Do you have confidence in Timothy Geithner?

[Dougie944]

No.

Brian, I think you have forgotten how much stimulus has been and is still being thrown at this problem. 1.5 trillion over budget every year is without a doubt stimulus. Fed stealing from every saver in this country in order to produce a wide spread is stimulus. Now they just passed the 2% holiday on social security tax…..yet another huge stimulus. This is of course, not even mentioning the stimulus packages and bailouts.

The multiple housing programs and credits have helped drag on the housing problem for years more than it should have taken to get to a sustainable level and i don’t believe we are close yet. It appears we are in for a long slow decline in prices.

Allowing banks to throw their bad assets into Fannie and Freddie at inflated prices in order to let the taxpayer take the hit and keep bank bonuses flowing.

Geithner I am sure had a hand in changing the accounting rules to hide losses in the banks. Not a desirable choice in my book….one that is dragging this problem out longer instead of facing facts and moving on.

If sloshing taxpayer money is the new definition of smart, then I guess you are right and I am wrong.

Also, don’t forget how culpable Geithner was in the entire meltdown. He was in charge of the banks on Wallstreet during the lax lending….the epicenter of the problem.

You would really have to believe everything is fixed now and can sustain without government life support (I don’t), forgive Geithner for helping cause the meltdown (I don’t), and overlook his cheating on his taxes (I don’t) in order to have confidence in this man.

[briansd1]

Let’s be fair here.

As Geithner said, there were only limited immediate solutions to the financial crisis:

1) Let the banks fail and live with the consquences of a great depression.

2) Nationalize the banks. I would have supported nationalization and throwing the bankers out, but then who would manage the banks? Politicians and bureaucrats?

3) Take a middle road. That’s what Geithner and his team did. I’m thinking that this was the right approach. The economy has recovered and the private sector is investing again. The hard work remains to extricate the government from the mortgage markets.

As far as transfer of wealth from middle class, taxes have not been increased on the middle class to pay for any bailout.

Sure, currency debasement is like a tax but wouldn’t that be like a flat tax on everyone? Many would argue that a flat tax is fair.

I take a different view of stimulus spending. Stimulus spending benefits ordinary folks and is not money directly given to the bankers (unlike TARP). I would rather see stimulus spending than War spending.

If you believe that banks got unfair sweetheart deals during the bailouts, would you support a tax on banks as Geithner made the case for?

If the banks benefited disproportionately from government intervention, should they not pay a tax to help reduce the deficit?

The whole point of the financial bailouts was to get the economy growing again and arrest the job losses. By that standard, Geithner succeeded beautifully.

I think that some are too fixated on retribution and punishing the bankers. I was angry about what the bankers got away with, but I’ve let that go.

We now have a growing economy and the world’s financial system is on the mend. We should be thankful that a Great Depression has been avoided.

[briansd1]

Let’s be fair here.

As Geithner said, there were only limited immediate solutions to the financial crisis:

1) Let the banks fail and live with the consquences of a great depression.

2) Nationalize the banks. I would have supported nationalization and throwing the bankers out, but then who would manage the banks? Politicians and bureaucrats?

3) Take a middle road. That’s what Geithner and his team did. I’m thinking that this was the right approach. The economy has recovered and the private sector is investing again. The hard work remains to extricate the government from the mortgage markets.

As far as transfer of wealth from middle class, taxes have not been increased on the middle class to pay for any bailout.

Sure, currency debasement is like a tax but wouldn’t that be like a flat tax on everyone? Many would argue that a flat tax is fair.

I take a different view of stimulus spending. Stimulus spending benefits ordinary folks and is not money directly given to the bankers (unlike TARP). I would rather see stimulus spending than War spending.

If you believe that banks got unfair sweetheart deals during the bailouts, would you support a tax on banks as Geithner made the case for?

If the banks benefited disproportionately from government intervention, should they not pay a tax to help reduce the deficit?

The whole point of the financial bailouts was to get the economy growing again and arrest the job losses. By that standard, Geithner succeeded beautifully.

I think that some are too fixated on retribution and punishing the bankers. I was angry about what the bankers got away with, but I’ve let that go.

We now have a growing economy and the world’s financial system is on the mend. We should be thankful that a Great Depression has been avoided.

[briansd1]

Let’s be fair here.

As Geithner said, there were only limited immediate solutions to the financial crisis:

1) Let the banks fail and live with the consquences of a great depression.

2) Nationalize the banks. I would have supported nationalization and throwing the bankers out, but then who would manage the banks? Politicians and bureaucrats?

3) Take a middle road. That’s what Geithner and his team did. I’m thinking that this was the right approach. The economy has recovered and the private sector is investing again. The hard work remains to extricate the government from the mortgage markets.

As far as transfer of wealth from middle class, taxes have not been increased on the middle class to pay for any bailout.

Sure, currency debasement is like a tax but wouldn’t that be like a flat tax on everyone? Many would argue that a flat tax is fair.

I take a different view of stimulus spending. Stimulus spending benefits ordinary folks and is not money directly given to the bankers (unlike TARP). I would rather see stimulus spending than War spending.

If you believe that banks got unfair sweetheart deals during the bailouts, would you support a tax on banks as Geithner made the case for?

If the banks benefited disproportionately from government intervention, should they not pay a tax to help reduce the deficit?

The whole point of the financial bailouts was to get the economy growing again and arrest the job losses. By that standard, Geithner succeeded beautifully.

I think that some are too fixated on retribution and punishing the bankers. I was angry about what the bankers got away with, but I’ve let that go.

We now have a growing economy and the world’s financial system is on the mend. We should be thankful that a Great Depression has been avoided.

[briansd1]

Let’s be fair here.

As Geithner said, there were only limited immediate solutions to the financial crisis:

1) Let the banks fail and live with the consquences of a great depression.

2) Nationalize the banks. I would have supported nationalization and throwing the bankers out, but then who would manage the banks? Politicians and bureaucrats?

3) Take a middle road. That’s what Geithner and his team did. I’m thinking that this was the right approach. The economy has recovered and the private sector is investing again. The hard work remains to extricate the government from the mortgage markets.

As far as transfer of wealth from middle class, taxes have not been increased on the middle class to pay for any bailout.

Sure, currency debasement is like a tax but wouldn’t that be like a flat tax on everyone? Many would argue that a flat tax is fair.

I take a different view of stimulus spending. Stimulus spending benefits ordinary folks and is not money directly given to the bankers (unlike TARP). I would rather see stimulus spending than War spending.

If you believe that banks got unfair sweetheart deals during the bailouts, would you support a tax on banks as Geithner made the case for?

If the banks benefited disproportionately from government intervention, should they not pay a tax to help reduce the deficit?

The whole point of the financial bailouts was to get the economy growing again and arrest the job losses. By that standard, Geithner succeeded beautifully.

I think that some are too fixated on retribution and punishing the bankers. I was angry about what the bankers got away with, but I’ve let that go.

We now have a growing economy and the world’s financial system is on the mend. We should be thankful that a Great Depression has been avoided.

[briansd1]

Let’s be fair here.

As Geithner said, there were only limited immediate solutions to the financial crisis:

1) Let the banks fail and live with the consquences of a great depression.

2) Nationalize the banks. I would have supported nationalization and throwing the bankers out, but then who would manage the banks? Politicians and bureaucrats?

3) Take a middle road. That’s what Geithner and his team did. I’m thinking that this was the right approach. The economy has recovered and the private sector is investing again. The hard work remains to extricate the government from the mortgage markets.

As far as transfer of wealth from middle class, taxes have not been increased on the middle class to pay for any bailout.

Sure, currency debasement is like a tax but wouldn’t that be like a flat tax on everyone? Many would argue that a flat tax is fair.

I take a different view of stimulus spending. Stimulus spending benefits ordinary folks and is not money directly given to the bankers (unlike TARP). I would rather see stimulus spending than War spending.

If you believe that banks got unfair sweetheart deals during the bailouts, would you support a tax on banks as Geithner made the case for?

If the banks benefited disproportionately from government intervention, should they not pay a tax to help reduce the deficit?

The whole point of the financial bailouts was to get the economy growing again and arrest the job losses. By that standard, Geithner succeeded beautifully.

I think that some are too fixated on retribution and punishing the bankers. I was angry about what the bankers got away with, but I’ve let that go.

We now have a growing economy and the world’s financial system is on the mend. We should be thankful that a Great Depression has been avoided.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
FLU (sick and tired of everyone else enjoying the good life while being financially irresponsible)[/quote]

IMHO, that average person who lives a normal life and was financially responsible was helped by the economic bailouts.

Let’s forget about San Diego and the bubble markets where housing is unaffordable for the “average” person and everyone is stretching to buy the most house they afford in areas where Taxes + Mello Roos + HOA alone approach $1,000/month.

If you have a good job in an affordable area of the country; if you saved money consistently and did not invest/squander your money at the peak, I think that you’re doing well.

I have a friend who’s a former navy pilot. He saved his money, never invested in any bubble and never followed the financial markets. He bought an affordable house for about $260,000 at 3.75% fixed for 30 years. He’s doing well. There are millions of people like him across America. The low interest rates (a result of Fed action) were a window of opportunity.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
FLU (sick and tired of everyone else enjoying the good life while being financially irresponsible)[/quote]

IMHO, that average person who lives a normal life and was financially responsible was helped by the economic bailouts.

Let’s forget about San Diego and the bubble markets where housing is unaffordable for the “average” person and everyone is stretching to buy the most house they afford in areas where Taxes + Mello Roos + HOA alone approach $1,000/month.

If you have a good job in an affordable area of the country; if you saved money consistently and did not invest/squander your money at the peak, I think that you’re doing well.

I have a friend who’s a former navy pilot. He saved his money, never invested in any bubble and never followed the financial markets. He bought an affordable house for about $260,000 at 3.75% fixed for 30 years. He’s doing well. There are millions of people like him across America. The low interest rates (a result of Fed action) were a window of opportunity.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
FLU (sick and tired of everyone else enjoying the good life while being financially irresponsible)[/quote]

IMHO, that average person who lives a normal life and was financially responsible was helped by the economic bailouts.

Let’s forget about San Diego and the bubble markets where housing is unaffordable for the “average” person and everyone is stretching to buy the most house they afford in areas where Taxes + Mello Roos + HOA alone approach $1,000/month.

If you have a good job in an affordable area of the country; if you saved money consistently and did not invest/squander your money at the peak, I think that you’re doing well.

I have a friend who’s a former navy pilot. He saved his money, never invested in any bubble and never followed the financial markets. He bought an affordable house for about $260,000 at 3.75% fixed for 30 years. He’s doing well. There are millions of people like him across America. The low interest rates (a result of Fed action) were a window of opportunity.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
FLU (sick and tired of everyone else enjoying the good life while being financially irresponsible)[/quote]

IMHO, that average person who lives a normal life and was financially responsible was helped by the economic bailouts.

Let’s forget about San Diego and the bubble markets where housing is unaffordable for the “average” person and everyone is stretching to buy the most house they afford in areas where Taxes + Mello Roos + HOA alone approach $1,000/month.

If you have a good job in an affordable area of the country; if you saved money consistently and did not invest/squander your money at the peak, I think that you’re doing well.

I have a friend who’s a former navy pilot. He saved his money, never invested in any bubble and never followed the financial markets. He bought an affordable house for about $260,000 at 3.75% fixed for 30 years. He’s doing well. There are millions of people like him across America. The low interest rates (a result of Fed action) were a window of opportunity.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
FLU (sick and tired of everyone else enjoying the good life while being financially irresponsible)[/quote]

IMHO, that average person who lives a normal life and was financially responsible was helped by the economic bailouts.

Let’s forget about San Diego and the bubble markets where housing is unaffordable for the “average” person and everyone is stretching to buy the most house they afford in areas where Taxes + Mello Roos + HOA alone approach $1,000/month.

If you have a good job in an affordable area of the country; if you saved money consistently and did not invest/squander your money at the peak, I think that you’re doing well.

I have a friend who’s a former navy pilot. He saved his money, never invested in any bubble and never followed the financial markets. He bought an affordable house for about $260,000 at 3.75% fixed for 30 years. He’s doing well. There are millions of people like him across America. The low interest rates (a result of Fed action) were a window of opportunity.

[briansd1]

[quote=socrattt]We’d never guess otherwise Brian! The proof is in the pudding, left is in your blood. Could you have picked anyone else that you had confidence in within the Dem party? I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but I think I have more confidence in Obama than Geithner, at least he pays his taxes.[/quote]

Given that so many are accusing Geithner of being a tool of the bankers, I don’t see how Geithner is on the left.

[briansd1]

[quote=socrattt]We’d never guess otherwise Brian! The proof is in the pudding, left is in your blood. Could you have picked anyone else that you had confidence in within the Dem party? I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but I think I have more confidence in Obama than Geithner, at least he pays his taxes.[/quote]

Given that so many are accusing Geithner of being a tool of the bankers, I don’t see how Geithner is on the left.

[briansd1]

[quote=socrattt]We’d never guess otherwise Brian! The proof is in the pudding, left is in your blood. Could you have picked anyone else that you had confidence in within the Dem party? I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but I think I have more confidence in Obama than Geithner, at least he pays his taxes.[/quote]

Given that so many are accusing Geithner of being a tool of the bankers, I don’t see how Geithner is on the left.

[briansd1]

[quote=socrattt]We’d never guess otherwise Brian! The proof is in the pudding, left is in your blood. Could you have picked anyone else that you had confidence in within the Dem party? I’m not a huge fan of Obama, but I think I have more confidence in Obama than Geithner, at least he pays his taxes.[/quote]

Given that so many are accusing Geithner of being a tool of the bankers, I don’t see how Geithner is on the left.

[Author]

Posts