Exactly as I see it. I’ll put it a bit more crudely: The banks arrived all hopeful and bright and shiny and well-scrubbed in their Brooks Brothers suits and Armani ties, holding in their hands the net and sum total result of the last few years of their productivity, a huge, steaming smelly bag of fully expecting to pass it on to the taxpayer. But instead, Geithner merely re-iterated the Paulson Principle, and said “we’ll get back to you in a few weeks”. Both Treasury and the banks know these banks don’t have a few weeks. They are still stuck holding the bag. They are not pleased. Things are about to get very interesting. At least that’s how I see it.

That said, my opinion of Geithner changed 180 degrees after today’s Senate Budget grilling. In difficult and unknown territory, Geithner is correct in taking time with the intention of getting it right. I now see him as an excellent ‘facilitator’ of an extremely complex, multidimensional task. Rots of ruck.

http://eutrapelia.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-economic-recovery-plan.html

I agree with Barry’s description of a tantrum.

I went to the site mentioned and read the ‘plan’. No, what was presented wasn’t a full plan, but an ‘outline’. Most people (CNBC cheerleaders included) would not have understood fuller details anyway.

Yes, they are afraid. The ‘stress test’ jargon is timid speak for ‘nationalization’!

“The only route back to fiscal sanity in the long run is increasing the tax take”

Or devaluing the currency.

(Or cutting spending).

That’s Being There, directed by Hal Ashby (_Harold and Maude_).. Def. one of my favorite first 10 mins in any movie, and probably the last time Shirley McClaine wasn’t old in a picture.

Chauncey’s walk at the end sorta ruined it for me though.

February 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
You still think I’m praising Bush. I’m not

……I don’t although all your censure at least initially seemed to be concentrated on an admin that’s been in office for three weeks. My point is that politics don’t have much to with this at the current juncture. We are in a huge fiscal hole largely created by the previous admin and being forced on the current admin. The only route back to fiscal sanity in the long run is increasing the tax take. By definition because of spread this will fall most heavily on the top 20%, which includes me, but this is going to happen regardless of who is in power.

Yes, we should run a deficit now. But should it be $1 Trillion…. $3 Trillion?

And what should be the mix of tax cuts for the middle class, versus “wastful” spending (in the eyes of the beholder, of course)

I suppose what I want is a smaller deficit than what you want, and more of the deficit used to fund tax cuts for the middle class (no, not for the “rich”).