Why Can't Anyone Answer This Question re: Geithner?

[MannyGoldstein]

How do his policies differ from Paulson's in any substantial way? Whenever I ask this question, I get silly responses, but never a "Here's what's different:..."

[CJCRANE]

1. Accountability and competence nt

[customerserviceguy]

2. I'm waiting for both of them to show up

And while I try not to judge people on their appearance, he reminds me of the guy who we always used to give wedgies to back in gym class...

[Zynx]

20. That says more about you than it does about him.

Also, the TARP transparency is miles ahead of Paulson.

[customerserviceguy]

22. Oh, come on, it was just a joke

We are not allowed to laugh at members of the Obama Administration? I'll admit, they're not as much fun for Letterman or Leno's joke writers, but Turbo Tax Tim is certainly worth a gag line or two.

Paulsen didn't even bother with most of the things that the bailout was sold on, all he wanted to do was stuff money into Goldman Sachs, and get the hell out of Dodge. He left the mess to be cleaned up by the next guy, and that was where Geithner came in. He had to figure out some TARP rules, he had no choice as long as he want the Treasury Secretary job.

The guy doesn't yet fill me with confidence, but that could turn around by the end of the year. Or not.

[Zynx]

24. I'll be honest with you, bullies made middle school and high school utter hell for me

until junior year when I didn't have to take classes with them anymore. That was a miserable experience. I will never easily forget it.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Ok, I guess I didn't think about that

I got my ass out of PE as fast as I could, the jocks used to humiliate the 'brains' at my school, too. I even got sent to the principal's office for fighting in the hall on behalf of one of my scrawnier buddies who was getting picked on for lunch money.

It was more my trying to compare Tim Geithner to a young nerdy type who's full of book learning, but little practical experience with real life, that's all. I was not trying to rouse your inner demons, honest!

[Political Heretic]

38. Nice talking point - we've seen neither.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. "I get silly responses"

Is it at all possible that you've completely made up your mind and that there is no convincing you otherwise, which is why the responses you get seem "silly"? You certainly don't seem to be asking the question from a position of one that wants to get a real answer.

*Note: Emphasis on the word "seem" - I am not a mind reader and I don't presume to know with complete assurance what your intentions are.

[lamp_shade]

4. +1

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I'm Misinterpreting, e.g., A Photo Of A Clown? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Intentionally or not, perhaps.

I just think you might be approaching this issue from a preconceived notion, and that one some level (conscious or otherwise), you do not want to convinced otherwise. As such, every explanation merely seems silly to you.

I recognize that this is all conjecture, and it may or may not be accurate or fair. It's merely the vibe I got from your wording.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Do You Have An Answer? n/t

I'm personally not seeing any difference, it's true. If there is no difference, then I'm worried and angry.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Honestly, I don't feel that I'm in a proper position to judge.

I'm far more familiar with Geithner than I ever was with Paulson, so it really wouldn't be fair of me to say. My comments were exclusive of whether or not you may be correct - only that you seemed to be asking a question to which you had already determined your answer, which is either unintentional or disingenuous.

[jefferson_dem]

9. +2.

n/t

[rucky]

41. -1

I'm curious to know.

[Thrill]

6. For one. Paulson lied about what he was going to use the money for

Geitner has posted who has received money from him and what for.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. I Don't Think TARP Recipients & Amounts Have Been Disclosed.

Have they?

[Thrill]

10. Yes. Go to financialstability.gov

[Zynx]

21. Exactly. We know what our stakes in these companies are.

This isn't all some mystery.

[Political Heretic]

39. But it was Paulson's lie that looks a lot like Geithner's plan to me

First of all Paulson lied /changed his mind / whatever about how to spend TARP money. But when it came to the spending, the government still told who the money was going to. The trouble came when people attempted to find out how the companies getting the money were spending it. The AP tried to find out, and companies told the AP to go fuck itself. But you could find out exactly who the government gave money to.

[babylonsister]

12. How about this? Regulation?

You seem to keep missing this fun fact. So here, for you!


Geithner announces 'new rules of the game' for Wall Street

Obama administration's six-point plan proposes federal supervision of hedge funds and derivatives trading and powers to seize troubled financial institutions

Runaway risk-taking on Wall Street will face new barriers under a much tougher financial rule book outlined by the Obama administration today, including broader government powers and mandatory regulation for the $1.4tn (£1tn) hedge fund industry.

The US treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, told Congress that he wanted "sweeping" changes that range from stringent capital requirements for banks to authority for the government to seize struggling financial institutions.

He said there had been a "great loss of confidence in the basic fabric of our financial system", which needed "comprehensive reform… Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game".

Geithner, who is anxious to shake off political criticism of slow progress in stabilising the US economy, said the changes amounted to "smarter, tougher, better-designed restraints on risk-taking".

He said there was a "deep moral obligation" to protect consumers in choosing mortgages, investing savings and planning for retirement. "We won't be able to save all people from making bad judgments about their finances but we can try to do a better job in making sure they're not taken advantage of through predatory behaviour," he said.

Addressing the House of Representatives financial services committee, Geithner set out a six-point plan consisting of:

• A single regulator with responsibility for systemic stability to supervise major financial institutions.

• More conservative capital requirements for firms big enough to pose a systemic risk to the economy.

• A requirement for hedge funds to register with the securities and exchange commission and to disclose financial information.

• A comprehensive framework of oversight for derivatives including hitherto unregulated credit default swaps.

• Stronger supervision of money market funds to avert the risk of failure due to rapid withdrawals.

• Tools for the government to seize control of troubled non-bank financial institutions including insurers, fund management firms and savings organisations.

more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/26/obama-geithner-new-rules-game-wall-street

[avaistheone1]

16. This is all window dressing unless there is transparency which Geithner seems to have a problem with

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8308756&mesg_id=8308756

[babylonsister]

17. Of course it is. The OP asked what the difference was, I

told him. Now regulations are window-dressing? Whatever. Some people just like to be miserable. Have at it. I'm not one of them.

[avaistheone1]

18. Well there isn't much difference if there isn't transparency in terms of the application of

the regulations --- which just so happens to be Greithner's weak suit when he was at the Federal Reserve. Misery? Who brought up that? You. It sounds like you have a personal problem when others bring up valid arguments that counter yours. Don't project it on me. You needed take counter arguments as being something that are being adversarial or targeted towards you personally. Let's stay on topic.

[rollingrock]

27. Too bad these new regulations don't apply to the current bailout

which makes them kind of pointless at this late hour, don't you think?

btw, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers were the two primary guys responsible for convincing Bill Clinton to gut the Glass-Steagull Act when they worked in his administration, which as we all know opened the floodgates for banks to abuse their power.

[cliffordu]

29. Bullshit.

Please go look at the legeslation that gutted Glass/Steagall

and tell the class where their names are listed on the fucking legislation........

You really shouldn't come in here to spread talking points that let Lindsay Graham off the hook. Fuck.

[rollingrock]

34. I didn't say his name was on the legislation, did I?

but it was well-known that Summers, as Clinton's treasury Secretary, played a major role in convincing Clinton to sign the bill that killed Glass-Steagull.


Here's a little history lesson.

Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Summers said.<10> "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."<10> Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act.<11>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

[SanchoPanza]

37. Those rules don't cover current moral hazard.

Don't get me wrong, they're necessary. But they do nothing to prevent the banks from gaming the PPIP.

[Bonobo]

13. Maybe because you have crapped up your rep so bad on DU that no one WANTS to respond?

Food for thought and probably the most honest and truthful answer.

Glad to help!

[lamp_shade]

15. +3

[kid a]

26. *wink*

[specimenfred1984]

28. Just because you said that, I'll answer

Regulations, there are a few more in the new rules than in Paulsons. Other than that I don't see any difference. Plus, the new regs won't regulate CDS (credit default swaps) and in the bigger picture, by not arresting and charging AIG execs and about 100 other bank execs, the criminal banks will just find new criminal ways around whatever new regulations are put in place.

Suck on that ya sarcastic SOBs, you're the same lousy-ass muthafuckers that have been crapping all over the truth for a few weeks here on DU.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Why the pretense of discussion with this passive-aggressive OP?

Since you deem responses to your queries in the past "silly," why not cut out the middle man and post what you really want to say?

[Beetwasher]

23. How Come None Of You "Critics" Can Show Me How They Are The Same?

I keep hearing this claim and have seen nothing to back it up. Please provide detail as to which portions of each plan are identical. For example please show me in Paulsons plan where the details are regarding the auctioning of the securities, how they are selected and which agencies are responsible for oversight and approving selection.

[cliffordu]

30. Ah, there's the rub....they got nothing.

[Beetwasher]

31. Yup, Mr. Big Shot OP Can't Put Up I Guess

They make the claim the plans are identical, then demand the WE somehow prove they'r NOT. Sound familiar?

[cliffordu]

32. Yes it does.......

[Political Heretic]

40. Well I for one haven't been on this kick to prove them the same or different --

I think the plan is a mistake on its own regardless of what other plan it does or does not look like.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. They are somewhat similar, so what's your point?

That because it was something Bush did, it must inherently be bad? The plan was written by Paulson and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Bush probably wasn't even in the room. And the vast majority of the opposition came from House Republicans who have the luxury of being the minority so they don't have to take any responsibility if the financial system collapses even further. The same goes for people like Dennis Kucinich who don't hold any substantial positions of power.

Bailouts are what we do to prevent further financial chaos. It is what we've always done and it's all that we know how to do. If you want to knock Obama for not bringing a whole lot of change on that front, I will totally concede that. But I would rather he save the economy than bring change for the sake of change.

[merkins]

35. Here's your answer:

Watch this April 3rd Bill Moyers Interview with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Its all laid out in brutal fashion .. don't miss this one:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

[SanchoPanza]

36. Define "substantial".

Paulson's plan called for the government to make direct purchases of toxic assets at vastly inflated prices.

Geithner's plan calls for The Private Sector, through an enormous subsidy, to bid on these toxic assets at less inflated prices. Or vastly inflated prices, depending on the moral hazard du jour:

1) The banks set up Special Purpose Entities to buy the assets at close to stated value. Then when the assets are revealed to be a pile of shit, the SPE goes bankrupt and the banks walk away with a clean ledger, having only lost their ~8% equity investment in the PPIP (which was most likely capitalized through previous Fed loans). The taxpayers eat the other ~92%.

2) The banks collude with one another to buy their own toxic assets, purchased with capital secured through previous Fed loans. Then when the assets are revealed to be a pile of shit, the banks make up for the ~8% PPIP investment by simply realizing they can pay back the non-recourse loan with all the equity they saved by cleaning up their books. The taxpayers eat the other ~92%.

3) The banks collude with hedge funds to buy the toxic assets at close to stated value in exchange for a favorable rate down the road to make up for the ~8% PPIP investment the hedge fund will lose when the assets are revealed to be a pile of shit. The taxpayers eat the other ~92%.

There are a couple of more situations where the banks can game the system to get as much money for their shitty assets as possible, but they generally fall into the above three categories. In other words, Geithner's plan can be deemed substantively different if you believe any combination of the following premises:

1) That the assets won't, by some miracle, turn out to be a pile of shit.

2) That Treasury can, by some miracle, enforce any anti-collusion rules they might implement.

3) That most of the banks are, by some miracle, being run by virtuous people who will put the greater health of the economy over getting a trillion dollar windfall from the taxpayers.