doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Do you know what happens when there's no government?
The criminals and militants take over.
Examples: Iraq, Afghanistan.. Do you really want to go there?
Anyone wish we had another Clinton?
- Thread starter hayzeheven
- Start date
Do you know what happens when there's no government?
The criminals and militants take over.
Examples: Iraq, Afghanistan.. Do you really want to go there?
cool14001
Active Member
It isn't about profit. When every single citizen has access to any hospital, many will undoubtedly become overcrowded.
My insurance paid a good portion of the surgery I had a year ago. Without it I would not have had access to the quality of care that I was able to receive. Go ahead and hate on me for having a decent insurance plan/provider. I may pay a bit more than the next guy but that's my decision and if your health isn't worth paying for what is?
And the government doesn't make a profit, thats the point. They are a profitless "firm" who will be paying for millions of healthcare plans. If you think that it is efficient for the government to take your taxes to spread out the wealth for health care, what makes you think you wouldn't be better off reinvesting your own money. Some people just don't have the will power to manage and live within their means.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
So we build more hospitals and provide incentives for medical and nursing students. I don't really see that overcrowding would be any more of an issue than it is now. People who aren't insured use the emergency room for everything because they know they won't be turned away. If they had insurance, they could visit a regular family physician instead. Going to the emergency room is 10x more expensive than just seeing a family physician, and many of those who use the emergency room are unable to pay (which means the hospital eats the loss).
A family insurance plan would cost me over $12,000 per year for basic coverage, not including deductibles and co-pays. That's IF I could even get insured, which I can't. What's your solution for that? The reason it's so expensive is because 30% of that premium goes to cover administrative overhead and profits for a company that doesn't add any value to the actual care you receive.
Medicare has 4% overhead. How is that less efficient?
A family insurance plan would cost me over $12,000 per year for basic coverage, not including deductibles and co-pays. That's IF I could even get insured, which I can't. What's your solution for that? The reason it's so expensive is because 30% of that premium goes to cover administrative overhead and profits for a company that doesn't add any value to the actual care you receive.
Medicare has 4% overhead. How is that less efficient?
CrackerJax
New Member
The facts are that private health care is too expensive, but is still a high quality service. The prices CAN be brought down without handing it over to a govt which just recently
"invented" a very small scale comparison for us to examine in terms of COST ANALYSIS.
Just recently the GOVT. announced a plan to buy back autos... ok.
They said after thinking it through and sharpening their ivy league pencils that the program would cost one billion dollars and last about three months.
First of all, a billion dollars is a huge wad of cash.
Secondly, a week later, the very same geniuses said they needed another TWO Billion dollars for the program, and it would then last the three months.
Lo, and behold it lasted about a month.
SO!!! What's this all mean? Why it means, within a week or so, the price went from 1 billion to 3 billion. Off by 300% in COST.
Then, it only lasted 1/3 as long as they predicted, meaning the money ran out 3 times faster than they thought.
so if you project the program out to the original time line, the cost would have been 9 Billion dollars!!!!
So all in all, the govt. was off by 900% in their wickedly smart Keysnian cost analysis.
P.S. There are still dealers out there waiting on the money. More efficiency from the govt..... right?
Think twice before you hand over 17% of the GDP to these clowns.
Medicare cost analysis turned out to be off by 1000%... 1000% !!!!
Tiny program like cash for clunkers off by 900%
See a pattern?
Don't do it folks!!! You will be sorry. So very sorry.
"invented" a very small scale comparison for us to examine in terms of COST ANALYSIS.
Just recently the GOVT. announced a plan to buy back autos... ok.
They said after thinking it through and sharpening their ivy league pencils that the program would cost one billion dollars and last about three months.
First of all, a billion dollars is a huge wad of cash.
Secondly, a week later, the very same geniuses said they needed another TWO Billion dollars for the program, and it would then last the three months.
Lo, and behold it lasted about a month.
SO!!! What's this all mean? Why it means, within a week or so, the price went from 1 billion to 3 billion. Off by 300% in COST.
Then, it only lasted 1/3 as long as they predicted, meaning the money ran out 3 times faster than they thought.
so if you project the program out to the original time line, the cost would have been 9 Billion dollars!!!!
So all in all, the govt. was off by 900% in their wickedly smart Keysnian cost analysis.
P.S. There are still dealers out there waiting on the money. More efficiency from the govt..... right?
Think twice before you hand over 17% of the GDP to these clowns.
Medicare cost analysis turned out to be off by 1000%... 1000% !!!!
Tiny program like cash for clunkers off by 900%
See a pattern?
Don't do it folks!!! You will be sorry. So very sorry.
CrackerJax
New Member
Kennedy was the coolest. He was banging Angie Dickinson and Marilyn Monroe!!
Monica who???
Monica who???
milowerx96
Active Member
Crackerjax I hope you get really sick and your insurance company cuts you off too. I don't want a fucking hand out. I pay taxes. I payed my premiums. I don't think my tax dollars are being spent properly. I had insurance when i got sick. I payed out the ass for it to. Believe me they weren't doing me any favors before I got sick. Look at the rest of the industrialised world. Are Germany, England, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands all wrong? Have their country's all fallen apart? No. Why can they provide insurance for their citizens but we can't. I'll tell you why! Lobbies and pundants in the pocket of the insurance company's and drug manufacturers; and retarded greedy Fox news fans that eat up every word Rush and Glen speak like it is gods law. One day you to will get fucked by the insurance company and realize how narrow minded and selfish you really are.
cool14001
Active Member
We would need to be building those hospitals right now. We would need more doctors to cover the extra physicians we will need, because his plan will create a high demand that will not be able to be filled in time for his implementation (college+MedSchool+Residency). Incentives would be a must, but there would probably be many more unqualified doctors and nurses to quickly fill the void.
I'm sorry to hear that about your insurance situation. It really makes it hard to speak my opinion with people like you out there. I don't wish that on anyone.
In any case, Medicare will go bankrupt in our lifetime without reform. Everything the government gives projections about are extremely underestimated, because if we knew the real numbers it would be unacceptable. This will be as true for Obama's HealthCare Plan as it was/is for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Current Insurance is more like 20% at most. And Medicare is devoted to serving the elderly, which has a higher cost of Care, giving the false impression of a lower overhead percentage. That along with immunity to health insurance premium taxes which private insurers must pay helps keep their costs down. Also when broken down on a per-person basis it is actually less efficient than the private sector.
Much of the 10-20% of private insurance admin OH also go towards fraud prevention (which runs wild in government). I am very skeptical of any operation (federal/state/private) with a 4% overhead. Unless they are playing with the numbers, it simply cannot last long.
Your children or grandchildren (IDK how old you are) will end up paying taxes on something that they may never see a penny in return (ex:SocialSecurity)
IAm5toned
Well-Known Member
ouch.yep, you got me there.
went out with a BANG too
is it still too soon for that?
cool14001
Active Member
Those countries would not be able to work without America's private research into medicine.
We do have something to learn from them as far as quality, France has the best (arguably) heart program in the world. Socializing isn't the answer. Honest question (not trying to get anyone steamed), why do we have to take such a drastic step which will not be able to be reversed before it is too late. Can't we do a trial run in a willing state first?
And if you don't think your tax dollars are being spent properly, then why do you think our government will spend your tax dollars any better than they have been.
CrackerJax
New Member
Yes, their systems(the EU) are going broke as well. Germany right now is trying to figure out a way to reign back the cradle to grave mentality.
Most ppl who get insurance don't take the time to actually read the contract. Most ppl are dropped because a falsehood is discovered, which nullifies the deal.
You can't protect urself from everything...... life isn't fair nor guaranteed.
Having the govt. try to level the playing field is like having an arsonist guard your gas station.
Most ppl who get insurance don't take the time to actually read the contract. Most ppl are dropped because a falsehood is discovered, which nullifies the deal.
You can't protect urself from everything...... life isn't fair nor guaranteed.
Having the govt. try to level the playing field is like having an arsonist guard your gas station.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
WRONG. The insurance companies spend billions of dollars on advertising and they take their profits right out of your premiums. Those are dollars that aren't being used to provide actual health care services to customers. Does Medicare make a profit? No. Do they spend billions on advertising and lobbying? No. THAT'S why Medicare has a lower overhead. It isn't a "false impression", it's actually LOWER.
Medicare doesn't drop people, period. 96% of the dollars paid into Medicare go to ACTUAL medical services. Again, how is that less efficient?
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
How Geithner Became Secretary of the Treasury
By James Bibbings
http://economicbibb.blogspot.com/
Tim Geithner is now the United States 75th Secretary of Treasury and after about a month in office he's already being called incompetent and an improper selection for treasury head by many.
Before passing judgments against Mr. Geithner myself, I wanted to find out a little bit more about who he is and where he came from. So, you like I should be informed, and compliments of the Wall Street Journal please read this brief biography of Mr. Geithner before you continue on.
Now that you know a little bit more about Timothy Geithner, let's take a look at some of the criticism being thrown his way after only a month in office:
1. The UK say's Geithner's rescue plan is filled with holes
2. The US say's Geithner is the wrong man for the job
3. Prominent Bloggers are calling for his head
4. Prominent Economists are calling for his head
5. He is continuing to receive criticism for not paying his taxes properly
After reading his biography and some of the criticism against Mr. Geithner, you, like I, may be wondering why Barack Obama appointed him. This week I decided to take that one step further and find out. My reasons were simple; I couldn't understand why a man in such a powerful position would be so widely criticized after only a few weeks in office. However, after the passage of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the unveiling of Geithner's bank rescue plan something just didn't feel right. But, in fairness, before passing judgment, I needed to know more.
My research on Mr. Geithner started as any research begins today, on the internet. I figured as a currency trader it was obviously important for me to "know" the man controlling my currency. So I decided to read virtually everything I could find related to Geithner in order to have a better understanding of where he might be coming from with some of his policy decisions. During the course of my reading I came across some very startling coincidences and formulated a rather disturbing theory.
The theory that I have come up with regarding why Timothy Geithner was selected as Treasury head is bold. However, before I share it with you, I feel that my thoughts are based on reasonable information which is available to everyone if they are willing to look. My idea may be troubling to some, but sometimes the wildest ideas provide appropriate explanations during the wildest of times. So without further delay, after doing my research, I believe that Timothy Geithner may have been placed into the Treasury position, namely by forces within Citigroup (and potentially other large US banks), non-us based sovereign wealth funds, and their collective influence over the political system rather than on his actual qualifications. I believe that this is possible based on the information that I will lay out for you in the following paragraphs. Each of these groups could have potentially needed Geithner in power because they all would have wanted to ensure federal bailout funds continue to flow into their banks in order to ensure they were not left to collapse or be nationalized.
A very bold accusation indeed, terrorifying if it's true, but now let me explain why I believe this idea has some credibility and why I do not feel our banks will be nationalized or ever be allowed to collapse (in terms of wiped out shareholder equity):
Point 1
If you reviewed Geithner's bio from the Wall Street Journal above, you learned that he was the under secretary to Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration. This is a critical bit of information because Hillary Clinton is now our now Secretary of State. In addition to this fact her husband (obviously ex-president William Clinton) has been traveling around the globe since his presidency raising funds from international groups for his foundation.
Why does this matter?
It matters because our banks (namely Citigroup) have more foreign wealth interest in them than virtually any other single place of sovereign investment in the world (except for maybe US Treasuries). As a result if our banks share holder equity is allowed to go to zero all of those invested monies and owned shares would also go to zero. I would speculate that the Clinton's, as well as our government can't allow that to happen from an international relations stand point.
As an example, the most notable sovereign investor in Citigroup is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who has provided them an undisclosed (in aggregate) amount of money since the early 1990's. Although it's near impossible to know how much he specifically contributed, in late January of this year a story hit the news about his company being the largest shareholder in Citi and losing a fortune on their investment with the bank, clearly this is affecting him and Saudi Arabia, so deduction tells me it must be affecting all of the others sovereign investors as well.
Also keep in mind that Citi is not the only bank to need and/or seek sovereign wealth fund investment over the past several years. For quick reference here is a listing of some of the biggest investments in US banks from abroad (this is not all of them, if you search you'll find a ton more). This fact suggests to me that both Hillary and Bill have a vested interest in not allowing our banks to fall. To spell it out, if they did Hillary's job as Secretary of State would become infinitely harder and Bill's foundation would likely take heavy losses.
The Geithner Connection: Geithner is connected to both the Clintons through Bill's administration. I would speculate the Clinton's may need him to ensure shareholder equity does not get wiped out at the banks as a result of my points above.
Point 2
Lawrence Summers the 71st secretary of the treasury who Geithner undersecretaried (yes I used it as a verb) for has recently been accused of taking bribes from Citigroup. In addition as of late, both he and Geithner have been pushing Christopher Dodd to stop pursuing salary caps for Wall Street Firms who received bailout funds. But lastly, and most importantly, Summers is also actively fighting Paul Volker to stop the formation of an outside council of prominent economists to assist the government in handling the economic crisis.
So why would he do all of these things?
To answer this question please consider for a moment what could happen if a group of outside economists had the chance to advise the government on what to do next. Based on the current sentiment of global economists, I would speculate that they'd probably decide to stop bailout spending at the bank level. This would greatly undermine both the previous administration's plans as well as Geithner's new proposal. Most importantly though this choice would likely undermine the Treasury's ability to transfer tax payer money into the banks and could render shareholder equity worthless.
If this happened the Clinton's would lose, Geithner would lose, and a lot of foreign nationals would be very upset. Seeing as Summers also owes the Clintons for his time in office, and must have a deep relationship with them, it is also not surprising to me that he would want to help out.
The Geithner Connection: Geithner was the under secretary to Summers during the Clinton administration. Through summers, Geithner gains access to a well liked previous secretary who has connections to the media as well as other high level officials. Summers also more closely links the idea of not wiping out share holder equity at our banks to the Clintons. Additionally, the use of a Citigroup private jet for personal travel by Summer's brings Citi more directly into the theory.
Point 3
Robert Rubin, the 70th Treasury Secretary, under Clinton, whom Geithner also undersecretaried for worked at Citigroup from 1999 until last month. During his tenure at Citi he received (as reported) more than $17,000,000 in direct compensation and $33,000,000 in stock options for his services on Citi's board of directors. Also in January 2009 Rubin made Market Watch's list of top ten most unethical business people. Here his name sat along side the likes of Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, and Ted Stevens; amazing company to say the least. Furthermore, Robert Rubin stands to lose tremendously if Citi were to be nationalized or allowed to collapse due to his compensation through Citi stock and options. Rubin has also expressed strongly that he does not support the nationalization of banks. He has also publically stated that he feels mark-to-market accounting is harmful to banks and to the system. Lastly (and this becomes relevant in my fourth point) Rubin also has sat on Ford Motor Company's board of directors.
The Geithner Connection: Like Summers, Geithner was under secretary to Rubin. Also like Summers, Rubin worked for the Clinton administration and there is an even more clear connection to Citi group. Rubin also connects the foreign nationals who helped Citi to the Clintons. He does so because he must have personally coordinated, or at least been involved in, most of the capital infusions that came into the bank from sovereign wealth from 1999 forward. Again remember this part when you read Point 4, Richard Rubin also sits on the board of directors for Ford Motor Company (which is disturbing in and of itself).
Point 4
Tim Geithner's father, Peter, oversaw the Ford Foundation's micro finance program which was implemented in Indonesia during the 1980's. Barack Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was involved in that same micro finance program from the Indonesian side. This is significant because Dunham, allegedly dealt with Geithner's father through the The United States Agency for International Development ("USAID"). I was also able to find information that stated that she met Peter in person at least one time during their efforts.
After this, years later while with the IMF, one of Tim Geithner's biggest accomplishments was to rescue Indonesia from economic collapse. I don't think it's any coincidence that of all the countries in the world that he could have assisted with, one of the few he actually worked for was Indonesia.
It is also interesting to consider how President Obama throughout his campaign portrayed his mother as being a "simple" woman. I doubt highly that a simple woman would be dealing with the Ford Foundation and the USAID to develop micro finance programs as a foreign national in Indonesia.
Finally, through Rubin, there is an intriguing connection between Peter Geithner and Ford Motor Company. Peter ran the Ford Foundation and Now Rubin sits on Ford's board of directors. Another odd point on this is that Geithner became Under Secretary to Rubin during Clinton's first term, Geithner is now 47 years old. How old would that have made him when he was appointed? Potentially 25? This is odd to me seeing as a federal position in the treasury would typically be reserved for a man with many more years of experience at the time of his appointment.
The Geithner Connection: Through Geithner's father, there is a connection between Rubin at Ford and potentially the Geithner family. In addition, through Peter Geithner and Ann Dunham, Barack Obama is now directly connected to the theory. The Clinton's stay on board with this point as well because the selection of Timothy Geithner to under secretary during the administration while he was potentially only 25 must have passed by the presidents desk and may have been influenced by Geithner's father and the Ford Foundation.
My Personal Conclusion
I believe that Tim Geithner was placed into the treasury position because he is the only person directly associated with everyone listed in the points above. He is very clearly connected to the Clinton's, Two former Treasury Secretary's, Barack Obama, The Ford Foundation, and through his policy choices, he currently controls the fate of our banking system.
After doing my research I am of the opinion that Geithner is in his office as I write this not because of his qualifications but rather as a result of tremendous lobbying power. He is there, because forces greater than him are influencing and calling the shots for Barack Obama; at least in the treasury area perhaps not broadly. This information has ultimately reminded me that our political system is just as incestuous as it's ever been. All in all if my thoughts are true, there is no doubt in my mind that our financial system as it exists today will not be fixed, our banks will not be nationalized, and it will take a revolution to occur for real change to happen within our banks.
In closing, a few weeks back I touched on Alexander Tyler's idea of how societies collapse in "History Repeats Itself." After doing today's research I am reminded of another set of ideals that I think applies to the United States and its current state of affairs; the Kubler-Ross model of dealing with tragedy:
After a tragic event (The collapse of the greatest country in the world perhaps?) the mind and body deal with the situation in the following progressive steps:
Step 1: Denial
Step 2: Anger
Step 3: Bargaining
Step 4: Depression
Step 5: Acceptance
I am fully convinced that the United States has hit Step 8 of Tyler's collapse theory and is moving from government dependence to bondage. Assuming we are at that point the only way to get back to step one and start over again is to move away from our denial that this is not happening. Then we need to look at the facts available to us, get angry, and start working on the bargaining part before it's too late and we hit full blown Depression.
James Bibbings is an associate editor at Commodity News Center ("CNC"), a website which focuses on providing the latest commodity news and analysis. In addition to this Bibbings is also the president of Hugo James Consulting; a firm which specializes in offering compliance solutions to the brokerage industry. Mr. Bibbings writes daily as the "Economic Bibb" for Commodity News Center and through his writings strives to provide a unique outlook on the economy, the financial markets, and the global political landscape. It is his intention to add variety and insightful information to what he feels is an "over informed, yet "under educated" populace. LInk
By James Bibbings
http://economicbibb.blogspot.com/
Tim Geithner is now the United States 75th Secretary of Treasury and after about a month in office he's already being called incompetent and an improper selection for treasury head by many.
Before passing judgments against Mr. Geithner myself, I wanted to find out a little bit more about who he is and where he came from. So, you like I should be informed, and compliments of the Wall Street Journal please read this brief biography of Mr. Geithner before you continue on.
Now that you know a little bit more about Timothy Geithner, let's take a look at some of the criticism being thrown his way after only a month in office:
1. The UK say's Geithner's rescue plan is filled with holes
2. The US say's Geithner is the wrong man for the job
3. Prominent Bloggers are calling for his head
4. Prominent Economists are calling for his head
5. He is continuing to receive criticism for not paying his taxes properly
After reading his biography and some of the criticism against Mr. Geithner, you, like I, may be wondering why Barack Obama appointed him. This week I decided to take that one step further and find out. My reasons were simple; I couldn't understand why a man in such a powerful position would be so widely criticized after only a few weeks in office. However, after the passage of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the unveiling of Geithner's bank rescue plan something just didn't feel right. But, in fairness, before passing judgment, I needed to know more.
My research on Mr. Geithner started as any research begins today, on the internet. I figured as a currency trader it was obviously important for me to "know" the man controlling my currency. So I decided to read virtually everything I could find related to Geithner in order to have a better understanding of where he might be coming from with some of his policy decisions. During the course of my reading I came across some very startling coincidences and formulated a rather disturbing theory.
The theory that I have come up with regarding why Timothy Geithner was selected as Treasury head is bold. However, before I share it with you, I feel that my thoughts are based on reasonable information which is available to everyone if they are willing to look. My idea may be troubling to some, but sometimes the wildest ideas provide appropriate explanations during the wildest of times. So without further delay, after doing my research, I believe that Timothy Geithner may have been placed into the Treasury position, namely by forces within Citigroup (and potentially other large US banks), non-us based sovereign wealth funds, and their collective influence over the political system rather than on his actual qualifications. I believe that this is possible based on the information that I will lay out for you in the following paragraphs. Each of these groups could have potentially needed Geithner in power because they all would have wanted to ensure federal bailout funds continue to flow into their banks in order to ensure they were not left to collapse or be nationalized.
A very bold accusation indeed, terrorifying if it's true, but now let me explain why I believe this idea has some credibility and why I do not feel our banks will be nationalized or ever be allowed to collapse (in terms of wiped out shareholder equity):
Point 1
If you reviewed Geithner's bio from the Wall Street Journal above, you learned that he was the under secretary to Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration. This is a critical bit of information because Hillary Clinton is now our now Secretary of State. In addition to this fact her husband (obviously ex-president William Clinton) has been traveling around the globe since his presidency raising funds from international groups for his foundation.
Why does this matter?
It matters because our banks (namely Citigroup) have more foreign wealth interest in them than virtually any other single place of sovereign investment in the world (except for maybe US Treasuries). As a result if our banks share holder equity is allowed to go to zero all of those invested monies and owned shares would also go to zero. I would speculate that the Clinton's, as well as our government can't allow that to happen from an international relations stand point.
As an example, the most notable sovereign investor in Citigroup is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who has provided them an undisclosed (in aggregate) amount of money since the early 1990's. Although it's near impossible to know how much he specifically contributed, in late January of this year a story hit the news about his company being the largest shareholder in Citi and losing a fortune on their investment with the bank, clearly this is affecting him and Saudi Arabia, so deduction tells me it must be affecting all of the others sovereign investors as well.
Also keep in mind that Citi is not the only bank to need and/or seek sovereign wealth fund investment over the past several years. For quick reference here is a listing of some of the biggest investments in US banks from abroad (this is not all of them, if you search you'll find a ton more). This fact suggests to me that both Hillary and Bill have a vested interest in not allowing our banks to fall. To spell it out, if they did Hillary's job as Secretary of State would become infinitely harder and Bill's foundation would likely take heavy losses.
The Geithner Connection: Geithner is connected to both the Clintons through Bill's administration. I would speculate the Clinton's may need him to ensure shareholder equity does not get wiped out at the banks as a result of my points above.
Point 2
Lawrence Summers the 71st secretary of the treasury who Geithner undersecretaried (yes I used it as a verb) for has recently been accused of taking bribes from Citigroup. In addition as of late, both he and Geithner have been pushing Christopher Dodd to stop pursuing salary caps for Wall Street Firms who received bailout funds. But lastly, and most importantly, Summers is also actively fighting Paul Volker to stop the formation of an outside council of prominent economists to assist the government in handling the economic crisis.
So why would he do all of these things?
To answer this question please consider for a moment what could happen if a group of outside economists had the chance to advise the government on what to do next. Based on the current sentiment of global economists, I would speculate that they'd probably decide to stop bailout spending at the bank level. This would greatly undermine both the previous administration's plans as well as Geithner's new proposal. Most importantly though this choice would likely undermine the Treasury's ability to transfer tax payer money into the banks and could render shareholder equity worthless.
If this happened the Clinton's would lose, Geithner would lose, and a lot of foreign nationals would be very upset. Seeing as Summers also owes the Clintons for his time in office, and must have a deep relationship with them, it is also not surprising to me that he would want to help out.
The Geithner Connection: Geithner was the under secretary to Summers during the Clinton administration. Through summers, Geithner gains access to a well liked previous secretary who has connections to the media as well as other high level officials. Summers also more closely links the idea of not wiping out share holder equity at our banks to the Clintons. Additionally, the use of a Citigroup private jet for personal travel by Summer's brings Citi more directly into the theory.
Point 3
Robert Rubin, the 70th Treasury Secretary, under Clinton, whom Geithner also undersecretaried for worked at Citigroup from 1999 until last month. During his tenure at Citi he received (as reported) more than $17,000,000 in direct compensation and $33,000,000 in stock options for his services on Citi's board of directors. Also in January 2009 Rubin made Market Watch's list of top ten most unethical business people. Here his name sat along side the likes of Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, and Ted Stevens; amazing company to say the least. Furthermore, Robert Rubin stands to lose tremendously if Citi were to be nationalized or allowed to collapse due to his compensation through Citi stock and options. Rubin has also expressed strongly that he does not support the nationalization of banks. He has also publically stated that he feels mark-to-market accounting is harmful to banks and to the system. Lastly (and this becomes relevant in my fourth point) Rubin also has sat on Ford Motor Company's board of directors.
The Geithner Connection: Like Summers, Geithner was under secretary to Rubin. Also like Summers, Rubin worked for the Clinton administration and there is an even more clear connection to Citi group. Rubin also connects the foreign nationals who helped Citi to the Clintons. He does so because he must have personally coordinated, or at least been involved in, most of the capital infusions that came into the bank from sovereign wealth from 1999 forward. Again remember this part when you read Point 4, Richard Rubin also sits on the board of directors for Ford Motor Company (which is disturbing in and of itself).
Point 4
Tim Geithner's father, Peter, oversaw the Ford Foundation's micro finance program which was implemented in Indonesia during the 1980's. Barack Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was involved in that same micro finance program from the Indonesian side. This is significant because Dunham, allegedly dealt with Geithner's father through the The United States Agency for International Development ("USAID"). I was also able to find information that stated that she met Peter in person at least one time during their efforts.
After this, years later while with the IMF, one of Tim Geithner's biggest accomplishments was to rescue Indonesia from economic collapse. I don't think it's any coincidence that of all the countries in the world that he could have assisted with, one of the few he actually worked for was Indonesia.
It is also interesting to consider how President Obama throughout his campaign portrayed his mother as being a "simple" woman. I doubt highly that a simple woman would be dealing with the Ford Foundation and the USAID to develop micro finance programs as a foreign national in Indonesia.
Finally, through Rubin, there is an intriguing connection between Peter Geithner and Ford Motor Company. Peter ran the Ford Foundation and Now Rubin sits on Ford's board of directors. Another odd point on this is that Geithner became Under Secretary to Rubin during Clinton's first term, Geithner is now 47 years old. How old would that have made him when he was appointed? Potentially 25? This is odd to me seeing as a federal position in the treasury would typically be reserved for a man with many more years of experience at the time of his appointment.
The Geithner Connection: Through Geithner's father, there is a connection between Rubin at Ford and potentially the Geithner family. In addition, through Peter Geithner and Ann Dunham, Barack Obama is now directly connected to the theory. The Clinton's stay on board with this point as well because the selection of Timothy Geithner to under secretary during the administration while he was potentially only 25 must have passed by the presidents desk and may have been influenced by Geithner's father and the Ford Foundation.
My Personal Conclusion
I believe that Tim Geithner was placed into the treasury position because he is the only person directly associated with everyone listed in the points above. He is very clearly connected to the Clinton's, Two former Treasury Secretary's, Barack Obama, The Ford Foundation, and through his policy choices, he currently controls the fate of our banking system.
After doing my research I am of the opinion that Geithner is in his office as I write this not because of his qualifications but rather as a result of tremendous lobbying power. He is there, because forces greater than him are influencing and calling the shots for Barack Obama; at least in the treasury area perhaps not broadly. This information has ultimately reminded me that our political system is just as incestuous as it's ever been. All in all if my thoughts are true, there is no doubt in my mind that our financial system as it exists today will not be fixed, our banks will not be nationalized, and it will take a revolution to occur for real change to happen within our banks.
In closing, a few weeks back I touched on Alexander Tyler's idea of how societies collapse in "History Repeats Itself." After doing today's research I am reminded of another set of ideals that I think applies to the United States and its current state of affairs; the Kubler-Ross model of dealing with tragedy:
After a tragic event (The collapse of the greatest country in the world perhaps?) the mind and body deal with the situation in the following progressive steps:
Step 1: Denial
Step 2: Anger
Step 3: Bargaining
Step 4: Depression
Step 5: Acceptance
I am fully convinced that the United States has hit Step 8 of Tyler's collapse theory and is moving from government dependence to bondage. Assuming we are at that point the only way to get back to step one and start over again is to move away from our denial that this is not happening. Then we need to look at the facts available to us, get angry, and start working on the bargaining part before it's too late and we hit full blown Depression.
James Bibbings is an associate editor at Commodity News Center ("CNC"), a website which focuses on providing the latest commodity news and analysis. In addition to this Bibbings is also the president of Hugo James Consulting; a firm which specializes in offering compliance solutions to the brokerage industry. Mr. Bibbings writes daily as the "Economic Bibb" for Commodity News Center and through his writings strives to provide a unique outlook on the economy, the financial markets, and the global political landscape. It is his intention to add variety and insightful information to what he feels is an "over informed, yet "under educated" populace. LInk