Breakthrough Web Design - 515-897-1144 - Web sites for businesses
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the Entire North Iowa Region

Founded October 1, 2010

What to expect if President Obama wins second term

This news story was published on September 9, 2012.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

President Barack Obama spoke to supporters at the Bridgeport Arts Center in Chicago, Illinois, during a fundraising event on Sunday, August 12, 2012.

By Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and David Lauter, Tribune Washington Bureau –

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — “Forward,” reads the slogan on President Barack Obama’s re-election posters. Toward what, specifically, the president and his top aides have said relatively little.

Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday laid out general goals on smaller-scale issues while saying little about the larger debates that probably would dominate a second term if he was re-elected. Administration officials defend that approach, noting that Republican nominee Mitt Romney has offered even fewer specifics.

The clearest priority that Obama has established for a potential second term is his demand that tax rates go up on incomes over $250,000 per year. If he is re-elected, that goal would set up an early, and potentially intense, battle with congressional Republicans, who are likely to retain control of the House and perhaps win a majority in the Senate.

Obama would have some powerful leverage in that fight. In a meeting with reporters several months ago — long before he joined the Republican ticket as the vice presidential nominee — Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., argued that Republicans should make their budget plans a major theme of the election because winning would then provide a clear mandate for implementing their plans. “Elections are about choices,” he said.

Pressed on whether he would make the same statement if Obama won, Ryan didn’t answer. White House aides, however, will not be so reticent. They have made clear that having put the tax issue at the center of his campaign, Obama will claim a mandate for it even in a narrow victory.

The current low tax rates adopted under President George W. Bush expire automatically on Dec. 31. If Congress gridlocks, Obama would win the higher rates, but that would also trigger an across-the-board increase that would violate his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

To prevent that, White House aides have indicated that Obama would try for a deal resembling the “grand bargain” he unsuccessfully sought last year with House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio. That would involve congressional Republicans agreeing to accept some higher taxes and Democrats accepting new restraints on the government’s huge entitlement programs, primarily Medicare. Obama’s aides concede that the possibility of that happening would depend on how Republicans interpreted an Obama victory in November, whether it would cause them to compromise with Obama or fight even harder.

While dealing with the budget, a second Obama administration would face several additional challenges:

IRAN: Is a compromise possible with the government in Tehran over its nuclear program? An agreement almost certainly would have to include allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium to at least low levels, a right guaranteed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Israel would object to such an agreement, but the risk of another Middle East war could impel the United States to go for the deal after the election, foreign policy experts say.

HEALTHCARE: A re-elected Obama administration would have to spend substantial time and energy implementing the president’s healthcare reform law. The law takes full effect in 2014. Between now and then, getting it in place will require many politically fraught decisions, including how much flexibility to give to states and private insurance companies.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE: The Supreme Court has said the Constitution’s protections for free speech do not allow the government to limit how much wealthy individuals or interest groups can spend to promote a candidate or idea. Obama has talked recently about pushing for a constitutional amendment to change that, although it’s unclear how much of his political capital he would be willing to invest in what would certainly be a long, contentious process on an issue that few voters consider a top priority.

IMMIGRATION: If Obama wins, he almost certainly would owe his victory to a large turnout of Latino voters. Because of that, he would face intense pressure to make a stronger effort to pass legislation in a second term than he did in the first.

In his 2008 campaign, Obama promised to try to pass comprehensive immigration reform. In office, he failed to make a serious push for it. This summer, Obama took executive action to provide protected status for many young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. That move has helped Obama among Latinos, but also increases pressure to go further, said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., a leading advocate for immigration reform in Congress.

“You just can’t allow the 1.5 million kids in and then not expect that community of young adults to turn around and say, ‘What about my mom?’” he said.

CLIMATE: Obama sharply criticized Romney in Thursday’s speech, saying “Climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.”

Since his election, Obama has taken two significant steps to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases — measures to increase the fuel economy of new cars and regulations to reduce the use of coal to generate electricity. But broader measures failed in Congress in 2009. If Obama wins reelection, environmental groups will push hard for him to make a renewed effort, which could involve further regulatory steps if the deadlock in Congress continues.

JOBS: One thing that neither Obama nor Romney is likely to make a priority is the issue that most voters list as their top concern: generating more jobs in the short-term. Romney philosophically opposes government intervention to stimulate the economy; Obama supports stimulus, but knows the public, and Congress, has soured on the idea.

Advisers to both camps quietly accept the analysis by prominent economists who say that countries typically take five years to recover from a financial crisis of the sort that walloped the U.S. in 2008. Both have proposed ideas they think will help the economy in the longer term — tax cuts in Romney’s case, investments in infrastructure in Obama’s. But for the short run, both assume the economy will largely return to normal over the next year or two and begin producing more jobs, barring some further disruption. Neither wants to say that to voters.

Need help with your website?
Call your local professional,
Breakthrough Web Design:
or go to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

58 Responses to What to expect if President Obama wins second term

  1. Voting American Reply Report comment

    September 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    All we need is Obama’s own words. “If I don’t reduce the national debt, I don”t deserve to be reelected.” (Stated 4 years ago). How about the conversation we overheard him telling Putin’s rep when the microphones picked him up saying he wouldn’t be able to reduce our missle count until AFTER he is reelected. He IS hiding his college transcripts because he DID recieve forgein aid to attend. (NOT born in Hawaii). His own book uses his words that he would back Muslim’s if worse comes to worse. If he gets reelected he has 4 years the do whatever he wants behind congress backs and won’t care cause he’s done afterward.

  2. Faye Reply Report comment

    September 14, 2012 at 8:13 am

    why are all the people with all these answers not in congress?

  3. Kunstler's Ghost Reply Report comment

    September 13, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Obama 2012

    Romney 1040

    • John Rowe Reply Report comment

      September 13, 2012 at 9:18 pm

      Am tired of the 1040 comment. By the Obama administration appointing…and Democrats confirming Treasury Secretary Geithner…an admitted tax cheat…this argument holds no water. An admitted tax cheat…running the very organization he admitted to cheating. So what difference does Romneys tax records make? He is wealthy..he is successful…we need him much more thana guy who hasnt made a payroll…made/passed a budget…nothing.

      • Kunstler's Ghost Reply Report comment

        September 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm

        Everyone knows he has amassed an enormous fortune. Good for him. That is not what the issue is about. Are you comfortable with the lack of transparency? I’m not. Ryan provided 10 years worth of tax returns to Romney as part of the VP vetting process. Obviously, he would not have made the cut if there were any skeletons in the closet. The public should be afforded the same opportunity before casting a vote in his favor. Romney hides the truth at his own peril. The lack of candor allows the voter to fill in the gaps according to their own life experiences. It is human nature to conclude that he’s hiding something. That undermines the campaign’s frame that he can be trusted. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But I am not willing to chance it. And this appears to be the growing concensus among the majority of the electorate.

      • maybe Reply Report comment

        September 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm

        If you think out it, if romney did break the law by not paying taxes why isn’t the IRS breaking down his door?

      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm

        If I were Romney, I’d promise to release my tax returns when Obama releases his college records proving he didn’t attend school as a foreign exchange student! Yes, we want transparency. What happened to publishing all laws online and on CSPAN for 3 days before he signed them. What happened to going through everything line-by-line and eliminating the excesses. Obama pandered to everyone and anyone in 2008 to get elected and now he’s doing it all over again. He didn’t do any of the things he promised except to totally screw up health care.

      • Kunstler's Ghost Reply Report comment

        September 14, 2012 at 7:52 am

        I doubt he committed any tax offenses. But if you paid next to nothing on tens of millions of dollars of income each year, then there’s a perception that he has certain advantages that are not available to the ordinary American citizen due to his wealth alone. Perception is everything today.

      • Kunstler's Ghost Reply Report comment

        September 14, 2012 at 7:56 am

        An American citizen does not attend American colleges and universities as a foreign exchange student. Your issue about publishing proposed legislation in advance is better directed at congressional Republicans. The President cannot sign it until it passes both chambers.

      • maybe Reply Report comment

        September 14, 2012 at 9:37 am

        Obama had most of his records sealed but there are a few that were found, like an application to a college and he is listed as a foreign exchange student. This document was signed by him.

      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm

        @ maybe: Show me the proof that records have been found that Obama applied to colleges as a foreign exchange student. All I have heard so far is speculation. I want to see the application and proof that it hasn’t been faked.

  4. CM Reply Report comment

    September 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    I’m voting for Obama because I don’t think a US President should have a bank account in Switzerland.

    • John Reply Report comment

      September 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      If you have a 401k or a mutual fund, chances are that you have a tie to a Switzerland bank account so let’s not get petty about off shore money.

      • CM Reply Report comment

        September 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm

        I’m lucky to have the internet let alone any investments. Maybe Mitt and his trustfund crowd should spend some time around the working class.

  5. Katie Reply Report comment

    September 10, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Anyone heard of ACORN? That is the organization that started the housing lending problem back in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act. They kept putting pressure on liberal law makers to change lending laws so lenders were forced to lend money to non-qualifying borrowers until the banks failed. Blame the lawmakers who voted for that and ACORN, not the Republicans. Every law they passed for ACORN went against accepted lending practices. The bankers at first were forced into it by crazy people who thought everyone should own a house whether he could afford one or not. Most of the bankers were stupid enough to jump on the band wagon.

    • Bobby G Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      What’s even worse is that Obama use to be one of there lawyers.

  6. Taxpayer Reply Report comment

    September 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    The U.S. will continue to fail if Obama is re-elected! He had no leadership experience, no business exoperience and no foreign policy experience, yet I think the only reason he got elected is because fo the color of his skin! Callme a racist if you want – that is the Dems scapegoat!

    Obama is anti-American and will move the country closer to SOCIALISM (Communism) then ever before! The past 4 years prove him to be NO LEADER at all! Just drive the country deeper into uncontrollable debt (stimulus welfare program, increased food stamps, more & more welfare), and force more and more Americans into poverty – that’s what the Liberal MACHINE is all about. The more folks dependent upon the government, the more votes the Liberal Machine gets – that is f**king pathetic !


    Obama’s American dream is to have every American (legal or not) dependent upon the government for survival. There are far too many folks raping the $$$ system dry and not enough paying into the $$$ system. If you make $100.oo you sure as HELL do not spend $150.oo !

    VOTE ROMNEY/RYAN in November – we need change as all the HOPE has run out !

    • Anonymous Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      Are you saying that socialism is the same as communism?

      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm

        Communism definitely includes socialism, but socialism does not necessarily go as far as communism. However, most conservatives feel that socialism is a slippery slope and the gateway to communism. Those of us who grew up in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s were exposed to the results of the evils of communism and socialism. We saw the evidence of the social squalor caused by the shortages of food and goods in the eastern block of European countries. We heard about the isolation caused by the iron curtain. Socialism and communism are evil words in our vocabularies. The last thing we want is to become dependent on a government for anything because we know what happens to the people in those countries. The people who think free stuff from the government from cradle to grave is wonderful have no idea what can and will happen to the future of this country. If this continues on the track it is on, I hope I will not live to see it. I do not want to stand in line for a half loaf of bread for 12 hours. I do not want food rationing. I do not want gas rationing. I do not want medical rationing. That is where we are headed unless we get a strong leader who creates jobs and revitalizes the private sector of our economy and makes people who CAN earn a living and pay their own ways.

    • obama2012 Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Obama 2012 he will win 🙂

  7. Katie Reply Report comment

    September 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm

  8. Anonymous Reply Report comment

    September 10, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Boy the Delphi retirees sure got ripped off by this administrtion didn’t they? So much for helping the middle class. has articles on it.

  9. My Voice Reply Report comment

    September 10, 2012 at 11:12 am

    The Seals Removed One Threat To America. Remove The Other In November.

    Romney/Ryan 2012!

  10. Anonymous Reply Report comment

    September 9, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    I agree. Throw the bum out. Who cares if he got rid of Osama bin laden on his watch. Lets vote in a multi millionaire so out of touch with the middle class, that won’t release his tax returns and hides money in other countries. I want to pay more taxes so the rich can get richer! Isn’t that the american way? Good thing I got my operation when I did, can’t depend on Medicare much longer.

    • maybe Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 12:08 am

      He could have gotten rid of osama earlier but did’nt, the last thing I heard was the seals took out osama, all obama did was say ok do it.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 12:46 am

        your right, the seal team took him out. what was it, one or two terms of W that couldn’t even fine him?

    • LVS Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 9:05 am

      The word is that Hilary had to push him to give the OK to go after him. If Bush hadn’t started the intelligence it never would have happened. Then of course they had to lie about what happened. That is his M.O., one lie after another and you SUCKERS fall for it. Almost everything I buy costs more now than it did in 2008. That is the real Change you can believe in.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm

        HAHAHHAHHAA is that the same actionable intelligence that got us INTO the war? The words Bush and intelligence do not belong in the same sentence without the acronym W.M.D.

      • What are you talking about? Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm

        From CNN –April 21, 2004

        Hillary Clinton said she wasn’t sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq. Many others in Congress voted for military involvement in Iraq.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 3:21 pm

        That doesn’t make the decision any less wrong.

      • David Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        You talk about the WMD, well I’m here to tell you that no matter what the news said there was WMD’s in iraq because I saw them. Not only did sadam have missles with biological chemicals in them they used serin gas in IED’s against american troops.

      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm

        I suppose you also deny that there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium found in Iraq.

        These Democrats in the Senate voted for the war in Iraq: (Recognize any names???)
        Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Biden (DE) Breaux (LA)Cantwell (WA) Carnahan (MO) Carper (DE) Cleland (GA) Clinton (NY) Daschle (SD) Dodd (CT) Dorgan (ND) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Harkin (IA) Hollings (SC) Johnson (SD) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Landrieu (LA) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln (AR) Miller (GA) Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reid (NV) Rockefeller (WV) Schumer (NY) Torricelli (NJ)

        These Democrats in the House voted for the war in Iraq: Democrats
        Gary Ackerman, Rob Andrews, Jim Barcia, Ken Bentsen, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Rod Blagojevich, Bob Borski, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Brad Carson, Bob Clement, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Jim Davis, Peter Deutsch, Norm Dicks, Cal Dooley, Chet Edwards, Eliot Engel, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Martin Frost, Dick Gephardt, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Ralph Hall, Jane Harman, Baron Hill, Joe Hoeffel, Tim Holden, Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, William Jefferson, Chris John, Paul Kanjorski, Patrick Kennedy, Ron Kind, Nicholas Lampson, Tom Lantos, Nita Lowey, Ken Lucas, Bill Luther, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Frank Mascara, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Michael McNulty, Martin Meehan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Bill Pascrell, Collin Peterson, David Phelps, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Roemer, Mike Ross, Steven Rothman, Max Sandlin, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Ronnie Shows, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Charles Stenholm, John Tanner, Ellen Tauscher, Gene Taylor, Karen Thurman, Jim Turner, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, Al Wynn

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm

        Still waiting for someone to tell me why we went to war that ended so many young lives and spent 3.4 to 4 trillion dollars. Yellow cake uranium doesn’t count as it cannot be used for a dirty bomb or nuclear weapons.

      • David Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm

        Serin gas, sadam had tons of it and he used it against american troops. Training camps for al qaeda terrorists in iraq. Plus millions of starving people.

      • Jason Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm

        I’m sorry Anonymous (September 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm) but you should have done a little research. True, yellow cake in its present form cannot make a nuclear weapon or even used to create a “dirty” bomb. But a little processing (which they were able to do) will move the yellow cake through successive levels of enrichment until you have weapons grade uranium.

    • Katie Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      I am so tired of people playing the rich card on Romney. That is the only thing you Democrats seem to be able to find fault with. He is rich because he understands BUSINESS, how to create businesses, how to run businesses, and how to create and maintain jobs. The fact that he is rich means that he has been successful at what we need most right now! That is what our country is having a problem with. What part of that don’t you understand? Would you want a business failure to run our country? Would you want the CEO from Solyndra to run for president? Or someone who went broke running a lemonade stand? That is about what we have now. Obama has never run anything and has no financial, economic, or management experience. Romney has an MBA from Harvard and knows more about economics, finance, and management than most people in this country or on Obama’s staff. The fact that he is rich is a big PLUS. It means he is wildly successful at what he does best. He may not relate well to people out of his economic status, but he provides them with EMPLOYMENT. That is what this country NEEDS. You don’t need to feel like you could sit down and drink a beer with him. You need to feel that he will find a way to create a job so you can sit down and drink a beer with your buddies. He can do that. Obama has proven that he can’t.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 2:37 pm

        The US is not a business. It doesn’t need a businessman running it. His lack of “financial patriotism” shows that he would rather invest money offshore and make two bucks than create a new job in the US and make one buck.

      • What are you talking about? Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm

        Government pension worker funds are big recipients of Bain Capital’s expertise in finance. So are many foundations with liberal causes. So I guess you would have to say Bain has helped many people in this country. I’m sorry to say you have no idea what you are talking about. I worry about the lack of education in this country. There really is no excuse for it since you have access to the internet. Why not study the issues and quit repeating what you heard on MSNBC?

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        Bain also helped a LOT of workers find the door after they shut down the company they worked for, chopped it up, and sold it off. They sound like delightful people.

      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm

        The US is the biggest business in the world. The problem is that it has not been approached as a business. It has only been approached as a political entity. It hasn’t had a damned budget in 3 years. If it is supposed to have a budget, then it is a BUSINESS!!! That is the problem. No one is willing to treat it as a business and the time is now before China owns any more of us.

      • What are you talking about? Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm

        Bain has an 80% success rate. That’s pretty good. What do you think about them making money for ALL those govt pension workers? Do you think those pensioners should give all those gains back because Bain is so evil??? What a joke! Better do something besides watch tv commercials.

      • What are you talking about? Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 5:51 pm

        By the way have you been to a Staples lately? Lots of employees there–a Bain success story. Those evil capitalists….

    • John Reply Report comment

      September 13, 2012 at 8:57 pm

      did Obama show his college transcripts? How did he get to those 2 institutions? Romney has sent more money to charity than Obama pays in taxes each year.

    • *Larry* Reply Report comment

      September 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm

      Why are the “MIDDLECLASS” folks the only people that matter to the Democrats? Does the name JOHN KERRY ring any bells just a few short years ago – a DEMOCRAT running for President _ that is the RICHEST MAN IN WASHINGTON D.C. Do you think he & his “HEINZ” wifey do not have any $$$$$ in foreign banks? What about the CEO of G.E.? He sits on Obamas financial leadership team and outsourced job, after job, after job to foreign countries ! Where is all the bitching about that?


      • Katie Reply Report comment

        September 14, 2012 at 6:49 pm

        Right. And what about his good buddy George Soros. Let’s start playing the rich card on Obama’s supporters.

  11. BIKER Reply Report comment

    September 9, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Ok Obama fans, really lets get to some facts. I’m middle class like most of you, lets get real, middle class Obama keeps preaching that he is for the middle class… Is he so full of shit or are you so stupid that you believe this redric. Just a few facts here, gas, that affects the middle class not the rich has gone up a dollar to a dollar and a half per gallon, you really think that is hurting the upper class in the united states that pay 80 percent of the taxes.? Food, well we are not eating caviar and lobster every night, so guess what, food prices affect the middle class. Taxes on cell phones, utilities, home phone, your cheap f***ing keystone beer, your Newport cigarettes, grizzly chew is all costing YOU 30 percent more than it did three years ago. the list goes on and on… check your facts. Don’t just listen to redric, home values are down 30-50 percent, wake up America unless you want to see a total collapse on our government, economy and way of life as you know it keep voting democratic and all the bottom fetters will go from three kids on welfare to six and you will be paying for it, and lets not forget there free cell phones, childcare, housing, food, car repairs, medical, dental, eye care, weatherization, memberships, soup kitchen, and if you move to California illegal immigrants can go to college for FREEEEEEE!!!

    • happyguy Reply Report comment

      September 10, 2012 at 9:06 am

      Biker…I’m not sure how you tie most of this to Pres Obama. A lot of what you are talking about is state taxes, some of what you are talking about is due to a lack of action by congress, and some is just price gouging by big oil companys. 30% tax hikes on cigarettes and chew…who cares. Stop smoking and chewing. (those taxes are state taxes mostly anyway). Food prices are going to go up because of a very bad couple of drought years. The republican rhetoric seems to blame everything on any democratic president. Lets look at the real facts…stock market is way up, jobs are being created, corp. America is sitting on 300 billion in new profits, unemployment is slowly coming down, and home values are starting to rise. You seem to forget which political party got us into this mess but I can tell you which political party is getting us out of it. The democrates and it is fair to say without much help from the republicans.

      • maybe Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 11:18 am

        We are in this mess because of a democratic controlled congress during the bush years. Bush warned congress against forcing these lending companies to lend money to people that couldn’t pay it back, he warned them 17 times. You are dead set on blaming everything on the republicans that maybe you should do some research for yourself once instead of repeating what you hear, that way you don’t look like a fool.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 11:31 am

        How did congress “FORCE” anyone to lend anyone dollar one?

      • maybe Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 11:39 am

        There was certian incentives for the companies only if they lent money to poverty level people. If they didn’t lend they didn’t get the incentives or tax breaks. They didn’t force them, they just made it moneitarily impossible not to say no.

      • Anonymous Reply Report comment

        September 10, 2012 at 11:53 am

        Also if the banks wanted to merge they would look at their record of lending to low income people and that record would help decide if they let the merger go ahead or not. Also special interest groups would start harassing banks that they felt weren’t helping out enough, kind of like blackmail isn’t it?

  12. Bobby G Reply Report comment

    September 9, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Civil War.

  13. TheRealFred Reply Report comment

    September 9, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    4 more years of the same crap. Crushing unemployment and record deficit spending.

  14. Buzz Crumcutter Reply Report comment

    September 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Expect nothing more from this guy than he has given us all so far. Huge debt, empty promises and no leadership.

    The O-man, is nothing but an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. Oh, and all of this is and has been at our expense.