« Shocker: Media Let Wall Street Chieftain Praise His Own Idea | Home | Geithner and Bernanke Face the Furies »
Poll: Geithner's Numbers Not Great -- But Not Awful, Either
The new CBS poll shows how Tim Geithner's public image has held up in the face of some really bad press coverage. Overall, his numbers aren't great -- but they're not nearly as bad as you might expect:
How much confidence do you have in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's ability to handle the nation's financial crisis - a lot, some, not much, or none at all?
A lot 13%
Some 41%
Not much 20%
None at all 15%
So a 54% majority of respondents have some level of confidence in Geithner, but it's hardly an emphatic vote of support.
As is to expected, Democrats are the most confident, Republicans the least confident, and independents correspond closely to the top-line numbers.
Advertisement
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
I'd add - and I know I'm not going to win friends here for saying so - but some of the behavior towards Geithner in the left-wing blogosphere has been short-sighted and at times immature:
strategyforprogress.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/the-left-wing-blogosphere-and-geithner-a-case-study-of-immaturity/
March 24, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops - sorry, the link is here:
http://strategyforprogress.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/the-left-wing-blogosphere-and-geithner-a-case-study-of-immaturity/
March 24, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NY Times editorial board is also a bunch of immature lefties! Who knew?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/opinion/24tue1.html
March 24, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm pretty sure that explanations have been offered, both by the Obama team and by non-Nobel-Prize-winning nincompoop economists like Brad deLong. Perhaps, you had your hearing aid turned off?
Although I did not like the choices of Geithner and Summers to run this show, I like even less this spectacle of the tail attempting to wag to dog.
There seems to be some bizarre notion abroad that "nationalizing" the banks "temporarily" is something simple as driving the moneychangers from the temple. Has any of the economic experts on the NYT editorial board actually looked at how that would be done, how much it would cost and how long it would take? No, of course not -- because they aren't any more expert at economics and finance than anyone here. Because it can be summed up in one word, it must be easy. Wrong again.
I Think Paul Krugman Is Wrong
The Geithner Plan FAQ
Thanks.
mp
March 24, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It could be done if Obama borrowed Krugman's magic wand...
March 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's DeLong in the Times's "Room for Debate" section today:
Quite the ringing endorsement, that. And he's about the only expert who's had even mildly positive things to say.
Step away from the glass of Kool-Aid.
March 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad De-who? Oh, yes, that dude that exists outside of David Kurtz's one-sided interview bubble.
March 24, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that dude, the one who is so enamored with the plan he thinks it's a "glass 3/8 full".
March 24, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the NYT put a price tag on nationalization?
Fun fact: Citi's global deposits: $700 Billion. That's just one bank. Those are FDIC insured. Imagine the trillions more for many of the 314 other banks that took TARP money.
I'm not against nationalization in theory, but isn't it dishonest to pretend it is cost free? I wish all tghe advocates of it would be honest about 1) the risks of failure (The 1980s French model -- as opposed to always touting the rosiest scenario, the Swedish model) and 2) the cost of nationalization.
March 24, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you know you are suppose to snap to, click your heels, and yell Zeig Stiglitz or Heil Krugman, everytime one of these charlatans dumps on Obama/Geithner?
March 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God the "serious" supporters of the plan, like Candide, are not immature like the critics! Especially those Nobel Prize-winning charlatans!
You people are becoming such ridiculous self-parodies that you do more damage to your own cause than anyone else could possibly do.
March 24, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You people"? "cause"?
You're sounding like your hero PK who called Obama supporters a "cult". Very mature analysis for people who disagreed with his ideas.
Is "cult" better than nazi comparisons? Or even better, Bush comparisons, which are the new Nazi comparisons.
March 24, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All bow down to Krugman the Oracle, Krugman the all-knowing economic master. Krugman is God!
If Krugman says Obama is wrong, then we can call this game now. Obama is finished because his economic policies will fail; He will be a one-term president.
Krugman knows all. Don't let the fact that Paul "Shifty Eyes" Krugman has spent his life embroiled in theory and locked in the ivory towers and never dealt with or resolved a real-life economic crisis in his life. We all know that what works in theory and on paper works the same way in practice.
March 24, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at FreeRepublic's bright shiny object! Don't pay any attention to the fact that almost every OTHER economist who has commented on the plan also hates it, exect that DeLong is kinda sorta lukewarm
about it.
Are you EVER going to make a comment that's above the intellectual level of a 5 year old?
March 24, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you ever going to pull your head out of Krugman's ass?
Are you ever going to stop foaming at the mouth?
I'll answer for you: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
March 24, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you ever going to admit that Krugmna isn't even close to being the only well-qualified critic? Of course not, since Krugman-bashing is all you've got.
5 year old.
March 24, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you ever going to stop seething with rage because we don't worship at the shrine of Paul "Shifty Eyes" Krugman?
Are you ever going to stop getting a woody whenever Krugman trots out his daily Obama bashing?
150 year-old!
March 24, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stiglitz:
Where went the argument that the plan's doom was due to the crisis being of solvency rather than liquidity? Now instead it has morphed into a taxpayer revolt issue. The first sign of a zombie theory or viewpoint is the ad hoc swapping of supporting arguments in order to keep it alive.
Do stick to the economics, Dr Stiglitz, and leave the analysis of taxpayer reactions to the pollsters; already, they are proving you less than accurate.
March 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have flunked logic. There is, and has been all along, only one argument here. Precisely BECAUSE the problem is solvency and not merely liquidity, the taxpayers are being asked to make up the shortfall- but in this plan, WITHOUT any of the accountability and oversight, and without the breakup of dangerously large institutions, that should accompany such largesse.
The best and indeed only expert witness in "support" of the plan isDeLong- who considers it a "glass 3/8 full". As I said above, quite the ringing endorsement- and it's just about the ONLY one that's positive at all.
March 24, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Delong cautiously offers an assessment: how refreshing.
March 24, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where went the argument that the plan's doom was due to the crisis being of solvency rather than liquidity?"
The shifting arguments are a big problem.
I saw PK on News Hour last night and his assessment was a little different. This plan might do some good, but it's attacking the wrong problem.
That's different than calling it "robbery" or a "mess".
March 24, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink