Geithner: We will 'prevail' over banks

[ProSense]

Geithner: We will 'prevail' over banks

By Charles Riley

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Tuesday joined a chorus of Democratic officials hitting back at bank fees, saying the administration "will prevail" in the battle over banking reforms.

<...>

Last year, lawmakers approved a law that limits how much banks can charge on debit card transactions -- a law that led Bank of America...to recently switch to a $5 monthly charge.

<...>

The so-called Durbin Amendment, part of a larger Wall Street reform law, limits banks to charging 21 cents for each debit card transaction. Previously the banks would charge an average of 44 cents, mostly to retailers.

Earlier on Tuesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, citing numbers from the Federal Reserve, said debit card swipes cost the banks between just 4 and 12 cents -- far below even the new 21 cent cap.

more

So the fee was cut from 44 cents to 21 cents, leaving in place a profit of 9 cents to 17 cents on each transaction, and the banks turn around and hit people with a monthly fee of $3 to $5?

And these banks wonder why people refer to them as predators.

[Kolesar]

1. Hey, a guy's gotta house his family and a house in the Hamptons don't come cheap

And the schools aren't cheap either!!

[LiberalEsto]

2. Who is "we" here?

His cronies at Goldman Sachs?

[ProSense]

4. It

"Who is 'we' here?"

...appears to be a reference to the administration, specifically as it pertains to Dodd-Frank.

[Major Hogwash]

10. We be jammin'.

Ever hear that phrase?

[frazzled]

22. You do know, don't you ...

That Geithner never worked at Goldman-Sachs, or any other investment bank, don't you?

Geithner Haunted by a Goldman Past He Never Had
BY DEALBOOK

Timothy F. Geithner has been misidentified as a former Wall Street insider from Goldman Sachs so many times since he became the Treasury secretary that he and his advisers had taken to joking about it.

...Just as the Geithner aide’s humor fell flat, likewise newspaper corrections, Mr. Geithner’s objections to TV news interviewers and his staff’s work to spread the boss’s résumé have failed to dispel the belief that Mr. Geithner is a former Wall Street banker, or more specifically, a Goldman guy.

That perception over the last 20 months has united liberal and conservative critics but reflects a broader antagonism against the government bailouts for which Mr. Geithner has been a frontline architect. With many Americans viewing those policies as benefiting only Wall Street, its rich chief executives and Goldman in particular, the belief that Mr. Geithner came from the firm — as his predecessor in the Bush administration did — has easily taken root, further undermining support for those policies.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/geithner-haunted-by-a-goldman-past-he-never-had/

If you are speaking metaphorically, well, then let's acknowledge its poetic value. But I just want to make sure that no one takes it literally.

[tcaudilllg]

3. Beware: efforts are accelerating to co-opt OWS.

And if it happens, the co-opters will be trying to lead us back to the campaign trail, and AWAY from our campaign for accountability.

[phleshdef]

8. This has absolutely nothing to do with OWS.

[tcaudilllg]

11. Read between the lines.

The Admin is trying to appear aligned with our goals, so that it can brainwash us into accepting gridlock. This is how movements fail, by being brought under the umbrella of an established political system. The Tea Party has already failed... our goals are not political. They are social. If we forget that, we lose.

We must demand obedience to ideals.

[ProSense]

16. Um

"Read between the lines."

...the point you're trying to make isn't anywhere, not even between the lines. Bank of America didn't implement the fee in response to Occupy Wall Street. It was done in response to the new swipe fee being implemented this month. That is the point of the OP: Bank fees and Dodd-Frank.

"The Admin is trying to appear aligned with our goals, so that it can brainwash us into accepting gridlock."

That's absurd, even if the administration did align with the goals, and they should, what gives you the impression that the protesters and those who support their goals are easy to "brainwash"? In fact, that's quite insulting.

[tcaudilllg]

24. Geithner doesn't mean to prevail over anybody.

Except Republicans.

[phleshdef]

17. BS. The thing Geithner is referring to is something they've been fighting for way longer than OWS...

...has been around. I'm sorry, but you can't erase history just to support your own conspiratorial, negative BS narrative.

Geithner and the admin fought and succeeded in passing this very, very large Wall Street reform bill. And it was not without its imperfections. But there is a lot of a great stuff in there that Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to try and suppress as much as they possibly can. One of those things are these debit card fee limits. Geithner has supported this since way before Occupy Wallstreet was conceived. You can't accuse him of trying to appear aligned with a goal that he was aligned with, way before it was ever a goal in terms of the OWS movement.

If you were truly an objective person not caught up in hyperemotional ideology, you would give Geithner credit when he supports the right things just as much as you give him shit when he supports the wrong things.

[Inuca]

30. Absurd n/t

[CanonRay]

5. He and I are not a "we".

[Tutankhamun]

6. WTF? Really. WTF?

Yes, they will try to hijack OWS, but Geithner won't even come close to succeeding. He's just showing his rich crony pals in the biz/bank/finance sector that he's trying to save them from the spectre of democracy.

This really makes me want to throw up. The idea that Geithner stands with the people. Yes Timmy, throw us a crumb you little punk.

[phleshdef]

7. Where did Geithner say anything about OWS? Stop and read before you bloviate.

The article is about limits on debit card fees, something Geithner supports. Get over yourself.

[tcaudilllg]

12. Your shortness of tone smacks of disgust for negativism.

[phleshdef]

18. And your tone and negative attitude towards the Pres and those that work for him is different how?

I don't have a problem with your or any other posters shortness of tone towards them, thats your right. But spare me the self righteous nonsense. You want to relentlessly criticize President Obama and others with any sort of tone or language you feel like using. Thats fine. Just be prepared to deal with supporters returning the fucking favor. You wanna play the hyperbole game and trash elected people that I support, then fucking play the game and don't get mad when others play back. This is America and thats how it god damn works.

[tcaudilllg]

29. Not anymore.

We will not sit idly by as you permit the destruction of our institutions. The Admin is content to let the Republicans dismantle our whole country if the people don't give them a majority. And when the Dems do get the majority, they hide behind the deregulation passed by Republicans to avoid having to prosecute the bad guys. They could be arguing for a constitutional amendment to get the banksters, because the law sure as hell doesn't provide for their prosecution. Obama will hide behind that little bit for as long as he is in office, just as he is giving Cheney a pass on torture. The Dems have no intention of changing the way Wall St. works. Elizabeth Warren may, but rest assured that she and Sanders alone cannot change that body. And even if they do, what's to say the SCOTUS is not going to overturn the changes? The system cannot long last presided over by those extremists.

[phleshdef]

32. LOL! "We will not sit idly by as you permit the destruction of our institutions. "

Wow, just totally off the deep end WOW.

[tcaudilllg]

37. I don't even think you're a Dem. IGNORED

[phleshdef]

38. I'm not a "Dem". I'm a Democrat.

What I'm NOT, is a person that lets myself fly away to ideological la-la land.

[Tutankhamun]

13. See response number 11

Get over myself? Ok. That's done. I think I'll eat an avocado.

[phleshdef]

19. I saw it and responded to it for the logicless, history ignoring pile of trash it is.

[Tutankhamun]

20. "Logicless"

You mean illogical. Maybe you should channel some of that anger into something productive, like eating an avocado.

[phleshdef]

35. No I mean exactly what I said. Heres a little dictionary help for you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logicless

It means devoid of logic. Illogical is a completely appropriate word as well, but its not the one I chose to use.

Pro tip - the next time you decide you are gonna play "smart ass" with grammar and such, LOOK IT UP FIRST. Otherwise, its awfully embarassing when you call someone out for using a real word in its proper context.

[Tutankhamun]

43. Point taken.

I learned a word.

[Major Hogwash]

9. And yet the banks sit on trillions of dollars that they won't loan out to small companies.

I don't think that Senator Kerry's idea of starting a national infrastructure bank will get passed in the House now.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Americans need to move their money to local credit unions wherever possible.

After ignoring President Obama's order to dissolve Shittybank,
there is no "we" in Geithner's weakass subterfuge.

[Vidar]

15. You are the banks, Geithner!

[Enrique]

21. Fox: we will prevail over those who would prey on us hens n/t

[ProSense]

25. That

"Fox: we will prevail over those who would prey on us hens"

...doesn't make sense: 1) Geithner belongs to the administration that implemented the rules that the banks are trying to circumvent.

2) Are you implying that administration isn't serious about protecting and implementing Dodd-Frank?

[whatchamacallit]

23. Yay, blue-linked negationism!

:eyes:

[ProSense]

26. Why

"Yay, blue-linked negationism!"

...is it so hard to keep moronic comments to one's self?

[whatchamacallit]

31. Your continuous spamming of this forum

Would indicate yes.

[ProSense]

33. Um

"Your continuous spamming of this forum"

...don't use words that you don't understand, and why exactly are you mad because the OP article was posted?

[Wait Wut]

27. From the comments here it looks like I need this...

:tinfoilhat:

Must repeat...

<All good is bad. All bad is true. So sayeth teh Guy.>
<All good is bad. All bad is true. So sayeth teh Guy.>
<All good is bad. All bad is true. So sayeth teh Guy.>
<All good is bad. All bad is true. So sayeth teh Guy.>

[Cali_Democrat]

28. What's with this 'we' shit, Kemosabe?

[truebrit71]

34. Bullshit. You ARE the goddamned banks....

:grr:

[ProSense]

36. No

"Bullshit. You ARE the goddamned banks...."

...that would be nonsense. Regardless of your opinion of Geithner, he is speaking on behalf of the administration's Wall Street reform law against the banks.

[truebrit71]

39. Hahaha!!!!! You said "Wall street reforms".....

...You made a funny!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

40. That poster was trying to be serious although the post read like a bad joke

:)

[ProSense]

42. Thanks

"That poster was trying to be serious although the post read like a bad joke"

...for weighing in peanut gallery!

:)

[ProSense]

41. Well,

"Hahaha!!!!! You said 'Wall street reforms'....."

...haters gonna hate.

I wish you could see me laughing when people become outraged about reports that one of the rules might be weakened.

[PETRUS]

44. Oh, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy. WE will previal. OWS nt

[rug]

45. He's not capable of patricide.

[Cherchez la Femme]

46. He's a real comedian, isn't he?