Guest MonkeySee Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 What do you think of the new treasury secretary, Tim Geithner? Looks like Senate approval will come soon. Some senators have brought up some issues in his past, like not paying his FICA taxes for four years. Later, he then pays back taxes for 2003 and 2004, but does not pay for 2001 and 2002 until his nomination. When nominated, he then pays the other two years. What about the issue of his deduction on his taxes for his child’s summer camp? And this guy will head the IRS? Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday as President Barack Obama's economic team grappled with ways to tackle economic woes on multiple fronts, from a worsening recession to failing banks to the millions of U.S. homeowners facing foreclosure. The Senate voted 60 to 34, with many Republicans opposing the nomination after errors on Geithner's tax returns were uncovered during the confirmation process. Geithner failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes on time. Geithner, formerly president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, apologized to the committee and said he had been careless. Throughout the questions over the matter, Obama stood squarely behind his nominee. Earlier Monday, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Geithner's errors were "honest mistakes that could and should have been avoided." "The president believes he [Geithner] has unique experience, unique intelligence and a unique background to tackle the economic crises that we face right now. He will be a tremendous leader," Gibbs told reporters at a White House briefing. "Americans will value having him on their side as we try to turn this economy around," he said. But several Republicans were not mollified. They complained that Geithner, whose office will oversee the Internal Revenue Service, hadn't been candid and should have known better. Despite the tax woes, Geithner's nomination was hardly a cliff-hanger. The Senate Finance Committee approved him by a vote of 18-5, with half of the Republicans on the committee supporting him. Even so, Geithner has the unhappy distinction of having the most opposition of any Obama nominee to date. Only two Senators voted against Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. As the Senate debated Geithner's nomination, Obama's economic team has been trying to chart a course for the next phase of the bank bailout and make good on a pledge to help homeowners who are falling behind on their mortgages. In addition, they are trying to push an $825 billion stimulus through Congress. The White House will have the second half of the $700 billion rescue package available for use as of Tuesday, officials said. When he announced Geithner as his choice for Treasury secretary, Obama said that Geithner was going to be the public spokesman for the administration on economic policies. Many Washington analysts believe Geithner will have a secondary role to Lawrence Summers, the head of the president's National Economic Council and a former Treasury secretary. The two have worked closely together in the past at the Treasury during the Clinton administration. Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington. Quote
Guest Astrrro Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I think a President should be able to pick his own team. I willing to overlook things such as back due taxes, Nannygates etc. Small potatoes compared to the big conflicts of interest that guys like Paulson have. Geithner is a good choice. He is one of the few who can hit the ground running yet not a Wall Streeter per se in the Paulson, Rubin mold. It's more disturbing to me when a President picks the very worst person for a job such as Bush's pick of Bolton as UN Ambassador. In that position, I would think you'd want a guy with diplomacy skills but Bolton is a very confrontational guy. But even there, the President should get his own team IMO. Quote
Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 At this point I am willing to give Obama quite a bit of slack to do his best to solve the big problems. He should be able to use the people he selects to try and put things back on a better course after 8 years of crap. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Can't be worse than Paulson. The only good thing I can say about Hank Paulson is that at least he paid his taxes. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I can honestly say that I'd be a hypcrite if I gave anyone s hit for not paying their taxes. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I can honestly say that I'd be a hypcrite if I gave anyone s hit for not paying their taxes. I remember reading an article a few years ago that claimed that a large percentage of Americans cheat on their taxes. The tax system is so complex, even the IRS representatives do not always understand the tax codes. Having a "flat tax" might be a good idea, but would probably never make it through Congress. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I'd favor a national income tax instead. It would be much, much fairer. The rich buy more stuff so they'd pay more and the poor would pay less and there would be none of this weirdo tax deduction crap. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Geithner and Bernanke are working on a $700B bailout overhaul. We have no accounting for how the first $350 billion was spent. Now congressional auditors are saying it may never know whether the initial $700 billion plan did any good. To top it all off, Wall Street had paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. What is happening in the US? Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Ok. I'll admit it. I got the $350 Billion. I sent in an application saying I was the "I Love Bush Bank & Trust" and three days later I got the check. It was really hard taking out the money in small bills. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Geithner made it, eventhough he had tax problems. Why wasn't Daschle so lucky? I guess he made a few enemies when he was on the hill. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Why wasn't Daschle so lucky? His memory is much worse than Geithner's Quote
Guest Astrrro Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I still can't decide whether Paulson prevented a complete financial meltdown or wasted taxpayer money. Perhaps taxpayer money should only be spent on things that trully add value to society such as sewage treatment plants or cities completely wired for wifi. We'll never really know for sure. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 The money would have been better spent buying up bad mortgage paper, rather than giving it to banks who are using it fund mega mergers. Quote
Guest GaySacGuy Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 It is pretty clear that Paulson GAVE this money away with little or NO controls or regulation...just like the rest of the Repuplican CRAP!!! It is time for very strict regulations be placed on these companies using out money, and I think that we the people should get stock in the companies for our money...so that if they ever get back on top, the country will get back some of OUR money. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I always thought a good use of the money would have been for the government to buy the houses that were in danger of going into foreclosure and then collect reasonable rent from the people living there. That would have let people stay in their homes and taken the bad mortgages off the hands of the banks. Then, in a couple years when the economy stabalized the government could have sold the houses back to the renters (who were the original owners) and gotten the money back. Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I always thought a good use of the money would have been for the government to buy the houses that were in danger of going into foreclosure and then collect reasonable rent from the people living there. That would have let people stay in their homes and taken the bad mortgages off the hands of the banks. Then, in a couple years when the economy stabalized the government could have sold the houses back to the renters (who were the original owners) and gotten the money back. Are you really suggesting that the US Government becomes a Real Estate Agent? Quote
Guest slackersam Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Better that than setting money on fire. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Just relax, the Fed Gov will bail out the banks and auto industry, prime the pump, and the market will rebound, led by the financials in the second quarter this year. Stock Market is a leading indicator, so most people will not know that the recovery has begun until just in time for the next congressional elections. Is that an optimistic or cynical assessment? You decide. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Why can't Uncle Sam subsidize my next trip to Bankcock? Quote
