One of President Obama's favorite targets for vilification is Wall Street. In his continuous rhetoric promoting class warfare, it is he who called the firms and their executives greedy. Of course he has never spoken about the huge campaign contributions from Wall Street firms and their executives, more than any other President in history, which helped put him into the White House.
Former Wall Street executives go in and out of the Obama regime like shoppers through a department store's revolving door.
After insurance giant AIG was bailed out by the government Obama was against restricting bonuses to their executives. His National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers received $5 million from a Wall Street hedge fund and $2.7 million for speeches to Wall Street firms including Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Bros. that received bailout money. Summers was an advocate for deregulation of banking.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, Michael Froman received $7.4 from Citigroup from January 2008 until he was hired into Obama's Administration. Citigroup had received $45 billion in bailout money and a $300 billion government guarantee of their bad debts.
David Axelrod, Obama's top campaign advisor, received $1.55 million from consulting firms he controlled. Neal Wolin, Deputy Counsel to the President for Economic Polic, was a top executive at Hartford Financial Services and received a $4.5 million salary. This is but a sampling of the Obama Wall Street connection. Whether these salaries/bonuses are excessive is not for us to determine. What we do know is that compensation such as this is generally attributed to Republicans.
The current assault on Wall Street in New York by this band of irresponsible individuals is not only condoned by Obama and other Democrat politicians, there is evidence that individuals such as former Obama czar Van Jones, the admitted communist, helped organize them. Initially the Democrats and their media lapdogs compared these bands of rabble to the Tea Party gatherings of 2010. In 2010, the media tried very hard to find Tea Party members who were racists, seditionists or those who carried placards professing such slogans.
The Tea Party members did not behave like the New York rabble. They did not defecate on police squad cars, they did not have confrontations with police, they did not use drugs or have sex in public, they did not chant anti-Semitic slogans and none of them were arrested. They cleaned up any refuse that they may have created and their rallies cost the taxpayer nothing. The protest on Wall Street will cost New Yorkers millions.
Many of these protesters have no idea why they are there. Some of them are complaining about how their education will put them hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. No one told them to go to institutions of higher 'brainwashing' that cost forty thousand plus dollars a year. How is it that when education funds are cut they is an outcry but they is no complaint when tuition fees rise annually at more than double the inflation rate? Why do Universities such as Harvard ($32 billion), Princeton ($16 Billion) and Yale ($19 billion) need endowment funds of such magnitude?
Last year Harvard's endowment fund gained $4.4 billion (21%). Does that make the university and its Leftist administration and faculty greedy?