WASHINGTON — Setting up a certain fight with big business, President Obama is proposing a new regulatory agency to police lenders and protect consumers in credit, savings and other banking transactions .
The consumer agency and a newly empowered Federal Reserve will be two of the central elements of a broad overhaul of the financial regulatory system that the president will announce on Wednesday, officials said.
Already the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve would supervise large financial institutions that are considered so big that their failure could undermine America’s economy, according to the administration proposal.
FOXBusiness: Financial Regulatory Reform White Paper
But even as the Fed gains new powers, Obama also would transfer some banking authority that now rests with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to the new consumer agency the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
[More]
Updates:
12:32 pm EDT, June 17th, 2009 — Obama to propose strict new regulation of financial industry
1:52 pm EDT, June 17th, 2009 — Obama touts major rules to stave off economic crises (breaking)
Obama is completely out of control.
Is anyone surprised.
No one should be surprised. The industry sure knew an overhaul was in the works back in the days of Bush. There was no Obama on the paper and I doubt he had much to do with the actual plans. Of course, none of this matters to partisan alarmists who see any regulatory change as a march towards socialism.
The american form of ‘cowboy capitalism’ works best when regulated.
yea “cowboy capitlism” work when under control of anyone.
‘America’s fatal attraction’
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/david-limbaugh/2009/06/16/americas-fatal-attraction.html
When the O is finished with America he will be more reviled than Nixon. He will have ensured that another African American will not occupy the Oval Office for a generation. He was the litmust test and he is and will fail miserably. He fell in love with his reflection in the mirror and America and the free world will suffer the consequences. He knew but he did it anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2encXLmPDo
BTDT:
Wouldn’t that be a racist judgment on the part of the US population?
I mean, no one said “no more white males” after Nixon or Bush 2, correct?
Perhaps we shouldn’t get rid of those HRC’s in this nation just yet, non?
Geez, Cynapse, I wonder if BTDT prefers people who wear white sheets and pointy hats running things in the states? Has anyone got a match?
Don’t know, UV, but this isn’t the first time he’s said it so “slip of the tongue” is out of the question. You have to wonder how many other “conservatives” are viewing the situation this way. Perhaps this is why no one takes them seriously when they parrot on about “lefty racism” – amazing how quickly that rugged individualism disappears.
I have wondered about the same thing before. I don’t believe that there are any circumstances under which Obama can actually set African Americans back in terms of progress, but I can’t in all honesty say that I haven’t thought about it. Maybe we need a racism scorecard or something, and a card to carry around indicating the level of the biases that we undoubtedly all have to a differing extent, until the left can make the world a perfect place.
As the American right overthrows foreign governments not to their liking. Thats no way to make the ‘world a perfect place’ either.
Like a L.A. African American philosopher once said “Cant we all just get along.”
Well, getting along despite our differences, including our faults, is a good place to aim for. We are only human after all.
Funny, Obama does not seem to be making an effort to get along with anyone – he seems to be making a point of taking people out.
For goodness sake Cynapse and UV, BTDT made a valid point and you two can’t wait to play race baiters – and seem to very much enjoy doing it. How validating for you.
Barrack Obama is the first “black” President. Thats one of the key reasons he was elected – probably the key. Had he been a 47 year old white male the ticket would have been Hillarys all the way. Its just as racist to elect a man based on the color of his skin as it is to deny him a job.
So if he gets the top job because of the color of his skin , then you can’t very well complain that that is part of the criteria people are going to judge him on.
Conservatives have decided that he only got in because he is black, Ward.
I’ve heard that sentiment nearly every time a person of color attains an unprecedented high-profile title. The subtext is “there’s no way he’s smart enough to do that on his own”. In other words, Obama is a novelty, not a real politician. He couldn’t be.
That thinking goes hand in hand with BTDT’s “well I bet they won’t try that novelty if he screws up again”. If it’s not racist, its unbelievably condescending.
I believe you read way too much into certain things Cynapse. It would be as ludicrous not to believe that under certain circumstances it is politically advantageous to be black, as it would not to believe that under certain circumstances it is politically advantageous to be white, or Asian, or a woman, or a man, or whatever.. What does any of that have to do with how smart Obama may or not be? This might have just been one of those times that it was politically advantageous to be black.
I don’t believe that Obama was ready to be President of the USA any more than Obama apparently did, and I also believe that there were white candidates who would have done a better job, but that does not mean that I believe that Thomas Sowell or other black men aren’t smart, or would not be ready to do a better job as president than Obama has been.
As far as the possibility of conservatives believing that Obama might be a novelty, if you listen to the left at all, he is the 8th, 9th, and 10th wonders of the world all rolled up into one.
At least Obrama is on the so called ‘short list’ of wonders. Bush never even made it to the ‘long list.’
At least Obama is on the so called ‘short list’ of wonders. Bush never even made it to the ‘long list.’
Gee, I bet you that Obama can chew a pretzel without choking on it.
So let me get this straight. It is perfectly ok for you to believe that Bush is stupid while droning on about it for 8+ years, but we conservatives have to be evil racists if we let it slip that we believe that Obama is not quite up to par. How convenient. Does that same rule apply in all 57 states?
You’re opposing partisans so you’d attack him regardless. The type of attack is what matters. Calling him a socialist spendthrift who will interfere with your god-given right to profit at any cost is not racist but merely short-sighted. Calling him a “boy” or saying “we’ll never elect one of those people after this guy” is borderline. The monkey dolls and Obama-bucks (complete with fried chicken and watermelon inscriptions) that littered the McCain/Palin campaign are indisputable.
Whatever Cynapse. I understand that a few people who have been very close to Obama are suspect themselves, so where did I ever state that racists don’t exist? I did see several Youtube videos of the same guy trying to hand the same doll out, and I understand that a small women’s group in California may have printed an Obama-bucks cutout in a newsletter. Since, you are determined to prove that we are all racists anyway, where can I get my Obama-doll and Obama-bucks? Do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have any left or did they dump every last one of them out onto the floor of the GOP convention?
So this is all a left-wing conspiracy. We’re all out to get you, right Brian?
The real lesson is that if you’re going to align yourself with a group that has no official rite of membership, at least take the time to understand who else wears the label.
Now you have lost me. Align myself with who? I believe that Obama is a political opportunist who got in over his head, and that his policies will ultimately prove to be destructive, so I’m just looking for the right to criticize him without being constantly being called a violent racist warmonger, but apparently that is too much to ask.
You would think that it would be easy for the left to just explain how Obama’s policy of enslaving future generations is actually going to work out since he is after all the 8th, 9th, and 10th wonders of the world all rolled up into “the One”, but go ahead and scour the internet for any hint of dissent if you must, I just can’t see many people wanting to stick around and make a comment.
1) Why are you fighting someone else’s battles? You entered this thread sounding somewhat suspicious of the person who actually made the comment
2) If your criticisms remain political, you likely won’t be accused of anything else
If anything, you have a chronic problem with taking on the burden created by other people. Just accept that some people are attacking Obama for non-political reasons … and ignore them. I had a huge problem with some of Bush’s policies and never once felt “responsible” for the I-hate-all-things-Bush cult that formed during his latter 4 years in office. All you can really do is keep your own backyard clean, non?
I commented only because you seemed to be asking the opinion of other conservatives. My mistake. I see now that you are not at all interested in our opinions.
If I wasn’t then I wouldn’t post. But there’s a difference between adding your $.02 and taking on other people’s issues. In terms of culpability, BTDT needs to explain his own comments.
Whatever Cynapse.
Listen, if you want to take the heat for someone else, no one can stop you. But some day you will figure out that a lot of us aren’t going to take those types of attacks lying down. Bottom line, you can “whatever” it to death for all I care.
What heat? What attacks? Arguing with you can be tiresome Cynapse, I will admit that, but that’s about all it is lately.