Geithner Opposing Warren For Consumer Finance Board?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:15:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tim Geithner opposing Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Financial Protectection Bureau?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views.

Geithner has been a disastrously bad Treasury Secretary who had personal pecadilloes prior to taking the positon as well as a terrible track record in the first place, as Simon Johnson explains.

A smart political operation would use Geithner as a sacrificial lamb now and signal a turn to a more populist approach. I personally doubt this consumer bureau means a damn thing substantively, but it could make for good political theater for Dems and Obama. However, the Rahmbo operation is politically incompetent. So expect Geithner to stay and Warren to get passed over. . . . And for Dems to get creamed in November. . . . And for Rahmbo to blame the DFHs.

Speaking for me only

< Lindsay Lohan Checks Into Rehab, Robert Shapiro to Defend Her | McInnis Agrees to Return Fees to Hasan Foundation >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Geithner Opposing Warren For Consumer Finance Board? | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

were it up to me, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by cpinva on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:43:15 AM EST

mr. geithner would now be lying on his back, upon the sacrificial altar. i would be standing over him, knife in hand, ready to cut out his still-living, beating heart.

prof. warren makes geithner look like c- schoolboy, by comparison.

Financial Reform (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:45:50 AM EST

O.T. somewhat, but I found this section of the Dodd Financial "reform" bill quite interesting, disturbing, and not surprising at all:

SEC. 739. LEGAL CERTAINTY FOR SWAPS.
Section 22(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 25(a))
is amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
(4) CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN ELIGIBLE COUNTERPARTIES.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--No hybrid instrument sold to any
investor shall be void, voidable, or unenforceable, and no party to a hybrid instrument shall be entitled to rescind, or recover any payment made with respect to, the hybrid instrument under this section or any other provision of Federal or State law, based solely on the failure of the hybrid instrument to
comply with the terms or conditions of section 2(f) or regulations of the Commission.
(B) SWAPS.--No agreement, contract, or transaction
between eligible contract participants or persons reasonably believed to be eligible contract participants shall be void, voidable, or unenforceable, and no party to such agreement, contract, or transaction shall be entitled to rescind, or recover any payment made with respect to, the agreement, contract, or transaction under this section or any other provision of Federal or State law, based solely on the failure of the agreement, contract, or transaction--

Rules without penalties for breaking them. Yes, that will surely "change" things.

Unreal.

And I agree BTD (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dadler on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:46:28 AM EST

Geithner should be out the door, with Rahmbo. The confidence Warren could inspire in the public is downright dangerous I suppose.


: Wondering if (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 12:47:40 PM EST

the claimed "Geithner opposition" is the Admin speaking?

: Warren Is Wonderful (none / 0) (#16)
by norris morris on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:55:58 PM EST

That Geithner opposes the most honest,knowledgable and cabaple person to act as watchdog tells us how beholden he is to Wall St
and how quickly he needs to be replaced. Obama is either too inexperienced or weak to know what to do, and Gibbs and Axelrod as his stands in hurt Obama's standing even further.
Obama is not capable of cohesive governing and his current surrogate Gibbs has all but advertised that the House wll lose bigtime this Fall. Messaging is not this White House's expertise.
The democrats messaging is out of control, contradictory, and ham handed. Painful to watch errors of 101 caliber issues.

time for third party (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by BobTinKY on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 09:10:01 AM EST

Democracy for Humans, DFHers for short.

Missing something (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by NYShooter on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 09:06:07 PM EST

We know BHO is one vindictive suck-ah. And if there's one thing he loves more than catered brunch on AF 1, it's money in the bank. So, when Jamie, Lloyd, and the other piglets, committed the one unforgivable sin, actually withholding "campaign contributions," Obama says, "nobody stiffs Barry and his Vig." "Handing you pabulum, masquerading as "reform wasn`t good enough for you?" "Meet my little friend.....Lizzy Baby."

Don't be surprised.

I love it when a plan comes together (none / 0) (#1)
by me only on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:34:17 AM EST

if this is the reason (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:46:35 AM EST

It's no secret the watchdog and the Treasury Secretary have had a tenuous relationship. Geithner's critics have enjoyed watching Warren question him during his four appearances before her panel. Her tough, probing questions on the Wall Street bailout and his role in it -- often delivered with a smile -- are featured on YouTube. One video is headlined "Elizabeth Warren Makes Timmy Geithner Squirm."

wassup with that.
can he get away with that crap?

professional pettiness.

How disheartening. (none / 0) (#6)
by hairspray on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:58:26 AM EST

What would our government look like with Brooksley Born and Elizabeth Warren instead of Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel ?

: Look Like? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by norris morris on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:58:43 PM EST

Our government would not only look like a government, it would actually be a government of and by the people with Warren and Brooksley.

Professor Warren is media savvy, (none / 0) (#7)
by KeysDan on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 12:09:57 PM EST

something savvy businessmen cannot abide for a consumer protection job. And, Tim Geithner is Obama's guy. An unquestioned team player is needed here, hence, it doesn't look good for Elizabeth Warren.

Geithner is the spokesman (none / 0) (#8)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 12:45:51 PM EST

he was picked because he reflects the views of the Admin. Why so much animous toward him personally, as though he misrepresented his views in order to get the appointment.

To me, Elizabeth Warren is the only one making any sense. The position may have little enforcement authority, but it would sure give her a podium. I wonder why Geithner's opposition is being made so public?

Hell yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by kdog on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 01:20:46 PM EST

everytime I've heard Warren speak she really seemed to have her finger on the pulse of the big scams. And explains it in ways a laymen can understand.

And if Timmy Wall St. doesn't like her, that means she is perfect for the job. Lets hope she gets the gig and the powers that be let her actually work towards cleaning up the rackets...I'm sure she is itching to go.


: They all know she is dangerous as hell (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 10:52:15 PM EST

to the status quo and big money for people who do almost nothing to contribute to our society.

Because she would probably (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 10:42:57 PM EST

expand the enforcement authority simply by telling the truth and the public rising up and fully supporting her. There are laws, and then there is enforcement of the existing laws....and what is enforced and not enforced is largely how current administrations make their mark these days. Nobody should be easily fooled by notions of claimed powerlessness from anyone in the White House since they completely set the agenda of what will be enforced and not enforced.

She would be far too dangerous in that position to anyone who is a lobbyist for any part of the financial industry because she knows exactly what is missing....enforcement. And she would tell everyone in exactly such a way that the whole country would fully understand where and how they were all being screwed.


Messaging (none / 0) (#18)
by norris morris on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:05:32 PM EST

Warren issue will remain public because this regime has no control over their message.

During HealthCare debates it was obvious Obama was hiding and no message control was evident.

Confusion and resentment pile on when control of one's message is absent. Actually we don't even know what the message is from day to day, and certainly there is no political expertise evident.

The message was lost months ago and any efforts to reclaim and frame it have not been forthcoming.

Are these a bunch of amateurs?


She makes her plays carefully (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 10:50:47 PM EST

She knows that the current deck is STACKED and armed and hates her guts, she knows that the people are suffering, she knows that there will be opportunities that arise in this mix. She has used what has come her way thusfar and as the crisis escalates I think her opportunities to instruct large sections of the population will increase. She is very very intelligent, and she knows that almost everyone she rubs up against would LOVE to get rid of her NOW. She plays very carefully, and she may very well end up at some point in all this being that FDR persona that is the only thing that will see us out of this and onward to some sort of economically respectable future.


: Here's hoping! (none / 0) (#32)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:06:12 PM EST

Geithner was part of the plot (none / 0) (#10)
by SeeEmDee on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 01:18:40 PM EST

Geithner was a star member at a little meeting held on June 6-8, 2009 in Northern Virginia which every billionaire fat-cat bigwig on the planet was attending. This, after trashing the international economy.

Care to take a guess who was also there? Hillary and Obama. Geez, I wonder what the bigwigs wanted to talk to them about? Maybe it was along the lines of:

"We got what we wanted with Commander Codpiece; now, if you want to be our next Chief Lackey, kiss our asses now."

"Yessir!" (Smooch, smooch, smooch)

"Hillary, you haven't an icicle's chance now, so tuck it in behind our 'boy' and we'll let you be SecState. You can sit on our throne"

"All right."

Simplified for sake of brevity, but probably not far from the mark.

Obama was never 'ours'. Never. He was always the Masters of the Universe's poodle. And we are seeing just how short a leash he has.

And who's holding it...

Elizabeth Warren for President (none / 0) (#12)
by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 02:18:26 PM EST

Dem primary 2012

: That would be a dream... (none / 0) (#31)
by kdog on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:03:53 PM EST

but me thinks she's too smart to want the job.
And the beholden Dem party would never allow it...consumer watchdog she's got a shot at. President? No effin' way...I get the impression she won't "play ball"...she actually gives a sh&t.

Blame the DFHS? Nah . . . (none / 0) (#13)
by Cream City on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:28:01 PM EST

. . . it'll be the ol' blame the woman. It's all Warren's fault already. Except for the part that's the fault of the Secretary of State. Poor guy, that Tim Geithner, having to compete with all this female competence.

: Doncha hate it when that happens? (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:41:06 PM EST

David Dayen (none / 0) (#14)
by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:35:48 PM EST

is reporting that TurboTax Timmy has released a tepid "endorsement" of Warren.

Somebody is getting played here.

Geithner didn't actually offer it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by shoephone on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:07:51 PM EST

According to the FDL post, an assistant secretary of the Treasury said it on Geithner's behalf -- which means nothing. When a ringing endorsement for Warren comes from Geithner's own lips, I'll pay attention.


Did you really expect a public (none / 0) (#21)
by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:12:55 PM EST

and in person announcement? Bishop to queen's-rook-7


Honestly, I expect nothing from Geithner (none / 0) (#22)
by shoephone on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:24:28 PM EST

He's a company man. The so-called endorsement of Warren is just badly performed tap dancing on the administration's part. They don't want her anywhere near that commission (something we DFH's already figured out.)


The AX offered up the same type of (none / 0) (#23)
by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:28:14 PM EST

so-called endorsement.

Axelrod: Elizabeth Warren an obvious candidate to lead new consumer agency

Looks like milquetoast is the special of the day.


Exactly (none / 0) (#24)
by shoephone on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:43:44 PM EST

This says it all (none / 0) (#25)
by nycstray on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:44:51 PM EST

"She is obviously a candidate to lead this effort," Axelrod said. "There are other candidates as well. But Elizabeth is certainly a candidate."

just confirming she's a candidate. {Whew} now that that's settled, they'll opt for another puppet ;)


: Reminiscent of (none / 0) (#33)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:08:44 PM EST

"Hilary, you're nice enough."

We The People (none / 0) (#20)
by norris morris on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:08:54 PM EST

Are being played.
