HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Would you be terribly dis...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:43 AM

Would you be terribly disappointed if Jacob Lew was denied the Treasury job??

To be honest, I would not. I would prefer some fresh thinking at Treasury. I never cared for Tim Geithner either.

But we know that the President usually gets to choose who he wants in his Cabinet and I would expect little resistance to Lew at Treasury. Never mind that he was part of CitiGroup when they were bailed out and he got a little bonus of about $944,000 dollars. That was rather small for the times.

However, it would be nice to see a new mindset and a new way of doing things at Treasury. Just my opinion.

15 replies, 943 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:56 AM

1. He's a Little Too Loopy for Me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:48 AM

2. I would not be as he seems to be just more of the same we have had the last four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:50 AM

3. If he gets denied at this point, you can just forget about the rest of Obama's presidency.

Congressional republicans will know they can dictate terms to the President if they can block ANY of this cabinet appointments for ANY reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:08 PM

4. Yes and I'm disappointed with some DUers reaction

and lack of knowledge about who he is. 2 1/2 years at Citi out of a whole career doesn't make him a "banker".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022173056

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:13 PM

13. I disagree

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, on financial matters, Jack Lew has been a failure of pretty epic proportions, and he gets promoted precisely because he is willing to be a failure and is so useful to Wall Street interests. So, you’ve mentioned two of the things in terms of the most important and most destructive deregulation under President Clinton by statute. But he was also there for much of the deregulation by rule, and a strong proponent of it, and he was there for much of the cutting of staff. For example, the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, lost three-quarters of its staff, and that huge loss began under Clinton. And the whole reinventing government, Lew was a strong supporter of that. And, for example, we were taught—instructed by Washington that we were to refer to banks as our "clients" in our role as regulators and to think of them as clients.

He goes from there to Wall Street, where he was a complete failure. You noted that part of what Citicorp did was bet that housing would fall. That was actually one of their winning bets. But they actually made a bunch of losing bets, as well. And the unit that he was heading would have not been permissible but for the deregulation of getting rid of Glass-Steagall under President Clinton. And you saw, as an example of Citicorp, why we shouldn’t be doing this. Why would we create a federal subsidy where all of us, through the U.S. government, are on the hook for Citicorp’s gambling on financial derivatives for its own account, you know, running a casino operation? That makes absolutely no public policy sense.

Then he comes into the Obama administration, and he was disastrously wrong. He tried very hard to impose austerity on the United States back in 2011, which is—he wanted, you know, the European strategy, which has pushed the eurozone back into recession, and Spain, Greece and Italy into Great Depression levels of unemployment.

And this is the guy, after all of these failures, who also is intellectually dishonest. He will not own up to his role and deregulation’s role and de-supervision’s role in producing this crisis—and not just this crisis, but the Enron-era crisis and the savings-and-loan debacle.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_of_epic_proportions_treasury_nominee

So let's put everything I just highlighted together:

He is useful to Wall Street interests.

He was there for much of the deregulation by rule, and a strong proponent.

He was there for much of the cutting of FDIC staff. (regulators)

We were to refer to banks as our "clients" in our role as regulators.

He tried very hard to impose austerity on the United States back in 2011.

He will not own up to his role and deregulation’s role and de-supervision’s role in producing this crisis.

Can you please explain WHY we should support this guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 03:10 PM

15. Yeah ... right.

He didn't inhale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:16 PM

5. No, Obama should find a good manager who can effectively run the organization

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Bureau of Engraving & Printing
Bureau of The Public Debt
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Financial Management Service
Internal Revenue Service
Office of The Comptroller of The Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
U.S. Mint

Are the bureaus of the Treasury Department.

Secretary of the Treasury should be a management job, not a policy job. Economic policy is run out of the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:18 PM

6. Does it even matter?

They're all going to be in the pocket of Wall Street anyway. So what does it matter to you and me? We're screwed anyway.


Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:39 PM

10. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:22 PM

7. President Obama will be weakened if his choices don't go through--

and it would mean he would have to go with his second (less optimal) choice. His cabinet members are for HIM, not for us. I get tired of people thinking they have a veto on his choices--let the man choose whom he trusts to implement his plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:22 PM

8. Is there anyone you'd prefer to see in the position?

I'm trying to think of someone who lacks those connections but could still make it through the confirmation process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:34 PM

9. I highly doubt Lew will not be confirmed. Only Sen. Sessions has come out against him.

And that is because he is pissy about Lew's dealings with Boehner during the debt ceiling talks in 2011. Honestly, Lew is a pretty tough negotiator with Repubs. Krugman approves of him.

He also defended Medicaid when McConnell wanted it on the table:

"Late in the 2011 budget talks, Mitch McConnell’s staff demanded that Medicaid be put on the table for cuts. As Politico reports what happened next, “Gene Sperling, chairman of Obama’s National Economic Council, was in mid-sentence, trying to calmly explain why the White House wouldn’t allow that, when Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew interrupted. ‘No!’ the typically mild-mannered Lew yelled. ‘The answer is simply no! No, no!’"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/five-facts-you-need-to-know-about-jack-lew/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:54 PM

11. Yes I would be. Has nothing to do with Mr. Lew. Just tired of being

the right wing's pinata. Absolutely detest their pre-emptive strikes against Obama's cabinet choices. The Susan Rice situation was deplorable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:59 PM

12. "was part of CitiGroup when they were bailed out and he got a little bonus of about $944,000 dollars

 

No!

Would it be too much to ask for them to find someone who did not participate in the looting of our economy like it was their own personal casino?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Follow The Money (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:17 PM

14. Yeah, well, good luck with that

As Durbin once said:

"The Senate is owned by Wall Street."

Apparently, so is Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread