Geithner ignored an order from Obama to dissolve Citigroup. WTF?

[kpete]

THU SEP 15, 2011 AT 11:23 PM PDT
Geithner ignored an order from Obama to dissolve Citigroup. WTF?
byandrewj54

The book states Geithner and the Treasury Department ignored a March 2009 order to consider dissolving banking giant Citigroup while continuing stress tests on banks, which were burdened with toxic mortgage assets.

.............

Geithner says in the book that he did not recall that Obama was mad at him about the Citigroup decision and rejected allegations contained in White House documents that his department had been slow to enact the president's plans.

Ron Suskind, investigative reporter, puts it together:

"The Citbank incident, and others like it, reflected a more pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers," Suskind writes.

And this is rich, from Larry Summers:

Larry Summers, the former White House economic adviser, is quoted as lamenting that he and others felt "home alone" and that mistakes made under Obama would not have happened under President Clinton, for whom Summers also served. Interviewed by Suskind, Summers initially denied making such comments, then acknowledged them, saying he was frustrated at having "five issues" of major importance to deal with at once and not "five times as many" officials to handle them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/16/1017382/-Geithner-ignored-an-order-from-Obama-to-dissolve-Citigroup-WTF?via=siderec
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/tim-geithner-ignored-obama-order_n_965404.html

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. K & R. nt

[still_one]

2. summers is a scumbag who Obama should have never picked /nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. So is Summers. nt

[The Doctor.]

6. Why?

I haven't heard an awful lot about him. Just the one lame outrage from years ago.

[still_one]

37. One of the biggest proponents of deregulation

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/25/larry_summers_top_ten_blunders

[The Doctor.]

53. Ah... douchebag.

It drives me nuts that we have object lessons in the disasters created by certain types of deregulation, but people keep beating the same damn drum anyway.

[L0oniX]

33. +1

[ProSense]

3. He's

"The young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers," Suskind

teh inexperieced!!!

Actually, this proves that Geithner, not Obama is the Wall Street shill!

How does anyone know that the other theory isn't the truth? Is this a shrewd attempt to shift blame?

Latest Lame Obama Excuse: “Geithner Blew Me Off”

This does not pass the smell test. An Associated Press report on a to-be-released book by Ron Suskind tells us that Obama said that Geithner ignored his request to look into the feasibility of breaking up Citigroup (hat tip Buzz Potamkin):

<...>

Let’s be clear. I’m sure Suskind’s sources did indeed tell him what he reported in the book. But there is plenty of reason to believe that this idea, that Obama “ordered” a Citigroup resolution plan and Geithner ignored it, is just an effort to shift blame for an unpopular pro-bank strategy to Geithner.

Look at the spin: we are supposed to believe Obama wanted to be tougher with the banks and was thwarted by his Geithner. Does that mean we are also supposed to believe that Eric Holder also ignored Obama’s orders to prosecute?

The only problem with this effort at revisionist history is that it is completely out of synch with other actions the Administration took in February and March 2009 that had to have been approved by Obama. And his posture before this supposed Citigroup “decision” and after, has been consistently bank friendly. Obama knew from the example of the Roosevelt administration, which he claimed to have studied in preparing his inaugural address, that the time to undertake any aggressive action was at the very start of his term, in that critical speech. March was far too late to start studying the question of whether to nationalize Citigroup.

<...>

Let's get all the conspiracies out there.

It looks like the year leading up to the next Presidential election will be spent milling rumors.

[Tatiana]

7. Either way the WH looks bad.

On one hand, the President's advisers don't seem to follow his directives -- making him a really weak President that apparently people in his own WH don't listen to. Or, Geither is a Wall Street shill (which you point out) which means the President hired a Wall Street shill to help him coordinate economic policy and to run Treasury. Doesn't make the President look good at all either way.

Heaven forbid both scenarios are true... though it would explain some of our banker-friendly, anti-worker, anti-consumer economic policies.

[ProSense]

9. Either way

this is rumor mongering.

The fact that the theory can be picked apart doesn't bode well for the story.

[sabrina 1]

72. The president confirmed it and so did Geithner. I doubt

an author of Susskind's status would make stuff like this up.

[sad sally]

54. Either they don't follow his directives, or maybe even an intentional effort to

make him look weak on even minor issues.

Recall the scheduling of the joint message to congress - White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley called Boehner Wednesday morning to tell him about plans for the jobs speech. An hour later, before Boehner agreed to logistics, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer is tweeting the unagreed upon details. Now this, along with the Solyndra questions - more fodder for the enemies.

[Tatiana]

56. Yep. Good points. n/t

[Fumesucker]

11. I'm a little foggy on the details.. Who was it that hired Geithner as an advisor to Obama?

Because that is the person ultimately responsible for Geithner's behavior while part of the administration.

Edited for grammar.

[ProSense]

16. Yes.

"Because that is the person ultimately responsible for Geithner's behavior while part of the administration."

So what are you suggesting as the course of action related to these unsubstantiated claims?

[Fumesucker]

28. So you agree that if the claims are indeed substantiated then whoever hired Geithner is responsible?

[Rex]

48. Oops! You broke the blue link chain!

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

76. Pffft

[rhett o rick]

67. Explain your support for Summers and Geithner. nm

[rhett o rick]

113. Fire Geithner and Summers and all the rest of his conservative appointees. nm

[DisgustipatedinCA]

122. Squirm and weasel. Repeat as necessary

You're really not doing yourself any favors with the increasingly shrill defense of the indefensible. You should see how this looks do the outside.

[defendandprotect]

80. Obama picked this team of crooks and criminals -- the first warning signs re Obama -- !!

Not to neglect the notorious Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel he eloped into the

Whtie House with first thing -- !!

Disgusting!

[rhett o rick]

65. Explain if you can, why Pres Obama chose Summers and Geithner in the first place?

Maybe for the same reason he appointed Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Alan Simpson, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal. He loves him some conservatives. I left out Rick Warren.

These are not the people to lead us out of the crap hole we find ourselves in.

[Enthusiast]

77. They dug the crap hole.

[rhett o rick]

120. Notice that she didnt respond, they never do. Never engage in discussions re. issues. nm

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomp]

101. "proof" you say!?

these assertions are hardly proof of obama's innocence.

there are two things we know about what's going on inside the White House:

1) we don't know what's going inside the White House, we just know the results (and the spin on the results).

2) the buck stops with obama.

you're just spouting more anti sense due to terminal obamaphilia.

[Octafish]

5. So, who's accountable?

Who answers to the American people?

[Thor_MN]

8. Define people...

[Octafish]

10. We the People.

The citizens of the United States who elect the government. Or, at least we used to before Diebold.

[Thor_MN]

64. We don't count anymore. They replaced us with corporations.

[Fumesucker]

12. An entity formed by a corporate charter? n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

14. "Corporations are people my friend! Wait, why is everyone laughing? STOP IT!!" nt

[peacetalksforall]

19. The country is run by the the Bilderberg Group and their CFR and all the other

sub-groups. They are a constant through every presidency for decades. They allow us to think that we are in charge by our vote (for the time being when the votes aren't stolen). Everything falls into place when they are brought into the dialogue - they are after ownership of us and CONTROL.

Who answer to the American people. Some Americans answer to other Americans when they keep doing the right thing from stopping at the red lights to fighting against wars of offense (not defense) which are wars of takeover through wars of regime change.


All the guys mentioned are members of the top group or sub-groups and run the planning and doing tanks, otherwise known as think tanks. They go in and out of public and banking business - except Summers who also goes in and out of running Harvard as well as a sting as economist for the World Bank - a Bilderberg sub-level group.

Those who are succeeding at owning us and controlling us don't give answers - they just dictate.

[truedelphi]

40. + 1. n/t

[banned from Kos]

13. Citigroup is worth a lot more whole than broken up

IIRC, Treasury is up $12 billion on Citi alone.

Splitting up its branches would drastically devalue the company. After all, Wachovia and WaMu were sold off at pennies on the dollar.

[dameocrat67]

17. why should this concern Obama who is supposed to represent us not citi? n/t

n/t

[banned from Kos]

20. The vast majority of people are not preocupied with breaking Citi up

After all, the PEOPLE can break BoA and Wells up just by withdrawing their deposits!

(I left Citi out intentionally - they are more of an international bank).

Obama put pay restrictions on Citi - their CEO was paid only $1 a year. All others maxed at $500k a year.

[dameocrat67]

21. The vast majority are very preoccupied with breaking them all up!

you are living in the dc bubble obviously. You are losing. Look at the polls.

[banned from Kos]

25. The top 10 big banks have over 70% of American's deposits

so obviously, most Americans like them.

I am FOR heavy regulation of banks. Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank won't survive the next GOP presidency.

[hifiguy]

39. Most people don't "like them"

The deposits are there because the giants went around buying up all the local and regional banks they could get their hands on in a concerted attempt to create an oligopoly. Ten-plus years ago when my bank was bought by a giant I closed all my accounts and moved them to a foundation-owned regional bank that will remain independent.

You ignore inconvenient facts.

[Exilednight]

102. I would, also, add that in some place some people don't get choices of

regional or local banks. A local bank in NYC is Citi, BofA or PNC.

[tcaudilllg]

95. Cynicism like that earns a place on my ignore list.

[defendandprotect]

81. +1000% ---

[tcaudilllg]

94. If Citi had been broken up, we would have held the House.

[DrunkenBoat]

43. Their salaries are the least of their compensation.

[Honeycombe8]

59. We the citizens rely on the banking system to keep the economy sound.

That's a big part of what caused the Great Depression, and why "central banks" over the world right now are working together to help countries on the brink of default. Hundreds and hundreds of banks in the U.S. and across the globe starting going out of business. People lost their savings, even if they hadn't been in the stock market. Those in the stock market lost their money. People lost their confidence in their countries' economies and wouldn't put MORE money into banks.

Of course now we have the FDIC, which the country temporarily enlarged to cover a lot more funds in 2008 or 2009 so that a run on the banks wouldn't happen.

But 401Ks and pensions aren't insured.

Horrible things happen when banks start closing. Then there's a ripple effect, too.

[banned from Kos]

63. Good post - the FDIC is out of funds thus Too Big To Fail is in place

WaMu was Too Big To Fail - thus they were GIVEN to JP Morgan.

[Honeycombe8]

71. The FDIC is out of funds? Whoa. I didn't know that. Can that be right?

You mean my savings account isn't protected?

[defendandprotect]

82. FDIC wasn't intended to cover the entire system failing -- it was intended to

cover the occasionally theft and embezzlement --

and there were limits on the size of the accounts --

they cahnged that, as well!!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- count on it!!

[Honeycombe8]

112. I don't know about crime or that the govt should be punished for trying to protect...

savings. At least it's something. Without it, there would be no protection at all.

I see what you're saying. The FDIC doesn't have enough money to cover all savings in all accounts. That makes sense to me. Insurance companies don't have funds sitting around to cover 100% losses on all policies at the same time.

[defendandprotect]

119. Of course, we need to protect savings -- and protect the public from theft --

What I was relating is that FDIC and coverage has been gimmicked by RW -- as so much

has been!

FDIC -- INSURANCE -- was intended to cover the OCCASIONAL theft and embezzlement

of a bank or securities -- not a UNIVERSAL theft and embezzlement of the entire system!

Impossible to cover systemic fraud and crime in the banking system as has happened now

twice since the 1980's!


If I recall correctly, accounts were covered up to $10,000 -- if you had more than that

you had to move the balance to another bank. Thereby, offsetting the bet that any one

bank could take with it HUGE amounts of taxpayer insurance funds. That would probably

be the equivalent of about $30,000 today?


And -- see from your final comments that I think you did understand me -- :)



True -- it is like any other insurance -- no one expects an entire town of houses to burn

down at one time -- though Global Warming is bringing some very shocking events like that

in the last 15-20 years -- and some are saying that's one reason why elites have been

stealing the pension funds?


Imagine we'll be seeing more and perhaps clearer reporting on that to come --

But I did see Rep. Anita Lowey-D/NY last week on TV and she was saying that New York's

losses with IRENE were estimated at $1.5 BILLION.

[Honeycombe8]

121. The FDIC coverage cap was increased to protect against bank failures. Not theft or

embezzlement.

There was a savings & loan fraud in the 1980's. I am not aware of any other large scale fraud in the '80's. Besides savings & loans, though, people could put their savings in banks and credit unions, then, as well. I've never heard that anyone lost their savings from the S&L debacle of the '80's.

Regarding losses from Irene, that would be insurance company losses, not banks, so I think that's another topic. The ins. cos. may not be able to pay off, is what you're saying, I guess? Maybe so. We'll see. Their stock prices will go down, for sure, which will hurt those companies. But there are multiple insurance companies that hold policies in various places. So what matters is how much a particular company is hit, percentage-wise, compared with that company's overall policy amounts.

State Farm was hit pretty hard after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, two damaging hurricanes one after the other, with regions overlapping. State Farm paid the claims (there were disputes over them, as usual).

The govt requires a certain % of an ins. co's potential losses to be in a reserve account. But that doesn't mean that's all that that company is able to pay. That just means that that is the money that is sitting aside, ready for payment. The company has other assets and abilities to pay claims from. (Some companies are criminals, though, and cheat on the reserve account, saying they hold that much in a reserve but don't. That was part of AIG's problem, as I recall.)

[defendandprotect]

123. The account LOAD at individual banks was permitted to rise .....

Meaning that the taxpayer's vulnerability at each individual bank increased --

And, again, we're not talking about one or two banks with problems of one individual

stealing money from it, or embezzling money from it --


We're talking about widespread, systemic FRAUD and EMBEZZLEMENT based on a lack of

regulation by Congress/government -- which set off a new spree of criminal activity

which was industry wide -- !!

Since the original S&L THEFT AND EMBEZZLEMENTS which was widespread due to deregulation --

and evidently you don't understand that taxpayeres bailed them out -- near a TRILLION if

I recall correctly? -- we've had the latest financial meltdown where banks and Wall St.

participated --


We had a number of stock market crashes where ordinary citizens "lost" their investments --

mainly because they couldn't get thru to brokers to sell their stocks before the losses occurred.


We've had multiple criminal scandals which deregulation of capitalism has brought us since the

1980's -- "liar loans" being the most recent -- foreclosure scandals.

And the latest meltdown which taxpayers also bailed out -- also based on deregulation

of capitalism -- and it was certainly a FINANCIAL COUP!

See: Catherine Austin Fitts on that -- among others.


The first Depression was engineered by wealthy Wall St. elites and bankers --

so too is this one.


You might also recall ENRON -- the CEO's walked away with their fortunes in tact --

but generally their employers lost all they had invested --

Again, this was due to deregulation and lack of monitoring the industry --

California was hugely hit by this disaster -- much of their pension funds having

been invested in ENRON!!



Re IRENE --

The insurance losses aren't anything new -- Global Warming has been bringing chaotic weather and

losses for more than 15-20 years. If you read the article, the insurance companies are handling

damage from storms pretty much the way they've been denying coverage for illnesses --

NOTE -- the owner of the property had no WATER in his house nor on his street.

And, also don't think you're noticing how widespread the storm loss is -- IRENE effected the

entire East Coast -- and more inland!

I don't think the reports from other communities hits by storms/hurricanes over the years indicate

that anyone is happy with State Farm or the assistance they got after Katrina from FEMA -- !!


Insurance companies profit by covering the occfasional loss -- while everyone invests in the

possibility that the loss could be theirs. When EVERYONE is losing property -- cars -- then

there is no way for insurance companies to exist.


Only government can provide for widespread disaster -- but Global Warming is obviously overcoming

even government's ability to assist!!

That's something we have to recognize --


The problems are created by capitalism and corrupt corporatism -- and now corrupt government --

Time for citizens to take all of that in hand --

What we need to urgently do is shut down the nuclear reactors --

[girl gone mad]

73. You do not recall correctly.

Treasury is definitely not up $12 billion in Citi.

[rhett o rick]

114. It is way past time to split up the banks. If the government is profiting because Citi is big,

something is very, very wrong. We need to split up the banks immediately. Establish state banks.

[dameocrat67]

15. if that is true, why didnt Obama fire him? n/t

n/t

[Myrina]

18. ... makes you wonder, doesn't it?

How 'serious' the order was (wink, nod, nudge), and where Geithner's allegiances lay.

[truedelphi]

41. You cannot fire the person that you work for.

And that was Obama's deal from the get go.

He agreed to do the bidding of the Biggest Corporations.

In return, they gave him ample money.

During the campaign, the seasoned Talking Heads on TV would criticize Candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton for something, and if it was pointed out that Sen. Barack Obama did or said the same thing, they would suddenly leap to "but this man is a special person."

In return, the PTB got maverick McCain to become a different person. And he was told to accept Sarah Palin, which lost him countless votes for the Republican ticket. (I have met many Republicans in my neighborhood who abhorred Sarah and voted for Barack because they liked him.)

Obama's appointees have all been about the Biggest Corporations and furthering their agendas.

Look at how eager he was to appoint Geithner. And how eager he was to appoint Valseck and Mike Taylor, the Monsanto clones.

Look at how publicly he backed away from announcing any preference for any decisions Congress might make about the Health Care Reform Act, while meanwhile Emanuel Rahm was meeting with the Biggest Insurers at the WH and down the street from the WH.

And look at how quickly he forgot his pledge to end NAFTA. Rahm was the man behind the wording of NAFTA - yet he became Obama's first Chief of Staff.

[hifiguy]

49. Lotsa truthiness there

mon frere. Lots of truthiness.

[defendandprotect]

84. +1000% --- quite perceptive -- !!!

Obama has associated himself with thugs and criminals --

and it was obvious on day #1 --

[woo me with science]

100. +100000 Obama works for the banks.

Repeat 100 times. Wake up, America.

[tomp]

104. agreed. nt

[harun]

109. +1

[Blue_In_AK]

45. That's what I'm wondering.

It sounds insubordinate to me.

[me b zola]

79. None of this makes any sense

Remember when Timmy wanted to resign but Obama publicly begged him not to go?

[Honeycombe8]

60. It wasn't an order to close Citibank. That's not Obama's area. It was an order to consider it.

The decision was left in the hands of financial "experts," of which Obama is not one.

[tcaudilllg]

97. Because he doesn't understand derivatives

Very few politicians do. Dodd was an exception.

[joeybee12]

22. Exactly...Obama was not ready to be president...not enough experience...and

it shows.

[dameocrat67]

23. it is not experience

he has feigned powerlessness from the beginning under the lesser evil theory. This book is Obama pr.

[creon]

105. Read the book

[HughBeaumont]

26. Aaaand the other choices were pro-offshoring war corporatist "Dem" and Fascist/Opportunist.

Face it: America's menu sucks and the only thing that's going to change it is millions outside of (and forcibly inside of) corporate boardrooms all over the country. Corporate Government Inc. has absolutely NO reason to fear us because we do NOTHING AT ALL against the fascism.

[frylock]

52. "not enough experience" is a racist dog whistle..

at least according to some staunch defenders.

[defendandprotect]

85. This isn't about "experience" ... it's about allegiance to corporate/elites vs public interest -- !!

[underpants]

116. Like the "MBA President" and his govt. funding "capitalist" VP who created this mess?

please :eyes:

[FarCenter]

24. Geithner probably considered breaking up Citigroup

But it would take very much analysis to come to the conclusion that it would be extremely risking and counterproductive.

[banned from Kos]

27. He was to be damned either way - breaking Citi up and fumbling the $45 billion TARP

investment would have gotten him pilloried as well.

[chill_wind]

29. Geithner was very good at stone-walling and trying to ignore orders

from day one. Levin had to threaten a subpoena on him.

Unsolved mysteries..

Why Did Citi Get Bailout Money Meant For ‘Healthy’ Banks?
by Jeff Gerth, ProPublica - February 4, 2009 12:13 pm EST

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4979094&mesg_id=4979094

The Congressional Oversight Panel, set up by Congress to monitor the TARP, has criticized the "Citigroup experience" in two reports. In a report last month <3> (PDF), the panel questioned how Citigroup had qualified as a "healthy bank" last October, yet, a few weeks later <4>, required another $20 billion government infusion and a federal guarantee of $300 billion of its troubled assets, as part of a different TARP program designed to avoid systemic risk.

Congressional aides and investigators have inquired about the initial bailout investments at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But so far, they say, they have not received a precise description of the process. Geithner is the former president of the New York Fed, which, as Citigroup's primary regulator, was involved in the TARP program.

The mystery traces back to Oct. 13, when Henry Paulson, then the secretary of the Treasury, summoned the heads of nine major financial institutions -- six commercial banks and three investment banks -- to a meeting. Congress had just passed emergency legislation to help bolster the seriously weakened credit markets and Paulson wanted to invest $125 billion in these leading firms. Geithner also attended the meeting.

See also

How Citigroup Unraveled Under Geithner's Watch
Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary has some serious strikes against him -- especially when it comes to regulation.
Jeff Gerth, ProPublica. Posted January 15, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/119871/how_citigroup_unraveled_under_geithner%27s_watch



Stonewall should be his middle name.

Elijah Cummings and Members Of Congress Want AIG Counterparty Investigation by TARP IG

Rep Cummings had written to both the Fed and Treasury in late January with questions about AIG and by March, Geithner had still not responded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4149384&mesg_id=4149456


Geithner Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky's Scathing Report On AIG Bailout

11-17-09 01:50 AM

A brutal report issued Monday by a government watchdog holds Timothy Geithner -- then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now the nation's Treasury Secretary -- responsible for overpayments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4149384&mesg_id=4149450

There was nobody out there better for this job and our country? Really?

[banned from Kos]

31. Geithner was vindicated by the $12 billion taxpayer profit he made on Citi.

And now, the Europeans are calling him in (today) to provide advice on how to handle their ongoing banking crisis.

(just a little reality for you to ponder).

[chill_wind]

35. And Bill Black has quite a bit for you to ponder as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=292268&mesg_id=292268

The only real vindication that will ever come is when the corruption is cleaned up.

[defendandprotect]

86. Certainly, neither Obama nor Denms are moving to end this corruption ... a replay is more likely-!!

[tcaudilllg]

96. Agreed: Geithner must go and we must push for a full investigation

If he did anything illegal... throw him in the slammer.

I never did trust that guy... something always seemed fishy about him. But his prognostications of economic doom for the country should have been a clear warning something wasn't right. The beginning of the end of this recession starts with his removal!

[girl gone mad]

74. Taxpayers lost money on the Citi deal..

and the Europeans were rolling their eyes as Geithner spoke today.

[Divernan]

92. Have you ever heard of the term, "link"?

[truedelphi]

44. Geithner was part of the deal.

The same pact with the devil that he made when he agreed that he would install the Monsanto clones in key places in government.

Mike Taylor, who is more responsible for the GM crops (from a bureaucratic standpoint) than any other human alive, now heads the FDA.

Valseck heads the Dept of Agriculture.

And also sadly, even when Big Oil destroyed the entire Gulf of Mexico, Obama let a foreign national corporation, BP, take charge of the cleanup. Despite the fact that BP had caused the oil spill. And BP went on to manhandle our Coast Guard into following their orders. While refusing to actually do the cleanup. Then Obama's EPA went ahead and approved a non-tested, lethal "detergent" called Corexist. even though there were a dozen more tested, well known and more suitable compounds out there.

And BP made a profit on Corexit as well.

In both the oil spill and the banking matters, Obama has a new policy - let those who cause massive problems be the ones who reap the rewards.

[defendandprotect]

87. Obama administration has no credibility -- and Dem Party may go down with him..!!!

[Modern_Matthew]

30. This President has been chained from the beginning...

And we continue to blame him.

[Fumesucker]

32. Yes, it's awful that he was forced to accept Geithner as an advisor..

[TheKentuckian]

36. Since like Scrooge's old partner Marley, he fashioned the chains link by link

He should be blamed. Who else can be responsible for who he hired and lack of institutional control in his own administration?

[hifiguy]

38. Mm-hmm. And who appointed those people anyway?

Tinkerbelle? the Tooth Fairy? the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Well, yeah.

Who appointed these guys anyway and let them stay after they demonstrated that they ere insubordinate? Of course, we blame Obama.

[Enthusiast]

78. Hey hey, ho ho, Barack Obama has got to go!

We have to get rid of him. Must. We must get rid of him.

He does more damage as a stealth corporate stooge than would an actual Republican. I hope.

[defendandprotect]

88. I'm sure Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel hired himself -- ??? Whaaat ????

Unfortunately in his first and most telling act, Obama eloped into the White House

with Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel!

It's when the alarm bells first went off --

rightly so!

It's over --

[tomp]

106. so profoundly naive. nt

[Zorra]

34. People generally do what their bosses tell them to do. nt

[DrunkenBoat]

42. Interesting.

[KamaAina]

46. Insubordination = grounds for dismissal.

Buh-bye! :hi:

[Supersedeas]

51. would be interesting to see what lil' Timmay G. says when directly confronted with this.

[tcaudilllg]

98. We're seeing his last days on the job.

Whole Dem party will be calling for his ouster by Sunday.

[Uncle Joe]

50. The word "consider" greatly weakens the word "order."

If President Obama told Geitner to "consider" it, that's not the same as telling him to do it, so I don't see how Suskind determined that Geitner ignored Obama?

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Honeycombe8]

62. THANK YOU. You're the only other person who caught that. It wasn't an "order" to close

the bank. It was an "order" (if it was even that, which I wonder about) to CONSIDER it.

Decisions to close banks are clearly outside of the area of expertise of Obama and any other President. That's why he appoints who he thinks are experts to make those decisions, taking all sorts of financial and economical matters into account, with the idea of working under directives and goals issued by the President.

Unclear to me, though, as to why Obama wanted them to consider closing Citibank, as opposed to other banks, what prompted it, and whether it was made singly or it was an order listing several banks.

I don't know the backstory.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Obama is more forgiving than that 1st Sgt who told me to get a haircut.

Maybe Obama should give Tim some guard duty to remind him of who's boss. Although, doing so didn't work so well on me.

[tblue37]

57. Then Obama should have FIRED them, just as Truman fired MacArthur when he

ignored the Commander in Chief's authority.

Instead, Obama just keeps them on, even begging them to stay of they make noises about wanting to resign to do something else.

Why?

I like and support Obama in many ways, but on this issue--keeping advisors whose agenda is clearly Republican rather than Democratic--I am constantly frustrated by his choices.

[robinlynne]

58. and we could have had Paul Krugman instead.

[Safetykitten]

61. Oh, look, there goes a chessboard out the window.

[QC]

66. Who hired all these bungholes, anyway? n/t

[tritsofme]

68. Geithner serves at the pleasure of the president.

Must not have upset him very much.

[markpkessinger]

69. And not only did the President let him get away with insubordination . . .

. . . It was just a little over a month ago that it was reported that Obama was pleading with Geithner go stay on as Treasury Secretary. Does the President have a doormat fetish or something?

[CoffeeCat]

70. Do you ever get the feeling...

...that many of Obama's appointees and advisers were instilled *for* him instead of by Obama himself?

For a long time, it has felt as if the President is powerless, against the forces that are all ready
entrenched in our government. They seem to run things, with the power of the Presidency being very
limited.

I think Obama is basically a decent guy. I don't think he lied his way through the campaign trail in
'08. I think our entire government has been engulfed by neocon, psychopathic corporatists and at this
point--there is only so much one person can do. Even if that person is the President.

Geithner ignored an order from Obama. I also noticed that BP ignored EPA demands to stop putting so much
Corexit into the Gulf. BP ignored Obama too.

The corporations and the corrupt, sold-out neocon politicians have got a lock on all of it, it seems.

I never believed that Obama picked Rahm Emanuel or Hillary Clinton either. These people were placed
in these positions, whether Obama wanted them there or not.

[defendandprotect]

89. Do you mean Obama sold himself ... ? To Wall Street, Oil industry ... ???

[tcaudilllg]

99. Obama is a capitalist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pretty much all ISTP types are. You elect Calvin Coolidge, you get Calvin Coolidge.

[Exilednight]

108. The question isn't whether or not he's a capitalist, it's what kind of

capitalist he is. I have nothing against capitalism, it's not a bad economic model, but our current system of continual deregulation has created capitalism on steroids. Now we're stuck trying to get the roid rage under control. It may be too late and we might have to allow the roid rage run its course.

[Selatius]

111. If we look at capitalism, it tends toward monopolism every time.

Look, for example, at the banks on Wall Street. They've grown huge by merging with many other banks or buying them outright. Look at the telecom industry. Ma Bell is back in the form of AT&T. One of the big reasons, but by no means the only one, medical care in the US is so expensive is because large firms have emerged in the medical supplies market, and they lobby to keep regulators from breaking up their monopolies. The same is true in the market of health insurance. In many states, only a few large firms dominate the health insurance market, and the result is prices are inflated because there is a very distinct lack of competition.

It's happening all over the US economy. Eventually, if things are not stopped, we're going to end up inside a country where corporate power and state power essentially work together, a corporatist state. 70 years ago, our grandparents called such an arrangement by an older term: Fascism.

[Exilednight]

115. And that was the point I was trying to make. In the wealth of nations, Adam Smith warns

us of what happens when capitalism goes unchecked and unregulated. It's like any other form of economic theory, if it's not continually watched over, then the results end up disastrous.

[defendandprotect]

118. The world has long recognized capitalism as an EVIL .... and unregulated capitalism...

is merely organized crime -- !

It's impossible to regulate an evil -- we need to get rid of it --


Capitalism is always predatory -- the very basis of capitalism is exploitation of nature,

natural resources, animal-life -- and even othe rhuman beings --

which has given us Global Warming --

and impoverished citizens all over the world --


And neither is capitalism about competition --

rather it's about killing the competition --


Capitalism is about moving a nation's wealth and natural resources from the many to the few --

If we want democracy we need economic democracy -- capitalism isn't it!



Obama is a corporatist -- he's certainly not there for the public/general welfare --

Obama is there for the benefit of the few -- the elites/corporatists --

We see that in just about every move he makes and doesn't make!

[Hosnon]

75. Dramatic headline fail.

Ordering someone to consider doing X and ordering someone to do X are miles apart.

[pinboy3niner]

83. +1

[defendandprotect]

90. Reality is Geitner is running the show --

[tcaudilllg]

93. What are the chances we can remove Geithner?

What would it take?

[creon]

103. Read the book

Buy the book when it comes out and read it yourself.

[Major Hogwash]

107. Is this all the haters have at this point? Whining about one of Obama's advisors???

Why don't they just start another Donnie McClurkin thread and bounce that motherfucker to the top of the forum every fucking day!!!!!

[tcaudilllg]

117. No we think he means well.

But his advisors aren't letting us see the real him. That's what this bombshell reveals. This is not the real Barack Obama. The guy we elected just doesn't have control over his administration.

[eilen]

110. Anyone get fired? nt

[mdmc]

124. ..