordance with generally accepted terminology, is defined as a compulsory territorial monopolist of law and order (an ultimate decision maker). “

(“On the impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution”

http://mises.org/story/2874)

In those rare moments in history where a group of people have won their freedom and attempted to preserve their freedom for future times and generations they have resorted to various means to try to preserve it, as history records: monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, and so on up to the 18th century when a minority of Americans tried using a republic with strictly limited powers as granted in a constitution. Any such endeavor that grants a territorial monopoly of law and order must ultimately fail. (Failure in the sense that it must sooner or later cease to be efficacious in preserving life, liberty and property of the people in general and become a tool of plunder by the few against the many).

To be brief: the characteristics inherent in a monopoly of this sort ultimately create the conditions for that failure. The natural laws that govern human action will always lead to this failure, given the starting condition of monopoly that meets the above definition of a State. Its being as such a monopoly, over time, will naturally attract the minority of individuals who consider taking from others through force or fraud a preferred survival strategy. The early stages of their aggressions take on various forms of deception that have become more sophisticated though history, leading of late to central banks, fiat currency, grants of economic and business privileges and so on. In earlier ages religion was often used but that trick is wearing a little thin by now. Eventually as the non-parasitic class becomes aware of the nature of the deceptions and how it has been enslaved, (and eventually it always will happen given the human power of reason, learning and communication: hence the state's perpetual war against reason, learning, and communication), the system enters into its final stage that America is quickly approaching: overt despotism, and open aggression, being unable to exploit by deception any longer.

Many American Colonists reasoned that they needed some kind of minimalist state in order to survive in a world populated by other aggressive states, not at that time in history being aware of how a strictly voluntary system of exchanges amongst individuals and groups could arise and long endure to solve the primary needs of individual and group security and justice. As is always the case, along side such individuals were those who viewed aggression and deception as a preferred way of life and saw the forming of a state as their opportunity. The dynamic of these two forces, the subsequent struggles that ensued, in the formation of and subverting of the United States is a fascinating study, or as is often said: “ the rest is history”.

For those who want to understand how to form a viable, strictly voluntary contractual society may I suggest they study Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a good starting point.

We are at a very exciting moment in human civilization. The State and its thus empowered despotism has never been so vulnerable in known human history. The understanding of how to end the “State” and what to replace it with is well developed.

To put it simply, for we who wish to be FREE, the foundation has been staring us in the face since the beginning of civilization:

VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.

To all the States of the world and their allies, let the proclamation sound: All those who initiate aggression or use fraud are declared illegitimate. Your system rests upon that which cannot and ought not to endure. You will no longer be obeyed or served. You who have lived by plunder will plunder us no more. Make restitution and go in peace, or face the consequences of open aggression against your moral and just teachers.

Friends, it is high time that we figuratively fight like “warrior poets” and win our freedom! Let those who stand with me against aggression openly declare to each other -

“I AM FREE!”.

 

Iuubob's picture

This piece could not be more spot on!

 

TomJoad's picture

Well, it certainly is with an epic sense of relief that I read these "trial balloon" statements. So nice to know that the President was looking out for me all along and is going to protect me from those dirty bankers who completely run financial policy in his administration.

bigdad06's picture

Obama sends troops into his eternal war and gets a peace prize for it. Obama has been a hypocrite from day one. This is no surprise. He is just showing his true colors now that the election is over. Good luck America, your going to need it!

Anonymous's picture

Obama is not a hypocrite, Americans were (and continue to be) incredibly stoopid to cling desperately to catchy slogans and hype in electing someone who never had a job before he became prezident; Jim Rogers publicly supported Ron Paul and he should have been given the chance at the job, after 30 years in public office. And the old men in Oslo continue to show their senility, Obama did not really try to win that. In a world full of fools, the outcome would favour the crooks. Americans deserve what they get and should just shut up and let themselves be screwed.

Ripped Chunk's picture

stoopid??? prezident?????

"Americans deserve what they get and should just shut up and let themselves be screwed."  And where do you live asshole?

Keep your eyes open. Things will change.

 

 

monmick's picture

"He is just showing his true colors..."

Yeah. White...

Anonymous's picture

Evil has no skin color.

WaterWings's picture

Yeah, make Timmy do it. I like it when he gets mad.

That Nobel Prize is looking more like a finger in the dike - they're just giving them awaaaaaay! People get so hot and bothered when frightening parallels are drawn using history.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid...

The only reason he didn't get it was because he couldn't be content with Poland. He had to invade Pakistan - er, France, too.

Anonymous's picture

You know, you nominate and award ONE Nobel Prize to a megalomaniac hell bent on global domination and the eradication of the Jewish people and they never let you forget about it.......If he/they would have won the war, you wouldn't be thinking of it this way i can tell you that!

WaterWings's picture

Exactly. It's a good thing us flag-waving 'Mericans have a stong megolomaniac detector. If we can't beat 'em, we'll innovate! We're 'Mericans!

WaterWings's picture

Wait, not the exactly anymore. I've been drinking too much.

Souverainiste's picture

I've heard this before, somewhere...

"See, I never just did things just to do them.  I mean come on, what am I going to do just jump up and grind my feet into somebody's couch?  I got a little more sense than that.  Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb06iLjTKA&feature=related#t=1m18s

Catullus's picture

Buy another one, you rich motherfuckers!

Green Sharts's picture

Larry Summers giving lectures on risk is rich.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/

 

It happened at least once a year, every year. In a roomful of a dozen Harvard University financial officials, Jack Meyer, the hugely successful head of Harvard’s endowment, and Lawrence Summers, then the school’s president, would face off in a heated debate. The topic: cash and how the university was managing - or mismanaging - its basic operating funds.

Through the first half of this decade, Meyer repeatedly warned Summers and other Harvard officials that the school was being too aggressive with billions of dollars in cash, according to people present for the discussions, investing almost all of it with the endowment’s risky mix of stocks, bonds, hedge funds, and private equity. Meyer’s successor, Mohamed El-Erian, would later sound the same warnings to Summers, and to Harvard financial staff and board members.

“Mohamed was having a heart attack,’’ said one former financial executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering Harvard and Summers. He considered the cash investment a “doubling up’’ of the university’s investment risk.

But the warnings fell on deaf ears, under Summers’s regime and beyond. And when the market crashed in the fall of 2008, Harvard would pay dearly, as $1.8 billion in cash simply vanished. Indeed, it is still paying, in the form of tighter budgets, deferred expansion plans, and big interest payments on bonds issued to cover the losses.

deadhead's picture

Yep, Larry Summers....the smartest guy in the room.

Fade to Brooksley Born......

ZerOhead's picture

The Oligarchs in Russia adore him however.

The Russian people who had everything of value after the collapse pretty much stolen by the Oligarchs who were assisted by Mr. Lawrence Summers... not so much I'm afraid.

Larry is a Squid amongst Squids.

Anonymous's picture

Are you for real? The Russian people didnt have anything to begin with. The crap that was "privatized" was already stolen, following Gorbachev's reforms in the 80s. All that Summers did was try to instill some ownership rights in those properties and before Comrade Putin erased the concept, many of the corporations were actually functioning as well as their Western counterparts.

Fastforward to now, thanks to angry populists like you, and we have Putin's Russia. Which weirdly looks a lot like America. Regulator Capture + life support for national champions.

ZerOhead's picture

Crap like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, diamonds... yup real crap alright...

I believe you may wish to revisit your history my friend... Summers was lead man with the IMF on this dealio...

http://iskran.iip.net/review/september/la1.html

Heres a lovely little passage for those too lazy to check it out... like you maybe?

The Harvard Institute, together with the Chubais "dream team," as Summers called it, presided over Russia's economic "reforms," many of them U.S.-funded, including privatization. But the reforms were more about wealth confiscation than wealth creation. The first stage of privatization, which had substantial input from U.S.-paid Harvard advisers, fostered the concentration of property in a few Russian hands and opened the door to widespread corruption.

Sound familiar? Perhaps a little too familiar?

And it's you who sounds angry by the way... just sayin'

Hephasteus's picture

You have quite a wonderful mind you know.

ZerOhead's picture

Thanks Hephasteus... there are some lucid moments when the drugs wear off... generally I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Ripped Chunk's picture

"the concentration of property in a few Russian hands"  Many of whom were high ranking X-KGB

ZerOhead's picture

Not the Major players though Ripper...

Go here to Wiki and check out the background Bio's of the big tunas my friend... they do have Larry in common sometimes...

The most influential and exposed oligarchs from the Yeltsin era are Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Vladimir Gusinsky, Vitaly Malkin or Vladimir Potanin [4].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_oligarch#Post_Soviet_Russian_Oligarchs

spekulatn's picture

That was beautiful dh. Well done!

tip e. canoe's picture

blast from the past from fat larry & the gang:

Speculative Dynamics and the Role of Feedback Traders
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3243.html

if ZH can get its hands on a copy of this, it would be probably see its last 9 months of posts as ex post facto proof of the hypothesis containted in this paper.

go long m&m's