See this article. Some excerpts:
"It is so simple that it is obvious once she [Senator Warren] has pointed it out; and yet
most people rarely, if ever, consider the impact of presidential
nominations - and of late they have likely done so only because Warren
blocked a nominee over their strong ties to the industry they were to
police. It's clear, these are the kinds of regulators who don't regulate
- and don't prosecute. Warren doesn't put it in such harsh terms, but
this is a scathing indictment of the Obama administration. If there were
any question about why Obama has not been a Progressive, it is answered
here."
"It is true, Obama passed strong Wall Street reform; but under his watch
not a single Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted, and regulation has
been lax. Do we believe Clinton might also pass strong laws? Maybe so;
but Warren has proven that the laws are meaningless if they go
unenforced. The real question is, would Clinton nominate strong
regulators? If we judge her by Obama - as she has repeatedly insisted we
should - we must conclude that she would not. In fact, Warren may just
have revealed how those massive donations and speaking fees get repaid:
by putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.