Krauthammer: Geithner's 'Insulting' Deal (Video)

Charles Krauthammer gives his take on the "fiscal cliff" deal offered by Timothy Geithner yesterday.

Here's video:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not just a bad deal. This is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he had lost a civil war.

The Democrats have won by three percent of the vote and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House, so this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that's what the administration is asking of the Republicans.

This idea there not only are no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. I mean, what do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away.

The president is the president. He's the leader. They are demanding that Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make. We had that movie a year and a half ago where Paul Ryan presented a budget, a serious, real budget with real cuts.

Obama was supposed to give a speech in which he would respond with a counter offer. And what did he do? He gave a speech where he had Ryan sitting in the front row. He called the Ryan proposal un-American, insulted him, offered nothing, and ran on Medi-scare in the next 18 months. And they expect Republicans are going to do this again?

The Republicans are going to walk on this, and I think they have leverage. Yes, for Congressional Democrats, it will help them in the future if Republicans absorb the blame, because we're going to have a recession.

But Obama's not running again, unlike the Congressional Democrats. He's going to have a recession, 9 percent unemployment, 2 million more unemployed, and a second term that's going to be a ruin.

I do find Obama's cockiness and arrogance and flat-out incompetence to be stunning.

I can't help but think of what might have been.

Everything would be so different right now if Romney and Ryan had won.

Rick Santelli, the Tea Party, and S&P's Downgrade

On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli of CNBC ignited a revolution with a rant heard 'round the country.

The Tea Party movement was born.

Now, two and a half years later, as Leftists blame the Tea Party for the downgrade by Standard and Poor's, Santelli comes to its defense.

He also has some strong words for the treasury secretary, the president, and the 2004 Democrat presidential nominee.

Video.



Transcript, from NewsBusters:

JOE KERNEN, CNBC: Alright. You know, Santelli, I never know with you. So, I don't know how much of the debate you've been able to watch, but what do you make of what's happened since Friday?

RICK SANTELLI, CNBC: You guys ever play sports? You ever been on an organized team?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

SANTELLI: Okay. You know sometimes you get a couple of bad calls or the game didn't go your way but it should have? A good coach isn't going to come up to you and say, “Gee, you know, the other team really stinks. You know, I’m mad. We're going fight, we're going to appeal. We’re going to go to every league and every lawyer.”

No, you know what a good coach says? “It doesn't matter. Okay? We’re a better team than this. Just take this to motivate the team to move on to greater things.” You know, the treasury secretary, the eight percent excuses, you know, the blame Bush, blame the sun, blame this. You know what leadership means? It means that it doesn't really matter what S&P says. We all know deep inside that no country is the same as it was five years ago. And the market seems to be okay with it. And as for stocks going down we were already Ralph Cramden on thin ice. Now an infant jumped on our shoulders. It’s just even more weight.

In the end, in the end we need to address problems we know exist. A treasury secretary or a president should be out here not fighting S&P, not grabbing the other coach and slapping him around, taking the umpire behind the barn. He should be getting the team psyched to overcome.

See, I remember I had a professor in college. I wrote a great paper. Could never please this guy. But it made me better. Okay? We’re better than this. Don’t get caught up in the minutia. All this BS. We’re better than this. We need to prove it. We’re off the track. Whether we're better than some other country or not, the real issue is we're on the wrong path.

Blame the Tea Party? Geez, no wonder Kerry did so well in an election. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, they would have passed the debt ceiling thumbs up, we would have been rated BBB.

It is ridiculous for Leftists, including Obama, to try to pin the downgrade on the Tea Party. It's so lame. It makes no sense.

To the contrary, according to Santelli, Americans should be thanking the Tea Party.

Tim Geithner: No Risk of Losing AAA Rating

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is a disaster.

A few months ago, Geithner was certain there was no way the U.S. would lose its top credit rating.

From The Hill, April 19, 2011, via Mark Levin:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Tuesday there is "no risk" the U.S. will lose its top credit rating amid a new analysis that revised its outlook on American debt to "negative."

Geithner took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report Monday by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will reach an agreement to address long-term debt.

There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating, Geithner said, forcefully disputing the notion that S&P or other ratings services might downgrade U.S. bonds from their current AAA rating.

"No risk of that, no risk," Geithner said on the Fox Business Network.

"Washington is a hard place to read. And it's hard for people to look past the political rhetoric and try to understand whether the leadership of Washington is going to take the tough steps necessary to get ahead of this problem," the Treasury secretary explained. "I think the prospects for a bipartisan agreement are better than they've been in a long period of time. Of course, we have to turn that into action."

Clearly, investors shouldn't pay any attention to what Geithner says. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Video.



Why does this guy still have his job?

Timothy Geithner: No Recovery

On yesterday's Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Timothy Geithner warned that economic recovery won't feel like recovery for a long time.

Wonderful.

It's going to be unlike we've ever experienced in our lifetime.

Terrific!

Video.



Transcript

DAVID GREGORY: When do you think recovery is actually going to start feeling like recovery?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: Oh, I think it's going to take a long time still. This is a very tough economy. And I think for a lot of people...

GREGORY: Yeah.

GEITHNER: ...it's going to be--it's going to feel very hard, harder than anything they've experienced in their lifetime now, for some time to come. And that--but that is because that is the tragic effects of a crisis this deep and this bad caused by a long period of lost opportunities to do things to make the country stronger.

Geithner didn't say it, but he was blaming President Bush.

What a load!

He completely dismissed all the talk about last summer being the "summer of recovery." Now, there's no recovery in sight.

The fact is this is Obama's economy. Period.

One thing sure to make the country stronger, economically and otherwise: Do NOT reelect Obama.

Geithner - Kidney Stone

JIMMY FALLON: Timothy Geithner, treasury secretary - he had to go to the hospital today because of a kidney stone. On the bright side, the stone was the first thing in months passed by a member of the Obama administration.

Geithner and Obama Tax Hikes

Tax cheat Timothy Geithner is tight-lipped when it comes to addressing Obama's massive tax hikes.

Video.


Awkward.

Joe Biden, UWM: 'Collecting the Women'

Joe Biden is in Milwaukee at UWM right now.

He's making a speech about Wall Street reform.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee business students that financial regulation legislation now before Congress must be passed in order to protect the financial security of all Americans.

"This is an important and just cause," Geithner said in remarks prepared for delivery. "It requires reform. Not small changes at the margin, but comprehensive change, clear rules with teeth, enforced by people who care."

Geithner, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, was in Milwaukee for a "Middle Class Task Force," designed to lobby in favor of the financial regulation bill.

Geithner said the debate over the bill should not be left "to the banks and their protectors. This is about the business of America. And here at a university that has sent so many Americans out into the world to build great companies, you know how important credit and capital is to the entrepreneur and the innovator. We need a financial system that can finance future investment in real businesses that will make us stronger as a nation."

Geithner told the hand-picked audience, consisting of UWM business students and area politicians, that the economy was beginning to improve, but said there is still the long way to go.

...Following Geithner was Biden, who echoed similar themes in support of the legislation. "This is a big deal moment," Biden told the students. "It matters."

New opportunities for Americans, he said, help build the middle class.

Talking about the middle class, Biden said it was important for citizens to be able to live in a decent home, on a quiet street, send your kids to college and be able to retire with a decent standard of living.

"They measure their success based on whether or not their children have an equal or better chance than they had," he said.

Biden called Wall Street "private casinos" in which banks and investors lost a bet that Americans now have to pay for.

Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Whatever.

You know that Biden can't speak at any length without adding something to his blooper highlight reel.

Here's the latest addition:

While dissing greedy Wall Street fat cats, he chastised them for "collecting the women."

He quickly corrected himself and said, "collecting the winnings."

Freudian slip, Joe? "Collecting the women"?

I didn't catch all of Biden's remarks. Did he make any anti-Semitic jokes, like National Security Adviser James Jones?

Did Biden drop the F-bomb?

It would be so disappointing if Joe "Champ" Biden didn't. It's his signature line. According to the Journal Sentinel, he did say "This is a big deal moment." A big f---ing deal? Maybe it's not that big.

Still, "collecting the women" is a pretty good Biden blunder.

God love ya, Champ.

Joe Biden: UWM on Tuesday

UPDATE, April 27, 2010: Joe Biden: "Collecting the Women"
________________

Joe Biden is going to be speaking at UWM on Tuesday.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Hitting the road to promote reforms of Wall Street regulation, Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will travel to Milwaukee on Tuesday to discuss how the measures affect the middle class, the White House announced late Friday.

"The vice president and Secretary Geithner will discuss the need for Wall Street reform and the importance of reform for America's middle class families," the White House said.

The meeting at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Student Union, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd., is not open to the general public, said a UWM spokesman.

The event, hosted by the Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, will run from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The White House preselected and invited the attendants. Also in attendance will be UWM business school students.

Too bad the event is NOT open to the general public.

"The White House preselected and invited the attendants."

Why waste the jet fuel to come to Milwaukee? This White House choreography is a joke. Big f---ing deal.

SNL: Obama Nobel Prize Skit (Video)

For the second week in a row, Saturday Night Live began with Obama in its opening skit.

This one didn't really mock Obama. I suppose after last week's uproar over the opening skit, when SNL dared to lampoon Obama, they wanted to go the safe route. Another week of CNN and the AP factchecking probably would have been too much of a headache, so SNL wimped out.

No surprise there.

Transcript

DON PARDO (Announcer): The following is an address by the president of the United States.

OBAMA (Fred Armisen): Thank you. Good evening my fellow Americans. As most of you are probably aware, yesterday the news came that I had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

This came without warning. I didn't even get a call as due to the time difference in Norway, the Nobel people didn't want to wake me up. I wish they had. Like I said to Hillary Clinton, 'Hey, remember that 3:00 AM call you were so worried about? It happened. Nobel Peace Prize.'

Now, this prize bestowed by the Nobel Committee in Norway is given annually to individuals who have made significant contributions to world peace.

Jimmy Carter won it for decades of trying to find solutions for international conflicts.

Al Gore won it for his years of educating the U.S. about climate change.

And us, well, I won it for not being George Bush.

To be perfectly honest, this award was a complete surprise as I have only not been George W. Bush for nine months. But I am deeply honored nonetheless. And that's not all that I have to be grateful for.

Just moments ago, I was informed, and I almost hesitate to say this, that I won the $70 million jackpot in the Powerball lottery. I know, it's crazy.

The funny thing is it's the first Powerball ticket I have ever bought. It's true. I was driving Sasha and Malia home from school and we stopped at a 7-11 for sodas. We all chose two numbers and there you have it -- $70 million.

Alice, can we bring in that check?

(Alice, played by Kristen Wiig, brings in an over-sized check.)

Look at that. Alice here plays the Powerball every week so I thought she'd like to hold the check.



Of course, I won't be keeping the money. As with my Nobel Prize money, I will be donating it to charity. But first, I have an important decision to make: Do I take the money as a one-time lump sum payout, or as an annuity over the next thirty years?

It's a tough decision so I intend to do what I always do, and meet with my financial team -- Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers. Then whatever they advise, I'll do, because those guys do not make mistakes. And I'm sure Michelle will have some ideas, too.

Thank you very much, and Live from New York, it's Saturday Night.

______________

Later, during "Weekend Update," there was some joking about Obama's Nobel Prize that was at his expense.

SETH MEYERS: In a surprise decision, President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Friday.

In other premature awards this week--

High school football player Billy Reynolds has been named this year's Heisman Trophy winner.



Fifth grader Amber Collins has been named Miss America.



And nine-year-old Dylan Holt has been named People's "Sexiest Man Alive."

Another joke:

SETH MEYERS: President Obama reacted to his Nobel Peace Prize saying, 'I accept this award as a call to action.'

That's great, but just as a reminder, that's what the election was, too.

______________

Video.

David Sirota: Van Jones and Glenn Beck - Racism, Political Terrorism

On CNN's American Morning, David Sirota and David Frum debated controversial Van Jones' resignation as an Obama adviser.

Sirota claims that Jones was the victim of a smear campaign and he was targeted because he's black.

Repeatedly in the segment, moderated by John Roberts, Sirota called Glenn Beck and others like him "political terrorists" and engaging in "political terrorism."

Video, from Breitbart:

DAVID SIROTA: Well, look, Van Jones is a national hero for his work on green jobs. He's known as an expert on energy policy, on economic policy. He's somebody who made a mistake, who acknowledged that he made a mistake a long time ago, and he was tossed out by this White House. And I think what we can learn from what happened is what this White House values and what this White House doesn't value.

The White House stuck by Tim Geithner as Tim Geithner was involved, the treasury secretary, in a tax scandal. He's accepted gifts from the banking industry. The White House stood by him. The White House has stood by other people, like Ben Bernanke who's had a, who's really been at the heart of our economic problems. And they're putting, basically putting Van Jones out to pasture because of something that Van Jones said was a mistake.

And what I think is going on here is that the White House is listening to the Right-wing's political terrorists, people like Glenn Beck, people like conservative activists, who have targeted Van Jones because Van Jones was an African-American, is an African-American, with progressive movement background working on behalf of social justice. That's something unfortunately that is apparently, according to the Right-wing, not allowed in this country.

What a load!

It's truly despicable that Leftists like Sirota keep whipping out the race card. Calling Beck and conservative bloggers like Gateway Pundit "political terrorists" for exposing the truth about Jones is equally offensive.

Actually, Sirota is charging the Obama White House with racism.

Enough with all the racism charges!

The Jones controversy has absolutely nothing to do with race.

This notion that Jones made a mistake and that he didn't understand the 9/11 truther petition is a joke.

Speaking the truth, exposing Jones' own words and actions, is not terrorism of any sort.

SIROTA: I think what the White House has done is said to a Right-wing lynch mob that they will accept their demands, their politically, their political terrorism. And what you're going to see is this White House... you cannot appease political terrorists. You cannot appease a Right-wing lynch mob. And so the next time, the next target of this lynch mob, I think, you know, you're not going to be able to appease them. I think the White House is on the retreat, and it's really been a political mistake as much as anything.

It's nauseating to listen to a Leftist complain about APPEASING terrorists, absolutely nauseating.

Geithner on 'Face the Nation'

It was scary listening to treasury secretary Tim Geithner on Face the Nation yesterday.

He was doing a lot of dodging and weaving, avoiding giving direct answers to Bob Schieffer's questions, not wanting to come out and clearly say that he's prepared to literally seize our financial institutions, take control, oust CEOs, and basically do whatever he sees fit.



If financial institutions accepted government assistance, then they should be prepared for the government to make operating decisions.

In other words, there most definitely were strings attached, and it's too late to do anything about it now.

Transcript

BOB SCHIEFFER: Some people continue to say that you're going easier on our financial institutions than you are on the auto industry. And this morning, in the New York Post, the chairman of a congressional watchdog panel that's been appointed to watch over these TARP funds says that, frankly, that unless -- there's no way out of this situation that we're in unless you the people that are running these big banks and these financial institutions.

What's your response to that?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: Bob, this is a very important issue. Let me just start by saying that, you know, we're five quarters into this recession. And if you look back to the beginning of this process, look at the financials that existed before the recession started, we've already seen a substantial number of the largest banks in our country fail or be absorbed by other institutions, no longer existing at independent institutions.

And where the government has acted, like in Fannie and Freddie or like in AIG, where we've had to do exceptional things to stabilize them, we have replaced the management and the board.

And we've done that because we want to make sure that taxpayers' assistance is going to make these companies stronger, make sure there's accountability, make sure it comes with strong conditions. And we'll do that in the future if that is necessary.

It's a single standard, a single principle. And our obligation to the American people is to do what's necessary to try to bring recovery back on track as quickly as possible.

Just one last thing: You know, economies depend on financial systems. They provide the credit that's the oxygen for economies. And recovery requires -- and recovery in the automobile industry requires that we have a financial system that is doing a better job of making credit available on reasonable terms for business and families. And that basic objective has to guide everything we do.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me take, for example, two of the people your hear a lot about, and one is Citibank and the other is -- is Bank of America.

Should the CEOs of those institutions be worried that they may face the same fate as Rick Wagoner did if their performance does not improve?

GEITHNER: Bob, what I'll say is this. When, in the future -- or I'll just say, if, in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we'll make sure that assistance comes with conditions, not just to protect the tax payer but to make sure this is the kind of restructuring necessary for them to emerge stronger.

And where that requires a change of management of the board, we'll do that.

SCHIEFFER: You will do that?

GEITHNER: Where that's necessary; where it meets the test; where it's necessary to do what we, here, exist to do, which is to make sure that this financial system supports recovery and the banks emerge stronger.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about this plan you have put together to create these public-private partnerships to buy these toxic assets that these banks owned to get them off these bank books so they -- the idea is that, if they can do that, then they can start lending again.

But last week the government did change the accounting rules. So the banks can, in essence, put a different value on those assets. Some people are now saying that, with this in place, the banks may no longer want to sell those toxic assets.

So I guess the question is, can you get the banks to participate in this program?

And do you feel you have the power to force them to sell those toxic assets?

GEITHNER: Bob, banks have a large incentive, now, to clean up their balance sheets, to make it easier for them to go raise equity from the markets, from private investors. So they're going to have significant incentives to clean up their balance sheets. This gives them a way to do that that did not exist before that.

Just as an example, you know, if you had to sell your home tomorrow, in a world where nobody could get a mortgage to buy your home, you'd have to sell at an enormously low price.

You'd reluctant to sell. You might end up keeping your home longer than you want, not moving to some -- to take a new job, where you can earn more money, going forward.

That's part of what's happening to our financial system today.

GEITHNER: So what we try to do is lay out a proposal for how to create a market for these loans, bring in private investors to help protect the government from not overpaying for these assets.

This is just part, though, of a broad set of programs to help address the housing crisis, make sure banks have enough capital to lend even in a deeper recession, make sure we're providing direct lending to help get small business lending going again. It's an important part of this -- part of this (inaudible) program.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this. Do you think you have the power to force them to sell those assets? Or would you? If you thought that was necessary.

GEITHNER: What we need to do is to make sure they're emerging stronger, have the capital they need to get through a deeper recession if that's what we face, that they can lend going forward, that they clean up their balance sheets. And we'll make sure that we encourage that kind of action, that kind of behavior.

SCHIEFFER: But could you force it? I mean, would that be something in the government's power, to force them to sell these assets?

GEITHNER: Maybe I should say this, Bob. We'll do what is necessary to make sure that our banking system emerges out of this stronger. Because, again, you know, economies depend on credit to recover.

We want to make sure that they're strong enough that they can lend even if the economy -- even if we go through a longer downturn.

Schieffer keeps asking Geithner questions like, "Can you do that?" and "Can you force it?"

And Geithner, slurring his words together, just keeps saying that he'll restructure and do what's necessary to make the system emerge stronger.

That's rather arbitrary. What are the standards?

Whose vision is this anyway? Why should we allow Geithner to employ this kind of authority?

Who made Geithner king?

Why should we trust him when he can't be trusted to pay his taxes?

Chavez: "Capitalism Needs to Go Down"

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday ridiculed the G-20 summit's attempts to deal with the global financial meltdown, saying that capitalism is in crisis and must end.

..."It's impossible that capitalism can regulate the monster that is the world financial system, it's impossible," Chavez told Venezuela's state TV late Thursday. "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."

Clearly, Chavez is mocking the U.S.

But in many ways, he seems to be on the same page as Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner.

We must change. We must make new rules. We must seize private businesses. We need a new model.

Obama and Geithner differ from Chavez in that they don't want to call it socialism.

Simply calling it "change" makes it so much more palatable to the masses.

We're "the masses."

Get used to it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Will capitalism be different?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: I think capitalism will be different, and the financial system will be dramatically different.

Xytex: Sperm Bank's Stimulus Deal

The banking crisis has touched us all in one way or another. It's aroused outrage in some and fear in others.

One bank is trying to help people through these tough times by offering a stimulus deal.

From AFP:

One of the oldest banks of its kind in the United States, Xytex International, on Tuesday rolled out a stimulus package for customers who are hurting in these tough economic times.

Xytex is a sperm bank, and it's offering up to 200 dollars off a vial of sperm to clients wishing to start or add to their family, but need a little help.

"We're all feeling the effects of the economy and, especially for families seeking reproductive options, every dollar counts," Xytex spokeswoman Danielle Moores told AFP.

So, Xytex is offering deals on vials from "select" donors, who come a bit cheaper than the usual "standard" donor.

"Select donors are a new level of donor which we introduced to try to help our clients who are interested in third-party reproduction but, with the tough economy, are having a little bit of trouble purchasing a regular donor," Moores told AFP.

Select donors, explained Moores, are men from whom Xytex has "many, many vials because they're very successful donors or able to stop in several times a week or -- for whatever reason, we have a huge inventory," and it is being made available in a sort of clearance sale.

If you were looking for a sperm donor, would you want a deposit from a "select" donor?

Who are the "select"? They're either "very successful donors" or they're "able to stop in several times a week," providing a "huge inventory." Well, I guess some people do have a lot of time on their hands.

I suppose some clearance deals are in order.

Assuming you're in the market for the stuff, is sperm really something that you want to buy on sale?

Xytex prefers to call it the balancing effect of supply and demand.

"Select donors haven't reached the end of their shelf-life, they're just over-produced," Moores said.

Select donor units run between 250 and 350 dollars, representing a savings of between 135 and 235 dollars on comparable vials from a standard Xytex donor, which start at 385 dollars and go up to 585 dollars.

When you've "overproduced," what can you do?

I hope the clearance sale is successful. I don't want Xytex looking for a government bailout. Xytex, like any business in the private sector, would be wise not to accept money from the government. It gets too messy when the government gets involved, as we've seen with AIG.

If Xytex pays out bonuses, Barney Frank might demand names of the recipients.

I hope someone is watching the back of Xytex. Tim Geithner might want to seize the operation and then unwind what doesn't work.

I picture Geithner saying in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee: " . . . We must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of Xytex."

Government should stay out of the sperm bank business, in my opinion.

Obama: Tyrant-in-Chief "Unwinds"

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

--Howard Beale

I'm with Howard Beale.

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

WHAT THE HELL?

This is America.

NO, NO, NO.

This is insane. I can't believe it.

And this, also from the Washington Post:

"Our system permitted a scale of risk taking that has caused grave damage to the fortunes of all Americans," Geithner said in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. " . . . We must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of AIG."

"UNWIND."

That's the term for the government seizing control of a firm.

...Appearing on television news shows this morning, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House wants "resolution authority to go in and be able to change contracts, be able to change the business model, unwind what doesn't work."

I keep thinking of all the Dems and fringe Left nutjobs and other kooks who railed against the Bush administration for its alleged power grab, yet this "unwinding" and "seizing" crap is no big deal.

The Obama administration is tyrannical.

It's a power grab like we've never seen.

Let me be clear: I HOPE OBAMA FAILS. I AM MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

Geithner and the Public-Private Investment Program

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has a plan, the Public-Private Investment Program.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Geithner's three-pronged program, which will be unveiled Monday, envisions the creation of a series of public-private investments to soak up $500 billion, and maybe as much as $1 trillion, in troubled loans and securities at the heart of the financial crisis. To encourage investors to buy those assets, the U.S. government will offer lucrative subsidies and shoulder much of the risk. Stocks rallied 2% in Tokyo in early trading Monday, on expectations of the Geithner bank plan's announcement.

Taxpayers will stand to reap gains -- alongside investors such as hedge funds and private-equity firms -- if the investments ultimately prove profitable.

The effort is part of Mr. Geithner's broader plan to stabilize the financial system and builds on earlier programs to pump capital into banks, restart consumer and small-business lending, and help some homeowners pay their mortgages. Many economists argue that financial firms need to purge troubled loans and securities clogging their balance sheets if they are to regain the confidence to resume lending.

Mr. Geithner outlined the latest effort in general terms last month, and Wall Street has been eagerly awaiting details. But the rollout comes at an inopportune time, with bailout fatigue turning to rage amid a furor over bonus payments to employees of American International Group Inc.

As a result, whether or not the prescription is correct to fix what ails the financial sector, there is likely to be concern about an effort that appears to reward Wall Street. Some investors have already said they're leery of working with the government for fear the rules will change midstream, as is happening with Congress's moves to cap Wall Street bonuses for firms receiving financial aid.

Of course, there's likely to be concern about any program that seems to reward Wall Street.

Thanks to Obama and the Dems, Wall Street has been vilified.

How many times have you heard Obama yap about greed and Wall Street?

He incited anger and intentionally whipped people into a frenzy of outrage over .1% of the bailout money AIG received. I don't get why people are so freaked out over that. What about the other 99.9% of the money?

Obama and his hacks have encouraged implementing means to squash the private sector. Capitalism is the enemy in the Obama new order.

This article in the New York Times, "Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay," details an aspect of the assault.

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

...Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system

...The administration has been considering increased oversight of executive pay for some time, but the issue was heightened in recent days as public fury over bonuses spilled into the regulatory effort.

This "public fury" stuff is a problem. Public fury fuels politics, but running a business is different. Decisions are made to pursue success for the business, profit, not to appease an angry mob.

Here's a very disturbing aspect of the administration's plan:

Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

By handing down orders rather than passing legislation, it circumvents the system. There's no debate, no representation. The changes are just being thrust on the people.

The Obama administration really is putting out mixed messages. One day, there's talk of intervening in the private sector and placing caps on executive pay, a massive power grab.

The next day, Geithner is pushing his plan for public-private cooperation.

The administration wages war on private business at the same time it seeks to enlist it to help solve the economic problems.

Rules are changed on a whim.

No wonder there's such wariness.

Obama has been in office just two months and he's given the American people so many reasons not to trust him.

MSNBC Hypocrisy Watch and Obama

This could be trouble.

David Shuster, Obama hack, questions the timing of the Obama administration's outrage.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Shuster isn't slamming Obama, but he is roughing up members of the White House economic team.

Baby steps....

Obama Stands by Geithner

As his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner comes under fire that's growing increasingly intense, Barack Obama is standing by his man.

From AP:

Standing on the White House lawn as he prepared to go to California, Obama again called AIG's executive bonuses "outrageous." But he said the problem goes deeper than that.

He's leaving Washington during this crisis?

He's going to California to appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Should he be doing that during an emergency? Should he be doing it at all?

"Just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that has existed for far too long: excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking," he said.

"As we work toward getting outselves out of the recession, I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace doesn't think that we can return to business as usual," he said.

Code for socialism.

"The buck stops with me," Obama told reporters.

HAHAHA! Is Obama trying out material for his TV spot with Leno? That one's good. He should that for a laugh.

Obama also said he has "complete confidence" in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose handling of the situation with AIG has come under harsh criticism in Congress.

Obama said that Geithner has been "making all the right moves in playing a bad hand."

GEITHNER WASN'T DEALT A "BAD HAND."

He chose it.

Give me a break. Geithner crafted the bailout.

Now, Obama himself has used the words "complete confidence" when referring to Geithner.

Yesterday, Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs both said "complete confidence."

Of course, Obama has stood by his man before and then has done an about-face.

Jeremiah Wright comes to mind.

Tom Daschle is another.

If I were Geithner, I wouldn't feel too confident about Obama's confidence.

Obama, Geithner, and "Complete Confidence"

UPDATE: Geithner Caves on AIG Bonuses, Defends Liddy
_______________

This AIG thing is really turning into a mess for the Democrats.

Questions about Barack Obama's confidence in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are swirling.

From the New York Times:

The White House and Treasury have been besieged by questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the bonus payments due this month, and whether he could have done more to stop them, prompting White House officials to assert President Obama’s continued confidence in Mr. Geithner.

“He more than has the president’s complete confidence,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. As angry as the president is at the news about A.I.G., which he learned Thursday, Mr. Emanuel said, “his main priority is getting the financial system stabilized, and he believes this is a big distraction in that effort.”

Yeah. Incompetence often is a big distraction, Rahm.

From an AP analysis, written by Laurie Kellman:

"The president has complete confidence" in Geithner, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs said.

Both Emanuel and Gibbs used "complete confidence." What a coincidence!

Is Obama satisfied that Geithner informed him of the impending bonus payments in a timely fashion?

"Yes, the president is satisfied," Gibbs replied.

Those, of course, are statements that wouldn't need to be made if Geithner's status were clear. Not just a president's confidence, but his "complete confidence" can be a well-worn political signal that the subject should start circulating a resume.

AIG is the demonized insurance giant now 80 percent owned by the government after getting $170 billion in federal bailout funds to pay money it owed to U.S. and foreign banks. Geithner told senior White House officials about the bonuses last Thursday and they in turn told Obama the same day, according to a timetable provided by the White House.

Geithner sent a flurry of letters to lawmakers Tuesday night on measures he's taking—including bringing in Attorney General Eric Holder—to try to recover as much of the bonuses as possible.

For the time being, Geithner, formerly president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, remains a key player in the gargantuan task of slowing the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

But his future could soon be as murky as the economy's. His short tenure has been shaky at a time when the new president and the Democratic-led Congress are trying to project confidence to the markets and the nation.

When asked, Democrats issued statements of support for Geithner that ranged from concise to vague, but none called for his resignation.

Resignation?

It seems the lib media are frustrated with Geithner. First, they had to excuse his tax evasion. But they were sold on his brilliance and they wanted to give Obama anyone he wanted. Now, Geithner is revealed to be clueless and sloppy and not at all the man they made him out to be.

Regarding this AIG mess, Mark Levin made an interesting point on his radio show Tuesday. He said that this is a Democrat scandal.

After playing clips of Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Barney Frank criticizing AIG and calling for the return of the bonuses, Levin noted that they all supported and voted for the stimulus bill that includes Chris Dodd's amendment assuring the bonuses would be paid.

The lib media are missing in action. They have failed to blame Dodd for sticking this amendment in the stimulus bill. The lib media aren't noting the utter hypocrisy of Dodd and other Dems now running around threatening to enact a law to tax the bonuses in order to regain the money if it's not returned to the government voluntarily.

The bonuses were paid because they were protected under the stimulus bill.

Levin points out that not a single Republican House member voted for the bill. Nearly all Dem House members voted for it. Every Senate single Dem voted for it and three Republicans -- Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. It was overwhelmingly a Dem creation.

The Dems voted to award the AIG bonuses.

Most importantly, Barack Obama signed the bill. HE SIGNED IT. He signed it with great fanfare in Denver.

Weird that Obama's outraged over the bill that he insisted had to be passed so quickly.

He should be held accountable for failing to veto it. It's that simple.

The bonuses account for just 1/1000 of the bailout, yet they are the lightning rod du jour. Naturally, the Democrats are exploiting that, waging class warfare, and feigning outrage because they see it as a politically smart move.

But the fact is this AIG bonus thing is their baby.

In terms of accountability, remember that Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold both voted for the stimulus bill. They voted FOR the AIG bonuses.

The Dems have been in power for just two months and look how royally they've managed to screw up already.

Quite an accomplishment.
______________

Read Lawrence Kudlow: The AIG Outrage

[A]s for the $165 million or so in AIG bonus payments, the Obama administration -- including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and economic adviser Larry Summers -- knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition.

So there’s no big surprise. Nobody should be shocked. But President Obama is doing his best play-acting ever. He knows full well that the nationwide outcry against federal bailouts and takeovers is only going to get worse on his watch. His poll numbers are already falling, and this AIG episode is going to pull them down more.

...And what is Treasury man Geithner’s role in all this? He appears to be the biggest bungler in what has become a massive bungling. My CNBC friend and colleague Charlie Gasparino thinks Geithner can’t survive this. I am inclined to agree.

Geithner: AIG Bailout and Bonuses

UPDATE, March 18, 2009: Geithner Caves on AIG Bonuses, Defends Liddy
________________

UPDATE: Obama: AIG can't justify 'outrage' of exec bonuses

President Barack Obama declared Monday that insurance giant American International Group is in financial straits because of "recklessness and greed" and said he intends to stop it from paying out millions in executive bonuses.

"It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce help for small businesses hurt by the deep recession.

..."How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat," the president said.

...Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

Obama, Geithner, Barney Frank, and others are yapping about the outrage of the bonuses.

Obama doesn't slam Geithner for his role in structuring the AIG bailout. Not one word.

Last fall, Geithner wasn't concerned about bailout money being used for bonuses. He didn't attach strings, like no bonuses, when he put together the bailout.
________________

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is a train wreck.

This supposedly brilliant man, so brilliant and so critical to solving the economic crisis that his tax cheating ways were excused, is a screw-up. He's a bungler. He's in way over his head.

Example: The $165 million in bonuses that AIG plans to pay out after it received the $170 billion taxpayer bailout.

From the New York Times:

Obama administration officials and Republicans alike were nearly universal in condemning the $165 million in bonuses that the American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, is to pay executives in the business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

“There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. is the most outrageous,” said Lawrence H. Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, during an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “What that company did, the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching, what’s proved necessary — is outrageous.”

The bonus plan established for the financial products unit before the federal government stepped in called for $220 million in retention pay for 400 employees for 2008. About $55 million of that was paid in December and the remaining $165 million was paid on Friday.

The retention plan also calls for another $230 million in bonuses for 2009 that are due to be paid by March 2010. Combined with the 2008 bonuses, that would bring the total retention pay for financial products executives to $450 million. But in response to pressure from Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, A.I.G. agreed to reduce its 2009 bonuses for the financial products unit by 30 percent.

The payments to executives in that unit are in addition to $121 million in previously scheduled bonuses for the company’s senior executives and 6,400 employees across the sprawling corporation. Last week, Mr. Geithner pressured A.I.G. to cut the $9.6 million going to the top 50 executives in half and tie the rest to performance.

The payment of so much money at a company at the heart of the financial collapse that sent the broader economy into a tailspin will almost certainly fuel a popular backlash against the government’s efforts to prop up Wall Street.

Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Mr. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.

Austan Goolsbee, staff director of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, on Sunday detailed Mr. Geithner’s reaction.

“He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this,” Mr. Goolsbee said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t know why they would follow a policy that’s really not sensible, is obviously going to ignite the ire of millions of people, and we’ve done exactly what we can do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

Mr. Summers suggested that the government’s ability to require the bonuses be scaled back was restricted by preexisting contracts, even though he did not specify what those restrictions may be.

“We are a country of law,” said Mr. Summers, one of several economic officials to hit the Sunday-morning talk show circuit. “There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system.”

People seem to be forgetting Geithner's role in bailing out AIG

From The American Spectator, November 24, 2008:

Geithner became the go-to guy for failing financial firms, and was at the "center of action" for the AIG bailout, according to the New York Post. He "quarterbacked and advised" the government's "taking control of tottering insurance giant AIG for a bailout deal," the Post wrote. But more and more, it looks like [Henry] Paulson and Geithner "quarterbacked" with a flawed playbook with AIG that moved the meltdown much further down the goal line.

Geithner was the architect of the AIG bailout.

He hammered out the deal. He was at the "center of the action."

Complaints about contractual obligations for millions in bonuses to be dispensed after AIG was saved thanks to the $170 billion taxpayer bailout should be submitted to Geithner.

His fingerprints are all over the AIG bailout.

From the Los Angeles Times:

[Lawrence] Summers said Geithner used all his power, "both legal and moral, to reduce the level of these bonus payments."

But one leading academic in the national policy debates said Geithner should have reined in AIG compensation when, in his former role as the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he was working with Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson to negotiate the first round of bailouts.

Geithner "should be embarrassed," said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business professor and former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission.

"When the Bush White House agreed to bail out General Motors and Chrysler, it required those companies to renegotiate their labor contracts," Morici said.

"Why did Secretaries Paulson and Geithner not require the same at AIG? The threat was the same with AIG and GM. If either shut down, the economy would plummet into chaos and depression, we were told," Morici said.

Robert Gorges, a retired Ralphs grocery worker from Highland, near San Bernardino, agreed.

Auto workers, he said, "had a contract but they did the right thing, knowing their company was in bad financial trouble. They changed their contract," he said. "Not the same can be said about AIG," Gorges said in his e-mail to The Times. "Something is wrong here."

Yes, something is wrong here.

Geithner is part of the problem. He bears responsibility for this mess. He "should have reined in AIG compensation when, in his former role as the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he was working with Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson to negotiate the first round of bailouts."

He should have reined in compensation as part of the deal, but the genius Geithner failed to do so.

I agree with Morici. Geithner "should be embarrassed."

If Geithner believes that the government should determine how bailout money is used once it's transferred to the private sector, then he should have taken measures to do so with the AIG bailout.

Geithner complaining about the bonuses now makes him look like a fool.

I think Barack Obama should be embarrassed as well, for assembling a team of incompetents.

Obama, the Chinese, and Investments

Barack Obama is being the cheerleader in chief again today.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said Saturday that investors around the world, including the Chinese, should have "absolute confidence" in the soundness of their investments in the United States.

..."I think that not just the Chinese government but every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States, and that is not just in U.S. issues, Treasury notes, but also in the private sector and the commerce and the industry that has made us the most dynamic economy in the world," Obama said after meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

I think the Chinese aren't really worried about their investments in the U.S. as much as they are enjoying taking swipes at our economic crisis.

In terms of my own investments, I HAD "absolute confidence" in our system and the private sector.

Of course, there are abusers of the system, but they are the exception.

As an investor, I lack confidence in Obama and what he plans to do to our system.

Geithner has asserted, "I think capitalism will be different."

That's the stuff that makes me wary.

Why invest in a socialist system? I don't want to buy a sinking ship.