BREAKING: Geithner Gone, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 06:31 PM by sheepslayer247
Here is a link to the Chicago Tribune that talks about this issue.

One minute is says that Obama would not want him to stay on, then it says he intends to leave.

Either way, this is a good move. There is too much bad mojo against Geithner and he knows it. However, I do not think this has anything to do with Obama's chances to win reelection. If anything, this will help.
edit on 25-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 06:35 PM by mudbeed
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Here is a link to the
Chicago Tribune that talks about this issue.

One minute is says that Obama would not want him to stay on, then it says he intends to leave.

Either way, this is a good move. There is too much bad mojo against Geithner and he knows it. However, I do not think this has anything to do with Obama's chances to win reelection. If anything, this will help.
edit on 25-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


I agree. The whole Fed is dirty. I would like to see someone who didn't work for one of the big banks to mind the store for once. Maybe an actual economist?


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 06:39 PM by sheepslayer247
reply to post by mudbeed




I would like to see someone who didn't work for one of the big banks to mind the store for once.

So would I, but I don't see it happening.

Obama owes too many favors for all the campaign funds he has received. I'll bet it will be a Goldman Sachs crony.

You are right though. An educated economist that has the juevos to tell Obama the truth is what we need.


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 06:56 PM by havok
Originally posted by mudbeed
After hearing his speech last night, when Obama called on congress to get rid of their insider trading laws and to get all money out of politics does it really surprise you?

Anyone who thinks he's a dirty president should watch last night's speech.

How come the GOP did not clap when he said to get rid of money from Politics?

How come they didn't clap when he said to do away with their ability to inside trade?

The GOP is the corrupt ones that's why. They proved it even further with last night's speech.

Screw over the middle class and poor and give the top earners breaks... screw that.


It doesn't matter from which side you are looking.
Both sides are not doing their job.
Lobbyists are paying for legislation.
Money runs CONgress from both ends.
The problem is equally abhorrent.

Both sides are merely prolonging a problem that will smack Americans in the face one day.
CONgress is corrupt, with the exception of a few, through and through.
Just because they are "banning" insider trading in CONgress doesn't mean things will change.
That type of beneficial gain should be an ethical issue, to which everyone should be held liable.
All the members who gained from insider trading certainly aren't looking out for you or me.
So not only should it be banned, but those found doing it, past or present, should be terminated.

When elected into office to represent the people surrounding you, they are to be held accountable.
There shouldn't be any type of mockery or blatant ignorance towards your constituents.
We got you into office, but it seems once that door is opened, they work for themselves.





edit on 25-1-2012 by havok because: clarity



reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 08:42 PM by ImmortalThought
reply to post by mudbeed



There is no two party system. Obama is still just as corrupt as any one else mixed up in money and politics. Its fantasy to believe that its a left wing or right wing problem. Being on ATS you should have awakened to that by now...


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 10:19 PM by mishigas
reply to post by baalbuster



So Obama wants to get rid of insider trading and would like to see people like Warren Buffet actually pay more in taxes then their secretaries? And then the GOP sells this as a "bad thing" and him living in "fantasy land".


I hope that someday people stop mis-stating this issue, and correctly state the facts.

Warren Buffet pays thousands of times more taxes than his secretary. However, he pays at a lower rate than his secretary on one particular source of income: capital gains.

Big BIG difference from saying " would like to see people like Warren Buffet actually pay more in taxes then their secretaries". But stating the issue correctly doesn't play to the emotional class warfare that liberals love to promote, now does it?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 19 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags
US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags
Ron Paul, Adam Smith Push To End Indefinite Detention Of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 20 member flags