I agree it does, but it is a real photo. I understand why someone who hadn't seen it would believe it's photoshopped.
Stop the hate man there are changes being made a progress thats what is killing so many of you hater that want this man to fail it's not going to happen.
You do recall what happened in Fall of 2008 that caused financial regulations to be an issue? Many of you are acting like that new financial regulations have come out of nowhere as purely ideological driven. Lets not forget what happened not that long ago about why new regulations are needed.
Actually, he and the Democrats seem to believe that the tax rate on millionaires should be higher than 35%, which is the reason the rate is going up to 39% once Bush's tax giveaway to the rich expires. Not really, I think we should go back to the tax rates as they were before Reagan pushed through the first big tax giveaway to the rich. Our deficit would nearly disappear and the middle class wouldn't feel any more of a pinch at all. If the middle class tax rate goes up next year it will be the result of a GOP filibuster when the Democrats push to extend those cuts, but not the ones that affect the wealthy. By far the vast majority of our tax dollars are used to fund defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Only the tiniest percentage was ever used to fund ACORN and that was for voter registration. Yes, we would, yet one more reason to go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. Actually, the evidence shows that it is better for the economy if the middle and lower classes get the benefits because they spend more of the money, so it goes back into the economy. The rich put their money in savings and investments, where it doesn't have as much economic impact. We can't possibly cut taxes any more, we already have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. In order to cut spending down to a level supported by current taxation, we would have to cut defense in half and Social Security and Medicaid by a third each. You are wrong, there are many federal government employees who produce things. The others are in charge (mostly) of enforcing federal law. If you would like to have a hyperbole-free discussion of what agencies you would be OK with gutting, I am all for it. However, your current style doesn't seem to be anywhere near "hyperbole-free" to qualify. Stop watching Fox "News" and maybe you will be better able to discuss issues on the basis of facts. So far, you have provided few if any.
The role of the federal government has been an ongoing process for over two centuries. Claiming that our entire history is "against [A]merican values" is ignoring history. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. You have at least three inaccurate statements in this one quote. Nothing in the recent HCR bill could remotely be described as "socialized medicine." The only way to claim the "majority" were against the bill is to include the numbers of people who thought the bill was NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH! The bill was debated for over a year, if that is an example of shoving down the throat, it is the longest, slowest shove down the throat that I have ever seen. Keep in mind, I have seen a LOT of p*rn. Social Security is much closer to the definition of "redistributing wealth" than HCR. Is SS against American values too? Again, multiple inaccuracies in one sentence. I assume you are talking about the czars, but they have been increasing in number since Reagan appointed the first Drug Czar. "Radical leftists" is quite simply hyperbole. Someone has been watching too much Fox "News." Get your news from credible sources and you will be able to speak about the issues in an intelligent way with information that is based in fact.
selling the same horse twice: [rquoter]President Obama's remarks upon signing the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bill in to law were strangely and perhaps unintentionally revealing: Now, for all those Americans who are wondering what Wall Street reform means for you, here's what you can expect. If you've ever applied for a credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage, you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print. What often happens as a result is that many Americans are caught by hidden fees and penalties, or saddled with loans they can't afford. That's what happened to Robin Fox, hit with a massive rate increase on her credit card balance even though she paid her bills on time. .... Well, with this law, unfair rate hikes, like the one that hit Robin, will end for good. ...With this law, students who take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations. He's saying this law will fix credit cards and student loans. But Mr. Obama already signed a law supposedly fixing credit cards -- back on May 22, 2009, Mr. Obama signed the "Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009," proclaiming, "With this new law, consumers will have the strong and reliable protections they deserve." A White House fact sheet at the time boasted that the law "bans unfair rate increases." Mr. Obama's remarks today were trying to sell Americans the same horse twice. What does he think we were, not listening the first time around? If it were a financial institution trying this kind of snow job on the public the president would probably ask the newly created consumer financial protection agency to investigate it. Same with student loans. In his March 27, 2010, weekly address, the president praised Congress for reforming the student loan programs: "to make sure our students don't go broke just because they chose to go to college, we're making it easier for graduates to afford their student loan payments. Today, about 2 in 3 graduates take out loans to pay for college. The average student ends up with more than $23,000 in debt. So when this change takes effect in 2014, we'll cap a graduate's annual student loan repayments at 10 percent of his or her income." A White House fact sheet, also issued back in March, explained that the changes are part of the the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act." In other words, this, too, is a horse that Mr. Obama is trying to sell the American people twice. Dodd-Frank must be pretty lame if, instead of selling it to the public on the basis of what is actually inside it, the president is resorting to selling it on the basis of other provisions that have already become law as parts of other bills.[/rquoter] i'd also add, apropos of this comment: you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print. that that is exactly what Obama has done w/ HCR and the even more bloated FRB.
Your link and quote is premised on statements that are demonstrably false. This statement is very obviously wrong, as are the ones that follow it: In the years leading up to 2008—09's financial meltdown, government control over mortgages, interest rates and America's banking system was at an all-time high It doesn't really even take a sophisiticated level of knowledge to know this is false, just a bare minimum of knowledge about the history of banking regulations. And, let's face it, if you don't have that knowledge, you don't reallly deserve to be a part of the conversation. Why are you posting things that are deliberately false? ARe you just trolling or do you actually beleive this stupidity? Just wondering.
Your link didn't work. Sam has already stolen some of my thunder but again such a statement about government control of mortgages doesn't hold up to historical facts. We know for a fact that there was a deregulation of mortgages in the late 90's and 2000's.
Looks like the rating agencies are already challenging the new financial reform bill, as it stands now they seems ready to stop the bond market issuance to a grinding halt. I always thought they needed to do something about this rating system we have, let the market decide which agency to use instead of dealers paying the big three. Let's see who blinks first. WSJ Link
that's what it sounds like, so how are they avoiding get sued on ratings that aren't attached to bond offerings
