Let's say it is true: WHo should replace him? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 15:42:17 PM UTC

hmm (0.00 / 0)

bill black, david korten, mason gaffney, ellen brown, joe stiglitz?

---

by: stillman @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 15:44:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

YEAH! THREE CHEERS! (4.00 / 3)

Not that this means any meaningful change, but it is a good sign when a sell-out from dur chimpfurher's reign of terror is no longer part of the "yes we can" team.

This doesn't get to heart of real issues - why did obama throw us under the bus and put him in charge in the first place, but it is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

At least with this jerk, we knew we had a turd.  If you report is true, we need to send a loud and clear message to obama that we still expect change that he promised but has failed to deliver on.

---

by: Vote Carefully @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 15:43:44 PM UTC

OR, he knows that an even bigger problem..... (4.00 / 3)

....that he helped to create is about to surface and wants to be out of the line of fire.

I vote for this reason!

---

by: Shainzona @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 15:43:47 PM UTC

It's probably just that Rachel Uchitel is about to go public with all of his texts (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Pesto @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 16:11:19 PM UTC

HA!!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Shainzona @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 16:35:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd go with #2 (definitely not #1) (4.00 / 2)

I doubt he enjoyed the job very much in the last few years, I think he probably feels he did his best and averted a complete financial panic, and why not go be a professor somewhere? Meanwhile, why should he go before the Senate and be made the scapegoat for Greenspan and Bush (or anyone else you care to fill in from the current administration)?

#3 could be true too, especially in the larger sense of getting out while you're ahead. There's not going to be much good happening in the next few years.

Of course, it may be that Rahm is giving him a shove, which would esaily be explained that the Obama Admin is realizing they need to distance themselves from Wall Street. (See 60 min.)  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 16:19:02 PM UTC

Well, he isn't merely a scapegoat. He really has been part of the problem, (4.00 / 3)

..with his undetermined stance to making banks accountable, and on the possible ways out of the crisis. His Senate hearings show that, just look them up and read all the crap he said! Calling for repairing the deficit by rducing social security benfits, but having no opinion at all on tax increases for the rich, and all that shit! Unbfuckinglievable!

So, pls, no crocodile tears for helicopter Bernie. He only get's what he deserves, nothing more.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 17:16:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will be shocked if he withdraws (4.00 / 4)

The consensus in the economics profession is that his reaction since the crisis exploded in September was good to excellent (see Krugman and Roubini for example).  I am well aware I am completely alone here in that assesment here, btw...

It was a mistake to give him another term, but on other grounds (you don't hand the second most powerful office in the United States to a political opponent) though, particularly as one as tone death on globalization as he is.  

---

by: fladem @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 16:35:54 PM UTC

Not alone.... (4.00 / 2)

....and at least his policies were not as nakedly corrupt and self-serving as Paulson (What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the country).

Still he has made some serious missteps.  The most egregious is that he appears to be completely abrogating the Fed's statuary duty to support employment.  Despite the easing of credit with the trillions the Fed is throwing at the banks, there's little interest in private investing because there's no demand. Instead the cheap money from the Fed is being used to play in the casino again. And Bernanke could do a lot to enable further stimulus spending, but clearly he's content with the status quo.

---

by: Taylor @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 20:47:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Consensus economists (4.00 / 1)

are the problem.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:23:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Krugman withdrew his support after the Senate hearings. (4.00 / 2)

Really, look up what Bernanke said. He meticulously brought up all the wrong (=GOP) talking points in a Senate hearing facing a Dem majority. It was as if he was begging to be fired. And that raises dire concerns about his good judgment. Krugman was flabbergasted.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:50:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]