Author Topic: Why is Obama appointing so many former employees of one Wall St. bank?  (Read 1587 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-citigroup-clique-106125.html?hp=pm_2#.U2EN4PkwdcY

The Citigroup Clique
Why is Obama appointing so many former employees of one Wall St. bank?
By SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN April 29, 2014
Today, I cast my vote on the Senate Banking Committee for Stanley Fischer to serve in the No. 2 position at the U.S. Federal Reserve. I asked Fischer tough questions – in person, at his nomination hearing, and in writing – and I have been impressed with the depth of his knowledge and experience.
But I cast my vote reluctantly because of my growing frustration over the concentration of people with ties to the megabank Citigroup in senior government positions.
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.
No one doubts that there are smart, hard-working people at Citigroup and elsewhere in the financial industry. When I worked to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I interviewed, hired and worked alongside many people with private-sector experience. Private-sector experience can be valuable and should not disqualify someone from serving in the upper levels of government.
But there is danger anytime the key economic positions in our government fall under the control of a single tight-knit group. Old ideas can stay around long after they’re useful, and new ideas don’t get a fair hearing. We learned about the harms of groupthink in economic policymaking the hard way – first with the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the no-strings-attached bank bailouts in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and most recently with the anemic efforts to help homeowners who were systematically cheated by financial giants.
The power of a tight group of insiders can also echo through the government in subtle ways. No one likes to ignore telephone calls from former colleagues, and no one likes to advance policies that could hurt future employers. Relationships matter, and anyone who doubts that Wall Street’s outsized influence in Washington has watered down our government’s approach toward still-too big-to-fail banks has their eyes deliberately closed.

Small, tight-knit groups consolidate their power through hiring. Too many people get jobs based on who they know – not what they know. And in too many cases, the group in power is confident that not just insiders, but their insiders, are best for the key jobs. The Citigroup clique has produced some effective public servants, but it has crowded out too many others who might have brought a different perspective to their service. It is bad for the country when so many top officials and advisers just happen to be part of their small club and so many others happen to be unqualified or the “wrong fit.”
There are experienced and innovative people throughout the private and public sectors who are more than qualified for top economic positions in government. It defies probability that so many of the very best people all happened to have had high paying jobs on Wall Street, let alone at Citigroup in particular. When former Citigroup officials land top positions in government and former senior government officials land top positions at Citigroup time and again, Americans have good reason to question whether the interests of the people – or the big banks – is paramount.
Conflict-of-interest rules can help, but the administration needs to get serious about appointing top officials with a broader mix of career backgrounds, relationships and worldviews. That means resisting pressure to pick people with big bank ties for so many top economic positions when plenty of other companies and industries play critical roles in the economy as well.
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.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39699
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Nothing new - O-fag has been doing this since even before he was elected. 

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
this is simply proof that no one cares about anything except for gays, abortion, and entitlements.  they all PRETEND to care about administrations cozying up with banks.  before 2008, this was a huge issue for all liberal democratic voters.  they were SOOOOO concerned on how our government was in bed with the banking industry.  GWB bailed out banks, every liberal democrat was beside themselves with anger and screamed from the rooftops how they were against this type of corruption.  the conspiracy theories were everywhere.

2008 comes and Obama bails out the banks 10 fold what GWB did.  no one cares.  now he appoints all of his cronies to top positions in those banks.  again.  no one cares.

I honestly have no problem with getting your friend a good job.  didn't care when Bush did it.  Don't care that Obama did it.  but i'm consistent. 

I had a big problem with GWB bailing out the banks.  I also had a big problem when Obama did it. 

but that's because I don't worship guys in suits that I see on TV.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22731
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
this is simply proof that no one cares about anything except for gays, abortion, and entitlements.  they all PRETEND to care about administrations cozying up with banks.  before 2008, this was a huge issue for all liberal democratic voters.  they were SOOOOO concerned on how our government was in bed with the banking industry.  GWB bailed out banks, every liberal democrat was beside themselves with anger and screamed from the rooftops how they were against this type of corruption.  the conspiracy theories were everywhere.

2008 comes and Obama bails out the banks 10 fold what GWB did.  no one cares.  now he appoints all of his cronies to top positions in those banks.  again.  no one cares.

I honestly have no problem with getting your friend a good job.  didn't care when Bush did it.  Don't care that Obama did it.  but i'm consistent. 

I had a big problem with GWB bailing out the banks.  I also had a big problem when Obama did it. 

but that's because I don't worship guys in suits that I see on TV.

Good post.   this is the reality we live in.


24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
this is simply proof that no one cares about anything except for gays, abortion, and entitlements.  they all PRETEND to care about administrations cozying up with banks.  before 2008, this was a huge issue for all liberal democratic voters.  they were SOOOOO concerned on how our government was in bed with the banking industry.  GWB bailed out banks, every liberal democrat was beside themselves with anger and screamed from the rooftops how they were against this type of corruption.  the conspiracy theories were everywhere.

2008 comes and Obama bails out the banks 10 fold what GWB did.  no one cares.  now he appoints all of his cronies to top positions in those banks.  again.  no one cares.

I honestly have no problem with getting your friend a good job.  didn't care when Bush did it.  Don't care that Obama did it.  but i'm consistent. 

I had a big problem with GWB bailing out the banks.  I also had a big problem when Obama did it. 

but that's because I don't worship guys in suits that I see on TV.


Instead you worship guys in thongs all oiled up on a stage. Go on admit it... you're among friends.  :P
w

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
this is simply proof that no one cares about anything except for gays, abortion, and entitlements.  they all PRETEND to care about administrations cozying up with banks.  before 2008, this was a huge issue for all liberal democratic voters.  they were SOOOOO concerned on how our government was in bed with the banking industry.  GWB bailed out banks, every liberal democrat was beside themselves with anger and screamed from the rooftops how they were against this type of corruption.  the conspiracy theories were everywhere.

2008 comes and Obama bails out the banks 10 fold what GWB did.  no one cares.  now he appoints all of his cronies to top positions in those banks.  again.  no one cares.

I honestly have no problem with getting your friend a good job.  didn't care when Bush did it.  Don't care that Obama did it.  but i'm consistent. 

I had a big problem with GWB bailing out the banks.  I also had a big problem when Obama did it. 

but that's because I don't worship guys in suits that I see on TV.

I do have a problem with this, since the majority of them have proven to be completely incompetent
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Or.... (just for the sake of argument)

The people that are able to kick ass on wall street are among the most brilliant in the USA.  They understand how the global economy works.  They understand how to create profit based upon their analysis of the global markets.  

These are the people that you WANT creating national policy when it comes to banking and economics.  Yon don't want a teacher from Missouri writing economic policy.  You don't want an MBA from Florida debating global currency at the G20.  No, you want the people with the depth and breadth of understanding at so many levels.  And people with these skill sets are usually USING them at high level banks like Citi, to make profit and grow their resume.

They don't hire the surgeon general from a nursing pool in Alaska, right?  They choose from among the nation's top doctors.  They don't choose the joint chiefs of staff from the best getbig message board debaters - they choose from the best in the military with experience in the field.  Why wouldn't you choose the people writing national economic policy, from those at the top banks with the deepest experience?

I know, everyone shits on the revolving door from govt to private industry, and it sure looks shady and definitely is...and both parties have done it for 100 years now... BUT we are #1 superpower in the world, and we employ this system.  Morals and ethics aside... it does work, doesn't it?

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4299
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Let's not forget Obama also hired Robert Wolf to the Council of Jobs and Competitiveness right after Wolf undertook what was, and still is, one of the biggest outsourcing initiatives in the history of outsourcing. The guy moved tens of thousands of good paying American jobs to India in less than 3 years, laying off thousands of Americans in the process.

Whoever thinks they would act any different if they were president are delusional. Once you're voted into office, I suspect, you're taken into a small room where a room-full of individuals representing the country's biggest fortunes (CIA, FBI, et cetera) basically ask you nicely to abandon everything you based your campaign on and appoint their decision-makers into power for 500 million in a Cayman Islands account, immunity for life, and a career as an advisor in multiple boards. Option B is a shot in the back of the head.


2Thick

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • His Thickness
"Friends" should be qualified for whatever job you may give them, particularly if their job is of any importance at all.
A

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4299
  • Vincit qui se vincit
What is now known as "networking" was, some years ago, called corruption.

I got the short end of the stick 3 years ago when the department manager hired a full time employee for a position he was not fit for.

His was an extreme case because I ended up having to train this asshole for an entire year. Turns out he was related to the department manager's mother. And his salary was higher than ours too.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Let's not forget Obama also hired Robert Wolf to the Council of Jobs and Competitiveness right after Wolf undertook what was, and still is, one of the biggest outsourcing initiatives in the history of outsourcing. The guy moved tens of thousands of good paying American jobs to India in less than 3 years, laying off thousands of Americans in the process.

Whoever thinks they would act any different if they were president are delusional. Once you're voted into office, I suspect, you're taken into a small room where a room-full of individuals representing the country's biggest fortunes (CIA, FBI, et cetera) basically ask you nicely to abandon everything you based your campaign on and appoint their decision-makers into power for 500 million in a Cayman Islands account, immunity for life, and a career as an advisor in multiple boards. Option B is a shot in the back of the head.



You think they give the old "Do you want to end up like Kennedy?" line?

James28

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4347
  • toilet roll of peace
Let's not forget Obama also hired Robert Wolf to the Council of Jobs and Competitiveness right after Wolf undertook what was, and still is, one of the biggest outsourcing initiatives in the history of outsourcing. The guy moved tens of thousands of good paying American jobs to India in less than 3 years, laying off thousands of Americans in the process.




So?

Companies aren't in the business of running charities. Shareholders expect maximum ROI and if there's more money to be made outsourcing, they should do it. Because you can bet your last penny that his competitor CEO is doing it. And if he don't, he'll get fired by the board of directors who in return appoint someone that WILL do it. Hate the game, not the player my friend.

Perhaps you should invest in these companies willing to make the tough decisions? You might just get rich.

I love what Jack Welch said about building factories on barges and instantly move the barge to a country with a more favourable business tax climate when needed. I fully agree with that.

*

James28

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4347
  • toilet roll of peace
What is now known as "networking" was, some years ago, called corruption.

I got the short end of the stick 3 years ago when the department manager hired a full time employee for a position he was not fit for.

His was an extreme case because I ended up having to train this asshole for an entire year. Turns out he was related to the department manager's mother. And his salary was higher than ours too.

Again, so what?

Nepotism is a fact of life. Why get pissed about it?

Forget these petty games and BS and focus on rising to the top.
*

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Again, so what?

Nepotism is a fact of life. Why get pissed about it?

Forget these petty games and BS and focus on rising to the top.

I always thought the goal was to BE the person who could give jobs to friends and family.

That is what I always want to be.

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4299
  • Vincit qui se vincit
You think they give the old "Do you want to end up like Kennedy?" line?

Absolutely.

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4299
  • Vincit qui se vincit
So?

"So?" Thousands of Americans losing their jobs to dumb-ass Indians who will work for daily lunch and... all you've got to say is "so?". Are you an American.

Quote
Companies aren't in the business of running charities. Shareholders expect maximum ROI and if there's more money to be made outsourcing, they should do it. Because you can bet your last penny that his competitor CEO is doing it. And if he don't, he'll get fired by the board of directors who in return appoint someone that WILL do it. Hate the game, not the player my friend.

I'm all for outsourcing if we do it for everything, not just cheap labor. Give me the opportunity to buy $ 3,000 cars, .15 cent medications, .25 cent milk and rice, $10 cable/internet/phone packages, $ 15,000 mortgages and all the cheap products they get to enjoy in the very same countries we take advantage of cheap labor. No tariffs. See how fast we bring this shithole down. See, big corporations are given free reign to exploit any business opportunity, be it gold in the Amazon or an immense pool of dumb-ass Indians who know nothing but to do what is on an standard operation procedures manual. If you take 25% of your workforce to India, I'm all for it, provided you also take 25% of your market with you. Go ahead, I want to see you sell your mutual funds in downtown Bangalore. You don't want to be an American company? Fine, sell your shit overseas!

You see, there is a reason why tariffs are in place: To protect American products from competition. Yet, when it comes to labor... the door has been blown wide open folks.

Quote
Perhaps you should invest in these companies willing to make the tough decisions? You might just get rich.

What the fuck do you know what I'm invested in? Furthermore, what do you know about investing? If your idea or a smart investment is putting your money in a company that skims the bottom of the profit pool by cannibalizing their own workforce your a fucking dumb-ass. You invest based on value, not on "tough decisions".  

Quote
I love what Jack Welch said about building factories on barges and instantly move the barge to a country with a more favourable business tax climate when needed. I fully agree with that.

If you are filthy rich, it makes sense. If you're a regular schmoe like the rest of us... kill yourself.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Instead you worship guys in thongs all oiled up on a stage. Go on admit it... you're among friends.  :P

if I stay on this board long enough you guys are eventually going to trick me into thinking i'm gay.  I"M NOT FUCKING GAY!!!!!...............I don't think.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39699
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
if I stay on this board long enough you guys are eventually going to trick me into thinking i'm gay.  I"M NOT FUCKING GAY!!!!!...............I don't think.
;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39699
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.