Why do people here so easily fall for anti-Obama stories? Like the one now about
Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)
the nominations for the Security Exchange Commission?
How come so many people read and recommended this article -- from a minor source -- without ANYONE checking to see if it were true?
It is FALSE that Obama chose an anti-regulatory person to the Security Exchange commission. There were two open seats, and the process is partisan. Obama got to pick one, and the Rethugs got to pick the other. The Rethug appointment is the one that DUers are all up in arms about, and blaming Obama for.
I understand why people were misled by the article, but think, people, think. When something doesn't pass the smell test, then do some research before posting. Or before joining the Obama lynch mob with all your hasty recs.
ON EDIT: Some have asked why Obama didn't just choose another Republican -- one the Republicans in Clongress didn't want but Democrats might like better (as if there were such people). For one thing, that person would then have to be approved by the Repubs. What would the likelihood of that be?
So the suggestion was made that he could let them veto his Repub nomination and leave the seat empty. That would mean he ALSO couldn't get his Democratic nominee, the liberal law professor Lisa Fairfax, appointed. It would accomplish nothing.
Obama was in a box. He can either get both parties nominees appointed, or neither. That was his choice. It's completely unfair to pretend that he favored having Hester Peirce on the SEC.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21677672-misleading-numbers-and-confused-mission-hallmarks-troubled-financial
TWO of the five seats on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the main Wall Street regulator, are about to be filled. The process is a partisan one, with Barack Obama, a Democrat, picking one new commissioner and the Republican leadership of the Senate the other. That, naturally, is a recipe for discord at an already bruised agency. Its clout has diminished thanks to its poor oversight of investment banks before the financial crisis, to say nothing of its failure to spot the Ponzi scheme of one Bernard Madoff. Now new research suggests that the SEC is doing less well at its main job—policing firms that list shares or issue bonds, among other investments—than its own data suggest.
SNIP
Mr Obama has nominated Lisa Fairfax, a professor of law at George Washington University and an advocate of shareholder activism. In 2011 she published a paper on the gender and ethnicity of corporate boards, which argued that calls for greater diversity on business grounds had been unsuccessful, so “social and moral justifications” should be used instead. That is important because Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to create an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion which “shall develop standards for…assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency”.
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have put forward Hester Peirce, a former Senate staffer who is now a research fellow at the Mercatus Centre, a free-market think-tank. She co-edited a book, “Dodd-Frank, What It Does and Why It’s Flawed”, which asserts that “the underlying assumption that regulators can effectively micromanage the market is flawed. Giving regulators more levers to pull and buttons to push with respect to the financial system only creates a false sense of security.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
You should also note, he nominated democrat Lisa Fairfax recently. Pierce is replacing a republican that day on the commission.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SE2O120151020
So not really shocking this Obama is following the law. 
