Fixing A Mistake
Admitting that hiring Tim Geithner was a mistake and fixing that mistake would demonstrate to me that President Obama really wants to break away from the bad habits of the Bush administration.
Geithner and Bernanke supported bonuses at AIG
Chris in Paris · 3/20/2009 10:14:00 AM ET · Link
Show them both the door. Maybe Timmy is afraid to upset the friends that he developed during his time at the New York Fed when all of this was building. Let the guy join a club and buy friends but do it on his own dime and his own time. What part of “public” did he miss with “public service”? Geithner works for the American people, not Wall Street.
Tags: (h/t atrios)
I don’t think Geithner is the man for the job. He’s too steeped in the culture of big banking and we need someone that thinks outside the box. I really think Obama needs someone from academia like Krugman, Stiglitz or Roubini.
Harry Truman: The Buck Stops Here.
Barack Obama: Buck? What Buck?
hey, he’s back! Rhymes, you are of course talking about Obama flatly stating that it is all his responsibility, and if people don’t like what he is doing he wont be re-elected and he is “your (meaning our) employee”
is that what you were talking about in your reality-less comment?
good to see ya again i missed you. twit
Funny, considering Obama’s response to this was to take responsibility and literally said, quoting Truman, “The buck stops here.”
It’s always Opposite Day in wingnut land.
I’m worried about switching horses in midstream. But I’d rather see Volcker in that role.
Rush tells him what to think. Rhymes, i think drug addicts are cool too, (aerosmith, hunter s thompson, hendrix) but I’m not going to base my politics on the deranged ramblings of someone who is chasing a dragon through cheese cake land.
pricey,
Your comment reminded me of this. NSFW!
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/03/bill-hicks-perfectly-describes-rush.html
Oh God….. now ad Sarah Palin holding a gun to his head while Micheal Steele chokes Bayou Bobby and Hannity as gets “Saddle Backed” by Glen Beck and Bill-o
This issue is not as simple as it appears:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/132421/how_timothy_geithner%27s_bailout_plan_created_the_aig_bonus_scandal/
The Obama Administration/Geithner, were faced with AIG and the big banks not accepting the so-called bailout, unless the executive bonuses were continued.
So the question is, what would have happened if the compromise were not reached and there was no bailout? Would the economy have completely collapsed? Many experts think it would have!
It seems to me as if we were being held hostage by AIG and the big banks. If this is the case, the Obama Administration/Geithner may have had no choice but to give in on this issue, an issue that did not amount to all that much money.
Oh I know, it is the principle of the thing. Did practicality trump principle in this case? These kinds of decisions come up all the time when generating legislation, so that even principles need to be compromised for the sake of the larger common good.
Geithner was between a rock and a hard place.
Obama has expressed great confidence in Geithner.
That’s good enough for me.
Moreover, I agree with X Stryker’s comment.
DG got me to THIS earlier today.
It’s an amazingly clear read on how a few fucked it all up for us.
Personally, I think that Obama wanted Geithner because he was an inside-man, not to continue the un-reg’d practices, but because Geithner could recognize and understand them. Of course that means BO would have to trust Geithner in changing his Street view ways…which I’m not sure he has. Though I will say it’s not proven he hasn’t, as of yet.
Though this is a big misread by the Treasury Sec on the populist backlash, I think the targeted taxes on these bonuses are blatantly unconstitutional and would be horrible precedent. That targeting could be easily applied to political enemies, even with a stipulation that the taxation is a one-time thing…..
Just remember — last night Obama declared “You’re doing a heck of a job, Timmy!”
What if Geithner is actually wielding the populist backlash? He then goes to AIG and says, “Look, you guys really made me look bad on the bonus thing. Here’s how you can make it up to me and the administration…”
The President does not have any authority over the Fed Chairman except to decide whether or not to reappoint him when his term expires. The Fed is met to have independence from the petty political posturing of the moment like this bonus scandal which is 1 dollar in 5 million that we are dealing with.
I think it is a planned distraction so we don’t talk about the money supply.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama/Geithner is playing a long-term carrot and stick game.
We are talking about bring down an entire culture, an entrenched, rich and powerful one at that. So all these calls for resignations, at this time, is a little short sighted, especially over an amount of money that’s, what, one-one thousandths of one percent of TARP $?
Why doesn’t this system work for me???? I go to AC or Vegas and drop a bundle then the Government comes along and bails me out. Not only that but they comp me room and meals
You cats really think Geithner and Obama are the problem? Furthermore, who is available to solve this and how exactly do you suggest she or he accomplish this feat? The game is already over. The power play Taibbi describes is perfect. You little hens can play your partisan hack blog-o-sphere games… it’s so tired. Does it really matter if AIG paid $185 million… it doesn’t even mean anything… These people put themselves in a win-win. Hundreds of BILLIONS are going out the door… Hey I have an idea… let’s argue about $50 million in earmarks or an 8% paycut for DE employees.. fucking joke… get some prespective.
Exactly, VC. We are throwing a spotlight on these practices and laying groundwork for real reforms. Wanna bet that the next time this issue comes up for legislation there will be some bonus reform for companies asking for a handout.
Geithner may be a schmuck, but I am willing to give him some staying power for another 6-9 months.
VC, I agree, I think Obama maybe playing the long game again. You are right that we need the angry backlash to get more than just cosmetic reforms done. I think Obama really trusts Geithner, although it’s not clear why just yet.
I let this play out but may I remind you that I opposed Geithner from the beginning for this reason; he was Mr. Bailout as the answer to economic problems. Remember this post from November 23? http://www.delawarepolitics.net/2008/11/23/from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire/
I congratulate you on being capable of seeing a mistake though I think the bonuses rank 10th on the list of reasons.