Interesting ~ Sooz

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today placed a hold on the nomination of Ben Bernanke for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, saying that what "the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy."

Why do you say that, gop?

Sooz

Unless Sanders has another 40 votes lines up to prevent cloture, he can't block the nomination. Presumably, Obama's nomination of Bernanke will carry considerable weight within the Democratic caucus, and he will have support among Republicans, as well.

The "hold" is not a formal procedure in the Senate, and the floor leader is under no obligation to honor it. It's only effective if the Senator placing a hold has enough support to defeat a cloture vote. Otherwise, it's just the Majority Leader's way of having someone else to blame for his inability to manage the legislative process effectively.

Interesting ~ thanks ~ I admit I don't understand keeping Bernacke given his recent history, but I have no clue who might be waiting in the wings if he were to NOT be confirmed ~

Sooz

But Bernacke also created and supported some significant policies that pushed the economy to the brink ~ I do not believe that the Fed is quite as "independent" as the public is led to believe ~

Sooz

Might be Freudian in some way, but I seem to have a problem with spelling Bernanke correctly ~

Sooz

What policies are you talking about? Bernanke didn't join the Federal Reserve until about 2006, I think.

And I think you're not the only one eho has a tough time with his name. His parents probably had to write it on an index card and staple it to his sleeve until he was in second grade.

Oops - never mind my last post - He has actually been with the Fed since 2002.

After I wrote that I thought it didn't sound right....

I am not that interested or well read on the subject to suggest someone "better than" Bernanke. But wouldn't be disappointed if he was replaced. By whom would he be replaced, is the most difficult part of the decision. I also don't know enough about potential replacements. I don't think many Americans dwell on the subject of high finance. That's why it's such a mess.

Didn't I read, or hear somwhere, recently, that this latest financial melt down was so hard fo fix because those who were responsible had conceived of such convoluted methods of twisting the financial system, that, at this point, only one of them, a criminal mind, would be able to unmess the mess? lol

Gut feeling--no specific incidents--just recollections of dishonorable mentions and the way they respond to questions--but both Tim Geithner or Larrry Summers give me a feeling of great unease. Geithner visually, the way he answers questions, the way he looks at members of congress, his testimonies and speeches, send up warnings in me. It's more or less the same thing with Larry Summers. Some people just don't come across as being capable and straightforward, or they come across as examples of The Peter Principle.

I am well aware that this perception is in the eye of the beholder, namely me, but I would hope if someone must replace Bernanke (whom I agree was on watch as the latest financial collapse was forming and doesn't appear to have acted forthrightly), it would be someone other than Geithner or Summers. Good grief are we so bereft of folks with refreshing competence and personability that the same already flawed (there have been pushes from the public, if not from legislators, to get rid of Geithner AND Summers) are going to be placed in positions of power over and over again? Just like Alberto Gonzalez, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld?

It's the old guitar strumming of "My Buddy" being sung in my ears. Loyalty, sure. We saw where that got us last time around. I had expected better this time.

Until I read this thread, I wasn't aware that Geithner or Summers would even be considered for Bernanke's post. I am amazed. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

jd