Wall Street meltdown no accident: Obama

Wall Street meltdown no accident: Obama

news.smh.com.au

Democrat Barack Obama has warned the Wall Street meltdown was no mere "accident of history" but proved the need for sweeping change to purge the waste and abuse staining US politics.
"We did not arrive at this moment by some accident of history," Obama said as he lashed "greed and irresponsibility" in both Washington and Wall Street.
"We are in this mess because of a bankrupt philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to the rest of us.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now while I believe it is a good thing that the candidates are acknowledging this, it is too little too late. They have realised that there is something majorly wrong with the economy and now seek to gain politically by attempting to be the candidate who 'changes this'.

Unfortunately any change that comes will be surface only. Without a complete purge and overhaul of the entire government system the corruption will remain, the dirty deeds will be buried in the annuls of history and the men who were behind it all will continue to live and find new ways to procure our money. Until then, all talk of 'change' is just that....talk.

news.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

And then he prob voted for the bail out plans..

Nice work 2 facing obama.

Ahh my bad, i re-read it 3 / 4 times finally saw what he was saying.

I thought it sounded strange...

edited because i didnt want to imply he was saying what I thought he was saying.

for those that missed it, my post began with

'' am I reading this right ? ''

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Agit8dChop]

Wow, you just took what he said so out of context it isnt even funny.

The telling point of this article was this statement from Obama:

"We can set up a system where there's an independent overseer, maybe the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Democrats and the Republicans each appoint somebody to oversee the system," Obama said.

Obama's solution he is offering is to further CENTRALISE and give the Federal Reserve more power. This is dangerous, and disastrous for the freedom-loving people of this earth.

Let me rephrase... Obama wants to give the Rothschilds greater supervisory authority over the financial industry. Every ATS reader unsure of what I am getting at, needs to realise that the Federal Reserve is privately-owned by the European banking elite. Obama's solution is to effectively give these guys more power. The funny thing is, people like Lynn Forester de Rothschild give the impression they aren't keen for Obama.. they were plumping for Hilary, then decided to have a buck each way with McCain. It makes me wonder how Obama figures into their plans. They will just control whoever gets in. It takes a president with a backbone to stand up to the corrupt money lenders of Europe. People like Abraham Lincoln, and JFK. We all know what happened to them! I highly doubt Obama has the courage to attempt such brazen monetary reform, hence his proposed 'solution'.

reply to post by RiotComing


I seriously do not think either of the two main candidates has an idea what to do. They are just spouting sensationalist garbage and hoping like hell that they do not have to deal with this mess, that it will resolve itself before they take office.

Why oh why people did not listen to the likes of Ron Paul and others I will not know.

Worlds Biggest /facepalm

Of course it's no accident, he knows damn well.

It's Socialism that is starting at the top and it's simply laying the foundation that will usher in Obama's talk of "change"

Obama's Socialism will start from the bottom, with the people, and work it's way up.

reply to post by Alxandro

It's Socialism that is starting at the top and it's simply laying the foundation that will usher in Obama's talk of "change"

Obama's Socialism will start from the bottom, with the people, and work it's way up.

Uhhhhhh?? What do you think about US taxpayers paying $700+ Billion dollars to buy mortgage and insurance companies then? Would that be socialism?Or communism?
Funny you say that because we have "conservatives" doing just that at this very minute. Led by the Bush regime at that!
Convenient to point the finger at "liberals" when you have "conservatives" applying one of the largest socialist buyouts in history, huh? Must have run out of scapegoats.....

vote 3rd party

Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin

You do the same!

Don't go for the 2party facade

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
vote 3rd party
Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin
You do the same!
Don't go for the 2party facade

I have yet to see the endorsement you mention.

Regardless, I will write in RP for pres, because he's MY choice.

"We can set up a system where there's an independent overseer, maybe the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Democrats and the Republicans each appoint somebody to oversee the system," Obama said.

Of course! We can trust the Republicans and Democrats..... right

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Your right. Every ATS person from the USA should vote for Ron Paul. Everyday I like Ron Paul more and more. I think many other people do to. Too bad we did not realize it sooner.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign faces a potential controversy over finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker’s past association with Superior Bank, which failed and was seized by regulators in 2001.

“Billionaire Penny Pritzker helped run Hinsdale, Ill.-based Superior, overseeing her family’s 50% ownership stake,” John R. Emshwiller writes for The Wall Street Journal. “She now serves as Barack Obama’s national campaign-finance chairwoman, which means her banking past could prove to be an embarrassment to her — and perhaps to the campaign.”

Superior was criticized for engaging in predatory lending, and paid out $200 million in dividends to owners throughout the 90’s based on cooked books. Seeing as Ms. Pritzker was one of those owners, that’s mighty interesting. Team Obama has released a statement saying that Ms. Pritzker herself was never accused of any wrongdoing, and that the Pritzker family paid our $460 million to help defray the cost of Superior’s collaspe.

And the wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round.

PS - Why in the world would you want to hire someone as your campaign finance chairperson who’s last job was watching people run a bank into the ground?

The trickle down theory does not work. In theory it does but in reality it does not because the profits saved by the big tax breaks to the wealthy are being used for personal income instead of more and higher paying jobs. So the socialism for the wealthy does not work. Nor does socialism for the poor either. Heres an idea. Put everyone on a level playing field and get rid of ALL socialism.

reply to post by RiotComing


McCain attends the Bilderberg meetings also.

Not sure that battle is winnable with either of the candidates.

Quite a funny comment. From the research I've done, the banking collapse is due to the exact opposite of what he's indicating. The banks were forced by the government to give home loans to people that didn't really qualify. It's a fact that not everybody can own a house at any given time. Unfortunately, some in the government see this as discrimination against the poor and you can see what the result is. People that should have never qualified to buy a house in the first place are defaulting and the banks are left holding the bag. Government interference in the market caused everything we're seeing now.

Obama is so out of touch with reality that it's laughable. Before the obama disciples come down on me, it must be said that while I believe McCain is a better man for the economy, he's no more in touch with reality than Obama is.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


It went further than just that, however. It isn't just that mortgages were lent to people who couldn't afford them. It gets much worse.

Honestly, if you want a full picture of it, with a lot of the fat cut off (and the partisan politics you'll hear on any media source), wikipedia has done a great job of detailing the factors that caused this crisis. Everything appears to be well sourced and accurate.

While over-regulation (and stupid regulation) was a contributing factor, lack of regulation fanned the flames also.

The entire situation is a cluster#$*# and the partisan finger pointing is helping either.

reply to post by Alxandro



au contraire mon frere

Pardon my French but the Republicans are not the only ones to be blamed for this meltdown.

Things started hitting the fan years ago when Señor Clinton started forcing banks to make loans to credit card deadbeats, ...OR ELSE!

Year ago, signs of impending problems were evident, yet congressional Democrats failed to act. On Sept. 11, 2003 the New York Times ran an article that stated: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” Democrats in Congress blocked any actions and by their failure prevented a solution to the predictable future problems.


Other contributing factors are the result of President Carter’s Community Reinvestment Ac, which forced banks to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers and prohibited redlining. Banks were required not only to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers but were required to loan in blighted areas. Thus banks were forced to make loans that contradicted sound banking practices because they incurred significantly higher risks.

President Clinton disregarded warnings from congressional members and instead moved in the opposite direction by requiring lenders to make even more subprime loans. Failures to do so caused lenders to be subject to being closed by the federal government.

more

reply to post by Alxandro


Republicans had control over basically all three branches in 2003. So how anyone can come out and blame "Congressional Democrats", and not "Congress", is beyond me.

In fact, the Republicans had control over Congress for years up until 2006. So...

There is no way the Republicans or the Democrats can pass the buck. They both screwed up.

Originally posted by Sublime620
The entire situation is a cluster#$*# and the partisan finger pointing is helping either.

I'm not intending to point a finger at either party here. My view of it is that Clinton started the ball rolling and Bush just watched it roll by. I have conversations everyday where the blame is placed on either one of the last two administrations depending on the party alignment of the person I'm talking to. I always point out that this has been going on too long to be pinned one only one party.