Timothy Geithner to be named Treasury Sec
pearljamfan1212
Posts: 203
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.
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27843564
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
I'm a trader, any traders here?
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.
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.
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.
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.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
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.
I agree with this too. and on second thought, this end of day rally had ALOT to do with option expiration.
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!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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.
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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?
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.
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. ... 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!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"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."
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The world without the Fed? Picture unicorns, sun, and rainbows all the time!!!
Well, for starters we'd have to return to a commodity based system backing our money. Some say silver more than gold, since so much of our gold is in the hands of these foreign bankers already. Either way, hard-backing our money only allows so much of it to be in circulation, and controls inflation. The Fed was brought in to stablilize prices and control inflation, and look what has happened-- since their inception, our dollar has lost 98% of it's value.
What do you expect from a BANK that controls our government? Is this not the biggest scam going?: I'm the Fed, I create money out of nothing and loan it to you, but it still acts as legal tender. I just gave you AIR, a piece of toilet paper, something of absolutely no worth-- but it acts as legal tender, to start up a business or buy a car, or whatever else. When you pay me back, aren't you paying me back with money you have earned, or in a really bad case, say if your business fails, out of your savings? Have I not just traded you AIR for actual money that you worked for? Are you not my slave at this point? Even if I lent you $100,000 and you could only pay me back $10,000, did I not just make $10,000, and maybe even seized your business? Remember, I really only gave you NOTHING to begin with!
It's no secret then, that the FED encourages spending beyond our means-- on war, welfare, BAILOUTS, whatever! They can't lose either way! In the end, they just gain control by stealing real wealth, and pretty much putting a nation in debt to them. Who's to say that this ISN'T how they are able to dictate both our foreign and domestic policies? That they even "buy" the right to make such policies, which again, encourage even more spending.
Politicians choose to borrow, rather than directly tax so they remain popular--but borrowing is just an indirect tax! It will be paid later, with interest! Who's to say that an organization that isn't audited, or regulated by any means, and can legally counterfeit all they want aren't paying off politicians "under the table" to keep such a system afloat. I mean, really, how could you catch them doing it. THEY ARE NOT AUDITED.
Also, this fractional reserve banking system created by the Fed needs to reform. Maybe factional reserve banking would be ok if the fraction was a lot LARGER. Instead of banks being to able to loan out 9 times what they actually have, maybe it should be only twice what they actually have? If banks are allowed to loan out 9 times the amount of money they have, and any amount of those loans are bad, are the banks not ALWAYS bankrupt themselves? When you think of the money that they don't have as a result of too many loans, and consider that some of those loans could be really BAD, banks are always in a precarious situation, aren't they? OR, Full reserve banking should be considered-- I know what you're thinking, that system would never work. Imagine a bank only being able to loan out what they have in reserve? Nobody would be able to get loans-- or very few anyway. Credit would really be pretty rare wouldn't it?
It's a crazy idea, but maybe that's how it's all supposed to be! Not being a slave to credit. When you buy things, YOU OWN THEM, with no strings attached. There was a time, not too long ago where prices weren't so incredibly inflated that people were actually able to take out PRIVATE mortgages on their houses! My parents did it, and it worked great for them... No closing fees, and other bullshit that comes with going through the bank.
The Fed, especially in it's current state is out of control-- They are recklessly inflating our dollar, and therefore indirectly taxing us with this inflation. And keep in mind, this is taxation without representation-- we have no say who's in the Fed, nor can we be shareholders of it.
So you want a solution? Go back to Congress and the Treasury regulating the money supply. That's how the Constitution called for it, and we at least have some say in the matter that way. Currency is backed by gold and or silver, to save us from the vicious tax of inflation. The Congress is far from perfect, but if we'd pull our head out of our asses a little, we could pressure them to act with our needs in mind-- unlike the Fed. The Federal Reserve is so legally detached from the people, that it doesn't matter what they what they do-- they are untouchable-- until they are removed altogether. Congress is seemingly untouchable, but it really, really isn't that way. Again, we just need to wake up, and start caring about controlling the country again. I firmly believe enough people are getting pissed off at this point, that we will see a peaceful revolution of sorts.
If nothing else... Even if in some universe, fiat money WAS a good idea, then why not just give the power directly to Congress or the Treasury to print money as they see fit and NOT CHARGE US INTEREST TO DO SO, as the Fed does. It would be like the current system except the bankers would not be in control. We the people would be in control (if we ever choose to be again), and we wouldn't be racking up interest payments on top of an currency that keeps losing value from inflation.
So in summary, of that last "solution" that could definitely replace the Fed: Congress and Treasury print Fiat Money as they see fit = Inflation (that we will pay for, BUT, we will actually have some say in who these people are, who choose to inflate our money)
Fed prints Fiat Money as they see fit = Inflation with interest attached (that we will pay for also, and we have no say in the matter).
Although, not a great idea, it is definitely better than the current system. I feel that the people of this country deserve a lot better, and should go back to a Constiutional system of money.
Well taxes would be a lot lower, just in the simple fact that there will be no interest to bankers attached to our taxes.
Wars, perhaps the most profitable enterprise of the Central Bank may even start to disappear. I don't think we'll ever see a world without war-- but we should see less of them. Someone will always find a way to make them happen and profit off of them. At least with Central Banks gone, the people with ALL of the money, and the power to create as much of it as they want will no longer exist.
Less wars would definitely equal less spending. Our country has enough weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. If we cut our military spending to stricly base maintenance and military salaries, We could save a boatload on defense spending, and make huge strides in chipping away at our debt.
We may see a rennaissance with regards to our stance on credit. We might spend less and save more, and see true prosperity-- not the false prosperity of a whole nation riding a wave of credit that is ready to crash and cause a tsunami.
We may encourage other countries in the world to use their own sovereign power to do the same, and help themselves out.
I think the more you look into this problem, that not only is it a problem, but it is THE PROBLEM. I know it all sounds like a big fairy tale, but I believe that we are maybe a million or 2 million awakened minds away from fixing the problem-- and how will it be done? It will be done on an election year, a month or 2 before November, we should all vote based on this issue as the main focus when we head to the polls. This isn't pro life or pro choice, this is liberty or tyranny for those who are here now, and those who will be born in the future. We can sort out those other major issues later once we free those who are here and breathing right now.
I think that is the bare minimum you will see by eliminating the Fed.
Ideally:
You may even see NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, or a more fair tax system-- if our government isn't encouraged to spend, we may actually save. If we save enough, our taxes may exist only at more local levels, and where things are more manageable. And if you don't like how your state, county, or town, is doing things-- move!
It's all so close, yet so far!
I hear you 110%. This stuff tends to consume people like me-- we get worked up very easily, as we know that it is going to take sheer numbers, and numbers alone to make the change that we not only feel is good, but NECESSARY, before we really have the rugged pulled out from under us all. If I've even got you considering what I've said, then I've done the job a lot of other "Paulites" want to do, but end up losing people in their passion
I went to an End the Fed rally this weekend-- first time I've ever protested, and I have to say, it was a great feeling. It was pretty incredible how receptive a lot of people were to this idea-- everyone knows something is up right now, but the majority can't put their finger on it-- they're looking for answers to why we have this financial crisis. The can't be put squarely on the Fed, but if you do your homework, I think you'll find that you could attribute 90% of it to their very existence.
Of all the times I've seen people stand on the streets in the city, and saw people handing pamphlets to others, I don't think I've ever seen what I saw this past weekend-- People actually stopped dead in their tracks reading information about Ending the Fed-- usually, it's straight to the garbage can with this kind of stuff.
If not 2010, then 2012, if we all work hard enough, and do not scare away people like yourself with fits of anger, this should become a major issue in our upcoming elections.