 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
More from the most ethical, greatest transition ever, Third Top Treasury Pick Withdraws From Consideration... third in less than a week that is.
Cohen has been a counsel to just about every major player on Wall Street, which perhaps complicated his nomination.
Now, the nomination is off. Democratic sources said that an issue arose in the final stages of the vetting process. As one source put it, "it's back to the drawing board." Cohen had risen to the top after the withdrawal last week of expected deputy treasury secretary pick Annette Nazareth. Nazareth was forced to withdraw from consideration for the deputy treasury slot because senators made it clear she would face tough questioning over her time at the Securities and Exchange Commission -- tenure that overlapped with the agency's failure to catch Bernie Madoff. And the candidate for Undersecretary for International Affairs, Caroline Atkinson, was told she had to withdraw after a "tax problem" was revealed early in the vetting process, according to officials. |
||||
|
||||
|
Lindsay Graham compared joining Treasury to joining the Marines yesterday .Apparently no one wants to jump into the trenches with Geithner. Maybe that says something about his leadership.
In general the Senators treated Geithner alternately like cats toying with a ball of twine... and like a piñata .Kent Conrad mocked him and at the end noting that the market was surging as they took their turns with the lash. Meanwhile even the Compost's David Ignatius notes the incompetence of the financial team the President has assembled .
Obama has stacked his administration with politicians and former government officials. You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis. But no.
Here's the un-businesslike Obama Cabinet: At Treasury, a former government official; at State, a former senator; at Commerce, a former governor; at Defense, a former government official and university president; at Energy, a former professor; at Homeland Security, a former governor; at Health and Human Services, a former governor; at the White House as chief of staff, a former congressman; at the White House as economic czar, a former university president and government official. All fine people, no doubt. But as thin on business experience as a Hyde Park book club. Then add Megan McArdle of Atlantic ;another Obama supporter in the media who is jumping off the sinking ship .
Having defended Obama's candidacy largely on his economic team, I'm having serious buyer's remorse. Geithner, who is rapidly starting to look like the weakest link, is rattling around by himself in Treasury. Meanwhile, the administration is clearly prioritized a stimulus package that will not work without fixing the banks over, um, fixing the banking system. Unlike most fiscal conservatives, I'm not mad at him for trying to increase the size of the government; that's, after all, what he got elected promising to do. But he also promised to be non-partisan and accountable, and the size and composition stimulus package looks like just one more attempt to ram through his ideological agenda without much scrutiny, with the heaviest focus on programs that will be especially hard to cut.
One thing is clear ;Obama's gurus , are pushing essentially the same formula together that put the “Great” in the Great Depression. |
||||
|
||||
|
Who needs an email…just watch and listen to Democrats. And there is no one definition of socialism, but clearly this president and this congress are moving us in that direction. Even Newsweek says, We Are All Socialists Now.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly…
Page 5 of Obama’s omnibus bill smakes it policy:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected." "There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it." |
||||
|
||||
|
Excon,
I don't receive emails on socialism. I actually listen to what politians say, and a government that is in the process of controlling everything is heading towards socialism. Obama goal is to take over everything, this country is supposed to be about freedom. And our rights are being taken away one by one. Look at the doctor who was giving cheap health care to the poor, the government tried to shut it down, because he was not charging them enough money. He is now allowed to keep going, as long as he charges the poor more money. That is what you call Government control, which is socialism. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by michelle321
Everything???? I don't know about that. If you want to smoke marijuana, who is in control of that? If you want to have an abortion, who is in control of THAT decision? If you want to dance in a bar or sell your body, who is in control of THAT decision? If you're gay, and you want to get married like EVERYBODY else, who is in control of THAT decision? If you want to go to Canada and buy your prescription medication CHEAP, who is telling you that you can't? If you want to send a private email message to your friend, who might be reading it? The answer to the above questions, is the GOVERNMENT. I'd call THAT tyranny. You call it socialism when the government regulates business, but it's fine with you that the government regulates your body and your personal life. Okee doakee. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Steve
That political manifesto disguised as a budget is a scary read. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...0-overview.pdf It sort of lays it all on the line. When points the finger of blame on those who did not play by the rules I hope he has a special place in his hall of shame for : Daischle( tax ),Geithner (tax) , Richardson (pay for play) ,Dodd(loan rules cheat)Rangel(tax cheat) ,Evita (campaign financing violations ) and himself (for the corrupt way he obtained his home)... and the list goes on and on. Does he include himself among those who... “For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy,” . By his own definition he is among the uber-rich of the nation . |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think the government has the right to control anything. Everything the government touches turns to disaster. I am not rep or dem. And what right does our government have to take all of our money? Obama claims he wants to help the poor with health care, and yet when one man stands up and does it, they shoot him down. Because 70% of healthcare cost is because of government. Get the government out of all this "business" as you call it, and america will prosper. Take away all the rediculus taxes, and the job wage will skyrocket, the price of everything will go down, and every man and woman will be able to take care of themselves. And as for the other issues, which people are for and against, its called have a vote. But leave the federal government out of it. Obama is backdooring everything he does, our government already has too much control, and he just wants it all. My god the stimulus package has $130,000 for volunteers, that doesn't make any sense. And I'm just tired of the earmarks and pork that is in these bills. And he is a socialist which is on the way to communist. If it keeps going in this direction, there will be full control.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maxine Waters intervened with regulators to protect personal investment
When Rep. Barney Frank was looking to aid a Boston-based lender last fall, the Massachusetts Democrat urged Maxine Waters, a colleague on the House Financial Services Committee, to "stay out of it," he says.
The reason: Ms. Waters, a longtime congresswoman from California, had close ties to the minority-owned institution, OneUnited Bank. Ms. Waters and her husband have both held financial stakes in the bank. Until recently, her husband was a director. At the same time, Ms. Waters has publicly boosted OneUnited's executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials. [Rep. Maxine Waters] Getty Images Rep. Maxine Waters, center, with Earvin "Magic" Johnson, left, and Ms. Waters's husband, Sidney Williams, at the 2009 BET Honors Reception in Washington, D.C. Her involvement isn't new. Ms. Waters has detailed her financial ties in a series of federal disclosure forms and has been vocal in public in support of the bank. Those ties, however, have received little public attention. Nor is it well known how the influential lawmaker has over the years acted to support the bank and its executives. Such potential conflicts of interest are more serious as the banking system's crisis has led the government to take an increasingly active role in overseeing financial institutions, including OneUnited. The financial-services committee on which Ms. Waters sits oversees banking issues, and the lawmaker is a potential future chairman. Representatives of the bank and Ms. Waters didn't return calls seeking comment. Ms. Waters's congressional staff didn't respond to written questions about her and her husband's relationship with the bank. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, says Ms. Waters should have recused herself from any matters involving the bank. If her support helped OneUnited, "it was a disservice to her constituents," Ms. Krumholz says. |
||||
|
||||
|
More on the budget manifesto .
Dan Henniger at WSJ has an editorial . He says that the whole thing is a philosophical construct of 2 French Economists ;Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."
Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich. [Here is a pdf of their collectivist screed . It reads like it was authored by Marx. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf]
The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Exactly, I linked to his column a couple of days ago. That is Obama's moral imperative, to punish the rich in the name of "social justice." And not only that, in the effort to "level the playing field" and force more reliance on the nanny state, he's removing incentives to give to charity. I guess that's one way to cover for all those rich liberals who are rather miserly when it comes to digging in their own pockets. But as Bertrand Russell said about giving to charity, "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Ideal culture vs. Real culture
[ 5 Answers ]
How does ideal culture differ from real culture in U.S. society from other countries?
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counter culture in referen
[ 1 Answers ]
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counterculture in reference to the 1960s, was there one counter culture or were there may different counter cultures, what were the characteristics of the counter movements, was there a straightforward distinction between mainstream culture...
The Democratic "culture of corruption"
[ 39 Answers ]
In the 2006 election (and beyond), Democrats campaigned hard on the "Republican culture of corruption" using Mark Foley as the poster child for its campaign. It turns out Tim Mahoney, the married man that ran against Foley promising "a world that is safer, more moral," apparently "agreed to a...
Tackling corruption
[ 3 Answers ]
How are female candidates in Africa tackling corruption in their campaigns
Product corruption
[ 6 Answers ]
didn't want to retort but I feel it necessary. a certain person has chosen to write things about which me which are irrelevant and untrue - fair enough. to misguide a whole board - a no go. I have been in contact with various internet scam fraud prevention authorities, in time people who...
View more questions Search
|
