Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Warren: We should be frustrated and concerned over our growing clique of federal appointees with ties to the banking industry   (politico.com) divider line 42
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

316 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2014 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-04-30 10:09:16 AM  
Please, Americans.  Elect this woman president.  She's literally the only thing standing between you and the oligarchy.  Why do I care?  Because economic misery is Wall St's largest export.
 
2014-04-30 10:11:43 AM  
Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.
 
2014-04-30 10:12:31 AM  

Mercutio74: Please, Americans.  Elect this woman president.


...And let the Tea Party see what a real progressive looks like.
 
2014-04-30 10:12:53 AM  

Geotpf: Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.


So vote Republican?
 
2014-04-30 10:15:22 AM  
There's no way she's going to last long in politics. Someone's going to drug her and pose her with Woodhouse to get her out before her common sense makes real headway.
 
2014-04-30 10:15:35 AM  

Geotpf: Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.


It's called ethics.  She doesn't approve of his background but he clearly has the knowledge and ability to fulfil the role.  Plus the president put him forward.

By my reckoning, if you're a Senator and you feel that the president has made a reasonably qualified choice for an appointed position, you should approve that recommendation.  It's not kosher to block an appointment because you feel he might not do the job to your ideological preference.

The flipside of that is if the guy does step out of line legally, demand a Benghazi-sized inquiry into corruption in his department.
 
2014-04-30 10:15:38 AM  
Why are so many appointees of this ilk appearing?

Shall we just thank Obama?
 
2014-04-30 10:15:54 AM  
Didn't we hash this one out yesterday? I believe the conclusion was Republicans something, something.
 
2014-04-30 10:16:41 AM  

Courtney Love's Genital Warts: Mercutio74: Please, Americans.  Elect this woman president.

...And let the Tea Party see what a real progressive looks like.


Yup.  She's so far left, she might even be to the left of my country's Conservative party.  Perhaps even all the way to the political center!
 
2014-04-30 10:16:44 AM  
I cast my vote reluctantly

so at the end of the day it will be counted on the same side as people who fervently cast their vote, thanks!
 
2014-04-30 10:18:31 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Why are so many appointees of this ilk appearing?

Shall we just thank Obama?


I think so.  He's always has pro-corporate leanings.  He does try to temper it with some concern for the middle class, but he's definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.
 
2014-04-30 10:22:05 AM  

Mercutio74: AverageAmericanGuy: Why are so many appointees of this ilk appearing?

Shall we just thank Obama?

I think so.  He's always has pro-corporate leanings.  He does try to temper it with some concern for the middle class, but he's definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.


Reminder that the most liberal thing he's done was change his mind on gay marriage to sane.  Or pass republican health care reform, depending on who you ask.
 
2014-04-30 10:25:48 AM  

Mercutio74: Geotpf: Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.

It's called ethics.  She doesn't approve of his background but he clearly has the knowledge and ability to fulfil the role.  Plus the president put him forward.

By my reckoning, if you're a Senator and you feel that the president has made a reasonably qualified choice for an appointed position, you should approve that recommendation.  It's not kosher to block an appointment because you feel he might not do the job to your ideological preference.

The flipside of that is if the guy does step out of line legally, demand a Benghazi-sized inquiry into corruption in his department.


If nothing else, while she realizes all this she's also saying that as Americans we need to be paying attention to their job performance and not simply trust the industry to run itself in an ethical way, like the nation as a whole basically did during the period their greed and shortsightedness lead to the real estate bubble, and ultimate popping.
 
2014-04-30 10:31:55 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Why are so many appointees of this ilk appearing?

Shall we just thank Obama?


I think given the general idiocy and lack of better candidates being proposed by the critics here, it's really hard to take this sort of whining seriously.

It's not like putting in a bunch of goldbugs or bitcoin fans is a smart alternative. There are few people outside the banking industry with the necessary knowledge to level any intelligent criticism of the industry, but as we all know that sort of creates a conflict of interest (which is what Warren has been complaining about).
 
2014-04-30 10:37:47 AM  

Mercutio74: Please, Americans.  Elect this woman president.  She's literally the only thing standing between you and the oligarchy.  Why do I care?  Because economic misery is Wall St's largest export.


No.  She can do more and better work in the Senate than she can as President.


/When will people learn the real power in Washington is not in the Presidency?
 
2014-04-30 10:41:42 AM  

Gary-L: No. She can do more and better work in the Senate than she can as President.


/When will people learn the real power in Washington is not in the Presidency?


She can appoint people to head financial enforcement agencies.  She can appoint SCOTUS judges.  She can use the bully pulpit to champion the middle class.

Right now she's one voice in the Senate... and though her voice is important, predominantly, it is ineffective because of the widespread graft and corruption in congress.
 
2014-04-30 10:43:45 AM  
She will never be allowed to sniff a ballot box by either of the parties. She would have to run independent; like I said, never sniff.
 
2014-04-30 10:45:01 AM  

moefuggenbrew: She will never be allowed to sniff a ballot box by either of the parties. She would have to run independent; like I said, never sniff.


And sadly, this.  There's no way in the hell the Dems will let her gain the nomination.  She's corporate donation kryptonite.  In this era of Citizen's United...  it's throwing money away.
 
2014-04-30 10:53:11 AM  

Mercutio74: Gary-L: No. She can do more and better work in the Senate than she can as President.


/When will people learn the real power in Washington is not in the Presidency?

She can appoint people to head financial enforcement agencies.  She can appoint SCOTUS judges.  She can use the bully pulpit to champion the middle class.

Right now she's one voice in the Senate... and though her voice is important, predominantly, it is ineffective because of the widespread graft and corruption in congress.


And we've seen how effective a President can appoint people with a Congress largely hostile to the White House.
 
2014-04-30 10:56:46 AM  

Gary-L: When will people learn the real power in Washington is not in the Presidency?


when people forget that they appoint supreme court judges?
 
2014-04-30 11:00:22 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: And we've seen how effective a President can appoint people with a Congress largely hostile to the White House.


We'll have to see.  At some point this tea party nonsense will either have to come to an end or take over the GOP.  And if the the midterms go like the polling suggests, America's going to be further in the shiatter for '16.   That usually would suggest a Dem takeover in '16.
 
2014-04-30 11:14:10 AM  

Mercutio74: Gary-L: No. She can do more and better work in the Senate than she can as President.


/When will people learn the real power in Washington is not in the Presidency?

She can appoint people to head financial enforcement agencies.  She can appoint SCOTUS judges.  She can use the bully pulpit to champion the middle class.

Right now she's one voice in the Senate... and though her voice is important, predominantly, it is ineffective because of the widespread graft and corruption in congress.


You bring up some good points; however:

1) Heads of financial agencies "Serve at the pleasure of the President".  Rarely do these individuals stay at the change of Presidents.
2)  Not all Presidents appoint Justices
3) The bully pulpit is fine; however, it depends on how well the President is with other issues.  She wouldn't do a damned bit of good if the House is filled the the Party of No, like the current President.

Not faulting you, but I'd rather she be able to shake things up for three or four terms in the Senate rather than spending four years trying to get re-elected and then becoming a lame duck.
 
2014-04-30 11:23:55 AM  
Wow, a reasonable sentence from Warren.
 
2014-04-30 11:31:17 AM  

Mercutio74: Geotpf: Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.

It's called ethics.  She doesn't approve of his background but he clearly has the knowledge and ability to fulfil the role.  Plus the president put him forward.

By my reckoning, if you're a Senator and you feel that the president has made a reasonably qualified choice for an appointed position, you should approve that recommendation.  It's not kosher to block an appointment because you feel he might not do the job to your ideological preference.

The flipside of that is if the guy does step out of line legally, demand a Benghazi-sized inquiry into corruption in his department.


If she questions his impartiality, she should vote against him.

I have no idea who this guy is, so I can't say whether she'd be right or wrong.
 
2014-04-30 11:44:47 AM  

BMFPitt: If she questions his impartiality, she should vote against him.

I have no idea who this guy is, so I can't say whether she'd be right or wrong.


I disagree.  That sets up the approvals process to be a means of holding the executive hostage.   I know the constitution is light on details of what criteria the Senate should when considering a nomination, but I don't think it was ever meant as a means for the Senate to hamstring the presidency.  Merely to weed out the obviously corrupt and incompetent nominees.
 
2014-04-30 11:49:25 AM  

BMFPitt: Mercutio74: Geotpf: Note that it appears she's voting to approve the guy anyways.

It's called ethics.  She doesn't approve of his background but he clearly has the knowledge and ability to fulfil the role.  Plus the president put him forward.

By my reckoning, if you're a Senator and you feel that the president has made a reasonably qualified choice for an appointed position, you should approve that recommendation.  It's not kosher to block an appointment because you feel he might not do the job to your ideological preference.

The flipside of that is if the guy does step out of line legally, demand a Benghazi-sized inquiry into corruption in his department.

If she questions his impartiality, she should vote against him.

I have no idea who this guy is, so I can't say whether she'd be right or wrong.


Do you have any particular reason to question this guy's particular impartiality, or are you merely sowing FUD?

Again Warren's not saying this guy will most likely be another corrupt crony to the banking system, just that we need to actually be responsible and monitor his actions in this position. And maybe if we're going to keep appointing former bankers to these positions, at least not select all of them from Citibank.
 
2014-04-30 11:52:29 AM  

Gary-L: 3) The bully pulpit is fine; however, it depends on how well the President is with other issues.  She wouldn't do a damned bit of good if the House is filled the the Party of No, like the current President.


Agree, I think people overestimate the bully pulpit. It's particularly ineffective in the current political climate, where anything Obama (or even the First Lady) speaks out about suddenly becomes poison. Using the bully pulpit now is the best way to galvanize the entire Republican party against your issue. Warren has more persuasive influence where she is now in the Senate than she would have as POTUS.
 
2014-04-30 12:29:42 PM  
Look dear we have all ready been bought sold, repackaged, resold. Just lie back and think of America, fark YEAH!
 
2014-04-30 12:48:59 PM  

Mercutio74: I disagree.  That sets up the approvals process to be a means of holding the executive hostage.   I know the constitution is light on details of what criteria the Senate should when considering a nomination, but I don't think it was ever meant as a means for the Senate to hamstring the presidency.  Merely to weed out the obviously corrupt and incompetent nominees.


I disagree with your belief that this process should be a rubber stamp.  If she thinks he is not appropriate for the position based on her own judgment and at least 39 other Senators agree with her strongly enough, then he doesn't get the job.

Crotchrocket Slim: Do you have any particular reason to question this guy's particular impartiality, or are you merely sowing FUD?


So I see you missed the sentence where I said that I had no particular opinion on this guy, and was speaking of the Senate confirmation process in general.
 
2014-04-30 12:56:01 PM  

BMFPitt: Mercutio74: I disagree.  That sets up the approvals process to be a means of holding the executive hostage.   I know the constitution is light on details of what criteria the Senate should when considering a nomination, but I don't think it was ever meant as a means for the Senate to hamstring the presidency.  Merely to weed out the obviously corrupt and incompetent nominees.

I disagree with your belief that this process should be a rubber stamp.  If she thinks he is not appropriate for the position based on her own judgment and at least 39 other Senators agree with her strongly enough, then he doesn't get the job.

Crotchrocket Slim: Do you have any particular reason to question this guy's particular impartiality, or are you merely sowing FUD?

So I see you missed the sentence where I said that I had no particular opinion on this guy, and was speaking of the Senate confirmation process in general.


So you're hunting wabbits, huh-uhuhuhuhuhuh
 
2014-04-30 01:06:53 PM  

BMFPitt: I disagree with your belief that this process should be a rubber stamp. If she thinks he is not appropriate for the position based on her own judgment and at least 39 other Senators agree with her strongly enough, then he doesn't get the job.


I guess it depends on your definition of "rubber stamp".  FWIW, I do believe that nominations to other branches of government (Judicial) warrant a more ideological vetting but when we're talking about appointments made by the president to serve in the executive branch, it just seems logical that the prez should be able to pick the people heading up the various departments as long as he's not doing stupid stuff like hiring cousin Merle who's never even heard of Iraq to be head of state.  It wouldn't be a rubber stamp because there would be a process where you have to be reasonably sure that the nominee has the requisite knowledge and ability to perform.  A rubber stamp implies that you just approve the nom and move on regardless of any factors.
 
2014-04-30 01:18:07 PM  

Mercutio74: when we're talking about appointments made by the president to serve in the executive branch, it just seems logical that the prez should be able to pick the people heading up the various departments as long as he's not doing stupid stuff like hiring cousin Merle who's never even heard of Iraq to be head of state.


I'd be fine with an rule that says an up or down vote must be held within 90 days of nomination.

// Head of state is the President, who is not appointed.
 
2014-04-30 01:22:46 PM  

BMFPitt: I'd be fine with an rule that says an up or down vote must be held within 90 days of nomination.

// Head of state is the President, who is not appointed.


I mean head of the state department.  Or Secretary of State, if you prefer.

I think an up or down vote mandate would be a good thing too.
 
m00
2014-04-30 03:28:02 PM  

Mercutio74: it just seems logical that the prez should be able to pick the people heading up the various departments as long as he's not doing stupid stuff like hiring cousin Merle who's never even heard of Iraq to be head of state.


cdn.frontpagemag.com
 
2014-04-30 05:12:05 PM  
You hear "Warren can do more good in the Senate" all the time, but, aside from obvious things like appointments, it doesn't take into account the "LBJ factor": a President who's so good at working Congress that sh*t gets done. That is admittedly a high bar - LBJ was a genius at that - but there's a broad spectrum. Obama is pretty low on that spectrum; it's not in his personality. Who knows how Warren would do?
 
2014-04-30 05:20:08 PM  
i75.photobucket.com

AverageAmericanGuy: Why are so many appointees of this ilk appearing?

Shall we just thank Obama?


We can thank you, actually.  We can thank you for watching fox news.  We can thank you for voting Mitt Romney 49% despite the man being a freaking CARTOON CHARACTER of an out-of-touch rich man.  We can thank you for making fun of Occupy Wall Street and continuing to treat the Tea Party as anything but astroturfing and bigotry.  We can thank you for voting ALL these chucklefarks into office and never, ever demanding the major financial institutions be punished or even regulated for their open, naked crimes against the world.

We can thank the Average American Guy, for making "average" such a low bar.
 
2014-04-30 05:20:28 PM  

Wooly Bully: You hear "Warren can do more good in the Senate" all the time, but, aside from obvious things like appointments, it doesn't take into account the "LBJ factor": a President who's so good at working Congress that sh*t gets done. That is admittedly a high bar - LBJ was a genius at that - but there's a broad spectrum. Obama is pretty low on that spectrum; it's not in his personality. Who knows how Warren would do?


LBJ didn't have Congressmen obsessed with making him a "one term President" at the expense of the welfare of the nation, either.
 
2014-04-30 05:30:52 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: LBJ didn't have Congressmen obsessed with making him a "one term President" at the expense of the welfare of the nation, either.


Of course. But on the other hand, Warren won't have white-hot Tea Party rage against a blah President working against her, either. I really think a lot of the Obama hate is straight-up racism.
 
2014-04-30 06:36:32 PM  

Mercutio74: moefuggenbrew: She will never be allowed to sniff a ballot box by either of the parties. She would have to run independent; like I said, never sniff.

And sadly, this.  There's no way in the hell the Dems will let her gain the nomination.  She's corporate donation kryptonite.  In this era of Citizen's United...  it's throwing money away.


There is this thing called an election.  If she ran in the primaries and won the most votes in the most states she would win.  There's no evil "the Dems" in a back room chomping on cigars stopping her from doing so.

Now, it's fairly likely the majority of Democratic primary voters wouldn't vote for her.  The average Democratic voter is significantly to right to of you.  But that's how elections work; they are popularity contests by definition.

Anyways, she's said about a dozen times she's not running for President and has, in fact, effectively endorsed Hillary for President.
 
2014-04-30 06:48:58 PM  
Well yeh but what about BENGHAZI?!111
 
2014-05-01 12:10:03 AM  
She made this observation from her $5 million mansion.

She's a real regular person, she is. Where do you keep your millions anyway? In a box under your bed? Tell us some more about bankers and Wall Street.
 
2014-05-01 10:15:31 AM  

barneyfifesbullet: She made this observation from her $5 million mansion.

She's a real regular person, she is. Where do you keep your millions anyway? In a box under your bed? Tell us some more about bankers and Wall Street.


As I've said, putting a bunch of ignoramus Bitcoin-loving goldbuggery fans into the banking system is a pretty moronic thing to do; Warren's issue seems to be mostly Obama nominating solely Citibank alums, plus we need to be watching the regulatory agencies a lot more than we've cared to in the past. The absolute last thing I'd want is the "average American" trying to talk anything economics.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report