Saule Omarova

[Hairytwatlover]

The Biden admin is really trying to nominate a marxist bank regulator to the post. She wants the Feds to be your banker, have price controls on energy food etc. A disaster waiting to happen.

Btw, I would fuck her hairy pussy. But I'm a pig.

[nevergaveitathought]

are you picking on her, you racist, anti immigrant, anti woman you?

that's her comeback

she says, in typical leftist lying style,

"there's definitely a different standard applied to someone like me. I am an easy target, an immigrant, a woman, a minority."

what a despicable fraud

she should just be truthful and defend her views and actions, but she cant mention them so she hides behind lies like its all about being an immigrant, a woman, a minority

btw, you must be a pig with poor eyesight

[lustylad]

This is un-fucking-believable!

Where do these far-left Bernie-Biden dipshits even find these utterly unqualified bitches who are hell-bent on destroying the largest, freest, healthiest and most resilient economy on the planet???

Oh right, she's a Rooski from Moscow State U!

Did Pooty-Poot sign off on this nomination? We keep asking who is really in control of the Biden Administration... now we know, it's Vladimir Putin!

It's time to bring back Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate this open and egregious Russian collusion!!


A Banking Regulator Who Hates Banks

The left wants everyone to ignore what Saule Omarova believes.

By The Editorial Board
Oct. 24, 2021 6:26 pm ET


If you want to revolutionize the U.S. banking system, should you be in charge of regulating it? Apparently Democrats think so, as they rally to defend President Biden’s nominee for Comptroller of the Currency, Saule Omarova.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown accuses Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey of “red scare McCarthyism” for drawing attention to Ms. Omarova’s academic papers and statements. Ms. Omarova advocates central political control of capital, credit and wages, and she has praised the Soviet-era economic system. Are her own words off-limits to scrutiny?

Ms. Omarova wants to put an “‘end to banking’ as we know it”—again, her words—and transfer private banking functions to the Federal Reserve, where accounts would “fully replace” private bank deposits. The Fed would control “systemically important prices” for fuel, food, raw materials, metals, natural resources, home prices and wages.

She says the Fed should be remade into what she calls “The People’s Ledger.” By “the people” she means progressive elites like her. She calls for “reimagining” the role of central banks “as the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy.”

A Washington Post columnist hails her as a “trenchant and informed critic of the current financial system” and praises her “innovative ideas about how to reform banking” and “tough approach to banking regulation.” Her ideas were innovative—circa Moscow, 1918.

Others are whitewashing her views and biography. Mr. Brown declared that Ms. Omarova, who was born and raised in Soviet Kazakhstan, should be lauded for her “courage and conviction” to flee “communist repression.” Except she didn’t. By Ms. Omarova’s own account, she immigrated to the U.S. by “pure chance.”

“I was an undergraduate student at Moscow State University and there was at the very end of the Gorbachev era an exchange program between Moscow State and University of Wisconsin Madison,” she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. She attended Madison for a semester in 1991 and while there “the Soviet Union fell apart. So there I was, a student without anywhere to go back.”

Senate Republicans have asked for a copy of her thesis “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital.” She hasn’t complied, and neither has she repudiated her Soviet-era views.

Progressives are demonizing her critics as “xenophobes,” and Ms. Omarova is playing the identity-politics victim card. She claims she’s being criticized because she’s “an immigrant, a woman, a minority.” Yet Republicans confirmed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairwoman Jelena McWilliams, a Trump nominee who immigrated from communist Yugoslavia. Mr. Brown and Sen. Elizabeth Warren voted against Ms. McWilliams.

Opposition to Ms. Omarova is based on her radical views and concern that she’d abuse her supervisory power as Comptroller to expand political control over the private economy. Most financial regulatory agencies are structured as boards or commissions, but the Comptroller can exercise power unilaterally. She would also sit on the Financial Stability Oversight Council—which has sweeping power to regulate “systemically important” risks.

The Senate should defer to Presidents on most nominees, but not on one who loathes the institutions and system she’d regulate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-regul...k-11635101487?

[lustylad]

Are you listening, Joe Manchin?

After you've killed the phony, ruinous $5.5 trillion Bernie-Biden "infrastructure" bill, do the country another favor and kill this ridiculous nomination!


Comptroller of the Economy

Biden’s nominee to regulate banks really, really hates... banks.

By The Editorial Board
Sept. 29, 2021 6:49 pm ET


President Biden checked off another progressive identity box last week by nominating Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency. Some Trump appointees were ridiculed for having supported the elimination of their agencies. Ms. Omarova wants to eliminate the banks she’s being appointed to regulate.

The Cornell University law school professor’s radical ideas might make even Bernie Sanders blush. She graduated from Moscow State University in 1989 on the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. Thirty years later, she still believes the Soviet economic system was superior, and that U.S. banking should be remade in the Gosbank’s image.

“Until I came to the US, I couldn’t imagine that things like gender pay gap still existed in today’s world. Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best,’” she tweeted in 2019. After Twitter users criticized her ignorance, she added a caveat: “I never claimed women and men were treated absolutely equally in every facet of Soviet life. But people’s salaries were set (by the state) in a gender-blind manner. And all women got very generous maternity benefits. Both things are still a pipe dream in our society!”

Sure, there was a Gulag, and no private property, but maternity benefits!

Ms. Omarova thinks asset prices, pay scales, capital and credit should be dictated by the federal government. In two papers, she has advocated expanding the Federal Reserve’s mandate to include the price levels of “systemically important financial assets” as well as worker wages. As they like to say at the modern university, from each according to her ability to each according to her needs.

In a recent paper “The People’s Ledger,” she proposed that the Federal Reserve take over consumer bank deposits, “effectively ‘end banking,’ as we know it,” and become “the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy.” She’d also like the U.S. to create a central bank digital currency—as Venezuela and China are doing—to “redesign our financial system & turn Fed’s balance sheet into a true ‘People’s Ledger,’” she tweeted this summer. What could possibly go wrong?

Ms. Omarova believes capital and credit should be directed by an unaccountable bureaucracy and intelligentsia. She has recommended a “National Investment Authority,” with members overseen by an advisory board of academics, to finance a “big and bold” climate agenda. Sounds like the green infrastructure bank the Senate rejected.

She’d also like a politically and structurally independent “Public Interest Council” of "highly paid” academics with broad subpoena power to supervise financial regulatory agencies, including the Fed. The Council, she explained, would not be subject to the “constraints and requirements of the administrative process.” Ivy League professors know best.

As comptroller, Ms. Omarova would supervise some 1,200 financial institutions. While she couldn’t enact her People’s Agenda without legislation, she would have sweeping powers to punish banks that don’t follow her diktats. Recall how financial regulators during the Obama Presidency pressured banks to cut off credit to pay-day lenders.

Our sources say the President nominated Ms. Omarova over the objections of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, to whom the comptroller reports. One theory for this bizarre nomination is that Mr. Biden is trying to appease progressives because he plans to reappoint Jerome Powell as Fed chairman. Democratic Senators have rubber-stamped all but a few of Mr. Biden’s nominees, but Ms. Omarova is the wrong nominee for the wrong industry in the wrong country in the wrong century.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/comptro...ee-11632937029

[eccieuser9500]

Because Capitalism has been working so great.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you listening, Joe Manchin?

one can only hope

he does seem to have a malleable endoskeleton at times

[Hairytwatlover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

btw, you must be a pig with poor eyesight

I am not sure why these exotic looking women, albeit a mature one in this case, get my dick hard. Still trying to figure it out myself.

I hate her politics though.

[eccieuser9500]

A fight is brewing in Washington – or, at the least, it ought to be brewing – over whether to put limits on the size of financial entities in order that none becomes “too big to fail” in a future financial crisis.

Some background: The big banks that got federal bailouts, as well as their supporters in the Administration and on the Hill, repeatedly say much of the cost of the giant taxpayer-funded bailout has already been repaid to the federal government by the banks that were bailed out. Hence, the actual cost of the bailout, they argue, is a small fraction of the $700 billion Congress appropriated.

True, but the apologists for the bailout leave out one gargantuan cost – the damage to the economy, which we’re still living with (witness the latest unemployment figures). Leave it to the Brits to calculate this. Andrew Haldane, Bank of England’s Financial Stability Director, figures the financial crisis brought on by irresponsible bankers and regulators has cost the world economy about $4 trillion so far.

So while the bailout itself is gradually being repaid (don’t hold your breath until AIG and GM repay, by the way), the cost of the failures that made the bailout necessary totals vast multiples of that.

Needless to say, the danger of an even bigger cost in coming years continues to grow because we still don’t have a new law to prevent what happened from happening again. In fact, now that they know for sure they’ll be bailed out, Wall Street banks – and those who lend to them or invest in them – have every incentive to take even bigger risks. In effect, taxpayers are implicitly subsidizing them to do so. (Haldane figures the value of that implicit subsidy to be about $60 billion a year for each big bank.)

Congress and the White House tell us not to worry because financial reform legislation will contain what’s called a “resolution” mechanism allowing regulators to wind down any big bank that gets into trouble. (Think bankruptcy with more safeguards against runs by bank by creditors wanting to get their money out right away.) By virtue of this resolution authority, they say, future bank creditors will have to price in the possibility of the bank being allowed to fail. Hence, the implicit subsidy for risk-taking will disappear. At least that’s the theory.

But the theory isn’t likely to work in practice. Do you really believe bank regulators will use the resolution authority – especially if two or more giant banks are endangered at the same time? Multiple threats are almost certain because each big bank races to copy any gambling technique that pays off big for any other. The reality is, they’ll get bailed out.

Even if the resolution authority were combined with an array of new regulations designed to cover all the “shadow banking” operations of the giant banks – requiring that they put up more capital and thereby limit their leverage – there’s no way such regulations can succeed. The giant banks already hire fleets of lawyers, accountants, and financial entrepreneurs to find loopholes in every existing regulation.

Finally, consider the political power of the big Wall Street banks. They and their executives and employees are now among the biggest contributors to both parties. Wall Street lobbyists are crawling over Capitol Hill. The banks and their lobbyists will ensure that regulatory loopholes are built into regulations from the start. Remember: They dismembered Glass-Steagall (with the help of their friends in the Fed, on the Hill, and in the Clinton White House), and fought off derivative regulation (ditto).

As long as the big banks are allowed to remain big, their political leverage over Washington will remain big. And as long as their political leverage remains big, the taxpayer and economic tab for the next mess they create will be big.

By all means, give regulators resolution authority and also impose the tightest regulations possible. But Congress and the White House shouldn’t stop there. Limits should be placed on how big big banks can become.

How big? No one has been able to show significiant efficiencies over $100 billion in assets. Make that the outside limit.

To be sure, smaller banks might still be subject to runs. That’s why the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was created in the 1930s – to ensure depositors in the event a bank gets into trouble, so they won’t have to run to protect their savings. And why the Glass-Steagall Act was passed – to separate commercial banking (where depositors put their money) from investment banking (where betting is done). We could expand insurance to certain categories of bank creditor, and we should resurrect Glass-Stagall.

But the only way to make sure no bank it too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big. If Congress and the White House fail to do this, you have every reason to believe it’s because Wall Street has paid them not to.

[nevergaveitathought]

her political beliefs, if like others of her stripe, seemingly stem from reservoirs of hatred

makes me wonder her worth as an intimate partner

[Hairytwatlover]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Because Capitalism has been working so great.

And socialism or communism? I love how the spoiled brats in our capitalistic country espouse communism yet the immigrants who come from said marxist countries decry these viewpoints.

Btw, if our capitalistic country is so rotten, according to some young spoiled cunts, why is half of latin america trying to get in?

[lustylad]

[Jackie S]

“The Idiot” Biden probably doesn’t even know who she is.
He was handed a name by his “Handlers”.

Old, senile, stupid, inept, corrupt.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

“The Idiot” Biden probably doesn’t even know who she is.
He was handed a name by his “Handlers”.

His handler is PUTIN!

Don't you see?

The real Russian Colluder... the real Manchurian Candidate... is now in the White House!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by lustylad

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty/4540029001/

Regulation through the years stabilized prices and ensured the lights stayed on. And the electric utilities grew in size and clout, serving customers within specified geographic areas.

But the utilities and their biggest customers badly wanted to shed that government regulation. Those customers, which included large manufacturers and refiners, thought competition would lower their monthly bills. And the utilities wanted access to new markets, beyond their conventional, geographically delineated service territories like Houston or Dallas.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Because Capitalism has been working so great.

The men in this video all have low testosterone not masculine sounding. The women are unattractive. They all want Socialism because for various reasons they think Socialism will compensate for their personnel short comings. That's all this really boils down to.