Obama's Cabinet

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:59 am

Absolutely priceless headline and article and rather apropos:

Familiar Trio at Heart of Citi Bailout
Rubin, Paulson, Geithner's Shared History Paved Way for $300 Billion Federal Guarantee

The bailout of Citigroup, which put the government at risk of hundreds of billions of dollars of losses, was set in motion by three men whose professional lives have long been intertwined.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.; Citigroup board member Robert E. Rubin; and Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, have for years followed one another in and out of jobs in government and industry. Their close relationships helped pave the way for one of the largest and most dramatic government interventions to date in the financial crisis.

Change, indeed. Want a red pill, slide?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:21 am

No I don't. Nor will we need one.

The one thing that I have figured out in my years watching Wall Street is that logic and logical patterns rarely dictate market movements. It is all about perceptions - and if one lemming jumps they all do. Considering how the markets have responded positively to Obama's moves, I'm OK with it. Somone has to do something, considering that Bush has already mentally checked out.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:13 am

i do agree with you slider that lame duck governance does no one any good.

there's got to be a better way to transition.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:41 pm

WTF??

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:49 pm

i do agree with you slider that lame duck governance does no one any good.

there's got to be a better way to transition.

Well at least the Innauguration isn't on March 4th like it used to be.

Here's a pretty good summary of Bush lame duckness from Time.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:05 pm

No I don't. Nor will we need one.

You'd rather remain blissfully ignorant? O0

I'm just saying--this is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. It's been going on for years between the government and the financial sector (as well as plenty of other industries, obviously) and Obama has missed another chance to enact any semblance of change.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:24 pm

So AA, I will ask you again, who should he have picked? And as he said today, the change will come from him.

Both Carter and Clinton made mistakes in the fact that they brought in total outsiders who didn't know how to get things done in Washington. Obama is aware of this and is doing the right things not to stumble and falter in the beginning. The stakes this time are too high.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:43 pm

There are plenty of independent economists out there who aren't insiders. I'm not the one making appointments, I don't need a specific short list of candidates--my knowledge of their existence is enough for me.

I feel like I need to read a book or get training on cult deprogramming. Any reasonable person would admit that there are a multitude of qualified, independent candidates out there and Obama chose an insider instead.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:06 pm

to be fair AA - PE obama's got an agenda and his picks will no doubt help achieve his agenda...may not be the agenda he's been chirping about his whole campaign...could very well be a NEW agenda given we've established the thought that he is entitled to change his mind given the NEW news about some financial crisis that just occurred after he was formerly elected.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:10 pm

Cool...glad we have finally squared away that 'change' means a change of mind.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:19 pm

There are plenty of independent economists out there who aren't insiders. I'm not the one making appointments, I don't need a specific short list of candidates--my knowledge of their existence is enough for me.

I feel like I need to read a book or get training on cult deprogramming. Any reasonable person would admit that there are a multitude of qualified, independent candidates out there and Obama chose an insider instead.

As I have said several times - as long as the ideas chnage and the direction this country is on changes, who cares who is implementing the change? Obama is the one who will be driving the ship of state.

Do I think there are other non-outsiders who could do the job? Of course. But would they be effective in DC? See my above comments about Carter and Clinton.

As long as things get done and this country changes direction, that is a good thing.

TTBHG · Post by **TTBHG** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:25 pm

to be fair AA - PE obama's got an agenda and his picks will no doubt help achieve his agenda...may not be the agenda he's been chirping about his whole campaign...could very well be a NEW agenda given we've established the thought that he is entitled to change his mind given the NEW news about some financial crisis that just occurred after he was formerly elected.

I can't understand how you aren't a CEO. A man with your knowledge and insight should be running fortune 500 companies. You are obviously smarter than all of the rest of us.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:08 pm

WTF??

who you gonna call?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:16 am

The Hillary at State does confuse me a bit. I think she can definitely do the job. And she would be able to restore the image of the US around the world - an image that Bush and his idiocy has destroyed. She and Bill are very popular figures around the world, and when she was first lady, she did travel extensively. And I think that she does have some conncetions with foreign leaders that Obama doesn't have.

What I don't totally understand is their reasons for going this way. Why would she give up a safe Senate seat that she could essentially have until she died? Why would Obama want someone who might not realize that in the SOS position she was actually Obama's employee? Does he want her out of the Senate? Does she want more foreign policy experience for another run in 2016? The dance they have been doing does seem a but strange. I don't know how well they will work together.

Is it a good pick? Yes. Is it an unusual pick? Yes. Will it work? I don't know.

FYI...Hillary's nomination would likely be unconstitutional. Article I, Section 6.

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:17 pm

FYI...Hillary's nomination would likely be unconstitutional. Article I, Section 6.

From the section in question:

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Ok...I can see where she would certainly find the protections of the first paragraph attractive...but I think you're more concerned with the second one. So, it seems to me that all she would have to do is resign her Senate seat.

The first clause pertains only to newly created or enhanced civil offices. Sec State isn't new, nor has it been enhanced since she was elected. The second clause can be satisfied by her resignation from the senate prior to appointment to Sec State.

Thats how I read it anyway.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:31 pm

Yes, Hillary would have to resign before she took the SOS position. It will be interesting to see who is appointed for her Senate seat.

Interestingly enough, you do know that there is no mention of the Presidential Cabinet in the Constitution.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:29 pm

Resignation of her Senate seat doesn't get around the problem. Even if she resigns, the salary (emoluments) for Sec. of State was still increased while she was a Senator.

Technically there is no workaround because the constitutional bar is absolute. However, the restriction has been infringed previously by (I believe) Nixon, Carter and Clinton appointees (maybe more) and of course Congress has never had a problem bending the Constitution. Usually Congress lowers the salary back to the level it was so the increase doesn't affect the appointee. However, technically the emoluments have still been increased (and then decreased). IMO, out of respect for the rule of our highest law, our highest leader shouldn't be bending the Constitution. Yes I realize it's been done plenty of times over the past centuries but that doesn't take away from how much it bothers me.

I take the Constitution fairly seriously. I realize most people instead see it as an annoyance.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:56 pm

In other words, the elites are successfully pressuring Obama to appoint insiders like Summers, Geithner, Clinton, and Gates - who will ensure that nothing really changes - because the American people are idly sitting by taking a wait-and-see approach.

RickySlade · Post by **RickySlade** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:26 am

There are plenty of independent economists out there who aren't insiders. I'm not the one making appointments, I don't need a specific short list of candidates--my knowledge of their existence is enough for me.

I feel like I need to read a book or get training on cult deprogramming. Any reasonable person would admit that there are a multitude of qualified, independent candidates out there and Obama chose an insider instead.

Well, yeah...but if you were, who would be on your list?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:55 am

I'd start my list by talking to Thomas Woods of the Mises Institute, Nouriel Roubini and Peter Schiff. It's quite possible none of the three would end up being my nominee for Treasury, but I would begin by picking their mind.