Timothy Geithner to be named Treasury Sec

pearljamfan1212

Hi fellow PJ fans.

what do you think of this choice? its being reported on CNBC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/obama-to-name-treasury-se_n_145565.html

The New Republic names Geithner as a top pick today and notes that the contest between him and Larry Summers is a clash of mentor and mentee.

Barack Obama will name his Treasury Secretary on Monday, a Democratic source confirms to the Huffington Post.

Who will ultimately take the post is still to be determined. But NBC News is reporting that Tim Geithner will ultimately get the nod over former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Geithner is currently the president of the Federal Reserve and once served in the Treasury Department under Summers.

Summers candidacy, it seems, will be done in by two factors: his ties to the Clinton years -- the Obama team has appointed several figures fromthat administration to key posts and were drawn to a fresh face, NBC's Chuck Todd noted. And comments Summers made while president of Harvard that critics deemed derogatory towards women.

Part of the reason Obama is making the announcement so soon is the market disarray over the past months. The announcement of an economic team could calm those waters. Another Democrat, however, told the Huffington Post that there is a growing recognition within Obama circles that they need to be more assertive in the transition period about their personnel and goals for governance. There is some concern that the economic situation will grow so bad under the remaining months of the Bush administration that Obama will be left with nearly insurmountable economic tasks.

blackredyellow

Drifting, Roland and crew are going to love this one

Indifference

Well market seems to like him.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27843564

pearljamfan1212

the stock market likes the pick. market rallied 500 points at the close. not a bad way to end the weekend.

I'm a trader, any traders here?

VINNY GOOMBA

First Hillary, now this.

This is awful. The very existence of the Federal Reserve system, in my opinion, is the biggest problem facing this nation, and this is without a doubt the area where we need-- you guessed it, CHANGE.

Now Obama is going to make the President of the FRBNY his Treasury Secretary, effectively proving to all of us that there will be no CHANGE when this man takes office.

"BUT, BUT, BUT, HE HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET!!!1111"

Sure he has. His appointments are showing his true colors. I was going to try and bite my tongue for as long as possible, and give this guy a shot, but it's becoming obvious that he, like Bush, like Clinton, like Bush Sr., is going to have to be watched like a hawk. I guess really every president, whether you like them or not, voted for them or not, should be watched like a hawk-- even a champion like President Ron Paul deserves full questioning.

Don't get me wrong, McCain wouldn't have been any better. Maybe even worse. That's what's frustrating about this whole thing. We cannot have a system like the Fed in place, and be a REPUBLIC. It's that simple. Neither side would have brought about the reform we really need at this time. It's pretty sad.

Commy

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

First Hillary, now this.

This is awful. The very existence of the Federal Reserve system, in my opinion, is the biggest problem facing this nation, and this is without a doubt the area where we need-- you guessed it, CHANGE.

Now Obama is going to make the President of the FRBNY his Treasury Secretary, effectively proving to all of us that there will be no CHANGE when this man takes office.

"BUT, BUT, BUT, HE HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET!!!1111"

Sure he has. His appointments are showing his true colors. I was going to try and bite my tongue for as long as possible, and give this guy a shot, but it's becoming obvious that he, like Bush, like Clinton, like Bush Sr., is going to have to be watched like a hawk. I guess really every president, whether you like them or not, voted for them or not, should be watched like a hawk-- even a champion like President Ron Paul deserves full questioning.

Don't get me wrong, McCain wouldn't have been any better. Maybe even worse. That's what's frustrating about this whole thing. We cannot have a system like the Fed in place, and be a REPUBLIC. It's that simple. Neither side would have brought about the reform we really need at this time. It's pretty sad.

agreed. if Obama picks this guy I don't see how he can pretend he's bringing change anymore.

pearljamfan1212

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

First Hillary, now this.

This is awful. The very existence of the Federal Reserve system, in my opinion, is the biggest problem facing this nation, and this is without a doubt the area where we need-- you guessed it, CHANGE.

Now Obama is going to make the President of the FRBNY his Treasury Secretary, effectively proving to all of us that there will be no CHANGE when this man takes office.

"BUT, BUT, BUT, HE HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET!!!1111"

Sure he has. His appointments are showing his true colors. I was going to try and bite my tongue for as long as possible, and give this guy a shot, but it's becoming obvious that he, like Bush, like Clinton, like Bush Sr., is going to have to be watched like a hawk. I guess really every president, whether you like them or not, voted for them or not, should be watched like a hawk-- even a champion like President Ron Paul deserves full questioning.

Don't get me wrong, McCain wouldn't have been any better. Maybe even worse. That's what's frustrating about this whole thing. We cannot have a system like the Fed in place, and be a REPUBLIC. It's that simple. Neither side would have brought about the reform we really need at this time. It's pretty sad.

Commy wrote:

agreed. if Obama picks this guy I don't see how he can pretend he's bringing change anymore.

I know Obama ran on "change" but I dont ever remember him saying he wanted to abolish the Fed.

why is it so hard to understand...by change he meant...

"not a republican"

Sludge Factory

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I know Obama ran on "change" but I dont ever remember him saying he wanted to abolish the Fed.

why is it so hard to understand...by change he meant...

"not a republican"

Because by change he led people to believe it meant less Washington insiders ingrained with the old corrupt ways of doing things. But yeah, he never mentioned anything about the Fed Reserve to my knowledge.

pearljamfan1212

Sludge Factory wrote:

Because by change he led people to believe it meant less Washington insiders ingrained with the old corrupt ways of doing things. But yeah, he never mentioned anything about the Fed Reserve to my knowledge.

the whole "change" thing was vague IMO. all politicians say they will get rid of insiders or whatever. its just political BS.

but maybe it was just me, but I took "change" as 8 years of republican rule being gone

Sludge Factory

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

the whole "change" thing was vague IMO. all politicians say they will get rid of insiders or whatever. its just political BS.

but maybe it was just me, but I took "change" as 8 years of republican rule being gone

I think maybe it was just you because I've heard countles people say they liked Obama because he wanted to finally get rid of the Washington Corruption associated with many of the long standing insiders.

hailhailkc

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think maybe it was just you because I've heard countles people say they liked Obama because he wanted to finally get rid of the Washington Corruption associated with many of the long standing insiders.

Exactly, I totally agree...and let's remember that the market likes the fact that there WAS a pick, not necessarily WHO the pick was.

pearljamfan1212

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think maybe it was just you because I've heard countles people say they liked Obama because he wanted to finally get rid of the Washington Corruption associated with many of the long standing insiders.

I agree. I have heard this too and its complete crap. Im very surprised Obama is bringing back the Clinton years. surprising and disappointing. on the other hand, this is a time when we need people with experience. its a double edged sword I guess.

hailhailkc wrote:

Exactly, I totally agree...and let's remember that the market likes the fact that there WAS a pick, not necessarily WHO the pick was.

I agree with this too. and on second thought, this end of day rally had ALOT to do with option expiration.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I like this angle, but that would be a pipe dream of ridiculously immense proportions:

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=111372&t=01001956829776242957

I like to call my ducks exactly when they look, walk, and quack like them.

quack! quack!

Commy

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I know Obama ran on "change" but I dont ever remember him saying he wanted to abolish the Fed.

why is it so hard to understand...by change he meant...

"not a republican"

I know. I didn't expect fundamental change-despite his direct quote saying he would do just that....I voted for him.

but to appoint the head of the Federal Reserve as Treas Sec? that seems to be catering a bit much towards corporate interests, ignoring the fundamental problem with American capitalism.

OutOfBreath

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think maybe it was just you because I've heard countles people say they liked Obama because he wanted to finally get rid of the Washington Corruption associated with many of the long standing insiders.

Well, changing administration and people does get away a chunk of the current people on the inside, doesnt it?

He was vague on the change, and probably for good reason. But be realistic people, no lawfully elected president will ever be game-changing. Not because of corruption, but because going by the process one is upholding status quo, with a difference in nuance and some select favorite issues. Game-changers happen way outside of offices whose very purpose is to maintain stability. You can't change the game by following it's rules (which you have to to get elected). Ron Paul wouldn't have changed squat either, unless he is elected on a surge after the change is de facto accomplished. Change is never initiated from above.

Now as for picking "insiders", I hope he does if he wants anything done. If you are going to change things, you need people who know about it, and have been involved in it for a while. Completely new people would need 4 years just to start to get the hang of the processes, and in the meantime they'll be eternally overrun by the more experienced people both among the civil servants and other politicians. To do a sports analogy, you dont have to change the entire team to get it to play a different way. A new coach with new ideas, and a few select signings can turn the former team into something different, where players who didn't do so well before, suddenly shines because of different surroundings and regime.

Peace
Dan

VINNY GOOMBA

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I know Obama ran on "change" but I dont ever remember him saying he wanted to abolish the Fed.

why is it so hard to understand...by change he meant...

"not a republican"

Of course he did. That's what we're saying though, true "change" does not exist outside of moving from a republican to a democrat. The only thing that has changed is the label of the party.

Plain and simply put, there is no chance of any REAL, SIGNIFICANT change without ridding ourselves of the Federal Reserve System. PERIOD.

pearljamfan1212

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Of course he did. That's what we're saying though, true "change" does not exist outside of moving from a republican to a democrat. The only thing that has changed is the label of the party.

Plain and simply put, there is no chance of any REAL, SIGNIFICANT change without ridding ourselves of the Federal Reserve System. PERIOD.

I have yet to here of a viable alternative to the Fed. in other words, what would our economy look like with no Federal Reserve. care to elaborate?

Sludge Factory

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, changing administration and people does get away a chunk of the current people on the inside, doesnt it?

He was vague on the change, and probably for good reason. But be realistic people, no lawfully elected president will ever be game-changing. Not because of corruption, but because going by the process one is upholding status quo, with a difference in nuance and some select favorite issues. Game-changers happen way outside of offices whose very purpose is to maintain stability. You can't change the game by following it's rules (which you have to to get elected). Ron Paul wouldn't have changed squat either, unless he is elected on a surge after the change is de facto accomplished. Change is never initiated from above.

Now as for picking "insiders", I hope he does if he wants anything done. If you are going to change things, you need people who know about it, and have been involved in it for a while. Completely new people would need 4 years just to start to get the hang of the processes, and in the meantime they'll be eternally overrun by the more experienced people both among the civil servants and other politicians. To do a sports analogy, you dont have to change the entire team to get it to play a different way. A new coach with new ideas, and a few select signings can turn the former team into something different, where players who didn't do so well before, suddenly shines because of different surroundings and regime.

Peace
Dan

Yeah, that may be the way you understand things, but the feelings I am getting from many an Obama supporter is that what you describe is not where they were thinking when voting for him. They essentially felt when he said he was for change and getting rid of the corruption in Washington that that also meant he wouldn't reinstate people that were part of the problem.

Not saying it's right, just saying that's how the perception of many was playing out.

digster

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about treasury secretary picks, so I don't know who's properly qualified. I'd admit that I didn't find Summers relatively appealing, so I'm pleased he didn't go for the more orthodox pick. As usual, I think it's interesting how some people are criticizing the decision. You seem surprised that he's picked people who have Washington experience. Although I like his grassroots approach to campaigning, the guy's running the most powerful country in the world; he's not selecting a Board of Directors for a non-profit group. After the general election campaign, did people here really think he was going to pick a cabinet full of individuals with no resumes? I think the problem is people had this misguided assumption that he was a far-left politician, possibly because he actually had a brain and opposed Iraq at its' outset. There's nothing that shows him to be this far-left liberal that Republicans tried to paint him as during the campaign. I'm surprised that not only many conservatives, but also many far-left-wingers bought into that notion. I guess their criticisms were more successful than previously thought.

DriftingByTheStorm

Obama Picks CFR Insider to Head Treasury wrote:

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 22, 2008

It’s change we can believe in. President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and CFR member Tim Geithner will take over the job of administering the banker bailout in January.

NBC’s Chuck Todd and former Fed mob boss Alan Greenspan’s wife, Andrea Mitchell, report on Obama’s nomination of Treasury bureaucrat and CFR member Tim Geithner to head up the Treasury.

“NBC News has learned that the president-elect is preparing to roll out his economic team on Monday — and will personally announce the team and answer questions — part of an effort to reassure markets,” writes Domenico Montanaro for MSNBC.

It looks like a more seasoned insider will be pulling Geithner’s strings. “Former Treasury Secretary Summers — also considered for the post — might still play a major future role in the Obama administration, according to sources.” The bankers wanted Summers as giveaway executor but he is politically unacceptable. He blurted out “controversial comments” on “gender issues” while lording over Harvard. Sexism does not play well with the politically correct image of a diversified Obama administration.

Geithner was a senior fellow in the Economics Department of the Council on Foreign Relations and director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund. After obtaining an M.A. in International Economics and East Asian Studies from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in 1985, Geithner went to work for Kissinger and Associates. In 1988, he joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department and was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2003. He is also a member of the Rockefeller “financial advisory body,” the Group of Thirty, an organization comprised of members from the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, Citicorp and Citibank, the China Construction Bank, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, in short the very heart of the international banking elite.

In June, Gary Weiss wrote that Geithner was a “central figure” in the “drama” that was J.P. Morgan Chase acquisition of Bear Stearns. “It was Geithner’s Federal Reserve bank, not the Treasury, that came up with the $29 billion loan that made the deal possible or, more precisely, acceptable to J.P. Morgan.” In other words, Geithner was taking orders directly from the international bankers. He is also cozy with AIG, Lehman, and Goldman Sachs.

Obama’s choice of a Federal Reserve, CFR, and Rockefeller insider reveals there will be no change for the plebs, but more of the same and then some — a continuation of pillage and debt slavery. It means we will continue to be subjected to international monetary and trade agreements at the behest of the international bankers and the corporatists. It means our sovereignty will be further eroded and the self-perpetuating cycle of borrowing will continue. It means the bankster plan to loot the country, consolidate wealth, and turn the United States into a third world country based on the China slave labor gulag model will move forward.

blackredyellow wrote:

Drifting, Roland and crew are going to love this one

Mmm.
:rolleyes:
Just waitin for an article so someone "crazier" than me can take credit for piecing it together.

So lets count our change because i bet between the contents so far there isn't much left of it:

we've got Zbigniew Brzezinski in the shadows, ran away so as not to hurt his precious darling's already embarrassingly fragile image. Brzezinski is Rockefeller syndicate number one, both the stalwart and vanguard of the "neo-liberal" imperialist\corporatist\globalist\elitist foreign policy. The only thing i don't get about Zbig is his seeming"anti-semitic") remarks. ???

There's Rahmy the very model of a modern major zionist as chief of staff who is a hardened advocate of not only general [conscription but of compulsory youth service as well. Here is a guy who as a gangsta partisan hardliner "earned" the privelage of sitting on the board of Fannie Mae through all of its glory; he "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry" 34. JP Morgan and Rockefeller banks both on that list.

Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, failed member of the America's latest dynasty, czarina in exile. So high in the establishment that she openly bullied Obama to pay her campaign debts. A lady tied to all of Bill's glory, and who has curiously close pre-existing intelligence relations. But then again, so does Bill[/url, big time! Any how, to think that she does not firmly represent the establishment is silly. She has no problem repeating the same tired lies before AIPAC in order to pull off the ultimate lie against YOU ... Iran is the enemy, must be destroyed. She also is quite chummy with Lady de Rothschild, seen here ardently backing her girl, and actually poo pooing Obama.

Attorney General Eric Holder is a man who promises to use the position to uphold the corporatist rule, and do very little to change just about anything.

interesting fact wrote:

“Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence—and the company’s own admission—that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists.”

... the evolution of our imperialist policies where sending the CIA in to do revolutions in "banana republics" (funny term, huh?) and install dictators has been replaced by simply letting the companies run their own tyranical "governments" and then slapping them on the wrist for mass murder.
Cha cha cha changes!

And then this joker.

Puh-LEASE!

El_Kabong

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

the whole "change" thing was vague IMO. all politicians say they will get rid of insiders or whatever. its just political BS.

but maybe it was just me, but I took "change" as 8 years of republican rule being gone

"Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Bristol, Va.

"We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people."



"It's a choice between debating John McCain about lobbying reform with a nominee who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or doing it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you the American people."



"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," Obama said, bringing the crowd to its feet.
"I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists -- and I have won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."