Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fire Geithner.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:05 PM
Original message
Poll question: Fire Geithner.
From http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03232009.html

arch 23, 2009
Zombie Economics
Judgment Day for Geithner

By MIKE WHITNEY

Whether he deserves it or not, Timothy Geithner has become the poster boy for everything that's wrong with the government's scatterbrain financial rescue plan. Geithner was in the wheelhouse at the New York Fed when Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros defaulted, and he has played a central role in the $165 million AIG bonus scandal which has ignited a populist firestorm across the country. Now everything even remotely connected to the bank bailout has become a source of fist-clinching rage....

SNIP!

The New York Times writes:

"The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will set up special-purpose investment partnerships and lend about 85 percent of the money that those partnerships will need to buy up troubled assets that banks want to sell.

... Private investors, then, would be contributing as little as 3 percent of the equity, and the government as much as 97 percent."


The idea that 97 percent "low interest" funding constitutes a "partnership", boggles the mind. Where can a businessman or a homeowner get gravy a deal like that? The Treasury is providing a subsidy to Wall Street crooksters to manage taxpayer money so they can fatten their own bottom line. It's that simple. Geithner's not only willing to empty the public purse for his buddies but, also, write another trillion dollar check on an account that is already overdrawn by $11 trillion. This is one gigantic looting operation concocted by bank lobbyists masquerading as public officials.

The whole purpose of the Geithner shakedown is to mislead the public. Why should the perilously underfunded FDIC provide a non-recourse loans to hedge fund sharpies and PE scalawags when its primary responsibility is to protect bank depositors? And why are they setting up more of the same Enron-type "off-balance sheets" special purpose vehicles which blew up the financial markets to begin with? This has disaster written all over it. The non recourse loans create a "no lose" situation for investors who can dump any type of crappy mortgage-backed sludge into the program and not worry about any legal backlash. Here's how Paul Krugman sums it up:

SNIP

Geithner's plan is a catastrophe. It's just a sloppy remake of Paulson's failed Super SIV that was supposed to save Citi from massive losses but closed without a single sale. Not one investor stepped forward to buy assets even though Paulson slapped the Treasury's seal of approval on entire operation. It was a complete bust. Now Geithner is following in the ex-Treasury Secretary's footsteps.

The banks are not going to fix themselves. Only government can do that, which means that someone will have to fill the leadership void and do the heavy lifting. But time is running out and the problems are getting worse. Public support is on the wane. Obama should take advantage of what little confidence in the system is left and take radical corrective action. Insolvent financial institutions have to be taken into receivership and liquidated. Shareholders and bondholders will have to take a haircut. And Geithner, Summers and the rest of the White House banking fraternity will have to resign or be fired. Obama should mull over Albert Einstein's sage advice when he said, "The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them."

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why would this poll be unfair to Obama?
:shrug: Obama was the one that nominated him.

Geithner is here to stay, whether some of us like him or not.

I just wish Obama never nominated him in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. How bout because there is no option for no?
Edited on Mon Mar-23-09 07:31 PM by MadBadger
Its a push poll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. Don't you get it? Every bit of criticism is unfair to Obama to some people around here.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. That is the closest answer to "No."
I don't want Obama to fire Geithner. However, there is no option for "no."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. You are blinded to reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. No, I can see clearly. It's you that are blind to the truth. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The truth is that there is no option for "no"
So thats how it would be unfair to Obama...DUH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. I voted unfair because he really can't fire him right now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. How about just "no"?
K.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. no option to vote for
They cant even staff his office forget about firing him. You short attention span sheep make me sad for our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pretty interesting that you left out "no."
You should do polls for Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. exactly what I thought when I read the poll....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. thank you
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camera obscura Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. Don't fire Geithner yet... it would look bad. But take a heavier hand against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. He won't be fired until the priniting presses run out of paper and the country's bankurpt.
But, what the hell, why not go out with a party. :toast: :nuke: :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. you can tell how the bots voted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. bots????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I prefer the more technical term, "suckers"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. Excellent description
Edited on Wed Mar-25-09 10:24 AM by Individualist
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. bots=people you don't agree with.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. So since we have so many experts here - who should Obama replace him with and why?
Edited on Mon Mar-23-09 07:52 PM by stray cat
although I assume all will post Krugman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Michael Hudson. But a more important question is...
when will we replace the banksters' Federal Reserve with an actual national banking system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. In case you missed it, Kucinich didn't win. Hudson would never make it through the Senate,
and Obama doesn't pick fights he can't win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. "Bailing out" a quadrillion in bad bets is a fight no one can win...
not even Obama. And the effect may well be to allow the Republicans to cast themselves as the populist anti-banking party (which luckily they haven't exploited effectively at all - so far).

What exactly did Clinton win in 1994 again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. The financial crisis is an ugly one, with no pretty solutions.
The only thing anyone can agree on is that they don't like whatever anyone else proposes. Every program, including nationalization, is probably going to end up being a political disaster, simply because of the core of the situation: an elite cadre of douchebags managed to concentrate the nation's power in a tiny number of institutions, and that cannot be changed without dismantling the entire economy through a panic the likes of which the world has never seen. The only things that can be altered are the particulars of who holds the power and how they wield it. But yet any solution will be seen as advancing that sick paradigm, whether the people holding it are bankers or are Congressmen in the pocket of bankers.

Clinton didn't win much of anything in 1994, in large part because he overreached badly on health-care reform. I'm glad Obama isn't following his lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. A typo: Clinton "overreached" on health care?
I think you mean, "didn't dare." Delayed for two years because a simple and just health plan for the nation, as proven in every other Western country, was never intended. Then got a sort of just comeuppance in 1994 (given that Republican victories are always bad news for all). Policy ambition was no hallmark of that sorry administration, except in areas like serving the corporate globalization policies of NAFTA, WTO, ETC., or expanding the police state, or protecting corporate "intellectual property" rights, or finding humanitarian justifications for bombing peasants and TV stations as usual. He was very stubborn about surviving the right-wing coup attempts a la Monica, which nearly summarizes all of his achievements.

Obama's so far following in those sorry footsteps, and if it goes wrong again (which it will without a populist course change - something from which FDR did not shrink), you'll probably tell us he "catered too much to the left." Which is the excuse that's been killing the Democrats in elections since Mondale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. Eliot Spitzer
Because the bankers are so afraid of him - I want someone who will scare the living daylights out of them.

He already knows what a mess AIG is and I have confidence he has some pretty good ideas already of how to proceed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. The DJIA would crash to 4400 - deservedly.
In his case, I actually think he could convert it into political cred!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. A treasury secretary with tax problems like his should probably never have been confirmed
just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
16. totally unfair bump!
Hey, the DJIA went up, if our masters like it, it must be good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. What, no 'off with his head'? Beware the push-poll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. DU polls by definition are "push polls"
If you can't parse a bit of comedy, too bad.

Furthermore:

OFF WITH HIS (metaphorical) HEAD!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. I voted for "Give him a chance, there's still a couple of trillion to go."
From the way things look it appears Shiva was correct, you cannot reinvent anew until the other is completely destroyed (or in other words some people are just to set in their ways and just plain clingy) :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. lol!
Jack........

:yourock:

:rofl:

And if I add correctly it seems as though fire him wins!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Heh. Only if you count "give him a chance, there's still a couple trillion left."
Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
32. I'd fire him, but only as long as he is replaced by a more progressive
economist with zero ties to Goldman Sachs. The republicans who want to fire him want to replace him with Summers and that would be an anathema.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Can you believe Summers still gets these appointments?
It adds a whole new dimension to "made men." This is one of the architects of the deregulation of banking and derivatives that allowed the crisis, the author of the "market says pollution for Africa" memo (a "satire") while at the World Bank, and of course, the math genius who became the first Harvard president to be driven out of the place by a faculty revolt for being such a persistent asshole. And yet soon as a Democrat is in there he is, predictably running economic policy. What does it take? Sunlight obviously doesn't work, but maybe a wooden stake to the heart?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
34. Obama's economic team and policies are horrible. If Bush appointed these criminal thieves

The board would be on fire with rage.

Obama does it, and HEY, IT MIGHT WORK!

The corporate rule knew what they were doing when they threw in with Obama. A better frontman, they could not find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. What would you do if it was Bush?
That should be the litmus test for Obama policy. Would you support it if Bush did it? Why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC