Comments on: Butchers offer financial services? “Completely false,” says Obama Tracking U.S. politics Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:39:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: bruce stravinsky Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:03:53 +0000 Why is it that progressive-types always want NEW government agencies when the ones they created before prove not to be effective?

It’s like the infrastructure spending – it doesn’t fix hardly anything out there now because a politician can’t put his name on a bridge which was already built by some previous politician. Only NEW bridges (or agencie) can be named after the current politician.

Obama ought to be concentrating on making the government he has work instead of creating another one on TOP of the one his predecessors put in place. Effeciency does not require ‘new’. We don’t need ‘new’ gun laws, we don’t need ‘new’ food safety laws, we don’t need ‘new’ regulations over investments. We just need to punish the people who broke the ‘old’ laws and do a better job with the taxpayers $$ in enforcing the millions of regulations already on the books.

By: Judicious George Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:12:16 +0000 Follow-up question, Mr. President…

If the big banks are so bad [ie carnivorous malicious unscrupulous business practices] that you need to protect us, why did you bail them out when they were headed for a fall?

Could it be that in view of the current federal oversight this new agency is not needed, but instead amounts to a payback for political favors, or a grab for more power?

By: Judicious George Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:41:34 +0000 What?!! Banks want to make money? At the expense of consumers? I thought they were charitable organizations! At least I can trust the federal government to …spend …wisely.

So even though consumer protection already has federal oversight, we’re creating a new and bigger agency for the same purpose?

Will it stop consumer greed? Will this agency deny loans for houses deemed too expensive, or reduce overspending with credit cards?

We need an agency to protect the public from Congress’ overspending and stupid decisions. Witness the national debt, Fannie & Freddie.

By: Honest Abe Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:19:19 +0000 What the heck are you people talking about?

The economic crisis having come about BECAUSE OF regulation?

Are you stupid, blind, or just indignantly FLAGRANTLY stupid?

It was greed— pure and simple greed—– and financial companies
taking bigger and bigger risks with less and less reasonably sound financial
instruments that caused the damned mess that we’re in, and don’t you dare forget it.

How ON EARTH would an agency who’s there to protect consumers— that’s right— the AVERAGE JOE & JANE AMERICAN— from carnivorous malicious unscrupulous business practices—- how on earth is that pushing us further toward the financial meltdown of our entire nation that rampant DE-REGULATION was very aptly bringing to bear?

By: Alheimstead Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:49:32 +0000 Obama wants to do away with all the pages and forms? HaHa!! First, focus on the 1000 pages in HC3200. Then fix all loopholes. NO more government interference Obama! Everytime you guys touch the economy, things go south. Leave it alone, we the people will fix it ourselves. We do not trust you anymore.

By: Jens Bos Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:51:28 +0000 Strange we really seem to go for those who are well of, those who do not want interference in the workings of their opportunities. The workings of hard core cpaitalism.

No if we want a sustyainable society, Mr. Obama has got the right ideas.

By: Lim Boon Chuan Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:04:47 +0000 It is high time government stop the interference of the economy. There was argument that the financial crisis was bought about by the limits of the Invisible Hand. Nothing can be further from the truth. It was caused by the meddling of the monetary policies imposed by the government.

It caused trillions to get out of that mess. Hopefully hands off the Invisible Hand and lets not play with fire anymore. Big government suffer from the diseconomy of scale, no more agencies, I feel that the private sector is more than capable of handling itself.

By: Tagg Gnostic Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:14:46 +0000 we need less government agencies, not more. more agencies equals more government employees equals more taxes to pay for them. more agencies equals more regulations to justify their existance equals less freedom. less federal involvement if anything needs to be done it should be done on a state or local level. no government agency has ever shrunk or found a way to be less intrusive, big brother is out of control, this is just another way for career politicians to reward their cronies and control our lives.

By: Mary-Louise Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:11:58 +0000 Duh! No, oversight of financial institutions doesn’t mean your name and personal financial information will be coughed up by everyone else you do business with including your bank. But the Chamber is counting on the fact that most Americans read at the 4th grade level and so won’t understand the twisted logic of their self-serving warning. The Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to one thing only – helping their members make more money. Rule of thumb – if the Chamber is behind it, it will cost you money.