Clinton was smart. He stayed the fuck out of the economic business and let the pros like Greenspan do his job. Everything went fine, best economy ever.

Not Bush, the major dumb ass. He can't resist getting his filthy fucking hands into it and fucking it up just like his Daddy did. He's not even in office yet and he starts shooting off with his analysis, even though he doesn't know jack shit about economics. He is already pretending like he is in charge, spreading disinformation just so he can pass his tax cut for the greedy. What a "major league asshole" this idiot is.

He's already destroyed retail sales for the Christmas season and nearly crashed the markets because the idiots who voted for him are stupid enough to think he knows what he's talking about when he keeps spewing recession rumors. The only thing we can do is hope that Greenspan can counteract everything this moron does, and pray to God that Greenspan doesn't quit.

**********

Wednesday, January 3, 2001

Eeew! This Rate Cut Smells of Politics

In cutting interest rates by half a point, Alan Greenspan may be reminding a tax-cut-happy George W. Bush (and the markets) that he's still in charge.

BY FRANK PELLEGRINI

Alan Greenspan has not lost his flair for the dramatic. The Fed chairman swooped down from his inflation-watching perch Wednesday and cut short-term interest rates by a full half-point to 6 percent, sending both the NASDAQ and the Dow into giddy 300-point rallies and reminding economic worry-warts everywhere that the Guardian of the Boom is very much on the job.

The easing itself — reinforced by a quarter-point cut in the discount rate (the rate at which banks lend to each other) — was not a surprise. With the markets in the dumps and the economy slowing fast, analysts had long expected Greenspan to make such a move to increase liquidity, spur business investment and head off a recession. Short-term bond markets had already priced in a full point of cuts over the next six months. But the magnitude of the cut and, more especially, the timing — four weeks before the next Fed meeting — was hardly expected.

So why now? One explanation is that Father Greenback has gone bearish along with everybody else, and wants everybody to know it; in fact, some believe he could be leaving room for another easing when the FOMC meets at month's end. Another is that he knows something about Friday's unemployment report that the rest of us don't — namely, that unemployment is up, maybe way up.

Politics in play?

But Greenspan could have headed off the unemployment report as easily on Thursday with a nice transparent speech about cutting rates ahead of the Jan. 31 FOMC sit-down. And he could have reassured the bond markets with a quarter-point next week, or last week. By picking Wednesday to make a cut, and such a dramatic one at that, points to one overarching factor: politics.

George W. Bush has been flogging the slowdown all winter to promote a front-loaded, supposedly slowdown-curing version of his $1.3 trillion tax cut. Dick Cheney has been using the r-word almost every time there's a TV camera around. And on the very day Greenspan made his move, Bush was hosting a get-together of bearish (and Bush-backing) economists and business leaders in Austin, the culmination of which was to announce that ex-Fed man and dedicated supply-sider Larry Lindsey would be his top economic adviser.

In other words, Greenspan may well be reminding Bush who the economic paramedic is in this town.

Here's the way the message translates, from Alan to George W. (and Larry): Tax cuts don't prevent recessions, rate-cuts do. Presidents don't save economies anymore, Fed chairmen do. And there's no way I'm going to sign off on a half-cocked, trillion-dollar budget-buster just because you need the specter of a recession to scare congressional Democrats into playing along.

Tussle over a tax cut

Not that the tax cut is dead, nor is Greenspan's endorsement of it. Bush has only had the most preliminary of discussions with the Fed chairman about it, and presumptive Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who, along with Lindsey, will be Bush's Fed water-carriers, hasn't even moved into his office yet. And the negotiations with Congress are at least a month away.

What Greenspan may be trying to tell Bush is that the $1.3 trillion tax cut will have to survive on its own merits. As a surplus give-back, an ideologically preferred alternative to government spending (a preference which Greenspan shares), that's fine. But as a recession cure? No dice. Greenspan will likely OK the idea of a big across-the-board tax cut as long as it's fiscally responsible. But he can't be crazy about the idea that Bush has been bragging that he and his tax cut can do Greenspan's job for him.

Wednesday, emerging from his sit-down to the sound of fireworks, Bush did his best not to sound upstaged. "I think the cut was needed," Bush said. "It was a strong statement that measures must be taken to make sure that our economy does not go into a tailspin."

Danger for Bush?

Then Bush was back on the sell — and maybe taking his first unwise steps toward renewing his father's rivalry with the man Clinton was smart enough to kowtow to. A half-point reduction, Bush said, "is not enough to serve as a stimulus to encourage capital formation, economic growth, job creation."

The danger for Bush is that he misses the point entirely — that though Greenspan seems willing to work with Bush on a tax cut, the Fed chairman will do the short-term economic worrying around here. One of the blessings of this market-led, wealth-effect-sensitized New Economy is that modulating its ups and downs is well within the power of the Federal Reserve, and that if there's more stimulatin' to be done, Greenspan will be more than willing to take care of it himself.

Just ask Larry Lindsey. Over the next few months, he'll be selling the economic benefits (and the fiscal sense) of Bush's tax cut as hard as anybody, but for now he knows who the the captain of the boom is. When reporters told him of the Fed's move, the first words out of Lindesy's mouth were:

"Great! The Fed is always right."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,93580,00.html

-- (bush @ "major league. asshole"), January 04, 2001

Answers

-- (the bush pig with @ his. new economic adviser pig), January 04, 2001.

-- Bush Meets Greenspan in Person (grabs@coat.tail), January 04, 2001.

Greenspan's thoughts in above picture....

"Get your coke-snorting hands off of me you frat-boy imbecile."

-- (bwaaa@haaa.haaaa), January 04, 2001.

Any particular reason for all the vulgarity while revealing your feelings to everyone, other than the fact that you are apparently trailer-trash?

-- mbo (rfp@mail.com), January 04, 2001.

Naw, it's just the Hawk. He can't ford' no trailer.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 04, 2001.

mbo is a religious right fuckhead,

barry "I@have.farted, Ra tion@l.1" is just a perverted little jerkoff

-- (lolol@lol.lolol), January 04, 2001.

A thread to nowhere.

Again.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 05, 2001.

lol, you know nothing about my religious beliefs, but since you seem concerned - agnostic. I was not interested in the whole jewish scene I grew up with. As far as your vulgarity goes, it shows how incapable of effectively communicating you are, irrespective of right- wing versus left-wing.

-- mbo (rfp@mail.com), January 05, 2001.

Well, I really dont think bush can muck it up more than it is getting to be now? Clintoon isnt out of office yet and the crap is already startin to hit the fan.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 05, 2001.

That's because Bush and Dick have been spewing to the media that we are going into a depression and their fans believe whatever they tell them. A self-fulfilling prophecy by the chief imbecile.

Is it just me or does that fatass economic adviser pig look like W.C. Fields?

-- (WC@back.from.grave), January 05, 2001.

um yep, he is a 'wee wee' (hee hee get it) overweight.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 05, 2001.

So let's see here. Market indices began declining in feb/march after almost two years of a negative A-D line, petroleum prices through the roof since last January, Fed's been mucking around with interest rates seeking a "soft landing'" since mid-1999, and you're blaming Bush? Someone forget to take his logic pill this morning, or are you normally this nonsensical?

-- Wondering (wonder@tthereasoning.com), January 05, 2001.

Wondering (wonder@tthereasoning.com),

Don't you recognize standard Republican politico-economic logic?

Remember how, after Carter appointed Paul Volcker to be Federal Reserve Board chairman so he could lead the FRB's historic change from controlling money supply to controlling interest rates, and after this change finally stopped the climb of inflation (whereas, in contrast, the two previous Republican Presidents had failed miserably to control inflation), and inflation rates started coming down before Reagan's administration began -- after all that the GOP claimed that Reagan was responsible for stopping inflation? Remember that? (If you have trouble, it's no wonder. The GOP has tried as hard as it could to confuse folks about that history.)

Well, if the GOP could claim that Reagan was responsible for good stuff that occurred before he took office, then surely Bush the Younger is responsible for bad stuff that's occurring before he takes office. Same logic ...

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001.

You people are a bunch of hippocrits, you are totally asses. The above picture resembles the scene from deliverence " squeel like a pig Greenspan" Clinton had no business in the economy look how hw fucked up white water as well as his scandalous extra marital affairs. what kind of painted world do all you people live in? Clinton was riding high upon a prediction that was made over 25 years ago, the economy would soar through the late 1990's. I'm glad to see that there are people that are still ingnorant in america.

-- Red Johnson (Red Johnson@member.net), January 06, 2001.

what kind of painted world do all you people live in?

^^^^ um, looks around and says "I would say a ROSE colored world, but um i wouldnt wanna offend you old red. :-0

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 06, 2001.

No Spam--

Yes, Carter appointed Voelker and Reagan retained him. Likewise, Bush-pere appointed the Republican Greenspan and Clinton retained him. So?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Oh no, I misspelled "Volcker". There goes my credibility. Please everyone, accept my abject apology. And to the family of Paul Voelker, I can only offer this humble tribute---

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Again--

PAUL VOELKER

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.

Reagan appointed Greenspan.

-- (for@the.record), January 07, 2001.

Lars,

When Volcker's first term ended during the Reagan administration, Reagan didn't want to renew his appointment.

Protests from Wall Street made him change his mind.

The point still is that Carter, not Reagan, was the President who figured out and took the action to stop the 1960s-70s inflation.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), January 07, 2001.

People - The crash started back in MARCH, 2000, for pete's sake! How in the HELL can Bush be behind this when he isn't/wasn't even in office yet?! Jeeze, the stupidity and desperation of the left-wing. Pretty darn sickening. This happened on Clinton's watch, gang, not on Bush's.

The reality of the situation is that "no-one" has done anything to the economy - people's debt limits have reached beyond their limits - the national savings rate is at -.4%!!!. There is no more money to pump into an overvalued NASDAQ, there isn't money to go on shopping sprees - the credit cards are maxed and so are the 2nd mortgages. It is time to pay the bill, and we, ourselves are to blame.

-- Deb Mc. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), January 07, 2001.

The reality of the situation is that "no-one" has done anything to the economy - people's debt limits have reached beyond their limits - the national savings rate is at -.4%!!!. There is no more money to pump into an overvalued NASDAQ, there isn't money to go on shopping sprees - the credit cards are maxed and so are the 2nd mortgages. It is time to pay the bill, and we, ourselves are to blame

Maybe YOU^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I only have one, count it ONE credit card maxed.

I have NO 2nd mortgage.

My car will be paid OFF next month.

And guess WHAT?

My ass is still broke, so now what?

I aint shopped since christmas.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 08, 2001.

Sumer,

"Maybe YOU^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I only have one, count it ONE credit card maxed. I have NO 2nd mortgage. My car will be paid OFF next month. And guess WHAT? My ass is still broke, so now what? I aint shopped since christmas."

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 08, 2001.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey. Who or what are you trying to blame/vent about?

I personally know of people on *both* sides of the coin. Some people who have scraped by, no frivolous spending at all, versus others who put their house & credit cards in hock to play the NASDAQ. Innocent people are going to suffer, sure, but it's NOT going to be because of Bush, as -- (bush @ "major league. asshole") so desperately wants to believe.

The crash has come because of too many individuals not being smart with their spending habits - not thinking rationally, being too greedy. THAT'S why we're hurting now, and we're going to continue to hurt for a while into the future. Not because of the faults of one man, but because of the faults of many.

-- Deb Mc. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), January 08, 2001.

Deb knows of what she speaks. The economy has been on a downturn for many months now and has been artificially ‘propped-up’ so Al Gore would have a better chance of being elected. Who the hell do you think was behind that? The mentality of the Bush hater’s would be laughable if these morons were under 24/7 care. Unfortunately, these raving lunatics are out in public where their delusions may escalate into actions.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 08, 2001.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey. Who or what are you trying to blame/vent about?

Deb, I'm not trying to 'blame' anyone. I think that you summed it up fairly well. IF folks are in debt due to IMHO legalized gambling, ie, nasdaq thereby taking out loans to do so, that is THEIR problem.

Perhaps unclear, I dont believe for one minute it is Bush's fault (no I didnt vote for him) that the economy is shifting. I've always believed (paranoid perhaps, oh well my problem) that somehow the numbers were being fudged and that as soon as Bill left office, we would see that clearly. Hence, somewhat sharing your similiar ideas I believe we are now seeing that first hand.

And.....he hasnt left yet!!!!

You make a valid point lots of folks got themselves into debt....bigtime, their problem.

My point, I didnt do too awful bad, yet I am still 'feeling' it.

Oh well, off the soapbox and ..... to the ground :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 09, 2001.