William Black | The Peril of Obama’s “Man Crush” on Geithner Is Exposed by the Debate

The Peril of Obama’s “Man Crush” on Geithner Is Exposed by the Debate

FDR transformed the nation when he was confronted with the Great Depression and World War II. He famously welcomed the hate of the banksters. President Obama wanted the love (and the contributions) of the banksters. He chose Timothy Geithner to be his pipeline to the banksters because Geithner shared Obama’s lack of passion for holding the banksters accountable for their frauds that drove the ongoing crisis.

We have known the core of these sad facts for years, for they were revealed (irony of ironies) in a May 22, 2010 article whose theme was that we had all done Geithner and Obama a terrible injustice by criticizing them for their servile approach to the banks. The key facts that the article disclosed can be summarized in a sentence: Obama developed a “man crush” on Geithner and decided to follow Geithner’s policies to bail out the banksters rather than hold them accountable for the frauds that made them wealthy and caused the Great Recession. Obama’s “man crush” is particularly odd given the fact that Geithner is a Republican who, as a fig leaf, became an independent.

I emphasize that Obama is the President and the man who chose Geithner to head Treasury and, eventually, become his principal advisor on finance and economics. While this article focuses on Geithner’s role, the responsibility and culpability lie primarily with Obama.

Rest here…



4 Responses to “William Black | The Peril of Obama’s “Man Crush” on Geithner Is Exposed by the Debate”
  1. bobbi swann says:

    TTT – Point very well made and as usual I agree with you on most of your posts. However, what is our REAL choice? You have Obama who will never go after the banking units; propaganda shelled out on his many enormous programs for the ‘homeowner’ that none ever worked. And what are Obama’s beliefs? Whe asked what the major purpose of the presidency he claimed ‘protecting the people’ whereas it is definitely to guide the country under the constitution (as Romney pointed out). The only inference to moral beliefs as to Obama is in each of his closing speeches he grants “God Bless America” but he also flip-flopped on same-sex marriages, etc. after years of proclaiming he had ‘moral’ issues with supporting it. All investigations under this new unit that Obama formed with Schneiderman have all been ‘outside’ of the Wall Street firms…going after foreclosure scammers. Yep, that’s who are the real culprits…Now more recently this spin on Romney with the “Big Bird” ads just shows you how low & desperate Obama is to regain his position. And of course they are out to get your vote…that’s why they hire such devious campaign managers and Obama’s is one that is quite questionable if you have ever done any research on her. It’s all soooo disgusting; no wonder such a vast majority of voters aren’t going to vote. Me? I’m writing in the only candidate that should not be ignored…Ron Paul. 20+ years of fighting Wall Street in gov’t and shoved out by BOTH candidates for monetary reasons because he WOULD NOT support the Wall Street bankers. However the outcome I am sure that his son, Rand, is priming himself to run in the next election. Maybe by then the John Q Public will come to their senses, if there still is anything left of our constitution by then!

  2. Sarah says:

    “Obama should hold Romney accountable for his endemic lies during the campaign and debate, but he would be in a better position to do so if he fired Geithner and Holder, ended his administration’s lies about the banksters, and reversed the administration’s unjust and destructive financial policies.” None of this will happen, or did happen. The question is whether it could considering the way things work in Washington. We had a different version of Wall Street protestors in Spring 2009, co-opted by the investor class to preserve their pounds of flesh from victims. They still haven’t repented, and celebrate the fact that they have been made whole, while homeowners and the rest of economy, get slowly pushed into misery.

  3. stripes says:

    Supposedly Geithner & Obamas ties go way back. I read Obama’s mother & Geithner’s mother both worked for the Ford Foundation together. That Geithner appointment was no coincidence. This robbery of our nation was all well planned. It is also no coincidence that we never hear anything in the media about Obama’s mother.

  4. talktotennessee says:

    Obviously Obama is not getting the job done on housing and is friendly with the banks. Geithner was a poor choice! But anyone who thinks Mitt Romney will do more for housing or regulation on banks isn’t paying attention.

    Romney’s take on housing is to bulldoze them down, foreclose and get this mess out of the way. Well, this mess happens to be banking predatory loans, refusal to modify in any valid way to steal people’s homes.
    Romney is squarely in the banking industry’s pocket.

    What makes anyone think he will be the right choice to help in the housing industry? The man said what he would do.. How much plainer can he get unless someone has a tape of him saying we are all deadbeats who deserve to lose our homes.
    If you vote for this man you condone his rhetoric. He is against helping homeowners and squarely in favor of the banking industry’s antics.
    Vote for him if you think he represents your views of abortion, gays and guns. Neither candidate will be able to effect much change on these issues. Presidents can actually do very little but we still have to discuss them every election or so the GOP thinks.
    I hear people say, well at least old Mitt (insert latest GOP candidate for anything but dogcatcher here)has the same moral beliefs I do!
    I ask you? Does HE?
    Do you know what he (they) believes or is he just out to get your vote!

Leave a Reply