• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Elizabeth Warren asks why is Obama appointing so many people from Citigroup

BobStackFan4Life

BobStackFan4Life

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
31,661
Reaction score
1,538
In recent years, Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power, but Citi has risen above the others in exercising a tight grip over the Democratic Party’s economic policymaking apparatus. Fischer, after all, is just the latest Citi alumnus to be tapped for a high-level government position. Starting with Robert Rubin – a former Citi CEO – three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents have had Citigroup affiliations before or after their Treasury service. (The fourth was offered, but declined, Citigroup’s CEO position.) Directors of the National Economic Council and Office of Management and Budget, as well as our current U.S. trade representative, also have had strong ties to Citigroup.
Click to expand...
For too long, the titans of Wall Street succeeded in pushing government policies that made the megabanks rich beyond imagination, while leaving working families to struggle from payday to payday. Many Republicans openly acknowledge their ties to Wall Street, but Democrats have campaigned on an alternative approach focusing on expanding opportunities and leveling the playing field for the middle class. Democrats’ slogans have won some elections, but once in power, Democratic administrations have too often stacked top positions in government with people close to Wall Street. Stanley Fischer is a good man and has earned my respect, but this is a real and growing problem. If the big banks can seize both parties, then the Democrats—and the country—lose the central economic argument that government should work for the people, not just for the rich and powerful.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-citigroup-clique-106125_Page2.html
 
it's a great question. An even better question is, why are there more political appointees from Citigroup than federal inmates from Citigroup? The ratio is all wrong.
 
So is Warren trying to outflank Hillary for a 16' run? I must say, it would be entertaining to see someone outflank the heralded Clinton machine again.
 
There is plenty of room to outflank Hillary. Presidential candidate Hillary isn't as well-liked as Secretary of State Hillary.
 
Can Warren make a run with out all DAT CASH?
 
Running for president knowing she would get $0 from Wall Street would be a supremely gutsy move.
 
Obama still has another two years to be the WOAT. When John Kerry inevitably fucks up some foreign policy matter, I think he may get the belt.
 
BillBrasky said:
Obama still has another two years to be the WOAT. When John Kerry inevitably fucks up some foreign policy matter, I think he may get the belt.
Click to expand...

worst of all time? spend some time reading about time
 
Anyone who honestly claims that Obama is the worst U.S. president ever is a fucking idiot. He's somewhere in the middle third, probably toward the bottom half of which.

Warren can't win.

I wonder what the ROI of a war on white-collar crime would be given the same attention and resources as the drug war.
 
Way too early to say where his ranking is one way or the other. To me, it all comes down to ACA. If that turns out to be a disaster you can bet he is near the bottom of the list...if it turns out well he rockets up.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Way too early to say where his ranking is one way or the other. To me, it all comes down to ACA. If that turns out to be a disaster you can bet he is near the bottom of the list...if it turns out well he rockets up.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting history to develop a consensus on that.
 
On his ranking or ACA? On his ranking, history usually comes up with consensus in due time. On ACA I think the returns should be clear 5-10 years from now.
 
ACA. What would have to happen for Republicans to say ACA worked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top