Via dday, 18 Senators write a letter asking for "changes" to the HAMP program. That's nice I guess.

Here's my letter - Fire the incompetent and corrupt Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Early Evening Open Thread | Bipartisan Fantasies And Filibuster Excuses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, other than (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    Gen. McChrystal, I should add.

    Apparently those needing and (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    deserving firing will be fired only if they are military :)

    I like you calling for the firing of (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    Geithner.  I have wanted him fired for so long.  Because you are digging into the heart of the mortgage crisis and scandal, and because you deal in facts as they pertain to real life and not bubble life, I am assuming that what you are running into and bumping up against is in place in large part due to his leadership decisions.

    Asking for people to be fired (none / 0) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    around here is a double-edged sword.

    Good to show how strongly one feels, but often the replacement is as bad or worse.  And because they are less well known, they are given a pass by the public and others for a period of time - usually time that we can't lose.

    I want Geithner to go, but I think we ought to identify who we might think would be an improvement as a replacement.


    Stiglitz (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    Sure! (none / 0) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    Thing is that it won't happen.  Sorry to be such a pessimist, but things just don't look very good for real people over at this White House.

    I wonder how bad things have to get (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    before we apply some real solutions?

    I wonder that too. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    I am thinking that it might take a real "into the abyss" type of economic collapse.  One where pretty much no one has any money at all and which would reset the balance of power between the rich and poor in this country.

    Sounds about right... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 05:41:54 PM EST
    when the grifters can't get from the Towncar on the curb to the doorman at their penthouse without getting mugged...or their doorman is holding them up.

    Except, those Blackwater guys (none / 0) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    get paid really, really well, don't they?

    I think that it is more about (none / 0) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    no one having enough money to afford ammunition - including the formerly "super rich" who will be rejected by other nations when they try to emigrate - because why would China want Donald Trump to move there when they have their own Donald Trumps who they can control?

    pitchforks (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    O told the banksters that his administration is the only thing between them and the pitchforks.  Which I think is still true.  When the pitchforks get properly aimed we might have a bit of change.

    I don't think that it will be (none / 0) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 10:55:55 AM EST
    pitchforks - actually I hope that that is not at all what happens.

    But if you look at the Great Depression and how it realigned this society, and inspired one of my grandmothers to collect soap chips for the rest of her life and the other one to hoard canned foods - both from reasonably well off families - you end up with an equalization that I think clarifies the "masses" objectives in such a way that real political change would occur - assuming this is still a democracy - which remains to be seen.


    how about (none / 0) (#38)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    Paul Volker?

    or Liz (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:31:01 PM EST

    or sh*t even Matt Taibbi.  Hate to lose his excellent investigative journalism but if he took the job there would be less need for excellent investigative journalism in regards to the financial rackets.


    You mean the Elizabeth Warren who (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    has dropped off the face of the earth since Obama named her to get the CFPB off the ground?  That Elizabeth Warren?

    She's been so quiet as to be non-existent, which I think was the whole point of putting her in that position.

    As long as Obama is the one making these choices, I don't think there's any reason to believe he would name an un-Geithner to Treasury; chances are it would be someone who would just be more of the same old, same old.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    it's all fantasy with a cookie-cutter Brand D/R in charge....fun to dream of a country with equality under the law and an economy that serves all though:)

    You're right about Ms. Warren, she has been quiet...hope she is not being waterboarded as we type!


    It's called "Enhanced conditioning," (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Waterboarding is so 2007.

    I can't help but wonder exactly (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    how she has been silenced.  It just wasn't her style until POOF it was.

    Rumor had it about a week (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    or two ago, that if Melissa Bean lost, she not Warren would be made head of the CFPB. The results were not final when this was being discussed. The results are final and she lost.

    Could Wall Street's Favorite Dem Head Obama's Consumer Bureau?

    Not only is rumored CFPB candidate Melissa Bean as industry-friendly as they come, but her ex-chief of staff has lobbied for finance reform's biggest enemies.
    According to Politico, Bean, a congresswoman representing northern Illinois who trails in the vote-counting in her close reelection race against Republican Joe Walsh, is under consideration by the White House for this new position, heading up the agency that consumer finance advocate Elizabeth Warren is now constructing.

    of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 09:34:48 AM EST
    We'll see, I guess.

    When I said this at the time her new (none / 0) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    'appointment' was announced, others here took issue.

    Go Matt! (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    But... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    Was it a strongly-worded letter? Because that makes all the difference.

    I don't believe TARP (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    "saved" the country from some kind of undefined, mysterious disaster.

    The purpose of TARP was to provide capital to the mega-banks to offset the losses of the crap mortgages & derivatives they held as collateral. But, since the money was given with "no strings attached,"  the greed infected mutants of Wall Street knew a sucker when they saw him, and flipped Obama/Bush/Geithner the bird instead.

    They took the money, paid themselves billions in bonuses, bought out weaker, less connected banks, and increased their gambling in these suicidal derivative Ponzi bombs.

    They didn't lend money to businesses, they didn't work with the people they had damaged with their irresponsible gambling, and they didn't do anything to help America in return for saving their sorry a$$es.

    There are thousands of regional banks that could have stepped in to finance legitimate business activity. And, the Government is always there as the lender of last resort and could have done  many, many things to mitigate the damage Wall Street caused.

    The idea that our bought and paid for "leaders" pulled us back from the brink is a cruel hoax just to get our minds away from the fact that their corruption is the only reason they did what they did.

    And it is guesstimated (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    at this time that in the end TARP will have cost the American taxpayer 50 billion dollars.  Wall Street will show a profit of 19 billion this year and they claim this is their fourth highest earning year so 50 billion isn't chicken feed being stripped out of the pockets of tax payers.  Essentially though we paid 50 billion dollars to get screwed over even more than we previously were.

    Has ANYONE been fired by this admin? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    Leura Canary is STILL the USA here in Alabama... a partisain Bush appointee.  She may be an officer of the court, but more than a few of her actions have been... questionable.

    The social (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:09:34 AM EST
    secretary was fired for going to too many fashion shows but I can't think of anybody else. Apparently being incompetent isn't a reason to get rid of anybody in the Obama Administration.

    Elizabeth Birngaum, (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    the MMS Director enjoyed a rather short tenure (July 09 to May 10), having something to do with the BP oil spill.  Although it could be argued that she jumped before being pushed, particularly since she did receive a warm send-off from Salazar.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    Greg Craig was forced out because he was committed to closing Guantanamo.

    He is one of those people around DC who is known as one of the "good guys".


    Van Jones, the black guy (none / 0) (#8)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    who was O's environmental adviser.  Apparently because it was discovered he once signed a petition calling for a further investigation of what happened on 9-11 -- i.e., he was accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

    They also fired then unfired that low-level person at Agriculture.  Forgot her name -- the one falsely accused of racism against whites because Andy Breitbart had released a carefully edited video making her look bad.


    I thought of these two as well (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    These people were fired because they were embarrassing though and a problem in creating "bipartisanship", not because they were corrupt to the core...lawless....clueless....and incompetent.

    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    Geithner and his gangster buddies can participate in the greatest financial scam in the history of finance...no problem!

    If we want get Geithner gone we need to find a picture of him smoking a joint, aka proof of a crime that rates in this whacked-out country of ours....multi-billion dollar scams apparently don't rate.


    Former governor of Louisiana (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    Edwin Edwards was once quoted as saying that the only way he could lose an election was if he were caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.  Apparently, Geithner and company enjoy the same protection.   ;-)

    You do not agree that Geithner prevented (none / 0) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:10:24 AM EST
    a great depression as Bill Maher recently said on his show?

    He has HAMPered recovery though (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    Is preventing a depression by throwing everyone but the rich into a lost decade a great accomplishment, or only what could be easily accomplished?

    I was surprised by Maher's statement. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    Michael Moore was on that show as well.  I have not read enough about the details of TARP, how it was implemented, how we got our money back (assuming we really did), etc.  Just curious if others more knowledgeable agree the US economy was saved in the first few months of 2009.

    And I guess my idea of an economy (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:26:12 AM EST
    is the idea that the system serves all.  What has been done has destroyed the economic engine of the country, has destroyed all stability for the middle class.  And it continues, they didn't create a momentary instability.  Everytime there is a new problem because they refuse to take the default, they pound the middle class and now they are even going after the poor.....but not the rich, not Wall Street, not investors so much.  The people who gambled and needed to take the haircuts did not.  The people who broke the law and sold garbage to pension funds as AAA are still out on the street getting big bonuses.  What has happened is horrible and confidence in Wall Street has sunk to 5%.  That isn't bouncing back in my lifetime either as long as our leaders are determined to support a lawless Wall Street and lawless banking.  The system has destroyed a generation of confidence, now it seeks to make that multigenerational.

    MT, I was teaching (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    socia stratification yesterday-- from 1935-1970, possibly 1980, that rising tide lifted all boats, combined with vigorous social programs, and weath and income disparity shrank.

    After 80, increasing again.


    "Saved" is not the word I would use (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    considering how bad it remains. Perhaps it was prevented from being worse. Hard to say, since TARP was pushed through and the potential worst did not happen.

    Recovery is definitely a lot slower due to the woefully inadequate response to the mortgage crisis.


    Bill Maher is a clown (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:24:35 PM EST

    a fact he forgets but we should not


    It is a misnomer (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    that we have received the TARP money back.

    I thought that was one of the most ludicrous (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    statements I had ever heard on his show, and that is a high bar to jump. At first, I thought he was setting-up a joke but then I realized he was serious! What?!?!

    I think it's hard to say what would have happened (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    without TARP. If you ask the banks, they would have all failed and sent the country into a Great Depression.

    How do you refute that without calling their bluff? I think they were bluffing, but I have no way to prove it.


    David Stockman knocks down the argument (none / 0) (#19)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    Minyanville article. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    When I click your link I get the (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    'reply to' screen. I'd like to see what Stockman says about it!

    Minyanville Article (none / 0) (#24)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    That is pretty much what I suspected was going on, without the financial expertise to put it into words.

    Yep, sorry about my initial link issues. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Buckeye on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    The big scare at the time was that main street would implode if the CP market collapsed as payroll would not be made, electricity would be shut off from the inability to pay bills, and business could not build inventory as they could not obtain raw materials.  Complete crap.  Banks, fund managers, and cronies like GE wanted to not pay the price for reckless decisions.

    From my view... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    we saved the grand scam from imploding, first and foremost.

    Whether the grand scam is required to make sure most of us eat is a prospect to frightening to contemplate...iow, grift or depression are our only two choices.  I would think and hope not, but who knows.


    Please provide some evidence of Geithner being (none / 0) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:34:58 AM EST

    You disagree with his policies and positions.  You can think he may be incompetent or just wrong.  But do you have evidence that he has personally enriched himself through his office?  Is there some quid-pro-quo you are aware of that we are not?

    I notice this is at least the second time you've used that word in reference to him, and I think as a lawyer, you'd be using this term in a precise manner.

    Criminalization of policy differences is something the Republicans do.

    His coverup of his failures (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    as President of the New York Fed regarding AIG were absolutely corrupt.

    His coverup of his dealings (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    with Goldman Sachs regarding AIG were absolutely corrupt.

    As for his incompetence, I think it is manifest, but YMMV.


    Fire his boss (none / 0) (#15)
    by mjames on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    Well, if I could, I'd fire his incompetent and corrupt boss.

    Holder should be next, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24:05 AM EST

    Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani acquitted of 284 of 285 criminal charges.

    Term in prison (none / 0) (#29)
    by waldenpond on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    Because life in prison just isn't good enough? He should have gotten 285 life sentences?

    20-life (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    He could still get out.

    I'm seriously down on Holder... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    for other reasons, but those acquitals are actually a good sign that Holder didn't cheat, imo...that's a good thing and much bigger than one measley terrorist, who like waldenpond said, got life anyways.

    Agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    Given that so much of what may have been evidence was invalidated due to torture, Holder got the job done. Possibly the jury knew exactly what they were about also.

    I cringe everytime I read about this (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    "Civil" trial.  Not hardly. Federal district court trial on federal criminal charges.

    The glacial speed at which (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    the selection of Larry Summer's replacement, during our economic troubles,  may be due to President Obama's faithfulness to Timothy Geithner, whom he may want to serve as both Secretary of the Treasury and, in effect, Economic Advisor.  The new Summers need only have the qualifications of an executive secretary who is good at calling meetings and taking lunch orders, although being good at basketball would fill in Geithner's only shortcoming.

    False afidavits are simply process problems (none / 0) (#60)
    by Rojas on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    There is a problem alright.
    If Geithner is corrupt are these gang of eighteen not complicit?