Geithner Said to Have Prevailed on the Bailout

[Cronopio]

Source: New York Times

... In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials. ...

... He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid. ...

... A separate $50 billion initiative to enable millions of homeowners facing imminent foreclosure to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages is to be announced next week. ...

... Finally, while the administration will urge banks to increase their lending, and possibly provide some incentives, it will not dictate to the banks how they should spend the billions of dollars in new government money. And for all of its boldness, the plan largely repeats the Bush administration’s approach of deferring to many of the same companies and executives who had peddled risky loans and investments at the heart of the crisis and failed to foresee many of the problems plaguing the markets. ...

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/economy/10bailout.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

---

To say I'm livid about this would be an understatement. Having half expected this from Geithner and Summers doesn't help.

The foreclosure assistance is the only good thing that I can see in this giveaway.

[EraOfResponsibility]

1. I'm livid about it too

and I'm very dissapointed.

[freemarketer6]

21. Disaster. Total unmitigated disaster.

dd

[roguevalley]

42. odd as this might sound, Geithner has shady eyes and a pinched

colon manner. He sucks. Apparently he won't betray his class no matter how many children sleep under bridges hungry.

[mike_c]

2. lame, as usual....

Change you can forget about.

[4lbs]

3. Yeah, let's look at just one side of it, since you like to be negative all the time.

I guess you forgot to mention these parts:

In an interview on Monday Mr. Axelrod did not deny that there were differences of opinion as the policy was being crafted or that he had taken a harder line on issues such as executive pay restrictions, as other participants to the discussions recalled. But he said he was ultimately satisfied with the final product put forward by Mr. Geithner.“We had a great and productive discussion and as a result we came up with a good set of guidelines and rules,” he said. “I didn’t come away disappointed in any way.”

....

It will also renew a legislative proposal giving bankruptcy judges greater authority to modify mortgages on more favorable terms to lenders and over the objections of banks.

....

Officials say that new rules encouraging transparency and limiting lobbying are intended to begin to restore political confidence in a program that has faced withering criticism in Congress, an effort that they view as essential because they expect to return to Congress for more money later this year.

...

Mr. Geithner is said by officials to have raised the lessons of countries that forced banks to make loans and adopted other, more interventionist measures. Those strategies, he said, wound up costing more and undermining their governments’ credibility. He concluded the wiser course would be to provide economic incentives to encourage lending.

....

Some Democrats in Congress who have been given previews of the outline of the plan said it struck the right balance.

“They want to make sure the plan is a balance of carrots and sticks, which are needed substantively and politically,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. “They are using every tool in the book because the problem is so vast, but they are also tailoring their response to the individual needs of each institution.”

[truedelphi]

5. The only thing is, if Obama had been wise enough to avoid appointing Geithner, Rubuin

Summers and Gensler, we wouldn't have to worry about such discussions even taking place.

And maybe just maybe we would have Bailouts that mean something and that are not simply a transfer of the middle incomed and lower class to the upper elite of the banking world.

[4lbs]

7. Who did you have in mind? Which one person in the banking and finance industry knows as much?

Instead of just criticizing, how about offering names of people that have just as much real world professional experience on Wall Street that would do equally well or better?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. Warren Buffet

[4lbs]

14. He wouldn't want the job. Anyone that would actually be interested?

n/t

[Cronopio]

20. Paul Volcker. Put him in charge, rather than making him an advisor.

He's the only one with the experience in repairing the economy. The other's are good at breaking the economy by gaming the solution.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I've been thinking lately maybe he should've put Reich as NEC head

I realize that you don't stick anybody left of center in the Treasury Secretary spot for a reason. Part of the Treasury Secretary's job is to boost investor confidence and the Wall Street types aren't confident if someone left of center is running the Treasury Department. Unfortunately whether we like it or not, boosting investor confidence is crucial to getting our economy going again and that means re-assuring the Wall Street crowd. Roosevelt knew this which is why he made William Woodin (a Republican) his first Treasury Secretary. It turns out that Woodin deferred mostly to his deputy but the mere fact that he was at Treasury made the Wall Street types sleep easier

So I can see that logic with Geithner and I know that Obama wants centrists with his "team of rivals" idea and all. That said, I think he might've done better to balance it out a bit more toward the left. David Axelrod and Melody Barnes don't have the clout to really challenge Geithner and Summers. Reich, Axelrod, and Barnes challenging Geithner would be a more level playing field. Granted I've also read that Biden is taking an active role in joining the Axelrod and Barnes camp so maybe that will even things out a bit.

[lark]

51. By your own criteria - Geithner failed

His half baked suck up plan failed to please Wall St. at all and stocks took a huge tumble.

[truedelphi]

38. I would suggest that Obama simply read over the House Committee reports that have

been accumulating to the tune of thousands of pages of testimony a day - coming from investigations made by Issa and Kucinich's Committee on Fiscal Oversight in the House. So I would offer Issa and Kuicinich as an alternative.

Or he could look to those on the small business committee - Clemmons, and Maxine Waters. Plus a few others whose names escape me at the moment.

Or Barbara Boxer - she is as smart as a whip and earned her initial "bones" in the Senate by crying out against $ 600 a piece toilet seats. SInce those early days, she has understood each and every crisis confronting this nation - from the IWR to the stolen election of 2004 (Boxer was the ONLY Senator to stand with the Black Causus in January 2005 and refuse to certify the second stolen Bush election.)

Believe me - the 550 Trillion dollar bill that this next round of "toxic asset" buyouts, er BailOut payments or "Hey Taxpayers you get to be Chumps again" round of bills due to come before the House today -- that 550 Trillion dollar payout will make $ 600 toilet seats scattered here and there in the DOD look like mere chicken feed.

[lark]

50. Krugman

Why didn't he pick him?

[Cronopio]

25. There's something in the forum guidelines about a four paragraph limit. Look it up.

I'd have quoted the entire article otherwise.

"“We had a great and productive discussion and as a result we came up with a good set of guidelines and rules,” he said. “I didn’t come away disappointed in any way.”

Tells me the Axelrod only said this because he doesn't want to sabotage Obama in the media. His concerns weren't answered in the final plan so he had to have been disappointed in some way.

"It will also renew a legislative proposal giving bankruptcy judges greater authority to modify mortgages on more favorable terms to lenders and over the objections of banks."

To lenders, not mortgage holders. It's the people who are defaulting on their mortgages that are most in need of the assistance.

"Officials say that new rules encouraging transparency and limiting lobbying are intended to begin to restore political confidence in a program that has faced withering criticism in Congress, an effort that they view as essential because they expect to return to Congress for more money later this year."

If Geithner was truly interested in tranparency, he would have done what Sweden did in '92 and Norway did in '88 - compel the banks to provide the details of their finances for review by the government. The government then could have assessed their viability for government aid. This would have given investors vital information on which banks were going down and which weren't. It's obvious why the banks would oppose this and why Paulsen and Geithner aren't taking that approach.

"Mr. Geithner is said by officials to have raised the lessons of countries that forced banks to make loans and adopted other, more interventionist measures. Those strategies, he said, wound up costing more and undermining their governments’ credibility. He concluded the wiser course would be to provide economic incentives to encourage lending."

Norway and Sweden successfully dealt with their banking crises by using the interventionist approach. The Japanese government, by colluding with the banks to save face and keep their bad balance sheets hidden for years, made their recession last for a decade. So it's obvious that Geithner has *not* learned the lessons of history, but is attempting to rewrite history.

"Some Democrats in Congress who have been given previews of the outline of the plan said it struck the right balance."

Same as Axelrod - making the best of a bad deal by showing solidarity. Many of the Democrats in Congress, like Lautenberg, are major investors themselves, so they probably feel they stand to benefit personally.

[sandnsea]

4. If you don't allow some shareholder protection

You bankrupt them for sure because every investor will pull their money immediately. The investors have already lost almost everything as it is. They capped executive pay, so that's good. And they're allowing judges to negotiate bankruptcy. I'd have liked to have seen something to allow somebody to intervene when there is particularly bad management, but other than that, this is an acceptable start if you actually read the entire article and not the NY Times spin to sell newspapers no matter the consequences.

[truedelphi]

6. The investors lost money because they were playing in a market that

Had been made extremely dangerous through the repeal of Glass Stengel Act.

The banks wanted to avoid regulation. The investment class certainly did not seem to protest. The banks turned themselves into casinos, minus the free drinks and cheap prime rib. The investors kidded themselves that everything was okey-dokey.

And since the banks did not even bother to determine at what point the gamblers' bets would break the bank (something most casino owners in Vegas spend time on every week of the year) I have no pity for the banks, for the investors etc.

Let those banks fold up. Let those investors cry. Go back to the protocols that were written in the 1980's to help the nation recover after the S & L scandal. Funnel any and all BailOut monies directly to chosen regional banks, preferably community banks and/or credit unions.

But as it is now, the banks keep revealing, a little at a time, the full nature of the awesome 550 trillion dollar payout that they would need to fully re-credit their losses. And that 550 Trillion dollars in losses represents every penny of our GNP for the next 31 years.

[sandnsea]

8. Global bankruptcy is an idiotic idea

And I have no time to debate the point with anybody who thinks it would be brilliant to plunge the entire world into complete financial ruin.

[Mudoria]

11. Well said..

[bread_and_roses]

16. Everything I read tells me the entire world is in complete financial ruin....brought to us by the

likes of Geithner. He's a corporate tool, as is Summers, and is serving his masters well. Unfortunately for us. This is just another massive wealth transfer from wage-earners to the elite. It's exactly what we could expect from the welfare-for-the-rich/wage-slavery-for-the-rest-of-us "free"-marketeers Obama unfortunately put in charge.

[Cronopio]

18. Taxpayer money giveaways and global bankruptcy aren't the only options.

And neither is the current system.

It is far faster, cheaper and more effective to create a new, nationalized "good" bank than it is to try to make a lot of bad balance sheets look legitimate. With a nationalized bank, investors at least have an alternative to having to give more money to the gamblers that lost their money in the first place. Any true believer in free market principles should be able to prove that the Citibanks and Goldman Sachs of the world should be able to outcompete a nationalized bank on their own merits.

But I have no time to debate the hypocrisy of free-market "realists" who ditch their own ideology when it gets them into trouble. Ackowledging that hypocrisy, and the fact that appeasing that hypcocrisy with handouts will only make the problem worse, should be basic sense to anyone.

[truedelphi]

33. So assuming that you think it is a great idea to fund the 550 Trillion

Dollars in losses that the banking masters want us in the servile class to pay to them, how do you propose to do that?

Are you willing to sell your car, your house, your savings, and hand it over? Or to basically, through Weimar Republic-like inflation, do what amounts to the very same thing?

Because I can think of no other way to meet the demands of the banking masters except to bankrupt yourself and all of us normal people, in order to comply with the 550 trillion dollar bill.

[depakid]

12. An RTC is the most rational solution

Unfortunately- that would displease the big campaign donors, who appear to remain the Democrats major concern.

[Cronopio]

19. It would piss off the stockholders of the banks, who would be stripped of their ownership ...

... under an RTC approach. Investors, in the long run, won't make out much better under Geithner's plan than they would under an RTC approach, because most of the bad bets will have to be written off by them, sooner or later. So the media meme of "moving toxic assets off of the balance sheets" of the banks is a lie.

The truth is, no player in the market is stupid enough to buy them, so the taxpayer has to be forced to ante up for the bad bets. It's financial extortion on a historic scale and the banks are creating a credit embargo to force the deal through.

[truedelphi]

49. Really good analysis and spelling out of the details.

But so many people who own stocks do not want to avoid the inevitable. Better next year than today - even if all that is gained is the massive and soon to come hyper-inflation, plus the stripping away of the money from the middle incomed to others.

There are indeed innocents in all this - people who worked at jobs and had payroll deductions for various retirment schemes put aside, and those retirement monies have been lost because of themethods taht the fund managers were using.

But the real innocents in all this are those of us who are small business people - we couldn't get anyone to help us at all - the stock market soaked up all the investment dollars from the mid eighties until recently, and now WE have to pay so that thte bankers can pretend that they will keep the stock market steady. What a crock!

[truedelphi]

48. The way the RTC is structured throws such a choice back to the

Arms of the FDIC people, at least according to this entry I found through the google:

RTC Finance Definition
Resolution Trust Corporation, which was created to clean up the savings and loan crisis in the U.S. in 1989. RTC replaced the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. (FSLIC). In 1995, the FSLIC’s deposit insurance functions were transferred to the Federal Deposition Insurance Corp. (FDIC). The RTC’s responsibilities also were handed over to the FDIC in January 1996.

[karynnj]

17. Maybe not - those stocks are currently very depressed

They are likely to go up when the bank measures are taken - any measures. If they think the price has bottomed out, pulling their money out now would simply give them the largest loss. (Not to mention, many might still be in denial - selling the stock would make the loss tangible with no chance that it will spring back. If they didn't jump in the fall, they are unlikely to now - other than if they are forced to sell for financial needs.)

[Cronopio]

26. Exactly. The only way for the investors to recoup any of their losses is to sell ...

... substantially above market price.

If it were generally known that the companies they are invested in are essentially broke, the stocks of those banks would be even lower than they are.

[sandnsea]

31. Total bankruptcy means no chance

To get anything at all. Money completely gone. Which of course I know that you know and wouldn't presume that you would need an education on somthing so obvious.

You keep thinking that the entire thing is happening by the magic market. The biggest banks are way beyond that. Those people who are still invested in the banks are the ones who are hoping to keep the entire economy from collapsing. You keep believing everything you learned in Econ101 and that is such a load of bullshit. This mortgage security investment vehicle was intentionally created, Obama said it at the news conference. "And because of the enormous leverage where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system." The big investment banks did this, that's why they're gone. They knew what they were doing, they just didn't care. Those who haven't lost every last penny know that the only hope they have is to keep the entire banking system from collapsing. That's why they haven't pulled their money. Some kind of basic guarantee that shareholders won't take a disproportional hit will give them a little reassurance as they ride this out.

[karynnj]

34. I took more than Econ 101 - It is one of the two majors I had as an undergrad - though I went on in

math instead.

I do know that stocks can implode to be worth zero. But, at this point, the people who haven't gotten out feel that they can do better hoping that the government will not allow the bank they hold stock in to implode. In this case, there will eventually be some limited up side from where we are. I did not say that WILL happen - and I used the word denial. Selling gives them very little and it makes it 100% reality to them that they really did lose most of that asset. Any government money given to keep shareholders whole is a transfer of money from the taxpayers mostly to wealthy (though less than before) people.

[sandnsea]

36. Keep sticking with the economic fantasy

It has proven to be manufactured bullshit right before your eyes - and yet you stick to the nonsense that experts spew on television.

It's a big fat lie Karynn. A Lie. Don't you get it yet? Everything they taught you in school - big fat lie.

They manipulate the economy. It's all smoke and mirrors while the richest suck as much money out of people like you as they can.

Criminy. Wake the hell up.

[Cronopio]

45. Bankruptcy means that the bank assets change hands. The money doesn't evaporate into thin air.

Case in point: Washington Mutual. It went bankrupt last fall and now all of the assets belong to JPMorgan Chase via the FDIC. My Washington Mutual mortgage didn't implode - I wouldn't have even noticed the transition if it weren't for the mailings and the media coverage.

You're completely mistaken about the process of corporate bankruptcy. I learned about the process in Business Law class as part of my Econ undergrad degree.

"The big investment banks did this, that's why they're gone."

Goldman Sachs is still there. It just voluntarily left the investment banks business, for the moment. Glass-Steagall hasn't been reinstated as law, so they could still legally become an investment bank again.

"Some kind of basic guarantee that shareholders won't take a disproportional hit will give them a little reassurance as they ride this out."

The shareholders are trying to "ride it out" because they don't want to lose ownership in their investment. Bankruptcy deprives them of that ownership. That's the real reason they're "riding it out" and waiting for a taxpayer bailout.

[sandnsea]

46. And guaranteeing the shareholder investment

means that if that transfer of assets occurs in a bankruptcy, the shareholder won't lose everything. That's the point. Give the investor some assurance so they'll stick with it while they're trying to keep the banking sector from collapsing.

[Cronopio]

47. James Galbraith (another one whose mind has been tainted by Econ 101) explains ...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economist_james_galbraith_bailed_out_banks

AMY GOODMAN: But what about Geithner’s plan, again reading from the Times, saying, “The $500,000 pay cap for executives at companies receiving assistance, for instance, applies only to very senior executives.” <…>

“Abandoning any pretense about limiting the moral hazards at companies that made foolhardy investments, the plan also will not require shareholders of companies receiving significant assistance to lose most or all of their investment. Some officials had suggested the next bailout phase not protect existing shareholders.” <…>

“Nor will the government announce any plans to replace the management of virtually any of the troubled institutions, despite arguments by some to oust current management at the most troubled banks.

“Finally, while the administration will urge banks to increase their lending, and possibly provide some incentives, it will not dictate to the banks how they should spend the billions of dollars in new government money.”

Professor Galbraith?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, when you’re dealing with a bank which is essentially solvent, then you can make these judgments. But as I said, when you’re dealing with a bank which has already basically rendered itself insolvent by virtue of its complicity—it’s basically seeking for easy money, for big profits, out of mortgage originations and underwriting fees in the last part of this decade—then you’re dealing with a bank which is already underwater. The risk capital is already worth nothing. It’s being held up only by the expectation of a federal bailout.

The management is—the problem with leaving the management in place is that you cannot rely on the existing management to give you a full and fair accounting of what is in the books of the bank and what the practices of the bank are. That is why you need to bring in a new team. You need to bring in a team which is nominated by the FDIC, which has as its first objective coming clean, going through the books of the bank and separating the good assets from the bad assets, the assets which are—which have a reasonable chance of continuing to earn income from the assets which need to be written down or written off. Then you can make an assessment of just how big the losses are and what has to be done, whether the bank itself should be closed, which is sometimes the case; whether it can find a merger partner, which is sometimes the case; or whether what you do is reorganize it, isolate the bad assets from the good assets and relaunch the good assets as part of a new bank. One thing or another has to be done. And when it’s done, you can begin to basically grow the economy on the basis of these new newly reconstructed credit institutions.

But so long as you’re dealing with the old management and so long as you’re dealing with the old practices and so long as you don’t have a clean audit of the books, the chances are that the bank is going to behave in ways which are not constructive, which do not contribute to the growth of the economy, and which leave all kinds of suspicions present in the system about the integrity of the institution and of the regulatory process. And that’s the problem the Treasury Department seems to be determined not to face.

And so long as it doesn’t face it, we’re not going to get out of this, and the Treasury Department is not contributing constructively to the success of the recovery plan, which the Congress is about to enact. And that will mean that the recovery plan itself will be, sort of after the fact, too small to deal the problem of unemployment, which is just growing at the rate of a half a million jobs a month. So we are—and that’s the dilemma that we’re in.

And I think that this point—the Times story is extremely important, because it does tell you exactly where the Treasury Department is. But at this point, that’s the impasse that has to be solved, and I’m afraid it’s going to be some time, since this plan is going to be announced today, before we come again to the realization that the hard choices in the financial system cannot be avoided.

[Romulox]

44. Yeah. We wouldn't want to interfere with the "free market"!

[FrenchieCat]

9. The announcement hasn't even been made public yet......

and already the fangs are out. Geeze.

[antimatter98]

15. Geithner is just another banking crook--he was head of the NY Fed...

so what would expect him to do? He's part of the terrorist financial
team that destroyed the country, now in charge of 'fixing things.'
Which to him means, allowing the looting to continue while Americans
suffer. Geithner is a financial terrorist, same as Paulson is.

This is just another corrupt administration, wearing the Democratic Party
cloak.

Obama is a front-man for those who are bringing down the country
before our eyes.

[yurbud]

22. Amy Goodman had guest who said if FDIC did its job...

They would take over the fucked uo banks and do all the stuff we would like to see done--fire execs, rein in their practices, get lending going again, etc.

The structure is already in place to fix this correctly, but like FEMA under Bush, they aren't jumping in soon enough.

[girl gone mad]

41. Can they do it without explicit permission from congress..

and the President?

Maybe we are lobbying the wrong people.

[katty]

53. yup-Stop the dog & pony show--nationalize (some) banks

and fire executives, take control of this situation-NOW

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

54. What about Sheila Bair's ideas?

This is from a couple of months ago. Why does Geithner want to get rid of her?

Why Sheila Bair wants to bail out consumers
The FDIC chief is the consistent voice of reason in her focus on homeowners as the key to saving the economy
By Betsy Morris, senior editor
Last Updated: December 12, 2008: 2:56 PM ET


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Sheila Bair may now be a lightning rod, but at least she's finally getting some respect.

For months, her agenda was a non-starter. Her proposals to try to turn distressed mortgages into performing loans through a loan modification program were getting absolutely no traction with either Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke or Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

When the three of them testified before Congress last month, Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., got practically zero air time (one banker complained that every time it was her turn to talk, the TV cameras cut to a commercial).

Bloggers dumped all over her, saying she was irrational, self-serving, arrogant and gave the private sector "a bad case of shingles." Just last week, Bloomberg News reported that Tim Geithner, Obama's pick to head Treasury, was trying to get rid of her.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/12/news/newsmakers/morris_bair.fortune/index.htm

[yurbud]

23. remember those who said it didn't matter Obama stacked cabinet with corporate toadies?

That he would still call the shots and they would fall in line?

It looks like the critics were right. Obama is giving us the soaring rhetoric, but the crooks are dictating how their victims will pay for being victimized.

[JFKfanforever]

24. The crooks being ...? Who? The Fed or the Unfed?

[yurbud]

27. Geithner, Rubin, etc.

[JFKfanforever]

28. Investigate TARP I failure before embarking on TARP II

US lawmaker probing oversight of bank aid program

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - A U.S. House subcommittee will
hold a hearing early in March to investigate whether the
Treasury is getting enough information from banks to oversee
the bank rescue program, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the panel's
chairman, announced on Monday.

Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who heads the Domestic Policy
subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
recently sent requests for documents to the largest recipients
of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as the
bank bailout program is called.

The subcommittee will examine these records as well as look at
how the Treasury is analyzing the documents received from TARP
recipients, Kucinich said in a statement.

"After handing out billions to banks, we have an
obligation to the taxpayers to look at all the ways that banks
are using TARP funds, whether it's marketing, lavish parties,
executive salaries or legitimate purposes," Kucinich
said.

The lawmaker's interest had been piqued by the recent news
that Citigroup Inc (C.N), recipient of billions of bailout
funds, had a $400 million baseball stadium sponsorship deal
with the Major League team, the New York Mets. Kucinich has
urged the government to press Citigroup to end that contract.
(Editing by Kenneth Barry)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.financialcrisisupdate.com/2009/02/kucinich-a... 


February 06, 2009

Kucinich Asks Citigroup: “TARP Money Not for Advertising?
Prove It”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Chairman of the Domestic Policy
Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
has sent a letter to the chief executive officer of Citigroup,
Vikram Pandit, requesting documents that would pertain to
Citigroup’s request and use of funds allocated to Citigroup by
the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP). Kucinich made the request following media
reports in which Citigroup has maintained that none of its
TARP funds were used or would be used to pay $400 million for
naming rights for Citi Field, the new New York Mets’ stadium
built with tax exempt bonds.

http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=... 

[yurbud]

29. EXCELLENT! this deserves a thread of its own.

[truedelphi]

35. Exactly.

But note the idealogy that is being discussed by sandnsea several posts above yours. It becomes obvious that many do not grasp the complete picture.

"We have to avoid Global ruin - please let us support Obama and comply with whatever the Gloabl Banking Masters demand!!" to paraphrase the discussion.

[Runcible Spoon]

39. Oh yep we took a lot of abuse for that.

Anyone who thought that those neoliberal pigs would just step in line needs to surrender their degrees.

[Psephos]

30. WTF!!??? Flush this tax cheat and get someone with a spine in there... n/t

[Myrina]

32. What, is he Hank Paulson with a wig?

Jebus Jones, I'm so disappointed in this Administration. Already. I'm almost beyond words.

:puke:

[w4rma]

37. Geithner did exactly what I expected him to do. He is, after all, a Rubinite. (nt)

[rudy23]

40. What's good about this guy? Just one positive.

He is clearly not on our side.

[KakistocracyHater]

43. It looks to me that there went our last good dollars

before our plunge off that cliff. Those filthy, corrupt, me-first Banksters....they should be ruined for life, all their assets should be stripped from them

Edited for perspective: Contrast this Bankster Handout with getting Disability "Benefits", contrast this with Welfare, or how about Student Aid?

[Gin]

52. he can't bite the hand that fed him...IMO