Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Has Got to Go

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Has Got to Go

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s got to go, and he's got to go quickly.

The president can't stick with him, it's an absurd mistake, he needs a change in direction for his economic policy. It is the only way the United States can get moving again. The president needs to recognize that success is success and failure is failure, and under Geithner's watch we have been downgraded, we haven't been able to resolve our ongoing economic problems, and his credibility in Washington is close to zero.

That being said, there is a clear move President Obama can and should make immediately to begin to resolve his political and financial problems.

There is only one man in America who has the ability to get the Republicans in the room to bargain with them and bargain successfully. That man is Erskine Bowles who was President Clinton's Chief of Staff. Bowles successfully negotiated a balanced budget agreement with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in 1996 and was the co-chairman, with former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson of the Bowles-Simpson commission.

That commission produced over $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, won support across the board from 11 of the 18 members and called for making nothing sacrosanct in the budget. Discretionary expenditures, non-discretionary expenditures, entitlements were all on the table. The commission sought to lower rates through tax reform and removed loopholes as a means of raising revenue.
What Obama needs to do is to fire Geithner immediately, make Bowles a sort of “super secretary” of the treasury, and outsource economic policy too.

Bowles can then go to the Super Committee of Congress that was created as a result of the debt extension deal and can then begin a process both with the super committee and outside of the committee to recreate and recast the Bowles-Simpson commission on a ad-hoc basis using former commission members of the Gang of 6 and the Senate who worked so valiantly to take their version of Bowles-Simpson and put it into policy form.

It is only by doing this that President Obama has any chance of getting economic policy back on target.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...timothy-geithner-has-got-to-go/#ixzz1UZFzJmYK

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

that watermark groaned this must mean it is right on

 

[Bonestorm]

There are so many levels on which the above is hilarious.

First, the idea that the guy that presided over the last failed commission is the guy that can lead the next commission to magically agree to stuff the last commission didn't agree to is hilarious.

Second, the "grand bargain" proposal that Obama made and the House Republicans rejected was more favorable to the Republican position than the recommendations of the Erskine Bowles commission with respect to taxes.

Third, the idea that Obama should not only nominate Bowles for Treasury but also to completely hand over economic policy to him is ridiculous. Cabinet presidents work for the president, not the other way around.

Fourth, the idea that the Erskine Bowles can magically get the House Republicans to agree to something like the Senate Gang of Six Plan, which was again less favorable to the Republican position on revenues that the "grand bargain" that Obama proposed is silly.

It's nonsense.

And maybe an explanation as to why it is Geithner's fault that the US was downgraded might help out a little bit.

 

[NOVA]

H & R Block won't even hire this clown.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There are so many levels on which the above is hilarious.

First, the idea that the guy that presided over the last failed commission is the guy that can lead the next commission to magically agree to stuff the last commission didn't agree to is hilarious.

Second, the "grand bargain" proposal that Obama made and the House Republicans rejected was more favorable to the Republican position than the recommendations of the Erskine Bowles commission with respect to taxes.

Third, the idea that Obama should not only nominate Bowles for Treasury but also to completely hand over economic policy to him is ridiculous. Cabinet presidents work for the president, not the other way around.

Fourth, the idea that the Erskine Bowles can magically get the House Republicans to agree to something like the Senate Gang of Six Plan, which was again less favorable to the Republican position on revenues that the "grand bargain" that Obama proposed is silly.

It's nonsense.

And maybe an explanation as to why it is Geithner's fault that the US was downgraded might help out a little bit.

what you really said:

i have to defend obama at all cost.

other than your rambling opinions which make no sense, bowles is a far better choice than grunter....obama's proposal was not more favorable, you keep repeating this in the hopes it will become true...obama's proposal was not what you try and make it out to be

 

[Bonestorm]

what you really said:

i have to defend obama at all cost.

other than your rambling opinions which make no sense, bowles is a far better choice than grunter....obama's proposal was not more favorable, you keep repeating this in the hopes it will become true...obama's proposal was not what you try and make it out to be

Now there's a devastating point-by-point refutation of my post. You have two posts in this thread both of which are ad homs. How about some substance? If you think Bowles would be better than Geithner, make the argument. Hopefully, your argument is a bit more thoughtful that the jackhole who wrote that op-ed.

By the by, here's a chart of tax revenues under Obama's April proposal, Obama's July proposal and the Bowles-Simpson proposal:

For the record, the Gang of Six proposal increases revenues by $1.2T or $2T (depending who you ask and what baseline you use). That's higher than the $800 billion that Obama was pushing for. So, yes, the Obama July proposal was substatially more deferential to the Republican position on revenues than either Erskine-Bowles or the gang of Six proposal.

 

[Onceler]

GDS.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Now there's a devastating point-by-point refutation of my post. You have two posts in this thread both of which are ad homs. How about some substance? If you think Bowles would be better than Geithner, make the argument. Hopefully, your argument is a bit more thoughtful that the jackhole who wrote that op-ed.

By the by, here's a chart of tax revenues under Obama's April proposal, Obama's July proposal and the Bowles-Simpson proposal:

For the record, the Gang of Six proposal increases revenues by $1.2T or $2T (depending who you ask and what baseline you use). That's higher than the $800 billion that Obama was pushing for. So, yes, the Obama July proposal was substatially more deferential to the Republican position on revenues than either Erskine-Bowles or the gang of Six proposal.

your two posts also contain ad homs....whine much ya hypocrite

you still have yet to counter the part i highlighted

That commission produced over $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, won support across the board from 11 of the 18 members and called for making nothing sacrosanct in the budget. Discretionary expenditures, non-discretionary expenditures, entitlements were all on the table. The commission sought to lower rates through tax reform and removed loopholes as a means of raising revenue.

grunter is not capable of getting this done, contrast that with bowles. all you have done is spout YOUR opinion as fact. it isn't. iirc....the dems in the senate shot down one or both of obama's proposals....at least you're calling just a proposal instead of a plan.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

GDS.

and shocker that nigel doesn't come down on a libbie for nothing but an ad hom....how dare anyone talk about anything in politics because the obsessive psychopath will claim you have "X" derangement syndrome. guys, stop talking about anything or anyone in politics on a political board, for pete sakes, you are deranged for doing so.

lol...what a tard

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...paring-republican-and-obama-budget-plans.html

comparing the gop plan vs. obama plan in april

 

[Bonestorm]

your two posts also contain ad homs....whine much ya hypocrite

Really? My first post was a substantive refutation of the apparent rationale underlying the op-ed, not ad-hom. Maybe you can highlight the ad hom in my first post. And in the second post I did call the guy a jackhole, but that's because he got so much stuff just plain wrong.

you still have yet to counter the part i highlighted:

That commission produced over $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, won support across the board from 11 of the 18 members and called for making nothing sacrosanct in the budget. Discretionary expenditures, non-discretionary expenditures, entitlements were all on the table. The commission sought to lower rates through tax reform and removed loopholes as a means of raising revenue.

The commission didn't produce anything. The members were unable to agree on a final report. The co-chairs put out a report of their own. Second, reaching agreement on spending cuts doesn't fucking matter one bit. You know who else produced $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years? Barack Obama. The difference between Barack Obama's $4 trillion and the co-chairs' $4 trillion is that Barack Obama $4 trillion was coupled with only $800 billion in increased revenues while the co-chairs' $4 trillion was coupled with $2 trillion in revenue increases. Somehow you expect me believe that Erskine Bowles can get the Republicans to agree to higher taxes than what Obama was proposing. It's ridiculous.

grunter is not capable of getting this done, contrast that with bowles. all you have done is spout YOUR opinion as fact. it isn't. iirc....the dems in the senate shot down one or both of obama's proposals....at least you're calling just a proposal instead of a plan.

Pretending that Bowles can magically get the House Republicans to agree to something that includes higher taxes than what they could have gotten if they just accepted Obama's July proposal is ridiculous. And the Senate voted against Obama's budget after Obama had himself abandoned it, not his debt reduction proposal.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...paring-republican-and-obama-budget-plans.html

comparing the gop plan vs. obama plan in april

There was some stuff that happened between April and August. Maybe you read about it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There was some stuff that happened between April and August. Maybe you read about it.

oh i see...only YOU get to talk about obama's april plan...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Really? My first post was a substantive refutation of the apparent rationale underlying the op-ed, not ad-hom. Maybe you can highlight the ad hom in my first post. And in the second post I did call the guy a jackhole, but that's because he got so much stuff just plain wrong.



The commission didn't produce anything. The members were unable to agree on a final report. The co-chairs put out a report of their own. Second, reaching agreement on spending cuts doesn't fucking matter one bit. You know who else produced $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years? Barack Obama. The difference between Barack Obama's $4 trillion and the co-chairs' $4 trillion is that Barack Obama $4 trillion was coupled with only $800 billion in increased revenues while the co-chairs' $4 trillion was coupled with $2 trillion in revenue increases. Somehow you expect me believe that Erskine Bowles can get the Republicans to agree to higher taxes than what Obama was proposing. It's ridiculous.



Pretending that Bowles can magically get the House Republicans to agree to something that includes higher taxes than what they could have gotten if they just accepted Obama's July proposal is ridiculous. And the Senate voted against Obama's budget after Obama had himself abandoned it, not his debt reduction proposal.

all you're really saying, if one cuts out the excessive verbage....is he can't do it because i say so. great nigel, you are entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to pass it off as fact.

That man is Erskine Bowles who was President Clinton's Chief of Staff. Bowles successfully negotiated a balanced budget agreement with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in 1996 and was the co-chairman, with former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson of the Bowles-Simpson commission.

That commission produced over $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, won support across the board from 11 of the 18 members and called for making nothing sacrosanct in the budget. Discretionary expenditures, non-discretionary expenditures, entitlements were all on the table. The commission sought to lower rates through tax reform and removed loopholes as a means of raising revenue.

if the above is not true as you claim, care to throw up a link? and how is it you claim the commission didn't produce anything (technically true, but i think you're misinterpreting his use of "produce") and then turn around and claim obama "also" produced 4 trillion in cuts....?

 

[Bonestorm]

all you're really saying, if one cuts out the excessive verbage....is he can't do it because i say so. great nigel, you are entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to pass it off as fact.

I'm not trying to pass my opinion off as fact. The facts are that Jesus Christ himself isn't likely to get the House Republicans to agree to a deal that was less favorable to them than what Obama proposed. Why would they agree to it? What sense does that make?

And my "excessive verbiage" is the factual support for my opinion. What factual support do you have for your apparent belief that Erskine Bowles can get the House Republicans to agree to higher increased revenues than Obama proposed in July?

if the above is not true as you claim, care to throw up a link? and how is it you claim the commission didn't produce anything (technically true, but i think you're misinterpreting his use of "produce") and then turn around and claim obama "also" produced 4 trillion in cuts....?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. What do you want a link to?

 

[Onceler]

and shocker that nigel doesn't come down on a libbie for nothing but an ad hom....how dare anyone talk about anything in politics because the obsessive psychopath will claim you have "X" derangement syndrome. guys, stop talking about anything or anyone in politics on a political board, for pete sakes, you are deranged for doing so.

lol...what a tard

It's not an ad hom. It's a genuine syndrome.

And you weren't talking about politics. You were cutting and pasting.

From Fox, btw.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's not an ad hom. It's a genuine syndrome.

And you weren't talking about politics. You were cutting and pasting.

From Fox, btw.

yeah...because quoting opinion pieces is not talking about politics...good lord, it is amazing you actually believe your yourself. i guess next time i will simply paraphrase words instead of highlighting the part i agree with, that way in your psychotic world i will be "talking" about politics. you have major YDS. you haven't contributed a single thing in this thread, you haven't discussed politics at all, all you've done is attack me. lying that it is not an ad hom doesn't make it so. just another lie proven from you....in your dishonest hack world making one thread about the sec treas on a political board means it is a syndrome. i mean really onceler, you are the most delusional person on the internet.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'm not trying to pass my opinion off as fact. The facts are that Jesus Christ himself isn't likely to get the House Republicans to agree to a deal that was less favorable to them than what Obama proposed. Why would they agree to it? What sense does that make?

And my "excessive verbiage" is the factual support for my opinion. What factual support do you have for your apparent belief that Erskine Bowles can get the House Republicans to agree to higher increased revenues than Obama proposed in July?



I'm not sure what you're asking me. What do you want a link to?

you're not trying to pass it off as fact and yet you claim it is as FACT that no one can convince the republicans...lmao. your excessive verbiage is a smoke screen to hide your bullshit by trying to make it appear factual. of course you're not sure, you always get "dumb" when the hard questions get asked.

 

[Bonestorm]

you're not trying to pass it off as fact and yet you claim it is as FACT that no one can convince the republicans...lmao.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with sarcasm and hyperbole. I thought the Jesus Christ reference was enough to reveal that I was not being serious when I said it was a fact. Of course it's an opinion. The difference between mine and the author of the op-ed's is that my opinion is based in fact.

your excessive verbiage is a smoke screen to hide your bullshit by trying to make it appear factual. of course you're not sure, you always get "dumb" when the hard questions get asked.

What hard questions? Heaven forbid that you clarify.

Not surprising that we get nothing but more ad hom from you. Why don't you try to talk about substance instead attacking me personally?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with sarcasm and hyperbole. I thought the Jesus Christ reference was enough to reveal that I was not being serious when I said it was a fact. Of course it's an opinion. The difference between mine and the author of the op-ed's is that my opinion is based in fact.




What hard questions? Heaven forbid that you clarify.

Not surprising that we get nothing but more ad hom from you. Why don't you try to talk about substance instead attacking me personally?

nothing but ad hom...lmao. when i get factual you play "dumb"....back up your opinion with these so called facts you claim to use nigel. if you stop playing dumb...we can get to the substance. you're all over the place on this one. you claimed what the author said was not true....back that up. what is so hard to understand about that? as for your humor, i've told you this before, you don't have any, thus it is impossible to tell whether you are serious or not. i thought your use of jesus meant no one could convince the republicans, of course i took that as hyperbole, but there is no way for me to know you weren't serious about "the facts are". lighten up.