General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Obama Did It For the Money by Robert Scheer
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/07-0
President Barack Obama looks to longtime fundraiser Penny Pritzker, right, as she laughs in the Rose Garden of the White House, where he announced he would nominate Pritzker to run the Commerce Department and economic adviser Michael Froman, left, as the next U.S. Trade Representative. (Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)
The love fest between Barack Obama and his top fundraiser Penny Pritzker that has led to her being nominated as Commerce secretary would not be so unseemly if they both just confessed that they did it for the money. Her money, not his, financed his rise to the White House from less promising days back in Chicago.
“Without Penny Pritzker, it is unlikely that Barack Obama ever would have been elected to the United States Senate or the presidency,” according to a gushing New York Times report last year that read like the soaring jacket copy of a steamy romance novel. “When she first backed him during his 2004 Senate run, she was No. 152 on the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans. He was a long-shot candidate who needed her support and imprimatur. Mr. Obama and Ms. Pritzker grew close, sometimes spending weekends with their families at her summer home.”
But don’t sell the lady short; she wasn’t swept along on some kind of celebrity joyride. Pritzker, the billionaire heir to part of the Hyatt Hotels fortune, has long been first off an avaricious capitalist, and if she backed Obama, it wasn’t for his looks. Never one to rest on the laurels of her immense inherited wealth, Pritzker has always wanted more. That’s what drove her to run Superior Bank into the subprime housing swamp that drowned the institution’s homeowners and depositors alike before she emerged richer than before.
Pritzker and her family had acquired the savings and loan with the help of $600 million in tax credits. She became the new bank’s chairwoman and ended up as a director of the holding company that owned it. Under her leadership, Superior specialized in subprime lending, hustling folks with meager means and poor credit into high interest loans that were bundled into the toxic securities that wrecked the U.S. economy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheLion
(44 posts)"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash."
Or, put another way, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matt 6 v 21.
Apparently, she believes in Obama and is paying cash for that belief. Don't denigrate this proof of loyalty simply because it's filthy lucre.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...and that was just after her family bank crashed and burned. They also enjoyed a $640 million tax credit just for buying the thing with $1 million.
The Privilege of the Pritzkers
Of course, it's just a coincidence that no banksters have gone to jail.
PS: Welcome to DU, TheLion! In Detroit, love the moniker!
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Because of the political landscape of this fucked up country there will be absolutely no unity in our
party for decades.... Therefore solutions will be nil and void for this entire period..
And thats the way 25% of country wants it. And they are fully supported by the 1%....
How can you beat that?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)I really think Obama has saved the RepubliCON party from itself. When the bushes were done destroying America, everyone hated RepubliCONS, even RepubliCONS hated the bushes and what they did to this country. RepubliCONS were deserting their party in droves.
But thanks to Obama, the bushes don't look so bad anymore and moderate RepubliCONS sound just like Democrats. Obama never brought out the torture crimes of the bushes and even expanded the murder authority the bushes decided to give the president. He never held the banksters accountable for their crimes against homeowners and now good luck Charlie getting a clear title to any older home you buy - unless you're rich. All the accountability, all the pain and payback for the RepubliCON 2nd Great Depression came from the working class and Obama made sure it did. He put corporate friendly judges on the Dancing Supreme Court, he extended the uber rich tax give aways, he put Social Security on the chopping block (just like the bushes), he appoints Wall street banksters to government and enthroned the revolving door. He gave us permanent health care corporations and gives free rides to big Pharma and big Ag. He is more of a corporatist than Clinton and is pushing through the bill of rights for corporations in the TPP.
Obama ONLY talks like a liberal and even then some of his talks sound just like what RepubliCONS would say. He has never been a friend to Unions and only says nice things about them when he needs their votes. His pretending to compromise while pushing a corporate agenda has ensured the RepubliCONS are here to stay.
Now you have a choice of a Democratic corporate agenda or a RepubliCON corporate agenda and both of them are more alike than different. Good luck turning anything Democratic anymore. But when he 1st took office, RepubliCONS were a dirty word. Now they look not so different from Democratic leaders.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)would choose appointees on our side. I assume you are on my side.
salib
(2,116 posts)I think you forgot them.
byeya
(2,842 posts)
antigop
(12,778 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)he is one amazing reporter.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)needed it. Palast has not made nearly enough considering his contributions to the facts of this period in history. I am hoping that from now on it is the good guys, like Palast, Wikileaks et al who become obscenely rich rather than the corrupt, unethical, criminals who have destroyed this world's economies, started and/or backed every lie told to get us into illegal and brutal wars and then get themselves appointed to our governments.
I hope one day Palast has enough money to buy himself a political appointment. THAT would be progress. But I guess he just doesn't have enough money for that.
roody
(10,849 posts)Investigative reporting is a rarity; it makes sense that it startles you.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Car to get him to his Corte Madera Calif book signing. And I suspect he had enough dough to fill the gas tank, as well, a hard thing to do here in Calif where gas prices are about 15% at least higher than most other places.
roody
(10,849 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)No limo, no tuxedo, no lunch plans at the Sheraton five star white table clothed restaurant.
Sorry if my sarcasm missed its mark.
Hotler
(11,421 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Woe is me. Woe is me.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)And NOT be overwhelmed and depressed?
Maybe I should get off here and live like the other idiots. Ignorant and happy!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)perhaps the earliest days, are posted demoralize and to divide us. Second, there are always many sides to stories and stories are written from perspectives. Third, if you choose to discard hope and to discount people as incapable of taking different paths in the future, then you become overwhelmed and depressed. I feel that way sometimes, but I also realize that we can solve all problems for everyone. This is true in our daily lives too. We cannot be all things to all people. You do what you can. You impact what you are able to and if it gets to the point where you feel like you are drowning, take a break and a deep breath and come back to the task. Just don't wallow. I've been on DU now from beginning and have seen a lot of the ebb and flow of stories and waves of dissemblers too. Stay informed but being informed doesn't been allowing yourself be buried alive.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)
without coming to DU to find out.
The 'ebb and flow' as you call it, has been a big learning process for many of us as to how politics actually work, and the realization that this is WHY the country and millions of its citizens (just in case actual people might be important in all of this) are so adversely affected.
This woman, eg, was well known as a contributor to the Sub Prime Mortgage scandal, a scandal that the FBI warned Bush about back when on DU people agreed that some things are just not acceptable, even in Politics.
What we had hoped was that people like her would be finally investigated for the role they played in the destruction of so many lives. So we worked hard to keep Republicans out of office so the country could down to the business of finding out what had gone so terribly wrong.
We were successful, or so we thought. Since then we have been told that we not going to investigate Wall St. criminals or War Criminals. Now maybe that is just 'ebb and flow' to you, but to those of us who believe that the rule of law should apply equally across the board to everyone, it has been a huge awakening to see clearly, finally, how the system works to protect, not prosecute those responsible for the state of this country and the millions of victims created by these crimes.
Now we know, millions know, and now we have to decide what to do about it. But knowledge comes first.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts)Eloquently stated (as usual).
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)But that's not gonna happen.\
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)
GetTheRightVote
(5,287 posts)thank you
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Rome wasn't built in a day.....
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to their own exclusive benefit.
and the sooner more people get wise to it, the better.
But I've felt that way ever since SCOTUS appointed W!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Obama isn't the be-all-end-all. We can do better than him. (for sure we can do a lot worse too, easy).
Not too long ago, a lot of democrats opposed corporatist dems, so much that DLC became a dirty word and doesn't even exist anymore, and Joe Leiberman was primaried out of the party. That didn't go away, it's just there is a lot of denial. The sentiment that Obama exploited to win is still out there, we can get someone who really believes it. Next opportunity is the 2016 primaries.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Bought into it back in '08. Led direction to my financial ruin courtesy of the likes of Pritzker. And no, I didn't buy into the subprime crap. But the collapse of the real estate house of cards means I can't sell my house for more than half what I paid, so I can't pay off the student loans I took in a haze of hopium. It also means any time I try to make any kind of move, I'm instantly surrounded by vulture capitalists trying to pick at my flesh.
Tried another round of hopium in '12. This time, I was told, it would be the real thing. No longer beholden to 1% investors, no longer facing another election, free to be the real thing.
Instead, we get political appointments that make me physically ill. And I still have no chance to start over.
2000 demonstrated that it doesn't matter who we vote for. 2008 and 2012 proved it. Its not bad enough that they aren't prosecuting the criminals. They are stealing from us to further reward them.
Nothing personal, but you can take your hopium and shove it.
Never. Again.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)From the article:
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.
"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."
...all the Democrats (Brown, Merkley, Warren, Sanders and others) are just tools who will go along with her confirmation?
What Republican "deregulation legislation"?
There has been a major regulation passed since 2009: Dodd-Frank, which gave the FDIC more powers and which Republicans voted against.
Statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren on confirmation of Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441721
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Dodd-Frank is weak and ineffective to stop another 2008 ...by design."
...that doesn't address the point I made.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Dodd-Frank is a joke that will masquerade as reform but will enable the game to continue, at our expense.
I believe you misread the quotation when it spoke of the deregulation by the Republicans. I read it as referring to the deregulation that came out of Congress in the Clinton years, signed of course by Clinton.
The Dems you mentioned (though you included Sanders, not a Dem) are the exception, not the rule, in today's Democratic Party, but you knew that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you made a point, it isnt obvious to me. Dodd-Frank is a joke that will masquerade as reform but will enable the game to continue, at our expense. "
...your comprehension is not my problem, and your comment reminds me of something: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882
This was a law that expanded the FDIC powers, created the CFPB and enacted the Volcker rule.
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, “shall” mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institution’s mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" – which is defined as "[…] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
Reed, Brown, Warren Demand an Up or Down Vote on CFPB Director
Senators say efforts to prevent a vote on CFPB Director imperils consumers and undermines our economy
WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to protect consumers and crack down on financial fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today called on Republicans to end unprecedented obstruction and allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Reed, Brown, and Warren, who are members of the Banking Committee, said that confirming a CFPB director will help consumers and strengthen our financial marketplace.
Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to help ensure the financial products and services that Americans depend on every day —including credit cards, mortgages, and loans—work better for the people who use them. But in an effort to limit the effectiveness of the consumer watchdog, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of the CFPB’s director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Earlier this month, 43 Republican Senators sent a letter protesting the CFPB’s independence and vowing to oppose any nominee to lead the consumer protection agency.
“Every year, hard-working American families lose millions of dollars to deceptive financial practices like hidden fees and predatory lending. The CFPB is there to help keep families from getting scammed. They are shining a spotlight on predatory loan practices and products -- bringing them into the light, where they can be seen and stopped. We must not let opponents of Wall Street reform turn back the clock on consumer protection. Instead of preventing the CFPB from doing its job, opponents of the agency should take an up or down vote. A well-regulated marketplace is good for the economy. It improves consumer and business confidence and ensures fair competition,” said Senator Reed.
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stands up for average Americans,” Senator Brown said. “And yet, Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress have repeatedly refused to approve anyone to serve as the Director unless the agency’s authority is watered down. The American people are fed up with the obstructionism in Washington. We need to protect this agency that protects American families.”
“Under the leadership of Director Cordray, the CFPB has been making a real difference for hard working families everywhere. After two years, it is time for the Senate to give Rich Cordray a vote--up or down--and remove the uncertainty that is costly to families, to community banks and credit unions, and to everyone in financial services.” said Senator Warren. “Political stalemates don’t end in more government or less government, but in bad government - government that lacks the clarity and predictability that our businesses need to plan for the future, to serve their customers, and to create jobs.”
Since the CFPB opened for business in 2011, it has helped hold financial institutions accountable for mistreating consumers and worked in coordination with our federal regulators to return roughly $425 million to consumers’ pockets. The agency’s Consumer Response center has already heard from more than 100,000 consumers with their individual problems related to their credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and bank accounts.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339671
Now a group is pushing for implementation of the Volcker Rule.
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, “We don’t make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule,” we’re now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that “Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.”
First, here’s the link to Wednesday’s story, directly from the OSEC blog: “Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.”
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies’ delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the “Volcker Rule” (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).- more -
Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative “proprietary” trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average person’s checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.
Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.
The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors’ money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
Wall Street reform was a huge achievement, but while its implementation is being ignored by supporters, its opponents are doing everything in their power to delay it.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)that don't do it for the money?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)newmember
(805 posts)Then they forget about us.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)by the very people in line for the gravy train. They're in no way going to turn off the spigot.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)it has to happen.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Unlike so many of his turncoat, fair weather so called "supporters" among the plebes.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)In the past she's supported Lieberman, Bush, Gore, McCain, Giuliani etc
Whoa.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In 2016, let's try to find a candidate who doesn't have to "suck the teat" of rich scoundrels like this woman and other similar men and women.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)I Wish someone would come out and call BS to this with credible evidence as to why these are false claims.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: We were Snookered by the Best to get "us" to elect a "republican policy fan" who calls himself a Dem.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And same will be true with Clinton No. 2.
And potentially good candidates do not come forward because they do not want to face the destruction that has faced good candidates before them like Howard Dean, John Edwards, Patricia Schroeder, and on and on and on. The list is incredibly long and contains the names of great people who were destroyed by this Republican, conservative, wealthy machine.
That machine finds the flaw or weakness in the candidate, and if, as with Howard Dean, there isn't one, they create one and reveals it. They protect the candidate that is their pawn. That candidate is shown as close to flawless although the flawless image is far from the truth.
It's quite a fascinating mechanism. We have seen it over and over. There is a movie made about the fall of Eliot Spitzer. It reveals how this works.
It's not that John Edwards' and Eliot Spitzer's cheating on their wives was irrelevant, but then look at Sanders in South Carolina to say nothing of Vitter of Louisiana. Why is cheating on your wife such a deal-breaker in some cases, but not at all in others?
It's because Sanders and Vitter are pawns of the rich and well-connected. Edwards and Spitzer were not. That's the difference.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)And you find out your Worst nightmare is true---
It's frankly "upsetting" to all you've always believed.
One must step back and reevaluate.
"Suspicians and Speculations" are way more comfy because at Least you have a tiny bit of faith left in the person(s) and hope that it's not true.
Thank you for your post.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)You will known by the company you keep.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
He's the best.
He may be the best that we've ever had.
Or ever had us.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If it's at marketing himself, I agree.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Exciting life you live!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Since you are a conservative, what's your opinion on how well George Bush and Dick Cheney handled the "War on Terror," the economy as it affects average Americans, and the rule of law?
Since you are a conservative, what's your opinion on President Obama giving de facto immunity to openly admitted war criminals, continuing with endless wars and occupations in the Middle-East, continuing with the shipping and maintaining manufacturing jobs in foreign countries, and generally refraining from enforcing federal criminal laws except to go after State-approved medical marijuana dispensaries?
How's that trickle-down theory working?
Since you are a conservative, what have you ever conserved for America?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You don't get paid. Is is pathological hatred of the President?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)It highlights that he is not a liberal or progressive as many of us who voted for him thought.
Since you admitted that you are a "conservative," (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1172&pid=122229 ), who were your candidates?
Bush and Cheney?
Insane McCain and Palin?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I was quoting the Iowa columnist, Mr. Brains
Don't you have toenails to clean or something?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)What kind of education do you have if you don't know that quote marks are used when you quote someone?
Did you make up that toenails jab all by yourself? Or did you crib it from someone without putting quote marks around it?
Do you have any origional thoughts of your own?
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #45)
Post removed
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If my posting of the Obama-chessmaster comment bothers you, good.
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #37)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)good find.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Do people believe she was demanding he return her donations unless he appointed her?
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)about following the money applies in most cases.
When you can find the trail and are willing to follow it, the rest becomes clear.
I mean that as generally applicable.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)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.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)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.
Summary: Democrats are hypocrites, Pritzker is no different from Romney and Democrats are no different from Republicans.
It's chock full of false equivanlencies, but I guess it's all good.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)or was she not involved in the Sub Prime Mortgage scandal?
But your comment does sort of confirm this:
I used to do it too 'well, what about the Republicans'? But fewer and fewer people are now willinng to overlook these issues with those who manage to get into positions of power. Facts are facts and we have all had to decide whether to be hypocrites or whether to put the country first.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)It will continue to be that way as long as campaigns cost an obscene amount of money. Limiting campaign money to public funding would resolve the issue. Every viable candidate would get the same amount of money and no one would have the money advantage.
But, who's going to enact that law when both political parties haver their hand in the cookie jar?
Remember when Obama wouldn't take money from lobbyists? He didn't need them.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)They've cheated you and robbed your houses, chiseled you and raided your pensions, charred you and ransacked your wages, chucked you and razed your worth.
Sorry, no progressives in OUR Blight House. Only a handful of progressives in OUR Malls of Regress. Only 3-4 progressives among OUR Senaturds. There's people to kill and profit to grab. You aren't against making a PROFIT, are you, son?
We know it's corrupt, but we don't care. You're not stopping us, we bought everyone you vote for and shut up because . . . . markets and profits.
Americans buy crapola delivered egregiously from good-haired idealogues just knowing lemmings munch narratives of prolific quantities, rationally spewed to uneducated viewers with xanax-yawn zen.
Your empire is crumbling under a corrupted core of curmudgeons, conservatives, con-artists, carnival barkers, condescending commentators, couldn't-care corporatists, chickenhawks and crackpots.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)than to win them on positions.
hatrack
(59,587 posts)He could have nominated her to be Secretary of Labor.
subterranean
(3,427 posts)Actually less than this since the money he accepted did not benefit him personally.
Unfortunately, Obama and his attorney general do not seem to care.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)
$$$
The 1%
$$$
Any questions?
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)everyone else elected to support him. Obama isn't losing some of these battles because he's Obama, he's losing because the fight has been long and hard and many Americans have given up until the next election. Hello people. He's not the problem, we the democrats are. The repubs are working every day, on the chat boards, very very politically active in everything. We are laying down. Penny will fight fire with fire. She's exactly what we need. We won't be able to change anything until we have a majority and can get the judges appointed, the programs that will scale back the power of the right, the power of the corporations. You know the expression do you wanna be happy or you wanna be right? We need to be happy and then we can be right. I don't know what the truth is for Penny, but she probably didn't do anything worse than anyone else in that mess and all those people are on wall street earning billions and funding the right. All the bankers who were involved in this mess did the same thing, while the others were backing republican candidates whe was backing a democrat. If she truly were like the rest of them she'd have never backed Obama. So let her do her job, I'm going to mine, and I hope you'll do yours.
The last paragraph makes me highly suspect of it's accuracy. But that's just me.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)A real hall of fame group there..
RunInCircles
(122 posts)You may be disappointed with the man but he is just a man not a saint or a hero riding in on a white horse.
Remember the alternative Mittens would have made no bones about just robbing us to give tax breaks to his wealthy peers.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Joe Klein was 100% correct, so was Frank Rich.
hey, but you should have voted for Hillary
hey, but you can.
HIllary45/Napolitano/or Sebelius/or Biden or Michelle46 2016-2020
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They're running out of sources, I guess.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)FROM WIKI-
[edit] Support of Republican Candidate for Kentucky SenateIn the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show "Left, Right and Center", Scheer, a self-described Liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat.[20]
yeah, Robert Sheer wants the 50-50 to continue
Robert Sheer supported Rand Paul, who like his father Ron Paul is a bonafide member in mind of the John Birch society.
the altmedia
the more you know about them, the more you know they have NO place on democratic underground whatsoever.
and we know their ulterior angle motives.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The guy that got his column in the LA Times is the ultrarightist Jonah Goldberg, the guy whose mother helped bring us Monica Lewinsky and once spied on LBJ.
BTW: Scheer should be able to write what he wants about anybody he wants. Here's why he "supported" Ron Paul:
Who's Afraid of Rand Paul?
by Robert Scheer
Huffington Post, May 19, 2010 02:53 AM
EXCERPT...
Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich.
SNIP...
With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree? Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don't embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a "distinctly criminal class" and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.
CONTINUED...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/whos-afraid-of-rand-paul_b_581296.html
Complementing Ron Paul as a candidate for stating he wanted an audit of the Fed and an accounting of the trillions given to the banksters who screwed over America doesn't make Scheer a liar or a fool. He's just giving his opinion based on the truth. That's a columnist's job. At least it used to be.
Recursion
(56,582 posts) 
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)anyone who follows chicago politics knows who she is. she`s an oligarchic who happens to vote democratic in a democratic city. if chicago was a republican town she'd be a republican. she is rabid anti-union so is it any wonder there`s been no card check...
it`s really funny that everyone is getting the vapors over this recently discovered obama money lady.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)But not the kind that will build any credibility with non-neoliberals.
From one who has my respect:
On Thursday, Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said in a statement that Pritzker "has a long and storied history as being an anti-labor, anti-worker kind of boss. She has supported policies that have had an adverse impact on working-class families and their children."
"We cannot imagine that someone who has a long history of bludgeoning Chicago’s working families and destroying public schools would be given a platform to continue these sorts of business practices on a national level," Lewis continued.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/penny-pritzker-resigns-chicago_n_2878698.html
And from others:
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/06/03/for-shame-penny-pritzker/
and:
In addition to the family drama surrounding its fortune, the Pritzker family has also had multiple disputes with the IRS over offshore tax havens. Additionally, some labor groups have accused Hyatt Hotels of worker-safety violations. Since then, labor leaders, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, have called for a boycott of the hotel chain. Labor leaders could raise these concerns now that she's been nominated.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/four-things-to-know-about-penny-pritzker-a-billionaire-and-obama-s-commerce-secretary-pick-20130306
Agony
(2,605 posts)that we can't ignore much longer and expect any good outcomes.
full public campaign financing
re-regulation of the FIRE sector
end to corporate welfare
•
•
•
tax on HFT
tax capital gains = income
new tax bracket for every dollar earned
- tax havens
we _need_ an income/wealth inequality GINI Coefficient closer to zero