Hmm, will rethuglicans vote for Bernanke? (0.00 / 0)

Is there a possible vote count somewhere to see how many other "nay" votes are needed?

Oh, btw, can't Merkley simply put a hold on the issue?

---

by: Gray @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 11:56:11 AM CST

Yes (0.00 / 0)

in this instance, killing his nomination only hands liberals power...the next appointment won't be so friendly to their point of view.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 12:20:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wasn't a hold already put on Bernake? (0.00 / 0)

Didn't Sanders do this already?

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 20:07:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is the agrument I would use with Representatives: (0.00 / 0)

Just throw the people a symbolic bone that doesn't actually change anything.

Even an Elite who thinks Bernanke did a good job could earn street cred with many in America, even while the essential policy* remains unaffected by a new Fed Chief.

* a supra-Constitutional plutocracy.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 12:04:42 PM CST

Yes! And Obama Would Nominate Tim Geitner, Fed Chairman! Hurrah! (0.00 / 0)

HYPOTHETICAL: Bernanke was forced to withdraw his nomination in the face of serious opposition (won't happen, but suppose).

What would be the result?

1. Wall Street would howl.
2. The media villagers would talk round the clock about the "irresponsibility of Congress interfering in the markets".
3. Obama would express "regret".
4. The media villagers would put enormous pressure on Obama to nominate someone "safe" to "reassure Wall Street in light of the recent market downturn that's threatening the recovery."

5. In a move "designed to satisfy Wall Street that he's "responsible" Obama would appoint another market insider -- perhaps Tim Geitner as Fed Chairman. After all he was head of the NY branch of the Fed which is one of the most influential and is now part of the Obama Administration.

Or if they wanted to keep Geitner at the Treasury, they could appoint someone like Larry Summers! Another big hurray!

My point is that opposition to this ass-hat is futile. The SYSTEM demands a FED chairman who utilizes his power to channel money to the top 1% and keep Wall Street happy -- and who doesn't give a rat's ass about what happens to America, and ESPECIALLY NOT what happens to working stiffs in America who are losing their jobs.

As long as Chinese bond-holders and market insiders are happy in the short-term, the FED is happy!

It would take a total revolution -- completely revising the FED and making it politically responsible to Congress and the President -- to change that.

And THAT revolution would be a good idea ONLY until a Republican took the Presidency and then OH-BOY! Can you imagine the possibilities for corrupt inside dealing with someone like Bush directly in charge of the FED?  

---

by: Cugel @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 12:34:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmm, I don't like this opinion. but there's something to it. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, they could nominate someone even worse than Bernanke. And, now that we know the true face of Obama, we all have to admit that it's totaly unlikely he would nominate a progressive to that position. Damn!

---

by: Gray @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 12:39:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

let him nominate someone worse (4.00 / 1)

it would expose obama more to democrats

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 13:20:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but does that outweigh the damage? (0.00 / 0)

It's the same point as with Chris: If letting the horroble failure of a bill pass will hurt the effing centrists, is the "profit" worth the damage? Imho that's a difficult ethical problem...

---

by: Gray @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 13:40:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Point Exactly! (0.00 / 0)

We have a horrible SYSTEMIC problem with the FED that goes back generations. The FED chairman does NOT regard as part of his duties the responsibility to use his power to increase employment for millions of Americans.

In fact he doesn't even think that what happens to America or the middle class has ANYTHING at all to do with the FED. '

His job is simply and totally to make sure that Wall Street is happy and that Bond holders and other major institutional stakeholders like the Chinese are satisfied.

It's a classic case of "capture" of a regulatory agency by a regulated industry.

Step 1: Industry makes sure that "sympathetic" regulators get appointed.

Step 2: Regulations favorable to those institutions get passed.

Step 3: This becomes the "normal" functioning of the agency and attempts to change this arise panic and outrage among the villagers almost as if the unwashed hordes are storming the ramparts.

Step 4: Systemic problems arise because the agency is not doing the job they were created to do, but instead regulating to make sure that profits flow smoothly to the regulated industry.

Step 5: The system response is to make sure that any "reforms" are channeled into safe areas and actually result in further concentration of power in the hands of the regulated industry -- actually making the problems worse.

We see this in the bank collapse that tanked the economy. What was the problem? Repeal of regulatory mechanisms like Glass-Steagall act. Easy solution? Reenact a law giving banks 1 year to decide whether they wish to be banks or finance companies. If the latter then they must divest themselves of depository accounts regulated by FDIC and are are free to fail. (They can be regulated by such agencies as the commodities futures trading commission -- given stronger powers). If the former, then they have to divest themselves of their derivatives and other risky investment divisions and operate strictly within banking regulations.

This causes horror among the insiders and is apparently "off the table."

I'm not sure what would change this culture of corruption, but I DO know that changing the FED chairman won't do it.

We need major systemic change from the bottom up not the top down. We start with electing Congressmen dedicated to changing the system. Then we change the laws. THEN we can put a FED Chairman in who will actually represent the people not just the bond holders.  

---

by: Cugel @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 18:57:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

Geithner at Fed means a new Treasury Secretary.    A certain former Governor from the cesspool, I mean state, known as New Jersey comes to mind.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 20:10:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]