Question: Why is Geithner still Sec of Treasury?

Why? Why? Please do your best to defend the fact that this Wall St. shitstain is still whispering in the ear of Obama like Wormtongue? :wtf:

:kick:

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

since I can't imagine what he has done to keep his job. What a catastrophe.

John P. Marquand (1893) second wife was Adelaide Ferry Hooker, whom he met while touring China in 1934-35. His bride-to-be was also touring China, with the "Garden Clubs of America".

On her mother's side she was Ferry-Morse seed; on her father's side she was Hooker Electro-Chemical. IOW, great wealth on both sides.


Adelaide Hooker's sister was Blanchette (1909).

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


Blanchette was the wife of JD Rockefeller III, brother of David (1915), now the only living grandchild of JD I.



JD III founded the Asia Society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rocke...



Peter F Geithner, Tim's father, is an advisor to the Asia Society, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation & the China Medical Board, all Rockefeller creations.

http://www.chinamedicalboard.org/people.ad...


John P. Marquand (1893) was a first cousin to Tim Geithner's grandmother Adeline Nichols (1905):


Richard F. Fuller (1824)
\........................\
Margaret (1867)....Gertrude (1869)
+ Marquand.........+ Nichols
\.........................\
JP Marquand (1893)...Adeline (1905)
+ Hooker..............+ Moore
............................\
.......................Deborah Moore
...................+ Peter F Geithner (1932)
...........................\
.....................Tim Geithner (1956)


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell

Damn! Thanks for the info, Hannah. Much respect.

Fool me ...

... can't get fooled again?

considering the guy that kept him there. I feared the future pretty much as soon as he picked his cabinet and such wherein there seemed to be no change at all.

His only time in the private sector was a fellowship with the CFR; the rest of his career has been in public service. I'm really tired of this lie.

The lack of a comment number here disturbs me

... and has passed up many opportunities to work on Wall Street, and despite that, is still lied about and labeled as a Wall Street person.

Does a Single Independent Economist Buy the Geithner-Summers-Bernanke Approach?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/03/does-single-independent-economist-buy.html

On the left, you have:

* Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz saying that they have failed to address the structural and regulatory flaws at the heart of the financial crisis that stand in the way of economic recovery, and that they have confused saving the banks with saving the bankers

* Nobel economist Paul Krugman saying their plan to prop up asset prices "isn't going to fly". He also said:

At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached. This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers.

* Prominent economists like Nouriel Roubini, James Galbraith, Robert Kuttner, Dean Baker, Michael Hudson and many others slamming their approach (and Paulson's as well)

On the right, you have:

* Leading monetary economist Anna Schwartz saying that they are fighting the last war and doing it all wrong

* Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and former editor of the Wall Street Journal Paul Craig Roberts lambasting their approach

* Economist John Williams saying "the federal government is bankrupt ... If the federal government were a corporation … the president and senior treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."

* Prominent economist Marc Faber and many others tearing their approach to shreds.

Of course, other Nobel economists, high-level fed officials, former White House economist, and numerous others have slammed their approach as well.

The only explanation for THAT is: He's not on our side.

I'm curious

Because I'm not the least bit interested in his resume.

If you think he's not acting in Wall Street's interest v. ours, say why.

I'm curious about what his career before being Secretary of the Treasury would have made you think he was a bad choice.

It's his present-day loyalties that worry me.

The cover-ups and lies? Failing to regulate in the midst of the most extreme examples of financial fraud in history when it was his express duty to regulate?

Ever.

Not once.

He has spent precisely 0 days on Wall Street. Except for a fellowship at the CFR he has spent his entire career in public service. I don't agree with many of his decisions but I am absolutely sick of seeing him tarred as some Wall Street profiteer.

Gets lonely up there for a third way Dem.

Ah...who am I kidding. It's not lonely at all.

eom