Now, Even Geithner Is Questioning Obama's Fiscal Policy

From Reuters:

Geithner aired concern on bank limits-sources

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK, Jan 21 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed some skepticism behind closed doors about the broad bank limits proposed on Thursday by his boss, President Barack Obama, according to financial industry sources.

The sources, speaking anonymously because Geithner has not spoken publicly about his reservations, said the Treasury chief is concerned the proposed limits on big banks' trading and size could impact U.S. firms' global competitiveness.

He also has concerns that limits on proprietary trading do not necessarily get at the root of the problems and excesses that fueled the recent financial meltdown, the sources said.

Roger Simon comments:

I don’t think it’s accident that the Stock Market is tanking after a very short rally that coincided with the then coming victory of Scott Brown. The business world is scared – as is evidently our Secretary of the Treasury who has wandered about as far off the reservation as cabinet officers normally go, allowing the world to know his skepticism about Obama’s new reining in of the banks. (How long before Geithner goes under the bus now?)

The scary thing is that many of us believe the President hardly knows much of anything, certainly not economics, and is surrounded by an increasingly paranoid and defensive group of advisers. It’s shades of Nixon, but worse. Tricky Dick, at least, knew what he was doing and could accomplish things.

Obama is the biggest windbag to ever ascend to the presidency. He has no idea what he is doing and now things are getting rough. Frankly, I’m worried for our country because this man doesn’t really understand what the public is telling him. He just thinks we’re “angry.” He’s wrong – we’re furious and we’re furious because he blames everyone but himself and seems psychologically incapable of taking responsibility.

The alternative to capitalism is socialism and it has never worked. Not once, in all its myriad permutations. In fact, it most often hurts those it was intended to help, bankrupting the society and leaving the lower classes destitute. The Soviet Union collapsed.

China was deeply impoverished until it turned essentially capitalistic .

Everybody knows that now, and has for years, except maybe our president. He’s after the banks and is so clueless he thinks that will impress us. Of course, it won’t. Nobody believes anything he says anymore. But he is the President and he can take executive actions. And with those actions, like a wounded animal, he may pull all of us down with him. I am deeply afraid of that because Barack Obama has never had to deal with any personal adversity in his adult life. He has lived a completely privileged existence. This is a first for him. There’s no telling how he will behave.

The Liberal Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg is not on board with Obama's attack on the banks either:

Mayor Mike Bloomberg lashed out at Obama’s reform proposals, calling them economic doom for his city and an end to the US as the center of Western finance. Expect layoffs by the boatload if this passes, an angry Bloomberg told reporters yesterday:

President Barack Obama’s demand Thursday that Congress clamp down on the size of banks and their investments got major blowback from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said it could cause layoffs and hurt the city.

It’s a clash between the president and the mayor. President Obama wants to whittle away at the size of the financial services industry. …

The mayor was so upset about the move — and a suggestion that Wall Street bonuses be put in escrow, which means the money wouldn’t be spent here, wouldn’t help the city economy — he responded with a proposal of his own for members of Congress.

“Maybe we should hold back their salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out,” Bloomberg said.

The mayor also demanded that the members of our congressional delegation go to the mat to protect the financial services industry, much like senators from Texas protect the oil industry.

Mayor Bloomberg also said that limiting the size of banks will hurt their competitiveness in the global economy.

The Corner has an enlightening running debate at their site today on how exactly these reforms would have stopped the 2008 financial collapse. The consensus among supporters and dissenters is that they wouldn’t have even applied to that crisis, a conclusion that the White House essentially corroborated with its response to Reuters:

The White House official said Obama’s economic team considered the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problems that fueled the financial crisis. But it concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well, the official said.