This dude has a third world marxist mentality and he's an idiot to boot.

Ahh, listen to the tape. He didn't say banks must be regulated because they are in business to make money. I hate to say it, but Breitbarf is really stretching to make a point.

Government must be more tightly regulated because it takes and spends other people's money!

Stoooooopid!

Make him go away please voters, vote him out of office on Nov. 6.

Sorry #2, I think you should re-watch and maybe read the transcript.

Of course Obama and OBiden are 'financially illiterate'.
That would explain the stunned and 'crucified' economy and the millions of workers too discouraged to even seek jobs.

"A man is never so innocently employed as when making money." Samuel Johnson.

The same cannot be said of those engaged in regulating the behavior of others.

Making money is a rational activity that is guided and limited by the constraints of reality. To make money, certain things must be done, and other things must not be done. Making money requires careful attention to detail and respect for the truth, even when the particular enterprise chances to be dishonest or illegal. Nothing clarifies the mind so wonderfully as the endeavor to make money.

Regulating the behavior of other people, by contrast, is rational in name only. Fantasy, politics and brute power are the basis for such regulation. A regulation can be anything one can dream up and manage somehow to impose on others. There is no necessary or logical connection between regulation and outcome. The desire for material gain is simple and pure - as pure anyway as human motives ever are. The urge to regulate others is complex and mixed. All kinds of motives and agendas can be involved in attempts to regulate how other people behave. Making money has a clear and unmistakable goal: the accumulation of money. Regulating other people has no such distinct end point. Whether regulations are successful is much harder to determine and open to debate than whether money is in fact being made or loss.

All things considered, it is much easier to deal with an unscrupulous money maker than an overzealous regulator.

Sharia Law condemns usury... and individual ownership.

Spoken like a true Communist! Oh, yeah, his step-father WAS a Communist...like father, like son.

Every business is in it to make money, you dolt!!! All these excess regulations these lefties create are just ways to control the flow of money back into their own pockets and create more power for themselves. It turns into a corrupt cronyism wherein the banks are no longer acting in good faith but rather looking for sleazy ways to get through the messes caused by the politicians. Often that means campaign contribution kickbacks for special exemptions or other loopholes. I am so sick of lying leftists who KNOW they are illegally profitting from manipulating the businesses while badmouthing them.

Banks are in business to make money??? Zippo, tell me this isn't so...HAHAHAHA!!!! What an idiot! Anybody who votes for this dolt is a clone of this 'genius'...

Obama quote: "But, look, these financial institutions are in to make money and that’s why we need some smart regulations and this is an example of the difference in this campaign because my opponent says he wants to roll back all those regulations."

It sure sounds like it to me, #2! "(They)are in to make money and that is why we need..."

Besides, he is lying. Romney was very clear about what he wanted to do. He wanted to roll back Dodd-Frank because it had too many loopholes that allowed some larger institutions to get special treatment (despite what Obama says). Romney was the one who said we need "smart regulation" but at least he didn't say for the same reason Zero did. Yes, Zero said because the banks "are in it to make money".

zippy couldn't pass a Business 101 course.
Psst, it's called capitalism!

Banks are regulated because they can create money, and Congress is empowered by the constitution to create and regulate the currency. Obama, who may have told you that he is a constitutional professor and scholar, having said that he taught it at the U. of Chicago, may be challenged to find a reference to profits in the constitution.

#2 how did you listen to/watch the tape? I'd like to do so as well.

#9 has it exactly right. This is more proof that Hussein Hmmm Hmmm Hmmm is a muslim.

What is he? A ferengi? For pity sake get him the heck outta office NOW.

A Ferengi would never propose any regulation. A true Ferengi is a committed capitalist.

Banks are not regulated because they create money so much as they do it with other peoples money. Banks were initially regulated for Safety and Soundness, meaning their lending practices were scrutinized to insure that they were not taking undue risk.

As Federal Government Social Planning evolved the minions of Capital Hill found that Banks were a force multiplier for their plans and schemes. So safety and soundness expanded to insure Equal Credit Opportunity. Banks were required to keep statistics on the request that were turned down as well as the loans that were made regarding race and gender.

When Congress decided that underwriting criteria could have a disparate impact on certain neighborhoods the Community Reinvestment Act was created and Banks were required to track the loans that they made geographically within their defined trade area.

Continued

When congress decided that everybody should own a home, credit standards were further relaxed. The banks were competing with Mortgage Brokers whose business assets consisted of a stack of business cards and a magnetic door sign. The default risk was minimized because Really Smart Guys (and Gals) packaged the loans purchase insurance and sold the loan packages as AA Bonds. (See The Big Short by Michael Lewis)

And when the whole thing collapsed Congress decided that the solution was more regulation. Harrumph. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Let me give you a simple example. Say you have a customer who farms in a river valley. By definition this is a flood plain. Say that the farm land itself is worth $10,000 per acre and your customer has a half section (320 acres). Your typical community bank would probably loan up to 70% of that value or $224,000. But our customer is rather conservative (as most good farmers are) and is total debt load is only $160,000. On this farm is a nice machine shed/shop facility that would cost $60,000 to replace. Now you would think that a banker could say to his client "I am comfortable with the value of the ground, so I don't need insurance on the machine shed. However you do need to protect your investment so I leave that decision up to you." You would be right except for the fact that the farm is in a flood plain. Now the Federal regulations kickin and require the bank to have flood insurance to the value of the building despite the fact that the bank is more than adequately collateralized with the ground.

Old School Banker

Please excuse my wrong assertion. I should have asked my 9 year old - she is the Trekkie in our house. She had gone to bed, I will tell her I got properly `educated' Whatever he is he must be stopped!

No slight intended. I only know such mundane trivia because my better-half is a full blown Star Trek geek.