Geithner Believes “Foreseeable” Is a “Complicated Word”

As failed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner prepares for his inevitable separation from employment, his squirming, desperate public relations campaign is providing the country with great entertainment. 

In his appearance with David Gregory on Meet the Press this morning, Geithner bombed like Larry Crowne, but his performance beautifully revealed what a stupid, arrogant, stubborn, entitled, ignorant fool he is. His doomsday ravings were not credible. (Samples: “greater shock than the Great Depression,” “off a cliff,” and “worst economic storm since the Great Depression.”) His constant appeals to the authority of “most business economists” and “credit rating agencies around the world” and even just “the leaders” were unfit for a public official in a free republic. 

His delivery was cramped and creepy. Also condescending: When Gregory pulled up a simple table – demonstrating the non-disputed truths that unemployment has risen by 26 percent, from 7.3 percent to 9.2 percent, since the Obama Administration took office; and that public debt subject to limit has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion, a 35 percent increase, over the same period – Geithner’s response was the milk-curdling “David, let me just say that’s a ridiculous table.”

The peruked secretary’s end-of-interview attempt at buddy-buddy jocularity with the simian-jawed NBC newsman was chilling. Pressed to reveal whether he would be sent packing before or after the election, Geithner quibbled over the definition of “foreseeable.” I can understand that a man who predicted unemployment would top out at 8 percent would have a special interest in this term, but the bottom line at every copydesk is that you never say “foreseeable future” for the obvious reason that no part of the future is foreseeable.

Even Geithner’s diction is distressingly mushmouthed for a Dartmouth grad. 

The substance was even worse than the style. Geithner’s claim, “Remember, we have to borrow now 40 cents for every dollar we spend,” boomeranged on him by underscoring how out of control federal spending is. It also clashed with his separate claim that the 2008 correction occurred because “Americans borrowed too much…. We were living beyond our means for a long period of time.” 

Geithner even managed to let that last bit of truth – that the credit unwind was preceded by unprecedented inflation in credit and credit-dependent assets – ripen into falsehood. The Treasury secretary claimed, “People are going back to living within their means. They’re spending less as a share of income; they’re saving more.” In fact, personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was 6.4 percent in June 2010. In May of this year [pdf] it was down to 5 percent. The personal savings rate has bounced around by a percentage point or two since Obama took office. As I have noted before, the data indicate, at best, a trivial increase in savings which began under the previous administration.

And as always, Geithner's biggest troubles come during those rare instances when he unwittingly emits truth. The mythical summers of recovery, and the whole Keynesian consensus, burn up in this admission: "We don't have the ability, because of the overhang in housing and the problems in the financial system, to engineer artificially a return to recovery." 

It’s indicative of President Obama’s lack of personal compassion that he has not simply let Geithner leave office to spend more time with his family, rather than making him go through more rounds of public humiliation. But I’m not going to complain about any spectacle that holds my enemies up for global ridicule. Reproach and everlasting shame sit mocking in your plume, Geithner. Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but shame. 

Update: Thanks to reader Banjos for sending a link to the interview, at the urging of Au H20.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Au H20||

    Is there a place on the intertubes where I could watch this humiliation?

  • Banjos||

  • Banjos||

  • Banjos||

  • Aqua Buddha||

    At least we get to watch the SOB suffer a bit.

  • ||

    That's not enough. I want to see him go to jail. It will never happen, but that's what he deserves.

  • SIV||

    Jail is too good for him. I vote for the boats.

  • Warty||

    I vote for the boot. Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense.

  • J. Von Wolfhausen||

    das BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT

  • ||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That... is twisted, but is it really sufficient punishment?

  • Bingo||

    Justice would be all central planners living on welfare in the projects, taking public transportation, and getting food from foodstamps for the rest of their existence.

    Funny how they never seem so eager to reap the fruits of their labor.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You'd FEED them??

  • alan||

    Only to wild hogs.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There ya go!

  • Lorenzo||

    Thank you for skewering this trained chimp. Please do it daily. He is a liar, a mountebank, and a tax cheat, the latter of which I write in every dollar bill that is sullied by his despicable name.

  • ||

    It's pretty clear that Timmeh is the Donald Rumsfeld of this administration--an albatross who gets unlimited passes for his muck-ups.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    "We don't have the ability, because of the overhang in housing and the problems in the financial system, to engineer artificially a return to recovery."

    Sounds like Timmy is bucking to be excommunicated from the First Church of Central Planning. He'd better do fifty Hail Proudhons and a dozen Our Marxs as penance.

  • ||

    Except, of course, that he implies that if it weren't for those two pesky little problems, they'd have no problem "engineering artificially a return to recovery". If not for that damned Law of Gravity, I'd be soaring like a bird right now...

  • alan||

    Should be asked of every central planner, 'if you can't control the economy (and by its very nature, you can't), why should be given the controls?'

  • ||

    Let's say Geithner gets the boot. Is there even the slightest bit of hope his replacement will execute better policy? (As opposed to continuing to anal fist the economy while spewing masterful rhetoric and double talk on Sunday morning TV) And does it even fucking matter so long as the Ben Bernanke draws breath?

  • SIV||

    I'd like to see who hires him (know your enemies). I wouldn't be shocked to see Hank Paulsen brought back on board in a spirit of "bi-partisanship". DS-K needs a job, does the Constitution preclude a foreign national as Secretary of the Treasury?

    Other than confirmation, there are no legal or constitutional requirements for the job. Apparently not!

  • David in OC||

    Bigger political question: Will any national Democrat be willing to take on Obama a la McCarthy in '68?

  • Alan||

    Mr Cavanaugh's takedown of Mr Geithner is cruel.

    It's all true, of course. But cruel.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I was always a little uncomfortable with the Bill of Rights banning cruel and unusual punishment. Some ****ers deserve cruel punishments, and unusual can mean whatever you want. Hell, capital punishment happens so rarely it could be called unusual punishment. And what about highly irregular crimes?

    Angry criticism in 3, 2, 1, ...

  • SIV||

    The definition of "cruelty" is quite arbitrary. Flogging and branding are no more cruel than years in prison. Breaking on the wheel is hardly "unusual" in the history of civilized society.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If a punishment isn't cruel and/or unusual, how is it punishment.

  • ||

    Um, wow. Y'allz have really thought about this.

  • rather||

    Flogging and branding are no more cruel than years in prison. Breaking on the wheel is hardly "unusual" in the history of civilized society

    I'd take the flogging, and branding over a year in prison. In the past, they did so for economic reasons but immediate pain, over a short time would make more sense to some people.

    Historically, cruel and unusual punishment had developed to include pregnancy, and mental illness; it's more complex than the physical VS. time punishment.

  • SIV||

    I'd take the flogging, and branding

    Are ya into that?

  • Butts Wagner||

    Are ya into that?

    Oh dear, this is not going to end well.

  • ||

    It depends. Do they have peanut butter in jail?

  • ||

    Dear Mr Cavanaugh,

    Generally I would have to say that gloating is not becoming of someone of your stature and repute. But in this case I must AMEN Brother. So please don't be shy, and skewer this bastard every chance you get....

  • Bingo||

    I picture Tim with a half-empty bottle of whiskey and muttering obscenities at the talking heads on TV when he writes these eviscerating weekend updates.

  • Greer||

    Half empty? I see him holding the empty bottle over his head waiting for the last precious drops to fall onto his distended tongue as he watches the Sunday morning talk shows.

  • Douglas Fletcher||

    I'm sure Tim is like Hemingway, he only drinks after he's done his writing.

    Of course, I have no factual basis whatsoever for that claim. I suppose that qualifies me to be the new Secretary of Treasury.

  • alan||

    Better qualified, you did something the current TresSec stooge has never done, and that is to say something at least halfway interesting.

  • ||

    Wow Cavanaugh, tell me how you really feel.

    The most telling thing about Geithner is not where he is leaving, but where he is going. Harvard? Maybe Orszag's keeping a (hand-stitched leather) ten million-dollar chair warm for Timmy down in TARP Towers?

    Timmy (not the Cavanaugh) will be proof that if you know the right people, there's no better or more lucrative path in life than to fail, upwards.

    Sad.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Results are immaterial, so long as he does not blaspheme the progressive article of faith that all government spending is good and righteous.

  • ||

    In fact, personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was 6.4 percent in June 2010. In May of this year [pdf] it was down to 5 percent.

    I wonder how they measure "savings". Is paying off your debt at an accelerated rate "savings"?

    Is buying a home in an area without a regional real estate bubble "savings"?

    Does your IRA count as "savings" but not your house?

    Does a 401k plan count as "savings" but buying investment land not?

    I have a funny feeling that my definition of savings differs then how it is being used here.

    In Cavanaugh's defense though i am pretty sure Geithner’s definition when he said those statements does not mesh up with my definition of savings either...and he was simply straight up lying.

  • SIV||

    IIRC,accelerated debt payment is "savings".Anything which is not consumption counts.

  • ||

    I recall looking into this back in the bubble years, and not getting too far, but suspecting that the definition was not entirely intuitive or reflective of common usage.

    I think SIV is right, and that by extension investment in equities and real estate does not count as "savings". I'm not even entirely sure that money market deposits count.

  • Au H20||

    Also, Banjos provided the link, *I* mentioned that you should post it.

    One of these days, HnR, if you keep not giving me hat tips... POW! Right in the kisser!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Maybe we should add failure to hat tip to the drinking game?

  • ||

    Maybe we should add failure to hat tip to the drinking game?

    No but complaining about not getting a hat tip should be.

    Also If John does it then you have to drink twice.

  • Au H20||

    What about successful complaining? Three drinks? Screw it, I'm pouring a triple anyway! I got my first hat tip bitches, time to celebrate!!!

  • ||

    The last hat tip I got Rather just made fun of me and everyone else ignored me.

    Hat tips are like a Gypsy curse.

  • Butts Wagner||

    everyone else ignored me.

    I think being a regular precludes you from getting any love. Anyone who is able to get a hat tip is already known to the commentariat for their prolific linkage. Hat tips to Vanneman are another thing.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Now properly credited.

  • Au H20||

    I finally got a hat tip!!!

    Well, my life is now complete. Time to end it. Advice Reasonoids? I've always preferred shotgun to mouth myself, but I'm open to suggestions.

  • Au H20||

    Okay, I realize that may have come off as sarcastic, but I have waited ages to get a hat tip, and its awesome that I finally have one.

    Tim, you have just vaunted ahead of Nick, Matt, and Katherine as my new favorite. Stay golden, California boy.

  • rather||

    WTF? How long have you been posting here?

  • Au H20||

    Longer than you, cuntwad.

  • drown ||

    in pee water

  • Au H20||

    Oh no! Rather is butthurt! Maybe she'll post some links to her blog!

    Rather, wanna know how scared I am of you? German level scared.

  • rather||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jvHeF2CanQ

    ...but you will make a hell of a lot more noise

  • Butts Wagner||

    I'm confused. youtube FTW?

  • Au H20||

    You tried to one-up the Simpsons with a non-Simpsons clip? Welcome to Failville, population: Rather.

  • rather||

    Please, the Simpsons are for little boys and libertarians

  • rather||

    Please, the Simpsons are for little boys and libertarians

  • Comment Tater||

    Advice Reasonoids? I've always preferred shotgun to mouth

    Sleeping pills and whisky, accompanied by Whitney Houston's version of I Will Always Love You, just so you don't change your mind.

  • Bingo||

    Bad idea Tim, now they're all going to expect it.

  • Bingo||

    Bad idea Tim, now they're all going to expect it.

  • Bingo||

    Oh thank god, my first double-post. And here I was thinking the squirrels were neglecting me all these years.

  • Au H20||

    Do you see what happens, Bingo? Do you see what happens, when you fuck a stranger in the ass?

  • Banjos||

    About time I get some undeserved recognition around here.

  • SIV||

    Are you "Kick Ass" or is that some other Banjos?

  • Banjos||

    I simplified it after realizing that I was being redundant.

  • SIV||

    This banjo definitely kicks ass.

  • Banjos||

    Not only do banjos kick ass, but so do ukeleles .

  • Ted S.||

    Paddle faster; I hear Banjos.

  • rather||

    lol

  • ||

    "We don't have the ability, because of the overhang in housing and the problems in the financial system, to engineer artificially a return to recovery."

    But that won't keep them from trying.

  • J||

    It's the only way. A recovery would never happen on its own.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Don't disturb my economy; it's dead tired."

  • ||

    Just wait, Cavanaugh; when Krugabe is Secretary of the Treasury, you'll think Timmay! was the good old days.

  • Bingo||

    Don't give them ideas!

  • J||

    If Kruggie were actually in a position to implement his ideas, he'd have no one to blame when they failed.

    Much better to let others do it, and then blame failure on not going far enough.

  • sevo||

    "If Kruggie were actually in a position to implement his ideas, he'd have no one to blame when they failed."
    Disagreed. It would be republicans who were at fault.
    That's all.

  • J||

    He'd blame them, but the American public isn't as dumb as he wished they were. The hardcore left would blame the GOP, the rest would blame him.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I dunno, the "Blame the Republicans" strategery seems to work in CA, despite the fact that there are more condors here than Republicans.

  • J||

    Californians seemed to have remained (not so) blissfully unaware of what the rest of the country thinks.

  • J||

    "The mythical summers of recovery, and the whole Keynesian consensus, burn up in this admission: 'We don't have the ability, because of the overhang in housing and the problems in the financial system, to engineer artificially a return to recovery.' "

    To the average person, it's an admission, but using the typical slippery Obama rationale, he can still wiggle out from under that statement. Something like "Well, normally we would have the ability to artificially engineer a return to recovery, but the situation we inherited was just so bad that even the best economic brain trust in the history of man kind couldn't do anything about it."

    Come to think of it, I don't even know what he's referring to when saying a return to recovery. Shouldn't he say a return to economic growth and prosperity? Or maybe he meant a return to the awesome summer of recovery of 2010. If only those days would return.

  • sasob||

    Probably he meant a return to the economic bubble, the ol' shell game, the con. Go back to living above your means, folks, cuz the financial elite can't get anywhere creating money and credit out of thin air if y'all aren't willing to go into hock up to your eyebrows.

  • J||

    Yes, it's funny how recently, the left seems to disdain people saving money and living within their means. I thought the left disapproved of such crass materialism and people always aspiring for more material gain than they could ever achieve. Except such lack of irresponsibility is now the cause of our sluggish recovery.

  • ||

    Reproach and everlasting shame sit mocking in your plume, Geithner. Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but shame.

    Outstanding. Get thee to a nunnery, Geither!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Excellent reference in the alt-text, Mr. Cavanaugh.

  • ||

    Maybe we should add failure to hat tip to the drinking game?

    COMPLAINING about failure to tip.

  • Butts Wagner||

    This makes more sense.

  • ||

    There was an interesting article in the NYT today (which I am not going to hunt down and link) about Mayor Emanuel's impending to-the-death cage match with the unions over work rules for city employees.

  • sevo||

    In SF, Mayor Lee came up with a new compensation policy for the police, which he assures us satisfies everyone.
    The police now have to contribute an additional 3% to their retirement benefits, and in return they get a 5% raise!
    See how the mayor is "reforming" things?
    I'm not satisfied.

  • ||

    His constant appeals to the authority of “most business economists” and “credit rating agencies around the world” and even just “the leaders” were unfit for a public official in a free republic.

    And besides that, aren't these the same people who keep using words like "unexpected" in describing the latest economic bad news? Why does anyone listen to these clowns?

  • Tony||

    In his appearance with David Gregory on Meet the Press this morning, Geithner bombed like Larry Crowne, but his performance beautifully revealed what a stupid, arrogant, stubborn, entitled, ignorant fool he is. His doomsday ravings were not credible. (Samples: “greater shock than the Great Depression,” “off a cliff,” and “worst economic storm since the Great Depression.”) His constant appeals to the authority of “most business economists” and “credit rating agencies around the world” and even just “the leaders” were unfit for a public official in a free republic.

    Whereas he could simply defer to a fringe network of ideologues and agree with them on a set of facts that are most convenient for them.

    I'm no fan of David Gregory's, but "simian-jawed"? The combination of invective and glee this article's tone has indicates that you don't care about having policy counter-proposals, you just want to be proven right about how incompetent the Obama administration is. That's also apparent by the actual lack of any policy ideas presented.

    If they don't have the ability to engineer a recovery, then what do you expect them to do? Blow it all up? Would you like that? I think you would. As more people get pissed off and stressed out, some portion of them wander into libertarianism.

    I do not trust you guys to care enough about real people's lives to overcome the psychological benefits that come with convincing yourself you're right, and any poor economic news does that for you, no details required.

  • ||

    It's Tony. Hey everyone, Tony's here! How ya doin', Tony?

  • TONEY||

    I"M BUTTHURTED

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Did he say something useful. or was it just more Team Blue spoo-gargling?

  • ||

    who can tell? It's all slobbery kisses.

  • Shorter Tony||

    [::tearfully holding up glossy color photo of Obama::] YOU NEVER REALLY LOVED HIMMMMMMMMMMMMM -- !!!

  • sevo||

    "Whereas he could simply defer to a fringe network of ideologues and agree with them on a set of facts that are most convenient for them."

    Really nice rhetoric; totally devoid of anything other than the opinion of a bran-dead asshole.
    Thanks, Tony par for your efforts, shithead

  • Tony||

    Not all of us can contribute as much insight as sevc.

  • West Texas||

    It's the real Tony for once. A spoof is always a spoof but they're ain't nothin' like the real thing, baybeeeee.

  • ||

    Geithner was clearly channeling Simon Foster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24Wol8yLwo#t=0m14s

  • ||

    lack of any policy ideas presented.

    If you cannot present an alternative central plan, your criticism and rejection of central planning is irrelevant.

  • Tony||

    Is there some alternative to a plan? If what you want is to change nothing then what are you bitching about?

  • Hugh Akston||

    The alternative is to stop attempting to plan other peoples lives for them.

  • Typical Liberal||

    The alternative is to stop attempting to plan other peoples lives for them.

    [::blink::]

    [::blink::]

    [::blink::]

  • Tony||

    So when every single metric of human misery ticks up, you don't have to answer for it? You don't have a "plan" for everyone to let them be more autonomous even if they don't want it?

  • sevo||

    "So when every single metric of human misery ticks up, you don't have to answer for it?"
    No, shithead. Nor has that happened, shithead.

    "You don't have a "plan" for everyone to let them be more autonomous even if they don't want it?"
    I lost my shithead decoder ring; please attend an ESL course and try again.

  • Tony||

    I learned something in ELS that you might find useful: letters go from left to right.

    Just kidding. You win, I am defeated. You can leave me alone now.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tony, there is a meaningful distinction between morally obligatory and morally praiseworthy. I have an obligation not to actively harm people, but no obligation to actively help them. Particularly when my help is not wanted or ends up hurting them.

    If people don't want autonomy, they can sign their freedoms away to their local tyrant any time, but they have no right to take my rights along with them.

  • Tony||

    So stop assuming you have rights to things you don't, like not being taxed. Relatively speaking you have more autonomy here than most anyone has ever had. You don't get total autonomy; most of us don't want to live like that, because it's not natural or desirable, and like it or not you share limited space and resources with everyone else.

  • Butts Wagner||

    most of us don't want to live like that

    And that's fine. But some people want to live completely autonomous. So those people should be allowed to opt out.

    and like it or not you share limited space and resources with everyone else.

    So those who want autonomy should be allowed to congregate in areas they own. If a group of people buy a land mass, like a city/state, and choose to live a life of autonomy, is that ok? Are you ok with a private group buying land and setting up their own government that allows autonomy? Your argument can be extrapolated to the point that all levels of decisions are purview to a higher authority that knows what's best for each individual. According to you, if 50.000000000000000000000000000001% of the world's population agrees that trains should be the only mode of transportation, then cars should be banned because "most" people agree that trains are better than cars. Would you agree with this? What if 50.00000000000000000000001% of people in the world think that Sharia Law is best? What if 50.00000000000000000000000001% of the world population decides that Blacks are inferior to every other race? I mean, we live in a world of limited space, right? I guess we should make all women cover up and treat all Blacks as intellectually inferior. Earth only has so much area, right?

  • TONEY||

    If I say something is not natural or desirable it's totally not bullshit for 'I can't make an argument'.

  • Tony||

    And that's fine. But some people want to live completely autonomous. So those people should be allowed to opt out.

    How do you opt out of having national defense? You are free to leave; what you're not free to do is steal government services.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    it's not natural or desirable

    *sigh* Once again: hard citation(s) needed in support of bald assertion(s).

    You're really not very good at this, are you?

  • Tony||

    JoJo Zeke,

    As evidence of the claim that humans tend to be social animals rather than autonomous individuals, I present the complete lack of autonomous societies anywhere in the history of the earth, and the 100% prevalence of social organization.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    By the 'social animal' metric, Tony, it's also unnatural (and according to you, therefore a bad idea) to live in societies larger than Dunbar's number, which is certainly no more than 200.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    As evidence of the claim that humans tend to be social animals

    Failed attempt at goalpost relocation noted. Your original bald assertions, still sans anything even remotely resembling supporting evidence, were (and remain) that it is both "unnatural and undesirable" not to want a smothering Big Mommy gub'mint clutching us, one and all, to her massive and ever-swelling bosom, cradle to grave, world without end, amen.

    That you cannot possibly defend such an inherently infantile position on anything like a coherent intellectual basis is, sadly, not terribly surprising.

  • ||

    So when every single metric of human misery ticks up, you don't have to answer for it?

    Excuse me, have the statists "answered for" the mess they've created yet? Till they do, you can shove that hypothetical up your ass.

    You don't have evidence that libertarianism causes human misery to increase, and you don't have anything beyond the vaguest pablum in the way of arguments that it would cause human misery to increase. So it's quite out of place for you to be treating it as a likely occurrence.

  • ||

    Part of freedom is making bad choices. Part of freedom is living with your choices.

    I'll take that over subservience.

  • Tony||

    Statism vs. antistatism is your simplistic, mindless dichotomy. Not everyone who believes in government has to answer for every government that has existed. People just need to answer for the policies they believe in.

    Not you guys. Nope, us statists are required to completely fix the economy 100% before our policies are deemed worth trying. Yet no matter how low taxes go, you don't have to answer for them because we haven't achieved libertopia yet.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    If there was any evidence that state involvement actually improved economic circumstances vice making said circumstances worse, (as they do by any meaningful metric), your argument might be worth considering.

    But, since that is not the case....

  • sevo||

    Tony|7.10.11 @ 10:27PM|#
    "Is there some alternative to a plan?"

    Yes, shithead.
    I don't want to waste time in concerns over the stock-boys at the local market. Equally, nor do I want to waste time in concerns over stupid politicos in DC or other locations.
    The plan is: Shut up, go away, quit bothering me, and quit stealing my money for your re-election agenda.

  • Tony||

    No one is asking you to participate, trust me.

  • sevo||

    "No one is asking you to participate, trust me."
    Lie, shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We're not being asked... we're being told.

  • Butts Wagner||

    No one is asking you to participate, trust me.

    I didn't read this before replying above. So you do agree that people can opt out if they want to?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    TONY @ 1:06 - "So stop assuming you have rights to things you don't, like not being taxed."

    TONY @ 11:30 - "No one is asking you to participate, trust me."

    Anyone else here ever read The Minds of Billy Milligan...?

  • Tony||

    sevo is welcome to opt out of as many things as he wants. He can start with this place.

  • Tony||

    But yes, people can opt out. They just can't do so while still enjoying the services tax money pays for. That's called stealing. You are free to renounce your citizenship and leave at any time, however.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You blaze the trail, we'll follow.

    Honest.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Tony, get this tattooed on your forehead: you may not charge for services given without consent. It is not stealing to refuse to pay the guy who mows my grass if I never asked him to mow my grass.

  • Tony||

    You give your consent implicitly by remaining a citizen, a status conferred to you upon birth. This is not an injustice if you are allowed to renounce it; it's simply a necessity in a world in which new people are born daily. Would you feel better if, at age 18, everyone was asked explicitly by some government agency whether they'd like to remain a citizen?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Yes. Yes I would.

  • Tony||

    Chalk one up for big government then.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    A government that asks you if you'd like to be a citizen is bigger than one which treats you as a citizen no matter what? Well, if that's true, it's safe to say bigness of government is not my concern. Voluntariness, however, is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Chalk one up for big government?

    Coming from you??

    It is to laugh.

  • Almanian||

    Flipped over to this while watching Hist Intls (new? I think) Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich. It's good - my brain is deeply engrossed.

    Then I read this, and think - "Y'know what the biggest difference is? Those fuckin' Natsees, they were tuh [actual] EVUL and all...but, sumbitch were they ever COMPETENT! I mean bordering on BRILLIANT at times!"

    Oh yes, hubris and teh cRAzee crept in almost immediately, leading to the inevitable fall. But that aside...

    I then contrast them with the current admin of the US of A - who are, in comparison, a witless, incompetent, stupid group of maroons.

    Doing all kinds of destruction and leaving a raft of [figurative] bodies in their collective wake...but not evil...just fucking STOOPID.

    So, thanks for helping me clarify that in my own mind, Timmeh. O'Brahma - not evil - just teh stoopid.

    Back to the exciting conclusion of the Fall of the Third Reich! I can't wait to see how this turned out!

  • Banjos||

    "I can't wait to see how this turned out!"

    Professor Snape kills Hitler.

  • ||

    No spoiler alert?

    You motherfucker!

  • sevo||

    "I can't wait to see how this turned out!"
    You already have.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, he's still evil. Not Hitler evil. just Ayn Rand villain evil.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    When Gregory pulled up a simple table – demonstrating the non-disputed truths that unemployment has risen by 26 percent, from 7.3 percent to 9.2 percent, since the Obama Administration took office; and that public debt subject to limit has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion, a 35 percent increase, over the same period – Geithner’s response was the milk-curdling “David, let me just say that’s a ridiculous table.”

    Ah. The fabled Tony Defense. Well played, Mr. Geithner.

  • ||

    Pioneered by Obama in that interview with George Snuffalupagus, where he chided the boy wonder for going to a dictionary to find the definitions of words.

  • Mainer||

    I cherish the memory of what a condescending prig Obama was in that interview.

  • ||

    If what you want is to change nothing

    You're making less sense than usual.

  • Tony||

    You act like all the changes you want wouldn't take significant central planning to accomplish. Does that bother you because you might have to take responsibility for the horrific consequences?

  • Spoonman.||

    Well guys, I think Tony's got us here.

    See, Tony here can't imagine how you'd stop centrally planning the country without central planning.

    He's reached the level of "not even wrong," which becomes challenging to refute.

  • Tony||

    We both want government to be different; you'd have to pass a lot more laws than I would.

  • sevo||

    "We both want government to be different; you'd have to pass a lot more laws than I would."
    There must be some level of stupidity that even shithead recognizes as stupid to the nth. So far, shithead has proven me wrong.

  • Tony||

    More of that incisive perspective sevo is so famous for.

  • sevo||

    "More of that incisive perspective sevo is so famous for."
    About a good as we get from shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "you'd have to pass a lot more laws than I would"

    BWAhaha!!!

    How the fuck do you expect central planning to work, if you don't pass laws governing more of our behavior?

  • Tony||

    How the fuck do you dismantle modern civilization as we know it without legislating?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No one here is interested in your "dismantl[ing] modern civilization" strawman.

  • ||

    I think you mean "repeal", not "pass".

  • Tony||

    Is there some great moral difference?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Nope, but the end result is the government having less influence over the lives of individuals - i.e. less people going to jail for disobeying the state. That is morally different.

  • sevo||

    "You act like all the changes you want wouldn't take significant central planning to accomplish."
    This would be sorta like Raul trying to figure out what rules are required to let people buy and sell things?
    You are truly ignorant beyond belief.

  • Tony||

    Ok you tell me, non-ignorant person, how would you dismantle the welfare state without passing any laws?

  • sevo||

    "Ok you tell me, non-ignorant person, how would you dismantle the welfare state without passing any laws?"
    I think you're SERIOUS! And that tells me you really won't get it.
    The welfare state is a result of laws passed; repeal them.

  • Tony||

    But that's not social engineering? All I want to do is tweak things in the interest of greater security. You want to radically change everyone's life.

  • sevo||

    "But that's not social engineering?"
    See! I told you you wouldn't get it!
    No, shithead, *not* telling someone what to do is *not* social engineering.
    I also have another hint: Up /= Down. I know that's hard for an ignoramus to accept, but give it a try, shithead.

  • Tony||

    You're typing things, but all I read is "I get bonus freedom points for my beliefs because... just because!"

  • sevo||

    "You're typing things, but all I read is "I get bonus freedom points for my beliefs because... just because!"

    Remedial reading class; paid for by the taxpayers, somewhere near you.
    Strongly suggested, shithead.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    All I want to do is tweak things in the interest of greater security.

    "All I want to do is 'tweak' just a little bit more money out of your wallets, is all. It's really really really SUPER-essential this time, though! Honest, guys!"

  • Tony||

    None of you have enough money to be relevant to discussions about hiking taxes.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Hard citation needed in support of bald assertion.

  • Tony||

    Just an assumption.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Next time, switch off to your other hand while "assuming."

  • sevo||

    "Just an assumption."
    And for further shithead stupidity, we can nominate the above.
    Is there an Olympic event where shithead can take the gold?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Is there an Olympic event where shithead can take the gold?

    Sadly, "taking the gold" is all today's stubbornly grasping left knows how to do, really.

  • sevo||

    "None of you have enough money to be relevant to discussions about hiking taxes."
    Now shithead is stupid, and then even more stupid, and then we get this.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "You want to radically change everyone's life."

    You should visit the White House and tell the occupants what you just told us, Tony.

  • Butts Wagner||

    None of you have enough money to be relevant to discussions about hiking taxes.

    Diversion!

  • Butts Wagner||

    But that's not social engineering?

    Not to pile on, but seriously? Engineering takes active work on the part of some party. No longer doing anything pro-active eliminates any engineering on the part of that party.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's real Toney. The spoofers just can't reach that epic imbecility.

  • Spoof Tonee||

    Just watch me try!

  • ||

    If failing to buy health insurance is commerce, then I don't see why repealing laws can't be social engineering.

  • Butts Wagner||

    If failing to buy health insurance is commerce, then I don't see why repealing laws can't be social engineering.

    Sarcasm is useless at this point.

  • Tony||

    I'm not trying to be a smartass here--you literally want more social change than I do, much more. Whatever the means you use to get there, that's a fact. There is no ideal baseline to compare to, even though you think there is. If we're talking about social engineering, doesn't it make sense to start with the status quo as the baseline?

  • ||

    Part of freedom is making bad choices. Part of freedom is living with your choices.

    I'll take that over subservience.

  • Tony||

    That's perfectly fine as long as your bad choices don't affect me. That is the case in more scenarios than you'd admit.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Your bad choices affect us all, Tony.

    Bet you don't feel guilty at all.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    And how do you use the logic to justify the welfare state?

  • Tony||

    People not being insured affects me by raising my premiums. And not having a basic safety net has social costs any way you slice it, even if it's just to clean up the corpses.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Yes, people not being insured raises your premiums - the same way people not constantly giving you blowjobs leaves you sexually frustrated. I don't know why you think it's other peoples' responsibility to keep your premiums low in the first place. And isn't there an alternative rule we could have for corpses? Can't we just say, you know, if a corpse is inconveniencing you, you're welcome to bury it. Problem solved.

  • Tony||

    The reason uninsured people drive up my costs is because they still get medical care--at my expense. So unless we want a society in which only those with means can get medical care, the costs are gonna be socialized one way or the other. Might as well do it the most efficient way (insure everyone).

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    So, as ever, you have no arguments against libertarianism - only against things that look a bit like libertarianism. We want a society in which only those with means can get medical care. Now, 'means' doesn't necessarily mean riches. Charity is a fine and noble thing. We just don't want to force anyone into it. Do you actually read anything a libertarian writes? - because it seems like this must have been explained to you literally several hundred times by now.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    People who don't drive, don't buy auto policies, which makes my car insurance higher.

    Therefore, everyone should be forced to buy auto insurance.

    [end TonySpeak]

  • ||

    It's amazing to me that this shitty little liar had the nerve to give an interview at all. He should be making plans to skulk away and retire on his ill-gotten gains.

    -jcr

  • rather||

    his performance beautifully revealed what a stupid, arrogant, stubborn, entitled, ignorant fool he is

    His performance may be all the above but if he is leaving with benefits for life, we are the greater fools

  • Butts Wagner||

    but if he is leaving with benefits for life, we are the greater fools

    I am with rather. FML.

  • ||

    If they don't have the ability to engineer a recovery, then what do you expect them to do?

    STOP "HELPING"!

  • Tony||

    Meaning what.

  • sevo||

    "Meaning what."
    There are remedial reading classes available in a community college near you. Take one.
    "STOP "HELPING"!"
    What is there in that comment that mystifies you?

  • JBA||

    Tony doesn't need remedial courses. He has an *English* degree. From *Oklahoma.*

  • Butts Wagner||

    Meaning what.

    You are beyond hope. Also, it means that pro-actively helping is clearly not helping. What more is there to get?

  • ||

    Meaning stop pretending a Great Savior can manipulate the economy. Let creative destruction happen.

  • Tony||

    And if bad things happen, you'll take intellectual responsibility for them?

  • sevo||

    "And if bad things happen, you'll take intellectual responsibility for them?"
    And shithead, I'll presume you take the 'intellectual responsibility" for all the bad things that have happened?
    Right, shithead?

  • Tony||

    If they're the fault of policies I favor.

    That requires looking at the real world, not the one you make up inside your head to fit all your ideological assumptions.

  • sevo||

    "If they're the fault of policies I favor."
    They are. Shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He's as clueless as Timmeh. Rome is fiddling, or some metaphor, and Tony is blaming people who have nothing to do with the policies which are destroying us.

  • ||

    "If they're the fault of policies I favor."
    ---------

    "If I can't find anything else to blame"

  • Butts Wagner||

    And if bad things happen, you'll take intellectual responsibility for them?

    I take responsibility for myself. If other people make decisions that lead to job loss, it's not my fault. If I am doing well and can help those people and choose to help those people, I will.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Furthermore, if I am failing and no one helps me, I won't fault them.

  • ||

    Government-instigated misallocation of resources cause the recession. Why should we believe the government can "direct" resources any more successfully this time?

  • Tony||

    We shouldn't believe it; Republicans control the House.

  • sevo||

    "We shouldn't believe it; Republicans control the House."
    Running out of bullshit shithead?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue controls the Senate and the Figureheadacy.

    Check, mate.

  • Butts Wagner||

    We shouldn't believe it; Republicans control the House.

    Post-2010. What about 2008-2010?

  • Tony||

    Things went a little better then, even though the Republicans still controlled the Senate from their minority.

  • mustard||

    Is there any problem in the world that isn't caused by government in your view?

    Sheesh. You better check under your bed tonight to make sure there's not a government hiding there.

  • Condensed mustard||

    I have nor argument I concede.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    The heartbreak of psoriasis?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Pauly Krugnuts, Jamie Dimon, Jon Corzine, Warren Buffet, Larry Summers.

    Hmmmm? Who to pick?

  • ||

    you'll take intellectual responsibility for them?

    I'm pretty sure I bear no responsibility for your inability to add and subtract.

  • Tony||

    I thought subtracting is all that mattered?

  • Butts Wagner||

    I thought subtracting is all that mattered?

    This was a joke, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  • JoJo Zeke||

    If people don't want autonomy, they can sign their freedoms away to their local tyrant any time, but they have no right to take my rights along with them.

    Self-evident truth, too blindingly simple to be misunderstood by anything short of a conscious, full-bore act of will.

    Your cue, Tony.

  • Tony||

    What if the tyrant people want is localized to a nation-state?

  • Butts Wagner||

    What if the tyrant people want is localized to a nation-state?

    Great, so if my local government wants to allow people to smoke and discriminate against blacks, then your local gov should have no problem with it, right?

  • Tony||

    The local government I was referring to was the US federal gov't. What's yours? Sounds like a shithole.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's a difference?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    This is what it all comes down to: Tony literally believes the government of the United States owns all of the land in the United States - everyone who lives there is just renting.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Reproach and everlasting shame sit mocking in your plume, Geithner. Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but shame.

    If only this were the case. I just won't believe it until it happens.

  • ||

    Goldman-Sachs takes care of their own...which is basically the entire economic "team" of the current administration (as well as the previous).

  • Butts Wagner||

    This is my point. In 20-30 years, what will high schoolers learn? Geithner tried his best, but the damn Tea Party kept him down.

  • Tony||

    I hope so. That way high schoolers would be learning the truth.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Those damn Tea Partiers with all of their power. Fuck em.

  • Butts Wagner||

    BTW, you need to respond to all of my previous responses to you.

  • A Serious Man||

    I like how he said austerity cuts = an automatic tax increase on the poor, elderly, and sick.

    He gets an 8.9 on the pathos scale for that one.

  • ||

    unemployment has risen by 26 percent, from 7.3 percent to 9.2 percent, since the Obama Administration took office

    And the percentage increase in the unemployment percentage has increased by 73%.

    You don't even want to know what percentage that has increased by.

  • .||

    Forty something million Americans or about 13 percent of the population is on food stamps, but unemployment is only 9.2 percent? Who they trying to kid?

  • Yogi||

    Geithner Believes “Foreseeable” Is a “Complicated Word”

    It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

  • ||

    May be one of Cavanaugh's best posts evar!

    If I were to throw any kerosene on that fire, it would have to do with Obama holding up the budget talks to raise the capital gains tax--even as the economy starves in part for lack of investment.

    "It’s indicative of President Obama’s lack of personal compassion that he has not simply let Geithner leave office to spend more time with his family, rather than making him go through more rounds of public humiliation."

    Obama believes in what Geithner has done and is doing--even if Geithner doesn't.

    Obama is the problem.

  • jasonfan||

  • NotSure||

    Today Tony was being extra idiotic, here were some of his ideas:

    Wanting to get rid of laws, will require more laws, so it is best not to get rid of those laws.

    Central planning is the only solution to the problem, so decentralising is not a solution.

    Libertarian ideas are to blame for all the financial problems, at the same time libertarianism is crazed cult that is accepted by nobody important.

    Timmy is a wise man with many important degrees, so he can't be wrong, just because he failed by his own definition of failure does not mean he failed, he succeeded.

    Tony you truly are the resident clown. I am sure you think that getting some useless sociology degree makes you clever, it does not.

  • Mainer||

    Tony doesn't care as long as he's getting attention. Why anyone engages this boring little twit is beyond me.

  • Freedom Surfer||

    Lets say that just for arguments sake we look at our national debt of 14 trillion as just that - our debt. If we are spending 40% of every dollar on just the interest on our national debt alone this is an obvious problem and leads to a bleak future for our country. At some point even little Tim must come to this understanding as must Uncle Ben. As the highly educated financial wizards of our time these two should be held to account for their actions and statements. The path they have planned for our country WILL lead to financial ruin - this is something they are doing knowingly.
    That being the case I believe that treason is a reasonable charge - they have chosen this path.

  • ||

    that actually does make a lot of sense dude.

    www.anon-toolz.tk

  • Middle Age Crazy||

    stupid, arrogant, stubborn, entitled, ignorant fool

    Easy there Tim, you're beginning to sound like us. That way lies madness.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement