Geithner Dismisses Tax on Financial Transactions as Unworkable

[depakid]

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, throwing cold water on a plan by congressional Democrats to tax financial transactions, said banks and other market participants would find ways to circumvent the expense. “I have not seen the version of that that I think works,” Geithner said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” that airs throughout the weekend. Firms are “going to move in a heartbeat to get around any tax like that.”

The Treasury chief also predicted a “quite high” chance that the U.S. unemployment rate will be lower than 10 percent in a year, and he called yesterday’s Labor Department report showing the smallest monthly job loss in two years “progress but not good enough.”

Geithner also continued to push Congress to pass legislation that would rewrite financial rules and said that the Obama administration was close to announcing a new tack for the $700 billion bailout. Geithner said he expects the Troubled Asset Relief Program to get as much as $175 billion in repayments from banks by the end of next year.

The prospect of a so-called Tobin tax, floated last month by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is already provoking nervous U.S. financial companies to lobby for its defeat. Democrats, including Oregon Representative Pete DeFazio and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, this week proposed taxing large transactions in stocks and derivatives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the idea has a “great deal of merit.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a45uxLtxi3N8&pos=3

---

Getting high past time to get the can't do pandering failures out of the US government.

2010 should be interesting in that regard. One way or another.

[tblue]

1. Obama better do something fast. Dems as the Party of Wall Street is becoming

the meme. Obama gave the job to GeIthner. That's nobody's fault but Obama's.

[CanonRay]

33. We HAD such a tax

until the rethugs and wallstreet Dems got rid of it. So now it's suddenly impossible? Bullshit.

[Vincardog]

81. Can't do it? I bet if it was a FEE FOR the Corporate parasites it would be up running and

retroactive. Translation The Millionaires in Congress will not tax the Billionaires who own them.

[SandWalker1984]

46. Translaton: Goldman Sachs pay taxes? That's for little people!

Leona Helmsley's ghost lives on. :7

[Divine Discontent]

2. so we got one end of the Obama Guru team telling us we don't need social security & the other end

telling us that we can't do anything to make some money for the debt heavy government because the banks will find ways to circumvent the fees, so we just need to bend down, kiss the almighty WALL ST sign and quit our whinin'.


To hell with that.


President Obama - get rid of these selfish bought-and-paid-for asshats - you're destroying your party one story at a time.

[laughingliberal]

99. By that logic there should be no taxes because some people will find a way around them

This is such total BS. Prosecute the ones who 'find a way around it,' and make the fines high enough to hurt. That will throw a little cold water on 'finding a way around it.'

[change_notfinetuning]

102. Or you could just not pay all you owe, like Geithner - head of the IRS!

[laughingliberal]

105. Now, there's a thought. Course we know that only works for the rich. The middle class has been

specifically targeted by the IRS since Bush I made it the policy. AFAIK, no one has instructed them differently as yet.

[Ghost Dog]

3. Really? How would you advise Firms to "get around any tax like that.”"

(the plan is to apply such a tax in all major jurisdictions) Timmy?

[naaman fletcher]

61. The markets will all just move to Dubai.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Or to a Caribean country

[Ghost Dog]

68. Right. You can see lots of folks betting their pensions

on the Dubai Stock Exchange (or wherever)?

[Joe Chi Minh]

78. LOL to the power of n!

[Alcibiades]

106. That haven of financial responsibility and stability?

Though it would be fitting to move all of Wall Street to a kleptocracy.

[aquart]

4. And yet, commissions on those transactions are workable?

[Lucky Luciano]

32. commissions in trading algos that banks let their customer use

are very very very low - less than a penny per share - and a lot of trading strategies do rely on that. Volume would probably go down by 1/3 or so hurting liquidity if a tax were to happen - but it is of course a function of how big the tax is.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

47. Of course volume. The small tax is designed to...

discourage speculative/proprietary trading, trading the international community had dubbed "socially useless" activities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7104841

[naaman fletcher]

60. Yes but it won't hurt the big guys, it will give them more power..

Back just 10 years ago, the big firms fixed quotes on the NASD. They all had an unwritten rule that they would keep spreads wide so that they could make money at the public's expense. It was the small traders, armed with the internet, who forced spreads to collapse, ultimately saving all investors untold amounts of money.

A transaction tax will hurt the small traders, and bring power back to the big guys.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

85. New regulatory policies will be essential. If your point is that...

a "Tobin Tax" is not practical in today's environment, I wouldn't disagree with you.

It's only applied to mega transactions, not small traders.

[Lucky Luciano]

79. Well, we will not see eye to eye. Too biased given my prop trading background. Nt

[ThomThom]

50. I don't know about hurting liquidity but it would slow down this

trading frenzy nonsense of making money off of doing nothing but moving numbers around and driving the market prices up and down. This is not productive and is damaging our capital investment system.

[girl gone mad]

89. Yes, a Tobin tax would hurt HFT..

which is one reason I'm for it.

However, I would be completely opposed to the funds from the tax going to the IMF, which is what I've seen floated recently.

[Tansy_Gold]

34. Exactly. My thought exactly. n/t

[waronbanks]

5. If Geithner is already trying to kill it

You know it must be bad...really bad for the criminal banksters. Its a shame our own government is on their side...we know Obama wont let this happen.

War. On. Banks.

[KakistocracyHater]

100. yes & get rid of ceo positions, they exist at Congress' pleasure

& what do ceo's do other than drive corps. into the ground & then demand money they failed to make? Ceo's are bad for business & unaffordable for tax-payers.

[dreamnightwind]

6. Possible silver lining...

OK, it's a stretch, but this financial transaction tax has some real support and is not dismissed as easily as Timmy would like. I'm hoping this hastens his exit from the administration. Those that like to pester their congress reps could use this as another reason to dump him, and might actually find their reps willing to listen on this issue.

[Roland99]

7. Oh, gee, Making the banks/investment firms to pay for the regulators to watch them

is such a HORRIBLE plan. Of COURSE it's unworkable.

How else can derivatives and the "dark markets" continue on unabated?

[Enthusiast]

22. Zactly. nt

[nod factor]

8. Motives aside

I agree with him. Policy should always be to encourage investment.
A transaction tax is retrogressive.
The root of the problem is the corruptible marriage between government and the big financials.
Break 'em up or nationalize 'em already and be done with it.

[Cassandra]

12. A lot of what these transactions do...

is not "investment" but speculation.

[Ghost Dog]

17. Exactly. Such a tax would discourage,

even 'penalise' speculation, front-running, churning and all the rest.

Not genuine value-oriented investment.

[nod factor]

20. You are right.

And not even only that, most of it is algorithm too.
But there are better ways to police the street than cracking everyone's heads.
There needs to be a laser focus on the bigs, that's what's missing right now.
As corrupted as the Texas team was at least Enron got taken down.
The biggest financial heist in history being perpetrated last year and this current Justice Department does nothing.
I have been so disillusioned since January you have no idea.
Not even one investigation I can't stand it.

[mbperrin]

35. Yes, and this gambling is killing the real economy.

Timmy, do you know what we do with people who "get around" taxes? Ask Al Capone.

[unabelladonna]

86. ....but, but..... this is timmy

the same timmy who was rewarded with a cabinet position even after it was found he "forgot" to pay taxes on a lowly domestic matter? taxes are only for us peasants.

[Lucky Luciano]

36. That speculation is ok. Stocks are liquid instruments.

I definitely do not support a tax on listed securities. OTC transactions, OTOH - the area where we got into trouble in the first place - a tax there may have some merit as much I hate to say it.

Disclaimer: I am in the industry. Stocks, options, and variance swaps are my specialty. Variance swaps are OTC, but very liquid - could easily be made listed to get rid of the tax if it is based on being listed/not listed since they are very standardized now.

A lot of commodities are liquid instruments, like oil. I would support position limits or a tax there since there are too many investors/speculators/end users are chasing the same critical life/death finite resource, which can move the price away from where fundamentals suggest.

[JDPriestly]

53. Could traders avoid the tax by trading outside the U.S.?

How could the U.S. government tax a trade made by Goldman Sachs in the U.K. for example?

[Ghost Dog]

70. The proposal is to levy much the same tax in London, Europe,

Asia... all major jurisdictions.

[JDPriestly]

95. Good. It would work if that is the case. But it would

have to be imposed everywhere that trading takes place and in every exchange. I think that is difficult to control.

[depakid]

19. "A transaction tax is retrogressive." ???

I guess if you mean it both adds money back to the treasury while discouraging the sort of behavior that got us all into this mess in the first place....

Some, I guess Geithner included, think that's worse than the current state of affairs.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Timmy, is that you?

[Chan790]

28. It's really not though...

it doesn't discourage investment...in fact the proposed tax is so small (.25%--yes, that's a quarter of 1%. A quarter out of every $100. $2.50 per $1000.) that many people won't even notice the tax on top of all the brokerage fees and some-such they pay already.

No, what the tax actually discourages is day-trading, short-selling and rapid-turnover market-speculation...all areas where Wall Street makes a killing at the expense of American prosperity. Take these out of the equation and while it improves the economic fortune of most Americans...it's going to put a lot of capital-pirates out of business.

Brokerage firms don't make money on the current system off the good normal people who invest, hold onto their stock and save for retirement or the maturing of their investments...they make all their money off the guy who buys 10,000 shares of Starbucks before breakfast to dump them before 11am to buy 100,000 shares of some penny-stock to sell those by 3PM to buy 7,000 shares of Exxon that he's going to dump tomorrow at the opening bell to buy something else...all of this short-term trading hurts you as a long-term responsible investor as it hurts the companies you're holding and it siphons off share-value that rightfully belongs to the long-term investors that have stuck with an investment through the rocky patches to ride that wave up...it makes a fortune for his brokers though as they get a brokerage fee on what...6 trades in a day?

It reverses the economic motivation of the fat-cats by making practices which are bad for the economy unprofitable, that's about it. Why this upsets a scumbag like Timmy Geithner is not because they'll actually find ways around it...it's because the people it's going to put out of business are his friends, the people he has cocktails with...and you're not those people.

Neither am I.

[Lucky Luciano]

37. ummmmm 0.25% is a huge tax - commissions these days,

if a customer trades through a bank's algos are on the order of 0.01 to 0.10% (based on the stock price). In fact, I can buy 100 shares of AAPL on Interactive Brokers Accounts and pay a $1 commission - you think increasing that to $50 of commission is small??!??!??!???!?


People should support the act of shortselling too. It is good for people to motivated to look for frauds and sell them. You take away that selling pressure and you can make bubbles EVEN BIGGER!

[Ghost Dog]

41. Yes, I understand the proposal is more in the order of 0.025%

... Otherwise, Chan790 seems to have nailed it (think: "socially useful"). Your liquidity-oriented considerations, though, are also of course valid.

But, you'd surely agree, Lucky, that Geithner's "get around it" objections, and especially in the context of potentially very international agreement and this US administration's campaign against 'tax havens', are not so very valid?

[Chan790]

49. Okay.

so I wrote this long post, reread it and determined that I don't actually know much about the subject of Wall Street financial sectors (and neither do most people, which is a serious problem...it's not just a little secretive, it's occasionally seemingly-nonsensical vagaries to an outsider.) and reading your other post in this thread and elsewhere on the site, you clearly have a better grip on this than most people. So, I'm going to defer to your expertise until I determine that I can either agree or disagree with your rationale.

So...what would you do if you were in Geithner's shoes? It's clear that he's largely interested in the preservation of the status quo as an anti-regulationist...yet regulation is clearly needed in several sectors of the economy.

[Lucky Luciano]

87. more regulation is ok, but it should be directed at illiquid

complex OTC derivatives. Stocks and FX should be left alone - even options should be left alone. Even these algos out there that some of the haters disapprove of because the clever programmers may have found a way to extract a penny off the counterparties are unreasonable - take away those algos and liquidity falls off a cliff - then transactions costs will increase since bids and asks will move around with more volatility on less volume. I would consider that penny or two that algos might extract from customers (bear in mind that I am talking about institutional customers since the little guys buying 100-1000 shares will are too small for algos to make any money off of) a small commission compared to the loss of liquidity that could result and cost more.

A tax on OTC transactions will either kill the OTC product if it is some esoteric obtuse illiquid time bomb waiting to go off - and will likely lead to more transparency for those products which could easily trade listed on an exchange - I am talking standardized corporate CDS (not CDS on morgtage CDOs etc which is where the banks lost trillions) and variance swaps for example. The focus should be on the OTC stuff and so called "Level 3" assets.

[Ghost Dog]

88. Hmmm. So, without the, er, robot (algorithmic) trades these days, liquidity,

(what used to be 'normal' (human) investors' liquidity) is really that dangerously low, in New York, you reckon?

What does that say about the health of (and psychology of, and confidence in) contemporary markets?

[Lucky Luciano]

93. An example might be that I could buy 10k shares of AAPL

Which is roughly $2mm notional, while only moving the stock by .025% or so. Removng that liquidity might move the stock by .10%, which I consider significant.

[Ghost Dog]

96. Would significantly reflect a human judgement of the real world value

of that stock at that price, perhaps?

[Telly Savalas]

103. But would this really hinder the ability of companies like Apple

to raise capital by issuing stocks?

[westerebus]

69. A penny a share.

It's based on shares traded. 100 shares would cost $1 in tax. That would not break Wall Street or Main Street.

You want to do business, here's the cost of protecting the American economy and in turn the global economy from another melt down.

You can then restore the value of the dollar by paying down the national debt and opening the Investment Bank of the United States and the Credit Union of America.

As plain vanilla as the come. An investment bank chartered to invest in America. A national credit run just like the boring operation they were intended to be.

Invest, trade, short, put, call, shake, rattle and roll all you want.

One penny a share.

[boppers]

75. This potentially affects several hundred thousand trades a second.

The big impact isn't on the humans trading, it's on the machine trading transactions.

"day-trading, short-selling and rapid-turnover market-speculation..." ...is a drop in the bucket, as it's not the "day" traders, but the *second* traders, that really drive the market now.

Here's how the machine trading works, in a very summarized fashion:
A stock is valued at $1.00.
A human comes along, and wants to buy 50 shares, but is only willing to pay $1.05, at most.
The first 10 shares are bought by a human for $1.00.
The machines see the purchase, and (within milliseconds) buys 50,000 shares for $1.00 (to reduce the amount of shares available for sale on the market), and offer to sell 10 of them to the human for $1.01.
The human pays $1.01 for 10 more shares.
The machines see that the shares are still possibly worth more, and offers to sell 10 shares for $1.02.
The human pays $1.02 for 10 more shares.
The machines see that the shares are still possibly worth more, and offers to sell 10 shares for $1.03.
The human pays $1.03 for 10 more shares.
The machines see that the shares are still possibly worth more, and offers to sell 10 shares for $1.04.
The human pays $1.04 for 10 more shares.
The machines see that the shares are still possibly worth more, and offers to sell 10 shares for $1.05.
The human isn't buying any more, so the process is reversed, and the stock is then sold at $1.05, $1.04, $1.03, $1.02, $1.01 $1.00, $.99 (etc.) until it's dumped back.

In *less than a second*, a 1-4% profit is made, just by the machines watching for purchases, and manipulating the price. Sometimes at a loss, but mostly at a profit... which is why they spend so much on machines that trade instead of humans.

Repeat this on a massive scale, and you can see why a per-transaction fee has serious resistance, as the machines trading against the humans, and against themselves, is such a huge part of the market.

[Lucky Luciano]

82. have high frequency experience... It is soooooo not that simple

A rather large assumption was made in that you could buy so many shares on the bid. Another huge assumption is that the greedy algi trader is the ONLY seller - totally ridiculous - really - I mean even as an analogy, this is useless.

[boppers]

94. I tried to keep it *very* simple, yes, with only two actors (one human, one machine)...

..to explain one aspect of how trading isn't humans gaming, over a day, with *each other* anymore, but that there's also lots of computer driven trades happening faster than any human could even keep up with.

I agree that it's a useless analogy for explaining much more than that.

[depakid]

84. The bottom line is that this is unproductive, market distorting behavior

that should be discouraged.

[ThomThom]

51. We need to encourage long term investment not this craziness

we have going now. Making money off short term fluctuations is the market is not creating anything. Taxing transactions would help do that.

[dhpgetsit]

63. It does not discourage investment.

A) It is only a 1/4 penny per transaction.
B) Retirement accounts such as 401Ks and IRAs are exempt.

It discourages short term gambling behavior and encourages long term investrment as an alternative.

[Prospero1]

73. policy should encourage work and consumer spending.....

and yet we tax work income. These bastards have been pretending that their gambling is "investment". Unearned income should be taxed (at least) to the same extent as earned income. At a minimum we should tax the transactions of those who are "too big to fail". I dont buy the dire predictions of the consequences of such a tax - remember all the moaning over raising the minimum wage?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. When will BO realize that Geithner is a political liability that may help make him a one termer?

[nod factor]

10. His nomination

was always so strange to me.
Aside from the fact that he headed the reserve of the financial capital of the world leading to the biggest financial collapse the world has ever seen, his tax troubles should have been enough for a politically savvy guy like Obama to look the other way.
One of the news reports that got buried for some reason was that it was actually the transition team who informed Geithner of his liens.
"You need to fix this before we can go ahead."
Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

[Dr.Phool]

21. "A politically savvy guy like Obama"

It's looking like he's not quite near as savvy as we thought he was.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Transactions are electronic. They can be taxed as they are being made.

Wall Street owns this country.

[baldguy]

13. If Geithner opposes it, that's a big mark in it's favor.

[Enthusiast]

23. I like the way you think. nt

[Algorem]

14. Should always do the opposite of what Geitner advises.Just don't let him know that that's what you

are doing.That way he'll always give the right wrong advice and things will work out great as long as you do the opposite.

[placton]

15. Nothing I love better than response posts which say

Obama needs to get rid of this guy, or that guy. Obama supports what they say, plain and simple. He and his family will end his sole term rich and happy, and with lotsa soft landing pillows on The Street. He could give a rat's ass about real people.

[Jim Sagle]

30. He doesn't seem to WANT a 2nd term. That would just delay his plush gig at Goldman Sachs..

[aaronbav]

57. Placton, What you said exactly x100000- O is a corporate whore

I new that the day he sat at the table last fall a year ago and supported Paulson's and the BANKER Gangsters EXTORTION - What we needed THEN and what we STILL need NOW is a TRUE LEADER - not a Bi-partisan, Wall Street corrupted smooth talking swindler.

[unabelladonna]

16. why am i not surprised?

he must go. he's ruining the credibility of the administration.

[DailyGrind51]

18. So, let's just find another way of taxing the middle class, is that it Tim?

[lib2DaBone]

OF COURSE Geithner doesn't want a transaction tax....

Quick.. act surprised.

A Tobin Tax is exactly what we need to raise billions, instead of soaking the American worker (who has already been busted down to minimum wage)

Of course Geithner and his 'Enron' buddies (who speculate in oil futures using our tax money) will fight against this.

I will not be voting for Obama or Democrats in 2012.. "fool me once... can't get fooled again".

[ThomThom]

56. hopefully we can nominate someone different

not voting or voting republican is not an option

[existentialist]

24. Geithner's plans are unworkable.

As has been stated, he may be a smart man, but he's working on a false paradigm.

Not to mention possible corruption issues . . .

[shadowknows69]

25. Clearly I have to stop reading the news again for a while

I don't think my blood pressure can handle it.

[Ghost Dog]

42. Hey, coming from you, shadowknower, that remark

just made my day.

:rofl:

Know how you feel. :(

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I guess Timmy should know about getting around paying taxes

but it seems to me Wall Street is able to keep track of commissions to the last dime, as well as complex bonus structures. If Timmy is against it, it must be a great thing for the people of all America, minus Wall Street.

[54anickel]

29. Transaction "fees" on individuals and businesses don't seem to pose a problem.

Of course, that's a source of income for a profitable entity.

A tax is considered unacceptable - it's Robin Hood pissing away MY money. Who knows what low-life it might be used to support. :eyes:

Maybe the government should become "for profit", I mean it's already f'ing corrupt enough to be run as a corporation. Then maybe as shareholders the American people would feel moved to revolt. That or the dividends for everyone would be so great we'd love her again.

Sorry, just the ramblings of a lunatic here.

[Ghost Dog]

44. Nah, your government doesn't need 'profit' (on the books):

It has black budget.

And black ops.

:hi:

(with apologies for use of 'black' word, black folks). :)

[adamuu]

31. It would be nice if he proposed an alternative, then.

How would he make it airtight? (since airtight appears to be his standard)

[Festivito]

38. How about dismissing Geithner as unworkable. /nt

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Hey haters: Stop with the Geithner bashing already.

Geithner has made the best of a really bad situation. We owe him a debt of gratitude, not this awful hatred.

Best regards,

Your friends at Goldman Sachs

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. It seems that, like other alumni of Goldman Sachs, Timmy's been a beneficiary

of the 'one strike and you're in' school of government philosophy; provided it's big enough, and there ain't many come bigger than a planetary, economic cataclysm.

[pjt7]

40. A mimimal tax on wall street transactions needs

to happen.

What a great way to fund the war, that has lasted twice as long as WWII & seems to have no end.

It will be up to the people to rally behind a bill & select congressmen & senators. What a sound oppurtunity, to see who is owned in DC & who is for the people.

[SlowDownFast]

43. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[AzDar]

45. Geithner is wrong about pretty much everything. He MUST go.

:grr:

[Divine Discontent]

59. he MUST go! agreed. I cannot support a president who has these horrible pro-wall st. pro-insurance

pro-corporation lobbyists in positions of power & influence. It is clear WHO'S side they're on - it's not 99.9% of people's on this board!

[ThomThom]

48. unworkable?

Just pass the law with a huge punishment for going around. This guy should be fired. We had this tax before deregulation and it should be reinstated. Banksters should give it up. They need to be responsible even if it takes drastic measures to bring them in line. Insurance companies too. We need big changes in our thinking and our approaches to capitalism. I would like to see the death penalty for any corporation that does not act in the best interest of the American people, if they want people's right they should have to face death too. End corporate slavery also.

[BumRushDaShow]

52. The Executive Branch doesn't tax, the Legislative Branch does

What Geithner thinks is irrelevant. If Congress passes such a tax, then Geithner is bound by law to enforce it. The end.

[StreetKnowledge]

54. OK, Timmy, how about this for a deal.

Pay taxes and pay back the money we loaned you and the others pigs on Wall Street, or we'll nationalize the firm. Considering how much money we've sunk into these retards' companies, we'd be justified in saying "fuck you, the investment of the people comes before the pocketbooks of the executives."

They wanna leave? Sure. But we'll be taking our money back if they do, courtesy of taking their US assets from them in the amount we loaned them. And we'll not have to have them running to us for a bailout ever again.

[Joe Chi Minh]

98. Wash your mouth out with soap and water, this instant! Why that'd be class-warfare.

[Canuckistanian]

55. They seem to have no problem siphoning off their bonuses

And at a rate of 0.1% to 0.25%, it isn't going bankrupt ANY financial institution.

They probably spill more than that at lunch.

[nonationbuilding]

58. So how do local governments collect a sales tax on everything you buy?

Rocket science, huh?

[dhpgetsit]

62. I'm urging my rep to support it.

Oh, wait... that's DeFazio. He introduced it. :D

[sfnative]

64. Stupid excuses

It's only fair that Wall St. share their burden of the taxes, since many of the banks who were bailed out are now charging customers with 30% APR. This is another excuse to stick it to the working people and not hold Wall St. accountable. This tax may reduce daily volitility, but even sales taxes don't necessarily reduce sales.

[colsohlibgal]

65. Timmy Lies

It can be implemented very easily in this day and age. As for big business, of course they would fight this happening. They don't want to see a few crumbs skimmed from their multi billion dollar profits.

Timmy has a lot to atone for and this stance isn't helping him.

[Daphne08]

66. Geithner is Full of Bull!

Geez.

[Overseas]

71. K&R. //nt

[Better Believe It]

72. So the Obama administration is trying to kill this idea.

Now who dares call them servants of Wall Street?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

74. Well, then. It must be a really viable way to leverage a lien on the corruption within the market.

DO IT!

[valerief]

76. Mustn't tax the rich, the masses be damned! nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner...... said banks and other market participants

would find ways to circumvent the expense."

Why worry about it, then, Timmy....? Great men like you shouldn't fret, compassionate over the helplessness of the little guy in the face of injustice. Leave it to the enemy to sort out that mess, in their hapless, shambling way.

On the other hand, maybe, in a thoroughly reprehensible spirit of class-war, some freedom-hating, unAmerican lawmakers will come up with a set of viciously punitive measures to sanction such tax-evasive criminality. After all, one must never defer to criminals, must one? It only ever serves to encourage them.

[Ghost Dog]

90. Pour encourager les autres.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. Mais, bien sur!

[neshanic still]

83. Timmy is always right. I trust him and his marvelous economic team.

He is beyond question. As are all his pals.

Note to self: Resume to GS for janitor job. They have retention bonuses.

[Better Today]

91. Honestly, I didn't think my opinion of Obama's financial picks could get worse,

and my opinion of Obama is going right down with them. Either he is too stupid and naive to see what fucks they are, or he sees and is too intimidated by them to do anything about it, or he's in cahoots with them. None of these choices gives me confidence.

[w4rma]

92. And then he makes no attempt to come up with an alternative. He's not trustworthy. (nt)

[benld74]

101. Well IF he ",has not seen the version of that that he think works",,

THEN HE should KNOW what would work!!
MAKE HIM DO IT

[autorank]

104. Geithner should never have been hired. He's largely responsible for the crash

He was the President of the Fed while it happened which means he was the key regulator. His record
and views were no secret. He was a known entity.

Asking this guy about financial regulations is like asking organized crime about law enforcement
strategies.

[Joe Chi Minh]

111. Tee hee... Good one!

[femrap]

107. As far as I'm concerned...

Geithner hasn't found a rich white Wall Street dick he hasn't wanted to suck for decades. Go ahead and hit alert...but this is the Truth.

He's a complete joke. And for Obama to have him as Sec'y of Treasury is insane.

[BobTheSubgenius]

108. "Can't implement a tax. People might get around it."

That is THE lamest 'argument' I've heard in a long, long while. Following that line of thinking, why do ANYTHING?

[WCGreen]

109. Every body tries to get around taxes and yet they still have an Income Tax...

Fuck you Timmy...

[yurbud]

110. the only quarrel I had with that tax is it wasn't high enough.