President Obama said that because the banking industry is doing better and small businesses are getting loans. CIT is not the only source of financing.

For example, since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February, the weekly loan dollar volume of Small Business Administration loans has risen more than 40%.

He says that because he wants it to be true. Please do not argue with him. It will only make him schedule another press conference and preempt all the shows on TV.

He said it for one reason. His brain dead leg humpers need to hear his lies. Then they will come in here and say we are all racist because dear leader says things are getting better and he is never wrong.

Of course. That’s the agenda, and what amazes me is that Obama and his buddies are not even subtle about it anymore. They just manipulate all of this right out in the open, and the hell with anyone who calls them on it. After all, as Obama repeats over and over again “I AM the President of the United States”.

The news channels should run the truth on the ticker at the bottom of the screen every time he opens his mouth.

This is what he wants you to believe! Lull you into submission! Next he will be asking us to enter community showers! Hi Hitler!

“When CIT finance, who many retail chains get financed from is about to file bankruptcy?”

Because the banking industry on the whole is looking better?

Really.. it’s not that hard of a concept to grasp. 5-6 months ago there were dozens of banks that were going to be, approaching being, or already bankrupt. Now there is one? Sounds better to me. 5-6 months ago NO ONE was getting loans… now they are… Sounds better to me.

“Could the government be favoring certain companies? Eliminating competition to Goldman Sachs and GE’s financing divisions?”

While I always advocate that people remain vigilant against government corruption… I highly ,highly doubt that is the case here.

If they are favoring any companies.. it’s because they are ones that have a better chance of future survival. Think of it this way. You are a mother bird. There aren’t many worms left. You have 3 starving chicks that need food to survive. One is on deaths door because it has other problems… disease.. infection… injury.. whatever… You have enough worms to feed 2 chicks and 2 chicks only… Which ones are you going to feed?

I agree that one would be able to call fowl or ‘favoritism” if the mother bird decides to feed the dieing bird over one of the 2 that is perfectly healthy (aside from needing food). However this isn’t the case here. So it’s hard to make the accusation you did. Of course… It could always be that it’s just a fortunate thing that one of the healthy birds also happens to be the mothers favorite… but there really wouldn’t be anything rational to be upset about in that case.. so the mother would have pretty much just got lucky on that account.

All that being said… this brings up the more relevant question: Should the government be playing “mother bird” at all? Or are these chicks old enough to live and die by there own choices without mothers intervention?

Opinions differ. Some think those chicks could help us in the future. The alternative is letting them die and having to lay more eggs.. and you don’t even know if those eggs are even going to hatch… You decide. That is in essence the real dividing line on this question.