E-mailed link to this video of Bernanke’s qualifications to continue running the US economy into the ground to Chriss Dodd, Schumer, and the MSNBC liberal trio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo

Someone need to remind Dodd that Decider Bush first nominated Bernanke. That alone disqualifies Ben.

He occupied the same place then that Lawrence Summers is occupying now!

I may be an idiot but if Dodd lets the Bernanke vote go forward and ignores the hold(s), he can probably put a fork in his career right then, sad to say.

It would be interesting to see whom Obama would nominate in Bernanke’s stead.

Brooksley Born, anyone?

Corker just said at the hearing he would be supporting Bernanke just a little frustrated is all.

Who doubts Obama with his masters of the universe and Milton Friedman Chicago economic braintrust is muscling Dodd to confirm Bernanke? Go to the mat over a public option? Nah. Fight to keep free market bankster barons in charge? Absolutely!

Speculation has centered on Jim DeMint, Bob Corker or David Vitter as candidates for the hold.

Are bed fellows are going beyond strange on this one.

To add to what KagroX says, “holds” are generally to alert the Majority Leader, in advance, that a Senator is going to refuse to give his consent to a unanimous consent request (in other words, to “object”) to a “motion to proceed” that’s made on the floor in order to bring a particular (even committee-approved) nomination before the full Senate.

So it’s the same scenario as if the Majority Leader had actually moved to proceed to the floor consideration of a nomination, and someone on the floor objected. The decision then is if and when to file a cloture motion (needing 16 signatures), or to force a filibuster by stopping other Senate business, or to pull the motion to proceed pending further negotiations with the Senator objecting.

In the case of Dodd and the FISA Amendments Act, he made it known privately to Reid in advance that he would object to a motion to proceed (that is, Dodd issued a “hold”), and Harry Reid, pushed by the White House, went ahead anyway. Reid went to the floor and filed a motion to proceed to the Intelligence Committee version of the bill (instead of the later, sequentially-referred Judiciary Committee version without telecom immunity), and then immediately filed a cloture motion to cut off debate on the motion to proceed, so as to overcome Dodd’s hold. Reid then withdrew the motion to proceed itself, so that other Senate business could continue, and when the time came for the cloture motion vote, Dodd’s Democratic colleagues joined with Republicans to quash his objection.

So unless there’s something the Senate Banking Committee needs to do by unanimous consent before it can get the Bernanke nomination to the floor, there is not an equivalent to the floor “hold” available to an individual Senator to block the nomination in committee.

Personally, I think Ben should go. The other problem is who the admin might seek to put in instead of Bernanke ;-/

A fork in his Senate career, only. He’d then become a ripe candidate to lobby on behalf of the (so-called) “financial services industry” (read: Criminal Class).

I just read a new piece on HuffPost by Ryan Grim about Bernanke.

He’s declaring war on entitlements, i.e., Medicare and Social Security.

Fortunately, Bernie Sanders sees it for what it is…

You can read more here. I am, in a word, astonished.

Webb – Aye on McSFB amendment to send back to committee. What a disappointment this guy’s been.

Very strange, but if both sides are lining up together on this issue, something might actually get done (although I’m not holding my breath). Here’s Taibbi’s take…

Fooled me too.

“Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money is, as he put it,” Bernanke said. “The money in this case is in entitlements.”

Priceless. And what is even more priceless is that he’s merely expressing the view of the Obama Administration!

Change we can believe in.

Doesn’t matter who might replace Bernanke. Brando’s ad lib in Apocalypse Now applies. Bernanke’s just

“…an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.”

The Ruling Class wins again.

I’ll have something on this in a bit. It’s even worse than Grim makes it out to be.

Didn’t Bernie Sanders put a hold on Bernanke first?

It is just insulting and disgusting that the financial sector which garners 40% of all corporate earnings (traditionally around 16%) should have gotten and is still getting tax payer money. Initally to recapitalize them and make whole their bad investments and now to provide free credit and to implicitly guarantee their transactions.

All this for bank transcations that largely don’t lead to any economic productive activity. How on earth can you justify propping up institutions that generate such profit for themselves with taxpayer’s money? If anything these institutions should be limited as regards to their use of other people’s funds.

First of all, transactions that are backed by securitized debt should be prohibited since that sort of debt should not be considered collateral, because in fact it is not collateral but rather a liability. From this it follows that debt should not be securitized at all since it would serve no purpose.

The rationale for securitized debt and other derivatives, it is said, is that it allows for management of systemic risk and that this management of risk is crucial for the functioning of financial transactions. Well this certainly has not been the case as we all are painfuly aware. So that rationale goes out the window.

By limiting firms to operate without the use of debt their transactions will be limited to the use of actual collateral and therefore much less risky. Also debt derived instruments would cease to exist and likewise trading in such instruments would cease to exist.

I see no legal barriers to this proposal since you are in essence just redifining what constitutes collateral.