It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Geithner Gone

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It has been reported on The Ulsterman Report, that Tim Geithner has decided that he will NOT be returning with the Obama administration should Obama win reelection. I personally believe that this is a sign that most people in the White House know that Obama is on his way out and them with him, therefore they are doing what they can to secure future positions now.There is no further news on the subject at this time. If you here of anything please post it here. Thank you


theulstermanreport.com...




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   




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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
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)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed
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?


...probably has a lot to do with the fact that Obama has over 3 years of verifiable history demonstrating that he consistantly says one thing to gain public approval and then immediately does exactly the opposite. Most dogs will eventually stop responding to a master who constantly lures them over with kind words then kicks them in the gut. The dogs who don't stop responding are generally pretty damn dumb.

Personally, I think the SOTU address should apply a zero tolerance total audience silence policy. The incessant "Here allow me to kiss one side of the aisle's ass so they can all stand up and act like apes in a zoo while the cameras catch the disinterested/bored expressions on the other side's faces" nonsense has made the SOTU a complete joke. Add in the fact that this is an election year with a first term president seeking re-election and it becomes a joke combined with a big, completely off topic in regards to the actual USA's "Union", campaign stump speech. Obama isn't the first to use the address as such, but considering the state of affairs in the country today, he was certainly the most eggregious.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
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".

Great way to get the common man on your side GOP your strategy is impeccable! I would actually respect the GOP more if they just told the truth about them being (for the most part) corporate schills. Not to say the Dems are angels in any right but the GOP is damn near blatant about it.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by mudbeed
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?


...probably has a lot to do with the fact that Obama has over 3 years of verifiable history demonstrating that he consistantly says one thing to gain public approval and then immediately does exactly the opposite.


I would say thats every politician...saying one thing and then butt raping the public once in office. Obama's just the lates entertainer to get on the show is all.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
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...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
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?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join