Geithner On Move Your Money: Not A Good Idea (VIDEO)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner does not think that Move Your Money is a good idea.

Geithner addressed the campaign against too-big-to-fail banks during a recent interview with Politico. While Geithner said he understood the anger against bailed out banks and said that it was fair for bank customers to expect more, he did not explain why he thought that it was a bad idea.

Move Your Money is a project that seeks financial reform from the ground up. Account holders with money at bailed-out banks are encouraged to withdraw their money and deposit it into smaller, better-managed community banks and credit unions. Wall Street banks have cut lending while accepting taxpayer money and are using profits to fight financial reform in Congress.

Geithner's comments about Move Your Money begin at 3:35. During the same interview, Geithner warned that if Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is not reconfirmed, markets would react negatively.
Watch:

Pledge to Move Your Money!

Take the pledge, join the movement, and invite your Facebook or Twitter friends to get involved.

Pledge on Facebook or Twitter:

Comments

[mjb5406]

05:16 PM on 03/14/2010

Geithner thinks it's a bad idea because now the banks will have less money to put in HIS pocket. I doubt if anyone is blind to the fact that the big banks bribe politicians and fed officials to get their way.

[bigfro]

10:25 AM on 02/10/2010

THE POSTER BOY FOR MOVE YOUR MONEY

[Stephen Feher]

09:44 AM on 02/10/2010

Geithner, like most politicians and certainly the big bankers, want no change. They are trying to repair things to be like they were, which led to the mess we're in. By moving money to smaller local financial institutions, like credit unions, Americans can discover that individual action can make a difference, and perhaps this will fuel more action by what has become a complacent populace. Yes, the local financial institutions will grow if money is moved, but they won't be nearly the size of the big banks, which will be shown not to be 'too big to fail.'

[vino22]

10:41 PM on 02/09/2010

Right,I cannot believe people still havent caught onto this guy

[Todd Sullivan]

09:56 PM on 02/09/2010

if everyone moves their money to the small banks, won't they just eventually become big banks? i really don't understand the logic of this.

[TMS3100]

11:32 PM on 02/09/2010

Don't expect logic from the left. There will be some sort of unintended consequence if this happens.

[plaidsportcoat]

01:51 AM on 02/10/2010

There will be GOOD uninended consequences.

[vontrapp]

08:55 AM on 02/10/2010

So you shouldn't frequent your local market, as it might get too big and become the next Safeway? You shouldn't go to local restaurants, as they might become the next McDonald's?

The logic is very plain and simple, and sound. You stop frequenting a business when that business begins to work against your interest. You reward a business with your money when it works in your interest.

The large, national "banks" are actively working against responsible financial reform. And if you have money in their institution, they are doing it using your money. If you like this behaviour, keep your money there. If you don't like this behaviour, move your money to a different institution.

Very simple. Very clear. Very sound.

[vontrapp]

08:57 AM on 02/10/2010

Oh, and if Geithner is trying to discourage it, it obviously has enough potential to worry the oligarchs.

[jpm005]

08:30 PM on 02/09/2010

Geithner is talking up how much money we have saved because the financial system bail out is going so well. He is so fully vested in Wall Street that he has no perspective of the middle class in America.

He suggests that it would have cost trillions to nationalize the banks. Money I believe would have been well spent to avoid a re-occurrence of the financial disaster happening again in a year or two.

I guess he doesn’t consider the drop in household net worth disclosed in the new federal budget a big deal? The financial irresponsibility of these institutions contributed enormously to a drop of $17.5 trillion or 26.5 percent between the third quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009.

[riverparkgirl]

11:31 AM on 02/07/2010

I hate to say it, but I don't think Obama would have "willingly" kept these people (Geisthner, Bernanke, et al.) in power or gone along with Bush's bailout -- UNLESS, that is, it was a pre-condition of his getting the Presidency. Obama is too intelligent NOT to have known that this bailout fiasco was just another way to concentrate control in the hands of the mega-money interests. Perhaps he thought that the Dem's would actually get behind him to effect meaningful change in other areas -- in that, he misjudged how pervasive the influence of the special interests are -- or perhaps he was so blinded by the prospect of being the first African-American president of the U.S. that he didn't want to admit to himself how powerless he would be.

The mega-money interests have such a tight control of U.S. politics at this point, that no one -- no matter how sincere -- will be able to be effective politically without cowtowing to these special interests. We NEED a new progressive party, not influenced by any special-interests save a desire to enact law that will actually help real people. This needs to be foremost on the progressive agenda. The hateful Repub's are organizing -- we must too!!!

[ShakeYourComplacency]

06:38 AM on 02/01/2010

What a surprise that he's against it! LOL.

What a mistake it was for Obama to hire these people.

And as the article points out, the banks are not lending because they need that money to buy congress, of course. There's too much at stake right now for them, they have to fight reform. What a joke. We're giving them OUR money so that they can turn around and use the money to screw us.

I also think these banks must have their noses abroad and are investing in other countries where they may see emerging markets. They need available capital for that investment. As long as the government doesn't force them to lend in america, why should they?

[ekimnedrab]

04:23 AM on 01/30/2010

&
it's
kinda strange
what feature
a red dress
brings out.
Hay Ricky!
Ever tried
just usin'
your
hand?

[yourmomscalling]

06:08 PM on 01/29/2010

f this crook giethner HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL !!!!! ALONG WITH PAULSON !!!!!

[TMS3100]

11:33 PM on 02/09/2010

Jail for what?

[Ranta]

01:33 AM on 02/10/2010

Well, for one thing, stealing the interest on my mother's savings accounts. This artificial 0% interest rate is a ripoff. He is giving the banks 0% loans while they charge handsome sums. What a sweet deal for them and who pays for it? Us.

[bflaska]

11:08 AM on 01/27/2010

Who cares what that Wall St flunky says. The guy's protecting his friends, the fraudsters and their ponzi schemes. The same conscienceless creatures who were given the keys to the US treasury and plundered the taxpayers. Their shareholders get crumbs, while the big guys at the top scoop the cream. Bunco America.

[thefew77]

06:55 PM on 01/26/2010

This is a great idea. My money has been in a credit union for a few years now and I'm happy with it. Of course Geithner is going to say it is a bad idea. May the larger "too big to fail" banks learn that they do not control the consumers.

[fuelie]

05:24 PM on 01/26/2010

It is only a bad idea from the perspective of his wealthy friends in the banking industry. The wealthy folks control and manipulate the stock market and the middle class as play toys for their benefit and amusement.

It is now time for the middle class to manipulate and control the wealthy. This may be the only way that the Bible verse, "The meek shall inherit the earth", will ever come true.

[Andy la rue]

12:48 PM on 01/26/2010

It got the Geithner seal of approval just by him saying it's a bad idea!

[eialbur]

08:02 AM on 01/26/2010

I tried to turn a local bank's video contest into a 'Move your money' promotion. Not great art - but I was going more for sincere than for artistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2wJFBpixsY