Geithner Prevails In Internal Debate Over Bailout, Opposing Tough Conditions

nytimes.com:

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration's new plan to bail out the nation's banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president's top political hands.

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[ncmom54]

11:29 PM on 02/12/2009

If the US can remove a dictator in a soverign country.. we certainly should be able to remove Wall Street dictators. Put Colin Powell in charge! This shouldn't be 'fixed' by Wall Street.

[themodernleader]

09:46 PM on 02/11/2009

The Wall Street interests dictate that the American government will bail out the toxic assets of unbridled corruption, that is, the greatest swindle in the history of human interaction.
Down the road when our currency is broken, our economy in ruins, foreign powers threatening our security, the same bank leaders and the IMF (now controlled by foreign creditors) will dictate the budget for each five year plan of the American colonies.
Geithner, Summers, Bernacke et al are the stalking horses that redistriibute the remaining spoils of the United States for foreign financial exploitation and supremacy.

[Rule Of Law]

11:09 PM on 02/12/2009

We are the dog, and they are the tick!

[tower20]

06:54 PM on 02/11/2009

Are we really going to give the banks more money then we are investing in the Economic Stimulus and Redevelopment package? Before any bank gets additional funds guaranteed by American taxpayers we need transparency. Banks must be audited and the actual value of the "assets" they have on their books must be reflected in their financial statements. It's not complicated, but the fear of illuminating the truth must be overcome. Not admitting the scope and scale of the problem does not make it go away. Hiding losses and avoiding accountability while we throw taxpayers money at an amorphous problem is irrational and reckless. No corporation is too large to fail. If they make bad decisions and squander their shareholders money to the point of insolvency, then they must face the consequences and repercussions of the marketplace. Declaring a corporation too big to fail rewards and perpetuates the the very behavior that got us into this mess. If banks have turned cancerous because their bad investments are metastasizing into overwhelming debt, we must not allow their disease to spread and consume the the US treasury. The banks need to come clean and get their books in order so we can decide if it makes sense to lend them money. That's how loans are supposed to be made. Let's get back to basics and do it right this time around.

[AlwaysaLiberal]

10:03 PM on 02/10/2009

This doesn't make sense. Obama is Geithners boss. Sorry but I don't buy this.

[Rule Of Law]

12:29 AM on 02/11/2009

buy it? you're already paying for it...

[Manx]

06:00 PM on 02/10/2009

Protecting CEO's from further restrictions is a hugh political mistake and Geithner should know better. The American people are angry and if the Obama administration isn't careful, that anger will be turned on the White House.

[nomobull]

05:47 PM on 02/10/2009

why do i have a feeling this story isn't quite what is represented here.

[AlwaysaLiberal]

10:03 PM on 02/10/2009

Because it doesn't make sense that Geithner wouldn't listen to Axelrod, who speaks for Obama.

[Rule Of Law]

10:30 PM on 02/10/2009

Hate to break it to everyone here who still thinks that Obama will force his will upon these Wall Street Bankers that work for him--this is just the start of us finding out who really works for who.

[SEQUOIABISON]

05:13 PM on 02/10/2009

The Stock Market certainly agreed with Axelrod, the president should have gone along with the guy who helped get him the keys to the white house. Not a very impressive start for the magician of Wall St, the new Treasury Secretary is not very politically astute and should have acquiesced to Axelrods better judgment, the country is fed up with giving unfettered money to banks who just simply horde it or abuse it.

[AlwaysaLiberal]

10:04 PM on 02/10/2009

Stock market has nothing to do with it. The investors have no say in this. They had their chance.

[Rule Of Law]

10:58 PM on 02/11/2009

The big banks and the institutional investors are still pulling the strings.

[openhand]

03:21 PM on 02/10/2009

This is not about numbers, it's philosophy, it's the system. Axelrod understands this, Geitner doesn't.

[Oxonian2001]

02:54 PM on 02/10/2009

Sorry, Geithner is the fox at the hen house.

Let's begin with the taxes since it has cropped up: some of it may indeed be carelessness, but I've always felt suspicious about the fact that he failed to pay employment taxes for 2001 and 2002 until AFTER Obama nominated him. And anyone with some sense of honesty would have known better to understand that a children's sleepaway camp cannot be deducted for dependent expenses. The fact is, no matter how you try to spin it, much of what he's done smacks of evasion and dishonesty.

But this is relatively minor stuff. What I find profoundly disturbing is his relatively lackadaisical attitude toward the bank CEOs. Yes, he may be setting more controls, but WHY is he fighting against limits on executive aid? And why is he fighting the replacement of these lousy bank executives who have fouled up our nation?

It all boils down to his prevailing sense of entitlement: is it any surprise that someone who more or less considered himself above taxation wants to give the bank CEOs a free ride? Just another one of the good ol boys.

[strangerinthenight]

02:49 PM on 02/10/2009

HumeSkeptic is making presumptions that Toxic Assets bailout is already a success, relying on "few interested investors", and hopefull lure small and private investors. He drop names like Buffet.

Buffet would have you believe TOXIC ASSETS are viable investments - SELF SERVING INTERST. He buys them hoping others - small and private investors will follow, thus his investments will quadruple at least.

It's simple risk analysis - companies who issued toxic stocks are on the verge of closing, they lack a robust cash to maintain payroll and revolving inventories. Theirs are old inventories, and can't afford to re-stocks their shelfs, and most important, they are too leveraged and with bad credits. NO COMPANY WILL SURVIVE THAT KIND OF LEVERAGE.

Recovery, IF IT EVEN STARTS TO WORK, will take at least 5-6 years, maybe decade. No way the companies will survive, and with their demise, these TOXIC STOCKS are rendered USELESS. So if you invest in them, you WILL BE THE OWNER OF USELESS STOCKS.

Buffet may withstand huge economic loss, but hardly private or small investors who at this point and time, have nothing but rag tag 401K.

We can't just rubber stamp everything without reading through over 2500 pages of this proposal - or gamble your life away. Tarp failed . . . . there is no guarantee that banks will be anymore honest now.

HONESTY is not what you expect when dealing with Wall Street - rude awakening.

[Firestarter]

02:44 PM on 02/10/2009

Geithner is a tool of the IMF and Federal Reserve Bankers..he needs to go, period! Any institution that is getting bailout money needs more than strict oversight. They need to be audited before 1 dollars goes to them. And yes the government should put guidelines on their spending..period.

[SpendBabySpend]

01:32 PM on 02/10/2009

Geithner needs to be handed his hat..told where the door is..not for taxes..but for incompetence.followed by the Messiah.

[crazylady]

01:16 PM on 02/10/2009

an id io it!

[marlainWA]

01:01 PM on 02/10/2009

The more I hear about this Geithner guy the more I am worried. Not because of the tax thing but because of his push back against doing the right thing. He seems like a WA insider, more concerned with the CEO's point of view.

I think Obama picked him because its such a huge problem he didn't know who else had the qualifications to take it on. But beware Obama, if you can't control him, if he controls you, all the change you are trying to bring will come tumbling down.

[vedder110]

02:26 PM on 02/10/2009

"I think Obama picked him because its such a huge problem he didn't know who else had the qualifications to take it on."

Yes, I'm sure that's the reason Obama picked him. There was nobody available but Geithner. This is the same reason we have a man as Attorney General who is quoted as saying "Crack cocaine still drives most of the violence in this city, but marijuana violence is increasing. We need to nip it in the bud." There was also nobody available for Vice President, Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff who wasn't a vocal supporter of the War in Iraq, so Obama was just forced to make those picks as well.

[strangerinthenight]

10:13 PM on 02/10/2009

You underestimate our country. Albeit what is happening, and maybe because of it, many of us do CARE. According to Labor Statistics, we are producing the best minds. These current generation is the most educated work force. These gifted young men and women - many have the capability to understand ECONOMICS OF THE 21st CENTURY.
At the very least, he should utilize their knowledge.

Despite our problem, we have great wealth - but our greatest resources are our citizens - like you, me and the rest of over 350 million people.

You make it sound that the POTUS is an I D I O T - he is not. He has every resources and staff to vet a good candidate of Treasury Secretary. Geithner is NOT.

[brynnrose thorn]

12:44 PM on 02/10/2009

Stimulus Bill passes 61-37.

[crazylady]

01:17 PM on 02/10/2009

we're doomed!!!