We know that Romney is basically a banker. However, most Obama voters don't view Obama as a Banker President. Isn't it more dangerous to have a banker president who many people think is a populist, versus a president who we know is a banker?
The obvious answer is I'd rather have a president who we know is a banker rather than one who has managed to avoid the label of banker president. However, the republicans seem more ready to go to war at this point in time, and that makes it a tougher call once again.
Obama the banker president has really carved out a nice niche for himself.
- A meek and ultimately failed effort to get Elizabeth Warren the stewardship position of the Consumer Protection Financial Agency.
- Arrogantly Declares that Parallel Foreclosures, a violation of the constitution and the Federal Hobbs Act, extortion under the color of right, are legal.
- Prevents retirees and those close to retirement age access to their built up home equity if they don't qualify based on income, even if the equity from their home would allow them to either live out their lives comfortably and without endangering the bank's loan, or even as a financial bridge until they find work.
- Removal of Glass / Steagall advocacy from the 2012 democrat platform
- Turning a blind eye towards offering any real incentives to help consumers pay down consumer debt.
- Investigation of Goldman Sachs turns up no wrong doing!
Repeat after me, Barack Obama is a Banker President, Barack Obama is a Banker President posing as a populist, and the closest he seems capable of helping Main Street is to cram down more debt to small businesses in the hopes they will magically pay off that debt while hiring more people who will in turn take on more debt to help the economy.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.