Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Do you have confidence in Timothy Geithner?
- This topic has 155 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM #667871February 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM #666745
SK in CV
Participant[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.
[/quote]
No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.
February 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM #666810Participant[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.
[/quote]
No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.
February 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM #667412Participant[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.
[/quote]
No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.
February 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM #667550Participant[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.
[/quote]
No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.
February 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM #667891Participant[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.
[/quote]
No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.
February 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM #666760scaredyclassic
ParticipantHe’s a smart dude, gonna be a rich dude, ivy league, read the memo I have full confidence he can keep up the facade so long as the facade isn’t rotted out. He has a weird look though … I’d like better looking puppets. Less stressed looking.
What the eff do you want birds gotta sing fish gotta swim these guys gave to say and do exactly what they do. There are no options at this stage.
February 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM #666824ParticipantHe’s a smart dude, gonna be a rich dude, ivy league, read the memo I have full confidence he can keep up the facade so long as the facade isn’t rotted out. He has a weird look though … I’d like better looking puppets. Less stressed looking.
What the eff do you want birds gotta sing fish gotta swim these guys gave to say and do exactly what they do. There are no options at this stage.
February 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM #667427ParticipantHe’s a smart dude, gonna be a rich dude, ivy league, read the memo I have full confidence he can keep up the facade so long as the facade isn’t rotted out. He has a weird look though … I’d like better looking puppets. Less stressed looking.
What the eff do you want birds gotta sing fish gotta swim these guys gave to say and do exactly what they do. There are no options at this stage.
February 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM #667565ParticipantHe’s a smart dude, gonna be a rich dude, ivy league, read the memo I have full confidence he can keep up the facade so long as the facade isn’t rotted out. He has a weird look though … I’d like better looking puppets. Less stressed looking.
What the eff do you want birds gotta sing fish gotta swim these guys gave to say and do exactly what they do. There are no options at this stage.
February 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM #667906ParticipantHe’s a smart dude, gonna be a rich dude, ivy league, read the memo I have full confidence he can keep up the facade so long as the facade isn’t rotted out. He has a weird look though … I’d like better looking puppets. Less stressed looking.
What the eff do you want birds gotta sing fish gotta swim these guys gave to say and do exactly what they do. There are no options at this stage.
February 15, 2011 at 9:37 PM #666771Dougie944
ParticipantBrian, this is your problem. You base all your arguments off this:
“As Geithner said”
Geithner stating things does not make them facts.
What about this option?
How about a government controlled bankruptcy where the bondholders lose everything since that is what you deserve when your bonds are attached to a bankrupt company?The bank shareholders would lose everything because that is what happens in a bankruptcy.
The current banks would probably emerge from the controlled bankruptcy with new management and boards as we should have no confidence In those people. If new banks needed to form to take their place, there are mechanisms for raising capital through IPOs.
The books would now be cleaner, the right people would have lost their money, and we would have different management. If the gov’t had to kick in extra money to help smooth it out, then so be it.
The same people that are saying this couldn’t have worked, also said the same thing about the car companies going through bankruptcy. They were wrong.
Paulson and company did it their way because it saved the bondholders/shareholders (extremely wealthy people) from losing their money. These people were making the decisions for their benefit at the expense of the other 99.9% of the country. Paulson was one of those rich people. So were his friends. He saved himself and his friends.
Now Geithner has the audacity to spin it like he saved the world and the worst part is that some people are believing him.
Brian, you never addressed the fact that Geithner oversaw the lending that started the meltdown.
February 15, 2011 at 9:37 PM #666834ParticipantBrian, this is your problem. You base all your arguments off this:
“As Geithner said”
Geithner stating things does not make them facts.
What about this option?
How about a government controlled bankruptcy where the bondholders lose everything since that is what you deserve when your bonds are attached to a bankrupt company?The bank shareholders would lose everything because that is what happens in a bankruptcy.
The current banks would probably emerge from the controlled bankruptcy with new management and boards as we should have no confidence In those people. If new banks needed to form to take their place, there are mechanisms for raising capital through IPOs.
The books would now be cleaner, the right people would have lost their money, and we would have different management. If the gov’t had to kick in extra money to help smooth it out, then so be it.
The same people that are saying this couldn’t have worked, also said the same thing about the car companies going through bankruptcy. They were wrong.
Paulson and company did it their way because it saved the bondholders/shareholders (extremely wealthy people) from losing their money. These people were making the decisions for their benefit at the expense of the other 99.9% of the country. Paulson was one of those rich people. So were his friends. He saved himself and his friends.
Now Geithner has the audacity to spin it like he saved the world and the worst part is that some people are believing him.
Brian, you never addressed the fact that Geithner oversaw the lending that started the meltdown.
February 15, 2011 at 9:37 PM #667437ParticipantBrian, this is your problem. You base all your arguments off this:
“As Geithner said”
Geithner stating things does not make them facts.
What about this option?
How about a government controlled bankruptcy where the bondholders lose everything since that is what you deserve when your bonds are attached to a bankrupt company?The bank shareholders would lose everything because that is what happens in a bankruptcy.
The current banks would probably emerge from the controlled bankruptcy with new management and boards as we should have no confidence In those people. If new banks needed to form to take their place, there are mechanisms for raising capital through IPOs.
The books would now be cleaner, the right people would have lost their money, and we would have different management. If the gov’t had to kick in extra money to help smooth it out, then so be it.
The same people that are saying this couldn’t have worked, also said the same thing about the car companies going through bankruptcy. They were wrong.
Paulson and company did it their way because it saved the bondholders/shareholders (extremely wealthy people) from losing their money. These people were making the decisions for their benefit at the expense of the other 99.9% of the country. Paulson was one of those rich people. So were his friends. He saved himself and his friends.
Now Geithner has the audacity to spin it like he saved the world and the worst part is that some people are believing him.
Brian, you never addressed the fact that Geithner oversaw the lending that started the meltdown.
February 15, 2011 at 9:37 PM #667575ParticipantBrian, this is your problem. You base all your arguments off this:
“As Geithner said”
Geithner stating things does not make them facts.
What about this option?
How about a government controlled bankruptcy where the bondholders lose everything since that is what you deserve when your bonds are attached to a bankrupt company?The bank shareholders would lose everything because that is what happens in a bankruptcy.
The current banks would probably emerge from the controlled bankruptcy with new management and boards as we should have no confidence In those people. If new banks needed to form to take their place, there are mechanisms for raising capital through IPOs.
The books would now be cleaner, the right people would have lost their money, and we would have different management. If the gov’t had to kick in extra money to help smooth it out, then so be it.
The same people that are saying this couldn’t have worked, also said the same thing about the car companies going through bankruptcy. They were wrong.
Paulson and company did it their way because it saved the bondholders/shareholders (extremely wealthy people) from losing their money. These people were making the decisions for their benefit at the expense of the other 99.9% of the country. Paulson was one of those rich people. So were his friends. He saved himself and his friends.
Now Geithner has the audacity to spin it like he saved the world and the worst part is that some people are believing him.
Brian, you never addressed the fact that Geithner oversaw the lending that started the meltdown.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.