Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement calling for the resignation of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from his cabinet post, effective immediately, for his gross mismanagement of federal economic policy and for his role in the first-ever downgrade of United States debt.
“Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,” Sen. Paul said. “He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences”
good I would be broke or in jail if I ran my life like the gov.
ReplyDeleteEven though I'm sure most readers here know Tim Geithner would probably just become a tax-feeding parasitical fraud somewhere else should it occur (hopefully somewhere he would be less harmful to the rest of us), Rand Paul (or anyone else with a spine) is correct to call for this and should be applauded.
ReplyDeleteWill he or has he called for the resignation of the Fed chairman? The treasury secretary is bad enough but really how much trouble could he get into without the central bank. Rand ought to follow his dad's lead and call for the Fed to be abolished!
ReplyDeleteI think timmy "turbotax" would want to run away from this as fast as he can. They will install a even more violent statist...Jon Corzine.
ReplyDeleteTar and feather the toad.
ReplyDeleteWhat is this "our" debt? This is the government's debt, and I'm just on the hook for it because I'm at the business end of the government's gun.
ReplyDeleteI wish Rand would stop using collective terms.
Goofball Geithner could become CFO of Intuit TurboTax division. He just might be qualified...Oh, Wait.....
ReplyDeleteNo...His only qualification is to suck the taxpayer teat.
I almost gagged while watching the scene in "Social Network" where Larry Summers claims economic expertise because he was once Treasury Secretary. They never mentioned what he did to the Harvard endowment!
ReplyDeleteWe've had some pretty abysmal Treasury guys beginning with A. Hamilton.
Ted Sonnier,
ReplyDeleteI agree. Too often Rand issues statements that reek of collectivist drivel. This most recent statement goes a step further by adding fallacious claims.
1) Moody's & S&P are not the only rating agencies. Other agencies that are not tools of the US govt downgraded US debt previously. Therefore this is not the first time the debt has been downgraded.
2) What does this have anything to do with American taxpayers? The debt belongs to politicians, not "us". The people that will be affected by this are those invest in T-bonds and all the people that live off government funds. From a free-market perspective this is a small victory.
@Ted Sonnier
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking, you..or anyone else... COULD have repudiated the debt.... by expatriating....or by refusing to pay taxes and taking the punishment.....
It's not THAT difficult.
If one were so very purist, one would have done that by now, I think...
If filing a few papers and buying an airline ticket is too much for one's principles, then one's principles can't be all THAT pure, can they?
Not meaning to be provocative. Just thinking aloud..
@Lila,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"It's not THAT difficult.
If one were so very purist, one would have done that by now, I think...
If filing a few papers and buying an airline ticket is too much for one's principles, then one's principles can't be all THAT pure, can
they?"
Ignoring the fact that even if you file the paperwork and leave the US the IRS can still come after you, expatriating is far more difficult and costly than just buying some airline tickets.
The Austrians brought back subjective utility as the root of value and therefore prices and costs. The cost of expatriating then is all psychic value an individual assigns to it. This includes leaving family, friends, career, and last but not least his home.
These pyschic costs are real and for most people held in high regard.
Your comment reeks of Randian objectivism.
The proper question is not, "why have not more people left?" but rather, "why should people leave?"
It is those in government that are the intruders and it is they who should leave, not the productive residents.
Staying is just as much a principled position as leaving.