Pity Greenspan is retiring

[kallend 2,175]

www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-02-voa37.cfm

He seems to have a better grasp of reality than the administration he serves.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SudsyFist 0]

I heard a bit when I was at the gym this morning. That's one smart financial resource we're losing. Hope whoever's taking his place meets or exceeds his standard. And has balls to boot.

[Channman 2]

Yes, age stops for no one not even death. I'm trying to avoid the later as long as possible.

>...than the administration he serves.

Just could'nt stop yourself could ya. Killing me I tell ya, killing me.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Yes, age stops for no one not even death. I'm trying to avoid the later as long as possible.

>...than the administration he serves.

Just could'nt stop yourself could ya. Killing me I tell ya, killing me.

So who do you think has a better grasp? Greenspan or this guy"

"The foundation for growth is strong. It's based upon low taxes and restrained government spending, legal reform, incentives for saving and investment." GWB, today, the Rose Garden

No mention of the MASSIVE $2.4 Trillion DEBT he's run up or his INCREASED government spending.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

>So who do you think has a better grasp? Greenspan or this guy"

Well as I've mentioned on several post in the past, personal dept is not a good thing and should be eliminated as soon as possible if you wish to have a great quality of life.

Same goes for our country, don't have answers but a great deal of that dept is in entitlements i.e. SS, Medicare and a Drug benefit.

Maybe we could get some Movie Stars to throw a benefit for dept releif, you and me could take our cut off the top.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

>So who do you think has a better grasp? Greenspan or this guy"

Well as I've mentioned on several post in the past, personal dept is not a good thing and should be eliminated as soon as possible if you wish to have a great quality of life.

Same goes for our country, don't have answers but a great deal of that dept is in entitlements i.e. SS, Medicare and a Drug benefit.

Maybe we could get some Movie Stars to throw a benefit for dept releif, you and me could take our cut off the top.

So you don't think raising government spending while cutting revenues has anything to do with the debt?

Did you also think Santa bought the toys you had for Christmas?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rmsmith 1]

Greenspan is heading for the exit with great timing.

He leaves as the country's housing bubble turns downward toward a dramatic decline as more than $1-trillion in IO-ARM paper begins to adjust upward squeezing people who will now find themselves unable to walk away from their debts due to the new bankruptcy laws. In addition, millions of other Americans have leveraged their homes using the HELOC financing scheme plunging themselves way beyond their original mortgages. The GSE's, Fannie and Freddie, are rife with fraud and at risk of being delisted; taxpayers will get the raw deal. It's sure to end badly since most of our recent job growth has been in construction related industries that will soon be laying off workers as the home building slows to a crawl. And to top it off, the fed recently decided that it will stop publishing the M3 figures; those of you in the money business should know what that means.

Personally, I hated the way Greenspan delivered his speeches. Why did he have to resort to cryptic double speak that required professional interpretation? He sounded just like Osama Bin Ladin. Oh well, it was fun; hope you have a seat when the music stops!

[Channman 2]

>So you don't think raising government spending while cutting revenues has anything to do with the dept?

I do think there is a link, however the government does not generate revenue other than maybe the U.S. Post Office and the Mint. The government is very good at taking money from its people and spending more than they take and then asking for more.

If we could get Congress to reduce speeding and start applying our tax dollars more wisely would be great but not likely.

Our economy is moving from manufacturing and Technology to Service. American incomes will continue to go down as we make this transition. Were shipping our jobs and manufacturing overseas because we can find better qualified individuals at far less pay.

Its hard to compete with China when they provide a better or equal product on pennies to the dollar.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

>So you don't think raising government spending while cutting revenues has anything to do with the dept?

I do think there is a link, however the government does not generate revenue other than maybe the U.S. Post Office and the Mint. The government is very good at taking money from its people and spending more than they take and then asking for more.

If we could get Congress to reduce speeding and start applying our tax dollars more wisely would be great but not likely.

Our economy is moving from manufacturing and Technology to Service. American incomes will continue to go down as we make this transition. Were shipping our jobs and manufacturing overseas because we can find better qualified individuals at far less pay.

Its hard to compete with China when they provide a better or equal product on pennies to the dollar.

The White House's own OMB, the US Treasury, and the CBO, all call tax revenues "revenues", and I consider that a reasonable definition.

So using the word in its generally accepted sense, Bush did indeed initiate a drop in government revenues, and also implemented increases in the size and cost of government programs.

Very difficult to reconcile what he said with what he did, don't you think?

Sayng one thing and doing the opposite: unbiased people would call that hypocrisy, dishonest and deception.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

>drop in government revenues, and also implemented increases in the size and cost of government programs.

Does'nt sound like he was being very conservitive.

Maybe them Dems are rubbing off on him, you think.

Cheers, got to go and get some instrument approaches in, got to stay sharp.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

>drop in government revenues, and also implemented increases in the size and cost of government programs.

Does'nt sound like he was being very conservitive.

Maybe them Dems are rubbing off on him, you think.

.

No. History shows that since the 1960s Democratic administrations have been more fiscally responsible than the Republican administrations. The data are overwhelming and have been posted here many times before.

The Republicans have talked the talk but never managed to walk the walk. Not a bad strategy, I guess, since the more ignorant members of the electorate seem to have swallowed it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Neither one is fiscally responsible (i.e., keeps spending under control). The Dems might look better in some metrics because they 'take more' to offset the out of control spending.

I don't consider 'tax and spend' to any more responsible than 'borrow and spend'. So the 'more' statement is, at best, just a weak comparative argument based on a subjective feel on how you'd "like" to see things.

Give me someone who spends less. rather than 2 parties with different ideas on how they try to cover their increases

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>I don't consider 'tax and spend' to any more responsible
>than 'borrow and spend'.

I consider a consumer who buys lots of stuff on credit, then pays off his credit card bills, to be more responsible than one who buys stuff on credit then never pays them off. The economy is far more complex than that, of course, but I think there is still most certainly more wrong with "spend and spend" as opposed to "spend and tax" (which is how the system generally works.)

[TheAnvil 0]

And the administration he served before the current one as well.

I agree with Rehmwa that tax and spend is no better - and in many ways worse - than borrow and spend. Don't know many conservatives who are pleased with this Congress or this President in that regard.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is a very unique position because the man who holds it has a lot of power in DC, yet, for the most part, must try and be as apolotical as possible. Difficult job. I believe Mr. Greenspan has done it quite well. Kudos to him.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>The economy is far more complex than that, of course, but I think there is still most certainly more wrong with "spend and spend" as opposed to "spend and tax" (which is how the system generally works.)

The first sentence that the economy is far more complex than Billvon using his credit cards has substance. And is the whole point of the 'borrow and spend' vs 'tax and spend' debate. So your simplified analogy isn't that great. You could use the whole mortgage analogy that it's better to make payments rather than pay off the house and it would be just as valid (or invalid depending on which viewpoint you are driving).

Tax vs borrow has various consequences and end up only being judged subjectively. No wonder the mix in opinion is 50/50 - so you can personally be absolute in your position and pat yourself on the back for simplifying it for the stupid people, but it's not absolute in reality.

Now, "spend more" vs "spend less" is much less subjective, but neither party can seem to work with that - cutting spending means loosing special interest voting pacts. That's our real problem. The other is just partisan hacking and a waste of energy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

>

Now, "spend more" vs "spend less" is much less subjective, but neither party can seem to work with that - cutting spending means loosing special interest voting pacts. That's our real problem. The other is just partisan hacking and a waste of energy.

One party gets elected based on claims it will cut spending, but actually raises it. The other party does not claim it will cut spending, and raises it. Which is being more truthful?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote