I was still working on the video from Concord, so I did not live blog Obama. However, I kept noticing the inconsistencies in what he was saying. Sure, he talks a nice game, and if you are only partially listening, it sounded good. If you are not politically aware, you might have thought the same. However, I kept exclaiming to TMEW, over and over, “he just said said the opposite a moment ago”, “wait, he just said WHAT?”, or “Huh? That makes no sense whatsover based on what he said 10 minutes ago!”.
Thus, when I found this guy, Clark Judge, over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog (reformatted it here), I just had to repost it to show how Obama (or his speech writers) has no clue what happens when you really do think about those inconsistencies:
It sounded like such a soft, even conservative speech.
But let me get this straight:
- banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,
- and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),
- which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,
- the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,
- but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,


