King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Wrong.
Very wrong.
We should elevate a center-leftist to the White House.


No. More. Centrists.
Jim Messina is a fukking dipshyt and it's fitting that Jake Tapper co-signed him.
Wrong.
Very wrong.
We should elevate a center-leftist to the White House.
Who do you believe Trump wouldn't eviscerate?trump will eviscerate bernie, AFTER being in the whitehouse. all he has to say is "listen to this guy's fukkin plans. he has to raise your taxes to pay for this shyt :trumpj:" and that's it, the race is over
The financial crash bailouts HAD to happen.so they can stymie or dilute any progressive policies that come through the door like Obama? Look at how that Obama DOJ and Fed handled the financial crash
No. More. Centrists.
Jim Messina is a fukking dipshyt and it's fitting that Jake Tapper co-signed him.
trump will eviscerate bernie, AFTER being in the whitehouse. all he has to say is "listen to this guy's fukkin plans. he has to raise your taxes to pay for this shyt :trumpj:" and that's it, the race is over
Bernie will lose, and as long as he is not a democrat, he deserves to wash out.
Some of yall aren't paying attention to the streets.
They did not have to happen, and they especially did not have to happen in the way they did, which was to take care of Wall St at the expense of the citizenry.The financial crash bailouts HAD to happen.
Deal with it.
You can't keep living in 2008. Just hope we don't handle it the same way next time.
biden. look at how he sonned paul ryan in the debates, and now he's almost 80 with nothing to lose by losing an electionWho do you believe Trump wouldn't eviscerate?
Yeah. They did.They did not have to happen, and they especially did not have to happen in the way they did, which was to take care of Wall St at the expense of the citizenry.
This isn't about "living in 2008", the ramifications of those decisions are still felt around the economy, borne by millions of people unfairly suffering.
You say the only option is to "hope" they don't get handled in the same way next time, I'm saying to make sure they don't by putting progressives into power.
The Con-Artist Wing of the Democratic PartyYeah. They did.
Prosecutions are one thing.
The bailouts are another. It HAD to happen. Cause dudes like you literally don't have enough bread and water stocked up otherwise![]()
In 2009, Johnson published his essential argument about the US bailouts in an article titled "The Quiet Coup." Johnson's argument was political—he portrayed Geithner's strategy as fundamentally entrenching a political oligarchy. That article put forward the theory that through the bailouts, America's democratic system was being replaced by rule by financial titans. Geithner has never acknowledged that power was involved in the bailouts; those with power are loath to admit it exists. Critics of Geithner come as close as possible to calling him personally corrupt and have even marshaled the evidence that his cronies did fantastically well.
The second problem with Geithner's argument is that the reform bill passed in the aftermath, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, is inconsistent with the wall of money theory. In the book, Geithner argues that Treasury lacked the legal ability to deal with large failing banks, to put them in a sort of bankruptcy process. Dodd-Frank provides those tools. However, according to Geithner's wall of money, this doesn't matter. Either you provide the assurance and everyone gets paid off, or it's a collapse. If that's true, why pass Dodd-Frank? Geithner wants it both ways.
The third problem is housing. Economists Amir Sufi and Atif Mian lead the charge in arguing that the Geithner strategy failed to restart the economy because it focused on leverage at the large banks rather than leverage among households, i.e., foreclosures. The shape of the Geithner policy architecture is two-tiered: The financiers recovered; everyone else did not. And the economy, even today, sputters along at just above stall speed because of this. Geithner halfheartedly admits he should have done more here, but then in the book he argues that there was absolutely no more that could be done. It's a non-apology apology. Even in that, he's inconsistent. He said on The Daily Show recently that he supported the judicial modification of mortgage debt for bankrupt homeowners, a pivotal policy, while in his book he says he didn't think it was "fair" or "economically effective."
So that's a rehash: wall of money versus the real economy, or Tim Geithner versus Elizabeth Warren populist school or Simon Johnson technocratic school or however you want to frame it. Yes, there are disagreements on how to run society.
Geithner also misleads the reader about the single most important moment of the crisis: when Goldman got bailed out through Federal Reserve loans to AIG. This mattered because it was when the public really began taking over the debts of the financial system, and it's well documented in the Congressional Oversight Report of June 2010. When AIG was on the verge of going under, exposing every big bank that had bought insurance from them, Geithner had a choice. He could force big banks to share the losses or just bail them out. He chose the bailout. Rather than forcing Goldman and JP Morgan to share in AIG's loss, to which they were heavily exposed, Geithner took 100 percent of the liability on the New York Fed's balance sheet. Then, in November of 2008, the Fed bought back underlying securities from Goldman, at par, despite their trading at 50 cents on the dollar. This was a massive funneling of resources to Goldman in particular.
So why did Geithner actually release this book?...Elites like Geithner trade on their credibility, so he must have his fictionalized version of the crisis in print. If he doesn't, then officials might eventually listen to the version put out by Elizabeth Warren, Neil Barofsky, and others and tune him out. While Geithner can't block Elizabeth Warren from telling her story, at least he can throw sand in the umpire's face.
Ultimately, Geithner was a hit man for American democracy—and the middle class that sustained it. Geithner has acknowledged substantial fraud in the crisis, but he won't even deign to answer why the administration did nothing about the individuals who perpetrated it. He doesn't discuss distributional questions from the bailout. He sneers at the notion of justice. He argues for "anti-democratic" measures in a financial crisis, including emergency powers for the president similar to those the president has for national security. He won't really explain why he refused to fight for writing down mortgage debt, or even what his role was in doing so. Geithner even takes time to knock Franklin Delano Roosevelt's handling of the Great Depression. In other words, Geithner never grapples with any of the political or moral consequences of what he did. It's just TARP made money, baby! Or, as I've laid out, buckets of lies, misstatements, and omissions.
The task of reclaiming democratic power will involve making work at Geithner's Treasury a black mark on a resume, an embarrassment and a shameful episode. That has already started. Larry Summers was prevented from becoming the Chairman of the Federal Reserve by progressives on the Senate Banking Committee, including Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, and Sherrod Brown. This week, the same coalition blocked the appointment of Michael Barr, the architect of Treasury's housing policies, to an open slot at the Federal Reserve board. The pushback is happening because the Geithner era is increasingly seen as a time of betrayal and lies, not just disagreements over ideas. These people are seen as bad faith cancerous operators who need to be removed from positions of power and influence. Traditionally, Democrats think that the GOP is the party of meanness, of the wealthy, and then wonder why citizens choose to vote for them. But Americans are not stupid, and they saw what Geithner, as the head economic official in a Democratic administration, did.
None of this addresses the fact everyone was broke, NOT the criminal aspects.
The democrat, dumbass.If Bernie runs could the Progressive vote be split and an Establishment Dem becomes the nominee?
I'm not sure who I would support between the two myself.
Breh no black man would ever post that corny ass YouTube train video...@King Kreole are you black?
Always huh . . . except for the last time.The democrat, dumbass.
Always the democrat.
Breh no black man would ever post that corny ass YouTube train video...