Once Again President Obama Chooses a Fox to Guard the Henhouse.
Once Again President Obama Chooses a Fox to Guard the Henhouse.President Obamas pick to be Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance is Antonio Weiss. His new job would be to oversee the domestic financial systemincluding the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial-reform act, and consumer protection. He is currently the global head of investment banking at Lazard Ltd, a firm that has put together several major inversion deals. Why is this significant?
Since 2003, more than thirty-five American companies have dodged taxes through similar deals, which are known as corporate inversions.
A number of progressive Senators, lead by Sen Warren have reservations. "Warren has a number of problems with Weiss. The first is the fact that his career has been focused on international transactions. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury, she wrote. The second is that hes tied up in the corporate-inversion trend, which, as she notes, the Obama administration has criticized and tried to stop."
Sen Warren further stated, Its time for the Obama administration to loosen the hold that Wall Street banks have over economic policy making.
Sen Warrens third concern is about the fox guarding the henhouse. She ticked off a long list of people with close ties to the financial industry who now serve in high-level economic-policy positions in the Obama administration, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and US Trade Representative Michael Froman. Letting former Wall Streeters roost in top government perches tells people that oneand only onepoint of view will dominate economic policymaking. It tells people that whatever goes wrong in this economy, the Wall Street banks will be protected first, she wrote.
Read more at The Nation Magazine - http://www.thenation.com/blog/191289/next-big-fight-between-progressives-and-wall-street-dems
searchfortruth1
(18 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)none so blind as he who will not see. The BOG is really a cyber version of blind man's bluff, only with back-slapping and "God Bless president, the bestest bestest in history" whenever they bump into each other.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)show me any appointments that are not conservative.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)but of course he was given the boot at the first opportunity
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Figures.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)Great guy, good Ideas...
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Although he's been well known in the Bay Area for quite a while, I got a distinct impression that he was a rising star on the national stage.
mountain grammy
(27,276 posts)he was crucified. He was called everything in the book. Given the boot at the first opportunity? Please! I guess we could have let the raging right wingers and the conservative corporate media chew him up more, but for what purpose? Obama can't even get a surgeon general.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)for one?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Formerly Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.
Then there's Secretary of Commerce, Penny Pritzker
Penny Pritzker played a leading, decision-making role in the lead-up to the failure, which ultimately lost 1,400 depositors an estimated $10 million and cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approximately half a billion dollars.
Then there's FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former telecommunications lobbyist and campaign fund-raiser. Wheeler was chief executive of the National Cable Television Association for five years and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association for 12.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And it would have been easy not to name corporate lobbyists to head regulatory positions. Anyone here think someone has embarrassing wiretaps on Obama for leverage or are threatening him?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Taub was a chief, if not the chief, author of the 2006 Postal Act, whose objective was to destroy the Post Office. And he re-appointed Hammond, who also wanted the Post Office destroyed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)only to never return. There are lots of examples.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)There's probably more, but those are the most conspicuous ones.
Response to searchfortruth1 (Reply #1)
Post removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Former CEO of a 'Security Contractor, Booz Allen who profited nicely from Clapper's work in the NSA, still is.
The list is so long it needs its own thread. In fact that is a very good idea.
Btw, how many Liberal Dems are in this President's cabinet? There are lots of Republicans and Corporate CEOS, but that is not what we elected when we voted for Democrats is it?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, rhett o rick.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Obama has been and continues to be a hired hand for Wall Street. Any doubts? Check his appointments.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)how ridiculous can new members at DU get, and as obvious?
Try again, man.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sector for his success as a politician and maybe even his future career.
Elizabeth Warren pointed out that his rhetoric and presumably his personal leanings are not toward preferences for bankers but that he appoints them to positions of control in our government nonetheless.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Let's look at your implication. Since Obama went into community organizing he can't be cozying up to banks. Is that your implication? Doesn't even make any sense. Almost all of Pres Obama's appointments have been from conservative to very conservative and some have been Republicans.
markpkessinger
(8,563 posts)I agree with him, too. I've been seeing this tactic of disparaging a poster because he/she is new to DU, and I find it very troubling. I mean, agree or disagree with a post, but on its substance, not on the length of DU membership!
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)What does a poster's join date have to do with anything? If you can refute that the majority of appointments have not been from Wall Street and Corporate America, please do.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)subservient to them?
I have not rushed to judgment that appointing any of these folks leads to such a conclusion....you can if you want....
Free world.....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or someone with a higher power (the NSA/CIA Security State) "helps" him with his decisions. If you have an alternate possibility, I'd like to hear it.
As far as "rush to judgement", how many conservative appointments will it take to convince you? I think the percentage is 99%.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Just a pat on the back for the consistent speaking of truth to power.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)If this were the exception instead of the rule, I might agree with you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If we still need to argue that people like Geithner and Duncan weren't liberal nominees, why not just post in GD?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people want to try sell their Third Way issues here if they stick to honest arguments and cut the ridicule, mocking and absurd posts.
I think that stipulation will weed out the disruptors. They never have decent arguments. They get away with their disruption in GD because they have enough friends to win jury decisions.
Honest debates only strengthen our stands and may win converts.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 30, 2014, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)
A Third Wayer did not get the hide. Haven't enough traditional Democrats or liberals been driven off this board or banned?
I don't hang out in other groups a lot, usually only when a group thread shows up in Latest Threads. But, when I happen to see see hides in other groups, it's not someone who belongs in the group who gets the hide.
A challenge in the very first reply on this thread, just like "the swarm" in GD.
Posters in this group should not have to put up with that kind of thing. No loyalist group has to. Besides, how is going to a group to challenge what is being said there ever an "honest discussion?"
Did you ever "honestly" go to the BOG to challenge praise of Obama being posted there by fans of Obama or to the Hillary Group to challenge praise of Hillary being posted there by fans of Hillary?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)because this isn't the first time I've seen him put a fox in charge of a henhouse. In fact, it seems to be a pattern.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)again, Fred. Give it up.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)LiberalArkie
(16,505 posts)Telecom lobbiest for head of FCC, Always a Republican for Defense Sec. , What we need is a southern conservative prosecutor for Justice.
Name the rest of the liberal dept heads we have.
jalan48
(14,399 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Who knows more about causing chaos in the chicken house that a fox, so give him the job of protecting it...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Fox won't eat the chicken THIS TIME. George Bush would say, "Don't be fooling me again." (I left out the stutters)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)These moves alienate everyone in the base. And here's a clue for the party: in 2016 there won't be a charismatic african american to get blacks to the polls. Hillary will have to try to win with Obama's conservative/corporatist platform, and without that natural constituency.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)difficult or inconsistent.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)instead?
The problem I have with your statement is that you are discussing personalities and not ideologies. While you might like both Sen Warren and Pres Obama because they seem nice and have nice smiles, you can't like both progressive and conservative policies.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The French Revolution took decades to play out, not like in the movies.
And all I see on his overall agenda are clear progressive policies....all of them. He needs and deserves our support, not our disappointed derision.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)different news than me. Do you consider drone killings as progressive? How about his support for fracking? TPP? No accountability for Wall Street crime? How about his supprt of the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. His protection of war criminals isn't progressive nor is his stonewalling the report on torture. Clearly his "overall agenda" isn't progressive.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #28)
Post removed
saintsebastian
(41 posts)I totally agree, first of all, with nearly all of the remarks you've made in this thread. Looking at your avatar and signature, though, and considering your use of a phrase like "real progressive", I wonder how far your support for Sen. Warren goes. If we're going to be criticizing other progressives for not being as liberal as they perhaps should be, we can't overlook Sen. Warren.
For starters, she supports GOP efforts to "to repeal or reduce the estate tax". She's also been evasive when asked about raising inheritance tax rates. Furthermore, there's a great deal that remains unknown about her foreign policy positions other than that she's steadfast and typical in terms of her support of Israel. She's even implicitly approved of Israeli shelling of Palestinian schools. Would any of these things make you second-guess your support for the senator?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)will be a tsunami of a movement to get her to run. There's a good chance
that her name recognition will be as good as, if not better than, Clinton's.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)If we actually elect her she might turn out to be another corporate water-carrier.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)She's also shown the ability to utter inconvenient truths and to face adversity without shrinking.
On the other hand, over time Washington has turned the process of corrupting decent politicians into a fine art.
Will Warren be able to resist decades of refined techniques for bringing public servants to heel? I really don't know.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)Doctor_J
I'm not going to endorse anyone until I see who actually throws their hat in the ring....
and them I'm going to scrutinize them like there is not tomorrow before I cast my next vote.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)& maybe you'll feel more assured she IS the real deal~
But I completely understand your concern. Once burned, twice shy. Obama burned half of the country, people who really who wanted what he was selling. That "You Didn't Build That" line, he took from Liz Warren...sigh.
Here's another vid of the Young Turks discussing centrist corporate Obama vs EW. Its really interesting & and they mention that "We all know now that Barack Obama is not a liberal, he's not progressive."~
"Published on Feb 6, 2014
"On Thursday morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on President Barack Obama to nominate more judges to the federal bench who have backgrounds serving the public interest instead of corporate America. Of Obama's judicial nominations so far, just tenfewer than four percenthave worked as lawyers at public interest organizations, according to a report released Thursday by the Alliance for Justice, a network of civil rights organizations. Only 10 nominees have had experience representing workers in labor disputes. Eighty-five percent have been either corporate attorneys or prosecutors. At an event Thursday sponsored by several civil rights organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Alliance for Justice, Warren called for more balance in the system. "Power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side," she said...".* Ben Mankiewicz (co-host of What The Flick?! and TYT Sports) and comedian Jimmy Dore break it down on The Young Turks.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)didn't know much about Obama until after he became president. I simply can't believe that
she is a middle-of the-roader at heart,, pretending to be a Progressive -- just to become
president. That simply is not Elizabeth Warren.
I can guess at her reasons for not wanting to run. But she might possibly change her mind
if the political situation becomes such that she felt it was her duty to respond to the wish of
the American people.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Convention. Including me. Originally, I chose him chiefly because I thought he had the best chance of winning of anyone in that field. But, as primary wore on, I got to be more and more of a fan--and I was following the primary relatively closely, donating and volunteering, too. I vowed never to make that mistake again.
I am not saying that Warren is like Obama. But, that was a fear of mine when people first started literally gushing over her, when she was still working in his administration. Once burned, twice shy, as the saying goes.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Geithner and her other superiors what was on her mind, when she disagreed with them --
which was rather often. They came to look upon her as a nuisance.
Lately I've also read that when Obama thought of appointing another Wall Street banker
as Under Secretary of the Treasury, when asked her opinion, Warren said, "Enough is enough."
Obama's government does have many Republicans. Too many, in my opinion. Is he doing it
to appease the Republicans? If so, look at the way they are treating him. Yet he seems to be
going back for more punishment.
Warren is a Progressive -- and one with courage, integrity, and the willingness to make
America a better place for everyone, not just the rich few. Her history of opposing Wall Street
crooked bankers is well known, and it has been steady over the years.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)@$!#ed.
And started the CFPB.
Warren's been consistent for a long time.
What had Obama done, other than talk about transcending ideologies and other such stuff?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)to help run our government?
ReRe
(10,783 posts)All I can do is hold my head with my right hand and my gut with the left.
Just when you think he might be getting it, he turns around and goes in the opposite direction.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)We Watched and Waited...and BOOM. It gets harder and harder to make excuses as much as we might want to and as much as we want to believe that he's playing that cautious, lawyerly 23rd Dimension (or whatever it is) Chess Game in the "Interests of the American People."
I've wanted to believe....and hoped to believe when I voted Twice for Him on Recs of our Last of the Left ...to give One More Chance.
It wears thin these days...There's not much more betrayal of "Principles" that one can ignore as much as one tries.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and some frogs are willing to stick it out with MIC-Hillary until they reach a boil. I say it's time to make a move, to try to jump out of the pot. The movement has started, we must help it.
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)Obama took their money during his campain.
840high
(17,196 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)In fact all we believe is that the president is just part of the corrupt system instead of the godly populist saint that they see.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)about fracking or the TPP.
red dog 1
(29,322 posts)"Enough is Enough:The President's Latest Wall Street Nominee"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025842840/
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)who is not afraid of the banksters and their pet puppets in high places.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)They and the Republicans are why we can't have nice things.
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)Will the democrats go back to being democrats, not third way tools of Wall Street. I'll be eager to see the Obama apologists rationalize this.
We'll get another big dose of Wall Street Third Way with Hillary.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the way they are harassing Barack now, should she become president? I've
raised this question before, and somebody thought that it was all an act.
It could be, but I feel pretty sure that the Tea Baggers really mean it. They
are a group apart from the other Republicans, I think. There are also those
who hate him for no other reason than his race.
I think she would be harassed, too, no matter how much she should help the
rich to get richer.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)- When you think about it, the Democratic Party has more moderate Republicans than the Republican Party does.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Congrats on the great post, I'll keep it pinned till next weekend.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)so they will be where he can keep a close eye on them.
They work for *him* now, not Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, by damn!
Anybody else remember that particularly desperate rationalization from late 2008-early 2009?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)If one looks at his Appointments from the beginning....it's hard not to wonder what he was about...and as it went on it became clearer. Though....we still wanted to believe.
There are still those who BELIEVE.... But, at some point, some of us really can't "cough it down" anymore on "FAITH."
grasswire
(50,130 posts)This is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE appointment. Much worse than it even appears.
I believe this is the turning over of the U.S. to the BFEE. Pure and simple.
Here's a start if you want to go digging into Bush Lazard. Follow the trails to Texas and Scotland and all around the mulberry bush.
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=13140.0
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)Out Cheneying-Cheney: Obamas Likely Defense Pick Once Backed Pre-emptive Attack on North Korea
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/4/out_cheneying_cheney_obamas_likely_defense
President Obama is reportedly preparing to nominate former Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to replace ousted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. A trained physicist, Carter has a long history at the Pentagon, where he once served as the chief arms buyer. In 2006, he made headlines when he backed a pre-emptive strike against North Korea if the country continued with plans to conduct a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. He co-wrote a piece headlined "If Necessary, Strike and Destroy." We speak to Alice Slater, New York director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a member of the Abolition 2000 coordinating committee.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and rec