Should Timothy Geithner Be Confirmed?

I'm sure many of you will be surprised at my answer to that question, but...not having watched his confirmation hearings yet (on CSPAN), I find it hard to believe that a man who had not even paid some income taxes in the past (for whatever reason) could be seriously considered for Treasury Sec....which runs the IRS!?!

I would love to hear the rationale behind continuing his appointment???..Does anyone know why?

(I usually post these off topic posts in Flame Central, but wanted to a wider response to this question)

OHHH, but he did PAY the $26K and various other amounts, ONLY after he was considered for the appointment...go figure....BUT, it was an HONEST mistake..sure...

There are even Republicans who say, in effect, that this guy knows so much about how Wall St, and the regulatory devices it's been operating under (and abusing), work that there's just no real chance at getting somebody else with like qualifications to run our financial markets at this crucial time. And remember, Geithner's not a "Democratic" pick.

So what might in another time have been a nomination killer is, in this time, little more than a "speed bump."

Just like it took "Tricky Dick" (not Devil! ) to negotiate with Brezhnev and Chou En Lai, and "Slick Willy" to get the Northern Ireland problem under control, and "CIA George" (the elder) to put together the real coalition which threw Saddam out of Kuwait, you need a "world-wise" guy now on Wall St for the same reason that FDR wanted devious old Joe Kennedy to be the first SEC Chairman.

I guess to control the crooks you've got to hire a crook.

billw wrote:I guess to control the crooks you've got to hire a crook.

Well said, but I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Having said that even though as Stockingfull mentioned he's supposedly one of the most qualified for the job assuming he's telling the truth it really brings into question at the very least thoroughness. I can only assume he has an accounting background and I'm sure any CPA would have picked up the discrepancy?

I say no, not anything to do with the tax thing, just don't like his politics or mealy mouth responses to the questions during the confirmation hearing. Also he is the architect of much of the bailout especially the Bear-Stearns fiasco, is buddy buddy with the folks responsible for our current mess and frankly not the guy to design a correction of our crisis.

My vote is Sheila Bair, and before you go saying she is a Bush appointee remember she apposed the bail out package. Also she is non-Wall Street connected, just the recipe for getting us out of this mess which was IMO caused by the greed on Wall Street.

Here is an interesting article by the liberal press about her:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... _secretary

stockingfull wrote:So what might in another time have been a nomination killer is, in this time, little more than a "speed bump."

You & I usually agree on these questions Jon..but not this time. President Obama was elected to cure the very problem that this nomination points too,...namely hypocrisy! I refuse to believe that in a nation of over three billion people, that Geithner is Uniquely qualified to save our economy. With the huge number of appointments/selections to be made in a short time period, I do not fault the new Obama administration for not vetting Geithner as well as it should have, but I do fault them for not dropping him like the embarrassing "Hot Potato" that his appointment has turned into.
After railing against GW Bush for these many years, to let this pass, without comment, would be the height of personal hypocrisy on my part.

Dick, I realize it may seem hypocritical for us Democrats, but not for our Republican friends -- and, after all, this government is all about reaching across the aisle, right?

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.)

Seriously, a lot of people on both sides are saying (a) that people with this guy's familiarity with "the Street" aren't available on every street corner , and (b) we cannot afford any delay whatsoever in getting the rescue plan implemented, so he should be confirmed, lest the delay in getting a Secretary in place be far more harmful than the problem with the nominee.

Although I don't have the personal expertise to critique either argument, logic leads me to accept the first point, common sense the second.

billw wrote:I guess to control the crooks you've got to hire a crook.

I thought they did that when they hired Paulson?

For Obama to admit he knew of Geithner's tax problems when he nominated him just is one more shovel on the pile of evidence that says Obama is less "Change" and more "more of the same".

Lets see,30 some grand in taxes overlooked due to a computer program,pay right up after the nomination is announced,oh so sorry for waisting the hearing peoples time with this matter when so much is to be done.~ Not only am I not buying him,I don't believe for one second that in our wonderful country we can't find a man or woman that can pay just taxes like the rest of us PLUS have an sharp and specialized piece of gray matterand is capable of using harsh and straightforward thinking on behalf of the American public. Geithner will probably get confirmed anyhow,that's how they do it these days.

jpete wrote:For Obama to admit he knew of Geithner's tax problems when he nominated him just is one more shovel on the pile of evidence that says Obama is less "Change" and more "more of the same".

A judgment error-Yes (& I haven't heard that Obama knew of the tax problems prior to his nomination
More of the same-No (One judgment error, in the rush to make so many appointments is hardly more of the same)

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:For Obama to admit he knew of Geithner's tax problems when he nominated him just is one more shovel on the pile of evidence that says Obama is less "Change" and more "more of the same".

A judgment error-Yes (& I haven't heard that Obama knew of the tax problems prior to his nomination
More of the same-No (One judgment error, in the rush to make so many appointments is hardly more of the same)

When you are the head of the INTERNATIONAL MONEY FUND, you don't get to make "judgment errors" on whether or not you need to pay taxes. Are you that gullible or do you just say stuff to be contrary?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17463.html

The vetters discovered Geithner’s little tax error in November and told Geithner. Then Geithner paid up, with interest. The vetters also told Obama, of course.

Your messiah isn't a "Change". You don't GET to where he is without being a back stabbing weasel.

Devil505 wrote:I'm sure many of you will be surprised at my answer to that question, but...not having watched his confirmation hearings yet (on CSPAN), I find it hard to believe that a man who had not even paid some income taxes in the past (for whatever reason) could be seriously considered for Treasury Sec....which runs the IRS!?!

I would love to hear the rationale behind continuing his appointment???..Does anyone know why?

(I usually post these off topic posts in Flame Central, but wanted to a wider response to this question)

obama and them left wingers is why.

My wife is the head accountant at a small hospital. IF she made this "mistake" in preparing their taxes, the Gov. would absolutely crusify her. Not to mention the fines! Her opinion is Same for me, throw the bum out and show me some change.

Kevin

jpete wrote:When you are the head of the INTERNATIONAL MONEY FUND, you don't get to make "judgment errors" on whether or not you need to pay taxes. Are you that gullible or do you just say stuff to be contrary?

You totally misunderstood my point jpete.........The error in judgment I am referring to was President Obama's error in continuing to back Geithner once the unpaid tax matter was known to him.

(I have absolutely NO information as to Geithner's reasons for failing to pay....Legitimate or not)