We’re Not Mad At The Banks Mr. President…

…but you know that.

The White House spin on the not-even-close-win of Scott Brown in Massachusetts is that the “same anger that swept” Obama into the White House propelled Brown into the US Senate seat.  Therefore, it follows, as day follows night, that Obama desperately has to show us all how he’s on the side of the people too, like Scott Brown is.   And his action of choice is to come out ferociously and righteously against “the banks.”

The absurd spin that the “same anger” put Scott Brown in a senate seat that put O in the WH is stunning in its, well, its absurdness.  Yeah, that’s right.  People are still so mad at Bush and Cheney for the years of 2000-2008 that in 2010 the most liberal of all states elected a Republican to fill a seat held by Ted Kennedy for 80 or 90 years.  Which must mean that 52% of the voters in Massachusetts were perfectly happy with Obama’s policies over the past year, but were still so mad at Bush for things he did years ago, that they voted for Republican Scott Brown.  And, I guess that must mean that all those who voted for Coakley were mad at–well, who?  Who were they mad at?

Yes, I buy that.  Of course.  Makes perfect sense to anyone.  We can only hope that people stay mad at Bush through November, so that a whole slew of Republicans will be elected to federal, state, and local offices.

That Obama can even say this with a straight face should garner him an Oscar nomination at least.  “The Populist American President,” starring Barack Obama.   Maybe even another Nobel Peace prize. Of course, one could also say that it should garner him a psych evaluation.

His speech declaring war on banking was fiery.  Really.  He showed us much more anger than he did when speaking of the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood.  Much more.

Since this little temper tantrum new policy on banks is not based in any way on sound economic theory of ANYBODY, what could possibly be the motive for these new rules the banks will have to operate under?  What possible reason could any president have for enacting regulations that will ONLY obstruct banks’ efforts to make money?

Hampering banks in their business puts less money into our economy.  The president and his closest advisors hate wealth creation.  When wealth is created, it decreases the dependence of people on government.  You might not understand how a large bank like, say, Wells Fargo doing well helps you, but let’s explore that for a moment.

You may not bank at Wells Fargo, or even have a branch in your state.  But, if you have a 401K at your workplace, or if you have ever invested any money in a mutual fund, the chances are good that you own a tiny piece of Wells Fargo.  When Wells Fargo does well, as it and all the bank stocks have done lately, your investments increase in value.  When their stock loses value, as it did yesterday after Obama’s announcement, you lose money.

You lose money.

Why would your president do this to you?

(Think: Cloward-Piven)

Control.  Power.  Again, the poorer a country is, the fewer options available to everyone.  The less money the citizens have, the more they can be made to believe that government is the only answer.

I also think he’s mad at the American people and this is usually the best way to get back at someone–hit them in the wallet.  I think he’s behaving like a petulant child who didn’t get his way.  On one hand he’s making a ridiculous excuse for why Brown took Massachusetts by storm, and on the other hand he’s telling the rest of us, “I’ll show you, I’ll make your money go away.”

He’s inflicting revenge, a punishment, on us.  But, as he’s sticking needles into our backs, to our faces he’s putting on a big act of taking on the big bad bullies of banking for us little guys.  Big hero.  Big tonedeaf narcissistic hero.  He has to know that the polls all show that the majority of Americans do not want his version of healthcare control.  Seventy-seven per cent of US investors see Obama as anti-business.   He, Reid, and Pelosi all continue to blatantly and childlishly ignore any reports of disapproval on the part of the American people.

They ignore it at their peril.  Reid will not be re-elected.  Pelosi will lose the Speaker position that she treats so carelessly.  And Obama will not be re-elected.

He might simply appoint himself President-For-Life, but that’s another topic for another day.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Tagged as: banking, Barack Obama, investing, Massachusetts, Scott Brown, US Economy, voter anger