The GOP has run out of lies, so they're forced to tell the truth: Geithner must go

[brentspeak]

The Republicans want him to go for political reasons, but the American people should want him to go for practical reasons: he's handing billions of our taxpayer dollars to cash-rich institutions like Goldman Sachs who do not need to be bailed-out in any way whatsoever. Throw in the hedge-funds - who are also receiving pay-outs from their AIG exposure - and the perfidy just gets more nauseating.

If Obama doesn't want to be known as the Great Robin Hood In Reverse, he has to give Geithner and Summers the boot. He has to bring in people who will completely take over AIG so that only the most most crucial of vulnerable financial institutions get any of our dollars.

[babylonsister]

1. Wow. You're pushing it BIG TIME!

:rofl: You are as noticed, a person who doesn't like this admin. VERY obvious. Thanks for the confirmation.

[brentspeak]

2. Apparently, you enjoy being ripped off

Why don't you just sign your weekly paychecks over to Goldman Sachs or the hedge fund of your choice? Throw in little Johnny's college fund while you're at it.

You must also enjoy watching Obama dig himself into the mother of all political holes with the way his lieutenants are running things.

[babylonsister]

3. Two alternatives. Bush or McCain? Who would do a better job?

Or President Obama?

PS Who are his lieutenants?

[FrenchieCat]

4. The mediawhores have got your nose flared wide open, don't they?

I see Bloggers with nothing to do but to be led by the nose by our media.

AIG Bonuses---> trees
2010 Budget ----> Forest
EFCA---> Forest
Health Care reform ---> Forest
Defense Dept. Cuts ----> Forest
Education Reform ----> Forest

I see you as an accomplice in hampering our agenda
from getting through. The election is over.

[Jim Sagle]

5. If Geithner isn't shitcanned pronto, that Health Care forest will be burned down by the flow of all

the world's money to the banks and their counterparties.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Hillary didn't appoint this disastrous fixer and neither did her voters, Obama did.

Wake the fuck up.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So it will be up to Obama to fire Geithner, not up to the mob

demanding his head on a stick.

You are the one in need of coffee.

But then, you've been lying in wait forever,
so I understand your zest on this.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Compared to what I FEEL like saying, I'm STILL lying in wait.

I'm giving the O man a chance. But he works for us, not the other way around. If he lets Big Finance eat the world, fuck'm.

His move. He'd better make it right and make it quick.

And if Obama DOESN'T follow the mob, he's a goner - along with the rest of us.

[dionysus]

34. so how long have you been waiting to say "obama ain't nuthin but shit"? i bet you've typed it and

erased it a million times....


:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

35. Actually, no...Obama's where it's at for now, like it or not.

Remember what FDR said: "Make me do it."

The choice for me and you and all of us now is worship or citizenship. Politically speaking, it's our most important choice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. They're not all the same

They're just consistently wrong.

[niceypoo]

31. Go away bigot

Take your hatred with you

[Life Long Dem]

29. Here here, and this has to be shot down.

Not that we won't get to the bottom of this, it's that we MUST get to the bottom of this. If we don't get rid of the crooks, then we might as well be flushing money down the drain.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Or ...

Democrats are yet again falling for a Republican bait and switch.

Look, I'm not enamored by Geithner, but the very idea that a President should fire what has been set up as his most important cabinet appointment two months after he hired him is just ridiculous. The bonus scandal is a smokescreen. It has moral and political importance. Its importance to the overall economic crisis is effectively nill.

As I've said before, repeatedly, the Treasury Department isn't even fully staffed. Look at the list on the White House's website. Vacant this, vacant that, acting this, acting that.

For example, the highest ranking official in the Domestic Finance Office is the Director of Business Resources, Elizabeth Knack, one of two advisors to the Undersecretary, that position being vacant. Two of four Assistant Secretary positions in that office have been filled. One has an acting Assistant.

Let's look at a couple more:

Office of Economic Policy

Vacant, Assistant Secretary
Vacant, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary

Office of Tax Policy

Vacant, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy)
Vacant, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy)
Vacant, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Analysis)

These are key offices, and they have no leadership. I don't care who the Secretary is; he can't take on all these hats.

Obama needs to work harder to fill these positions and stomp on some heads to stop the obstruction of his appointments.

[amandabeech]

11. Maybe some people don't want to work with Geithner or Summers.

I've heard that Summers is incredibly abrasive and he's bound to have his hand in things.

I have read here that Obama is being more careful in vetting since two or three assistant secretary nominees have backed out and Geithner himself was embarrassed (rightly) with his rather large withholding problems. It did not get him off to a good start. I'm sure that Obama doesn't want to make the same mistake again.

[RoyGBiv]

12. Re: Summers ...

I've heard the exact opposite of him. In fact one of his attributes is supposed to be his ability to manage people effectively in a way that inspires rather intense loyalty. I can't provide a source for that at the moment, so take it for what it's worth. It was on an economist's blog (DeLong maybe, quoting someone else possibly since he does that a lot) just before the inauguration.

Geithner, I've heard, can be a prick.

But I've just "heard" all of this. Whatever the case, excepting some truly heinous personality disorders in the people they'd be working with, there seem to be no shortage of people who would be thrilled to work in the White House.

You may be right about the vetting process, especially in light of Geithner's problems. This still needs done as quickly as possible. A story on the RGE Monitor either yesterday or the day before was about this very thing and how difficult it was for outside analysts to get much information about what was going on or was planned or might be planned or whatever because the contacts they normally have don't exist. They end up talking to some subordinate officer who is doing their supervisor's job and the job of five other people at the same time. Given the amount of necessary activity at Treasury right now, it's bound to be a nightmare of chaos.

[amandabeech]

14. Thanks for responding.

I agree that Obama has to get more people in. Maybe I'd actually be more accepting of a less harried Geithner. I've been quite critical of the pick due to Geithner's economic philosophy and his looking like something of a fox in the hen house, but with good assistants from varied backgrounds, maybe he'd be acceptable.

[RoyGBiv]

15. That's pretty much my take too ...

I've been coming across in the past few days as something of a Geithner worshiper, which bothers me, but which I find necessary because of the "Fire Him NOW!" chorus. I believe, at this point and in the current environment, that this would be political suicide for Obama's administration and an enormous GOP victory. They aren't calling for Geithner's head because of AIG anyone really think they care?) They're calling for it because of the pressure it puts on Obama and to plant seeds of doubt in a stubbornly (from their perspective) supportive public. Doing what your enemy wants you to do is generally not a good idea.

Anyway, since Geithner became the presumptive nominee, I've always thought he needed good subordinates to do the real work and keep him honest, but he doesn't have them. The ones he does have *are* pretty good so far. Obama seems to have appointed a lot of centrists and right-center people to Cabinet positions, but where he's been filling the lower ranks, those people have been a bit more on the progressive/reform side.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out. I'd just like to give it some time without falling into these political shouting matches that distract from everything that needs to be done.

Edit: Momentary Dyslexia

[amandabeech]

16. If Obama fired Geithner after a decent interval,

I don't think that it would hurt him, provided that he had someone ready to jump right in.

What will hurt him is if the economy isn't really recovering by the time the 2010 mid-terms come around. He could lose congressional support that he needs.

Of course, if the economy isn't going well in 2012, he will face stiff opposition, possibly within his party, and he will have an uphill fight.

If Geithner really isn't up to it, it would be better to let him go sooner rather than later, IMHO.

[RoyGBiv]

17. That's the key, though ...

It's *now* that would be suicide. There is no one to replace him, and we don't need *that* confirmation fight at the moment.

This current flame-up is a storm we're all going to have to weather. He needs a couple of business quarters under his belt to see where things are going. There will be no "recovery" this year for certain, but by fall we should have at least some indication of whether any of this is working on any level. A lot of stuff is going to happen between now and then.

But, you're right about the sooner rather than later thing. The problem is we're getting into territory here where we (well, not we, but Obama) has to balance the effectiveness of the position with the political fallout, and that's a crazy scale to try to balance at the moment.

[amandabeech]

18. None of this can be easy for anyone.

I think that "political fallout" is an issue with Geithner. He seems to have a tin ear and it appears that he doesn't have a political aid to help him.

The current bonus brouhaha is a good example. Secretly changing a conference bill can easily blow up in one's face, as it did with Bush several times. Getting legislation to prevent going after AIG's bonuses via secretly changing a conference bill will blow up in one's face, whether the Treasury lawyers would win against the bonus holders or not.

The lawyers might have been right, but those lawyers were not politicians as well, and nobody seems to have thought to get Axelrod or someone from his office to take a look at this thing.

More of this kind of thing will make any substantive achievements less important.

[RoyGBiv]

19. Agreed ...

I'd also argue that this is one of the major problems with people who have spent any time with the Fed. They have their own form of politics, but it's all internal or associated with Wall Street. They only answer to Congress and then so only nominally during the course of day-to-day business. That kind of detachment from the actual political process leads one to do things that do not take political reality into account.

One doesn't need to look any further than Bernanke to see this. He's been oblivious to the political effects of things he says or sometimes more importantly doesn't say. I find when I watch him speak I do so with a pinched face. Greenspan had the same trait only with a different manifestation. He was/is just a self-absorbed Friedman disciple who sometimes seemed proud of being "above it all."

Axelrod and Rahm need to take Geithner, put him in a room, and lecture him on how this works.

It'd be nice if they could do it with Bernanke too, but I doubt it'd help. He needs a press secretary or something to do all his speaking for him.

[amandabeech]

20. Yes, Bernanke is no political animal with respect to the outside world.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the lecture room with Axelrod, Rahm and Geithner. It would be an excellent story on which to dine for some time!

I saw you over on SMW a few minutes ago. It's nice to have some late-night company!

[RoyGBiv]

21. Late night/early morning ...

It's all the same.

Why I schedule flights this early in the morning ... on a weekday ... with Houston traffic to deal with to get to the airport ... I have no idea. :)

Good discussing things with you. I need to get to the airport.

[amandabeech]

22. Have a safe trip!

See you around.

[Clio the Leo]

23. Well that was a lovely discussion!

Glad to see at least two of us can debate the matter without making it personal. I agree with Roy on this, but you both showed us that we can express your opinions without acting like third graders.

And that was nice. Thank you.

[amandabeech]

38. Thank you! n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

13. You miss the big picture

Arguing that we shouldn't bail out the banks because some of our tax dollars will be wasted on AIG bonuses is like Rick Santelli arguing that we shouldn't bail out homeowners because some of the money will go to people who bought more house than they could afford. When the house is on fire, you put out the damn fire and worry about the cost later.

Sure, nationalizing means no more CEO bonuses. But that isn't a good reason to do it. Nationalizing should only be used if it really is going to solve the problem. Paul Krugman and others think it will help and indeed they may be right. But the only way to solve this crisis is to do what Roosevelt did: try something and then if it doesn't work try something else.

We have yet to see if the Geithner/Summers plan has worked yet and if we need to try something else. CEO bonuses are only an indication of failure of the plan to the shortsighted. If the plan does actually fail to fix the financial situation then President Obama will need a new plan and perhaps some new advisors. But two months is way to early to determine success or failure.

[brentspeak]

43. .

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

You missed the whole point of my OP. I'm not even talking about the bonuses; I'm talking about the bailout itself. I'm talking about Goldman Sachs and even hedge funds receiving billions of taxpayer dollars via AIG reimbursement. What is happening is thoroughly criminal to the very core, and Obama, the freaking President of the United States, is actually abetting this atrocity because he's allowing AIG to remain under private control and do what it wants with the bailout monies.

[Avalux]

24. Who would you suggest take their places?

If you are going to demand they be replaced, take it a step further.

I'll say the same thing to you that Obama says to Republicans - it's easy to sit there and criticize out the ass; try explaining who you would replace them with and why they would be better.

[babylonsister]

28. Wow, crickets. Go figure. Some people get off on complaining, but

have no solutions.

[Jennicut]

32. Its always Krugman but its only been pointed out a billion times that he does not want a position

in the administration. Krugman is our last hope and savior!

[MoonRiver]

25. Volcker should have been in charge of things from the get go.

Instead the Obama administration marginalized him, to their and our detriment. :(

[MarjorieG]

33. Think it more workload and age issues. Volcker is an advisor.

Geithner works 15 hour days fixing multiple problems.

[MoonRiver]

37. What I've heard is that his advice is being totally ignored.

He's saying things the administration does not want to hear. Was against the huge stimulus package. Don't have a link but I am closely tied to somebody "in the know."

[MarjorieG]

41. And some thought too small a stimulus.

[MoonRiver]

42. And clearly the way it has been handled is a disaster.

Should have listened to Volcker.

[Life Long Dem]

27. We need to open AIG wide open and everything must be displayed on the table.

And Geithner is doing just that.

[MarjorieG]

30. Though now devalued, that AIG might return on our investment was a worthwhile idea. Now carving out

the bad division a good idea.

Although bonuses matter, and to PR, Geithner has a lot on his plate, per NYT: overhauling bailout, helping with stimulus plan, salvaging the auto industry, replacing the regulatory structure, developing a housing program and getting credit flowing.

Maybe you can help with those, since Timmy doesn't have staff.

[camera obscura]

36. The problem is that whoever he is replaced with will be no better.

[amborin]

39. Geithner must stay: you are buying into rethug propaganda

[ProSense]

40. Fuck the GOP. Why didn't they push the Bush cabal out for Iraq and the financial mess? n/t

[BootinUp]

44. What bullshit. Not even worth a response. nt