This guy looks to be torchiing himself day by day. Now he calls Fed Chariman Alan Greenspan “too polictical” and basically says he would replace him.
As discussed in other threads, Greenspan is about as insulated from political pressure as is possible in the US. Any ouster of Greenspan would certainly rock the financial markets. He is bigger than Bush and is definitely bigger than Dean. Only people at the fringes (right and left) of the political spectrum even talk of ousting Greenspan.
Dean’s latest is sure to keep him from attracting the center of American electorate.
Excerpt
LONDONDERRY, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean said on Friday that he thought Alan Greenspan had become too political and should be replaced as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
“I think Alan Greenspan has become too political. If he lacks the political courage to criticize the deficits, if he was foolish enough – and he’s not a foolish man – to support the outrageous tax cuts that George Bush put through, then he has become too political and we need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve,” Dean said in response to a question from an audience at a town hall meeting in Londonderry.
There is no harm in suggesting a change of an official... the economy could use a new policy.... the tax cuts obviously didn't work.. u don't have to be a PhD. in economics to know that.
^^ I disagre...it did work. It did not work to the extent that Bush or his administration hoped, however it did work. Also, Tax cut was not Greenspan's Idea...he might have given the ok, but the idea came from Bush administration.
UTD, the question is which one of those liberal baffon is more qualified to be the President of US?
I think Bush has done a remarkable job of keeping the economy from completely imploding after 9/11 and all the mess (see corporate scandals taht were taking place in Clinton administration and came to light in Bush's term) that clinton left.
Blame Clinton for Enron...what logic is that? 3 million jobs lost under Bush and that's a remarkable job? A massive budget deficit and that’s a remarkable job? The alienation of the world and that's a remarkable job? Are you popping pills with Rush?
Even the most rabid anti-GW people can't attribute the following jolts to our economy to him:
9/11
The bursting of the stockmarket bubble (particularly in high tech)
Financial corporate scandals that have been ongoing for years that were exposed and came to the surface during GW's watch
The cost of the war on terror (regardless of whether you would fight the war on terror in ways dfferent than GW, the cost of billions upon billions would still exist)
Being older than most Guppies ( :( ), I have a longer time frame of experience and can't think of more significant and enormous challenges to our economy occuring during my lifetime than have occured since Bush was elected.
The tax cuts certainly have worked to lessen the severity of the recession and have put the economy on what appears to be a strong recovery path. Now, certainly, the economy has lost jobs and we have deficits where once we had surpluses. The anti-Bush folks, as a matter of mantra and belief, say the tax cuts are responsible for the loss of jobs and the deficits. This is not necessarily so and I have seen no empiraical proof of this from a reputable economist. Just because you have a $100 billion tax cut does not mean your deficit increases by $100 billion or that getting rid of the next $100 billion tax cut will reduce the deficit by $100 billion. History has shown that tax cuts actually result in the government receiving more total tax dollars because of the surge in economic activity that results therefrom.
Unless someone can prove that the number of jobs lost would be less if GW's tax cut did not occur, you can't blame GW for that statistic. Most economists do, in fact, acknowledge the stimulant effect of the tax cuts and would acknowledge that they helped us to our current economic recovery. Thus, the actual number of jobs lost wold have likely been higher without the tax cuts than they have been with them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
He's a passionate person who wants to better his country, I don't think that's nuts.
[/QUOTE]
Its just a matter of opinion. I don't like him, his views, and his style.
I think he is unelectable. He is too far left. Personally I like those who are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. Some other options in the Democratic slate look more promising, though on the issue closest to my heart i.e. US foreign policy, I expect anyone will bring a more well-rounded view of US relationship with rest of the world, compared to Bush.
New presidents don't make policy Faisal... it's more long term and driven by more powerful players than a political party President.. he may choose to become a facilitator or a hurdle in which case he's appropriately dealth with.
Dean is just trying to leverage himself as an 'outsider' when he isn't.. He's from the same system.. but he knows the vote that's supporting him wants a 'change'... which is why he keeps addressing his competition as "Washington insiders".
Presidents may not necessarily influence long term strategic interests of the country, but they most certainly tilt the policies in the direction in which they are convinced. Most often then not, they will be provided alternative solutions to a problem and they will pick out the one which makes most sense and aligns with their own thought process. It also depends on the sort of advisors they have.
UTD, I am not blaming clinton, Iwas merely pointing out that these activities were taking place in Clinton era. Creative accounting from Enron to MCI to global crossing etc...that is why the numbers looked so good ...economy was sooooo much better in clinton era..yeah right all false drama like clinton himself. Jobs lost...signs of time my friend. Jobs that have been lost and we continue to loose have nothing to do with Bush adminbistration...has a lot to do with Globalization of businesses and economy. As a matter of fact if we give more control to the corporation they might be able to lower the cost of manufacturing, production in US and hence stop the flow of jobs offshore. Just think about it UTD.
P.S. Deep inside you know that these dem cnadidates have no chance...just admit it. :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Its just a matter of opinion. I don't like him, his views, and his style.
I think he is unelectable. He is too far left. Personally I like those who are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. Some other options in the Democratic slate look more promising, though on the issue closest to my heart i.e. US foreign policy, I expect anyone will bring a more well-rounded view of US relationship with rest of the world, compared to Bush.
[/QUOTE]
Faisal, I do not agree with you regarding the forein policy. Clinton had the same policy. He would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, he would have gone after Iraq...however, he might have been able to convince the world that Saddam wa sreal danger. I dont think US foreign policy will change overall. It will remain the same ...different face but the ideologies will not change. Plus if you wnat someone who is fiscally conservative why not go for the whole nine yards? Just be a Conservative... trust me its much better...when you are always right. :)
Kaleem, today's Republicans, or at least this particular administration is anything but fiscally conservative.
They are fiscally more liberal than the liberals.. they are conservative on some issues just to pander to the voting base.. stuff like heterosexual marriage, or abstinence programs and the like.. Everywhere else.. they probably leaned so much to the right they met the left!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
UTD, I am not blaming clinton, Iwas merely pointing out that these activities were taking place in Clinton era. Creative accounting from Enron to MCI to global crossing etc...that is why the numbers looked so good ...economy was sooooo much better in clinton era..yeah right all false drama like clinton himself. Jobs lost...signs of time my friend. Jobs that have been lost and we continue to loose have nothing to do with Bush adminbistration...has a lot to do with Globalization of businesses and economy. As a matter of fact if we give more control to the corporation they might be able to lower the cost of manufacturing, production in US and hence stop the flow of jobs offshore. Just think about it UTD.
P.S. Deep inside you know that these dem cnadidates have no chance...just admit it. :D
[/QUOTE]
True, remove the unions, labor laws, pollution controls and I think we might be able to compete with the likes of China and India. The president does effect the economy, if people/businesses are confident in the president/administration they are likely to spend/make investments in the U.S. but if they believe that the Presidents administration are going to put the country into situations that are seen as risky they are less likely to spend/make U.S. investments.
I was watching a program on greatest sports upsets, "Iron" Mike Tyson had 30 some wins and was considered undefeatable, he fought this nobody named Buster Douglas over in Japan of all places and Buster ended up winning by KO. Then again its said boxing is fixed.