Obama to nominate Summers as Fed chief: Nikkei

[chimpymustgo]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by grantcart (a host of the Barack Obama group).

Obama to nominate Summers as Fed chief: Nikkei
Source: Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama will name former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Japan's Nikkei newspaper said on Friday.

The newspaper, quoting unnamed sources, said in its original Japanese version that Obama was "in the final stages" and moving toward naming Summers.

The English-language version said the president "is set to" name Summers as early as late next week.

Asked about the story, a White House spokeswoman said Obama had not made his decision about the Fed job.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-usa-fed-summers-report-idUSBRE98C06120130913?irpc=932

[grantcart]

1. Interesting that you posted this in the BOG group

No secret that it is going to face strong criticism at DU.

For those who want to know more about the background of Summers here is his Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers

You will find a lot of conflict with Krugman and others on the progressive side.

Many outside of the BOG misunderstand the rules that exist here and perceive that it is some instant echo chamber.

Discussion that raises questions and disagrees with the President on a particular point is not outside the SOP as long as it is done in a respectful and thoughtful way.

For the most part I think I understand the President's objectives even in policies I disagree with but am at a loss in understand what he sees in Summers, given there are other candidates who could do the job and don't have all of the negative baggage.

For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the subject (something found less and less at DU) please join the thread. Supporters of the President can and do disagree among themselves and with the President without supporting the administration any less.

As long as your comments are made in a constructive and respectful matter they will be respected, sarcastic and negative comments about the President will earn a ban that many here seem to covet.

Thanks.

[monmouth3]

2. I've wondered if it was a "Hahvad" thing...n/t

[grantcart]

3. The one quality that everyone seems to agree that Summers has is that

he doesn't appear to be afraid to piss people off and confront them directly.

So he has developed a lot of enemies, not the least of which is Cornell West who Summers pushed as President of Harvard to do more academic publication to match his earlier brilliant work.

Maybe it is that kind of "in your face" hutzpah that the President sees as being particularly useful for a Fed Chairman.

As I said I don't understand the decision but I do know that the President gave it a lot of serious consideration and made a serious attempt to see the question from multiple angles.

[chimpymustgo]

4. How do you KNOW this?

I do know that the President gave it a lot of serious consideration and made a serious attempt to see the question from multiple angles.[/div class="excerpt"]

This is one of those times when you wonder who's really calling the shots. If this is really Obama's call - WHY??????

Larry Summers is a sexist corporatist. This makes no sense whatsoever - from a financial or political point of view. At least not for any part of the 99%.

[monmouth3]

5. All we can hope and pray for is that he will be "Borked"..I'm counting on it...n/t

[grantcart]

6. Because of the President's epistemology

Beyond the fact that the President has continually demonstrated a persistent and patient work ethic and the fact that he has continually demonstrated a thought process that goes beyond meeting the urgent question and "kicking the can down the road" is the way that he communicates on complex questions.

If you study the President's speeches you will find a unique and distinctive process where he defines the positions of conflicting parties without either demonizing, exaggerating or mischaracterizing positions that he disagrees with. This is evidence not simply of a high intellect but of a very particular disciplined epistemological methodology that is only consistent with a person who "gives serious consideration . . . to see the question from multiple angles".

Philosophically it is much more revealing to answer the question of how rather than what a person is thinking.

[chimpymustgo]

9. What's MOST revealing is what a person DOES. We can never really know what they are thinking.

This is what leaves so many confounded about about Obama. We THINK we know what he's thinking.

[grantcart]

10. Actually communicating is doing something, and as a leader its very important.

The science of evaluating those elements, and the various criticisms is quite well developed. In graduate school I spent a lot of time learning about contextual criticism, textual criticism and redaction criticism, to name a few.

By examining those you can, in fact, come to a distinct understanding of a persons operative epistemology or how they approach information and communication.

Now you for example have posted this about the President

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023420130#post26

Obama is straight-up lying. Perhaps you can call it "semantics". Or you can call it lying.

Numerous sources - inside and outside government - have confirmed the massive surveillance, the data collection.

I think Obama's specious argument here is that they can "collect" your data, and it's not "spying" until they use it.

Kind of like, they can steal your money, but it's not "stealing" until they "spend" it.

Obama knows just enough Americans are stupid, afraid, and gullible enough to go along.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023420130#post26

Now when I was one of only 3 Americans in Ho Chi Minh City and was there to negotiate with the North Vietnamese Government I was spied on. They were following me and keeping track of me. That is spying. When I send emails to my Muslim relatives (which I do several times a week) and discuss politics of the middle east and Al Queda a record of that goes into a meta data base. That is not spying. That is not even surveillance. If one of the people I communicated with turns out to have a live connection with a person of interest then they would use that data base to generate a subpoena. I would be under surveillance and if I became a person of interest "spied on". You are wrong about the "semantics" of it but you choose to take the most adverse possible position against the President.

or here where you state referring to the President

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606846#post2

2. He tossed me/us under the bus. Time and time again.

Won't be fooled again.

So what does redaction and criticism tell us about your actions?

Well it is clear that you did not come to the Barack Obama Group to have a friendly give and take discussion about policy.

You came here, clearly to stir the shit.

So like so many others that go out of their way to create unnecessary antagonisms with DUers who support the President and find his courage and honest admirable you will be restricted from the BOG.

Lets be perfectly clear. You are not being restricted because you of differences of opinions or because we expect people to echo their support. You are being excluded because you are intellectually dishonest in your intentions and simply intend to exacerbate division.

[treestar]

7. I haven't followed the career of Summers

So far I don't get why he's so evil. It seems he was in Clinton's cabinet.

As President of Harvard, he said something dumb.

Is that never to be forgiven?

I'm just not big on this hate-on for particular people. I can see the GD set up for bullying on the subject. If you even question whether Summers is the ultimate Evil One who cannot possibly do the job then you will get the usual bullshit about being an Obama worshipper.

One thing I do let Obama do without my oversight is pick people to do these jobs.

[Mass]

8. Hopefully false, but "unnamed sources" should be forbidden in journalism.\nt