Obama Bringing More "Mean" Regulatory Rhetoric to NYC Today

"A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," President Obama will declare in a speech at Cooper Union today, according to excerpts released last night. "That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement." And so at this very moment, Tea Party protesters are mobilizing in NYC to drown out Obama's Commie message.

One week after an anti-tax day Tea Party rally at the James A. Farley Post Office drew several hundred demonstrators, some of the same disgruntled citizens are expected to rally for the cameras once again, to protest... against regulating Wall Street fat cats. There's a slight cognitive dissonance here, since the Tea Party movement rose to prominence by exploiting outrage over the Wall Street bailouts, but, hey, that's never stopped them before. "Look, we need reform," David Webb, a Republican radio host and Tea Party organizer tells Crain's. "We need to enforce the current laws on the books and update certain laws to have the proper controls in place. I don't think any rational person can say otherwise. But we don't need the federal government to have more control."

The bill currently before the Senate calls for "regulating any institution with access to government funds, as well as products like derivatives, regardless of what entity offered them; requiring banks to hold more capital as a cushion against crises; streamlining the number of regulatory agencies to make them more accountable; and creating a new council to monitor systemic risks," Deal Book reports.

Obama's second appearance at Cooper Union comes two years after his famous campaign speech in the historic hall, during which he promised to "establish a 21st century regulatory system." This final push for reform of the financial industry began immediately after the health care reform bill passed. One White House source tells the Washington Post, "We are doing the kind of blitz that you saw at the end of health care on regulation reform." And it's hurting Republican's feelings! An unidentified GOP aide moans, "His rhetoric got really sharp and really mean" in the last two weeks.

There has been speculation that the S.E.C.'s civil suit against Goldman Sachs was orchestrated by the White House to coincide with Obama's closing arguments for Wall Street reform. In an interview with CNBC, the President categorically denied that rumor, insisting, "The S.E.C. is an entirely independent agency...and they never discussed anything with us." Goldman has spent $1.2 million on lobbying against regulation in the first three months of 2010, and six of the top 10 U.S. banks dramatically increased PAC donations to lawmakers last month. "They're all in to defeat reform," Ed Mierzwinski at U.S. Public Interest Research Group tells the Daily News.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on April 22, 2010 9:43 AM

Comments [rss]

Stevennnn

Just one big pathetic game. The republicans want Obama to fail otherwise if he does succeed they knew the party is in deep trouble.

Then we have Washington being in bed with Wall Street. How will regulation work? These politicians don't want to make Wall Street angry or else it means zero money for election time.

Mr. Shankly

At the very least reinstate Glass-Steagall. It worked as intended but was dismantled with bipartisan support.

I get the whole 'support the banks for NYC's sake' thing.

Leadership in WV supports decapitating their mountaintops for coal jobs even as it poisons their water to further mutate their own inbred spawn. Our banks have done the same to our economy and have clearly shown us how much freedom they deserve.

And fucking turn off the presses and raise interest rates already. It's a 'Sophie's Choice' of effectively zero-return savings vs. the craps table of the market. The godammned house always wins.

BDS=(Boycott.Divest.Sanction)

+1

I like the 'Sophie's Choice' analogy too...funny.

sfgal82

So, a young community organizer sues banks in Chicago and wins. From then on, banks have to grant mortgages to people they know cannot ever pay back. The banks, taking advantage of washingtons "hodgepodge of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies" give out the mortgages they have to and then sell them to foreigners.

Lawyers, brokers, derivatives traders all follow the laws set out by democrats, laws which appear to have teeth but allow them to do anything they want. The bankers and lawyers are so happy with this arrangement that they contribute so much money obama gets elected. Surely this proves who the bad guys are.

Now, Obama wants the power to look at the books of the company where you work, or where I work, and if they decide we aren't doing a good job, they'll close us up and bail out our investors with federal money. Arranged by the bankers, brokers and special interest groups who contribute mightily to the dems, and who sit in the big leather chairs in congress. This will send even more of the financial jobs out of the country, and the taxes of every NYer will go up, cause he wants to protect us from the people that pay our salary. Go, Barry!

PKMKII

So what you're saying is, we should let GS get away with fraud, because otherwise they'll hold our jobs and economy hostage? You make it sound like we have to keep paying protection money to them, lest they break our economic kneecaps.

ProudLiberal1947

I do believe you miss read, what I was saying is we had a effective law(s) on the books, why not work on those laws to strenghten them, dispite what Mr. Clinton said their had to be something their that had the Financial Institutions and Banks scared, so scared that Phil Grahamn had to secrectly hide this biil in the financial package on the last day the Senate was in session in 1999.

Second their is also a law on the books since 2002 (please don't quote me StaBox or something to that effect) that has NOT been enforced.

i am saying slam the book on these clowns lock them up and throw away the key. This new crap has NO teeth, if the old Law was so bad why didn't they leave it on the books, think about it how many inaffective laws to date do we have on the books, so I am NOT buying Mr. Clintons story that the law was no good.

The way I look at it as long as these clowns can keep mudding the waters the more they are going to get their way, WHY are they afraid of the Glass-Steagall Act?

ProudLiberal1947

With pass regulations voted down because they were being run around and manipulated to slow down the theft has me wondering i it took them 30-40-50-70 years to get aroiund it why not look at what they were end running and close the door. With all the claims that it wasn't working ( Bill Clinton claim in a interview a couple of days ago), apperently it was working or they wouldn't have removed the Glass-Steagull Act, as well as the LACK of inforcement of the StaBox law of 2002.

So the Phonies are saaying it was more effective then we want the Idiot American to realize and he more we can put Americans in Debt the better.

One other thingare we allowed to bring our GUNS to the speech i heard the Brain Dead tea baggers are going to be there it would be a GREAT day for HUNTING, hey these are the IDIOTS that want the guns at the rallies I just want to show them we have MORE GUts and Commitment then the uneducated.

contrabalance

The recent news that Tea Partiers are better educated than the average American makes idiotic, grammar-challenged comments like yours really shine.

ProudLiberal1947

The mistakes are deliberate since I do not have the capability to draw pictures for these inbred racist nazis.

It also helps to indentify the thin skinned idiots that are in the Racist nazi republiCANT , tea bagger party, because you are so shallow all you can do is jump on anothers errors and point them out hoping this elevates you in your small limited mind.

Kojak

"We need to enforce the current laws on the books and update certain laws to have the proper controls in place. I don't think any rational person can say otherwise. But we don't need the federal government to have more control."

Talk about Oxymorons. Sheesh

kazubes

I don't see how you can stand up with a straight face talking about reform when the SEC saw no major firings over their complete failure to do even the marginal regulating they were tasked with during this fiasco. Giving an incompetent agency more regulatory controls doesn't solve the issue.

unretrofiedforu

It must be easy to pass off something as a 'rebuttal' even with the amount of holes your theory has.

'Cuz the SEC wasn't in cohorts in Big Business. 'Cuz Big Business doesn't have anything on the inside of the whole thing. I think there's more to it than "ME HATE REGULATION", and it starts right with that Teabagger Webb.

kissel

yep... it's all just political jockeying. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of any legislation, you can be certain there wont be any real teeth - don't want to mess with the donations come election time.