Page 1 of 1
Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:20 am
by kalm
The most interesting part of this is the $20 million bonus Weiss would have received from his old company (you would think he'd still get it if he's still taking a lower position at Treasury). He's not alone. Jack Lew had a similar pay off.
WASHINGTON -- Wall Street banker Antonio Weiss has asked President Barack Obama not to renominate him to a top Treasury Department post because of the fight being waged against him by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats.
The news is a major victory for Warren and progressive groups who have been criticizing Weiss's nomination since November, when Warren first wrote an op-ed railing against the revolving door between Wall Street and government regulators. She argued that Weiss, a senior banker at financial giant Lazard whose work centered on international mergers, isn't even qualified for a job that involves overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at Treasury.
Weiss also stood to gain $20 million from Lazard if he got confirmed for the Treasury post, a payout for not going to a competing financial group. That left some uncomfortable that Weiss would be inclined to give favorable treatment to his former firm.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/1 ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:17 pm
by CID1990
I get this.
But I wouldn't appoint a civil engineer to be Surgeon General and we probably shouldn't appoint pediatricians to Treasury.
I doubt that anyone with real experience in the financial sector would be acceptable to Warren and the rest of the bleaters
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:12 pm
by GannonFan
CID1990 wrote:
I doubt that anyone with real experience in the financial sector would be acceptable to Warren and the rest of the bleaters
Details smhetails. The whole Warren movement, and progressivism today, isn't about solving any thing that is not working, it's about doing something, regardless of the merits, and then patting yourself on the back that you've made a difference. It's the "every kid gets a medal" mentality extrapolated onto the politcal sphere. It won't accomplish anything and may very well screw us in the end, but gosh darnnit we're going to feel good about ourselves getting there.
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:27 pm
by kalm
GannonFan wrote:CID1990 wrote:
I doubt that anyone with real experience in the financial sector would be acceptable to Warren and the rest of the bleaters
Details smhetails. The whole Warren movement, and progressivism today, isn't about solving any thing that is not working, it's about doing something, regardless of the merits, and then patting yourself on the back that you've made a difference. It's the "every kid gets a medal" mentality extrapolated onto the politcal sphere. It won't accomplish anything and may very well screw us in the end, but gosh darnnit we're going to feel good about ourselves getting there.
A little overly exuberant there, Captain Sycophant and how was Warren slapping herself on the back?
But I get it. This isn't corruption and we should keep using the same Wall Street wiz kids for regulators as their track record at protecting consumers and limiting systemic risk has been so awesome!
What revolving door and payoffs? Nothing to see here...
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:28 pm
by Baldy
GannonFan wrote:CID1990 wrote:
I doubt that anyone with real experience in the financial sector would be acceptable to Warren and the rest of the bleaters
Details smhetails. The whole Warren movement, and progressivism today, isn't about solving any thing that is not working, it's about doing something, regardless of the merits, and then patting yourself on the back that you've made a difference. It's the "every kid gets a medal" mentality extrapolated onto the politcal sphere. It won't accomplish anything and may very well screw us in the end, but gosh darnnit we're going to feel good about ourselves getting there.
kalm blowing a gasket in 3...2...1...
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:29 pm
by kalm
Baldy wrote:
kalm blowing a gasket in 3...2...1...
Not at all. Completely expected that reply.
Progressives...BOO!
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:38 pm
by CID1990
kalm wrote:
A little overly exuberant there, Captain Sycophant and how was Warren slapping herself on the back?
But I get it. This isn't corruption and we should keep using the same Wall Street wiz kids for regulators as their track record at protecting consumers and limiting systemic risk has been so awesome!
What revolving door and payoffs? Nothing to see here...
And the progressive horde would prefer to see a government apparatchik with not the first clue about how to balance their own checkbook as Secretary of the Treasury.
We get it- experience unnecessary as long as your politics are acceptable. Russian nuclear submarines were built with a similar philosophy
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:55 pm
by LeadBolt
Anyone who is currently dealing with the cluster f*@& that is now the FDIC would appreciate having public servants that have real life experience in the areas they are regulating.
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:39 pm
by kalm
LeadBolt wrote:Anyone who is currently dealing with the cluster f*@& that is now the FDIC would appreciate having public servants that have real life experience in the areas they are regulating.
Perhaps like Sheila Bair?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... lving-door" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Small Victory for Progessives
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:44 pm
by kalm
CID1990 wrote:kalm wrote:
A little overly exuberant there, Captain Sycophant and how was Warren slapping herself on the back?
But I get it. This isn't corruption and we should keep using the same Wall Street wiz kids for regulators as their track record at protecting consumers and limiting systemic risk has been so awesome!
What revolving door and payoffs? Nothing to see here...
And the progressive horde would prefer to see a government apparatchik with not the first clue about how to balance their own checkbook as Secretary of the Treasury.
We get it- experience unnecessary as long as your politics are acceptable. Russian nuclear submarines were built with a similar philosophy
There's some validity to this point (regardless of how much of an ass you come off making it). But it's not as if there aren't other options with experience out there. William Black with his S&L experience would be one example among many.
BTW, since you're all huffy and puffy about this, how much regulatory experience does Weiss have? You surely wouldn't want someone lacking experience (as you say) taking the job would you? Or should cops appoint a serial rapist to head up the Major Crimes Division on account of, he has more experience?
