Ok, you don’t get it. I’m not accusing you of trolling at all. The rule I’m talking about here is Janet Yellen supposedly not being able to take bribes.
Goebs likes to follow me around and play grammar nit with me so I thought I would give him a heads up know that he’s wasting his dog breath in the future. Last I’ll say on it. Possibly slightly different than the several posts you have about “oh my godddd look at all the ignored users in the threadddddd” with your mouth full of your own cock
1 Like
Fair enough. The argument is she was taking bribes during the Trump administration, when she was out of power, just in case a democrat got elected and put her back into a position of power? That seems unlikely to me.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you notice how the people who have absolutely shit loads of billions of dollars just throw some millions at everyone who might ever have done or be able to do them a favor?
4 Likes
I mean, I thought the idea was more bragging rights for these firsm to be like “look who we got, we got the former ***** to come speak to our people, we’re super important.” I mean I could get the speaking fees thing for someone who is likely to run for higher office, but Janet Yellen? She’s older, and she didn’t seem to be on anyone’s bingo card during the past 4 years as someone likely to be in power again.
well damn
btw, scrolling through the twitter replies (probably never a good idea), I think the more reasonable people are saying the sexism is actually mostly in the language used in the headline (“raked in” versus, say, “earned”).
I have no idea if that is sexist or not (I’ll assume yes, probably), but I agree with others who say it’s possible that the sexism discussion can exist entirely separate from the 'money in politics" discussion.
I challenge anyone to produce one piece of evidence suggesting that the word “raked in” is applied disproportionately to women
Yeah, this. I don’t really have a strong opinion on the raked in money issue, but you could convince me it’s an issue without too much difficulty I guess. But just because people are pointing out sexist behavior doesn’t mean they’re wrong just because the underlying behavior that is being targeted in a sexist way is also problematic.
Does it matter? I mean, the treasury secretary is going to do the bidding of the wall street firms regardless. It’s their job, isn’t it? I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but it’s the way it is until capitalism crumbles, no?
I will never understand people who say that nothing matters until the entire system can be changed. Bury your head in the sand and let others do the work if this is your feeling.
And no, the entire purpose of the Treasury Secretary is not to serve Wall Street. Financial policy extends past just that single street. Also, the Treasury Secretary is 5th in the line of succession so they could potentially be responsible for far more than that.
It always makes sense to examine the financial interests to which our leaders are beholden.
2 Likes
Also, if it’s bribery, then what about actors and sports figures who also get outrageous speaking fees? They’re clearly not being bribed. They’re being hired so that companies can brag about who they go tot speak to them. Why can’t it be the same for ex-politicians?
Yes it matters and no that’s not their job. This is Fed Chair (like Yellen) and not TSec, but Paul Volcker certainly didn’t do the bidding of Wall Street.
No, it matters. But JFC. 75 million people just voted for Trump and expect him to be declared the president January 6th. I think we’re past the point of trying to change the system.
1 Like
Fair enough. I am admittedly not very in tune to what the treasury secretary/fed chair does.
Dude, you worked for the public. You know there are ethics rules and why. My dad worked for HUD and he sure as hell didn’t go about getting speaking fees from developers after he retired - and he could have, especially if they thought he did them favors.
3 Likes
I’m ignorant on this. Has there been any treasury secretary that wasn’t linked to the financial industry? I wouldn’t think you’d get the job unless you’re very tied to the industry.
They aren’t public servants. Oh my god.
1 Like
Yeah, but the ethics rules are there for when you work there. After you retire? When it’s unlikely you’re returning to public service? What should the rule be? It’s a definite no or you can never return to public service?
Holy shit, I wasn’t comparing them in that way. The argument was made that corporations are doing this to bribe these people. I’m pointing out an alternative possibility, that they’re doing it for bragging rights. As an example I pointed out athletes and entertainers.
There are rules about this. There are rules about the revolving doors. They are shitty weak rules because the government is largely captured by those it’s supposed to regulate, but there are rules and everyone knows why.
1 Like