Time to pile on. Let's not forget that Tim Geithner is a tax cheat.

[Rex_Goodheart]

Obama needs to can his sorry ass PRONTO. Then he needs to direct an investigation of Ben Bernanke, because it has become quite obvious that the American public was SCAMMED.

[LakeSamish706]

1. An Investigation of Ben Bernanke would require a full Investigation of...

the previous Administration as well with regard to this financial mess IMHO.

[elocs]

2. The problem now is that Obama put this guy in charge of cleaning up this mess

and to can him now would be a public admission that within the first 2 months of his administration that the president made a huge mistake in nominating the wrong person to head the Treasury. Would the American public have more confidence in his next choice?

[Politicalboi]

3. Better to do it now

Obama can admit his faults. The longer he keeps "Brownie" the worse it is.

[elocs]

4. The truth is that Obama is in between a rock and a hard place with this. n/t

[Obamanaut]

15. That is why the buck stops there. He's the "decider" now. nt

[truedelphi]

5. Well the real question(s) for Obama to consider is this one -

Does he want to flush the entire economy down the toilet, allowing the last penny owned by Main Street to become possession of Wall Street,or is he going to admit his appointments to Treasury and the Federal Reserve are scary and dangerous and either rein those people in or get rid of them?

Bernanke admitted on Sixty Minutes that he is basically just creating Fed Reserve accounts with funds in them out of thin air for the companies that need them.

This is scary/crazy. Additionally, as of mid-October of 2008, financial tallies revealed that an economic tragedy was in the making.

Never before in the history of our nation had this happened:

As of Oct 23rd, new borrowed reserves and bank reserves equal nearly the same monetary base.

The Federal reserve now needs a Reserve for the Reserve.

10/23 Bank reserves $ 328,597 million
-- Monetary Base $ 1,143,873 million
Non-borrowed Reserves (-362,550) million
TOTAL BORROWED AMOUNTS 611,147 million

And neither Bernanke or Paulson has ever addressed the full consequences of this.

Coming soon to an grocery store near you -- Loaves of bread at $ 18 a piece

[ihavenobias]

7. Many DUers can't even admit it, so it'll be incredibly difficult for the president to do it.

I'm really disgusted with some of the ass kissing, see no evil, speak no evil attitude. There are people over at DailyKos (and here I'm sure) saying that criticizing TG is "doing Rush's work for him".

Are you f*kng kidding me? That is so God damn infuriating! When did we become just like Bush Republicans? We're supposed to be better than this!

[truedelphi]

9. The problem is that many Democrats are just as secure as Repugs in the knowledge

That they are God's chosen people and that they are of the "elite" that will be protected even if everything else goes down.

I lived in Marin County CA for twenty years. Great place when I first arrived, but as the moneyed class took over it became Hell. I have had Democratic friends put the company they inherited into bankruptcy and then raid the Workers' pensions while the Golden Parachutes enable them to take their next round of cruises. It is just "good money management"

So I am not that surprised at what I see going on here.

[stillcool]

11. the problem for me is...

that I see a whole lot of shit flinging, but very little facts. I read about un-named sources, I read about how corrupt anyone who is involved in any way with any federal agency in a leadership or other highly qualified position is totally unacceptable. You would think 'bonuses' handed out last Friday, brought the economy to a halt, and it's all Obama, or Geithner's fault. Am I supposed to believe this shit?

[ihavenobias]

17. I think 99.9% of the people at DU are well aware who STARTED this mess.

The question is, why did Obama select such a terrible "centrist" economic team? I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Bonuses are a symbol for the wall street, deregulation, let them do what they want mentality that I would be happy to have left with Reagan/Clinton/Bush.

In other words, no, OF COURSE TG (and Obama) shouldn't take the blame for the financial collapse or initial bailout, etc. But this situation begs the question, WHY were the same clowns who helped start some of this deregulation under Clinton hired to work on our economy now?

THAT is the real question, along with "what do we do about it". I know politically it'll look terrible to ditch TG and bring in a brilliant progressive who's been right all along (Joseph Stiglitz for example), but then again if we continue on this "centrist" course we'll have far more than simply political damage to worry about.

[stillcool]

24. I'd love to see any '..

liberal' 'leftist' of your choice do better in the first 54 days with the government and conditions we have. As far as 'the same clowns', I don't know why Obama chose the people he did. I would imagine it was for their knowledge and expertise in government and global affairs in their field. I guess it would be preferable if he picked someone outside of government, outside of the global financial arena, someone who has never rubbed shoulders or been tainted by association. I'm no economics or financial wizard, and I have no idea who is the best person for that job..but I don't think x'ing out the 'liberal' box is be a pre-requisite for a successful relationship in carrying out the President's agenda.

[ihavenobias]

26. We don't have a time machine so that's impossible, but drop the "54 days" argument.

You mean to tell me that there was no one with financial experience who WASN'T pro-deregulation/pro-Wall Street?

There's even a difference between picking someone who might be viewed as neutral compared to people who helped create the mess we're currently in. And THAT point trumps any "54 days" argument.

[stillcool]

32. I would assume that the President..

chooses the person he or she feels is most capable of carrying out his or her agenda. I would assume that the decision would be based on whatever qualifications he or she is looking for. "You" may prefer someone who has never been involved in Wall Street, or has no connections to the business/finance/government world that could be viewed as being anywhere near the environment that created the mess we are in. You may not think that what has been accomplished in the last 54 days matters. I do.

[ihavenobias]

34. Straw-Man Point

Or if you prefer, you're creating a false dichotomy.

The false dichotomy you're creating is the idea that there are the following two options (and ONLY these options):

1)-Pro-Wall Street, Pro-Deregulation insider with less than progressive ideals to put it kindly. Very experienced and generally considered to be competent.

2)-Progressive wonk who's incompetent and inexperienced.

I'm sorry, but there's a third choice, i.e. someone who's competent, experienced AND *in favor of sensible regulations*, etc. We may not be experts on who is the best choice, but certainly we can agree that the generic description I just provided MUST apply to at least a handful of people on earth, right?

[stillcool]

38. I don't know who the progressive wonk..

is with extensive knowledge in the Treasury, with an obviously impeccable past that would meet 'your' requirements. But it's not 'your' choice is it? You won't pass or fail on who 'you' choose..but the President will.

[ihavenobias]

39. No

Not "obviously impeccable past". Just not an obviously pro-deregulation, pro-Wall Street past. There's a difference.

I guess we'll just agree disagree at this point, but I honestly appreciated hearing your perspective.

:)

[eridani]

48. Brooksley Born

http://www.truthout.org/122208R

It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women. Brooksley Born, as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, wanted to regulate credit default swaps and other derivative instruments back in the late 90s. Her effort was torpedoed by Clinton's economic heavyweights: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

More recently, Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation (FDIC), has been a pesky voice, arguing that the purpose of the financial bailouts is not to ensure that the Robert Rubins of the world get to keep their day jobs at the Wall Street banks. She has been arguing that the banks that received public money should be required to rewrite mortgage terms so that more homeowners are able to stay in their homes.

[JDPriestly]

35. The real answers are to raise wages (instead of increasing

credit card limits), enact usury laws that keep bank profits in check, change trade agreements to limit trade to countries that pay fair wages and break up the "too-big-to-fail" companies by enforcing antitrust and fair competition laws.

Those policies would benefit all Americans, and get our company on a steady economic track.

The fundamental problem in our economy is that Americans have taken on too much debt at interest rates that are far, far, far, far, far, far ......... far to high.

The worst course is to encourage Americans to borrow still more. It's stupid.

And we need to cut back on our military engagements overseas. Get out of Iraq. Stop wasting so much of our treasure in Iraq. Fire Halliburton and the other military leeches.

[eridani]

47. It isn't necessary for them to be leftists per se, only to have fought deregulation when it counted

http://www.truthout.org/122208R

It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women. Brooksley Born, as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, wanted to regulate credit default swaps and other derivative instruments back in the late 90s. Her effort was torpedoed by Clinton's economic heavyweights: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

More recently, Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation (FDIC), has been a pesky voice, arguing that the purpose of the financial bailouts is not to ensure that the Robert Rubins of the world get to keep their day jobs at the Wall Street banks. She has been arguing that the banks that received public money should be required to rewrite mortgage terms so that more homeowners are able to stay in their homes.

[truedelphi]

18. You bring up a good point. Bush and the Wall Street hucksters

Screwed the economy.

Read up on Geithner. Read what the Syndey Herald explained about how geithner made the sick economy of the Far East even sicker when the iMF gave him control over there circa 1997-98.

There are plenty of people Obama could have chosen to straighten things out. The fact that he used the very same people that helped destroy the economy does not make sense.

[stillcool]

20. Geithner may very well be..

the wrong person for the job, but what does that have to do with 'bonuses'?

[ihavenobias]

21. Bonuses are a nice excuse to get a much better person for the job.

You know, someone who didn't support all of the failed conservative policies that helped create this mess to begin with (deregulation, etc.).

That's why I can't stomach the Geithner defending here today. The worst excuse is that we HAVE to support him because if we don't we're not supporting Obama. WTF? I'm still waiting for that person to use a sarcasm tag, but I don't think it's coming.

We are Dems and progressives here, right? I thought blindly supporting the president/cabinet members was a role reserved for Republicans? (Please note I'm referring to others generically here, NOT you)

[stillcool]

25. In ny view, the Geithner defending..

has nothing to do with what he did 20-30 years ago. I'd love to know what his participation has been in the AIG bail-out negotiations. That I believe, is something on which he should be judged. I choose to support a President for his cabinet choices. I have no idea why he chose the people he did, but he will pass or fail on his own policy, regardless of who he chooses to help him achieve those goals. He may have failed with Geithner. We'll see..but I'm not jumping on anyone's band-wagon.

[ihavenobias]

27. Except that you kind of *are* jumping on the bandwagon.

The bandwagon of assuming that Geithner is probably a solid choice because President Obama chose him, etc. I don't make that assumption.

[stillcool]

29. I'm "assuming" that Geithner "probably"

is a "solid" choice? No...I accept that the President chooses the individuals he thinks will work best to carry out his agenda. I don't know Mr. Geithner. He appears to be an ineffective person to 'front' the treasury regardless of his achievements or failures.

[ihavenobias]

31. But why do you make that assumption?

I've supported Obama and continue to support his agenda broadly, but I don't assume that 100% of his appointments were selected entirely and solely on the basis that they were the best candidates for the job.

Obviously there that's somewhat subjective, but like with any president, politics come into play. To what extent we'll likely never know.

[stillcool]

36. I assume that the President..

made the choice. Was it a good choice/bad choice? Maybe..either way. He will see, and so will we. Have you ever hired anyone?

[ihavenobias]

37. Yes, I've hired people.

Two of them were terrible choices, and in one case I knew pretty quickly I had made the wrong decision (within 54 days actually).

:)

And no, I'm not joking. Unfortunately the pay I was offering wasn't all that great, so I couldn't attract the top talent and I had pressure to find someone ASAP to fill a hole, so it's a very different situation.

[stillcool]

40. My point is you chose,

based on your own evaluation. I can criticize you for your choice, but I can't assume to know why you chose as you did. And, until it is obvious that the person you chose has performed badly, how can I say you made a bad choice?

[ihavenobias]

41. Well

You could criticize me based on past history of the employee. The difference is *I* didn't know what they did, I had to go by the resume and interview. By contrast Obama economic team appointees were in the public eye and there is plenty of recorded history on them.

And based on that history, it's my opinion (more importantly the opinion of strong progressives that I trust, like Krguman, Stiglitz, Thom Hartmann and many others) that he was a mediocre choice at best.

[stillcool]

43. but that's based on 'their' opinion..

and Obama obviously knows who this man is, and what his past is. And he still chose him for whatever his reasons are. I certainly understand people being unhappy with the choices the President has made, according to their reasoning. But, using this bonus boondoggle to whip the Treasury choice doesn't connect for me.

[ihavenobias]

28. Also, 20-30 years ago? The late 90's deregulation was more like 10-12 years ago.

You know, with Clinton's "centrist" economic team.

[stillcool]

30. Geithner's worked in his chosen field..

for a long time. You can pick any decade you want, and I'm sure he will have brushed soldiers with any number of people working in the treasury, finance field.

[TornadoTN]

14. That's where I'm at with this - love Obama, but hate the financial team he's assembled

At the very least I'm very uneasy about it.

Now we have a team of corporatist Democratic Senators putting together a group to make sure that the status quo isn't disrupted and changes can't be made to the fraud that our economic system is currently based upon.

[truedelphi]

46. I love the new President also, and share my bed with the biggest

Obama fan out there. Took him out for dinner last night, and he spent some time asking the hamburger joint owner where she got her Obama and family poster.

And much like you I really want to like everything President Obama does, but am deeply troubled by the financial team and Treasury AND Federal Reserve appointees he has made.

[fascisthunter]

23. Indeed

[JDPriestly]

33. Geithner needs to resign.

[Stevepol]

6. Put Krugman or Stiglitz in charge pronto!!!

[ihavenobias]

8. BINGO

Amen.

[stillcool]

12. too bad Paul Krugman has no interest..

in working in the government. Can you blame him? How long do you think he would last until his limbs started getting ripped off?

[backscatter712]

22. Robert Reich.

Reich's clearly the best person for the job - he's served in the Cabinet before, he knows his shit on economics, he's a Keynesian.

Doesn't look like Paul Krugman wants the hot seat in the Cabinet, but maybe if he'd agree to it, he'd do well as an advisor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Let's not forget that Geithner's tax problems were always irrelevant.

And clear character assasination. And this is just more of the same.

[stillcool]

13. Seems to me like you don't...

watch enough tv.

[Pastiche423]

44. It seems to me that watch too much

[nichomachus]

16. If by tax cheat, you mean he avoided paying taxes illegally, then you're right

I just did my taxes -- I will pay self-employment tax, as I always do.

It's not that hard to figure out. It's not that complicated. If I can figure it out, the secretary of the treasury can figure it out.

Either he's a tax cheat or he's too stupid to hold the job he's in -- you choose.

[rvablue]

19. Another hit-and-run post on Geithner............. n/t

[lib2DaBone]

42. Let's stop pretending the Recessionis not a Depression.. Get Rid of Geithner NOW!

[scarletwoman]

45. I'm with you. OUT with Geithner! This is ridiculous, we don't need protectors of Wall Street

designing the plans to get us out of this mess. Out with him! I want some REAL change, not this bullshit.

sw