Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It is deeply revealing that in the midst of the continuing cycle of misery brought on by the chicanery of the financial community two key Cabinet positions dealing with business practices will likely be occupied by people who specialized in those financial rip-offs.

For Pritzker, as with the confirmation of Lew, the fix is in. The Republicans don't dare push back too hard on shady business practices that their deregulation legislation endorsed, and Democrats will go along with anything the president wants.

The same restraint will be exhibited in exploring the offshore tax havens that have protected the Pritzker family's immense wealth. Back in 2008, when she had been rumored for this same Cabinet post, Pritzker was queried about avoiding the sort of taxes most ordinary folks are obligated to pay, and she replied in writing: "I am a beneficiary of some non-U.S. situs trusts which were established about 50 years ago (when I was a child) and are administered by a non-U.S.-based financial institution as trustee. I do not control how those assets are administered." If the Republicans challenge that canard, the Democrats will smugly remind them of Mitt Romney's tax havens, as if that excuses tax avoidance within their own ranks.

Certainly the Republicans will not raise questions about the anti-union practices that helped create the Hyatt fortune in the first place and continue to this day. Nor will the Democrats, who embrace unions only at national convention time.

"There is a huge unresolved set of issues in the Democratic Party between people of wealth and people who work," noted Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, which attempts to organize the miserably paid workers that produced Pritzker's wealth. "Penny is a living example of that issue."

But it's payback time, and even normally progressive Democrats like Pritzker's home state Sen. Dick Durbin are prepared to roll over. Treating the appointment of billionaire Pritzker as a victory for women everywhere, the senator said she'd "broken through the glass ceiling with her extraordinary intelligence and business acumen."

Right, Pritzker will be a fine role model for those women working at the Asian factories that she'll be touring as Commerce secretary extolling the virtues of the American business model.

kalm wrote:It looks like Obama, the union and bottom 47% loving and class warfare fighting socialist is at it again. He's clearly anti-business!

It is deeply revealing that in the midst of the continuing cycle of misery brought on by the chicanery of the financial community two key Cabinet positions dealing with business practices will likely be occupied by people who specialized in those financial rip-offs.

For Pritzker, as with the confirmation of Lew, the fix is in. The Republicans don't dare push back too hard on shady business practices that their deregulation legislation endorsed, and Democrats will go along with anything the president wants.

The same restraint will be exhibited in exploring the offshore tax havens that have protected the Pritzker family's immense wealth. Back in 2008, when she had been rumored for this same Cabinet post, Pritzker was queried about avoiding the sort of taxes most ordinary folks are obligated to pay, and she replied in writing: "I am a beneficiary of some non-U.S. situs trusts which were established about 50 years ago (when I was a child) and are administered by a non-U.S.-based financial institution as trustee. I do not control how those assets are administered." If the Republicans challenge that canard, the Democrats will smugly remind them of Mitt Romney's tax havens, as if that excuses tax avoidance within their own ranks.

Certainly the Republicans will not raise questions about the anti-union practices that helped create the Hyatt fortune in the first place and continue to this day. Nor will the Democrats, who embrace unions only at national convention time.

"There is a huge unresolved set of issues in the Democratic Party between people of wealth and people who work," noted Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, which attempts to organize the miserably paid workers that produced Pritzker's wealth. "Penny is a living example of that issue."

But it's payback time, and even normally progressive Democrats like Pritzker's home state Sen. Dick Durbin are prepared to roll over. Treating the appointment of billionaire Pritzker as a victory for women everywhere, the senator said she'd "broken through the glass ceiling with her extraordinary intelligence and business acumen."

Right, Pritzker will be a fine role model for those women working at the Asian factories that she'll be touring as Commerce secretary extolling the virtues of the American business model.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-sc ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:normally progressive Democrats like... Sen. Dick Durbin...

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:normally progressive Democrats like... Sen. Dick Durbin...

This was the real gem in the whole piece. I love when folks use "progressive" to mean ultra-Liberal and then use it later to mean moderate.

Kalm, I am curious why you only bolded the nasty parts about Reps when there were equally nasty parts about Dems.

UNI88 wrote:Kalmy, should Obama appoint a bunch of people who are pro-union, pro-worker, anti-business?

UNI88 wrote:Kalmy, should Obama appoint a bunch of people who are pro-union, pro-worker, anti-business? Especially to a post that is expected to represent and help business? If you want a truly effective cabinet shouldn't you appoint people with different perspectives and experience? I know that as a leader, I don't want a bunch of "yes men" or people who agree on everything of substance. I want different opinions and disagreements.

Ivytalk wrote:

UNI88 wrote:Kalmy, should Obama appoint a bunch of people who are pro-union, pro-worker, anti-business? Especially to a post that is expected to represent and help business? If you want a truly effective cabinet shouldn't you appoint people with different perspectives and experience? I know that as a leader, I don't want a bunch of "yes men" or people who agree on everything of substance. I want different opinions and disagreements.

Liar!!

UNI88 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Liar!!

Shut up. If I wanted a differing opinion especially yours I would have asked for it and paid your billable rate.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think there is a paradox with Obama. I think he really does want a communist world. I really do. But at the same time I think he's a pure politician. I don't think there is an honest bone in his body either. I think he is a total political animal.

Lots of politicians on both sides who are in that category to be sure. But I don't think there's any doubt that he's one of them.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think there is a paradox with Obama. I think he really does want a communist world. I really do. But at the same time I think he's a pure politician. I don't think there is an honest bone in his body either. I think he is a total political animal.

Lots of politicians on both sides who are in that category to be sure. But I don't think there's any doubt that he's one of them.

He is pure political animal to be sure. And a center right, corporatist one at that.

I realize this notion poses a real problem for some.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
He is pure political animal to be sure. And a center right, corporatist one at that.

I realize this notion poses a real problem for some.

Calling Obama a corporatist is accurate but center right is quite a stretch.


Sent from the center of the universe.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think there is a paradox with Obama. I think he really does want a communist world. I really do. But at the same time I think he's a pure politician. I don't think there is an honest bone in his body either. I think he is a total political animal.

Lots of politicians on both sides who are in that category to be sure. But I don't think there's any doubt that he's one of them.