This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Reader Submission: Letter To Senator Schumer "A Vote For Ben B. Is A Vote Against You"
A disgruntled reader shares his letter to his Senator, Chuck Schumer.
A vote for Ben B. is a vote against you
What could he have done to help out the hurting people of America ?
1. Put his foot down when they Jacked our Credit Cards rate to 30% (I have never missed a payment and I pay more then the minimum payment.
2. Put his foot down on GS, MS, JPM buying tankers full of oil and parking them all over the world. There's enough oil tankers full of oil to block the English channel,thats 26 miles or tankers (Lets put more money in the hands of Terrorists)
3. Audit the Fed, what is he hiding? How many Detroit and Cleavland Crack Houses does he own(or should it be WE OWN). He bought these for what Wall Street said they were worth, you know we got screwed on that deal!
Its not getting any better here, Unemployment is not coming down, its going up. Look at the money the US. Government pays out every month for UI benefits it's going up at a rate 20%+ a month (That figure is an Understatement)
I have been working all my life, for the last 25 years as a Industrial Electrician making over $80,000 a year, now I can't find a job. All I have to look Forward to is to see if I Quality for the $3000 Welfare tax credit on my 2009 income taxes so I can pay my State and local property taxes.
The only thing he is doing is causing TRADER INFLATION, let see how far we can run the price up on food, gas and heat and if we blow ourselves up, it won't be the first time OH-WELL (if we don't we can keep the money.)
I have never voted Against the Democrats in my life, BUT I WILL THIS TIME just like the people of Mass. did last week.
Its your time to stick up for the people of New York State and this country we call home. I will be watching to see what you do for us.
The people of America are to the breaking point and if we snap how long do you think Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo will last if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards.
I don't know if you will see this letter, I hope you do.
Thank You
Angelo
»
- 7450 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Angelo welcome.
Thanks
Angelo
Right on Angelo.
"I have never voted Against the Democrats in my life"
Unless you are 18 and only voted in one election, you are a moron. Partisan extraordinare. You have the leftist agenda you deserve. Stop complaining.
How true that we have another liberal moron here. If only we had a Republican to sell weapons to Iran like Reagan or a petty, paranoid burglar like Nixon, or how about a war mongering criminal like Bush II. At least Reagan got rid of Jimmy Carter's Fed Chairmen, Volcker, and we need to think Ford for not prosecuting Nixon. Yes thank goodness for republicrats.
Who do I vote for to make shure my kids have a chance at a good life
Alien or Predictor
Leftist agenda?
Last I checked I do not see Republicans jumping up and down saying abolish the Fed and do away with debt(Ron Paul is on an island)?
It's the debt stupid, nothing more and nothing less your partisanship BS is just that.
Agree.
C'mon, really?
Bernanke and Greenspan are Republicans. This mess started under Bush. Wah, wah, socialism. Wah, wah... stop being a child.
I think it is unfortunately over. The republicans seem intent on making this a biparty disaster. Thanks, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander and Orin Hatch.
Interesting letter, as I'm getting the impression it is representative of public mood.
It's clear Angelo is relatively informed (e.g., knows who is Bernanke, understands "trader inflation", is aware of parts of the current political process).
However, something I've never really understood: Despite being a relatively smart and successful guy (industrial electrician), Angelo "never voted against the Democrats in [his] life".
While I agree with most Americans in that I'm not happy with either party, the parties are not the same, and it doesn't make sense to me why even smart people have historically voted themselves into oblivion. You've got to be crazy trying to start a business in Michigan or New York or California or New Jersey, specifically because of the hostile policies against you. Yet, these states don't seem to understand that this is a mess they have themselves created.
Weird. I understand populist "gimme" (when times are good) and populist "rage" (when times are bad), and we're clearly getting some of that. However, I would have guessed Angelo better understood cause-and-effect to not vote the suffering onto himself for the past few decades.
Since this is apparently the first time he's voted against his party, then clearly my understanding is faulty.
or, just maybe, there is something a little untruthful about angelo's submission
I think a huge number of people approach voting and politics the same way they approach religion. It makes no sense to them, but their parents and a large part of their society growing up beat into their heads that one way was right and all other ways were wrong, so they continue doing what they were told to do.
I believe this is a huge problem with our current political system. Truthfully, it's more of a religious system then anything else.
I sure hope you don't mean dem policies over the past few decades. The reason our business's are failing isn't because of higher minimum wage, or ANY REGULATION ON THE BOOKS IN AMERICA.
The reasons those states are doing bad is because they are manufacturing states. You know the ones we all outsourced. The ones we didn't are now competing against everyone making 1 dollar an hour. That's why those businesses aren't doing well. Free trade, low taxes and tarriffs.
Mostly brought to you by the republican party.
I've voted 99 percent dem in my life, (unless there was no dem in which I generally would pick a libertarian)
I voted that way because simply put, I don't believe gay's will take over the world. I don't believe a minimum wage is bad, in fact having one HELPS ALL BUSINESSES because their workers can afford to buy and consume more, which is what businesses are there to provide, a serivce or product that is to be consumed.
Republicans have been for rigging the game against the little guy. Republicans believe in trickle down economics, which is a scam.
The list could literally go on and on, and on and on.
It's just too bad we've had the right wing republicans and the center-right democrat party since, oh about my whole life, and well before my 18th birthday ('96). Right now we have 2 republican parties, which would be the ONLY reason why I would vote against a dem now. Like Repulican Obama. If repubs don't like the way Obama is running things, it's funny, because he's basically a republican, just like Clinton. (oh there's social differences, but not when it comes to wall street.
Again, no one wants republicans in office, they want change, which republicans cannot and will not ever give them. They'll even put a republican in charge, just to prove that point. Scott Brown is also unlike any other republican in office. He's much more like the dems today. See that he wants healthcare, and the issue about 'the gays' as well.
The michelle bachmans that make up the current republican party are history. Which means all of the republican party pretty much is history. But they'll make a comeback, when the dems don't change, as they won't.
Then the people will they put even more clueless people in office, like many realized before hand, and if you think you've seen tea party activists now? Just wait when the tea party is in office, but the tea parties are still going on. Stupid republicans are those that think the current upswell is about them and their conservative ideas...and monkees might fly out of my butt.
Then we'll be at 2012, obama hasn't changed, the congress is either republican controlled or close and 2012 will make 1968 look TAME.
Whoever is in power, needs to change things. The republican, by definition, CAN'T. That's the truth. Repulican's can't change. Only Ron Paul can, and even then he's not the guy you want. His viewpoint is too abstract, he thinks you can cut social safety nets 50+ years after they were started, almost a hundred years after the fed was created, and a whole generation or two of the Wall Street debacle we are currently in and think things will get back to normal if only you ended it all. That's asinine, and why Ron Paul is the wrong guy. Even if I can completely support him on many issues, it's the rest that come along for the ride that would destroy him and us.
You have to take much of Ron Paul's approach and marry it with what say a Kucinich or LaRouche say to do. They have the answers, and won't let people starve. That's the change people are waiting for. Even if they don't realize it's right in front of them, and has been for each of the past two presidential elections. It's there, and has been. Obama can say no, Boener/McConnell/Bachmann can say no. But the only ones that will say no will be those at the ballot box. The only reason any of these candidates might be re-elected is that their consituency hasn't produced a competent alternative candidate.
Until we have quality candidates for both parties in the Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich traditions (or I should say Lincoln/FDR traditions) battling it out on which is the best way, no fed and safety nets, or no fed and no safety nets, then we won't be addressing much of the issues, and the people will get more pissed off. Because this economy will never recover because the system is toast. Wish on a star all you want, but we're either headed toward where we need to go or destruction. Right now we're solely headed for destruction because we won't change. The people that run both parties are going to lose big to any stiff with a heartbeat that promises real change. The dumb vote, generally considered republican, will think they are voting for change, and really be voting for pre 2008 policies of low taxes, cronyism, and everything against gays and immigrants. At least us dems were hoodwinked by Obama, who was promising the change we wanted. Or most of it. He just completely lied to us and gave us nothing. The republicans running on change, are idiots, who think cookie cutter changes equal real change. I'm going to laugh (and maybe cry) at how bad the repubs are going to be in office once they get in charge again. Because they'll make Obama look like Einstein, even if we think Obama is an idiot
Neither of the parties are ready for change. So we won't have it. It's going to take 50 million people marching in the streets, and events that lead that many to do so, for things to change. It's going to be the intense pressure of almost every incumbent losing for either party dems probably 2010 and maybe 2012, republicans for sure in 2014, definintely 2012 if they retake the congress or 1 section of it in 2010.
It's very sijple, either we roll back the last 40 years of lasseiz faire, trickle down economics, globalization-free trade-imperialsim, or we self destruct ourselves. I've seen this destructive policy my whole life, and that's why I've voted dem. Clinton and Obama, these DINO's, have only continued pushing such a destructive policy started by Repubs, and one I've criticized both dems for. Overall though, it isn't the dem movement about to break, it's the repubs. Only because they're about to ride a wave of populism they have no idea, no policy, nor desire to fulfill, and that everybody, will piss them off 10x more than they currently are against the dems.
The dems are cracking too, but only the ones that are leaning 'right', or going with 'less change'. The liberal ones, with liberal views, and desire to change, will be there after 2010, 2012, 2014, and so on, guaranteed.
And don't say something about 'stupid', we as a nation ARE stupid, otherwise this wouldn't of happened to us. It only took 40-100 years for this to happen. It took all the greed is good, it's my money viewpoint, Gordon Gecko types to get us here. It took all the focus on gay's, instead of 'should we be in Iraq'. It was all the 'give takes breaks to the rich and they'll hire more...cough invest in more derivatives at a higher leverage * cough. Again the stupidest way we are stupid, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich have been telling of the problems for a very long time, yet 80 percent of those that are pissed, either haven't heard of either, or are still in denial that we need it. That's stupid.
I'm drowning in the ocean, whoa is me, meanwhile there are 10 life preservers within arm's reach all around him. All involving problems we clearly saw coming. That's stupid, ad that's where we are.
So again, it's not the "I only vote dem" to be complaining about, in many ways it should be commended. Because if you've voted for dems your whole life, and have been voting since the 70's or later, you've been voting for change your whole life...and haven't gotten it. As much of it wasn't dems fault, now with Obama, it is- that's the difference.
I can understand the switch, and it's perfectly reasonable. The guy has been voting for change, and hasn't gotten it. When has a republican voted for change? 1980? They got it. Although the trend started almost a decade earlier and controls us like a iron fist today. Unlike repubs, dems get pissed off easy when their party betrays them. Republicans will look the other way, even when they are doing the exact opposite of their ideal -see entire term of George W. Bush.
Us dems? We want change so badly, we'll trash Obama within 1 year for not changing enough.
If the repubs think they can survive that kind of scrutiny, they're crazier than Jack Nicholson in One who Flew over the Cuckoo's nest. They've never, EVER had it. They have no tools to deal with it, and god forbid they do anything that makes sense beyond greed or being scared of gays or immigrants.
You guys really want to congress and presidency back? I'll laugh and cry at the feeble attempts to govern ANYTHING at this point. You can't, never could, never did. It was all market fantasy these past 40 years. Without it, the realities of the scum repubs are pushing would have hit and been rejected in no time. But with the fake markets of the past 40 years, the complacency of people, or a certain group of people, allowed it to be.
That is not the world today, and will never be again. Good luck running things when times are tough. A monkey could of governed when the repubs did and been fine. As long as the winds of the 40 year market imbalance was at your back, you needn't do anything else put play to people's emotions. That won't work any more. Good luck.
Maybe we should have an essay submission portal on ZH to clear up space for COMMENTS.
you aint kiddin
"I don't believe a minimum wage is bad, in fact having one HELPS ALL BUSINESSES because their workers can afford to buy and consume more, which is what businesses are there to provide, a serivce or product that is to be consumed."
You really need to think about this a little more deeply. When the minimum wage is raised, people lose their jobs. So the total demand does not increase, except there are now unemployed people that have to be paid for via welfare. Or, if the employer decides not to cut jobs, the price of the product increases, costing everyone more money.
When the minimum wage increase is local, non service businesses move to where the supply of labor is not constrained by artificial minimums.
Of course, it is the monopolistic practices of unions that put many of our manufacturers out of business. Union jobs costs non-union members a lot of money. A majority of union members are now government employees. How does that even make sense for the traditional legal monopoly exemptions they are granted?
Sadly, Democrats that don't understand how the economy works, as elected by people like you with some positive goals, but naive and wrong ideas about how to get there, are now running the show in Congress. Doesn't give me a lot of hope. I can't support a religious nut-job Republican, but I'll choose somebody sane from either party if they show up on the ballot.
"When the minimum wage is raised, people lose their jobs"
That is ridiculously stupid. If you follow that argument, then if their wages are lowered there should be more employed; and if you continue then you would say that if people just worked for free then everyone would be employed. Obviously this would not be true as workers would have no money and would not be able to purchase anything and there would then be no employees.
The right answer is that there exists an optimal minimum wage, but you are too much of dumbass to understand that.
You should probably read some studies in labor economics journals, that have been controlled and use scientific methods. It's a fact, as virtually all of those studies, show, that when minimum wages are reduced, employment goes up, and when they are increased, it goes down. The changes disproportionately affect teenage and unskilled/poorly educated workers, but those are typically those who work for minimum wage. So it's good to know that leftists with no understanding of economics, who use an absurd straw man argument rather than the argument at hand, support hurting those who are already at the greatest disadvantage. Well done, my idiot friend!
Well your moronic namecalling almost convinced me, but no, you're still wrong.
The only people who need to work for free are the ones who don't do any work. If a person's work is needed, it will be paid for. Same as anything else in this world.
Wow. You've obviously never had to work a minimum wage job. I have, and I have ALWAYS been against a minimum wage (or any raising thereof).
Employers only have so much money available. In my case (community college), this funding level was set via the state's annual budget. If there was an increase in the (federal) minimum wage, there was NO money available to cover the increased cost of labor. Consequently, if the minimum wage increased then someone was going to lose their job.
It may be stupid but it's true in many instances.
The problem is a government mandated "blanket" minimum wage. Bureaucrats can't possible know what the minimum wage should be for every task performed.
Ask the workers in America Samoa:
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=51180
The jobs I had were always union and you voted with the dems to support the union,I'm not saying the union are always right,In all my years I never needed there help,most of the time they spent helping out the slug worker.
I don't think they know how bad it is out here,
When it comes to voting we have a choose
Aliens or Predictor
Witch one should I vote for ? Any help
Thanks Tyler
Angelo
<expecting a lot of harsh comments on this>
Angelo,
With no due respect, if you have blindly voted left all your life and you are now asking for the advice of an anonymous blogger you are clearly an idiot.
I disagree, the parties for all intents and
puroposes are the same. they both serve the
same master, the special interests, and their own self interests. They have conned the electorate,
including myself at times, into believing
that there are real differences between
them. In reality they each have their own
hot button issues that they use to disguise
their true agenda which is to continue to
support the corptocracy that owns them and
contols our country. We are no longer
governed, but are ruled by the special
interests. We need to throw out all
incumbents and keep doing so until we the
people are once again represented instead
ruled.
What if WE ALL QUIT...?
What if we ALL:
Quit paying taxes
Quit paying credit card debts (I'd like to “restructure” that debt to zero)
Quit buying ANYTHING from a retail outlet that we couldn't get used
Quit going to pointless jobs (if your job has a point, by all means, keep going)
Quit paying mortgages and offered an ounce of gold for the title
You get the drift.
ive landed a number of small projects all backed by stimulus money. all probably a colossal waste. at least i'm getting some of my tax dollars back.
Envision this: On April 15th, millions of taxpayers line up, single file, to the steps of Congress and State Capitols to "deposit" tax forms into a large paper shredder. Think THAT will get these numbnuts' attention?
Something like this is exactly what is needed, but before April 15th.
It's the only way for the People to take back their country without resorting to violence. Total Non-Participation.
Everyone is starting to get a real taste of the direction we're going - nothing will wake people up until they feel what others have suffered for much longer. Bravo for finally joining the downtrodden, Angelo.
Nothing will change in this country until there is mass violence. If the Tea Parties had 1,000,000 people go to Washington with guns, maybe the politicians might get the idea that things need to change or else.
Dude...No taxes..sub s company doesnt make money
Dont owe the man on credit cards
only go to outlets off season or paul stuart
work 65-75 hours a week
dont have a mortgage paid down principle....
get to work and stop jerking off..
Good plan!
then society will rearange itself to reflect our new found beliefs. i always remember learning at college that early caveman only needed to work about 15 hours a week to ensure all means of survival . after that they could do what they liked. i doubt if it was even as much as 15 hours.
You first. Let us know in about six months how it went for you.
Memo to all: Stop using credit cards or pay them off monthly and then they are free. We all should plan for bad things happening. Which requires lots of self restraint and living well below one's means. Over the past 25 years many just over-consumed -- bought things they really could not afford in the long run and ZERO contingency for really bad things that could happen. We are now facing a reversion to the mean in prudent consumer spending which will be painful for the consumer and the economy.
This rationale makes no sense to me. Putting morality aside, if one truly believes in TEOTWAKI, then why on earth pay your bills off. I won't exhaust everyone with the arguments heard before. However I doubt there will be bill collectors and re-possesors running around during a financial apocolypse. They will be home defending their property or hoping the "community outreach anti-hoarding program" doesn't take their stuff.
Anyway, follow the logic a little.
Even if paid off monthly, the credit card is "free" only to the user and only in nominal terms. The merchants are still taking about a 3% hit for your use of a credit card. Unfortunately this represents a "tragedy of the commons" or coordinated action problem, so for any individual it's likely best to keep using the card and get the interest-free float, even though for society overall it would be best to get rid of them.
Memo to all: Stop using credit cards or pay them off monthly and then they are free.
Thank God... someone else who read past the red meat attention getter about "never having voted for anyone besides a Democrat."
Yes... obviously Angelo is somewhat of a moron when it comes to his "politics," but the fact that he comes across as seeing nothing wrong with using revolving consumer credit as one would use a capital loan...
(*SIGH*)
God help this once great nation.
BILL
I've been calling Schumer's office for over a year, about once a month. They could care less what people think. Their office in DC is particularly bad, staffed by early 20 somethings who don't even know what you're talking about. A strong campaign against Schumer is needed, but NYState is full of Democrats who will bleed blue until their homeless and then some.
Hah. I worked in Congress. *EVERY* Senator and Representative (Dem or GOP) has their phones staffed by 22-year olds making $20k a year. It's not just Shumer.
Every country has the leadership it deserves.
But who R U going to replace Schumer with? A Republican? Do you remember that Ben B. Was Bush's W.H. economist before Bush appointed him to be Fed's Chair? And that the bailout-central (pre-2008 known as Washington, DC) was initiated by Bush and Paulson?
The said thing is that while I, like you, will not vote for the US Senate candidates who vote to confirm Ben B., i've got nobody to vote FOR. Whoever gets the job, already is/will soon be "captured!"
Angelo....we new we weren't rich enough to be snooty, smug Republicans...Now we see we're not rich enough to be Democrats either.
BB confirmation up to 91 (was 94 just an hour ago) on intrade http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=692750&z=...
Not sure how much to weight that, because the sample size is likely pretty small... But either they're insane, or know something we don't.
What they know is that Republicans like Hatch who told people he was critical of Bernanke are now caving.
For Republicans there is NO up-side to voting FOR Bernanke.
A block vote AGAINST Bernanke would signal to the public not only that the GOP is willing to go to the mat opposing bad policy, but also, it would provide evidence of a clear break from the Bush Wing of the GOP economic legacy.
BILL
A block vote AGAINST Bernanke would signal to the public not only that the GOP is willing to go to the mat opposing bad policy, but also, it would provide evidence of a clear break from the Bush Wing of the GOP economic legacy.
Well said. That would certainly send a signal and would be a defining moment for the Repubs.
The country's political system is now analogous to a herd of sheep in a pen with two exits, both of which lead to the same slaughterhouse. The sheep are routinely sheared naked and kept exhausted as they are run back and forth between the exits by the slaughterhouse owners and their running dogs.
If running through an exit is "voting," then voting "against" something in this environment is about the same as voting "for" it.
The only way the sheep can prevail in this setup is to stop doing what sheep do. Stop running. Stop buying. Stop paying. Ignore the dogs. Sit down. Don't move. Just stop playing the game until the system, built entirely upon sheep doing what sheep do, collapses.
Can sheep stop being sheep? Historically, not until things get a lot worse than they are...
Great description. You could also just give the sheep an axe and blueprints, however.
While sheep might, as they grow more exhausted, become less fearful and sit down rather than run around in their pen, expecting them to understand a print and use an ax with their little cloven feet will have even more disappointing results.
Perhaps the reason Ghandi went for the "non-violent" approach...
Schumer is a great politician.
Can't say much else about him though. There are young children in the room.
I live in NY. He will NOT be getting my vote.
NYer here, cannot vote for Schumer on this move.
Make no mistake about this, Chuck Schumer is a very bright and intelligent individual and he knows exactly what is going on with the Fed. Chuck also knows that Bernanke's policies in the past and present are failures. Yet, Chuck is voting for Bernanke.
History will not be kind.
I can see the day in the not too distant future when all the pundits get on TV and in the printed press and start asking "How could this have happened?" "How come people didn't speak out?" " Shouldn't we have seen this coming?" "Where were our leaders?"
Guaranteed you will hear these conversations, just like has happened in past history, starting just one freakin' year ago!!
Nothing in the financial system has been fixed, FASB 157 rules the day, regulators looking the other way, and bankers acting like pigs stuffing engineered profits into their pockets versus allocating capital to balance sheets.
Likewise, Schumer, you are done. I am by far the most financially sophisticated within my social network, and I will ensure EVERY SINGLE ONE of my network understands the implications of your vote.
Bye bye.
+100, Bravo Steve..I started my dump Schumer campaing last year. He embodies everything that is wrong with politics. Watch Weiner get nuked too!
don't care which party they're from. one term, or no more terms if they won't support the populace!
once they determine that they're getting fired; they'll turn around, or go home.
my congress person is not getting my vote(never did either). her reply to my congress.org email was: "next time you send a message, rise above the crowd and have your letters hand-delivered to your Members of Congress with Advocacy Xpress for only $8.95 per letter."
rise above the crowd, yeh right! i've expressed my opinion twice, i'm past talking now and simply voting every last lobyist whore out of office untill they start sucking over here!
Nothing changes except the names and faces. Both parties are owned and played like a cheap trick. Until a well supported and organized third party forms, rises up, and takes over....the end game accelerates to our detriment...and faith in the illusion that our votes matters....is another form of extend and pretend.
Sometimes I have trouble telling the two parties apart, that is, if there are in fact two parties with different agendas.
Ben, if you can't tell the parties apart after last week, then you might want to try harder. Here in MA we can tell the difference.
Put another way, why is O on the attack so quickly?
The answer is:
"Until a well supported and organized third party forms, rises up..."
Correct answer!!!!
NRGTDR, you are todays grand prize winner on America's favorite game show, FUCK THE PUBLIC!!!!!
Which all it needs to happen is for the existing empowered 2 party system which is really a 1 party system to leave it alone and allow it to form and come to power. Which is not going to happen. It will have every subversion, preversion and conversion technique applied to it till it's dead, dead dead.
Eh,Shumer was'nt getting my vote anyway,it's ABS for me..Anybody But Shumer
I'm voting for Schumer. Maybe I can get a bit of the graft to flow my way, if you catch my drift.
This is amusing, but my experience is that all federal politicians could not care less what voters think. Replies from my senators are bluntly insulting, after sending them well written, well reasoned and tactful letters.
No, this isn't the start of much. The start of things is when people willingly stop paying their bills and daring creditors to do something, when people withdraw all their money from the bank in cash (whether or not they convert it to PMs or other tangible assets), and when people start disregarding blantantly unfair laws that are clearly ignored by the ruling classes.
I'm there... paying no CC bills anymore starting 2010. Withdrew all but enough to cover bills from my checking and closed savings. Told employer I'd like a physical check - no direct deposit anymore, and will be moving my checking to a smaller local bank this week.
I vote no confidence - the fed, the federal government, the banks, and the fiatsco.
"The people of America are at the breaking point and if we snap......"
I don't think this matters. Besides, what can we possibly do about it at this point?
We have no legislative body acting on our behalf. The army is broken (and most likely the banks have
Blackwater on speed dail). Law enforcement is crippled by budget cuts. The voting boxes cannot be
audited.....etc. etc. etc.
With regard to voting either Dem or Repub - its all the same.....a waste of your time.
Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke have created a easy money policy that has encouraged gambling at its most profitable heights. No Senators have asked, HOW are you going to withdraw the liquidity, Step-One may have worked? May? but what is step-two going to look like.. The letter posted above is a solid loathing of the situation many Americians feel themselves in--
why people angry about the bills and credit cards and mortgages? because the Gov. changed the damn rules of basic capitalism by bailing out the bankers. We teach our children to take responsibility of their action. when come to banks the rules are changed. We don't know what to tell to the children. That's why the country is angry. The bankers and smart-ass traders fucked up the system, and a lot of innocent workers suffered. The Gov. didn't really do shit to correct that so far.
I understand the frustration but "I have never voted Against the Democrats in my life" and the "if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards". I thought this was a serious board with serious discussion. Perhaps Tyler posted as an example of the frustration but as a contribution to the debate ..come on - don't waste our time.
"I will be watching to see what you do for us."
Watch This My Friend
Shmucky Schumer will be giving a short speech at Bernard Madoff Investment and collecting $106k in campaign bribes from the Madoff clan and a staggering $5.7 million from Wall Street.
Whoops that was 2004-08.
Schmucky Schumer will be giving a short speech at GS and JPM and collecting his 2009 financial industry campaign bribes of ... drum roll please... $1.65 million.
Now that is some serious scratch Schmucky. I would be watching and counting the Senate votes of that numb nuts too.
Follow Schmucky's campaign bribe success here at SenatorForSale.Schmuck.org
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
$ 15,075,295 $1,627,795 $13,447,500
says it all....doesnt his wife have a cushy job too?
You got to love OpenSecrets.org anony. You can run down who's a bitch in seconds...
Protip: If you can look them up there, they're probably someone's bitch.
" if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards."
hmmm, maybe take a few days off from work? got the pissed off little guy flu? this is actually the beginnings of a bloodless revolution to take the country back from Wall St. if the US is destined to become some sort of 3rd world thing, might as well do it on our own terms. do we really need to follow the politicians?
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
~Mark Twain
Brilliant.
I think Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC) understood that over 2000 years earlier too. Same sh1t, different day.
Ironically enough, the egalitarianism of Epicurus, was carried forward into the American freedom movement and Declaration of Independence, by the American founding father, Thomas Jefferson, as "all men are created equal" and endowed with certain "inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean.
+100
Schumer is perhaps the greatest POS. It's a photo finish either way.
I'm for revolution. It's like an earthquake in Los Angeles. The only time you get a chance to meet the neighbors.
Angelo, according to your letter, you have made about $1.4mm (after taxes) over the last 25 years, have a cc rate of 30% and are looking to welfare programs to make ends meet? If you are representative of America then I hope we collapse. You have clearly mismanaged your finances and my guess is that you have been living beyond your means for some time. Like many other leftists I know, you can't handle "the game of life" and look to the state to "take care of you." Ben Bernanke didn't take your job, a long line of goverment policymaking and mismanagement created circumstances which led to this crisis and your consequential job loss. Rather than doing something about it, you want to take part in the blame game. Does it really change anything? You are still broke and, someday, you will have to take responsibilty for choices you made in your own life.
Eh, pesky math.
Seriously though, if someone is writing to Schumer they presumably live in New York state, maybe in the city and its burbs. If you live in NYC metro, $80k a year isn't rich. It's decent for a single person and not so decent for a family. I don't think the income issue merits much attention here.
The revolving credit card issue, well yeah, that suggests typical american irresponsibility. The kind encouraged by all parts of the financial and media industries.
Maybe some things did not work out for the guy? Maybe he had outlays that were unexpected? Maybe he does not have a guaranteed pension like state and federal workers? Maybe he invested in a business and no one was there to bail his ass out?
I mean what is the purpose of your self serving finger waving?
In a lot of neighborhoods when you wave a finger at somebody they take it...the game of life? What a wise ass......
You must be from "Fly-Over Country" or the south if you think that's a lot of income, even after taxes, in the NYC area.
Nowhere in the letter is there a mention of New York city. He does reference New York State, though. How much income it is or is not is irrelevant. The fact is that Angelo, like most of the other sheep out there, were too stupid to live within their means. Its unfortunate that banks/AIG/automakers were bailed out, but it has to stop somewhere. Ranting about a confirmation for BB is so far in left-field. He's just biting into the media "looking-for-a-scapegoat" mentality.
And though I would enjoy living in flyover country (I do utilize my co-lo and trade out in CO from time to time), I call Chi-town home.
This letter is the functional equivalent of pissing in the wind with the same result--wet pants.
Chuck Schumer will do whatever the NYSE, Nasdaq, GS, JPM and MS tell him to do--and what pray tell do you think they will tell him to do?
Chuckie could give a flying crap about what his constituents want. He is after all the world's smartest man, right up there with our fearless leader.
Agree, except that if you're smart enough to piss downwind, you don't get your pants wet.
Unless these people volunteer it seems the least among us(income wise) continue to get hurt the most...
Wal-Mart Will Cut 10,000 Sam’s Club Jobs in U.S., Cornell Says
By Joe Sabo
Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to fire about 10,000 mostly part-time demonstration workers at its Sam’s Club locations across the U.S., Sam’s Club Chief Executive Officer Brian Cornell said in an e-mailed memo.
Last Updated: January 24, 2010 13:57 EST
Please correct the spelling of "Cleveland" before submitting.
Thanks.
Go ahead people, stop paying your mortages and credit cards. Most of these obligations are now owned by the people, just as we have intended. You folks make me laugh, like you can do anything. You are owned by us, face it, and those teensy weensy republicans are too marginalized to do anything about it too. We own half of them and the other half are kooks.
Dear Senitur Chuckie Shumer,
I’m an outta Work industrial electrician But I no I’ll find a $100,000 a year job Eventually becuz my blewprints are even better than MY WRITING!!!
Anyway I’m a yeller dog Dummycrat who always Votes the way my union tells me, and even though you and Barney Frank and Chris Dood are TWO of the poster boys for the financial Meltdown , I don’t Have any Problem with all the other fucked up shit you’ve always voted for in the past and Intend to vote four in the Future, , I’m only worried About this Berkanke guy buying Crack houses in Cleevland or Detroit instead of Buffalo! And THE fact that Bank of America or IndyMac or somebody raised credit card Rates to pay for their oil tankers Sitting in the parking lot at Wal-Mart so Al Qaeda and Goldman Sacks can CONTANGO America’s ass into the terrorism Poorhouse!
So I just thought I better warn you that if you vote for this Bukakee guy, I’ll support whatever non-existant Democrat might run Against you in a Primary before I vote for you in the General Election.
Thanks in advance for Taking this letter SERIOUSLY.
Signed,
Old Yeller
P.S. Say hi to Freddy Mac for me!!
I LOLed!
cantango america's ass haha
ive ruminated on strategy for revolting for some time. the only option that still seems to have the remote possibility of being effective is to withdraw cash from all major financial institutions and buy assets for medium/long term wealth storage - e.g. have minimal USD holdings. if you have a mortgage underwater immediately walk away. buy nothing you don't need. elections, calls to senators, organizing get out the vote, etc wont do anything. but really at the end of the day you cant count on enough fellow americans to do jack squat as they are too lazy to learn about the decisions effecting them -- instead they whine and demand lower interest rates. the smart money rides the political machinations/manipulations and will be happy and have the capital to take advantage of the slave labor rates our numb-skull fellow americans will be willing to work for in 5 years. I sure am looking forward to it.
Thanks for the letter Angelo, I just wrote a similar letter to the White House and my Senators.
Obama is pushing for Bernanke, obviously his outrage last week at the financial community was a tactic.
We all need to look around and find people in our community, some good independents who'll be the next Scott Browns of the country and get them elected. Nor R or D and not part of the corporatocracy.
And you idiot self-righteous R's who put Angelo down for communicating with his Senator, f**k off.
These problems are not republican or democrat problems they are integrity and honesty issues. This can only be overcome by a revolution violent or nonviolent. Violent results in chaos and setting up a new government where the cycle could start again.
Non violent would be the common citizen rises up in protest in numbers never seen before 10-20 million. If you show them that we will not stand for this abuse then it will weed out the undesirables (most of our politicians).
The supreme court just ruled in favor of lobbyists and corporations pertaining to campaign contributions, this is a step in the wrong direction. This is one of the root causes of corruption. There should be mass protests over this.
No, the supreme court just ruled that you and I can speak in association just as loudly as can media companies and unions.
Saying that, "everyone must shut up except for unions and media companies" was found to be inconsistent with constitutional rights.
I understand your concern that "too much freedom" is dangerous and scary, but the previous scenario was oppressive.
The law that the Supreme Court overturned limited what unions could say. The restrictions on unions were the same as those on corporations. The Supreme Court decision threw out the restrictions on unions as well as on corporations.
I'm guessing you've read neither the decision nor the McCain-Feingold law. But go ahead and repeat what you've heard on Faux News (or MSNBC) or some blog written by someone who knows next to nothing about campaign finance.
Not really. The law pushed all election money to political action committees (PACs), which the unions could contribute into, but corporations could not. It was mere accounting.
Of course, media companies could always do whatever they wanted at any time, because contribution through their media outlets were not considered contribution through "profits". Since unions never had profits, unions had tremendous discretion.
A reasonable guess, but incorrect.
Your stronger rebuttal would be an assertion that, "Corporations are not individuals, and thus not deserving of protections." That's a sticky point, that I concede has merit.
However, the motivation behind this decision was the fact that under the current system, we were dealing with the very real issue that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could (and did) arbitrarily ban individual books, movies, songs, skits, or any item that mentioned a candidate's name a single time (not even in reference to an issue). That's amazing power to say "shut up" that society never granted government.
(NB: I'm writing this on the run so apologies for typos, lack of good cites, etc.)
"The law pushed all election money to political action committees (PACs), which the unions could contribute into, but corporations could not. It was mere accounting."
Both corporations and unions could contribute to PACs. There were similar restrictions on both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=March&...
It would have been easy to overturn the arbitrary bans you refer to above on more narrow grounds. (That's what many expected the SC to do.) There was no need overturn the limits on corporate (or union) campaign contributions. This was very-expansive judicial activism that ignored both Congress and stare decisis and created vast new corporate (and union) rights out of thin air.
You will notice on the wikipedia page you reference that the top PACs lean democrat (and specifically unions). While political contributions "as a whole" are expected to "swing" in favor of the majority party somewhat (and democrats are currently the majority), reality shows that PACs are largely a tool of unions over corporations.
For some strange reason, I'm not hearing rejoicing by unions that are now able to say whatever they want. The reason is simple, from your wikipedia link:
Corporate PACs get voluntary contributions from executives, shareholders, and families, while union PACs get non-elective dues from union members. It's the comparison between "voluntary" money and "coerced" money. Unions previously had a relative money advantage.
Agreed that your suggestion was more expected. However, this is a "devil in the details" problem: No, it's not easy.
Please define "pornography" and give me legislation to ban the "bad" stuff while still letting me see the works of the masters, including naked cherubs. (That's hard to do.) Similarly, it is very difficult to craft a system where the government can say "shut up" to its people, without that system becoming oppressive.
You raise several issues.
Definition of terms: Judicial activism creates laws and rights outside of Congress and the Constitution. It is not judicial activism merely because the court overturns itself.
In general, permitting people (and now institutions) to "speak" is not creation of new rights: In the US, that right is established. Rather, this discussion merely centers on reasonable restrictions on that right. A more sober debate would be as to whether corporations are afforded constitutional rights (at present, that answer is "yes").
Yes, this ruling does overturn a previous supreme court ruling. The net result is less government authority/intrusion. There will be pros and cons to this decision.
We agree that these are big stakes. We disagree that the regulatory structure is able to articulate and manage a fair landscape: Any significant control by government regarding who may speak will merely favor one group over another.
With the pathetic job of enforcement of banking regulation, the idea of an "impartial philosopher-king" able to make "Thou shalt speak" decisions during elections seems unrealistic.
The links refute your assertion that "The law pushed all election money to political action committees (PACs), which the unions could contribute into, but corporations could not." You now seem to agree that corporations can contribuite to PACs, which is contrary to what you originally said.
What does defining pornography have to do with overturning decisions that you say are clearly aribitrary and unfair?
Courts and agencies do that every day. It's their job.
"It is not judicial activism merely because the court overturns itself." Of course not. That would be ignoring stare decisis. (see above) The judicial activism is in creating new, expansive rights and legal status FOR CORPORATIONS (duh!). Those rights and status did not exist FOR CORPORATIONS (or other non-human entities) before this ruling. Those are rights that are outside those granted via the Constitution (written or unwritten) or by Congress. I don't even know of any court cases that hint at such expansive rights for corporations. Further, the ruling itself rests on the presumption that corporations have rights similar to human beings. The ruling is likely to lead to more litigation designed to further expand on the rights granted to corporations (and similar entities) via this ruling. That is judicial activism.
The law *did* push all money to PACs. I do concede that corporations *can* contribute to PACs, but effectively that doesn't mean much because PACs are a tool for unions.
Shareholders don't contribute to PACs. That's stupid, and a waste of money (e.g., it's voluntary, so it doesn't happen). In contrast, all union members contribute their union dues to PACs because they don't have a choice.
But yes, technically, I concede PACs can be used by both corporations and unions. In practice, I don't believe that distinction is significant.
Arbitrary and unfair is permitting some to speak, but not others. That is a difficult problem that tends to merely favor one group over another.
Defining pornography is a similar problem: It's hard to define, it's hard to codify into law, and it's hard to enforce a system that punishes those you want to punish, while permitting activity that should be permitted.
We disagree on the court's job. Their job is to apply the law. Since you keep mentioning stare decisis, then we should agree on the dangers of a capricious court that merely dispenses "justice" while ignoring the law, since "justice" is always an arbitrary term that favors one group over another. In contrast, society has established laws that are imperfect, but which are supposed to represent acceptable behavior (the law) and punishement if that behavior is violated (penalties).
We disagree on the court's job.
This case did not rule that "corporations are persons". That is left to other cases. Rather, this case ruled that the FEC cannot restrict speech the way it had.
Your complaint is for another case that argues that "corporations are not individuals, and thus not protected."
legally speaking corporations are individuals. if you have a birth certificate you are also legally a corporation. (thinkfree.ca. also fmotl.com also tpuc.org). interesting subject, might be one way of breaking the chains that bind.
Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!
THIS IS NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THIS IS TYRANNY.
On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.
This cannot stand. Join our campaign to protest this decision. (FreeSpeechforPeople.org)
Protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations.
###
"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."
- Professor Jamin Raskin, constitutional law expert at American University's Washington College of Law and Maryland state senator
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-goldman-sachs...
We agree that it's tyranny that the Fed can print whatever they want, and they use that power mostly for the benefit of the Fed.
However, I don't think the Fed will be as simplistic as to give money to campaigns. The ROI isn't high enough. Rather, it's better for them to merely print money and seize real assets like they do now. And, it's more expedient to extort Congress to get whatever regulation the Fed wants (why bother getting an individual Congressman elected when it's easier to pound the table in front of a bunch of elected idiots that have no economic sense?)
The Fed violates its charter all the time, and is above all laws. Congress is supposed to regulate them, but we can all see how that's going.
The Fed is very effective doing whatever the h*ll it wants without bothering with campaign contributions.
Constitutional rights are individual's rights, not rights belonging to a deathless, soulless entity like a union, a media company, or a corporation.
That's the error that you want to bury.
That's thanks to our corporate sponsored supreme court.
The whole thing is a grotesque sham.
Expect more of this:
It turns one’s stomach to watch libertarians and “free market economists” defend bureaucratized impersonal health care as “free market medicine.” There is no free market present. Corporate lobbies and campaign contributions use government power to create bureaucratized monopolies that destroy medicine for the practitioner and the patient. Wall Street pushes for greater shareholder earnings, which are achieved by denying care.
My doctor has more people employed doing paperwork than he does delivering health care.
While Medicare payments for in-office services to private doctors, including those for blood work and x-ray units, were drastically cut, payments to outside corporate facilities for the same services were increased. It is obvious what is afoot. Corporate lobbies are using their whores in Congress to shift income from physician offices to corporate labs, corporate medical service providers, and hospitals that are owned by national corporations.
Legislation that cuts payments to private physicians and increases the payments to large corporate entities is intended to destroy private practice and to create in its place corporate bureaucracies in which doctors are wage slaves. The physician’s income is diverted to shareholders, CEO bonuses, and Wall Street. Health care is being replaced with health business.
http://counterpunch.org/roberts01222010.html
And also from the article:
I like the author, usually, but this is awful. Does he even know what he is talking about? He makes a few good points but I don't know how he managed to insert Libertartians into the mess.
i will be maxing out my credit cards this year to pay my taxes and then I will tell the banks to kiss my ass. I ain't paying.
If you are going to go that route, I would sugggest that instead of maxing out your cards to pay your taxes, you should maxing out your cards so that you can put some cash in foreign country bank or some other asset. Then tell Uncle Sam to kya.
"how long do you think Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo will last if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards."
...They will last forever, because if everybody stops paying their debts, the government will just bail them out again, and again, and again. Forever.
This board exactly the problem why we in this predicament in the first place----politics. Why doesn't everyone just admit both the Dems and GOP has been awful for America and leave it at that. And I'm a former GOPer turned non-political.
As Buffet always said:
First you have the innovators: Reagan
than you have the imitators: Newt and his Contract with America
than all you have left are the idiots: Bush and his band of merry bandits.
It had to be pretty difficult to put together a more Judaized presidential administration than even Bill Clinton, but Obama has managed to do so. But then again, many of Obama’s Cabinet and personnel picks are little more than a repeat of the Clinton Administration. As most astute observers and researchers now well know, the two major political parties don’t matter much these days because the Jewish plutocrats, Jewish political machine, Jewish mass-media complex, and Jewish legal complex has both of them almost entirely locked down.
I estimate that at least 1/5-1/3 of Obama’s Cabinet plus important personnel posts are of ethnic Jewish ancestry, and that is probably a fairly low estimate. If one counts all of the aides, assistants, assistants of assistants, deputies, backups, right-hand (wo)men, lawyers, advisers, and other high to mid-level bureaucrats the number of ethnic Jews in the Obama Administration might actually be closer to 40-50% as in some recent administrations, as these aides and assistants are the individuals who often wield the real power because they do so much of the real work behind the scenes, far away from the glaring cameras of the (disproportionately Jewish) presscorp. Other ostensibly non-Jewish Cabinet and personnel members no doubt married a Jew (which is common amongst the American political class: Washington DC-Northern Virginia-Maryland is an extremely Jewish region) or have partial Jewish ancestry which no one is publicly aware of.
Keep in mind that Jews as an ethnic group in America are only about 2-3% of the overall population, yet still they are over-represented by a massively disproportionate margin in the Obama Administration, especially in the most important posts dealing with economic issues (which is noted). And as every U.S. citizen now realizes, economic issues are particularly critical at this juncture in American history – in short, the country is on the brink of insolvency. Knowing this, how good does it make you feel that the group in charge of America’s national finance, and thus the country’s overall economic destiny, are a group of people who are very well known to be (both historically and in modern times) completely and utterly manipulative, deceptive, and corrupt when dealing in financial matters?
Schumer is jewish, will vote for Benjamin Shalom Berknake, another jewish person. Mark my words
Rahm Israel Emanuel (Jew/White House Chief of Staff)
Benjamin Shalom Bernanke (Jew/Federal Reserve (the FED) Chairman)
Sheila Bair (Jew/FDIC Chairman)
Karen Mills (Jew/Administrator, Small Business Administration (SBA)
Christina Romer (Jewish husband/Council of Economic Advisers)
Paul Volcker (Jew/Economy advisor/twice FED Chairman)
Mary Schapiro (Jew/SEC Chairman)
Hillary Clinton (Pro-Israel Secretary of State) - Said her family spoke Yiddish when she was a child, during her first campaign for NY Senate.
In her first Sunday show interview as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said it is US POLICY to treat an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel as an attack on the United States.
Tim Geithner (Jew/Treasury Secretary)
Douglas Shulman (Jew/Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner)
Leon Panetta (Pro-Israel CIA Director)
Lawrence ("Samuelson") Summers (Jew/NEC Director)
David Axelrod (Jew/Senior Obama Advisor)
Jason Furman (Jew/Director of Economic Policy)
Alan Blinder (Jew/Obama Economic Adviser)
Robert Rubin (Jew/Obama Economic Adviser)
Dan Shapiro (Jew/NSC Middle East desk)
Dennis Ross (Jew/Envoy to Iran)
Puneet Talwar (Jew/NSC Middle East Desk)
George Mitchell (Pro-Israel Middle East Envoy)
Jared Bernstein (Jew/Biden Economic Policy Adviser)
Richard Holbrooke (Jew/Afghan-Pakistan Envoy)
Ronald Klain (Jew/VP Biden Chief of Staff)
Peter Orszag (Jew/Head of Budget)
Eric Landers (Jew/Science & Technology Advisory Council Co-Chair)
Elena Kagen (Jew/Solicitor General)
Gary Gensler (Jew/Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chmn)
Steven Rattner (Jew/Treasury Adviser-Auto Sector)
James B. Steinberg (Jew/deputy Secretary of State)
Jacob Lew (Jew/deputy Secretary of State)
Jared Bernstein (Jew/Chief Economics Policy Adviser to VP Biden)
Jon Leibowitz (Jew/FTC Chairman)
Julius Genachowski (Jew/FCC Chairman)
Margaret Ann Hamburg (Jew/Commissioner - Food and Drug Agency)
Joshua M. Sharfstein (Jew/Deputy FDA Administrator) - FDA head has always been a Jew since Clinton era.
Economic Czar – Larry Summers
Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein
Pay Czar – Kenneth Feinberg
Guantanamo/Military Jails Czar – Daniel Fried
Car Czar – Steven Rattner
Border Czar – Alan Bersin
Climate Czar – Todd Stern
Global Warming Czar – Carol Browner
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF AMERICAN FEDERAL RESERVE
S. Bernanke – Chairman
Donald L. Kohn – Vice Chairman
Kevin M. Warsh
Eric S. Rosengren – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Charles I. Plosser – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Jeffrey M. Lacker – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
James B. Bullard – President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Gary H. Stern– President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Thomas M. Hoenig – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Richard W. Fisher– President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Janet L. Yellen – President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Benjamin Bernanke: Chairman, Federal Reserve System
Neal Wolin: Deputy Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department
Lael Brainard: Under Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department
Richard Holbrooke:Special Envoy to Pakistan/Afghanistan
Stuart Levey: Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Lawrence Summers: Chairman, National Economic Council
Paul Volcker: Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jared Bernstein: Chief Economist and Economic Adviser,
Peter Orszag: Director, Office of Management and Budget
Jason Furman: Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget
Jeffrey Zeints: Chief Performance Officer to streamline government and cut costs as well as Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget
Gary Gensler: Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Mary Schapiro: Chairwoman, Securities and Exchange Commission
Sheila Bair: Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Karen Mills: Administrator, Small Business Administration
Jon Leibowitz: Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Douglas Shulman: Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
Neil M. Barofsky: Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”)
James B. Steinberg: Deputy Secretary of State
Jacob Lew: Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources
Jeffrey D. Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (Includes Mideast)
Lee Feinstein: Foreign Policy Advisor
Eric Lynn: Middle East Policy Advisor
Dennis Ross: Special Advisor for the Gulf (Iran) and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State
Mara Rudman: Foreign Policy Advisor
Dan Shapiro: Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council
Rahm Emmanuel: Whitehouse Chief of Staff
Julius Genachowski: Chair, Federal Communications Commission
Elena Kagan: Solicitor General of the U.S., Department of Justice
Dr. Margaret Hamburg:Commissioner, of the Food and Drug Administration
Dr. Joshua Sharfstein:Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
Susan Sher:Chief of Staff for First Lady Michelle Obama
Dr. Thomas R. Frieden:Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Sent a similar letter to Enzi and Barrasso from Wyoming.
Unlike most states, we are small enough that every email really DOES matter.