Saturday, March 21, 2009

Give Tim the sack (Update)

Krugman says that the Geithner plan stinks.
And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won’t be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.
It's the perfect pickle. The country thinks that Obama is some sort of lefty. He isn't one, but that's what people think. If his plan fails -- and it will -- all left-ish solutions (real left and faux left) will be discredited. And what will remain? Republicanism. Libertarianism. Right-wing populism. Fascism. Chaos.

One sign of hope: TPM managed to break out of its Obama trance long enough to link to Krugman. The headline: "An Awful Mess."

Let's capitalize on the fact that neither the left nor the right likes Tim Geithner. Obama still retains personal popularity, but not Timmy. So let's make Geithner the goat. We need a grassroots "Sack Tim" movement.

Yes we can -- can Tim.

Update: Dakinikat makes a good point. Do any non-administration economists -- left, right, or off-the-planet -- support the Geithner plan?


Anonymous said...

This is massive transfer of taxpayer wealth to the bad guys. This makes POTUS look like the ANTI Robin Hood. There is not one Economist I know that supports the idea of Zombie banks. I'm now calling for impeachment.

Joseph Cannon said...

Impeachment is not politically feasible. Getting rid of Geithner is. And it will send a massive message to Obama.

Consider that move tantamount to the impeachment of an IDEA.

Joseph Cannon said...

By the way, I strongly urge readers to check out Dakinkat's latest post on the Confluence.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Joseph. It is our only hope at this point. And thank you for reading Talking Points. I cannot bear to since he drank the Koolaid and broke out in CDS all over.


Anonymous said...

As long as you assume that the purpose of Geithner's plan is conventional "success," you miss the point. When you realize that it is going exactly as it is designed, it makes a lot more sense.

Anonymous said...

If his plan fails -- and it will -- all left-ish solutions (real left and faux left) will be discredited. And what will remain? Republicanism. Libertarianism. Right-wing populism. Fascism. Chaos.

"Failing" is exactly what Obama is supposed to do and he will finish the war against the traditional Democratic Party that was started long ago. Any of the five possible outcomes is acceptable to the Elite except chaos.

Obama's popularity is still high and will remain so for at least another year. There are too many who believe that he is an innocent being led astray by his hand-picked advisors. The only hope that I hold (and it's a slim hope) is for a complete split within the Democratic Party between those who think of themselves as New Democrats and those who have a shred of respect left for traditional Democratic Party ideals. This would be the only way we would get a viable third party and it is exactly what we need. Considering the anger that will eventually be directed at any current Democratic members of Congress once the haze does lift off the public's view of Obama and his policies, forming a third party may be the only way that some of these Democrats will be able to hold onto their seats.

old dem

Anonymous said...

Thx for reference. I think Geithner's the ultimate Judas goat in all of this and will most likely by gone by spring anyway. I do agree that he's an easier target but think the arrow's on its way already.

As long as Pritzker and Summers are behind the scenes in untouchable adviser posts, we get the same result.

Perhaps encouraging the rift appearing in the party is a better strategy. This new group surrounding Evan Bayh is certainly an interesting development. It's looking promising.

Anonymous said...

"Any of the five possible outcomes are acceptable to the Elites except Chaos."

What are the five possible outcomes?

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am confused. If Obama is not a leftist, and I'm willing to concede this to your greater area of expertise on this matter than mine, then how would you define/label him.

Secondly, Anonymous said that "failing" is exactly what Obama is supposed to do in order to finish the war against the traditional Democratic Party. With what as the ultimate end game. To bring in a more fascistic government?

I have been reading and reading trying to put the the pieces of all this together. Can someone please explain more of the subtleties to me.

Also, what might those five possible outcomes acceptable to the Elites be?

Thank you.

Perry Logan said...

Hillary would obviously have been much better.

Anonymous said...

What are the five possible outcomes?

Republicanism. Libertarianism. Right-wing populism. Fascism. Chaos.

(From Joseph's post)

Sextus Propertius said...

I'm with dakinikat. Why not get to the root of the problem: "Sack Barack" would be both more effective and more euphonious than "Sack Tim". Surely there's a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" somewhere in all this.

As for Jewel's question, Obama is a corporate tool (and, more importantly, a Wall Street tool) - as anyone who cared to examine his donor lists could readily have discovered. Obama accumulated almost as much in financial sector campaign funding in two short years as Dodd did in two decades. He's as far from being a liberal as Bush was. He does, however, fit Ambrose Bierce's definition of an "honest politician". He's dancin' with them what brung him.

Anonymous said...

From 20/20 3-13-09:
"More than 350 professional economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, signed a Cato Institute petition opposing the stimulus, arguing that government spending will only worsen the situation.

"How is it the government is going to be able to spend a dollar in such a way that it generates a dollar or more in value?" asked George Mason University economist Peter Leeson. "A more likely possibility is that a dollar that government takes out of the private sector is a dollar the private sector doesn't have to spend anymore."

In a sense, it seems as though "what they want to do is re-bubble the economy," as George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux said. And when that bubble was created by lots of debt, should the answer be more debt?